Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

a

digest,' he says, 'is often ascribed to Paul.' He calls the gospels, or the whole New Testa ment, our digest,' in allusion, as it seems, to some collection of the Roman laws digested into order. Those two passages were cited in the chapter of Tertullian. I now transcribe the latter below more at large, it having also the word instrument, as equivalent to the New Testament. He likewise calls the Jewish scriptures Sacred Digests.' He seems to use the word digest elsewhere, as equivalent to writing, or work in general.

b

I shall not take notice of any other general denominations of scriptures.

VII. My chief concern is with the New Testament, which, as is well known, consists of gospels; the Acts, and epistles. The only word that needs explanation is the first.

Gospel is a translation of the Greek word Evayyehov, the Latin word, evangelium, which signifies any good message or tidings. In the New Testament the word denotes the doctrine of salvation, taught by Jesus Christ, and his apostles: which indeed is gospel by way of eminence, as it is the best tidings that ever were published in this world. Says Theodoret upon Rom. i. 1. He calls it gospel, as it contains assurance of many good things. For it proclaims peace with •God, the overthrow of Satan, the remission of sins, the abolishing of death, the resurrection of ⚫ the dead, eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven.'

Says St. Matthew iv. 23. "And Jesus went all about Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom.” Και κηρύσσων το ευαγγέλιον της βασιλειας Mark xiii. 10% "And the gospel [To Evayyεov] must first be preached to all nations." Ch. xvi. 15. "Go ye

into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." KngužαTE TO EURYYENIOV. It is called "the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation." Eph. i. 13. And in like manner in other places.

But by gospel, when used by us concerning the writings of the evangelists, we mean the history of Christ's preaching and miracles. The word seems also to be so used by St. Mark i. 1. "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." Which may be understood and paraphrased thus: Here' begins the history of the life and doctrine of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and Saviour of mankind.'

2. "The former treatise have

St. Luke, referring to the book of his gospel, says, Acts i. 1, I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day in the which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen." But St. Luke, as it seems, there puts the principal part for the whole. For he has therein written also the history of our Lord's miraculous birth, and divers extraordinary events attending it: and likewise the history of the birth of John the Baptist, and divers circumstances of it, and his preaching and death.

In this sense the word gospel is frequently understood by us. A gospel is the history of Jesus Christ, his doctrine, miracles, resurrection and ascension: not excluding the history of his fore-runner, who also is said to have preached the gospel, that is, the doctrine of the gospel, or the kingdom of God.

g

The gospels according to Matthew, Mark, written by those several evangelists.

a See Vol. i. p. 432.

Si vero Apostoli quidem integrum evangelium contulerunt, de solâ convictûs inæqualitate reprehensi, Pseudapostoli autem veritatem eorum interpolârunt, et inde sunt nostra digesta; quod erit germanum illud apostolorum instrumentum, quod adulteros passum est? Adver. Marc. 1. 4. cap. 3. p. 504. B.

< Sed homines gloriæ, ut diximus, et eloquentiæ solius libidinosi, si quid in sanctis offenderunt digestis, exinde regestum pro instituto curiositatis ad propria verterunt. Apol. cap. 47. p. 41. B.

a Elegi ad compendium Varronis opera, qui rerum divinarum ex omnibus retro digestis commentatus, idoneum se nobis scopum exposuit. Ad Nation. I. 2. cap. i. p. 64. C.

• Ευαγγέλιον δε το κήρυγμα προσηγόρευσεν, ὡς πολλων αγαθῶν ὑπισχνεμενον χορηγίαν. Ευαγγελίζεται γαρ τας το θες καταλλαγας, την το διάβολε καταλυσιν, των αμαρτης μάτων την αφεσιν, το θανατε την παύλαν, των νεκρων την ανασασιν, την ζωήν την αιώνιον, την βασιλειαν των ερανων. In ep. ad Rom. T. iii. p. 10. B.

[ocr errors]

Luke, John, are the history of Jesus Christ, as

That is Dr. Clarke's paraphrase. But I am sensible it will not be allowed by all. Ecumenius says, that by Gospel Mark does not intend his own writing, but Christ's preaching. Μαρκος, Αρχη, φησί, το ευαγγελιο Ιησε Χρισει αλλα 8 την ἑαυτο συγγραφήν καλει ευαγγελιον, αλλα το το Χριςε κηρυγ μx. Ecum. in Act. Ap. He proceeds to say, that the faithful afterwards called the writings of the evangelists gospels, as truly containing the gospel, that is, the doctrine of Christ. See Vol. iii.. p. 84.

8 Matt. iii. 1, 2. "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at band." Compare Mark i. 4. Luke iii. 1, 2. And says St. Luke iii. 18. "And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people." Πολλα μεν εν και έτερα παρακαλων, ευηγγελίζετο τον λαόν. Which may be literally rendered thus: " And exhorting many other like things, he evangelized [or preached the gospel to] the people.

CHAP. II.

General Observations upon the Canon of the New Testament.

I. THE canonical books of the New Testament received by Christians in this part of the world, are the four gospels, the Acts of the apostles, fourteen epistles of St. Paul, seven catholic epistles, and the Revelation.

II. There may be different canons of the New Testament among Christians. Indeed, there have been in former times, and still are, different sentiments among Christians, concerning the number of books to be received as canonical. The canon of the Syrian churches is not the same as ours. b Jerom tells us, that in his time some of the Latins received

с

a

the epistle to the Hebrews, and some of the Greeks the book of the Revelation. From Chryşostom's works we perceive, that he did not receive the second epistle of St. Peter, nor the second and third of St. John, nor the epistle of St. Jude, nor the Revelation. And there is reason to think, that Theodoret's canon likewise was much the same with Chrysostom's, and that of the churches in Syria. Nevertheless, we have observed in the course of this work, that about the same time the Egyptians, and the Christians in divers other parts of the world, had the same number of canonical books that we have.

i

с

f

h

But to come nearer our own time. Calvin, Grotius, Le Clerc, Philip Limborch, and some other learned moderns, have not admitted the epistle to the Hebrews to have been written by St. Paul: though they were willing to allow it to be the work of an apostolical man, and a valuable part of sacred scripture. But I cannot say, that they were in the right in so doing. For it appears to me to have been a maxim of the ancient Christians, not to receive any doctrinal or perceptive writing, as of authority, unless it were known to be the work of an apostle. Consequently, the epistle to the Hebrews, if written by an apostolical man only, should not be esteemed canonical,

Grotius likewise supposed the second epistle ascribed to Peter, not to have been written by the apostle Simon Peter, but by Simeon, chosen bishop of Jerusalem 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 same learned man supposeth' the second and third epistles, called St. John's, not to have been written by John the apostle, but by another John, an elder or presbyter, who lived about the same time, and after him at Ephesus.

And the epistle called St. Jude's, he thought

See Vol. ii. p. 489, and Vol. iii. p. 53.

b Vol. ii. p. 558.

[ocr errors]

This Vol. p. 11, 12.

The same, p. 608.

Ego, ut Paulum agnoscam auctorem, adduci nequeo. Calvin argum. in ep. ad Hebr.

'Facillima refutatu est postrema hæc opinio, ideo quod Paulina epistolæ inter se sint germanæ, pari charactere ac dicendi modo; hæc vero manifeste ab iis discrepet, selectiores habens voces Græcas, leniusque fluens, non autem fracta brevibus incisis, ac salebrosa... Grot. Proœm. in ep. ad Hebr. 8 Hist. Ec. Ann. 69. p. 455–461.

h Prolegom. in ep. ad Hebr.

i Hisce argumentis utrimque attente expensis, dicendum videtur, Paulum epistolæ hujus scriptorem non videri.... Quis vero illius scriptor sit, incertum est. Alii eam Lucæ, alii Barnabæ, alii Clementi adscribunt.... Interim divinam hujus epistolæ auctoritatem agnoscimus, multisque aliis, quas ab Apostolis esse scriptas constat, ob argumenti quod tractat præstantiam, præferendam judicamus. Limb. ibid. Vid. et Calvin. ubi supra.

m

to have been written by one of that name,

* Jam olim veterum multi credidere, non esse apostoli Petri, argumento tum dictionis ab epistolâ priore multum diversa, quod agnoscunt Eusebius & Hieronymus, tum quod multæ olim ecclesiæ hanc non receperint... Scriptorem autem hujus epistolæ arbitror esse Simeonem sive Simonem, episcopum post Jacobi mortem Hierosolymis, ejusdemque Jacobi, cujus epistolam habemus, successorem & imitatorem.... Unde etiam constat, vixisse hunc post excidium Hierosolymitanum ad Trajani tempora, & tunc pro nomine Christi crucifixum. Annot. in Ep. Petri secund.

Hanc epistolam, & eam quæ sequitur, non esse Johannis Apostoli, veterum multi jam olim crediderunt, a quibus non dissentiunt Eusebius & Hieronymus. Et magna sunt in id argumenta. Nam duos fuisse Johannes Ephesi, apostolum, ac presbyterum ejus discipulum, semper constitit ex sepulcris, alio hujus, alio illius; quæ sepulcra vidit Hieronymus/ Grot. Annot. in ep. Joan. secund.

Quare omnino adducor, ut credam esse hanc epistolam Juda Episcopi Hierosolymitani, qui fuit Adriani temporibus, paulo ante Barchochebam. Id. in Annot. ad ep Judæ.

who was bishop of Jerusalem in the time of the emperor 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 epistle ought not to be placed in the canon of the New Testament.

a

It may not be thought right, if I should here entirely omit Mr. Whiston, whose canon consisted of the Apostolical Constitutions, and divers other books, as sacred, beside those generally received: and the Constitutions, in particular, as the most sacred of all the canonical books of the New Testament.

b

Concerning which I beg leave to observe; First, that the receiving the Constitutions as a sacred 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 blessing to mankind, and scarcely deserving an apology. Secondly, Mr. Whiston's canon is not the canon of the christian churches in former times; as is manifest from the large collections made by us in the preceding volumes, from ecclesiastical writers of every age to the beginning of the twelfth century. 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 study of ecclesiastical antiquity will be always needful, and may be of use to defeat various attempts of ingenuous, 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 errors of very bad consequence. If any books pretend to deliver the doctrine of infallible, and divinely inspired teachers, such as Jesus Christ and his apostles are esteemed by Christians; great care should be taken to be well satisfied, that their accounts are authentic, and that they are the genuine writings of the men whose names they bear. The pretensions of writings, placed in high authority, to which great credit is given, ought to be well attested.

C

Dr. Jortin, speaking of the work called Apostolical Constitutions, says: The authors of them are, it is pretended, the twelve apostles, and St. Paul gathered together, with Clement their amanuensis.

If their authority should appear only ambiguous, it would be our duty to reject them, lest we should adopt as divine doctrines the commandments of men. For since each gospel contains the main parts of Christianity, and might be sufficient to make men wise to salvation; there is less danger in diminishing, than in enlarging the number of canonical books and less • evil would have ensued from the loss of one of the four gospels, than from the addition of a • fifth and spurious one.'

In my opinion, that is a very fine and valuable observation.

d

And I shall transcribe again an observation of Augustine, formerly 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, lest their value should be diminished: and yet they are so many, that their agreement throughout is wonderful.'

a

IV. I have been sometimes apt to think, that the best canon of the New Testament would

The sacred books of the New Testament still extant, both those in the 85th canon, and those written afterwards, are the same which we now receive; together with the <eight books of Apostolical Constitutions, and their epitome, the Doctrine of the apostles; the two epistles of Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and perhaps the second book of apocryphal Esdras, with the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp.' Essay on the Apostolical Constitutions, ch. i. p. 70, 71.

b. If any one has a mind to sort the several books of the • New Testament, he may in the first place set the Apostoli'cal Constitutions with its extract, or Doctrine of the apos⚫tles, as derived from the body, or college of the apostles met < in councils. In the next place he may put the four gospels, • with their appendix, the Acts of the apostles. The Apoca

[ocr errors]

'lypse of 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 epistles of the apostles, Paul, Peter, ' and John. In the fourth rank may stand the epistles of the 'brethren of our Lord, James and Jude. In the fifth and 'last rank may stand the epistles and writings of the compa⚫nions 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 where now extant, I look upon, ' though in different degrees, as the sacred books of the New < Testament.' Ibid. p. 72, 73.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

C Dr. Jortin's Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I. * See Vol. ii. p. 596.

p. 229.

be that which may be collected from Eusebius of Cæsarea, and seems to have been the canon of some in his time.

The canon should consist of two classes. In the first should be those books which he assures us were then universally acknowledged, and had been all along received by all Catholic Christians. 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 class should be placed those books of which Eusebius speaks, as contradicted in his time, though well known: concerning which there were doubts, whether they were written by persons whose names they bear, or whether the writers were apostles of Christ. 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 christian assemblies, for the edification of the people but not to 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 class of sacred books: forasmuch as there appears not any reason from christian antiquity to allow of that character and denomination to any christian writings, beside those above-mentioned.

In this canon the preceding rule is regarded. It is a short canon. And it seems to have been thought of by some about the time of the reformation.

b

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

For it contains not only those books, which were acknowledged by all in the time of Eusebius, and from the beginning, and seven others, 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 inconsistent with the facts, or principles delivered in the universally acknowledged books. 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 considered as we proceed.

And

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 sacred 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 history in the several volumes of this work; and that there is no reason to receive, as a part of sacred scripture, the epistle of Barnabas, the epistle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Recognitions, the Clementine Homilies, the Doctrine of the Apostles, the Apostolical 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 sacred scripture, or a part of the rule of faith, by Christians in former times has been shewn: nor can they therefore be reasonably received by us as such.

[ocr errors]

с

The only writing of all these, that seems to make a fair claim to be a part of sacred scripture, is the epistle of St. Barnabas, if genuine, as I have supposed it to be. Nevertheless, I think, it ought not to be received as sacred scripture, or admitted into the canon for these

reasons.

a Vol. ii. p. 358 -371.

We learn from Paul Sarpi's History 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 Hebrews, the epistle of James, the second of Peter, the 'second and third of John, the epistle of Jude, and the Revelation. And there were some bishops in that council, 'who

'would have had the books of the New Testament 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 favour this proposal. See
his French translation of the History of the Council of Trent.
Liv. 2. ch. 43. tom. I. p. 235. and ch. 47. p. 240. and note i.
• See Ch. i. Vol. i. p. 283-285.

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

a

b

Clement of Alexandria has quoted this epistle several times, but not as decisive, and by way of full proof, as we showed: nor is it so quoted by Origen; nor is the epistle of Barnabas in any of Origen's catalogues of the books of scripture, which we still find in his works, or are taken notice of by Eusebius. By that ecclesiastical historian, in one place it is reckoned among spurious 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 a Controverted book, that is, not received by all.

g

h

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 of Athanasius, in the catalogue of Cyril of Jerusalem, of the council of Laodicea, of 1 Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, and " Jerom, " Rufinus, the council of Carthage, and Augustine. Nor has it been reckoned a part of canonical scripture, by later writers. 2. Barnabas was not an apostle.

P

k

m

[ocr errors]

For he was not one of the twelve apostles of Christ: nor was he chosen 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 Ghost," ch. vi. 5. " full of faith and power," ch. v. 8. “full of the Holy Ghost," ch. vii. 55. And all the seven were "full of the Holy Ghost, and wisdom, ch. vi. 3.

f

That Barnabas was not an apostle, I think, may be concluded from Gal. ii. 9, where Paul says: "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 see ch. xv. 15. 1 Cor. xv. 10. Eph. iv. 7. compared with ver. 11.

And in the

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." preceding part of the context, particularly, in ver. 7, 8, he twice says me, where he would have said 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 together, 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 persons 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 discoursing, Paul spake. So at Paphos, in the island of Cyprus, Acts xiii. 6-12. And at Antioch in Pisidia, ch. xiii. 15, 16. See also ch. xiv. 12.

And that Paul was the principal person appears from that early account, after they had been in Cyprus, ch. xiii. 13. "Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga, in Pamphylia."

However, there are some texts, which must be considered by us, as seeming to afford objections.

Acts xiv. 4. "But the multitude of the city was divided. Part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles:" that is, Paul and Barnabas, who were then at Iconium. And afterwards at Lystra, ver. 14. "Which when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard,"...Here Barnabas is styled an apostle, as well as Paul.

[blocks in formation]
« ForrigeFortsett »