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
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
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
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
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
Pieces For he alledges p. 32. this Writer to prove there was a Book call'd the Preaching of St. Paul because it is actually so in the Text. And he quotes the very same place p. 23. for the Preaching of St. Peter because Rigaltius corrects it so in his Notes that Paul is by mistake set for Peter for 't is Paul in the Text. But what will our Author get by this Concession Truly very little he may put it all in his Eye and see never the worse For that Writer says positively that the Composer of the Preaching of Peter was an Heretick and proves it too by good Arguments So that after all * I say we have the Testimony but of one single Father for any Authority of these Books for the Reading one of them once a year in an obscure Church or two is a mean thing see above Sect. VI. And yet under what notion he quotes them does not appear much less what Authority he ascribes to them he no where tells us that he look'd upon the Preaching and Revelation of St. Peter to have been Wrote by himself and upon that account to be Canonical He might take them for Ecclesiastical Pieces and suppose which yet was an Error that the Writer of them gave a true account of some Discourses of that Apostle As he does in his Treatise concerning the Salvation of the Rich furnish us with some Passages concerning St. John which Eusebius has transfer'd into his Ecclesiastical History It can by no means be prov'd that this Father judg'd these Pieces part of the New Testament because be quotes them It was the custom of the Ancients as well as Moderns to cite Writings which they knew not to be Canonical as well as those that were This is sufficiently Evident and St. Jerom takes Particular notice of it in his Epistle to Dardanus And therefore till there be very good proof to the contrary we ought not to believe that St. Clemens differ'd so very far from the rest of the Fathers as to advance those Pieces into the Canon which they generally rejected for Spurious but rather conclude that he esteem'd them at best no more then Ecclesiastical And so Eusebius seems to affirm concerning him and them See hereafter Sect. XIX However the case be see before Sect. VII we have the Testimony of one single Father and an obscure Church or two in Palestine only for any Authority of these Books and what Authority they design'd them we cannot tell and all the rest of the Catholicks of those times and before them and since as far as appears rejected them as Forgeries and if we may make an Estimate of the whole by the Fragments which yet remain 't is evident they were the Forgeries of Hereticks For in the (q) See Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 6. p. 635. Orig. Tom. 14. on John p. 211. Preaching of Peter we Read that the Jews Worshipp'd Angels and Archangels and the Months and the Moon Which they are charg'd with doing not when they fell into Idolatry but in the ordinary Practice of their Religion We are told also (r) Treatise vf Bapt. of Heret p. 30. that Jesus acknowledg'd himself guilty of Sin and was in a manner compell'd to submit to the Baptism of John by his Mother against his will c. which are gross and †There is another passage that does not methinks sound well quoted by Clemens out of the Preaching of St. Peter in the sixth Book of his Stromata p. 678. where we are told that the Prophets nam'd Jesus Christ in express words Whether this can be fairly reconcil'd with Truth I shall not determine but leave to the Reader 's Judgment notorious falshoods And the Revelation of Peter informs us that (s) Clem. Al. Extracts out of Thedot p. 806 807. abortive and expos'd Infants are committed to the conduct of a Guardian Angel who may instruct and educate them and secure their Happiness after they have suffer'd such things as they should have endur'd in the Body that they shall be as those who have been faithful here for a hundred years that flashes of fire shall break from these Infants c. with more of the same Nature Now whosoever shall consider this and call to mind the perfect silence of the Scripture in such Curiosities will easily conclude that these discoveries had the same Original with the Whimsical Fancies which the Gnosticks Publish'd to the World about that time The case therefore of the Books call'd the Preaching and Revelation of St. Peter is in a Word this They contain'd false and Extravagant Doctrin have no Body on their side at all but one Father and some unknown Churches of Palestine whose just opinion of them we know not and were universally rejected by the whole Body of the Catholicks besides as far as we can Judge at this distance Now let 's turn the Tables and we shall find the whole Christian World agreed that there is nothing in the Seven Pieces which we have now under consideration repugnant to the rest of the Scripture that even at that time when they were doubted of by some they were yet receiv'd by many others among whom were several of great Piety and Learning that Athanasius Rufinus and others vouch the Authority of the Ancients to prove that they were and ought to be judg'd and accounted Canonical that since that Councils and the whole Church have receiv'd and own'd them for Genuine and if after all this our Author will still say that there 's more reason to receive the Preaching and Revelation of St. Peter then the Pieces we are now examining into the Code of the New Testament he may say so if he pleases but I believe he 'l meet with but few that are of his Opinion VI. To show he 'll leave no Stone unturn'd to express the favourable Opinion he has of the New Testament our Author 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 Writing of the Gospel three or four or more times that so they might deny whatever was urg'd against them as retracted before Our Author somewhere complains of the Clergy for their harsh Language and violating the Rules of Decency and Civility in their Writings But certainly there are some cases wherein it is very difficult to forbear a little severity of Expression And this I take to be one of them which I have now before me To see a Man who professes himself a Christian rake up the Objections not only of the grossest and most Profligate Hereticks but even of the very Heathens and make use of them to run down the most Ancient and Venerable Monuments of our Religion might easily raise a Passion justifiable by the strictest Rules of Morality Especially when we find the same Person so resolutely bent on doing all the mischief that he can as to take not
the least notice of the answer which is to be found in the same place from whence he drew his Objection For this Objection is quoted by our Author from the Second Book of Origen against Celsus p. 77. and there he might have found this answer too that they were the Hereticks the Marcionites the Valentinians and the Lucianists some of whom also (t) L. 1. c. 29. Jreneus and (u) Against Marcion l. 4. c. 5. Tertullian positively accuse of the same tricks who were guilty of these Prevarications For which the Catholicks were no more answerable then the Church of England was for the Murther of Charles the First VII To Celsus in the same Page our Author joyns the Manicheans fitly enough I confess who shew'd other Scriptures and deny'd the Genuineness of the whole New Testament Whether will not Men go or what will they not do to serve a design He knows or at least might know that the Manicheans were as Extravagant and Whimsical a sort of Hereticks as any that troubled the Christian Church They held as (x) Heres 66. Epiphanius informs us That there were two Supreme Gods the one a good the other a bad one that they were always at War with one another that Manes was the Holy Ghost that the Souls of Men after their decease should pass into the Bodies of such Beasts as they had Eaten when they were alive or be united to those Trees which they had planted that the Sun and Moon were Ships which convey'd the faithful of their Sect to Heaven and that the Light of the Moon depended on the number of the Souls in it which when she was full she emptied into the Sun by degrees and so grew dark again These things they believ'd or at least maintain'd with Twenty more of as absurd a Nature And now I pray what does the Opinion which such as these had of the Canon signify They could find nothing in the Books of the Catholicks wherewith to justify their Notions and therefore (w) S. Aug. Treatise of Heresys n. 46. rejected their Authority and made use of others for their peculiar Doctrins But our Author might as well have set up the Alchoran in opposition to the New Testament and for so doing have alledg'd the Judgment and Testimony of the Turks For laying aside the Name they seem to be every jot as good Christians as the Manicheans Here our Author brings in two Passages from Faustus the Manichee to show that He and those of his Sect rejected the whole New Testament That they did so in effect is evident and undoubted for they made it of no Authority by refusing to be concluded by Arguments drawn from thence pretending that it contain'd many Errors which had been foisted into the several Books thereof by the Tricks and Cheats of succeeding Ages long after the Deaths of the Apostles They maintain'd it was full of Corruptions and Falsifications And therefore Faustus boasts (y) St. August against Fausius l. 18. c. 3. that the Manichean Faith alone secur'd the Professors thereof from all danger of Heresy by instructing them not to believe every thing which was written in the Name of our Saviour but to try whether what they Read to have been taught by him was really true sound and uncorrupted For as he goes on there are many Tares mingled with the Wheat which an Enemy during the times of Night and Darkness has Sown and Scattered in almost all the Scriptures for the infecting and poisoning the good seed And again (z) L. 32. c. 1. he asks the Catholicks What reason they had to think it strange if he selecting those Passages out of the New Testament that were most pure and conduc'd to his Salvation should fling away all the rest which had been fraudulently convey'd into it by their Predecessors and sullied the Native Beauty and Majesty of the Truth This was their constant Practice when they were press'd with any Texts which they could not reconcile to their fond Opinions they without more ado slighted their Authority affirming the Testimonies produc'd against them were forg'd and no part of the Doctrin deliver'd by our Blessed Lord and his Apostles And therefore St. Augustine (a) L. 13. c. 5. l. 22. c. 15. l. 32. c. 19. accuses them as receiving the Scriptures only for fashion's sake while by asserting them to be falsified and corrupted they perfectly detracted from their Authority that is if I understood him aright they pretended upon occasion to have a deference for the New Testament whereas really they had none For they charg'd it with Corruption and acknowledg'd nothing as an Article of Faith purely because contain'd in the Books and upon the warrant thereof but because they judg'd it true upon other accounts and for this Reason were willing to own that it (b) L. 33. c. 3. might possibly have been deliver'd by Christ or his Disciples And therefore I readily joyn with our Author and acknowledgd that the Manichees really rejected the whole New Testament not only because there are several passages of Faustus which plainly intimate as much but also because St. Augustine himself seems clearly to have understood them in that Sense For thus we learn from him (c) L. 32. c. 16. that these Hereticks affirm'd their Paraclet Manicheus had taught them that the Scriptures even (d) See the beginning of that Chapter the Scriptures of the New Testament receiv'd for Canonical by the Catholicks were not the Works of the Apostles but wrote by others in their Names And we Read again how the same worthy Teacher had inform'd them (e) L. 32. c. 18. towards the end that the Evangelical Writings part of which they refus'd to admit were not the Apostles And accordingly we shall observe by and by that this Father was so sensible how far these miserable Hereticks had been seduc'd in this matter that he thought himself concern'd directly to answer this Objection and prove against his Adversary Faustus that whatever he and his Party pretended the Gospels and Epistles admitted by the Catholick Church were Genuine and Authentick That therefore we may allow our Author and his Objection against the Canon of the New Testament drawn from the Manicheans all the fair play that can be desir'd I shall state the full Sense thereof in the two following Propositions 1. The Books of the New Testament were not wrote by the Apostles or Apostolical Men (f) See S. Aug. against Faustus l. 33. c. 3. but drawn up several years after them out of reports Traditions and Historical Memoirs 2. Whoever they were that drew them up they falsified and corrupted the pure Doctrins of Christianity by inserting several Errors and contradictions among the Truth And therefore the Manichees admitted the Books just so far and in such particulars as they judg'd them true and rejected the rest as of no value This is the utmost force which can be put into the Objection and we 'll now
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
and has hundreds of Expressions more barbarous and improper then this and a complete Body of the Scripture preserv'd without either Forgery or Falsification without either Addition or Substraction c. Which Words are an express assertion that the Doctrine and Discipline and Scriptures which they then had were the same which the Apostles deliver'd and were then receiv'd in all Churches of the World with which Ireneus and the Gauls had any Communication Tertullian (u) l. 4. against Marcion c. 5. appeals to all the Apostolick Churches to the Galatians to the Thessalonians to the Romans to the Colossians to the Ephesians c. and in a word to all the Churches which joyn'd in Communion with them to prove the Copy of St. Luke which the Catholicks had and not that of Marcion to be Genuine and Sincere He adds too that the same Authority will justify the other three Gospels likewise since they were receiv'd (x) Per illas secundum illas from and according to the Copies of those Churches (y) Of Prescript c. 33 34. He produces in another place Testimonies from several Epistles of St. Paul from St. Peter and St. John and then for further confirmation of the Truth of what he urges (z) c. 36. exhorts those who had a mind to exercise their Curiosity in the business of their Salvation to run over the Churches planted by these and the other Apostles where they might find * Rigaltius and after him F. Simon will have no more meant here by Authentick Letters or Writings then that what the Apostles Wrote was still preserv'd in the Original Language in those Places But I would fain know what great matter there was in that The Epistles were first Wrote in Greek and were without question still Extant in Greek not only in the Apostolick but in all those Churches to which that Language remain'd still familiar if not in others too Tertullian certainly design'd something Singular and Peculiar to the Churches planted by the Apostles when he say'd their Authentick Letters or Writings were kept there and consequently must intend the very Originals of them And why these two Learned Men should judge otherwise since this is the most natural though not the only Sense of the Word I cannot guess For 't is certain Manuscripts have been preserv'd many hundred years longer then the time was which pass'd between the Apostles and the days of Tertullian their Authentick Writings or Letters still remaining (a) Authenticae literae expressing the Doctrine and representing the Piety of each of them A little after he brings in the Catholick Church thus arguing with the Hereticks concerning the Scripture (b) c. 37. p. 215. Who are you When and whence came you hither What do you in my ground since you belong not to me By what Right O Marcion do you cut down my Woods What Authority have you Valentinus to turn the Course of my Fountains Who gave you Power Apelles to overthrow my Fences What do you Sowing and Feeding here at your Pleasures The Possession is mine I have enjoy'd it for a long time I first enjoy'd it I derive a certain Original from the Authors themselves whose it was I am the Heir of the Apostles c. Thus Writ Ireneus and Tertullian concerning the Scriptures of the New Testament and what they thus Writ certainly concerns all those Pooks which they held for Genuine and Pure in opposition to the Hereticks of their Times These they tell us were deriv'd from the Apostles by the hands of those Churches which they founded all over the World them they produce for their Vouchers in the present case and appeal likewise to the Doctrine embrac'd in every one of them which was very consonant to the Books of the Catholicks but not to those of the Hereticks Thus much we may easily learn from Ireneus He tells us (c) l. 1. c. 17. That the several sorts of Hereticks with which he had to do had forg'd a great number of Apocryphal and Spurious Pieces These without question contain'd the Principles of their Doctrine and were sent abroad into the World as the chief Grounds and Foundations of what they taught But all was Cheat and Cousenage and the Fictions of their own Brains What they vented was Heretical and Erroneous as this father proves at large from hence (d) l. 3. c. 3 4. that it was contrary to the Faith which the Apostles had planted in all places and which had been larnt and might be learnt every day from the Churches founded by them And again in another Place l. 3. c. 11. p. 259. he rejects some Gospels of the Valentinians because they contain'd Blasphemies and Doctrines contrary to those which had been Publish'd by the Apostles So likewise Tertullian speaks of some of the same Hereticks (e) Of Prescript c. 32. p. 213. Let their Doctrine be compar'd with the Apostles and we shall quickly see by the contrariety thereof that it proceeds neither from any of them nor their Disciples The Apostles did not contradict one another neither did their Disciples contradict them The Churches which they founded agree in the same Doctrines and so do those too which being of a later Original deriv'd their Instruction from them which were planted before them and therefore may be call'd Apostolical as well as they because owning and embracing the same Faith Let the Hereticks show that they deserve that Title upon either of these accounts that these Churches acknowledge the same Doctrine which they do and receive them to Peace and Communion as Brethren But this they cannot do (f) c. 38. p. 216. They are Forreigners they are Enemies to the Apostles because they teach a different Faith And since their Faith is so different we may be sure they have adulterated the Scriptures For they who were resolv'd to teach perversly were under a necessity of corrupting those Books upon which their Doctrine was to be grounded Whereas we who preserve the Doctrine entire have preserv'd the Books so too without changing or adding or taking away We teach nothing but what was to be found in the Scriptures from the beginning before they were corrupted and interpolated Before Marcion had lay'd violent hands upon them employing a Knife and not a Style and cutting away whatever he thought convenient and was contrary to his Errors and Heresies (g) c. 19. †Vbi apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinae fidei Christianae illic erit veritas Scripturarum For where the Truth of the Christian Faith and Doctrine appears there the Genuine and true Copies of the Scripture are certainly to be found Having thus given a large account of the Testimony which these two very Ancient Writers of the Christian Church give to the Books of the New Testament I shall now pass on to remark before I conclude what Opinion an Eminent Heathen even Julian the Apostate that bitter and inveterate Enemy of
Christianity entertain'd concerning them This we may easily learn from what he Wrote and Publish'd against our Holy Religion which may be seen in Mr. Spanheim's Edition of his Works wherein St. Cyril's Answer to the Books of that Emperour with what remains of the Books themselves against the Christians is Printed as it is also in Cyril's own Works There we shall find that Julian expresly mentions the Writings of (h) l. 10. p. 327. the Four Evangelists by Name of St. Paul and St. Peter as their own proper and undoubted Works that he speaks (i) l. 8. p. 253. of the Genealogy of our Saviour as Recorded by St. Matthew and St. Luke that he quotes Passages (k) l. 9. p. 291. l. 10. p. 335. out of St. Matthew (l) l. 8. p. 261 262. l. 10. p. 335. out of St. John (m) l. 9. p. 314. out of the Acts of the Apostles (n) l. 9. p. 320. l. 10. p. 351. out of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans and (o) l. 7. p. 245. out of the First to the Corinthians and disputes against them To which may be added that he speaks of the Writings of St. Matthew and St. Luke (p) Ep. 42. p. 423. also in his Epistles The Inferences which naturally arise from hence are these two First that it was well known among the Heathens that the Books of the New Testament as embrac'd by the Catholicks were the Records upon which the Christian Religion was founded and accordingly Julian sets himself directly to oppose what was delivered in them as the most ready way to overthrow and ruin Christianity Secondly That there was then no Reason known why the Books should be suspected as not really Wrote by those Persons to whom we ascribe them or why they should be judg'd to have been chang'd and alter'd by the Catholicks For if there had been the least probable ground for such an accusation we may be sure this Learned and keen Adversary of theirs would not have forgot to lay it to their charge he would never have cited the Books as the Genuine Works of St. John St. Paul c. but affirm'd plainly they were the Forgeries and Contrivances of later times drawn up by he knew not whom to advance the Credit and Reputation of their Master Since therefore he does nothing of this but the quite contrary since he quotes these Pieces as the Writings of the Apostles and Apostolick Men and never accuses the Christians of Falsifications or Corruptions we may be certain that he knew of nothing which could be justly objected against them as to this Particular I would offer the serious consideration of this Instance to the mighty discoverers of the present Age. We have here an Emperour who wanted neither Learning nor Wit nor Industry inflam'd with a most eager desire of running down Christianity assisted therein not only with the Writings of Celsus Porphyry Hierocles and others who had engag'd in the same cause before him but also with the best advice and directions we may be sure of Libanius Jamblichus Maximus and the rest of the Sophists and Philosophers who flourish'd in his time who yet with all these helps could find no solid Grounds or Reasons for representing the New Testament as a Forgery So far was he from pretending thereto that on the contrary he owns the Books thereof which he had occasion to mention for the Genuine Works of those Persons to whom we attribute them at present and does not any where declare his suspicions that either they or any of the rest were either forg'd or corrupted by the Catholicks Whereas there are those in our days who above Thirteen Hundred years after him pretend to discover that which neither he nor any of the Learned asserters of Heathenism who doubtless supplied him upon occasion with their most Curious and Critical Remarks and Observations could do and bear the World in hand that those Ancient Monuments of our Faith which are ascrib'd to the Evangelists and Apostles are none of theirs but the Impostures and Contrivances of designing Men who have impos'd them upon the Credulous and unthinking part of Mankind As if they had greater means and opportunities of discovering the Forgery at this distance if there was one then Julian and the zealous maintainers of the Pagan Religion had so long ago or as if all the Christian World for so many Centuries except themselves and a few more had been destitute of Integrity and Understanding But whether the weakness or confidence of such pretences be greater I shall leave the Reader to determine FINIS Books Printed for Richard Sare at Grays-Inn-Gate in Houlborn FAbles of Aesop and other eminent Mythologists with Morals and Reflexions In two Parts Folio Quevedo's Visions Octavo Twenty Two Select Colloquies out of Erasmus pleasantly representing several superstitious Levities that were crept into the Church of Rome in his time Octavo The Third Edition By Sir Roger L'Estrange The Genuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers St. Barnabas St. Ignatius St. Clemens and St. Polycarp the Sheperd of Hermas c. with a large Preliminary Discourse relating thereto Octavo The Authority of Christian Princes over Ecclesiastical Synods Octavo Price 5 s. An Appeal to all the True Members of the Church of England on behalf of the King's Supremacy Octavo Price 1 s. 6 d. A Practical Discourse against Profane Swearing Octavo Price 1 s. 6 d. The Principles of the Christian Religion Explained in a Brief Commentary on the Church Catechism Octavo Price 2 s. Also several Sermons on special Occasions By the Reverend Dr. Wake Epictetus's Morals with Simplicius's Comment with the Addition of his Life from the French of Mr. Bolleau Octavo Price 5 s. The Christian's Pattern or a Treatise of the Imitation of Jesus Christ written by Thomas a Kempis To which are added Meditations and Prayers for sick Persons with Cuts Octavo Price 5 s. and also in Twelves Price 2 s. Several Sermons upon several Occasions These by the Reverend Dr. Stanhop Parsons's Christian Directory being a Treatise of Holy Resolution in two Parts Purged from all Errors and put into Modern English and now made publick for the Instruction of the Ignorant The Conviction of Unbelievers The Awakning and Reclaiming the Vitious and for Confirming the Religious in their Good Purposes Octavo Price 5 s. Moral Maxims and Reflections Written in French by the Duke of Roachfoucault Twelves Price 1 s. 6 d. Essays upon several Moral Subjects in Two Parts The Fourth Edition Octavo Price 5 s. A short View of the Profaneness and Immorality of the English Stage with the Sense of Antiquity upon that Argument The Fourth Edition Octavo Price 3 s. 6 d. A Defence of the Short View of the Profaneness and Immortality of the English Stage c. Being a Reply to Mr. Congreve c. Octavo Price 1 s. 6 d. A Second Defence of the said Short View c. in Answer to a Book entituled the Ancient and Modern Stages surveyed c. Octavo Price 1 s. 6 d. These Four by the Reverend Mr. Collier Maxims and Reflections on Plays in answer to a Discourse of the Lawfulness and Unlawfulness of Plays Printed before a late Play Entituled Beauty in Distress Written in French by the Bishop of Meaux with an Advertisement concerning the Author and the Translation by Mr. Collier Octavo Price 1 s. 6 d.