enquire in the next place what St. Augustine return'd by way of Answer First then to prove that the Writings of the New Testament were Genuine and that the Evangelists and Apostles were the real Authors of those Pieces which bear their Names he thus reasons with Faustus and his Followers (g) L. 33. c. 6. O unhappy and wretched Enemies of your own Souls Tell me I pray what Books can ever be judg'd Authentick if the Evangelical if the Apostolical Writings don 't deserve to be so esteem'd How can we be ever certain of the Author of any Treatise in the World if those Writings which the Church planted by the Apostles in all Nations affirms and maintains to be theirs may yet be rejected as false and Supposititious and instead thereof others be receiv'd as really Apostolical which were first brought to light by Hereticks whose very Masters from whom they take their donominations did not live till long after the Apostles and yet pretend to have known better then the Universal Church what Writings those first Preachers of our Religion left behind them Consider the case of several Pieces Publish'd about Secular and Human Learning There are many of this sort which appear under great Names that are yet justly rejected by the Judicious because they are by no means consistent with the Stile and Genius of them whose Names they assume or have never by such as were capable of knowing been declar'd and acknowledg'd to be the Genuine Works of those to whom they are ascrib'd by the Ignorant Do not Physicians for Examples sake reject the Authority of divers Treatises which fly abroad under the Name of Hippocrates And though there may perhaps be some resemblance in Thought and Expression yet notwithstanding that they condemn them as Spurious because they fall short of the real Performances of that great Man and have no sufficient Evidence to prove their being Genuine And for those which are indeed his Works Whence is it that the Learned conclude they belong to him whence is it that those who should question the same would be laugh'd at not refuted but only because a constant Tradition from his Age down to the present days has attested them And he that should pretend to doubt of a matter establish'd by the continued succession of so long a time would be accounted mad or distracted Whence do Men learn that the Books of Plato Aristotle Cicero Varro and other Authors are indeed of their composing but because they are so inform'd by the Testimonies of several Ages succeeding and following one another Many too have Wrote largely concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs not indeed with Canonical Authority but with a desire of profiting others or themselves How know we to whom any of these Discourses is to be assign'd but only from hence that their respective Authors acquainted others with what they Wrote at the time when they first Publish'd the same from whom it has been convey'd by several hands successively to the present time so that without any doubting or hesitation we can when examin'd concerning any particular Discourse tell presently what to answer But why do I insist upon things long since past Consider what is now before us Behold here the Treatise of Faustus behold my Answer If any should in future times enquire which way they might be assur'd that I Wrote the one and Faustus the other how could they be inform'd of the Truth but only by appealing to the Tradition which had from those who were our contemporaries and knew what we did been transmitted to Posterity Since then the case is plain and evident and esteem'd so by all the World in other Writings why should it not be so in those of the Apostles Who is there so blinded with Madness and Possess'd with the Malice of deceiving and lying Devils as to affirm that the Church has not the same security for the Books which she receives Can we imagine that so many Witnesses of the greatest Faithfulness and Integrity that such an unanimous Number of Brethren in all Places agreeing in the same assertions should conspire to impose upon the World with false Pieces Or that the Churches which derive their succession in a continued line from the Apostles should not have their Books likewise convey'd to them with as certain and steady a Tradition as is that upon which we admit Ecclesiastical or Prophane Writings And again in another Place You that raise so many scruples about the Authority of our Books How will you justify the Epistle of Manicheus (h) L. 32. c. 21. and prove that it was Wrote by him If any one should contradict you in this matter and boldly affirm that it was none of his but a down right Forgery what would you reply Would you not be ready to laugh at the confident Talker would you not tell him that it was Impudence and Dotage to move any doubts concerning that for which you had the successive Testimony of so many Persons from the days of your Paraclet And have not we the same too nay one of a much larger extent for the Books of the Apostles If it would be Ridiculous and Impertinent to question whether the Pieces of your Manicheus be Genuine is it not much more so to doubt of the Apostolical Writings And are not you to be derided or rather to be pitied who raise so many difficulties about them which are Establish'd upon the Authority of so large and diffusive a Testimony through the several Ages and places of the Church from the days of their first Authors Thus does the learned Father answer the first Objection by producing those grounds and reasons upon which the Catholicks embrac'd the Books of the New Testament as Authentick and Genuine We proceed now to the second Objection which was that whoever the Men were which drew up the Books of the New Testament they falsified and corrupted the pure Doctrins of Christianity by inserting several Errors and Contradictions among the Truth Now it having been already prov'd that these were really the Writings of the Apostles and Apostolick Men we have nothing else to do but represent the Reasons St. Augustine alledges to show that they neither were nor could be Corrupted nor yet had any Errors or Contradictions inserted in them That they were not falsified or corrupted he thus argues (i) L. 32. c. 16. You pretend to prove that Manicheus is the Paraclet or Comforter from some Passages in our Books which yet you say have been corrupted What would you reply if we should retort the charge upon you and affirm that you had falsifiyd them in those Particulars which concern your Paraclet I suppose you 'd tell us that we accus'd you of a thing impossible because the Books were in the hands of all Christians before and you might easily be convict of false dealing by numerous and more ancient Copies We say the same too and urge that those Arguments which are alledg'd to show you are
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
Pieces For he alledges p. 32. this Writer to prove there was a Book call'd the Preaching of St. Paul because it is actually so in the Text. And he quotes the very same place p. 23. for the Preaching of St. Peter because Rigaltius corrects it so in his Notes that Paul is by mistake set for Peter for 't is Paul in the Text. But what will our Author get by this Concession Truly very little he may put it all in his Eye and see never the worse For that Writer says positively that the Composer of the Preaching of Peter was an Heretick and proves it too by good Arguments So that after all * I say we have the Testimony but of one single Father for any Authority of these Books for the Reading one of them once a year in an obscure Church or two is a mean thing see above Sect. VI. And yet under what notion he quotes them does not appear much less what Authority he ascribes to them he no where tells us that he look'd upon the Preaching and Revelation of St. Peter to have been Wrote by himself and upon that account to be Canonical He might take them for Ecclesiastical Pieces and suppose which yet was an Error that the Writer of them gave a true account of some Discourses of that Apostle As he does in his Treatise concerning the Salvation of the Rich furnish us with some Passages concerning St. John which Eusebius has transfer'd into his Ecclesiastical History It can by no means be prov'd that this Father judg'd these Pieces part of the New Testament because be quotes them It was the custom of the Ancients as well as Moderns to cite Writings which they knew not to be Canonical as well as those that were This is sufficiently Evident and St. Jerom takes Particular notice of it in his Epistle to Dardanus And therefore till there be very good proof to the contrary we ought not to believe that St. Clemens differ'd so very far from the rest of the Fathers as to advance those Pieces into the Canon which they generally rejected for Spurious but rather conclude that he esteem'd them at best no more then Ecclesiastical And so Eusebius seems to affirm concerning him and them See hereafter Sect. XIX However the case be see before Sect. VII we have the Testimony of one single Father and an obscure Church or two in Palestine only for any Authority of these Books and what Authority they design'd them we cannot tell and all the rest of the Catholicks of those times and before them and since as far as appears rejected them as Forgeries and if we may make an Estimate of the whole by the Fragments which yet remain 't is evident they were the Forgeries of Hereticks For in the (q) See Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 6. p. 635. Orig. Tom. 14. on John p. 211. Preaching of Peter we Read that the Jews Worshipp'd Angels and Archangels and the Months and the Moon Which they are charg'd with doing not when they fell into Idolatry but in the ordinary Practice of their Religion We are told also (r) Treatise vf Bapt. of Heret p. 30. that Jesus acknowledg'd himself guilty of Sin and was in a manner compell'd to submit to the Baptism of John by his Mother against his will c. which are gross and †There is another passage that does not methinks sound well quoted by Clemens out of the Preaching of St. Peter in the sixth Book of his Stromata p. 678. where we are told that the Prophets nam'd Jesus Christ in express words Whether this can be fairly reconcil'd with Truth I shall not determine but leave to the Reader 's Judgment notorious falshoods And the Revelation of Peter informs us that (s) Clem. Al. Extracts out of Thedot p. 806 807. abortive and expos'd Infants are committed to the conduct of a Guardian Angel who may instruct and educate them and secure their Happiness after they have suffer'd such things as they should have endur'd in the Body that they shall be as those who have been faithful here for a hundred years that flashes of fire shall break from these Infants c. with more of the same Nature Now whosoever shall consider this and call to mind the perfect silence of the Scripture in such Curiosities will easily conclude that these discoveries had the same Original with the Whimsical Fancies which the Gnosticks Publish'd to the World about that time The case therefore of the Books call'd the Preaching and Revelation of St. Peter is in a Word this They contain'd false and Extravagant Doctrin have no Body on their side at all but one Father and some unknown Churches of Palestine whose just opinion of them we know not and were universally rejected by the whole Body of the Catholicks besides as far as we can Judge at this distance Now let 's turn the Tables and we shall find the whole Christian World agreed that there is nothing in the Seven Pieces which we have now under consideration repugnant to the rest of the Scripture that even at that time when they were doubted of by some they were yet receiv'd by many others among whom were several of great Piety and Learning that Athanasius Rufinus and others vouch the Authority of the Ancients to prove that they were and ought to be judg'd and accounted Canonical that since that Councils and the whole Church have receiv'd and own'd them for Genuine and if after all this our Author will still say that there 's more reason to receive the Preaching and Revelation of St. Peter then the Pieces we are now examining into the Code of the New Testament he may say so if he pleases but I believe he 'l meet with but few that are of his Opinion VI. To show he 'll leave no Stone unturn'd to express the favourable Opinion he has of the New Testament our Author brings in Celsus a Heathen p. 60. as a Witness against the Christians who exclaims against the too great Liberty they took as if they were drunk of changing the first Writing of the Gospel three or four or more times that so they might deny whatever was urg'd against them as retracted before Our Author somewhere complains of the Clergy for their harsh Language and violating the Rules of Decency and Civility in their Writings But certainly there are some cases wherein it is very difficult to forbear a little severity of Expression And this I take to be one of them which I have now before me To see a Man who professes himself a Christian rake up the Objections not only of the grossest and most Profligate Hereticks but even of the very Heathens and make use of them to run down the most Ancient and Venerable Monuments of our Religion might easily raise a Passion justifiable by the strictest Rules of Morality Especially when we find the same Person so resolutely bent on doing all the mischief that he can as to take not
Testimonies of Hereticks not so valu'd as that of the Catholicks in the case of the Canon Page 36. It was Death to keep the Books of the New Testament under Persecution Page 38. J. T 's Fifth Objection answer'd Page 38. Testimonies for the Books of the Second Canon or Seven Controverted Pieces when our Author says they were rejected by all c. Page 39. St. James the Apostle Author of the Epistle that Name Page 40. St. Jude the Apostle Author of the Epistle under under that Name Page 42. Not so good Reason to admit the Preaching and Revelation attributed to St. Peter into the Canon as the Seven Controverted Pieces Page 43. J. T 's Sixth Objection answer'd Page 49. Seventh Objection answer'd Page 50. Of the Manichees Page 50. How far they rejected the New Testament Page 51. St. Augustin 's Arguments to prove against them that the Books of the New Testament are Genuine not corrupted or Contradictory and that the Scriptures peculiar to them are Forgeries Page 54. J. T 's Eighth Objection answer'd Page 65. Of the Nazarens and Ebionites their Gospels c. Page 66. Of the Marcionites and their Scriptures Page 71. St. John 's Gospel not Wrote by Cerinthus Page 72. J. T 's Ninth Objection answer'd Page 73. Tenth Objection from Mr. D. answered Page 77. Apostolical Writings dispers'd in the first Century Page 79. Clemens Barnabas c. as far as appears quote no Spurious Writings Page 85. Of other Gospels and the Doctrines of the Apostles c. Page 86. The Apostle John Author of the two last Epistles and the Revelation Page 88. J. T 's First Difficulty drawn from Mr. D. answer'd Page 92. Second Difficulty Page 93. Third Difficulty Page 95. Fourth Difficulty consider'd Page 99. Of the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions Page 101. Ireneus Vindicated Page 103. Barnabas Vindicated Page 105. An Index of Places in Ireneus and Tertullian where the Books of the New Testament are ascribed to those Authors whose Names they now bear Page 107. Their Arguments to prove those Books Genuine and not Corrupt Page 111 VVhat Julâ—an the Apostate thought of the Genuineness of the Books of the New Testament with some Reflections thereon c. Page 115. ERRATA PAge 7. Line 5. for Writ Read Written p. 9. l. 3. for Writ r. Wrote p. 11. l. 26. add in the Margin c. 36. p. 12. in the margin for l. 3. c. 39. r. l. 2. c. 39. p. 13. in the Notes l. 8. after prov'd insert Sect. 34. p. 25. in the Notes l. 7. for 140. r. 410. l. 26. for many r. any p. 32. l. 25. in the very beginning insert 111. p. 35. l. 24. as also p. 36. l. 21. for 17. r. 10. p. 43 in the Notes l. 2. r. n. 1. and 2. p. 52. l. 10. for understood r. understand p. 59. References in the Margin belong not to the words that are within but to those that are without the Parenthesis p. 61. l. 21. for would r. will p. 79. l. 11. for proceeds r. precedes p. 91. in the Margin for l. 3. c. 3. r. l. 3. c. 1. p. 106. l. 2. for unrightness r. uprightnefs p. 110. l. 26. for 71. r. 72. p. 113. l. 11. and 13. for Writ r. Write THE CANON OF THE New Testament VINDICATED I. OUR Author in the beginning of this Treatise falls very severely on Mr. Blackall who had charg'd him in a Sermon before the House of Commons with questioning the Authority of some of the Books of the New Testament in his History of the Life of Milton This he says was an uncharitable as well as Groundless Accusation and brings many Arguments to prove his Innocence as to that matter I shall not concern my self at present in that controversy nor examine whether our Author be guilty or not of what is lay'd to his charge I am sure all he Alledges for his own Vindication is a grand Impertinency and such a Notorious abuting of his Readers as is not easily to be found in Writers who are not of his Complexion It is just as if a Man should Vindicate himself from having ever Rob'd on the High-way and as soon as he had finish'd his discourse should fall upon and Spoil the next Traveller he meets For thus he after a long harangue wherein he pretends to clear himself from the Aspersions of Mr. Blackall and prove that he never insinuated that any of the Books of the New Testament might justly be question'd proceeds if I understand English to assert the same with open Face and brings several Arguments which can aim at nothing else but to sink their Authority and make Men believe there is no sufficient ground for receiving the present Canon Whether this be his Intention or no I think will easily appear to any one who shall consider the following Particulars 1. He affirms p. 52. that several spurious Pieces have been quoted by the Fathers as of equal Authority with those which we receive even by those Fathers upon whose Testimony the present Canon is Establish'd From whence it is evident he would infer that those Spurious and our Canonical Books ought to go together and either be equally admitted or equally rejected since they are founded upon the same Testimonies 2. He looks upon the Epistles of Barnabas the Pastor of Hermas the Epistles of Polycarp of Clemens Bishop of Rome and Ignatius to be all Forgeries p. 43 46. and yet he tells us p. 44. that the Ancients pay'd them the highest Respect and reckon'd the first four of them especially as good as any part of the New Testament So that the Testimony of the Ancients for the Canon of the New Testament seems to be of no value since if we 'll believe our Author they put Forgeries in the same rank with the Books thereof and esteem'd them of the same Authority 3. 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 Clemens Bishop of Rome and St. Barnabas be 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 4. 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 5. He tells us in the same Page 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 this had not been enough he adds p. 64. that they were rejected a long time by all Christians almost with universal consent 6. To show that he 'll leave no Stone unturn'd to express the favourable Opinion he has of the New Testament he
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
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
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
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
process of time collected into one Body with the Doctrines of Apostolical Men written afterwards and make up the best and most Instructive part of those which are call'd the Apostolical Constitutions Though the addition of several Impertinences Errors Heresies and Contradictions and especially the pretending in divers places the whole to have been dictated by the Twelve Apostles St. James Bp. of Jerusalem whom they Erroneously distinguish from the Apostle of that Name and St. Paul in the presence of the Seven Deacons though it 's plain St. Stephen suffer'd Martyrdom before St. Paul's Conversion cause the composition as we now have it to be justly censur'd for Suppositious From what has been say'd it is apparent I think that we ought not presently to conclude every thing which is not found in our Bibles to be fetch'd from Spurious Writings since nothing deserves that Name but what is properly a Forgery Several of these there were indeed in those early days but it no ways appears that the Writers we are now discoursing of borrow'd from them More likely it is that what they took from Books not Apostolical was from the accounts given by the true Disciples of our Lord of the Actions and Preaching and Doctrine of himself and his Apostles which though they were not part of the Canon yet were really useful and might for that reason be Read with Profit and quoted with Authority as Pieces Ecclesiastical But there is one Particular which deserves a more accurate examination It is p. 72. of our Authors Citation out of Mr. D. were two Johns are reckon'd among the Writers of the New Testament This that Learned Gentleman had before enlarg'd on in the 4th and 5th Sections of the same Discourse and will have John a Presbyter of that time and not John the Apostle to have been the Author of the Revelation and also of the Second and Third Epistle The main Arguments he insists upon are 1. The Authority of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria part of whose Discourse upon that Subject we have in the (d) l. 7. c. 25. Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius 2. The Reasons of that Father which are the difference of the Style and that the Author of the Revelation sets down his Name frequently which St. John the Apostle does not in his other Pieces To which I Answer That neither the Authority nor the Reasons of Dionysius affect the two Epistles He does not at all argue against them and therefore they may be the Genuine Works of that Apostle to whom as he owns they were commonly ascrib'd for all him And Monsieur du Pin who has the deserv'd Reputation of an able Critick tells us that the Style the Spirit and the Thoughts of these Epistles as well as the concurring Judgment of most of the Fathers make it evident that they belong to the Evangelist Setting them therefore aside I shall consider what force there is in these Reasons as they are levell'd against the Revelation And I must say that if they have any strength in them they may as well be urg'd to prove the Prophecy of Jeremy and the Lamentations were not wrote by the same Person For in the former the Prophet often Names himself which he does not once in the latter and the difference of Expression seems every jot as great between these two Pieces as it is between them we are now considering Neither is it any wonder to find the same Person as Dr. Cave observes in another case vastly to alter and vary his Style according to the Times when or the Persons to whom or the Subjects about which he Writes or the Temper and disposition he is in when he Writes or the Care that is us'd in doing it So that it is Evident nothing certain can in this case be infer'd from that Particular To the Authority of Dionysius and his Reasons too we oppose the Judgment of many of the Ancients who were of another Opinion The Arguments he urges were obvious to them as well as him They knew what difference there was between the Style of the other Pieces of St. John and the Revelation they knew that in one the Writers Name was several times mention'd and not at all in the other and yet concluded there was no force in these Arguments concluded notwithstanding them that all the Pieces were Wrote by the same Author even the Apostle of which they could easily receive information as being remov'd at so little a distance from his time Two of them seem to have been Born soon after if not before his Death Let us hear therefore what may be alledg'd on the other side 1. The Author of the Revelation (e) c. 1. v. 9. tells us himself that he was Banish'd to the Isle of Patmos for the Word of God and the Testimony of Jesus Now that this was the case of St. John the Apostle we have the Witness of (f) Of Prescript c. 36. Tertullian (g) In Euseb Hist. l. 3. c. 23. Clemens of Alexandria (h) l. 3. c. 18. Eusebius (i) In Eccles Writers in John Jerome c. 2. We have the express Testimonies of the Ancients that the Apostle and not another John was he who Wrote the Revelation This is affirm'd by (k) See all these above Sect. XI Justin Martyr by Origen by Tertullian Clemens indeed of Alexandria attributes it simply to St. John without any addition but then Mr. D. himself owns Sect. 20. that it is evident by the Circumstances of the Relation in Eusebius l. 3. c. 23. that the Apostle and no other is design'd by him Ireneus frequently cites it under the Name (l) l. 4. c. 37. and 50. l. 5. c. 26. of John the Disciple of the Lord which is the very Expression he uses when he (m) l. 2. c. 39. l. 3. c. 3. speaks of the Apostle and he tells us also that he who saw those Visions was the Disciple (n) l. 4. c. 37. which lay in our Saviours Bosom which was the Apostle too And he again informs us l. 5. c. 30. that he had the Explication of a passage there mention'd from those who convers'd with St. John the Author and they certainly could and would tell him which of the Johns it was And therefore since he besides all the others before-mention'd fixes it on the Apostle it is I think an unanswerable Argument that he and not the Presbyter is the Person to whom it ought to be ascrib'd I now return to our Author who tells us that the Passage he cited from Mr. D. will furnish those who have an inclination to Write on this Subject with many curious disquisitions wherein to show their Penetration and Judgment It was not my own Inclination but the design of serving an Honourable Person to whom I am much oblig'd which drew me to Write upon this Subject neither do I pretend to a greater share of Penetration and Judgment then my Neighbours but yet I shall venture to say
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
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