The four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of Saint
Paul the First Epistle of John, and the First of Peter, were received
without doubt by those who doubted concerning the other books which are
included in our present Canon.
I state this proposition, because, if made out, it shows that the
authenticity of their books was a subject amongst the early Christians
of consideration and inquiry; and that, where there was cause of doubt,
they did doubt; a circumstance which strengthens very much their
testimony to such books as were received by them with full acquiescence.
I. Jerome, in his account of Caius, who was probably a presbyter of
Rome, and who flourished near the year 200, records of him, that,
reckoning up only thirteen epistles of Paul, he says the fourteenth,
which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is not his: and then Jerome adds,
"With the Romans to this day it is not looked upon as Paul's." This
agrees in the main with the account given by Eusebius of the same
ancient author and his work; except that Eusebius delivers his own
remark in more guarded terms: "And indeed to this very time, by some of
the Romans, this epistle is not thought to be the apostle's." (Lardner,
vol. iii. p. 240.)
II. Origen, about twenty years after Caius, quoting the Epistle to the
Hebrews, observes that some might dispute the authority of that epistle;
and therefore proceeds to quote to the same point, as undoubted books of
Scripture, the Gospel of Saint Matthew, the Acts of the Apostles, and
Paul's First Epistle to the Thessalonians. (Lardner, vol. iii. p. 246.)
and in another place, this author speaks of the Epistle to the Hebrews
thus: "The account come down to us is various; some saying that Clement
who was bishop of Rome, wrote this epistle; others, that it was Luke,
the same who wrote the Gospel and the Acts." Speaking also, in the same
paragraph, of Peter, "Peter," says he, "has left one epistle,
acknowledged; let it be granted likewise that he wrote a second, for it
is doubted of." And of John, "He has also left one epistle, of a very
few lines; grant also a second and a third, for all do not allow them to
be genuine." Now let it be noted, that Origen, who thus discriminates,
and thus confesses his own doubts and the doubts which subsisted in his
time, expressly witnesses concerning the four Gospels, "that they alone
are received without dispute by the whole church of God under heaven."
(Lardner, vol. iii. p. 234.)
III. Dionysius of Alexandria, in the year 247, doubts concerning the
Book of Revelation, whether it was written by Saint John; states the
grounds of his doubt, represents the diversity of opinion concerning it,
in his own time, and before his time. (Lardner, vol. iv. p. 670.) Yet
the same Dionysius uses and collates the four Gospels in a manner which
shows that he entertained not the smallest suspicion of their authority,
and in a manner also which shows that they, and they alone, were
received as authentic histories of Christ. (Lardner, vol. iv. p. 661.)
IV. But this section may be said to have been framed on purpose to
introduce to the reader two remarkable passages extant in Eusebius's
Ecclesiastical History. The first passage opens with these words:--"Let
us observe the writings of the apostle John which are uncontradicted:
and first of all must be mentioned, as acknowledged of all, the Gospel
according to him, well known to all the churches under heaven." The
author then proceeds to relate the occasions of writing the Gospels, and
the reasons for placing Saint John's the last, manifestly speaking of
all the four as parallel in their authority, and in the certainty of
their original. (Lardner, vol. viii. p. 90.) The second passage is taken
from a chapter, the title of which is, "Of the Scriptures universally
acknowledged, and of those that are not such." Eusebius begins his
enumeration in the following manner:--"In the first place are to be
ranked the sacred four Gospels; then the book of the Acts of the
Apostles; after that are to be reckoned the Epistles of Paul. In the
next place, that called the First Epistle of John, and the Epistle of
Peter, are to be esteemed authentic. After this is to be placed, if it
be thought fit, the Revelation of John, about which we shall observe the
different opinions at proper seasons. Of the controverted, but yet well
known or approved by the most, are, that called the Epistle of James,
and that of Jude, and the Second of Peter, and the Second and Third of
John, whether they are written by the evangelist, or another of the same
name." (Lardner, vol. viii. p. 39.) He then proceeds to reckon up five
others, not in our canon, which he calls in one place spurious, in
another controverted, meaning, as appears to me, nearly the same thing
by these two words.*
_________
* That Eusebius could not intend, by the word
rendered 'spurious' what we at present mean by it, is evident from a
clause in this very chapter where, speaking of the Gospels of Peter, and
Thomas and Matthias, and some others, he says, "They the are not so much
as to be reckoned among the spurious, but are altogether absurd and
impious." (Lardner, vol. viii. p. 99.)
_________
It is manifest from this passage, that the four Gospels, and the Acts of
the Apostles (the parts of Scripture with which our concern principally
lies), were acknowledged without dispute, even by those who raised
objections, or entertained doubts, about some other parts of the same
collection. But the passage proves something more than this. The author
was extremely conversant in the writings of Christians which had been
published from the commencement of the institution to his own time: and
it was from these writings that he drew his knowledge of the character
and reception of the books in question. That Eusebius recurred to this
medium of information, and that he had examined with attention this
species of proof, is shown, first, by a passage in the very chapter we
are quoting, in which, speaking of the books which he calls spurious,
"None," he says, "of the ecclesiastical writers, in the succession of
the apostles, have vouchsafed to make any mention of them in their
writings;" and, secondly, by another passage of the same work, wherein,
speaking of the First Epistle of Peter, "This," he says, "the presbyters
of ancient times have quoted in their writings as undoubtedly genuine;"
(Lardner, vol. viii. p. 99.) and then, speaking of some other writings
bearing the name of Peter, "We know," he says, "that they have not been
delivered down to us in the number of Catholic writings, forasmuch as no
ecclesiastical writer of the ancients, or of our times, has made use of
testimonies out of them." "But in the progress of this history," the
author proceeds, "we shall make it our business to show, together with
the successions from the apostles, what ecclesiastical writers, in every
age, have used such writings as these which are contradicted, and what
they have said with regard to the Scriptures received in the New
Testament, and acknowledged by all, and with regard to those which are
not such." (Lardner, vol. viii. p. 111)
After this it is reasonable to believe that when Eusebius states the
four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, as uncontradicted,
uncontested, and acknowledged by all; and when he places them in
opposition, not only to those which were spurious, in our sense of that
term, but to those which were controverted, and even to those which were
well known and approved by many, yet doubted of by some; he represents
not only the sense of his own age, but the result of the evidence which
the writings of prior ages, from the apostles' time to his own, had
furnished to his inquiries. The opinion of Eusebius and his
contemporaries appears to have been founded upon the testimony of
writers whom they then called ancient: and we may observe, that such of
the works of these writers as have come down to our times entirely
confirm the judgment, and support the distinction which Eusebius
proposes. The books which he calls "books universally acknowledged" are
in fact used and quoted in time remaining works of Christian writers,
during the 250 years between the apostles' time and that of Eusebius,
much more frequently than, and in a different manner from, those the
authority of which, he tells us, was disputed.