This we find in the beginning of the fecond century, from Juftin Martyr %. On the day, fays he, which is called Sunday, there is a meeting of all [the Chriftians] who live either in cities or country places, and the memoirs of the Apostles, and writings of the Prophets are read. So Tertullian, giving an account of the Christians' meetings, fays, h They assembled to read the Scriptures, and to offer up prayers. And in another place, among the folemn exercifes of the Lord's day, he reckons reading the Scriptures, finging Pfalms, &c. The fame account we have in Cyprian, the antient book under the name of Dionyfius the Areopagite', and several other antient writers, cited by Pamelius in his learned notes on Tertullian's Apology ". Now, I fay, these books are to be received by us as Canonical, forafmuch as this practice of reading the Scriptures was so very early, that it is hardly poffible to fuppofe the Churches imposed upon by any spurious or forged pieces. Hence Cyril of Jerufalem, inftructing his Catechumen concerning the Scriptures, tells him ", to avoid Apocryphal books, and study carefully thofe Scriptures only, which were publickly read in the Church; and a little after, having given him a catalogue of the facred books, he adds, let all others be rejected; and fuch as are not read in the Churches, neither do you read in private. Hence, in the middle of the fourth century, it was decreed by the Council of Laodicea, in their fifty-ninth Canon, that no private pfalms fhould be read in the Church, nor any books without the

Canon, but only the Canonical ones of the Old and New Tefta

ment.

But notwithstanding this and the fubfequent decree of the third Council of Carthage, Canon XLVII. it is certain fome other pieces were read in the Churches, both as of the Old and New Teftament, befide thofe which we now receive, long before they were made, as well as about that time. Thus, for inftance, among the books of the New, Dionyfius, a bishop of Corinth in the fecond century, in a letter to the Church of Rome, tells them, they read on the Lord's Day Clement's Epistle to them in their assemblies; and Eufebius P declares it to have been univerfally received, and read in most Churches, both in his and former times. The fame he says of the Shepherd of Hermas, that it was read in many Churches; which is confirmed by Athanafius and Ruffinus both concerning this and fome other books.

Befides, the book of the Revelation was not read in the Churches, according to Cyril; nor commanded to be read by the Council of Laodicea: and fo it may be objected, that if the Propofition we are difcuffing be true, as the former books which were read (fuch as Clemens, Hermas, &c.) fhould be received by us into the Canon, as they are by Mr. Whiston; fo the Revelation fhould be left out. But, as was faid on a like account (Prop. ult.), the full anfwer to this cannot be till the books are particularly examined; nevertheless, I would obferve,

First, That the Proposition speaks only of books that were read in Churches as Scripture; and that there is a vast difference between being read in a Church, and being of divine infpiration. For it is certain, there were many books read, which were not looked upon as infallible and Canonical Scripture, but only as pious and useful books, which might be of fervice to the common people. Thefe books, in contradiftinction to the other, they were wont to call Ecclefiaftical. There are other books,

fays Ruffin, which are not called by our ancestors Canonical, but Ecclefiaftical, among which he reckons the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach (which on this very account had its title of Ecclefiafticus), Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Judgment of Peter. Accordingly Jerome", speaking of the books of Tobit, Judith, &c. The Church reads them, fays he, but does not receive them as Canonical Scripture it reads them for the edification of the common people, not as having any authority to determine articles of faith. Juft of the fame value were thefe books among the antients, as the Apocrypha of the Old Teftament in the Church of England, and the Homilies appointed to be read in the Churches are now; and therefore the bare reading them in the primitive affemblies, cannot be in itfelf a proof of their Canonical authority, unless they were read as Scripture.

From this obfervation we may, I think, give a very easy and natural account, how it came to pafs, that any books were of dubious authority among the antients; viz. being first read in the publick affemblies at the fame time as the facred Scriptures, but only as pious and ufeful books; thofe who in after ages were ignorant of this reafon, began to question whether they were not of the fame authority with the facred books themselves; and fo from hence arofe that noted dictinction in Eufebius, of thofe which were,

I. Oμodoyéμevos, i. e. fuch as were univerfally received without any controversy.

2. 'Artiñeyóμevol, i. e. fuch whofe authority was doubted of by fome.

3. Nóło, i. e. fuch which were rejected by all but hereticks.

The fame diftinction we find in Cyril, into thofe which

were,

I. Παρὰ πᾶσιν Ομολογέμενα, i. e. fuch as all owned. And, 2. Tà 'Aμpibanλóμeva, i. e. fuch as were doubted of.

t Expofit. in Symbol. Apoftol.

§. 36.

"Præfat. in Libr. Solom.

* Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 3. et 25. y Catech. IV. §. 33.

Ꮓ

In like manner St. Austin speaks of thofe, which were received by all Catholick Churches, and those which were rejected by fome few Churches; he must needs mean of hereticks, because they are opposed to the Catholicks. I own, indeed, the inftances Eufebius produces of his fecond fort, were not doubted of by the reason now affigned; but whatever doubtful books the others meant, may be well included in our account, feeing they fpeak not of any of the books of the prefent Canon being doubted of, as he does.

Secondly, I obferve, that though Eufebius and Ruffin mention fome books as read in the Churches, yet themselves do exprefsly exclude them from the Canon; as Eufebius does the Shepherd of Hermas, placing it among the spurious books; and Ruffin in fo many words tells us, it was not reputed Canonical b

As to the Revelation being omitted in Cyril's catalogue, and in the eighty-fifth Canon of the Council of Laodicea, as not being read in the Churches; I fhall refer the reader to the reasons above affigned for its being left out of fome catalogues, and to the particular enquiry into this book here

after.

CHA P. XI.

Several Propofitions, whereby we may diftinguish the Spurioufnefs of many Books.

PROP. VII.

That Book is certainly Apocryphal, in which are found any Contradictions.

THE truth of this is evident : for as both fides of a contradictory Propofition cannot be true, fuch book must ne

z De Doct. Chrift. 1. 2. c. 8. a Hut. Eccl. l. 3. C. 3.

§. 36.

Expofit. in Symbol. Apoftol. ceffarily

ceffarily contain fomewhat that is false, and confequently cannot have God for its author, nor be to us a rule of doctrine and manners.

PROP. VIII.

That Book is Apocryphal, which either contains any Histories, or proposes any Doctrines, contrary to those which are certainly known to be true.

THIS is evident for the fame reafon as the former; to impute such a book to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, being, in other words, to make God the author of a lie, and to take him for our guide in matters of the laft confequence, whom we know to be not only fallible, but actually deceived.

Coroll. That therefore is an Apocryphal book, which contains any thing contrary to the known facts, or univerfally agreed doctrines of the Christian Religion. I hope it will not be thought a defect in strict reasoning, that I take it for granted, that the substance of Chriftianity is true; for this cannot be denied by any who will believe any matter of fact, of which they have not themselves been eye-witneffes. But if any will difpute this, and fay, I take for granted what I ought not, having not proved it; I refer them to what is faid, Coroll. 2. Prop. II. where, I think, as much is proved, at least is fairly implied, as I here take for granted.

I purposely omit here all inftances, referving them for their proper places; only would obferve, that Eufebius makes use of the fame Propofition to difprove the Canonical authority of many books, that went under the Apostles' names. The fentiments, fays he, and doctrines, which are delivered in those books, are fo very different from, or contrary to, the true and orthodox doctrine of the Church, as evidently demonftrate them to