HAVING said that everything connected with scripture will bear the fullest investigation, we must not conceal the fact that with some of the earliest copies of the New Testament there were placed other writings or epistles besides those now contained in our New Testament. And a very natural question is, if we take chiefly the old Greek copies for our guide as to the true text, how is it that we do not also take them for a guide as what is called the "Canon of scripture;" that is, what books should be deemed to be scripture, and what should be excluded?
In the first place we must look at what books were placed with the early copies of the New Testament. They are as follows:
א. CODEX SINAITICUS. With this copy were placed the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas; only a portion of the latter remains.
A. CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. With this were placed the Epistles of Clement of Rome. At present only the first Epistle is remaining, and a small portion of the second. The first Epistle is supposed to be a genuine work of Clement, but great doubt is entertained as to the second.
CODEX VATICANUS. The latter portion of this manuscript is lost; therefore we cannot tell what was or was not appended to it.
CODEX EPHRAEMI. Only portions of this manuscript remain, and will not help us.
CODEX BEZAE. This also consists only of fragments of the New Testament.
D. CODEX CLAROMONTANUS. (D. in Paul's Epistle, not in the Gospels) contains Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter.
Now it will be seen from the above that of the early Greek copies which are complete all contain additional books, though of those which have other writings appended to them, no two copies agree in selecting the same books. Neither do those few here named comprise nearly the whole of the rejected books. There are about a score of different "Gospels," a dozen "Acts," a dozen "Epistles," and four or five "Revelations." Of the mass of these we suppose there can be no doubt among sober Christians as to their being uncanonical though most of them profess to have been written by one or other of the Apostles or their immediate successors.
Of course Barnabas may have written a letter or epistle, without in any way intending it as an "inspired" epistle. Indeed it seems to bear internal evidence of this; for he twice says that he had written `to the best of his ability,' which is not in any way the language of one professing to be inspired.
Clement of Rome too may have written letters without dreaming of their ever being thought to be a part of scripture and being bound up with the New Testament.
The use others have made of these letters is another thing, but for that the writers may be in no way to blame.
Still the question arises why do we reject them, and how has the canon of scripture been formed? To this the common answer will be that the church determined the canon. But we must say that we do not consider this a sufficient answer, and it gives rise to the questions: When did the church settle it? Was it the church that settled it? and was the church in a fit state to settle such a question?
The Church of Rome says that we cannot know what is scripture and what is not, except as that church tells us. After it has decided we can know but not before.
But if this were so, we should be obliged to receive the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, for the Church of Rome has declared that to be canonical. This we cannot do.
And if we turn from the Church of Rome, whence are we to turn for the church to decide such a question? If we go back before the Church of Rome set up its claims, all is uncertain and in confusion.
We have seen that other epistles were placed along with the scripture; but besides this there is proof from the early fathers that Clement's epistles were read in most of the churches on the Lord's day, and that they were universally received. And also that the Shepherd of Hermas was read in many churches.
But the question becomes more serious if we appeal to the early church; for it is no longer a question of a few epistles, which we hope to prove to be spurious, but as to whether some of the real epistles are scripture or not: for while some received the spurious, they refused some parts of what we hold and maintain to be inspired.
We are not sure that any of our received books were omitted from any of the Greek copies, because many of them are only in fragments; but the early Syriac (the Peshito) did not contain 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. And it is the judgment of some of the best writers that the Old Latin copies did not contain all the books now received.
The following give some of the early fathers, and two of the Councils, who have given lists of the books of the New Testament.
Origen, A.D. Is doubtful of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and
210., 3 John.
Eusebius, A.D. His catalog agrees with our Testament,
315. but he says the Epistles of James, Jude,
2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation, were doubted of by some.
Athanasius, The same as ours.
A.D. 315.
Cyril, A.D. Omits the Revelation.
340.
Council of Omits the Revelation.
Laodicea,
A.D. 364.
Epiphanius, The same as ours.
A.D. 370.
Gregory Naz., Omits the Revelation.
A.D. 375.
Philastrius, Omits the Hebrews and the Revelation.
A.D. 380.
Augustine, The same as ours.
A.D. 395.
Jerome, A.D. Speaks doubtingly of the Hebrews, but
382. admits it.
Council of The same as ours.
Carthage,
about 400.
It will be seen that the majority give the list the same as we now have it in our Testament; but it appears a poor and unsatisfactory thing if we have nothing more substantial than this to rest our faith upon, as to what is scripture and what is not.
And if we come to the great Reformers in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, we are not much better off. Erasmus denied the apostolic origin of the Hebrews, 2 Peter, and the Revelation, but left their canonical authority unquestioned. It is doubtful what Erasmus would mean by this, for he might have meant by "canonical" that which was ordered by the canons' of the church; for he was very anxious not to break away from the Church of Rome. It would have been better if he and others had referred to God, and said distinctly whether they believed that the books were from God or not.
Luther spoke disrespectfully of the Hebrews, Jude, James, and the Revelation, and set them aside at the end of his version. Melanchthon is believed to have sided pretty much with Luther. Carlstadt also had his list of doubtful books. Calvin doubted the authenticity of 2 Peter, James, and Jude. We will quote his words as to Jude, as a specimen of how this good man treated some parts of scripture: "Though there was a dispute among the ancients respecting this epistle, yet as the reading of it is useful, and as it contains nothing inconsistent with the purity of apostolic doctrine, and was received as authentic by some of the best, I willingly add it to the rest." As to whether it was of God or not, seems never to have entered the Reformer's mind.
Now, though we cannot refer back and say that the church, or those who seemed to be pillars in the church, have always counted our present list of books to be authentic, yet we can say that very early the list was completed as we now have it, and was believed to contain all the New Testament scripture, and nothing but the scripture; and, further, we doubt not that this has been the judgment and conviction of the great mass of Christians for centuries, altogether apart from any order of council that it should be so, and altogether beyond the doubts that any might attempt to throw upon any one of its books.
We doubt not this conviction has been of God. How very few could enter into the questions that have been raised as to the canon of scripture, but they are in no wise troubled about it—and rightly so; they believe that God caused the book to be written, and they call it—all of it—the word of God, rest their faith upon what it says, and lay open their consciences to what it enjoins.
The question indeed is simple if we start with God. He caused a volume to be written. Can we suppose that He would be more indifferent than any human author would be as to whether any that He wrote was missing? or, on the other hand, whether anything should be palmed off as His which was not His? Surely not. No human author would allow this, and sure we are that God has not allowed this; but that He has in His wisdom caused all that He has had written to be collected together, and all that was not inspired to be rejected.
Faith then—faith in God—makes us certain as to the canon of the New Testament, and we need no external evidence to prove it.
Here we might well let the matter rest, but in order to complete our sketch we would ask our Christian readers to take a view of the beautiful symmetry of the New Testament. The four portraits of our Lord in the four Gospels—Son of David, Servant, Son of man, Son of God; the giving of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost; and the founding of the church in the Acts; Epistles on doctrine, the standing of the Christian, practical ordering of the church, the hope of the individual Christian in expecting his Lord, and his practical walk in the meanwhile: some addressed to various churches, and some to the Jewish converts who had peculiar difficulties to overcome, but containing principles necessary for all. Pastoral epistles for individual guidance when failure had begun to set in; and lastly, a prophecy of coming events, carried on to the end of time.
Is there any one of the books we could spare without leaving a deep chasm? Not one. Is there anything we need to be added? Nothing. There is no place to put it. Its symmetry is perfect. It cannot be added to; it must not be taken from. It is of God. Let us receive it with thankful confidence, and bow to its authority.
We may also profitably compare it with the Old Testament, and this all the more convinces us that but one mind runs through the whole; that one Person is the author of it all. And this is the more to be admired, when we remember that in some cases the writers were entirely unknown to each other, and many hundreds of years elapsed, between the parts being written; yet there is no clashing, no variance, but a beautiful harmony running through it all. True it is that we need anointed eyes to see its beauties; but this should in no way discourage us, but rather urge us on to seek that anointing, that we may be able to see, and seeing to admire, that which is surely and emphatically the handywork of God.
We will, however, let our readers glance at two or three of the epistles which were bound up with the New Testament and read in the churches; and we confidently believe that they will instinctively perceive that they are not a part of scripture.
The Epistle of Barnabas
This is supposed to have been written by the companion of Paul, and is quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, and by Origen, apparently as scripture. Eusebius and Jerome also judged the epistle to be genuine, but not a part of scripture. It is now, however, much called in question whether it was written by that Barnabas.
We quote Barnabas as to the scapegoat: "How, then, ran the commandment? Give your attention. Take two goats of goodly aspect, and similar to each other, and offer them. And let the priest take one as a burnt-offering for sins [the God. Sin. reads ‘one as a burnt-offering and one for sins']. And what shall they do with the other? 'Accursed,' says he, ‘is the one.' Mark how the type of Jesus now comes out. ‘And all of you spit upon it, and pierce it, and encircle its head with scarlet wool, and thus let it be driven into the wilderness.' And when all this has been done, he who bears the goat brings it into the desert, and takes the wool off from it and places that upon a, shrub which is called Rachia ... ..Why, then again, is this? Give good heed- `One upon the -altar, and the other accursed;' and why the one that is accursed crowned? Because they shall see Him then in that day, having a scarlet robe about His body down to His feet; and they shall say, Is not this He whom we once despised, and pierced, and mocked, and crucified?... But why is it that they place the wool among thorns? It is a type of Jesus set before the view of the church: that any one who wishes to bear it away, may find it necessary to suffer much, because the thorn is formidable, and thus obtain it only as the result of suffering." (Chapter 7)
Now it may be, as to the scarlet wool on the goat, that Barnabas only followed the Jewish traditions, but he does not quote it as that (for he writes against the Jews), and he says "How ran the commandment?" Then he is quite wrong in saying one goat was for a burnt-offering, or a burnt-offering for sins. Both goats were a sin-offering, and had nothing to do with the burnt-offering. These things and the fanciful interpretation of the wool on the thorn stamp it emphatically as not being inspired, and not a part of scripture.
Barnabas writes concerning circumcision:— "Abraham, the first who enjoined circumcision looking forward in spirit to Jesus, practiced that rite, having received the mysteries of the three letters. For it saith, 'And Abraham circumcised ten and eight, and three hundred men of his household?’ The ten and the eight are thus denoted—Ten by I, and eight by H. You have Jesus [that is the first two letters in the Greek for Jesus,’ΙΗΣΟΥΣ]. And because the cross was to express grace by the letter T, he said also ‘Three hundred' [that is, in Greek, T stands for 300, I for 10, H for 8—in all, 318]. He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters and the cross by one. He knows thus who has put within us the engrafted gift of His doctrine. No one has been admitted by me to a more excellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that ye are worthy." (Chapter 9)
Surely this is trifling with scripture. And taking the last sentence of the quotation as true, we may dismiss Barnabas as not to be named along with scripture, wondering the more how it could have been placed in the same book with the word of God and how it could have been read in the churches.
The Epistle of Clement
The first Epistle of Clement was written to the Corinthians, apparently on their consulting him amid great dissension in the church: he writes thus severely:
“It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful and unworthy of your christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters. And this rumor has reached not only us, but those also who are unconnected with us; so that, through your infatuation, the name of the Lord is blasphemed, while danger is also brought upon yourselves." (Chapter 47)
A great deal is said about repentance, love, and good works; but sacrifices to be offered at Jerusalem by the high priest are strangely interwoven with the exhortations. In chapters 40 and 41, under the heading of "Let us preserve in the church the order appointed by God," is the following:—
“These things, therefore, being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behooves us to do all things in order. He has enjoined offerings, and service to be performed, and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the, appointed times and hours....Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve upon the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.... Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered.... but in Jerusalem only.... that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished by death. Ye see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed.”
As we have said, this is placed under a heading as to the order appointed by God in the church. And Clement writes the above to the Gentiles at Corinth. One has only to compare it with the Epistle to the Galatians to see how entirely unscriptural it is.
When speaking of the "ministers in the church" he speaks of bishops (or overseers), and deacons, being appointed and says, “Nor was this any new thing, since, indeed, many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the scripture, in a certain place, `I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'" (Chapter 42)
This is doubtless intended for a quotation from Isa. 60:1717For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron: I will also make thy officers peace, and thine exactors righteousness. (Isaiah 60:17) from the LXX, but altered by Clement to suit his purpose: for the LXX reads, "I will make thy princes peaceable, and thine overseers righteous." The absurdity of quoting this passage to prove that bishops and deacons were not a new thing, must be obvious to all our readers.
As an emblem of the resurrection, Clement relates the heathen fable of the phoenix living five hundred years, and then rising again as a fresh bird from its own ashes. And then says that God "even by a bird shows up the mightiness of His power to fulfill His promise." (Chaps. 25., 26.)
Surely these extracts are sufficient to prove that the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is not inspired, and forms no part of the word of God.
The Shepherd of Hermas
This is divided into Visions, Commands, and Similitudes. We give the substance of one of the Similitudes, that our readers may perceive how entirely different it is from scripture.
“Seest thou this vine and this elm? ‘Sir,' said I, ‘I see them.' This vine, saith he, is fruitful, but the elm is a tree without fruit. Nevertheless this vine, unless it were set by this elm, and supported by it, would not bear much fruit, but lying alone upon the ground, would bear but ill fruit, because it did not hang upon the elm: whereas, now, being supported upon the elm, it bears fruit both for itself and for that. See, therefore, how the elm gives no less, but rather more fruit, than the vine.... This Similitude, therefore, is set forth to the servants of God; and it represents the rich and poor man.
"I answered, ‘Sir, make this manifest unto me?’ Hear, said he, the rich man has wealth; howbeit, towards the Lord he is poor: for he is taken up about his riches, and prays but little to the Lord and the prayers which he makes are lazy and without force. When, therefore, the rich man reaches out to the poor those things which he wants, the poor man prays unto the Lord for the rich; and God grants unto the rich man all good things, because the poor man is rich in prayer, and his requests have great power with the Lord... They are, therefore, both made partakers of each other's good works. Whosoever, therefore, shall do these things, he shall not be forsaken by the Lord, but shall be written in the book of life. Happy they who are rich and perceive themselves to be increased: for he that is sensible of this will be able to minister somewhat to others.”
Of this writer Origen says, "I fancy that that Hermas [mentioned in Rom. 16:1414Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them. (Romans 16:14)] is the author of the tract which is called The Shepherd, a writing which seems to me very useful, and is, as I fancy, divinely inspired [!]”
In dealing with the spurious books of New Testament times, it is well to remember the introduction of Luke's Gospel, which seems to imply that there were false accounts even then in existence: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which, from the beginning, were eye witnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed." There being many (and they must be spurious because many, for God had caused only three others to be written, and John's is very generally believed to have been written later), he would write one, by which Theophilus might be certain of the things he had been taught.
Another reference in scripture to spurious writings is in 2 Thess. 2:22That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. (2 Thessalonians 2:2): "That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.”
Here the apostle intimates that they may have been troubled by some message or letter purporting to come from him which he had not sent, and warns them not to be troubled by any such things.
In the end of the same epistle Paul says, "The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write." (2 Thess. 3:1717The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write. (2 Thessalonians 3:17).)
Of the other pretended epistles besides these we have named, there is not one but is manifestly not of God.
Some mention events that happened a long while after the pretended author's death. Thus for instance, in the "Constitutions of the Apostles," there is reference to the controversy about the re-baptism of heretics, which did not arise till the third century.
Some mention persons that did not live until long after the pretended author's death. Thus the book under the name of Hegesippus (who lived in the second century), mentions Constantine and Constantinople which could not be before the fourth century.
The Questions and Answers under the name of Justin Martyr, mention Irenmus and Origen, who both lived after his time.
"When this epistle is read amongst you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.”
This last sentence, "read the Epistle from Laodicea," has given rise to the thought that Paul had written another Epistle to Laodicea which was to be passed on to the Colossians after being read at. Laodicea, in the same way that the Epistle to Colosse was to be passed on to Laodicea. And if so, what has become of that Epistle? and is the canon of scripture complete without it?
In the first place it must be noticed that the word does not speak of an Epistle to Laodicea, but "the epistle from (εκ) Laodicea;" and may refer to
The Epistle to the Ephesians, which, perhaps, was being circulated from one to another, and was coming to Colosse from Laodicea.
2. It may refer to a letter written from Laodicea to Paul, stating things of general interest, a copy of which Paul sent on to Colosse for them to read; or it might be a letter evincing a certain state of things at Laodicea which Paul judged would be well met by his letter to Colosse being read there also; and so Paul not only requested them to send on his Epistle to Laodicea, but also thus showed them in fellowship the reason for his so doing.
3. It may have been an epistle written by Paul to Laodicea, and which was coming from thence to Colosse, a letter of general interest, but not inspired, and which was not intended to form a part of scripture. There is no reason for believing that we have all the letters that Paul wrote, or that all he wrote were inspired.
In none of these cases would the canon of scripture be touched, which is the point under consideration; and here we might be content to leave the matter but that there is in existence the copy
of a letter entitled "The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans," which some have contended ought to form a part of scripture.
We give a copy of this epistle, from an old manuscript at Padua in Venice, that the reader may judge whether such an epistle is at all likely to have been written by Paul; not that the wording is not generally correct and scriptural, but that on the whole there seems no special point or object in it; indeed, it is supposed to be merely a compilation of portions of the epistles by Paul gathered together and made into a separate letter. By the side of the epistle we give the places from which the extracts may have been taken.