Proofs of their genuineness. Methods for the inquirer doubts that they are all Scripture, and that they were from the earliest times so considered. First, because in almost all, if not in every authority, which furnishes the doubtful expression, or makes the suspicious omission, some statement is found incompatible with the notion, that the author had rejected the piece on the score of its being uninspired. Take, e.g. the most ancient catalogue of the Scriptures now extant, that of Origen.50 In this, no mention is made of the Epistles of James and Jude; although in other parts of his writings their authority is acknowledged. Again, Jerome's catalogue contains expressions of doubt, respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews; yet there are passages 52 from the same author, which prove indisputably, that he made use of it as Scripture. In these and the like instances, it is impossible not to attribute the apparent inconsistency to some unrecorded circumstances, attending the settlement of the Canon, such as have been here suggested. 51 Secondly, reasonable and satisfactory as this method of interpretation is, (for it is like a cross-examination of an author respecting his evidence,) it is not, and never was, be it remembered, the only clue for distinguishing the true Scripture from the false, whenever the two have been confounded in the same doubtful testimony. By comparing such writings with the great body of the New Testament, of which no doubt of any kind was ever expressed, we may safely pronounce them inspired or not, according to their agreement or disagreement with these. But it is worthy of notice, that this test is only applicable to a work which has some strong presumption in its favour derived from other sources. If otherwise applied, it is, in fact, no test, no medium of proof at all. Any orthodox publication of the present day, for instance, must, as orthodox, answer to it; nor would it be supposed from that coincidence to derive any title to independent authority. Not that this kind of evidence is the less forcible on that account, in any instance wherein its use is admissible. It, in fact, is one, and perhaps the principal one, of a class of scriptural proofs, which change their very nature by being combined with others; and may be compared to those substances, which require a chemical union with others of a different class, in order to elicit their most striking properties. Although it does not enter into my plan to investigate the proofs resorted to made use of in the first settlement of the Canon; that this kind of evidence must have been one of the chief, by which the judgment of the Church was determined, may be naturally concluded, both original settlement of the Canon. 50 Origen, Comment. in Matt. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. C. 25. Òrigen, Exposit. in Joann. Lib. V. apud Euseb. ibid. 51 Jerome, Epist. ad Paulin. de Stud. Script. 52 E.G. in Epist. ad Sabinianum lap sum, where he quotes Heb. vii. 8; and in his Commentary on the twenty-second chapter of Isaiah, where he speaks of the "heavenly Jerusalem " as the expression of an apostle; not to mention his paraphrase or commentary on the Epistle itself. from the nature of the subject, and from the notices which are left us of such proofs being resorted to, by Eusebius and others. 66 Even in the days of the apostles and inspired teachers, such a rule we know was insisted on by St. Paul; Though we," (writes Gal. i. 8,9. he to the Galatians,) "or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you, than that you have received, let him be accursed. The antecedent claims, which would induce them to bring any writing to this test, would be the evidence of particular churches, in which the writing had been deposited; the autography of the MSS. in some cases furnishing particular signs, such as may be supposed to have been the case with the original copy of St. Paul's Epistle Gal. vi. 11. to the Galatians, and the traditional account of its contents, or of any circumstances connected with it. The seal and confirmation of its authenticity would be its agreement with such scriptural doctrine as was contained in those books which were so widely circulated, and so clearly sanctioned, as to furnish the basis of a standard for Scripture. One work settled, became a measure for others, and Scripture was made the test of Scripture. The sacred volume thus formed, becomes the depository of a power hardly less effectual than that which the inspired Church possessed of trying spirits; and is our unfailing security against the forgeries of distant ages, and the pretended revelations of later times. CHAPTER IV. HOW THE FIRST UNINSPIRED CHURCH FULFILLED ITS OFFICE OF SACRED RECORD. Christian 53 To the apostles a revelation had been given, which on their removal was supplied by a sacred record. The apostles had been commissioned and empowered to preserve that revelation pure and perfect, by the extraordinary suggestions and corrections of the Holy Spirit; and also to attest it by miracles and miraculous endowments. The Church, as has been shown, was qualified to fulfil the same purposes with regard to the sacred record. But, then, the apostles were not only commissioned and empowered to preserve their revelation entire and uncorrupted, and to furnish evidence to its Divine character; they had a further duty to perform; that, namely, of dispensing the truths it contained-of "rightly dividing the word of truth," as it is expressed by one of them. For this portion of their ministry, likewise, they received from our Lord himself an assurance of extraordinary assistance ever at hand; which the narrative of that ministry clearly shows to have been fulfilled. The sacred record required, of course, a corresponding dispenser; and the Church was accordingly so shaped and modelled, as to assume that character. In what manner it discharged this portion of its duty, on the first ceasing of Divine interposition, is the point of inquiry at which we are now arrived. The measures adopted will be considered briefly and separately; and first, among these, may be noticed the perpetuation of a clerical order, as distinct from the laity, in every Church. 54 I. MINISTERS OF DIFFERENT ORDERS. In sacred history, we find the apostles, and others duly appointed, Ministers exclusively officiating in a course of ministerial duties; and, if it be Dispensers of admitted, that these, or many of these offices, were designed to be the Gospel. considered as 53 2 Tim. ii. 15. 'Oglотоμouvтa means the fashioning of the word preached, so as to render it intelligible, acceptable, effectual; as the workman cuts the stone or wood, to suit the particular object about which he is employed. 54 E.G. Luke xxi. 14, 15: "Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer; for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist." 2 Cor. xii. 9: “My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness; " and the like. perpetual, the perpetual obligation on Christians to have a separate officiating order to succeed the first, seems to be a necessary inference. The character and pretensions of this order may, indeed, become changed, so far as to be inconsistent with Christianity itself; but this should only induce us to ascertain clearly, and to keep steadily in view, the true object and intent of the institution. Beyond this connexion with the formal observances of religion, however, the ministers of the Gospel may be viewed in the light of special dispensers of the truths contained in the New Testament. This is their chief and most important office; and if it be true, that one of the purposes divinely intended in the formation of the Church was the dispensing of these truths; the appointment of this order, as one of the methods, becomes an obligation, independent even of apostolical precedent or specific rule.55 The great caution to be observed in the Church was, strictly to adhere to this view of its ministers. There was a continual temptation presented to the Jewish converts, in the habit of looking at religion, as it existed in the former Church of God; and equally so to the Gentile converts, in their long familiarity with the corruptions of the heathen world. In both, the minister of religion had been regarded as the mean of communication between the worshipper and the Being worshipped; between Man who sought Divine instruction, and the Deity from whom it was supposed to proceed. But Christians were left without any such mediator on earth. Their High Priest was no longer visible; and the sacred record was the only mode of sensible communication which had been left; Christ was seen no more, and the Holy Ghost was no longer outwardly manifested. The Christian ministers, therefore, were designed to be the organ of the Church,56 in dispensing these Divine oracles; not themselves the oracles and sources of information. That the primitive bishops claimed for themselves no higher Bishops. character, is very plain from the tenor of their lives, and from the language of their genuine remains. It is evident from the writings of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, that the terms " Priest, "Vicar of Christ," (¡egeùs,)57 Mediator, "Order of the altar," 66 55 Ignatius's assertion is strictly correct, Without these it cannot be called a Church;" that is, the Christian society could no longer fulfil the object of its institution, whatever other means might be substituted.-Ep. ad Trall. Sec. 3. 56 Ignatius calls them, in his Epistles to the Trallians, "servants of the Church of God," see Sec. 2. 57 It may be necessary to state to the mere English reader, that there are two Greek words, of very different import, which we translate indifferently "priest." Ieges is one, and is the term applied to him whose office it was to sacrifice, or otherwise to mediate between the worshipper and the Being worshipped; the To other, eso Burgos, signifies an elder; and Presbyters and Deacons. Orders. 66 66 (τάξις του βηματος,) were not yet the appropriate vocabulary of the The same modest pretensions are manifested in the titles of the other ministers. No other official distinction was preserved beyond that of presbyter and deacon. Prophets, Interpreters, Helps, and the long list of extraordinary agents, had found successors and substitutes in men qualified by ordinary means; but these presumed no more than the bishops, to retain the titles of the persons whose place they occupied only in part. This scruple about assuming titles of distinct rank, has inclined many to think, that what are afterwards found in the Church, under the general denomination of Five inferior the five inferior orders of clergy, did not yet exist. These were the sub-deacons, acolythists, exorcists, readers, and door-keepers. It is certainly true, that these words do not occur in the genuine remains of the apostolical Fathers; and, in short, no term indicating a lower order than that of deacon. Nevertheless, as has been before pointed out, this term was very comprehensive, and originally included even apostles. Its specific application became gradually more and more narrowed, as the distinct kinds of ministers or deacons received appropriate names. At the period to which we are now arrived, this general appellation may still have been the only one, for some or all of these five offices, which were afterwards distinguished by specific names. The deaconship of the New Testament evidently comprehended many offices not afterwards included under it. These very five offices, and others, may possibly then altar;" the bread and wine, that of "the ther notice. See particularly Encyclop. Metropolit. Art. LOGIC, and Whately's Sermons, Sermon V. 58 Bp. Beveridge, in answer to Mr. Daillé's objections to the authenticity of the apostolical canon, has maintained the primitive use of these terms; but his testimonies really prove no more than that they were sometimes used, always perhaps, figuratively. His remarks on the use of ἐπισκόπος and πρεσβυτέρος, are more correct. See Beveregii Codex Can. Lib. II. C. 10. 59 Cited by Amalarius, de Offic. Ecc. Lib. II. C. 13, and by Bingham, Ecc. Ant. B. II. C. 11. |