AN HISTORICAL ACCOUNT, AND DEFENCE, OF THE CANON OF THE New Testament.  
In Answer to AMYNTOR.  
The weaker-sighted ever look too nigh;  
But their Disputes the Sacred Page make good:  
As doubted Tenors, which long Plead try,  
Authentic grow; by being much withstood.  By Sir William Davenant, in Gondib. 
LONDON, Printed by J. Derby, for Andrew Bell at the Cross-Keys and Bible in Cornhill. M.DCC   

AN HISTORICAL ACCOUNT, AND DEFENCE, OF THE Canon of the New Testament.  
SIR,  
AT the Suggestion of a Learned Friend; I am about to answer to a Book, Amyntor; dedicated, to very formidable Patrons. For in his Title Page, the Author makes this address.  
Dî quibus imperium Animarum est, Vmbraeque silentes,  
Et Chaos, & Phlegeton, loca, nocte tacentia latè;  
Sit mihi fas audita loqui: sit Numine vestro,  
Pandere res altâ terrâ & caligine mersis.  
We may English it, thus.  
Ye Gods and Ghosts of Hell, to Human sight  
Not yet revealed, and thou whole Realm of Night,  
Protect me; that I safely may relate  
The blacker Secrets of our Church, and State.  
There will not want those, who will say hereupon: From praying, to the Holy Virgin, and the Saints; Amyntor is improved, into invoking the Devil and his Angels. They will say, he is the first, that ever publicly put himself, under such a Protection. That however, a Book directed against the Sacred Canon, would not easily find other Patrons: So that this Extravagance of the Author, was as much the Effect, of Necessity; as of Inclination. In short, I wish, he had not given occasion to his Adversaries, to jest upon him; for what (I believe) was not design, but obreption and oversight.  
In the first place, he presents us with a Catalogue of Ancient Books, and other Writings; concerning which, he is of a different (and contrary) mind, in divers parts of his Book.  
Sometimes, he seems to complain, that we do not receive 'em into the Canon of the New Testament; there being (according to him) the same Reasons to admit, or to exclude them, as for the Gospels, Epistles, and other Writings of our Canon. Namely, that so many of 'em were Cited by the Fathers, as Scripture; and the rest, by very considerable Parties of Christians: which (he saith again) is as much as can be alleged, for any of the Books of our Canon; and more than can be truly said, for divers of them. But otherwhile, he speaks to this Effect: That they are the Forgeries, partly of zealous Bigots; who were solicitous to provide these Crutches, for lame Christianity: and partly of some Heathens, that were tickled with the pleasure of imposing on the (known) simplicity, and credulity, of the first Christians; who were wont to swallow any Book as Divine Revelation, if it had but a great many Miracles, sprinkled with a few good Morals.  

He hath disposed these Books, under the following Titles, and Distinctions.  
I. Books, reported to be written by Christ himself, or that particularly concern him. His Letter, in answer to that of Abgarus, King of Edessa. A Letter to Peter and Paul. His Parables and Sermons. A Hymn, which he secretly taught to his Apostles and Discipiles. A Book of the Magic of Christ; if it be not the same with the Epistle to Peter and Paul. A Book of the Nativity of our Saviour, of the Holy Virgin his Mother, and her Midwife. But he believes, this last is the same with the Gospel of James.  
II. By the Virgin Mary, or concerning her. Her Epistle to Ignatius. Her Letter to the Inhabitants of Messina. Her Book concerning the Miracles of Christ, and the Ring of King Solomon. A Book of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, and another of her Death.  
III. By St. Peter. Peter's Gospel, Acts, Revelation, Doctrine, Judgement, Preaching, Liturgy, Itinerary; being so many several Books: but the last, he things, is the same with the Recognitions of St. Clement; wherein we have a very particular account of Peter's Voyages and Performances. An Epistle of Peter to Clement.  
iv By St. Andrew. His Gospel, and Acts.  
V By St. James. A Liturgy, and Gospel. His Book concerning the Death of the Virgin Mary; but there are Reasons (he saith) to believe, John was author of it, not James.  
VI By St. John. His Acts, Liturgy, Itinerary, and Traditions. Another Gospel, different from ours. His Book of the Death of the Virgin Mary; mentioned twice already.  
VII. By St. Philip. The Gospel of Philip, the Acts of Philip.  
VIII. By St. Bartholomew. A Gospel.  
IX. By St. Thomas. A Gospel, Acts, Revelation, and Itinerary; as also a Book of the Infancy of Christ.  
X. By St. Matthew. A Liturgy. There is also another by Mark.  
XI. By St. Thaddaeus. A Gospel.  
XII. By St. Mathias. A Gospel, and Traditions.  
XIII. By St. Paul. Paul's Revelation, and Preaching; his Anabaticon, and Narrative concerning the charming of Vipers. His Epistle to the Laodiceans; his Second Epistle to the Ephesians; his Third to the Thessalonians, and (again) to the Corinthians; his Gospel. His Epistles to Seneca; his Acts. The Acts also of Paul and Thecla.  
XIV. Other Gospels and Remarkable Books. The prophetical Gospel of Eve, the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, the Gospels of the Hebrews and the Egyptians; the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. The Books of Adam, the Prophecy of Enoch; the Revelation, and Astrology of Abraham. The Testament of the twelve Patriarches, the Assumption of Moses, the Book of Eldad and Medad, the Psalms of King Solomon, the Vision of Isaiah, the Revelation of Zechary.  
XV. Some other general Pieces. The Apostles Creed. The Doctrine of the Apostles; there are, besides, Doctrines attributed to every one of the Apostles singly, and also to their Companions and immediate Successors. The Doctrines of the twelve Apostles composed (by them) with the assistance of St. Paul. The Canons and Constitutions of the Apostles. The Acts of the Apostles, written by themselves. The Gospel of Perfection; the Precepts of Peter and Paul. The Itinerary of all the Apostles, as well as of every one of them singly, was formerly extant.  
XVI. Writings of the Companions and Disciples of the Apostles. The Epistles of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians; his Recognitions, Decretals, and other Pieces bearing his Name. The Epistles of Ignatius. An Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, with his other Writings: the Acts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius, and of Polycarp. The Pastor of Hermas, an Epistle of Barnabas, the works of Dionysins Areopagita: an Epistle of Marcellus (Disciple of Peter) to Nereus and Achilleus: his Treatise of the conflict of Peter and Simon Magus. The Life of St. John, by Prochorus; the Petition of Veronica to Herod, on behalf of Christ; the Passion of Timothy, by Polycrates; the Passion of Peter and Paul, in two Books, by Linus. Two Epistles of Martial of Limosin; his Life by Aurelianus: the Gospel of Nicodemus; the History of the Apostolical Conflict, by Abdias; the Passion of St. Andrew, by the Presbyters of Achaia. The Epistle of Evodius, entitled the Light; the Altercation of Jason and Papiscus: the Acts of Titus, composed by Zena companion of Paul: with a multitude of other Acts and Passions. The Gospel of Barnabas; the Passion of Barnabas: the Epistles of Joseph of Arimathea, to the Britain's.  
XVII. Pieces alleged in favour of Christianity, which were forged under the names of Heathens. The works of Trismegistus, and Asclepius; the Books of Zoroaster, and Histaspes, Kings in the Orient; the Sibyllin Oracles. A Letter of Pontius Pilate, to Tiberius; the speech of Tiberius, to the Senate: the Epistle of Lentulus, giving a Description of the Person of Christ. The Epistles or Orders of Adrian, Antoninus Pius, and M. Aurelius, in favour of the Christians; extant in Justin Martyr.   
Upon this Catalogue, and from it, Amyntor makes divers (marvellous) Remarks, and Inferences; to this effect. The Ancients reckoned the Pastor of Hermas, the Epistles of Barnabas, of Polycarp and Clemens Romanus, to be as good, as any part of the New Testament. And if, saith He again, these pieces are not Impostures; but were really theirs, whose name they bear: why are they not received into the Canon of Scripture; the Authors of them having been the Companions and Fellow-labourers of the Apostles, as well as St. Mark and St. Luke? If this quality was sufficient, to entitle the two latter to Inspiration; why should it not do as much for the two first? And if this be not all the reason; pray, let us know the true one: for I never heard of any other. The second Epistle of Peter, the Epistles of James and Judas, the second and third of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Revelation, were not approved as Canonical; till after the time of Eusebius: therefore, why may not we also establish the Epistles of Clemens, and of Barnabas; if indeed they be theirs?  
It may be, saith our Author, all the Books (particularly, all the Gospels) in the foregoing Catalogue, were not spurious or forged; but rather, Genuine, and of right belonging to the Canon of Scripture: as in the dark Ages of Popery, divers Books were added to the Bible; so in the no less ignorant first Ages of Christianity, other Books might be taken from it; because they did not suit with all the Opinions of the strongest side. How many true, or false Gospels were extant in Luke's time, God knows: but that there were several, may be inferred from his own words. Many have taken in hand, to set forth a declaration of those things, which are believed among us; as they delivered 'em to us, who (from the beginning) were Eye-witnesses, and Ministers of the WORD Luke 1.1, 2, 3,  
Several Books (particularly Gospels) of the before-recited Catalogue, were quoted by the most celebrated Fathers, says Amyntor; to prove important Points of the Christian Religion: and this Testimony of those Fathers, was the principal Reason, of our putting the Gospels and Epistles, that are now approved and received, into the present Canon. Eusebius rejects the Acts, Gospels, Preaching, and Revelation of Peter; because no Ancient nor Modern Writer, says he, has quoted proofs out of them: on the same account, he rejects also the Gospels of Thomas, Mathias, and such like; as also the Acts of Andrew, John, and other Apostles, as spurious. But herein Eusebius was mistaken; as appears, says our Author still, by the Testimonies I have cited. Had Eusebius found any of These Pieces, alleged by precedent Orthodox Writers; he would have owned them as part of the Scripture-Canon: but I have shown, proofs were quoted out of some of them; so that they may still belong to the Canon, for all Eusebius.  
It is certain, so he goes on; the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Judas, the second and third of John, the second of Peter, and the Revelation, were doubted by the soundest of the Ancients; and yet are received by the Moderns: I say therefore, by more than a parity of reason; the Preaching and Revelation of Peter were received by the Ancients, and ought not to be rejected by the Moderns, if the approbation of the Ancients (or Fathers) be a proper recommendation of Books.  
The Council of Laodicea, convened about the year 360, is the first Assembly in which the Canon of Scripture was established. In such a variety of Books, they could not determine which were the true Monuments of the Apostles; but either by a particular Revelation, of which we hear not a word; or by the Testimony of their Predecessors: I have the same Testimony, for the Books I defend. He means, for the Preaching and Revelation of Peter, the Pastor of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas; and divers Gospels.  
He wishes, some qualified Person would endeavour, to extricate the erroneous out of these and such like difficulties; that we may discover, by some infallible marks, in such an extraordinary number of Books (all of them equally pretending to Divine Origin) which of them are the proper Rule: lest we unhappily mistake a false one, for the true.  
He tells us again, the Philosopher Celsus exclaims against the liberty which Christians had taken, of changing the first Writing of the Gospel, three or four, or more times; that so they might deny whatsoever was urged against them, as retracted before. The Manichees, a very considerable Sect, shown other Scriptures; and denied the Genuinness of the whole New Testament: particularly Faustus (a Manichee) complains, the Testament of the Son is corrupted, by obscure Persons, who have put the Names of the Apostles and their Successors, to false Gospels, that are full of Mistakes, and of contradictory Relations and Opinions. After the decease of Christ and the Apostles, says the Manichee, a set of Half-Jews picked up (from Fame and flying Reports) a great many Lies and Errors; which they also published, under the names of the Apostles, and of those that succeeded them. Add to all this, that; the Ebionites or nazarenes, who were the oldest Christians, had a different Copy (from ours) of St. Matthew's Gospel. The Marcionites read the Gospel of St. Luke very diversely from us; the Gospel of St. John was attributed to Cerinthus: all the Epistles of Paul were denied by some, a different Copy shown of them by others. It would be commendably done, he says, to prevent the Mischievous Inferences, which Heretics may draw from all this; and to remove the Scruples of doubting, but sincere Christians: as for his own part, if he is in any fault about these matters, it is not too much Incredulity; but that, it may be, he believes more Scripture than his Adversaries. He gives hopes, he will write a History of the Canon of Scripture; the fairest, nay the only one of the kind, that ever was penned.  
He concludes with an extract, as he saith, out of Mr. Dodwel; to this purpose. The Books of the New Testament lay hid in the Archives of Churches, and Desks of private Persons; to whom they were written: till the latter end of the Reign of the Emperor Trajan, or rather of Adrian; that is, till about the year after Christ 130. Even the latter Evangelists had not seen the Gospels of the former; else St. Luke would never have given such a different Genealogy of our Saviour, from that by St. Matthew, without the reason of so wide a dissent: nor would there be found in the other Evangelists so many apparent contradictions; as have harassed the Wits of Learned Men, almost since the first constitution of the Canon. St. Luke plainly intimates that, the Evangelists and Gospels he had seen, were not furnished with the relations they make, by Eye-witnesses; as himself was. We have at this day, says Mr. Dodwel, some writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, Barnabas, Clemens Romanus; these were later than the other Writers of the New Testament, except Judas and John: and yet Hermas citys nothing out of the New Testament; nor in all the rest, are any of the Evangelists named. If they cite any passages, like to those we read in our present Gospels; they are withal so unlike, that it cannot be known, whether they are alleged out of ours, or some Apocryphal Gospels: they cite also Passages which are not in the present Gospels. Nay, we cannot say from those Canonical Books that were last written, that; the Church knew any thing of the Gospels, or that the Clergy made a common use of them. We can't tell, whence St. Paul had that moral Aphorism of our Saviour; which he quotes, Acts 20.35. In those early times, the true Writings of the Apostles used to be bound up, together with those now called Apocryphal and Spurious; that it was not manifest, by any mark or public Censure of the Church, Which of them should be preferred to the other.  
Upon this judgement made by Mr. Dodwel, Amyntor says; he agrees with Mr. Dodwel, as to matter of Fact. And he shuts up all, with adding, that; whosoever has an inclination to write on this Subject, is now furnished with a great many, curious Disquisitions; whereon to show his Penetration, and Judgement. As how the immediate Successors and Disciples of the Apostles, could so grossly confound the genuine Writings of their Masters; with such as are falsely attributed to them? And if they were in the dark about these matters, in those early times; How came the following Ages by a better Light? Why all those Books, which are cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, and the rest, should not be accounted equally authentic? And lastly, What stress can we lay, on the Writings of those Fathers; who not only contradict one another, but are also inconsistent with themselves, in their relations of the very same Facts?  
The whole amounts, to thus much. The Books we now own as Canonical, were never seen; till about 130 years after Christ: and when they appeared, 'twas not possible to distinguish them, but by some Revelation; from Apocryphal Gospels and Epistles, which bore the names (as these do) of the Apostles and their Synergists. From the earliest times, contrary Copies of them were shown; and not one of them but was rejected, by considerable and potent Parties of Christians: the very Parties that received them, have changed 'em three or four, or more times; that they might be at liberty, to affirm or deny, as present Exigence should require. The Figments of Hermas, the Trash of Barnabas, and others such like, have an equal right to a place in the Canon of Scripture; with the Gospels of Mark and Luke. The Authority and Credit of both, and of all the other Canonical and Extra-canonical Writings, depending, on the Quotations made from them, by St. Ireneus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and one or two more of the Ancients: and on their having been Contemporaries and Coadjutors to the Apostles. And so in few words, Friends, bonas noctes to the Christian Religion. Our Author however, that we may not forget to do him that right, is a complete Gentleman: though he has us, and our Canon, at these Advantages; he saith, He will determine nothing, but suspend his Judgement. P. 58.  

On the CATALOGUE in general.  
THE Catalogue, by Amyntor, is considerable on divers accounts:  
As it is pretty Perfect. He has omitted but few, of those Ancient Pieces; and not so often mistaken, as some others, the several and like Titles of the same Book, for several and distinct Books.  
And, as it naturally gives one, a great Idea of the Christian Religion. By informing us of so many Persons that wrote Gospels, Acts, Revelations, Liturgies, Itineraries, Martyrdoms; either on their own knowledge, or on credible report made to them: and which have not been lost on any other accounts, but such as are common to things Valuable, and Great in their kind. Such as, the Deluge of (an immense) time, almost 1700 years; the absolute Certainty, and apparent Sufficiency, of the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, etc. which (on those accounts) the Church has preserved, and contents herself with them.  
And lastly, As nothing can be objected to it, or inferred from it; but what in such a case a man (of any Experience or Prudence) would certainly expect. Namely that, in so important and various a Subject, there would be some more Writers and Writings; than the extreme Caution of the Catholic Church, would entirely approve: and even that some Triflers, and Impostors, would intermix and intrude themselves, among the approved and well-meaning. It will be requisite, to enlarge a little, on these general Reflections.  
That, the Catalogue is indifferent perfect, I grant. However, some Books (and other Writings) are omitted; and others, never really extant, or pretended to be extant, are added. For instance; under the first Head, or of Books ascribed to our Saviour, or that particularly concern him; these are overlookt.  
A Book by St. Matthew, distinct from that by Thomas, concerning the Infancy of our Saviour; being the History of his younger Years. 'Tis very ancient; for it hath some Passages, that are also mentioned by St. Ireneus: and which, he saith, were in the Books shown by the Valentinians.  
A Letter of our Saviour; that fell down from Heaven: it being indeed an Epistle, forged by a certain notable Enthusiast, a French Bishop; who for this, and some other suchlike Facts, was deprived and put to penance, by a Council assembled at Rome, An. 745. The Letter however was kept in the Library of the Roman Church, by order of Pope Zechary.  
A Liturgy of our Saviour; received as his, by the Ethiopians: it was brought out of the Orient, by Father J. Vanslebius; who promises also to publish it at Paris, together with other rare Ethiopic Pieces. But Ludolphus, in his Ethiopic History and Commentary, gives the true account of this Liturgy.  
As to Books added, under the same Head; Amyntor mistakes when, as from Eusebius, he attributes to our Saviour a Book of Parables and Sermons. For, on the contrary, these Proverbs and Doctrines (as Eusebius calls them) were all of them only Traditional: they were Doctrines and Proverbs that Papias (Bishop of Hierapolis) had heard from some Persons, that they were spoke and taught by Jesus Christ; but they never were committed to writing, as a particular Book, by any body. The Millennium, or thousandyears Reign, was one of these Traditional Doctrines.  
I observe also that, Amyntor very often confirms the Books of his Catalogue, by witness of Authors who never mention any such Book or Books; but only are thought by some, and that not very probably, to allude to them, or to have made use of them. When he gives us that non-such History of the Scripture-Canon, I hope, he will oftener himself consult the Authors he citys; and less trust to the References of others: else it will be far from meriting the praises, he has beforehand given to it.  
I incline to think, the Books wrote by the Apostles, their Contemporaries, and Synergists, are vastly more than Amyntor, or any other now, can give us the Titles, or other Traces of them: St. Ireneus calls them, Lib. 1. c. 17. Inenarrabilem multitudinem Apocryphorum; an innumerable multitude of Apocryphal Books. For we are not to consider all Authors and Books as Apocryphal; that are censured, under those names, by Ireneus: I am of opinion, we may apply to St. Ireneus; arguing against the Gnostics, Valentinians, and other Ancient Sects and Books, that platonized too much; what, C. Rhodiginus (Lect, Antiq. § 1. c. 12.) says of Lactantius, and the Platonists. Ea, quae obvelatis traduntur figuris, a Platonicis; nec nisi Allegoricis enarrationibus intelligenda: iste ut simpliciter dicta accepit. Oblitus, nunquam futurum Platonicum, qui non putet Platonem allegoricè intelligendum. What the Platonists have delivered in dark, and figurative expressions; and must not be interpreted, but only in the Allegorical way: that, he has understood, as spoken directly, and absolutely; forgetting, or not knowing that, a man shall never be a Platonist, who imagines Plato is to be taken, not allegorically, but literally.  
But this great number of Acts, Gospels, Itineraries, Revelations, etc. as I said, be sure they give Authority, and Lustre, to the Christian Religion. As we came hereby to understand, it was an extraordinary Figure that Christianity made in the World, at its very first appearance. It should seem, men thought, they had never wrote enough concerning it: its admirable Morals, the Miracles of its Author and other first Preachers of it, its Revelations and Prophecies, verified by almost an immediate completion, did so convince and affect 'em; that they even filled the world with their accounts of these things, under the names of Acts, Revelations, Itineraries, Epistles, Gospels, Martyrdoms, Liturgies, Precepts, Recognitions, Institutions, Oracles, and some more. 'Tis of some of these, that St. Luke speaks in the first Verses of his Gospel. He meant not the Gospel of John; for 'tis agreed on all hands, John wrote his Gospel long after the other Evangelists, and to supply some of their Omissions. That he did not intent, only Matthew and Mark; who indeed wrote before him; may be inferred from his own words, when he says. Not, τινὲς, some, one or two; but πολλὸι, MANY have taken in hand to set forth a Declaration of those things, that are most surely believed among us; even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were Eye-witnesses, and Ministers of the WORD.  
Amyntor and M. Dodwel believe St. Luke doth not speak of the Gospels of John, Matthew and Mark; they suppose, he had not so much as seen any of those Gospels. But what is in their mind, to tell us that; Luke plainly intimates, the Authors of the Gospels which he had seen, had consulted neither any Persons that had been Eye-witnesses; nor so much as those who had seen or spoke with any such: and that on these Accounts, the Credit of those Gospels, is suspected and dubious. For St. Luke, as before quoted, expressly says; the Authors by him intended, had wrote concerning our Saviour, his Miracles and Doctrine, just in the manner as they delivered them to us, who from the beginning were Eye-witnesses. He could not possibly have given a more ample Testimony, either to their Fidelity, or their Accuracy.  
In accounting for the Reasons, why these Books are lost; too many People have learned to speak with intolerable Effrontry, and Profanity. I will first give the true Reasons, of so great a loss; and then examine the scurrilous Conjectures of some, who glory in their shame.  
In general; I could never wonder, we have lost so many of the Apostolic Writings, and other Ancient (important) Monuments of the Christian Religion; since I took notice, we have lost also the very best Books of the Ancients, in all parts of Learning and Science.  
In Philosophy; to the times of our Saviour, we have almost nothing left to us, but the Works of Plato and Aristotle: the least valuable, it may be, of all the Ancients. The Philosophy of Aristotle being little else, but some dry Definitions; that give no light to the Natures of things: and that of Plato, such a futility in Philosophy, as Behmenism in Religion and Christianity; even a Rhapsody of some Mystical (or Nonsensical) Terms, sprinkled here and there with a bright Thought, or lively Expression.  
Of all the Philosophical Writers; since our Saviour, there remain (in my present remembrance) only two or three Platonists and Stoics, that were Greecs; by the Latins, there are only (I think) some Natural Questions by Seneca; and a few moral Pieces by the same Seneca, and by M. Cicero. Philosophy was cultivated, above 700 years, in ASIA; as also in Egypt, Greece, Italy, and most other Provinces of EUROPE; in AFRICA, from Cyrene to the Pillars of Hercules and the Ocean, being one of the longest tracts of Ground in the World. It grew into such reputation, that there were very many Academies; and an incredible number of Professors and Teachers, divers of them in high esteem. But few Persons of the better sort, that did not cause their Children to be educated, in some of these Academies: even the principal Nobility, whether Greecs or Latins, after having bore the Chief Offices of the Commonwealth, did not disdain to learn Philosophy in their years, if they had miss it in their youth; nay a Nobleman was not esteemed, if he were not a competent Orator and Philosopher. We may be assured therefore, we have lost a prodigious multitude of Philosophical Books, in the several parts of Philosophy; wrote by the most Eminent Masters, among the several Sects: undoubtedly it was then, as now, a customary thing; that, famous Professors wrote something, more or less, either led by their own Inclination, or by occasion of some Provocation, or persuaded by their Scholars and Admirers. Who (as I said but now) were all the Nobility; and all Persons of Distinction, whether for Wealth or Wit.  
The like may be said of Authors, and Books, concerning Astronomy, Astrology, Divination, Magic, Geometry, Mechanics, Medicine, Anatomy, Botanics, Poetry, Painting, Architecture, Statuary, the Origin and Rites of the Paganic Religions; History, both Natural and Civil. Amyntor himself somewhere puts us in mind, what is the Damage in the Historical part of Learning. The loss, says he, of so many Decades of the Roman Historiographer, T. Livius, is alone as much to be regretted; as if all the Fathers had miscarried. 'Tis easy to guests the Reason, He was a Heathen, and they were Christians. But we see however, by all this; that, the mere force, or edacity of time, bears away, or devours the most excellent Instances of Human Industry, and Wit: that we ought not to marvel, if we have not still all, or even had not the principal Labours, of the Apostles, and Apostolical men. If Amyntor's Catalogue of Books, some of them once reverenced by the Church, and now lost, were much larger than it is: it would by no means prove, they were all Trivial, Spurious, or Erroneous Books; 'twould be no imputation on Christianity, as abounding only with Fables and Impostures. There being, we have seen, no part of Learning (though never so useful and necessary, or so curious and diverting;) but has suffered extremely, by the loss of some excellent Books and Authors, nay of most such Authors and Books.  
I believe also, The unquestionable Orthodoxy; the yielded certainty, or genuinness; and apparent sufficiency, of the present Scripture-Canon, were great Occations that the Books in the Catalogue, fell (gradually) into disuse, and were afterwards lost.  
As to the sufficiency of the Books of the Canon; I mean, of all them taken together; it is self-evident. For they contain, a (repeated) Abrogation of the Mosaic Law, so far as 'tis Ritual and Judicial; a complete System, of Morals; the History of the Parentage, Conception, Birth, Miracles, Doctrine, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Saviour: the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles, their Divine Inspiration, and Miraculous Powers; their Epistles, to private Persons, to Churches, and Nations; in which they often (professedly) repeat the Substance of the Christian Religion, as well in what respects Faith as Manners. In short, a man cannot read these Books, without most plainly perceiving, that; they are such an Account of the Religion they teach, as needs no Supplement.  
Their Genuinness, and Orthodoxy; or that they are the very Books of the Authors whose names they bear, and are true Representations of the Doctrines of Christianity as delivered to the Churches by the first (Miraculous) Preachers: this is inferred, with absolute certainty, from their reception by all those Churches, as such; and that these, rather than the Books of the Catalogue (though divers of them also were highly valued) have been preserved.  
If it be urged, that; supposing, as this Answer does, the Books in the Catalogue (most of them, or some of them) were Orthodox, and Genuine, and owned to be such by the Churches: 'tis much, they should be lost; and only the Books of the present Canon preserved. Which have been preserved, it seems, for no other Reasons; but what are common also to the Books of the Catalogue: namely, because they are (undoubtedly) Orthodox, and (certainly) Genuine.  
I answer, that; the Books of the Catalogue that are lost, or rejected, were not so certainly Cenuin, to all the Churches; as those that are preserved, and made parts of the Canon. And as to the Orthodoxy, though that (as to many of them) was not questioned; yet the Books not being so certain as to their Genuinness in all parts of the Christian World, and therefore not allowed as (unexceptionable) Evidences in the numerous Controversies that arose in the Catholic Church; and the un-suspected Books being abundantly sufficient to serve the ends of Religion, in respect both of Controversy, and Institution in manners: the former (hereupon) almost unavoidably began to be neglected, and in time were lost; and only the latter were kept.  
We have now the advantages of Printing, and of a ready Communication (by the increase of Trade, and Improvement of Navigation) between Nation and Nation: the Ancients wanted these helps; therefore with them, a Book concerning the Christian Religion, if it were not published in Judea, or at Rome, or in some part of Greece; or some considerable City of Asia, it might not come to be known of a long time; not vulgarly and generally known in the Churches, till the Evidences that it was Genuine were all wholly lost, or become of but little Authority. The Books of our present Canon, were immediately communicated by the Churches, or Persons, to whom they were written; unto all the Famous Churches. Like Industry was not used, on behalf of the Books of the Catalogue; therefore these last were read only, or chief, in the places of their Publication, and in the Churches to which they were addressed: and thus being long unknown to the Churches, and Illustrious Writers, of other places; though many of them were approved as to their Doctrine and Usefulness, on which accounts they are often quoted by (those two, the most Learned of the Antenicen Fathers) Clemens of Alexandria and Origen, yet they did not obtain to be adopted into the Scripture-Canon; as not so certainly the Works of Apostles and Apostolical men, as those that were received for such every where, and from the beginning.  
Farther, it may be divers Books of the Catalogue, titled with the name of an Apostle, or Synergist of the Apostles, were rejected (and in process of time, lost;) for that very reason. It was supposed that, the Book having to it a name of one of the Apostle, or some Apostolical Person; therefore the Author claims to be that Person, or that Apostle: it might appear however, by some things in the Book itself, or by some Circumstances commonly known, that the Author was not the Apostle, or other Person vulgarly thought to be designed in the Title; and hereupon the Book was considered as a Forgery and Imposture, and as wrote (probably) with some dishonest Intention and Aim. But as now, so then; and then much more than now; abundance of People had the same names with the Apostles, and other first Preachers: it may be, most Christians took those Names, either at their Conversion, or Baptism. A Book therefore, (suppose a Gospel, Epistles, Acts,) might really be the Work of the Author in the Title-page, or elsewhere in the Book; and yet in short time be rejected, neglected, and finally lost, as an Imposture and Forgery, on that false supposition, that the Author affected to seem the Person that he was not, and that (in truth) he never pretended to be. This very thing hath certainly happened, in divers Works of the Fathers; as well those of the fourth and fifth Ages, and later, as those of the second and third: and it might happen, I say, in divers Writings of the Catalogue that we are considering.  
I take these to be some of the Causes, that so many Books of the Catalogue are lost: Time; the Sufficiency of the Books preserved; and that, some of them came not to general knowledge, till the Evidences that they were Genuine, were not so certain. These are such Reasons, and Occasions of it, that we cannot much wonder at the misfortune of this (invaluable) Damage. And after this, 'tis but little to the credit of their Judgement, and less of their Morals, that some affect to guests at the Causes of this Mishap, in a sort that reflects on the Christian Religion; as if it had no manner of certainty, and that we cannot now (nor ever could) distinguish Fables and Impostures, from Authentic Monuments. If a man is disposed, to employ his Wit in scurrilous Conjectures: he may say many things on such a Subject as this, that shall be loudly applauded by the Partisans of Scepticism and Profanity; and that will surprise the Superficial, though they be Serious and well-disposed. But I maintain, that; after we have discovered such Reasons of the loss of these Books, as every body must allow that some of them are certain, and others of them are probable, and all of them consistent with the reverence due to Religion: those other (Sportive, or Malevolent) Conjectures will be insisted on, only by such as affect to be Infidels; or that love to be vain, though in a serious and weighty Subject, And tho to convince such People, is (it may be) an impossible Task; it being so much in the power of the Mind, whether it will admit a light to which it has prejudices: yet it will not be hard, to satisfy the Indifferent, that; those Guesses are not the results of Judgement, but only of a sceptical, abuseful, prejudicated, and interessed Partiality and Vanity.  
They tell us, these Books were not lost, they were suppressed, because they contained some things, contrary to the Persuasions of the strongest side; which always calls itself the Church.  
Or, they were gross, and lewd Forgeries; composed by the Enemies of Christians: with design only to make sport with a Crew of Blockheads, that were always ready to swallow any thing; never so silly and ridiculous; provided it were but miraculous, and had a few good Morals.  
Or, we own them to a certain pious fraud, to which the Ancients were much given; that sought to magnify Christianity, by these pompous Tales and Additions to it: the true Apostolic Writings being too imperfect, to raise in men's Minds any great apprehensions of the Christian Religion.  
Yet lest we should not by all this fully understand them, they are mindful and careful to add, that; these Writings and Books however were quoted, and reverenced by many of the Ancients or Fathers: and that, no more than this can be said, on behalf of the Books (of our Canon) that are preserved; and not so much, for divers of them. Or more in short; the latter are not a rush better, or wiser, than the former: saving only that, they have had the good luck to be preserved, by Knaves; and magnified, by Fools. Let us call over, and discuss these things.  
The Books of the Catalogue were once in reputation, in some Places, and with divers Learned Persons; but they are now partly lost, partly very much suspected as not .  
We answer; Seventeen hundred years, the undeniable sufficiency of the Books which are preserved, and that the Books of the Catalogue were not timely communicated to the principal Churches, are obvious and probable Reasons, that so many of 'em have miscarried, and the rest are of doubtful Credit. Some People are pleased to laugh at this; and choose rather to guests, that, the Books we talk of, have been either suppressed or slighted, because they were not to the tooth of the strongest side; or were the Mock compositions, of Enemies; or the Holy Cheats of Persons that: sought to aggrandise Christianity. That is, without ever having seen these Books; without having heard of most of them, under any other Character by the Ancients, than that they were known but to few: they pronounce over them, indefinitely, or without distinguishing them; that, they were lend Cheats, or pious Fraeuds, or told some dangerous Tales that the political and prevailing Party thought fit to suppress.  
Who sees not, these are Suppositions that a man may make at will, concerning any Books that are lost; or any such Books, that the Evidences of their being  and sound, have miscarried? but they are mere Conjectures? and such as neither Charity, nor Prudence, suffers us to make, when we have others that are extremely probable, and some of them certain.  
I gave some Instances before of Mathematical, Historical, and Philosophical Books; that are lost: there is no learned Man that would approve of such a Judgement as this, concerning them; they have perished because they were Trifles, or Impostures, or shot some such Bolts, as the generality of wiser men could not away with. I leave the matter with the indifferent, to judge of it; as their Wit, and Honesty, shall dispose ' 'em.  
I added, at our entrance into this Dissertation; Nothing can be objected to the Catalogue, but what one would look for: that, in so various a Subject, some more Books are written, than the severe serutiny of the Catholic Church would (absolutely) approve; and that, some Triflers and Impostors would perhaps be exercising their shameful Talents, among the honest and well-qualified. I meant hereby, if we grant that most or almost all (or if you will, all) the Books of the Catalogue were Spurious; that they were pious Frauds, or impious Cheats, or have been suppressed by the Jealousy of the prevailing side: it will not in the least affect the Scripture-Canon, or Christian Religion; which are not the less true, or less certain, because there have been some false Evangelists, and false Pretenders to Revelation. Infidelity and Profanity are hard put to it, when their whole strength is reduced to this: there have been some false Evangelists, feigned Acts, Epistles, Revelations; therefore we have no certainty of any true Gospels, Revelations, Epistles or Acts. As if they had said; Lucius, Ambrose, and Arthur, were fabulous Kings of Britain; and Jeffry of Monmouth has contrived a British Chronicle, consisting chief of Tales of his own devising: therefore neither can we prove Cassibelan, Caractacus, and Arviragus, were sometimes Kings in this Island. Or if you will, thus; Isidore Mercator published a Volume of Spurious Epistles of Popes and Bishops, and Decrees of Councils: Annius of Viterbium somewhile deceived every body, with a Counterfeit Metasthenes, a Berosus Manetho and Philo. Therefore, we ought not to think, there were at all any such Councils, Bishops, and Popes; or a real Metasthenes, a Berosus, Philo, and Manetho, who were Learned and celebrated Writers and Historians. Why don't they allege the Koran too, as an Exception, and Objection to the Scripture Canon; and say, because one was an Imposture, so must the other?  
Our Author seems to be ware, of some such Exceptions as these; and therefore makes short work with us, by intimating (in a great many places) that; The reasons are the same, why we should reject, or receive the Catalogue, and (present) Scripture-Canon: as much may be said for, or against one, as the other. We will examine this; and the Pretences, with which 'tis supported, very carefully.   

Of the Verity, and Certainty of the Scripture-Canon.  
I Shall reduce into the best Method, and most natural Order that I can, what is any way considerable in our Author's Book; concerning the Scripture-Canon: discussing every particular, as I recite or mention it.  
From P. 69, to P. 79; he has a Quotation out of M. Dodwel, to this sense. The Books of the present Canon, lay concealed in the Coffers of particular Churches, or of private Men; [the Churches and Men to whom they were written] till the latter times of Trajan, or rather of Adrian: [that is, till about 130 years after Christ.] We are not to think that; the Writers of the New Testament, knew any thing of the Gospels, or other Books of the Canon, that were not wrote by themselves; or that, the Clergy made a Common use, either of the one or other. We have still some Ecclesiastical Writers, of those early times; Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp: but in Hermas, there is not one passage out of the New Testament; in the rest, not any of the Evangelist is called by his Name, of is particularly named. Nor can we know, whether the Passages they cite, are alleged out of the Gospels or other Books of our present Canon; or from other Gospels and Books, namely the Books of the Catalogue: for the Citations are very different, from the Words in our present Gospels and other Canonical Books; and for the most part have something added to them.  
Amyntor declares, he assents to all this; and farther to recommend it, he compliments M. Dodwel after a very extraordinary manner. He affirms, M. Dodwel, though a Layman, knows as much of these matters, as the Divines of all Churches put together. What an advantage is it sometimes to a man, not to be a thing in Holy Orders? how much more knowing, and Learned shall he be, than himself was ware: for I take it for granted, this Bounce of a Compliment was wholly intended to M. Dodwel's Lay-quality. I am content for my part, M. Dodwel be the next HERO, to M. Milton; I hope however 'twill be granted, that how much soever M. Dodwel knows, he does not know that to be true, which is false: and in confidence of this, I intent to discuss, what he hath said. Or rather, to speak with due reserve of a Person and Matter that I myself do not know, what Amyntor hath imputed to him.  
He says, The Writers of the New Testament were unknown to one another; and to the Churches, and Clergy; till 130 years after Christ. How do I fear, lest he that is said to know as much of these Matters, as the Clergy of all Churches put together, should be found to know less of 'em; than any of us Country-curats'? For first, as to the Writers of the four Gospels; all the Church-Historians agree, St. Matthew wrote first, so it will not be expected we should prove, that he had seen the rest: but 'tis apparent, the next Evangelist, Mark, had seen and read the Gospel by St. Matthew; because Mark's Gospel is indeed nothing else but an abridgement of St. Matthew's, as the Critics and Interpreters have (many of them) observed. They are the words of H. Grotius, on Mark 1.1. Vsum esse Marcum Matthaei Evangelio, apertum facit collatio: i. e. If we compare their Gospels, it will be evident that St. Mark made great use of the Gospel by Matthew. St. Austin, de Cons. Eccl. c. 2. says: Marcus Matthaeum subsecutus; tanquam pedissequus, & breviator ejus videtur. i e. As St. Mark wrote in time after St. Matthew; so he follows him as it were at the very heels, in respect of the things related, only abridging what St. Matthew had more largely said.  
After Matthew and Mark, came St. Luke; he is very reasonably and probably thought to intent (besides we know not who else) Matthew and Mark; in those first words of his Gospel. For as much as MANY have taken in hand, to set forth in order a Declaration of those things, which are surely believed among us; even as they delivered them to us, who from the beginning were Eye-witnesses, and Ministers of the Word: it seemed good to me also etc. Those Characters of Eye-witnesses, and from the beginning, and Ministers of the Word, agree to the Person of St. Matthew; and the two last to St. Mark: that to say the whole Period was intended of them, at least with others, is what has been reasonably believed hitherto; and is not made less reasonable by the two Exceptions by Amyntor, taken (as he saith) out of M. Dodwel. They allege, that; St. Luke has given a different Genealogy of our Saviour, from that by St. Matthew, without giving any reason for it: and that, there are many apparent Contradictions, between these (and other) Writers of Scripture. But if these Gentlemen please to look into Matth. 1.6. and Luke 3.31. they will see a reason of the difference of the Genealogies: namely that, St. Matthew deduces the Genealogy from Solomon, St. Luke from Nathan; both of them Sons of David, and Ancestors to our Saviour, in the sense that David was his Ancestor. As for the apparent Contradictions, between these Evangelists; if it were true, it would rather prove that St. Luke had seen and read those other two Evangelists: because by writing any thing contrary to them, he intended without doubt to correct their Mistake; and rightly inform their common Readers. But 'tis certain he was not in the least ware, that those former Evangelists needed any correction; for himself, we have seen before, bears 'em witness, that they had written all things as those Persons have also delivered them to us, who from the beginning were Eye-witnesses, and Ministers of the WORD: that is, as the other Apostles, and first Preachers, have also dedivered them, by word of mouth.  
The last Evangelist was St. John; how he came to be an Evangelist, or on what occasion he wrote, Eusebius (the first and learnedest Historian of the Church) will tell us, in these words: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, being in all men's hands, came also to the knowledge of the Apostle John; who approved them, as faithfully written. But he observed, they were deficient in this respect, that; they had omitted that part of our Saviour's Actions and Preaching, which preceded the Imprisonment of John the Baptist: for they all begin their Narratives, with the Imprisonment of John.— Hereupon, St. John being thereto requested, added (in a Gospel by him) the Time and Transactions that had been omitted by the other Evangelists. Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 24.  
The Epistles of St. Paul are another considerable part of the Canon of the New Testament; our Opposers say, They lay hid in the coffers of the Churches and Persons to whom they were written, till 130 years after Christ. I ask, How then came St. Peter to say, 2 Pet. 3.15. As our beloved Brother Paul, according to the Wisdom given to him, hath written to you; as also in all his Epistles, speaking (to them) of these things: in which (Epistles) are some things, hard to be understood; which they that are unlearned and unstable do wrest (as they do also the other Scriptures) to their own Damnation. This Testimony proves, not only that St. Peter had seen the Epistles of Paul; but that they were commonly read, and a very bad Use made of 'em by some.  
The remaining part of the Canon, even the Catholic or General Epistles, by St. James, St. Peter, St. John, St. Judas; and the Revelation: because they were written some of them to whole Nations, and the rest to all Christians, not to particular Persons or Churches; we must needs understand they were published, by those Apostles themselves. They could be no otherwise written and addressed to Nations, and to all Christians; but by such a general Publication, as when we now give a Copy of a Letter or Book, to a Bookseller, to be by him made common.  
It appears (I suppose) by all this, to indifferent Persons, that; 'tis utterly untrue, that the Writers of the New Testament were strangers to the Writings of one another; is it any better, what follows next? namely that:  
Neither did the Clergy, or Churches, know of the Gospels; and other Books, of our present Canon. We have still, say these Gentlemen, some Ecclesiastical Writers of those early times; Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Of these, Hermas has not one passage out of all the New Testament: and for the places that are cited by the rest, one cannot tell whether they are taken out of the Books of the present Canon; or out of the Spurious Books, [even those of the Catalogue, or some such.]  
Hermas has not one passage out of the New Testament. Therefore, what? Why, therefore as we were saying, and are now proving; Hermas had not read the Books of the New Testament, which were all still (and long after, even to the year 130) in the Coffers of Persons and Churches to whom they were written. And I say, Hermas has not cited a word out of the whole Old Testament. Had he not therefore read any of the Books, of that Testament? had not a professed Christian, and a Writer (think they) read any Book of the Old or New Testament? It is apparent, he had read both: by the Doctrine of his Book; by his Discourses on Baptism, Repentance, and all Christian Virtues; by his Visions, Similitudes, and Commands, of all which he had his Hints from the Books of Holy Scripture, especially the Prophetical. He even sometimes expresses himself in the very words of the New Testament; as when he says, Com. 4. Sect. 1. He that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth Adultery. Which he took, no doubt, from Sr. Luke; who uses those very words, Luke 16.18.  
Clemens Romanus manifestly alludes, to divers Expressions and Passages of the New Testament; and some he expressly repeats, as Charity covereth a multitude of Sins; 1 Pet. 4.8. We are Members one of another, Rom. 12.5. He (Christ) is so much greater than Angels; as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name, than they. Heb. 1.2, 4. Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven;— with what measure ye meet, it shall be measured to you again. Luke 6.37. woe unto him by whom Offences come: It were better for him, that a Millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were cast into the Sea; than that he should offend one of my little ones. Luke 17.1, 2.  
St. Polycarp takes notice, of the Epistle written by Sr. Paul, to the Philippians; and saith, that Apostle mentions the Philippians with much Honour, in the beginning of his Epistle to them. So indeed he does; calling them, the Saints at Philippi; and professing that, upon every remembrance of them, by giveth thanks to God. Phil. 1.1, 2. He citys also the words of St. Paul to other Churches; as, Do ye not know that the Saints shall judge the World? 1 Cor. 6.2. Neither Fornicators, nor Effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the Kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 6.9, 10. We brought nothing into this World, and we can carry nothing out of it. 1 Tim. 6.7. He often repeats the Words and Expressions of St. Peter. Whom not having seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, ye rejoice, with joy unspeakable end full of Glory. ● Pet. 1.8. Who his own self hare our Sins, in his own Body, on the Tree:— who did no Sin; nor was Guile found in his Mouth. 1 Pet. 2.22, 24. Having your Conversation, honest among the Gentiles. Out of St. John, he hath; Whosoever doth not confess, that; Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh; this is Antichrist. 1 John. 4.3. From the Evangelists Matthew and Luke, he gives us these Passages. Blessed are they, that are persecuted for Righteousness sake; for theirs is the Kingdom of God. Matth. 5.10. Blessed are the Poor, for theirs is the Kingdom of God. Luke 6.10. The Spirit truly is willing, but the Flesh is weak. Matth. 26.41.  
Clemens and Polycarp affect to speak, whatsoever they have to say, in the words of Scripture; especially of the New Testament: St. Ignatius rather uses his own way of Expression, but he saith from St. Matthew; He that is able to receive this, let him receive it. Matth. 19.12. The Tree is known, by his Fruit. Matth. 12.33. From St. Paul he borrows, who hath given himself for us, an Offering and Sacrifice, to God. Eph. 5.2. Be perfectly joined together, in the same mind, and in the same judgement; and all speak the same things. 1 Cor. 1.10. Where is the Wise, where is the Disputer? 1 Cor. 1.23.  
They have but one Witness more, to call, St. Barnabas; who also is against them, not much less than the former: for he alleges from St. Matthew, Many are called, but few are chosen. Matth. 20.16. and 22.14. He came not to call the Righteous, but Sinners to repentance. Matth. 9.13. In his 19th Section, he giveth an Abstract or Summary of the Moral and Practical Duties of Christianity, or the way of Life as he speaks: it appears, both by the matter and manner of speaking, He meant to abridge the morality, of the Old, and New Testaments.  
If we now consider that, these Pieces are only Epistles, or Letters; and some of them so brief, that they may be written on a sheet of Paper: we may rather wonder, that these Fathers have quoted so much Scripture; than that we meet so little in their Letters. And when M. Dodwel and Amyntor say, They cannot tell, whether these Citations are from the Books of our Canon, or from some of the Apocryphal Books of the Catalogue; they put me hard to it, to imagine what they can tell: for they are the very words, neither more nor fewer, of the Canonical Books; and are extant in no other Writers, that I, or that they know; unless they should be in the invaluable (lost) Decades of Titus Livius.  
As to other Quotations out of these Fathers, that might also have been observed; in which, in repeating the words of Scripture, they sometimes substitute an equivalent word (or words) for the word in the Scripture-Text: it was not, because they were quoting some Apocryphal Gospel, Epistle, or Acts; but because they cited by memory. Wanting Concordances, and our other Modern Helps; they could not, without much trouble to themselves, be always exact in repeating Scripture-Texts as to the words, though they keep well enough to the sense. And for this reason also, they do not always name the Scripture-Author whom they allege; even to avoid the (possible) Mistake of one Writer for another.  
I make but this one remark more, on the Citations of Scripture, by these Fathers. It is reckoned, they all wrote before the whole Canon of the New Testament was completed; M. Dodwel says expressly, before Judas or the two john's had written. And they wrote from places, very distant from Judea, and from one another; Hermas and Clemens from Rome, Barnabas from Cyprus; Polycarp Smyrna in Asia, Ignatius from Syria. This serves to assure us that, the Gospels and Apostolic Writings were immediately communicated; either by particular care of the Churches, or (more probably) a publication; to the most remote Bishops and Churches: that there can be nothing more contrary to Truth, and to the zeal and Diligence of the first Christians and Churches, than this Affirmation of M. Dodwel, and his Second; that the Apostolic Writings were locked up in Coffers, of the Churches and Persons to whom they were written, till 130 years after Christ. Which is so far, we have seen, from being true; that all the Writers of those times, though living in places some Thousands of miles distant from one another, and from Judea, adorn even their familiar Letters, with Flowers from the four Gospels, and Epistles of the present Canon: nor do they cite, that we know of, a single Sentence from the Books of the Catalogue.  
Amyntor however, though he assents to M. Dodwel, in saying that, our present Scripture-Canon, and the Books that compose it, were unknown to the Churches and Clergy, till 130 years after Christ: yet he doth not think, Barnabas, Hermas, Clemens, Polycarp, or Ignatius, were the real Authors of those Epistles that go under their Names; but that these Epistles were forged about such time, as so many other Impostures appeared in the Catholic Church, namely a good while after the year 130. But hereby, he hath entirely given up the Cause he was maintaining. M. Dodwel speaks consistently to himself, though not truly; when he says, the Scripture-Canon was not known to the Churches or Clergy till about the year 130, because Clemens (and the other Writers of those times) cite nothing out of the said Canon. But Amyntor forgets to be consistent to his Cause, when he says, the Canonical Books were not known till the year 130; and at the same time denies, we have any Monuments left of those ancient times, Clemens and the rest being of much later date, and also Impostures.  
Besides, granting to him, that these Epistles are Impostures; deviled more than 130 years after Christ, as 150 or 180 after our Saviour: yet having quoted abundance of Paragraphs out of our present Canon, and none out of the Books of the Catalogue; as we are hereby assured, that the former were then known, and approved as Books of received and allowed Authority, so the other either were not known, or not considered as Books whose Authority could oblige, or so much as persuade.  
There were divers other Writers of those early times, besides Clemens and the rest mentioned by M. Dodwel; and though their Works are lost, yet we have certain assurance that they quoted the Books of the New Testament. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, was Scholar of St. John, and Companion of Polycarp; Eusebius had read his Works, and takes (occasional) notice that he quotes the Epistles of St. John, and St. Peter. Euseb. H. E. l. 3. Cap. ult.  
Contemporaries to Papias and Polycarp, and much within the term of 130 after Christ, was Quadratus, Agrippa surnamed Castor, and Basilides. Of these, Basilides wrote 24 Books of Commentaries (or Explanations) on the Gospels. Concerning the other two, Eusebius saith, They, with many more, made it their business, to preach in places, whereas yet Churches were not gathered; and (τῶν θείων Ἐυανγελίων παραδιδόναι γραφὴν) to bestow and disperse Copies of the Inspired Gospels. H. E. Lib. 3. c. 37. Lib. 4. c. 7.  
Justin Martyr in his Second Apology, but 140 years after Christ, (as Dr. Cave hath proved;) makes us to know that, there was then a particular Officer in the Churches, called the Reader, distinct from the Preacher; whose business it was, saith he, to read the Prophetical and Apostolical Books to the Congregation, until it is sufficient. Amyntor must suppose with great liberty, if he supposes, that in the year 130 the Books of the New Testament were unknown to the Churches and Clergy; and that, but ten years after, they were so known, and in such credit, that the Churches entertained an Officer on purpose to read them, in their Assemblies.  
But why do we protract a Dispute; and seek to old Authors known to few People, to determine it; when it may be ended by one (demonstrative) Argument, and of which all Persons are capable? The four Gospels, Acts, general Epistles, and Revelation, were not written to particular Persons, or particular Churches; but written, and published to all the World. Let me hear Amyntor, or M. Dodwel, say; they were not written to be published, or were not published so soon as written: if they dare not say so; why do they say, they were kept in private Coffers, till 130 years after Christ? I don't think, any body will believe; that, the Churches or Clergy were ignorant of the publishst Books of their Religion.   

A Continuation of the Defence of the Canon.  
ANother Detraction of our Author, from the Credibility and just Authority of the Canon, is that; The principal Fathers of the three first Ages, Ireneus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen, did quote divers Books of the Catalogue (particularly Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clemens Romanus,) as Scripture. And why should not all the Books that are cited by these Learned Fathers, as Scripture, be accounted equally Authentic and Canonical? Or if these Disciples and Successors of the Apostles, could so grossly confound the  Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, with such as are spurious and falsely attributed to them; how came others [the following Fathers, and the Councils, who have undertaken to declare which Books are Canonical, and which not,] to be better or more certainly informed? In short, he saith; Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Ignatius, Hermas, and Polycarp, were esteemed by the Ancients to be as good as any part of the New Testament: and seeing herein they were so grossly mistaken; what stress can be laid on their Testimony, concerning the Books of the New Testament itself? which Testimony however, both formerly and at present, is alleged as the principal reason (sometimes he maketh it to be the only-reason,) why the Books of the New Testament are received as Canonical. Amynt. p. 44, 45, 46, 52, 79, 80. He adds, at p. 57, 58. The Council of Laodicea, An. 360 after Christ, is the first Assembly wherein the Canon of Scripture was determined. In so great a variety of Books (those of the Catalogue, he means, and those of the Canon;) how could that Council determine, which were the true Writings of the Apostles, and which not; but by Revelation, or the written Testimony of their Predecessors? Revelation in the case there was none: and for Testimony, I have the same Testimony for the Books I defend, which is usually urged in behalf of the Canon.  
We may abridge, and distinguish this Judgement, into these Propositions.  

1. The best of the Ancients esteemed the Writings that now go under the names of Clemens Romanus, Hermas, Barnabas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, to be as good Scripture; as any part of the New Testament was then, or is now, accounted.  
2. The true Canon can be ascertained, only by Revelation, or the Testimony of the Fathers: Revelation there was none; and the Testimony of the Fathers is as home and full for Clemens, Ignatius, and the rest, not to mention many other Books of the Catalogue, as for our Canonical Books.  
3. 'Tis even certain that, the Fathers were mistaken in the Opinion they had concerning (the pretended) Clemens, Hermas, Barnabas, Polycarp, and Ignatius; therefore, neither is their Testimony valuable concerning the Books of the New Testament, or present Scripture Canon.   
We shall answer sufficiently, if we prove clearly and indubitably these two things; That the Ancients had not the same, or like regard for Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, or any other Books of the Catalogue, as for the Books of the Canon: and that, they had other (and stronger) reason's, besides the Testimony of their Predecessors, why they established the present Canon; or in other words, why they received the Books of the Canon, and not those of the Catalogue.  
When Amyntor says, the best of the Fathers and Ancients quote the Writings of Barnabas, Hermas, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, and Polycarp; as Canonical, and Scripture: and that, they esteemed them as good as any part of the New Testament. For this latter he will never be able to produce one Testimony of any of the Ancients; and I shall abundantly prove the contrary, from those Fathers to whom he appeals, and whose sense he hath so much mistaken: for the other, were it true, yet 'tis not to the purpose. For 'tis certain, and granted by all Learned Men, that; those Fathers called all the Ancient Ecclesiastical Books, if they were Orthodox, Scripture, and Canonical: the terms Canonical, and Scripture were not then appropriated, to Books written by Inspiration; but were common to all Ecclesiastical Writers and Books, if Orthodox. Origen, for instance, often citys the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament, as Scripture, and Canonical; in his Homilies, and sometimes when he is disputing: but when he discourses professedly, what Books are Divine Scripture, and what are not; he admits only those Books of the Old Testament that are received by Protestants, rejecting the Apocryphal Books; see concerning this Euseb. H. E. l. 6. c. 25.  
Clemens Romanus, Hermas, and divers more, are cited as Scripture by the Ancients and Fathers; says Amyntor.  
By which of ' 'em? He answers; by Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen: and he refers us to places in their Writings. But in some of those places, nothing at all is said by those Fathers, concerning the Books of which we are enquiring; in other places, the Authors are named, but nothing is quoted out of them: elsewhere are Citations out of them, but not under the names of Scripture or Canonical; and where they are so called, 'tis only in the sense that the same (and many later) Fathers call the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament, Canonical or Scripture, and yet deny them to be of Divine Authority, or to be received by the Churches as a Rule of their Faith. Yet more particularly,  
It is not true that Irenaeus, in the alleged place or elsewhere, calls the Epistle of Clemens Romanus, Scripture. He citys it, only to prove that, Apostolical Tradition is contrary to the Heresy which teaches, there is a God above the Creator of the World: because, saith he, the said Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians, which is older than that detestable and foolish Heresy, teaches but one God, Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth. In the same Book and Chapter (l. 3. c. 3.) he commends the Epistle of Polycarp, but citys nothing out of, or calls it Scripture and Canonical. That, Hermas is mentioned by Irenaeus, I don't remember: Amyntor refers to Lib. 4. cap. 3. but nothing is there said of him. As to Ignatius, Irenaeus only calls him, Quendam ex Nostris adjudicatum ad Bestias propter Deum, One of us Christians condemned to the Beasts for the cause of God. He doth not so much as name him; but 'tis guessed he means Ignatius, because the words he quotes are found in an Epistle of Ignatius.  
'Tis no wonder that, Clemens Alexandrinus may call the Epistle of Barnabas and the Pastor of Hermas, Scripture; in the sense before mentioned: as a term of distinction, or to distinguish them from the Writings of the Gentile Moralists and Philosophers, whom also he often citys, and explains their Opinions. Eusebius (H. E. l. 6. c. 13.) observes that, Clemens of Alexandria quotes the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Syrac; and with them, the Epistles of Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, and others not universally received among Christians. Now as the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus were never reckoned by the Catholic Church, and therefore (undoubtedly) neither by Clemens, as parts of the Old Testament, but only as laudable Appendices to it: so when we find him quoting also Hermas, Barnabas, or Clemens Romanus, under the same names and Epithets that he gives to Ecclesiasticus and (the false) Solomon; he intended no more thereby to make them parts of the New Testament, than he (or the Catholic Church) accounted the other to be parts of the Old Testament.  
What I say, is yet more plain from Origen, the last of Amyntor's Fathers. All the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament, are frequently alleged by Origen; in company with his Citations out of the genuine Books of the New and Old Testaments: he has caused us however to know the vast difference, he put between them; and that the Catholic Church received only the present (Protestant) Canon, as Divine Scripture, the other Books (whether the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament, or those of the Catalogue,) only as useful and commendable Writings. He tells us, as to the Canon of the New Testament; There are only four Gospels: the first by Matthew, written for the use of the Jews; the next by Mark, who had his Information by St. Peter; the Gospel by Luke, intended for the Gentiles; lastly, John's Gospel. Concerning the Writings of St. Paul; he mentions only his Epistles: they are short, saith he, and not to all the Churches which he had planted, or where he had taught. Peter, so he goes on, wrote an Epistle that is received and esteemed by all; we may grant he wrote a second Epistle, but it is doubted of. John wrote a Gospel, and Revelation; a short Epistle: and if you will, a second, and third Epistle; but the two last are also questioned by some. He thinks those Churches are to be commended, that receive the Epistle to the Hebrews; for our Ancestors reckon it to St. Paul, and had doubtless good reasons why they did so. Origen, Expos. in Joan. l. 5. & in Matth. l. 1. Euseb. H. E. l. 6. c. 25. We see then, in reckoning up the  Works of the Apostles, and Books that they thought to be Divine Scripture, Origen does not vouchsafe so much as to mention any of the Books of the Catalogue: he knows nothing of other Gospels, Acts, Revelations, or Epistles, besides those of our present Canon. Not that indeed he did not well know them, and also esteem some of them; for he frequently quotes them both in Preaching and Arguing: but when he professes to declare the true Ecclesiastical Canon, and  Works of the Evangelists and Apostles; he forgets all the Books of the Catalogue.  
Amyntor is very earnest for the Doctrine, and the Revelation of St. Peter; on the Account that they were approved, he saith, by the Ancients, in particular by Origen: he saith, they may be preferred on that account before Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, and other Books of our present Canon; which were doubted of, by the Ancients. We have just now heard Origen say the direct contrary: we have seen, he and those other Fathers make some doubt of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the 2d of Peter, the 2d and 3d of John; but they speak very favourably and very respectfully of them, and so as plainly to intimate that they incline to them: but the Revelation, and Doctrine of Peter, and other Books of the Catalogue, they never once name 'em, in recounting the Books of the Canon, or of the Evangelists and Apostles. The testimony of Origen in the case is so much the more considerable, because he was undoubtedly the most learned of all the Ancients; the first Divine the Church ever had, some doubt not to add and the last.  
Our Antagonist has not yet done with us, he says; The Council of Laodicea, about 360 Years after Christ, is the first Assembly wherein the present Canon of Scripture was established. In so great a variety of Books, (those of the Catalogue, and those of the Canon) how could that Council determine which were the true Writings of the Apostles, and which not; but by Revelation, or the written Testimony of their Predecessors? Revelation in the Case there was none; and for Testimony, I have the same Testimony for many Books of the Catalogue. Elsewhere (p. 48.) he adds; Divers Books of the Catalogue were verily supposed by the Ancients, to be written by the Evangelists, Apostles, and their Synergists whose name they bear: why then do we not receive 'em into the Canon, since the Authors of 'em were (at least) Companions and Fellow-labourers of the Apostles; as well as St. Mark and St. Luke? Why are they excluded from the Canon, and those Evangelists not excluded? If this quality (to have been a Companion and Synergist of the Apostles) was sufficient to entitle Mark and Luke to Inspiration; why should it not do as much for Barnabas and Clemens Romanus? And if this be not all the reason; pray let us know the true one, for I never heard of any other.  
He is entered, I confess, on the merits of the Cause. He saith; the Council of Laodicea, that established our present Canon, could no other ways distinguish the  Writings of the Apostles from those falsely imputed to 'em, but by the Testimony of their Predecessors: he hath the same Testimony, for the Books of the Catalogue. He knows no other reason, why Mark and Luke are believed to write by Inspiration, but that they were Synergists and Companions of the Apostles. I answer,  
That, he hath the same Testimony for some Books of the Catalogue, as we for the Books of the Canon; he attempted to prove from Irenaeus, Clemens of Alexandria, and Origen, his only Witnesses. But Irenaeus, I have shown, barely names some of those Books; and for others, he citys them only as good Witnesses of the true Ecclesiastical Tradition, not as Divine Scripture. Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, may sometimes call them Scripture; in the sense that they so call the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament, which they (with the Protestants) deny to be parts of that Testament: and in reciting the Books of the Canon, and Works of the Apostles, they wholly omit, and sometimes expressly censure these Books of the Catalogue.  
The Council of Laodicea, nor any other, ever pretended, to establish the Canon of Scripture; which is precedaneous to all Councils, and receives no Authority from them, but they from it. Amyntor should have said, the Council of Laodicea is the first Assembly that, on occasion of some spurious, and many doubtful Books, declared which were the Books that had been certainly left to the Church by the Apostles and other Miraculous (first) Preachers.  
'Tis no more true, that; Mark and Luke are supposed to write by Inspiration, only because they were Companions and Synergists of the Apostles: and that, the Council of Laodicea declared the Scripture-Canon, from only the Testimony of their Ancestors or Predecessors: that is, of the preceding Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Clemens of Alexandria, and Origen. Eusebius, a long time before the Council of Laodicea, informed every body of the (sound) Reasons, why the Catholic Church receives some Books as Divine Scripture, and others not: his words are these. Many Books have been published by Heretics, under the names of the Apostles; as the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Mathias, and others; the Acts of Andrew, John, and diverse more. But first, they are not cited [he means, not as Divine Scripture; for that they are indeed quoted by Clemens of Alexandria and Origen the learnedst of the Antenicens, he tells us before and after;] by the Doctors of the Church. Secondly, their way of writing is wholly different from the Spirit, Genius, and Manner of the Apostles. Lastly, the Doctrine, Opinions, and other Matters, advanced in those Books, are so contrary to Truth, and to Orthodoxy; that we must not barely call them Spurious, but Absurd, and Impious. Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 25.  
I must a little enlarge, on this important Testimony; which overthrows all Amyntor's and M. Dodwel's Pretences, either for the Books of the Catalogue, or against those of the Canon.  
These Books, saith Eusebius, are never cited (as Divine Scripture) by the Doctors of the Church: directly contrary to Amyntor's I have the same Testimony of the Ancients (the very best and soundest of them) for these Books, that is alleged (or can be) by others for the Canon.  
These Writings, says Eusebius again, have nothing of the Apostolical Way and Spirit. They want that honest Plainness, in their Style; that Integrity of manners, that Elevation of Piety, that Salt of Virtue, that exemption from Partialities and Passions; which so effectually recommend, and even point out to us, the Inspired Writings.  
Above all, they are stuffed with abundance of notorious Falsities in Doctrine, and in Matters of Fact; and those also as ridiculous, as they are erroneous.  
Here sure we have, wherewith to answer, to all the bold Suggestions, of the Book under consideration. If the Author pretends, he has the same Testimony of some Ancients, for the Books of the Catalogue, as there is for the Canon: Eusebius replies, none of the Doctors have quoted those Pieces, as Divine Scripture. If he demands, what other Exceptions we can advance against them; or what we can say farther, for the Books of the Canon: Eusebius again answers, the Books of the Canon and of the Catalogue differ, as Pious and Impious; as True and False; as Credible and Ridiculous: and that these are the Church's Reasons, why she venerates the latter, and no less disesteems (to use no harder word) the other. In short, besides the unanimous Testimony of the Ancients, which was Amyntor's only Reason: Eusebius insists, on the so different Spirit, and Morality, of these two sorts of Books; and on the known Verity in Matters of Fact, and self-evident soundness in Doctrine, so remarkably appearing in one, and wanting in the other. When Amyntor fairly satisfies these Answers, of this Learned Father; Phillida solus habeto.   

Farther Continuation of the Defence of the Canon.  
IT seems however, by all this we have gained nothing at all; for Amyntor says again. If some of the Ancients made these Exceptions, to the Books of the Catalogue; they were not so thought of, by some whole Parties, who made use of ' 'em. And, there is not a single Book of the New Testament, which was not refused by some of the Ancients; as unjustly fathered on the Apostles, and really forged by their Enemies. And lastly, he has Witnesses for it, that; were the Books of the Canon never so certainly written by the Apostles: they have been however so changed, and that too divers times, that (perhaps) not a single Rib or Plank of the old Argos is left. To this effect he speaks at p. 19, 56, 60, 64.  
But who told him, or how will he prove it, that; whereas some of the Ancients made Exceptions to the Books of the Catalogue, they were otherwise thought of, by some whole Parties of Christians? It is not true, nor will he be able to bring any proof for it, from Antiquity; that the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, Revelations, of the Catalogue, were espoused by whole Parties or Sects. On the contrary, they were read indifferently by some of all Parties; they had a little while some Credit with some Persons in all the Denominations of Christians: till for the Reasons, but now alleged from Eusebius, they grew (first) into disuse, and (then) were lost. Or if some few of 'em were the Compositions of professed Heretics, in order to countenance the Opinions of a small Party; as the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, said by Epiphanius to be devised by the Cainits, a Gnostic Sect: their manifest Disagreement to the Doctrine and History of the Gospels known by all to be Authentic, would (and actually did) immediately detect, and justly discredit them. Some whole Parties, says Amyntor, espoused some Books of the Catalogue. Yes, the Cainits; a Sect of two days continuance, and consisting (it may be) of twenty or thirty Persons, Libertines; boasted of the Gospel of Judas. How does this weaken the Judgement, made of that Gospel, by all the Churches, and reported by Eusebius and Epiphanius; that this and some such Pieces were foolish, and false, even to ridiculousness? We don't deny, there were such Books as these in the Catalogue; or that they were sometime in such credit, and even favoured by particular Persons of some Churches and Sects: but we say, the reasons alleged against them by the body and generality of the Churches, and that hereupon they soon became universally slighted, and shortly quite perished; are just such Presumptions against them, as it will be in after-Ages against the (spurious) Metasthenes, Berosus, and Philo of Annius, that they had appeared but a very little while,  they were wholly discredited by the concurrent Judgement and clear Arguments of Learned Men. As no body hereafter will appear for Annius his Philo, Berosus, or Metasthenes: 'tis an attempt not less worthy to be laughed at, that the Gospel of Judas has now any Fautors; or that any are found, who with great confidence do mind us, that, it was esteemed some time by a Party. When the Judgement that Learned Men, and the Catholic Church, made of this Gospel and other such like Pieces, has been confirmed by the immediate disappearing of the Books and Parties that maintained them; what can we reasonably think of the matter but that, as the Roman Orator has worded it for us, Opinionum portenta delet dies; Follies and Errors, that are too extravagant and monstrous, soon (like the Monsters of Nature) perish?  
If there were any thing (indeed) that we could lay in the contrary Scale, had we any thing to allege in favour of these condemned and lost Books; it were a necessary Caution and Justice, not to condemn 'em merely on the account that the Fathers and first Churches censured and rejected 'em: but their Judgement, and Reasons, against them; so approved by all, that the Books thereupon were all immediately put to nccessary uses; aught to satisfy us concerning them.  
To that; There is not a single Book of the New Testament, which was not refused by some of the Ancients, as unjustly fathered on the Apostles, and really forged by their Enemies; P. 56, 64. Thought I, when I read it; has this Gentleman found some of the first (lost) Historians of the Church, packed up in a close Chest, or Hogshead, and buried so many Ages under ground? Has he recovered Hegesippus, or other Ancient Writers; that are so much praised by Eusebius, St. Jerom, Photius; and other Fathers who were curious of Antiquities, and have left some small account of those lost Treasures? But Amyntor quickly delivered me, from my doubt, and my surprise: for the proof he offers, is from very vulgar Books; either mistaken, or misreported by him. He says, The Manichees rejected the whole New Testament; the Ebionits' or Nuzarens, who were the first Christians, had a different Copy of St. Matthew's Gospel from ours, and the Marcionits' of St. Luke's. John's Gospel was attributed, to Cerinthus; all the Epistles of St. Paul were denied by some, and a different Copy of 'em shown by others: and the seven Pieces we mentioned before, (he means, the Epistles of St. James, St. Judas, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Revelation) were refused a long time by all Christians, with almost Universal Consent. P. 64, 65. By all Christians, with almost Universal Consent, is a Contradiction: for if by all Christians, then with Universal Consent; and if, only with almost Universal Consent, than not by all Christians. But it matters not; for we shall see, neither of 'em is True.  
When his hand was in, why did he not also (from as good Authority as he has against the whole Canon of the New Testament) rout all the Authors of the Old Testament? For he might have said from Epiphanius, Haeres Ebion. c. 13. p. 38. Some Jews, called Nazarites, rejected Sacrifices: affirming that the Books of Moses which we now have, are spurious, the true Writings of Moses being altogether different from our Copies of them; which true Writings are still preserved by their Party. He repeats the same thing, Anacep. p. 134. Others who owned the five Books of Moses, yet refused all the other Books of the Old Testament; Epiphanius Haeres. Sam. c. 2. To these last, for so much as concerns the Old Testament, were joined some Ebionits'; saving that they approved the Book of Joshua. Epiphan. Haeres. Ebion. c. 13. Let us examine all this; it will be undeniable, that almost all of it is false; and that little of it that is true, is of no weight.  
As to the Manichees, who ('tis pretended) denied all the New Testament; that is, denied it to be written by the Authors whose Names it carries, or said that at lest 'tis so very much interpolated and corrupted, that 'tis now of no Authority: I will reserve the Discussion of it, till we come also to the Philosopher Celsus; who says that the Christians had twice or thrice (or more times) altered their Gospel.  
The Ebionits' and nazarenes, says our Author, had a different Copy of Matthew's Gospel, from ours. Why does he confound the Ebionits' and nazarenes, as if they were one; and used the same Copy of Matthew's Gospel? They were no more the same Sect of Christians, than the Church of England and the Quakers are: and were so far from using the same Copy of St. Matthew, that a common Enemy to both, witnesses, the Copy of the nazarenes was (πληρέςατον) most perfect; but that of the Ebionits' (Adulteratum & Mutilum) corrupted by Interpolations, and defaced by Omissions. Epiphanius Haeres. Nazar. c. 9 Haeres. Ebion. c. 13.  
This Gospel of the Ebionits' lacked the two first Chapters; namely the Genealogy of Joseph from David, and the History concerning the three wise men out of the East: it began at the Baptism of John. As for the Additions, 'tis not said expressly what they were: likely, the History of the Woman that was taken in Adultery; related in many Copies of St. John's Gospel, particularly in those from which our English Translation was made. Also, some Answers of our Saviour, the Names also and Qualities of some of the Persons he healed. All which might be added, from common Report of the Disciples of our Saviour, and of others who knew the Facts and Persons. These things are said to be in the Hebrew Gospel, either of the nazarenes or Ebionits'; by Eusebius, Jerom, Austin, Photius, and others. It was a hard Censure by Epiphanius, to call 'em Adulterations: if no more can be objected to the Copy used by the Ebionits', than these traditional Memoirs added in some places, it were (if extant) to be highly valued.  
The omission in their Copy, of the two first Chapters, was indeed the occasion of great Disputes and Heats among the Ancients. Not uncredibly, the Ebionits' might follow the first Edition of St. Matthew's Gospel, or his Hebrew Gospel; which might begin at Chap. 3. that is, at the Baptism of John: but when Matthew published his Gospel the second time, Greek; he might add the Genealogy, and the History of the Wise men. The Ebionits' being all Jews, and understanding only the Hebrew (the Syro-Chaldaic) they adhered to the first Edition; rejecting the other: which also not being published (it may be) in Judaea, but from some other place; they might doubt, whether it were really St. Matthew's. I can't see, what can be inferred from this, to the prejudice of Christianity, or the Canon of Scripture; except by Persons, who having a great mind to be Infidels, please themselves with Trifles.  
But, the Marcionites also had a different Copy, of the Gospel of Luke. I confess, the Ancients speak of Marcion's Copy of St. Luke, as adulterated; particularly Origen, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian: and lastly Epiphanius, who has noted the particular Alterations, and Subtractions by Martion; they are these. He omits the two first Chapters, beginning his Gospel with the Preaching of John Baptist, Praecursor to our Saviour; and where the Prophets were alleged, or were spoken of, he retrenches it. The rest, objected to Marcion's Copy, is but ill-grounded; for they are only various readings, not designed Depravations. Martion intended by these changes, to conform the Gospel, to the Sentiments of his Party, concerning the Prophets: but he so did this, that the substance of Christianity was still the same; and that, 'twas easy to see, on which side the Truth lay. This last is proved by the event; for the Marcionite Heresy soon became extinct of itself. An attempt to cut off such large portions of this Gospel, that were found in all the Copies used in the Churches, was too extravagant to succeed; or be long countenanced, by any (sober) men, unless supported by Interest.  
Martion had been excommunicated by his own Father, who was a Bishop, for Fornication: hereupon, he went to Rome; but Letters from his Father, following him, they would not there receive him into Communion. Enraged at this, he set up a new Sect; being a Learned Man, he procured not a few Followers, who made him their Bishop: in this Station, he wrote divers Books; and published a new Copy of the Gospel by St. Luke, as also of St. Paul's Epistles, making in both divers Alterations. He repent however, of these wicked endeavours against: Truth, and Peace: he reconciled himself to the Church, undeceived most of his Followers; and would have reduced the rest, but was prevented by Death. We have this Information, from the most Ancient of the Latin Fathers; Tertullian, Prescript. c. 30.  
He alleges farther, John's Gospel was attributed by some, to the Heretic Cerinthus: all the Epistles of Paul were denied by some; and a different Copy shown of 'em, by others. This (boasted) different Copy, is only the Copy of Martion; voluntarily and piously retraced by himself.  
That, any denied St. Paul's Epistles; meaning thereby, denied them to be his; our Author will not prove, from any of the Ancients. If by denying them, he means, rejected the Doctrine of 'em; we grant, they were denied by the Ebionits': the witness against 'em is Epiphanius, Haeres. Ebion. c. 13. The Ebionits' were those Jewish Christians, who contended that, the Law was to be observed together with the Gospel: Paul obtained against 'em a Decree, by the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, recorded Acts 15. from vers. 24. and often argues against their Opinion, in his Epistles. This occasioned their rejecting those Epistles; and a great many Calumnies, against the Person of that Apostle: among other things, they devised that, Paul was a Gentile of Tarsus, and that missing an intended Marriage with the Daughter of a Priest at Jerusalem, he set himself to destroy the Priesthood and the Law.  
The ground on which St. Paul's Epistles were rejected by the Ebionits', namely that, in those Epistles he denies that the Gentaic Christians were obliged by the Law of Moses, being condemned at the Council of Jerusalem, mentioned Acts 15.24. and these Epistles being warranted, by ex press Authority of Sr. Peter, above quoted: methinks the Ebionits' are here objected with as little colour of Reason, as Martion in the foregoing Paragraph.  
'Tis another Exception, that John's Gospel was ascribed by some, to Cerinthus a great Heretic. By the Alogians: but so, that this Party embraced in a little time the common Opinion, that; St. John was indeed the Writer of this Gospel. Paul of Samosatum, Patriarch of Antioch, and Photinus Archbishop of Sirmium, Heads of the Alogian party, even alleged for their Opinion the first Verses of Sr. John's Gospel; and made not the least doubt either of the Author or Authority of this Gospel. Epiphan. Haeres. Samosat. & Photin.  
He still proceeds The Epistles of James and Judas, the 2d of Peter, the 2d and 3d of John, that to the Hebrews, and the Revelation, were refused a long time, by Christians, with almost universal Consent.  
The lest we can make of this, is that; the Majority of Christians rejected these Writings, and that too a long time. But Eusebius, from whom our Author had his intelligence, says otherwise; he saith, those pieces are of the number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but withal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Gainsaid indeed, by we know not who; but received by the Generality. Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 25.  
It seems however they were rejected by some, and that also a long time. I answer, they were all received, as soon as the Churches had full communication with one another; by the Convention of Councils: which, for small Books, containing nothing that if singular, was soon enough. They were received in the Council of Laodicea, by observation of our Author himself. Those seven pieces having nothing, as I said, that is singular; nothing that is wont to be alleged by the contending Parties, against one another: that Council was at perfect Liberty, whether they would receive, or reject them; they might do either, without diminution of Interest, or of Reputation. I believe therefore, seeing the Scripture Canon was so sufficient (in the Opinion of all Parties) without those Books; they were not owned by the Fathers of that Council, but on most convincing reasons. Such as, that, they had certain Information that these Books were read, as Writings of the Apostles, in all Churches of ancient Foundation; that themselves found 'em quoted (as Apostolic Compositions) in and from the times of the Apostles: also that there is in them a likeness of the Thoughts, and Expression, and whatever else recommends to us the other Books of Scripture; to the Expression, and Thoughts of the other Divine Books: or more briefly, they are written with the same kind of Spirit, that the undoubted portions of Scripture are. There might even be Testimony from some of the Churches, that; they had still the first published Copies of these Books and Epistles, with their Dates corresponding to the Age and Time of the Writers of them.  
Can any thing like to this, be said for the (rejected) Books of the Catalogue? Were they ever approved, in any Council? Are any of them quoted, or pretended to be quoted, by Writers of the Apostolic Age? Is it not said by those Ancients who had read 'em, and could belt judge of 'em; they are composed with an Address, and Air, quite different from that of the Inspired Books; and are not only false in the Doctrine and Facts, but very foolish also? If some of 'em were read, in some Churches; was it nor, only till the Catholic Church began to fill with learned and able Persons, who could make a Judgement? And when by these, they were discharged; was there any Contention for 'em, as there would certainly have been, if the same (or like) reasons could have been urged for 'em, as for the Books truly Canonical?   

Of the Philosopher Celsus, and Faustus the Manichee.  
I Come therefore, to the last Refuge of the Antichristian party. Admitting that, the Books of the Canon were (for the main of 'em) written by the Apostles, and their Synergists: they have been however so changed, and that divers times; that now there is little, perhaps nothing left of 'em, in those Books that stand for them, in our present Canon. The witness for this, is the Philosopher Celjus; to whom (great) Origen immediately answered. This Philosopher, says Amyntor, informs us; that the Christians, as if they were drunk, had changed the Writing of the Gospel, three or four (or more) times: to the end they might deny whatsoever is urged against them, as before retracted.  
The Philosopher however doth not say, the Christians have changed (or altered) their Gospel; he says only τίνες πισέυοντων, some of those called Believers, have altered the writing of the Gospel. Origen makes us to understand the meaning of this, in his Answer to it; which is thus. Indeed Martion, and Valentinus, and Lucanus, have presumed to corrupt the Sacred Books. But what is that to Christianity? He intended hereby; does the Church follow the (vitiated) Copies of Martion, or of (the two Gnostics) Valentinus and Lucanus? are theirs the Books we show, as our Rule of Faith and Manners? are these the Books read in the Churches of Christians?  
In short, they would prove: the Books of our present Canon are corrupted, and greatly altered from what they were; and how is it proved? Why, Martion, and Valentinus, and Lucanus, published some depraved Copies, that were rejected, so soon as they appeared, by all the Churches. Why do they not say, the Bibles of the English Church were corrupted in the Reign of K. Charles the Martyr? when the King's Printers published an Edition, in which the words of the Psalmist were thus printed, The Fool hath said in his Heart, there is a God: for which the Printers were fined 3000 l. and all the Copies suppressed by the King's Order.  
Has Amyntor any Evidence, that the Copies of Valentinus, Lucanus and Martion, or any of them, is the Copy now used by the Catholic Church; or doth not he himself certainly know the contrary? He hath no such Evidence, and he knows the contrary with certainty: therefore, he affectedly abused his Reader; and too much forgot that, a deceitful Management of such Subjects as this, obliges his Reader to distrust all he says, and more especially his Quotations.  
We shall be troubled but with one Opposer more, 'tis Faustus the Manichee; let us take the matter in our Author's own words. Nay, as low as St. Austin's time; was there not a very considerable Sect, of the Christians themselves, I mean the Manichaeans; who shown other Scriptures, and denied the genuinness of the whole New Testament? one of these called Faustus, etc. In these few Lines, are more Falsities, than Periods.  
For the Manichees were never accounted a Sect of Christians; and whether to be called Christians or not, they were far from being a very considerable Sect: nor did they show other Scriptures, as written by Christ or his Apostles; nor deny the genuinness of the whole New Testament, or so much as of any Book of it. All the business is, Amyntor knew not how to point the words of Faustus, nor how to render them into English; his Translation of 'em is not only false, but 'tis nonsense.  
By the same figure of Speech, that he calls the Manichees, Christians; he must also call the Mahometans, Christians: nay there is incomparably more reason, so to call the latter, than the former; but the latter were never so called by any, therefore neither may the former. Manchaeus and Mahomet equally pretended that, he was the Paraclet (or Comforter) promised to his Disciples by our Saviour; in those words recorded by St. John: If I go not, the Comforter (or Paraclet) will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him to you.— When he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all Truth. John 16.7, 13. Mahomet innovated but little, comparatively, in the Articles of Religion; Manichaeus subverted all things. He taught, and his (few) Followers believed;  
1. There are two Coeternal Principles, God and Hyle; the former the Author of all Good, the other of all Evil.  
2. God very hardly defends his Frontiers, from the encroachments of Hyle: even some part of his Divine Substance is captivated, by Hyle; nor shall it ever be wholly released.  
3. God is not the Creator of Mankind, but Nature.  
4. The God of the Old Testament is a lying, and impotent Spirit; false and harsh to his Servants: and who was neither able, nor willing to protect, or do good to the Synagogue, or Church of the Jews; which served him, as an Handmaid her Mistress.  
5. Jesus Christ was neither born, nor died; but is the offspring of the Holy Spirit, generated in the Earth, and subsisting in all living Creatures; as also in all Fruits and Vegetables: the visible Jesus was only a Phantom.  
6. The Patriarches and Prophets of the Old Testament, were the most flagitious of all men; and ought not to be named, without some particular and remarkable Detestation.  
7. Souls are a part of the Substance of God; and when the Body dies, they enter into other Bodies of men, or of Beasts, or Fish; or of some Tree, Herb, or Flower, as their desert in the present Life hath been: except however, some few thoroughly purified Souls, which re-ascend into Heaven; where they live, and row in Boats of Light.  
8. The Sun and Moon are to be adored.  
It is evident by these Articles of the Manichaean Creed, that; our Author might as well (or better) have said, There is a very considerable Sect of Christians themselves, I mean the Mahometans; who show other Scriptures, and deny the Books of our present Canon. If this would be ridiculous; the other, a considerable Sect of Christians, I mean the Manichees, is much more so.  
Well, let 'em be a Sect of Christians; yet they were not, as he saith, a very considerable▪ Sect. St. Austin, who for nine years was of their Number, says; in tam exiguo, & pene nullo Numero vestro: i. e. you are a very few, and almost none at all. And again, I confess, good Christians are but few: but those of our Denomination, who are really good, are vastly more than all you Manichees whether good or bad. Contr. Fausium, l. 20. c. 23.  
They shall be Christians, and a very considerable Sect. What then? Why, they shown other Scriptures, different from those that are read and used by the Church. If he means, they show some Writings of Minichaeus; which, among them were valued, as the Scriptures of the Evangelists and Apostles are esteemed among Christians: 'tis true indeed, but not to the purpose. No more than if he had said; the Mahometans show an Koran, as Christians do a Bible: therefore the Bible is a spurious, supposititious Book, never wrote by the pretended Authors of it. The question is, whether the Books of the New Testament are genuine; were indeed written by the Persons whose names they bear? Amyntor answers, No; for the Manichees (a very considerable Sect of Christians themselves) show other Scriptures. Plainly, if he means, they also show Books written by the Patriarch of their Sect; 'tis a random Bolt: the enquiry not being, Whether the Manichees had certain Books, which they followed; but, whether they pretended to prove, that the Christian Bible is not , by showing other (different) Copies of it? And this, without doubt, Amyntor intended: therefore I answer; they never pretended to show other Copies of the Christian Bible, than those in the Catholic Church.  
Faustus, their Advocate, never says; such a Text is not in our Copies: he says only, I believe 'tis foisted into the Scripture-context, because it is a manifest Falsehood. The two Paraclets, Manichaeus and Mahomet, were altogether unlearned; they both pretended that, the Christian Bible was in many places greatly corrupted: but this they proved, only by arguing against the particular Passages, which they disliked; not by producing other Copies, different from those of the Church. In short, the way they took, might prove the Scriptures of Christians to be erroneous; but by no means to be spurious, interpolated, or not . How this madness of the Paraclets, is to be answered, we shall consider by and by; we must now examine what Amyntor has here added: he saith,  
The Manichees not only showed other Scriptures, but denied also the genuinness of the whole New Testament. He hath no witness of it; Faustus, whom he alleges, says the contrary. I don't deny, he has truly recited those places of Faustus, which he hath put into his Margin: but, as I intimated before, he hath neither seen, how to rightly point them, nor truly translate them; and the reason of both (I imagine) was, he overlookt the Explanations that Faustus gives (in other Sections) of his meaning and intention.  
First, As to the Epistles of St. Paul, and of the other Apostles, both Faustus and St. Austin own expressly, they were allowed by the Manichees. Their words are these; Apostolum (Paulum) Accipis? Maxim. Do you receive Paul 's Epistles? Most readily, and especially. Lib. 11. c. 1. Again, Lib. 12. c. 24. Epistolas Apostolorum Legitis, Tenetis, Praedicatis. You read, believe, and even extol the Epistles of the Apostles.  
As to the Gospels, Faustus even disdains, that it should be questioned, whether they are received by the Manichees. If, saith he, by receiving the Gospel, you mean obeying it; it is the Rule of my Life and Conversation. You (Catholics) pretend to receive the Gospel, without giving any signs of it, in your manners: and you ask me, whether I receive it, who do all things that it requireth; even all things that might prevent such a Question. Lib. 5. c. 1, 2.  
Elsewhere he deals more explicitly and clearly. Lib. 32. c. 7. We receive as Sacred Truth, all that the Son hath said; and even all that was said by his Apostles, after they were perfect and fully instructed. We pass over, and neglect what the Apostles said, while they were Novices and Ignorant; and what was objected to 'em, and not said really by 'em: as also what has been falsely imputed to 'em, by the Writers; namely that, Jesus was (foully) born of a Woman, was circumcised like the Jews, offered Sacrifice like the Gentiles, was baptised in a sordid manner, was carried about and miserably tempted by the Devil. These few things excepted, together with all their Quotations out of the old Testament; we receive the Writers, [he means the four Evangelists,] and all they have recorded, or taught in their Books: more especially, we receive the Mystical Crucifixion; with the Precepts, Parables, and whole Divine Word of Christ.  
If Amyntor had attended to these Passages, he would have perceived, how the words of this Manichees (which he citys) are to be Pointed, and Translated into the English. Let us first see, how Amyntor reads, and renders ' 'em.  
Solius Filii putatis Testamentum non potuisse corrumpi; solum non habere aliquid quod in se debeat improbari: praesertim quod nec ab ipso scriptum constat, nec ab ejus Apostolis: sed longo post tempore a quibusdam incerti nominis viris, qui, ne sibi non haberetur sides scribentibus quae nescirent, partim Apostolorum nomina, parting corum qui Apostolos secuti viderentur, scriptorum suorum frontibus indiderunt, asseverantes secuncdumeos se scripsisse quae scripserint. He englishes it, thus. You think, that of all the Books in the world, the Testament of the Son only could not be corrupted, that it alone contains nothing which ought to be disallowed; especially when it appears, that it was neither written by himself, nor his Apostles, but a long time after by certain obscure Persons, who, lest no credit should be given to the Stories they told of what they could not know, did prefix to their Writings partly the names of the Apostles, and partly of those who succeeded the Apostles; affirming that what they wrote themselves, was written by these.  
We shall see presently, Light and Darkness are not more contrary, than this account of the Books that make the present Canon of the New Testament, is to the real Opinion of Faustus, and the intention of his words in the Latin: but now I will only take notice that, this Translation is a pure piece of Jargon; it offers to prove a certain point, by a Consideration quite contrary to it. It represents the Manichee as saying; you (Catholies) think the Testament of the Son contains nothing that may be disallowed: because it appears that, neither himself nor his Apostles wrote it; but certain obscure Fellows, who to make themselves believed in matters of which they knew nothing, put the Names of the Apostles to their own Flams and Forgeries. I demand now of Amyntor, was this a Reason, fit to prove that the Testament of the Son has nothing in it that can be disallowed; even this, 'twas written by obscure Fellows, who having feigned these Matters, set to 'em the Names of the Apostles and their Successors? 'Tis a Reason, that most plainly overthrows the Proposition, which it was to confirm; in short, 'tis a Bull, a Contradiction, and Nonsense. 'Tis as if I should say, the King of Spain is like to live this three seven years; for he is very infirm, and dying (in a manner) every day.  
Well; let us again set down the Latin of the Manichee, and Pointing it right, see what sense it will make.  
Solius Filii, putatis, Testamentum non potuisse corrunipi; solum non habere aliquid, quod in se debeat improbari? Praesertim, quod nec ab ipso scriptum constat, nec ab ejus Apostolis; sed longo post tempore, a quibusdam incerti nominis viris: qui, ne sibi non haberetur Fides, seribentibus quae nescirent; partim Apostolorum nomina, partim corum qui Apostolos secuti viderentur, scriptorum suorum frontibus indiderunt; asseverantes, secundum eos se scripsisse quae scripserunt.  
To be Englished thus. Do ye think that, of all Books in the World, only the Testament of the Son could not be depraved; and that, it alone contains nothing that can be gainsaid? Especially, that of it (or that part of it) which not only, was not written by himself; but not by his Apostles: but a long time after, by certain obscure Fellows. Who, lest no Credit should be given to what they wrote, concerning matters which they could not know, put the names of Apostles and their Successors, in the front of their Books; affirming that, what they wrote themselves, was written by those Apostles.  
He speaks here of the Acts, Revelations, Epistles, Gospels of the Catalogue; he says, the genuine Testament of the Son is much depraved by these spurious Books: which were contrived and published long after the decease of the Evangelists and Apostles that wrote the Books truly Canonical; by obscure Wretches, that put to their feigned Gospels and Acts the names of Andrew, Thomas, Philip, Bartholomew, and other Apostles, and their Successors. Briefly, Faustus meant not in the least, to say; the Books of the Canon are falsely entitled to the Apostles, and Evangelists, whose names they bear: but that, the Testament of the Son has been vitiated, and disgraced, by divers other Gospels, Acts, Epistles, meaning those of the Catalogue; which never were the Works of true Apostles, but of certain Butchers, who stitching together some flying Reports, exposed their wares to sale, under the names of some of the Apostles, and of their immediate Successors.  
His other Citation, out of Faustus, is no better; nor (upon the main) better understood by him: it is this.  
Multa à Majoribus vestris, eloquiis Domini nostri inserta sunt verba, quae nomine signata ipsius cum ejus fide non congruunt; praesertim quia, ut jam saepe probatum à Nobis est, nec ab ipso haec sunt, nec ab ejus Apostolis scripta: sed multa, post eorum assumptionem à nescio quibus, & ipsis inter se non concordantibus Semi-judaeis, per famas opinionesque comperta sunt.  
He renders it in these words. Many things were foisted by your Ancestors, into the Scripture of our Lord; which, though marked with his Name, agree not with his Faith. And no wonder, since, as those of our Party have already frequently proved, these things were neither written by himself nor his Apostles: but several matters after their decease were picked up from Stories and flying Reports, by I know not what set of Half-Jews; and these also not agreeing among themselves.  
Reach me the Ferula, for they are Schoolboys Mistakes. In this place, Jam is not, already; or saepe, frequently: much less is à Nobis, those of our Party, which it never signifies; and had Faustus intended to say by those of our Party, he would have said a Nostris. His words Jam saepe probatum est a Nobis, were thus meant, As I have but now proved, by divers Examples: for he refers to the several Examples he had just before given, of Doctrines and Facts, which (as he supposed, and supposed he had proved it) were added to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke; only he speaks of himself, as Authors are commonly wont, in the Plural number, saying à Nobis for à me.  
But from all this, Amyntor infers, and immediately subjoins; since therefore the Manichaeans rejected the whole New Testament, etc. You are a great deal too hasty, Son; your Friends the Manichees received the whole Genuine Canon of the New Testament: they rejected only, the corrupt part of the Testament of the Son, even the Gospels and other pieces of your Catalogue; and some Passages which (they pretended) had been unduly inserted into the Epistles and Gospels of the Canon; nor will you ever make more of your Citations from Faustus, by whatsoever stretching and straining them.  
By this it appears, how much our Author is pleased with Hyperboles; he says, A very considerable Sect, of Christians themselves, I mean the Manichees, shown other Scriptures, and denied the Genuinness of the whole New Testament. He should have said, a small Party, less Christians by much than the Mahometans, denied the genuinness of those parts of the Gospels and Epistles; where the Books of the Old Testament are cited: as also where mention is made of the Genealogy, Birth, Temptation, Baptism, or Death of Christ; because they supposed, Christ was God only, and Man not at all; and that it was unworthy of God to be born, tempted, baptised, or put to death.  
The Objection however hath still some force: 'tis thus far true, that some there were who said, the Books of the Canon are not now altogether sincere; they are corrupted by divers Additions. Yes, the Manichees said so: and if our Author had pleased, he could have told us, by what Arguments they were convinced of their Impertinence and Folly; it would very well have become him, to have taken that (little) farther pains.   

Of the (pretended) Interpolations, and Additions, in the Books of the Canon.  
THE Manichees said: The 〈◊〉 the Spirit of Truth, promised to the Faithful by Christ, even the blessed Manichaeus, was sent by God, to inform his Elect, and all other his People, concerning his farther Will and good-pleasure: as also to instruct them, what of the New Testament is genuine, and to be received by all; and what to be rejected, as either mistaken by the Apostles yet unperfect, or since added by others to the Writings of the Apostles and Evangelists.  
Being asked, What these Mistakes, and Additions were? They answered; whatsoever is said of the Genealogy, Birth, Baptism, Temptation, and real Death of Christ; all quotations out of, and all honourable mention any where made concerning the Patriarches, Prophets and Writers of the Old Testament. When demanded, farther; on what grounds they presumed to reject, either the Old Testament, or such large portions of the New? They replied; Moses has blasphemed Christ, in those words of his, He that is hanged, is accursed of God, Deut. 21.23.  
The God of the Old Testament, said the Manichees, appears to have been a wicked, and impotent Spirit; chief, by his commanding the slaughter of innocent Beasts, for 〈◊〉 of guilty Men: and by dealing so harshly, with his Slaves the Jews. Therefore, his Prophets also are to be rejected: as for the same reason we would (and do) reject the Priests and Prophets, of the other evil Gods of the Nations.  
It is not to be thought, so they went on, that, Jesus Christ commended, or his Apostles cited, the writings of the Prophets and Servants of such an impure God: no, all such Citations and Commendations have been (undoubtedly) added, by certain People that were half Jews and half Christians, to the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament. So also was whatsoever is found in those Books concerning the Genealogy, Birth, Circumcision, Temptation, Baptism, or Death of Christ. Who being God, underwent all these things: only in appearance, and by that Phantom (which the Vulgar took to be real Christ) that represented him: even as Angels seem to have Bodies, to be clothed, to eat and drink; when in truth they neither drink nor eat, nor are clothed, nor have real Bodies.  
This was the Manichaean Doctrine, with respect to the Christian Religion, and Books of the New Testament; to which they added the eight Articles, before mentioned, taught 'em by Manichaeus, and his Second Adimantus, and maintained by Faustus.  
Says St. Austin. One may easily make short work, with this wild People. For whereas all depends on the Authority of Manichaeus: I desire to know, how they prove he was that Paraclet; that Spirit of Truth, that was to lead us into all truth; promised by our Saviour? They answer indeed, out of St. John's Gospel; I will send the Comforter (or Paraclet) the Spirit of Truth, who shall lead you into all Truth: but they say withal, the Gospels (and other Books of the New Testament) are so corrupted, that there is not (absolute) trusting to ' 'em. We demand a Witness, on behalf of their Paraclet: they allege one, out of our own New Testament; which (they say) is a false and corrupted Witness. Any Book or other Witness, convict of Falsehood and Corruption, in bearing its Testimony; especially, of many Corruptions, and Falsities; is uncapable of standing again as a Witness (merely on its own Credit) in whatsoever Case. Briefly, by accusing the New Testament, as a Book in so many places corrupted; they deprive themselves of whatsoever benefit, that might arise to them, from its Testimony.  
But to forgive to Fools, an oversight, that destroys their whole Cause: St. John shall be a sincere Evangelist, in speaking of the Spirit, or Paraclet; though the other Books and Writers, and he himself in other matters, hath been mistaken, or is corrupted by others. But as this is the Evangelist, who has foretold the sending of the Paraclet●; so he hath also foretold the time when he should come: for he saith, John 7.39. The Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. The reason, it seems, that the Spirit was not then given, was; because Jesus not being yet glorified, that is, not departed from his Disciples into Heaven, 'twas not necessary he should be yet given: but when Jesus was dead, raised, and ascended into Heaven; then was the time to send forthwith the Paraclet. Accordingly, we find in the Acts of the Apostles, in the second Chapter of those Acts; fifty days after our Savior's Resurrection, and but ten days after his Ascension into Glory, the Spirit (the promised Paraclet) descended on the Apostles. What room now is here for Montanus, or for Manichaeus? The Spirit of Truth was to come, so soon as Christ was gone from his Apostles, and entered into the Glory designed for him; but Montanus came not till 170 years after Christ was glorified, and Manichaeus (as if our Saviour had utterly forgot his promise) not till the year 275.  
The Father goes on. I will take no Advantage of all this; I will otherwise convince you, that your Patriarch was a Seducer, and a Liar. He says, the Books of the New Testament have been corrupted, by Additions made to 'em: certain Half-Jews have added Citations out of the Old Testament; and false Tales concerning the Parentage, Nativity, Circumcision, Temptation, Baptism, Death of Christ: all which are impossible flams, because he that was God, and not Man at all, could neither do nor suffer any of these things. Therefore I ask, did Manichaeus allege, or can you produce, any Copies of the New Testament; wherein all these things are not found? When some Copies of a Book have something, that others have not; there is either Mistake, or Fraud, in one or other of them: and we are wont in that Case, to consult more Copies; especially those that are Ancient, and those that are preserved in Libraries, or in Archives that have been long and religiously kept. From the greatest number of Copies, and those that are most Ancient; and that have been kept in places, where they could not easily or likely be violated, by Additions or Subtractions; we judge reasonably, and safely, concerning the Copies that are suspected or questioned. I pray, therefore, show us, or refer us to Copies, where these (pretended) Additions are not read; in what Libraries, in what Archives of Churches or Sects, are such Copies to be found? But as you never pretended, to any such Copies; so 'tis impossible, there should be any such. For the New Testament being in the hands of all Christians, and read in all Churches: these (pretended) Additions could never be made, and least of all in the public Books of the Churches; without being observed, known, and opposed in their very first appearance. Are there so many thousand Churches, and distant from one another so many thousand Miles, under the Inspection of so many distinct Bishops and Presbyters; nay and of several Princes: and could all these Books, think you, be corrupted, without their observing it? Or what is as impossible, or rather more impossible; by common Agreement? For are so many wont to agree, to false Additions, to their Books of Religion?  
These are some of the Arguments, of that discerning Father, against Faustus, and his Patriarches Manichaeus and Adimantus: I am of opinion, we have here given to Amyntor, as 'tis said in the Proverb, A Rowland for his Oliver. Faustus is not so considerable, but that St. Austin appears much more considerable. In Faustus, one may see an unreasonable Infidelity, a precipitate and ungrounded Scepticism: in St. Austin, Caution and Faith, led on by Judgement; a Judgement enlightened by Learning, and Experience.  
I omit what he saith, of the God of the Old Testament; of the Patriarches and Prophets; as foreign to my present Undertaking and Subject: I only observe farther, that; What he hath so well argued against Montanus, and Manichaeus, is no less effectual, against the third Paraclet, Mahomet, who arose after St. Austin. If Montanus in the year after Christ 170, or Manichaeus in 275, could not be the promised Paraclet; because the Evangelist, on whose Authority their Claims are founded, sets a time (when Jesus shall be glorified) that disagrees so widely from the time of their appearance, and agrees so exactly with the time of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles: I say, if for this so clear Reason; neither Montanus in 170, nor Manichaeus in 255, could be that Paraclet that was to lead into all Truth: much lest could Mahomet be he, in the year after our Lord 612; seeing neither did Mahomet pretend to any other ground, for his Novelties, but those words in St. John's Gospel concerning a future Paraclet. See Father Simon's Belief and Customs of the Eastern Nations, Chap. 15. When the same Impostor, as his Predecessor Manichaeus, accuses the Bible of Christians; as having many corrupt Additions, and other Falsifications; he is unanswerably refuted by the same Considerations, that were objected, (before) to Manichaeus.  
SIR, I have now answered as fully as (I think) is needful, to a Book; which, you tell me, is so much magnified by the Antichristian Party about Town. They say, this Book has so discovered, and laid bare, the (unsound) Foundations of Christianity; that 'tis now to be blown down by the very weakest Breath: and that, if an Answer any what valuable, be made to it; the Author will take occasion thereat, by new and more and greater Authorities, to levelly all revealed Imposture with the very Ground. He can levelly nothing by such an attempt, but his own Reputation; nor do I think, he approves these impious Boasts, of that Party of men. It may be questioned, whether he had any form Design, to attack Christianity, by this Book: it seems rather, that, when his Passions were up, against Mr. Blackhal, he inadvertedly dropped these Exceptions and Doubts, of which some make so bad use; or (rather) strain such malignant Consequences, from them. To cut out work for Mr. Blackhal, with whom he was so much displeased; he discharged upon him, whatsoever occurred to his Memory, from first Antiquity; with intent to engage him in laborious, difficult, and unwelcome Searches. However it be, it appears he is a Person of great Abilitys, and Address, in matters of this kind: and it were to be wished, men of very distinguishing Parts and Sufficiency, were not made Enemies to the Church, or to the Public, either by being abused, or because they are neglected. You shall not awe such Persons by your Menaces, or your Severities; when even such mean Rogues as House-breakers, and Highwaymen, are not scared by the Gibbet and Gallows. The only effect to be expected, from neglect of, or harshness toward such, is that, they go at length into the interests of some disaffected Party, or erect a new one: after which, whatsoever becomes of them, the Public and the Church are sure to be infinitely more losers; than it would have cost to gain, and to assure them, to the Public. But, manum de tabulâ for who made me a Counsellor to the Church, or the Public? You will please, Sir, to believe that, I am, with great Tenderness and Respect,  
Your assured Friend, STEPHEN NYE. Sept. 29. 1699.    

There is room, in this Leaf, for two Stanza's by Sir William Davenant: Which are pertinent to the Subject, that we have been treating.  

1.  
In the dark Walk, to our last Home, designed;  
'Tis safe, by well-instructed Guides to go:  
Lest we in Death too late the Science find  
Of what in Life 'twas possible to know.   

2.  
And if they say (while daily some renew  
Disputes) your Oracles are doubtful still;  
Like those of Old: yet more regard is due  
To Pains, where so uneasy is the skill.   
THE END.   

AN ABSTRACT Of the foregoing DISPUTATION.  
THE Controversy hath been, partly concerning the Books of the Canon, and partly concerning those of the Catalogue.  

Of the Books of the Canon, Amyntor says;  

1.  ALL the Authors of the Canon, were wholly strangers to one another's Writings. 
I have proved on the contrary, that, Mark's Gospel is but an Abridgement, of the Gospel by Matthew; that, St. Luke (in the first Verses of his Gospel) commends the Gospels of Matthew and Mark: that, St. John approved the Gospels of these three former Evangelists; and wrote his Gospel, only by way of Supplement to theirs: that, St. Peter commends the Epistles of Paul; and signify at the same time, that they were commonly read, and a bad Use made of them by some: that, the Catholic Epistles, (by James, Peter, Judas, and John;) the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Revelation; being written either to whole Nations, or to all Christians, were certainly published as soon as written.   

2.  At least, the Clergy and Churches were unacquainted with the Books of the New Testament, till 130 years after Christ. 
I have shown they were quoted by all the (extant) Writers of those Times; by Barnabas, Herinas', Ignatius, Polycarp, Clemens Romanus: and by some not Extant, as Papias of Hierapolis in the year 110. Farther that, the four Gospels, the Acts, Revelation, Catholic Epistles, and Epistle to the Hebrews, being written for general Information, or to whole Churches or Nations; they were written to be published, and published as soon as written: and that, 'tis a very precarious and withal an unreasonable supposition, that, the Clergy and Churches were ignorant of the published Books of their Religion. That, the contrary (in truth) is evident: for as early as Justin Martyr's time, the Churches entertained a Reader; besides the Deacons, Presbyters, and Bishop; who read the Old and New Testaments to the Assembly.   

3.  It was impossible, when the Books of the Canon first appeared, to distinguish them from spurious Gospel, Acts, Epistles, and Revelations; which were also entitled to the Apostles. 
I have replied, there was nothing more obvious or easy to the then Churches, than to distinguish them, with absolute certainty; by their Agreement or Disagreement with the Doctrine, and History of our Saviour; which those Churches had but just before received by word of Mouth, from the Apostles and other first (miraculous) Preachers.   

4.  Different Copies were shown of all the Canonical Books, from the very first: the nazarenes and Ebionits' had a Gospel of St. Matthew, different from ours; the Marcionits' of St. Luke, and of the Epistles of Paul. 
I have answered, Martion was so ingenuous, as to retract his vitiated Copies of St. Paul's Epistles, and of St. Luke's Gospel; the Copy of Matthew used by the nazarenes, was (say the Ancients) πληρέςατον, most perfect: the Ebionite Copy, being probably St. Matthew's first (or Hebrew) Edition of his Gospel, did indeed want the two first Chapters; and in time they had added some Traditional Memoirs, from the Witness of some Disciples that had seen the Facts, and knew the Persons; it were to be wished, we had still this Copy.   

5.  The Books of the Canon were imputed by some very considerable Sects of Christians, not to the Apostles whose names they bear; but either to Heretics, or to a set of Half-Jews and Half-Christians, who had written them only from hearsay and flying Reports. 
I have evinced, that, only the Gospel of John was ever mislayed: and that, the Alogians soon saw their Error in the Case; not only receiving that Gospel, but receiving it also (with all other Sects and Churches) as St. John ' s. That, the Manichees (the other considerable Sect of Christians intended in the Objection) owned our four Gospels, the Epistles of Paul, all the Catholic Epistles, and all other Books of our Canon: in short that, Amyntor certainly (and inadvertently enough) mistook the meaning of the Author (Faustus the Manichee) whom he alleged.   

6.  The Philosopher Celsus complains that, the Christians had altered their Gospel, three or four, or more times. 
Celsus, I have said, meant this, of the Copies of Martion, and of Valentinus and Lucanus: which never were used in the Churches; but at their first appearance were detected, and rejected by all Churches.    

Of the Books of the Catalogue, he saith;  

1.  MANY of 'em have rather been suppressed, by the strongest side in the Church, than lost: and that, probably they were the  Works of the Apostles. 
I have granted, divers of 'em might be the real Works of those whose names they bore; and that our loss of them is to be regretted: but the whole body of Learning has suffered extremely, by the loss of some of the best Books in every Science and Art. Notwithstanding, the Reasons alleged by the Ancients against many of them, are sufficient to convince us that, there was just cause to slight, and even to suppress them.   

2.  The Epistles of Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Clemens Romanus, and the Pastor of Hermas, were esteemed by the Ancients to be a good Scripture, as any part of the New Testament: they were received, by the soundest of the Ancients; who at the same time rejected divers Books of our present Canon, namely, the Revelation, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of Judas, the second of Peter, and the second and third of John. 
But I have produced unquestionable Testimony, of the Ancients; that these lesser pieces of the Canon were always received by the generality, of Churches and Christians: and that, when they were owned in the Council of Laodicea, 'twas on very good grounds; on the same Reasons which convinced 'em of the genuinness of the other Books of the New Testament. As to Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, and Clemens Romanus; they were considered indeed as pious and well-minded Compositions; but were read no otherwise, but as we now read in our Churches the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament: which, for all that, we directly deny to be Divine Scripture; and many think them not very Edifying or Profitable, especially some of them.   

3.  The principal (Ante-nicen) Fathers quoted divers Gospels, Epistles, and Acts of the Catalogue; as Scripture, and Canonical: and this is all that can be said, for the Books of the Canon; and more than can be truly said, for some of them. 
I have alleged the very words of those Fathers: it appears, they never cite the Books of the Catalogue, as Divine Scripture; and in reciting the Books of the true Scripture-Canon and of the Apostles, they always omit all the Gospels and other Books of the Catalogue. I grant however, that; the mere Terms Scripture and Canonical were at first applied to all Ecclesiastical Books, that were judged Orthodox; as also to the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament; to distinguish them from the Moral pieces, of the Heathen Philosophers: but the (alleged) Fathers have made us know the great difference, they put between mere Scripture, and Divine Scripture; between Canonical, and Inspired.    
Nam pudet, haec opprobria Nobis  
Et dici potuisse, & non potuisse Refelli.  
FINIS.   

Advertisement.  
ALL the Works of the late Reverend and Learned William Bates, D. D. and some Account of him in a Funeral Sermon by Mr. John How, with an Alphabetical Table to the whole, are proposed to be printed in a large Folio, on an extraordinary Paper and Character, at twenty five Shillings in quires; they that subscribe for six to have a seventh gratis: The Book to contain about 250 Sheets. They that are willing to encourage so useful an Undertaking, are desired to send in their Subscriptions with all speed to  
Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Paul's Churchyard; or to  
Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pigeons against the Royal-Exchange in Cornhill.  
The fourth Edition of Mr. Poole's Annotations on the Bible is now in the Press, and will be shortly published: it is proposed to Subscribers at fifty Shillings in Quires, though printed on a much better Paper than the former Edition. They that subscribe for six to have a seventh. Subscriptions are taken by the same Persons.  
A Complete History or Survey of die various Methods and Dispensations of Religion, from the beginning of the World to the consummation of all things, as represented in the Old and New Testament. In which the Almighty's Wisdom is displayed in the Government of the Church, thro' the several Ages of it. In 2 Vol. By John Edward's, D.D. Trice 10 s. Sold by J. Robinson.  
A Complete History of the Canon and Writers of the Books of the Old and New Testament, by way of Dissertation: with useful Remarks on that Subject. Vol. I. On the Books of the Old Testament. By L. E. Du Pin, Doctor of the Sorbon, and Regius Professor of Philosophy in Paris. Done from the French. Price 12 s.  
Discourses concerning Government, by Algernon Sidney, Son to Robert Earl of Leicester, and Ambassador from the Commonwealth of England to Charles Gustavus King of Sweden. Published from an Original Manuscript of the Author. Price 15 s.  
A complete Collection of the Historical, Political, and Miscellaneous Works of John Milton, both English and Latin. With some Papers never before published. In 3 Vol. To which is prefixed, The Life of the Author, containing, besides the History of his Works, several extraordinary Characters of Men and Books, Sects, Parties, and Opinions. Price 35 s.  
The General History of England both Ecclesiastical and Civil, from the earliest Accounts of Time to the Reign of his present Majesty King William III. Taken from the most ancient Records, Manuscripts and Historians. Containing the Lives of the Kings, and Memorials of the most Eminent Persons both in Church and State. With the Foundations of the Noted Monasteries, and both the Universities. Vol. I. By James Tyrrel Esq Price 20 s. The second Volume is in the Press, and will shortly be published.  
An Inquiry concerning Virtue, in two Discourses: the first of Virtue, and the belief of a Deity; the second, of the Obligations to Virtue. Price 2 s.  
An Essay concerning the Power of the Magistrate, and the Rights of Mankind in Matters of Religion. With some Reasons in particular for the Dissenters not being obliged to take the Sacramental Test but in their own Churches, and for a General Naturalisation, Together with a Postscript in answer to the Letter to a Convocation-man. Price 2 s.  
The Stage condemned, and the Encouragement given to the Immoralities and Profaneness of the Theatre, by the English Schools, Universities and Pulpits, censured; K. Charles the first's Sundays Mask and Declaration for Sports and Pastimes on the Sabbath, largely related and animadverted on: The Arguments of all the Authors that have writ in defence of the Stage against Mr. Collier, considered: And the sense of the Fathers, Councils, ancient Philosophers and Poets, the Greek and Roman States, and of the first Christian Emperors concerning die Drama, faithfully delivered; with other useful matters. Price 2 s. 6 d.  
A Detection of the Court and State of England during the four last Reigns, and the Interregnum; consisting of private Memoirs, etc. With Observations and Reflections; and an Appendix discovering the present State of the Nation. Wherein are many Secrets never before made public as also a more impartial Account of the Civil Wars in England than has yet been given. By R. Coke Esq The 3d Edition very much corrected, with an Alphabetical Table. Price 7 s.  
A Complete History of Europe, or a View of the Affairs thereof, Civil and Military, from the beginning of the Treaty of Nimeguen 1676. to the Peace concluded with the Turks 1699. including the Articles of the former, and the several Infringements of them; the Turkish Wars; the forming of the Grand Confederacy; the Revolution in England, etc. With a particular Account of all the Actions by Sea and Land on both sides; and the secret Steps that have been made towards a Peace, both before as well as during the last Negotiation. Wherein are several Treaties at large. The whole intermixed with divers Original Letters, Declarations, and Memoirs never before published. The 2d Edition corrected, and very much enlarged. Price 6 s.  
An Account of the first Voyages and Discoveries made by the Spaniards in America, Containing the most exact Relation hitherto published, of their unparallelled Cruelties on the Indians, in the destruction of above 40 Millions of People. Together with the Proporsitions offered to the King of Spain to prevent the further Ruin of the West-Indies, By Don Bartholomew de las Casas, Bishop of Chiapa, who was an Eye-witness of their Cruelties. Illustrated with Cuts. To which is added, The Art of Travelling, showing how a Man may dispose his Travels to the best advantage. Price; 3 s. 6 d.  
The complete Gardner; or Directions for cultivating and right ordering of Fruit-gardens, and Kitchen-gardens. By Monsieur De La Quintinye. Now compendiously abridged, and made more useful, with very considerable Improvements. By George London, and Henry Wise. The second Edition corrected. Price 5 s.  
The Art of Memory: A Treatise useful for all, especially such as are to speak in public. The second Edition. Price 12 d.  
Rhetorica Anglorum, vel Exercitationes Oratoriae in Rhetoricam Sacram & Communem. Quibus adjiciuntur quaedam regulae ad imbecilles memorias corroborandas. Omnia ad usum & in gratiam Academiarum & Scholarum in Anglia composita. Approved und Recommended by the chief Masters of Merchant-taylors', Westminster, and the  Schools. Price 18 d. Both by Marius D'Assigny B. D.  
A Rational and Speedy Method of attaining to the Latin Tongue. In 2 parts. The first containing such Precepts as are common to all Languages: The second what is more peculiar to the Latin Tongue. The whole being accommodated to the meanest Capacities, not only Persons of riper years, but any Child that can read English, may by this method in a little time arrive to more knowledge than is usually attained after several years' drudgery in the common Road. Price 12 d.  
A Letter to his Majesty K. William III showing, I. The Original Foundation of the English Monarchy. II. The Means by which it was removed from that Foundation. III. The Expedients by which it has been supported since that Removal. IU. It's present Constitution as to all its integral parts. V The best Means by which its Grandeur may be for ever maintained. Price; 3 d.  
The Militia Resormed, or an easy Scheme of furnishing England with a constant Land Force, capable to prevent or to subdue any Foren Power, and to maintain perpetual Quiet at home, without endangering the Public Liberty. Price 12 d.  
A short History of Standing Armies in England, together with several other Pamphlets, showing that a Standing Army is inconsistent with a Free Government.  
A Letter to a Member of Parliament, showing that a Restraint on the Press is inconsistent with the Protestant Religion, and dangerous to the Liberties of the Nation. Price 6 d.  
Scotland's Sovereignty asserted: being a Dispute concerning Homage, against those who maintain that Scotland is a be Liege of England, and that the King of Scots owes Homage to the King of England. Wherein are many judicious Reflections on most of the English Historians who wrote before 1600. and several considerable Passages illustrating the History of both Kingdoms. By Sir Tho. Craig, Author of the Book de Peudis. Translated from the Latin Manuscript, with a Preface containing an account of the Author, and a Confutation of the Homage said to be performed by Malcolm III. K. of Scots to Edward the Confessor, found in the Archives of England, and published by Mr. Rhymer. Price 5 s.