Companion to the Bible. E. P. Barrows

Muratorian canon, also, (as appears from Jerome's letter to Marcella and the quotations of the church fathers before him,) of the Old Latin version; of Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and a multitude of later writers. There are also some allusions to these epistles in the apostolic fathers, which seem to be decisive.

      Such are the following: "Let us therefore approach to him in holiness of soul, lifting up to him holy and unpolluted hands." Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 29. "But the beginning of all mischief is the love of money. Knowing, therefore, that we brought nothing into the world neither have power to carry any thing out, let us arm ourselves with the armor of righteousness." Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, chap. 4. The student may see other supposed allusions in Kirchhofer, Quellensammlung; Lardner, 2:39; Davidson's Introduction, 3, p. 101 seq.; Alford's New Testament, Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles, etc.

      Respecting the date of the pastoral epistles very different opinions are held. The whole discussion turns on the question whether they were written before or after Paul's imprisonment at Rome, which is recorded in the last chapter of the Acts of the Apostles; and this again is connected with the further question whether he underwent a second imprisonment at Rome, concerning which learned men are not agreed. The full discussion of this matter belongs to the introduction to the pastoral epistles. It may be simply remarked, however, that the internal arguments in favor of a late date are very strong, and that its assumption accounts for the development of such a state of things at Ephesus as appears in the two pastoral epistles to Timothy—a state very different from that which existed when the epistle to the Ephesians was written, between A.D. 60 and 64, and which makes it necessary to separate the first epistle to Timothy from that to the Ephesians by a considerable interval of time.

      The theme of the pastoral epistles is peculiar. It is the affectionate counsel of an aged apostle to two young preachers and rulers in the church respecting the duties of their office. From the peculiarity of the subject-matter naturally arises, to some extent, a peculiarity in the diction of these epistles; yet the style and costume is throughout that of the apostle Paul.

      8. The testimony of the ancient church to the first epistle of Peter and the first of John is very ample. Besides that of the Peshito-Syriac version, and of the church fathers Irenæus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, they have in addition that of Papias and the apostolic father Polycarp. The first epistle of John is also included in the Muratorian canon. It scarcely needs, however, any external testimony. The identity of its author with that of the fourth gospel is so manifest from its whole tone and style, that it has been always conceded that if one of these writings came from the pen of the apostle John, the other did also.

      The testimony of Papias to these two epistles, though indirect, is conclusive. Eusebius says, Hist. Eccl. 3. 39, "The same Papias has employed testimonies from the first epistle of John, and in like manner of Peter." Polycarp says, Epistle to the Philippians, ch. 7, "For every one who confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is anti-Christ," with evident reference to 1 John 4:3. Eusebius says also, Hist. Eccl. 4. 14, that in the same epistle to the Philippians Polycarp "has employed certain testimonies from the first epistle of Peter;" and when we examine the epistle we find several certain references to it, among which are the following: "In whom, though ye see him not, ye believe; and believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable, and full of glory." Chap. 1 compared with 1 Pet. 1:8. "Believing in him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave him glory, and a seat at his right hand." Chap. 2 compared with 1 Pet. 1:21.

      9. The relation of the gospel history to the writings now under consideration—the book of Acts and the apostolic epistles—is of the most intimate and weighty character. The truth of the earlier narratives contained in the gospels implies the truth of these later works; for, as already remarked, they are the natural sequel of the events there recorded. On the other hand, the truth of these later writings implies the truth of the gospel history; for in that history they find their full explanation, and without it they are, and must ever remain, inexplicable. All the parts of the New Testament constitute one inseparable whole, and they all shed light upon each other. Like a chain of fortresses in war, they mutually command each other. Unless the whole can be overthrown, no one part can be successfully assailed. But to overthrow the whole is beyond the power of man; for God has guarded it on every side by impregnable bulwarks of evidence.

      10. A special argument for the truth of the Scripture history of the apostle Paul may be drawn from the numerous undesigned coincidences between the events recorded in the book of Acts and those referred to in the epistles. This work has been accomplished with great ability and skill by Paley in his Horæ Paulinæ, to which the reader is referred. The argument is very conclusive; for when we consider the "particularity of St. Paul's epistles, the perpetual recurrence of names of persons and places, the frequent allusions to the incidents of his private life, and the circumstances of his condition and history, and the connection and parallelism of these with the same circumstances in the Acts of the Apostles, so as to enable us, for the most part, to confront them one with another," we must be satisfied that the truth of the history can alone explain such a multitude of coincidences, many of them of a minute character, and all of them manifestly undesigned.

CHAPTER VI.

       Table of Contents

THE DISPUTED BOOKS.

       Table of Contents

      The grounds on which each of the disputed books—Antilegomena, chap. 5, No. 6—is received into the canon of the New Testament, will be considered in the introduction to these books. In the present chapter some general suggestions will be made which apply to them as a whole.

      1. This is not a question concerning the truth of Christianity, but concerning the extent of the canon; a distinction which is of the highest importance. Some persons, when they learn that doubts existed in the early churches, to a greater or less extent, respecting certain books of the New Testament, are troubled in mind, as if a shade of uncertainty were thereby cast over the whole collection of books. But this is a very erroneous view of the matter. The books of the New Testament, like those of the Old, were written one after another, as occasion required; and the churches received each of them separately on the evidence they had of its apostolic origin and authority. At length collections of these books, that is, canons, began to be formed. Such collections translators would of necessity make, unless they found them ready at hand. The earliest canons of which we have any knowledge are contained in the old Latin version, the Syriac version called Peshito, and the Muratorian canon; each of which represented the prevailing judgment of the churches in the region where it was formed. As this judgment differed in the different provinces of Christendom in respect to the books in question, so also do these canons. The Peshito contains the epistle to the Hebrews and that of James, but omits the other five books. The Muratorian canon omits the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistle of James, and the second epistle of Peter; but contains the epistle of Jude, the book of Revelation, and apparently also the second and third of John, though in respect to them its language is obscure and of doubtful interpretation. The old Latin version, so far as we can judge from the quotations of the church fathers, agreed in general with the Muratorian canon. It contained, however, the epistle of James, (Codex Corbeiensis, ff,) and that to the Hebrews; and if, as has been supposed, this latter was a later addition, it was yet earlier than the time of Tertullian. See Westcott on the Canon, pp. 282, 283. Now this diversity of judgment with regard to particular books does not affect in the least the remaining books of the New Testament, which are sustained by the authority of all the above-named witnesses, as well as by the undivided testimony of the ancient churches. Did the New Testament claim to be the work of a single author, the case would be different. We should then have but one witness; and if certain parts of his testimony could be successfully assailed, this would throw a measure of suspicion on the whole. But now we have in the separate books of the New Testament a large number of witnesses, most of