Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

But at present I will admit, for the fake of argument, that Barnabas was the author of the Epiftle, which goes by his name, which appears to have been the opinion of thofe members of the Latin church, who afferted that he was likewife the author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews. On this fuppofition a comparison of the two Epiftles will fhew, that Barnabas could not have written the Epistle to the Hebrews. For the ftyle of the one is very different from that of the other, the Epiftle to the Hebrews being written in more elegant language, than the Epistle of Barnabas, though they often agree in fingle expreffions. This was not perceived by the Latin fathers, who were for the most part ignorant of Greek, or they would not have afcribed both Epiftles to the fame author. In fubftance the two Epiftles differ from each other still more, than in their language; for, though they in fome measure agree in the choice of the materials, as both of them explain many paffages from the Old Teftament, yet they difagree in the mode of treating thofe materials. Further, the ftrength of argumentation in the Epistle to the Hebrews, is greatly fuperior to that, which appears in the Epiftle of Barnabas; and it is hardly credible, that the very fame author, who difplayed fuch clofeness of reasoning in the fifth, fixth, feventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth chapters of the former,

1

could

one.' I have interpreted this paffage according to the Hebrew alphabet, and not according to the Greek, to which a Jewish writer, who lived at Jerufalem, and wrote about the time of the deftruction of that city cannot be fuppofed to allude. By Hra therefore he underftood Heth, and alluded, not to the fecond letter in Ho, but to the laft letter in the Hebrew word for Jefus, which he fuppofed was written not, but ", confounding and y, which was frequently done by the Samaritans and Galileans, because they pronounced both letters in the fame manner. Again his Tau is for the fame reason, not Greek but likewife oriental. It is true, that in the common Hebrew alphabet Tau is written, which is not in the fhape of a crofs: but in the Phoenician and Samaritan alphabets Tau has the fhape of a crofs. Now this Tau he fays denotes 300, whereas every one, who has learnt only the firft rudiments of Hebrew, knows that Tau, as a numeral denotes 400.-Now two fuch glaring miftakes as these cannot poffibly be ascribed to Barnabas, however weak his underftanding may have been, and however abfurdly he may have reafoned on other occafions.

could ufe fuch weak and trifling arguments as occur throughout the latter. It is true that, if the firft chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews proves, according to the common interpretation of it, Chrift's fuperiority to the angels from his divinity, and his divinity from paffages of the Old Teftament, which have no relation to it: if in the fecond chapter the eighth pfalm is really quoted as a prophecy of Chrift: if further the inaccuracy of thofe paffages, in which I fufpect that the tranflator has made mistakes, are to be afcribed, not to the tranflator, but to the author, the Epiftle to the Hebrews has likewife its weak parts. But whether the author be in fault, or not, thefe paffages are of a very different kind from the weak parts of the Epiftle of Barnabas. This difference the Latin fathers in general were unable to perceive for the Old Teftament, which is quoted and explained in both Epistles, they read not in the Hebrew, but (namely before the time of Jerom) in a wretched Latin tranflation of the Septuagint Greek verfion.

On the other hand, if it be granted, that Barnabas was not the author of the Epiftle, which goes by his name, the argument deduced from the diffimilarity of the ftyle and the contents of the two Epiftles will ceafe to operate. The question therefore is; even on this ground, have we any reafon to believe that Barnabas wrote the Epiftle to the Hebrews? I think not; for, if he did, he wrote better Greek, and arranged his materials more clearly and methodically than St. Paul, an opinion which is not very confiftent with Acts xiv. 12. where St. Paul, then in company with Barnabas, is described as being the chief speaker. However, I think it unneceffary to argue any further on this ground, because it was not occupied by the Latin fathers, who at the fame time, that they afcribed to Barnabas the Epiftle to the Hebrews, believed him likewife to be the author of that, which commonly goes by his name.

f See Sect. 13. of this chapter.

R 4

SECT.

SECT. XVIII.

Of the canonical authority of the Epiftle to the Hebrews.

I the Epifflete the Hebrews, under thefe circumftances,

NOW come to the very important inquiry, whether

ought to be received as an infallible rule of faith, and placed among the canonical books of the New Teftament. That the ancients thought differently on this fubject, fome allowing it to be canonical, others not, appears from what has been faid in the preceding fections. But before we can determine this queftion, we must first agree on a criterion, by which the canonical authority of a book is to be judged. Now according to the principle, which I laid in the chapter on Infpiration, a canonical book of the New Teftament is a book written by an Apoftle. If then the Epiftle to the Hebrews was written by the Apostle St. Paul, it is canonical. But if it was not written by an Apostle, it is not canonical; for, however excellent its contents may be, they alone will not oblige us to receive it, as a work inspired by the Deity.

In this light the fathers of the fecond and third centuries confidered the Epiftle to the Hebrews. Tertullian, though he highly approved of its contents, and found in them a support for his own fevere opinions, quotes it only as collateral evidence, and clearly diftinguishes it from the apoftolic writings. Origen likewife doubted its canonical authority, for no other reason, than becaufe he was not convinced that St. Paul was the author, and certainly not, because he had any objection to the doctrines, which it contains. This is evident from what he himself fays a few lines before the words, which I have quoted in the 15th fection: a vonμata ins eπ15-0λns Dauμασια εςι, και 8 δεύτερα των αποστολικων ὁμολογεμένων γραμ ματών, και τετο αν συμβησαι ειναι αληθες πας προσέχων τη αναγνώσει τη αποστολικη. Nor, as far as I know, have any of the fathers grounded their doubts on the doctrines of

8 Vol. I. Ch. iii. Sect. 2. 3.

this

[ocr errors]

this Epiftle, though there are some paffages, for inftance, ch. vi. 4, 5, 6. x. 26. which have been thought inconfiftent with the benevolence of the Supreme Being. If they doubted of the truth of any of its doctrines, it was because they previously doubted whether the Epiftle was canonical and they did not argue, in an inverted order, from any fuppofed exceptionable paffages to a want of canonical authority. Nor did Tertullian, though he highly approved of thofe very paffages, which others have thought exceptionable, pronounce therefore in favour of its canonical authority. We fee therefore that in the examination of the prefent question the doctrines contained in the Epiftle did not influence the judgement of the fathers, either on the one fide or on the other,

6

[ocr errors]

Jerom however has laid down a criterion of canonical authority, which is very different from that affumed by the fathers of the fecond and third centuries. For in his Letter to Dardanus, after having faid that the Greek church received the Epiftle to the Hebrews as St. Paul's, though most perfons (namely in the Latin church) fupposed it to have been the work either of Barnabas, or of Clement, adds immediately after the words, which I have quoted in the preceding fection, et nihil intereffe cujus fit, cum' ecclefiaftici viri fit, et quotidie ecclefiarum lectione celebretur.' But if nothing further can be said in favour of the Epistle to the Hebrews, than that it was written by a vir ecclefiafticus,' according to Jerom's expreffion, and read daily in the churches, we have a very unfatisfactory proof of its canonical authority, efpecially when Jerom himself leaves it in doubt, who this ecclefiaftical author was. Is every ecclefiaftical author, it may be asked inspired and are all writings inspired, which are read in the churches? The latter queftion Jerom himself has virtually answered in the negative: for according to his own account the Latin church denied, that the Epiftle to the Hebrews was infpired, though it was read in the public fervice. If it could be determined, who this ecclefiaftical author was, the question would be much more capable of a determinate anfwer. Now they, who have denied that St. Paul was the anthor, have ascribed it either

either to St. Luke, or to Barnabas, or to Clement of Rome. Were St. Luke the author, which however is wholly impoffible on account of the difference of style, the Epistle to the Hebrews would be on a level with St. Luke's Gofpel and the Acts of the Apoftles, on the infpiration of which I have expreffed fome doubts in the firft volume of this Introduction ". Were it written by Barnabas, who was St. Paul's oldeft colleague, it might have on this account a better claim to infpiration, than the writings of St. Luke. But on the other hand, if the Epiftle of Barnabas, commonly fo called, be genuine, the two Epiftles, as proceeding from the fame author, will be reduced, in point of authority, to a level, and no man can poffibly confider the Epiftle of Barnabas, as an infallible rule of faith. Laftly, were Clement the author, it would be no more canonical, than the other writings of Clement. Such are the answers, which might be given, if St. Luke, or Barnabas, or Clement were fixed on as the author of this Epistle. But when the author is left undetermined, and it is faid only in general terms to have been written by an ecclefiaftical author, how are we to prove that the Epiftle was infpired?

If we appeal to the teftimony of the ancient church, in order to determine the divine authority of this Epistle, we fhall be again left in a ftate of uncertainty, for on this head the church was at variance with itself. The most ancient Latin or Western church did not rank it among the canonical writings, though the Epiftle was well known to them, for Clement of Rome has quoted from it many paffages. It is true, that fome Latin writers in the fourth century received it, among whom was Jerom himself: yet even in the time of Jerom the Latin church had not placed it among the canonical writings, as appears from various paffages in the works of Jerom. In his Letter to Dardanus, immediately after the words quoted in the preceding paragraph, he adds: quod fi eam Latinorum confuetudo non recipit inter fcripturas

Ch. iii. Sect. 3.

« НазадПродовжити »