Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

To which I answer, first, Both being now together, and meeting with the like treatment, might be called apostles, though only one of them was, properly, so. Secondly, it is not unlikely, that Barnabas and Paul are here styled by St. Luke apostles, in regard to what had been done at Antioch, as related by him, ch. xii. 1-4. when by an express order from heaven, they were sent forth from the church at Antioch, upon a special commission, in which they were still employed. That designation, however solemn, did not make either of them apostles of Christ in the highest sense. It was not the apostolical, which is a general commission. But it was a particular commission, as appears from that whole history, and from what is said at the conclusion of the journey, which they had taken, Acts xiv. 26." And thence they sailed 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 apostles 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 are the messengers of the churches," literally, apostles of the churches," and the glory of Christ." If those brethren, which had been appointed by the churches to go to Jerusalem, with the contributions, which had been made for the relief of the poor saints in Judea, might be called apostles; there can be no doubt, but Paul and Barnabas might be called apostles in regard to the work, to which they had been solemnly appointed by the church at Antioch.

a

Again 1 Cor. ix. 5, 6. "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, 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 supposed to be an apostle. I answer, that though Barnabas was not an apostle properly, or equally with himself, yet Paul, out of an affectionate respect to his friend, companion, and fellow-labourer, might be disposed to mention him, upon this occasion, in the manner he has done. This is said, supposing all before-mentioned to have been apostles of Christ, in the highest sense. But, secondly, it is not certain that all, beforeinentioned, were strictly apostles. It seems to me more likely, that by the brethren of the Lord some are intended, who were not apostles. If so, Paul might reasonably, and without offence, gratify his friendly disposition: and insert here the name of Barnabas, who had shared with him many fatigues and difficulties in the service of the gospel, though he was not an apostle. I do not therefore discern any good reason from the New Testament, why Barnabas should be reckoned an apostle; but quite otherwise.

The sense of the primitive Christians is agreeable hereto. Few or none of them have thought Barnabas an apostle.

Clement of Alexandria has quoted Barnabas' five or six times. Twice he calls him apostle. In another place he calls him the apostolic Barnabas, who was one of the seventy, and fellowlabourer of Paul. These are the highest characters, which he intended to give to Barnabas, and what he means, when he calls him apostle, as is fully shown in the place just referred to.

с

d

By Tertullian, as cited by us formerly, Barnabas is plainly reckoned no more than ‘a companion of apostles.

[ocr errors]

Eusebius, in a chapter concerning those who were disciples of Christ, says: The names of our Saviour's apostles are well known from the gospels: but there is no where extant a catalogue of the seventy disciples. However, it is said, that Barnabas was one of them, who is expressly mentioned in the Acts, and in Paul's epistle to the Galatians.' That learned writer therefore did not know that Barnabas was an apostle. In another place of the same work, his Ecclesiastical History, he quotes a passage from the seventh book of Clement's Institutions, or Hypotoposes, where Barnabas is styled one of the seventy. In his Commentary upon Isaiah & Eusebius computes fourteen apostles, meaning the twelve, and Paul added to them, and equal to them, and James, the Lord's brother, bishop of Jerusalem, whom Eusebius did not think to be one of the twelve. Nor does he here say, that he was equal to them, or Paul.

[blocks in formation]

h

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

a

However, from all these places we can be fully assured, that our learned ecclesiastical historian did not so much as suspect Barnabas to have been an apostle, in the highest sense of the word. Jerom, in the article of Barnabas, in his book of Ecclesiastical Writers, says, he was ' ordained with Paul an apostle of the Gentiles.' But authors, who write in haste, as Jerom often did, do not always express themselves exactly and properly. Jerom did not think, that Barnabas was equally an apostle with Paul. This may be concluded from what there follows: He wrote an epistle for the edification of the church, which is read among the apocryphal scriptures.' If Barnabas had been an apostle, strictly speaking, Jerom would not have said, he wrote an epistle for the edification of the church:' which any man might do. Nor would his epistle have been reckoned apocryphal, as Jerom here, and elsewhere calls it. When Jerom says, that Barnabas was ordained with Paul an apostle of the Gentiles;' it is likely, he refers to the history in Acts xiii. 1—4. of which I have already said all that is needful.

6

с

Theodoret, as formerly quoted, says: The all-wise Deity committed the culture of a • barren world to a few men, and those fishermen, and publicans, and one tent-maker;' and to the like purpose often: which shows, that he did not reckon Barnabas an apostle in the fullest meaning of the word. If he had, he must have added, and one Levite.' The same observation may be applied to Chrysostom, who in his many passages showing the wonderful progress of the gospel, often mentions the apostles Peter, a fisherman, and Paul a tent-maker, but never Barnabas a Levite.

d

If then Barnabas was not an apostle, an epistle written by him cannot be received as canonical, or a part of the rule of faith: forasmuch as no men, beside apostles, have the privilege of writing epistles, or other works, preceptive, and doctrinal, that shall be received by the churches, in that quality. This has been said several times in the course of this work. And I still think it right.

e

Mark and Luke, apostolical men, may write histories of our Lord's and his apostles' preaching, and doctrine, and miracles, which shall be received as sacred, and of authority. But no epistles, or other writings, delivering doctrines and precepts, (except only in the way of historical narration) can be of authority, but those written by apostles.

g

Says Jerom of St. John: He was at once apostle, evangelist, and prophet: apostle, in that ⚫he wrote letters to the churches as a master: evangelist, as he wrote a book of the gospel, which no other of the twelve apostles did, except Matthew: prophet, as he saw the Revelation ⚫ in the island Patmos, where he was banished by Domitian.'

Frederic Spanheim, in his Dissertation concerning the twelve apostles, readily acknowledgeth this to be one prerogative of apostles. That "they may write epistles, which shall be received as ⚫ canonical, and be of universal and perpetual authority in the church.'

3. Barnabas does not take upon himself the character of an apostle or a man of authority. Near the beginning of the epistle he says: I therefore, not as a teacher, but as one of you, • shall lay before you a few things, that you may be joyful.' And somewhat lower: Again, ⋆ I entreat you, as one of you.'

He writes as a man who had the gifts of the spirit, but not that full measure, which was a prerogative of apostles. He who put the engrafted gift of his doctrine in us, knows, that no man has received [or learned] from me a truer word. But I know, that you are worthy.' I shall add a few more very modest expressions, not suitable to an apostle.

[ocr errors]

Thus as much as in me lies, I have written to you with great plainness. And I hope, that according to my ability, I have omitted nothing conducive to your salvation in the present circumstance.'

In the last chapter: I beseech you: I ask it as a favour of you, whilst you are in this

See Vol. ii. P. 563.

This Vol. p. 13-15.

b Ibid.

d Vol. ii. p. 613, 614. e See apostles in the alphabetical Table of principal matters. f See Vol. i. p. 407. Vol. ii, p. 554. Decimus nobis character apostolicæ repons est potestas scribendi ad ecclesias plures, vel ad omnes, τοις καθόλ8 πισοις, hujusmodi epistolas, quæ in canonem referri mererentur, id est, quæ forent canonica, universalis et perpetuæ in Ecclesià auctoritatis. Diss. prima de Apostol. Duod num, xi. Opp. T. ii. p. 310.

* Ego autem non tamquam doctor, sed unus ex vobis, de

monstrabo pauca, per quæ in plurimis lætiores sitis. Barn. ep. cap. i.

* Adhuc & hoc rogo vos, tamquam unus ex vobis. Ib. cap. 4.

* Οιδεν ὁ την εμφυτον δωρεαν της διδαχής αυτο θεμενο εν ήμιν, ότι εδεις γνησιώτερον εμαθεν απ' εμε λόγον. Αλλα οίδα, ότι άξιοι εσε ύμεις. Cap. 9.

* Εφ' όσον ην εν δυνατῳ και απλοτητι, δηλώσαι ὑμιν ελπίζει με ή ψυχη τη επιθυμία με μη παραλελοιπέναι με τι των ανή κινίων ὑμῖν εἰς σωτηρίαν, ενεςώτων. Cap. 17.

Η Ερώτω ύμας, χαριν αιτεμενος. κ. λ. Cap. 21.

beautiful vessel of the body, be wanting in none of these things.' And still nearer the conclusion. Wherefore I have endeavoured to write to you, according to my ability, that you ⚫ might rejoice.*

Upon the whole, this epistle well answers the character given of Barnabas in the Acts, particularly, ch. xi. 24. "He was full of the Holy Ghost." The writer of this epistle had the gift of the spirit, though not that measure, which was peculiar to apostles. "He was full of faith." The writer of this epistle had an earnest zeal for the truth and simplicity of the gospel. He was also a good man." In this epistle we observe the mildness and gentleness, by which Barnabas seems to have been distinguished: but we do not discern here the dignity and authority of an apostle.

Consequently, this epistle may afford edification, and may be read with that view. But it ought not to be esteemed by us, as it was not by the ancients, a part of the rule of faith.

THE

CHA P. III.

Of the Method in which the Canon of the New Testament has been formed.

HE canon of the New Testament is a collection of books, written by several persons, in several places, and at different times. It is, therefore reasonable to think, that it was formed gradually. At the rise of the Christian religion there were no written systems or records of it. It was first taught and confirmed by Christ himself in his most glorious ministry; and was still farther confirmed by his willing death, and his resurrection from the dead, and ascension to heaven: afterwards it was taught by word of mouth, and propagated by the preaching of his apostles and their companions. Nor was it fit, that any books should be written about it, till there were converts to receive and keep them, and deliver them to others.

If St. Paul's two epistles to the Thessalonians were the first written books of the New Testament, and not written till the year 51, or 52, about twenty years after our Saviour's ascension, they would be for a while the only sacred books of the new dispensation.

As the Christians at Thessalonica had received the doctrine taught by Paul, "not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God," 1 Thess. ii. 13, they would receive his epistles, as the written word of God. And himself taught them so to do, requiring, that they should be solemnly "read unto all the holy brethren," 1 Thess. v. 27. He gives a like direction, but more extensive, at the end of his epistle to the Colossians, iv. 16, requiring them, after they had read it "amongst themselves, to cause it to be read also in the church of the Laodiceans: and that they likewise read the epistle, that would come to them from Laodicea.'

All the apostle Paul's epistles, whether to churches or particular persons, would be received with the like respect by those to whom they were sent, even as the written word of God, or sacred scriptures: and in like manner the writings of all the apostles and evangelists.

They who received them would, as there were opportunities, convey them to others. They who received them, were fully assured of their genuineness by those who delivered them. And before the end of the first century, yea not very long after the middle of it, it is likely, there were collections made of the four gospels, and most of the other books of the New Testament, which were in the hands of a good number of churches and persons.

From the quotations of Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and other writers of the second century, of Origen in the third, and Eusebius in the fourth century, it appears, that the greatest part of the books, which are now received by us, and are called canonical, were universally acknowledged in their times, and had been so acknowledged by the elders and churches of former times. And the rest now received by us, though they were then doubted of, or controverted by some, were well known, and approved by many. And Athanasius, who lived not long after Eusebius (having flourished from the year 326, and afterwards) received all the same

* Διο μαλλον εσπέδασα γράψαι, αφ' ων ηδυνήθην, εις το ευφραναι υμας. Ibid.

b See Eusebius, Vol. iv. p. 217, 218.

Which has also been the prevailing senti

books, which are now received by us, and no other.

ment ever since.

This canon was not determined by the authority of councils: but the books, of which it consists, were known to be the genuine writings of the apostles and evangelists, in the same way and manner that we know the works of Cæsar, Cicero, Virgil, Horace, Tacitus, to be theirs. And the canon has been formed upon the ground of an unanimous, or generally concurring testimony and tradition.

In the course of this long work we have had frequent occasion to observe, that the canon of the New Testament had not been settled by any authority universally acknowledged, particularly not in the time of Eusebius, nor of Augustine, nor of Cosmas, nor of Cassiodorius: but that nevertheless there was a general agreement among Christians upon this head.

That the number of books to be received as sacred and canonical had not been determined by the authority of any council, or councils, universally acknowledged, is apparent from the different judgments among Christians, in several parts of the world, concerning divers books, particularly, the epistle to the Hebrews, and the Revelation: which were received by some, rejected, or doubted of by others: not now to mention any of the catholic epistles. There was no catalogue of the books of scripture in any canon of the council of Nice. Augustine giving directions to inquisitive persons, how they might determine what books are canonical, and what not, refers not to the decisions of any councils. Cassiodorius, in the sixth century, has three catalogues, one called Jerom's, another Augustine's, another that of the ancient version: but he refers not to the decree of any council, as decisive. And it seems to me that in all times, Christian people and churches have had a liberty to judge for themselves according to evidence. And the evidence of the genuineness of most of the books of the New Testament has been so clear and manifest, that they have been universally received.

f

The genuineness of these books, as before said, is known in the same way with others, by testimony or tradition. The first testimony is that of those who were cotemporary with the writers of them: which testimony has been handed down to others.

6

n

That in this way the primitive Christians formed their judgment concerning the books proposed to be received as sacred scriptures, appears from their remaining works. Says Clement of Alexandria: This we have not in the four gospels, which have been delivered to us, but in 'that according to the Egyptians.' Tertullian may be seen largely to this purpose, Vol. I. p. 419-421. I pass on to Origen, who says: As I have learned by tradition concerning the four gospels, which alone are received without dispute by the whole church of God under 'heaven.' So Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, often observes, what books of the New Testament had been quoted by the ancients, and what not. And having rehearsed a catalogue of books universally received, and of others controverted, he says: It was needful to put ⚫ down these also; distinguishing the scriptures, which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true, genuine, and universally acknowledged, from those which are controverted, and yet appear 'to have been known to many: that by this means we may know them from such as have been 'published by heretics, under the names of apostles. Which books none of the ecclesiastical writers in the succession from the times of the apostles have vouchsafed to mention in their writings.' I may not transcribe, but only refer to Athanasius in his Festal Epistle, to Cyril of Jerusalem," Rufinus, and " Augustine.

[ocr errors]

However, beside observing the testimony of writers in former times, they criticised the books which were proposed to them: examining their style and contents, and comparing them with those books, which had been already received as genuine upon the ground of an unanimous testimony, and undoubted tradition. Says honest Serapion, bishop of Antioch, in an epistle to some, who had too much respect for a writing, entitled the Gospel of Peter: We, brethren, receive Peter, and the other apostles, as Christ; but as skilful men, we reject those writings, • which are falsely ascribed to them: well knowing, that we have received no such.' And he adds, that upon perusing that work, he had found the main part of it agreeable to the right doctrine of our Saviour: but there were some other things of a different kind. And Eusebius

[blocks in formation]

a

adds in the place transcribed above: The style also of these books is entirely different from that of the apostles. Moreover the sentiments and doctrine of these writings differ from the true orthodox Christianity. All which things plainly show, that they are the forgeries of 'heretics.'

It has been sometimes said, that the council of Laodicea first settled the canon of the New Testament. But it may be justly said to have been settled before. At least there had been long before a general agreement among Christians, what books were canonical, and what not: what were the genuine writings of apostles and evangelists, and what not. From the decree of the council itself it appears, that there were writings already known by the title of canonical. That council does nothing in their last canon, but declare, That' private psalms ought not to be 'read in the church, nor any books not canonical, but only the canonical books of the Old and • New Testament.' After which follows a catalogue or enumeration of such books. The same may be said of the third council of Carthage, whose forty-seventh canon is to this purpose: • Moreover it is ordained, that nothing beside the canonical scriptures be read in the church, ⚫ under the name of divine scriptures.'

[ocr errors]

I shall now transcribe below a long and fine passage of Mr. Le Clerc, wherein he says: 'We' ' no where read of a council of the apostles, or of any assembly of the governors of christian • churches, convened, to determine by their authority, that such a number of gospels, neither ⚫ more nor fewer, should be received. Nor was there any need of it, since it is well known to all from the concurring testimony of cotemporaries, that these four gospels are the genuine • writings of those whose names they bear: and since it is also manifest, that there is in them nothing unworthy of those to whom they are ascribed, nor any thing at all contrary to the revelation of the Old Testament, nor to right reason. There was no need of a synod of grammarians, to declare magisterially what are the works of Cicero, or Virgil...In like manner the authority of the gospels has been established by general and perpetual consent, without any • decree of the governors of the church. We may say the same of the apostolical epistles, which ' owe all their authority, not to the decisions of any ecclesiastical assembly, but to the concurring testimony of all Christians, and the things themselves, which are contained in them.'

[ocr errors]

с

Mr. James Basnage has several chapters, showing how the canon of the New Testament was formed, without the authoritative decisions of councils. I likewise refer to Mr. Jones upon this subject. I must also remind my readers of Augustine's excellent observations, in his arguments with the Manichees, concerning the genuineness and integrity of the books of the New Testament. I shall transcribe from him here a few lines only, which are very much to the present purpose. We know the writings of the apostles, says he, as we know the works of Plato, Aristotle Cicero, Varro, and others; and as we know the writings of divers ecclesiastical authors: foras• much as they have the testimony of cotemporaries, and of those who have lived in succeeding 'ages.'

Upon the whole, the writings of the apostles and evangelists are received, as the works of other eminent men of antiquity are, upon the ground of general consent and testimony. Nor does the canon of the scriptures of the New Testament owe its establishment to the decisions of councils: but it is the judgment of christian people in general and so far as we are able to perceive, after a long and careful examination, it is a right and reasonable judgment. And it may induce us to believe, that if men were encouraged to think freely, in other matters also,

a Vol. ii. p. 370. c Ib. p. 574.

b Ib. p. 414.

d Nusquam quidem legimus, collegium Apostolicum, aut cœtum ullum Rectorum Ecclesiarum Christianarum coactum esse, qui pro auctoritate definierint hunc numerum Evangeliorum esse admittendum, non majorem, nec minorem. Sed nec opus fuit, cum omnibus constaret, ex testimonio et consensu æqualium, quatuor hæc evangelia eorum vere fuisse, quorum nomina præferunt; cumque nihil in iis legatur quod scriptoribus dignum non sit, vel revelationi Veteris Testamenti, rectæve rationi, vel minimum adversetur; aut quod inferius, ævum, recentiorumque manus ullo modo resipiat. Non opus fuit synodo Grammaticorum, qui, pro imperio, pronuntiarent ea scripta, verbi caussâ Ciceronis et Virgilii, quæ eorum esse non dubitamus, re verâ tantorum ingeniorum fetus fuisse, et

posteritati eâ in re consulerent. Omnium consensus, non quæsitus, non rogatus, sed sponte significatus, prout occasio tulit, resque ipsæ omnibus, qui postea vixere, dubitationem omnem anteverterunt... Sic et evangeliorum auctoritas merito constituta est, et invaluit, perpetuo consensu, sine ullo Rectorum ecclesiæ decreto.

Idem dixerimus de epistolis apostolicis, quæ nullius ecclesiastici conventûs judicio, sed constanti omnium Christianorum testimonio, rebusque ipsis, quas complectuntur, auctoritatem omnem suam debent. Cleric. H. E. ann. 100 num. iii. iv. Vid. et aun. 29. num. xcii.

Hist. de l'Eglise. 1. 8. ch. v. vi. vii.

f New and full Method, Part I. ch. v. vi. vii.
See Vol. ii. p. 225–227.

h Ib. p. 226.

« ForrigeFortsett »