I. That the right fettling the Canonical authority of the books of the New Teftament is attended with very many and great difficulties.

II. That it is a matter of the greatest confequence, and importance.

III. That a great number of Christians are destitute of any good arguments for their belief of the Canonical authority of the books of the New Teftament.

IV. That very little has yet been done on this subject.

OBSERV. I.

That the right Settling the Canonical Authority of the Books of the New Teftament is attended with very many and great Difficulties.

I

AM

very fenfible fuch a propofition as this may feem at firft furprising to many; and that what is faid under it may perhaps be, on the one hand, mifimproved by the enemies of Revelation, to set them more against it; and, on the other, by the weaker Christians, to fhock their faith in it. But as the enfuing volumes are principally intended for the service of these two forts of perfons, viz. to confute the former, and establish the latter in their principles; so I cannot but defire, they would form no judgment from what is here faid relating to the main question, till they have honestly perused the book itself.

This premised, I fay, it is not fo eafy a matter as is commonly imagined, rightly to settle the Canon of the New Teftament. For my own part, I declare with many learned men, that in the whole compass of learning I know no queftion involved with more intricacies and perplexing difficulties than this. There are indeed confiderable difficulties relating to the Canon of the Old Teftament, as appears by the large controverfies

controverfies between the Proteftants and Papifts on this head in the laft, and latter end of the preceding century; but these are solved with much more ease than those of the New: For,

1. The Canon of the Jews was fettled by Ezra, an infpired writer; but there is no fuch thing to be faid concerning the Canon of the New. It is uncertain, either by whom, or at what time, the present collection was made.

2. The Jewish Canon was certainly approved by our Saviour and his Apoftles; but it is impoffible, in the nature of the thing, the Christian Canon fhould receive the fame evidence and authority.

3. In fettling the Old Testament collection, all that is requifite is to difprove the claim of a few obfcure books, which have but the weakeft pretences to be looked upon as Scripture; but in the New, we have not only a few to disprove, but a vast number to exclude the Canon, which seem to have much more right to admiffion than any of the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament; and befides, to evidence the genuineness of all those which we do receive, fince, according to the fentiments of fome who would be thought learned, there are none of them, whose authority, has not been controverted in the earliest ages of Christianity. In fhort, whatever almost can be objected against the authority of the present Canon of the Old Testament, either in behalf of any books which are not in it, or against any that are, may easily be answered by this fingle confideration, viz. that we receive the fame and no other books, than what the Jewish Church received in our Saviour's time, as is evident from the copies the Chriftians procured of them, and the catalogues they made of them (especially that of Melito Sardenfis) foon after the destruction of Jerufalem. But the cafe is very different with respect to the books of the New. The queftion concerning them di

a If otherwise, they had certainly cenfured the Jews for their fault in this, as well as other religious matters. Befides, St. Paul evidently allows, that all their Scriptures, were the oracles of God, Rom. iii. 2.

and that what they called Scripture was every part of it infpired.

B 2

b Vid. Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 4. c. 26. There are others very early, as Origen's in Pial. primo, &c.

vides

vides itself into these two, viz. 1. Whether any other books are to be received with the fame authority, which they are; and, 2. Whether they are all of them of the fame authority, which the Church allows them by admitting them into her Canon.

If we confider either of these questions, we shall find it perhaps not fo eafily folved, as we are apt to imagine.

I. As to the first, viz. Whether there are any other books to be admitted as Canonical, befide thofe which now are ; it will appear difficult, if we confider,

1. The number of books that claim admission is very confiderable. Mr. Toland, in his celebrated catalogue, has prefented us with the names of above eighty, which he would have us receive with the fame authority, as those we now do. I cannot do him that honour, which Mr. Nye does in his Anfwer", viz. to fay his catalogue is complete; for it will sufficiently appear, there are many more of the fame fort, which he has not mentioned.

2. Their pretences are Specious and plaufible, for the most part going under the names of our Saviour himself, his Apoftles, their companions, or immediate fucceffors.

3. They are generally thought to be cited by the first Christian writers with the fame authority (at least many of them) as the facred books we receive. This Mr. Toland labours hard to perfuade us; but, what is more to be regarded, men of greater merit and probity have unwarily dropped expreffions of the like nature. Every body knows (fays the learned Casaubon against Cardinal Baronius), that Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and the rest of the primitive writers, were wont [laudare libros] to approve and cite books, which now all men know to be Apocryphal. Clemens Alexandrinus (fays his learned annotator Sylburgius') was too much pleafed with Apocryphal writings. Mr. Dodwell (in his learned differtations on Irenæus ) tells us, that till Trajan, or perhaps Adrian's time, no Canon was fixed -the fuppofiti

tious pieces of the hereticks were received by the faithful, the Apoftles writings bound up with theirs, and indifferently used in the Churches". To mention now no more, the learned Mr. Spanheim obferves, that Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen very often cite Apocryphal books under the express name of Scripture1. What these books are, with the whole of their pretences and claims, I design hereafter particularly to examine; and now only to infer hence, that it is not so easy a matter, to fettle the Canon of the New Teftament, as is generally imagined.

4. Hence the Canon has been judged imperfect, and it has been thought neceffary by several learned men, that fome other books which are in being, and the remaining fragments of thofe which are loft, fhould be received. This will but too largely appear hereafter : in the mean time, I fhall only obferve the fentiments of two learned men on this matter, whose names are well known among us; viz. the prefent Archbishop of Canterbury, and Mr. Whifton.

The former, in his Preliminary Difcourfe to his English Tranflation of the Apoftolical Fathers, tells us, ch. x. §. 4. "That we cannot with any reason doubt of what they deliver "to us as the Gospel of Chrift, but ought to receive it, if "not with equal veneration, yet but with a little less respect "than we do the facred writings of thofe, who were their "masters and inftructors. §. 11. That we are to look upon "the writings of these holy men, as containing the pure and "uncorrupted doctrine of our bleffed Saviour and his Apof"tles. That these writers were not only qualified by ordinary " means to deliver the Gofpel of Chrift to us, but in all pro"bability were endued with the extraordinary affiftance of the "Holy Spirit too; fo that what they teach us is not to be "looked upon, as a mere traditionary relation of what had "been delivered to them, but rather as an authoritative decla"ration of the Gospel of Chrift to us. §. 23. That they were

« inspired men, and therefore not only have not mistaken the "minds of the Apostles, but were not capable of doing it. "S. 29. That they must be looked upon to have nothing in "them but what was thought" (and confequently which we are to think)" worthy of all acceptation. §. 30. That they "have received a more than human approbation and con"tain the true and pure faith of Christ, without the least error "intermixed with it." It is not my business here to enquire into the truth of these affertions, nor will I venture to give my opinion in the matter, till I have produced the best arguments I can to fupport it, which will be done in the third part of this work; only this I cannot but obferve, that, notwithstanding all this, many learned men have thought several of these Apoftolical pieces not only fpurious, but filly and ridiculous; and fince these books (which are, and always have been excluded the Canon) are of fo great authority with fa great and learned a writer, that scarce any thing more can be faid of the Canonical books themselves, it is a necessary and natural inference, that it is a work much harder than is generally imagined, to fettle the Canon of the New Testament.

How much Mr. Whifton has enlarged the Canon of the New Teftament, is fufficiently known to the learned among us. For the fake of those who have not perused his truly valuable books, I would observe, that he imagines the "Con"ftitutions of the Apoftles to be inspired, and of greater au"thority than the occafional writings of single Apostles and "Evangelifts. That the two Epistles of Clemens, the Doc"trine of the Apostles, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd "of Hermas, the fecond book of Efdras, the Epiftles of Igna"tius, and the Epiftle of Polycarp, are to be reckoned among "the facred authentick books of the New Testament; as also that the Acts of Paul, the Revelation, Preaching, Gospel ❝and Acts of Peter, were facred books, and, if they were ex"tant, should be of the fame authority with any of the rest *.” However this learned man may be mistaken in other matters, and though I hope to prove the Canon of the New Teftament

*Effay on the Conftit. Introd. p. 4. and ch. i.

complete