Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

all parts of the empire; commanding, by letters, that they should be published to all persons, in every place, both in cities and country places; and that schoolmasters should put them into the hands of their children, and oblige them to learn them by heart, instead of their usual lessons."

Here it may be observed, that while this impudent forgery clearly shows with what malicious efforts the attempt was made to subvert the Gospel, it proves, at the same time, that there had existed a document, under the name of The Acts of Pilate. Now, the circulation of such an impious piece of blasphemy, probably, instigated CHARINUS, or whoever was the author of these Acts, to counteract them by a work of another kind, under the same name.

How this book came to be called The Gospel of Nicodemus, will appear by the subscription annexed to it, in which it is said, "The Emperor THEODOSIUS the Great, found at Jerusalem, in the hall of Pontius Pilate, among the public records -the things which were transacted in the nineteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar, Emperor of the Romans; being a History written in Hebrew, by Nicodemus, of what happened after our Saviour's crucifixion." And if this subscription be no part of the original work, still it may have occasioned this title; or, it may have originated in the fact, that much is said about Nicodemus, in the story which is here told.

But even if we had the original Acts of Pilate, or some History of Nicodemus, it needs no proof, that they could have no just claim to a place in the Canon.

VII. The last Apocryphal book, which I shall mention, is that entitled The Acts of Paul and Thecla.

There is no doubt, but that this book is Apocryphal. It was so considered by all the Fathers who have mentioned it. TERTULLIAN says, respecting it" But if any read the Apocryphal books of Paul, and thence defend the right of women to teach and baptize, by the example of Thecla, let them consider, that a certain presbyter of Asia, who forged that book, under the name of Paul, being convicted of the forgery, confessed that he did it out of respect to Paul, and so left his place." *

And JEROME, in his life of Luke, says, "The Acts of Paul and Thecla, with the whole story of the baptized lion, I reckon among the Apocryphal Scriptures."

And in the decree of Pope Gelasius, it is asserted, "That the Acts of Thecla and Paul are Apocryphal."

Tertull. de Baptismo.

It is manifest, however, that the primitive Christians gave credit to a story respecting Paul and Thecla, on which this book is founded; for it is often referred to, as a history well known, and commonly believed.

66

Thus CYPRIAN, or some ancient writer under his name, says, Help us, O Lord, as thou didst help the Apostles in their imprisonments, THECLA amidst the flames, Paul in his persecutions, and Peter amidst the waves of the sea."

And again, "Deliver me, O Lord, as thou didst deliver Thecla, when, in the midst of the amphitheatre, she was in conflict with the wild beasts."

EUSEBIUS mentions a woman by this name, but he places her long after the Apostle Paul, and she is therefore supposed to be another person.

EPIPHANIUS relates, "That when Thecla met Paul, she determined against marriage, although she was then engaged to a very agreeable young man.'

[ocr errors]

AUGUSTINE refers to the same thing, and says, By a discourse of Paul's, at Iconium, he incited Thecla to a resolution of perpetual virginity, although she was then actually engaged to be married."

Many others of the Fathers speak of THECLA, as of a person whose history was well known.

And among the moderns, Baronius, Locrinus, and Grabe, look upon this history as true and genuine, written in the Apostolic age, and containing nothing superstitious, or unsuitable to that time. But none have ventured to assert, that these Acts ought to have a place in the Canon.

No doubt, the book now extant is greatly altered from that ancient history, referred to by the Fathers; and, probably, the original story was founded on some tradition, which had a foundation in truth; but what the truth is, it is impossible now to discover among such a mass of fables, and ridiculous stories, as the book contains. As it now stands, it contains numerous things, which are false in fact; others, which are inconsistent with the Canonical Scriptures; and some, totally incompatible with the true character of Paul. Moreover, it is favourable to several superstitious practices, which had no existence in the Apostles' days; and finally, the forgery was acknowledged, as it relates to the ancient Acts; and those now existing cannot be more genuine than the original; but to these many things have been added, of a silly and superstitious kind.

* Epiph. Hær. Ixviii.

SECTION XVI.

NO PART OF THE CHRISTIAN REVELATION HANDED DOWN BY UNWRITTEN TRADITION.

In the former part of this work, it was seen, that it was not only necessary to show that the Apocryphal writings had no right to a place in the Sacred Volume, but that there was no additional revelation which had been handed down by oral tradition. The same necessity devolves upon us, in relation to the New Testament; for while it is pretty generally agreed by all Christians what books should be received into the Canon, there is a large Society which strenuously maintains, that besides the revelation contained in the divine record, written by the Apostles and their assistants, by the plenary inspiration of the Holy Spirit, there is a farther revelation, consisting of such things as were received from the mouth of Christ himself, while upon earth, or taught to the churches by his inspired Apostles, which were not by them, nor in their time, committed to writing, but which have come down to us by unbroken tradition.

The importance of this inquiry is exceedingly manifest; for if, in addition to the written word, there are important doctrines and necessary sacraments of the church, which have come down by tradition, it would be a perilous thing for us to remain ignorant of those things, which God has enjoined, or to deprive ourselves of the benefits to be derived from those means of grace which he has instituted for the edification and salvation of the church. But, seeing traditions are much more liable to alteration and corruption than written documents, it is very necessary that we should be on our guard against imposition; and if it is a duty to exercise much care and diligence, in distinguishing between inspired books and such as are spurious, it cannot be less incumbent to ascertain, first, whether any part of God's revealed will has been handed down by tradition only; and next, to learn accurately, what those things are which have been thus communicated. And as there are Apocryphal books which claim a place in the Canon; so, doubtless, there would be Apocryphal traditions, if any truths had been con

veyed to the church through this channel. But if there be no satisfactory evidence of any such revelation having come down to us; nor any possibility of ascertaining what proceeded from the Apostles, and what from the fancy and superstition of men, then we are right in refusing the high claims of tradition, and adhering inflexibly to the written word, "which is able," through faith," to make us wise unto salvation."

This doctrine of traditions is most convenient and favourable to the church of Rome, in all her controversies with Protestants and others; for whatever she may assert, as an article of faith, or teach as a part of Christian duty, although there be no vestige of it in the word of God, may readily be established by tradition. For as the church alone has the keeping of this body of oral law, she only is the proper judge of what it contains, and, indeed, can make it to suit herself. If we should concede to the Romanists what they claim on this point, the controversy with them might well be brought to an end; and all we should have to do, would be, to yield implicit faith to whatever they might please to teach us. And even if we should be required to believe and practise, in direct opposition to the plain declarations of Holy Scripture; yet, as the true interpretation of Scripture, on this plan, is only in the hands of the infal lible Head of the Church, and is, indeed, understood by means of unwritten traditions, we must not trust to our own understanding in the most evident matters, nor even to our own senses, although several of them should concur in giving us notice of some fact. Now, before we give ourselves up to be led blindly in such a way as this, it behoves us, diligently and impartially to inquire, whether God has required of us this implicit submission to men. We ought to be assured, that their authority over our faith and conscience has a divine warrant for its exercise; and, especially, we should be satisfied, on sufficient grounds, that these unwritten traditions, on which the whole fabric rests, are truly the commands of God; for if they are not, we have the highest authority for rejecting them. if their claim to a divine origin cannot be made out clearly, they cannot, in reason, bind us to obedience; for, when God gives a law, he promulgates it with sufficient clearness, that all whom it concerns may know what is required of them.

And

To exhibit, fairly, the true point of controversy on this subject, it will be requisite to make several preliminary observations, that it may be clearly understood what we admit, and what we deny.

1. In the first place, then, it is readily admitted that a law,

revealed from Heaven and communicated to us orally, with clear evidence of its origin, is as binding, as if written ever so often. When God uttered the ten commandments on Mount Sinai, in the midst of thunderings and lightnings, it surely was as obligatory on the hearers, as after He had written them on tables of stone.

It is a dictate of common sense, that it is a matter of indifference how a divine revelation is communicated, provided it come to us properly authenticated.

2. Again, it is conceded, that for a long time, there was no other method of transmitting the revelations received from heaven, from generation to generation, but by oral tradition, and such external memorials as aided in keeping up the remembrance of important transactions. As far as appears, books were unknown, and letters not in use, until a considerable time after the flood. During the long period which preceded the time of Moses, all revelations must have been handed down by tradition. But, while this concession is willingly made, it ought, in connexion, to be remarked, that this mode was then used, because no other existed; and that, in the early ages of the world, the longevity of the patriarchs, rendered that a comparatively safe channel of communication, which would now be most uncertain; and, notwithstanding this advantage, the fact was, that in every instance, as far as we are informed, in which divine truth was committed to tradition, it was utterly lost; or soon became so corrupted by foreign mixtures, that it was impossible to ascertain what part of the mass contained a revelation from God. It is, therefore, the plausible opinion of some, that writing was revealed from heaven, for the very purpose of avoiding the evil which had been experienced, and that there might be a certain vehicle for all divine communications; and it is certain, that all that we know of the history of alphabetical writing, leads us to connect its origin with the commencement of written revelations.

It is, therefore, not an improbable supposition, that God taught letters to Moses, for the express purpose of conveying, by this means, his laws, to distant ages, without alteration; and it deserves to be well considered, that after the command was given to Moses, to write in a book the laws and statutes delivered to him, nothing was left to oral tradition, as has been shown in the former part of this work.

3. It will be granted also, that tradition, especially when connected with external memorials, is sufficient to transmit,

« ÎnapoiContinuă »