صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

an Apoftle. Confequently, the epiftle to the Hebrews, if writ by an apoftolical man only, fhould not be efteemed canonical.

Grotius (k) likewife fuppofed the fecond epiftle afcribed to Peter, not to have been writ by the Apoftle Simon Peter, but by Simeon, chofen Bishop of Jerufalem after the death of James the Juft, whofe epiftle we have. Which Simeon lived to the time of Trajan, when he was crucified for the name of Chrift. Upon which I only obferve at prefent, that if this Simeon be the writer of this epiftle, it fhould not be a part of canonical fcripture.

The fame learned man fuppofeth (1) the fecond and third epiftles, called St. John's, not to have been writ by John the Apostle, but by another John, an Elder or Prefbyter who lived about the same time, and after him, at Ephefus.

And the epiftle called St. Jude's, he thought (m) to have been written by one of that name, who was Bishop of Jerufalem in the time of the Emperour Adrian, and not till after there had been several other Bishops of that church, fince the death of the forementioned Simeon.. If so, I believe, all men may be of opinion, that this epiftle ought not to be placed in the canon of the New Testament.

It may not be thought right, if I fhould here entirely omit Mr. Whifton, whofe canon confifted of the (2) Apostolical Conftitutions, and divers other books, as facred, befide thofe generally received: and (0) the Conftitutions,

(*) Jam olim veterum multi credidêre, non effe apoftoli Petri, argumento tum dictionis ab epiftola priore multum diverfæ, quod agnofcunt Eufebius & Hieronymus, tum quod multæ olim ecclefiæ hanc non receperint. . Scriptorem autem hujus epiftolæ arbitror effe Simeonem five Simonem, epifcopum poft Jacobi mortem Hierofolymis, ejufdemque Jacobi, cujus epiftolam habemus, fuccefforem & imitatorem... Unde etiam conftat, vixiffe hunc poft excidium Hierofolymitanum ad Trajani tempora, & tunc pro nomine Chrifti crucifixum. Annot. in Ep. Petri fecund.

() Hanc epiftolam, & eam quæ fequitur, non effe Johannis Apoftoli, veterum multi jam olim crediderunt, a quibus non diffentiunt Eufebius & Hieronymus. Et magna funt in id argumenta. Nam duos fuiffe Johannes Ephefi, Apoftolum, ac Prefbyterum, ejus difcipulum, femper conftitit ex fepulchris, alio hujus, alio illius: que fepulchra vidit Hieronymus. Grot. Annot, in ep. Joan. fecund.

(m) Quare omnino adducor, ut credam effe hanc epiftolam Judæ Epifcopi Hierofolymitani, qui fuit Adriani temporibus, paullo ante Barchochebam. Id. in Annot. ad ep. Juda.

[ocr errors]

(n) The facred books of the New Teftament ftill extant, both those in the 85. canon, and thofe written afterwards, are the fame, which we now receive together with the eight books of Apoftolical Conftitutions, and their epitome, the Doctrine of the Apoftles: the two epiftles of Clement, the epiftle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas: and perhaps the fecond book of apocryphal Efdras, with the epiftles of Ignatius and Polycarp." Effay on the Apofolical Conftitutions. ch. i. p. 70. 71.

(0) "If any one has a mind to fort the feveral books of the New Teftament, he may in the firft place fet the Apoftolical Constitutions, with it's extract, or Doctrine of the Apostles, as derived from the body, or College of the Apostles, met in Councils. In the next place he may put the four Gofpels, with their appendix, the Acts of the Apoftles. The Apocalypfe of

John

Conftitutions, in particular, as the moft facred of all the canonical books of the New Testament.

Concerning which I beg leave to obferve, first, that the receiving the Constitutions as a facred book, and part of the rule of faith, would make a great alteration in the Chriftian fcheme. Some might be induced to think it no great bleffing to mankind, and scarcely deferving an apologie. Secondly, Mr. Whifton's canon is not the canon of the Chriftian churches in former times: as is manifeft from the large collections, made by us in the preceding volumes, from ecclefiaftical writers of every age, to the beginning of the twelfth centurie. Thirdly, Mr. Whiston, notwithstanding all his labours, made few converts to this opinion. Which I impute to the knowledge and learning of our times. And as the Christian Religion is built upon facts, the ftudie of Ecclefiaftical Antiquity will be always needful, and may be of ufe, to defeat various attempts of ingenious, but mistaken and prejudiced men.

III. A fhort canon of Scripture is moft eligible.

Religion is the concern of all men. A few fhort hiftories and epiftles are better fitted for general use, than numerous and prolix writings. Befides, if any writings are to be received as the rule of faith and manners, it is of the utmost importance, that they be justly entitled to that diftinction. Otherwife men may be led into errours of very bad confequence. If any books pretend to deliver the doctrine of infallible, and divinely inspired teachers, fuch as Jefus Chrift and his Apoftles are efteemed by Chriftians: great care should be taken to be well fatisfied, that their accounts are authentic, and that they are the genuine writings of the men, whofe names they bear. The pretenfions of writings, placed in high authority, to which great credit is given, ought to be well attefted.

Dr. Fortin, fpeaking of the work, called Apoftolical Conftitutions, fays: "The (p) authors of them are, it is pretended, the twelve "Apoftles and St. Paul gathered together, with Clement their ama"nuenfis.

"If their authority fhould appear only ambiguous, it would be our duty to reject them, left we should adopt as divine doctrines the com"mandments of men. For fince each Gofpel contains the main parts "of Christianity, and might be fufficient to make men wife to falva"tion; there is lefs danger in diminishing, than in enlarging the number "of canonical books: and lefs evil would have enfued from the lofs of one of the four Gospels, than from the addition of a fifth and spurious one."

[ocr errors]

In

John alfo cannot be reckoned at all inferior to them, though it be quite of another nature from them. In the third rank may ftand the Epiftles of the Apoftles, Paul, Peter and John. In the fourth rank may ftand the Epiftles of the brethren of our Lord, James and Jude. In the fifth and laft rank may ftand the epiftles and writings of the companions and attendants of the Apofles, Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp. All which, with the addition perhaps of apocryphal Efdras, and of the Apocalypfe of Peter, and the Acts of Paul, were they now extant, I look upon, though in different degrees, as the facred books of the New Teftament." Ibid. p. 72.73.

(P) Dr. Fortin's Remarks on Ecclefiaftical Hiftory. Vol. i. p, zzg.

In my opinion, that is a very fine and valuable observation. And I fhall transcribe again an obfervation of Auguftin, formerly (9) taken notice of. "Our canonical books of scripture, which are of the "highest Authority with us, have been fettled with great care. They "ought to be few, leaft their value fhould be diminished. And yet they are fo many, that their agreement throughout is wonder"ful."

IV. I have been sometimes apt to think, that the best canon of the New Testament would be that, which may be collected from (r) Eufebe of Cæfarea, and feems to have been the canon of fome in his time.

The canon fhould confift of two claffes. In the firft fhould be those books, which he affures us were then univerfally acknowledged, and had been all along received by all catholic Chriftians. Thefe are the four Gofpels, the Acts of the Apoftles, thirteen epiftles of St. Paul, one epiftle of St. Peter, and one epiftle of St. John. These only should be of the highest authority, from which doctrines of religion may be proved.

In the other claffe fhould be placed thofe books, of which Eufebe fpeaks, as contradicted in his time, though well known: concerning which there were doubts, whether they were writ by the perfons, whose names they bear, or whether the writers were Apoftles of Chrift. These are the epiftle to the Hebrews, the epiftle of James, the second of Peter, the fecond and third of John, the epiftle of Jude, and the Revelation. These fhould be reckoned doubtful, and contradicted: though many might be of opinion, that there is a good deal of reafon to believe them genuine. And they fhould be allowed to be publicly read in Chriftian aflemblies, for the edification of the people: but not be alleged, as affording, alone, fufficient proof of any doctrine.

That I may not be misunderflood, I must add, that there should be no third claffe of facred books: forafmuch as there appears not any reason from Chriftian antiquity to allow of that character and denomination to any Christian writings, befide thofe above-mentioned.

In this canon the preceeding rule is regarded. It is a fhort canon. And it feems to have been thought of by fome (A) about the time of the Reformation.

V. Nevertheless that, which is now generally received, is a good

canon.

p. 289.

(r) Vol. viii. p. 90. 105.

For

(g) See Vol. x. (A) We learn from Paul Sarpi's Hiftorie of the Council of Trent, that one of the doctrinal articles concerning facred fcripture, extracted, or pretended to be extracted out of Luther's works, was this; "that no books fhould be "reckoned a part of the Old Teftament, befide thofe received by the Jews: "and that out of the New Teftament should be excluded the epistle to the "Hebrerus, the epiftle of James, the fecond of Peter, the fecond and third of "John, the epiftle of Jude, and the Revelation." And there were fome Bifhops in that Council," who would have had the books of the New Testa ment divided into two claffes: in one of which should be put those books "only, which had been always received without contradiction: and in the other thofe, which had been rejected by fome or about which at least there had been doubts." And Dr. Courayer, in his notes, feems to favor this propofl. See his French tranflation of the Historie of the Council of Trent, Liv. 2. ch. 43. Tom. i. p. 235. and ch. 47. p. 240. and note i,

For it contains only those books, which were acknowledged by all in the time of Eufebe, and from the beginning, and seven other, which were then well known, and were next in esteem to those before mentioned, as universally acknowledged: and were more generally received as of authority, than any other controverted writings. Nor is there in them any thing inconfiftent with the facts, or principles, delivered in the univerfally acknowledged books. And moreover, there may be a great deal of reason to think, that they are the genuine writings of thofe, to whom they are afcribed, and that the writers were apoftles. This evidence will be carefully examined, and distinctly confidered, as we proceed.

In this canon likewife the above-mentioned rule is regarded. It is a fhort canon. For out of it are excluded many books, which might seem to make a claim to be ranked among facred and canonical fcriptures.

VI. There are not any books, befide thofe now generally received by us, that ought to be efteemed canonical, or books of authority.

I fuppofe this to be evident to all, who have carefully attended to the hiftorie in the feveral volumes of this work: and that there is no reason to receive, as a part of facred fcripture, the epiftle of Barnabas, the epiftle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Recognitions, the Clementin Homilies, the Doctrine of the Apostles, the Apoftolical Conftitutions, the Gospel of Peter, or Matthias, or Thomas, the Preaching of Peter, the Acts of Peter and Paul, of Andrew and John and other Apoftles, the Revelation of Peter, and Paul, their Travels or Circuits. That these books were not received, as facred fcripture, or a part of the rule of faith, by Christians in fotmer times, has been fhewn. Nor can they therefore be reasonably received by us as fuch.

The only writing of all these, that seems to make a fair claim to be a part of facred fcripture, is the epittle of St. Barnabas, if genuine, as I (s) have fuppofed it to be. Nevertheless, I think, it ought not to be received as facred fcripture, or admitted into the canon, for these reafons.

1. It was not reckoned a book of authority, or a part of the rule of faith, by thofe ancient chriftians, who have quoted it, and taken the greatest notice of it.

Clement of Alexandria has (t) quoted this epiftle feveral times, but not as decifive, and by way of full proof, as we fhewed. Nor is it fo quoted by (u) Origen. Nor is the epiftle of Barnabas in any of (x) Origen's catalogues of the books of Scripture, which we ftill find in his works, or are taken notice of by Eufebe. By that Ecclefiaftical Hiftorian, in one place it is reckoned (y) among fpurious writings, that is, fuch as were generally rejected and fuppofed not to be a part of the New Testament. At other times it is called by him (z) a contradi&ed book, that is, not received by all.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Nor is this epiftle placed among facred fcriptures by following writers, who have given catalogues of the books of the New Teftament. It is wanting, particularly, in the Feftal Epiftle (a) of Athanafius, in (b) the catalogue of Cyril of Jerufalem, of (c) the Council of Laodicea, of (d) Epiphanius, (e) Gregorie Nazianzen, (f) Amphilochius, and (g) Jerome, (b) Rufin, (i) the Council of Carthage, and (k) Auguftin. Nor has it been reckoned a part of canonical fcripture by later writers.

2. Barnabas was not an Apoftle.

For he was not one of the twelve Apostles of Christ. Nor was he chofen in the room of Judas. Nor is there in the Acts any account of his being chofen into the number of Apostles, or appointed to be an Apostle by Christ, as Paul was. What St. Luke fays of Barnabas is, that he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghoft, and of faith. Acts xi. 24. And in ch. xiii. 1. he is mentioned among Prophets and Teachers in the church of Antioch. But St. Luke speaks in the like manner of Stephen, of whom he fays, he was a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghoft. vi. 5. full of faith and power. v. 8. full of the Holy Ghost. vii. 55. And all the feven were full of the Holy Ghost, and wisdom. vi. 3.

That Barnabas was not an Apoftle, I think, may be concluded from Gal. ii. 9. where Paul fays: And when James, and Cephas, and John, who feemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of Fellowship. By grace I fuppofe St. Paul to mean the favour of the apostlefhip. So Rom. i. 5. By whom we have received grace and apostleship, that is, the favour of the apostleship. Ch. xii. 3. For I fay, through the grace given to me, meaning the efpecial favour of the apostleship. And fee ch. xv. 15. 1 Cor. xv. 1o. Eph. iv. 7. compared with ver. II.

If Barnabas had been an Apostle, in the fullest sense of the word, St. Paul would not have faid in the above cited place from the fecond to the Galatians, when they perceived the grace given to me, but, when they perceived the grace given to me, and Barnabas. And in the preceding part of the context, particularly, in ver. 7. 8. he twice fays me, where he would have faid us, if Barnabas had been an apoftle. For he had been mentioned before, in ver. 1.

Indeed, in the Acts, where Paul and Barnabas are mentioned togegether, Barnabas is sometimes first named, as Acts xi. 30. xii. 25. xiii. I. 2. and 7. xiv. 14. xv. 12. 25. Which, I think, not at all strange, among perfons, who were not intent upon precedence: when too Barnabas was the elder in years and difcipleship. But in several other places Paul is first named, as in Acts xiii. 43. 46. xv. 2. 22. 35. of which no other reafon can be well affigned, befide that of Paul's apostleship.

Moreover, wherever they travelled together, if there was an opportunity for difcourfing, Paul ipake. So at Paphos, in the island of Cyprus.

(a) Vol. viii. p. 227.... 229.

(c) P. 291... 293.

(e) Vol. ix. p. 133.

(8) Vol. x. p. 76. 77.

(i) P. 193. 194.

(b) P. 269. 270.

(d) P. 303. 304
(f) P. 147. 148.
(b) P. 177. 178.
(k) P. 210. 211.

Acts

« السابقةمتابعة »