and has hundreds of Expressions more barbarous and improper then this and a complete Body of the Scripture preserv'd without either Forgery or Falsification without either Addition or Substraction c. Which Words are an express assertion that the Doctrine and Discipline and Scriptures which they then had were the same which the Apostles deliver'd and were then receiv'd in all Churches of the World with which Ireneus and the Gauls had any Communication Tertullian (u) l. 4. against Marcion c. 5. appeals to all the Apostolick Churches to the Galatians to the Thessalonians to the Romans to the Colossians to the Ephesians c. and in a word to all the Churches which joyn'd in Communion with them to prove the Copy of St. Luke which the Catholicks had and not that of Marcion to be Genuine and Sincere He adds too that the same Authority will justify the other three Gospels likewise since they were receiv'd (x) Per illas secundum illas from and according to the Copies of those Churches (y) Of Prescript c. 33 34. He produces in another place Testimonies from several Epistles of St. Paul from St. Peter and St. John and then for further confirmation of the Truth of what he urges (z) c. 36. exhorts those who had a mind to exercise their Curiosity in the business of their Salvation to run over the Churches planted by these and the other Apostles where they might find * Rigaltius and after him F. Simon will have no more meant here by Authentick Letters or Writings then that what the Apostles Wrote was still preserv'd in the Original Language in those Places But I would fain know what great matter there was in that The Epistles were first Wrote in Greek and were without question still Extant in Greek not only in the Apostolick but in all those Churches to which that Language remain'd still familiar if not in others too Tertullian certainly design'd something Singular and Peculiar to the Churches planted by the Apostles when he say'd their Authentick Letters or Writings were kept there and consequently must intend the very Originals of them And why these two Learned Men should judge otherwise since this is the most natural though not the only Sense of the Word I cannot guess For 't is certain Manuscripts have been preserv'd many hundred years longer then the time was which pass'd between the Apostles and the days of Tertullian their Authentick Writings or Letters still remaining (a) Authenticae literae expressing the Doctrine and representing the Piety of each of them A little after he brings in the Catholick Church thus arguing with the Hereticks concerning the Scripture (b) c. 37. p. 215. Who are you When and whence came you hither What do you in my ground since you belong not to me By what Right O Marcion do you cut down my Woods What Authority have you Valentinus to turn the Course of my Fountains Who gave you Power Apelles to overthrow my Fences What do you Sowing and Feeding here at your Pleasures The Possession is mine I have enjoy'd it for a long time I first enjoy'd it I derive a certain Original from the Authors themselves whose it was I am the Heir of the Apostles c. Thus Writ Ireneus and Tertullian concerning the Scriptures of the New Testament and what they thus Writ certainly concerns all those Pooks which they held for Genuine and Pure in opposition to the Hereticks of their Times These they tell us were deriv'd from the Apostles by the hands of those Churches which they founded all over the World them they produce for their Vouchers in the present case and appeal likewise to the Doctrine embrac'd in every one of them which was very consonant to the Books of the Catholicks but not to those of the Hereticks Thus much we may easily learn from Ireneus He tells us (c) l. 1. c. 17. That the several sorts of Hereticks with which he had to do had forg'd a great number of Apocryphal and Spurious Pieces These without question contain'd the Principles of their Doctrine and were sent abroad into the World as the chief Grounds and Foundations of what they taught But all was Cheat and Cousenage and the Fictions of their own Brains What they vented was Heretical and Erroneous as this father proves at large from hence (d) l. 3. c. 3 4. that it was contrary to the Faith which the Apostles had planted in all places and which had been larnt and might be learnt every day from the Churches founded by them And again in another Place l. 3. c. 11. p. 259. he rejects some Gospels of the Valentinians because they contain'd Blasphemies and Doctrines contrary to those which had been Publish'd by the Apostles So likewise Tertullian speaks of some of the same Hereticks (e) Of Prescript c. 32. p. 213. Let their Doctrine be compar'd with the Apostles and we shall quickly see by the contrariety thereof that it proceeds neither from any of them nor their Disciples The Apostles did not contradict one another neither did their Disciples contradict them The Churches which they founded agree in the same Doctrines and so do those too which being of a later Original deriv'd their Instruction from them which were planted before them and therefore may be call'd Apostolical as well as they because owning and embracing the same Faith Let the Hereticks show that they deserve that Title upon either of these accounts that these Churches acknowledge the same Doctrine which they do and receive them to Peace and Communion as Brethren But this they cannot do (f) c. 38. p. 216. They are Forreigners they are Enemies to the Apostles because they teach a different Faith And since their Faith is so different we may be sure they have adulterated the Scriptures For they who were resolv'd to teach perversly were under a necessity of corrupting those Books upon which their Doctrine was to be grounded Whereas we who preserve the Doctrine entire have preserv'd the Books so too without changing or adding or taking away We teach nothing but what was to be found in the Scriptures from the beginning before they were corrupted and interpolated Before Marcion had lay'd violent hands upon them employing a Knife and not a Style and cutting away whatever he thought convenient and was contrary to his Errors and Heresies (g) c. 19. †Vbi apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinae fidei Christianae illic erit veritas Scripturarum For where the Truth of the Christian Faith and Doctrine appears there the Genuine and true Copies of the Scripture are certainly to be found Having thus given a large account of the Testimony which these two very Ancient Writers of the Christian Church give to the Books of the New Testament I shall now pass on to remark before I conclude what Opinion an Eminent Heathen even Julian the Apostate that bitter and inveterate Enemy of
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
Luke is ascrib'd to Paul And we learn from (c) Ecel Hist l. 2. c. 15. Eusebius that both Papias and Clemens of Alexandria attested that the Romans having prevail'd with St. Mark to Write his Gospel what he had done was reveal'd to St. Peter by the Holy Ghost who thereupon Authoriz'd the Work and appointed it to be Read Publickly in the Church And the same (d) L. 6. c. 25. Historian informs us from Origen that St. Paul approv'd and recommended the Gospel of St. Luke †St. Jerom in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers in Luke tells us that many suppos'd that when St. Paul spoke of his own Gospel Bom. 2.16 2 Tim. 2.8 he meant that of St. Luke And he informs us also before in Simon Peter that the Gospel according to St. Mark was say'd to be St. Peters That is I suppose Wrote by his Instruction and with his Approbation being drawn up principally for the use of the Gentiles To which may be added what he tells us in (e) L. 3. c. 24. another Place that the three other Gospels being brought to St. John he Read them over and Perus'd them carefully and when he had so done justified what they had wrote and confirm'd the Truth thereof with his own Testimony Though for Reasons there set down he thought fit to make another Relation of his own and add thereto such Parriculars as had been omitted by the others The Acts of the Apostles as Mr. Dodwell observes Sect. 39. were probably wrote by St. Luke at the same time with the Gospel or History of our Saviour and therefore fall under the same Consideration They were the Second Volum Part or Treatise of the same Book as appears from Acts 1.1 and therefore though St. Luke's Name was not put to them yet it was never doubted in the Church who was the Author His Name was prefix'd to learnt from and preserv'd in the first part the Gospel from which the Acts seem afterwards to have been separated though at first they went together for the convenience of the Readers that so the Gospels all making up one Book by themselves as was usual formerly under the Name of the Book of the Gospels might be the more easily compar'd together Now this makes a great difference between the Writings of these two Evangelists and those of St. Clemens and St. Barnabas though suppos'd Genuine These latter were never recommended or attested by any of the Apostles and therefore could never expect that Reception and Authority in the VVorld which the others found nor to have the same place in the Canon IV. We Read p. 56. in so many words that there is not one single Book of the New Testament which was not refus'd by some of the Ancients as unjustly Father'd upon the Apostles and really forg'd by their Adversaries To which I answer That either our Author Equivocates in this Place or asserts that which he can never prove to be true For as I show'd above p. 10 c. the four Gospels the Acts thirteen Epistles of St. Paul the first of St. Peter and the first of St. John were all along admitted by the Catholick Church and never that appears after a sufficient Promulgation oppos'd by any who held her Communion The Hereticks indeed rejected some one some other parts of the New Testament but to understand them only by the Word Ancients exclusively of the Catholicks was certainly design'd to impose upon the unwary Reader and can never be excus'd from foul dealing since that Expression is commonly taken in another Sense But perhaps it may be here ask'd why the Testimony of Hereticks in a matter of Fact should not be as good as that of Catholicks and why they may not be admitted as Witnesses of what Books were or ought to be esteem'd Canonical as well as others To this I answer 1. That the Catholicks gave clear and evident proof of the Truth of what they asserted when the Hereticks could give none that was of any value For as we learn from (f) L. 4. c. 63. Jreneus (g) I. 4. against Marcion c. 4. Of Presciption c. 36. See these places insisted on hereafter Sect. XXXIV Tertullian and others All the Churches which had been planted by the Apostles and those who held Communion with them were on their side These all agreed in the Books these all agreed in the same Gospels and Epistles which they affirm'd they had receiv'd in a certain succession from the first Age. The Tradition was every where the same as to the Books mention'd p. 10. and might well be esteem'd undoubted since they were no further remov'd from the Disciples of our Saviour in the days of Jreneus then we are now from our Grandfathers The Bishops and Churches of his time convey'd the Canon by Written as well as Oral Testimony to the next Ages and so enabled them to run down the Forgeries of Hereticks as they had done before them who could not give that Proof and Evidence for their Suppositions which the Catholicks did for their True and Genuine Writings They could not deduce them from the Apostles since (h) Jreneus l. 3. c. 4. l. 5. c. 20. Tertul. of Prescript c. 29 30. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. p. 764. the Founders of the several Sects the Authors of these Heresies Forgeries and Corruptions as Valentinus Basilides Apelles Marcion c. were much latter then they And when application was made to the most Ancient Churches in the World which the immediate Disciples of our Lord had taught in their own Persons or to those which joyn'd in Communion with them they all gave in their Testimonies both against the Books and Doctrin And this brings me to a Second Argument 2. (i) Jren. l. 1. c. 17. Coll. cum l. 3. c. 2 c. Tertull. of Prescript c. 32 38. See also Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 3. c. 25. at the end See these places out of Jreneus and Tertullian insisted on more fully hereafter Sect. XXXIV The Books which the Hereticks forg'd contradicted that Doctrin which the Apostles had taught in the Churches they planted This was sufficiently known in those Ages which were at so little a distance from our Saviour by the general Tradition of all the Churches in the World And therefore those * Eusebius l. 3. c. 25. tells us that several Books Publish'd under the Venerable Names of St. Peter St. Thomas St. Matthias c. were and ought to be rejected as Spurious for this Reason among others that they contain'd Doctrins contrary to those which had been Taught and Publish'd by the Apostles whence it was Evident that they were the Forgeries and Contrivances of Wicked Men. Books were justly concluded Authentick that besides good Testimony agreed with and those Supposititious which were repugnant to the Doctrin of the Apostles 3. These Arguments have been judg'd so convincing that the whole Christian World has given a Verdict on their side For the Doctrin of
the least notice of the answer which is to be found in the same place from whence he drew his Objection For this Objection is quoted by our Author from the Second Book of Origen against Celsus p. 77. and there he might have found this answer too that they were the Hereticks the Marcionites the Valentinians and the Lucianists some of whom also (t) L. 1. c. 29. Jreneus and (u) Against Marcion l. 4. c. 5. Tertullian positively accuse of the same tricks who were guilty of these Prevarications For which the Catholicks were no more answerable then the Church of England was for the Murther of Charles the First VII To Celsus in the same Page our Author joyns the Manicheans fitly enough I confess who shew'd other Scriptures and deny'd the Genuineness of the whole New Testament Whether will not Men go or what will they not do to serve a design He knows or at least might know that the Manicheans were as Extravagant and Whimsical a sort of Hereticks as any that troubled the Christian Church They held as (x) Heres 66. Epiphanius informs us That there were two Supreme Gods the one a good the other a bad one that they were always at War with one another that Manes was the Holy Ghost that the Souls of Men after their decease should pass into the Bodies of such Beasts as they had Eaten when they were alive or be united to those Trees which they had planted that the Sun and Moon were Ships which convey'd the faithful of their Sect to Heaven and that the Light of the Moon depended on the number of the Souls in it which when she was full she emptied into the Sun by degrees and so grew dark again These things they believ'd or at least maintain'd with Twenty more of as absurd a Nature And now I pray what does the Opinion which such as these had of the Canon signify They could find nothing in the Books of the Catholicks wherewith to justify their Notions and therefore (w) S. Aug. Treatise of Heresys n. 46. rejected their Authority and made use of others for their peculiar Doctrins But our Author might as well have set up the Alchoran in opposition to the New Testament and for so doing have alledg'd the Judgment and Testimony of the Turks For laying aside the Name they seem to be every jot as good Christians as the Manicheans Here our Author brings in two Passages from Faustus the Manichee to show that He and those of his Sect rejected the whole New Testament That they did so in effect is evident and undoubted for they made it of no Authority by refusing to be concluded by Arguments drawn from thence pretending that it contain'd many Errors which had been foisted into the several Books thereof by the Tricks and Cheats of succeeding Ages long after the Deaths of the Apostles They maintain'd it was full of Corruptions and Falsifications And therefore Faustus boasts (y) St. August against Fausius l. 18. c. 3. that the Manichean Faith alone secur'd the Professors thereof from all danger of Heresy by instructing them not to believe every thing which was written in the Name of our Saviour but to try whether what they Read to have been taught by him was really true sound and uncorrupted For as he goes on there are many Tares mingled with the Wheat which an Enemy during the times of Night and Darkness has Sown and Scattered in almost all the Scriptures for the infecting and poisoning the good seed And again (z) L. 32. c. 1. he asks the Catholicks What reason they had to think it strange if he selecting those Passages out of the New Testament that were most pure and conduc'd to his Salvation should fling away all the rest which had been fraudulently convey'd into it by their Predecessors and sullied the Native Beauty and Majesty of the Truth This was their constant Practice when they were press'd with any Texts which they could not reconcile to their fond Opinions they without more ado slighted their Authority affirming the Testimonies produc'd against them were forg'd and no part of the Doctrin deliver'd by our Blessed Lord and his Apostles And therefore St. Augustine (a) L. 13. c. 5. l. 22. c. 15. l. 32. c. 19. accuses them as receiving the Scriptures only for fashion's sake while by asserting them to be falsified and corrupted they perfectly detracted from their Authority that is if I understood him aright they pretended upon occasion to have a deference for the New Testament whereas really they had none For they charg'd it with Corruption and acknowledg'd nothing as an Article of Faith purely because contain'd in the Books and upon the warrant thereof but because they judg'd it true upon other accounts and for this Reason were willing to own that it (b) L. 33. c. 3. might possibly have been deliver'd by Christ or his Disciples And therefore I readily joyn with our Author and acknowledgd that the Manichees really rejected the whole New Testament not only because there are several passages of Faustus which plainly intimate as much but also because St. Augustine himself seems clearly to have understood them in that Sense For thus we learn from him (c) L. 32. c. 16. that these Hereticks affirm'd their Paraclet Manicheus had taught them that the Scriptures even (d) See the beginning of that Chapter the Scriptures of the New Testament receiv'd for Canonical by the Catholicks were not the Works of the Apostles but wrote by others in their Names And we Read again how the same worthy Teacher had inform'd them (e) L. 32. c. 18. towards the end that the Evangelical Writings part of which they refus'd to admit were not the Apostles And accordingly we shall observe by and by that this Father was so sensible how far these miserable Hereticks had been seduc'd in this matter that he thought himself concern'd directly to answer this Objection and prove against his Adversary Faustus that whatever he and his Party pretended the Gospels and Epistles admitted by the Catholick Church were Genuine and Authentick That therefore we may allow our Author and his Objection against the Canon of the New Testament drawn from the Manicheans all the fair play that can be desir'd I shall state the full Sense thereof in the two following Propositions 1. The Books of the New Testament were not wrote by the Apostles or Apostolical Men (f) See S. Aug. against Faustus l. 33. c. 3. but drawn up several years after them out of reports Traditions and Historical Memoirs 2. Whoever they were that drew them up they falsified and corrupted the pure Doctrins of Christianity by inserting several Errors and contradictions among the Truth And therefore the Manichees admitted the Books just so far and in such particulars as they judg'd them true and rejected the rest as of no value This is the utmost force which can be put into the Objection and we 'll now
their Country-men After the departure of the Roman Army the greatest part return'd to Jerusalem as we are inform'd by (d) l. 3. c. 11. Eusebius and there continued under the Government of the Bishops of that Church the Succession of whom we have set down by (e) Her 66. n. 20. Epiphanius from St. James the Apostle to his own time Those Christians which stay'd behind at Pella were ever after (f) Her 29. n. 7. as the same Author informs us call'd Nazarens and differ'd from the Catholicks in this that they thought themselves still oblig'd to Circumcision and all the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law Out (g) Epiph. Her 30. n. 1 2. of them sprang the Ebionites who as we learn from (h) l. 3. c. 27. Eusebius were of two sorts One of them affirm'd that our Saviour was really the Son of Joseph born of him and Mary as other Men us'd to be of their Parents The other asserted his Miraculous Incarnation from a Virgin and yet maintain'd that he was a meer Man absolutely denying his Divinity We see then how our Author equivocated when he told * Of the Nazarens mention'd in the Acts St. Paul was say'd to be a Ring-leader But these Nazarens of which we are here speaking detested him as an Apostate us the Nazarens were the oldest Christians Those indeed whom Tertullus in the Acts call'd by that Name were so but not those among whom the Ebionites sprung up and who joyn'd with one or other part of this Sect and therefore as Eusebius in the place now quoted tells us were all call'd promiscuously by that Name though the more Moderate sort were †Both sorts of Ebionites as Eusebius tells us l. 3. c. 27. adhered to the Institutions of the Law of Moses and so says Epiphanius Heres 29. n. 7. did the Nazarens among whom the same Author acknowledges Heres 30. n. 1 2. the Ebionites sprang up and took from them some of their Opinions 'T is plain therefore that the Nazarens who agreed with them in many of their Doctrins were one sort of the Ebionites since else we cannot make two Epiphanius indeed seems to say Heres 29. n. 7. that the Nazarens receiv'd all the New as well as the Old Testament But he owns there that he had not a perfect account of their Tenents and 't is Evident he was mistaken in this particular For since he affirms in the same place that they strictly adher'd to the Mosaical Law they must reject the Epistles of St. Paul which declar'd against the Obligation thereof And that there were two sorts of Ebionites which agreed in this matter Origen l. 5. against Celsus p. 274. affirms as well as Eusebius and also tells us before l. 2. p. 56. that the Jews call'd all those who cleaving still to their Rites and Ceremonies own'd Jesus for their Messiah Ebionites And therefore since the Nazarens did so they were undoubtedly somerimes call'd by that Name as well as other times by that of Nazarens (i) Compare Euseb l. 3. c. 27. with Epiphan Heres 29. n. 7. also often call'd only Nazarens These still adhering to the Jewish Law as we above observ'd rejected all the Epistles of St. Paul calling him an Apostate and Deserter and receiv'd only the Gospel according to the Hebrews slighting all the rest as Eusebius there further relates The Gospel according to the Hebrews was as we may learn from (k) Heres 29. n. 9. Epiphanius and (l) Against the Pelagians l. 3. in the beginning St. Jerome the Gospel of St. Matthew in Hebrew but yet with several interpolations and additions of their own * Epiphanius in the Place just before cited tells us that they had the Gospel according to St. Matthew complete and entire therefore it was neither mutilated nor corrupted And St. Jerome in divers places mentions several Historical Passages that are not in our Gospel thence it appears they made additions though without making any alterations in what they found in the Authentick Copies before The other Party more properly call'd Ebionites corrupted the Gospel of St. Matthew in several Particulars took away the Genealogy of our Saviour and alter'd it in other Passages as (m) Heres 30. n. 13. Epiphanius teaches us Besides they only admitted the Books of Moses and Joshua of the Old Testament rejecting all the Prophets deriding and cursing David and Solomon Elijah Elisha Esay Jeremy and the rest wherein they were perfectly distinguish'd from the Nazarens who own'd and esteem'd them all However both Parties as we have seen agreed in this that they rejected all St. Paul's Epistles despis'd all the other Gospels and receiv'd only that of St. Matthew which they had more or less alter'd with their interpolations And now are not these excellent Witnesses for our Author against the establish'd Canon Do not they effectually prove that the Epistles we have under St. Paul's Name are falsly ascrib'd to him who as we above observ'd inveigh'd against St. Paul himself as a Deserter of the Law as a Cheat and Impostor and in contempt as Epiphanius farther remarks us'd to call him the Man of Tarsus and would needs have him though born a Jew to be a Gentile Proselyte They rejected not the Epistles but because they rejected the Apostle himself and his Doctrine When our Author tells the World he does so too I may think my self oblig'd to defend our Religion against him and these Judaizers whom we are now considering At present my business is only to assert that our Canon is Genuine and the Books which we receive the true Writings of those to whom they are ascrib'd This the Ebionites deny'd not but endeavour'd to run down the Writers themselves and since they had so little Christianity as to attempt that I think I may safely say there can be no difficulty in determining whether the Copies of St. Matthew which they kept or that which was preserv'd by the whole Catholick Church besides ought to be look'd upon as Authentick We must distinguish here between the Copy of the Nazarens and of the Ebionites strictly so call'd The latter had corrupted and alter'd and interpolated the Gospel according to St. Matthew and therefore their Copy was justly stil'd Spurious But the Gospel according to the Hebrews which the Nazarens embrac'd contain'd no alterations as was above observ'd of what St. Matthew Wrote but only the addition of some Historical Passages that had been gather'd from Oral Information or Tradition and were added in their proper Places to preserve them and make the story more full and compleat Several of these might probably be true and therefore when not pretended to be Wrote by St. Matthew ought not to be call'd Spurious or a Forgery Canonical indeed they were not because not the Work of the Apostle as appears from all the Copies of the Catholicks but they might deserve the Name of Ecclesiastical History and under that notion be quoted
travell'd up and down Preaching in several Places and Countries they Wrote those Pieces which we now have under their Names but for the most part as Criticks observe after the middle of the First Century This is a sufficient Reason why in those times of War and Persecution some of them might not come to the hands of many who liv'd in remote and distant Places till that Age was almost or perhaps quite expir'd Though that several were carefully transmitted by the depositaries of them to other Churches and Persons with whom they had the most convenient Correspondence is a thing easy to be prov'd because we find them borrowed by the earliest Writers * There may be other Passages in the Epistle of St. Clemens taken out of the New Testament which have escap'd my Observation And there are some besides these of which I did take notice but omitted them because they are in the Old Testament too and therefore for ought I could tell might be borrowed from thence That this Father had Read the Epistle to the Romans there can be no doubt and therefore I did not remark that he Salutes the Corinthians almost in the very same words that St. Paul us'd to the Romans For thus there are two Passages of (h) p. 18 60. St. Luke and one (i) p. 64. of St. Peter's first Epistle and another (k) p. 4. of the Second to Timothy and divers of the Epistle (l) p. 12 13 15 23 47.48 to the Hebrews made use of by Clemens Bishop of Rome and the first Epistle (m) p. 61. Ox. Edit 4 to 1633. of St. Paul to the Corinthians is very much recommended by the same Father to the Christians of that City Barnabas gives us the direct words of two Texts in St. (n) p. 217. Matthew and (o) p. 218. Lond. Ed. 4 to 1680. St. Luke There are four or five Passages in Hermas which seem to have great affinity with so many Texts in the Old and New Testament But I own they may be disputed especially by those who look upon the Visions and Conversations mention'd in that Book to have been real and I will not insist upon them but only observe that there is as much Evidence that this Author borrowed from the New Testament as there is that he borrowed from the Old Ignatius mentions (p) Epis to the Ephes p. 24. St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians and seems plainly to have taken Expressions (q) Epis to Polycarp p. 13. from it (r) Ib. p. 11. from St. Matthew and from the first (s) Epist to the Ephes p. 27. Lond. Edit 4 to 1680. Epistle to the Corinthians (t) In many places Polycarp is Copious in his quotations In him we meet with Words taken out of St. Matthew St. Luke the Acts the Romans the first Epistle to the Corinthians the Galatians the Ephesians the first Epistle of St. Peter and of St. John and he twice mentions St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians All the Inference I intend to make from hence is only this that these Books from whence the Authors just now mention'd fetch'd all the Passages we refer to were then undoubtedly dispers'd abroad in some parts of the Christian World since they had been Read by these Fathers and were made use of by them in their Writings And I think I need not attempt to prove that they were look'd upon as Canonical at the same time For it is morally impossible to suppose that Pieces Wrote or Authoriz'd by the Apostles should not be esteem'd Canonical or Rules of Faith by all Christians to whom they were communicated since the Knowledge which they had of the Doctrin of Faith was entirely deriv'd from them and their Instructions It 's true the Writers we are now considering very rarely give us †This is urg'd as an Objection that none of the Evangelists is call'd by his own Name in the Writings of Clemens c. I grant it but what would be infer'd from thence besides what is here consider'd I cannot imagine Whatever is intended will equally affect the Old Testament For St. Clemens among all the quotations he fetches thence does not that I perceive and I was careful in making the observation so much as once directly cite by Name any of the Writers thereof except Moses and David once or twice from which he Produces his Testimonies And yet there 's no question but he judg'd the Old Testament Canonical As Justin M. certainly did the New and yet though he makes use of many Places out of several Books thereof and speaks of the Gospels and Monuments of the Apostles in general I am very much mistaken if he quotes any of them by Name besides the Revelation which he expresly ascribes to St. John the Apostle the Name of the Book or Author from whence they fetch any Passage and therefore Mr. D's remark is very just that the succeeding Ages of the Church could not in such cases learn from them what Pieces were to be parts of the Christian Canon They produce Texts indeed from Authors that were Canonical but they don't always tell us so when they produce them and therefore their Testimony alone is not sufficient to inform us what are the Genuine Writings of the Apostles and what are not This we can learn from none but those who either recommend a particular Book by Name or at least tell us whence they draw their Passages And this is so seldom done by the Authors now mention'd that all the Evidence we can derive from them will not extend to above (u) The first Epistle to the Corinth the Epistles to the Ephes and to the Philippians three or four Pieces The assurance we have that the other Books of the New Testament are Canonical must be taken from the Writers of the Second Century at least as far as we know now I mean such Writers as follow'd Ignatius and Polycarp here mention'd by Mr. D. and the Testimony of them is unexceptionable since conversing with the Disciples of the Apostles they could easily be inform'd by them what Books were really Genuine and Apostolical But we are told that the Writers of those times do not chequer their Works with Texts of the New Testament which yet is the custom of the more Modern and was also theirs in such Books as they acknowledg'd for Scripture For they most frequently cite the Books of the Old Testament and would doubtless have done so by those of the New if they had been receiv'd for Canonical That the Books of the New Testament could not fail of being judg'd Canonical by those who knew their Authors has been observ'd already more then once and therefore I proceed to remark that if these words refer to the latter Writers of the Canon they are express'd very obscurely and will fall under consideration immediately If they be design'd to comprehend Clemens Barnabas Hermas Ignatius and Polycarp and I think they can't
that I think it is no great presumption to undertake the difficulties which are here propos'd by our Author nor any mighty task to Answer them The first difficulty is How (o) p. 79. the immediate Successors and Disciples of the Apostles could so grosly confound the Genuine Writings of their Masters with such as were falsly attributed to them To this I reply that it does not appear to me that they ever did grosly or not grosly mistake any Spurious Pieces for the Genuine Writings of the Apostles They have indeed a few Passages of which more in the proper Place that do not occur in our Bibles but that they were taken from Books Publish'd under the Names of the Apostles and which they judg'd to have been really the Apostles Works will puzzle our Author with all his Learning about him to make out But if the thing had happen'd and some subtile Sophister had so far impos'd upon Clemens Ignatius and the rest by counterfeiting their Instructors Hands and Styles as to put a false Epistle or Gospel upon them for a while of which I am not sensible this would not have been so wonderful a thing as we are made to believe since even Scriveners and Merchants those cunning Masters of defence have yet been trick'd after this manner However I shall readily yield that whether the Apostolick Persons just now mention'd were so impos'd on or no and I believe they were not yet many of that Age might and probably were deceiv'd for some time with Supposititious Writings usher'd into the World under the Title of great Names And this concession will make room for our Author's second difficulty (p) p. 79. Since they were in the dark how came others after them to a better light Before I give an answer to this question I cannot but remark that it comes very oddly from our Author who pretends to make such discoveries and undertakes to prove those Pieces full of Ignorance and Supersitition which had been generally well esteem'd till his days Do you think Sir there was never an I. T. among the Ancients None that could smell out an Imposture or by making a few remarks and asking a few questions find that a Book was ascrib'd to a wrong Author You may think thus if you please and value your self as much as you can upon the account of your great Atchievements but I believe others are of Opinion that if the Fathers had gone your untoward way to work and dealt no fairer when they were in quest of Forgeries then you have done with the Evidences in relation to the Eikon Basilike many of those cheats might have remain'd longer in credit which yet they quickly flung out of doors only by the assistance of a little Reason Honesty and common Sense We had an instance of this nature among us at the beginning of the late Revolution Three Declarations were then Publish'd in the Name of the Prince of Orange and esteem'd his for some time by the whole Nation But upon a strict examination of the matter the Third was found Supposititious disown'd by the pretended Author (q) History of the Desertion p. 89. and acknowledg'd by all to be a Forgery And thus it was in the Primitive times Some indeed of the Pieces which appear'd in the Apostles Names seem to have been so contrary to their Doctrine that they quickly sunk and were rejected on all hands But others being of a more skilful composition preserv'd their Reputation for a longer time and were esteem'd by such as knew no better for the Monuments of them whose Names they carried in their front However these by comparing them with their Genuine Writings or enquiring of the Apostles or those who convers'd with and were instructed by them had their Glorious Vizours pluck'd off and were expos'd as Impostures But this could not be done so soon as the Third Declaration was unmask'd here It was a single Piece ascrib'd to a single Person and scatter'd abroad no further then the compass of a narrow Island and therefore Application might in a few days be made to the Prince as it was and the cheat by that means speedily lay'd open Whereas in the case concerning which we are now discoursing the Forgeries were many they were attributed to several Persons and spread abroad over different Places of the Christian Church so that it must necessarily require a considerable time before they could be sufficiently examin'd before the pretended Authors or those acquainted with them could be consulted But at last Truth prevail'd and all the Impostures of the first and also of the second Age when they afterwards appear'd were as we learn from Ecclesiastical Story found out to be what they really were and as such slighted and generally undervalued Though still after the cheat was expos'd Learned Men us'd them upon occasion and quoted such single Passages out of them as they thought might be of value and Pertinent to the designs upon which they were Writing I proceed now to our Authors third difficulty (r) p. 79. Why all those Books which are cited by Clemens and the rest should not be accounted equally Authentick Whoever Reads this Passage and does not understand the case will I believe be apt to imagine that the Fathers here refer'd to quote many Books that have Relation to the state of things under the Gospel some of which we do upon their Authority admit for Canonical while we reject others that are equally cited by them as Spurious How far we make use of these Fathers for settling the Canon has been above explain'd It 's manifest from what is there say'd (s) Sect. XXI that we employ them only in conjunction with others to assert the Title of three or four Pieces So many they expresly Name and ascribe to their proper Authors and thereby teach us that they were compos'd by the Apostles and consequently ought to be reckon'd as Wrote by Inspiration and of Divine Authority We infer nothing from them to justify the rest but support them by other Evidence Well but ought not the Testimony of these Fathers be allow'd in behalf of other Pieces which they quote and transfer them from the Rank of Spurious wherein they are now plac'd by some to that of Canonical Writings Why truly much might be done if we knew what the Books were and that they design'd to quote them as the Genuine Writings of the Apostles But this is our unhappiness of which our Author seems not to have been sensible though he has undertaken upon occasion to blast the credit of all these Pieces together that though Clemens has quoted three Ignatius as many and Barnabas seven or eight short Passages that do not occur in our Books of Scripture yet they neither give us the Name of the Treatise nor yet of the Author whence they produce them and how without that the Books or the Authors should be put into the Canon I can't imagine However I love to deal
most of the Primitive Hereticks has appear'd so Monstrous and Extravagant the Books which they forg'd to assert it so ill attested that the one has now been rejected every where for many hundreds of years and the other condemn'd and in a manner quite vanish'd Whereas the Doctrin of the Catholicks maintain'd it self under the sharpest Persecutions and their Books were preserv'd †See the Passion of Felix Bishop of Tubyza in Africa who was put to Death in the year 303 because he would not deliver the Scriptures to be burnt according to the express Decree of Dioclesian and Maximian the Emperours to that purpose Many others also suffer'd on that account and they who for fear of Death did deliver the Scriptures to the Heathen were called Traditores whence our English word Traitors and fell under the Churches Censure as is notoriously evident from the famous case of Cecilian and the Donatists when it was Death to keep them and so both have been convey'd together to the present time notwithstanding all opposition V. Our Author tells us again p. 56. That the Epistle to the Hebrews that of St. James the Second of St. Peter the Second and Third of St. John the Epistle of St. Jude and the Revelation were a long time plainly doubted by the Ancients And as if that had not been enough he adds p. 64. that they were rejected a long time by all Christians almost with Vniversal consent But to this I have spoken already p. 14 c. and therefore think it necessary to add no more by way of Answer in this place then what a Learned Man has say'd concerning the Epistle of St. James which may with equal Reason be apply'd to all the rest of these once controverted Pieces Though the Ancients have been divided as to this point it is enough that the succeeding Ages after a due Reflection on this matter have found in Antiquity certain Acts sufficient to place them in the rank of the Canonical Books of the New Testament and that all Churches in the World have since that receiv'd them as such However before I dismiss this Objection it will not be improper to take a little notice of our Authors Ingenuity and consider with what truth he could affirm that these Books were rejected for a long time by all Christians almost with an universal consent The contrary to which will appear Evident if we produce those who own'd them during the time he says they were so rejected as the Genuine Writings of the Authors under whose Names they are now Publish'd and Read in the Church of England The Epistle to the Hebrews own'd as St. Paul's by Clemens of Alexandria in his Stromata l. 4. p. 514. by Origen in his Comment on St. John G.L. To. 2. p. 56. He affirmed as we find in the Ecclesiastical History of * It would have been an easy matter to have produc'd several Passages of most of the Fathers here alleg'd to prove that they held the respective Books for which they are quoted Canonical or Genuine Writings of those Apostles to whom they are ascrib'd But I wav'd that as needless and thought one Testimony sufficient to show the Judgment of one Writer Otherwise I could have brought more then Twenty Places of Origen for Example's sake to show that he held the Epistle to the Hebrews to have been Wrote by St. Paul four or five from Clemens of Alexandria c. I could also have produc'd other Authors in whom Passages out of these Pieces are made use of without naming the Books from which they are borrow'd but that did not answer my design Eusebius l. 6. c. 25. that many of the Ancients believ'd it to be St. Paul's Ensebius l. 3. c. 3. says it was rejected only by some and seems to have admitted it into the Canon with the rest for his own part l. 3. c. 25 and 38. St. Jerome in his Epistle to Dardanus f. 24. says that it was receiv'd by most of the Ancients and quoted by them as Canonical Scripture I don't produce the Testimony of St. Jerome upon his own account in this place either for this Epistle or for the Revelation but only as he informs us what was the belief of most of the Ancients in the case before us (k) See before p. 18. The Ancient Syriack Version has this Epistle and (l) F. Simons Critical History of the N. Test Part. 2. c. 15. p. 140. ascribes it to St. Paul The †Some will have St. James the Author of this Epistle to be a distinct Person from the two Apostles of that Name They say that there was a Third the Brother of our Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem and that he Wrote this Epistle To which I answer 1. That the Scripture no where mentions any more then two of this Name and St. Paul Gal. 1.19 tells us expresly that James the Brother of our Lord was an Apostle 2. Clemens of Alexandria and Eusebius from him Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 1. reckon no more then two one James the Son of Zebedee and the other James call'd the Just the Brother of our Lord who was also Bishop of Jerusalem The same is asserted by Epiphanius Heres 29. n. 3. and St. Jerome against Helvidius f. 10. So that since there were but two call'd by the Name of James and both of them Apostles let which of them can be the Author of the Epistle it was certainly wrote by an Apostle Though it is generally concluded to be that James who was our Lord's Brother probably so stil'd either because the Son of Joseph by a former Wife or the Son of the Virgin Mary's Sister as St. Jerome will have it for the other James the Son of Zebedee was kill'd by Herod at the first planting of the Church And therefore to this James Fusinus expresly ascribes it in his Exposition of the Apostles Creed calling him Apostle and Brother of our Lord. See Dr. Cave's Life of St. James the Less Epistle of St. James was own'd as that Apostle's by Origen in his Eighth Homily on Exodus f. 43. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History l. 3. c. 25. says it was approv'd by many The Ancient Syriack Version has this Epistle The Second Epistle of St. Peter own'd as his by Origen in his Seventh Homily on Joshua f. 156. and by Firmilian of Cappadocia in his Epistle to St. Cyprian among the Epistles of that Father Ep. 85. p. 220. Eusebius says the same of this as of the Epistle of St. James and in the same place The Second Epistle of St. John own'd as that Apostles by Jreneus l. 1. c. 13. p. 95. by Clemens of Alexandria who wrote a short Explanation of it which see at the end of his Treatise concerning the Salvation of the Rich. Ox. Edit p. 142. by a Council at Carthage in the year 256 among St. Cyprians Tracts p. 242. Dionysius of Alexandria mentions this Second and also the Third Epistle as commonly ascrib'd to