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
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
with Caution as well as any other Writing of that Nature It follows the Marcionites had a very different Copy of St. Luke No doubt of it He might have added too that these were the Men (n) Jren. l. 1. c. 29. Epiphan Here. 42. n. 9. who show'd a different Copy of most of St. Paul's Epistles that is of such as they allow'd †Epiphanius also tells us that Marcion rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews but he ought not to be charg'd with that as a Crime because it was not then generally admitted by all the Catholicks and therefore Tertullian remarks only that he did not receive the two Epistles to Timothy and that to Titus What Opinion this Heretick had of the other three Gospels and of the Canonical Epistles does not belong to my present business which is only to follow my Author whether he leads me (o) Io. and Tertull. a. gainst Marcion l. 5. c. 21. for they rejected those to Timothy and Titus And there was good Reason for what they did Since they held that there were two Gods one of the Old Testament and another of the New that the former made the World and was the cause of all Wars and Contentions that Jesus Christ was the Son of the other and sent by his Father to overthrow and destroy all the Works of the Old-Testament-God with more such stuff as we may Read in (p) l. 1. c. 29. Jreneus (q) Against Marcion Tertullian and (r) Heres 42. Epiphanius Now what should these Men do with our Gospels and Epistles at least till they had chang'd and alter'd them Since there is nothing in them which Establishes but many Passages which overthrow their fond and lewd Opinions Jreneus and Tertullian therefore proceeded rationally in appealing to all the Churches in the World against them The former urges that the Disciples of our Lord taught no such Doctrines (s) l. 3. c. 4. either in the Churches which they founded or (t) l. 3. c. 5 6. yet in those Writings which they left behind them and (u) l. 4. c. 63. which were preserv'd entire in all the World by the whole Body of Christians The latter presses them to consult (x) l. 4. against Marcion c. 4 5. Of Prescript c. 32 33 36. See this prosecuted more at large hereafter Sect. XXXIV the Apostolick Churches and those that held Communion with them and then tell him in which of them those Heresies that Marcion maintain'd or those Scriptures that he had alter'd and corrupted were embrac'd The contrary to all this was evident The Catholicks Copies were all the same as to the Books the Heretick rejected as well as to the Places he had corrupted the Catholick Doctrins were all the same and none agreed with Marcion and therefore these Fathers concluded as justly they might especially being no farther remov'd from the Apostles themselves then the Second Century that the Cheat and Imposture lay on the side of Marcion and his Followers Our Author proceeds St. Johns Gospel was attributed to Cerinthus This we confess is very true and it was done as we find in (y) Heres 51. n. 3. Epiphanius by some who upon that account were call'd Alogi They rejected the Logos or Word and would not allow what St. John Writes in the beginning of his Gospel to be true concerning our Saviour And because they had not the face openly to appear against what was taught by an Apostle they bring several Objections to show that it was none of his which Epiphanius answers at large and after all would have it fix'd on the Heretick Cerinthus But they were very absurd in so doing as the same Father observes in the following Section (z) Ib. n. 4. For how could those things be Wrote by Cerinthus which do in direct terms contradict his Doctrine He asserted Jesus Christ to be a mere Man whereas the Author of this Gospel asserts him to be the Word which was from Eternity which came down from Heaven and was made flesh for our sakes Cerinthus therefore was not could not be the Author unless we 'll suppose that he forg'd a Gospel under the Name of an Apostle on purpose to overthrow what himself taught and maintain'd every where We see then that St. John's Title notwithstanding what has been say'd remains firm and unshaken and it will be further strengthned if we consider that Ireneus l. 3. c. 11. (a) p. 257. makes it his business to prove that the beginning of this Gospel was Wrote expresly by the Apostle to oppose the Heresies and Errors of Cerinthus IX Our Author further urges p. 53 c. that (b) Eccl. Hist l. 3. c. 3. Eusebius rejects the Acts Gospel Preaching and Revelation of Peter from being Authentick for no other Reason but because no Ancient or Modern Writer 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 (c) l. 3. c. 25. another place he says that the Gospel of Peter Thomas Matthias and such like with the Acts of Andrew John and the other Apostles are Spurious because no Ecclesiastick Writer from the time of the Apostles down to his own has vouchsaf'd to quote them which is absolutely false of some as we have already seen 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 with no such Citations he presently concluded there were none which made him reject these 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 This is a long-winded Objection but we shall better understand what strength there is in it if it be divided into the three following Propositions 1. That Eusebius rejects the aforesay'd Books only because he thought that none of them had been quoted and mention'd by the Ancients when yet some of them really were 2. That if he had known they had been so quoted he would have look'd upon them as Canonical 3. It being evident therefore that they were so quoted by the Ancients they ought according to Eusebius his Principles to be esteem'd Canonical This is the force of the Objection and to this there are two Answers drawn up which it is pretended we are like to make But of all People in the World I shall not trust our Author to give in any Answers in my Name If they be good for any thing he 'll certainly leave them behind him Thus he did in the case of Origen and St. Augustine who had furnish'd him with very good ones to the Objections of Celsus and Faustus but he fairly dropt them by the way and so left the Heathen and the
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