De Moor II:14: The Canon and the Church, Part 2

Next, with respect to the Canon of the New Testament:  again we observe, 1.  that the Testimony of the Church is able to make no Book θεόπνευστον/inspired and Canonical; but the Church is only able to declare that Books of this sort, as θεοπνεύστους/inspired and Canonical, were delivered to her by the Evangelists and Apostles, and were received by her as such:  which testimony of the Church is not altogether without force to beget human faith:  nevertheless, divine faith concerning the divine and normative authority of any Book depends, not on human testimony, but on divine inspiration and its innate marks.  2.  We observe that not without a divine mark has it come to pass, that, not withstanding uncertainties concerning the Canonical Authority of some Books sometimes arising and even prolonged for a certain time, the true Church unto the present day has continually retained in the Codex of the New Testament the Books that we have to this day, and concerning which now almost no doubt has hindered through so many ages:  which, if we bring this together with those Books’ innate marks of Divinity, is able to be sufficient for us, even if express testimonies are wanting to us concerning the circumstances of time, place, and author of the entire Canon of the New Testament, delivered at first to the Church, and received universally by the Churches.  3.  This dispensation of divine Providence is to be adored, which saw to it that the divine volumes, as much of the New as of the Old Testament, gathered into one bundle, are preserved religiously in the Church and always received reverently, yet was unwilling for the history of the Gathering of this Canon to be preserved for us; that we might acknowledge that God does not much need human testimony, and might rather exercise our faith in investigating the innate θεοπνευστίας κριτηρίοις, criteria of inspiration.  But it is not strange that in such scarcity of Ecclesiastical monuments of the primitive age, in which we labor, and in the great silence of the writers that survive concerning a matter of such moment, Theologians depart in different directions concerning the first and certain constitution and collection of the entire Canon of the New Testament by the Church.  Neither do we doubt that some logomachies also obstruct here, which, if you restrain, perhaps grievous disagreements shall be able to be composed in a certain measure here.  That is, the sealing and approbation of the Canon is able to be distinguished from the gathering of all the Books pertaining to the Canon into a bundle, and of the exemplars of this Canon transcribed by the tradition of the Church.  The admission of the Canon by the Church was also able to obtain, although not all individual Churches immediately and at one and the same time obtained the store of all the Books of the New Testament.  The first admission of the Canonical Books also ought to be distinguished from undoubted, universal recognition of them, in such a way that never afterwards was there controversy concerning them.  And, with these things advanced, we may consider what in all likelihood and probability, and also in a manner suitable to that veneration which we owe to the divine books, in this exceedingly perplexed antiquarian question, is able to be established.

Epiphanius

That already long before the fourth Century the Canon was sealed, learned Men show, from the list of the same Books of the New Testament that alone we admit to the present day, among the Writers of that, and indeed of the previous, age; and from the added mention of the completed Canon, which is found in their writings.  EPIPHANIUS, Hæresi LXI, opera, tome I, page 506, says that heretics thus receive Apocryphal Books, παντάπασιν ἀλλοτρίους τοῦ κανόνος τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ ὑπάρχοντας, being altogether different from the Ecclesiastical Canon.  In the Synopsi Sacræ Scripturæ, ascribed to Athanasius, after it was recounted that our Scripture, πᾶσα γραφὴ ἡμῶν Χριστιανῶν θεόπνευστος, ὡρισμένα καὶ κεκανονισμένα ἔχει τὰ βιβλία, all the Scripture of us Christians, is inspired, and the books are set apart and canonized, opera Athanasii, tome 2, page 55, the Author also testifies in particular that the seven Catholic Epistles were εἰς ἓν ἀριθμούμεναι βιβλίον, counted as one Book, page 59, and that the fourteen Epistles of Paul likewise were counted as one book, or were redacted into one volume, εἰς ἓν ἀριθμούμεναι βιβλίον, page 60, which supposes that the Canon was sealed, and that the Sacred Books were gathered into one corpus.  RUFFINUS, in his Expositione in Symbolum, being about to enumerate the Books of the New Testament, just as they are acknowledged by us to the present day, operibus Hieronymi, tome 4, page 112, says, The Holy Spirit under the Old Testament inspired the Law and the Prophets, but under the New, the Gospels and the Apostles; and then he declares that he means to indicate the Volumes of the Old and New Testaments, which according to the Tradition of the Ancients are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit and delivered to the Churches of Christ, just as he had received them from the monuments of the Fathers.  In Dialogo contra Marcionitas, commonly ascribed to ORIGEN, which writer is held by others to have been of the fourth century, are also mentioned the ἐνδιάθετοι γραφαὶ, that is, the Scripture placed within the Canon, Section V, page 136.  The Learned gather that, indeed, even before the third Century the Canon was thus sealed, both from the mention of the tradition of the Ancients and Fathers in RUFFINUS’ Expositione in Symbolum, opera Hieronymi, tome 4, page 112; and from that which EUSEBIUS relates concerning ORIGEN, namely, that he, τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν φυλάττων κανόνα, maintaining the ecclesiastical canon, testifies that there are no more than four Gospels, Historia Ecclesiastica, book VI, chapter XXV.  Indeed, in walking farther backwards, that, before a Pseudo-Canon was devised by Marcion, which they reckon to have been done before the year 130, it is evident that the Canon of the New Testament was already constituted, they suppose from this, that to Marcion the Fathers ascribe a Canon at the same time Apostolic and Evangelical, which evidently he was putting in the place of the twofold Canon of this sort received in the Church; see EPIPHANIUS in his Hæresi XLII, chapter IX, opera, tome I, pages 309, 310, chapter XI, page 318; TERTULLIAN in books IV and V of contra Marionem; consult ENS’ de Canone Librorum Novi Testamenti, chapter V, § 17, 18, pages 90-92:  and, that the Apostolic Canon does not include only the letters of Paul, they gather from this, that the Fathers of that age promiscuously draw proofs from the Catholic and Pauline Epistles, and that JUSTIN Martyr in the Epistle to Diognetus,[1] by elegant paraphrase, names the Books of the Old and New Testaments, φόβον νόμου, προφητῶν χάριν, εὐαγγελίων πίστιν καὶ ἀποστόλων παράδοσιν, the fear of the Law, the grace of the Prophets, the faith of the Gospels, and the tradition of the Apostles, page 502.  Εἶτα φόβος νόμου ᾄδεται, καὶ προφητῶν χάρις γινώσκεται, καὶ εὐαγγελίων πίστις ἵδρυται, καὶ ἀποστόλων παράδοσις φυλάσσεται, Then the fear of the Law is sung, and the grace of the Prophets known, and the faith of the Gospels is established, and the tradition of the Apostles is preserved:  consult ENS’ de Canone Librorum Novi Testamenti, chapter V, § 19, 20, pages 92-95.

But, so that we might in the end review the whole matter from the beginning, we believe that by us it is to be traced back to the Apostle John; 1.  that he established the Canon of the Gospels, EUSEBIUS, Historia Ecclesiastica, book III, chapter XXIV, expressly testifies, relating that John approved the remaining three Gospels, after they had come under his notice, and that, although hitherto he had taught only with his voice, he confirmed the truth of the remaining three with his own written Gospel.  2.  That John sealed the entire Canon of the New Testament, Revelation 22:18, 19, I see nothing to hinder us from believing.  a.  Indeed, this threat most nearly has regard to John’s Apocalypse itself; but the Apostle, contemplating the Apocalypse as the last writing of the New Testament, while he prohibits addition and subtraction to this Book, at the same time prohibits all addition to the whole Canon of the Old and New Testaments.  b.  There is the additional fact that John concluded his Apocalypse with a promise of the imminent return of the Lord Jesus, just as Malachi sealed his own prophecy and the entire Canon of the Old Testament with a promise concerning the forerunner of the Messiah and the first advent of the same; so that in this way John admonishes us that before the final advent of Christ nothing ought to be added to the Scripture, Revelation 22:16-20.  But, 3.  it is altogether probable that John, sealing the entire Canon with such an emphatic conclusion, at the same time more frequently testified concerning the remaining Books to the Churches, and sedulously indicated to the chief Men in them what Books ought to be held as Canonical, and diligently separated the same from the spurious; so that thus around the first beginnings of the second Century, unto which the death of John is commonly assigned, the Canon of the New Testament was complete, sealed, and delivered to the Churches through the agency of John and his disciples.

α.  That the Ancients believed that the Canon was already confirmed in the age of the Apostles, is established with certainty out of AUGUSTINE’S contra Faustum Manichæum, book XI, chapter V, opera, tome 8, columns 158, 159, “The excellence of the Canonical authority of the Old and New Testaments is distinct from the books of those coming latter, which authority was confirmed in the times of the Apostles by the successions of Bishops and transmissions of the Churches, established, as it were, on high on some foundation, to which all faithful and pious intellect ought to conform.”

β.  John, on account of his longevity, was able to have an acquaintance with all the Canonical writings of the New Testament, and so also the care of them:  he, as the last of all, wrote, and sealed the Canon:  but one may now plausibly suppose that he therefore through so great a space of time was obliged to survive the rest of the Apostles, so that, by delivering the genuine Canon to the Church, he might ward off spurious Books, and, by sealing the Sacred Canon, might turn the thoughts of the Church from all further expectation of the addition of a sacred Book.

γ.  An argument from the necessity of the Church is added, that by the divine authority of the Apostle it might learn to distinguish the genuine writings from the spurious; since, even while Paul was yet living, nefarious men had already fraudulently introduced Epistles, so that he regarded it as necessary to mark his own γνήσια/genuine writings with a distinctive σημείῳ/token, 2 Thessalonians 2; 3:  but thereafter many other writings of Apostles and Apostolical men were circulated:  heretics, rejecting the genuine writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, published their own under the name of the Apostles.  And so it was certainly for the good of the Church that John, who saw and was aware of these arts of the heretics, might fortify it against the danger of seduction.

δ.  That John also actually discharged his office in separating the spurious writings that were put forth under the name of the Apostles from the genuine and Canonical, testifies JEROME, de Viris illustribus, chapter VII, opera, tome I, page 268, out of TERTULLIAN’S libro de Baptismo, chapter XVII, relating that a certain presbyter in Asia, on account of a fable disseminated under the title Περιόδου Παύλου καὶ Θέκλας, History of Paul and Thecla, was convicted by John concerning the spurious Book, and was for this reason removed from the ministry.

ε.  The testimonies of two eminent disciples of John are added, IGNATIUS and POLYCARP,[2] the former of which not so long after the death of John won the crown of martyrdom.  For both in their Epistles left clear traces of the Epistolary and Evangelical Canon already extant at that time.  Indeed, IGNATIUS, in Epistle V to the Philadelphians, § 5, writes:  Προσφυγὼν/fleeing (or προσφύγωμεν, let us have recourse, according to the opinion of Pearson and Smith in their Annotations on this passage, pages 48, 83) τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ὡς σαρκὶ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ὡς πρεσβυτερίῳ ἐκκλησίας, to the Gospel as the flesh of Christ, and to the Apostles as to the Presbytery of the Church; where, that by εὐαγγέλιον/Gospel is to be understood the Evangelical Codex, and by ἀποστόλους/Apostles the Apostolic Codex, is hardly able to be called into controversy.  In this manner he understands by εὐαγγέλιον/Gospel even more strictly the Codex of the Gospels (while elsewhere it denotes more broadly the entire New Testament), Epistle to the Philadelphians, § 9, Ἐξαίρετον δέ τι ἔχει τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ σωτῆρος κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὸ πάθος αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, but the Gospel has something choice, the coming of the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, and His suffering and resurrection.  While he has regard to the Epistolary Canon, in Epistle to the Romans, § 4, Οὐχ ὡς Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλος διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν, I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commands to you.  Quite often also, being about to confirm his sayings in his Epistles, he appeals to the Sacred Books, not only to the Gospels, but also to the Acts of the Apostles; and in like manner to the Epistles, not only to the Epistles of Paul, but also of other Apostles, of those also concerning which there was thereafter doubt, as is that of James; see RUMPÆUS in his Commentatione critica ad Novi Testamenti Libros, § XL, page 216.  But if, while John was living, the Epistolary Canon had not been constituted and delivered to the Church, and also the Canon of the Gospel; how was Ignatius able, writing immediately after the death of John, to appeal so often for the sake of confirmation to the subject matter of this Canon?  And it is quite probable that Ignatius gained acquaintance with this Canon also from John himself.  The very thing which IRENÆUS manifestly teaches concerning POLYCARP in EUSEBIUS’ Historia Ecclesiastica, book IV, chapter XIV, where you may see that Polycarp taught the one and only truth, which he had learned from the Apostles, and which the Church delivers, in opposition to the heresies of Valentinus, Marcion, and others.  But what is the Truth delivered by the Church, except the Canon of faith received by the Church?  Now, Polycarp himself is said to have received this truth from the Apostles; but, since he dwelt with John among the Apostles for such a long time and familiarly, who does not see that it is probable that Polycarp was instructed concerning the truth of the Canon of the New Testament by John, and then in turn delivered to the Churches what he had previously received from the Apostles?  For which reason in his Epistle to the Philippians appear also repeated citations of the Books of the New Testament, both of the Epistles and of the Gospels:  indeed, EUSEBIUS himself observes in his Historia Ecclesiastica, book IV, chapter XIV, near the end, that Polycarp in his Epistle makes use of some testimonies taken from the first Epistle of Peter:  whence also it appears that the Epistolary Canon already existed at that time, and was able to be concluded.

ϛ.  Finally, that the Canonical Epistles, according to the mutual fellowship and love of the Churches, had come quickly to the notice of the majority of Church and of the faithful in the East, can be gathered from 2 Peter 3, which Epistle he wrote to the converted Jews dispersed on all sides throughout Asia Minor; now, he reminds that an Epistle was also sent to them by Paul, on which occasion he also alleges other Epistles of Paul, and sets them among the rest of the γραφὰς/Scripture, as of the same dignity, verses 15, 16.  By this Peter signifies that the Pauline Epistles were already at that time everywhere known among the Churches, even among those to which they were not directly sent; indeed, that the same were acknowledged by them as divine.  For who does not now discern it to be probable, that these works of Peter and of Paul had also come to the hands of John living in Asia, and that the Overseers of the many Churches had asked the sentence of the Apostle John concerning the authority of these writings:  and that these under the auspices of John began painstakingly to seek out exemplars of all the Books of the New Testament, and to transcribe them for their own use and the use of their Churches? see what things upon this matter, out of Tertullian, Jerome, Cyril, Augustine, and Theophylact, are cited by FRANCIS JUNIUS, operum, tome 1, column 464, lines 70-82.  Add, with respect especially to the Canon of the Gospels, SPANHEIM’S Exercitationes de Historicis Euangeliorum Scriptoribus, in the Appendix to book II of Miscellaneorum Sacrorum Antiquorum, § 1-9, opera, tome 2, column 265-274.

Nevertheless, these things, which I have said concerning the care of the Apostle John with the Canon, I do not wish thus to be accepted, as if by a solemn decree of the Rulers of the Church, over whose assembly John presided after the manner of the Council, confirmation of the Canon was made:  since it would have sufficed that the Canonical authority of the rest of the Codices of the New Testament was acknowledged and indicated by John, a Man θεοπνεύστῳ/inspired.

Neither does it appear that all the Books of the New Testament already in the time of John, except perhaps quite rarely, were joined in a regular bundle:  but likely, according to the variety of opportunity, from the beginning some Church possessed some writings of the Apostles, but other Churches other writings, which they were able conveniently to obtain, and knew to be approved by the faithful relation of John:  to which they added by degrees the rest, as they came to hand.  Whence also an opportunity was able to arise, that concerning certain writings not so generally received from the beginning some doubted; until testimonies more illustrious were added, which were affirming those to be acknowledged as true also.  Of course, now the situation was different, than under the Mosaic economy, when the Church was contained within the narrow bounds of Palestine, and all the autographa of the Canonical Books were preserved in the Tabernacle and Temple, unto which there was easy recourse in all doubtful situations.  But now, throughout all the parts and most diverse regions of the world, the Church was erected, all the Originals of the Apostolic writings were not kept in one place, but in various places according to the diversity of Churches and people, unto whom they were first sent.  And so it was, with respect to the Autograph of the Epistles sent to the Jews, dispersed through many regions:  but not with respect to the Autograph of the Epistles written to individual persons; after the death of these it was more difficult to be certain, in what place precisely it was found.  Whence certain acquaintance concerning the Canon of the New Testament was able to come to all the Churches throughout the world more tardily:  and with so much greater confidence and success concerning some Books, or particular pericopes of them, heretics were able to move doubts, because they knew that a comparison with the Autograph was not able to be arranged so easily.  Compare PETRUS DINANT’S discourse concerning the Constitution of the Canon of the New Testament, in his de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter V, pages 828-859.

The Most Illustrious JOHANNES ENS, in his Diatribe de Librorum Novi Testamenti Canone, learnedly indeed, presents it as proven that the Epistolary Canon was also completed before the Year twenty-seven of the second Century; nevertheless, he exerts himself mightily in this, that he might evince that we are not obliged to the care of the Apostle John himself for it:  but that the Teachers of the Eastern Church performed this service, who survived for some time after John, Ignatius, Polycarp, Quadratus,[3] and perhaps some others.  But to each attentively and candidly comparing the reasonings of ENS with those that were hitherto discussed, the infirmity of the same, I suppose, will be able to be apparent.  What I have not thought necessary to demonstrate at length, most learned Men have done, the Most Illustrious LAMPE in his Prolegomenis ad Commentarium in Euangelium Joannis, book I, chapter V, § 14, and the Celebrated JUSTUS WESSELUS RUMPÆUS in his Commentatione critica ad Novi Testamenti Libros cum præfatione Carpzovii, § XL, pages 201-227, in which you will see the arguments of Ens solidly confuted, sometimes in the words of his own argument.  Nevertheless, it is well that the Most Illustrious ENS shows that at that time, when according to his opinion the Canon was gathered, the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit granted for the edification of the Church, to which the Canon of Scripture was so serviceable, yet obtained, which I suppose are not to be denied to those collectors of this Canon:  see his Diatriben, chapter XI, § 6-14, pages 361-371.

But with far greater justice COCQUIUS refutes here the impious theses of Hobbes, in his Anatome Hobbesianismi, locus III, chapter IV, pages 38 and following; namely, 1.  the Time, when the Books of the New Testament were first acknowledged and received by the Church as the writings of the Apostles, was considerably later than the time of the Apostles.  He asserts that the public reception of the Sacred Scripture of the Old and New Testaments, of the sort we have now, is to be attributed to the Council of Laodicea, which was held in the Year of Christ 364.[4]  2.  Before Constantine the Great to no one was the New Testament able to be a Law that could not be transgressed without injustice; but by the same right by which one had received it, he was also able to reject it.  3.  Nevertheless, it was Counsel, of which sort, whether good, or bad, he to whom counsel is given is able to observe it or neglect it without injustice.  And if indeed the counsel, whether it be good, or bad, is contrary to Laws, one is not able to observe it without injustice.

[1] The Epistle to Diognetus, written in the second century, is an early example of Christian apologetical writing.  Although its author is unknown, it has been traditionally attributed to Justin Martyr.

[2] Polycarp (died c. 167) was a disciple of the Apostle John and Bishop of Smyrna.

[3] Quadratus (died 129) is reckoned among the Seventy Apostles of the Eastern Church, and is esteemed as the first Christian Apologist.  Eusebius records that Quadratus addressed an apology to the Emperor Hadrian circa 124.

[4] The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod, composed of about thirty ministers of Asia Minor.  It was principally concerned with the regulation of the manners of church members, but it also provided a list of the Books of the New Testament (omitting Revelation), forbidding the public reading of others.