THE Design which the Au­thor of the defence of Mil­ton's Life professes that he had, in writing that part of his Book which relates to the Writings of the Primitive Fathers, and the Canon of the New Testament, was only to vindicate himself from the Charge of denying the Scripture and declaring his doubt that several pieces under the name of Christ and his Apostles, re­cieved now by the whole Christian Church, are supposititious; by shew­ing that what he had said in the Life of Milton, concerning the spurious­ness of several pieces under the name of Christ and his Apostles, was meant not of those Writings which are now received by the whole Christian Church, but of those Apocryphal Pieces, [Page 4]which were in many places received and approved in the Primitive Times. This is what the Author professes to be the only design of this part of his Book: And though for his own sake I cannot but heartily wish it were really no other; yet because there are several Passages, wherein he either so expresses the very slight esteem that he has for the Primitive Fathers, as seems to reflect upon our Religion it self; or raises such doubts about the authority of the Canon of the New Testament, as Hereticks (to use his own words) may draw mis­chievous inferences from, and by which Scruples may be put into the minds of Sincere Christians; I have therefore sent you such short re­marks as upon reading the Book have occurred to me, and as I hope may be of some use to others on this Occasion.

[Page 5]The Principal Propositions which our Author maintains, and which I thought most to deserve consideration, are these three.

First, Pag. 38, 39. That the Books ascribed to the Disciples and Companions of the Apostles, which are still extant, and at this time thought genuine, and of great Authority; such as the Epistle of Clemens to the Corin­thians, the Epistles of Ignatius, the Epistle of Polycarp to the Phi­lippians, the Pastor of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas; (for about the rest which he menti­ons, there is no great Contro­versie;) are all very easily proved to be spurious, and fraudulently im­posed upon the credulous.

Secondly, pag. 38. That 'tis the easiest task in the world, to shew the igno­rance and superstition of the Wri­ters of these Books: pag. 45. That Barna­bas has many ridioulous passages; [Page 6]and by saying that the Apostles be­fore their Conversion were the greatest sinners in nature, robs us of an ar­gument we draw from their integri­ty and simplicity against Infidels: That the Pastor of Hermas is the silliest Book in the World: And that Ignatius says, pag. 46. the Virginity of Mary was a secret to the Devil; which, I suppose, he cites as a ridiculous saying.

Thirdly, That they who think these Books genuine, ought to re­ceive them into the Canon of Scrip­ture, since the reputed Authors of them were the Companions and fel­low-labourers of the Apostles, as well as St. Mark, or St. Luke, which is the only reason he ever heard of, why these two Evangelists are thought Inspired. pag. 48. For to say that these Books ought not to be received now into the Canon, because the Ancients did not think fit to approve [Page 7]them, is but a mere evasion; since many Books now received as Cano­nical, were not approved by the An­cients; pag. 57. and some received by the Ancients, are now rejected b [...] the Moderns; and Mr. Dodael owns, pag. 73. that anciently no difference was put by the Church between the Apocry­phal and Canonical Books of the New Testament: and besides, no stress can be laid on the Testimony of the Fathers; pag. 80. since they not only contradict one another, but are often inconsistent with themselves in their relations of the very same facts; were divided into various Sects, pag. 56. who in those early days did, like us, condemn one another for damnable Hereticks; used to reason precari­ously, p. 50, 51. ( as Irenaeus the famous Successor of the Apostles, argues from the four Regions of the World, and the four Winds, that there cannot be more nor fewer than four Gospels) [Page 8] and give hard names to those who contemn such precarious reason­ing.

These are the principal Asserti­ons of our Author, which be­cause they seem to me not only to be salse, but also to be propo­sed with too bold a liberty of passing censures upon the judg­ment both of the ancient and modern Church; I shall there­fore in answer to them, and for a Vindication of the Primitive Fa­thers and Modern Doctors of the Christian Church, with submissi­on advance these three Propo­sitions.

First, that though we are not infallibly certain, that the Epi­stles of Clemens, Ignatius, Polyearp and Barnabas, with the Pastor of Hermas, are Genuine; yet that they are generally believed to be so, upon very great Authority, [Page 9]and with very good Reason.

Secondly, That therefore, though they are not received as of the same Anthority with the Canoni­cal Books of the New Testament, yet they ought to have a propor­tionable Veneration paid to them, both with respect to the Authors and to the Writings themselves.

Thirdly, That neither the Belief of the Genuiness of these Books, nor the Respect paid to them as such, does in the least diminish from the Authority of the New Testa­ment, or tend to make the number of the Canonical Books Ʋncertain or Precarious.

I. First, That though we are not infallibly certain that the E­pistles of Clemens, Ignatius, Polycarp and Barnabas, with the Pastor of Hermas, are Genuine; yet that they are generally believed to be so, upon very great Authority, [Page 10]and with very good Reason.

1. The Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians, a [...]. Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 16. [...]. Id. l. 3. c. 38. [...]. Id. l. 5. c. 6. ex Irenaeo, l. 3.3. c. 3. great and wonderful Epistle, saith Eusebius, was una­nimously and without any controversie received by the antient Church; and [...]. Id. l. 3. l. 16. read publickly in most Churches, both an­tiently, and in his time. And that the Epistle now extant is the same with that which was so commended by the Antients, has not been questioned by any Learned Man these many years, and has been lately proved at large by the Learned Doctor Wake in his Ge­nuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers and by Grabius in his Spicilegium, p. 261. whom I shall not now transcribe.

2. That Ignatius wrote several [Page 11]Epistles [...]. Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 36., one to the Ephesians, one to the Magnesians, one to the Trallians, one to the Romans, one to the Philadelphians, one to the Smyrnaeans, and one to Polycarp; Eusebius expresly testifies; quoting a large passage out of his Epistle to the Romans, which passage is now extant word for word in that Epistle, being published with the rest above-mentioned. And that all the Epistles now extant under these Titles, are the same with those mentioned by the Antients; is sufficiently proved by the very Learned Bishop Pierson in his Vin­diciae, Cotelerius, and others.

3. The Epistle of Polycarp to to the Philippians, is mentioned by Lib. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus that knew him living, and by [Page 12] Hist. l. 3. c. 36. Eusebius, In Catalogo, &c. Hierom and others, whose Te­stimonies set down at large by Cotelerius I need not transcribe: And that the Epistle now extant under his Name, at least the greatest part of it, is the Genuine one, is acknowledged by See Dr. Wakes Genuine Epistles, and Coteler. not. 1. in Epistolas Ignatii. all Writers eminent for Judgment and Learning.

4. The Pastor of Hermas is in­contestably a most antient work, being cited by almost all the Pri­mitive Fathers extant, that lived in or near the second Century; viz. by L. 2. & 4. & 6. Irenaeus, by De Orat. c. 12. & de Pudic. Tertullian, by Hom. 8. num. lib. 1, 2. & 3. de Princip. Comment. in Mat. Hom. 37. in Luc. mul­tis (que) aliis in locis. Ori­gen, by Clem. Alexand. &c. whose Testimo­nies are set down at large by Nicol. de Nourry at the end of his Apparatus ad Bibliothe­cam maximam veterum Patrum, and [Page 13]praefixed to the Oxford Edition of Hermas, and to that of Cotelerius. Whether the Author of this book be the same Hermas that is mentio­ned by St. Paul, though it is affir­med by many of the best and most judicious writers, yet is it not so certain, nor of such consequence, that we should be obliged to de­fend it.

5. The Epistle of Barnabas is also without controversie antient, a work of the Apostolick Age, be­ing quoted by almost all the Clem. Alex. Strom. 2. & Strom. 5. Origen. contra Cels. lib. 6, &c. Primitive Fa­thers; as you may see by the Testimonies set down at large, in all the same Authors with the Testimonies concerning Hermas.

Upon these great Authorities then, though we cannot be abso­lutely sure that these Writings are Genuine, yet we may well con­clude [Page 14]and believe them to be so, notwithstanding the suspitions which some have raised to the contrary. There are also sundry other Arguments, which may be drawn from the simplicity of the stile and way of arguing used in these Writings, agreeable to the custom of the Age in which they are supposed to be written; from the conformity of the matters con­tained in them, to the Doctrine and Discipline of those times; and from the exact Agreement of all the Quotations of the most an­tient Authors, to the Copies extant at this day: All which taken toge­ther, afford so good Reason to be­lieve these Books to be genuine, that whosoever considers them, may very well wonder at the con­fidence of Mr. T. who is pleased to affirm that 'tis the easiest Task in the World to prove all these Wri­tings [Page 15]spurious, and fraudulently im­posed upon the credulous.

II. Secondly, Though these Writings are not received as of the same Authority with the Ca­nonical Books of the New Testa­ment, yet ought they to have a proportionable Veneration paid to them, both with respect to the Authors and to the Writings them­selves.

Clemens was a Companion of the Apostles, and Ignatius and Po­lycarp their immediate Successors; and if the Authors of the Epistle of Barnabas and of the Pastor of Hermas were not the same with the Fellow-Labourers and Con­temporaries of the Apostles, known by those Names, yet are they so undeniably antient, (being certain­ly of the first Age,) as to challenge all the respect that can possibly be due to any Writers upon the [Page 16]account of Antiquity. And as to the Writings themselves, though Mr. T. will not be persuaded to grant with the Learn­ed Dr. In his Discourse of the Authority of the genuine Epistles, p. 175. Wake, that they contain the true and pure Faith of Christ, without the least Errour intermixt with it; yet this we may be bold to affirm, that in general they are so far from be­traying either the Ignorance or Su­perstition of their Authors, which Mr. T: so confidently charges them with, that they contain a ve­ry good account of that Doctrine and Dicipline of the purest ages of the Church, which all learned and good Christians heartily wish could be restored at this day.

1. The Epistle of Clemens is stiled by Eusebius, (as I have al­ready observed) a great and ad­mirable Epistle; and was publick­ly read in the Christian Churches [Page 17]both before and in his time: ‘And indeed it does not at all come short of the highest Praises which the Ancients have given to it; being a Piece composed with such an admirable spirit of Love and Charity; of Zeal towards God, and of concern for the Church; of the most excellent exhortations delivered with the greatest plainness and simplicity of speech, and yet pressed many times with such moving elo­quence too; that I cannot ima­gin what could have been de­sired in such an spistle, more proper for the end for which it was composed; what could have been written more becoming an Apostolical age, and the Pen of one of the most eminent Bishops of it.’ Thus the Learned Dr. Wake.

[Page 18]His making the Scarlet thread hung out by Rahab to the Spies, a Type of the Blood of Christ; how­ever it may possibly seem strange to such as Mr. T. was yet in the Opinion of the Ancients very a­greeable to the Tenour of the Scripture, and particularly to that Type of the Scarlet Wool, where­with the Blood of the Sacrifice was sprinkled on the People under the Law, Heb. 9.19.

The History of the Phaenix, mentioned in this Epistle, is con­fessedly a Fable. But he that con­siders that it was a Story at that time generally told and believed, as Tacitus largely relates; and that the best of Men never had any assurance of being preserved from vulgar and innocent Errors; will not be hasty in censuring an ex­cellent Man, and an excellent Book, for making such a vulgar [Page 19]error the Topick of a Popular Ar­gument.

2. The Epistles of Ignatius are written indeed in a plain, simple, and unaffected stile; as are most of the Books of the Holy Scrip­ture it self: but, whatever Mr. T. says, there is nothing in them ei­ther of ignorance or Superstition; unless a Firm belief of Divine Re­velation must be esteemed Igno­rance, and a strict Observance of the Laws of Christ is to be called Su­perstition.

One Passage indeed there is in his Epistle to the Ephesians, which Mr. T. cannot but smile at: viz. that the Virginity of Mary and her delivery, was kept in secret from the Prince of this World. But he that considers the manner of our Savi­our's temptation, and how the Ancients constantly, and (in the [Page 20]judgment of the very Learned Sanè Diabolum majus aliquid homine in C [...]r [...]sto agnovisse hoc quidem tem­pore, constanter, nec sine magnis argumentis, negant Scriptores antiqui. Grot. in Mat. 4.3. Grotius) not without good Grounds, denied the Devil to have known any thing at first of the great My­stery of the Incarnation, will not for this passage condemn Ignati us of Ignorance.

3. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippiaus is a very valuable Monument of Antiquity, con­taining nothing in it unworthy the Character of so great a Father. [...]. Eu­seb. Hist. l, 4. c. 14. ex Ire­naeo. Ire­naeus calls it a most com­pleat Epistle; out of which they that are care­ful of their own Salvati­on, may learn what was the Belief of that Apostolical Man, and what the form of sound Doctrine which he delivered in his Preach­ing.

[Page 21]4. The Pastor of Hermas is a Book full of very excellent Moral Instructions, delivered for the the most part in easie and natural Similitudes, and these also ex­plained at large to the apprehen­sion of the meanest capacities: For which reason, though it was not received into the Canon of Scrip­ture, yet (as Eusebius testifies) it [...]. Euseb. Hist. l. 4. c. 3. was judged by the Ancients a most necessary Book, especially for those who were to be instructed in the first Principles of Religion; and was therefore accordingly read in Churches: And Origen (who was far from being an ignorant Man) judges it to be a In Rom. 16, 14. most useful Book. But Mr. T. saith it is the silliest Book in the World. Why he should think so, I cannot apprehend, un­less it be because there are here [Page 22]and there some few odd Passages scattered in it, very different from our modern way of Writing, which perhaps he can single out and expose; And so there is hard­ly any Book extant in the World, which a witty Man may not turn into ridicule.

All the Objections which I think have been hitherto made to this Book, are these: That Libri fabulosi sunt, in quibus contra Apostolicum consensum adstruitur Libe­rum Arbitrium, una Paeniten­tia, Solitudo Monastica, &, quod memoratu dignum, purgatorium ab anu quâdam in visione tertiâ prosertui. Scultetus de Script. Apoch. it contains fabu­lous Visions: That it makes too much for Free­will: That it assigns to every Man two Angels: That it favours the No­vations in allowing but one Repen­tance: That it favours Monkish Solitude: and, that it speaks of Pur­gatory. The three first of these Ob­jections we shall consider imme­diately; But the three latter are so directly false, that one would [Page 23]wonder how prejudice could pos­sibly be so strong as to make Men see in any Author those things, of which there is not the least syllable or hint in the whole Book.

That the Visions contained in it are fabulous, we ought not to say, unless we be sure, either that God never afforded any Visions to the first Christians; or that these Vi­sions have some particular Circum­stances, which prove that they could not come from God. But if it were so, yet taking that which is used in this Book to be no other than a Parabolical way of Wri­ting, wherein the Church is intro­duced as representing its own Do­ctrine and Discipline to a Person in a Vision, it ought not to be stiled fabulous, any more than Parable of the Pilgrim. of the Prodigal, &c. other Books of that kind which are written in our Age.

[Page 24]That maintaining the freedom of Mans Will, in the sense that Her­mas asserts it, is a good Objection against a Book, I suppose neither Mr. T. nor any Man else, at this time of day, will contend.

That Hermas assigns to every particular Man two Angels, if the Titles of the Chapters were of any Authority, could not indeed be questioned. But in the Book it self there is no such thing expresly affirmed: All that the Author there says, is only in general, That Duo sunt nuntii cum homine; unus aequitatis, & unus iniquitatis. Man­dat. 6. there are two Angels with Man; one of Righteous­ness, the other of Iniquity; and that when good thoughts arise in a Mans heart, then the Angel of Righteous­ness (that is, some good spirit) is with him; and when evil thoughts arise in his heart, then the Angel of Iniquity, (that is, some evil spirit) [Page 25] tempts him: Which perhaps is no more, than what all Christians believe. So that Cotel [...]rius in his Notes upon the place, might have spared the pains of proving other Fathers to have been of the same opinion with Hermas, till he had shown that these words do neces­sarily signifie that Hermas himself was of that Opinion.

That Hermas by allowing but One Repentance for great and scan­dalous Crimes, favours the Nova­tians, whose Heresie consisted in allowing no other Repentance at all, than that of Baptism, is so far from being true, that he in express words opposes his One Repentance to Baptism, and says more for the validity and efficacy of that after-Repentance for Crimes commit­ted by Baptized Christians, in this one little Book, than perhaps is to be found in all the other Wrirers [Page 26]of the three first Centuries put to­gether; insomuch that Tertullian, after he turned Montanist, and had embraced the Opinion of the No­vatians, Cederem tibi, si scrip­tvra Pastoris, quae sola mae­chos amat, non ab omni concilio Ecclesiarum inter Apocrypha & falsa judica­retur, adultera & ipsa, & inde patrona sociorum. De Pudicitia. exclaims with all imaginable bitter­ness against this Book for that very reason, because it was more fa­vourable than any o­ther Book then extant, in allow­ing Repentance to Adulterers after Baptism, which the Novatians denied.

That this Book favours Monkish Solitude, is also so far from be­ing true, that on the contrary it even expresly allows Mandat. 4. Second Mar­riages, which was more than most Writers of that Age were willing to do.

Lastly, So far is this Writer from establishing the Doctrine of Purgatory, that there is not one [Page 27]syllable about it in the whole Book: All the places where he speaks of Mens undertaking ma­ny hardships, and so purging them­selves from their sins, being as plainly meant of the Penances to be gone through, according to the then established Discipline of the Church, as 'tis possible for any thing to be expressed by words.

5. The Epistle of Barnabas was very much esteemed among the Antients: And though it must indeed be confessed, that it contains some very strange and allegorical Interpretations of Scrigture; yet he that considers how much that manner of In­terpretation was antiently in use among the Jews in their Tar­gums, and how many important truths were that way conveyed, so that the Apostles themselves [Page 28]in their arguing with the Jews did often make use of it, as we see in their uncontroverted Wri­tings; I say whosoever considers these things, will rather chuse modestly to suspend his Judg­ment, than rashly to upbraid this Author with the Terms of foolish and ridiculous.

And as to his saying that the Apostles before their Conversion were the greatest sinners in nature; this does not at all rob us of the Ar­gument we use to draw from their Integrity and Simplicity against In­fidels. For supposing them to have been never so wicked, were they the less Simple and Illiterate for that? Or is their Wickedness before their Conversion any way inconsistent with their Integrity after it? But besides, these Words might be spoken with relation to such sins, as though very great [Page 29]in themselves, yet sincere and well-meaning Men might be guilty of in their Ignorance; as St. Paul says of himself, that before his Conversion he was the chief of sinners, in respect of his blasphem­ing Christ and persecuting Christi­ans even to Death, for Christ's sake.

In short, though it must after all be confest, that the Authors of these Writings used a plain, po­pular and unpolite Stile; that they were guilty of some Mistakes, in things wherein the whole world at that time erred with them; (for which Mr. T. is pleased to stile them Ignorant;) and that they de­livered divers things, which tho' very agreeable to the strictness of their Discipline in the Primitive Church, yet the present times will not so well bear; (for which Mr. T. calls them Superstitious;) Tho' I say, all this must be granted; [Page 30]yet since in general the Matter of these Writings is such, that not only the Ancients thought fit to cite them in their Books and read them in their Churches, but also the Learnedst and most Judicious Criticks of our own times, as well Laicks as those of the Clergy, have received them as genuine, and re­commended them as containing the true and pure Faith of Christ; I cannot but think that the very great scorn and contempt, where­with Mr. T. hath thought fit to treat them, is a very bold assum­ing to himself, and undervaluing the Judgment of the greatest Men both of the Ancient and Mo­dern Church, and consequently a Reflection upon our Religion its self; and that after all, we have very good Reason, as well as very great Authority, though not to receive these Writings as of [Page 31]the same Authority with the Ca­nonical Books of the New Testa­ment, yet to pay them a proportio­nable Veneration, both with respect to the Authors and to the Writings themselves.

III. Thirdly, Neither the Be­lief of the Genuineness of these Writings, nor the respect paid to them as such, does in the least diminish from the Authority of the New Testament, or tend to make the number of the Canoni­cal Books uneertain or precari­ous.

This is the difficulty, on which Mr. T. seems particularly to insist, as if it were impossible for those who believe the Genuineness of these Writings to give any tolera­ble reason why they do not ad­mit them into the Canon of the New Testament, as well as seve­ral [Page 32]others, which are now receiv'd: And therefore I shall indeavour to be somewhat more exact and par­ticular in giving an Answer to it.

1. First then, tho' we have great Reason to believe these Books to be Genuine, yet have we not the same certainty of it, as we have of the Genuineness of the Books re­ceiv'd into the Canon of the N. Te­stament. The Books of the New Te­stament, as it might be proved of every one of them particularly, were received at their first coming forth as being written by Divine Inspiration, and were quoted as such by Irenaeus and others of the Ancientest Fathers: And though upon occasion of some Disputes that arose afterwards among Chri­stians, the Authority of some few of those Books came to be called in Question; (not to speak at [Page 33]present of those Hereticks, the Ce­rinthians, Marcionites, Manichees, and others, who rejected whatso­ever made against their absurd Opinions;) yet those few Questi­oned Books were so far from be­ing (as Mr. T. salsely asserts) reje­cted a long time by all Christians al­most with universal consent, that even those Books were not only kept entire from the beginning, but (as Eusebius expresly testifies) were [...]. — [...] Hist. l. 3. c. 25. [...]. lib. 3. c. 3. owned by most Doctors of the Church, and were all along read together with the other Scrip­tures; and at last, up­on the full and exact examination of all Circumstances, the matter being put out of Question, they were unanimously received, as well by those Churches where they were doubted before, as by [Page 34]all other Christian Churches, into the Canon of Scripture; and so have been continued ever since by universal consent, and by the un­interrupted Succession of Christi­ans in all Ages. Whereas of those Writings which we are now spea­king of, that which is the least controverted, viz. the Epistle of Clemens, was for many Ages thought to be utterly lost: and though upon its appearing again, the best Criticks in the World thought they had good reason to pronounce it Genuine; yet they could not be so sure that it was free from corruption and interpo­lation, as we are of those Writings which were never lost. And now this Argument is of peculiar force against Mr. T. For if he thinks, as he says, that he can with all the ease in the World prove these Writings spurious; (which not­withstanding [Page 35]his vain boast, he will never be able to perform;) he may at least allow those, who do not doubt but they are Genu­ine, yet not to advance them a­bove their own rank, and place them among those which by the Universal Church have been re­ceived into the Canon of the New Testament.

2. Secondly, Though the mat­ter of these Writings be such, as that they do therefore deserve very great veneration and respect; yet is there plainly something humane, something of infirmity, something of fallibility in them, for which they are with all reason thought inferior to the Writings of the Apostles. And this Argument is also peculiarly strong against Mr. T. For if he thinks, as he says, that he can with all the ease in the [Page 36]World show the Ignorance and Su­perstition of the Authors of these Writings; well may he allow those, who so far differ from him in this, as to think they deserve the high Character of Primitive, Holy, and Apostolical Men, yet not to presume to equal them with the Apostles themselves.

3. Thirdly, When we have made the best judgment of things, that we can possibly at this di­stance of time, we cannot after all but pay some deference to the judgment of the Ancients, especi­ally when assembled in a Council; and allow them to judge some­what better in the Ages next after our Saviour, what Writings were of Authority to be made the Stan­dard and Rule of Faith, than we can after 1700 hundred years: Especially since of the doubted [Page 37]Books, which were sometime read promiscuously with the uncontro­verted, 'tis plain they received such only into the Canon, whose stile, and matter, and agreement with the rest of the Apostolical Writings, do sufficiently prove them to have judged wisely and upon good Grounds. But this Argument is of no force with Mr. T.

4. Fourthly, Therefore, and which is a direct decision of this Question, I add, that the true reason why such a certain and determi­nate number of Writings are re­ceived as the Canon of Scripture, that is, as an Authoritative Rule of Faith and Manners, is because they were written by the Apostles themselves, (who are acknowledg­ed to have been guided by an in­fallible Spirit,) or which is all one, [Page 38]were dictated, reviewed and appro­ved by them or some of them. All the Books of the New Testament, except the Gospels of St. Mark, and St. Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles, are therefore received as Canonical, because the Church upon undoubted Grounds be­lieves them to be written immedi­ately by the Apostles themselves; and these three Books are there­fore received as Canonical like­wise, because we believe them to have been dictated, reviewed and approved by some of the Apostles. And this is a plain and direct rea­son, though Mr. T. is so modest to say he never heard of it, pag. 48. why the Writings of St. Mark and St. Luke, who were only Compani­ons of the Apostles, are received among the Canonical Writings of the Apostles; and yet the Epi­stles of Clemens and Barnabas, who [Page 39]were Fellow-labourers with the Apostles, are not. And that this is indeed the true reason, why some Books are received as of in­fallible Authority, and others not; may be sufficiently proved to any unprejudiced person, from what we find in the Ancients concern­ing this matter. That all Books ac­knowledged to be written by the Apostles, were always received as of unquestionable Authority, is evident. The Question concerning any doubted Book, being, not whe­ther the Writing of an Apostle should be received as of good Au­thority or not, but whether that Writing said to be an Apostle's, were indeed the Writing of him whose name it bore. That the reason why the Writings of St. Mark and St. Luke were always received as of certain Authority, was not be­cause they were Contemporaries [Page 40]with the Apostles, (for so were Clemens and Hermas, and Barna­bas,) but because their Writings were particularly approved and authorized by the Apostles, is plain from Eusebius; who tells us expresly that St. Peter received and approved the Gospel of St. Mark, and that [...]. l. 2. c. 15. it was this approbation that authorized it to be received by the Churches: In like man­ner, [...]. l. 3. c. 2 [...]. That St. John re­viewed all the Gospels, and confirmed the truth of them: Irenaeus like­wise tells us Marcus discipul [...]s & in­terpres Pe [...]ri, quae à Pet [...] annunciata era [...]t, edidit. lib. 3. cap. 1. that what St. Mark wrote, was di­ctated by St. Peter; and that Lu [...]as s [...]cta [...]or Pauli, quod ab illo pr [...]licabatur, Evangeli [...]n in [...]bro con­didit. Ibid. the Gospel of St. Luke was only a Tran­script of St. Paul 's Prea­ching: St. Paul himself plainly re­fers to it, 1 Cor. 15.5. where de­claring [Page 41]unto the Corinthians the Gospel which he had before Prea­ched, he puts them in mind how that Christ rose from the dead accor­ding to the Scriptures, and that he was seen of Cephas, &c. which ap­pearance of our Saviour to Peter, is no vvhere mentioned but in Saint Luke's Gospel, Luke 24.34.

And in the first Epistle to Ti­mothy 5.18 he quotes it with the express Title of Scripture; The Scripture saith, The Labourer is worthy of his Hire; which words are no where found in Scripture, but in St. Luke's Gospel, Luke 10. v. 7. So that 'tis without great reason, that Learned Men have judged it to be St. Luke's Gospel, which the Apostle calls his own Gospel, 2 Tim. 2.8. and elsewhere. And then for the Acts of the Apo­stles, 'tis plain they are an Account of St. Paul's Travels, Baron. ad ann. 61. written [Page 42]before his Death; so that they are with all reason believed to have been approved by him; and if they were not, yet Sunt enim Acta [...] ejus operis [...] cuius [...] ipse suum ag­noscit Evangelium. Acta postea ab Evangelio divulse­runt, quibus commodius vi­sum, ob locorum saciliorem expeditioremque invicem comparationem, Evangelistas separato codice complecti, & ab Actis secernere. Dod­well. Dissertat. 1. in Irenaeum. being anciently the same Book vvith the Gospel of St. Luke, they vvere undoubtedly revievved by St. John, together vvith it, and their Au­thority vvas hardly e­ver, that I knovv of, called in que­stion by any, but Vid. Tertull. adversus Marcion. lib. 5. sub. initio. Marcion the Heretick. Lastly, That no other Books, however written by the Con­temporaries of the Apostles were recei­ved by the Ancients as of infallible and decisive Authority in matters of Dispute, is evident. Eusebius tells us expresly that the Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews vvas questioned by some, not because they doubted whether it was writ­ten [Page 43]in the Age of the Apostles, (for that they could not not,) but [...]. lib. 3. cap. 3. because the Church of Rome thought it not to be written by St. Paul. The Pastor of Hermas also (as Idem ibidem. the same Author tells us) was esteemed so much as to be read publickly in Churches and yet never received as of infallible Authority: Nay Origen goes farther, & thinks it to be not only a useful Book, but written Quae scriptura valde mihi [...] videtur, &, ut puto, divinitus inspirata. Origen. in Rom. 16 14. e­ven with some degree of Inspiration; and yet Si cui tamen [...]criptura illa recipienda videtur. Origen. Hom. 8. in Nu [...]. imposes it not upon any one to be receiv­ed as Scripture.

In like manner the Epistle of Cle­mens, though the most unque­stionable Piece in all Antiquity, and (as Eusebius Stiles it) Lib. 3. c. 38. [...], yet it is by the [Page 44]same Author Lib. 6. c. 13. elsewhere reckon­ed up among the Apocryphal Pieces: that is, as Cotelerius well observes, not that any one doubt­ed of its Genuineness or Excel­lency, but only that they would not reckon it among the Books [...], to which Eusebius there opposes it.

The Truth is, the unquestion­ed Works of the Apostles were not anciently (as Mr. Dodwel con­fesses) kept in a distinct Book from the Apocryphal, but read and cited promiscously with the Works of their immediate Successors: But then 'tis also certain, that as unquestioned Works of the Apo­stles, whenever they were cited were looked upon by all as infallible and decisive; so the other Pieces, whilst they were quoted and urged by some, might as freely be de­nied or not yielded to by others.

[Page 45]Vainly therefore doth Mr. T. object, That they who believe the Epistle of Clemens and the rest to be genuine, cannot give any reason why they do not admit it into the Canon of Scripture. And as falsly does he insinuate, that the Esta­blishment of that Canon is uncer­tain and precarious. Could it be proved, That the Epistles of James and of Peter, and of Jude, or any of them, were not written by those whose Names they bear; we should indeed be obliged to reject them: And could the Preaching and Re­velation of Peter be proved to be genuine, we should be obliged to receive them into the Canon of the New Testament. But so far is it from being true, That the Preaching and Revelation of Peter were so receiv'd by the Ancients, as by more than a parity of Reason, to claim admission into the Ca­non [Page 46]with his second Epistle, and the rest of the some time que­stioned Books, that on the con­trary these Pieces (besides the ar­guments that may be drawn from the Writings themselves) were received by so few of the Ancients, as to make [...]. Hist. l. 3. c. 3. Eusebius think, (though in that indeed he was mistaken,) that they vvere never quo­ted by any of the Ancients at all.

What Mr. T. has invidiously urged about the Divisions among the Fathers, and their want of exactness in their Reasonings, I suppose will not move those, who know that Truth is never the less such for being surrounded with a multitude of Errors; and that Men did not then write in a Nice and Scholastick way, but in a plain and unpolite Stile, mixing [Page 47] Arguments, Similitudes and Illustra­tions promiscously, which is the way of representing things po­pularly, and to mean Capaci­ties.

Thus I have indeavoured to give a short Answer to the Difficulties which Mr. T. has with great freedom proposed: Hoping that what I have here very briefly and with Submis­sion hinted, may give occasion to some abler and more learned Pen, to treat of this Matter with that largeness and clearness, with which so great a Point well deserves to be handled.