Oldalképek
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

2

Apocryphal Testament.

[March, sacred by Christians during the first four centuries," after the birth of Christ. If, by this language, he means to insinuate, as it would seem (for his statement is wholly unqualified), that all, or any of the several productions, admitted into the collection, were esteemed "sacred" by Christians generally, during the period referred to, the insinuation, as we shall see, is not supported by the least shadow of evidence. The title is objectionable for a similar reason. It describes the volume as containing all the compositions now extant, which were "attributed, in the first four centuries, to Jesus Christ, his apostles, and their companions, and not included in the New Testament." Attributed by whom? Not, surely, by the great body of Christians, or by any considerable portion of them. Of this we have no proof, as regards any one of the writings in question, but conclusive evidence to the contrary.

It is not our intention, at this time, to go into any elaborate discussion of the evidence for the authority and genuineness of the several books composing the New Testament. This is not needed. Our object is simply, by a few plain remarks, to put our readers in possession of the principle upon which, according to our apprehension, those books have been received by Christians as canonical, in other words, as books claiming our reverence as containing an authentic record of a divine revelation, to the exclusion of all other writings attributed to the same period. Our statements must of necessity be very general. To fortify them at every step, by an appeal to facts, would require a volume instead of a brief essay. Those who desire further information on the subject we must refer to the very learned works already in existence, particularly those of Lardner* and Jones.+ Paley's work, composed chiefly of materials derived from the former, contains an admirably condensed view of the most important facts and arguments connected with the subject, and is within the reach of all.

We speak of the New Testament as a whole, and it is asked, By whom was it put together? By whom were the

*Credibility of the Gospel History.

New and Full Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament. By Jeremiah Jones.

View of the Evidences of Christianity.

several pieces contained in it collected into one volume ? By an individual, or by a council or body of men? What authority had this supposed individual, or body of men, to decide upon the books to be received or rejected? It would be difficult to give a formal and concise reply to these questions. Nor is it important; for they do not, in our opinion, indicate the proper mode of inquiry; do not put us on the right track.

It is quite obvious that none of the ancient councils undertook to settle authoritatively the canon of the New Testament. We have better evidence of the genuineness and authenticity of the several writings which compose it, than the decisions of a council. The New Testament is a collection of pieces, written at different times, by different authors; a collection, we should say, if we except the Revelation, of occasional memoirs and letters. We have no certain evidence that any written records of our Saviour's life and instructions existed for several years after he left the earth. The Apostles were at first engaged in preaching; in relating what they had seen and heard of Jesus; recounting the history of his life and teachings, and explaining and defending the great principles of his religion. Those who enjoyed the benefit of their personal ministrations, would feel little need of any written documents. Had they doubts, or did they desire further information on any point, their wishes could be easily gratified by the opportunities they enjoyed of familiar intercourse with their teachers. But this was not a privilege they could long hope to retain. They would anxiously look forward to the time when the death of the Apostles would for ever deprive them of so precious a blessing. And even before that event, as the first preachers of Christianity, in the fulfilment of their commission, were compelled to travel over different countries, the converts of a particular city or province, would very naturally desire to possess some written accounts of what they had heard from their lips. This would give rise to such narratives of our Saviour's life as are contained in our present Gospels. Two of these Gospels, those of Matthew and Mark, are expressly said, on the authority of a most ancient tradition, to have originated in this way. Luke declares his own purpose in writing, in his preface. The aged John may, or may not, have written to preserve the memory of some incidents in

the life of his Master, and record several of his discourses, not mentioned by the other Evangelists, or to correct some false impressions which he had observed to be gaining currency among Christians. Both these motives were attributed to him in early times.

The Epistles obviously had their origin in the wants of the individuals or communities to which they were addressed. They are occasional letters, called forth by the exigencies of the times. Take the Epistles of Paul for example. It is quite natural to suppose that the converts made by him in a particular place, where he did not long remain, would need further instruction after his departure. Disorders would

creep in, which would require to be corrected; false teachers would intrude, or controversies would arise, to agitate the little community, or trials and persecutions would be met, which would endanger their steadfastness in the faith. In all such cases, as he might not be able soon to revisit them in person, his obvious course would be, to address them in a letter, containing admonitions and advice adapted to their situation.

The Gospels or memoirs, and letters, thus produced, would for some time lie dispersed in the hands of those for whose use they were immediately intended. As they became known to the generality of Christians, however, as the productions of those to whom they were attributed, copies of them would be taken, and gradually collected into a volume for better preservation, or more convenient use. This collection would, from time to time increase, as the productions of different writers, commissioned to teach the new religion, became known as theirs. Some pieces, from their minuteness, or the remote situation of those to whom they were addressed, might long remain in obscurity, but as soon as ascertained to be in existence, and of acknowledged genuineness, they would be added to the collection.

Meantime accounts gathered from uncertain tradition, and mixed up with no little extravagance and falsehood, would be committed to writing, perhaps by honest but weak men. Fictitious narratives would be constructed, and letters would be composed with a good or ill design. These would be read for a time by a portion of Christians, before their true character was understood. But the forgery, in case of forgery, would be soon detected. Or if genuine, the writings

[ocr errors]

in question might not possess a title to the highest respect, because the productions of mere private Christians, who neither had, nor claimed, any supernatural illumination. They would then be gradually laid aside, or placed apart from others of a different character. Some of them would rapidly sink into oblivion, others would be preserved as useful, though uninspired documents.

Thus the writings of the Apostles, and writings regarded as having received the sanction of Apostles, would be gradually withdrawn from the multitude of forged books, or books composed by persons entitled to no more than ordinary respect, as good, but not inspired men. The former

would be brought together into a volume, would be read, quoted, and commented upon, as possessing a character of sacredness; while the rest of the mass would be only occasionally alluded to, generally with some mark of disapprobation, or for the purpose of historical illustration.

That the canon of the New Testament was formed in some such way as this, we think we have abundant evidence from history.

tament.

Let us take the books which now compose our New TesWhy were they admitted to form part of the Bible? Because, in the first place, the early Christians, who were the only proper judges in the matter, were satisfied, with certain exceptions we shall hereafter notice, that they were written by those whose names they bear. And how were they satisfied of this? Precisely as those who were contemporary with Cæsar or Cicero, or who lived near their times, were satisfied that the Historical Commentaries attributed to the one, and the Orations ascribed to the other, were their genuine productions; or just as we are satisfied of the authorship of any modern writing, as the poems of Milton or Pope, the historical works of Clarendon and Burnet, or the Letters of Franklin or Jefferson. Take the case of one of the Epistles, one of those, especially, addressed to a community of Christians, the first to the Thessalonians, for instance, supposed by many to have been the first written of all Paul's Epistles. It would be very easy to ascertain whether such a letter were ever sent. original could be produced, if in existence; or if copies, or what purported to be such, only were found, it would not be difficult to prove whether the original from which they

The

Had a

were taken, were the production of Paul or not. letter, purporting to have been written by the Apostle, been put into circulation among Christians, the Thessalonian converts would have had it in their power, in a short time, to expose the forgery. It is hardly possible, such was the intercourse of business or friendship between the several parts of the Roman Empire, that a forgery of this kind, had it been attempted, should have escaped detection.

These remarks apply, with little modification, to the books of the New Testament generally. It cannot be doubted that the early Christians had ample means of ascertaining whether they were really written by those under whose names they pass, and they certainly had the strongest motives for wishing to arrive at the truth on the subject. When we find those books quoted, referred to, and commented upon, by an unbroken series of writers, from that day to this, as the productions of those to whom they are attributed; when we find that as such they were treated with peculiar respect; were early collected into a distinct volume; were read in the assemblies of Christians; that the early adversaries of Christianity, some of whom were men of very acute intellects, never expressed any doubt of their genuineness; when, in addition to this, we take into view the evidence arising from the character of the writings themselves, and the multitude of apparently undesigned coincidences between the several parts of them, of a nature, as it would seem, to preclude altogether the supposition of forgery, coincidences, for example, of the class, which it is the object of Paley, in one of the most original of all his works, to illustrate,-surely we can ask no more. To doubt their genuineness under such circumstances, would be to proceed on a principle which would shake the credit of all history.

*

The above statement rather falls below, than exceeds the truth, as regards the evidence for the genuineness of most of the books of the New Testament. Take, in the first place, the five historical books, the Gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and the Acts of the Apostles ascribed to Luke. We have not one tenth part of the evidence for the genuineness of any one of the writings attributed to

*Hora Paulinæ.

« ElőzőTovább »