What was the process of deciding on the New Testament canon?

Roman Catholics maintain that the Bible is a "church‑based book" because the Church wrote or at least determined what comprised the New Testament. Evangelical Protestants say the Church discovered the New Testament as the Holy Spirit made clear which writings were authoritative and inspired. And never was the Church without the Scriptures. It had the Old Testament, which clearly pointed to the New, and it might be noted as well that New Testament writers often quot­ed from the Old Testament as they wrote under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit (see 2 Pet. 1:20,21).

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.

He who has only man's thoughts will say, "But I must know that it is the word of God before I can believe in it." I reply, "You cannot." It is true, happily true, that we receive the New Testament as the word of God, on the faith of our parents or of our education; but it is never really received as such till it is "mixed with faith" in those that read it. For my part I receive the New Testament with full assurance in its present form, as it has been adopted by the universal church. Circumstances having called me to it, I have examined the external evidences and found them satisfactory; but that does not produce faith. It may be useful to obviate the objections made by those who do not live upon the word and cannot judge of it. The authority of God is not subject to human intelligence. I know that some of the epistles were questioned in the early ages, at least in certain places; but I doubt not that, in receiving as inspired those books which form the New Testament, the church was guided by God. The means by which God's word may be communicated are to be distinguished from that word itself as an authoritative rule; but these means may nevertheless be used according to the certainty of that rule.

21 A mother instructs her child in the truth, but she is not the rule or standard of truth. Thus the unlettered Christian receives the New Testament in the form in which it is distributed. It may be that he cannot demonstrate its authenticity, but he happily profits by the fact that the church receives it. It comes thus into his possession, and, when he reads it, he finds it divine. God thus uses means to spread the truth, and the book which contains it. The multitude. of believers profit by it. It is God who acts thus. If any answer must be given to unbelievers who dispute the authority of the word, it may be that only a few amongst those who receive and enjoy it are able to convince gainsayers; but that does not hinder God from using the scriptures, and giving faith to those who receive them; then the folly of gainsayers, and of those who are nourished with incredulity, appears to all.

It is true that numerous Christian books were in circulation, even in the days of Luke, the writer of the third Gospel and of "The Acts" (Luke 1:1), some of them attributed to the Apostles and their companions, but they were not regarded as inspired, however highly esteemed otherwise. So numerous are the quotations from the New Testament in the writings of the fathers of the first seven centuries, that the whole of the New Testament might from thence be recovered, if needs be. We frankly admit, however, that certain Epistles, as Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation were not at first universally received as canonical, owing to the difficulty of communication existing in these early times. It was no easy matter then for Churches or individuals at a distance to hold mutual intercourse, and it must be borne in mind that Epistles were addressed to persons or assemblies in some instances 1000 miles apart; besides which the transcribing of accurate copies of the originals required time and care. These facts remembered, we are thankful for the extreme caution with which the canon of the New Testament was finally accepted.

4.It is true that Irenaeus (about 140 to 202 AD) and Tertullian (around 160 to 220 AD) do not mention the Second Epistle of Peter. The Muratori Canon (end of 2nd century) does not mention it either; neither does it mention Hebrews, James and First Peter. Origines (about 185 to 254 AD) is the first to mention Second Peter but considers it contested. So does Eusebius (around 263 to 339 AD). Cyrill of Jerusalem (around 310 to 386 AD) and Athanasius (around 296 to 373), however, refer to it as writing of the Canon and so do Augustine (354 to 430 AD) and Hieronymus (around 340 to 420 AD). The Eastern Church confirmed at the synod of Laodicea (around 360 AD) that Second Peter is part of the Canon of Holy Scripture. The West has done so in the well known synods in Rome (382 AD), Hippo (383 AD) and Cartago (397 AD) where the inspired writings of the NT found definite recognition against the always increasing heresies.

The Eastern Church confirmed that the epistle of James belonged to the canon of Holy Scriptures at the synod of Laodicea (around 360 AC). The west accepted the epistle in the known synods in Rome (382 AC), Hippo (393 AC) and Cartago (397 AC). This is also where the writings of the NT (inspired by the Holy Spirit) found final acceptance for the protection from false doctrines being propagated at the time.

Now, though we cannot refer back and say that the church, or those who seemed to be pillars in the church, have always counted our present list of books to be authentic, yet we can say that very early the list was completed as we now have it, and was believed to contain all the New Testament scripture, and nothing but the scripture; and, further, we doubt not that this has been the judgment and conviction of the great mass of Christians for centuries, altogether apart from any order of council that it should be so, and altogether beyond the doubts that any might attempt to throw upon any one of its books.

We know that all the twenty-seven books of our New Testament were written before the close of the first century. When and by whom were these various books of the New Testament completed and arranged in one volume as we now have them? Of all the various opinions that have been expressed, it seems most probable that the beloved disciple John was used by God not only to write the closing words of inspiration, but also to collect together those already written. Whether this be so or no, we know from many testimonies that by the middle of the second century all the books of the New Testament were known and read in the Christian assemblies. The Apostle's life was lengthened out for about one hundred years, and during that time he had seen the Church in its pristine freshness and unity, as described in Acts 2, and seen also the corruption, declension, and decay which set in when, even at Ephesus, believers "left their first love."

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.

And never at any time were inferior or spurious writings allowed to usurp the place of Scripture. There are several ancient books in existence, certainly written very soon after, and some even before, the Canon of the New Testament was settled: such as the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, an Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, and certainly of very ancient date: some Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp, who were St. John's disciples, and a curious allegory, called the Shepherd of Hermas. These books are genuine and perhaps more or less valuable; but no one ever mistook them for Scripture. There are also extant, but very little known, certain manifest forgeries:— such as a pretended Epistle of Christ to King Abgarus, several pretended gospels, and some spurious Epistles. We call these forgeries manifest, for they abound in the most palpable anachronisms and mistakes, and never seem to have deceived any one. Some of the stories about the early life of Jesus are in marked contrast with the simplicity and truthfulness of the real Gospels, and are filled with the wildest accounts of his miracles.

Eusebius, A.D. 315. His catalogue agrees with our Testament, but he says the Epistles of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation, were doubted of by some.