ページの画像
PDF
ePub

and then proves that they are fo, because they are fo. And yet no better answer can be given to one, who claims infpiration for an Apocryphal book, by those who allow no other arguments but the testimony of the Spirit. Upon this principle, therefore, men are at their liberty to bring in all the rhapsodies of the antient hereticks, if they please, and there is no oppofing them. They pretend the teftimony of the Spirit for their book, and we can do no more for ours. How uncertain this leaves the Canon, every one muft fee: befides, to use the words of the ingenious writer just mentioned, If a person fay, he is affured of the infpiration of the Scriptures now received, by the infpiration of the fame Spirit who indited them, it is natural to enquire, what evidence he has, that this infpiration he pretends to is real, and not imaginary? that it is from the Spirit of God, and not from a Spirit of delufion? His only anfwer, I fuppofe, must be this: That he is fatisfied in the fame way the facred penmen were at first, as to their infpiration. And let this be admitted, and a wide gap is opened to enthusiasm, and there is ng remedy'.

3. I argue against this, as the only right method of proving the Canon of Scripture from matter of fact, or by appeal to the confciences of all men. According to this hypothefis, all men, who believe the Scripture to be the Word of God, must have the teftimony of the Spirit. Now I ask, whether it be not notorious in fact, that multitudes firmly believe the truth of the Revelation, who are neither confcious of any inspiration, nor even defired it, nor even so much as heard of the neceffity of it? Did the Spirit ever tell them, or do they so much as pretend it told them, they should receive one book, and reject another? For my part (faid Mr. Baxter 2) I confess, I could never boaft of any fuch teftimony or light of the Spirit, nor reafon neither, which, without human teftimony, would have made me believe, that the Book of Canticles is Canonical, and written by Solomon, and the Book of Wisdom Apocryphal, and written by Philo, &c. Nor could I have known all, or any historical books, fuch as Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, ChroniPref. to Part 2. of Saint's Reft, §. 6. cles,

Lcc. fup. cit.

cles, Ezra, Nehemiah, &c. to be written by divine infpiration, but by tradition, &c. He fpeaks, without doubt, the common fentiments of moft Chriftians; and if the matter of fact be thus, there can be no poffible method of anfwering the argument, but by saying, the greatest part of them who profess to believe, do not believe the Scriptures, and that the unregenerate cannot believe them to be the Word of God; which though fome, through a too great fondness for their opinion, have ventured to affert, is fo very rude and groundless a charge, that it deferves no anfwer. I conclude this head with the words of a late writer above-cited"; I cannot fee, how any immediate revelation of the Spirit fhould be necessary to a rational conviction in this cafe; or how we can fuppofe the Divine Spirit fhould whisper it in the ear of every man, that is fatisfied upon this head, that this Book we call the Bible, is of divine infpiration. Thus I have endeavoured to make way for, and indeed I hope in a great measure established, my first Propofition, That tradition, or the teftimony of the antients, is the principal method of determining the Canon; a more direct proof of which fhall be the work of the following chapter.

CHAP. VII.

That the beft Method, by which the Canonical Authority of any Book or Books can be established, is by the Teftimonies of those, who lived nearest to the Times in which they were written.

HAVING in the preceding chapter largely fhewn, that

neither, 1. The authority of the Church; nor, 2. The innate evidences of the Scripture, with the teftimony of the Spirit, are the means by which we can establish the Canon of Scripture, I come now to fhew,'

III. That the principal means, whereby we can know whether any books be Canonical, is by tradition, or the well-approved

Dr. Calamy, at the place above-cited.
E 3

teftimonies

teftimonies of thofe, who lived in or near the time of their being first written.

The question concerning the Canon of the New Teftament, is plainly a queftion concerning certain matters of fact, that were about 1700 years ago, viz. Whether fuch and fuch books were written by the perfons under whofe names they go. Whether they were inspired, or no, is not the business here to enquire; but, Whether fuch perfons wrote fuch and fuch books. If then the queftion be about a plain fact, it is evident, the way to decide it must be by the teftimony of fome, who either themselves knew the certain truth of the fact, or elfe received it from others who did fo. Thus, and thus only, we know, there was fuch a perfon as Julius Cæfar, who did such and fuch things; thus we know that Ovid, Virgil, or Livy, wrote the books under their names, &c. and thus we know, the Difciples of Jefus Chrift wrote the books which go under their names. And fince (as has been above proved, Prop. II. Coroll. 2.) the witnesses to be produced, viz. the first Chrif tians, are good and capable witneffes, or judges, of the fact; it is evident, the principal method of knowing which is a truly Canonical book, is to search into the most antient and authentic records of the Chriftian Church, which was the thing to be proved. This was the method the first Christians constantly made use of, to prove against the hereticks the truth of the facred books, viz. by appealing to that certain and undoubted tradition, which affured them they were the writings of the perfons whofe names they bear. Irenæus, Tertullian *, Eufebius', Cyril", Auftin", and others, have frequently made ufe of this argument to very good purpose. But there is no need of producing authorities; the matter is clear. A fact must be proved by the teftimony either of those who knew it, or of those who received it by good and credible tradition from them. I would have the contrary minded (as a noted Writer well argues), tell me "How they know, without human testi

i Adv. Hæref. 1. 3. c. 1, 2. * Adv. Marcion. 1. 4. c. 5. Vid. Pamel. ad loc.

Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 3. et 25.

m Catech. IV. §. 33. et §. 36. n Contr. Fauft. Manich. 1, 11. c. 2. et l. 22. c. 79. et l. 33. c. 6. • Pref. to Saint's Reft, Part 2. §.6. "mony

[ocr errors]

are

man

ແ mony or tradition, that these are the fame books, which the "Prophets and Apoftles wrote ? and wholly the fame? that "they are not depraved, and wilfully corrupted? that thefe all? How know you that one of the books of Efther "is Canonical, and the other Apocryphal? Where is the that ever knew the Canon from the Apocrypha, before "it was told him ?" &c. I might argue yet farther, and afk, How, but by tradition, do most men believe the Scriptures to be truly tranflated out of their originals? For, not understanding them themselves, they are liable to be imposed upon, and neceffitated to credit the fidelity of thofe, who do underftand them. If they do not believe the teftimony and faithfulness of the translators, it is impoffible any internal evidence fhould convince them of the truth of the books tranflated. But to omit this, it is indeed very obfervable, that the same writers, who at some times have wrote warmly for the teftimony of the Spirit, have at other times, forgetting this, given up the whole of the controverfy, by allowing all to the Church and tradition. Nothing less than this is certainly implied in that conceffion of Dr. Whitaker", That the Church has power, or it belongs to its office, to judge or determine, what are true, genuine, and Canonical books; and what are false, spurious, and Apocryphal. And I cannot but obferve, that Calvin himself, though in the paffages above-cited, he says, Men cannot by any arguments be brought to believe the Scriptures; yet, in the next chapter, does himself make use of many arguments taken from teftimony and tradition for this purpose; such as, The providence of God in preferving them under the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Septuagint tranflation, &c. for the Old Teftament: the wonderful fuccefs of Christianity against all oppofition, the mighty prevalence of its doctrines, the death of martyrs, &c. all which are founded only upon hiftory and tradition. Others who, unwilling to difpute the fufficiency of the argument from internal evidences, have attempted a fort of medium, or compounding the matter, by a ftrange fort of mixture

P Controverf. de Scriptur. I. Quæft. III. c. 2. juxt. fin.

Inftit. Chrift. Relig. I. 1. c. 8. §. 10.

of both. Thus Dr. Cofin', allowing the force of internal teftimonies to prove the Scriptures, fays, that "notwithstand"ing this, for the particular' number of fuch books, whether "they, be more or less, we have no better nor other external "teftimony, or rule herein to guide us, than the constant "voice of the Catholic Church, as it hath been delivered to

us upon record from one generation to another." To me (though I freely own, and thank God, I am able to see an excellency in the Scriptures far beyond all other books, and truft to feel more of the efficacy daily upon my own heart, by the Spirit of God) nothing feems more unreasonable than this fort of compofition. It is in other words no more than this: The internal evidences of the Scriptures convince us in general they are divine, but not in particular; they convince us all the books are, but not fuch and fuch particular ones; which, I think, is a direct contradiction. Placæus is fomewhat more confiftent with himself; though, I believe, his compounding notion will hardly be approved ; viz. "That "the truly Canonical books have more or fewer, greater or "fmaller, characters and evidences of their divinity, as they " are more or less neceffary to the Church; and on the con"trary, Apocryphal books, as they are more or lefs unfit for "the Canon, have more or fewer, greater or less evidences "of human compofure: fo that (says he) there may be some "Canonical books, fuch, for inftance, as the Book of Efther, "which we shall hardly be able to prove Canonical; and "fome Apocryphal pieces, fuch as the Prayer of Manaffes', " which we shall hardly be able to prove Apocryphal, by any "other arguments, than fuch as are drawn from the language "in which they are written, and the conftant teftimony of "the antient Church." The plain meaning of which is, That fome books prove themfelves to be of divine original, others do not; the Spirit dictated fome books, which evidence they are his, others which do not. Every one can fee, how contrary this is to the Reformers' doctrine; and I am unwilling to

r Scholaft. Hift. of the Canon, §. 8.

s Differt. de Canon. §. 24. inter

Theff. Salmur.

It is extant among the Apocrypha of the Old Teftament. make

« 前へ次へ »