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
their Country-men After the departure of the Roman Army the greatest part return'd to Jerusalem as we are inform'd by (d) l. 3. c. 11. Eusebius and there continued under the Government of the Bishops of that Church the Succession of whom we have set down by (e) Her 66. n. 20. Epiphanius from St. James the Apostle to his own time Those Christians which stay'd behind at Pella were ever after (f) Her 29. n. 7. as the same Author informs us call'd Nazarens and differ'd from the Catholicks in this that they thought themselves still oblig'd to Circumcision and all the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law Out (g) Epiph. Her 30. n. 1 2. of them sprang the Ebionites who as we learn from (h) l. 3. c. 27. Eusebius were of two sorts One of them affirm'd that our Saviour was really the Son of Joseph born of him and Mary as other Men us'd to be of their Parents The other asserted his Miraculous Incarnation from a Virgin and yet maintain'd that he was a meer Man absolutely denying his Divinity We see then how our Author equivocated when he told * Of the Nazarens mention'd in the Acts St. Paul was say'd to be a Ring-leader But these Nazarens of which we are here speaking detested him as an Apostate us the Nazarens were the oldest Christians Those indeed whom Tertullus in the Acts call'd by that Name were so but not those among whom the Ebionites sprung up and who joyn'd with one or other part of this Sect and therefore as Eusebius in the place now quoted tells us were all call'd promiscuously by that Name though the more Moderate sort were †Both sorts of Ebionites as Eusebius tells us l. 3. c. 27. adhered to the Institutions of the Law of Moses and so says Epiphanius Heres 29. n. 7. did the Nazarens among whom the same Author acknowledges Heres 30. n. 1 2. the Ebionites sprang up and took from them some of their Opinions 'T is plain therefore that the Nazarens who agreed with them in many of their Doctrins were one sort of the Ebionites since else we cannot make two Epiphanius indeed seems to say Heres 29. n. 7. that the Nazarens receiv'd all the New as well as the Old Testament But he owns there that he had not a perfect account of their Tenents and 't is Evident he was mistaken in this particular For since he affirms in the same place that they strictly adher'd to the Mosaical Law they must reject the Epistles of St. Paul which declar'd against the Obligation thereof And that there were two sorts of Ebionites which agreed in this matter Origen l. 5. against Celsus p. 274. affirms as well as Eusebius and also tells us before l. 2. p. 56. that the Jews call'd all those who cleaving still to their Rites and Ceremonies own'd Jesus for their Messiah Ebionites And therefore since the Nazarens did so they were undoubtedly somerimes call'd by that Name as well as other times by that of Nazarens (i) Compare Euseb l. 3. c. 27. with Epiphan Heres 29. n. 7. also often call'd only Nazarens These still adhering to the Jewish Law as we above observ'd rejected all the Epistles of St. Paul calling him an Apostate and Deserter and receiv'd only the Gospel according to the Hebrews slighting all the rest as Eusebius there further relates The Gospel according to the Hebrews was as we may learn from (k) Heres 29. n. 9. Epiphanius and (l) Against the Pelagians l. 3. in the beginning St. Jerome the Gospel of St. Matthew in Hebrew but yet with several interpolations and additions of their own * Epiphanius in the Place just before cited tells us that they had the Gospel according to St. Matthew complete and entire therefore it was neither mutilated nor corrupted And St. Jerome in divers places mentions several Historical Passages that are not in our Gospel thence it appears they made additions though without making any alterations in what they found in the Authentick Copies before The other Party more properly call'd Ebionites corrupted the Gospel of St. Matthew in several Particulars took away the Genealogy of our Saviour and alter'd it in other Passages as (m) Heres 30. n. 13. Epiphanius teaches us Besides they only admitted the Books of Moses and Joshua of the Old Testament rejecting all the Prophets deriding and cursing David and Solomon Elijah Elisha Esay Jeremy and the rest wherein they were perfectly distinguish'd from the Nazarens who own'd and esteem'd them all However both Parties as we have seen agreed in this that they rejected all St. Paul's Epistles despis'd all the other Gospels and receiv'd only that of St. Matthew which they had more or less alter'd with their interpolations And now are not these excellent Witnesses for our Author against the establish'd Canon Do not they effectually prove that the Epistles we have under St. Paul's Name are falsly ascrib'd to him who as we above observ'd inveigh'd against St. Paul himself as a Deserter of the Law as a Cheat and Impostor and in contempt as Epiphanius farther remarks us'd to call him the Man of Tarsus and would needs have him though born a Jew to be a Gentile Proselyte They rejected not the Epistles but because they rejected the Apostle himself and his Doctrine When our Author tells the World he does so too I may think my self oblig'd to defend our Religion against him and these Judaizers whom we are now considering At present my business is only to assert that our Canon is Genuine and the Books which we receive the true Writings of those to whom they are ascrib'd This the Ebionites deny'd not but endeavour'd to run down the Writers themselves and since they had so little Christianity as to attempt that I think I may safely say there can be no difficulty in determining whether the Copies of St. Matthew which they kept or that which was preserv'd by the whole Catholick Church besides ought to be look'd upon as Authentick We must distinguish here between the Copy of the Nazarens and of the Ebionites strictly so call'd The latter had corrupted and alter'd and interpolated the Gospel according to St. Matthew and therefore their Copy was justly stil'd Spurious But the Gospel according to the Hebrews which the Nazarens embrac'd contain'd no alterations as was above observ'd of what St. Matthew Wrote but only the addition of some Historical Passages that had been gather'd from Oral Information or Tradition and were added in their proper Places to preserve them and make the story more full and compleat Several of these might probably be true and therefore when not pretended to be Wrote by St. Matthew ought not to be call'd Spurious or a Forgery Canonical indeed they were not because not the Work of the Apostle as appears from all the Copies of the Catholicks but they might deserve the Name of Ecclesiastical History and under that notion be quoted
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
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
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
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
To which I Answer 1. That the quoting other Authors in the same Discourses wherein we appeal to the Writings of the Sacred Volums is no Evidence that we Judge them of the same Authority For is there any thing more usual in Moral and Theological Treatises then to Cite the Scriptures and Fathers and Philosophers and Poets too sometimes Promiscuously as there is Occasion And yet no Man in his Wits ever thought that by so doing these three last were declar'd as infallible as the first How often have Tully and Seneca and Plato and others of their Rank been quoted by Christian Writers in the same Discourses wherein they have fetch'd Proofs from the Evangelists and Apostles And yet I dare say they never dreamt that for so doing they might be charg'd as making Tully equal to St. John or Seneca to St. Paul We quote Authors not always as convincing Proofs of the Truth of what we deliver but sometimes because they express themselves handsomly argue Pathetically Reason closely or to show that others have been of the same Judgment with us though at the same time we think them no more infallible then we do our selves And after this manner that I may come close to our Authors Objection did Origen proceed who is observ'd to have cited as many Apocryphal Writings as any almost of the Fathers though he produces generally if we 'l believe (i) Monsieur Valois's notes on Euseb l. 3. c. 38. a Learned Man nothing but what is profitable or useful from them and yet he does not advance any of them into the Canon but reserv'd that Honour for those Books to which it did belong 2. Though our Author affirms in this Objection that the Fathers quoted several Spurious Books as of equal Authority with those which we account Canonical yet he gives us no proof thereof since the bare Citing both together is as we have seen no Evidence Something indeed he offers at p. 44. which sounds like an Argument and to that perhaps he may here refer and therefore I have put it in the Second place that I may allow every thing he urges its due force II. Therefore He looks upon the Epistle of Barnabas the Pastor of Hermas the Epistles of Clemens Bp. of Rome Polycarp and Ignatius to be all Forgeries p. 43. 46. and yet tells us p. 44. that the Ancients pay'd them the highest respect and reckon'd the four first of them especially as good as any part of the New Testament So that the Testimony of the Ancients for the Canon of the New Testament seems to be of no value since if we 'l believe our Author they put Forgeries in the same Rank with the Books thereof and esteem'd them of the same Authority 1. To which I Answer That the Positive Charge of Forgeries seems a little too confident at this time of day upon so many Books at a clap most of which have had a good Reputation for several Ages and have been of late days justified and defended by the Pens of divers of the first Rank for Learning and Criticism But our Author has no consideration for that The Writers of these Pieces were all if we 'l be perswaded by him Ignorant and Superstitious whatever Opinion the World may have formerly entertain'd of the Knowledge and Piety of any of them and their Assertors Men of no Judgment and Understanding who undertook a cause which can't be defended For so we Read p. 38. It 's the easiest task in the World next to that of shewing the Ignorance and Superstition of the Writers to prove all these and a great many more there reckon'd up Spurious But I shall crave leave to say that talking and doing are very different things and our Author will find it a more difficult Employment to run down some of these Pieces then it was to heap together a Catalogue of Writers where so many Collections had been already made to his hand Close Reasoning and Arguing are quite of another Nature and what an excellent Talent he has at making out Forgeries will easily appear to any one who shall take the pains to compare what he says in Answer to the Vindication of K. Charles the Martyr either with the Book it self or the Reply of his Learned Adversary But however let that be as it will I say he extreamly wrongs the Ancients in the accusation he here brings against them when he says that they reckon'd the four first of these especially as good as any part of the New Testament For 1. Eusebius was certainly as proper a Judge of what the Ancients held as our Author and yet he plainly sets the Books we mention'd p. 10. above all others and makes them only to be Canonical in the Judgment of the generality of his Predecessors And though the Church in the days of (k) See these Authors in the places above cited Sect. IV. n. 1. Athanasius Epiphanius c. saw Reason to take some more Books into the Canon then were admitted by Eusebius yet these we are now considering were still excluded as we may easily see in the Catalogues Publish'd by those Authors As to Barnabas and Hermas (l) Eccl. Hist l. 3. c. 25. Eusebius expresly reckons both of them among those which were judg'd Apocryphal (m) In the places above cited Athanasius and Rufinus sinck the latter into the Rank of Ecclesiastical Writers and do not by Name indeed mention the former but however leaving his Epistle out of the Number of Canonical Writings and vouching the Ancients for what they do plainly show they knew nothing of any of these being made equal to the Books of the New Testament 2. †Our Author fetches a large compass in some of his References here but however having formerly made some remarks of this Nature in Reading these Fathers I may possibly be able to trace him in the Books he directs us to on this occasion I find therefore that Clemens of Alexandria Ed. Par. G. L. 1641. cites Barnabas Stromat l. 2. p. 373 375 396 340. l. 5. p. 571 577 578. Origen cites him l. 1. against Celsus p. 49. l. 3. of Principles c. 2. f. 144. Edit Par. 1522. Jrenaeus quotes Hermas l. 4. c. 37 not c. 3. as 't is in our Author p. 370 Clemens quotes him Strom. l. 1. p. 311 356. l. 2. p. 360. l. 4. p. 503 l. 6. p. 679. Origen quotes him l. 1. of Principles c. 3. f. 117. l. 2. c. 1. f. 124. Comment on Hos G. L. p. 202. Now how fairly the Sense of these places is represented will appear from what follows He tells us first p. 44. that Clemens of Alexandria and Origen quote the Epistle of Barnabas as Scripture which is not true though if it was it signify'd nothing For in the places referr'd to they cite it indeed but under no such Title He says p. 45. that the Pastor of Hermas is cited as Canonical Scripture by Jreneus Clemens of Alexandria and Origen
Jreneus indeed and Origen calls it Scripture but not Canonical That 's our Authors addition But Clemens does not so much as call it Scripture in many of the Places mention'd What follows concerning the Epistles of Clemens Bishop of Rome Polycarp and Ignatius was needless We not only grant but assert that they have been esteem'd by the Ancients though not as equal to the Books of the New Testament And I doubt not but they 'l continue in the same estimation notwithstanding the mighty attacks with which they are threatned by this vain boaster The Arguments our Author brings to prove the Primitive Fathers look'd upon the four Treatises above-mention'd to be as good as any part of the New Testament are much too weak for that end for which they are design'd They are in short these three 1. That the Books are either quoted by the Ancients or 2. call'd by the Name of Scripture or 3. have been Publickly Read in Churches Now that the bare quoting an Author does not raise him to an equality with the Writers of the Canon has been already made apparent in Answer to the first Objection And as to the Title of Scripture though that be commonly attributed to the Books of the Old and New Testament yet it is sometimes us'd in a more large and Lax Sense for any Religious Writings both by Ancients and Moderns For thus it is evident from (n) Eccl. Hist l. 6. c. 25. Eusebius and own'd by Melchior Canus and Sixtus Senensis that Origen cast all those Books out of the Canon of the Old Testament which are esteem'd by the Church of England for Apocryphal and yet in his (o) F. 114. Third Homily on the Canticles he expresly calls the Book of Wisdom Scripture and so he does the Maccabees in his (p) F. 124 Second Book of Principles and the first Chapter which that I may remark that by the way is the only place of all those nam'd by our Author where Origen gives that Title to the Pastor of Hermas and by joyning it in the same appellation with a Book which he expresly asserted to be Apocryphal plainly declares that he did not intend by ascribing to it the Name of Scripture to advance it into the honour and Authority of the Canon Neither did Tertullian without doubt when in his Treatise of Chastity c. 10. he calls the same Book of Hermas Scripture for he censures and inveighs against it in the same place and tells us that it had been condemn'd by more then one Councel of the Catholicks Rufinus also in his Exposition on the Apostles Creed does not scruple the calling even those Treatises Scripture which were forbidden to be Read in the Publick Assemblies And St. Augustine in his Work concerning the (q) L. 15. c. 23. City of God tells us there were many Fables contain'd in those Scriptures which are call'd Apocryphal From whence and from all the other Passages before-mention'd it is Evident that the Title of Scripture was apply'd by the Ancients to other Writings as well as to those which they judg'd Canonical And thus too though our Church has cast the Books of Wisdom Tobit and Ecclesiasticus out of the Canon yet she gives them the Appellation of Scripture in the (r) 3d Serm. against the fear of Death p. 65. 3d. Serm. against Idolatry p. 57. 2d Serm. of Almsd p. 160. Book of Homilies and appoints part of them and other Apooryphal Books to be Read in Churches which is a clear proof that the Ancients by doing the same thing did not declare the pieces which they so Read to be Canonical or even as good as Canon And indeed I cannot but wonder how our Author could be guilty of such a mistake as to think that the bare Reading of a Book in the Publick Assemblies was an Argument that it was esteem'd part of the Canon when not only the Constant Practice of our Church but also the positive declarations of the Ancients themselves do in express words teach us the contrary For thus Rufinus in his Exposition on the Creed reckons up several Books which he says were stil'd Ecclesiastical and Read Publickly by the Ancients in the Church but not admitted as of sufficient Authority to Establish or confirm Articles of Faith The same is also affirm'd by St. Jerom in his (s) 3d Tome of his Epist p. 9. Preface to the Proverbs where he tells those to whom he directs it that the Church Read indeed the Books of Judith and Tobit and the Maccabees but yet did not look upon them as Canonical and so adds he let her Read Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Wisdom for the Edification of the People but not for the proving of any Doctrines or Ecclesiastical Opinions And thus much too we may gather from Eusebius who (t) Eccl. Hist l. 3. c. 16. relates that the first Epistle of Clemens Bishop of Rome was Read in most Churches and yet (u) L. 3. c. 25. he plainly excludes it from being any part of the Canon of the New Testament All which are evident demonstrations that it has been an usual Custom not only of the Church of England but also of Antiquity too to have such Books Read in Churches for the Instruction of the Hearers in Moral Duties as were never esteem'd by them to be parts of or equal to the Canonical Scripture What has been say'd I suppose is sufficient to show that none of our Authors Arguments answer what he design'd or prove that those Fathers whom he quotes look'd upon the Books above-mention'd to be as good as any part of the New Testament And therefore I shall desire him when he publishes his History of the Canon not to produce either them or any other as esteem'd Canonical in the Judgment of Antiquity only because they were cited by the Fathers or call'd Scripture or Read in the Church For none of these Particulars prove it as we have now made Evident But it may be urg'd that though none of the places expresly set down by our Author do sufficiently make out that for which they are produc'd yet however there is a passage of Origen in reserve which will do the Business And that is in his Explanation of the Epistle to the Romans c. 16. v. 15. where he tells us that the Pastor of Hermas is an useful Book and as he thinks divinely Inspir'd He does say so indeed in that place but then he does not tell us what sort of Inspiration he means There have been different degrees of it in the Opinion of all Men especially of the Ancients For thus Clemens of Alexandria who was Origen's Instructor promises to Write (x) Strom. l. 4. p. 475. as God should inspire him And he informs us too that the Philosophers who wrote Truth did it by the (y) Admon to the Gentiles p. 46 47. Inspiration of God and yet I dare say never dreamt that either his own Writings or their 's ought for that
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
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
be understood otherwise I must confess that I wonder very much at them For the two first fetch Passages from the New Testament as well though not so often as from the Old The third may be suppos'd to cite neither or both The fourth and fifth have certainly more Texts out of the Gospels and Epistles then out of the whole Old Testament And the latter of these two I mean Polycarp has above Twenty Passages out of the New Testament in his short Epistle so that it may very well be say'd to be chequer'd with them Whether the later Writers of the New Testament saw all that had been Wrote by the former I shall not take upon me to determine But I think the not quoting them or the seeming contradictions between them are no arguments to the contrary For the former is the case of several Prophets and Writers of the Old Testament who don't quote their Predecessors and those things which now seem contradictions to us might perhaps be little or none to them who were acquainted with the Circumstances of the Age and admit it may be as easy a solution as the difference of the genealogies upon account of the Natural and Legal Fathers does from (x) See Eu. Eccl. Hist l. 1. c. 7. the relation of Africanus Sure I am that St. Peter was acquainted with (y) 2 Epist 3.15 16. some of St. Paul's Epistles and that they were then judg'd Canonical And that he had also Read St. Mark 's Gospel St. Paul that of St. Luke and St. John all the other three has been above prov'd by Ecclesiastical Testimony To which I shall add that Grotius affirms St. Luke to have certainly Read the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark and proves it from hence because in reporting the same Passages he sometimes uses their very Words I dare not affirm that the Fathers of whom we are now speaking cited any Texts from such Gospels as are properly Spurious because it does not appear to me (z) See above Sect. V. in answer to the first Objection much less that they attributed the same Authority to them that they did to the Genuine Writings of the Apostles because of this there is no manner of Evidence For though there be some Passages in them which are not mention'd in our Evangelists and others differently express'd from what we now Read yet no such consequence can be drawn from these Premises For first the Citations might perhaps be made from no Books at all Thus though it be true that St. Paul St. Barnabas and St. Ignatius cite an Expression or two as spoken by our Saviour which are not to be found in our Gospels yet it does not follow that they took them from Spurious Writers they might easily receive them from Ear-Witnesses They were remov'd at so little a distance from our Saviour that they certainly convers'd with his immediate Disciples from whom they might hear Relations of several considerable Actions and Sayings of his which were not recorded by the Evangelists Neither does it follow that if a Passage be not express'd just after the same manner that we find it in the New Testament therefore it ought to be look'd upon as interpolated or drawn from the Books of some Spurious Writers For it is well known that many of the Fathers as well of the later as of the first Ages quote the Texts of Scripture by memory and often design to give the Sense without confining themselves to the Words of the Original Many Instances might be given of this Nature but I shall refer the Reader at present only to the Epistle of St. Barnabas where he 'll find numerous proofs of this assertion in Texts cited from the Old Testament particularly (a) p. 221. in the Promise of entring the Holy Land (b) p. 228 229. the Sacrificing of the Goat and (c) p. 229. the Circumcision of the Heart But if we should go further and suppose that some of the Writers of that Age quoted other Gospels or Histories of our Lord then those which are now esteem'd Authentick in the Church yet I don't see what can be infer'd from thence that may be in the least a Prejudice to our cause or shew that there was no difference then put between Spurious and Genuine Writings * Though it is possible there might be some Spurious Gospels at those times forg'd and set forth under great Names yet that there were some too Wrote by honest Christians besides the inspired ones cannot I think be doubted by any who shall consider what is the usual Practice of Mankind on such great Occasions And to some of these as well as the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark St. Luke in all probability refers at the beginning of his For notwithstanding what our Author p. 50. and others besides him are pleas'd to say yet I doubt not to affirm that St. Luke does not fasten any bad Character on the Gospels he had Read nor can his Words be drawn to insinuate any such thing without the greatest Violence Nay it seems plain to me that the two first Verses of his Gospel intimate the direct contrary And in this I am the more confirm'd because since the Writing of this I find that Casaubon and Lightfoot are of the same Opinion as to the whole and Grotius seems to have judg'd so too in the main Only he thinks that some of these Writers gathering what they related from uncertain Report fell into great Errors That may be and questionless was true of some but not of all And St. Luke does not seem to have seen any Spurious if at least any such were extant so early or Erroneous Gospels For he does not charge those who labour'd before him in that Argument either with wilful falsifications or negligent mistakes For I think it can't be question'd but that several would Publish Accounts of the Life and Actions of our Saviour who were his honest and Faithful Disciples and inserted nothing in the Story but what they had good ground to believe true and certain though they were not infallible in their Narrations From some of these the Writers that follow'd after might quote Passages and that justifiably enough as from those whom they esteem'd and who were as to the main faithful Historians Though when the four Gospels which we now have were Publish'd to the whole Church the estimation of those other Histories might sink and so they not be transmitted to Posterity as not being of equal Authority And as there were Histories of the Life and Preaching of our Lord so were there too without doubt Relations of the Miracles and Actions of his Followers and Summaries of the Doctrines and Instructions of the Apostles which being drawn up by those who heard and convers'd with them were really of great use to the faithful and might be quoted by them upon occasion without any manner of blame Many of these Learned Men judge it probable were in
fairly and shall own that one of the Passages which we find in (t) Ep. to the Smyrneans p. 3. Ignatius is said to have been found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews which is the same with that of the Nazarens So it may be but Ignatius does not quote it from thence He might have it from other Books besides that or receive it from Tradition or take it upon Memory The Words in Ignatius are Handle me and feel me and see that I am not an Incorporeal †I render the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spirit or Apparition because one of those Words is always us'd by the English to express the same thing which is here intended by the Greek Spirit or Apparition In (u) C. 24. v. 39. St. Luke we Read Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have The Sense is exactly the same in both and if the Father made the quotation without looking into the Book he might easily mistake as far as this comes to But what if we grant our Author all he can desire and should yield that this Passage was taken by Ignatius out of the Gospel according to the Hebrews which will never be prov'd what can he infer from thence That we shall easily see if we compare this with those places where Texts taken out of the Gospels and Epistles have been mention'd by these Writers We find for Instance that St. Clemens gives us several Passages that are to be met with in the Epistle to the Hebrews that St. Ignatius also gives us one or two that are in the Gospel according to St. Matthew or the Epistle to the Corinthians All that we argue from hence is that those Books from which these two Fathers borrow those Passages were then extant and abroad in the Church But we cannot we do not hence infer that they were Canonical or Wrote by those Apostles whose Names they now bear because neither Clemens nor Ignatius tell us so and therefore that must be Learn'd from other Authors In like manner supposing that Ignatius took the expression we are now considering from the Gospel according to the Hebrews all we can gather from thence is that there was such a Gospel then extant wherein that passage was Read But that it was of Divine Authority or Wrote by any of the Apostles we cannot gather for St. Ignatius says no such thing we must learn that if it can be learn'd from other Writers Since then we allow as much Authority to this Father in one case as we do to him or St. Clemens in the other certainly our Author can desire no more and therefore I suppose we are agreed as to this matter But * Whether what our Author produces out of Origen as from Ignatius concerning the Devils being ignorant of the Virginity of the Virgin Mary c. be designed as an Objection against the genuineness of that Epistle wherein these Expressions are found or no I cannot tell If it be I shall refer the Reader for an Answer to A. Bp. Vsher in his Prolegomena to the Epistles of that Father c. 12. p. lxxxi Ox. Edit 1644. 4â—o .. perhaps it may be Objected that if we grant this we grant that St. Ignatius quoted a Spurious Gospel To this I answer 1. That the question before us at present is not whether this Father quoted a Spurious Gospel or no but whether by borrowing a Passage after this manner from the Gospel according to the Hebrews he advances it into the Canon The contrary to which I have plainly prov'd to be true 2. This Gospel with the additions ought not to be look'd upon as Spurious or a Forgery but rather as a Piece of Ecclesiastical History See above at the end of Section XVI And if we proceed to Hermas it must be owned that he produces not one Text that we can be sure of out of either the Old or New Testament but quotes one short Sentence out of an Apocryphal Book call'd the Prophesies of Eldad and Medad And therefore since we make no manner of use of this Writer for the Establishing the Canon we cannot be oblig'd by our Authors Argument to embrace this Apocryphal Piece upon his Authority Only I shall add that the Passage is good and true whosoever say'd it The Lord is nigh unto all those who turn unto him and therefore might be quoted not upon the Authority of the Book but the Intrinsick Value of the Expression which may be cited without danger from the Mouth or Pen of the greatest Impostor And thus I have answer'd our Author's third difficulty why all the Books which are cited by Clemens and the rest should not be equally Authentick and shown that there is but one single Piece that we count Suppositious quoted by Name and that too not referring to the time of the New but Old Testament and quoted it is by an Author of whose Testimony we make no use in settling the Canon and therefore we cannot be tied and bound by it in the case of this pretended Prophecy neither indeed ought any one else For he is alone in the matter as far as appears at present and contradicts the whole Jewish Church who knew nothing of this Book nor ever admitted it among their Canonical Writings As for the Passage of Ignatius pretended to be borrowed from the Gospel according to the Hebrews I hope what has been above-say'd is satisfactory and for the rest in him and Clemens and Barnabas when our Author shall please to tell us whence they were fetch'd and under what notion they are quoted he shall hear more of my mind Polycarp has not one Passage out of any Spurious or unknown Writer that I can find and therefore I suppose he may be dismiss'd without further trouble The last difficulty is (a) p. 80. What stress should be lay'd on the Testimony of those Fathers who not only contradict one another but are often inconsistent with themselves in the relations of the very same facts Here I think our Author's Expression is obscure He does not tell us whom he means by Fathers or what Contradictions as he calls them he had more especially in his Eye when he Wrote these Words I was once about venturing to guess but upon Second Thoughts forbore lest I should be censur'd as severely as Mr. Bl. was for mistaking or too well understanding his meaning and be told that I am one of those (b) p. 81. who are Sagacious enough to discover the hidden Poyson of every Word and will be sure to give loud warning of the danger to shew where the Snake lies in the Grass and to tell what 's in the Belly of the Trojan Horse And therefore that I may avoid such a dreadful Thunderclap shall say no more but that he 's in the Clouds and there I must leave him for the present Postcript THere are two or three Passages which would not fall in regularly with
the Foregoing Discourse without too much breaking the Coherence therefore I shall consider them here The first is what we Read p. 37. n. 6. and is in the following Words We need not produce our Authors for the Canons and Constitutions of the Apostles since so many Learned Members of the Church of England have Written large Volums to prove 'em Genuine Now this directly overthrows what has been asserted at the beginning of these Papers For if the Genuine Works of the Apostles and such as were Authoriz'd by them make up the Code of the New Testament why should not these Constitutions and Canons partake of the same honour too since our Author tells us they are asserted Genuine by many Learned Members of the Church of England in large Volums Wrote for that very end and purpose To which I shall reply no more at present but only this that I was much surpriz'd at this assertion of of our Authors For I thought I had known so far at least what most of the Learned Men of our Church whether Living or Dead have deliver'd in this matter as that large Treatises of many of them upon this Subject had not escap'd me and I thought too that I had understood so much of the merits of the cause as to give me reason to believe that very few impartial and understanding Persons were like to maintain what our Author says they do in the case and therefore was ready without any farther debate to pronounce him mistaken But because I was unwilling he should charge me as he does Mr. B. (c) p. 54. with making my own Reading and Knowledge the measure of Truth who had too been retir'd from the Publick Stations of Learning for many years together I resolv'd to enquire of such as I thought could inform me whether any thing had been lately or formerly Publish'd which might justify our Author's affirmation But I soon found that they knew no more in the matter then my self and therefore I shall desire I. T. at his leasure to acquaint the World †To prevent all cavilling I here own what I observ'd many years ago that there is one Learned Writer of our Church who does upon occasion speak as favourably of the Constitutions as Turrian the Jesuite himself could do who Wrote a Book in defence of them But then I must add that he gives us no Reasons for his Opinion and what he says is comprehended within the compass of a few lines And I am sure that a single Person and two or three Sentences can by no Logick be multiplied into many Members and large Volumes who those many Learned Members of the Church of England are that have Written large Volumes to prove the Constitutions and Canons we are now considering and as we now have them to be the Genuine Works of the Apostles There is another Passage of our Author (d) p. 50 51. where he ridicules Ireneus as having argued very sillily concerning the number of the Gospels To give a large account of the matter would be tedious and impertinent since the whole thing is a meer Cavil and therefore I shall only remark briefly 1. That our Author grosly wrongs Ireneus in his Latin quotation For the Father having l. 3. c. 9 10. and part of the 11th argued against the Hereticks of those times from the four Gospels adds that these Gospels were receiv'd one or other of them by the Hereticks themselves and therefore his argument from them was strong and true These last words our Author parts from the rest of the Sentence to which they belong and tacks them to what follows as if Ireneus had say'd the Argument for the four Gospels from the four Regions is firm and strong whereas whatever he might think he does not say so 2. Neither does he say afterward that they are vain and unlearn'd and bold who reject the number of the four Gospels thus prov'd from the four Regions c. as our Author represents him but those who reject the things which he judg'd were foresignified as the subject of the several Gospels 't is Speciem Evangelij and Personas Evangelij by the four Faces in the Cherubim of Ezekiel that is as he tells us the Humanity the Prophetical and Priestly Offices and Divinity of our Saviour 3. After all the Father does not pretend to prove from the four Quarters or the four Winds that the Gospels we have were Wrote by those Persons whose Names they bear For that he Learn'd from such as convers'd with the Writers themselves as was above-observ'd Neither does he pretend to prove from thence (e) p. 19 c. that the Gospels were Canonical or Rules of Faith for that depends upon their being Wrote or Authoriz'd by the Apostles so that the merits of the cause under debate are not in the least concern'd in the Argument All that he pretends to is that as there were Four Principal Quarters of the World c. and no more so God would have it that there should be four Gospels in the World and no more and did think fit to foresignify the Temper of the Writers and the Subject of each Book by the four Faces in Ezekiel's Cherubim Now what though there seems to be more of Fancy then Solidity more of Plausible Allusion then close Reasoning in this way of Arguing yet I don't see why our Author should so much insult upon the Father for it since Instances of the like nature may be found in Eminent Writers of all Professions and Heathens as well as Christians If we make it our business to Weed Books which are otherwise Learned and Rational and pick out the Weakest Expressions we can find in them we shall proceed very unjustly and I doubt that very few if this method be us'd will escape Censure I did not think to have say'd any thing to our Authors Reflection (f) p. 44 45. on the Epistle of St. Barnabas because I am not concern'd at present whether it be Genuine or no. But observing that he designs to improve the Expression he fetches thence to the Prejudice of the Christian Religion I thought my self oblig'd to add a few lines upon that occasion The Words in the Original are thus Christ chose for his Apostles those who were the greatest of Sinners that he might show how he came to call not the Righteous but Sinners to Repentance We have little or no account in the Scripture of the Apostles Morals before they were chosen by our Saviour and therefore we'll for the present let this Passage of Barnabas go for true What will follow Nothing else as far as I see but that our Lord was an Excellent Physician of Souls who wrought so perfect and Effectual a cure upon Men in such a dangerous condition and brought them to a true Sense of Piety and Religion for the Encouragement of others to Repent and Reform Ay but if they were once such (g) p. 45. this would Rob
us of an Argument we draw from their Integrity and Simplicity against Infidels Would it so indeed Methinks now this is very strange and does not conclude so well as the Argument of Ireneus from the four Winds with which we see what a stir our Author made a little before For may not a Wicked Man prove good and may he not give us such Evidences of the Sincerity of his Reformation that we are bound in Justice to believe him Let us examine the case a little and see what Arguments can be produc'd for the unrightness and integrity of the Apostles after their Conversion They Preach'd a most Excellent and Holy Religion over all the World and endeavour'd to bring People every where to the Belief and Practice of it And that they were in good earnest in all their undertakings and did not act a part for carrying on any Worldly design is apparent from hence that they knowingly and willingly expos'd themselves to Pains to Troubles to Losses to Contempt to Persecutions to Torments to Death it self This I think is sufficient to show that they really believ'd what they affirm'd concerning the Doctrine Works and Resurrection of our Saviour that they did not design to put a Trick upon Mankind in the Relations they gave thereof since they readily expos'd themselves to such Sufferings for the asserting of it And that they asserted nothing but what was true God himself did also further attest by the Miracles he enabled them to work of which we have uncontroulable proof as has been so often observ'd by others that I need not to insist upon it here So that though we do suppose the Epistle of St. Barnabas to be Genuine and the Passage quoted from it to be really true yet it is plain nothing can be thence inferr'd to prove our Religion false or ill grounded Since the finishing this * I was perswaded by a Friend to add the ensuing Catalogue from Ireneus and Tertullian to which I easily agreed as having made the Collection many years ago when I Read those Fathers for my own Satisfaction The Edition of Tertullian that I us'd was Printed at Paris 1669 and that of Ireneus is pretended in the Title Page to be Printed there too 1675. I thought it advisable for the preventing Doubts or Cavils to subjoyn the Testimonies of Ireneus and Tertullian for those Books of Scripture which belong to that we above call'd the first Canon I begin with Ireneus In his Third Book and (h) p. 229. first Chapter he expresly asserts the four Evangelists by Name to be the Authors of the four Gospels And particularly he attributes that which goes under his Name to St. Matthew (i) p. 275. l. 3. c. 18. St. Mark 's to him (k) p. 276. l. 3. c. 18. that of St. Luke to him (l) p. 254. l. 3. c. 11. and St. John's to that Apostle (m) p. 257. l. 3. c. 11. He asserts the Acts of the Apostles to have been Wrote by St. Luke the (n) p. 271.273 Evangelist l. 3. c. 14 15. and attributes all the following Epistles to St. Paul in the following Places The Epistle to the Romans l. 2. c. 38. p. 190 The first to the Corinthians l. 1. c. 1. p. 33 Second to the Corinth l. 3. c 7. p. 248 The Epistle to the Galatians l. 3. c. 7. ibid. to the Ephesians l. 5. c. 14. p. 455 to the Philippians l. 4. c. 34. p. 363 to the Colossians l. 3. c. 14. p. 267 The first to the Thessalonians l. 5. c. 6. p. 442 Second to the Thessal l. 3. c. 7. p. 249 The first to Timothy l. 2. c. 19. p. 172 and Pref. p. 3 Second to Timothy l. 3. c. 14. p. 267 The Epistle to Titus l. 3. c. 3. p. 233 To St. Peter he ascribes the first Epistle which goes under his Name l. 4. c. 22. (o) p. 338. to St. John the Apostle his first Epistle l. 3. c. 18. (p) p. 277. There are several other Places I may say numerous for most of them where these Books are ascrib'd to those Writers whose Names they now bear but I thought one Testimony sufficient to Evince what Opinion Ireneus had of each Book And I shall use the same method as to Tertullian He assigns the four Gospels to the four Evangelists by whose Names they are call'd l. 4. against Marcion c. 2. and 5. p. 414. and 416. The Acts of the Apost to St. Luke Treatise of Fasting c. 10. p. 549 The following Epistles are attributed to St. Paul in the following Places The Epist to the Romans Scorpiace c. 13. p. 498 The first and second Epist to the Corinth Of Chastity c. 13 14. p. 564 565 The Epist to the Galatians l. 5. against Marcion c. 2. p. 462 to the Ephesians Of the Resur of the Flesh c. 40. p. 349 to the Philippians ib. c. 23. p. 339 to the Colossians ib. p. 338 The first and second Epistles to the Thessalonians ib. c. 24. p. 339 The first to Tim. against Praxeas c. 15. p. 509 The second to Tim. Of the Resur of the Flesh c. 23 p. 339 The Epist to Titus Of Prescription c. 6. p. 204 The first of St. Peter is quoted as his Scorpiace c. 12. p. 497. And so likewise the first of St. John against Praxeas c. 15. p. 50◠Those of the Seven Controverted Pieces which are quoted by either of these Fathers don't properly belong to this place and are mention'd above Sect. XI What ground we have to insert the Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon in the number of those Writings which were never disputed see before Sect. IV. From what has been here produc'd it is evident that these two Fathers attributed all the Books above-mention'd to those Persons by whom we now think they were Wrote and (q) See Sect. II. consequently esteem'd them Canonical And that the whole Catholick Church in their days was of the same Opinion is evident from the Testimonies of (r) l. 3. c. 25. Eusebius and (s) In the places cited above Sect. IV. Gregory Nazianzen who reckon these Books as those which were never question'd And so much may we learn likewise from these two Fathers now under consideration in the passages refer'd to above p. 36. and 72. part of which it may not be impertinent to set down here at large Ireneus tells us (t) l. 4. c. 63. that true Knowledge consists in understanding the Doctrine of the Apostles and the Ancient state of the Church in the whole World according to the Succession of the Bishops to whom they consign'd the care of the Church in every Place which has been continued down to our times †I render tractatione plenissim a complete Body or Treatise because it can signify nothing else here though the Expression in the Latine is not very proper But he that Translated this Work of Ireneus out of Greek did not understand the Latin Tongue
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.
brings in Celsus a Heathen p. 60. as a Witness against the Christians Who exclaims against the too great Liberty they took as if they were drunk of changing the first Writings of the Gospel three or four or more times that so they might deny whatever was urg'd against them as retracted before 7. To Celsus in the same Page he joyns the Manicheans fitly enough I confess who shew'd other Scriptures and deny'd the Genuineness of the whole new Testament 8. We are told p. 64. that the Ebionites or Nazarens who were the oldest Christians had a different Copy of St. Matthews Gospel the Marcionites had a very different one of St. Luke's St. John's was attributed to Cerinthus and all the Epistles of St. Paul were deny'd by some and a different Copy of them shew'd by others 9. He urges p. 53 54. that Eusebius rejects the Acts Gospel Preaching and Revelation of Peter from being Authentick for no other reason but because no Ancient or Modern VVriter says he has quoted proofs out of them But herein Eusebius was mistaken for the contrary appears by the Testimonies mark'd in the Catalogue which any Body may compare with the Originals In another place be says that the Gospels of Peter Thomas Matthias and such-like with the Acts of John and the other Apostles are Spurious because no Ecclesiastick VVriter from the Times of the Apostles down to his own has vouchsaf'd to quote them which is absolutely false of some of them as we have already shewn Had Eusebius found any of these Pieces cited by the precedent Orthodox Writers he would have own'd them as Genuine Productions of the Apostles and admitted them as we say into the Canon But having met no such Citations he presently concluded there were none which made him reject those Books And I say what I have already demonstrated that Proofs were quoted out of some of them long before so that they might still belong to the Canon for all Eusebius 10. He Produces p. 69 c. a long Passage out of Mr. Dodwell which if we 'll believe him Reflects more upon the Canon of the New Testament as to the certainty and Authority of it then any thing which had been before excepted against in the Life of Milton Now let any one lay all these Passages together and I fancy he 'll be of my mind and easily believe that our Author's Vindication of himself against Mr. Blackall was impertinent and such a presuming on the weakness of his Readers as is not usual since he presently after commits that fault though I doubt he 'll not call it so from which just before he attempted to clear himself and makes no scruple at all of exposing the Writings of the New Testament which we believe to be Canonical as doubtful and uncertain II. I suppose it will not be thought sufficient for me only to have proceeded thus far and in our Authors Language p. 8. to have shown the Enemy and given an account of his Forces except I endeavour to weaken them too and thereby hinder them from doing such Execution as they seem to threaten But because the Particulars above-alleg'd are Objections against the general Doctrin of the Church in the matter now before us I think it will be proper before I examine them to lay down the Grounds upon which the Canon of the New Testament has been fix'd and determin'd Which I shall do with all the Brevity the Subject will admit of as designing to enlarge upon and confirm several Particulars in the sequel of this Discourse where fit occasion will be offer'd The Word Canon is Originally Greek and in the Ordinary acceptation signifies a Rule and therefore when made use of in Divinity we understand by the Canon and Canonical Books those Books which were design'd by God to be the Rule of our Faith and Practice I shall not discourse any thing now concerning the Books of the Old Testament because they are no part of the present controversy †I think it pertain'd to the Apostles to approve the Sacred Books Neither have we any Canonical Books either of the Old or New Testament but those which the Apostles approv'd and deliver'd to the Church Melchior Canus in his Common Places l. 2. c. 7. p. 43. Edit Lov. 1569. Octavo The Church like a faithful Guardian hath preserved and conveyed to her Children as Writings received from the Apostles not only what they Penned themselves but also those Pieces too which being Wrote by Persons who were not Apostles yet were by the Apostles confirmed Publickly Approved and recommended to the Church Arch Bishop of Spalato in his Christian Common-Wealth l. 7. c. 1. S. 15. Edit Hanov. 1622. No other Books properly belonging to the Holy Scriptures but such as the Apostles of Christ left behind them Bp. Cosins Hist of the Canon of the Old Testament Sect. 73. p. 80. So likewise Episcopius in his Institutions l. 4. Sect. 1. c. 5. Remarks that those Books make up the Canon of the New Testament which were either Wrote by the Apostles or with their Approbation And again in his Treatise of the Rule of Faith c. 7. Whatever was Wrote or Approv'd by the Aposiles was without Controversy dictated by the Holy Ghost But in the New Testament those Books only are accounted Canonical which were Writ or however Authoriz'd by the Apostles For they being the Immediate Disciples of and Attendants upon our Lord and being Commission'd by him to instruct the World in the Doctrin which he taught them were without doubt * It is not my Business here to prove that the Apostles were Infallible but only to show the Necessity that they should be so infallible for else they might have led the World into Error and therefore their Teaching their Writings their Judgment ought to be receiv'd with all Veneration and Submission St. Paul is reckon'd justly of the same Authority with the rest because our Saviour was pleas'd to appear to him from Heaven reveal his Gospel to him in his own Person and appoint him an Apostle after an extraordinary manner for he Receiv'd his Commission not from Men as himself tells us Gal. 1.1 12. but from Jesus Christ and God the Father What the Apostles Wrote and what they Authoriz'd can be known no other way then by the Testimonies of those who liv'd at the same time with them and the Tradition of those who succeeded them And therefore whenever any Churches receiv'd any Writings to Instruct them in Religion from the Apostles they look'd upon those Writings as Canonical or a Rule of their Faith and Manners in the Particulars whereof they Treated And whenever any other Churches were assur'd either by the Testimony of those who knew it themselves or by certain Tradition that such and such were Apostolical Writings they too esteem'd them Canonical preserv'd them as such themselves and as such transmitted them to others III. Hence it appears that the Written Canon encreas'd gradually in