ART. authority to the Old, by afferting it fo exprefsly, I fhall thereVI. fore prove firft the Canon of the New Teftament. "I will not

Lib. iii.

c. 25.

urge that of the teftimony of the Spirit, which many have had recourse to this is only an argument to him that feels it, if it is one at all; and therefore it proves nothing to another perfon: befides, the utmost that with reafon can be made of this, is, that a good man feeling the very powerful effects of the Chriftian religion on his own heart, in the reforming his nature, and the calming his confcience, together with those comforts that arife out of it, is convinced in general of the whole of Chriftianity, by the happy effects that it has upon his own mind: but it does not from this appear how he should know that fuch books and fuch paffages in them fhould come from a divine original, or that he fhould be able to distinguish what is genuine in them from what is fpurious. To come therefore to fuch arguments as may be well infifted upon and maintained.

The Canon of the New Teftament, as we now have it, is fully proved from the quotations out of the books of the New Teitament, by the writers of the first and fecond centuries; fuch as Clemens, Ignatius, Justin, Irenæus, and feveral others. Papias, who converfed with the difciples of the Apoftles, is cited by Eufebius in confirmation of St. Matthew's Gospel, Hift. c. 39 which he fays was writ by him in Hebrew: he is alfo cited to prove that St. Mark writ his Gofpel from St. Peter's preaching; which is also confirmed by Clemens of Alexandria; not to Euf. I. ii. mention later writers. Irenæus fays St. Luke writ his Gospel Hift. c. 15. according to St. Paul's preaching; which is fupported by some words in St. Paul's Epiftles that relate to paffages in that Gospel; yet certainly he had likewife other vouchers; thofe who from the beginning were eye-witneffes and minifters of the Word; though the whole might receive its full authority from St. Paul's approbation. St. John writ later than the other three; fo the teftimonies concerning his Gofpel are the fulleft and the most Lib. iii. cap. particular. Irenæus has laboured the proof of this matter with much care and attention: he lived within an hundred years of St. John, and knew Polycarp that was one of his disciples: Tert. I. iv. after him come Tertullian and Origen, who fpeak very cocont. Mar. pioufly of the four Gofpels; and from them all the eccleOrig. apud fiaftical writers have without any doubting or controversy acLuf. lib. vi. knowledged and cited them, without the leaft fhadow of any oppofition, except what was made by Marcion and the Mani

II.

cap. 1.

cap. 25.

chees.

Next to these authorities we appeal to the catalogues of the books of the New Teftament, that are given us in the third and fourth centuries, by Origen, a man of great industry, and that had examined the ftate of many churches;

by

VI.

Athan. in

by St. Athanafius, by the council of Laodicea and Carthage; ART. and after these we have a conftant fucceffion of teftimonies, that do deliver thefe as the Canon univerfally received. All this laid together, does fully prove this point; and that the more clear- Synopf. ly, when these particulars are confidered. I. I hat the books Conc Can. of the New Teftament were read in all their churches, and at 60. Carth. all their affemblies, fo that this was a point in which it was not eafy for men to mistake. 2dly, That this was fo near the fountain, that the originals themfelves of the Apoftles were no doubt so long preferved. 3dly, That both the Jews, as appears from Juftin Martyr, and the Gentiles, as appears by Celfus, knew Dial, cum

iii. c. 47.

that these were the books in which the faith of the Chriftians was Trypho. contained. 4thly, That fome queftion was made touching fome of them, because there was not that clear or general knowledge concerning them, that there was concerning the others; yet upon fuller enquiry all acquiefced in them. No doubt was ever made about thirteen of St. Paul's Epiftles; because there were particular churches or perfons to whom the originals of them were directed: but the ftrain and defign of that to the Tertul. de <efc. cap. Hebrews being to remove their prejudices, that high one which p they had taken up against St. Paul as an enemy to their nation, was to be kept out of view, that it might not blaft the good effects which were intended by it; yet it is cited oftener than once by Clemens of Rome : and though the ignorance of many of the Roman Church, who thought that fome paffages in it favoured the feverity of the Novatians, that cut off apoftates from the Orig. Ep. ad hopes of repentance, made them queftion it, of which mention African. is made both by Origen, Eufebius, and Jerome, who frequently ad Martyr. Orig. Exh. affirm, that the Latin Church, or the Roman, did not receive it; Eufeb. Hift. yet Athanafius reckons both this and the feven general Epiftles lib. vi.c.20. among the canonical writings. Cyril of Jerufalem, who had Hieren. Ep. occafion to be well informed about it, fays, that he delivers his Cyr.Catech. catalogue from the Church, as fhe had received it from the iv. Apostles, the ancient bishops, and the governors of the Church; and reckons up in it both the feven general Epiftles, and the fourteen of St. Paul. So does Ruffin, and fo do the councils of Laodicea and Carthage *; the canons of the former being received into the body of the + Canons of the Univerfal Church. Irenæus, Origen, and Clemens of Alexandria t, cite the Epiftle to the Hebrews frequently. Some queftion was made of the piftie of St. James, the fecond of St. Peter, the fecond and third of St. John, and St. Jude's Epiftle. But both Clemens of Rome,

Apud Hieron.

+ Can. 60. Can. 47.

Iren. I. iii. c. 38. Orig. 1. iii. et vii. cont. Celf. Dial, con. Marc. et Ep. ad Afric. Clem. Alex.

Ignat. Ep, ad Ephe.

Orig. Hom. 13. in Genef.
H2

Ignatius,

ad Dardan.

ART. Ignatius, and Origen, cite St. James's Epiftle; Eufebius* fays VI. it was known to moft, and read in moft Chriftian Churches:

the like is teftified by St. Jeromt. St. Peter's fecond Epiftle is cited by Origen and Firmiliant; and Eufebius || fays it was held very useful even by those who held it not canonical: but fince the firft Epiftle was never queftioned by any, the fecond that carries fo many characters of its genuineness, fuch as St. Peter's name at the head of it, the mention of the transfiguration, and of his being an eye-witnefs of it, are evident proofs of its being writ by him. The second and third Epiftles of St. John are cited by Irenæus, Clemens, and Dennis of Alexandria, and by Tertullian §. The Epiftle of St. Jude is alfo cited by Tertullian. Some of thofe general Epiftles were not addreffed to any particular body, or Church, that might have preferved the originals of them, but were fent about in the nature of circular letters; fo that it is no wonder if they were not received fo early, and with fuch an unanimity, as we find concerning the four Gofpels, the Acts of the Apostles, and thirteen of St. Paul's Epiftles. These being first fixed upon by an unquestioned and undisputed tradition, made that here was a standard once afcertained to judge the better of the reft: fo when the matter was ftrictly examined, fo near the fountain that it was very poffible and eafy to find out the certainty of it, then in the beginning of the fourth century the Canon was fettled, and univerfally agreed to. The style and matter of the Revelation, as well as the defignation of Divine given to the author of it, gave occafion to many queftions about it: Clemens of Rome cites it as a prophetical book: Juftin Martyr fays it was writ by John, one of Chrift's Juftin.cont. twelve Apoftles; Irenæus calls it the Revelation of St. John, the difciple of our Lord, writ almost in our own age, in the end of Domitian's reign. Melito writ upon it: Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, Clemens and Dennis of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen do cite it. And thus the Canon 1. v. c. 18. of the New Teftament feems to be fully made out by the 1. vii. c. 27. concurrent teftimony of the several Churches immediately after the Apoftolical time.

Clem. in Ep.

ad Cor.

Tryphon.

Iren. I. v.

c. 30.

Euf. Hift.

1. iv. c. 24,

26.

Here it is to be obferved, that a great difference is to be made between all this and the oral tradition of a doctrine, in which there is nothing fixed or permanent, fo that the whole is only report carried about and handed down. Whereas here.

Euf. Hift. 1. ii. c. 22. l. iiì, c. 24, 25.

Hieron. Pref. in Ep. Jac.

Orig. cont. Marcion. Firmil. Ep. 75. ad Cypr

Euf. Hift. 1. ii. c. 3.

Iren. 1. i. c. 13. Clem. Alex. Strom. 2. Tertul. de Carre Chr, c. 24. Euf. Hi. I.vi. c. 24. Tertul, de cultu fœm.

VI.

is a book, that was only to be copied out and read publickly, A R T. and by all perfons, between which the difference is so vaft, that it is as little poffible to imagine how the one should continue pure, as how the other should come to be corrupted. There was never a book of which we have that reason to be affured that it is genuine, that we have here. There happened to be conftant difputes among Chriftians from the fecond century downward, concerning fome of the most important parts of this doctrine; and by both fides these books were appealed to: and though there might be fome variations in readings and tranflations, yet no queftion was made concerning the Canon, or the authenticalnefs of the books themselves; unless it were by the Manichees, who came indeed to be called Chriftians, by a very enlarged way of speaking; fince it is justly ftrange how men who faid that the author of the univerfe, and of the Mofaical difpenfation, was an evil God; and who held that there were two fupreme Gods, a good and an evil one; how fuch men, I fay, could be called Chriftians.

The authority of those books is not derived from any judgment that the Church made concerning them; but from this, that it was known that they were writ, either by men who were themselves the Apoftles of Chrift, or by thofe who were their affiftants and companions, at whofe order, or under whose direction and approbation, it was known that they were written and published. These books were received and known for fuch, in the very apoftolical age itself; fo that many of the apoftolical men, fuch as Ignatius and Polycarp, lived long enough to fee the Canon generally received and fettled. The fuffering and depreffed ftate of the first Christians was also fuch, that as there is no reason to suspect them of impofture, fo it is not at all credible that an impofture of this kind could have paffed upon all the Chriftian Churches. A man in a corner might have forged the Sibylline oracles, or fome other pieces which were not to be generally used; and they might have appeared foon after, and credit might have been given too eafily to a book or writing of that kind: but it cannot be imagined, that in an age in which the belief of this doctrine brought men under great troubles, and in which miracles and other extraordinary gifts were long continued in the Church, that, I fay, either falfe books could have been fo early obtruded on the Church as true, or that true books could have been fo vitiated as to lose their original purity, while they were fo univerfally read and ufed; and that fo foon; or that the writers of that very age and of the next, should have been fo generally and fo grofsly impofed upon, as to have cited fpurious writings for true. These are things that could not be believed in the hiftories or records of any

H 3

nation:

VI.

ART. nation: though the value that the Chriftians fet upon thefe books, and the conftant ufe they made of them, reading a parcel of them every Lord's day, make this much less fuppofable in the Chriftian religion, than it could be in any other fort of history or record whatfoever. The early fpreading of the Christian religion to fo many remote countries and provinces, the many copies of thefe books that lay in countries fo remote, the many tranflations of them that were quickly made, do all concur to make the impoffibility of any fuch impofture the more fenfible. Thus the Canon of the New Teftament is fixed upon clear and fure grounds.

44.

From thence, without any further proof, we may be convinced of the Canon of the Old Teftament. Chrift does frequently cite Mofes and the Prophets; he appeals to them; and though he charged the Jews of that time, chiefly their teachers and rulers, with many diforders and faults, yet he never once fo much as infinuated that they had corrupted their law, or other facred books; which, if true, had been the greatest of all those abufes that they had put upon the people. Our Saviour cited their books according to the tranflation that was then in credit and common use amongst them. When one asked him which was the great commandment, he answered, How readeft thou? And he proved the chief things relating to himself, his Death and Refurrection, from the prophecies that had gone before; which ought to have been fulfilled in him: he alfo cites the Luke xxiv. Old Teftament, by a threefold divifion of the Law of Mofes, the Prophets, and the Pfalms; according to the three orders of books into which the Jews had divided it. The Pfalms, which was the first among the holy writings, being fet for Rem. iii. 2. that whole volume, St. Paul fays, that to the Jews were committed the oracles of God: he reckons that among the chief of their privileges, but he never blames them for being unfaithful in this truft; and it is certain that the Jews have not corrupted the chief of those paffages that are urged against them to prove Jefus to have been the Chrift. So that the Old Teftament, at least the tranflation of the LXX Interpreters, which was in common ufe and in high efteem among the Jews in our Saviour's time, was, as to the main, faithful and uncorrupted. This might be further urged from what St. Paul fays concerning thofe Scriptures which Timothy had learned of a child; thefe could be no other than the books of the Old Testament. Thus if the writings of the New Teftament are acknowledged to be of divine authority, the full teftimony that they give to the books of the Old Teftament, does fufficiently prove their authority and genuinenefs likewife. But to carry this matter yet further:

Mofes