Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Classic Reprint)

Rome. There may have been cases where the possibility of mistaking a non-apostolical for an apostolical writing is less incredible than in the case mentioned, but there were none, it is believed, where siich a mistake can be regarded as probable. A nd, in spite of modern doubts and denials, it is evident from a variety of circumstances that the early Christians were reasonably cautious about the sources of their knowledge. It is evident, for example, from the four great Epistles of Paul (viz. Romans, First andS econd Corinthians, and Galatians), which are accepted as genuine by the boldest criticism, that special and, indeed, absolute confidence was reposed in the teaching of those admitted to be apostles (1 Cor. 12 :28, 29; 2C or. 11:5; 12 :11, 12; Gal. 2:7-9; Eph. 2: 20; 4: 11). They were looked upon as entitled to speak with authority on all matters relating to the person and work of Christ or the duty of his followers. Naturally, therefore, their writings would be preserved and consulted with the greatest respect. It is also evident from hints in theN ew Testament, and from the language of the Christian Fathers, that along with the teaching of the apostles was placed the teaching of their companions, such as Mark and Luke, either because their doctrine was sup posed to be received directly from apostles, and to be fully endorsed by them, or because, in addition to their intimacy with apostles, they were believed to have a special gift of inspiration to qualify them for their work. I f, now, as history appears to show, the formation of theN ew Testament Canon was left to the prudence and piety of the early churches, several things which may be said to characterize the actual process of formation are seen to be natural, if not inevitable. A few of these may be named in this place. 1. The Principal Reason for admitting aB ook to the Canon was found in its A(Typographical errors above are due to OCR software and don't occur in the book.)