to comprehend also some of the earliest Pieces of the New Testament And therefore since their Canon was admitted as such by our Lord himself and his Disciples 't is manifest the Christian Church was not at liberty to reject what Books of the Old Testament they pleas'd but were oblig'd by no less then Infallible Authority to esteem all for Divine which the Jews (p) Rom. 3.2 to whom the Oracles of God had been committed embrac'd under that notion And accordingly we find (q) Euseb Eccles Hist l. 4. c. 26. Melito Bishop of Sardis in the Second and (r) Ibid. l. 6. c. 25. Origen in the beginning of the Third Century collecting the Names of those Books which had been receiv'd in the Jewish Church and Publishing the same to the Christians as those which ought to be own'd and acknowledg'd by them too for Canonical It 's true indeed the Book of the Lesser Prophets is omitted in the account which Eusebius gives us from Origen but that was certainly a mistake of the Transcriber as is apparent besides several other Evidences from hence that Origen in his Treatise against Celsus (s) l. 7. p. 339. joyns the Twelve Minor Prophets to the others and tells the Philosopher that he had Wrote Explanations upon some of them This is I think sufficient to prove that the Church had a Certain Canon of the Old Testament during the first 300 Years whatever Opinion Theodorus of Mopsuestia might entertain concerning some Particular Books Those very Books were undoubtedly part of the Jewish Code they are reckon'd up as such by the Fathers now mention'd and the whole Canon of the Jews asserted and attested not only by them but also by our Saviour and the Writers of the New Testament 2. It seems not a little Extravagant to bring Theodorus of Mopsuestia as a Witness for the Doctrine of the first 300 years in the case now before us since if his Testimony proves any thing it must necessarily reach a great way farther For as Dr. Cave observes in his Historia Literaria He was made Bishop of Mopsuestia in the Year 392 and Govern'd that Church for 36 Years not Dying before the Year 428. So that if his Authority be look'd upon as sufficient to declare the Judgment of the Catholick Church in his days it must prove that the Canon of the Old Testament was not settled for above 400 Years but that it was Lawfull for any one during that time to admit or reject what Books thereof he pleas'd This I am sure is a very odd notion and will never be admitted by those who know that in the Fourth Century (t) Festiv Epistle 39. Athanasius of Alexandria (u) Prologue to the Psalms Hilary of Poictiers (x) Catech. 4. Cyril of Jerusalem (y) Heres 76. Epiphanius of Cyprus (z) Of the Genuine Books of the Scripture Gregory of Nazianzum (a) Prologue to the Books of Kings Jerome of Palestine and (b) On the Creed Rufinus of Aquileia were of a quite different Opinion There is not one of all these but was more considerable then Theodorus and fitter to give an account of the Judgment of the Catholick Church then he and therefore when all of them joyn in asserting the Authority of the Books which he rejected 't is absurd to pretend that the Opinion he entertain'd must be of more Authority then all theirs put together and assure us that the Church had then no Settled Canon of the Old Testament when every one of these teach the direct contrary These great Names I think are sufficient to oppose to Theodorus of Mopsuestia if I had nothing else to say But I shall proceed further and alledge the Council of Laodicea which met about the Year 360 and own'd all the Books of the Old Testament that were receiv'd by the Jews for Canonical The Decrees of this Councel were soon after taken into the Code of the Universal Church and are upon that account an undeniable Testimony of the Opinion of the whole Christian World in this matter and withall inform us that the Bishop of Mopsuestia in slighting the Books above-mention'd did directly contradict the Judgment and Practice of the Catholick Church 3. This will be still further manifest if we confider that for this very thing among others he was censur'd and condemn'd by the Fifth General Councel We have none of the Writings of Theodorus now extant nothing but what is quoted from him and preserv'd by others Neither can we judge what he believ'd and taught but by these Citations There are many Passages taken out of his Works in the Fourth Collation of the Fifth Councel at Constantinople and among others Six or Seven Passages wherein it appears that he allowed neither the Book of Job nor the Canticles nor perhaps the Proverbs or Ecclesiastes to be of Divine Authority But for this he is in plain terms condemn'd (c) Coll. 4. and 8. by the Fathers of that Synod and we are thereby taught that the Doctrine which he embrac'd in this Particular was so far from being approv'd that it was indeed Rejected and Censur ' d by the Catholicks It is therefore a very strange method of arguing to pretend to give an account of the Judgment of the Church by the Opinions of this Bishop when yet the Church expresly Condemn'd him for holding and maintaining those very Opinions That he call'd the Books of Chronicles and Esdras a vain Rhapsody I do not find If he did both the Councel of Chalcedon which (d) Can. 1. Establish'd the Decrees of that of Laodicea and also the Fifth General Councel of which we have been now speaking by (e) Collat. 8. subscribing to the Canons of the other plainly condemn what he held as to these Books too So that if we 'll make an estimate of the Doctrine of the Church rather from Three such Eminent Councels as these were then from the Writings of a Single Bishop 't is most certain and evident that all the Books which he rejected were admitted by the whole Body of Catholicks both before and after his time and consequently that the Argument which endeavours to prove the contrary from his particular Opinion is of no force and efficacy I proceed now to some other Passages which seem exceptionable and find p. 281. the following Words Our Author says the Second Epistle of St. Peter is receiv'd by all Churches at this day and many of the Fathers cited it as Genuine forasmuch as Athanasius makes use of it against the Arians Oration the 2d If it be Insinuated by these Words that Athanasius was the first who quoted it for Genuine I have prov'd that to be a mistake in the following Papers and if the Reader pleases to consult the Answer I have given to the Fifth Objection he 'll easily see that there were those who (f) See the Festival Epistle above mention'd ascrib'd it to St. Peter long before Athanasius appear'd in
the World And this Father testifies as much himself who reckoning this Epistle among the Authentick Books of the New Testament assures us that he had the Warrant of the Ancients and first Preachers of Christianity for all the Pieces which he there puts into his Catalogue The Objection from the difference of Style between this and the first Epistle Mr. B. answers himself and therefore I pass on to what follows Eusebius l. 3. c. 3. Writes that he heard from his Ancestors that this Epistle was not at first inserted into the Canon c. Eusebius says something to this purpose but I think what we here Read carries the matter a little too far The Historian indeed tells us that he had receiv'd by Tradition or from his Predecessors that the Second Epistle ascrib'd to St. Peter was or ought to be no part of the New Testamant But he does not acquaint us of what Antiquity or Extent the Tradition was much less does he say as this Translation would induce an unwary Reader to Suppose that it was everywhere rejected upon its first Appearance but only that those Books or Persons from which he deriv'd his Information did not acknowledge it Immediately after we are told That in Gregory Nazianzen's time few of the Orthodox receiv'd it for Divine Where we may learn this I cannot tell I am sure the Father says no such thing in those Places where he treats Professedly of the Books of the Scripture He acknowledges indeed in his Verses to Seleucus (g) Vol. 2. p. 194. that some receiv'd and some rejected it But he does not say that the former were fewer than the latter neither does he interpose his own Judgment there Though he does in (h) p. 98. another Poem where he expresly reckons Two Epistles of St. Peter among the Genuine Books of the New Testament It follows The Syrians have not inserted it in their ancient Verson neither do they Read it at this day unless privately What may be the Reason of this I have ventur'd to guess in the Notes on p. 18. to which I refer the Reader We are further told That the Spanyards persisted in the same Error till the Seventh Century and also afterwards p. 283. That the Epistle to the Hebrews was not receiv'd as Sacred and Authentick in the Western Church till the same time What particular Reasons Mr. B. has for these Two Assertions I cannot judge because his Epitomizer does not al edge any But I have this besides the Testimony of Single Persons to urge on the contrary side that the Council of Laodicea acknowledg'd both for Canonical about the year 360 which being not long after taken into the Code of the Universal Church and also farther Establish'd by the Fourth General Councel in the middle of the Fifth Century is as clear an Evidence that the Whole Catholick Church in all the Provinces thereof receiv'd both these Epistles for Genuine Parts of the New Testament as the Sixth of the Thirty Nine Articles sufficiently Testifies what Books the Church of England acknowledges for Authentick at this day And therefore I wonder at what is say'd (i) p. 282. concerning the Epistles of St. James that in the Fifth Age it was first receiv'd by all as Canonical because all the Fathers of that Age cite it and the African Councels inserted it into their Canons How far it appears now to have been admitted before the Fourth Age I have shown in the Following Treatise but that both it and the other Controverted Pieces were generally receiv'd in that Century I have prov'd (k) See the Account of the 2d Canon p. 14 c. from several Testimonies whereof the Councel of Laodicea is one and certainly the Canons thereof which were every where acknowledg'd had more Influence upon the general reception of this Epistle then the Synods of Carthage could have which were never Submitted to by the Eastern Christians But we are further told p. 283 that it was after the Seventh Century before the Revelation was acknowledg'd by the Eastern Churches and again p. 284. That the Laodicean Councel was the first that struck the Revelation and Book of Judith out of the Sacred Canon What is to be thought of the Revelation I have hereafter declar'd p. 42. But as to the Book of Judith I answer 1. That the Laodicean Fathers could not strike that out of the Canon of the Primitive Church because it does not appear that it was ever in any more then Ecclesiasticus Tobit c. 2. As to the Story of the Council of Nice 's alledging it as Divine which is here hinted at I believe it to be all Fable St. Jeromo only tells us that it was reported or say'd so and notwithstanding that it is plain by his Preface to the Proverbs that be look'd upon it as Apocryphal which he would never have done if he had really believ'd the Nicene Fathers had taken it into the Canon Neither if there had been the least Evidence that they had so done would the Synod of Laodicea have rejected it For all the World knows that the Catholicks had every where so profound a Reverence and Veneration for the Decrees of the First General Councel that it is impossible to suppose a Provincial Synod would so quickly after attempt to rescind what they had once Establish'd I have now done with the Account of the Ecclesiastical History of Mr. B. and do here again declare to the World that none of the Mistakes which I have been here examining ought to be imputed any farther to him then the Vndertakers at Rotterdam have Transmitted a Faithfull Account of that Work to their Correspondents at London If they have fail'd therein what Errors there be must be lay'd at their door and not at that of the Learned Author I would gladly indeed have consulted the Original but not having the opportunity of so doing I thought my self under a kind of Obligation to take notice of the Passages above-mention'd because they might be urg'd as Objections against some of those Truths which I have asserted and I hope prov'd in the following Discourse THE CONTENTS J. T 's Objections against the Canon of the New Testament propos'd Page 2. Of the Word Canon what makes any Book Canonical c. Page 6 When the Books of the New Testament generally were sent over the Church Page 9 Of the first Canon and the Evidence for the Books thereof Page 10. Of the second Canon and the Evidence for the Books thereof Page 14 38. Of Ecclesiastical Books Page 19 Of Spurious Books Page 20 J. T 's first Objection answered Page 21 2d Objection answered Page 23 A Book though call'd Scripture or Read in the Church not therefore judg'd Canonical Page 26 The Pastor of Hermas Particularly consider'd see also the Preface Page 29 The Canonical Books depend not on the Testimony of a single Father Page 30. J. T 's Third Objection answer'd Page 32. Fourth Objection answer'd Page 35. Why the
brings in Celsus a Heathen p. 60. as a Witness against the Christians Who exclaims against the too great Liberty they took as if they were drunk of changing the first Writings of the Gospel three or four or more times that so they might deny whatever was urg'd against them as retracted before 7. To Celsus in the same Page he joyns the Manicheans fitly enough I confess who shew'd other Scriptures and deny'd the Genuineness of the whole new Testament 8. We are told p. 64. that the Ebionites or Nazarens who were the oldest Christians had a different Copy of St. Matthews Gospel the Marcionites had a very different one of St. Luke's St. John's was attributed to Cerinthus and all the Epistles of St. Paul were deny'd by some and a different Copy of them shew'd by others 9. He urges p. 53 54. that Eusebius rejects the Acts Gospel Preaching and Revelation of Peter from being Authentick for no other reason but because no Ancient or Modern VVriter says he has quoted proofs out of them But herein Eusebius was mistaken for the contrary appears by the Testimonies mark'd in the Catalogue which any Body may compare with the Originals In another place be says that the Gospels of Peter Thomas Matthias and such-like with the Acts of John and the other Apostles are Spurious because no Ecclesiastick VVriter from the Times of the Apostles down to his own has vouchsaf'd to quote them which is absolutely false of some of them as we have already shewn Had Eusebius found any of these Pieces cited by the precedent Orthodox Writers he would have own'd them as Genuine Productions of the Apostles and admitted them as we say into the Canon But having met no such Citations he presently concluded there were none which made him reject those Books And I say what I have already demonstrated that Proofs were quoted out of some of them long before so that they might still belong to the Canon for all Eusebius 10. He Produces p. 69 c. a long Passage out of Mr. Dodwell which if we 'll believe him Reflects more upon the Canon of the New Testament as to the certainty and Authority of it then any thing which had been before excepted against in the Life of Milton Now let any one lay all these Passages together and I fancy he 'll be of my mind and easily believe that our Author's Vindication of himself against Mr. Blackall was impertinent and such a presuming on the weakness of his Readers as is not usual since he presently after commits that fault though I doubt he 'll not call it so from which just before he attempted to clear himself and makes no scruple at all of exposing the Writings of the New Testament which we believe to be Canonical as doubtful and uncertain II. I suppose it will not be thought sufficient for me only to have proceeded thus far and in our Authors Language p. 8. to have shown the Enemy and given an account of his Forces except I endeavour to weaken them too and thereby hinder them from doing such Execution as they seem to threaten But because the Particulars above-alleg'd are Objections against the general Doctrin of the Church in the matter now before us I think it will be proper before I examine them to lay down the Grounds upon which the Canon of the New Testament has been fix'd and determin'd Which I shall do with all the Brevity the Subject will admit of as designing to enlarge upon and confirm several Particulars in the sequel of this Discourse where fit occasion will be offer'd The Word Canon is Originally Greek and in the Ordinary acceptation signifies a Rule and therefore when made use of in Divinity we understand by the Canon and Canonical Books those Books which were design'd by God to be the Rule of our Faith and Practice I shall not discourse any thing now concerning the Books of the Old Testament because they are no part of the present controversy †I think it pertain'd to the Apostles to approve the Sacred Books Neither have we any Canonical Books either of the Old or New Testament but those which the Apostles approv'd and deliver'd to the Church Melchior Canus in his Common Places l. 2. c. 7. p. 43. Edit Lov. 1569. Octavo The Church like a faithful Guardian hath preserved and conveyed to her Children as Writings received from the Apostles not only what they Penned themselves but also those Pieces too which being Wrote by Persons who were not Apostles yet were by the Apostles confirmed Publickly Approved and recommended to the Church Arch Bishop of Spalato in his Christian Common-Wealth l. 7. c. 1. S. 15. Edit Hanov. 1622. No other Books properly belonging to the Holy Scriptures but such as the Apostles of Christ left behind them Bp. Cosins Hist of the Canon of the Old Testament Sect. 73. p. 80. So likewise Episcopius in his Institutions l. 4. Sect. 1. c. 5. Remarks that those Books make up the Canon of the New Testament which were either Wrote by the Apostles or with their Approbation And again in his Treatise of the Rule of Faith c. 7. Whatever was Wrote or Approv'd by the Aposiles was without Controversy dictated by the Holy Ghost But in the New Testament those Books only are accounted Canonical which were Writ or however Authoriz'd by the Apostles For they being the Immediate Disciples of and Attendants upon our Lord and being Commission'd by him to instruct the World in the Doctrin which he taught them were without doubt * It is not my Business here to prove that the Apostles were Infallible but only to show the Necessity that they should be so infallible for else they might have led the World into Error and therefore their Teaching their Writings their Judgment ought to be receiv'd with all Veneration and Submission St. Paul is reckon'd justly of the same Authority with the rest because our Saviour was pleas'd to appear to him from Heaven reveal his Gospel to him in his own Person and appoint him an Apostle after an extraordinary manner for he Receiv'd his Commission not from Men as himself tells us Gal. 1.1 12. but from Jesus Christ and God the Father What the Apostles Wrote and what they Authoriz'd can be known no other way then by the Testimonies of those who liv'd at the same time with them and the Tradition of those who succeeded them And therefore whenever any Churches receiv'd any Writings to Instruct them in Religion from the Apostles they look'd upon those Writings as Canonical or a Rule of their Faith and Manners in the Particulars whereof they Treated And whenever any other Churches were assur'd either by the Testimony of those who knew it themselves or by certain Tradition that such and such were Apostolical Writings they too esteem'd them Canonical preserv'd them as such themselves and as such transmitted them to others III. Hence it appears that the Written Canon encreas'd gradually in
it self as the Apostles Writ new Books and was likewise gradually spread over the World as Particular Churches receiv'd those Books from others with good Testimonies and Evidences of their being the gennine Works of those under whose Names they were convey'd to them No wonder then if some Books were sooner and some later receiv'd as Canonical by the Universal Body of Christians in all Places because either the Books themselves or the Testimonials to prove them Apostolical might nay Naturally would be transmitted to some Churches later then others as they were Situated nearer to or remov'd farther from those Cities or Countrys where they were first Publish'd or enjoy'd a greater or less intercourse with them But the General conveying of a great part of them over the whole Christian Church seems to have been perform'd in the Beginning of the Second Century about the time of St. Johns Death or immediately after it For as Eusebius tells us in his Ecclesiastical History l. 3. c. 37. there were then great numbers of Persons Disciples of the Apostles who travell'd over the World building up Churches where the Apostles had before lay'd the Foundations and Preaching the Faith of Christ in other Places which had never heard of it before carrying along with them the Copies of the Gospels to all Countreys whither they Travell'd And it is very probable that they took with them some other parts of the New Testament besides since as we shall immediately see from the Testimonies of Jreneus and Tertullian they were own'd and admitted everywhere soon after IV. For the clearing of which I shall consider what Books were first taken into the Canon by the whole Church and what afterwards not omitting also to remark that they had besides some that were stil'd Ecclesiastical and others Spurious or Suppositious 1. The Four Gospels the Acts of the Apostles Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul that to the †Eusebius seems in l. 3. c. 25. to take the Epistle to the Hebrews into the Canon but because he does not expresly name it there and in the 3d. Ch. of that Book he tells that it was question'd by some I have therefore left it out as a Book that was not Vniversally taken into the Canon at that time Hebrews being excepted the first of St. Peter and the first of St. John were all receiv'd over the Christian World in the time of Eusebius as appears from his (a) L. 3. C. 25. Ecclesiastical History To him I might joyn Athanasius the Council of Laodicea Epiphanius Ruffinus c. But because they Wrote a while after when the whole Canon of the New Testament began to be settled their Testimony will reach the other Books as well as these under consideration and therefore I shall reserve them for a fitter place It 's true indeed Eusebius and those others did not Publish their Judgments on this Subject till above 300 Years after Christ and therefore seem something of the latest to be Witnesses in a case of this Nature But then we ought to observe not only that they speak positively what was the general Judgment of their Days but that three of them appeal to the Tradition of the Church and the Testimony of the Ancients who living nearer the Age of the Apostles had better opportunities of informing themselves from Authentick Proofs what were their true and Genuine Works It was upon this Testimony of Primitive and succeeding Writers that the Catholick Church did in the time above mention'd admit these Books as Apostolical and account them for Canonical Parts of the New Testament Many of the Writings which they consulted are now Perish'd but some have been preserv'd to our days from which I shall produce an Instance or two to show that the Church in the time of Eusebius had real warrant from Antiquity to look upon the Books whereof I am now speaking as Canonical or Rules of Faith since they had been esteem'd for such long before and were attributed to them whose Names they bear by their Predecessors Thus Tertullian who flourish'd at the end of the Second Century tells us expresly in his Discourse of the Prescription of Hereticks that the Law and the Prophets C. 36 the Gospels and Apostolick Writings were the Books from whence we are to learn our Faith And that we may know what he meant by Gospels and Apostolick Writings for about them we are only concern'd at present he does as occasion was offer'd in his several Treatises appeal to all the Books above-mention'd * If it be enquir'd what Evidence we have that the Epistle to Philemon since it 's quoted neither by Tertullian nor Jreneus belongs to this first set of Canonical Books I answer 1. That Eusebius and Gregory Nazianzen both in his Jambicks to Soleucus and his Poem concerning the genuine Books of the Scripture manifestly reckon this Epistle among those parts of the Canon which were never doubted of 2. Origen expresly ascribes it to St. Paul in his Nineteenth Homily on Jeremy Ed. G. L. p. 185. 3. Though Tertullian does not in direct terms tell us that it was accounted one of the Canonical Books in his time yet he says that from whence it necessarily follows For l. 5. against Marcion c. 21. he wonders why that Heretick rejected the Epistles to Timothy and Titus which concern the State of the whole Church when yet he receiv'd another written to a single Person as well as these whereby none can be understood but this to Philemon Since 't is well known that Marcion rejected all the Canonical Epistles and consequently the Second and Third of St. John which also were not at that time generally embrac'd by the Catholicks And therefore since he joyn'd with the Catholicks in receiving one Epistle to a single Person it must necessarily be this For he rejected all the others excepting only the Epistle to Philemon out of which being very short he had no occasion I suppose to produce any Testimonies as the real Writings of the Apostles and Persons to whom we ascribe them And Jreneus before him who convers'd as we learn from himself with (b) L. 3. C. 3. Polycarp and (c) L. 2. C. 39. others that had been instructed by the Apostles and immediate Disciples of our Lord mentions (d) L. 1. C. 1. L. 3. C. 12. the Code of the New Testament as well as of the Old calls the one as well as the other the (e) L. 1. C. 1. Oracles of God and (f) L. 2. C. 47. VVritings dictated by his VVord and Spirit speaks expresly several times (g) L. 3. C. 1. c. of the four Gospels and quotes the same Books of the New Testament which we observ'd Tertullian does and under the Names of the same Authors that he does even of those by whom we now believe they were written and blames (h) L. 3. C. 2. the Hereticks of those times for rejecting their Authority They were Hereticks only that rejected them
in those early Ages neither does it appear that so much as one of the Books we are now considering was ever doubted of or call'd in question by any of the Members of the Catholick Church after they were once publickly known This is enough to evince that Eusebius and the Church in his time had Testimonies of the Ancients to assure them that the Books above-specifi'd were really the Writings of the Disciples and Followers of our Saviour And besides these †Jreneus and Tertullian ought not to be accounted here as single Witnesses but as those which deliver what was the Judgment of all those Churches with which they convers'd See hereafter Sect. XXXIII where particular Places are produc'd out of both of them in which they quote the several Books under the Names of those Authors to whom they are now ascrib'd and 't is also prov'd that what they believ'd concerning them was confirm'd by the Suffrage of the Universal Church that is all those parts of it with which they had Correspondence two Authors now mention'd there are others still Extant as Clemens of Alexandria Origen and Cyprian who ' confirm the same Truth and many now lost which they then had in their hands from whence they drew further proofs and Evidences in this matter 2. The Epistle to the Hebrews the Second of St. Peter the Second and Third of St. John the Epistle of St. James and of St. Jude and the Revelation were at the beginning question'd by some as Eusebius informs us in the Book and Chapter above-alleg'd but then as the same Author in the same Places assures us they were receiv'd and acknowledg'd by many others The Agreement about these was not so general and uniform as about the other Books Some Persons and Churches perhaps receiv'd them all but the whole Body of the Catholicks did not as being not then fully satisfy'd every-where concerning the Evidence which was produc'd for them Yet neither were they generally rejected as some pretend For several of them were receiv'd in several Places as it would be very easy to prove from Jreneus Tertullian and others of the Fathers yet extant Of which more by and by when we come to our Authors fifth Objection But however the case was at first it is apparent that upon a due Examination of the Testimonies of the Ancients produc'd on their behalf these also were in process of Time receiv'd into the Canon For (i) Athanas Vol. 2. G. L. p. 39. and Balsam p. 921 Athanatius in one of his Festival Epistles Wrote about 20 Years after the History of Eusebius reckons them expresly among the rest So does also (k) Ibid. p. 850. the Council of Laodicea * The Council of Laodicea Can. 59. forbids reading Psalms of private Composition or Vncanonical Books in the Church and commands that only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament should be read there And then adds Can. 60. These Books of the Old Testament ought to be Read Genesis Exodus c. And of the New these the four Gospels c. Reckoning up all those which we count Canonical only leaving out the Revelation Now the difficulty is whether the Revelation be left out as a Book that is not Canonical in the Judgment of the Council or as a Canonical Book which is not fit to be Publickly Read because not intelligible by the generality For my part I must say that I cannot determine this Question either the one way or the other For fince the Fathers have not expresly declar'd themselves they might for ought we can tell leave it out as a Book which they thought not Canonical or they might leave it out as a Canonical Book which could not be rightly understood by Common Hearers For thus the Church of England does not Read this Book in the Lessons for that very Reason but only some small Portions instead of the Epistles on some peculiar Festivals And thus also she Reads no part at all of the Canticles upon the same account and yet has asserted both the one and the other to be part of the Canon in the Thirty Nine Articles excepting only the Revelation So does (l) Heres 76. p. 941. Epiphanius and so also does (m) On the Creed p. 26. Rufinus towards the end of that Century and vouches the Authority of the Ancients and the Monuments of his Predecessors for so doing As Athanasius also had done before him Nazianzen (n) Vol. 2. p. 194. indeed in his Jambicks to Seleucus which sometimes go under the Name of Amphilochius tells us that the controverted Books were in his time doubted of by some But 't is plain from the Verses under his own Name (o) P. 98. concerning the Genuine Books of Scripture that he receiv'd them all the Revelation only excepted And it appears too by (p) F. 24. St. Jerome that when he Wrote his Letter to Dardanus several of the Latine Church rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews and several of the Greek the Revelation But he declares positively that he own'd both for Canonical because most of the Ancients had done so before him However the Council of Laodicea being admitted into the Code of the Universal Church and afterwards more solemnly ratify'd among others in the first Canon of the (q) A. C. 450. See also Act. 11. of that Council p. 406. Fourth General Council shows plainly that both the Eastern and Western Churches did then receive all the Pieces mention'd above for Canonical excepting the Revelation only and what opinion they had of that we can't Judge from this Argument because the Laodicean Fathers had said nothing of it in their last Canon When it was first Vniversally receiv'd is not very easy to decide Certain it is from the Sixteenth Canon of the Fourth Councel at (r) A. C. 633. Toledo that there were very many then at least in Spain who rejected it And certain it is from the same Canon if we may believe the Fathers who compos'd it that it had been declar'd formerly part of the New Testament by many Councils and Synodical Decrees But the Names of those Councils which had asserted the Divine Authority of this Book are not there set down and therefore I must Ingenuously confess that I can't tell what Synods the Fathers had an Eye to therein besides that of (s) A. Cti 419. Carthage which reckons the Apocalypse by Name among the Canonical Books of the New Testament For as to the Famous Decree of the Roman Council under Gelasius I suppose that was not forg'd till some years after the Fathers at Toledo made that Canon which we are now considering However it is Evident that many of the most Primitive Fathers acknowledg'd the Revelation to be (t) See hereafter Sect. XI and XXV Divine and Written by St. John the Apostle it is Evident too from what has been above alledg'd that Athanasius Jerome and Rufinus receiv'd it and appeal'd to the Ancients
most of the Primitive Hereticks has appear'd so Monstrous and Extravagant the Books which they forg'd to assert it so ill attested that the one has now been rejected every where for many hundreds of years and the other condemn'd and in a manner quite vanish'd Whereas the Doctrin of the Catholicks maintain'd it self under the sharpest Persecutions and their Books were preserv'd †See the Passion of Felix Bishop of Tubyza in Africa who was put to Death in the year 303 because he would not deliver the Scriptures to be burnt according to the express Decree of Dioclesian and Maximian the Emperours to that purpose Many others also suffer'd on that account and they who for fear of Death did deliver the Scriptures to the Heathen were called Traditores whence our English word Traitors and fell under the Churches Censure as is notoriously evident from the famous case of Cecilian and the Donatists when it was Death to keep them and so both have been convey'd together to the present time notwithstanding all opposition V. Our Author tells us again p. 56. That the Epistle to the Hebrews that of St. James the Second of St. Peter the Second and Third of St. John the Epistle of St. Jude and the Revelation were a long time plainly doubted by the Ancients And as if that had not been enough he adds p. 64. that they were rejected a long time by all Christians almost with Vniversal consent But to this I have spoken already p. 14 c. and therefore think it necessary to add no more by way of Answer in this place then what a Learned Man has say'd concerning the Epistle of St. James which may with equal Reason be apply'd to all the rest of these once controverted Pieces Though the Ancients have been divided as to this point it is enough that the succeeding Ages after a due Reflection on this matter have found in Antiquity certain Acts sufficient to place them in the rank of the Canonical Books of the New Testament and that all Churches in the World have since that receiv'd them as such However before I dismiss this Objection it will not be improper to take a little notice of our Authors Ingenuity and consider with what truth he could affirm that these Books were rejected for a long time by all Christians almost with an universal consent The contrary to which will appear Evident if we produce those who own'd them during the time he says they were so rejected as the Genuine Writings of the Authors under whose Names they are now Publish'd and Read in the Church of England The Epistle to the Hebrews own'd as St. Paul's by Clemens of Alexandria in his Stromata l. 4. p. 514. by Origen in his Comment on St. John G.L. To. 2. p. 56. He affirmed as we find in the Ecclesiastical History of * It would have been an easy matter to have produc'd several Passages of most of the Fathers here alleg'd to prove that they held the respective Books for which they are quoted Canonical or Genuine Writings of those Apostles to whom they are ascrib'd But I wav'd that as needless and thought one Testimony sufficient to show the Judgment of one Writer Otherwise I could have brought more then Twenty Places of Origen for Example's sake to show that he held the Epistle to the Hebrews to have been Wrote by St. Paul four or five from Clemens of Alexandria c. I could also have produc'd other Authors in whom Passages out of these Pieces are made use of without naming the Books from which they are borrow'd but that did not answer my design Eusebius l. 6. c. 25. that many of the Ancients believ'd it to be St. Paul's Ensebius l. 3. c. 3. says it was rejected only by some and seems to have admitted it into the Canon with the rest for his own part l. 3. c. 25 and 38. St. Jerome in his Epistle to Dardanus f. 24. says that it was receiv'd by most of the Ancients and quoted by them as Canonical Scripture I don't produce the Testimony of St. Jerome upon his own account in this place either for this Epistle or for the Revelation but only as he informs us what was the belief of most of the Ancients in the case before us (k) See before p. 18. The Ancient Syriack Version has this Epistle and (l) F. Simons Critical History of the N. Test Part. 2. c. 15. p. 140. ascribes it to St. Paul The †Some will have St. James the Author of this Epistle to be a distinct Person from the two Apostles of that Name They say that there was a Third the Brother of our Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem and that he Wrote this Epistle To which I answer 1. That the Scripture no where mentions any more then two of this Name and St. Paul Gal. 1.19 tells us expresly that James the Brother of our Lord was an Apostle 2. Clemens of Alexandria and Eusebius from him Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 1. reckon no more then two one James the Son of Zebedee and the other James call'd the Just the Brother of our Lord who was also Bishop of Jerusalem The same is asserted by Epiphanius Heres 29. n. 3. and St. Jerome against Helvidius f. 10. So that since there were but two call'd by the Name of James and both of them Apostles let which of them can be the Author of the Epistle it was certainly wrote by an Apostle Though it is generally concluded to be that James who was our Lord's Brother probably so stil'd either because the Son of Joseph by a former Wife or the Son of the Virgin Mary's Sister as St. Jerome will have it for the other James the Son of Zebedee was kill'd by Herod at the first planting of the Church And therefore to this James Fusinus expresly ascribes it in his Exposition of the Apostles Creed calling him Apostle and Brother of our Lord. See Dr. Cave's Life of St. James the Less Epistle of St. James was own'd as that Apostle's by Origen in his Eighth Homily on Exodus f. 43. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History l. 3. c. 25. says it was approv'd by many The Ancient Syriack Version has this Epistle The Second Epistle of St. Peter own'd as his by Origen in his Seventh Homily on Joshua f. 156. and by Firmilian of Cappadocia in his Epistle to St. Cyprian among the Epistles of that Father Ep. 85. p. 220. Eusebius says the same of this as of the Epistle of St. James and in the same place The Second Epistle of St. John own'd as that Apostles by Jreneus l. 1. c. 13. p. 95. by Clemens of Alexandria who wrote a short Explanation of it which see at the end of his Treatise concerning the Salvation of the Rich. Ox. Edit p. 142. by a Council at Carthage in the year 256 among St. Cyprians Tracts p. 242. Dionysius of Alexandria mentions this Second and also the Third Epistle as commonly ascrib'd to
Heretick in Possession of the Field And I dare say that if he had not thought he could easily overthrow those Answers he produces in this place in the Name of his Adversaries we should never have heard one word of them I am resolv'd therefore to have nothing to do with his Answers whether good or bad but shall give in such as I will stand by and accordingly speak to the above-mention'd Propositions in their order The first is that Eusebius rejects the forefaid Books only because he thought they were none of them quoted or mention'd by the Ancients when yet some of them really were To which I answer 1. That Eusebius could not be Ignorant that some of these Pieces are quoted by Clemens of Alexandria who mentions them several times being very much conversant in the works of that Father and having expresly taken notice that (d) Eccl. Hist l. 6. c. 14. one of them was cited by him and therefore when he says that none of these Books are quoted by the Ancients he must be understood to mean not that they are never quoted at all for that he knew they were and says so expresly concerning the Revelation of St. Peter Eccles Hist l. 3. c. 25. but that they were never quoted by any as Canonical and this was a sufficient reason why he should not admit them under that notion Though 2. this is not the only Reason for he observes of several of them that (e) l. 3. c. 25. they contain'd a Doctrine contrary to the Catholick Faith which was planted by the Apostles and therefore ought to be censur'd and rejected as the undoubted Contrivances and Forgeries of Hereticks The Second Proposition is That if Eusebius had known that any of these Pieces had been ever quoted by the Ancients he would have esteem'd them Canonical I answer it is evident from what has been just now say'd that Eusebius did know it and yet would not receive them into the Canon The bare quoting a Book except it be quoted as part of the Rule of Faith or a Genuine Writing Compos'd or Authoriz'd by the Apostles signifies nothing in this case as has been allready prov'd Nay I shall further add that if Eusebius had known that some of the Ancients had really quoted one or more of these Pieces as Canonical that alone would not have induc'd him to receive them as such For this was the very case of the Epistle of St. James the Second of St. Peter and the rest of the once controverted Pieces They were quoted by many and quoted by many too as Canonical yet because the whole Church was not then acquainted with the Reasons which afterward satisfied her to admit these Books as parts of the Code of the New Testament we see that they were lay'd aside and not advanc'd to that honour by Eusebius The Third Proposition is That since these Acts Gospel Preaching Revelation of St. Peter and the others were some of them really quoted by the Ancients they ought according to the Principles of Eusebius to be receiv'd for Canonical I answer No unless quoted as Canonical and prov'd Canonical too by such Testimonies as were sufficient to satisfy the Catholick Church as appears by the Instances of the Epistle of St. James and the rest above-mention'd When Eusebius could not meet with so much as one Primitive Father who cited these Books for Canonical that alone though he had another reason too against divers of them as appears before was sufficient warrant for him to reject them But for the introducing them into the Canon a constant and well attested Tradition by such as were capable of Judging from the first Ages that they had been prov'd Genuine upon Authentick Testimonies was requisite in his Opinion and therefore our Authors Objection vanishes into air and signifies just nothing X. I come now to the last Objection which is founded on a long Passage of Mr. Dodwell who as is insinuated reflects more upon the Certainly and Authority of the Canon of the New Testament then any thing which had been before excepted against in our Author This is usher'd in with great Pomp and Ceremony for we Read p. 69. that Mr. D. alone though a Layman understands as much Ecclesiastical History as the Divines of all Churches put together This is a high flight indeed methinks it had been enough to have made him understand as much as all the English Divines but to bring in the Divines of all other Churches besides is a little too Extravagant and more I am certain then our Author can possibly know I shall not in the least detract from the true Character of that worthy Gentleman who ought to be and I believe generally is valued for his great Learning and Piety and will I am confident give our Author no thanks for his Complement or for bringing him in as a Witness in the case now before us For he is quite of another Opinion and tells us expresly but a few Pages before that Passage which is produc'd by our Author that (f) Sect. 36. p. 62. there is no manner of reason to doubt of that Tradition which has transmitted to us the Canon of the New Testament This I think is a point blank contradiction to the Natural design and tendency of the Treatise we are now considering since that runs all into confusion and plainly aims at the perswading Men that in the Business of the Canon we have nothing but Darkness and Obscurity Mr. Dodwell's Principal Intention in the long Passage quoted from him was to show that we have as good Evidence that the Practical Traditions as for Instance Episcopal Government which obtain'd in the time of Ireneus and were deliver'd as such were really Apostolical Institutions as there is for the Canon of the New Testament because the Books we now receive for Canonical or our Rule of Faith were not so fix'd and determin'd till the beginning of the Second Century as to be appeal'd to by the Christian Church under that notion And they were then settled upon the Testimony of the same Persons and sent (g) See his Addenda to p. 73. and his Chronology abroad too into all places in the year 107 who convey'd these Traditions and who having been conversant with and instructed by the Apostles were without doubt sufficiently qualified to give in Evidence concerning their Writings and to distinguish them from all others which might go abroad falsly under their Names This I take to be the main design of the Passage now before us with what proceeds and follows in the Original from Section 35 to Section 41 inclusively but because there are some Particulars therein which may deserve a little further clearing or illustration I shall employ a few Pages thereupon and if in any thing I differ from that Learned Gentleman I know he 'l allow me the same Liberty of Thought and Judgment concerning matters of Fact which himself took before me While the Apostles
THE CANON OF THE New Testament VINDICATED In Answer to the Objections of J. T. in his AMYNTOR By John Richardson B. D formerly Fellow of Emmanuel College in Cambridge Nulla est omnino ratio cur de eâ Traditione dubitemus quae nobis Novi Testamenti Canonem transmisit Hen. Dodwelli disertat 1. in Irenaeum Sect. 36. LONDON Printed for RICHARD SARE at Grays-Inn-Gate in Holborn 1700. To the HONOURABLE SUSANNA NOEL Relict of the Honourable Baptist Noel And Mother of the RIGHT HONOURABLE The Earl of Gainsborough Madam AFter I had determin'd to let the following Discourse go abroad into the World I never deliberated about the choice of a Patron nor spent any time in considering to whom it should be Dedicated What I have there Wrote belongs to your Ladyship upon divers Accounts and especially upon these that it was drawn up at first in obedience to your Commands for under that notion I do and ought to receive the least Intimations of your Pleasure was originally design'd only for your Service and has already been admitted in Manuscript to the honour of a place in your Closet for several Months I hope therefore Madam you 'll not be displeas'd if I present you the same again from the Press a little enlarg'd For it 's obvious to apprehend that these Papers being now expos'd to the View of the Publick may easily fall into the hands of many Readers who have not that Candour of Temper that Quickness of Parts and Apprehension which every one admires in your Ladyship and therefore it was advisable that I should make what convenient Provision I could by a few Alterations and Additions against Cavilling and misunderstanding And if notwithstanding all the care I have taken the Work still fall under Censure and strange indeed it must be if it does not with some the severest Criticks I doubt not will however be so just as to acknowledge that the Design which is all your Ladyship is concern'd in is good and fit for a Person of Honour and Integrity to own since it aim's at the vindicating the most Venerable Records of our Religion from the Objections that are urg'd against their being Genuine And whatever faults or defects there may be in the conduct thereof for want of due Learning or Judgment in the undertaker I don't in the least desire your Ladyship should justify or defend but leave them all to be charg'd on the account of Madam Your Ladyships most humble and obliged Servant J. Richardson THE PREFACE WHen I first drew up the Reflections upon Amyntor that are here presented to the Reader which was done above half a year ago I though some Alterations and Additions have been made since they were design'd only for the Closet of the Honourable Lady to whom they are Dedicated For whose ease the Quotations and References too when the matter would bear it were made in English These I have continued in the same Language still partly because I suppose it will make them of more general use and partly because I think that though the Discourse be now Publish'd yet the chief Right to it remains still in the first Proprietor The Reader may perhaps enquire why these Papers come out so late and it may be too why they come out at all since another has already Wrote upon the same Argument To the First I reply that they were not originally intended for the Press and therefore it is no wonder if it prov'd so long before they got thither To the Second all I have to say is That what I have here Written being seen by some Friends for whom I have a great deference they judg'd that it would have its use too as well as the other Piece before-mention'd To whose Judgment I submitted calling to mind that known Passage of a Learned Father (a) St. August of the Trinity l. 1. c. 3. Every thing that is Written does not fall into the hands of all Persons Perhaps some may meet with my Books who may hear nothing of others which have treated better of the same Subject It is useful therefore that the same Questions should be handled by several Persons after a different Method though according to the Principles of the same Faith that so the Explication of Difficulties and the Arguments for the Truth may come to the knowledge of every one either one way or other And here I should have taken my leave of the Reader for the present and dismiss'd him to the Perusal of the following Treatise if he be so dispos'd but that I think my self oblig'd to take notice of two or three Passages in the History of the Works of the Learned for the Month of May which contradict some Particulars that I have asserted in the following Treatise They are in the Account of the Ecclesiastical History of Mr. Basnage but to whom they are to be ascrib'd I cannot affirm Perhaps they may proceed from that Author and perhaps they may be the mistakes of those who transmitted the account of his Work from Holland to our English Publishers I charge them therefore directly upon no body but finding them in the Book above-mention'd shall give my Reasons why I look upon them as Erroneous I begin with p. 283 where we are told in the 2d Paragraph how Mr. B. demonstrates that for three Ages after Christ there was no certain Canon when both Private Persons and also Whole Churches partly admitted Supposititious Books for Sacred and partly despis'd the Genuine as Prophane How far this assertion is design'd to extend and what Mr. B. has done to confirm it is no other ways Evident to me at present then by the Argument which is immediately subjoyn'd to satisfy us of the Strength of the Demonstration This is intended to affect the Whole Bible but I think a much lower Word then Demonstration might have serv'd the turn unless there be stronger Reasons in reserve For it follows †How far the Ancients had any differences about the Canon of the New Testament I have explain'd in its due place my business here is to prove that Hermas was never esteem'd part of it or Canonical And also to examine the Testimony of Theodorus concerning some Books of the Old So Origen believ'd that Hermas his Pastor was a Book Divinely inspir'd On the contrary Theodorus of Mopsuestia calls the Book of Job a Fable borrowed from Paganism the Books of Chronicles and Esdras a vain Rhapsody the Song of Solomon a Love Song c. We have here two Arguments alledg'd one to prove there was no certain Canon of the New Testament and the other to evince as much for the Old And yet it is Evident at first sight that neither of these Instances give us the least information of the Judgment of Whole Churches unless Origen and Theodorus can be prov'd to speak in the Names of more People then themselves which I am confident can never be made out Origen I am sure delivers his own
Testimonies of Hereticks not so valu'd as that of the Catholicks in the case of the Canon Page 36. It was Death to keep the Books of the New Testament under Persecution Page 38. J. T 's Fifth Objection answer'd Page 38. Testimonies for the Books of the Second Canon or Seven Controverted Pieces when our Author says they were rejected by all c. Page 39. St. James the Apostle Author of the Epistle that Name Page 40. St. Jude the Apostle Author of the Epistle under under that Name Page 42. Not so good Reason to admit the Preaching and Revelation attributed to St. Peter into the Canon as the Seven Controverted Pieces Page 43. J. T 's Sixth Objection answer'd Page 49. Seventh Objection answer'd Page 50. Of the Manichees Page 50. How far they rejected the New Testament Page 51. St. Augustin 's Arguments to prove against them that the Books of the New Testament are Genuine not corrupted or Contradictory and that the Scriptures peculiar to them are Forgeries Page 54. J. T 's Eighth Objection answer'd Page 65. Of the Nazarens and Ebionites their Gospels c. Page 66. Of the Marcionites and their Scriptures Page 71. St. John 's Gospel not Wrote by Cerinthus Page 72. J. T 's Ninth Objection answer'd Page 73. Tenth Objection from Mr. D. answered Page 77. Apostolical Writings dispers'd in the first Century Page 79. Clemens Barnabas c. as far as appears quote no Spurious Writings Page 85. Of other Gospels and the Doctrines of the Apostles c. Page 86. The Apostle John Author of the two last Epistles and the Revelation Page 88. J. T 's First Difficulty drawn from Mr. D. answer'd Page 92. Second Difficulty Page 93. Third Difficulty Page 95. Fourth Difficulty consider'd Page 99. Of the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions Page 101. Ireneus Vindicated Page 103. Barnabas Vindicated Page 105. An Index of Places in Ireneus and Tertullian where the Books of the New Testament are ascribed to those Authors whose Names they now bear Page 107. Their Arguments to prove those Books Genuine and not Corrupt Page 111 VVhat Julâ—an the Apostate thought of the Genuineness of the Books of the New Testament with some Reflections thereon c. Page 115. ERRATA PAge 7. Line 5. for Writ Read Written p. 9. l. 3. for Writ r. Wrote p. 11. l. 26. add in the Margin c. 36. p. 12. in the margin for l. 3. c. 39. r. l. 2. c. 39. p. 13. in the Notes l. 8. after prov'd insert Sect. 34. p. 25. in the Notes l. 7. for 140. r. 410. l. 26. for many r. any p. 32. l. 25. in the very beginning insert 111. p. 35. l. 24. as also p. 36. l. 21. for 17. r. 10. p. 43 in the Notes l. 2. r. n. 1. and 2. p. 52. l. 10. for understood r. understand p. 59. References in the Margin belong not to the words that are within but to those that are without the Parenthesis p. 61. l. 21. for would r. will p. 79. l. 11. for proceeds r. precedes p. 91. in the Margin for l. 3. c. 3. r. l. 3. c. 1. p. 106. l. 2. for unrightness r. uprightnefs p. 110. l. 26. for 71. r. 72. p. 113. l. 11. and 13. for Writ r. Write THE CANON OF THE New Testament VINDICATED I. OUR Author in the beginning of this Treatise falls very severely on Mr. Blackall who had charg'd him in a Sermon before the House of Commons with questioning the Authority of some of the Books of the New Testament in his History of the Life of Milton This he says was an uncharitable as well as Groundless Accusation and brings many Arguments to prove his Innocence as to that matter I shall not concern my self at present in that controversy nor examine whether our Author be guilty or not of what is lay'd to his charge I am sure all he Alledges for his own Vindication is a grand Impertinency and such a Notorious abuting of his Readers as is not easily to be found in Writers who are not of his Complexion It is just as if a Man should Vindicate himself from having ever Rob'd on the High-way and as soon as he had finish'd his discourse should fall upon and Spoil the next Traveller he meets For thus he after a long harangue wherein he pretends to clear himself from the Aspersions of Mr. Blackall and prove that he never insinuated that any of the Books of the New Testament might justly be question'd proceeds if I understand English to assert the same with open Face and brings several Arguments which can aim at nothing else but to sink their Authority and make Men believe there is no sufficient ground for receiving the present Canon Whether this be his Intention or no I think will easily appear to any one who shall consider the following Particulars 1. He affirms p. 52. that several spurious Pieces have been quoted by the Fathers as of equal Authority with those which we receive even by those Fathers upon whose Testimony the present Canon is Establish'd From whence it is evident he would infer that those Spurious and our Canonical Books ought to go together and either be equally admitted or equally rejected since they are founded upon the same Testimonies 2. He looks upon the Epistles of Barnabas the Pastor of Hermas the Epistles of Polycarp of Clemens Bishop of Rome and Ignatius to be all Forgeries p. 43 46. and yet he tells us p. 44. that the Ancients pay'd them the highest Respect and reckon'd the first four of them especially as good as any part of the New Testament So that the Testimony of the Ancients for the Canon of the New Testament seems to be of no value since if we 'll believe our Author they put Forgeries in the same rank with the Books thereof and esteem'd them of the same Authority 3. He urges p. 47. that he can't understand why the Writings of St. Mark and St. Luke should be receiv'd into the Canon and those of Clemens Bishop of Rome and St. Barnabas be excluded by those who look upon them as Genuine Since the two former were not Apostles but only Companions and Fellow-Labourers with the Apostles and so were the two latter as well as they 4. We Read p. 56. in so many words that There is not one single Book of the New Testament which was not refus'd by some of the Ancients as unjustly Father'd upon the Apostles and really forg'd by their Adversaries 5. He tells us in the same Page That the Epistle to the Hebrews that of St. James the Second of St. Peter the Second and Third of St. John the Epistle of St. Jude and the Revelation were a long time plainly doubted by the Ancients And as if this had not been enough he adds p. 64. that they were rejected a long time by all Christians almost with universal consent 6. To show that he 'll leave no Stone unturn'd to express the favourable Opinion he has of the New Testament he
as their Warrant for so doing We have seen likewise that it was own'd by Epiphanius and acknowledg'd as Canonical by a Synod at Carthage It was admitted also for such by (x) L. 3. of Virgins p. 98. St. Ambrose (y) Of Heres c. 30. St. Augustin and many others of that and succeding Ages But whether the diffusive Body of the Church was so far satisfy'd of its being Authentick as to receive it every where for such till it was Establish'd by the Sanction of the Sixth General (z) A. C. 680. Council I shall not take upon me to determine However then the Controversy seems to have been brought to an end if not before For the Fathers of that Assembly having receiv'd not only the Decrees of the Council of Carthage but also which is more express in the case (a) Can. 2. the Epistle of Athanasius above-mention'd did thereby own the Revelation to be properly Canonical and the whole Church of that Age †That the Syrians Read none of the Controverted Pieces in their Churches besides the Epistle to the Hebrews and that of St. James is Evident from the New Testament which Ignatius Patriarch of Antioch sent to be Printed in Europe the last Century and was actually Printed by Widmansiadius at Vienna in the Year 1555. But why they do so may be a question It does not seem to be because they look upon the rest as not Canonical for they have them too in the Syriack Tongue as we may learn from Ep. Walton and F. Simon If I may have leave to interpose my Conjecture I should think it proceeds from hence That this Translation is very Ancient and was Certainly made before the controverted Books were Vniversally receiv'd and their Lectionaries or Rubricks adapted to it And having no other Version made till many years after of the rest of the Catholick Epistles and the Revelation they would not alter the old Lectionaries when they had one as they must have done if they had taken in the other Pieces This may be judg'd a fond thing and so it is but not half so fond and contrary to common Sense as what is practis'd by the Romanists these very Syrians and some others of the Eastern Churches For the Scriptures having been of old Translated into the Languages of Particular Countries that they might be understood by the Common People as well in the Publick Service as in their Private Reading they still continue so Superstitious are they in observing an old Custom to Read them and Celebrate their Liturgies in Latine and the Ancient Tongues of the Places specified though they are now grown quite out of use and the Unlearned understand not one word of them especially the Orientals among whom this Book had been most question'd submitting to their Authority back'd with so good Evidence This as well as the other controverted Pieces had been was afterwards reckon'd as a Genuine part of the New Testament That these Books were not every where admitted upon their first appearing shows that the Church did not proceed rashly and carelesly in the case And that they were every-where admitted afterward shows that there was clear Proof and Evidence on their behalf and therefore they have been ever since joyn'd to the rest of the Books which we esteem Canonical The case of those Spurious Pieces which were thrust into the World under venerable Names was clear contrary They flourish'd a little and made a show when they first came abroad but after a while not being able to stand a strict Examination vanish'd and fell to nothing so that little has been left of most of them besides their Names for many Ages 3. There have been always in the Church besides these other Writings that were call'd Ecclesiastical Such under the New Testament are the Works of the Ancient Fathers which have ever been look'd upon as useful and of good Authority though not infallible as the Canonical Scripture is being generally compos'd not only by Pious and Learned Men but also by those who liv'd in or near the Primitive Ages of Christianity and consequently had better opportunities of being acquainted with the Doctrin and Practice of the first Preachers thereof then we have And among these they have always been esteem'd of the greatest Authority if their Character was answerable upon other accounts who flourish'd and wrote nearest the times of the Apostles Of this sort is that which is call'd the first Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians which though Eusebius tells us was of so great Estimation (b) Eccl. Hist l. 3. c. 16. as to be Read Publickly in several Churches yet he (c) L. 3. c. 25. excludes it from the Canon And so he does the Pastor of (d) Ibid. Hermas which both he and (e) In the places above cited n. 1. of this Section Athanasius and Rufinus acknowledge to have been Read too openly in some places yet they all joyn in raising it no higher then an Ecclesiastical Piece Which I therefore remark here because we shall find our Author hereafter making a great stir with these two Treatises 4. Several * Those Writings which were Publish'd under false Names were certainly Spurious But it is not necessary to suppose that all which the Fathers call'd Apocryphal were of that sort For the Title of Apocryphal is often apply'd to such Ancient Books as were no part of the Canon many of which were certainly no Forgeries See hereafter Sect. XXIII Spurious Writings were also Publish'd very early in the Church under the Names of the Apostles and other great Men of which our Author has given a large Catalogue These were for the most part compos'd by (f) Jren. l. 1. c. 17. Gnostick and other Hereticks to maintain and propagate their False and Wicked Opinions and some too were the Works of Zealous but Simple Catholicks As for instance the Travels of Paul and Thecla the Author of which as (g) Treatise of Bapt. c. 17. Tertullian and (h) Treat of Eccles Writ in Luke St. Jerom inform us wrote it out of Love to St. Paul He was discover'd in the Life time of St. John and by him Censur'd Many of these were found out to be Cheats assoon as they came abroad and others not till after some years However they were generally discover'd sooner or later so that of the Forgeries of the first Ages there is little remaining to our Times except the bare Titles Having premis'd thus much I shall now proceed to consider the Objections of our Author I. Then he affirms p. 52. that several Spurious Books were quoted by the Fathers as of equal Authority with those which we now receive even by those Fathers upon whose Testimony the present Canon is Establish'd From whence it is Evident he would and must infer that those Spurious and our Canonical Books ought to go together and either be equally admitted or be equally rejected since they are founded upon the same Testimony
To which I Answer 1. That the quoting other Authors in the same Discourses wherein we appeal to the Writings of the Sacred Volums is no Evidence that we Judge them of the same Authority For is there any thing more usual in Moral and Theological Treatises then to Cite the Scriptures and Fathers and Philosophers and Poets too sometimes Promiscuously as there is Occasion And yet no Man in his Wits ever thought that by so doing these three last were declar'd as infallible as the first How often have Tully and Seneca and Plato and others of their Rank been quoted by Christian Writers in the same Discourses wherein they have fetch'd Proofs from the Evangelists and Apostles And yet I dare say they never dreamt that for so doing they might be charg'd as making Tully equal to St. John or Seneca to St. Paul We quote Authors not always as convincing Proofs of the Truth of what we deliver but sometimes because they express themselves handsomly argue Pathetically Reason closely or to show that others have been of the same Judgment with us though at the same time we think them no more infallible then we do our selves And after this manner that I may come close to our Authors Objection did Origen proceed who is observ'd to have cited as many Apocryphal Writings as any almost of the Fathers though he produces generally if we 'l believe (i) Monsieur Valois's notes on Euseb l. 3. c. 38. a Learned Man nothing but what is profitable or useful from them and yet he does not advance any of them into the Canon but reserv'd that Honour for those Books to which it did belong 2. Though our Author affirms in this Objection that the Fathers quoted several Spurious Books as of equal Authority with those which we account Canonical yet he gives us no proof thereof since the bare Citing both together is as we have seen no Evidence Something indeed he offers at p. 44. which sounds like an Argument and to that perhaps he may here refer and therefore I have put it in the Second place that I may allow every thing he urges its due force II. Therefore He looks upon the Epistle of Barnabas the Pastor of Hermas the Epistles of Clemens Bp. of Rome Polycarp and Ignatius to be all Forgeries p. 43. 46. and yet tells us p. 44. that the Ancients pay'd them the highest respect and reckon'd the four first of them especially as good as any part of the New Testament So that the Testimony of the Ancients for the Canon of the New Testament seems to be of no value since if we 'l believe our Author they put Forgeries in the same Rank with the Books thereof and esteem'd them of the same Authority 1. To which I Answer That the Positive Charge of Forgeries seems a little too confident at this time of day upon so many Books at a clap most of which have had a good Reputation for several Ages and have been of late days justified and defended by the Pens of divers of the first Rank for Learning and Criticism But our Author has no consideration for that The Writers of these Pieces were all if we 'l be perswaded by him Ignorant and Superstitious whatever Opinion the World may have formerly entertain'd of the Knowledge and Piety of any of them and their Assertors Men of no Judgment and Understanding who undertook a cause which can't be defended For so we Read p. 38. It 's the easiest task in the World next to that of shewing the Ignorance and Superstition of the Writers to prove all these and a great many more there reckon'd up Spurious But I shall crave leave to say that talking and doing are very different things and our Author will find it a more difficult Employment to run down some of these Pieces then it was to heap together a Catalogue of Writers where so many Collections had been already made to his hand Close Reasoning and Arguing are quite of another Nature and what an excellent Talent he has at making out Forgeries will easily appear to any one who shall take the pains to compare what he says in Answer to the Vindication of K. Charles the Martyr either with the Book it self or the Reply of his Learned Adversary But however let that be as it will I say he extreamly wrongs the Ancients in the accusation he here brings against them when he says that they reckon'd the four first of these especially as good as any part of the New Testament For 1. Eusebius was certainly as proper a Judge of what the Ancients held as our Author and yet he plainly sets the Books we mention'd p. 10. above all others and makes them only to be Canonical in the Judgment of the generality of his Predecessors And though the Church in the days of (k) See these Authors in the places above cited Sect. IV. n. 1. Athanasius Epiphanius c. saw Reason to take some more Books into the Canon then were admitted by Eusebius yet these we are now considering were still excluded as we may easily see in the Catalogues Publish'd by those Authors As to Barnabas and Hermas (l) Eccl. Hist l. 3. c. 25. Eusebius expresly reckons both of them among those which were judg'd Apocryphal (m) In the places above cited Athanasius and Rufinus sinck the latter into the Rank of Ecclesiastical Writers and do not by Name indeed mention the former but however leaving his Epistle out of the Number of Canonical Writings and vouching the Ancients for what they do plainly show they knew nothing of any of these being made equal to the Books of the New Testament 2. †Our Author fetches a large compass in some of his References here but however having formerly made some remarks of this Nature in Reading these Fathers I may possibly be able to trace him in the Books he directs us to on this occasion I find therefore that Clemens of Alexandria Ed. Par. G. L. 1641. cites Barnabas Stromat l. 2. p. 373 375 396 340. l. 5. p. 571 577 578. Origen cites him l. 1. against Celsus p. 49. l. 3. of Principles c. 2. f. 144. Edit Par. 1522. Jrenaeus quotes Hermas l. 4. c. 37 not c. 3. as 't is in our Author p. 370 Clemens quotes him Strom. l. 1. p. 311 356. l. 2. p. 360. l. 4. p. 503 l. 6. p. 679. Origen quotes him l. 1. of Principles c. 3. f. 117. l. 2. c. 1. f. 124. Comment on Hos G. L. p. 202. Now how fairly the Sense of these places is represented will appear from what follows He tells us first p. 44. that Clemens of Alexandria and Origen quote the Epistle of Barnabas as Scripture which is not true though if it was it signify'd nothing For in the places referr'd to they cite it indeed but under no such Title He says p. 45. that the Pastor of Hermas is cited as Canonical Scripture by Jreneus Clemens of Alexandria and Origen
Jreneus indeed and Origen calls it Scripture but not Canonical That 's our Authors addition But Clemens does not so much as call it Scripture in many of the Places mention'd What follows concerning the Epistles of Clemens Bishop of Rome Polycarp and Ignatius was needless We not only grant but assert that they have been esteem'd by the Ancients though not as equal to the Books of the New Testament And I doubt not but they 'l continue in the same estimation notwithstanding the mighty attacks with which they are threatned by this vain boaster The Arguments our Author brings to prove the Primitive Fathers look'd upon the four Treatises above-mention'd to be as good as any part of the New Testament are much too weak for that end for which they are design'd They are in short these three 1. That the Books are either quoted by the Ancients or 2. call'd by the Name of Scripture or 3. have been Publickly Read in Churches Now that the bare quoting an Author does not raise him to an equality with the Writers of the Canon has been already made apparent in Answer to the first Objection And as to the Title of Scripture though that be commonly attributed to the Books of the Old and New Testament yet it is sometimes us'd in a more large and Lax Sense for any Religious Writings both by Ancients and Moderns For thus it is evident from (n) Eccl. Hist l. 6. c. 25. Eusebius and own'd by Melchior Canus and Sixtus Senensis that Origen cast all those Books out of the Canon of the Old Testament which are esteem'd by the Church of England for Apocryphal and yet in his (o) F. 114. Third Homily on the Canticles he expresly calls the Book of Wisdom Scripture and so he does the Maccabees in his (p) F. 124 Second Book of Principles and the first Chapter which that I may remark that by the way is the only place of all those nam'd by our Author where Origen gives that Title to the Pastor of Hermas and by joyning it in the same appellation with a Book which he expresly asserted to be Apocryphal plainly declares that he did not intend by ascribing to it the Name of Scripture to advance it into the honour and Authority of the Canon Neither did Tertullian without doubt when in his Treatise of Chastity c. 10. he calls the same Book of Hermas Scripture for he censures and inveighs against it in the same place and tells us that it had been condemn'd by more then one Councel of the Catholicks Rufinus also in his Exposition on the Apostles Creed does not scruple the calling even those Treatises Scripture which were forbidden to be Read in the Publick Assemblies And St. Augustine in his Work concerning the (q) L. 15. c. 23. City of God tells us there were many Fables contain'd in those Scriptures which are call'd Apocryphal From whence and from all the other Passages before-mention'd it is Evident that the Title of Scripture was apply'd by the Ancients to other Writings as well as to those which they judg'd Canonical And thus too though our Church has cast the Books of Wisdom Tobit and Ecclesiasticus out of the Canon yet she gives them the Appellation of Scripture in the (r) 3d Serm. against the fear of Death p. 65. 3d. Serm. against Idolatry p. 57. 2d Serm. of Almsd p. 160. Book of Homilies and appoints part of them and other Apooryphal Books to be Read in Churches which is a clear proof that the Ancients by doing the same thing did not declare the pieces which they so Read to be Canonical or even as good as Canon And indeed I cannot but wonder how our Author could be guilty of such a mistake as to think that the bare Reading of a Book in the Publick Assemblies was an Argument that it was esteem'd part of the Canon when not only the Constant Practice of our Church but also the positive declarations of the Ancients themselves do in express words teach us the contrary For thus Rufinus in his Exposition on the Creed reckons up several Books which he says were stil'd Ecclesiastical and Read Publickly by the Ancients in the Church but not admitted as of sufficient Authority to Establish or confirm Articles of Faith The same is also affirm'd by St. Jerom in his (s) 3d Tome of his Epist p. 9. Preface to the Proverbs where he tells those to whom he directs it that the Church Read indeed the Books of Judith and Tobit and the Maccabees but yet did not look upon them as Canonical and so adds he let her Read Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Wisdom for the Edification of the People but not for the proving of any Doctrines or Ecclesiastical Opinions And thus much too we may gather from Eusebius who (t) Eccl. Hist l. 3. c. 16. relates that the first Epistle of Clemens Bishop of Rome was Read in most Churches and yet (u) L. 3. c. 25. he plainly excludes it from being any part of the Canon of the New Testament All which are evident demonstrations that it has been an usual Custom not only of the Church of England but also of Antiquity too to have such Books Read in Churches for the Instruction of the Hearers in Moral Duties as were never esteem'd by them to be parts of or equal to the Canonical Scripture What has been say'd I suppose is sufficient to show that none of our Authors Arguments answer what he design'd or prove that those Fathers whom he quotes look'd upon the Books above-mention'd to be as good as any part of the New Testament And therefore I shall desire him when he publishes his History of the Canon not to produce either them or any other as esteem'd Canonical in the Judgment of Antiquity only because they were cited by the Fathers or call'd Scripture or Read in the Church For none of these Particulars prove it as we have now made Evident But it may be urg'd that though none of the places expresly set down by our Author do sufficiently make out that for which they are produc'd yet however there is a passage of Origen in reserve which will do the Business And that is in his Explanation of the Epistle to the Romans c. 16. v. 15. where he tells us that the Pastor of Hermas is an useful Book and as he thinks divinely Inspir'd He does say so indeed in that place but then he does not tell us what sort of Inspiration he means There have been different degrees of it in the Opinion of all Men especially of the Ancients For thus Clemens of Alexandria who was Origen's Instructor promises to Write (x) Strom. l. 4. p. 475. as God should inspire him And he informs us too that the Philosophers who wrote Truth did it by the (y) Admon to the Gentiles p. 46 47. Inspiration of God and yet I dare say never dreamt that either his own Writings or their 's ought for that
St. John the Apostle in his time about the year 260 Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 7. c. 25. Eusebius says the same of this as of the Epistle of St. James The Third Epistle of St. John (n) See also his Seventh Homily on Joshua f. 156. Origen allowes that both it and the Second might be admitted as the Apostles and plainly acknowledges that many receiv'd both as Genuine when he says that all did not See Euseb l. 6. c. 25. Dionysius says the same of this that he does of the Second and Eusebius the same that he says of St. James's Epistle The Epistle of * That St Jude was an Apostle is evident from the first Verse of his Epistle for there he stiles himself the Brother of James And that there was a Jude or Judas for both are the same in the Original the Brother of James among the Apostles appears from St. Luke 6.16 and Acts 1.13 He is call'd Lebbeus whose Surname was Thaddeus by St. Matthew c. 10. v. 3. the reason of which see in Dr. Cave's History of his Life St. Jude own'd as his by Tertullian l. 1. Of the Ornament of Women c. 3. by Clemens of Alexandria in his Pedagogue l. 3. c. 8. p. 239. by Origen in his Comment on St. Matthew Tom. 11. p. 223. Eusebius says the same of this that he does of St. James The Revelation ascrib'd to St. John the Apostle by Justin M. in his Dialogue with Trypho p 308. by (o) See hereafter Sect. XXV Jreneus l. 4. c. 37. p. 373. by Clemens of Alexandria in his Stromata l. 6. p. 667. by Origen in his Commentary on St. Matthew Tom. 16. p. 417. by Tertullian l. 3. against Marcion c. 14 and 23. By St. Cyprian in his Treatise of the Benefit of Patience to John without any Epithet who quotes this Book I believe a hundred times St. Jerome in his Epistle to Dardanus f. 24. says that it was receiv'd by most of the Ancients as Canonical and that they cited Testimonies from it as such From what has been here alledg'd I suppose it is evident that there were those many of those and they very considerable Persons too who are now known to have own'd the Authority of the controverted Books †It must be here also remembred what was observed before Sect. IV. n. 1. that Athanasius and Rufinus appeal to the Ancients for these Pieces as well as for the rest of the New Testament and do it after such a manner as informs us that they found so many of their Predecessors citeing and owning them for Authentick and upon so good grounds as made them too without scruple acknowledge them all for the Genuine Writings of those to whom they are ascribed And this I mean the Testimonies of the Ancients both Particular Fathers and Churches was undoubtedly the ground upon which they were at length received every where even before they were generally receiv'd by the whole Church All the Reflection I intend to make upon it shall be only this that we may certainly expect a very accurate and impartial History of the Canon from our Author who takes not the least notice of all these Places but notwithstanding them and others of the same Nature had yet the confidence to say that these seven Pieces were rejected a long time even in that time wherein the Authors I have now quoted liv'd by all Christians almost with universal Consent Such as have a mind may take his word for it if they please But I believe few who shall consult the quotations produc'd above will admire him either for an exact or faithful Historian But however before I proceed any further I must observe that I find him here in a complying humour and because he is seldom so I think my self oblig'd to take notice of it For he acknowledges p. 57. that these seven Pieces are now receiv'd not without convincing Arguments by the Moderns Thus far is very well and I should have been glad to find our Author so frank in his concessions if what he grants had not been attended with a sting in the Tail For it follows Now I say by more then a parity of Reason that the Preaching and Revelation of Peter for Example were receiv'd by the Ancients and ought not to be rejected by the Moderns if the approbation of the Fathers be a proper recommendation of any Book The short of the Business is this that in our Authors Opinion there 's more reason to look upon the Revelation and Preaching of St. Peter as Canonical then the Seven Pieces above-mention'd which are now embrac'd by the whole Church as such We 'll try if you please and turning back to p. 22 consider what Testimonies are there brought to prove these Treatises which bear the Name of St. Peter to have been formerly esteem'd Genuine First for his Revelation we find that it 's quoted by Clemens of Alexandria mention'd by Eusebius St. Jerome and Sozomen All this I grant but then must beg leave to add that none of these Writers excepting the first will do our Authors cause any manner of Service For Eusebius and St. Jerome expresly declare this Piece as also the Preaching too to be Spurious and Sozomen assures us that though it was indeed Read in some Churches of Palestine once in the year yet the Ancients absolutely judg'd it a Forgery As for the Preaching of Peter Clemens of Alexandria I own quotes it several times and he 's the only Person I can allow that does as much as seem to favour our Author in the present controversy excepting only Damascen whom I have not at hand and therefore can't say what his Opinion might be Origen says not a word of it in the Preface to his Treatise of * The Doctrin indeed of St. Peter is mention'd there but rejected as an Apocryphal Book neither Wrote by him whose Name it bears nor by any Inspir'd Person Principles as is pretended He does indeed in his 14th Tome on St. John but then he considers the Passage there alledg'd as an Objection urg'd by Heracleon and is very far as any one may perceive from owning the Authority of the Book Lactantius (p) L. 4. c. 21. tells us in the place cited that the Apostles Peter and Paul Preach'd at Rome and deliver'd several Prophecies against the Jews which were kept in Writing and confirm'd by the Event But he does not say that the Book wherein they were preserv'd was call'd the Preaching of Peter neither does it any other ways appear that such Prophecies were contain'd in the Book now before us and therefore his Testimony signifies nothing to the question in hand As for the Discourse concerning the Baptism of Hereticks among the Works of St. Cyprian I grant the Preaching of Peter is there quoted if we 'll allow the conjecture of Rigaltius †I could not but smile here at the ingenuity of our Author in his contrivance to multiply Testimonies for Spurious
enquire in the next place what St. Augustine return'd by way of Answer First then to prove that the Writings of the New Testament were Genuine and that the Evangelists and Apostles were the real Authors of those Pieces which bear their Names he thus reasons with Faustus and his Followers (g) L. 33. c. 6. O unhappy and wretched Enemies of your own Souls Tell me I pray what Books can ever be judg'd Authentick if the Evangelical if the Apostolical Writings don 't deserve to be so esteem'd How can we be ever certain of the Author of any Treatise in the World if those Writings which the Church planted by the Apostles in all Nations affirms and maintains to be theirs may yet be rejected as false and Supposititious and instead thereof others be receiv'd as really Apostolical which were first brought to light by Hereticks whose very Masters from whom they take their donominations did not live till long after the Apostles and yet pretend to have known better then the Universal Church what Writings those first Preachers of our Religion left behind them Consider the case of several Pieces Publish'd about Secular and Human Learning There are many of this sort which appear under great Names that are yet justly rejected by the Judicious because they are by no means consistent with the Stile and Genius of them whose Names they assume or have never by such as were capable of knowing been declar'd and acknowledg'd to be the Genuine Works of those to whom they are ascrib'd by the Ignorant Do not Physicians for Examples sake reject the Authority of divers Treatises which fly abroad under the Name of Hippocrates And though there may perhaps be some resemblance in Thought and Expression yet notwithstanding that they condemn them as Spurious because they fall short of the real Performances of that great Man and have no sufficient Evidence to prove their being Genuine And for those which are indeed his Works Whence is it that the Learned conclude they belong to him whence is it that those who should question the same would be laugh'd at not refuted but only because a constant Tradition from his Age down to the present days has attested them And he that should pretend to doubt of a matter establish'd by the continued succession of so long a time would be accounted mad or distracted Whence do Men learn that the Books of Plato Aristotle Cicero Varro and other Authors are indeed of their composing but because they are so inform'd by the Testimonies of several Ages succeeding and following one another Many too have Wrote largely concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs not indeed with Canonical Authority but with a desire of profiting others or themselves How know we to whom any of these Discourses is to be assign'd but only from hence that their respective Authors acquainted others with what they Wrote at the time when they first Publish'd the same from whom it has been convey'd by several hands successively to the present time so that without any doubting or hesitation we can when examin'd concerning any particular Discourse tell presently what to answer But why do I insist upon things long since past Consider what is now before us Behold here the Treatise of Faustus behold my Answer If any should in future times enquire which way they might be assur'd that I Wrote the one and Faustus the other how could they be inform'd of the Truth but only by appealing to the Tradition which had from those who were our contemporaries and knew what we did been transmitted to Posterity Since then the case is plain and evident and esteem'd so by all the World in other Writings why should it not be so in those of the Apostles Who is there so blinded with Madness and Possess'd with the Malice of deceiving and lying Devils as to affirm that the Church has not the same security for the Books which she receives Can we imagine that so many Witnesses of the greatest Faithfulness and Integrity that such an unanimous Number of Brethren in all Places agreeing in the same assertions should conspire to impose upon the World with false Pieces Or that the Churches which derive their succession in a continued line from the Apostles should not have their Books likewise convey'd to them with as certain and steady a Tradition as is that upon which we admit Ecclesiastical or Prophane Writings And again in another Place You that raise so many scruples about the Authority of our Books How will you justify the Epistle of Manicheus (h) L. 32. c. 21. and prove that it was Wrote by him If any one should contradict you in this matter and boldly affirm that it was none of his but a down right Forgery what would you reply Would you not be ready to laugh at the confident Talker would you not tell him that it was Impudence and Dotage to move any doubts concerning that for which you had the successive Testimony of so many Persons from the days of your Paraclet And have not we the same too nay one of a much larger extent for the Books of the Apostles If it would be Ridiculous and Impertinent to question whether the Pieces of your Manicheus be Genuine is it not much more so to doubt of the Apostolical Writings And are not you to be derided or rather to be pitied who raise so many difficulties about them which are Establish'd upon the Authority of so large and diffusive a Testimony through the several Ages and places of the Church from the days of their first Authors Thus does the learned Father answer the first Objection by producing those grounds and reasons upon which the Catholicks embrac'd the Books of the New Testament as Authentick and Genuine We proceed now to the second Objection which was that whoever the Men were which drew up the Books of the New Testament they falsified and corrupted the pure Doctrins of Christianity by inserting several Errors and Contradictions among the Truth Now it having been already prov'd that these were really the Writings of the Apostles and Apostolick Men we have nothing else to do but represent the Reasons St. Augustine alledges to show that they neither were nor could be Corrupted nor yet had any Errors or Contradictions inserted in them That they were not falsified or corrupted he thus argues (i) L. 32. c. 16. You pretend to prove that Manicheus is the Paraclet or Comforter from some Passages in our Books which yet you say have been corrupted What would you reply if we should retort the charge upon you and affirm that you had falsifiyd them in those Particulars which concern your Paraclet I suppose you 'd tell us that we accus'd you of a thing impossible because the Books were in the hands of all Christians before and you might easily be convict of false dealing by numerous and more ancient Copies We say the same too and urge that those Arguments which are alledg'd to show you are
Innocent in this matter prove also that no Body else did or could corrupt them For whoever should first set about such a thing would quickly be confuted and the Imposture be discover'd by consulting other Copies of which there is a great multitude dispers'd over all Countries and in all Languages so that such an attempt would be equally silly and impossible And that there might be no Cavil upon the account of little mistakes to be observ'd in some Copies the Father adds For even in our days some Errors of the Transcribers are usually corrected either by the assistance of more ancient Books or other Languages To this he had spoken more fully before (k) L. 11. c. 2. If there happen any dispute concerning the exactness of Copies as to the various Readings which are but few in number and sufficiently known to the Learned we have recourse to the Books of those Countries from whence we receiv'd our Copies and Religion together and are willing they should determine the Controversy Or if there still appear any difference the greater number of Copies ought to be preferr'd before the less those which are most Ancient to those of a later date and the Original Languages to all others Thus do they proceed who when they meet with any difficulties in the Holy Scriptures search and examine things with a desire to be instructed not merely to cavil and dispute As to the Contradictions and Errors which Faustus pretended are to be found in the New Testament St. Augustine goes through all the Particulars of the Charge as they are urg'd by his Adversary But I suppose it will not be expected that I should do so too that is none of my business The Charge contained in the Passages produc'd from Faustus by our Author is conceiv'd in general terms and it will be sufficient for me if thereto I return the Summe of the Father's General Answer which is this that Since the Scriptures are Books of so great Authority that is clearly prov'd to have been Wrote (l) L. 11. c. 6. l. 32. c. 16. l. 33. c. 7. by the Followers of our Lord and by no means wilfully Falsified or Corrupted we ought to Read them out of a Principle of Piety not Contention we ought to use the greatest Industry and Application in the study of them and rather accuse our own Dulness Negligence or want of Apprehension then blame those Excellent and Divine Writings when at any time we can't understand or reconcile them There remains but one Particular more to be examin'd at present and that is urg'd above in the Words of the Seventh Objection where we are told that the Manicheans not only deny'd the Genuineness of the whole New Testament but also shew'd other Scriptures It is not easy to determine what Books are here more especially design'd by this Expression Perhaps our Author may intend thereby the various Treatises Publish'd (m) Epiphan Here 's 66. Sect. 13. by Manicheus or the four Pieces long before Written by (n) Ib. S. 2. Scythianus who liv'd about the time of our Saviour and was indeed the first Author of most of the Extravagant Opinions afterwards Publickly asserted and maintain'd by the Manichees But because there is place for doubting I think it fair and reasonable to take this Passage in such a Sense as seems to me most serviceable to the design our Author is here carrying on and shall therefore suppose he especially intended some Books that were spread abroad in the Apostles Names distinct from those acknowledg'd by Catholicks which are all comprehended in the New Testament That the Manichees had such Pieces is sufficiently evident from St. Augustine who tells us (o) L. 22. against Faustus c. 79. that they Read Apocryphal Books drawn up by certain Forgers of Tales under the Names of the Apostles And again (p) Ibid. See also l. 13. c. 5. l. 33. c. 6. Treatise against Adimantus c. 17. of Heresies Num. 46. that they receiv'd such Scriptures for sincere and Genuine as were rejected by the Ecclesiastical Canon Such Scriptures therefore these Hereticks certainly had different from those of the Catholick Church and by the assistance of them they endeavour'd to support those Erroneous and false Doctrins which they embrac'd But before I proceed any farther I think my self here oblig'd to take notice that our Author (q) P. 20. in his Catalogue mentions an Epistle of Christ to Peter and Paul and vouches for it the Twenty Eighth Book of St. Augustine against Faustus Chapter the Thirteenth which may perhaps make the unwary Reader believe that such an Epistle is there set down as part of the Scripture receiv'd by and peculiar to the Manichees But I must tell him 1. That there are but five Chapters in all the Twenty Eighth Book and therefore the citing the Thirteenth is a mistake 2. In the Fourth Chapter where the Father speaks of an Epistle of our Saviour there is not one word to intimate that it was Wrote or pretended to be Wrote to the two Apostles above mention'd 3. Neither indeed could there be For it would be Evident to any one who shall seriously consider the Place that St. Augustine is there arguing against the Manichees for pretending they would rather believe the Testimony of Christ concerning himself then any of his Apostles To which the Father replies that Our Saviour Wrote nothing and therefore if we 'll believe any Relations concerning him at all we must believe those which were drawn up by his Disciples that if any Epistle or other Piece should be now produc'd in his Name Men would presently enquire How it came to ly hid all this while who it was that first brought it to light whence it was that it had not been before acknowledg'd Read Celebrated every where in the Church from the days of the Apostles And that therefore it would be a prodigious want of consideration to admit that for an Epistle of Christ which a Manichee should perhaps pretend so to be at this time of day and not assent to those things as done or say'd by him which are related by St. Matthew c. Whence it is apparent that the Manichees had not actually produc'd any Writings in the Name of our Saviour at that time and if they had the same Argument would have overthrown them which St. Augustine urges against those Pieces which were shelter'd under the Titles of the Apostles For certainly as he tells Faustus If there Writings had been Genuine if they had taught nothing but what was agreeable to the Truth (r) l. 22. c. 79. They would have been own'd and acknowledg'd by those Holy and Learned Men who liv'd in the days of their pretended Authors and been by them and succeeding Ages receiv'd among the Books which were accounted Canonical and submitted to as an infallible Rule of Faith and Manners To this effect he presses these Hereticks in one place and in (s) l. 28. c. 2. another
he thus bespeaks them You produce a Book perhaps which bears the Name of one of the Apostles who were really chosen by our Lord where you Read that Christ was not born of a Virgin It is undoubted that either your Gospel or ours must be false and which do you think in your Consciences it is most reasonable to believe Shall not I assent to a Book which the Church that was begun by Christ and carried on every where by his Apostles in a certain order of Succession to these days has receiv'd and preserv'd from the beginning Or shall I give credit to a Piece produc'd by you which the same Church rejects as utterly unknown to her and was at first brought to the Publick view (t) l. 13. c. 5. by Men so few in number if compar'd with the whole Body of Christians and of so little veracity as that they are not asham'd to charge our great Master himself with falshood and deceiving And thus I have gone through all the Parts of the Argument against the Canon of the New Testament drawn from the Opinions and Practices of the Manichees and furnish'd the Reader with the Answers which St. Augustine gives to every Branch thereof This our Author if he had so pleas'd might have done before me for the Replies are found in the very same Treatise from which he fetch'd his Objections And I shall appeal to himself whether this be an ingenuous and fair way of proceeding to revive an old weather-beaten Cavil and furbish it up with a great deal of Pomp and Ostentation as if it was able to run down a whole Army of opposers when yet he neither was nor could be Ignorant how all the force of it had been shatter'd and broken in pieces above a Thousand years before he was born But perhaps our Author will tell me as he does Mr. Blackhall in the case of the Eikon Basilike that he is of another Opinion that he knew of these Answers indeed well enough before but passed them over in silence because he judged them insufficient If he 'll venture his Reputation on such a Reply I cannot help it though I would advise him as a friend to offer any thing else rather for his Justification For the World will not ' twice be imposed upon by the same trick and since for instance after all his Labour and shuffling the Testimonies of Mrs. Gauden and Doctor Walker will not be reconciled which he had pretended might be done with a wet Finger Men will be so surly and ill natur'd as to think that it is something else and not the weakness of an Argument or Answer that makes him say nothing to it But to let that pass at present I proceed to remark how upon this occasion we are told p. 63. that the Adversaries of the Manicheans had power enough to be counted Orthodox And was there indeed no difference good Sir between the two Parties but that Do you indeed believe the Manichean Doctrin was true Do you believe the Existence of two Supreme Gods a Good one and a Bad Do you believe the Transmigration of Souls and the other Whimsies which were asserted by those Brainsick Hereticks If you do speak out and then we shall know as you express it p. 49. where to have you and how to deal with you If you do not is not this an excellent and very commendable way of proceeding to endeavour to draw your Readers to believe that of which you believe nothing your self and to perswade them that it was nothing but Power which distinguish'd the Catholicks from the Manicheans and made them be accounted Orthodox This is the Eternal Clamour of this kind of Men. They 'll have it to be only Power and Interest which keeps us in the acknowledgement of the Catholick Doctrin and if it was not for that they say we would quickly forsake it But pray Sir not to insist now upon the fury and violence of the Arians What Power had the Catholicks in the first 300 years What force had they then to compel Men to embrace their Doctrin when they lay under the sharpest Persecutions and were constantly expos'd to the Fire to the Sword and to other severe Tortures themselves And yet even then they stood up stoutly for the Truth and inflicted Ecclesiastical Censures on those Hereticks who corrupted the Faith and met together in Councils to condemn their Erroneous Opinions even at the Peril of their Lives This they did in the case of Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch They held two Councils there upon his account the Bishops when they heard his Opinion that he asserted Jesus Christ to be no more then a meer Man came together from several parts as against a Spoiler and Destroyer of our Lords Flock so Eusebius (a) Eccl. Hist l. 7. c. 27. tells us and having first condemn'd his Doctrin they afterwards depos'd him and substituted another in his Place Though he kept Possession of the Episcopal Chair and House for three years after the Sentence as the Learned inform us by the Assistance of Zenobia Queen of Palmyra And here I hope what our Author in his fleering way calls Orthodoxy and Power were not on the same side Nevertheless the Fathers did not flinch for the matter but though Zenobia asserted the cause of Paulus yet they refus'd to Communicate with him as being a Convict Heretick after they had sufficiently prov'd him so to be VIII We are told p. 64. that the Ebionites or Nazarens who were the oldest Christians had a different Copy of St. Matthews Gospel that the Marcionites had a very different one of St. Luke's that St. John's Gospel was attributed to Cerinthus and all the Epistles of St. Paul deny'd by some and a different Copy of them shown by others Our Author has here jumbled a great many Hereticks together and one Answer might serve them all by referring to what has been already say'd by way of reply to the Fourth Objection p. 35 c. But I shall distinguish and give a different account of them severally that so we may understand how far each of them proceeded and with what they are justly chargeable and so give every one a Separate Answer He tells us that the Ebionites or Nazarens were the oldest Christians We 'll lay the Name of Ebionites aside for a while and shall grant what he says concerning the Nazarens for that indeed was the common Appellation given by the Jews at first to all Christians For thus we find Tertulius accusing St. Paul Acts 24.5 as a Ring-leader of the Sect of the Nazarens But afterwards this Title was appropriated to a particular Faction Before the Destruction of Jerusalem as (b) Eccl. Hisi l. 3. c. 5. Eusebius and (c) Heres 29. Sect. 7. Epiphanius tell us all the Christians who were there being admonish'd from above retir'd to Pella a City beyond Jordan and by that means escap'd those horrible Plagues which fell upon the rest of
travell'd up and down Preaching in several Places and Countries they Wrote those Pieces which we now have under their Names but for the most part as Criticks observe after the middle of the First Century This is a sufficient Reason why in those times of War and Persecution some of them might not come to the hands of many who liv'd in remote and distant Places till that Age was almost or perhaps quite expir'd Though that several were carefully transmitted by the depositaries of them to other Churches and Persons with whom they had the most convenient Correspondence is a thing easy to be prov'd because we find them borrowed by the earliest Writers * There may be other Passages in the Epistle of St. Clemens taken out of the New Testament which have escap'd my Observation And there are some besides these of which I did take notice but omitted them because they are in the Old Testament too and therefore for ought I could tell might be borrowed from thence That this Father had Read the Epistle to the Romans there can be no doubt and therefore I did not remark that he Salutes the Corinthians almost in the very same words that St. Paul us'd to the Romans For thus there are two Passages of (h) p. 18 60. St. Luke and one (i) p. 64. of St. Peter's first Epistle and another (k) p. 4. of the Second to Timothy and divers of the Epistle (l) p. 12 13 15 23 47.48 to the Hebrews made use of by Clemens Bishop of Rome and the first Epistle (m) p. 61. Ox. Edit 4 to 1633. of St. Paul to the Corinthians is very much recommended by the same Father to the Christians of that City Barnabas gives us the direct words of two Texts in St. (n) p. 217. Matthew and (o) p. 218. Lond. Ed. 4 to 1680. St. Luke There are four or five Passages in Hermas which seem to have great affinity with so many Texts in the Old and New Testament But I own they may be disputed especially by those who look upon the Visions and Conversations mention'd in that Book to have been real and I will not insist upon them but only observe that there is as much Evidence that this Author borrowed from the New Testament as there is that he borrowed from the Old Ignatius mentions (p) Epis to the Ephes p. 24. St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians and seems plainly to have taken Expressions (q) Epis to Polycarp p. 13. from it (r) Ib. p. 11. from St. Matthew and from the first (s) Epist to the Ephes p. 27. Lond. Edit 4 to 1680. Epistle to the Corinthians (t) In many places Polycarp is Copious in his quotations In him we meet with Words taken out of St. Matthew St. Luke the Acts the Romans the first Epistle to the Corinthians the Galatians the Ephesians the first Epistle of St. Peter and of St. John and he twice mentions St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians All the Inference I intend to make from hence is only this that these Books from whence the Authors just now mention'd fetch'd all the Passages we refer to were then undoubtedly dispers'd abroad in some parts of the Christian World since they had been Read by these Fathers and were made use of by them in their Writings And I think I need not attempt to prove that they were look'd upon as Canonical at the same time For it is morally impossible to suppose that Pieces Wrote or Authoriz'd by the Apostles should not be esteem'd Canonical or Rules of Faith by all Christians to whom they were communicated since the Knowledge which they had of the Doctrin of Faith was entirely deriv'd from them and their Instructions It 's true the Writers we are now considering very rarely give us †This is urg'd as an Objection that none of the Evangelists is call'd by his own Name in the Writings of Clemens c. I grant it but what would be infer'd from thence besides what is here consider'd I cannot imagine Whatever is intended will equally affect the Old Testament For St. Clemens among all the quotations he fetches thence does not that I perceive and I was careful in making the observation so much as once directly cite by Name any of the Writers thereof except Moses and David once or twice from which he Produces his Testimonies And yet there 's no question but he judg'd the Old Testament Canonical As Justin M. certainly did the New and yet though he makes use of many Places out of several Books thereof and speaks of the Gospels and Monuments of the Apostles in general I am very much mistaken if he quotes any of them by Name besides the Revelation which he expresly ascribes to St. John the Apostle the Name of the Book or Author from whence they fetch any Passage and therefore Mr. D's remark is very just that the succeeding Ages of the Church could not in such cases learn from them what Pieces were to be parts of the Christian Canon They produce Texts indeed from Authors that were Canonical but they don't always tell us so when they produce them and therefore their Testimony alone is not sufficient to inform us what are the Genuine Writings of the Apostles and what are not This we can learn from none but those who either recommend a particular Book by Name or at least tell us whence they draw their Passages And this is so seldom done by the Authors now mention'd that all the Evidence we can derive from them will not extend to above (u) The first Epistle to the Corinth the Epistles to the Ephes and to the Philippians three or four Pieces The assurance we have that the other Books of the New Testament are Canonical must be taken from the Writers of the Second Century at least as far as we know now I mean such Writers as follow'd Ignatius and Polycarp here mention'd by Mr. D. and the Testimony of them is unexceptionable since conversing with the Disciples of the Apostles they could easily be inform'd by them what Books were really Genuine and Apostolical But we are told that the Writers of those times do not chequer their Works with Texts of the New Testament which yet is the custom of the more Modern and was also theirs in such Books as they acknowledg'd for Scripture For they most frequently cite the Books of the Old Testament and would doubtless have done so by those of the New if they had been receiv'd for Canonical That the Books of the New Testament could not fail of being judg'd Canonical by those who knew their Authors has been observ'd already more then once and therefore I proceed to remark that if these words refer to the latter Writers of the Canon they are express'd very obscurely and will fall under consideration immediately If they be design'd to comprehend Clemens Barnabas Hermas Ignatius and Polycarp and I think they can't
us of an Argument we draw from their Integrity and Simplicity against Infidels Would it so indeed Methinks now this is very strange and does not conclude so well as the Argument of Ireneus from the four Winds with which we see what a stir our Author made a little before For may not a Wicked Man prove good and may he not give us such Evidences of the Sincerity of his Reformation that we are bound in Justice to believe him Let us examine the case a little and see what Arguments can be produc'd for the unrightness and integrity of the Apostles after their Conversion They Preach'd a most Excellent and Holy Religion over all the World and endeavour'd to bring People every where to the Belief and Practice of it And that they were in good earnest in all their undertakings and did not act a part for carrying on any Worldly design is apparent from hence that they knowingly and willingly expos'd themselves to Pains to Troubles to Losses to Contempt to Persecutions to Torments to Death it self This I think is sufficient to show that they really believ'd what they affirm'd concerning the Doctrine Works and Resurrection of our Saviour that they did not design to put a Trick upon Mankind in the Relations they gave thereof since they readily expos'd themselves to such Sufferings for the asserting of it And that they asserted nothing but what was true God himself did also further attest by the Miracles he enabled them to work of which we have uncontroulable proof as has been so often observ'd by others that I need not to insist upon it here So that though we do suppose the Epistle of St. Barnabas to be Genuine and the Passage quoted from it to be really true yet it is plain nothing can be thence inferr'd to prove our Religion false or ill grounded Since the finishing this * I was perswaded by a Friend to add the ensuing Catalogue from Ireneus and Tertullian to which I easily agreed as having made the Collection many years ago when I Read those Fathers for my own Satisfaction The Edition of Tertullian that I us'd was Printed at Paris 1669 and that of Ireneus is pretended in the Title Page to be Printed there too 1675. I thought it advisable for the preventing Doubts or Cavils to subjoyn the Testimonies of Ireneus and Tertullian for those Books of Scripture which belong to that we above call'd the first Canon I begin with Ireneus In his Third Book and (h) p. 229. first Chapter he expresly asserts the four Evangelists by Name to be the Authors of the four Gospels And particularly he attributes that which goes under his Name to St. Matthew (i) p. 275. l. 3. c. 18. St. Mark 's to him (k) p. 276. l. 3. c. 18. that of St. Luke to him (l) p. 254. l. 3. c. 11. and St. John's to that Apostle (m) p. 257. l. 3. c. 11. He asserts the Acts of the Apostles to have been Wrote by St. Luke the (n) p. 271.273 Evangelist l. 3. c. 14 15. and attributes all the following Epistles to St. Paul in the following Places The Epistle to the Romans l. 2. c. 38. p. 190 The first to the Corinthians l. 1. c. 1. p. 33 Second to the Corinth l. 3. c 7. p. 248 The Epistle to the Galatians l. 3. c. 7. ibid. to the Ephesians l. 5. c. 14. p. 455 to the Philippians l. 4. c. 34. p. 363 to the Colossians l. 3. c. 14. p. 267 The first to the Thessalonians l. 5. c. 6. p. 442 Second to the Thessal l. 3. c. 7. p. 249 The first to Timothy l. 2. c. 19. p. 172 and Pref. p. 3 Second to Timothy l. 3. c. 14. p. 267 The Epistle to Titus l. 3. c. 3. p. 233 To St. Peter he ascribes the first Epistle which goes under his Name l. 4. c. 22. (o) p. 338. to St. John the Apostle his first Epistle l. 3. c. 18. (p) p. 277. There are several other Places I may say numerous for most of them where these Books are ascrib'd to those Writers whose Names they now bear but I thought one Testimony sufficient to Evince what Opinion Ireneus had of each Book And I shall use the same method as to Tertullian He assigns the four Gospels to the four Evangelists by whose Names they are call'd l. 4. against Marcion c. 2. and 5. p. 414. and 416. The Acts of the Apost to St. Luke Treatise of Fasting c. 10. p. 549 The following Epistles are attributed to St. Paul in the following Places The Epist to the Romans Scorpiace c. 13. p. 498 The first and second Epist to the Corinth Of Chastity c. 13 14. p. 564 565 The Epist to the Galatians l. 5. against Marcion c. 2. p. 462 to the Ephesians Of the Resur of the Flesh c. 40. p. 349 to the Philippians ib. c. 23. p. 339 to the Colossians ib. p. 338 The first and second Epistles to the Thessalonians ib. c. 24. p. 339 The first to Tim. against Praxeas c. 15. p. 509 The second to Tim. Of the Resur of the Flesh c. 23 p. 339 The Epist to Titus Of Prescription c. 6. p. 204 The first of St. Peter is quoted as his Scorpiace c. 12. p. 497. And so likewise the first of St. John against Praxeas c. 15. p. 50◠Those of the Seven Controverted Pieces which are quoted by either of these Fathers don't properly belong to this place and are mention'd above Sect. XI What ground we have to insert the Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon in the number of those Writings which were never disputed see before Sect. IV. From what has been here produc'd it is evident that these two Fathers attributed all the Books above-mention'd to those Persons by whom we now think they were Wrote and (q) See Sect. II. consequently esteem'd them Canonical And that the whole Catholick Church in their days was of the same Opinion is evident from the Testimonies of (r) l. 3. c. 25. Eusebius and (s) In the places cited above Sect. IV. Gregory Nazianzen who reckon these Books as those which were never question'd And so much may we learn likewise from these two Fathers now under consideration in the passages refer'd to above p. 36. and 72. part of which it may not be impertinent to set down here at large Ireneus tells us (t) l. 4. c. 63. that true Knowledge consists in understanding the Doctrine of the Apostles and the Ancient state of the Church in the whole World according to the Succession of the Bishops to whom they consign'd the care of the Church in every Place which has been continued down to our times †I render tractatione plenissim a complete Body or Treatise because it can signify nothing else here though the Expression in the Latine is not very proper But he that Translated this Work of Ireneus out of Greek did not understand the Latin Tongue
Opinion only and yet never design'd to advance Hermas into the Number of Canonical Books as I have observ'd in the following Discourse in Answer to the Second Objection p. 25 26 and 29 30. This I think I have there sufficiently shown but shall however add a Testimony or two more to the same purpose Thus then he speaks in his Eighth Homily on Numbers (b) F. 103. That one day of Sin is recompenc'd with a years Punishment we Read not only in this Book wherein there is nothing whose Truth can be in the least doubted but the same things also are taught in the Book of the Pastor if any one think good to admit the Testimony of that Scripture By which Words it is Evident that Origen puts a great difference between the Pastor of Hermas and the Book of Numbers which was one of the Christian as well as Jewish Canon In this he affirms every thing deliver'd was undoubtedly true but plainly intimates he did not judge so of the former by distinguishing it from and placing it in opposition to this and leaving it to the Readers Discretion whether he 'll be concluded by the Authority of it or no. He calls it indeed Scripture but that was a Title frequently given to any Books whose Subject was Religious of which I have produc'd several Instances in the following Treatise and shall only add here that the Author of whom we are now speaking even Origen in the Preface to his Books of Principles (c) F. 112. calls the Doctrine of Peter twice by that Name in the compass of a few Lines though he there expresly tells us That it was neither Wrote by St. Peter nor by any other Inspir'd Person Again we Read in his Fourteenth Homily on Genesis (d) F. 21. Isaac therefore dug Wells and the Followers of Isaac dug too The Followers of Isaac are Matthew Mark Luke John The Followers of Isaac are Peter James and Jude The Apostle Paul is a Follower of Isaac For all these dig the Wells of the New Testament Here we have all the Writers of the New Testament reckon'd up but not a Word of Hermas and his Pastor From these two Passages and those which I have alledg'd in the following Discourse it is apparent that * Perhaps it may be urged that these Passages are taken out of these Works of Origen which are extant only in Latine I grant it but then add that so is the Objection too and certainly a Translation ought to be admitted for an Answer when it is alledged for an Objection For according to our English Proverb Every Man ought to Buy and Sell by the same Measure But I Reply 2dly That I have shewn in the following Discourse p. 29 30. that Origen speaks after the same manner in those Works of his which are still extant in the Greek And therefore we have a great deal of Reason to suppose that the Translators have altered nothing in their Versions as to this matter since what is found in them is consonant to those Pieces of his which are preserved in the same Language wherein they were first Written Origen is every where consistent with himself in this matter and always rejects the Book of Hermas from being a part of the Canon It is probable he might have done the same too in his Explanations on the Epistle to the Romans from whence the present Objection is fetch'd and have told us in what Sense he judg'd this Piece to have been Divinely Inspir'd if the Translator of that Work had not contracted it so far (e) See the Preface to the Translation f. 132. as to leave out above half of what was Publish'd by Origen Perhaps we might have there Read that he thought Hermas to have been no otherwise Inspir'd then his Master (f) See Answer to the 2d Objection p. 29. Clemens and (g) l. 4. against Celsus p. 181. l. 6. p. 276. himself judg'd the Heathen Philosophers to have been when they taught things agreeable to the Truth and Sound Doctrine which both these Fathers thought were manifested and discover'd to them by God And so perhaps Origen judg'd this Book of Hermas inspir'd because he look'd upon it as containing useful Truths and suppos'd nothing of that nature could be Wrote without the Divine Assistance But be that as it will and let him mean by it what he can it is Evident he never admitted it into the Canon nor esteem'd it 〈◊〉 Equal Authority with the Books of the New Testament I proceed now to the Second Part of the Argument in the Passage above alledg'd which is urg'd against some Books of the Old Testament and is in these Words On the contrary Theodorus of Mopsuestia calls the Book of Job a Fable borrowed from Paganism the Books of Chronicles and Esdras a vain Rhapsody the Song of Solomon a Love Song c. This is produc'd to show the Church had no certain Canon of the Old Testament for three Hundred years but with what Ground or Reason will quickly appear I must confess this does not properly belong to the Province I have undertaken at present which is only to justify the Canon of the New Testament But because such as are little vers'd in Controversies of this Nature may possibly be stumbled at these Expressions and perhaps think them unanswerable if I say nothing to them when they ly thus directly in my way I hope I shall be excus'd if I spend a few lines in laying open the Weakness of this Objection First then that the Jews had a certain Canon which comprehended all the Books that we reckon as parts of the Old Testament and no more is evident and notorious These as we learn from (h) l. 1. against Apion p. 103 1036. Josephus and (i) l. 3. c. 10. Eusebius who transcribes his Testimony they reduc'd in their way of computation to the Number of Twenty Two After what manner they reckon'd them up (k) See it done by Origen in Eusebius l. 6. c. 25. does not belong to my present business to set down but only to remark that their Canon was receiv'd by our Saviour and his Apostles For certainly our Blessed Lord recommended the Books of the Jewish Canon and none others when he exhorted his Hearers (l) John 5.39 to Search the Scriptures He argued too we may be sure from them when he expounded to the two Disciples (m) Luke 24.27 in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself Of them without doubt St. Paul spoke (n) 2 Tim. 3.15 when he tells Timothy That he had from a Child known the Scriptures which were able to make him Wise unto Salvation And again when he adds (o) v. 16. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God c. These Passages and several others of the same Nature must be understood of those Books which pass'd for Authentick among the Jews they can be understood of no other except he be supposed
Reason to be taken into the Canon And we know the Divine Plato is a common Expression But I answer more directly 1. That if Origen did look upon this Book as of Divine Authority the Church in his time was not of the same Opinion For himself (z) Comment on St. Mat. p. 361. Philoc c. 1. p. 9. tells us that there were those who slighted and rejected it and upon that account he questions whether he may venture to draw a Testimony from it and (a) Of Chastity c. 10. Tertullian assures us that it had been censur'd by every Conncil of the Catholicks 2 I think it is plain that Origen whatever Character he may have occasionally given of this Book did not judge it any part of the Canon because in the beginning of the Philocalia and particularly c. 6. we find him several times distinguishing the Books of the New Testament into the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles Now 't is certain that the Pastor of Hermas can be reduc'd to neither of these heads and therefore in the Judgment of Origen * If we look into the Philocalia c. 1. p. 9. we may there observe that Origen does not speak of the Pastor of Hermas with the same Honour and Respect that he does of the genuine parts of the Canon was not Canonical If it be ask'd to which of these two Classes we assign the Acts of the Apostles I answer to that of the Evangelists as being the Work of one of them and that Origen intended so to do and have it reckon'd among the Books that were part of the Canon is apparent from hence that he Wrote Homilies thereon which neither he nor any of the Fathers did upon Barnabas Hermas Clemens or any other of the Ecclesiastical or Apocryphal Pieces under the New Testament But we need not use any Argument in the case Origen himself expresly ascribes the Acts of the Apostles to St. Luke more then once and reckons them by Name among the other Books of the New Testament in his Seventh Homily on Joshua f. 156. where none of the Apocryphal none of the Ecclesiastical Books are joyn'd with them However it may not be amiss to add upon this occasion that if a single Father or two have had a higher Opinion of a Book then it did deserve or a wrong Opinion of the Author this will not overthrow the Argument upon which the Divine Authority of the Books of the New Testament is built We look upon them as Divine and strictly binding to Obedience because they were either wrote or confirm'd by the Apostles of our Saviour and we believe that they were so wrote or confirm'd by them not upon the Testimonies of one or two Fathers only but of the whole Primitive Church who were capable of Judging in this question Our Author prevaricates if he 'd perswade us that the Ancients form'd their Judgment in this matter only upon the Tradition of one or two Persons or even of those few Treatises of the Ancient Writers which are now Extant These indeed they appeal to and that justly but besides these there were great Numbers more in being in those days which (b) See Tertul. of Prescript c. 36. as well as the several Churches which were the depositaries of the several Epistles and Gospels they consulted and were from thence enabled to determine whether this or that Book was Genuine or no. If any one doubt this I shall send him as our Author does Mr. Blackall to Dr. Cave Du Pin c. where he may learn that all the Works of some and many Treatises of others of the most Ancient Fathers are now perish'd which yet were every where to be had in the days of Eusebius Athanasius Epiphanius and Rufinus and their Predecessors and by the assistance of which they and the Church in their times judg'd the several Books of the New Testament to have been indeed wrote by those Persons to whom we ascribe them From hence it may appear how trifling and impertinent the Raillery is which our Author p. 57. flings upon the Council of Laodicea They were indeed the first Publick Assembly that we know of which Establish'd by a Solemn Decree the Canon of the Old and New Testament such as the Church of England now Embraces excepting only the Revelation about the Year 360. This they were enabled to do whatever our Author pretends to the contrary by the Testimony of their Predecessors There was no need of a Particular Revelation no need of Oral Tradition neither at that time as he would Insinuate There were numerous Books abroad in the Church some of which are now lost and some we still have By the help of them they were Instructed how to form a right Judgment how to distinguish what was Genuine from what was Spurious most of this latter sort also having been already discover'd and rejected to their hands as is apparent from Eusebius Though our Author seems to have for got that when he was Reflecting upon this Venerable Assembly He urges p. 47. that he can't understand why the Writings of St. Mark and St. Luke should be receiv'd into the Canon and those of St. Clemens Bishop of Rome and St. Barnabas excluded by those who look upon them as Genuine Since the two former were not Apostles but only Companions and Fellow-Labourers with the Apostles and so were the two latter as well as they In Answer to this I shall tell our Author that if he had Read those Books he pretends to quote he might have found a reply to this Objection before he made it For in the beginning of that Dissertation of Mr. Dodwell from whence he cites so long a Passage that Learned Man would have inform'd him Sect. 5. that the compilers of our Canon design'd only to take in the Writings of the Apostles whose Authority was unquestionable and that they took in the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke not barely upon their own account but upon that of St. Peter and St. Paul whose Companions and Fellow-labourers they were and * The Attestation of a Person of whose Prophetick Spirit there was no question was one way of being certify'd concerning the Divine Mission of a Prophet among the Jews According to that Maxim of the Masters A Prophet of whom some other undoubted Prophet Witnesseth that he is a Prophet is assuredly a Prophet See Dr. Spencer of Vulgar Prophecies c. 4. This seems to have been exactly the case of St. Mark and St. Luke Their Writings were Authoriz'd and their Inspiration thereby attested by the Apostles who were undoubtedly inspir'd and therefore we may safely conclude that these two Evangelists were inspir'd likewise who attested their Inspiration and Fidelity in what they Wrote And this may be easily prov'd from the Testimony of the Fathers For thus Tertullian in his Fourth Book against Marcion c. 5. tells us The Gospel which Mark Publish'd is affirm'd to be Peter 's and that which was drawn up by
Luke is ascrib'd to Paul And we learn from (c) Ecel Hist l. 2. c. 15. Eusebius that both Papias and Clemens of Alexandria attested that the Romans having prevail'd with St. Mark to Write his Gospel what he had done was reveal'd to St. Peter by the Holy Ghost who thereupon Authoriz'd the Work and appointed it to be Read Publickly in the Church And the same (d) L. 6. c. 25. Historian informs us from Origen that St. Paul approv'd and recommended the Gospel of St. Luke †St. Jerom in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers in Luke tells us that many suppos'd that when St. Paul spoke of his own Gospel Bom. 2.16 2 Tim. 2.8 he meant that of St. Luke And he informs us also before in Simon Peter that the Gospel according to St. Mark was say'd to be St. Peters That is I suppose Wrote by his Instruction and with his Approbation being drawn up principally for the use of the Gentiles To which may be added what he tells us in (e) L. 3. c. 24. another Place that the three other Gospels being brought to St. John he Read them over and Perus'd them carefully and when he had so done justified what they had wrote and confirm'd the Truth thereof with his own Testimony Though for Reasons there set down he thought fit to make another Relation of his own and add thereto such Parriculars as had been omitted by the others The Acts of the Apostles as Mr. Dodwell observes Sect. 39. were probably wrote by St. Luke at the same time with the Gospel or History of our Saviour and therefore fall under the same Consideration They were the Second Volum Part or Treatise of the same Book as appears from Acts 1.1 and therefore though St. Luke's Name was not put to them yet it was never doubted in the Church who was the Author His Name was prefix'd to learnt from and preserv'd in the first part the Gospel from which the Acts seem afterwards to have been separated though at first they went together for the convenience of the Readers that so the Gospels all making up one Book by themselves as was usual formerly under the Name of the Book of the Gospels might be the more easily compar'd together Now this makes a great difference between the Writings of these two Evangelists and those of St. Clemens and St. Barnabas though suppos'd Genuine These latter were never recommended or attested by any of the Apostles and therefore could never expect that Reception and Authority in the VVorld which the others found nor to have the same place in the Canon IV. We Read p. 56. in so many words that there is not one single Book of the New Testament which was not refus'd by some of the Ancients as unjustly Father'd upon the Apostles and really forg'd by their Adversaries To which I answer That either our Author Equivocates in this Place or asserts that which he can never prove to be true For as I show'd above p. 10 c. the four Gospels the Acts thirteen Epistles of St. Paul the first of St. Peter and the first of St. John were all along admitted by the Catholick Church and never that appears after a sufficient Promulgation oppos'd by any who held her Communion The Hereticks indeed rejected some one some other parts of the New Testament but to understand them only by the Word Ancients exclusively of the Catholicks was certainly design'd to impose upon the unwary Reader and can never be excus'd from foul dealing since that Expression is commonly taken in another Sense But perhaps it may be here ask'd why the Testimony of Hereticks in a matter of Fact should not be as good as that of Catholicks and why they may not be admitted as Witnesses of what Books were or ought to be esteem'd Canonical as well as others To this I answer 1. That the Catholicks gave clear and evident proof of the Truth of what they asserted when the Hereticks could give none that was of any value For as we learn from (f) L. 4. c. 63. Jreneus (g) I. 4. against Marcion c. 4. Of Presciption c. 36. See these places insisted on hereafter Sect. XXXIV Tertullian and others All the Churches which had been planted by the Apostles and those who held Communion with them were on their side These all agreed in the Books these all agreed in the same Gospels and Epistles which they affirm'd they had receiv'd in a certain succession from the first Age. The Tradition was every where the same as to the Books mention'd p. 10. and might well be esteem'd undoubted since they were no further remov'd from the Disciples of our Saviour in the days of Jreneus then we are now from our Grandfathers The Bishops and Churches of his time convey'd the Canon by Written as well as Oral Testimony to the next Ages and so enabled them to run down the Forgeries of Hereticks as they had done before them who could not give that Proof and Evidence for their Suppositions which the Catholicks did for their True and Genuine Writings They could not deduce them from the Apostles since (h) Jreneus l. 3. c. 4. l. 5. c. 20. Tertul. of Prescript c. 29 30. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. p. 764. the Founders of the several Sects the Authors of these Heresies Forgeries and Corruptions as Valentinus Basilides Apelles Marcion c. were much latter then they And when application was made to the most Ancient Churches in the World which the immediate Disciples of our Lord had taught in their own Persons or to those which joyn'd in Communion with them they all gave in their Testimonies both against the Books and Doctrin And this brings me to a Second Argument 2. (i) Jren. l. 1. c. 17. Coll. cum l. 3. c. 2 c. Tertull. of Prescript c. 32 38. See also Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 3. c. 25. at the end See these places out of Jreneus and Tertullian insisted on more fully hereafter Sect. XXXIV The Books which the Hereticks forg'd contradicted that Doctrin which the Apostles had taught in the Churches they planted This was sufficiently known in those Ages which were at so little a distance from our Saviour by the general Tradition of all the Churches in the World And therefore those * Eusebius l. 3. c. 25. tells us that several Books Publish'd under the Venerable Names of St. Peter St. Thomas St. Matthias c. were and ought to be rejected as Spurious for this Reason among others that they contain'd Doctrins contrary to those which had been Taught and Publish'd by the Apostles whence it was Evident that they were the Forgeries and Contrivances of Wicked Men. Books were justly concluded Authentick that besides good Testimony agreed with and those Supposititious which were repugnant to the Doctrin of the Apostles 3. These Arguments have been judg'd so convincing that the whole Christian World has given a Verdict on their side For the Doctrin of
their Country-men After the departure of the Roman Army the greatest part return'd to Jerusalem as we are inform'd by (d) l. 3. c. 11. Eusebius and there continued under the Government of the Bishops of that Church the Succession of whom we have set down by (e) Her 66. n. 20. Epiphanius from St. James the Apostle to his own time Those Christians which stay'd behind at Pella were ever after (f) Her 29. n. 7. as the same Author informs us call'd Nazarens and differ'd from the Catholicks in this that they thought themselves still oblig'd to Circumcision and all the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law Out (g) Epiph. Her 30. n. 1 2. of them sprang the Ebionites who as we learn from (h) l. 3. c. 27. Eusebius were of two sorts One of them affirm'd that our Saviour was really the Son of Joseph born of him and Mary as other Men us'd to be of their Parents The other asserted his Miraculous Incarnation from a Virgin and yet maintain'd that he was a meer Man absolutely denying his Divinity We see then how our Author equivocated when he told * Of the Nazarens mention'd in the Acts St. Paul was say'd to be a Ring-leader But these Nazarens of which we are here speaking detested him as an Apostate us the Nazarens were the oldest Christians Those indeed whom Tertullus in the Acts call'd by that Name were so but not those among whom the Ebionites sprung up and who joyn'd with one or other part of this Sect and therefore as Eusebius in the place now quoted tells us were all call'd promiscuously by that Name though the more Moderate sort were †Both sorts of Ebionites as Eusebius tells us l. 3. c. 27. adhered to the Institutions of the Law of Moses and so says Epiphanius Heres 29. n. 7. did the Nazarens among whom the same Author acknowledges Heres 30. n. 1 2. the Ebionites sprang up and took from them some of their Opinions 'T is plain therefore that the Nazarens who agreed with them in many of their Doctrins were one sort of the Ebionites since else we cannot make two Epiphanius indeed seems to say Heres 29. n. 7. that the Nazarens receiv'd all the New as well as the Old Testament But he owns there that he had not a perfect account of their Tenents and 't is Evident he was mistaken in this particular For since he affirms in the same place that they strictly adher'd to the Mosaical Law they must reject the Epistles of St. Paul which declar'd against the Obligation thereof And that there were two sorts of Ebionites which agreed in this matter Origen l. 5. against Celsus p. 274. affirms as well as Eusebius and also tells us before l. 2. p. 56. that the Jews call'd all those who cleaving still to their Rites and Ceremonies own'd Jesus for their Messiah Ebionites And therefore since the Nazarens did so they were undoubtedly somerimes call'd by that Name as well as other times by that of Nazarens (i) Compare Euseb l. 3. c. 27. with Epiphan Heres 29. n. 7. also often call'd only Nazarens These still adhering to the Jewish Law as we above observ'd rejected all the Epistles of St. Paul calling him an Apostate and Deserter and receiv'd only the Gospel according to the Hebrews slighting all the rest as Eusebius there further relates The Gospel according to the Hebrews was as we may learn from (k) Heres 29. n. 9. Epiphanius and (l) Against the Pelagians l. 3. in the beginning St. Jerome the Gospel of St. Matthew in Hebrew but yet with several interpolations and additions of their own * Epiphanius in the Place just before cited tells us that they had the Gospel according to St. Matthew complete and entire therefore it was neither mutilated nor corrupted And St. Jerome in divers places mentions several Historical Passages that are not in our Gospel thence it appears they made additions though without making any alterations in what they found in the Authentick Copies before The other Party more properly call'd Ebionites corrupted the Gospel of St. Matthew in several Particulars took away the Genealogy of our Saviour and alter'd it in other Passages as (m) Heres 30. n. 13. Epiphanius teaches us Besides they only admitted the Books of Moses and Joshua of the Old Testament rejecting all the Prophets deriding and cursing David and Solomon Elijah Elisha Esay Jeremy and the rest wherein they were perfectly distinguish'd from the Nazarens who own'd and esteem'd them all However both Parties as we have seen agreed in this that they rejected all St. Paul's Epistles despis'd all the other Gospels and receiv'd only that of St. Matthew which they had more or less alter'd with their interpolations And now are not these excellent Witnesses for our Author against the establish'd Canon Do not they effectually prove that the Epistles we have under St. Paul's Name are falsly ascrib'd to him who as we above observ'd inveigh'd against St. Paul himself as a Deserter of the Law as a Cheat and Impostor and in contempt as Epiphanius farther remarks us'd to call him the Man of Tarsus and would needs have him though born a Jew to be a Gentile Proselyte They rejected not the Epistles but because they rejected the Apostle himself and his Doctrine When our Author tells the World he does so too I may think my self oblig'd to defend our Religion against him and these Judaizers whom we are now considering At present my business is only to assert that our Canon is Genuine and the Books which we receive the true Writings of those to whom they are ascrib'd This the Ebionites deny'd not but endeavour'd to run down the Writers themselves and since they had so little Christianity as to attempt that I think I may safely say there can be no difficulty in determining whether the Copies of St. Matthew which they kept or that which was preserv'd by the whole Catholick Church besides ought to be look'd upon as Authentick We must distinguish here between the Copy of the Nazarens and of the Ebionites strictly so call'd The latter had corrupted and alter'd and interpolated the Gospel according to St. Matthew and therefore their Copy was justly stil'd Spurious But the Gospel according to the Hebrews which the Nazarens embrac'd contain'd no alterations as was above observ'd of what St. Matthew Wrote but only the addition of some Historical Passages that had been gather'd from Oral Information or Tradition and were added in their proper Places to preserve them and make the story more full and compleat Several of these might probably be true and therefore when not pretended to be Wrote by St. Matthew ought not to be call'd Spurious or a Forgery Canonical indeed they were not because not the Work of the Apostle as appears from all the Copies of the Catholicks but they might deserve the Name of Ecclesiastical History and under that notion be quoted
that I think it is no great presumption to undertake the difficulties which are here propos'd by our Author nor any mighty task to Answer them The first difficulty is How (o) p. 79. the immediate Successors and Disciples of the Apostles could so grosly confound the Genuine Writings of their Masters with such as were falsly attributed to them To this I reply that it does not appear to me that they ever did grosly or not grosly mistake any Spurious Pieces for the Genuine Writings of the Apostles They have indeed a few Passages of which more in the proper Place that do not occur in our Bibles but that they were taken from Books Publish'd under the Names of the Apostles and which they judg'd to have been really the Apostles Works will puzzle our Author with all his Learning about him to make out But if the thing had happen'd and some subtile Sophister had so far impos'd upon Clemens Ignatius and the rest by counterfeiting their Instructors Hands and Styles as to put a false Epistle or Gospel upon them for a while of which I am not sensible this would not have been so wonderful a thing as we are made to believe since even Scriveners and Merchants those cunning Masters of defence have yet been trick'd after this manner However I shall readily yield that whether the Apostolick Persons just now mention'd were so impos'd on or no and I believe they were not yet many of that Age might and probably were deceiv'd for some time with Supposititious Writings usher'd into the World under the Title of great Names And this concession will make room for our Author's second difficulty (p) p. 79. Since they were in the dark how came others after them to a better light Before I give an answer to this question I cannot but remark that it comes very oddly from our Author who pretends to make such discoveries and undertakes to prove those Pieces full of Ignorance and Supersitition which had been generally well esteem'd till his days Do you think Sir there was never an I. T. among the Ancients None that could smell out an Imposture or by making a few remarks and asking a few questions find that a Book was ascrib'd to a wrong Author You may think thus if you please and value your self as much as you can upon the account of your great Atchievements but I believe others are of Opinion that if the Fathers had gone your untoward way to work and dealt no fairer when they were in quest of Forgeries then you have done with the Evidences in relation to the Eikon Basilike many of those cheats might have remain'd longer in credit which yet they quickly flung out of doors only by the assistance of a little Reason Honesty and common Sense We had an instance of this nature among us at the beginning of the late Revolution Three Declarations were then Publish'd in the Name of the Prince of Orange and esteem'd his for some time by the whole Nation But upon a strict examination of the matter the Third was found Supposititious disown'd by the pretended Author (q) History of the Desertion p. 89. and acknowledg'd by all to be a Forgery And thus it was in the Primitive times Some indeed of the Pieces which appear'd in the Apostles Names seem to have been so contrary to their Doctrine that they quickly sunk and were rejected on all hands But others being of a more skilful composition preserv'd their Reputation for a longer time and were esteem'd by such as knew no better for the Monuments of them whose Names they carried in their front However these by comparing them with their Genuine Writings or enquiring of the Apostles or those who convers'd with and were instructed by them had their Glorious Vizours pluck'd off and were expos'd as Impostures But this could not be done so soon as the Third Declaration was unmask'd here It was a single Piece ascrib'd to a single Person and scatter'd abroad no further then the compass of a narrow Island and therefore Application might in a few days be made to the Prince as it was and the cheat by that means speedily lay'd open Whereas in the case concerning which we are now discoursing the Forgeries were many they were attributed to several Persons and spread abroad over different Places of the Christian Church so that it must necessarily require a considerable time before they could be sufficiently examin'd before the pretended Authors or those acquainted with them could be consulted But at last Truth prevail'd and all the Impostures of the first and also of the second Age when they afterwards appear'd were as we learn from Ecclesiastical Story found out to be what they really were and as such slighted and generally undervalued Though still after the cheat was expos'd Learned Men us'd them upon occasion and quoted such single Passages out of them as they thought might be of value and Pertinent to the designs upon which they were Writing I proceed now to our Authors third difficulty (r) p. 79. Why all those Books which are cited by Clemens and the rest should not be accounted equally Authentick Whoever Reads this Passage and does not understand the case will I believe be apt to imagine that the Fathers here refer'd to quote many Books that have Relation to the state of things under the Gospel some of which we do upon their Authority admit for Canonical while we reject others that are equally cited by them as Spurious How far we make use of these Fathers for settling the Canon has been above explain'd It 's manifest from what is there say'd (s) Sect. XXI that we employ them only in conjunction with others to assert the Title of three or four Pieces So many they expresly Name and ascribe to their proper Authors and thereby teach us that they were compos'd by the Apostles and consequently ought to be reckon'd as Wrote by Inspiration and of Divine Authority We infer nothing from them to justify the rest but support them by other Evidence Well but ought not the Testimony of these Fathers be allow'd in behalf of other Pieces which they quote and transfer them from the Rank of Spurious wherein they are now plac'd by some to that of Canonical Writings Why truly much might be done if we knew what the Books were and that they design'd to quote them as the Genuine Writings of the Apostles But this is our unhappiness of which our Author seems not to have been sensible though he has undertaken upon occasion to blast the credit of all these Pieces together that though Clemens has quoted three Ignatius as many and Barnabas seven or eight short Passages that do not occur in our Books of Scripture yet they neither give us the Name of the Treatise nor yet of the Author whence they produce them and how without that the Books or the Authors should be put into the Canon I can't imagine However I love to deal
fairly and shall own that one of the Passages which we find in (t) Ep. to the Smyrneans p. 3. Ignatius is said to have been found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews which is the same with that of the Nazarens So it may be but Ignatius does not quote it from thence He might have it from other Books besides that or receive it from Tradition or take it upon Memory The Words in Ignatius are Handle me and feel me and see that I am not an Incorporeal †I render the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spirit or Apparition because one of those Words is always us'd by the English to express the same thing which is here intended by the Greek Spirit or Apparition In (u) C. 24. v. 39. St. Luke we Read Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have The Sense is exactly the same in both and if the Father made the quotation without looking into the Book he might easily mistake as far as this comes to But what if we grant our Author all he can desire and should yield that this Passage was taken by Ignatius out of the Gospel according to the Hebrews which will never be prov'd what can he infer from thence That we shall easily see if we compare this with those places where Texts taken out of the Gospels and Epistles have been mention'd by these Writers We find for Instance that St. Clemens gives us several Passages that are to be met with in the Epistle to the Hebrews that St. Ignatius also gives us one or two that are in the Gospel according to St. Matthew or the Epistle to the Corinthians All that we argue from hence is that those Books from which these two Fathers borrow those Passages were then extant and abroad in the Church But we cannot we do not hence infer that they were Canonical or Wrote by those Apostles whose Names they now bear because neither Clemens nor Ignatius tell us so and therefore that must be Learn'd from other Authors In like manner supposing that Ignatius took the expression we are now considering from the Gospel according to the Hebrews all we can gather from thence is that there was such a Gospel then extant wherein that passage was Read But that it was of Divine Authority or Wrote by any of the Apostles we cannot gather for St. Ignatius says no such thing we must learn that if it can be learn'd from other Writers Since then we allow as much Authority to this Father in one case as we do to him or St. Clemens in the other certainly our Author can desire no more and therefore I suppose we are agreed as to this matter But * Whether what our Author produces out of Origen as from Ignatius concerning the Devils being ignorant of the Virginity of the Virgin Mary c. be designed as an Objection against the genuineness of that Epistle wherein these Expressions are found or no I cannot tell If it be I shall refer the Reader for an Answer to A. Bp. Vsher in his Prolegomena to the Epistles of that Father c. 12. p. lxxxi Ox. Edit 1644. 4â—o .. perhaps it may be Objected that if we grant this we grant that St. Ignatius quoted a Spurious Gospel To this I answer 1. That the question before us at present is not whether this Father quoted a Spurious Gospel or no but whether by borrowing a Passage after this manner from the Gospel according to the Hebrews he advances it into the Canon The contrary to which I have plainly prov'd to be true 2. This Gospel with the additions ought not to be look'd upon as Spurious or a Forgery but rather as a Piece of Ecclesiastical History See above at the end of Section XVI And if we proceed to Hermas it must be owned that he produces not one Text that we can be sure of out of either the Old or New Testament but quotes one short Sentence out of an Apocryphal Book call'd the Prophesies of Eldad and Medad And therefore since we make no manner of use of this Writer for the Establishing the Canon we cannot be oblig'd by our Authors Argument to embrace this Apocryphal Piece upon his Authority Only I shall add that the Passage is good and true whosoever say'd it The Lord is nigh unto all those who turn unto him and therefore might be quoted not upon the Authority of the Book but the Intrinsick Value of the Expression which may be cited without danger from the Mouth or Pen of the greatest Impostor And thus I have answer'd our Author's third difficulty why all the Books which are cited by Clemens and the rest should not be equally Authentick and shown that there is but one single Piece that we count Suppositious quoted by Name and that too not referring to the time of the New but Old Testament and quoted it is by an Author of whose Testimony we make no use in settling the Canon and therefore we cannot be tied and bound by it in the case of this pretended Prophecy neither indeed ought any one else For he is alone in the matter as far as appears at present and contradicts the whole Jewish Church who knew nothing of this Book nor ever admitted it among their Canonical Writings As for the Passage of Ignatius pretended to be borrowed from the Gospel according to the Hebrews I hope what has been above-say'd is satisfactory and for the rest in him and Clemens and Barnabas when our Author shall please to tell us whence they were fetch'd and under what notion they are quoted he shall hear more of my mind Polycarp has not one Passage out of any Spurious or unknown Writer that I can find and therefore I suppose he may be dismiss'd without further trouble The last difficulty is (a) p. 80. What stress should be lay'd on the Testimony of those Fathers who not only contradict one another but are often inconsistent with themselves in the relations of the very same facts Here I think our Author's Expression is obscure He does not tell us whom he means by Fathers or what Contradictions as he calls them he had more especially in his Eye when he Wrote these Words I was once about venturing to guess but upon Second Thoughts forbore lest I should be censur'd as severely as Mr. Bl. was for mistaking or too well understanding his meaning and be told that I am one of those (b) p. 81. who are Sagacious enough to discover the hidden Poyson of every Word and will be sure to give loud warning of the danger to shew where the Snake lies in the Grass and to tell what 's in the Belly of the Trojan Horse And therefore that I may avoid such a dreadful Thunderclap shall say no more but that he 's in the Clouds and there I must leave him for the present Postcript THere are two or three Passages which would not fall in regularly with