ページの画像
PDF
ePub

the Gospel which we now call St. Luke's, formerly went under the name of St. Paul, as we are exprefsly affured by the former of those antient writers, infomuch that it was a prevailing opinion among the primitive Chriftians, that when St. Paul in his Epiftles expreffes himself thus, According to my Gospel, which he several times doth ", he meant the Gospel of St. Luke. So Eufebius, Jerome, and others.

If it be enquired, whence this variety of denominations proceeded, I affign the following reafons; viz.

1. The uncertainty persons were under as to the author of the book. This feems to have been the case in respect of the various titles of Luke and Mark's Gospels.

2. The various denominations of the heretics, who made use of the fame book, occafioned its having a different title. For inftance, hence it came to pass that the Hebrew Gospel was fometimes called the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and sometimes the Gofpel of the Ebionites: And,

3. Because it was not customary for the authors of thofe times to affix titles to their works; and fo their works being difperfed into different countries, fome made use of one denomination, which they thought most suitable to the design of the book, others of another. Thus, for instance, the book which was by fome called the Preaching, i. e. Sermons, of Peter, was by others called the Doctrine of Peter.

OBSER V. II.

Several of the Books of the Catalogue were compiled out of those Books which are now received into the Canon of the New Tef

tament.

IT appeared to the heretics of those times a very probable, as indeed in the event it proved a very fuccessful, method,

Tertull. loc. jam cit.

d Rom. ii. 16. xvi. 25. See alfo Gal. i. 8. 2 Theff. ii. 14.

· Φασὶ δὲ ὡς ἄρα τὸ καθ ̓ αὐτὸν (Lucam) vaysixís «μmpoveúsiv ò Παύλος εἴωθεν, ἱπηνίκα ὡς περὶ ἰδίου τινὸς εὐαγγελία γράφων ἔλεγε, Κατὰ

τὸ εὐα[γέλιόν μου. Hift. Eccl. 1. 3.

C. 4.

Quidam fufpicantur quotiefcunque in epiftolis fuis Paulus dicit, juxta evangelium meum, de Luca fignificare volumine. Catal. Script. Ecclef. in Luc..

to

to propagate their favourite notions under the name of fome Apoftle; this, they faw, would procure them much greater regard and esteem, and this gave birth to most of these Apocryphal composures. But though fome of them boldly ventured to prefix the Apostles' names to that which was entirely their own compofure, others more artfully mixed their own and fome Apofile's writings together, retaining only fo much of his writing, as would enable them with the greater confidence to impose their spurious piece upon the world, as really his. Thus did the Nazarenes, Marcion, Hefychius, Lucianus, and others.

OBSER V. III.

No Chriftian Writer hath appealed to, or made use of any of the Books of the preceding Catalogue (i. e. of the loft Apocryphal Books of the New Teftament) as of any Authority.

ALTHOUGH the proof of this Propofition be the main business of the fubfequent Part of this volume, yet I thought it neceffary to premise fome general account of this matter here, because the main of the controversy about the Canon of the New Teftament does certainly depend upon this question, viz. What those books are, which the primitive writers of Christianity appealed to, as facred, in their writings, or after what manner they appealed to them? Mr. Dodwell, Mr. Toland, and others, who have attempted to make the Canon of Scripture precarious and uncertain, principally infift upon this, That the present books of the Canon and others are indifferently and promiscuously cited and appealed to in the most ancient records of the Chriftian Religion. And inasmuch as feveral learned men have too unguardedly dropt expreffions of the like nature, I thought it not improper to give the reader here the following general account of the manner, in which thefe books are cited. I affert then,

1. That, for the most part, the Apocryphal books abovementioned are exprefsly, and in so many words, rejected by those who have mentioned them, as the forgeries of heretics, and fo as

Spurious

Spurious and Apocryphal. This I affert (upon the closest and most impartial enquiry into all the places of their writings, where any of them are named) to be true as to almost every individual book.

2. When any book is cited, or feems to be appealed to by any Christian writer, which is not exprefsly and in fo many words rejected by him, there are other fufficient arguments to prove that he did not efteem it to be Canonical. Thus, for inftance, though Origen in one or two places takes a paffage out of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, yet in another place he rejects it under the name of the Gofpel of the Twelve Apoftles, as a book of the hereticks, and declares, the Church received only four Gofpels.

3. Sometimes the Fathers made ufe of the Apocryphal books to fhew their learning, or that the hereticks might not charge them with partiality and ignorance, as being acquainted only with their own books. Remarkable to this purpose are those words of Origen", the Church receives only four Gospels, the hereticks have many; fuch as that of the Egyptians, Thomas, &c. Thefe we read, that we may not be efteemed igno rant, and by reason of those who imagine they know fomething extraordinary, if they know the things contained in these books. To the fame purpose fays Ambrofe1; having mentioned feveral of the Apocryphal books, he adds, we read thefe, that they may not be read (by others); we read them, that we may not feem ignorant; we read them, not that we may receive them, but reject them, and may know what those things are of which they (hereticks) make fuch boafting.

4. Sometimes perhaps these books may be cited by the Fathers, because the perfons against whom they were writing did receive them, being willing to dispute with them upon principles out of their own books; though I believe there are no instances of this within my time.

* See below in this Part, Chap. 28.

h Legimus, ne quid ignorare videremur, propter eos qui fe putant aliquid fcire, fi ifta cognoverint. Homil. in Luc. i. 1.

[merged small][ocr errors]

Legimus, ne legantur; legimus, ne ignoremus; legimus non ut teneamus, fed ut repudiemus, & ut fciamus qualia fint in quibus magnifici ifti cor exultant fuum. Comment. in Luc. i. 1.

5. It

5. It may perhaps be true, that one or two writers have cited a few paffages out of these books, because the fact they cited was not to be found in any other. St. John tells us, chap. xxi. 25. that our Lord did many other things, befides thofe which he had recorded; the which, fays he, if they should be written every one, I fuppofe the world itself could not contain the books which should be written. Some accounts of these actions and difcourfes of Chrift were unquestionably preserved, and handed down to the second century, or farther, by tradition, which though inferted afterwards into the books of the hereticks, may be easily supposed to have been cited by some later writers, though at the fame time they efteemed the books which contained them uninfpired, and not of the Canon. This was the cafe as to Jerome's citing the Hebrew Gospel, which he certainly looked upon as fpurious and Apocryphal, as I fhall hereafter prove.

CHAP. II.

A general Proof that no Book, once Canonical, is loft, from the ordinary Conduct of Providence, the Zeal of the Chriftians, and the early Difperfion of the Sacred Books into most remote Countries. A confiderable Objection anfwered.

OBSER V. IV.

No Book, which was once made or esteemed to be Part of the Canon, is loft.

EFORE I enter upon the particular examination of the abovementioned Apocryphal books now loft, it may be necessary to premise some general proof of this matter.

Every one who is acquainted with the writings of our first Reformers, muft often have obferved, that it was a question very warmly difputed between them and the advocates of the Roman Church, whether any inspired book, once received by the

Church

[ocr errors]

Church as a part of the Canon, is by any accident or injury of time loft and perished? The Papifts, contending always for the infufficiency of our present revelation, thereby the better to fupport their ridiculous fentiments of the neceffity of their pretended traditions, have generally determined in the affirmative, and would perfuade us, that many of the most valuable parts of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, are now quite loft. Thus Bellarmine, Pineda, and many of the best writers among the Jefuits. This opinion of the Papists, as it appears evidently calculated to serve a purpose, would be therefore lefs confiderable, if many other learned men had not too unwarily efpoufed it, for the fake of avoiding some difficulties which they could not fo eafily folve without it. Hence we meet with it in the writings of Chryfoftom, Theophylact, Calvine; and even our learned Whitaker himself, on this very question, allows, that some of those books are now wanting, which were once conftituent parts of the Canon of Scripture. This indeed is generally meant of some books of the Old Testament, though the Papists also affert it of the New: I fhall therefore, without entering largely into the controverfy, or fearching the common places of the perfection of the Scriptures, offer only two or three reasons, by which it will appear at least probable, that no facred and infpired book is now wanting; adding only fome few remarks on what has been faid, which is moft confiderable, on the other fide of the queftion.

1. It feems very difagreeable to the ordinary conduct of divine Providence, to fuffer a book wrote under the influences of the holy Spirit to be loft. It feems to be no small reflection on the wisdom of the divine Being, to say he first influenced the writing of a set of books (i. e. by his own extraordinary impreffions on men's minds caused them to be written), and afterwards permitted them by chance, or the negligence of men,

De verb. Dei, 1. 4. c. 4.
De rebus Salom. l. 1. c. 1. §.8.
Homil. 9. in Matth. ii.
In Matth. ii. in fine.
Vid. Calvin. Harm. Evang. in

Matth. ii. 23.

f Controverf. I. de Scriptur. Quæft. VI. c. 9.

Vid. Turretin. Inftit: Theol. Loc. 2. Quæft. 7. §. 3.

« 前へ次へ »