the World And this Father testifies as much himself who reckoning this Epistle among the Authentick Books of the New Testament assures us that he had the Warrant of the Ancients and first Preachers of Christianity for all the Pieces which he there puts into his Catalogue The Objection from the difference of Style between this and the first Epistle Mr. B. answers himself and therefore I pass on to what follows Eusebius l. 3. c. 3. Writes that he heard from his Ancestors that this Epistle was not at first inserted into the Canon c. Eusebius says something to this purpose but I think what we here Read carries the matter a little too far The Historian indeed tells us that he had receiv'd by Tradition or from his Predecessors that the Second Epistle ascrib'd to St. Peter was or ought to be no part of the New Testamant But he does not acquaint us of what Antiquity or Extent the Tradition was much less does he say as this Translation would induce an unwary Reader to Suppose that it was everywhere rejected upon its first Appearance but only that those Books or Persons from which he deriv'd his Information did not acknowledge it Immediately after we are told That in Gregory Nazianzen's time few of the Orthodox receiv'd it for Divine Where we may learn this I cannot tell I am sure the Father says no such thing in those Places where he treats Professedly of the Books of the Scripture He acknowledges indeed in his Verses to Seleucus (g) Vol. 2. p. 194. that some receiv'd and some rejected it But he does not say that the former were fewer than the latter neither does he interpose his own Judgment there Though he does in (h) p. 98. another Poem where he expresly reckons Two Epistles of St. Peter among the Genuine Books of the New Testament It follows The Syrians have not inserted it in their ancient Verson neither do they Read it at this day unless privately What may be the Reason of this I have ventur'd to guess in the Notes on p. 18. to which I refer the Reader We are further told That the Spanyards persisted in the same Error till the Seventh Century and also afterwards p. 283. That the Epistle to the Hebrews was not receiv'd as Sacred and Authentick in the Western Church till the same time What particular Reasons Mr. B. has for these Two Assertions I cannot judge because his Epitomizer does not al edge any But I have this besides the Testimony of Single Persons to urge on the contrary side that the Council of Laodicea acknowledg'd both for Canonical about the year 360 which being not long after taken into the Code of the Universal Church and also farther Establish'd by the Fourth General Councel in the middle of the Fifth Century is as clear an Evidence that the Whole Catholick Church in all the Provinces thereof receiv'd both these Epistles for Genuine Parts of the New Testament as the Sixth of the Thirty Nine Articles sufficiently Testifies what Books the Church of England acknowledges for Authentick at this day And therefore I wonder at what is say'd (i) p. 282. concerning the Epistles of St. James that in the Fifth Age it was first receiv'd by all as Canonical because all the Fathers of that Age cite it and the African Councels inserted it into their Canons How far it appears now to have been admitted before the Fourth Age I have shown in the Following Treatise but that both it and the other Controverted Pieces were generally receiv'd in that Century I have prov'd (k) See the Account of the 2d Canon p. 14 c. from several Testimonies whereof the Councel of Laodicea is one and certainly the Canons thereof which were every where acknowledg'd had more Influence upon the general reception of this Epistle then the Synods of Carthage could have which were never Submitted to by the Eastern Christians But we are further told p. 283 that it was after the Seventh Century before the Revelation was acknowledg'd by the Eastern Churches and again p. 284. That the Laodicean Councel was the first that struck the Revelation and Book of Judith out of the Sacred Canon What is to be thought of the Revelation I have hereafter declar'd p. 42. But as to the Book of Judith I answer 1. That the Laodicean Fathers could not strike that out of the Canon of the Primitive Church because it does not appear that it was ever in any more then Ecclesiasticus Tobit c. 2. As to the Story of the Council of Nice 's alledging it as Divine which is here hinted at I believe it to be all Fable St. Jeromo only tells us that it was reported or say'd so and notwithstanding that it is plain by his Preface to the Proverbs that be look'd upon it as Apocryphal which he would never have done if he had really believ'd the Nicene Fathers had taken it into the Canon Neither if there had been the least Evidence that they had so done would the Synod of Laodicea have rejected it For all the World knows that the Catholicks had every where so profound a Reverence and Veneration for the Decrees of the First General Councel that it is impossible to suppose a Provincial Synod would so quickly after attempt to rescind what they had once Establish'd I have now done with the Account of the Ecclesiastical History of Mr. B. and do here again declare to the World that none of the Mistakes which I have been here examining ought to be imputed any farther to him then the Vndertakers at Rotterdam have Transmitted a Faithfull Account of that Work to their Correspondents at London If they have fail'd therein what Errors there be must be lay'd at their door and not at that of the Learned Author I would gladly indeed have consulted the Original but not having the opportunity of so doing I thought my self under a kind of Obligation to take notice of the Passages above-mention'd because they might be urg'd as Objections against some of those Truths which I have asserted and I hope prov'd in the following Discourse THE CONTENTS J. T 's Objections against the Canon of the New Testament propos'd Page 2. Of the Word Canon what makes any Book Canonical c. Page 6 When the Books of the New Testament generally were sent over the Church Page 9 Of the first Canon and the Evidence for the Books thereof Page 10. Of the second Canon and the Evidence for the Books thereof Page 14 38. Of Ecclesiastical Books Page 19 Of Spurious Books Page 20 J. T 's first Objection answered Page 21 2d Objection answered Page 23 A Book though call'd Scripture or Read in the Church not therefore judg'd Canonical Page 26 The Pastor of Hermas Particularly consider'd see also the Preface Page 29 The Canonical Books depend not on the Testimony of a single Father Page 30. J. T 's Third Objection answer'd Page 32. Fourth Objection answer'd Page 35. Why the
to 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
in those early Ages neither does it appear that so much as one of the Books we are now considering was ever doubted of or call'd in question by any of the Members of the Catholick Church after they were once publickly known This is enough to evince that Eusebius and the Church in his time had Testimonies of the Ancients to assure them that the Books above-specifi'd were really the Writings of the Disciples and Followers of our Saviour And besides these †Jreneus and Tertullian ought not to be accounted here as single Witnesses but as those which deliver what was the Judgment of all those Churches with which they convers'd See hereafter Sect. XXXIII where particular Places are produc'd out of both of them in which they quote the several Books under the Names of those Authors to whom they are now ascrib'd and 't is also prov'd that what they believ'd concerning them was confirm'd by the Suffrage of the Universal Church that is all those parts of it with which they had Correspondence two Authors now mention'd there are others still Extant as Clemens of Alexandria Origen and Cyprian who ' confirm the same Truth and many now lost which they then had in their hands from whence they drew further proofs and Evidences in this matter 2. The Epistle to the Hebrews the Second of St. Peter the Second and Third of St. John the Epistle of St. James and of St. Jude and the Revelation were at the beginning question'd by some as Eusebius informs us in the Book and Chapter above-alleg'd but then as the same Author in the same Places assures us they were receiv'd and acknowledg'd by many others The Agreement about these was not so general and uniform as about the other Books Some Persons and Churches perhaps receiv'd them all but the whole Body of the Catholicks did not as being not then fully satisfy'd every-where concerning the Evidence which was produc'd for them Yet neither were they generally rejected as some pretend For several of them were receiv'd in several Places as it would be very easy to prove from Jreneus Tertullian and others of the Fathers yet extant Of which more by and by when we come to our Authors fifth Objection But however the case was at first it is apparent that upon a due Examination of the Testimonies of the Ancients produc'd on their behalf these also were in process of Time receiv'd into the Canon For (i) Athanas Vol. 2. G. L. p. 39. and Balsam p. 921 Athanatius in one of his Festival Epistles Wrote about 20 Years after the History of Eusebius reckons them expresly among the rest So does also (k) Ibid. p. 850. the Council of Laodicea * The Council of Laodicea Can. 59. forbids reading Psalms of private Composition or Vncanonical Books in the Church and commands that only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament should be read there And then adds Can. 60. These Books of the Old Testament ought to be Read Genesis Exodus c. And of the New these the four Gospels c. Reckoning up all those which we count Canonical only leaving out the Revelation Now the difficulty is whether the Revelation be left out as a Book that is not Canonical in the Judgment of the Council or as a Canonical Book which is not fit to be Publickly Read because not intelligible by the generality For my part I must say that I cannot determine this Question either the one way or the other For fince the Fathers have not expresly declar'd themselves they might for ought we can tell leave it out as a Book which they thought not Canonical or they might leave it out as a Canonical Book which could not be rightly understood by Common Hearers For thus the Church of England does not Read this Book in the Lessons for that very Reason but only some small Portions instead of the Epistles on some peculiar Festivals And thus also she Reads no part at all of the Canticles upon the same account and yet has asserted both the one and the other to be part of the Canon in the Thirty Nine Articles excepting only the Revelation So does (l) Heres 76. p. 941. Epiphanius and so also does (m) On the Creed p. 26. Rufinus towards the end of that Century and vouches the Authority of the Ancients and the Monuments of his Predecessors for so doing As Athanasius also had done before him Nazianzen (n) Vol. 2. p. 194. indeed in his Jambicks to Seleucus which sometimes go under the Name of Amphilochius tells us that the controverted Books were in his time doubted of by some But 't is plain from the Verses under his own Name (o) P. 98. concerning the Genuine Books of Scripture that he receiv'd them all the Revelation only excepted And it appears too by (p) F. 24. St. Jerome that when he Wrote his Letter to Dardanus several of the Latine Church rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews and several of the Greek the Revelation But he declares positively that he own'd both for Canonical because most of the Ancients had done so before him However the Council of Laodicea being admitted into the Code of the Universal Church and afterwards more solemnly ratify'd among others in the first Canon of the (q) A. C. 450. See also Act. 11. of that Council p. 406. Fourth General Council shows plainly that both the Eastern and Western Churches did then receive all the Pieces mention'd above for Canonical excepting the Revelation only and what opinion they had of that we can't Judge from this Argument because the Laodicean Fathers had said nothing of it in their last Canon When it was first Vniversally receiv'd is not very easy to decide Certain it is from the Sixteenth Canon of the Fourth Councel at (r) A. C. 633. Toledo that there were very many then at least in Spain who rejected it And certain it is from the same Canon if we may believe the Fathers who compos'd it that it had been declar'd formerly part of the New Testament by many Councils and Synodical Decrees But the Names of those Councils which had asserted the Divine Authority of this Book are not there set down and therefore I must Ingenuously confess that I can't tell what Synods the Fathers had an Eye to therein besides that of (s) A. Cti 419. Carthage which reckons the Apocalypse by Name among the Canonical Books of the New Testament For as to the Famous Decree of the Roman Council under Gelasius I suppose that was not forg'd till some years after the Fathers at Toledo made that Canon which we are now considering However it is Evident that many of the most Primitive Fathers acknowledg'd the Revelation to be (t) See hereafter Sect. XI and XXV Divine and Written by St. John the Apostle it is Evident too from what has been above alledg'd that Athanasius Jerome and Rufinus receiv'd it and appeal'd to the Ancients
Reason to be taken into the Canon And we know the Divine Plato is a common Expression But I answer more directly 1. That if Origen did look upon this Book as of Divine Authority the Church in his time was not of the same Opinion For himself (z) Comment on St. Mat. p. 361. Philoc c. 1. p. 9. tells us that there were those who slighted and rejected it and upon that account he questions whether he may venture to draw a Testimony from it and (a) Of Chastity c. 10. Tertullian assures us that it had been censur'd by every Conncil of the Catholicks 2 I think it is plain that Origen whatever Character he may have occasionally given of this Book did not judge it any part of the Canon because in the beginning of the Philocalia and particularly c. 6. we find him several times distinguishing the Books of the New Testament into the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles Now 't is certain that the Pastor of Hermas can be reduc'd to neither of these heads and therefore in the Judgment of Origen * If we look into the Philocalia c. 1. p. 9. we may there observe that Origen does not speak of the Pastor of Hermas with the same Honour and Respect that he does of the genuine parts of the Canon was not Canonical If it be ask'd to which of these two Classes we assign the Acts of the Apostles I answer to that of the Evangelists as being the Work of one of them and that Origen intended so to do and have it reckon'd among the Books that were part of the Canon is apparent from hence that he Wrote Homilies thereon which neither he nor any of the Fathers did upon Barnabas Hermas Clemens or any other of the Ecclesiastical or Apocryphal Pieces under the New Testament But we need not use any Argument in the case Origen himself expresly ascribes the Acts of the Apostles to St. Luke more then once and reckons them by Name among the other Books of the New Testament in his Seventh Homily on Joshua f. 156. where none of the Apocryphal none of the Ecclesiastical Books are joyn'd with them However it may not be amiss to add upon this occasion that if a single Father or two have had a higher Opinion of a Book then it did deserve or a wrong Opinion of the Author this will not overthrow the Argument upon which the Divine Authority of the Books of the New Testament is built We look upon them as Divine and strictly binding to Obedience because they were either wrote or confirm'd by the Apostles of our Saviour and we believe that they were so wrote or confirm'd by them not upon the Testimonies of one or two Fathers only but of the whole Primitive Church who were capable of Judging in this question Our Author prevaricates if he 'd perswade us that the Ancients form'd their Judgment in this matter only upon the Tradition of one or two Persons or even of those few Treatises of the Ancient Writers which are now Extant These indeed they appeal to and that justly but besides these there were great Numbers more in being in those days which (b) See Tertul. of Prescript c. 36. as well as the several Churches which were the depositaries of the several Epistles and Gospels they consulted and were from thence enabled to determine whether this or that Book was Genuine or no. If any one doubt this I shall send him as our Author does Mr. Blackall to Dr. Cave Du Pin c. where he may learn that all the Works of some and many Treatises of others of the most Ancient Fathers are now perish'd which yet were every where to be had in the days of Eusebius Athanasius Epiphanius and Rufinus and their Predecessors and by the assistance of which they and the Church in their times judg'd the several Books of the New Testament to have been indeed wrote by those Persons to whom we ascribe them From hence it may appear how trifling and impertinent the Raillery is which our Author p. 57. flings upon the Council of Laodicea They were indeed the first Publick Assembly that we know of which Establish'd by a Solemn Decree the Canon of the Old and New Testament such as the Church of England now Embraces excepting only the Revelation about the Year 360. This they were enabled to do whatever our Author pretends to the contrary by the Testimony of their Predecessors There was no need of a Particular Revelation no need of Oral Tradition neither at that time as he would Insinuate There were numerous Books abroad in the Church some of which are now lost and some we still have By the help of them they were Instructed how to form a right Judgment how to distinguish what was Genuine from what was Spurious most of this latter sort also having been already discover'd and rejected to their hands as is apparent from Eusebius Though our Author seems to have for got that when he was Reflecting upon this Venerable Assembly He urges p. 47. that he can't understand why the Writings of St. Mark and St. Luke should be receiv'd into the Canon and those of St. Clemens Bishop of Rome and St. Barnabas excluded by those who look upon them as Genuine Since the two former were not Apostles but only Companions and Fellow-Labourers with the Apostles and so were the two latter as well as they In Answer to this I shall tell our Author that if he had Read those Books he pretends to quote he might have found a reply to this Objection before he made it For in the beginning of that Dissertation of Mr. Dodwell from whence he cites so long a Passage that Learned Man would have inform'd him Sect. 5. that the compilers of our Canon design'd only to take in the Writings of the Apostles whose Authority was unquestionable and that they took in the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke not barely upon their own account but upon that of St. Peter and St. Paul whose Companions and Fellow-labourers they were and * The Attestation of a Person of whose Prophetick Spirit there was no question was one way of being certify'd concerning the Divine Mission of a Prophet among the Jews According to that Maxim of the Masters A Prophet of whom some other undoubted Prophet Witnesseth that he is a Prophet is assuredly a Prophet See Dr. Spencer of Vulgar Prophecies c. 4. This seems to have been exactly the case of St. Mark and St. Luke Their Writings were Authoriz'd and their Inspiration thereby attested by the Apostles who were undoubtedly inspir'd and therefore we may safely conclude that these two Evangelists were inspir'd likewise who attested their Inspiration and Fidelity in what they Wrote And this may be easily prov'd from the Testimony of the Fathers For thus Tertullian in his Fourth Book against Marcion c. 5. tells us The Gospel which Mark Publish'd is affirm'd to be Peter 's and that which was drawn up by
THE CANON OF THE New Testament VINDICATED In Answer to the Objections of J. T. in his AMYNTOR By John Richardson B. D formerly Fellow of Emmanuel College in Cambridge Nulla est omnino ratio cur de eâ Traditione dubitemus quae nobis Novi Testamenti Canonem transmisit Hen. Dodwelli disertat 1. in Irenaeum Sect. 36. LONDON Printed for RICHARD SARE at Grays-Inn-Gate in Holborn 1700. To the HONOURABLE SUSANNA NOEL Relict of the Honourable Baptist Noel And Mother of the RIGHT HONOURABLE The Earl of Gainsborough Madam AFter I had determin'd to let the following Discourse go abroad into the World I never deliberated about the choice of a Patron nor spent any time in considering to whom it should be Dedicated What I have there Wrote belongs to your Ladyship upon divers Accounts and especially upon these that it was drawn up at first in obedience to your Commands for under that notion I do and ought to receive the least Intimations of your Pleasure was originally design'd only for your Service and has already been admitted in Manuscript to the honour of a place in your Closet for several Months I hope therefore Madam you 'll not be displeas'd if I present you the same again from the Press a little enlarg'd For it 's obvious to apprehend that these Papers being now expos'd to the View of the Publick may easily fall into the hands of many Readers who have not that Candour of Temper that Quickness of Parts and Apprehension which every one admires in your Ladyship and therefore it was advisable that I should make what convenient Provision I could by a few Alterations and Additions against Cavilling and misunderstanding And if notwithstanding all the care I have taken the Work still fall under Censure and strange indeed it must be if it does not with some the severest Criticks I doubt not will however be so just as to acknowledge that the Design which is all your Ladyship is concern'd in is good and fit for a Person of Honour and Integrity to own since it aim's at the vindicating the most Venerable Records of our Religion from the Objections that are urg'd against their being Genuine And whatever faults or defects there may be in the conduct thereof for want of due Learning or Judgment in the undertaker I don't in the least desire your Ladyship should justify or defend but leave them all to be charg'd on the account of Madam Your Ladyships most humble and obliged Servant J. Richardson THE PREFACE WHen I first drew up the Reflections upon Amyntor that are here presented to the Reader which was done above half a year ago I though some Alterations and Additions have been made since they were design'd only for the Closet of the Honourable Lady to whom they are Dedicated For whose ease the Quotations and References too when the matter would bear it were made in English These I have continued in the same Language still partly because I suppose it will make them of more general use and partly because I think that though the Discourse be now Publish'd yet the chief Right to it remains still in the first Proprietor The Reader may perhaps enquire why these Papers come out so late and it may be too why they come out at all since another has already Wrote upon the same Argument To the First I reply that they were not originally intended for the Press and therefore it is no wonder if it prov'd so long before they got thither To the Second all I have to say is That what I have here Written being seen by some Friends for whom I have a great deference they judg'd that it would have its use too as well as the other Piece before-mention'd To whose Judgment I submitted calling to mind that known Passage of a Learned Father (a) St. August of the Trinity l. 1. c. 3. Every thing that is Written does not fall into the hands of all Persons Perhaps some may meet with my Books who may hear nothing of others which have treated better of the same Subject It is useful therefore that the same Questions should be handled by several Persons after a different Method though according to the Principles of the same Faith that so the Explication of Difficulties and the Arguments for the Truth may come to the knowledge of every one either one way or other And here I should have taken my leave of the Reader for the present and dismiss'd him to the Perusal of the following Treatise if he be so dispos'd but that I think my self oblig'd to take notice of two or three Passages in the History of the Works of the Learned for the Month of May which contradict some Particulars that I have asserted in the following Treatise They are in the Account of the Ecclesiastical History of Mr. Basnage but to whom they are to be ascrib'd I cannot affirm Perhaps they may proceed from that Author and perhaps they may be the mistakes of those who transmitted the account of his Work from Holland to our English Publishers I charge them therefore directly upon no body but finding them in the Book above-mention'd shall give my Reasons why I look upon them as Erroneous I begin with p. 283 where we are told in the 2d Paragraph how Mr. B. demonstrates that for three Ages after Christ there was no certain Canon when both Private Persons and also Whole Churches partly admitted Supposititious Books for Sacred and partly despis'd the Genuine as Prophane How far this assertion is design'd to extend and what Mr. B. has done to confirm it is no other ways Evident to me at present then by the Argument which is immediately subjoyn'd to satisfy us of the Strength of the Demonstration This is intended to affect the Whole Bible but I think a much lower Word then Demonstration might have serv'd the turn unless there be stronger Reasons in reserve For it follows †How far the Ancients had any differences about the Canon of the New Testament I have explain'd in its due place my business here is to prove that Hermas was never esteem'd part of it or Canonical And also to examine the Testimony of Theodorus concerning some Books of the Old So Origen believ'd that Hermas his Pastor was a Book Divinely inspir'd On the contrary Theodorus of Mopsuestia calls the Book of Job a Fable borrowed from Paganism the Books of Chronicles and Esdras a vain Rhapsody the Song of Solomon a Love Song c. We have here two Arguments alledg'd one to prove there was no certain Canon of the New Testament and the other to evince as much for the Old And yet it is Evident at first sight that neither of these Instances give us the least information of the Judgment of Whole Churches unless Origen and Theodorus can be prov'd to speak in the Names of more People then themselves which I am confident can never be made out Origen I am sure delivers his own
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
as their Warrant for so doing We have seen likewise that it was own'd by Epiphanius and acknowledg'd as Canonical by a Synod at Carthage It was admitted also for such by (x) L. 3. of Virgins p. 98. St. Ambrose (y) Of Heres c. 30. St. Augustin and many others of that and succeding Ages But whether the diffusive Body of the Church was so far satisfy'd of its being Authentick as to receive it every where for such till it was Establish'd by the Sanction of the Sixth General (z) A. C. 680. Council I shall not take upon me to determine However then the Controversy seems to have been brought to an end if not before For the Fathers of that Assembly having receiv'd not only the Decrees of the Council of Carthage but also which is more express in the case (a) Can. 2. the Epistle of Athanasius above-mention'd did thereby own the Revelation to be properly Canonical and the whole Church of that Age †That the Syrians Read none of the Controverted Pieces in their Churches besides the Epistle to the Hebrews and that of St. James is Evident from the New Testament which Ignatius Patriarch of Antioch sent to be Printed in Europe the last Century and was actually Printed by Widmansiadius at Vienna in the Year 1555. But why they do so may be a question It does not seem to be because they look upon the rest as not Canonical for they have them too in the Syriack Tongue as we may learn from Ep. Walton and F. Simon If I may have leave to interpose my Conjecture I should think it proceeds from hence That this Translation is very Ancient and was Certainly made before the controverted Books were Vniversally receiv'd and their Lectionaries or Rubricks adapted to it And having no other Version made till many years after of the rest of the Catholick Epistles and the Revelation they would not alter the old Lectionaries when they had one as they must have done if they had taken in the other Pieces This may be judg'd a fond thing and so it is but not half so fond and contrary to common Sense as what is practis'd by the Romanists these very Syrians and some others of the Eastern Churches For the Scriptures having been of old Translated into the Languages of Particular Countries that they might be understood by the Common People as well in the Publick Service as in their Private Reading they still continue so Superstitious are they in observing an old Custom to Read them and Celebrate their Liturgies in Latine and the Ancient Tongues of the Places specified though they are now grown quite out of use and the Unlearned understand not one word of them especially the Orientals among whom this Book had been most question'd submitting to their Authority back'd with so good Evidence This as well as the other controverted Pieces had been was afterwards reckon'd as a Genuine part of the New Testament That these Books were not every where admitted upon their first appearing shows that the Church did not proceed rashly and carelesly in the case And that they were every-where admitted afterward shows that there was clear Proof and Evidence on their behalf and therefore they have been ever since joyn'd to the rest of the Books which we esteem Canonical The case of those Spurious Pieces which were thrust into the World under venerable Names was clear contrary They flourish'd a little and made a show when they first came abroad but after a while not being able to stand a strict Examination vanish'd and fell to nothing so that little has been left of most of them besides their Names for many Ages 3. There have been always in the Church besides these other Writings that were call'd Ecclesiastical Such under the New Testament are the Works of the Ancient Fathers which have ever been look'd upon as useful and of good Authority though not infallible as the Canonical Scripture is being generally compos'd not only by Pious and Learned Men but also by those who liv'd in or near the Primitive Ages of Christianity and consequently had better opportunities of being acquainted with the Doctrin and Practice of the first Preachers thereof then we have And among these they have always been esteem'd of the greatest Authority if their Character was answerable upon other accounts who flourish'd and wrote nearest the times of the Apostles Of this sort is that which is call'd the first Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians which though Eusebius tells us was of so great Estimation (b) Eccl. Hist l. 3. c. 16. as to be Read Publickly in several Churches yet he (c) L. 3. c. 25. excludes it from the Canon And so he does the Pastor of (d) Ibid. Hermas which both he and (e) In the places above cited n. 1. of this Section Athanasius and Rufinus acknowledge to have been Read too openly in some places yet they all joyn in raising it no higher then an Ecclesiastical Piece Which I therefore remark here because we shall find our Author hereafter making a great stir with these two Treatises 4. Several * Those Writings which were Publish'd under false Names were certainly Spurious But it is not necessary to suppose that all which the Fathers call'd Apocryphal were of that sort For the Title of Apocryphal is often apply'd to such Ancient Books as were no part of the Canon many of which were certainly no Forgeries See hereafter Sect. XXIII Spurious Writings were also Publish'd very early in the Church under the Names of the Apostles and other great Men of which our Author has given a large Catalogue These were for the most part compos'd by (f) Jren. l. 1. c. 17. Gnostick and other Hereticks to maintain and propagate their False and Wicked Opinions and some too were the Works of Zealous but Simple Catholicks As for instance the Travels of Paul and Thecla the Author of which as (g) Treatise of Bapt. c. 17. Tertullian and (h) Treat of Eccles Writ in Luke St. Jerom inform us wrote it out of Love to St. Paul He was discover'd in the Life time of St. John and by him Censur'd Many of these were found out to be Cheats assoon as they came abroad and others not till after some years However they were generally discover'd sooner or later so that of the Forgeries of the first Ages there is little remaining to our Times except the bare Titles Having premis'd thus much I shall now proceed to consider the Objections of our Author I. Then he affirms p. 52. that several Spurious Books were quoted by the Fathers as of equal Authority with those which we now receive even by those Fathers upon whose Testimony the present Canon is Establish'd From whence it is Evident he would and must infer that those Spurious and our Canonical Books ought to go together and either be equally admitted or be equally rejected since they are founded upon the same Testimony
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
Innocent in this matter prove also that no Body else did or could corrupt them For whoever should first set about such a thing would quickly be confuted and the Imposture be discover'd by consulting other Copies of which there is a great multitude dispers'd over all Countries and in all Languages so that such an attempt would be equally silly and impossible And that there might be no Cavil upon the account of little mistakes to be observ'd in some Copies the Father adds For even in our days some Errors of the Transcribers are usually corrected either by the assistance of more ancient Books or other Languages To this he had spoken more fully before (k) L. 11. c. 2. If there happen any dispute concerning the exactness of Copies as to the various Readings which are but few in number and sufficiently known to the Learned we have recourse to the Books of those Countries from whence we receiv'd our Copies and Religion together and are willing they should determine the Controversy Or if there still appear any difference the greater number of Copies ought to be preferr'd before the less those which are most Ancient to those of a later date and the Original Languages to all others Thus do they proceed who when they meet with any difficulties in the Holy Scriptures search and examine things with a desire to be instructed not merely to cavil and dispute As to the Contradictions and Errors which Faustus pretended are to be found in the New Testament St. Augustine goes through all the Particulars of the Charge as they are urg'd by his Adversary But I suppose it will not be expected that I should do so too that is none of my business The Charge contained in the Passages produc'd from Faustus by our Author is conceiv'd in general terms and it will be sufficient for me if thereto I return the Summe of the Father's General Answer which is this that Since the Scriptures are Books of so great Authority that is clearly prov'd to have been Wrote (l) L. 11. c. 6. l. 32. c. 16. l. 33. c. 7. by the Followers of our Lord and by no means wilfully Falsified or Corrupted we ought to Read them out of a Principle of Piety not Contention we ought to use the greatest Industry and Application in the study of them and rather accuse our own Dulness Negligence or want of Apprehension then blame those Excellent and Divine Writings when at any time we can't understand or reconcile them There remains but one Particular more to be examin'd at present and that is urg'd above in the Words of the Seventh Objection where we are told that the Manicheans not only deny'd the Genuineness of the whole New Testament but also shew'd other Scriptures It is not easy to determine what Books are here more especially design'd by this Expression Perhaps our Author may intend thereby the various Treatises Publish'd (m) Epiphan Here 's 66. Sect. 13. by Manicheus or the four Pieces long before Written by (n) Ib. S. 2. Scythianus who liv'd about the time of our Saviour and was indeed the first Author of most of the Extravagant Opinions afterwards Publickly asserted and maintain'd by the Manichees But because there is place for doubting I think it fair and reasonable to take this Passage in such a Sense as seems to me most serviceable to the design our Author is here carrying on and shall therefore suppose he especially intended some Books that were spread abroad in the Apostles Names distinct from those acknowledg'd by Catholicks which are all comprehended in the New Testament That the Manichees had such Pieces is sufficiently evident from St. Augustine who tells us (o) L. 22. against Faustus c. 79. that they Read Apocryphal Books drawn up by certain Forgers of Tales under the Names of the Apostles And again (p) Ibid. See also l. 13. c. 5. l. 33. c. 6. Treatise against Adimantus c. 17. of Heresies Num. 46. that they receiv'd such Scriptures for sincere and Genuine as were rejected by the Ecclesiastical Canon Such Scriptures therefore these Hereticks certainly had different from those of the Catholick Church and by the assistance of them they endeavour'd to support those Erroneous and false Doctrins which they embrac'd But before I proceed any farther I think my self here oblig'd to take notice that our Author (q) P. 20. in his Catalogue mentions an Epistle of Christ to Peter and Paul and vouches for it the Twenty Eighth Book of St. Augustine against Faustus Chapter the Thirteenth which may perhaps make the unwary Reader believe that such an Epistle is there set down as part of the Scripture receiv'd by and peculiar to the Manichees But I must tell him 1. That there are but five Chapters in all the Twenty Eighth Book and therefore the citing the Thirteenth is a mistake 2. In the Fourth Chapter where the Father speaks of an Epistle of our Saviour there is not one word to intimate that it was Wrote or pretended to be Wrote to the two Apostles above mention'd 3. Neither indeed could there be For it would be Evident to any one who shall seriously consider the Place that St. Augustine is there arguing against the Manichees for pretending they would rather believe the Testimony of Christ concerning himself then any of his Apostles To which the Father replies that Our Saviour Wrote nothing and therefore if we 'll believe any Relations concerning him at all we must believe those which were drawn up by his Disciples that if any Epistle or other Piece should be now produc'd in his Name Men would presently enquire How it came to ly hid all this while who it was that first brought it to light whence it was that it had not been before acknowledg'd Read Celebrated every where in the Church from the days of the Apostles And that therefore it would be a prodigious want of consideration to admit that for an Epistle of Christ which a Manichee should perhaps pretend so to be at this time of day and not assent to those things as done or say'd by him which are related by St. Matthew c. Whence it is apparent that the Manichees had not actually produc'd any Writings in the Name of our Saviour at that time and if they had the same Argument would have overthrown them which St. Augustine urges against those Pieces which were shelter'd under the Titles of the Apostles For certainly as he tells Faustus If there Writings had been Genuine if they had taught nothing but what was agreeable to the Truth (r) l. 22. c. 79. They would have been own'd and acknowledg'd by those Holy and Learned Men who liv'd in the days of their pretended Authors and been by them and succeeding Ages receiv'd among the Books which were accounted Canonical and submitted to as an infallible Rule of Faith and Manners To this effect he presses these Hereticks in one place and in (s) l. 28. c. 2. another
Heretick in Possession of the Field And I dare say that if he had not thought he could easily overthrow those Answers he produces in this place in the Name of his Adversaries we should never have heard one word of them I am resolv'd therefore to have nothing to do with his Answers whether good or bad but shall give in such as I will stand by and accordingly speak to the above-mention'd Propositions in their order The first is that Eusebius rejects the forefaid Books only because he thought they were none of them quoted or mention'd by the Ancients when yet some of them really were To which I answer 1. That Eusebius could not be Ignorant that some of these Pieces are quoted by Clemens of Alexandria who mentions them several times being very much conversant in the works of that Father and having expresly taken notice that (d) Eccl. Hist l. 6. c. 14. one of them was cited by him and therefore when he says that none of these Books are quoted by the Ancients he must be understood to mean not that they are never quoted at all for that he knew they were and says so expresly concerning the Revelation of St. Peter Eccles Hist l. 3. c. 25. but that they were never quoted by any as Canonical and this was a sufficient reason why he should not admit them under that notion Though 2. this is not the only Reason for he observes of several of them that (e) l. 3. c. 25. they contain'd a Doctrine contrary to the Catholick Faith which was planted by the Apostles and therefore ought to be censur'd and rejected as the undoubted Contrivances and Forgeries of Hereticks The Second Proposition is That if Eusebius had known that any of these Pieces had been ever quoted by the Ancients he would have esteem'd them Canonical I answer it is evident from what has been just now say'd that Eusebius did know it and yet would not receive them into the Canon The bare quoting a Book except it be quoted as part of the Rule of Faith or a Genuine Writing Compos'd or Authoriz'd by the Apostles signifies nothing in this case as has been allready prov'd Nay I shall further add that if Eusebius had known that some of the Ancients had really quoted one or more of these Pieces as Canonical that alone would not have induc'd him to receive them as such For this was the very case of the Epistle of St. James the Second of St. Peter and the rest of the once controverted Pieces They were quoted by many and quoted by many too as Canonical yet because the whole Church was not then acquainted with the Reasons which afterward satisfied her to admit these Books as parts of the Code of the New Testament we see that they were lay'd aside and not advanc'd to that honour by Eusebius The Third Proposition is That since these Acts Gospel Preaching Revelation of St. Peter and the others were some of them really quoted by the Ancients they ought according to the Principles of Eusebius to be receiv'd for Canonical I answer No unless quoted as Canonical and prov'd Canonical too by such Testimonies as were sufficient to satisfy the Catholick Church as appears by the Instances of the Epistle of St. James and the rest above-mention'd When Eusebius could not meet with so much as one Primitive Father who cited these Books for Canonical that alone though he had another reason too against divers of them as appears before was sufficient warrant for him to reject them But for the introducing them into the Canon a constant and well attested Tradition by such as were capable of Judging from the first Ages that they had been prov'd Genuine upon Authentick Testimonies was requisite in his Opinion and therefore our Authors Objection vanishes into air and signifies just nothing X. I come now to the last Objection which is founded on a long Passage of Mr. Dodwell who as is insinuated reflects more upon the Certainly and Authority of the Canon of the New Testament then any thing which had been before excepted against in our Author This is usher'd in with great Pomp and Ceremony for we Read p. 69. that Mr. D. alone though a Layman understands as much Ecclesiastical History as the Divines of all Churches put together This is a high flight indeed methinks it had been enough to have made him understand as much as all the English Divines but to bring in the Divines of all other Churches besides is a little too Extravagant and more I am certain then our Author can possibly know I shall not in the least detract from the true Character of that worthy Gentleman who ought to be and I believe generally is valued for his great Learning and Piety and will I am confident give our Author no thanks for his Complement or for bringing him in as a Witness in the case now before us For he is quite of another Opinion and tells us expresly but a few Pages before that Passage which is produc'd by our Author that (f) Sect. 36. p. 62. there is no manner of reason to doubt of that Tradition which has transmitted to us the Canon of the New Testament This I think is a point blank contradiction to the Natural design and tendency of the Treatise we are now considering since that runs all into confusion and plainly aims at the perswading Men that in the Business of the Canon we have nothing but Darkness and Obscurity Mr. Dodwell's Principal Intention in the long Passage quoted from him was to show that we have as good Evidence that the Practical Traditions as for Instance Episcopal Government which obtain'd in the time of Ireneus and were deliver'd as such were really Apostolical Institutions as there is for the Canon of the New Testament because the Books we now receive for Canonical or our Rule of Faith were not so fix'd and determin'd till the beginning of the Second Century as to be appeal'd to by the Christian Church under that notion And they were then settled upon the Testimony of the same Persons and sent (g) See his Addenda to p. 73. and his Chronology abroad too into all places in the year 107 who convey'd these Traditions and who having been conversant with and instructed by the Apostles were without doubt sufficiently qualified to give in Evidence concerning their Writings and to distinguish them from all others which might go abroad falsly under their Names This I take to be the main design of the Passage now before us with what proceeds and follows in the Original from Section 35 to Section 41 inclusively but because there are some Particulars therein which may deserve a little further clearing or illustration I shall employ a few Pages thereupon and if in any thing I differ from that Learned Gentleman I know he 'l allow me the same Liberty of Thought and Judgment concerning matters of Fact which himself took before me While the Apostles
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
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