Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

born after the spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what says the scripture? (0) Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, brit of the free. Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty, wherewith Christ bath made. us free, and be not int angled again with the yoke of bondage.

✓ In fine, St. Paul, throughout his EpiAtles, reasons in the same divine manner from the Old Testament, 'which, according to him, (p) was able to make men wise unto salvation; asserting himself, and others, to be (9) ministers of the New Testament, as being ministers not of the letter, brit of the spi. rit, of the law, that is, of the Old Testament fpiritually understood ; and endeavouring to prove, especially in his (r) Epistle to the Hebrews, that christianity was contain'd in the Old Testament, and was imply'd in the Jewish history and law, both which he makes types and hadows of christianity.

The grand and fundamental article of christianity was, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias of the 7 ezus, predicted in the Old Testament. And how could that

appear,

(0) Gen. 21. 10, 12. (9) 2 Cor. 3.6, 14. allo Col. 2. 16, 17.

(0) 2 Tim. 3.15 (r) Heb. 8. 5. & 19. 1. See

appear, and be prov*d, but from the Old Testament ?

In a word, the books of the Old Te. stament were the fole canonical scriptures, and the sole scriptures during the life of Jesus, and for near thirty years after his death, (tho' christianity had by that time made a (s) mighty progrefs.:) and from them did the most primitive fathers, BARNABAS, POLICARP, CLEMENS Romanus, IGNATius, and Justin MARTYR, as well as the apostles and authors of the books of the New Testament, declare and endeavour to prove christianity to the world: with all whom the church of England concurs in sentiment, when she says, that (ss) in the Old Testament encrlasting life is offer'd to indikind. by CHRIST.

III. That the Old Testament is the Canoii of

* Christians. TNdeed, to speak properly, the Old Testa

I ment is yet the sole true canon of scripture (meaning thereby a canon establish'd by those who had a divine autority to establish a canon, and in virtue thereof did efta

blish

(s) Maffueti Annot. in Irancum, p. 43, &c. (ss) Article the 7th.

blish a canon) as it was in the beginning of christianity. For the books of the New Testament are all occafinal books, as Mr. Whiston (t) has clearly shown, and not a digest or system of laws for the (u) governing the church, and I add, were not join'd together in one body or collection, nor declar'd by any humar autority to be all canonical, till the seventh century, when the controversy about the last book of canonical scriptures, so call'd, (2) seems to have been brought to an end, as says the reverend Mr. JOHN RICHARDSON, our most learned defender of the canon of the Nero Teftament. They are christian books, and contain proofs of christianity from the old Testament ; but contain christianity itself, no otherwise, than as explaining, illustrating, and confirming the christianity taught in the Old Testament. They all feem, what (x) Grotius exprelly lays of the books of Luke, piously and faithfully written, and upon subječts of great concern to salvation; and therefore made CANONICAL by the church. Which was plainly an accidental events and

* a g

did ca

- (t) Whiston's Efaydn the Apoftol. Conftitutionsp. 15).
-169.

(u) See Hare's Sermon of Church Autority, p. 44.
(26) Richardfon's Canon of the New Testament vinditá-
ted against Toland, p.17.

(c) Grotii Votum pro Pace, &c. Theologic;
Tom. 3: p. 672, 673.

SEBS

did befal those books (6) gradually, and after long disputes about their autority, and might have befel other pious books, which tho* deem'd scripture, and declar'd (2) canonical by the ancients, have been since rejected, as spurious and apocryphal., 'It is also to be observd, that our Saviour, who assures us, that he came to (a) fulfil the law and the prophets, and not to destroy the religion of the Jews, (many of whom were, long before the coming of Christ, deem'd (6) real Christians, and equally to believe the gospel or christianity, with those who were converted by the apostles) left nothing in writing to establish his nieze laze, if it may be so called, which was not properly a new lazo, but Judaism (c) explain’d, and set in a due light. In a word, Jews and Christians had one and the fame canon of scripture ; nor would there have been any difference between them, or any separation of the latter from the former, with . .

. " Whom

(9) Nyes Defence of the Canon of the New Testam. P. 122.

Floyer's Pref. to the Prophecies of Efdras, p. 3.
(2) Last Apoftolick Canon.

(a) Matt. 5. 17. Simon, Supplement aux Ceremo. nies des Juifs, p. 28, 29 ,

(6) Gal. 3. 8. Heb. 11. See Barlow's Remains, p. 577---593. .

See Seiden de Synedriis, l. 1. c. 8. p. 225. 1

whom they continu'd many years in communion after the death of Jesus, if the Jews had understood the spiritual sense of their own book s; as declar'd and explain'd to them by the apostles, whó (d) said none other things to any, than those which the prophets and Moses did say. . In fine, Jesus and his apostles do frequently and emphatically style the books of the Old Testament the Scriptures, and refer 'men to them as their rule and canon : And St Pau 1 says; (c) After the (Christian] way, which ye call heresy, jo worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things that are written in the law and the prophets. But no new books are declar'd by them to have that character : Nor was there

(f) any nero canoi of scripture, or any col Ilection of books of scripture made, whether

of gospels, or épistles, during the lives of the apostles; as is confess'd by the knowing in antiquity, and particularly by our learned GRABE and M 1L, who, latest of all authors, have search'd, and that with great diligence, into these matters. And if Jesus and his apostles have declar'd no books to be canonical, I would ask, who did, or

- could

(d) Acts 28.22. (e) Ib. 24. 146 " (f) Grabe Spicil. Séc, 1. p. 320. Millii Proleg. ad Nov. Teftam. p. 23.

« ForrigeFortsæt »