صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

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

Concerning which I beg leave to obferve, firft, that the receiving the Conftitutions 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 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. Whifton, notwithstanding all his labours, made few converts to this opinion. Which I impute to the knowledge and learning of our times. And as the Chriftian Religion is built upon facts, the ftudie 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 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, such as Jefus Chrift and his Apostles are efteemed by Chriftians: great care fhould be taken to be well satisfied, 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, speaking of the work, called Apoftolical Conftitutions, 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 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 Gospel contains the main parts "of Chriftianity, and might be fufficient to make men wife to falvaແ tion; there is lefs danger in diminishing, than in enlarging the number "of canonical books and less evil would have enfued from the lofs of 46 one of the four Gospels, than from the addition of a fifth and spurious

one."

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 Apoftles, 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 Testament." Ibid. p. 72.73..

(p) Dr. Fortin's Remarks on Ecclefiaftical Hiftory. Vol. i. p. 229.

[ocr errors]

In my opinion, that is a very fine and valuable obfervation. And I fhall transcribe again an observation of Auguftin, formerly (q), taken notice of. "Our canonical books of fcripture, which are of the "higheft 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 Teftament would be that, which may be collected from (r) Eusebe of Cæfarea, and feems to have been the canon of fome in his time.

The canon fhould confist of two claffes. In the first should be those books, which he affures us were then univerfally acknowledged, and had been all along received by all catholic Chriftians. These 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. Thefe only fhould 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 Apostles of Chrift. These are the epiftle to the Hebrews, the epiftle of James, the fecond 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 affemblies, for the edification of the people: but not be alleged, as affording, alone, fufficient proof of any doctrine.

That I may not be misunderstood, I must add, that there fhould 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 those 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.

[ocr errors]

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

For

(9) See Vol. x. p. 289. (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 fhould be excluded the epiftle to the Hebreaus, the epistle of James, the fecond of Peter, the second 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 propofal. See his French tranflation of the Hiflorie of the Council of Trent. Liy. 2. ch. 43. Tom. i. p. 235. and cb. 47. p. 240, and note i.

For it contains only thofe books, which were acknowledged by all in the time of Eufebe, and from the beginning, and feven other, which were then well known, and were next in esteem to thofe 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 uni verfally 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 diftinctly confidered, as we proceed.

1

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 autho rity.

[ocr errors]

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 Apoftles, 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 thefe books were not received, as facred fcripture, or a part of the rule of faith, by Christians in former times, has been fhewn. Nor can they therefore be reasonably received by us as fuch.

The only writing of all thefe, that seems to make a fair claim to be a part of facred fcripture, is the epiftle 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 reasons.

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 Testa:ment. 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.
(u) See Vol. iii. p. 305. 306. :
(y) Vel. viii. p. 97. 167.

Nor

5237

(t) See Vol. ii. p. 521. . . .
(x) The same p. 234.·.· 243.
(z) P. 96.97.

[ocr errors]

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 Ferufalem, 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 Apoftle.

For he was not one of the twelve Apostles of Chrift. 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 Apoftles, or appointed to be an Apostle by Chrift, 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 Ghost. 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 Ghoft, and wisdom. vi. 3.

[ocr errors]

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 apoftleship. 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 especial favour of the apoftleship. 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 said in the above cited place from the second 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 vér. 1.

Indeed, in the Acts, where Paul and Barnabas are mentioned togegether, Barnabas is fometimes 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 pla ces Paul is first named, as in Acts xiii. 43. 46. xv. 2. 22. 35. of which no other reason can be well affigned, befide that of Paul's apoftleship.

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

(a) Vol. viii. p. 227.... 22ŷ.

(c) P. 291... 293.

(e) Vol. ix. p. 133.

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

(i) P. 193, 194

(b) P. 269. 270.
(d) P. 3c3. 304
(ƒ) P. 147. 148.

(b) P. 177. 178.

{4) P. 210. 2116

Acts

Acts xiii. 6.

[ocr errors]

12.

alfo ch. xiv. 12.

And at Antioch in Pifidia. ch. xiii. 15. 16. See

And that Paul was the principal perfon, appears from that early ac count, after they had been in Cyprus. ch. xiii. 13. Now when Paul and his companie loofed from Paphos, they came to Perga, in Pamphylia.

However, there are fome texts, which must be confidered by us, as feeming to afford objections.

Acts xiv. 4. But the multitude of the city was divided. Part held with the Jews, and part with the Apoftles: that is, Paul and Barnabas, who were then at Iconium. And afterwards, at Lyftra. ver. Which when the Apoftles, Barnabas and Paul, heard,. . . . Here Barnabas is ftiled an Apoftle, as well as Paul.

To which I anfwer, firft. Both being now together, and meeting with the like treatment, might be called Apoftles: though only one of them was, properly, fo. Secondly, it is not unlikely, that Barnabas and Paul are here ftiled by St. Luke Apoftles, in regard to what had been done at Antioch, as related by him. ch. xii. i. . . 4. when by an express order from heaven, they were fent forth from the church at Antioch, upon a fpecial commiffion, in which they were still employed. That defignanation, however folemn, did not make either of them Apoftles of Chrift in the highest fenfe. It was not the apoftolical, which is a general commiffion. But it was a particular commiffion, as appears from that whole hiftorie, and from what is faid at the conclufion of the journey, which they had taken. Acts xiv. 26. And thence they failed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God, for the work, which they had fulfilled. Nevertheless, they are not unfitly called Apoftles upon account of it. So 2 Cor. viii. 13. Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner, and fellow-helper concerning you: or our brethren be enquired of, they (1) are the meffengers of the churches, literally, apoftles of the churches, and the glorie of Chrift. If those brethren, which had been appointed by the churches to go to Jerufalem, with the contributions, which had been made for the relief of the poor faints in Judea, might be called Apoftles; there can be no doubt, but Paul and Barnabas might be called Apoftles in regard to the work, to which they had been folemnly appointed by the church at Antioch.

Again 1 Cor. ix. 5. 6. Have we not power to lead about a fifter, a wife, as well as other Apoftles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only, and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

Some may think, that Barnabas is here fuppofed to be an Apostle. I anfwer, that though Barnabas was not an Apoftle properly, or equally with himself, yet Paul, out of an affectionate refpect to his friend, companion, and fellow-laborer, might be disposed to mention him, upon this occafion, in the manner he has done. This is faid, fuppofing all beforementioned to have been Apoftles of Chrift, in the higheft fenfe. But, Secondly, it is not certain, that all, before-mentioned, were strictly Apoftles. It feems to me more likely, that by the brethren of the Lord fome are intended, who were not Apoftles. If fo, Paul might reasonably, and without offence, gratify his friendly difpofition: and infert here the

(1) απότολοι ἐκκλησιῶν.

name

« السابقةمتابعة »