's Gospel is but an Abridgment of the Gospel by Matthew that St. Luke in the first Verses of his Gospel commends the Gospels of Matthew and Mark that St. John approved the Gospels of these three former Evangelists and wrote his Gospel only by way of Supplement to theirs that St. Peter commends the Epistles of Paul and signifie at the same time that they were commonly read and a bad Use made of them by some that the Catholick Epistles by James Peter Jude and John the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Revelation being written either to whole Nations or to all Christians were certainly publish'd as soon as written 2. At least the Clergy and Churches were unacquainted with the Books of the New Testament till 130 years after Christ I have shown they were quoted by all the extant Writers of those Times by Barnabas Herinas Ignatius Polycarp Clemens Romanus and by some not Extant as Papias of Hierapolis in the year 110. Farther that the four Gospels the Acts Revelation Catholick Epistles and Epistle to the Hebrews being written for general Information or to whole Churches or Nations they were written to be publish'd and publish'd as soon as written and that 't is a very precarious and withal an unreasonable supposition that the Clergy and Churches were ignorant of the publish'd Books of their Religion That the contrary in truth is evident for as early as Justin Martyr's time the Churches entertained a Reader besides the Deacons Presbyters and Bishop who read the Old and New Testaments to the Assembly 3. It was impossible when the Books of the Canon first appeared to distinguish them from spurious Gospel Acts Epistles and Revelations which were also entitled to the Apostles I have replyed there was nothing more obvious or easy to the then Churches than to distinguish them with absolute certainty by their Agreement or Disagreement with the Doctrine and History of our Saviour which those Churches had but just before received by word of Mouth from the Apostles and other first miraculous Preachers 4. Different Copies were shown of all the Canonical Books from the very first the Nazarens and Ebionits had a Gospel of St. Matthew different from ours the Marcionits of St. Luke and of the Epistles of Paul I have answer'd Marcion was so ingenuous as to retract his vitiated Copies of St. Paul's Epistles and of St. Luke's Gospel the Copy of Matthew used by the Nazarens was say the Antients πληÏÎςατον most perfect the Ebionite Copy being probably St. Matthew's first or Hebrew Edition of his Gospel did indeed want the two first Chapters and in time they had added some Traditional Memoirs from the Witness of some Disciples that had seen the Facts and knew the Persons it were to be wish'd we had still this Copy 5. The Books of the Canon were imputed by some very considerable Sects of Christians not to the Apostles whose names they bear but either to Hereticks or to a set of Half-Jews and Half-Christians who had written them only from hearsay and flying Reports I have evinced that only the Gospel of John was ever mislayed and that the Alogians soon saw their Error in the Case not only receiving that Gospel but receiving it also with all other Sects and Churches as St. John ' s. That the Manichees the other considerable Sect of Christians intended in the Objection owned our four Gospels the Epistles of Paul all the Catholick Epistles and all other Books of our Canon in short that Amyntor certainly and inadvertently enough mistook the meaning of the Author Faustus the Manichee whom he alledged 6. The Philosopher Celsus complains that the Christians had alter'd their Gospel three or four or more times Celsus I have said meant this of the Copies of Marcion and of Valentinus and Lucanus which never were used in the Churches but at their first appearance were detected and rejected by all Churches Of the Books of the Catalogue he saith 1. MANY of 'em have rather been supprest by the strongest side in the Church than lost and that probably they were the genuin Works of the Apostles I have granted divers of 'em might be the real Works of those whose names they bore and that our loss of them is to be regretted but the whole body of Learning has suffer'd extremely by the loss of some of the best Books in every Science and Art Notwithstanding the Reasons alledged by the Antients against many of them are sufficient to convince us that there was just cause to slight and even to suppress them 2. The Epistles of Barnabas Ignatius Polycarp Clemens Romanus and the Pastor of Hermas were esteemed by the Antients to be a good Scripture as any part of the New Testament they were received by the soundest of the Antients who at the same time rejected divers Books of our present Canon namely the Revelation the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of Jude the second of Peter and the second and third of John But I have produced unquestionable Testimony of the Antients that these lesser pieces of the Canon were always received by the generality of Churches and Christians and that when they were owned in the Council of Laodicea 't was on very good grounds on the same Reasons which convinced 'em of the genuinness of the other Books of the New Testament As to Barnabas Ignatius Polycarp Hermas and Clemens Romanus they were considered indeed as pious and well-minded Compositions but were read no otherwise but as we now read in our Churches the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament which for all that we directly deny to be Divine Scripture and many think them not very Edifying or Profitable especially some of them 3. The principal Ante-nicen Fathers quoted divers Gospels Epistles and Acts of the Catalogue as Scripture and Canonical and this is all that can be said for the Books of the Canon and more than can be truly said for some of them I have alledged the very words of those Fathers it appears they never cite the Books of the Catalogue as Divine Scripture and in reciting the Books of the true Scripture-Canon and of the Apostles they always omit all the Gospels and other Books of the Catalogue I grant however that the mere Terms Scripture and Canonical were at first applied to all Ecclesiastical Books that were judged Orthodox as also to the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament to distinguish them from the Moral pieces of the Heathen Philosophers but the alledged Fathers have made us know the great difference they put between mere Scripture and Divine Scripture between Canonical and Inspired Nam pudet haec opprobria Nobis Et dici potuisse non potuisse Refelli FINIS Advertisement ALL the Works of the late Reverend and Learned William Bates D. D. and some Account of him in a Funeral Sermon by Mr. John How with an Alphabetical Table to the whole are proposed to be printed in a large Folio on an extraordinary Paper and Character at
such a different Genealogy of our Saviour from that by St. Matthew without the reason of so wide a dissent nor would there be found in the other Evangelists so many apparent contradictions as have harassed the Wits of Learned Men almost since the first constitution of the Canon St. Luke plainly intimates that the Evangelists and Gospels he had seen were not furnisht with the relations they make by Eye-witnesses as himself was We have at this day says Mr. Dodwel some writings of Ignatius Polycarp Hermas Barnabas Clemens Romanus these were later than the other Writers of the New Testament except Jude and John and yet Hermas cites nothing out of the New Testament nor in all the rest are any of the Evangelists named If they cite any passages like to those we read in our present Gospels they are withal so unlike that it cannot be known whether they are alledged out of ours or some Apocryphal Gospels they cite also Passages which are not in the present Gospels Nay we cannot say from those Canonical Books that were last written that the Church knew any thing of the Gospels or that the Clergy made a common use of them We can't tell whence St. Paul had that moral Aphorism of our Saviour which he quotes Acts 20.35 In those early times the true Writings of the Apostles used to be bound up together with those now called Apocryphal and Spurious that it was not manifest by any mark or public Censure of the Church Which of them should be preferred to the other Upon this judgment made by Mr. Dodwel Amyntor says he agrees with Mr. Dodwel as to matter of Fact And he shuts up all with adding that whosoever has an inclination to write on this Subject is now furnisht with a great many curious Disquisitions whereon to show his Penetration and Judgment As how the immediate Successors and Disciples of the Apostles could so grosly confound the genuine Writings of their Masters with such as are falsly attributed to them And if they were in the dark about these matters in those early times How came the following Ages by a better Light Why all those Books which are cited by Clemens Alexandrinus and the rest should not be accounted equally authentic And lastly What stress can we lay on the Writings of those Fathers who not only contradict one another but are also inconsistent with themselves in their relations of the very same Facts The whole amounts to thus much The Books we now own as Canonical were never seen till about 130 years after Christ and when they appeared 't was not possible to distinguish them but by some Revelation from Apocryphal Gospels and Epistles which bore the names as these do of the Apostles and their Synergists From the earliest times contrary Copies of them were shown and not one of them but was rejected by considerable and potent Parties of Christians the very Parties that received them have changed 'em three or four or more times that they might be at liberty to affirm or deny as present Exigence should require The Figments of Hermas the Trash of Barnabas and others such like have an equal right to a place in the Canon of Scripture with the Gospels of Mark and Luke The Authority and Credit of both and of all the other Canonical and Extra-canonical Writings depending on the Quotations made from them by St. Ireneus Clemens Alexandrinus Origen and one or two more of the Antients and on their having been Contemporaries and Coadjutors to the Apostles And so in few words Friends bonas noctes to the Christian Religion Our Author however that we may not forget to do him that right is a compleat Gentleman tho he has us and our Canon at these Advantages he saith He will determine nothing but suspend his Judgment P. 58. On the CATALOGUE in general THE Catalogue by Amyntor is considerable on divers accounts As it is pretty Perfect He has omitted but few of those Antient Pieces and not so often mistaken as some others the several and like Titles of the same Book for several and distinct Books And as it naturally gives one a great Idea of the Christian Religion By informing us of so many Persons that wrote Gospels Acts Revelations Liturgies Itineraries Martyrdoms either on their own knowledg or on credible report made to them and which have not been lost on any other accounts but such as are common to things Valuable and Great in their kind Such as the Deluge of an immense time almost 1700 years the absolute Certainty and apparent Sufficiency of the Gospels Acts Epistles c. which on those accounts the Church has preserved and contents her self with them And lastly As nothing can be objected to it or inferred from it but what in such a case a man of any Experience or Prudence would certainly expect Namely that in so important and various a Subject there would be some more Writers and Writings than the extreme Caution of the Catholic Church would intirely approve and even that some Triflers and Impostors would intermix and intrude themselves among the approved and well-meaning It will be requisite to enlarge a little on these general Reflections That the Catalogue is indifferent perfect I grant However some Books and other Writings are omitted and others never really extant or pretended to be extant are added For instance under the first Head or of Books ascribed to our Saviour or that particularly concern him these are overlookt A Book by St. Matthew distinct from that by Thomas concerning the Infancy of our Saviour being the History of his younger Years 'T is very antient for it hath some Passages that are also mentioned by St. Ireneus and which he saith were in the Books shown by the Valentinians A Letter of our Saviour that fell down from Heaven it being indeed an Epistle forged by a certain notable Enthusiast a French Bishop who for this and some other such-like Facts was deprived and put to penance by a Council assembled at Rome An. 745. The Letter however was kept in the Library of the Roman Church by order of Pope Zechary A Liturgy of our Saviour received as his by the Ethiopians it was brought out of the Orient by Father J. Vanslebius who promises also to publish it at Paris together with other rare Ethiopic Pieces But Ludolphus in his Ethiopic History and Commentary gives the true account of this Liturgy As to Books added under the same Head Amyntor mistakes when as from Eusebius he attributes to our Saviour a Book of Parables and Sermons For on the contrary these Proverbs and Doctrines as Eusebius calls them were all of them only Traditional they were Doctrines and Proverbs that Papias Bishop of Hierapolis had heard from some Persons that they were spoke and taught by Jesus Christ but they never were committed to writing as a particular Book by any body The Millennium or thousand-years Reign was one of these Traditional Doctrines I observe also that Amyntor
easy to guess the Reason He was a Heathen and they were Christians But we see however by all this that the mere force or edacity of time bears away or devours the most excellent Instances of Human Industry and Wit that we ought not to marvel if we have not still all or even had not the principal Labors of the Apostles and Apostolical men If Amyntor's Catalogue of Books some of them once reveâ—enced by the Church and now lost were much larger than it is it would by no means prove they were all Trivial Spurious or Erroneous Books 't would be no imputation on Christianity as abounding only with Fables and Impostures There being we have seen no part of Learning tho never so useful and necessary or so curious and diverting but has suffered extremely by the loss of some excellent Books and Authors nay of most such Authors and Books I believe also The unquestionable Orthodoxy the yielded certainty or genuinness and apparent sufficiency of the present Scripture-Canon were great Occations that the Books in the Catalogue fell gradually into dis-use and were afterwards lost As to the sufficiency of the Books of the Canon I mean of all them taken together it is self-evident For they contain a repeated Abrogation of the Mosaic Law so far as 't is Ritual and Judicial a compleat System of Morals the History of the Parentage Conception Birth Miracles Doctrine Death Resurrection and Ascension of our Saviour the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles their Divine Inspiration and Miraculous Powers their Epistles to private Persons to Churches and Nations in which they often professedly repeat the Substance of the Christian Religion as well in what respects Faith as Manners In short a man cannot read these Books without most plainly perceiving that they are such an Account of the Religion they teach as needs no Supplement Their Genuinness and Orthodoxy or that they are the very Books of the Authors whose names they bear and are true Representations of the Doctrines of Christianity as delivered to the Churches by the first Miraculous Preachers this is inferred with absolute certainty from their reception by all those Churches as such and that these rather than the Books of the Catalogue tho divers of them also were highly valued have been preserved If it be urged that supposing as this Answer does the Books in the Catalogue most of them or some of them were Orthodox and Genuine and owned to be such by the Churches 't is much they should be lost and only the Books of the present Canon preserved Which have been preserved it seems for no other Reasons but what are common also to the Books of the Catalogue namely because they are undoubtedly Orthodox and certainly Genuine I answer that the Books of the Catalogue that are lost or rejected were not so certainly Cenuin to all the Churches as those that are preserved and made parts of the Canon And as to the Orthodoxy tho that as to many of them was not questioned yet the Books not being so certain as to their Genuinness in all parts of the Christian World and therefore not allowed as unexceptionable Evidences in the numerous Controversies that arose in the Catholic Church and the un-suspected Books being abundantly sufficient to serve the ends of Religion in respect both of Controversy and Institution in manners the former hereupon almost unavoidably began to be neglected and in time were lost and only the latter were kept We have now the advantages of Printing and of a ready Communication by the increase of Trade and Improvement of Navigation between Nation and Nation the Antients wanted these helps therefore with them a Book concerning the Christian Religion if it were not published in Judea or at Rome or in some part of Greece or some considerable City of Asia it might not come to be known of a long time not vulgarly and generally known in the Churches till the Evidences that it was Genuine were all wholly lost or become of but little Authority The Books of our present Canon were immediately communicated by the Churches or Persons to whom they were written unto all the Famous Churches Like Industry was not used on behalf of the Books of the Catalogue therefore these last were read only or chiefly in the places of their Publication and in the Churches to which they were addressed and thus being long unknown to the Churches and Illustrious Writers of other places tho many of them were approved as to their Doctrine and Usefulness on which accounts they are often quoted by those two the most Learned of the Antenicen Fathers Clemens of Alexandria and Origen yet they did not obtain to be adopted into the Scripture-Canon as not so certainly the Works of Apostles and Apostolical men as those that were received for such every where and from the beginning Farther it may be divers Books of the Catalogue titled with the name of an Apostle or Synergist of the Apostles were rejected and in process of time lost for that very reason It was supposed that the Book having to it a name of one of the Apostle or some Apostolical Person therefore the Author claims to be that Person or that Apostle it might appear however by some things in the Book it self or by some Circumstances commonly known that the Author was not the Apostle or other Person vulgarly thought to be designed in the Title and hereupon the Book was consider'd as a Forgery and Imposture and as wrote probably with some dishonest Intention and Aim But as now so then and then much more than now abundance of People had the same names with the Apostles and other first Preachers it may be most Christians took those Names either at their Conversion or Baptism A Book therefore suppose a Gospel Epistles Acts might really be the Work of the Author in the Title-page or elswhere in the Book and yet in short time be rejected neglected and finally lost as an Imposture and Forgery on that false supposition that the Author affected to seem the Person that he was not and that in truth he never pretended to be This very thing hath certainly hapned in divers Works of the Fathers as well those of the fourth and fifth Ages and later as those of the second and third and it might happen I say in divers Writings of the Catalogue that we are considering I take these to be some of the Causes that so many Books of the Catalogue are lost Time the Sufficiency of the Books preserved and that some of them came not to general knowledg till the Evidences that they were Genuine were not so certain These are such Reasons and Occasions of it that we cannot much wonder at the misfortune of this invaluable Damage And after this 't is but little to the credit of their Judgment and less of their Morals that some affect to guess at the Causes of this Mishap in a sort that reflects on the Christian Religion as
79 he has a Quotation out of M. Dodwel to this sense The Books of the present Canon lay concealed in the Coffers of particular Churches or of private Men the Churches and Men to whom they were written till the latter times of Trajan or rather of Adrian that is till about 130 years after Christ We are not to think that the Writers of the New Testament knew any thing of the Gospels or other Books of the Canon that were not wrote by themselves or that the Clergy made a Common use either of the one or other We have still some Ecclesiastical Writers of those early times Clemens Romanus Barnabas Hermas Ignatius and Polycarp but in Hermas there is not one passage out of the New Testament in the rest not any of the Evangelist is called by his Name of is particularly named Nor can we know whether the Passages they cite are alledged out of the Gospels or other Books of our present Canon or from other Gospels and Books namely the Books of the Catalogue for the Citations are very different from the Words in our present Gospels and other Canonical Books and for the most part have something added to them Amyntor declares he assents to all this and farther to recommend it he complements M. Dodwel after a very extraordinary manner He affirms M. Dodwel tho a Lay-man knows as much of these matters as the Divines of all Churches put together What an advantage is it sometimes to a man not to be a thing in Holy Orders how much more knowing and Learned shall he be than himself was aware for I take it for granted this Bounce of a Complement was wholly intended to M. Dodwel's Lay-quality I am content for my part M. Dodwel be the next HERO to M. Milton I hope however 't will be granted that how much soever M. Dodwel knows he does not know that to be true which is false and in confidence of this I intend to discuss what he hath said Or rather to speak with due reserve of a Person and Matter that I my self do not know what Amyntor hath imputed to him He says The Writers of the New Testament were unknown to one another and to the Churches and Clergy till 130 years after Christ How do I fear lest he that is said to know as much of these Matters as the Clergy of all Churches put together should be found to know less of 'em than any of us Country-Curats For first as to the Writers of the four Gospels all the Church-Historians agree St. Matthew wrote first so it will not be expected we should prove that he had seen the rest but 't is apparent the next Evangelist Mark had seen and read the Gospel by St. Matthew because Mark 's Gospel is indeed nothing else but an abridgment of St. Matthew's as the Critics and Interpreters have many of them observed They are the words of H. Grotius on Mark 1.1 Vsum esse Marcum Matthaei Evangelio apertum facit collatio i. e. If we compare their Gospels it will be evident that St. Mark made great use of the Gospel by Matthew St. Austin de Cons Eccl. c. 2. says Marcus Matthaeum subsecutus tanquam pedissequus breviator ejus videtur i. e. As St. Mark wrote in time after St. Matthew so he follows him as it were at the very heels in respect of the things related only abridging what St. Matthew had more largely said After Matthew and Mark came St. Luke he is very reasonably and probably thought to intend besides we know not who else Matthew and Mark in those first words of his Gospel For as much as MANY have taken in hand to set forth in order a Declaration of those things which are surely believed among us even as they delivered them to us who from the beginning were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word it seemed good to me also c. Those Characters of Eye-witnesses and from the beginning and Ministers of the Word agree to the Person of St. Matthew and the two last to St. Mark that to say the whole Period was intended of them at least with others is what has been reasonably believed hitherto and is not made less reasonable by the two Exceptions by Amyntor taken as he saith out of M. Dodwel They alledg that St. Luke has given a different Genealogy of our Saviour from that by St. Matthew without giving any reason for it and that there are many apparent Contradictions between these and other Writers of Scripture But if these Gentlemen please to look into Matth. 1.6 and Luke 3.31 they will see a reason of the difference of the Genealogies namely that St. Matthew deduces the Genealogy from Solomon St. Luke from Nathan both of them Sons of David and Ancestors to our Saviour in the sense that David was his Ancestor As for the apparent Contradictions between these Evangelists if it were true it would rather prove that St. Luke had seen and read those other two Evangelists because by writing any thing contrary to them he intended without doubt to correct their Mistake and rightly inform their common Readers But 't is certain he was not in the least aware that those former Evangelists needed any correction for himself we have seen before bears 'em witness that they had written all things as those Persons have also deliver'd them to us who from the beginning were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the WORD that is as the other Apostles and first Preachers have also dediver'd them by word of mouth The last Evangelist was St. John how he came to be an Evangelist or on what occasion he wrote Eusebius the first and learnedest Historian of the Church will tell us in these words The Gospels of Matthew Mark and Luke being in all mens hands came also to the knowledg of the Apostle John who approved them as faithfully written But he observed they were deficient in this respect that they had omitted that part of our Saviour's Actions and Preaching which preceded the Imprisonment of John the Baptist for they all begin their Narratives with the Imprisonment of John Hereupon St. John being thereto requested added in a Gospel by him the Time and Transactions that had been omitted by the other Evangelists Euseb H. E. l. 3. c. 24. The Epistles of St. Paul are another considerable part of the Canon of the New Testament our Opposers say They lay hid in the coffers of the Churches and Persons to whom they were written till 130 years after Christ I ask How then came St. Peter to say 2 Pet. 3.15 As our beloved Brother Paul according to the Wisdom given to him hath written to you as also in all his Epistles speaking to them of these things in which Epistles are some things hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable do wrest as they do also the other Scriptures to their own Damnation This Testimony proves not only that St. Peter had seen the Epistles of Paul but
and third Epistle but the two last are also questioned by some He thinks those Churches are to be commended that receive the Epistle to the Hebrews for our Ancestors reckon it to St. Paul and had doubtless good reasons why they did so Origen Expos in Joan. l. 5. in Matth. l. 1. Euseb H. E. l. 6. c. 25. We see then in reckoning up the genuin Works of the Apostles and Books that they thought to be Divine Scripture Origen does not vouchsafe so much as to mention any of the Books of the Catalogue he knows nothing of other Gospels Acts Revelations or Epistles besides those of our present Canon Not that indeed he did not well know them and also esteem some of them for he frequently quotes them both in Preaching and Arguing but when he professes to declare the true Ecclesiastical Canon and genuin Works of the Evangelists and Apostles he forgets all the Books of the Catalogue Amyntor is very earnest for the Doctrine and the Revelation of St. Peter on the Account that they were approved he saith by the Antients in particular by Origen he saith they may be preferred on that account before Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews and other Books of our present Canon which were doubted of by the Antients We have just now heard Origen say the direct contrary we have seen he and those other Fathers make some doubt of the Epistle to the Hebrews the 2d of Peter the 2d and 3d of John but they speak very favorably and very respectfully of them and so as plainly to intimate that they incline to them but the Revelation and Doctrine of Peter and other Books of the Catalogue they never once name 'em in recounting the Books of the Canon or of the Evangelists and Apostles The testimony of Origen in the case is so much the more considerable because he was undoubtedly the most learned of all the Antients the first Divine the Church ever had some doubt not to add and the last Our Antagonist has not yet done with us he says The Council of Laodicea about 360 Years after Christ is the first Assembly wherein the present Canon of Scripture was establish'd In so great a variety of Books those of the Catalogue and those of the Canon how could that Council determine which were the true Writings of the Apostles and which not but by Revelation or the written Testimony of their Predecessors Revelation in the Case there was none and for Testimony I have the same Testimony for many Books of the Catalogue Elsewhere p. 48. he adds Divers Books of the Catalogue were verily supposed by the Antients to be written by the Evangelists Apostles and their Synergists whose name they bear why then do we not receive 'em into the Canon since the Authors of 'em were at least Companions and Fellow-laborers of the Apostles as well as St. Mark and St. Luke Why are they excluded from the Canon and those Evangelists not excluded If this quality to have been a Companion and Synergist of the Apostles was sufficient to entitle Mark and Luke to Inspiration why should it not do as much for Barnabas and Clemens Romanus And if this be not all the reason pray let us know the true one for I never heard of any other He is entred I confess on the merits of the Cause He saith the Council of Laodicea that establish'd our present Canon could no other ways distinguish the genuin Writings of the Apostles from those falsly imputed to 'em but by the Testimony of their Predecessors he hath the same Testimony for the Books of the Catalogue He knows no other reason why Mark and Luke are believed to write by Inspiration but that they were Synergists and Companions of the Apostles I answer That he hath the same Testimony for some Books of the Catalogue as we for the Books of the Canon he attempted to prove from Irenaeus Clemens of Alexandria and Origen his only Witnesses But Irenaeus I have shown barely names some of those Books and for others he cites them only as good Witnesses of the true Ecclesiastical Tradition not as Divine Scripture Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen may sometimes call them Scripture in the sense that they so call the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament which they with the Protestants deny to be parts of that Testament and in reciting the Books of the Canon and Works of the Apostles they wholly omit and sometimes expresly censure these Books of the Catalogue The Council of Laodicea nor any other ever pretended to establish the Canon of Scripture which is precedaneous to all Councils and receives no Authority from them but they from it Amyntor should have said the Council of Laodicea is the first Assembly that on occasion of some spurious and many doubtful Books declared which were the Books that had been certainly left to the Church by the Apostles and other Miraculous first Preachers 'T is no more true that Mark and Luke are supposed to write by Inspiration only because they were Companions and Synergists of the Apostles and that the Council of Laodicea declared the Scripture-Canon from only the Testimony of their Ancestors or Predecessors that is of the preceding Fathers such as Irenaeus Clemens of Alexandria and Origen Eusebius a long time before the Council of Laodicea informed every body of the sound Reasons why the Catholic Church receives some Books as Divine Scripture and others not his words are these Many Books have been published by Heretics under the names of the Apostles as the Gospels of Peter Thomas Matthias and others the Acts of Andrew John and divers more But first they are not cited he means not as Divine Scripture for that they are indeed quoted by Clemens of Alexandria and Origen the learnedst of the Antenicens he tells us before and after by the Doctors of the Church Secondly their way of writing is wholly different from the Spirit Genius and Manner of the Apostles Lastly the Doctrine Opinions and other Matters advanced in those Books are so contrary to Truth and to Orthodoxy that we must not barely call them Spurious but Absurd and Impious Euseb H. E. l. 3. c. 25. I must a little enlarge on this important Testimony which overthrows all Amyntor's and M. Dodwel's Pretences either for the Books of the Catalogue or against those of the Canon These Books saith Eusebius are never cited as Divine Scripture by the Doctors of the Church directly contrary to Amyntor's I have the same Testimony of the Antients the very best and soundest of them for these Books that is alledged or can be by others for the Canon These Writings says Eusebius again have nothing of the Apostolical Way and Spirit They want that honest Plainness in their Style that Integrity of manners that Elevation of Piety that Salt of Virtue that exemption from Partialities and Passions which so effectually recommend and even point out to us the Inspired Writings Above all they are stuffed with abundance of
notorious Falsities in Doctrine and in Matters of Fact and those also as ridiculous as they are erroneous Here sure we have wherewith to answer to all the bold Suggestions of the Book under consideration If the Author pretends he has the same Testimony of some Antients for the Books of the Catalogue as there is for the Canon Eusebius replies none of the Doctors have quoted those Pieces as Divine Scripture If he demands what other Exceptions we can advance against them or what we can say farther for the Books of the Canon Eusebius again answers the Books of the Canon and of the Catalogue differ as Pious and Impious as True and False as Credible and Ridiculous and that these are the Churches Reasons why she venerates the latter and no less disesteems to use no harder word the other In short besides the unanimous Testimony of the Antients which was Amyntor's only Reason Eusebius insists on the so different Spirit and Morality of these two sorts of Books and on the known Verity in Matters of Fact and self-evident soundness in Doctrine so remarkably appearing in one and wanting in the other When Amyntor fairly satisfies these Answers of this Learned Father Phillida solus habeto Farther Continuation of the Defence of the Canon IT seems however by all this we have gained nothing at all for Amyntor says again If some of the Antients made these Exceptions to the Books of the Catalogue they were not so thought of by some whole Parties who made use of ' em And there is not a single Book of the New Testament which was not refused by some of the Antients as unjustly fathered on the Apostles and really forged by their Enemies And lastly he has Witnesses for it that were the Books of the Canon never so certainly written by the Apostles they have been however so changed and that too divers times that perhaps not a single Rib or Plank of the old Argos is left To this effect he speaks at p. 19 56 60 64. But who told him or how will he prove it that whereas some of the Ancients made Exceptions to the Books of the Catalogue they were otherwise thought of by some whole Parties of Christians It is not true nor will he be able to bring any proof for it from Antiquity that the Gospels Acts Epistles Revelations of the Catalogue were espoused by whole Parties or Sects On the contrary they were read indifferently by some of all Parties they had a little while some Credit with some Persons in all the Denominations of Christians till for the Reasons but now alledged from Eusebius they grew first into disuse and then were lost Or if some few of 'em were the Compositions of professed Heretics in order to countenance the Opinions of a small Party as the Gospel of Judas Iscariot said by Epiphanius to be devised by the Cainits a Gnostic Sect their manifest Disagreement to the Doctrine and History of the Gospels known by all to be Authentic would and actually did immediately detect and justly discredit them Some whole Parties says Amyntor espoused some Books of the Catalogue Yes the Cainits a Sect of two days continuance and consisting it may be of twenty or thirty Persons Libertines boasted of the Gospel of Judas How does this weaken the Judgment made of that Gospel by all the Churches and reported by Eusebius and Epiphanius that this and some such Pieces were foolish and false even to ridiculousness We don't deny there were such Books as these in the Catalogue or that they were sometime in such credit and even favoured by particular Persons of some Churches and Sects but we say the reasons alledged against them by the body and generality of the Churches and that hereupon they soon became universally slighted and shortly quite perished are just such Presumptions against them as it will be in after-Ages against the spurious Metasthenes Berosus and Philo of Annius that they had appeared but a very little while e're they were wholly discredited by the concurrent Judgment and clear Arguments of Learned Men. As no body hereafter will appear for Annius his Philo Berosus or Metasthenes 't is an attempt not less worthy to be laught at that the Gospel of Judas has now any Fautors or that any are found who with great confidence do mind us that it was esteemed some time by a Party When the Judgment that Learned Men and the Catholic Church made of this Gospel and other such like Pieces has been confirmed by the immediate disappearing of the Books and Parties that maintained them what can we reasonably think of the matter but that as the Roman Orator has worded it for us Opinionum portenta delet dies Follies and Errors that are too extravagant and monstrous soon like the Monsters of Nature perish If there were any thing indeed that we could lay in the contrary Scale had we any thing to alledg in favor of these condemned and lost Books it were a necessary Caution and Justice not to condemn 'em merely on the account that the Fathers and first Churches censur'd and rejected 'em but their Judgment and Reasons against them so approved by all that the Books thereupon were all immediately put to nccessary uses ought to satisfy us concerning them To that There is not a single Book of the New Testament which was not refused by some of the Antients as unjustly father'd on the Apostles and really forged by their Enemies P. 56 64. Thought I when I read it has this Gentleman found some of the first lost Historians of the Church pack'd up in a close Chest or Hogshead and buried so many Ages under ground Has he recovered Hegesippus or other Antient Writers that are so much praised by Eusebius St. Jerom Photius and other Fathers who were curious of Antiquities and have left some small account of those lost Treasures But Amyntor quickly delivered me from my doubt and my surprize for the proof he offers is from very vulgar Books either mistaken or misreported by him He says The Manichees rejected the whole New Testament the Ebionits or Nuzarens who were the first Christians had a different Copy of St. Matthew's Gospel from ours and the Marcionits of St. Luke's John's Gospel was attributed to Cerinthus all the Epistles of St. Paul were denyed by some and a different Copy of 'em shown by others and the seven Pieces we mentioned before he means the Epistles of St. James St. Jude the second of Peter the second and third of John the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Revelation were refused a long time by all Christians with almost Vniversal Consent P. 64 65. By all Christians with almost Vniversal Consent is a Contradiction for if by all Christians then with Universal Consent and if only with almost Universal Consent then not by all Christians But it matters not for we shall see neither of 'em is True When his hand was in why did he not also from as good Authority as he has
were rejected by the Ebionits namely that in those Epistles he denies that the Gentaic Christians were obliged by the Law of Moses being condemned at the Council of Jerusalem mentioned Acts 15.24 and these Epistles being warranted by ex press Authority of Sr. Peter above quoted methinks the Ebionits are here objected with as little color of Reason as Marcion in the foregoing Paragraph 'T is another Exception that Johns Gospel was ascribed by some to Cerinthus a great Heretick By the Alogians but so that this Party embraced in a little time the common Opinion that St. John was indeed the Writer of this Gospel Paul of Samosatum Patriarch of Antioch and Photinus Archbishop of Sirmium Heads of the Alogian party even alledged for their Opinion the first Verses of Sr. John's Gospel and made not the least doubt either of the Author or Authority of this Gospel Epiphan Haeres Samosat Photin He still proceeds The Epistles of James and Jude the 2d of Peter the 2d and 3d of John that to the Hebrews and the Revelation were refused a long time by Christians with almost universal Consent The least we can make of this is that the Majority of Christians rejected these Writings and that too a long time But Eusebius from whom our Author had his intelligence says otherwise he saith those pieces are of the number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but withal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Gainsaid indeed by we know not who but received by the Generality Euseb H. E. l. 3. c. 25. It seems however they were rejected by some and that also a long time I answer they were all received as soon as the Churches had full communication with one another by the Convention of Councils which for small Books containing nothing that if singular was soon enough They were received in the Council of Laodicea by observation of our Author himself Those seven pieces having nothing as I said that is singular nothing that is wont to be alledged by the contending Parties against one another that Council was at perfect Liberty whether they would receive or reject them they might do either without diminution of Interest or of Reputation I believe therefore seeing the Scripture Canon was so sufficient in the Opinion of all Parties without those Books they were not owned by the Fathers of that Council but on most convincing reasons Such as that they had certain Information that these Books were read as Writings of the Apostles in all Churches of antient Foundation that themselves found 'em quoted as Apostolick Compositions in and from the times of the Apostles also that there is in them a likeness of the Thoughts and Expression and whatever else recommends to us the other Books of Scripture to the Expression and Thoughts of the other Divine Books or more briefly they are written with the same kind of Spirit that the undoubted portions of Scripture are There might even be Testimony from some of the Churches that they had still the first published Copies of these Books and Epistles with their Dates corresponding to the Age and Time of the Writers of them Can any thing like to this be said for the rejected Books of the Catalogue Were they ever approved in any Council Are any of them quoted or pretended to be quoted by Writers of the Apostolick Age Is it not said by those Antients who had read 'em and could belt judg of 'em they are composed with an Address and Air quite different from that of the Inspired Books and are not only false in the Doctrine and Facts but very foolish also If some of 'em were read in some Churches was it nor only till the Catholick Church began to fill with learned and able Persons who could make a Judgment And when by these they were discharged was there any Contention for 'em as there would certainly have been if the same or like reasons could have been urged for 'em as for the Books truly Canonical Of the Philosopher Celsus and Faustus the Manichee I Come therefore to the last Refuge of the Anti-Christian party Admitting that the Books of the Canon were for the main of 'em written by the Apostles and their Synergists they have been however so changed and that divers times that now there is little perhaps nothing left of 'em in those Books that stand for them in our present Canon The witness for this is the Philosopher Celjus to whom great Origen immediatly answered This Philosopher says Amyntor informs us that the Christians as if they were drunk had changed the Writing of the Gospel three or four or more times to the end they might deny whatsoever is urged against them as before retracted The Philosopher however doth not say the Christians have changed or altered their Gospel he says only τίνες πισÎυοντων some of those called Believers have altered the writing of the Gospel Origen makes us to understand the meaning of this in his Answer to it which is thus Indeed Marcion and Valentinus and Lucanus have presumed to corrupt the Sacred Books But what is that to Christianity He intended hereby does the Church follow the vitiated Copies of Marcion or of the two Gnostics Valentinus and Lucanus are theirs the Books we show as our Rule of Faith and Manners are these the Books read in the Churches of Christians In short they would prove the Books of our present Canon are corrupted and greatly altered from what they were and how is it proved Why Marcion and Valentinus and Lucanus published some depraved Copies that were rejected so soon as they appeared by all the Churches Why do they not say the Bibles of the English Church were corrupted in the Reign of K. Charles the Martyr when the King's Printers published an Edition in which the words of the Psalmist were thus printed The Fool hath said in his Heart there is a God for which the Printers were fined 3000 l. and all the Copies supprest by the King's Order Has Amyntor any Evidence that the Copies of Valentinus Lucanus and Marcion or any of them is the Copy now used by the Catholick Church or doth not he himself certainly know the contrary He hath no such Evidence and he knows the contrary with certainty therefore he affectedly abused his Reader and too much forgot that a deceitful Management of such Subjects as this obliges his Reader to distrust all he says and more especially his Quotations We shall be troubled but with one Opposer more 't is Faustus the Manichee let us take the matter in our Author 's own words Nay as low as St. Austin's time was there not a very considerable Sect of the Christians themselves I mean the Manichaeans who shewed other Scriptures and denyed the genuinness of the whole New Testament one of these called Faustus c. In these few Lines are more Falsities than Periods For the Manichees were never accounted a Sect of Christians and whether to be called Christians or not they were far from
of all this I will otherwise convince you that your Patriarch was a Seducer and a Liar He says the Books of the New Testament have been corrupted by Additions made to 'em certain Half-Jews have added Citations out of the Old Testament and false Tales concerning the Parentage Nativity Circumcision Temptation Baptism Death of Christ all which are impossible flams because he that was God and not Man at all could neither do nor suffer any of these things Therefore I ask did Manichaeus alledg or can you produce any Copies of the New Testament wherein all these things are not found When some Copies of a Book have something that others have not there is either Mistake or Fraud in one or other of them and we are wont in that Case to consult more Copies especially those that are Antient and those that are preserved in Libraries or in Archives that have been long and religiously kept From the greatest number of Copies and those that are most Antient and that have been kept in places where they could not easily or likely be violated by Additions or Substractions we judg reasonably and safely concerning the Copies that are suspected or questioned I pray therefore show us or refer us to Copies where these pretended Additions are not read in what Libraries in what Archives of Churches or Sects are such Copies to be found But as you never pretended to any such Copies so 't is impossible there should be any such For the New Testament being in the hands of all Christians and read in all Churches these pretended Additions could never be made and least of all in the publick Books of the Churches without being observed known and opposed in their very first appearance Are there so many thousand Churches and distant from one another so many thousand Miles under the Inspection of so many distinct Bishops and Presbyters nay and of several Princes and could all these Books think you be corrupted without their observing it Or what is as impossible or rather more impossible by common Agreement For are so many wont to agree to false Additions to their Books of Religion These are some of the Arguments of that discerning Father against Faustus and his Patriarchs Manichaeus and Adimantus I am of opinion we have here given to Amyntor as 't is said in the Proverb A Rowland for his Oliver Faustus is not so considerable but that St. Austin appears much more considerable In Faustus one may see an unreasonable Infidelity a precipitate and ungrounded Scepticism in St. Austin Caution and Faith led on by Judgment a Judgment enlightned by Learning and Experience I omit what he saith of the God of the Old Testament of the Patriarchs and Prophets as forein to my present Undertaking and Subject I only observe farther that What he hath so well argued against Montanus and Manichaeus is no less effectual against the third Paraclet Mahomet who arose after St. Austin If Montanus in the year after Christ 170 or Manichaeus in 275 could not be the promised Paraclet because the Evangelist on whose Authority their Claims are founded sets a time when Jesus shall be glorified that disagrees so widely from the time of their appearance and agrees so exactly with the time of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles I say if for this so clear Reason neither Montanus in 170 nor Manichaeus in 255 could be that Paraclet that was to lead into all Truth much lest could Mahomet be he in the year after our Lord 612 seeing neither did Mahomet pretend to any other ground for his Novelties but those words in St. John's Gospel concerning a future Paraclet See Father Simon 's Belief and Customs of the Eastern Nations Chap. 15. When the same Impostor as his Predecessor Manichaeus accuses the Bible of Christians as having many corrupt Additions and other Falsifications he is unanswerably refuted by the same Considerations that were objected before to Manichaeus SIR I have now answered as fully as I think is needful to a Book which you tell me is so much magnified by the Anti-Christian Party about Town They say this Book has so discovered and laid bare the unsound Foundations of Christianity that 't is now to be blown down by the very weakest Breath and that if an Answer any what valuable be made to it the Author will take occasion thereat by new and more and greater Authorities to level all revealed Imposture with the very Ground He can level nothing by such an attempt but his own Reputation nor do I think he approves these impious Boasts of that Party of men It may be questioned whether he had any formed Design to attack Christianity by this Book it seems rather that when his Passions were up against Mr. Blackhal he inadvertedly dropt these Exceptions and Doubts of which some make so bad use or rather strain such malignant Consequences from them To cut out work for Mr. Blackhal with whom he was so much displeased he discharged upon him whatsoever occurred to his Memory from first Antiquity with intent to engage him in laborious difficult and unwelcome Searches However it be it appears he is a Person of great Abilitys and Address in matters of this kind and it were to be wish'd men of very distinguishing Parts and Sufficiency were not made Enemies to the Church or to the Public either by being abused or because they are neglected You shall not awe such Persons by your Menaces or your Severities when even such mean Rogues as House-breakers and Highway-men are not scared by the Gibbet and Gallows The only effect to be expected from neglect of or harshness toward such is that they go at length into the interests of some disaffected Party or erect a new one after which whatsoever becomes of them the Public and the Church are sure to be infinitly more losers than it would have cost to gain and to assure them to the Public But manum de tabulâ for who made me a Counsellor to the Church or the Public You will please Sir to believe that I am with great Tenderness and Respect Your assured Friend STEPHEN NYE Sept. 29. 1699. There is room in this Leaf for two Stanza's by Sir William Davenant Which are pertinent to the Subject that we have been treating 1. In the dark Walk to our last Home design'd 'T is safe by well-instructed Guides to go Lest we in Death too late the Science find Of what in Life 't was possible to know 2. And if they say while daily some renew Disputes your Oracles are doubtful still Like those of Old yet more regard is due To Pains where so uneasy is the skill THE END AN ABSTRACT Of the foregoing DISPUTATION THE Controversy hath been partly concerning the Books of the Canon and partly concerning those of the Catalogue Of the Books of the Canon Amyntor says 1. ALL the Authors of the Canon were wholly strangers to one anothers Writings I have proved on the contrary that Mark