FAITH.--THE NEW TESTAMENT.
There is an impression existing, and it is one encouraged by infidel
writers, that the acceptance of the books now comprising the New
Testament, was the arbitrary action of a council of bishops three or
four hundred years A. D. This I believe to be a wrong impression. I do
not think the list of books that now constitute the New Testament was
made up in an arbitrary manner, at one time, or by any single council.
It can be shown that the books and epistles now in the collection
known as the New Testament, were accepted as inspired writings by the
Christian churches, before the councils of the church undertook any
discussion of the subject; and even when this question was before those
councils, they merely decided what books before-time had been regarded
by the churches as inspired.
The first council which undertook to pronounce a decision on the
subject was that of Laodicea in the year 363 A. D. "Probably the decree
of this council," as Archdeacon Paley remarks, "rather declared than
regulated the public judgment, or, more properly speaking, the judgment
of some neighboring churches, the council itself consisting of no more
than thirty or forty bishops of Lydia and the adjoining countries;"
and after this council the question, "What books were entitled to be
received as Scripture?" was discussed with great freedom, and without
any reference to the declaration made by the council of Laodicea.[H]
[Footnote H: Paley's Evidences, Part I, ch. ix.]
The list of inspired books of the New Testament, as we have them now,
was accepted by the council of Hippo, held 393 A. D. The third council
of Carthage, 397 A. D., and also the sixth of Carthage, 419 A. D.,
confirmed the decisions of the first. Thus, from that early date, the
authorship and inspiration of the books of the New Testament may be
said to have been fixed.
True, certain early Christian writers doubted the inspiration and
authenticity of some of the books now in the New Testament; II Peter,
the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James and the Apocalypse[I]
being among those whose inspiration and authenticity were questioned;
and some Bible scholars since those days have held the same doubts; but
the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the inspiration of all the
books of the New Testament, and of their being the productions of the
men accredited in those early days, and by the councils named, with
having written them.
[Footnote I: Revelations of St. John.]
It is quite evident, however, that the New Testament does not contain
all the inspired writings of the apostles and disciples, since there
are references in the books of the New Testament to other books
written by the same authors, which would certainly be equally inspired
with those we now have in the collection. Such, for instance, as
another epistle to the Corinthians,[J] also a second epistle to the
Colossians,[K] and another book of Jude.[L] Still, because some
inspired books were lost, and others rejected by these councils,
that does not affect those that remain as to their authenticity or
inspiration; though had we those inspired books that were lost or
rejected, many passages in the books that have been preserved to us
might be made more plain.
[Footnote J: I. Cor. v.]
[Footnote K: Col. iv: 16.]
[Footnote L: Jude 3.]
Could it be proven even, that some of the books now retained in the
New Testament collection were uninspired, and not written by those
now accredited with being their authors, that would not affect these
books about whose authenticity and inspiration there has never been
a question. Suppose all those books I have named as having had their
authenticity questioned, should turn out to be forgeries, we would
still have the four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Epistles of Paul
that stand unquestioned; and as long as even one of these books remains
unshaken as to its authenticity and inspiration, you have a witness
for God and Christ in it--an exposition, to some extent, at least, of
the character and attributes of Deity. For the New Testament, like the
Old, is not one book, but a collection of books; each independent of
the other. It is not one witness for God and Christ, but a collection
of the testimonies of a number of witnesses. And if it could be proven
(but I do not think it can be) that some of these books were of such
doubtful origin that they are unworthy a place in the collection, it
does not follow that the other books of the New Testament are also of
doubtful origin and unworthy of confidence.
Furthermore, if it be admitted (and I am willing to admit it) that
some of the texts in the books comprising the New Testament have been
corrupted or changed, and portions thereof taken away, while these
things tend to, and do weaken the testimony of the witnesses, and make
many parts obscure, and even contradictory, still, after making all
these concessions, enough remains uncorrupted and unimpaired, to give
us in those books strong and reliable witnesses--whose testimony cannot
be impeached--for God. And while some parts have been corrupted, and
thus rendered imperfect, yet the narrative of the life of Christ, the
Gospel he advocated, the moral precepts he inculcated in his system
of truth, together with the revelations contained in those Scriptures
respecting the character and attributes of Deity, are all substantially
correct.
I refer again to the manner in which the list of books now composing
the New Testament was decided upon. I have already stated that I do not
think it was by the arbitrary decision of any one council at any one
time, that the selection of this list of books was made and all others
rejected. On the contrary it was most probably the work of years.
"The most plausible supposition," says an unquestioned authority, "is
that each of the most influential churches founded by the Apostles in
person, made for its own use a collection of all the writings duly
ascertained to be apostolic and inspired. The epistles sent to the
different churches were soon, doubtless, communicated to the sister
associations for the strengthening of each other's faith, hope and
virtue." Indeed the Apostle Paul, in one instance at least, commands
an interchange of apostolic writings. In his epistle to the Colossian
saints he says: "And when this epistle is read among you, cause that
it be read in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read
the epistle from Laodicea."[M] Doubtless, as stated by Chambers, "The
brotherly love which was a notable feature of primitive Christianity,
led Christians everywhere to make common property of the local messages
from apostles, as valuable to them all alike. Nor did they ever dream
of withholding from their brethren copies of such inspired writings as
had come into their own hands. No general order from the apostles was
needed to prompt individual Christians or congregations that had been
favored with an inspired communication to make it equally well known to
every neighbor. There must have been the most cordial reciprocity of
communication in this matter, an unreserved sharing of new Scripture
with each other; the fair and full interchange of apostolic oracles
leading to such a multiplication, that each church possessed, for the
benefit of its members, a copy of all inspired writings previously
issued by the Apostles."[N] And here let me add, that in the
multiplication of copies, it is not to be wondered at if the originals
were soon lost sight of, or worn out by constant use.
[Footnote M: Col. iv: 16.]
[Footnote N: Information for the People, Vol. II Art. Bible.]