which Barnabas seems to have been distinguished: but we do not discern here the dignity and authority of an apostle. Consequently, this epistle may afford edification, and may be read with that view. But it ought not to be esteemed by us, as it was not by the ancients, a part of the rule of faith.

CHAP. III.

Of the method in which the Canon of the New Testament has been formed.

THE canon of the New Testament is a collection of books, written by several persons, in several places, and at different times. It is, therefore, reasonable to think, that it was formed gradually. At the rise of the christian religion there were no written systems or records of it. It was first taught and confirmed by Christ himself in his most glorious ministry; and was still farther confirmed by his willing death, and his resurrection from the dead, and ascension to heaven afterwards it was taught by word of mouth, and propagated by the preaching of his apostles and their companions. Nor was it fit, that any books should be written about it, till there were converts to receive and keep them, and deliver them to others.

If St. Paul's two epistles to the Thessalonians were the first written books of the New Testament, and not written till the year 51, or 52, about twenty years after our Saviour's ascension, they would be for a while the only sacred books of the new dispensation.

As the christians at Thessalonica had received the doctrine taught by Paul," not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God," 1 Thess. ii. 13, they would receive his epistles, as the written word of God. And himself taught them so to do, requiring, that they should be solemnly "read unto all the holy brethren," 1 Thess. v. 27. He gives a like direction, but more extensive, at the end of his epistle to the Colossians, iv. 16, requiring them, after they had read it "amongst themselves, to cause it to be read also in the church of the Laodiceans: and that they likewise read the epistle, that would come to them from Laodicea.”

All the apostle Paul's epistles, whether to churches or particular persons, would be received with the like respect by those to whom they were sent, even as the written word of God, or sacred scriptures: and in like manner the writings of all the apostles and evangelists.

They who received them would, as there were opportunities, convey them to others. They who received them were fully assured of their genuineness by those who delivered them. And before the end of the first century, yea, not very long after the middle of it, it is likely, there were collections made of the four gospels, and most of the other books of the New Testament, which were in the hands of a good number of churches and persons.

From the quotations of Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and other writers of the second century, of Origen in the third, and of Eusebius in the fourth century, it appears, that the greatest part of the books, which are now received by us, and are called canonical, were universally acknowledged in their times, and had been so acknowledged by the elders and churches of former times. And the rest now received by us, though they were then doubted of, or controverted by some, were well known, and approved by many. And Athanasius, who lived not long after Eusebius, (having flourished from the year 326 and afterwards,) received all the same books which are now received by us, and no other. Which has also been the prevailing sentiment ever since.

This canon was not determined by the authority of councils but the books, of which it consists, were known to be the genuine writings of the apostles and evangelists, in the same way and manner that we know the works of Cæsar, Cicero, Virgil, Horace, Tacitus, to be theirs. And the canon has been formed upon the ground of an unanimous, or generally concurring testimony and tradition.

In the course of this long work we have had frequent occasion to observe, that the canon of the New Testament had not been settled by any authority universally acknowledged, particularly not in the time of Eusebius, nor of c Augustine, nor of a Cosmas, nor of Cassiodorius: but that nevertheless there was a general agreement among christians upon this head.

C

That the number of books to be received as sacred and canonical had not been determined by the authority of any

a See Eusebius, Vol. iv. p. 86, 87.

b Ibid. p. 100, 101.

d Vol. v. p. 99.

c Ibid. p. 111.

e Ibid. p. 112.

f

council, or councils, universally acknowledged, is apparent from the different judgments among christians, in several parts of the world, concerning divers books, particularly the epistle to the Hebrews, and the Revelation: which were received by some, rejected or doubted of by others: not now to mention any of the catholic epistles. There was no catalogue of the books of scripture in any canon of the council of Nice. Augustine giving directions to inquisitive persons, how they might determine what books are canonical, and what not, refers not to the decisions of any councils. Cassiodorius, in the sixth century, has three catalogues, one called Jerom's, another Augustine's, another that of the ancient version: but he refers not to the decree of any council, as decisive. And it seems to me that in all times, christian people and churches have had a liberty to judge for themselves according to evidence. And the evidence of the genuineness of most of the books of the New Testament has been so clear and manifest, that they have been universally received.

The genuineness of these books, as before said, is known in the same way with others, by testimony or tradition. The first testimony is that of those who were cotemporary with the writers of them: which testimony has been handed down to others.

That in this way the primitive christians formed their judgment concerning the books proposed to be received as sacred scriptures, appears from their remaining works.. Says Clement of Alexandria: This we have not in the "four gospels, which have been delivered to us, but in that according to the Egyptians.' Tertullian may be seen largely to this purpose, Vol. ii. p. 273–277. I pass on to Origen, who says: As I have learned by tradition concerning the four gospels, which alone are received without dispute by the whole church of God under heaven.' So Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, often observes, what books of the New Testament had been quoted by the ancients and what not. And having rehearsed a catalogue of books universally received, and of others controverted, he says: It was needful to put down these also; distin'guishing the scriptures, which according to ecclesiastical 'tradition are true, genuine, and universally acknowledged, "from those which are controverted, and yet appear to have "been known to many: that by this means we may know Ibid. p. 110, 111. i Ibid. p. 494.

.

↑ See Note ".

Vol. ii. p. 236. * Vol. iv. p. 97, &c.

them from such as have been published by heretics, under 'the names of apostles. Which books none of the ecclesias'tical writers in the succession from the times of the apos'tles have vouchsafed to mention in their writings.' I may not transcribe, but only refer to Athanasius in his Festal Epistle, tom Cyril of Jerusalem," Rufinus, and ° Augustine.

However, beside observing the testimony of writers in former times, they criticised the books which were proposed to them examining their style and contents, and comparing them with those books, which had been already received as genuine upon the ground of an unanimous testimony, and undoubted tradition. Says honest Serapion, bishop of Antioch, in an epistle to some, who had too much respect for a writing, entitled the Gospel of Peter: 'We," 'brethren, receive Peter, and the other apostles, as Christ; but as skilful men, we reject those writings, which are falsely ' ascribed to them: well knowing, that we have received 'no such.' And he adds, that upon perusing that work, be had found the main part of it agreeable to the right doctrine of our Saviour: but there were some other things of a different kind. And Eusebius adds in the place transcribed above: The style also of these books is entirely different 'from that of the apostles. Moreover the sentiments and 'doctrine of these writings differ from the true orthodox christianity. All which things plainly show, that they are 'the forgeries of heretics.'

It has been sometimes said, that the council of Laodicea first settled the canon of the New Testament. But it may be justly said to have been settled before. At least, there had been long before a general agreement among christians, what books were canonical, and what not; what were the genuine writings of apostles and evangelists, and what not. From the decree of the council itself it appears, that there were writings already known by the title of canonical. That council does nothing in their last canon, but declare, That private psalms ought not to be read in the church, nor any books not canonical, but only the canoni'cal books of the Old and New Testament.' After which follows a catalogue or enumeration of such books. The same may be said of the third council of Carthage, whose forty-seventh canon is to this purpose: Moreover it is

1 P. 154, 155.

n P. 483, 484.

г

P Vol. ii. p. 264.

m P. 172, 173.

• P. 492, 493.

4 Vol. iv. p. 97.

I P. 182.

• P. 486.

6

6

ordained, that nothing beside the canonical scriptures be read in the church, under the name of divine scriptures.'

I shall now transcribe below a long and fine passage of Mr. Le Clerc, wherein he says: We no where read of a 'council of the apostles, or of any assembly of the governors of christian churches, convened, to determine by their authority, that such a number of gospels, neither more nor fewer, should be received. Nor was there any need of it, since it is well known to all from the concurring testimony of contemporaries, that these four gospels are the genuine writings of those whose names they bear and ⚫ since it is also manifest, that there is in them nothing un' worthy of those to whom they are ascribed, nor any thing at all contrary to the revelation of the Old Testament, nor ' to right reason. There was no need of a synod of grammarians, to declare magisterially what are the works of Cicero, or Virgil-In like manner the authority of the gospels has been established by general and perpetual consent, without any decree of the governors of the church. We may say the same of the apostolical epistles, which ' owe all their authority, not to the decisions of any ecclesi⚫astical assembly, but to the concurring testimony of all 'christians, and the things themselves, which are contained ' in them.'

6

6

6

6

Mr. James Basnage" has several chapters, showing how the canon of the New Testament was formed, without the authoritative decisions of councils. I likewise refer to Mr. Jones upon this subject. I must also remind my readers

V

Nusquam quidem legimus, collegium apostolicum, aut cœtum ullum rectorum ecclesiarum christianarum coactum esse, qui pro auctoritate definierint hunc numerum evangeliorum esse admittendum, non majorem, nec minorem. Sed nec opus fuit, cum omnibus constaret, ex testimonio et consensu æqualium, quatuor hæc evangelia eorum vere fuisse, quorum nomina præferunt; cumque nihil in iis legatur quod scriptoribus dignum non sit, vel revelationi Veteris Testamenti, rectæve rationi, vel minimum adversetur; aut quod inferius ævum, recentiorumque manus ullo modo recipiat. Non opus fuit synodo grammaticorum, qui, pro imperio, pronuntiarent ea scripta, verbi causâ Ciceronis et Virgilii, quæ eorum esse non dubitamus, re verâ tantorum ingeniorum fetas fuisse, et posteritati eâ in re consulerent. Omnium consensus, non quæsitus, non rogatus, sed sponte significatus, prout occasio tulit, resque ipsæ omnibus, qui postea vixere, dubitationem omnem anteverterunt-Sic et evangeliorum auctoritas merito constituta est, et invaluit, perpetuo consensu, sine ullo rectorum ecclesiæ decreto.

Idem dixerimus de epistolis apostolicis, quæ nullius ecclesiastici conventûs judicio, sed constanti omnium christianorum testimonio, rebusque ipsis, quas complectuntur, auctoritatem omnem suam debent. Cleric. H. E. ann. 100. num. iii. iv. Vid. et ann. 29. num. xcii.

"Hist. de l'Eglise, 1. 8. ch. v. vi. vii.

▾ New and full Method, Part I. ch. v. vi. vii.