the difference. not the exact words is given: and, again, that quotations are made, which it is difficult to accommodate to any part of the Canon. This is noticed, because it is sometimes urged as detracting from the authority of the Fathers, in the present application of their writings. There is, in truth, however, something highly natural in this inaccurate mode of quotation used by the apostolical Fathers. They Reason for were, it should be remembered, instructed, not from Scripture, not from a record, but from the oral teaching of the apostles themselves. The very words in which they first heard many of the Gospel truths, which they afterwards impressed on their congregations, must, beyond a doubt, have been in many instances different from the expressions of the record. To them, accordingly, these would be most natural, and would often, in the earnestness of their exhortation, be inadvertently adopted in preference to the scriptural language. This is not only possible, but what, under their circumstances, we should expect to take place: and there is therefore no occasion for attempting to solve the difficulty, either by supposing any portion of the holy Testament to have perished under the Church's keeping; or by attributing to these writers the habit of occasionally confounding the uninspired with the inspired works of that age. Preservation of the written Record by the its several parts. COLLECTION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. There is yet another point of view, in which the Church may be regarded as a vehicle for preserving the record of revelation, and also for attesting it, in collecting, namely, the several inspired collection of writings into one body. It has already been pointed out, that of the two distinct kinds of writing of which the New Testament is composed, each has its proper use, and reference to the other. The narrative, separated from the Epistles, would be like the testimonial character of an apostle disjoined from the ministry of the Spirit. The history of the facts of the Gospel-scheme required an exposition of their import; and this exposition, again, would have been useless without the history. To preserve, therefore, the record of revelation pure and perfect, it was necessary, that, although composed of portions, which could only be gradually collected and put together, it should be so combined and so preserved as one. At what time this collection was completed, cannot be certainly ascertained, although there is every reason to think that it was not later than the middle of the second century; and, consequently, before the decease of all the apostolical Fathers. That it was begun, even before the death of St. John, is more certainly inferred; and, probably, from his sanction to the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and the addition of his own to the number, we may date the commencement of this important work." That the feeling with Probable time of this collection. 45 See p. 175. which it was undertaken has never ceased to influence all the Church, may, perhaps, be not unfairly presumed from the scruple. which still exists, against publishing separately the writings of the New Testament. The Revelations of St. John is, perhaps, the only book that has been commonly edited apart; and the peculiar character of that work may sufficiently account for its being made an exception. With regard to the rest, it would, doubtless, somewhat offend and startle Christians, to see the Works of St. Paul, or St. Luke, or St. John, generally printed and circulated apart from the venerable body of Scriptures, in connexion with which it is that each is most valuable. Nor is this view at all inconsistent with the fact, that so many of Reasons for the imperthe manuscript copies of the New Testament contain only the Gos- fection of pels, or the Gospels and the Acts. The collection of the whole many MSS. volume must have been gradual, and the New Testament of every Church at one period imperfect,-in the earliest times containing generally no more than the supposed original collection, that of the Gospels. Now, although the ancient catalogues and the assertions of the Fathers prove, that these alone did not constitute the holy book of any Church; still, the original imperfect Testaments would be preserved, and the copiers would continue to transcribe them as they were. It may, too, have arisen from some arrangement respecting the reading of the Lessons, with a view to which a divided copy would have been convenient. Such a convenience appears, certainly, to have given rise to those MSS. which are called Lectionaries, from the circumstance of their containing the Scriptures in detached Lessons, as they were appointed to be read in the public services. the Canon of But if this has been the prevailing tone of feeling in the Church Disputes of all ages, how is it, it may be asked, that the records of the concerning Church should leave any grounds for the disputes, which have Scripture. existed among later Christians, concerning the extent of the Canon? Granting that the labours of the learned have been successful in Probability ejecting many spurious writings from their assumed place in the that these New Testament, and in establishing others, the claims of which occur in the were doubtful; still, does not this very circumstance denote greater Church. carelessness in the primitive Church, than the foregoing view supposes? 46 Contradictory statements certainly do exist: and yet the general tone and manner in which all these statements are delivered, (independently of any explanation from other parts of the same author's writings,) leave a strong impression on the inquirer's mind, that the great Christian body was originally unanimous in its decision. Viewing the collected evidence, or even the separate portions of it, it is impossible not to feel, that the authors are, for the most part, 46 See Jones's Canon of the New Testament. did not Primitive H. recording, not their individual opinions alone, but the sense and voice of Christians generally. This leads us at once to suspect, that these contradictions are apparent and not real; and requiring only a more complete view of the circumstances attending the formation of the Canon, in order to be explained and reconciled. In Examined. the absence of direct historical information, recourse must be had, not indeed to mere conjecture, but to the most probable opinion which can be founded on the nature of the case. Whatever test was originally applied, to separate the true from the counterfeit Scriptures, there can be no question as to the object of the investigation, viz., Whether a work, claiming to be Scripture, was, or was not, inspired. Assuming this, then, as the ultimate aim of all the inquiries which could have taken place, let us consider what would be the natural and necessary steps by which men would advance to their conclusion. A work is circulated, as the production of St. Paul or St. Barnabas. Obviously, the first question would be, Is he really the author? It is immaterial to the argument at present, by what process of proof the conclusion might be gained,-whether by tradition, the characters of the MSS., or any combination of external and internal evidence. According as it was found to be so or not, the work would thus far be pronounced genuine or spurious. In either case, the inquiry would not rest here. Supposing the true author to have been ascertained, before an infallible authority could be conceded to his work, it would be requisite further to know that he was inspired to write it. Here, then, would be a new line of inquiry, and a new conclusion to be sought. On the other hand, the circumstance of the work having been falsely ascribed to St. Paul or St. Barnabas, would be no conclusive evidence against its scriptural character. Its author might accidentally, or even designedly, have remained unknown; and still, if satisfactory evidence could be obtained, that the apostles, or other competent 48 judges, had pronounced it inspired, its scriptural character would stand precisely on the same footing, as if the work had been traced to an author known to be inspired.49 Yet, in one sense, such a writing would be spurious. It would be genuine, considered with reference to the Canon, but spurious considered with reference to its authorship. Thus there would exist two principles of classification, little likely to interfere and create any confusion in the minds of those to whom all the circumstances of the investigation were familiar; but for that very reason, the less carefully distinguished in their statements. The terms "spurious," and "genuine," 47 The autograph of St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, for instance, might have been recognised by the peculiarity alluded to in chap. vi. 11. 48 I.E. rendered competent by extraordinary endowments of the Spirit. 49 The Epistle to the Hebrews might have been so circumstanced for a time; the prejudice of the Jewish converts generally against the author, being an obvious reason why his name should not be at first attached to it. "acknowledged," and "doubted," would be often applied indiscriminately to both cases, to the uncanonical, and to the misappropriated; and this, without any surmise of the misapprehension and perplexity which might arise in after ages. To him who wrote it, especially in the case of a casual remark, such a latitude of expression would seem determinate enough, because it would be so at the time in which it was written; however obscure and unsatisfactory it might become in the lapse of a few centuries, or even in a much shorter period. Pursuing the same course of inquiry, we shall find the probability increasing, that this has sometimes been the case. Let it, then, have been satisfactorily made out, that the work in question was the production of an inspired author; and, further, let that author have been certainly ascertained; a scruple might still exist as to its purity-its entire freedom, not from corruption merely, but from the liability to be corrupted. Other writings, so situated, might retain a value, diminished only in proportion to the injury they have met with from the hands through which they have been transmitted; but, grant any alteration to have taken place in an inspired work, since it received the sanction of inspiration; grant that the point be even uncertain; and all its value as Scripture, as an infallible guide, is destroyed. Ninety-nine parts out of the hundred may be assuredly of Divine origin, but if the spurious particle be so blended with it, as to be inseparable-if it be impossible to point out where the additions have been made, the whole is in point of authority no more than equivalent to a counterfeit throughout. For what security would there be, in any given instance, that it was not the fallible judgment of men, and of designing men, too, to which the appeal was made? At the same time, such a work would be respected and used by the Church with the necessary cautions; and might thus be handed down to posterity, described in unguarded phraseology, as genuine and yet spurious, acknowledged and yet doubted, as "genuine" and "undoubted," because it assuredly was the production of the reputed author; as "spurious" and doubted," because containing, or likely to contain, an admixture of spurious ingredients. It would, in short, be spoken of in the language which we hear applied to the original of a great artist; the value of which, as such, has been destroyed, and its very title to originality brought in question, by the touches of some meaner hand. 66 Testament some MSS. It is well known, that the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Portions of Epistle of St. James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and the New Third of St. John, that of Jude, and the Revelations, are not always missing in found in the old manuscript copies of the New Testament; nor are their names invariably recorded in the catalogues of the old writers. Various epithets, also, and expressions denoting hesitation or rejection, are occasionally applied to them. Nevertheless, no candid Proofs of their genuineness. Methods for the inquirer doubts that they are all Scripture, and that they were from 51 author, which prove indisputably, that he made use of it as Scripture. In these and the like instances, it is impossible not to attribute the apparent inconsistency to some unrecorded circumstances, attending the settlement of the Canon, such as have been here suggested. By Secondly, reasonable and satisfactory as this method of interpretation is, (for it is like a cross-examination of an author respecting his evidence,) it is not, and never was, be it remembered, the only clue for distinguishing the true Scripture from the false, whenever the two have been confounded in the same doubtful testimony. comparing such writings with the great body of the New Testament, of which no doubt of any kind was ever expressed, we may safely pronounce them inspired or not, according to their agreement or disagreement with these. But it is worthy of notice, that this test is only applicable to a work which has some strong presumption in its favour derived from other sources. If otherwise applied, it is, in fact, no test, no medium of proof at all. Any orthodox publication of the present day, for instance, must, as orthodox, answer to it; nor would it be supposed from that coincidence to derive any title to independent authority. Not that this kind of evidence is the less forcible on that account, in any instance wherein its use is admissible. It, in fact, is one, and perhaps the principal one, of a class of scriptural proofs, which change their very nature by being combined with others; and may be compared to those substances, which require a chemical union with others of a different class, in order to elicit their most striking properties. Although it does not enter into my plan to investigate the proofs resorted to made use of in the first settlement of the Canon; that this kind of evidence must have been one of the chief, by which the judgment of the Church was determined, may be naturally concluded, both original settlement of the Canon. 50 Origen, Comment. in Matt. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. C. 25. Origen, Exposit. in Joann. Lib. V. apud Euseb. ibid. 61 Jerome, Epist. ad Paulin. de Stud. Script. 52 E.G. in Epist. ad Sabinianum lap sum, where he quotes Heb. vii. 8; and in his Commentary on the twenty-second chapter of Isaiah, where he speaks of the "heavenly Jerusalem " as the expression of an apostle; not to mention his paraphrase or commentary on the Epistle itself. |