an Apostle. Consequently, the epistle to the Hebrews, if writ by an apoftolical man only, should not be esteemed canonical. Grotius (k) likewise supposed the second epiftle ascribed to Peter, not to have been writ by the Apostle Simon Peter, but by Simeon, chosen Bishop of Jerufalem after the death of James the Just, whose epistle we have. Which Simeon lived to the time of Trajan, when he was crucified for the name of Christ. Upon which I only observe at present, that if this Simeon be the writer of this epistle, it should not be a part of canonical scripture. The fame learned man supposeth (1) the second and third epistles, 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 fame time, and after him, at Ephesus. And the epiftle called St. Jude's, he thought (m) to have been written by one of that name, who was Bishop of ferufalem in the time of the Emperour Adrian, and not till after there had been several other Bishops of that church, since 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 should here entirely omit Mr. Whiston, whose canon confifted of the (n) Apoftolical Conftitutions, and divers other books, as sacred, beside those generally received: and (0) the Conftitutions, (k) Jam olim veterum multi credidere, non esse apoftoli Petri, argumento tum dictionis ab epistola priore multum diversæ, quod agnofcunt Eufebius & Hieronymus, tum quod multæ olim ecclefiæ hanc non receperint.. Scriptorem autem hujus epistolæ arbitror effe Simeonem five Simonem, epifcopum poft Jacobi mortem Hierofolymis, ejusdemque Jacobi, cujus epiftolam habemus, successorem & imitatorem...... Unde etiam conftat, vixisse hunc post excidium Hierofolymitanum ad Trajani tempora, & tunc pro nomine Chrifti crucifixum. Annot. in Ep. Petri fecund. (/) Hanc epistolam, & eam quæ fequitur, non esse Johannis Apoftoli, veterum multi jam olim crediderunt, a quibus non diffentiunt Eufebius & Hieronymus. Et magna funt in id argumenta. Nam duos fuisse Johannes Ephefi, Apoftolum, ac Prefbyterum, ejus difcipulum, semper conftitit ex fepulchris, alio hujus, alio illius: quæ sepulchra vidit Hieronymus. Grot. Annot, in ep. Joan. Secund, (m) Quare omnino adducor, ut credam esse hanc epistolam Judæ Epifcopi Hierofolymitani, qui fuit Adriani temporibus, paullo ante Barchochebam. Id. in Annot. ad ep. Judæ. (n) "The facred books of the New Testament still extant, both those in the 85. canon, and those written afterwards, are the fame, which we now receive: together with the eight books of Apoftolical Constitutions, and their epitome, the Doctrine of the Apostles: the two episiles of Clement, the epiftle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas: and perhaps the second book of apocryphal Efdras, with the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp." Effay on the Apopolical Constitutions. ch. i. p. 70. 71. (0) "If any one has a mind to fort the several books of the New Testament, he may in the first place set 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 Apostles. The Apocalypfe of Jobn Constitutions, in particular, as the most sacred of all the canonical books of the New Testament. Concerning which I beg leave to observe, first, that the receiving the Constitutions as a facred book, and part of the rule of faith, would make a great alteration in the Christian scheme. Some might be induced to think it no great bleffing to mankind, and scarcely deserving an apologie. Secondly, Mr. Whiston'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 studie of Ecclefiaftical Antiquity will be always needful, and may be of use, to defeat various attempts of ingenious, but mistaken and prejudiced men. III. A short canon of Scripture is most eligible. Religion is the concern of all men. A few short histories and epistles are better fitted for general use, than numerous and prolix writings. Besides, 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 distinction. Otherwise men may be led into errours of very bad consequence. If any books pretend to deliver the doctrine of infallible, and divinely inspired teachers, such as Jesus Chrift and his Apostles are esteemed by Christians: great care should be taken to be well fatisfied, that their accounts are authentic, and that they are the genuine writings of the men, whose names they bear. The pretenfions of writings, placed in high authority, to which great credit is given, ought to be well attested. Dr. Fortin, speaking of the work, called Apoftolical Constitutions, fays: "The (p) authors of them are, it is pretended, the twelve "Apostles and St. Paul gathered together, with Clement their ama" nuenfis. "If their authority should appear only ambiguous, it would be our " duty to reject them, lest we should adopt as divine doctrines the com"mandments of men. For fince each Gospel contains the main parts " of Chriftianity, and might be sufficient to make men wise to salva"tion; there is less danger in diminishing, than in enlarging the number " of canonical books: and less evil would have ensued from the lofs of " one of the four Gospels, than from the addition of a fifth and spurious " one." In John also cannot be reckoned at all inferior to them, though it be quite of another nature from them. In the third rank may stand the Epiftles of the Apostles, Paul, Peter and John. In the fourth rank may stand the Epiftles of the brethren of our Lord, James and Jude. In the fifth and last rank may ftand the epistles and writings of the companions and attendants of the Apostles, Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp. All which, with the addition perhaps of apocryphal Esdras, and of the Apocalypse 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 Testament." Ibid. p. 72.73. (p) Dr. Jortin's Remarks on Ecclefiaftical History. Vol. i. p. 229. In my opinion, that is a very fine and valuable observation. And I shall tranfcribe again an observation of Augustin, formerly (9) taken notice of. "Our canonical books of scripture, which are of the "highest Authority with us, have been settled with great care. They " ought to be few, leaft their value should be diminished. And "yet they are so 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 should confist of two classes. In the first should be those books, which he assures us were then univerfally acknowledged, and had been all along received by all catholic Chriftians. These are the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen epistles of St. Paul, one epistle of St. Peter, and one epistle of St. John. These only should be of the highest authority, from which doctrines of religion may be proved. In the other classe should be placed those books, of which Eufebe speaks, 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 Apostles of Chrift. These are the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistle of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, the epistle of Jude, and the Revelation. These should be reckoned doubtful, and contradicted: though many might be of opinion, that there is a good deal of reason to believe them genuine. And they should be allowed to be publicly read in Chriftian assemblies, for the edification of the people: but not be alleged, as affording, alone, sufficient proof of any doctrine. That I may not be misunderstood, I must add, that there should be no third classe of facred books: forasmuch as there appears not any reason from Chriftian antiquity to allow of that character and denomination to any Christian writings, beside those above-mentioned. In this canon the preceeding rule is regarded. It is a short canon. And it seems to have been thought of by some (A) about the time of the Reformation. V. Nevertheless that, which is now generally received, is a good canon. (g) See Vol. x. p. 289. (r) Vol. viii. p. 90. 105. For (A) We learn from Paul Sarpi's Historie of the Council of Trent, that one of the doctrinal articles concerning sacred scripture, extracted, or pretended to be extracted out of Luther's works, was this; "that no books should be " reckoned a part of the Old Testament, beside those received by the Jews: " and that out of the New Testament should be excluded the epistle to the "Hebrerus, the epiftle of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, the epistle of Jude, and the Revelation." And there were fome Bishops in that Council," who would have had the books of the New Testa"ment divided into two classes: in one of which should be put those books "only, which had been always received without contradiction: and in the "other those, which had been rejected by some or about which at least there had been doubts." And Dr. Courayer, in his notes, seems to favor this proposal. See bis French translation 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 universally acknowledged books. And moreover, there may be a great deal of reason to think, that they are the genuine writings of those, to whom they are ascribed, and that the writers were apostles. This evidence will be carefully examined, and distinctly confidered, as we proceed. In this canon likewise the above-mentioned rule is regarded. It is a short canon. For out of it are excluded many books, which might seem to make a claim to be ranked among facred and canonical scriptures. VI. There are not any books, beside those now generally received by us, that ought to be esteemed canonical, or books of authority. I suppose this to be evident to all, who have carefully attended to the historie in the several volumes of this work: and that there is no reason to receive, as a part of facred scripture, the epistle of Barnabas, the epistle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Recognitions, the Clementin Homilies, the Doctrine of the Apostles, the Apoftolical Constitutions, the Gospel of Peter, or Matthias, or Thomas, the Preaching of Peter, the Acts of Peter and Paul, of Andrew and John and other Apostles, 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 shewn. 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 scripture, is the epittle of St. Barnabas, if genuine, as I (s) have supposed it to be. Nevertheless, I think, it ought not to be received as sacred 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 those ancient chriftians, who have quoted it, and taken the greatest notice of it. Clement of Alexandria has (t) quoted this epistle several times, but not as decisive, and by way of full proof, as we shewed. Nor is it so quoted by (u) Origen. Nor is the epistle of Barnabas in any of (x) Origen's catalogues of the books of Scripture, which we still find in his works, or are taken notice of by Eufebe. By that Ecclesiastical Hiftorian, in one place it is reckoned (y) among fpurious writings, that is, such as were generally rejected and supposed not to be a part of the New Testament. At other times it is called by him (z) a contradicted book, that is, not received by all. (s) See Ch. i. Vol. i. p. 23.... 30. Nor (t) See Vol. ii. p. 521....523. (x) The same p. 234....243. (z) P. 96.97. Nor is this epistle placed among sacred scriptures by following writers, who have given catalogues of the books of the New Testament. It is wanting, particularly, in the Festal Epistle (a) of Athanafius, in (6) 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) Augustin. Nor has it been reckoned a part of canonical scripture by later writers. 2. Barnabas was not an Apostle. 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 chosen into the number of Apostles, or appointed to be an Apostle by Christ, as Paul was. What St. Luke says of Barnabas is, that he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost, 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 says, 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 seven were full of the Holy Ghost, and wisdom. vi. 3. That Barnabas was not an Apostle, I think, may be concluded from Gal. ii. 9. where Paul fays: And when James, and Cephas, and John, who seemed 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 suppose St. Paul to mean the favour of the apostleship. So Rom. i. 5. By whom we have received grace and apostleship, that is, the favour of the apostleship. Ch. xii. 3. For I say, through the grace given to me, meaning the especial favour of the apostleship. And fee ch. xv. 15. 1 Cor. xv. 10. 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 gre 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 says me, where he would have faid us, if Barnabas had been an apostle. 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. 1. 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 discipleship. But in several other places Paul is first named, as in Acts xiii. 43. 46. xv. 2. 22. 35. of which no other reason can be well assigned, beside that of Paul's apostleship. Moreover, wherever they travelled together, if there was an opportunity for discourfing, Paul spake. So at Paphos, in the island of Cyprus. Acts |