cited the now-received books of the Canon, and others promifcuously. But as I shall hereafter shew this to be a mistake, fo it will be enough here to obferve, that they were generally agreed in receiving the fatue books for Canonical, which we do now; and this appears, I fay, from their agreement to cite them, as every one must acknowledge, who has but caft an eye upon the writings of the first centuries. To fay nothing of the Apoftolic Fathers, fuch as Clemens, Barnabas, &c. it is evident, that Justin Martyr at Neapolis, Theophilus at Antioch, Irenæus in France, Clemens at Alexandria, Tertullian at Carthage, &c. (who all lived within 120 or 130 years after our Lord's Afcenfion, and fome of them much fooner, and but a very short time after the writing of the books) have all, though in very remote countries, quoted many, or most, if not all the fame books as Scripture. The fame might be obferved concerning Origen, Cyprian, and other writers of the next century. But, to omit thefe, I observe,

d

2. That feveral of the first writers of Christianity have left us, in their works, catalogues of the facred books of the New Teftament, which, though made in countries at a vast distance from each other, do very little differ. A particular account of all the catalogues, I fhall give hereafter in this volume; I fhall only inftance now in thofe of Origen and Eufebius*, which he who will be at the pains to compare, will eafily perceive to be very nearly the fame. So great was the pains and care of thofe early Chriftians, to be well affured what were the genuine writings of the Apostles, and to distinguish them from all the pretended Revelations of defigning men, and the forgeries they published under facred titles. Thus when the Prefbyter of Afia abovementioned had published a spurious piece under the name of Paul, he was immediately convicted, and notice of the forgery was foon conveyed to Carthage, and the Churches of Africa.

Coroll. I. Hence it follows, that Mr. Dodwell's opinion,

d Comment. in Matth. init. et Comment. in Joan. 1. 5. apud Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. I. 6. c. 25.

e Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 25. f Vid. fupr. p. 40.

In Iren. Differt. I. §. 38.

espoused

1

k

espoused with so much zeal by Mr. Toland in his Amyntor 1, is utterly falfe, viz. That the books of the present Canon lay concealed in the coffers of particular Churches, or private men, till the later times of Trajan, or perhaps of Adrian, not known to the Clergy or Churches of those times, nor yet diftinguished from the Spurious pieces of the Hereticks. For befides that it has been already proved, by Mr. Nye and Mr. Le Clerc that the writers of the Apoftolic age were well acquainted with, because they frequently cite feveral books of, our present Canon; I add, from what has been faid, that if thefe books. had not been well known in Adrian's time, but then lay concealed, it would have been impoffible for them to have spread fo much by the middle of the second century, as to have been quoted by all the writers of it, in whatever countries they lived 1.

Coroll. II. Hence it alfo follows, that the primitive Chrif tians are proper judges, to determine what book is Canonical, and what not; for nothing can be more abfurd, than to fuppofe, in thofe early ages, an agreement fo univerfal, without a good and folid foundation; or, in other words, it is next to impoffible, either that fo great a number of men should agree in a cheat, or be impofed upon by a cheat. The celebrated Huetius takes this for granted, and lays it down as his first axiom, That every book is genuine, which was efteemed genuine by thofe, who lived nearest to the time when it was written, and by the ages fucceeding in a continued feries. This, fays he, is an axiom that cannot be difputed by thofe, who will allow any thing at all to be certain in hiftory. Demonftr. Evang. Axiom. 1. But there are fome particular circumstances, which will make the inference more clear as to the Chriftian books, than others, fuch as the prodigious efteem the books at firft were received with, the conftant ufe that was made of them in their religious af femblies, the tranflations made of them very early into other lan

guages; thefe, I fay, and many other fuch circumftances there are, which all concur to make an imposture in this case almost impoffible.

CHAP. VI.

The various Sentiments of learned Men concerning the Methods of determining the Canonical Authority of any Book, enquired into, and particularly difcuffed.

PROP. III. ·

The main and principal Method, by which we are now able to determine the Canonical Authority of any Book, or Books, is by fearching into the most antient and authentic Records of Chriftianity, and finding out the Testimony or Tradition of thofe, who lived nearest the Time in which the Books were written, concerning them.

THE

HE preceding Corollary evidenced the firft Chriftians to be proper judges; the design of this propofition is to fhew, that they are the main and principal judges, by whom we must determine the question concerning the Canon of the New Teftament. Though the proposition may at first seem clear and evident, the difputes of many, both foreign and English divines, have made it neceffary more largely to be difcuffed for the truth is, it has happened here, as in many other cafes, the cleareft truths have become ftrangely perplexed and confounded. Such is the zeal of the contending parties among Chriftians, that because they differ in some things, they think themselves obliged to differ in all they can, and so arise disputes about queftions, which are in themselves plain, and the fierceft contention about things, in which both fides would most certainly agree, if they had but patience and impartiality enough to know each other's meaning. This is in a great measure the cafe in the prefent queftion, concerning

the

the authority of the Scriptures: fome tell us, they derive their authority from the Church; others, that they can only rightly appear to be true from their own internal evidence, and their powerful influence on the heart; others add to this, the inward teftimony of the Spirit evidencing their divinity, and confequently their genuineness; others laftly are persuaded, we have no other way of knowing whether any book was written by the person whose name it bears, and confequently whether it be of the authority it pretends to derive from its author, but by well-approved teftimonies of those, who lived in or near the time of its being first written. I shall first give some brief account of each of these opinions, and then endeavour to shew what is moft probable upon the whole.

1. The first is the opinion of the Papists, who have generally affirmed, in their controverfies with the Proteftants, that the authority of the Scriptures depends upon, or is derived from, the power of their Church: i. e. It is in the power of the Pope, or Council, or both, to determine what books shall be received as Canonical. This is a matter fo well known, that I shall not produce many inftances to prove it. Hermannus, in the abundance of his zeal, affirms m the Scriptures are of no more value than Æsop's Fables, without the authority of the Church; and Bailius", that he should give no more credit to Saint Matthew, than Livy, unless the Church obliged him. Tiletanus, bishop of Ypres, fays, This is the only way of distinguishing between Canonical and Apocryphal Scriptures. To the fame purpose Pighius, Eckius, Bellarmine, and many of their most celebrated writers P. By the authority of the Church, these authors plainly mean a power lodged in the Church of Rome, and her fynods, of determination, what books are the word of God; than which nothing can be more abfurd, or contradictory to common fense: for if so, it is poffible, nay it

m Apud Whitaker. Controv. de Script. Quæft. 3. c. 1. et Chemnit. Exam. Conc. Trid. Par. 1. p. 85. n Rivet. Ifag. ad Script. Sacr, c. 3. §. 4. &c.

Ibid. c. 3. §. 3.

Ibid. c. 3. §. 3, 4, &c. Whitaker. Controv. de Script. Sacr. Quæft. 3. c. 1. Amyrald. Thef. de Auctor. Script. inter Thef. Salmurienfes. Calvin. Inftit. Chrift. Rel. 1. 1. c.7. §. I.

is

is easy for them, to make a book, which is not divine, to be fo; and (to make use of Hermannus's instance) it is poffible Æfop's Fables may in time become as good a part of Scripture, as Saint Paul's Epiftles: nay, once more, it is very poffible the books of Celfus, Julian, and Porphyry, were they extant, might become a part of the New Teftament, though they were defignedly written againft it. But the folly of the Popish arguments in this inftance, has been fo well expofed by Whitaker, Chemnitius, Rivet, and many others of our Reformers, that I think it fufficient to refer the Reader, who has a mind to know more of this controverfy, to their books cited in the margin.

2. Others are of opinion, that there are inward, or innate evidences in the Scriptures, which, applied by the illumination or teftimony of the Holy Spirit, are the only true proofs of their being Canonical, or the word of God. To avoid the tedious and prolix difputations, that have been on this head between Papifts and Proteftants, and even between Proteftants themselves, I fhall only give fome account of the fentiments of our Reformers on it, out of their own writings, and then examine how far they are true.

Among the Proteftants who have declared their opinion against the Papists on this head, I place first our learned countryman Whitaker, who, in his controversy about the Scripture against Bellarmine, gives us this account of the reformed doctrine in this matter: The fum, fays he, of our opinion is, that the Scriptures have all their authority and credit from themfelves; that they are to be acknowledged and received, not becaufe the Church has appointed or commanded fo, but because they came from God: but that they came from God, cannot be certainly known by the Church, but from the Holy Ghost. So Calvin: All must allow, that there are in the Scriptures manifeft evidences of God Speaking in them. The majesty of God in them will presently appear to every impartial examiner, which will extort our assent: so that they act preposterously, who endeavour by any argument to beget a folid credit to the Scripr Inftit. Chrift. Relig. 1. 1. c. 7. §.4, 5.

C. I.

Controv. de Script. Quæft. 3.

tures