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. [Page 2]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, [Page 3] 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 [Page 5]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. ^† 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 [Page 8]doubt ^* 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 it self, as the Apostles Writ new Books, and was likewise gradually spread over the World, as Particular Churches receiv'd those Books from others, with good Testimonies and Evidences of their being the gennine Works of those, under whose Names they were convey'd to them. No won­der then, if some Books were sooner and some later receiv'd as Canonical, by the Universal Body of Christians in all Places, because either the Books themselves, or the Testimonials to prove them Apostolical, might, nay Naturally would, be transmitted to some Churches later then others, as they were Situated nearer to, or remov'd farther from, those Cities or Coun­trys, where they were first Publish'd, or enjoy'd a greater or less intercourse with them.

But the General conveying of a great part of them over the whole Christian Church, seems to have been perform'd in the Beginning of the Second Century, about the time of St. Johns Death, or immediately after it. For as Euse­bius tells us, in his Ecclesiastical History ( l. 3. c. 37.) there were then great numbers of Persons, Disciples of the Apostles, who travell'd over the World, building up Churches where the Apostles had before lay'd the Foundations, and Preaching the Faith of Christ in other Places, which had never heard of it before, carrying along with them the Copies of the Gospels to all Countreys whither they Travell'd. And it is very probable, that they took with them some other parts of the New Testament besides, [Page 10]since as we shall immediately see from the Testi­monies of Jreneus and Tertullian, they were own'd and admitted everywhere soon after.

IV. For the clearing of which, I shall consider what Books were first taken into the Canon, by the whole Church, and what afterwards; not omitting also to remark that they had be­sides, some that were stil'd Ecclesiastical, and others Spurious or Suppositious.

(1.) The Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, (that to the ^† Hebrews being excepted) the first of St. Peter, and the first of St. John, were all receiv'd over the Christian World, in the time of Eusebius, as appears from his L. 3. C. 25. Ecclesiastical History. To him I might joyn Athanasius, the Council of Laodicea, Epiphanius, Ruffinus, &c. But because they Wrote a while after, when the whole Canon of the New Testament began to be settled, their Testimony will reach the other Books, as well as these under consideration, and therefore I shall reserve them for a fitter place. It's true indeed Eusebius and those others did not Publish their Judgments on this Subject till above 300 Years after Christ, and therefore seem some­thing of the latest to be Witnesses in a case of [Page 11]this Nature. But then we ought to observe, not only that they speak positively what was the general Judgment of their Days, but that three of them appeal to the Tradition of the Church, and the Testimony of the Ancients, who, living nearer the Age of the Apostles, had better op­portunities of informing themselves from Au­thentick Proofs, what were their true and Ge­nuine Works. It was upon this Testimony of Primitive and succeeding Writers, that the Catho­lick Church did, in the time above mention'd, admit these Books as Apostolical, and account them for Canonical Parts of the New Testa­ment. Many of the Writings, which they con­sulted, are now Perish'd, but some have been preserv'd to our days, from which I shall pro­duce an Instance or two, to show that the Church, in the time of Eusebius, had real war­rant from Antiquity, to look upon the Books, whereof I am now speaking, as Canonical or Rules of Faith, since they had been esteem'd for such long before, and were attributed to them, whose Names they bear, by their Predecessors. Thus Tertullian, who flourish'd at the end of the Second Century, tells us expresly, in his Dis­course of the Prescription of Hereticks, that the Law and the Prophets, C. 36 the Gospels and Apostolick Writings, were the Books, from whence we are to learn our Faith. And that we may know what he meant by Gospels and Apostolick Writings (for about them we are only concern'd at present) he does, as occasion was offer'd, in his several Treatises, appeal to all the Books above-men­tion'd [Page 12]( ^* excepting only the Epistle to Philemon, out of which, being very short, he had no oc­casion, I suppose, to produce any Testimonies) as the real Writings of the Apostles and Persons to whom we ascribe them. And Jreneus before him, who convers'd, as we learn from himself, with L. 3. C. 3. Polycarp and L. 2. C. 39. others that had been in­structed by the Apostles and immediate Dis­ciples of our Lord, mentions L. 1. C. 1. L. 3. C. 12. the Code of the New Testament as well as of the Old, calls the one as well as the other, the L. 1. C. 1. Oracles of God, and L. 2. C. 47. VVritings dictated by his VVord and Spi­rit, speaks expresly several times L. 3. C. 1. &c. of the four [Page 13]Gospels, and quotes the same Books of the New Testament, which we observ'd Tertullian does, and under the Names of the same Authors that he does, even of those by whom we now believe they were written, and blames L. 3. C. 2. the Here­ticks of those times for rejecting their Authori­ty. They were Hereticks only that rejected them in those early Ages, neither does it ap­pear that so much as one of the Books we are now considering, was ever doubted of, or call'd in question by any of the Members of the Catho­lick Church, after they were once publickly known. This is enough to evince that Eusebius and the Church in his time had Testimonies of the Ancients to assure them, that the Books above-specifi'd were really the Writings of the Disciples and Followers of our Saviour. And besides these ^† two Authors now mention'd, there are others still Extant, as Clemens of Alex­andria, Origen and Cyprian, who' confirm the same Truth, and many now lost, which they then had in their hands, from whence they drew further proofs and Evidences in this matter.

(2.) The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. John, the Epistle of St. James and of St. Jude, and the Revelation, were at the beginning question'd by some, as Eusebius informs us in the Book and Chapter above-alleg'd; but then, as the same Author in the same Places assures us, they were receiv'd and acknowledg'd by many others. The Agreement about these, was not so general and uniform as about the other Books. Some Persons, and Churches perhaps, receiv'd them all, but the whole Body of the Catholicks did not, as being not then fully satisfy'd, every­where, concerning the Evidence which was pro­duc'd for them. Yet neither were they gener­ally rejected, as some pretend. For several of them were receiv'd in several Places, as it would be very easy to prove from Jreneus, Tertullian and others of the Fathers yet extant Of which more by and by when we come to our Authors fifth Objection. But however the case was at first, it is apparent that upon a due Examination of the Testimonies of the Ancients, produc'd on their behalf, these also were in process of Time receiv'd into the Canon. For Atha­nas Vol. 2. G. L. p. 39. and Bal­sam. p. 921 Athanatius, in one of his Festi­val Epistles, Wrote about 20 Years after the History of Eusebius, reckons them expresly among [Page 15]the rest. So does also Ibid. p. 850. the Council of Lao­dicea ^*, excepting only the Revelation. So does Heres. 76. p. 941. Epiphanius, and so also does On the Creed p. 26. Rufinus towards the end of that Century, and vouches the Authority of the Ancients and the Monuments of his Predecessors for so doing. As Athanasius also had done before him.

Nazianzen Vol. 2. p. 194. indeed in his Jambicks to Seleucus (which sometimes go under the Name of Amphilochius) tells us that the controverted Books were in his time doubted of by some. But 'tis plain from the Verses, under his own [Page 16]Name, P. 98. concerning the Genuine Books of Scri­pture, that he receiv'd them all, the Revelation only excepted. And it appears too by F. 24. St. Jerome, that when he Wrote his Letter to Dardanus, several of the Latine Church rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, and several of the Greek the Revelation. But he declares positive­ly, that he own'd both for Canonical, because most of the Ancients had done so before him. How­ever the Council of Laodicea being admitted into the Code of the Universal Church, and afterwards more solemnly ratify'd, among o­thers, in the first Canon of the A. C. 450. See also Act. 11. of that Council, p. 406. Fourth General Council, shows plainly that both the Eastern and Western Churches did then receive all the Pieces mention'd above, for Canonical, ex­cepting the Revelation only; and what opinion they had of that, we can't Judge from this Argu­ment, because the Laodicean Fathers had said nothing of it in their last Canon. When it was first Ʋniversally receiv'd is not very easy to decide. Certain it is from the Sixteenth Canon of the Fourth Councel at A. C. 633. Toledo, that there were very many then, at least in Spain, who rejected it. And certain it is from the same Canon, if we may believe the Fathers who compos'd it, that it had been declar'd formerly part of the New Testament by many Councils and Synodical Decrees. But the Names of those Councils, which had asserted the Divine Authority of this Book, are not there set down; and therefore. I must Ingenuously confess that I can't tell what Synods the Fathers had an Eye to therein, besides that of A. Cti. 419. Carthage, which reckons the Apocalypse by Name, among the Canonical Books of the New Testament. For [Page 17]as to the Famous Decree of the Roman Council under Gelasius, I suppose that was not forg'd till some years after the Fathers at Toledo made that Canon which we are now considering. However, it is Evident that many of the most Primitive Fathers acknowledg'd the Revelation to be See hereafter Sect. XI. and XXV. Divine, and Written by St. John the Apostle; it is Evident too from what has been above alledg'd, that Athanasius, Jerome, and Rufinus receiv'd it, and appeal'd to the Ancients as their Warrant for so doing. We have seen likewise that it was own'd by Epi­phanius, and acknowledg'd as Canonical by a Synod at Carthage. It was admitted also for such by L. 3. of Virgins p. 98. St. Ambrose, Of Heres. c. 30. St. Augustin, and many others of that and succeding Ages. But whether the diffusive Body of the Church, was so far satisfy'd of its being Authentick, as to receive it every where for such till it was Esta­blish'd by the Sanction of the Sixth General A. C. 680. Council, I shall not take upon me to deter­mine. However, then the Controversy seems to have been brought to an end, if not before. For the Fathers of that Assembly having re­ceiv'd, not only the Decrees of the Council of Carthage, but also (which is more express in the case) Can. 2. the Epistle of Athanasius above­mention'd, did thereby own the Revelation to be properly Canonical, and the whole Church [Page 18]of that Age ^† (especially the Orientals among whom this Book had been most question'd) submitting to their Authority, back'd with so good Evidence, This, as well as the other con­troverted Pieces had been, was afterwards rec­kon'd as a Genuine part of the New Testa­ment.

That these Books were not every where ad­mitted upon their first appearing, shows that the Church did not proceed rashly and care­lesly in the case. And that they were every­where admitted afterward, shows that there was clear Proof and Evidence on their behalf, and therefore they have been ever since joyn'd to the rest of the Books, which we esteem Canoni­cal. The case of those Spurious Pieces, which were thrust into the World under venerable Names, was clear contrary. They flourish'd a little and made a show, when they first came abroad, but after a while, not being able to stand a strict Examination, vanish'd and fell to nothing; so that little has been left of most of them, besides their Names, for many Ages.

(3.) There have been always in the Church, besides these, other Writings that were call'd Ecclesiastical. Such under the New Testament, are the Works of the Ancient Fathers, which have ever been look'd upon as useful and of good Authority (though not infallible as the Canonical Scripture is,) being generally com­pos'd, not only by Pious and Learned Men, but also by those, who liv'd in, or near, the Primitive Ages of Christianity, and consequent­ly had better opportunities of being acquainted with the Doctrin and Practice of the first Preachers thereof, then we have. And among these, they have always been esteem'd of the greatest Authority (if their Character was answerable upon other accounts) who flourish'd and wrote nearest the times of the Apostles. Of this sort is (that which is call'd) the first Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians, which [Page 20]though Eusebius tells us was of so great Estima­tion Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 16. as to be Read Publickly in several Churches, yet he L. 3. c. 25. excludes it from the Canon. And so he does the Pastor of Ibid. Her­mas, which both he, and In the places a­bove cited n. 1. of this Section. Athanasius and Rufinus, acknowledge to have been Read too, openly in some places, yet they all joyn in raising it no higher then an Ecclesiastical Piece. Which I therefore remark here, because we shall find our Author hereafter making a great stir with these two Treatises.

(4.) Several ^* Spurious Writings were also Publish'd very early in the Church, under the Names of the Apostles and other great Men of which our Author has given a large Cata­logue. These were for the most part compos'd by Jren. l. 1. c. 17. Gnostick and other Hereticks to main­tain and propagate their False and Wicked Opinions, and some too were the Works of Zealous but Simple Catholicks. As for in­stance, the Travels of Paul and Thecla, the Author of which, as Trea­tise of Bapt. c. 17. Tertullian and Treat. of Eccles. Writ. in Luke. St. Jerom inform us, wrote it out of Love to St. Paul. He was discover'd in the Life time of St. John, and by him Censur'd. Many of these were found out to be Cheats assoon as they [Page 21]came abroad, and others, not till after some years. However they were generally dis­cover'd sooner or later, so that of the For­geries of the first Ages, there is little remain­ing to our Times, except the bare Titles.

V Having premis'd thus much, I shall now proceed to consider the Objections of our Author.

I. Then he affirms ( p. 52.) that several Spurious Books were quoted by the Fathers, as of equal Authority, with those which we now receive, even by those Fathers, upon whose Testimony the present Canon is Establish'd. From whence, it is Evident, he would and must infer that those Spurious and our Canonical Books ought to go together, and either be e­qually admitted or be equally rejected, since they are founded upon the same Testimony.

To which I Answer,

(1.) That the quoting other Authors in the same Discourses, wherein we appeal to the Writings of the Sacred Volums, is no Evidence that we Judge them of the same Authority. For is there any thing more usual in Moral and Theological Treatises, then to Cite the Scri­ptures and Fathers and Philosophers, and Poets too, sometimes, Promiscuously, as there is Oc­casion? And yet no Man in his Wits ever thought, that by so doing, these three last were declar'd as infallible as the first. How often have Tully and Seneca and Plato and others of their Rank, been quoted by Christian Writers [Page 22]in the same Discourses, wherein they have fetch'd Proofs from the Evangelists and Apo­stles? And yet, I dare say, they never dreamt that, for so doing, they might be charg'd as making Tully equal to St. John, or Seneca to St. Paul. We quote Authors, not always as con­vincing Proofs of the Truth of what we de­liver, but sometimes because they express them­selves handsomly, argue Pathetically, Reason closely, or to show that others have been of the same Judgment with us, though at the same time we think them no more infallible then we do our selves. And after this manner, (that I may come close to our Authors Objection) did Origen proceed, who is observ'd to have cited as many Apocryphal Writings as any almost of the Fathers (though he produces generally, if we'l believe Mon­sieur Va­lois's notes on Euseb. l. 3. c. 38. a Learned Man, no­thing but what is profitable or useful from them) and yet he does not advance any of them into the Canon, but reserv'd that Honour for those Books to which it did belong.

(2.) Though our Author affirms in this Objection, that the Fathers quoted several Spu­rious Books as of equal Authority with those which we account Canonical, yet he gives us no proof thereof, since the bare Citing both to­gether is, as we have seen, no Evidence. Some­thing indeed he offers at ( p. 44.) which sounds like an Argument, and to that perhaps he may here refer, and therefore I have put it in the Second place, that I may allow every thing, he urges, its due force.

VI II. Therefore, He looks upon the Epistle of Barnabas, the Pastor of Hermas, the Epistles of Clemens Bp. of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius to be all Forgeries ( p. 43. 46.) and yet tells us ( p. 44.) that the Ancients pay'd them the highest re­spect, and reckon'd the four first 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'l believe our Author, they put Forgeries in the same Rank with the Books thereof, and esteem'd them of the same Au­thority.

(1.) To which I Answer, That the Positive Charge of Forgeries seems a little too confident, at this time of day, upon so many Books at a clap; most of which have had a good Reputa­tion for several Ages, and have been of late days justified and defended by the Pens of divers of the first Rank for Learning and Criti­cism. But our Author has no consideration for that. The Writers of these Pieces were all (if we'l be perswaded by him) Ignorant and Superstitious, whatever Opinion the World may have formerly entertain'd of the Knowledge and Piety of any of them; and their Assertors, Men of no Judgment and Understanding, who undertook a cause, which can't be defended. For so we Read ( p. 38.) It's the easiest task in the World (next to that of shewing the Ignorance and Superstition of the Writers) to prove all these (and a great many more there reckon'd up) Spurious. But I shall crave leave to say, that talking and doing are very different things, and [Page 24]our Author will find it a more difficult Employ­ment to run down some of these Pieces, then it was to heap together a Catalogue of Writers, where so many Collections had been already made to his hand. Close Reasoning and Argu­ing are quite of another Nature, and what an excellent Talent he has at making out Forgeries, will easily appear to any one who shall take the pains to compare what he says in Answer to the Vindication of K. Charles the Martyr, either with the Book it self, or the Reply of his Learned Adversary.

But however, let that be as it will, I say he extreamly wrongs the Ancients in the accusa­tion he here brings against them, when he says, that they reckon'd the four first of these especially, as good as any part of the New Testament. For (1.) Eusebius was certainly as proper a Judge of what the Ancients held, as our Author; and yet he plainly sets the Books we mention'd ( p. 10.) above all others, and makes them only to be Canonical in the Judgment of the gene­rality of his Predecessors, And though the Church in the days of See these Au­thors in the places a­bove cited Sect. IV. n. 1. Athanasius, Epipha­nius, &c. saw Reason to take some more Books into the Canon, then were admitted by Eusebius, yet these, we are now considering, were still excluded, as we may easily see in the Catalogues Publish'd by those Authors. As to Barnabas and Hermas, Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 25. Eusebius expresly reckons both of them among those which were judg'd Apo­cryphal. In the places a­bove cited. Athanasius and Rufinus sinck the latter into the Rank of Ecclesiastical Writers, and do not by Name indeed mention the for­mer, but however leaving his Epistle out of the Number of Canonical Writings, and vouching [Page 25]the Ancients for what they do, plainly show they knew nothing of any of these being made equal to the Books of the New Testament. (2.) ^† The Arguments our Author brings to prove the Primitive Fathers look'd upon the four Treatises above-mention'd to be as good as any [Page 26]part of the New Testament, are much too weak for that end, for which they are design'd. They are in short these three, (1.) That the Books are either quoted by the Ancients, or (2.) call'd by the Name of Scripture, or (3.) have been Publickly Read in Churches. Now that the bare quoting an Author does not raise him to an equality with the Writers of the Canon, has been already made apparent in An­swer to the first Objection. And as to the Title of Scripture, though that be commonly attributed to the Books of the Old and New Testament, yet it is sometimes us'd in a more large and Lax Sense for any Religious Writ­ings, both by Ancients, and Moderns. For thus, it is evident from Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 25. Eusebius, and own'd by Melchior Canus and Sixtus Senensis, that Origen cast all those Books out of the Canon of the Old Testament, which are esteem'd by the Church of England for Apocryphal, and yet in his F. 114. Third Homily on the Canticles, he ex­presly calls the Book of Wisdom, Scripture; and so he does the Maccabees in his F. 124 Second Book of Principles and the first Chapter; which (that I may remark that by the way) is the only place of all those nam'd by our Author, where Origen gives that Title to the Pastor of Hermas, and by joyning it in the same appella­tion with a Book which he expresly asserted to be Apocryphal, plainly declares that he did not intend, by ascribing to it the Name of Scripture, to advance it into the honour and Authority of the Canon. Neither did Tertullian without doubt, when in his Treatise of Chastity, ( c. 10.) he calls the same Book of Hermas, Scripture; for he censures and inveighs against it in the [Page 27]same place, and tells us, that it had been con­demn'd by more then one Councel of the Ca­tholicks. Rufinus also in his Exposition on the Apostles Creed, does not scruple the calling even those Treatises, Scripture, which were for­bidden to be Read in the Publick Assemblies. And St. Augustine, in his Work concerning the L. 15. c. 23. City of God, tells us there were many Fables contain'd in those Scriptures, which are call'd Apocryphal. From whence, and from all the o­ther Passages before-mention'd it is Evident that the Title of Scripture was apply'd by the Ancients to other Writings as well as to those which they judg'd Canonical. And thus too, though our Church has cast the Books of Wis­dom, Tobit and Ecclesiasticus out of the Canon, yet she gives them the Appellation of Scripture, in the 3d Serm. a­gainst the fear of Death, p. 65. 3d. Serm. a­gainst Ido­latry p. 57. 2d Serm. of Almsd. p. 160. Book of Homilies, and appoints part of them and other Apooryphal Books to be Read in Churches, which is a clear proof that the Ancients, by doing the same thing, did not de­clare the pieces, which they so Read, to be Ca­nonical or even as good as Canon.

And indeed I cannot but wonder how our Author could be guilty of such a mistake, as to think that the bare Reading of a Book in the Publick Assemblies was an Argument, that it was esteem'd part of the Canon, when not on­ly the Constant Practice of our Church, but also the positive declarations of the Ancients them­selves do in express words teach us the con­trary. For thus Rufinus in his Exposition on the Creed, reckons up several Books, which he says were stil'd Ecclesiastical and Read Publick­ly by the Ancients in the Church, but not ad­mitted as of sufficient Authority to Establish [Page 28]or confirm Articles of Faith. The same is also affirm'd by St. Jerom, in his 3d Tome of his Epist. p. 9. Preface to the Proverbs, where he tells those to whom he directs it, that the Church Read indeed the Books of Judith and Tobit and the Maccabees, but yet did not look upon them as Canonical; and so (adds he) let her Read Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Wisdom for the Edification of the People, but not for the proving of any Doctrines or Ecclesiastical Opinions. And thus much too we may gather from Eusebius, who Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 16. relates that the first Epistle of Clemens, Bishop of Rome, was Read in most Churches, and yet L. 3. c. 25. he plainly excludes it from being any part of the Canon of the New Testament. All which are evident demonstrations, that it has been an usual Custom, not only of the Church of England, but also of Antiquity too, to have such Books Read in Churches for the Instruction of the Hearers in Moral Duties, as were never esteem'd by them to be parts of, or equal to, the Canonical Scripture.

What has been say'd, I suppose is sufficient to show that none of our Authors Arguments answer what he design'd, or prove that those Fathers whom he quotes, look'd upon the Books above-mention'd to be as good as any part of the New Testament. And therefore I shall desire him, when he publishes his History of the Canon, not to produce either them, or any other, as esteem'd Canonical in the Judgment of Antiquity, only because they were cited by the Fathers, or call'd Scripture, or Read in the Church. For none of these Particulars prove it, as we have now made Evident.

VII But it may be urg'd, that, though none of the places expresly set down by our Author, do sufficiently make out that, for which they are produc'd; yet however there is a passage of Origen in reserve which will do the Business. And that is in his Explanation of the Epistle to the Romans, ( c. 16. v. 15.) where he tells us, that the Pastor of Hermas is an useful Book, and, as he thinks, divinely Inspir'd. He does say so indeed in that place, but then he does not tell us what sort of Inspiration he means. There have been different degrees of it in the Opinion of all Men, especially of the Ancients. For thus Clemens of Alexandria (who was Origen's Instructor) promises to Write Strom. l. 4. p. 475. as God should inspire him. And he informs us too, that the Philosophers, who wrote Truth, did it by the Admon. to the Gentiles p. 46, 47. Inspiration of God: and yet I dare say never dreamt that either his own Writings or theirs ought for that 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 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 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 [Page 30]find him several times distinguishing the Books of the New Testament into the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles. Now 'tis certain that the Pastor of Hermas can be reduc'd to neither of these heads, and therefore in the Judgment of Origen ^* 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 [Page 31]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 ( 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.

VIII 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.

IX 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 ^* 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 Ecel. Hist. l. 2. c. 15. Eusebius, that both Papias and Clemens of Alexandria attested, that the Romans [Page 34]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 L. 6. c. 25. Historian informs us from Origen, that St. Paul approv'd and recommended the Gospel of St. Luke, ^† being drawn up principally for the use of the Gentiles. To which may be added what he tells us in 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. [Page 35]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.

X 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 [Page 36]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 L. 4. c. 63. Jreneus, 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 [Page 37]the Apostles, since 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.) 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 ^* 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 most of the Pri­mitive Hereticks has appear'd so Monstrous [Page 38]and Extravagant, the Books, which they forg'd to assert it, so ill attested, that the one has now been rejected every where for many hundreds of years, and the other condemn'd and in a manner quite vanish'd. Whereas the Doctrin of the Catholicks maintain'd it self under the sharpest Persecutions, and their Books were preserv'd ^† when it was Death to keep them, and so both have been convey'd together to the present time, not­withstanding all opposition.

XI V. Our Author tells us again ( p. 56.) That the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of St. James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. John, the Epistle of St. Jude and the Revelation were a long time plainly doubted by the Ancients. And as if that had not been enough, he adds ( p. 64.) that they were rejected a long time by all Christians, almost with Ʋniversal consent. But to this I have spoken already ( p. 14, &c.) and therefore think it necessary to add no more, by way of Answer, in this place, then what a Learned Man has say'd concerning the Epistle of St. James, which may with equal Reason be apply'd to all the rest of these once controverted [Page 39]Pieces: Though the Ancients have been divided as to this point, it is enough that the succeeding Ages, after a due Reflection on this matter, have found in Antiquity certain Acts, sufficient to place them in the rank of the Canonical Books of the New Testament, and that all Churches in the World, have, since that, receiv'd them as such. However before I dismiss this Objection, it will not be improper to take a little notice of our Authors Ingenuity, and consider with what truth he could affirm, that these Books were rejected for a long time by all Christians, almost with an uni­versal consent. The contrary to which will ap­pear Evident, if we produce those, who own'd them (during the time he says they were so rejected) as the Genuine Writings of the Au­thors under whose Names they are now Pub­lish'd and Read in the Church of England.

• The Epistle to the Hebrews, own'd as St. Paul's, by Clemens of Alexandria in his Stromata, ( l. 4. p. 514.) — by Origen in his Com­ment on St. John, ( G.L. To. 2. p. 56.)— He affirmed, as we find in the Ecclesiasti­cal History of ^* Eusebius ( l. 6. c. 25.) that many of the Ancients believ'd it to be [Page 40]St. Paul's. Ensebius ( l. 3. c. 3.) says it was rejected only by some, and seems to have admitted it into the Canon with the rest, for his own part, ( l. 3. c. 25, and 38.) St. Jerome in his Epistle to Dardanus ( f. 24.) says that it was re­ceiv'd by most of the Ancients, and quot­ed by them as Canonical Scripture. I don't produce the Testimony of St. Jerome up­on his own account, in this place, either for this Epistle or for the Revelation; but only as he informs us what was the be­lief of most of the Ancients in the case be­fore us.
  See be­fore p. 18.
  The Ancient Syriack Version has this Epistle and
  F. Simons Critical History of the N. Test Part. 2. c. 15. p. 140.
  ascribes it to St. Paul.
• The ^† Epistle of St. James, was own'd as that [Page 41]Apostle's, by Origen (in his Eighth Ho­mily on Exodus, f. 43.) — Eusebius (in his Ecclesiastical History, l. 3. c. 25.) says it was approv'd by many. The Ancient Syriack Version has this Epistle.
• The Second Epistle of St. Peter, own'd as his by Origen (in his Seventh Homily on Joshua, f. 156.) and by Firmilian of Cappadocia (in his Epistle to St. Cyprian, among the Epistles of that Father, Ep. 85. p. 220.) Eusebius says the same of this as of the Epistle of St. James, and in the same place.
• The Second Epistle of St. John, own'd as that Apostles by Jreneus ( l. 1. c. 13. p. 95.) by Clemens of Alexandria who wrote a short Explanation of it, (which see at the end of his Treatise concerning the Salva­tion of the Rich. Ox. Edit. p. 142.) by a Council at Carthage (in the year 256, among St. Cyprians Tracts. p. 242.) Dionysius of Alexandria mentions this Second and al­so the Third Epistle as commonly ascrib'd to St. John the Apostle, in his time, about the year 260 ( Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 25.) Eusebius says the same of this, as of the Epistle of St. James.
• The Third Epistle of St. John. See al­so his Seventh Homily on Joshua f. 156. Origen allowes that both it and the Second might be admitted as the Apostles, and plainly acknowledges that many receiv'd both as Genuine, when he says that all did not. (See Euseb. l. 6. c. 25.) Dionysius says the same of this, that he does of the Second; and Eusebius the same that he says of St. James's Epistle.
• [Page 42] The Epistle of ^* St. Jude, own'd as his by Ter­tullian ( l. 1. Of the Ornament of Wo­men, c. 3.) by Clemens of Alexan­dria (in his Pedagogue l. 3. c. 8. p. 239.) by Origen (in his Comment. on St. Matthew, Tom. 11. p. 223.) Eusebius says the same of this, that he does of St. James.
• The Revelation, ascrib'd to St. John the A­postle, by Justin M. (in his Dialogue with Trypho. p 308.) by
  See hereafter Sect. XXV.
  Jreneus ( l. 4. c. 37. p. 373.) by Clemens of Alexandria (in his Stromata l. 6. p. 667.) by Origen (in his Commentary on St. Matthew, Tom. 16. p. 417.) by Ter­tullian ( l. 3. against Marcion c. 14, and 23.) By St. Cyprian (in his Treatise of the Benefit of Patience) to John, with­out any Epithet; who quotes this Book, I believe, a hundred times. St. Jerome in his Epistle to Dardanus ( f. 24.) says that it was receiv'd by most of the Ancients, as Canonical, and that they cited Testi­monies from it as such.

From what has been here alledg'd, I suppose it is evident, that there were those ( many of [Page 43]those, and they very considerable Persons too) who are now known to have own'd the Autho­rity of the controverted Books, ^† even before they were generally receiv'd by the whole Church. All the Reflection I intend to make upon it, shall be only this, that we may certainly ex­pect a very accurate and impartial History of the Canon from our Author, who takes not the least notice of all these Places, but notwith­standing them and others of the same Nature, had yet the confidence to say, that these seven Pieces were rejected a long time (even in that time, wherein the Authors I have now quoted, liv'd) by all Christians, almost with universal Consent. Such as have a mind, may take his word for it, if they please. But, I believe, few, who shall consult the quotations produc'd above, will admire him either for an exact or faithful Historian.

XII But however, before I proceed any further, I must observe that I find him here in a com­plying humour, and because he is seldom so, I [Page 44]think my self oblig'd to take notice of it. For he acknowledges ( p. 57.) that these seven Pieces are now receiv'd (not without convincing Argu­ments) by the Moderns. Thus far is very well; and I should have been glad to find our Author so frank in his concessions, if what he grants, had not been attended with a sting in the Tail. For it follows, Now I say, by more then a parity of Reason, that the Preaching and Revelation of Peter (for Example) were receiv'd by the An­cients, and ought not to be rejected by the Moderns, if the approbation of the Fathers be a proper recom­mendation of any Book. The short of the Busi­ness is this; that, in our Authors Opinion, there's more reason to look upon the Revelation and Preaching of St. Peter as Canonical, then the Seven Pieces above-mention'd, which are now embrac'd by the whole Church as such. We'll try if you please, and turning back to p. 22, con­sider what Testimonies are there brought to prove these Treatises, which bear the Name of St. Peter, to have been formerly esteem'd Gen­uine.

First, for his Revelation, we find that it's quoted by Clemens of Alexandria; mention'd by Eusebius, St. Jerome, and Sozomen. All this I grant, but then must beg leave to add, that none of these Writers, excepting the first, will do our Authors cause any manner of Service. For Eusebius and St. Jerome expresly declare this Piece (as also the Preaching too) to be Spuri­ous; and Sozomen assures us, that though it was indeed Read in some Churches of Palestine once in the year, yet the Ancients absolutely judg'd it a Forgery.

As for the Preaching of Peter, Clemens of A­lexandria I own, quotes it several times, and he's the only Person I can allow that does as much as seem to favour our Author in the present con­troversy; excepting only Damascen, whom I have not at hand, and therefore can't say what his Opinion might be. Origen says not a word of it in the Preface to his Treatise of ^* Princi­ples, (as is pretended.) He does indeed in his 14th Tome on St. John, but then he considers the Passage there alledg'd as an Objection urg'd by Heracleon, and is very far, as any one may perceive, from owning the Authority of the Book. Lactantius L. 4. c. 21. tells us (in the place cited) that the Apostles Peter and Paul Preach'd at Rome, and deliver'd several Prophecies a­gainst the Jews, which were kept in Writing and confirm'd by the Event. But he does not say, that the Book wherein they were preserv'd, was call'd the Preaching of Peter, neither does it any other ways appear that such Prophecies were contain'd in the Book now before us, and therefore his Testimony signifies nothing to the question in hand. As for the Discourse concern­ing the Baptism of Hereticks, among the Works of St. Cyprian, I grant the Preaching of Peter is there quoted, if we'll allow the conjecture of Rigaltius ^†, that Paul is by mistake set for Peter, [Page 46]for 'tis 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, ^* we have the Testi­mony of one single Father, and an obscure [Page 47]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, 'tis evident they were the Forgeries of Hereticks. For in the 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 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 ^† notorious falshoods. And the Revelation of Peter informs us, that 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 [Page 48]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.

XIII 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 the least notice of the answer, which is to be found in the same place from whence he drew his Objection. For this Objection is quoted by our Author from the Second Book of Origen against Celsus ( p. 77.) and there he might have found this an­swer too, that they were the Hereticks, the Mar­cionites, the Valentinians, and the Lucianists (some of whom also L. 1. c. 29. Jreneus and Against Marcion l. 4. c. 5. Tertullian positively accuse of the same tricks) who were guilty of these Prevarications. For which the [Page 50]Catholicks were no more answerable then the Church of England was for the Murther of Charles the First.

XIV VII. To Celsus, in the same Page, our Author joyns the Manicheans (fitly enough I confess) who shew'd other Scriptures and deny'd the Genuine­ness of the whole New Testament.

Whether will not Men go, or what will they not do, to serve a design? He knows, or at least might know, that the Manicheans were as Extravagant and Whimsical a sort of Hereticks as any that troubled the Christian Church. They held, as Heres. 66. Epiphanius informs us, That there were two Supreme Gods, the one, a good, the other, a bad one; that they were always at War with one another; that Manes was the Holy Ghost; that the Souls of Men, after their decease, should pass into the Bodies of such Beasts as they had Eaten when they were alive, or be united to those Trees which they had planted; that the Sun and Moon were Ships, which convey'd the faithful of their Sect to Heaven, and that the Light of the Moon depended on the number of the Souls in it, which, when she was full, she emptied into the Sun by degrees, and so grew dark again. These things they believ'd, or at least maintain'd, with Twenty more of as absurd a Nature. And now, I pray, what does the O­pinion, which such as these had of the Canon, signify? They could find nothing in the Books of the Catholicks, wherewith to justify their Notions, and therefore S. Aug. Treatise of Heresys. n. 46. rejected their Autho­rity, and made use of others for their peculiar Doctrins. But our Author might as well have set up the Alchoran in opposition to the New Testament, and for so doing have alledg'd the [Page 51]Judgment and Testimony, of the Turks. For laying aside the Name, they seem to be every jot as good Christians as the Manicheans.

Here our Author brings in two Passages from Faustus the Manichee, to show that He and those of his Sect rejected the whole New Testament. That they did so in effect, is evident and un­doubted; for they made it of no Authority, by refusing to be concluded by Arguments drawn from thence, pretending that it contain'd many Errors, which had been foisted into the several Books thereof, by the Tricks and Cheats of suc­ceeding Ages, long after the Deaths of the A­postles. They maintain'd it was full of Corrup­tions and Falsifications. And therefore Faustus boasts St. August. against Fausius l. 18. c. 3. that the Manichean Faith alone secur'd the Professors thereof from all danger of Heresy, by instructing them not to believe every thing which was written in the Name of our Saviour, but to try whether what they Read to have been taught by him, was really true, sound and uncorrupted. For (as he goes on) there are many Tares mingled with the Wheat, which an Enemy, during the times of Night and Darkness, has Sown and Scattered in almost all the Scriptures, for the infect­ing and poisoning the good seed. And again, L. 32. c. 1. he asks the Catholicks, What reason they had to think it strange, if he, selecting those Passages out of the New Testament, that were most pure, and conduc'd to his Salvation, should fling away all the rest, which had been fraudulently convey'd into it by their Predecessors and sullied the Native Beauty and Majesty of the Truth? This was their con­stant Practice; when they were press'd with any Texts, which they could not reconcile to [Page 52]their fond Opinions, they without more ado slighted their Authority, affirming the Testi­monies produc'd against them, were forg'd and no part of the Doctrin deliver'd by our Blessed Lord and his Apostles. And therefore St. Augustine L. 13. c. 5. l. 22. c. 15. l. 32. c. 19. accuses them, as receiving the Scriptures only for fashion's sake, while by assert­ing them to be falsified and corrupted, they per­fectly detracted from their Authority; that is, if I understood him aright, they pretended, up­on occasion to have a deference for the New Testament, whereas really they had none. For they charg'd it with Corruption, and acknow­ledg'd nothing as an Article of Faith, purely be­cause contain'd in the Books, and upon the war­rant, thereof, but because they judg'd it true up­on other accounts, and for this Reason were willing to own that it L. 33. c. 3. might possibly have been deliver'd by Christ or his Disciples.

And therefore I readily joyn with our Au­thor, and acknowledgd that the Manichees really rejected the whole New Testament; not only because there are several passages of Faustus, which plainly intimate as much, but also because St. Augustine himself seems clearly to have un­derstood them in that Sense. For thus we learn from him, L. 32. c. 16. that these Hereticks affirm'd their Paraclet Manicheus had taught them, that the Scriptures (even See the beginning of that Chapter. the Scriptures of the New Testament, receiv'd for Canonical by the Catholicks) were not the Works of the Apostles, but wrote by others in their Names. And we Read again how the same worthy Teacher had in­form'd them, L. 32. c. 18. towards the end. that the Evangelical Writings, part of which they refus'd to admit were not the Apostles. And accordingly we shall observe by [Page 53]and by, that this Father was so sensible, how far these miserable Hereticks had been seduc'd in this matter, that he thought himself con­cern'd directly to answer this Objection, and prove against his Adversary Faustus, that, what­ever he and his Party pretended, the Gospels and Epistles, admitted by the Catholick Church, were Genuine and Authentick.

XV That therefore we may allow our Author, and his Objection against the Canon of the New Testament, drawn from the Manicheans, all the fair play that can be desir'd, I shall state the full Sense thereof in the two following Propositi­ons.

(1.) The Books of the New Testament were not wrote by the Apostles or Apostolical Men, See S. Aug. a­gainst Faustus l. 33. c. 3. but drawn up several years after them out of reports, Traditions, and Historical Me­moirs.

(2.) Whoever they were that drew them up, they falsified and corrupted the pure Doctrins of Christianity, by inserting several Errors and contradictions among the Truth. And therefore the Manichees admitted the Books just so far and in such particulars as they judg'd them true, and rejected the rest as of no value.

This is the utmost force, which can be put into the Objection; and we'll now 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 [Page 54]of those Pieces, which bear their Names, he thus reasons with Faustus and his Followers.

‘ 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 [Page 55]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 [Page 56]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 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 [Page 57]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, ‘ 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 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, — 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 [Page 59]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. 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 Epi­phan. Heres 66. Sect. 13. by Manicheus, or the four Pieces, long before Written by 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 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, 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 [Page 61]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 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 [Page 62]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, ‘ 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 l. 28. c. 2. another he thus bespeaks them, — You produce a Book perhaps, which bears the Name of one of the Apostles, who were really chosen by our Lord, where you Read that Christ was not born of a Virgin. It is undoubted that either your Gospel or ours must be false, and which do you think in your Consciences it is most reasonable to believe? Shall not I assent to a Book, which the Church, that was begun by Christ, and carried on every where by his Apostles in a certain order of Succession to these days, has receiv'd and preserv'd from the beginning? [Page 63]Or shall I give credit to a Piece produc'd by you, which the same Church rejects as utterly unknown to her, and was at first brought to the Publick view, l. 13. c. 5. by Men so few in number, if compar'd with the whole Body of Christians, and of so little veracity, as that they are not asham'd to charge our great Master himself with falshood and deceiv­ing?

And thus I have gone through all the Parts of the Argument against the Canon of the New Testament, drawn from the Opinions and Practices of the Manichees, and furnish'd the Reader with the Answers, which St. Augustine gives to every Branch thereof. This our Au­thor, if he had so pleas'd, might have done be­fore me; for the Replies are found in the very same Treatise from which he fetch'd his Ob­jections. And I shall appeal to himself whether this be an ingenuous and fair way of proceed­ing, to revive an old weather-beaten Cavil, and furbish it up with a great deal of Pomp and O­stentation, as if it was able to run down a whole Army of opposers, when yet he neither was nor could be Ignorant, how all the force of it had been shatter'd and broken in pieces above a Thousand years before he was born.

But perhaps our Author will tell me, as he does Mr. Blackhall in the case of the Eikon Basi­like, that he is of another Opinion, that he knew of these Answers indeed well enough before, but passed them over in silence, because he judged them insufficient. If he'll venture his Reputa­tion on such a Reply, I cannot help it; though I would advise him as a friend, to offer any thing else rather for his Justification. For the World will not 'twice be imposed upon by the [Page 64]same trick; and since, for instance, after all his Labour and shuffling, the Testimonies of Mrs. Gauden and Doctor Walker will not be re­conciled, which he had pretended might be done with a wet Finger, Men will be so surly and ill natur'd, as to think, that it is something else, and not the weakness of an Argument, or Answer, that makes him say nothing to it.

But to let that pass at present, I proceed to remark how upon this occasion we are told ( p. 63.) that the Adversaries of the Manicheans had power enough to be counted Orthodox. And was there indeed no difference, good Sir, between the two Parties, but that? Do you indeed believe the Manichean Doctrin was true? Do you believe the Existence of two Supreme Gods, a Good one and a Bad? Do you believe the Transmi­gration of Souls, and the other Whimsies which were asserted by those Brainsick Hereticks? If you do, speak out, and then we shall know (as you express it p. 49.) where to have you, and how to deal with you. If you do not, is not this an excellent and very commendable way of pro­ceeding, to endeavour to draw your Readers to believe that of which you believe nothing your self; and to perswade them that it was nothing but Power, which distinguish'd the Catholicks from the Manicheans, and made them be ac­counted Orthodox. This is the Eternal Clamour of this kind of Men. They'll have it to be only Power and Interest, which keeps us in the ac­knowledgement of the Catholick Doctrin, and if it was not for that, they say we would quick­ly forsake it. But, pray, Sir, (not to insist now upon the fury and violence of the Arians) What Power had the Catholicks in the first 300 [Page 65]years? What force had they then to compel Men to embrace their Doctrin, when they lay under the sharpest Persecutions, and were con­stantly expos'd to the Fire, to the Sword, and to other severe Tortures, themselves? And yet even then, they stood up stoutly for the Truth, and inflicted Ecclesiastical Censures on those Hereticks who corrupted the Faith, and met to­gether in Councils, to condemn their Erroneous Opinions, even at the Peril of their Lives. This they did in the case of Paulus Samosatenus, Bishop of Antioch. They held two Councils there up­on his account; the Bishops when they heard his Opinion, that he asserted Jesus Christ to be no more then a meer Man, came together from several parts, as against a Spoiler and Destroyer of our Lords Flock (so Eusebius Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 27. tells us) and having first condemn'd his Doctrin, they afterwards depos'd him and substituted another in his Place. Though he kept Possession of the Episcopal Chair and House for three years after the Sentence (as the Learned inform us) by the Assistance of Zenobia Queen of Palmyra. And here I hope (what our Author in his fleering way calls) Orthodoxy and Power were not on the same side. Nevertheless the Fa­thers did not flinch for the matter, but though Zenobia asserted the cause of Paulus, yet they refus'd to Communicate with him as being a Convict Heretick, after they had sufficiently prov'd him so to be.

XVI VIII. We are told ( p. 64.) that the Ebio­nites or Nazarens (who were the oldest Christians) had a different Copy of St. Matthews Gospel; that the Marcionites had a very different one of St. [Page 66]Luke's; that St. John's Gospel was attributed to Cerinthus, and all the Epistles of St. Paul deny'd by some, and a different Copy of them shown by o­thers.

Our Author has here jumbled a great many Hereticks together, and one Answer might serve them all, by referring to what has been already say'd by way of reply to the Fourth Objection ( p. 35, &c. But I shall distinguish, and give a different account of them severally, that so we may understand how far each of them proceeded and with what they are justly charge­able, and so give every one a Separate Answer. He tells us, that the Ebionites or Nazarens were the oldest Christians. We'll lay the Name of Ebionites aside for a while, and shall grant what he says concerning the Nazarens; for that in­deed was the common Appellation given by the Jews at first to all Christians. For thus we find Tertulius accusing St. Paul ( Acts 24.5.) as a Ring-leader of the Sect of the Nazarens. But afterwards this Title was appropriated to a particular Faction. Before the Destruction of Jerusalem, (as Eccl. Hisi. l. 3. c. 5. Eusebius and Heres. 29. Sect. 7. Epiphanius tell us,) all the Christians, who were there, being admonish'd from above, retir'd to Pella, a City beyond Jordan, and by that means escap'd those horrible Plagues, which fell upon the rest of their Country-men. After the departure of the Roman Army, the greatest part return'd to Jerusalem, as we are inform'd by l. 3. c. 11. Eusebius, and there continued under the Government of the Bishops of that Church; the Succession of whom we have set down by Her. 66. n. 20. Epiphanius, from St. James the Apostle to his own time. Those Christians, which stay'd behind at Pella, were [Page 67]ever after, Her. 29. n. 7. as the same Author informs us, call'd Nazarens, and differ'd from the Catholicks in this, that they thought themselves still o­blig'd to Circumcision and all the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law. Out Epiph. Her. 30. n. 1, 2. of them sprang the Ebionites, who, as we learn from l. 3. c. 27. Eusebius, were of two sorts; One of them affirm'd that our Saviour was really the Son of Joseph, born of him and Mary, as other Men us'd to be of their Parents. The other asserted his Miraculous Incarnation from a Vir­gin, and yet maintain'd, that he was a meer Man, absolutely denying his Divinity. We see then, how our Author equivocated when he told ^* us the Nazarens were the oldest Christians. Those indeed whom Tertullus, in the Acts, call'd by that Name, were so; but not those, among whom the Ebionites sprung up, and who joyn'd with one or other part of this Sect, and there­fore, as Eusebius, in the place now quoted, tells us, were all call'd promiscuously by that Name; [Page 68]though the more Moderate sort were ^† Com­pare Euseb. l. 3. c. 27. with Epi­phan. Heres. 29. n. 7. also often call'd only Nazarens. These still adher­ing to the Jewish Law, as we above observ'd, rejected all the Epistles of St. Paul, calling him an Apostate and Deserter, and receiv'd only the Gospel according to the Hebrews, slighting all the rest, as Eusebius there further relates. The Gospel according to the Hebrews was, as we may learn from Heres. 29. n. 9. Epiphanius and Against the Pela­gians l. 3. in the be­ginning. St. Jerome, the Gospel, of St. Matthew in Hebrew, but yet with several interpolations and additions of [Page 69]their own, ^* though without making any al­terations in what they found in the Authen­tick Copies before. The other Party, more properly call'd Ebionites, corrupted the Gospel of St. Matthew in several Particulars, took a­way the Genealogy of our Saviour, and alter'd it in other Passages, as Heres. 30. n. 13. Epiphanius teaches us. Besides, they only admitted the Books of Moses and Joshua of the Old Testament, reject­ing all the Prophets, deriding and cursing David and Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Esay, Jeremy and the rest, wherein they were perfectly distinguish'd from the Nazarens, who own'd and esteem'd them all. However both Parties, as we have seen, agreed in this, that they rejected all St. Paul's Epistles, despis'd all the other Gospels, and receiv'd only that of St. Matthew, which they had more or less alter'd with their inter­polations.

And now are not these excellent Witnesses for our Author against the establish'd Canon? Do not they effectually prove, that the Epistles, we have under St. Paul's Name, are falsly as­crib'd to him, who (as we above observ'd) inveigh'd against St. Paul himself, as a Deserter of the Law, as a Cheat and Impostor; and in contempt, as Epiphanius farther remarks, us'd [Page 70]to call him, the Man of Tarsus, and would needs have him, though born a Jew, to be a Gentile Proselyte. They rejected not the Epistles, but because they rejected the Apostle himself and his Doctrine. When our Author tells the World he does so too, I may think my self oblig'd to defend our Religion against him, and these Judaizers, whom we are now consider­ing.

At present, my business is only to assert that our Canon is Genuine, and the Books, which we receive, the true Writings of those to whom they are ascrib'd. This the Ebionites deny'd not, but endeavour'd to run down the Writers themselves, and since they had so little Christi­anity as to attempt that, I think, I may safely say, there can be no difficulty in determining whether the Copies of St. Matthew, which they kept, or that which was preserv'd by the whole Catholick Church besides, ought to be look'd up­on as Authentick.

We must distinguish here between the Copy of the Nazarens, and of the Ebionites strictly so call'd. The latter had corrupted and alter'd and interpolated the Gospel according to St. Matthew, and therefore their Copy was justly stil'd Spurious. But the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which the Nazarens embrac'd, contain'd no alterations (as was above ob­serv'd) of what St. Matthew Wrote, but only the addition of some Historical Passages that had been gather'd from Oral Information or Tradition, and were added in their proper Places, to preserve them and make the story more full and compleat. Several of these might probably be true, and therefore, when not pre­tended [Page 71]to be Wrote by St. Matthew, ought not to be call'd Spurious or a Forgery. Canonical indeed they were not, because not the Work of the Apostle, as appears from all the Copies of the Catholicks; but they might deserve the Name of Ecclesiastical History, and under that notion be quoted (with Caution) as well as any other Writing of that Nature.

XVII It follows, the Marcionites had a very different Copy of St. Luke. No doubt of it. He might have added too, that these were the Men, Jren. l. 1. c. 29. Epiphan. Here. 42. n. 9. who show'd a different Copy of most of St. Paul's Epistles, that is, of such as they allow'd; ^† Io. and Tertull. a. gainst Marcion l. 5. c. 21. for they rejected those to Timothy and Titus. And there was good Reason for what they did. Since they held that there were two Gods, one of the Old Testament and another of the New; that the former made the World, and was the cause of all Wars and Contentions; that Jesus Christ was the Son of the other, and sent by his Father to overthrow and destroy all the Works of the Old-Testament-God; with more such stuff, as we may Read in l. 1. c. 29. Jreneus, A­gainst Marcion. Tertullian and Heres. 42. Epiphanius. Now what should [Page 72]these Men do with our Gospels and Epistles, at least till they had chang'd and alter'd them? Since there is nothing in them, which Esta­blishes, but many Passages which overthrow their fond and lewd Opinions. Jreneus and Tertullian therefore proceeded rationally in appealing to all the Churches in the World against them. The former urges that the Dis­ciples of our Lord taught no such Doctrines, l. 3. c. 4. either in the Churches, which they found­ed, or l. 3. c. 5, 6. yet in those Writings, which they left behind them, and l. 4. c. 63. which were preserv'd entire in all the World, by the whole Body of Christians. The latter presses them to consult l. 4. against Marcion c. 4, 5. Of Pre­script. c. 32, 33, 36. See this prosecuted more at large here­after, Sect. XXXIV. the Apostolick Churches and those that held Communion with them, and then tell him, in which of them, those Heresies that Marcion main­tain'd, or those Scriptures, that he had alter'd and corrupted, were embrac'd. The contrary to all this was evident. The Catholicks Copies were all the same, as to the Books the Here­tick rejected, as well as to the Places he had corrupted; the Catholick Doctrins were all the same, and none agreed with Marcion, and therefore these Fathers concluded, as justly they might (especially being no farther remov'd from the Apostles themselves, then the Second Century) that the Cheat and Imposture lay on the side of Marcion and his Followers.

XVIII Our Author proceeds, St. Johns Gospel was attributed to Cerinthus. This we confess is very true, and it was done, as we find in Heres. 51. n. 3. Epi­phanius by some, who upon that account were call'd Alogi. They rejected the Logos or Word, and would not allow what St. John Writes in [Page 73]the beginning of his Gospel to be true con­cerning our Saviour. And because they had not the face openly to appear against what was taught by an Apostle, they bring several Ob­jections to show that it was none of his (which Epiphanius answers at large) and after all, would have it fix'd on the Heretick Cerinthus. But they were very absurd in so doing, as the same Father observes in the following Section? Ib. n. 4. For how could those things be Wrote by Cerinthus, which do in direct terms contradict his Doctrine? He asserted Jesus Christ to be a mere Man, whereas the Author of this Gospel asserts him to be the Word, which was from Eternity, which came down from Heaven, and was made flesh for our sakes. Cerinthus therefore was not, could not be the Author, unless we'll suppose, that he forg'd a Gospel under the Name of an Apostle, on purpose to overthrow what him­self taught and maintain'd every where. We see then that St. John's Title, notwithstanding what has been say'd, remains firm and un­shaken; and it will be further strengthned, if we consider that Ireneus ( l. 3. c. 11. p. 257.) makes it his business to prove that the begin­ning of this Gospel was Wrote expresly by the Apostle to oppose the Heresies and Errors of Cerinthus.

XIX IX. Our Author further urges ( p. 53, &c.) that Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 3. Eusebius rejects the Acts, Gospel, Preach­ing and Revelation of Peter from being Authentick, for no other Reason, but because no Ancient or Mo­dern Writer (says he) has quoted proofs out of them. But herein Eusebius was mistaken; for the contrary appears by the Testimonies mark'd in the [Page 74]Catalogue, which any body may compare with the Originals. In l. 3. c. 25. another place he says that the Gospel of Peter, Thomas, Matthias and such like, with the Acts of Andrew, John and the other Apostles are Spurious, because no Ecclesiastick Writ­er, from the time of the Apostles down to his own, has vouchsaf'd to quote them; which is absolutely false of some, as we have already seen. — Had Eusebius found any of these Pieces cited by the pre­cedent Orthodox Writers, he would have own'd them as genuine Productions of the Apostles, and ad­mitted them, as we say, into the Canon. But having met with no such Citations, he presently concluded there were none; which made him reject these Books. And I say (what I have already demonstrated) that proofs were quoted out of some of them long before, so that they might still belong to the Canon for all Eusebius.

This is a long-winded Objection, but we shall better understand what strength there is in it, if it be divided into the three following Pro­positions. (1.) That Eusebius rejects the a­foresay'd Books, only because he thought that none of them had been quoted and mention'd by the Ancients; when yet some of them really were. (2.) That if he had known, they had been so quoted, he would have look'd upon them as Canonical. (3.) It being evi­dent therefore, that they were so quoted by the Ancients, they ought, according to Eusebius his Principles, to be esteem'd Canonical. This is the force of the Objection, and to this there are two Answers drawn up, which it is pretended we are like to make. But of all People in the World, I shall not trust our Author to give in [Page 75]any Answers in my Name. If they be good for any thing, he'll certainly leave them behind him. Thus he did in the case of Origen and St. Augustine, who had furnish'd him with very good ones to the Objections of Celsus and Faustus, but he fairly dropt them by the way, and so left the Heathen and the Heretick in Possession of the Field. And I dare say, that if he had not thought he could easily overthrow those Answers he produces in this place in the Name of his Adversaries, we should never have heard one word of them. I am resolv'd there­fore, to have nothing to do with his Answers, whether good or bad, but shall give in such as I will stand by, and accordingly speak to the above-mention'd Propositions in their order.

The first is, that Eusebius rejects the forefaid Books only because he thought they were none of them quoted or mention'd by the Ancients, when yet some of them really were. To which I answer, (1.) That Eusebius could not be Ignorant, that some of these Pieces are quoted by Clemens of Alexandria (who mentions them several times) being very much conversant in the works of that Father, and having expresly taken notice that Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 14. one of them was cited by him; and therefore when he says that none of these Books are quoted by the Ancients, he must be understood to mean (not that they are never quoted at all, for that he knew they were, and says so expresly concerning the Re­velation of St. Peter ( Eccles. Hist. l. 3. c. 25.) but) that they were never quoted by any as Canonical, and this was a sufficient reason, why he should not admit them under that notion. [Page 76]Though (2.) this is not the only Reason; for he observes of several of them, that l. 3. c. 25. they contain'd a Doctrine contrary to the Catholick Faith which was planted by the Apostles, and therefore ought to be censur'd and rejected as the undoubted Contrivances and Forgeries of Hereticks.

The Second Proposition is, That if Eusebius had known that any of these Pieces had been ever quoted by the Ancients, he would have esteem'd them Canonical. I answer, it is evi­dent from what has been just now say'd, that Eusebius did know it and yet would not receive them into the Canon. The bare quoting a Book, except it be quoted as part of the Rule of Faith, or a Genuine Writing Compos'd or Authoriz'd by the Apostles, signifies nothing in this case, as has been allready prov'd. Nay, I shall further add, that if Eusebius had known, that some of the Ancients had really quoted one or more of these Pieces as Canonical, that alone would not have induc'd him to receive them as such. For this was the very case of the Epistle of St. James, the Second of St. Peter, and the rest of the once controverted Pieces. They were quoted by many, and quoted by many too as Canonical, yet because the whole Church was not then acquainted with the Rea­sons, which afterward satisfied her to admit these Books as parts of the Code of the New Testament, we see that they were lay'd aside and not advanc'd to that honour by Euse­bius.

The Third Proposition is, That since these Acts, Gospel, Preaching, Revelation of St. Peter, and the others, were some of them really quoted by the Ancients, they ought, according to the Principles of Eusebius, to be receiv'd for Canonical. I answer, No; unless quoted as Canonical, and prov'd Canonical too, by such Testimonies as were sufficient to satisfy the Catholick Church, as appears by the Instances of the Epistle of St. James, and the rest above­mention'd. When Eusebius could not meet with so much as one Primitive Father, who cited these Books for Canonical, that alone (though he had another reason too against divers of them, as appears before) was sufficient war­rant for him to reject them. But for the in­troducing them into the Canon, a constant and well attested Tradition, by such as were cap­able of Judging, from the first Ages, that they had been prov'd Genuine, upon Authentick Testimonies, was requisite in his Opinion, and therefore our Authors Objection vanishes into air and signifies just nothing.

XX X. I come now to the last Objection, which is founded on a long Passage of Mr. Dodwell, who (as is insinuated) reflects more upon the Certainly and Authority of the Canon of the New Testament, then any thing, which had been before excepted against, in our Author. This is usher'd in, with great Pomp and Ceremony; for we Read ( p. 69.) that Mr. D. alone, though a Layman, understands as much Ecclesiasti­cal History, as the Divines of all Churches put to­gether. This is a high flight indeed; methinks [Page 78]it had been enough to have made him under­stand as much as all the English Divines, but to bring in the Divines of all other Churches be­sides, is a little too Extravagant, and more, I am certain, then our Author can possibly know. I shall not in the least detract from the true Character of that worthy Gentleman, who ought to be (and I believe generally is) valued for his great Learning and Piety, and will, I am confident give our Author no thanks for his Complement, or for bringing him in as a Witness in the case now before us. For he is quite of another Opinion, and tells us expresly but a few Pages before that Passage which is produc'd by our Author, that Sect. 36. p. 62. there is no manner of reason to doubt of that Tradition, which has transmitted to us the Canon of the New Testa­ment. This, I think, is a point blank contra­diction to the Natural design and tendency of the Treatise we are now considering, since that runs all into confusion, and plainly aims at the perswading Men, that in the Business of the Canon, we have nothing but Darkness and Ob­scurity.

Mr. Dodwell's Principal Intention in the long Passage quoted from him, was to show, that we have as good Evidence, that the Practical Tra­ditions (as for Instance, Episcopal Govern­ment) which obtain'd in the time of Ireneus, and were deliver'd as such, were really Aposto­lical Institutions, as there is for the Canon of the New Testament; because the Books, we now receive for Canonical or our Rule of Faith, were not so fix'd and determin'd till the beginning of the Second Century, as to be appeal'd to by the Christian Church under that notion. And [Page 79]they were then settled upon the Testimony of the same Persons (and sent See his Addenda to p. 73. and his Chronolo­gy. abroad too in­to all places in the year 107) who convey'd these Traditions, and who having been conver­sant with and instructed by the Apostles, were with­out doubt sufficiently qualified to give in Evi­dence concerning their Writings and to distin­guish them from all others, which might go abroad falsly under their Names.

This I take to be the main design of the Passage now before us, with what proceeds and follows in the Original (from Section 35 to Section 41 inclusively;) but because there are some Particulars therein, which may deserve a little further clearing or illustration, I shall em­ploy a few Pages thereupon, and if in any thing I differ from that Learned Gentleman, I know he'l allow me the same Liberty of Thought and Judgment, concerning matters of Fact, which himself took before me.

XXI While the Apostles travell'd up and down, Preaching in several Places and Countries, they Wrote those Pieces, which we now have under their Names, but for the most part, as Criticks observe, after the middle of the First Century. This is a sufficient Reason, why in those times of War and Persecution, some of them might not come to the hands of many, who liv'd in remote and distant Places, till that Age was al­most or perhaps quite expir'd. Though that several were carefully transmitted by the de­positaries of them to other Churches and Persons, with whom they had the most convenient Cor­respondence, is a thing easy to be prov'd, be­cause [Page 80]we find them borrowed by the earliest Writers.

^* For thus there are two Passages of p. 18, 60. St. Luke, and one p. 64. of St. Peter's first Epistle, and another p. 4. of the Second to Timothy, and divers of the Epistle p. 12, 13, 15, 23, 47.48. to the Hebrews, made use of by Clemens, Bishop of Rome; and the first Epistle p. 61. Ox. Edit. 4 to. 1633. of St. Paul to the Corinthians, is very much recommended by the same Father to the Christians of that City. Barnabas gives us the direct words of two Texts in St. p. 217. Matthew and p. 218. Lond. Ed. 4 to. 1680. St. Luke. There are four or five Passages in Hermas, which seem to have great affinity with so many Texts in the Old and New Testament: But I own they may be disputed, especially by those who look upon the Visions and Conversations, mention'd in that Book, to have been real, and I will not insist up­on them, but only observe, that there is as much Evidence that this Author borrowed from the New Testament as there is that he borrowed from the Old. Ignatius mentions Epis. to the Ephes. p. 24. St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, and seems plainly to have taken Expressions Epis. to Polycarp p. 13. from it, Ib. p. 11. from St. [Page 81] Matthew, and from the first Epist. to the Ephes. p. 27. Lond. Edit. 4 to. 1680. Epistle to the Corinthians. In ma­ny places. Polycarp is Copious in his quo­tations. In him, we meet with Words taken out of St. Matthew, St. Luke, the Acts, the Romans, the first Epistle to the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the first Epistle of St. Peter, and of St. John, and he twice mentions St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians.

All the Inference I intend to make from hence, is only this, that these Books, from whence the Authors just now mention'd, fetch'd all the Passages we refer to, were then undoubt­edly dispers'd abroad in some parts of the Chri­stian World, since they had been Read by these Fathers, and were made use of by them in their Writings. And, I think, I need not attempt to prove, that they were look'd upon as Cano­nical, at the same time. For it is morally im­possible to suppose, that Pieces Wrote or Au­thoriz'd by the Apostles, should not be esteem'd Canonical or Rules of Faith by all Christians to whom they were communicated, since the Knowledge which they had of the Doctrin of Faith was entirely deriv'd from them and their Instructions.

It's true, the Writers we are now consider­ing, very rarely give us ^† the Name of the Book or Author from whence they fetch any Passage, and therefore Mr. D's remark is very just, that the succeeding Ages of the Church could not, in such cases, learn from them what Pieces were to be parts of the Christian Canon. They produce Texts indeed from Authors that were Canonical, but they don't always tell us so, when they produce them; and therefore their Testimony alone is not sufficient to inform us, what are the Genuine Writings of the A­postles and what are not. This we can learn from none but those, who either recommend a particular Book by Name, or at least tell us whence they draw their Passages. And this is so seldom done by the Authors now mention'd, that all the Evidence we can derive from them, [Page 83]will not extend to above The first Epistle to the Corinth. the Epi­stles to the Ephes. and to the Phi­lippians. three or four Pieces. The assurance we have that the other Books of the New Testament are Canonical, must be taken from the Writers of the Second Cen­tury, at least as far as we know now, (I mean such Writers as follow'd Ignatius and Polycarp here mention'd by Mr. D.) and the Testimony of them is unexceptionable, since conversing with the Disciples of the Apostles, they could easily be inform'd by them what Books were really Genuine and Apostolical.

But we are told, that the Writers of those times do not chequer their Works with Texts of the New Testament, which yet is the custom of the more Modern, and was also theirs in such Books as they acknowledg'd for Scripture. For they most fre­quently cite the Books of the Old Testament, and would doubtless have done so by those of the New, if they had been receiv'd for Canonical. That the Books of the New Testament could not fail of being judg'd Canonical, by those who knew their Authors, has been observ'd already more then once; and therefore I proceed to remark, that if these words refer to the latter Writers of the Canon, they are express'd very obscurely, and will fall under consideration immediately. If they be design'd to comprehend Clemens, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius and Polycarp (and I think, they can't be understood otherwise) I must confess that I wonder very much at them. For the two first fetch Passages from the New Testament as well (though not so often) as from the Old. The third may be suppos'd to cite neither or both. The fourth and fifth have certainly more Texts out of the Gospels and Epistles then out of the whole Old Testament. [Page 84]And the latter of these two, I mean Polycarp, has above Twenty Passages out of the New Testa­ment in his short Epistle, so that it may very well be say'd to be chequer'd with them.

XXII Whether the later Writers of the New Testa­ment saw all that had been Wrote by the former, I shall not take upon me to determine. But I think the not quoting them or the seem­ing contradictions between them, are no argu­ments to the contrary. For the former is the case of several Prophets and Writers of the Old Testament, who don't quote their Predecessors; and those things which now seem contradictions to us, might perhaps be little or none to them, who were acquainted with the Circumstances of the Age, and admit, it may be, as easy a solution, as the difference of the genealogies upon account of the Natural and Legal Fathers, does from See Eu. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 7. the relation of Africanus. Sure I am that St. Peter was acquainted with 2 Epist. 3.15, 16. some of St. Paul's Epistles, and that they were then judg'd Canonical. And that he had also Read St. Mark's Gospel, St. Paul that of St. Luke, and St. John, all the other three, has been above prov'd by Ecclesiastical Testimony. To which I shall add, that Grotius affirms St. Luke to have certainly Read the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, and proves it from hence, because in reporting the same Passages, he sometimes uses their very Words.

XXIII I dare not affirm, that the Fathers of whom we are now speaking, cited any Texts from such Gospels, as are properly Spurious, because it [Page 85]does not appear to me; See above Sect. V. in an­swer to the first Ob­jection. much less that they attributed the same Authority to them, that they did to the Genuine Writings of the A­postles, because of this there is no manner of Evidence. For though there be some Passages in them which are not mention'd in our Evan­gelists, and others differently express'd from what we now Read, yet no such consequence can be drawn from these Premises.

For first, the Citations might perhaps be made from no Books at all. Thus, though it be true that St. Paul, St. Barnabas, and St. Ig­natius, cite an Expression or two as spoken by our Saviour, which are not to be found in our Gospels, yet it does not follow that they took them from Spurious Writers; they might easily receive them from Ear-Witnesses. They were remov'd at so little a distance from our Saviour, that they certainly convers'd with his immediate Disciples, from whom they might hear Relations of several considerable Actions and Sayings of his, which were not recorded by the Evangelists.

Neither does it follow, that if a Passage be not express'd just after the same manner that we find it in the New Testament, therefore it ought to be look'd upon as interpolated or drawn from the Books of some Spurious Writers. For it is well known, that many of the Fathers, as well of the later as of the first Ages, quote the Texts of Scripture by memory, and often design to give the Sense, without confining themselves to the Words, of the Original. Many In­stances might be given of this Nature, but I shall refer the Reader at present only to the Epistle of St. Barnabas, where he'll find nu­merous [Page 86]proofs of this assertion in Texts cited from the Old Testament; particularly p. 221. in the Promise of entring the Holy Land, p. 228, 229. the Sacrificing of the Goat and p. 229. the Circumcision of the Heart.

But if we should go further, and suppose that some of the Writers of that Age, quoted other Gospels or Histories of our Lord, then those which are now esteem'd Authentick in the Church, yet I don't see what can be infer'd from thence, that may be in the least a Prejudice to our cause, or shew that there was no difference then put between Spurious and Genuine Writ­ings. ^* For I think, it can't be question'd, [Page 87]but that several would Publish Accounts of the Life and Actions of our Saviour, who were his honest and Faithful Disciples, and inserted no­thing in the Story, but what they had good ground to believe true and certain, though they were not infallible in their Narrations. From some of these, the Writers that follow'd after might quote Passages, and that justifiably enough, as from those, whom they esteem'd (and who were as to the main) faithful Histo­rians. Though when the four Gospels, which we now have, were Publish'd to the whole Church, the estimation of those other Histories might sink, and so they not be transmitted to Poste­rity, as not being of equal Authority.

XXIV And as there were Histories of the Life and Preaching of our Lord, so were there too with­out doubt Relations of the Miracles and Actions of his Followers, and Summaries of the Doctrines and Instructions of the Apostles: which being drawn up by those who heard and convers'd with them, were really of great use to the faith­ful, and might be quoted by them upon occasion without any manner of blame. Many of these, Learned Men judge it probable, were in 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 [Page 88]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.

XXV 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, [Page 89]part of whose Discourse upon that Subject, we have in the 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 [Page 90]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 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 Of Pre­script. c. 36. Tertullian, In Eu­seb. Hist. l. 3. c. 23. Clemens of Alexandria, l. 3. c. 18. Eusebius, 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 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. [Page 91]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. 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 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 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.

XXVI The first difficulty is, How 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.

XXVII 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, 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 [Page 94]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 [Page 95]of value, and Pertinent to the designs upon which they were Writing.

XXVIII I proceed now to our Authors third difficul­ty, 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, 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 [Page 96]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 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 ^† Spirit or Apparition. In 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 [Page 97]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 ^* 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, [Page 99]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.

XXIX The last difficulty, is, p. 80. What stress should be lay'd on the Testimony of those Fathers, who not only contradict one another, but are often incon­sistent [Page 100]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, 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.