they were perfect and fully instructed We pass over and neglect what the Apostles said while they were Novices and Ignorant and what was objected to 'em and not said really by 'em as also what has been falsly imputed to 'em by the Writers namely that Jesus was foully born of a Woman was circumcised like the Jews offer'd Sacrifice like the Gentiles was baptized in a sordid manner was carried about and miserably tempted by the Devil These few things excepted together with all their Quotations out of the old Testament we receive the Writers he means the four Evangelists and all they have recorded or taught in their Books more especially we receive the Mystical Crucifixion with the Precepts Parables and whole Divine Word of Christ If Amyntor had attended to these Passages he would have perceived how the words of this Manichee which he cites are to be Pointed and Translated into the English Let us first see how Amyntor reads and renders ' em Solius Filii putatis Testamentum non potuisse corrumpi solum non habere aliquid quod in se debeat improbari praesertim quod nec ab ipso scriptum constat nec ab ejus Apostolis sed longo post tempore a quibusdam incerti nominis viris qui ne sibi non haberetur sides scribentibus quae nescirent partim Apostolorum nomina parting corum qui Apostolos secuti viderentur scriptorum suorum frontibus indiderunt asseverantes secuncdumeos se scripsisse quae scripserint He englishes it thus You think that of all the Books in the world the Testament of the Son only could not be corrupted that it alone contains nothing which ought to be disallowed especially when it appears that it was neither written by himself nor his Apostles but a long time after by certain obscure Persons who lest no credit should be given to the Stories they told of what they could not know did prefix to their Writings partly the names of the Apostles and partly of those who succeeded the Apostles affirming that what they wrote themselves was written by these We shall see presently Light and Darkness are not more contrary than this account of the Books that make the present Canon of the New Testament is to the real Opinion of Faustus and the intention of his words in the Latin but now I will only take notice that this Translation is a pure piece of Jargon it offers to prove a certain point by a Consideration quite contrary to it It represents the Manichee as saying you Catholies think the Testament of the Son contains nothing that may be disallowed because it appears that neither himself nor his Apostles wrote it but certain obscure Fellows who to make themselves believed in matters of which they knew nothing put the Names of the Apostles to their own Flams and Forgeries I demand now of Amyntor was this a Reason fit to prove that the Testament of the Son has nothing in it that can be disallowed even this 't was written by obscure Fellows who having feigned these Matters set to 'em the Names of the Apostles and their Successors 'T is a Reason that most plainly overthrows the Proposition which it was to confirm in short 't is a Bull a Contradiction and Nonsense 'T is as if I should say the King of Spain is like to live this three seven years for he is very infirm and dying in a manner every day Well let us again set down the Latin of the Manichee and Pointing it right see what sense it will make Solius Filii putatis Testamentum non potuisse corrunipi solum non habere aliquid quod in se debeat improbari Praesertim quod nec ab ipso scriptum constat nec ab ejus Apostolis sed longo post tempore a quibusdam incerti nominis viris qui ne sibi non haberetur Fides seribentibus quae nescirent partim Apostolorum nomina partim corum qui Apostolos secuti viderentur scriptorum suorum frontibus indiderunt asseverantes secundum eos se scripsisse quae scripserunt To be Englished thus Do ye think that of all Books in the World only the Testament of the Son could not be depraved and that it alone contains nothing that can be gainsaid Especially that of it or that part of it which not only was not written by himself but not by his Apostles but a long time after by certain obscure Fellows Who lest no Credit should be given to what they wrote concerning matters which they could not know put the names of Apostles and their Successors in the front of their Books affirming that what they wrote themselves was written by those Apostles He speaks here of the Acts Revelations Epistles Gospels of the Catalogue he says the genuine Testament of the Son is much depraved by these spurious Books which were contrived and published long after the decease of the Evangelists and Apostles that wrote the Books truly Canonical by obscure Wretches that put to their feigned Gospels and Acts the names of Andrew Thomas Philip Bartholomew and other Apostles and their Successors Briefly Faustus meant not in the least to say the Books of the Canon are falsly intitled to the Apostles and Evangelists whose names they bear but that the Testament of the Son has been vitiated and disgraced by divers other Gospels Acts Epistles meaning those of the Catalogue which never were the Works of true Apostles but of certain Botchers who stitching together some flying Reports exposed their wares to sale under the names of some of the Apostles and of their immediate Successors His other Citation out of Faustus is no better nor upon the main better understood by him it is this Multa à Majoribus vestris eloquiis Domini nostri inserta sunt verba quae nomine signata ipsius cum ejus fide non congruunt praesertim quia ut jam saepe probatum à Nobis est nec ab ipso haec sunt nec ab ejus Apostolis scripta sed multa post eorum assumptionem à nescio quibus ipsis inter se non concordantibus Semi-judaeis per famas opinionesque comperta sunt He renders it in these words Many things were foisted by your Ancestors into the Scripture of our Lord which tho marked with his Name agree not with his Faith And no wonder since as those of our Party have already frequently proved these things were neither written by himself nor his Apostles but several matters after their decease were pick'd up from Stories and flying Reports by I know not what set of Half-Jews and these also not agreeing among themselves Reach me the Ferula for they are School-boys Mistakes In this place Jam is not already or saepe frequently much less is à Nobis those of our Party which it never signifies and had Faustus intended to say by those of our Party he would have said a Nostris His words Jam saepe probatum est a Nobis were thus meant As I have but
Council determine which were the true Writings of the Apostles and which not but by Revelation or the written Testimony of their Predecessors Revelation in the case there was none and for Testimony I have the same Testimony for the Books I defend which is usually urged in behalf of the Canon We may abridg and distinguish this Judgment into these Propositions 1. The best of the Antients esteemed the Writings that now go under the names of Clemens Romanus Hermas Barnabas Ignatius and Polycarp to be as good Scripture as any part of the New Testament was then or is now accounted 2. The true Canon can be ascertained only by Revelation or the Testimony of the Fathers Revelation there was none and the Testimony of the Fathers is as home and full for Clemens Ignatius and the rest not to mention many other Books of the Catalogue as for our Canonical Books 3. 'T is even certain that the Fathers were mistaken in the Opinion they had concerning the pretended Clemens Hermas Barnabas Polycarp and Ignatius therefore neither is their Testimony valuable concerning the Books of the New Testament or present Scripture Canon We shall answer sufficiently if we prove clearly and indubitably these two things That the Antients had not the same or like regard for Clemens Romanus Barnabas or any other Books of the Catalogue as for the Books of the Canon and that they had other and stronger reasons besides the Testimony of their Predecessors why they establish'd the present Canon or in other words why they received the Books of the Canon and not those of the Catalogue When Amyntor says the best of the Fathers and Antients quote the Writings of Barnabas Hermas Clemens Romanus Ignatius and Polycarp as Canonical and Scripture and that they esteemed them as good as any part of the New Testament For this latter he will never be able to produce one Testimony of any of the Antients and I shall abundantly prove the contrary from those Fathers to whom he appeals and whose sense he hath so much mistaken for the other were it true yet 't is not to the purpose For 't is certain and granted by all Learned Men that those Fathers called all the Antient Ecclesiastical Books if they were Orthodox Scripture and Canonical the terms Canonical and Scripture were not then appropriated to Books written by Inspiration but were common to all Ecclesiastical Writers and Books if Orthodox Origen for instance often cites the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament as Scripture and Canonical in his Homilies and sometimes when he is disputing but when he discourses professedly what Books are Divine Scripture and what are not he admits only those Books of the Old Testament that are received by Protestants rejecting the Apocryphal Books see concerning this Euseb H. E. l. 6. c. 25. Clemens Romanus Hermas and divers more are cited as Scripture by the Antients and Fathers says Amyntor By which of ' em He answers by Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen and he refers us to places in their Writings But in some of those places nothing at all is said by those Fathers concerning the Books of which we are inquiring in other places the Authors are named but nothing is quoted out of them elsewhere are Citations out of them but not under the names of Scripture or Canonical and where they are so called 't is only in the sense that the same and many later Fathers call the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament Canonical or Scripture and yet deny them to be of Divine Authority or to be received by the Churches as a Rule of their Faith Yet more particularly It is not true that Irenaeus in the alledged place or elsewhere calls the Epistle of Clemens Romanus Scripture He cites it only to prove that Apostolical Tradition is contrary to the Heresy which teaches there is a God above the Creator of the World because saith he the said Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians which is older than that detestable and foolish Heresy teaches but one God All-mighty Maker of Heaven and Earth In the same Book and Chapter l. 3. c. 3. he commends the Epistle of Polycarp but cites nothing out of or calls it Scripture and Canonical That Hermas is mentioned by Irenaeus I don't remember Amyntor refers to Lib. 4. cap. 3. but nothing is there said of him As to Ignatius Irenaeus only calls him Quendam ex Nostris adjudicatum ad Bestias propter Deum One of us Christians condemned to the Beasts for the cause of God He doth not so much as name him but 't is guessed he means Ignatius because the words he quotes are found in an Epistle of Ignatius 'T is no wonder that Clemens Alexandrinus may call the Epistle of Barnabas and the Pastor of Hermas Scripture in the sense before mentioned as a term of distinction or to distinguish them from the Writings of the Gentile Moralists and Philosophers whom also he often cites and explains their Opinions Eusebius H. E. l. 6. c. 13. observes that Clemens of Alexandria quotes the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Syrac and with them the Epistles of Barnabas Clemens Romanus and others not universally received among Christians Now as the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus were never reckoned by the Catholic Church and therefore undoubtedly neither by Clemens as parts of the Old Testament but only as laudable Appendices to it so when we find him quoting also Hermas Barnabas or Clemens Romanus under the same names and Epithets that he gives to Ecclesiasticus and the false Solomon he intended no more thereby to make them parts of the New Testament than he or the Catholick Church accounted the other to be parts of the Old Testament What I say is yet more plain from Origen the last of Amyntor's Fathers All the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament are frequently alledged by Origen in company with his Citations out of the genuine Books of the New and Old Testaments he has caused us however to know the vast difference he put between them and that the Catholick Church received only the present Protestant Canon as Divine Scripture the other Books whether the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament or those of the Catalogue only as useful and commendable Writings He tells us as to the Canon of the New Testament There are only four Gospels the first by Matthew written for the use of the Jews the next by Mark who had his Information by St. Peter the Gospel by Luke intended for the Gentiles lastly John's Gospel Concerning the Writings of St. Paul he mentions only his Epistles they are short saith he and not to all the Churches which he had planted or where he had taught Peter so he goes on wrote an Epistle that is received and esteemed by all we may grant he wrote a second Epistle but it is doubted of John wrote a Gospel and Revelation a short Epistle and if you will a second
79 he has a Quotation out of M. Dodwel to this sense The Books of the present Canon lay concealed in the Coffers of particular Churches or of private Men the Churches and Men to whom they were written till the latter times of Trajan or rather of Adrian that is till about 130 years after Christ We are not to think that the Writers of the New Testament knew any thing of the Gospels or other Books of the Canon that were not wrote by themselves or that the Clergy made a Common use either of the one or other We have still some Ecclesiastical Writers of those early times Clemens Romanus Barnabas Hermas Ignatius and Polycarp but in Hermas there is not one passage out of the New Testament in the rest not any of the Evangelist is called by his Name of is particularly named Nor can we know whether the Passages they cite are alledged out of the Gospels or other Books of our present Canon or from other Gospels and Books namely the Books of the Catalogue for the Citations are very different from the Words in our present Gospels and other Canonical Books and for the most part have something added to them Amyntor declares he assents to all this and farther to recommend it he complements M. Dodwel after a very extraordinary manner He affirms M. Dodwel tho a Lay-man knows as much of these matters as the Divines of all Churches put together What an advantage is it sometimes to a man not to be a thing in Holy Orders how much more knowing and Learned shall he be than himself was aware for I take it for granted this Bounce of a Complement was wholly intended to M. Dodwel's Lay-quality I am content for my part M. Dodwel be the next HERO to M. Milton I hope however 't will be granted that how much soever M. Dodwel knows he does not know that to be true which is false and in confidence of this I intend to discuss what he hath said Or rather to speak with due reserve of a Person and Matter that I my self do not know what Amyntor hath imputed to him He says The Writers of the New Testament were unknown to one another and to the Churches and Clergy till 130 years after Christ How do I fear lest he that is said to know as much of these Matters as the Clergy of all Churches put together should be found to know less of 'em than any of us Country-Curats For first as to the Writers of the four Gospels all the Church-Historians agree St. Matthew wrote first so it will not be expected we should prove that he had seen the rest but 't is apparent the next Evangelist Mark had seen and read the Gospel by St. Matthew because Mark 's Gospel is indeed nothing else but an abridgment of St. Matthew's as the Critics and Interpreters have many of them observed They are the words of H. Grotius on Mark 1.1 Vsum esse Marcum Matthaei Evangelio apertum facit collatio i. e. If we compare their Gospels it will be evident that St. Mark made great use of the Gospel by Matthew St. Austin de Cons Eccl. c. 2. says Marcus Matthaeum subsecutus tanquam pedissequus breviator ejus videtur i. e. As St. Mark wrote in time after St. Matthew so he follows him as it were at the very heels in respect of the things related only abridging what St. Matthew had more largely said After Matthew and Mark came St. Luke he is very reasonably and probably thought to intend besides we know not who else Matthew and Mark in those first words of his Gospel For as much as MANY have taken in hand to set forth in order a Declaration of those things which are surely believed among us even as they delivered them to us who from the beginning were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word it seemed good to me also c. Those Characters of Eye-witnesses and from the beginning and Ministers of the Word agree to the Person of St. Matthew and the two last to St. Mark that to say the whole Period was intended of them at least with others is what has been reasonably believed hitherto and is not made less reasonable by the two Exceptions by Amyntor taken as he saith out of M. Dodwel They alledg that St. Luke has given a different Genealogy of our Saviour from that by St. Matthew without giving any reason for it and that there are many apparent Contradictions between these and other Writers of Scripture But if these Gentlemen please to look into Matth. 1.6 and Luke 3.31 they will see a reason of the difference of the Genealogies namely that St. Matthew deduces the Genealogy from Solomon St. Luke from Nathan both of them Sons of David and Ancestors to our Saviour in the sense that David was his Ancestor As for the apparent Contradictions between these Evangelists if it were true it would rather prove that St. Luke had seen and read those other two Evangelists because by writing any thing contrary to them he intended without doubt to correct their Mistake and rightly inform their common Readers But 't is certain he was not in the least aware that those former Evangelists needed any correction for himself we have seen before bears 'em witness that they had written all things as those Persons have also deliver'd them to us who from the beginning were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the WORD that is as the other Apostles and first Preachers have also dediver'd them by word of mouth The last Evangelist was St. John how he came to be an Evangelist or on what occasion he wrote Eusebius the first and learnedest Historian of the Church will tell us in these words The Gospels of Matthew Mark and Luke being in all mens hands came also to the knowledg of the Apostle John who approved them as faithfully written But he observed they were deficient in this respect that they had omitted that part of our Saviour's Actions and Preaching which preceded the Imprisonment of John the Baptist for they all begin their Narratives with the Imprisonment of John Hereupon St. John being thereto requested added in a Gospel by him the Time and Transactions that had been omitted by the other Evangelists Euseb H. E. l. 3. c. 24. The Epistles of St. Paul are another considerable part of the Canon of the New Testament our Opposers say They lay hid in the coffers of the Churches and Persons to whom they were written till 130 years after Christ I ask How then came St. Peter to say 2 Pet. 3.15 As our beloved Brother Paul according to the Wisdom given to him hath written to you as also in all his Epistles speaking to them of these things in which Epistles are some things hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable do wrest as they do also the other Scriptures to their own Damnation This Testimony proves not only that St. Peter had seen the Epistles of Paul but
and third Epistle but the two last are also questioned by some He thinks those Churches are to be commended that receive the Epistle to the Hebrews for our Ancestors reckon it to St. Paul and had doubtless good reasons why they did so Origen Expos in Joan. l. 5. in Matth. l. 1. Euseb H. E. l. 6. c. 25. We see then in reckoning up the genuin Works of the Apostles and Books that they thought to be Divine Scripture Origen does not vouchsafe so much as to mention any of the Books of the Catalogue he knows nothing of other Gospels Acts Revelations or Epistles besides those of our present Canon Not that indeed he did not well know them and also esteem some of them for he frequently quotes them both in Preaching and Arguing but when he professes to declare the true Ecclesiastical Canon and genuin Works of the Evangelists and Apostles he forgets all the Books of the Catalogue Amyntor is very earnest for the Doctrine and the Revelation of St. Peter on the Account that they were approved he saith by the Antients in particular by Origen he saith they may be preferred on that account before Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews and other Books of our present Canon which were doubted of by the Antients We have just now heard Origen say the direct contrary we have seen he and those other Fathers make some doubt of the Epistle to the Hebrews the 2d of Peter the 2d and 3d of John but they speak very favorably and very respectfully of them and so as plainly to intimate that they incline to them but the Revelation and Doctrine of Peter and other Books of the Catalogue they never once name 'em in recounting the Books of the Canon or of the Evangelists and Apostles The testimony of Origen in the case is so much the more considerable because he was undoubtedly the most learned of all the Antients the first Divine the Church ever had some doubt not to add and the last Our Antagonist has not yet done with us he says The Council of Laodicea about 360 Years after Christ is the first Assembly wherein the present Canon of Scripture was establish'd In so great a variety of Books those of the Catalogue and those of the Canon how could that Council determine which were the true Writings of the Apostles and which not but by Revelation or the written Testimony of their Predecessors Revelation in the Case there was none and for Testimony I have the same Testimony for many Books of the Catalogue Elsewhere p. 48. he adds Divers Books of the Catalogue were verily supposed by the Antients to be written by the Evangelists Apostles and their Synergists whose name they bear why then do we not receive 'em into the Canon since the Authors of 'em were at least Companions and Fellow-laborers of the Apostles as well as St. Mark and St. Luke Why are they excluded from the Canon and those Evangelists not excluded If this quality to have been a Companion and Synergist of the Apostles was sufficient to entitle Mark and Luke to Inspiration why should it not do as much for Barnabas and Clemens Romanus And if this be not all the reason pray let us know the true one for I never heard of any other He is entred I confess on the merits of the Cause He saith the Council of Laodicea that establish'd our present Canon could no other ways distinguish the genuin Writings of the Apostles from those falsly imputed to 'em but by the Testimony of their Predecessors he hath the same Testimony for the Books of the Catalogue He knows no other reason why Mark and Luke are believed to write by Inspiration but that they were Synergists and Companions of the Apostles I answer That he hath the same Testimony for some Books of the Catalogue as we for the Books of the Canon he attempted to prove from Irenaeus Clemens of Alexandria and Origen his only Witnesses But Irenaeus I have shown barely names some of those Books and for others he cites them only as good Witnesses of the true Ecclesiastical Tradition not as Divine Scripture Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen may sometimes call them Scripture in the sense that they so call the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament which they with the Protestants deny to be parts of that Testament and in reciting the Books of the Canon and Works of the Apostles they wholly omit and sometimes expresly censure these Books of the Catalogue The Council of Laodicea nor any other ever pretended to establish the Canon of Scripture which is precedaneous to all Councils and receives no Authority from them but they from it Amyntor should have said the Council of Laodicea is the first Assembly that on occasion of some spurious and many doubtful Books declared which were the Books that had been certainly left to the Church by the Apostles and other Miraculous first Preachers 'T is no more true that Mark and Luke are supposed to write by Inspiration only because they were Companions and Synergists of the Apostles and that the Council of Laodicea declared the Scripture-Canon from only the Testimony of their Ancestors or Predecessors that is of the preceding Fathers such as Irenaeus Clemens of Alexandria and Origen Eusebius a long time before the Council of Laodicea informed every body of the sound Reasons why the Catholic Church receives some Books as Divine Scripture and others not his words are these Many Books have been published by Heretics under the names of the Apostles as the Gospels of Peter Thomas Matthias and others the Acts of Andrew John and divers more But first they are not cited he means not as Divine Scripture for that they are indeed quoted by Clemens of Alexandria and Origen the learnedst of the Antenicens he tells us before and after by the Doctors of the Church Secondly their way of writing is wholly different from the Spirit Genius and Manner of the Apostles Lastly the Doctrine Opinions and other Matters advanced in those Books are so contrary to Truth and to Orthodoxy that we must not barely call them Spurious but Absurd and Impious Euseb H. E. l. 3. c. 25. I must a little enlarge on this important Testimony which overthrows all Amyntor's and M. Dodwel's Pretences either for the Books of the Catalogue or against those of the Canon These Books saith Eusebius are never cited as Divine Scripture by the Doctors of the Church directly contrary to Amyntor's I have the same Testimony of the Antients the very best and soundest of them for these Books that is alledged or can be by others for the Canon These Writings says Eusebius again have nothing of the Apostolical Way and Spirit They want that honest Plainness in their Style that Integrity of manners that Elevation of Piety that Salt of Virtue that exemption from Partialities and Passions which so effectually recommend and even point out to us the Inspired Writings Above all they are stuffed with abundance of
were rejected by the Ebionits namely that in those Epistles he denies that the Gentaic Christians were obliged by the Law of Moses being condemned at the Council of Jerusalem mentioned Acts 15.24 and these Epistles being warranted by ex press Authority of Sr. Peter above quoted methinks the Ebionits are here objected with as little color of Reason as Marcion in the foregoing Paragraph 'T is another Exception that Johns Gospel was ascribed by some to Cerinthus a great Heretick By the Alogians but so that this Party embraced in a little time the common Opinion that St. John was indeed the Writer of this Gospel Paul of Samosatum Patriarch of Antioch and Photinus Archbishop of Sirmium Heads of the Alogian party even alledged for their Opinion the first Verses of Sr. John's Gospel and made not the least doubt either of the Author or Authority of this Gospel Epiphan Haeres Samosat Photin He still proceeds The Epistles of James and Jude the 2d of Peter the 2d and 3d of John that to the Hebrews and the Revelation were refused a long time by Christians with almost universal Consent The least we can make of this is that the Majority of Christians rejected these Writings and that too a long time But Eusebius from whom our Author had his intelligence says otherwise he saith those pieces are of the number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but withal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Gainsaid indeed by we know not who but received by the Generality Euseb H. E. l. 3. c. 25. It seems however they were rejected by some and that also a long time I answer they were all received as soon as the Churches had full communication with one another by the Convention of Councils which for small Books containing nothing that if singular was soon enough They were received in the Council of Laodicea by observation of our Author himself Those seven pieces having nothing as I said that is singular nothing that is wont to be alledged by the contending Parties against one another that Council was at perfect Liberty whether they would receive or reject them they might do either without diminution of Interest or of Reputation I believe therefore seeing the Scripture Canon was so sufficient in the Opinion of all Parties without those Books they were not owned by the Fathers of that Council but on most convincing reasons Such as that they had certain Information that these Books were read as Writings of the Apostles in all Churches of antient Foundation that themselves found 'em quoted as Apostolick Compositions in and from the times of the Apostles also that there is in them a likeness of the Thoughts and Expression and whatever else recommends to us the other Books of Scripture to the Expression and Thoughts of the other Divine Books or more briefly they are written with the same kind of Spirit that the undoubted portions of Scripture are There might even be Testimony from some of the Churches that they had still the first published Copies of these Books and Epistles with their Dates corresponding to the Age and Time of the Writers of them Can any thing like to this be said for the rejected Books of the Catalogue Were they ever approved in any Council Are any of them quoted or pretended to be quoted by Writers of the Apostolick Age Is it not said by those Antients who had read 'em and could belt judg of 'em they are composed with an Address and Air quite different from that of the Inspired Books and are not only false in the Doctrine and Facts but very foolish also If some of 'em were read in some Churches was it nor only till the Catholick Church began to fill with learned and able Persons who could make a Judgment And when by these they were discharged was there any Contention for 'em as there would certainly have been if the same or like reasons could have been urged for 'em as for the Books truly Canonical Of the Philosopher Celsus and Faustus the Manichee I Come therefore to the last Refuge of the Anti-Christian party Admitting that the Books of the Canon were for the main of 'em written by the Apostles and their Synergists they have been however so changed and that divers times that now there is little perhaps nothing left of 'em in those Books that stand for them in our present Canon The witness for this is the Philosopher Celjus to whom great Origen immediatly answered This Philosopher says Amyntor informs us that the Christians as if they were drunk had changed the Writing of the Gospel three or four or more times to the end they might deny whatsoever is urged against them as before retracted The Philosopher however doth not say the Christians have changed or altered their Gospel he says only τίνες πισÎυοντων some of those called Believers have altered the writing of the Gospel Origen makes us to understand the meaning of this in his Answer to it which is thus Indeed Marcion and Valentinus and Lucanus have presumed to corrupt the Sacred Books But what is that to Christianity He intended hereby does the Church follow the vitiated Copies of Marcion or of the two Gnostics Valentinus and Lucanus are theirs the Books we show as our Rule of Faith and Manners are these the Books read in the Churches of Christians In short they would prove the Books of our present Canon are corrupted and greatly altered from what they were and how is it proved Why Marcion and Valentinus and Lucanus published some depraved Copies that were rejected so soon as they appeared by all the Churches Why do they not say the Bibles of the English Church were corrupted in the Reign of K. Charles the Martyr when the King's Printers published an Edition in which the words of the Psalmist were thus printed The Fool hath said in his Heart there is a God for which the Printers were fined 3000 l. and all the Copies supprest by the King's Order Has Amyntor any Evidence that the Copies of Valentinus Lucanus and Marcion or any of them is the Copy now used by the Catholick Church or doth not he himself certainly know the contrary He hath no such Evidence and he knows the contrary with certainty therefore he affectedly abused his Reader and too much forgot that a deceitful Management of such Subjects as this obliges his Reader to distrust all he says and more especially his Quotations We shall be troubled but with one Opposer more 't is Faustus the Manichee let us take the matter in our Author 's own words Nay as low as St. Austin's time was there not a very considerable Sect of the Christians themselves I mean the Manichaeans who shewed other Scriptures and denyed the genuinness of the whole New Testament one of these called Faustus c. In these few Lines are more Falsities than Periods For the Manichees were never accounted a Sect of Christians and whether to be called Christians or not they were far from
being a very considerable Sect nor did they show other Scriptures as written by Christ or his Apostles nor deny the genuinness of the whole New Testament or so much as of any Book of it All the business is Amyntor knew not how to point the words of Faustus nor how to render them into English his Translation of 'em is not only false but 't is non-sense By the same figure of Speech that he calls the Manichees Christians he must also call the Mahometans Christians nay there is incomparably more reason so to call the latter than the former but the latter were never so called by any therefore neither may the former Manchaeus and Mahomet equally pretended that he was the Paraclet or Comforter promised to his Disciples by our Saviour in those words recorded by St. John If I go not the Comforter or Paraclet will not come unto you but if I depart I will send him to you When he the Spirit of Truth is come He will guide you into all Truth John 16.7 13. Mahomet innovated but little comparatively in the Articles of Religion Manichaeus subverted all things He taught and his few Followers believed 1. There are two Co-eternal Principles God and Hyle the former the Author of all Good the other of all Evil. 2. God very hardly defends his Frontiers from the encroachments of Hyle even some part of his Divine Substance is captivated by Hyle nor shall it ever be wholly released 3. God is not the Creator of Mankind but Nature 4. The God of the Old Testament is a lying and impotent Spirit false and harsh to his Servants and who was neither able nor willing to protect or do good to the Synagogue or Church of the Jews which served him as an Hand-maid her Mistress 5. Jesus Christ was neither born nor died but is the off-spring of the Holy Spirit generated in the Earth and subsisting in all living Creatures as also in all Fruits and Vegetables the visible Jesus was only a Phantom 6. The Patriarchs and Prophets of the Old Testament were the most flagitious of all men and ought not to be named without some particular and remarkable Detestation 7. Souls are a part of the Substance of God and when the Body dies they enter into other Bodies of men or of Beasts or Fish or of some Tree Herb or Flower as their desert in the present Life hath been except however some few thorowly purified Souls which re-ascend into Heaven where they live and row in Boats of Light 8. The Sun and Moon are to be adored It is evident by these Articles of the Manichaean Creed that our Author might as well or better have said There is a very considerable Sect of Christians themselves I mean the Mahometans who shew other Scriptures and deny the Books of our present Canon If this would be ridiculous the other a considerable Sect of Christians I mean the Manichees is much more so Well let 'em be a Sect of Christians yet they were not as he saith a very considerable Sect. St. Austin who for nine years was of their Number says in tam exiguo pene nullo Numero vestro i. e. you are a very few and almost none at all And again I confess good Christians are but few but those of our Denomination who are really good are vastly more than all you Manichees whether good or bad Contr. Fausium l. 20. c. 23. They shall be Christians and a very considerable Sect. What then Why they shewed other Scriptures different from those that are read and used by the Church If he means they shew some Writings of Minichaeus which among them were valued as the Scriptures of the Evangelists and Apostles are esteemed among Christians 't is true indeed but not to the purpose No more than if he had said the Mahometans show an Alchoran as Christians do a Bible therefore the Bible is a spurious supposititious Book never wrote by the pretended Authors of it The question is whether the Books of the New Testament are genuine were indeed written by the Persons whose names they bear Amyntor answers No for the Manichees a very considerable Sect of Christians themselves shew other Scriptures Plainly if he means they also shew Books written by the Patriarch of their Sect 't is a random Bolt the enquiry not being Whether the Manichees had certain Books which they followed but whether they pretended to prove that the Christian Bible is not genuin by shewing other different Copies of it And this without doubt Amyntor intended therefore I answer they never pretended to shew other Copies of the Christian Bible than those in the Catholic Church Faustus their Advocate never says such a Text is not in our Copies he says only I believe 't is foisted into the Scripture-context because it is a manifest Falshood The two Paraclets Manichaeus and Mahomet were altogether unlearned they both pretended that the Christian Bible was in many places greatly corrupted but this they proved only by arguing against the particular Passages which they disliked not by producing other Copies different from those of the Church In short the way they took might prove the Scriptures of Christians to be erroneous but by no means to be spurious interpolated or not genuin How this madness of the Paraclets is to be answered we shall consider by and by we must now examine what Amyntor has here added he saith The Manichees not only shewed other Scriptures but denied also the genuinness of the whole New Testament He hath no witness of it Faustus whom he alledges says the contrary I don't deny he has truly recited those places of Faustus which he hath put into his Margin but as I intimated before he hath neither seen how to rightly point them nor truly translate them and the reason of both I imagine was he overlookt the Explanations that Faustus gives in other Sections of his meaning and intention First As to the Epistles of St. Paul and of the other Apostles both Faustus and St. Austin own expresly they were allowed by the Manichees Their words are these Apostolum Paulum Accipis Maxime Do you receive Paul 's Epistles Most readily and especially Lib. 11. c. 1. Again Lib. 12. c. 24. Epistolas Apostolorum Legitis Tenetis Praedicatis You read believe and even extol the Epistles of the Apostles As to the Gospels Faustus even disdains that it should be questioned whether they are received by the Manichees If saith he by receiving the Gospel you mean obeying it it is the Rule of my Life and Conversation You Catholics pretend to receive the Gospel without giving any signs of it in your manners and you ask me whether I receive it who do all things that it requireth even all things that might prevent such a Question Lib. 5. c. 1 2. Elswhere he deals more explicitly and clearly Lib. 32. c. 7. We receive as Sacred Truth all that the Son hath said and even all that was said by his Apostles after
's Gospel is but an Abridgment of the Gospel by Matthew that St. Luke in the first Verses of his Gospel commends the Gospels of Matthew and Mark that St. John approved the Gospels of these three former Evangelists and wrote his Gospel only by way of Supplement to theirs that St. Peter commends the Epistles of Paul and signifie at the same time that they were commonly read and a bad Use made of them by some that the Catholick Epistles by James Peter Jude and John the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Revelation being written either to whole Nations or to all Christians were certainly publish'd as soon as written 2. At least the Clergy and Churches were unacquainted with the Books of the New Testament till 130 years after Christ I have shown they were quoted by all the extant Writers of those Times by Barnabas Herinas Ignatius Polycarp Clemens Romanus and by some not Extant as Papias of Hierapolis in the year 110. Farther that the four Gospels the Acts Revelation Catholick Epistles and Epistle to the Hebrews being written for general Information or to whole Churches or Nations they were written to be publish'd and publish'd as soon as written and that 't is a very precarious and withal an unreasonable supposition that the Clergy and Churches were ignorant of the publish'd Books of their Religion That the contrary in truth is evident for as early as Justin Martyr's time the Churches entertained a Reader besides the Deacons Presbyters and Bishop who read the Old and New Testaments to the Assembly 3. It was impossible when the Books of the Canon first appeared to distinguish them from spurious Gospel Acts Epistles and Revelations which were also entitled to the Apostles I have replyed there was nothing more obvious or easy to the then Churches than to distinguish them with absolute certainty by their Agreement or Disagreement with the Doctrine and History of our Saviour which those Churches had but just before received by word of Mouth from the Apostles and other first miraculous Preachers 4. Different Copies were shown of all the Canonical Books from the very first the Nazarens and Ebionits had a Gospel of St. Matthew different from ours the Marcionits of St. Luke and of the Epistles of Paul I have answer'd Marcion was so ingenuous as to retract his vitiated Copies of St. Paul's Epistles and of St. Luke's Gospel the Copy of Matthew used by the Nazarens was say the Antients πληÏÎςατον most perfect the Ebionite Copy being probably St. Matthew's first or Hebrew Edition of his Gospel did indeed want the two first Chapters and in time they had added some Traditional Memoirs from the Witness of some Disciples that had seen the Facts and knew the Persons it were to be wish'd we had still this Copy 5. The Books of the Canon were imputed by some very considerable Sects of Christians not to the Apostles whose names they bear but either to Hereticks or to a set of Half-Jews and Half-Christians who had written them only from hearsay and flying Reports I have evinced that only the Gospel of John was ever mislayed and that the Alogians soon saw their Error in the Case not only receiving that Gospel but receiving it also with all other Sects and Churches as St. John ' s. That the Manichees the other considerable Sect of Christians intended in the Objection owned our four Gospels the Epistles of Paul all the Catholick Epistles and all other Books of our Canon in short that Amyntor certainly and inadvertently enough mistook the meaning of the Author Faustus the Manichee whom he alledged 6. The Philosopher Celsus complains that the Christians had alter'd their Gospel three or four or more times Celsus I have said meant this of the Copies of Marcion and of Valentinus and Lucanus which never were used in the Churches but at their first appearance were detected and rejected by all Churches Of the Books of the Catalogue he saith 1. MANY of 'em have rather been supprest by the strongest side in the Church than lost and that probably they were the genuin Works of the Apostles I have granted divers of 'em might be the real Works of those whose names they bore and that our loss of them is to be regretted but the whole body of Learning has suffer'd extremely by the loss of some of the best Books in every Science and Art Notwithstanding the Reasons alledged by the Antients against many of them are sufficient to convince us that there was just cause to slight and even to suppress them 2. The Epistles of Barnabas Ignatius Polycarp Clemens Romanus and the Pastor of Hermas were esteemed by the Antients to be a good Scripture as any part of the New Testament they were received by the soundest of the Antients who at the same time rejected divers Books of our present Canon namely the Revelation the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of Jude the second of Peter and the second and third of John But I have produced unquestionable Testimony of the Antients that these lesser pieces of the Canon were always received by the generality of Churches and Christians and that when they were owned in the Council of Laodicea 't was on very good grounds on the same Reasons which convinced 'em of the genuinness of the other Books of the New Testament As to Barnabas Ignatius Polycarp Hermas and Clemens Romanus they were considered indeed as pious and well-minded Compositions but were read no otherwise but as we now read in our Churches the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament which for all that we directly deny to be Divine Scripture and many think them not very Edifying or Profitable especially some of them 3. The principal Ante-nicen Fathers quoted divers Gospels Epistles and Acts of the Catalogue as Scripture and Canonical and this is all that can be said for the Books of the Canon and more than can be truly said for some of them I have alledged the very words of those Fathers it appears they never cite the Books of the Catalogue as Divine Scripture and in reciting the Books of the true Scripture-Canon and of the Apostles they always omit all the Gospels and other Books of the Catalogue I grant however that the mere Terms Scripture and Canonical were at first applied to all Ecclesiastical Books that were judged Orthodox as also to the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament to distinguish them from the Moral pieces of the Heathen Philosophers but the alledged Fathers have made us know the great difference they put between mere Scripture and Divine Scripture between Canonical and Inspired Nam pudet haec opprobria Nobis Et dici potuisse non potuisse Refelli FINIS Advertisement ALL the Works of the late Reverend and Learned William Bates D. D. and some Account of him in a Funeral Sermon by Mr. John How with an Alphabetical Table to the whole are proposed to be printed in a large Folio on an extraordinary Paper and Character at