How do we decide which books belong in the Bible since the Bible does not say which books belong in the Bible?

In the case of the books of the Old Testament our inquiry is really enclosed within narrower limits than might at first sight appear: for the very greatest authority we could possibly have is that of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was indeed Jehovah incarnate. He frequently refers to the Old Scriptures, as containing the word of life; and as being a certain collection of books, then accounted sacred by the Jews. If we can ascertain what the recognised Canon of Scripture among the Jews was in his time, we know at once what we are to receive as canonical. Now there is no doubt whatever upon this point. We, and all reformed churches, are quite in agreement with the Jews here. It is a matter undisputed by any one, that those books of the Old Testament which we venerate as canonical, were the only Scriptures known to the Jews, when our Saviour preached in Judea.

We are not aware that John left any authoritative declaration of what writings were canonical. If each of the 66 books of the Bible do not carry with them their own evidence to the soul and conscience of men, then no external proof will convince. It is an important circumstance that John survived the completed revelation of God by several years. He was there to distinguish, on his Apostolic authority immediately derived from the Lord Jesus Christ, the inspired from the uninspired books then in circulation amongst the Churches. He could be appealed to if necessary on any point involving the Divine authority of any book of Holy Scripture.

Now there were in existence certain writings, known upon particular and specific evidence to have been written by men used of God to do so. By far the greater proportion of these writings are addressed to persons (often to assemblies of persons) with whom the writer was acquainted. No great number of books were ever promiscuously, and as having equal claims, submitted to the judgment of men, but certain particular writings possessed peculiar and notorious claims, from the time they were received — claims which were never detached from them. The evidence for their genuineness (I allude here to the outward evidence, which itself is logically decisive; but there is likewise an inward evidence of the divine origin of Holy Scripture, which is no less, nay, even more, decisive to those who, through the grace of God, are acquainted with it) was unofficial, but reliable human — i.e. personal — testimony, originated and maintained by divine Providence; and so clear and conclusive, that, with extremely few exceptions, to know that such writings existed was almost to know which they were, since the sacred writings created their own fame, as do all the works of God. (Psalm 145:10). As to the few exceptions, the same principle was involved of letting God's Word speak for itself, i.e., letting the claims of what really was God's Word be heard alone; whereas whatever difficulties there were, were produced by the folly and wickedness of men in regard to their own writings (the Apocrypha for instance — the apostolical constitutions, besides a swarm of evidently spurious gospels), which the Church encouraged and availed herself of, but which was permitted by God to a limited extent only, though quite far enough to manifest the unfaithfulness of the Church. The settling the Canon of Scripture was, on the part of the Church, simply an official and formal recognition of already established evidence, not the discovery, still less the creation, of evidence. The Holy Scriptures were written by inspiration, they were identified (so far as man had to do with it) by ordinary but adequate human testimony.

The Corinthians had received Titus "with fear and trembling;" they had been marked by obedience. Paul's letter had come to them with an authority that was Divine. In it he had called upon them to recognize that the things he wrote to them were "the commandments of the Lord." Being the inspired Word of God, it had authenticated itself as such in their consciences, and it commanded their obedience. Nowadays some would like to persuade us that we have no logical reason for accepting any given scripture as the Word of God unless we are prepared to receive it as authenticated by "the Church," unless it carries the imprimatur of pope and cardinals. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It was not so at the beginning, and is not so today. The Word of God is self-authenticating in the hearts and consciences of those who are born of Him.

Every kind. One positive reason is, that it never was in Hebrew at all; and as to outward testimony, it never was classed with the Scriptures by the Jews. But to have the real knowledge of the Scripture authority, you must have divine teaching. The division the Jews made of the Scriptures, was into, the law, the prophets, and the psalms. Josephus tells us there were prophets after the time of Artaxerxes (i.e., Malachi's time), but they were not of the same authority as those who went before. That, of course, is not a divine way of knowing about it. It is said that the Song of Sirach was translated into Hebrew, but it was not. The best way to determine about such books is to look into them. Take Maccabees, and you will find something to this effect: "I have done my best to make an epitome of the five books of such a man, for it is very tedious to have too much to read, and if I have done it well, then it is worthy of the matter," and so on. Think of saying that is inspired!

God may have used all manner of means for preserving or even authenticating the testimony, and so He has in many, as we might expect. And I believe the scriptures were committed to the church to keep - not to authorise but to keep; as I keep a document safe, but give it no authority: it has its own; but I keep it safe. Now God, I believe, providentially has done this. But then the Roman body has decidedly failed in this; because, at the Council of Trent which is with them of divine authority, it has declared that to be scripture which declares itself not to be. That is, for example, the second book of Maccabees, which concludes by saying, If I have done well, it is as befits the subject; if ill, it is according to my ability. Now it is profane to suppose for an instant that this is the Holy Ghost's inditing. The Prologus Galeatus indeed of Jerome, generally prefixed to the Vulgate, declares the Apocryphal books are not scripture. Many other passaces from the Apocrypha could be adduced: such as that the offerings for the dead were for those dead in mortal sin; and that there are three contrary ,lecounts of the death of Antiochus. But I prefer the fact, that one book of the Maccabees declares it is not scripture, as above.

In the first place, the Church of Rome boldly declared that it was only 'the church' that could decide what books were canonical: as early as the Council of Carthage (about A.D. 400) lists of the books were made out, and at the Council of Trent they dogmatically settled what books constituted the scripture. They decided to include the books now known as the APOCRYPHA (q.v.), as may be seen in the Latin Vulgate, which is the version used by that church. Now the scripture informs us that to the Jews were committed the oracles of God, Rom. 3:2, and as is well known they most carefully guarded the O.T. scriptures for centuries before there was any christian church. The books were written in the Jews' language — the Hebrew — with which the Apocrypha never had a place. They were written in Greek, and were first added to the LXX. The above principle — that the scriptures require to be accredited by the church — is false. Surely God could make a revelation that would in no wise need to have the seal of a body of men placed upon it, be they ever so holy. But the Church of Rome was not holy, nor was it universal, so that even if the alleged principle were correct, that corrupt section of the church would be the last to be taken as an authoritative guide.

The N.T. has also had its perils. With the Greek MSS apocryphal books are found, parts of which were read in the churches in early days. Later on several of the Fathers of the church so called had their doubts respecting some of the Epistles. Even as late as the Reformers it was the same. Luther spoke disrespectfully of the Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and set them apart at the end of his version. Calvin doubted the authenticity of James, 2 Peter, and Jude. In modern times many portions of books in the O.T. and N.T. are being called in question. But the Bible needs not to be accredited by man. It carries its own credentials to the heart and conscience of the Christian in the power of the Holy Spirit. The natural man is not competent to judge of such a question. The Bible has the stamp of God upon it, and the more it is studied by the Christian the more perfect it is found to be — no part redundant, and no part lacking.

The inspired writings had such spiritual power that they commended themselves to spiritual men. They knew that they were handling holy inspired writings (many of which, after all, stated explicitly that they were God's word). Interestingly, the Lord referred to 'the prophets', 'the Pslams' and the 'the Scriptures' as known and recognised collections (e.g. Mt. 26:56), as did the New Testament writers (e.g. Lk 24:27).

In the case of the New Testament, the whole of Christendom is agreed. All the books making up its canon were composed within the compass of a single generation; and therefore easily capable of being marked off from all other writings. Every single book of the New Testament was written either by an apostle, or in the case of two of the gospels, by immediate companions of apostles. And, as though to make assurance doubly sure, the life of St. John was extended over a long period, in order that no book might go out to the world, as canonical and inspired, but what he had sanctioned as such; and in this matter he exercised his Master's authority.

There were indeed some congregations at an early time, which had not known some of the books:— such as the Epistle to the Hebrews, the 2nd Epistle of St. Peter, the two shorter Epistles of St. John, and the Apocalypse: but, upon investigation, it is clearly seen that they never rejected these writings, but only that the writings had not at that moment reached them.

External evidence gives many quotations, and so on. There never were any other books than the list we have, that were considered to be 'canon,' so-called, though some of these, as 2 Peter, have been set aside. The Revelation was fully received at first, and came to be doubted in the Church about the second or third century. So with Hebrews; it was not left out until the third century, and then only because it opposed certain innovations. Again, there came injunctions not to read anything but these inspired writings, for Clement's epistle used to be read, and so on, though not inspired. Eusebius gives us a complete list, and declares that none other was to be received as sound. The two epistles of John, being small, appear to have been much less copied, and it was late before they were received. There are translations of them in the first century, as in the Syriac Peschito which has them. They were translated a very few years after John's time.