Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

epistle of Peter is universally acknowledged to be the production of that apostle, and is cited as authority oy all the fathers; but other books under the name of Peter, such as his Revelation, his Gospel, and his Acts, are never quoted as Scripture by any of the fathers. This argument is repeatedly used by Eusebius, and other ancient defenders of the canon of the New Testament; and if the premises are true, it is perfectly conclusive.

Those persons, therefore, such as Toland and Dodwell, who have endeavoured to unsettle our present canon, labour with all their might to prove that other books, now considered apocryphal, were as commonly cited by the fathers as those which are now deemed canonical. But learned men have thoroughly examined this subject, and have shown that this is not the fact; as Nye and Richardson, from an examination of all the passages in the fathers where other books are cited, have demonstrated.

4. The early versions of the New Testament furnish an additional argument in favour of the canonical authority of most of the books now admitted intc the sacred volume.

As long as the gift of tongues remained with the ministers of the Church, the gospel could be preached to all the nations in their own vernacular language; but when miraculous gifts ceased, there was a great necessity that the sacred books should be translated into the languages of those people who did not understand Greek, in which the New Testament was originally written. Therefore learned men early applied themselves to this work; and although we have no exact information of the time when these versions were made, or the persons by whom the work was performed; yet we have good evidence that they were made very early. The Christians of Syria and Mesopotamia, who were accustomed to the use of the Syro-Chaldaic dialect, would not have remained long without a Syriac or Aramean version of the New Testament, and, as many of the learned in these countries were well acquainted with Greek,

there exists a strong probability that a version intc Syriac must have been at least begun, early in the second century, if not before the close of the first And the fact, that the Syriac version called Peshito omits some of the books which were for awhile doubted of by some, favours the opinion that this version must have been made at a very early period, and probably in the beginning of the second century. Marcion, the heretic, lived in this century, and was acquainted with the New Testament; there was then a version into Syriac, his own vernacular tongue Without such a translation, a large number of the primitive churches must have been entirely destitute of the Scriptures.

The New Testament was also early translated into Latin, and from the fragments that remain, it appears that there were several versions into this language, which were in use, when the Latin language prevailed; and especially in Italy. One of these is called by Augustine, Itala, and was the vulgate, before Jerome undertook a translation; but it was not long before versions were made into various other languages, as the Coptic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Armenian, &c. Now all these contain all the books which are now included in our canon, except the Syriac, which is probably the oldest of them all. The books omitted in this version are the Revelation, and some of the minor epistles which were not generally known when this version was made. As it relates to all the other books of the New Testament, this version furnishes a satisfactory proof of their canonical authority. J. D. Michaelis is of opinion, that this is the best translation of the New Testament ever made, and that it is referred to by Melito, bishop of Sardis. In the time of Jerome, the Scriptures were read in Syriac in all the Churches in that country, and in Mesopotamia.

When the council of Nice met, and other general councils, there was never any dispute among the venerable bishops who attended, about the canon of Scripture. In regard to this there seems to have een a perfect agreement. The only persons who

impugned the commonly received books were heretics; and even from the testimony of these, much evidence may be derived in favour of our canon. The Arians and Pelagians appealed to the same Scriptures as the orthodox Church. It was impossi ble, after the Church was widely extended, and the New Testament translated into divers tongues, that any book could have been added to the sacred volume, or abstracted from it. Such an attempt, if it could have proved successful in a single Church, never could have prevailed to any extent. Detection of such a fraudulent attempt would have been certain and immediate. We have, therefore, the utmost certainty, that we now possess the identical Scriptures which were given to the Churches by the aposles and other inspired men. The learned John David Michaelis has very needlessly stirred a question concerning the canonical authority of the writings of Mark and Luke, because they only of the writers of the books of the New Testament were not numbered among the apostles. But the ancient Church never entertained any doubt on this subject, and received their gospels with the same confidence and veneration as the others. Indeed, they seem to have esteemed the gospel of Luke just as if it had been dictated by Paul, and that of Mark as if dictated by Peter. And when we look into these gospels, we find no more evidence of human weakness or error, than in those written by Matthew and John. And we feel no hesitation in applying to this case the rule already mentioned, that books universally received as inspired by those who lived nearest to the times when they were published, ought to be considered canonical by us. And according to this rule, these gospels have as good a claim to a place in the canon as any books in the volume.

It will, we presume, be satisfactory to the reader to have some of the testimonies of the Christian fathers in regard to each book, or each class of books set before him This will be the subject of the next chapter.

CHAPTER XX.

TESTIMONIES IN FAVOUR OF THE CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

The

ALTHOUGH the precise time when these books were written is unknown, it has generally been believed. that Matthew's gospel is among the earliest. uniform testimony of the fathers is, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew; that is, in the vernacular language of Judea. To this opinion, modern critics have made serious objections. They allege, that there is no clear evidence of the existence of the Hebrew codex; that the work has no internal evidence of being a translation; and that this opinion tends to destroy our idea of the integrity of the sacred canon; for, according to it, one inspired work which belonged to the canon is lost, and its place supplied by a translation, made nobody knows by whom. For these, and such like reasons, a large number of our ablest critics have declared in favour of a Greek original. But as a mere argument cannot stand against a body of combined testimony, the opinion of a Hebrew original is likely to maintain its ground, especially as numbers among its advocates are men as learned and saga cious as those who appear on the other side. To reconcile these discordant opinions, an ingenious and plausible theory has been invented, which is, that Matthew first prepared his gospel for the Jewish converts; but others who did not understand the Hebrew, naturally wishing for an authentic account of the life of our Lord from the pen of an apostle, prevailed with him before he left Judea, to put it into Greek; or to cause it to be translated under his own eye. The Hebrew copy being only in possession of the Ebionites and Nazarenes, was soon corrupted, and finally lost, when no Church of Hebrew Christians any longer existed. Thus they reconcile the testimony of the ancients with the opinion that the

Greek text is truly inspired, and therefore a part of the sacred canon. There is much internal probability in this theory, and all it wants to commend it fully to our acceptance is the want of external testimony. But let us hear what the fathers say respecting Matthew as an Evangelist.

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who had seen and conversed with the apostle John, mentions Matthew's gospel, and says, "he wrote the divine oracles in Hebrew." We learn from this in what esteem the writings of apostles were held in the very earliest times. Matthew's gospel is here denominated the divine oracles, by a man who was contemporary with John, and who, no doubt, spoke the sentiments of the Church, in that day.

Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, who was acquainted with Polycarp the disciple of John, says, " Matthew, then among the Jews, wrote a gospel in their language, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome." In another place, he says, "The gospel of Matthew was delivered to the Jews."+ Origen says, "According to the traditions received by me, the first gospel was written by Matthew, once a publican, afterwards a disciple of Jesus Christ, who delivered it to the Jewish believers, composed in their own language." Origen flourished about a hundred years after the death of John, lived most of his life near to Judea, and was thoroughly versed in biblical learning.

Eusebius may be placed a century after Origen. No man had taken more pains to search into ecclesiastical antiquities. He gives the following testimony, "Matthew having first preached the gospel to the Hebrews, when about to go to other people, delivered to them in their own language, the gospel written by himself."||

Thus, in the Synopsis ascribed to Athanasius, it is said, "Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, and published it at Jerusalem."

*Lardner, Vol. III. p. 169. Adv. Haer. L. III. c. 1. Euseb L. V. c. 8.

§ Lardner, Vol. III. p. 160. Il Ibid.

Ibid. P. 150.

« PoprzedniaDalej »