THE CANON OF THE New Testament VINDICATED; In Answer to the Objections of J. T. in his AMYNTOR.  
By John Richardson B. D formerly Fellow of Emmanuel College in Cambridge.  Nulla est omnino ratio, cur de eâ Traditione dubitemus, quae nobis Novi Testamenti Canonem transmisit. Hen. Dodwelli disertat. 1. in Irenaeum. Sect. 36. 
LONDON: Printed for RICHARD SARE, at Grays-Inn-Gate, in Holborn. 1700.   

To the HONOURABLE SUSANNA NOEL, Relict of the Honourable Baptist Noel, And Mother of the RIGHT HONOURABLE The Earl of Gainsborough.  
Madam.  
AFter I had determined to let the following Discourse go abroad into the World, I never deliberated about the choice of a Patron, nor spent any time in considering to whom it should be Dedicated. What I have there Wrote, belongs to your Ladyship upon divers Accounts, and especially upon these, that it was drawn up at first in obedience to your Commands, (for, under that notion I do and aught to receive the least Intimations of your Pleasure) was originally designed only for your Service, and has already been admitted in Manuscript to the honour of a place in your Closet, for several Months. I hope therefore, Madam, you'll not be displeased, if I present you the same again from the Press, a little enlarged. For it's obvious to apprehend, that these Papers, being now exposed to the View of the Public, may easily fall into the hands of many Readers, who have not that Candour of Temper, that Quickness of Parts and Apprehension, which every one admires in your Ladyship; and therefore it was advisable, that I should make what convenient Provision I could, by a few Alterations and Additions, against Cavilling and misunderstanding. And if, notwithstanding all the care I have taken, the Work still fall under Censure (and strange indeed it must be, if it does not with some,) the severest Critics, I doubt not, will however be so just, as to acknowledge that the Design, which is all your Ladyship is concerned in, is good, and fit for a Person of Honour and Integrity to own; since it aims at the vindicating the most Venerable Records of our Religion from the Objections, that are urged against their being Genuine. And whatever faults or defects there may be in the conduct thereof, for want of due Learning or Judgement in the undertaker, I don't in the least desire your Ladyship should justify or defend, but leave them all to be charged on the account of,  
Madam, Your Ladyship's most humble and obliged Servant J. Richardson.   

THE PREFACE.  
WHen I first drew up the Reflections upon Amyntor, that are here presented to the Reader, (which was done above half a year ago, I though some Alterations and Additions, have been made since, they were designed only for the Closet of the Honourable Lady, to whom they are Dedicated: For whose ease, the Quotations and References too, when the matter would bear it, were made in English. These I have continued in the same Language still, partly because I suppose it will make them of more general use, and partly because I think, that though the Discourse be now Published, yet the chief Right to it remains still in the first Proprietor.  
The Reader may perhaps inquire, why these Papers come out so late, and (it may be too) why they come out at all, since another has already Wrote upon the same Argument. To the First I reply, that they were not originally intended for the Press, and therefore it is no wonder if it proved so long before they got thither. To the Second, all I have to say, is, That what I have here Written being seen by some Friends, for whom I have a great deference, they judged that it would have its use too, as well as the other Piece beforementioned. To whose Judgement I submitted, calling to mind that known Passage of a Learned Father,— 
(a) St. August. of the Trinity l. 1. c. 3.  Every thing that is Written, does not fall into the hands of all Persons. Perhaps some may meet with my Books, who may hear nothing of others, which have treated better of the same Subject. It is useful therefore that the same Questions should be handled by several Persons, after a different Method, though according to the Principles of the same Faith, that so the Explication of Difficulties and the Arguments for the Truth, may come to the knowledge of every one, either one way or other.  
And here I should have taken my leave of the Reader for the present, and dismissed him to the Perusal of the following Treatise (if he be so disposed) but that I think myself obliged to take notice of two or three Passages in the History of the Works of the Learned, for the Month of May, which contradict some Particulars that I have asserted in the following Treatise. They are in the Account of the Ecclesiastical History of Mr. Basnage, but to whom they are to be ascribed, I cannot affirm.  
Perhaps they may proceed from that Author, and perhaps they may be the mistakes of those who transmitted the account of his Work from Holland to our English Publishers. I charge them therefore directly upon no body, but finding them in the Book abovementioned, shall give my Reasons why I look upon them as Erroneous.  
I begin with p. 283, where we are told in the 2d. Paragraph, how Mr. B. demonstrates that for three Ages after Christ, there was no certain Canon; when both Private Persons, and also Whole Churches, partly admitted Supposititious Books for Sacred, and partly despised the Genuine as Profane. How far this assertion is designed to extend, and what Mr. B. has done to confirm it, is no other ways Evident to me at present, then by the Argument, which is immediately subjoined, to satisfy us of the Strength of the Demonstration. This is intended to affect the Whole Bible, but I think a much lower Word than Demonstration might have served the turn, unless there be stronger Reasons in reserve. For it follows,— 
† How far the Ancients had any differences about the Canon of the New Testament, I have explained in its due place. my business here is to prove that Hermas was never esteemed part of it, or Canonical. And also to examine the Testimony of Theodorus concerning some Books of the Old.  So Origen believed that Hermas his Pastor was a Book Divinely inspired. On the contrary Theodorus of Mopsuestia calls the Book of Job a Fable borrowed from Paganism; the Books of Chronicles and Esdras a vain Rhapsody; the Song of Solomon a Love Song, etc.  
We have here two Arguments alleged; one to prove there was no certain Canon of the New Testament, and the other to evince as much for the Old. And yet it is Evident at first sight, that neither of these Instances give us the least information of the Judgement of Whole Churches, unless Origen and Theodorus can be proved to speak in the Names of more People than themselves; which I am confident can never be made out.  
Origen I am sure delivers his own Opinion only, and yet never designed to advance Hermas into the Number of Canonical Books, as I have observed in the following Discourse, in Answer to the Second Objection (p. 25, 26, and 29, 30.) This I think I have there sufficiently shown, but shall however add a Testimony or two more to the same purpose.  
Thus than he speaks, in his Eighth Homily on Numbers— 
(b) F. 103.  That one day of Sin is recompensed with a years Punishment we Read not only in this Book, wherein there is nothing whose Truth can be in the least doubted; but the same things also are taught in the Book of the Pastor, if any one think good to admit the Testimony of that Scripture. By which Words it is Evident, that Origen puts a great difference between the Pastor of Hermas and the Book of Numbers, which was one of the Christian, as well as Jewish, Canon. In this, he affirms every thing delivered, was undoubtedly true; but plainly intimates, he did not judge so of the former; by distinguishing it from, and placing it in opposition to, this, and leaving it to the Readers Discretion, whether he'll be concluded by the Authority of it, or no. He calls it indeed Scripture, but that was a Title frequently given to any Books, whose Subject was Religious; of which I have produced several Instances in the following Treatise, and shall only add here, that the Author of whom we are now speaking, even Origen, in the Preface to his Books of Principles, 
(c) F. 112.  calls the Doctrine of Peter, twice by that Name, in the compass of a few Lines, though he there expressly tells us, That it was neither Wrote by St. Peter, nor by any other Inspired Person.  
Again, we Read in his Fourteenth Homily on Genesis,— 
(d) F. 21.  Isaac therefore dug Wells and the Followers of Isaac dug too. The Followers of Isaac are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The Followers of Isaac are Peter, James, and Judas. The Apostle Paul is a Follower of Isaac. For all these dig the Wells of the New Testament.— Here we have all the Writers of the New Testament reckoned up, but not a Word of Hermas and his Pastor.  
From these two Passages, and those, which I have alleged in the following Discourse, it is apparent, that 
* Perhaps it may be urged, that these Passages are taken out of these Works of Origen, which are extant only in Latin; I grant it, but then add, that so is the Objection too, and certainly a Translation ought to be admitted for an Answer, when it is alleged for an Objection. For according to our English Proverb, Every Man ought to Buy, and Sell by the same Measure. But I Reply, (2dly.) That I have shown in the following Discourse (p. 29, 30.) that Origen speaks after the same manner, in those Works of his which are still extant in the Greek. And therefore we have a great deal of Reason, to suppose that the Translators have altered nothing in their Versions, as to this matter, since what is found in them is consonant to those Pieces of his, which are preserved in the same Language, wherein they were first Written.  Origen is every where consistent with himself in this matter, and always rejects the Book of Hermas from being a part of the Canon. It is probable, he might have done the same too in his Explanations on the Epistle to the Romans; from whence the present Objection is fetched, and have told us in what Sense he judged this Piece to have been Divinely Inspired, if the Translator of that Work, had not contracted it so far, 
(e) See the Preface to the Translation f. 132.  as to leave out above half of what was Published by Origen. Perhaps we might have there Read, that he thought Hermas to have been no otherwise Inspired, than his Master 
(f) See Answer to the 2d. Objection p. 29.  Clemens and 
(g) l. 4. against Celsus p. 181. l. 6. p. 276.  himself judged the Heathen Philosophers to have been, when they taught things agreeable to the Truth and Sound Doctrine; which both these Father's thought were manifested and discovered to them by God. And so perhaps Origen judged this Book of Hermas inspired, because he looked upon it as containing useful Truths, and supposed nothing of that nature could be Wrote without the Divine Assistance. But be that as it will, and let him mean by it what he can, it is Evident he never admitted it into the Canon, nor esteemed it 〈◊〉 Equal Authority with the Books of the New Testament.  
I proceed now to the Second Part of the Argument, in the Passage above alleged, which is urged against some Books of the Old Testament, and is in these Words,— On the contrary, Theodorus of Mopsuestia calls the Book of Job, a Fable borrowed from Paganism; the Books of Chronicles and Esdras, a vain Rhapsody; the Song of Solomon a Love Song, etc. This is produced to show the Church had no certain Canon of the Old Testament for three Hundred years, but with what Ground or Reason will quickly appear.  
I must confess this does not properly belong to the Province I have undertaken at present, which is only to justify the Canon of the New Testament. But because such as are little versed in Controversies of this Nature, may possibly be stumbled at these Expressions, and perhaps think them unanswerable, if I say nothing to them when they lie thus directly in my way, I hope I shall be excused if I spend a few lines in laying open the Weakness of this Objection.  
First then, that the Jews had a certain Canon, which comprehended all the Books that we reckon as parts of the Old Testament, and no more, is evident and notorious. These, as we learn from 
(h) l. 1. against Apion. p. 103, 1036.  Josephus, and 
(i) l. 3. c. 10.  Eusebius, who transcribes his Testimony, they reduced, in their way of computation, to the Number of Twenty Two. After what manner they reckoned them up, 
(k) See it done by Origen in Eusebius l. 6. c. 25.  does not belong to my present business to set down; but only to remark, that their Canon was received by our Saviour and his Apostles. For certainly our Blessed Lord recommended the Books of the Jewish Canon and none others, when he exhorted his Hearers 
(l) John 5.39.  to Search the Scriptures. He argued too, we may be sure from them, when he expounded to the two Disciples, 
(m) Luke 24.27.  in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself. Of them without doubt St. Paul spoke, 
(n) 2 Tim. 3.15.  when he tells Timothy, That he had, from a Child, known the Scriptures, which were able to make him Wise unto Salvation: And again, when he adds, 
(o) v. 16.  All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God, etc. These Passages, and several others of the same Nature, must be understood of those Books, which passed for Authentic among the Jews, they can be understood of no other, except he be supposed to comprehend also some of the earliest Pieces of the New Testament. And therefore, since their Canon was admitted as such, by our Lord himself and his Disciples, 'tis manifest the Christian Church was not at liberty to reject what Books of the Old Testament they pleased, but were obliged by no less than Infallible Authority, to esteem all for Divine, which the Jews, 
(p) Rom. 3.2.  to whom the Oracles of God had been committed, embraced under that notion. And accordingly we find 
(q) Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 4. c. 26.  Melito, Bishop of Sardis, in the Second, and 
(r) Ibid. l. 6. c. 25.  Origen in the beginning of the Third Century, collecting the Names of those Books, which had been received in the Jewish Church, and Publishing the same to the Christians, as those which ought to be owned and acknowledged by them too for Canonical. It's true indeed, the Book of the Lesser Prophets is omitted in the account, which Eusebius gives us from Origen; but that was certainly a mistake of the Transcriber; as is apparent (besides several other Evidences) from hence, that Origen in his Treatise against Celsus, 
(s) l. 7. p. 339.  joins the Twelve Minor Prophets to the others, and tells the Philosopher that he had Wrote Explanations upon some of them.  
This is, I think, sufficient to prove that the Church had a Certain Canon of the Old Testament, during the first 300 Years; whatever Opinion Theodorus of Mopsuestia might entertain concerning some Particular Books. Those very Books were undoubtedly part of the Jewish Code; they are reckoned up as such by the Fathers now mentioned, and the whole Canon of the Jews asserted and attested, not only by them, but also by our Saviour and the Writers of the New Testament.  
(2.) It seems not a little Extravagant to bring Theodorus of Mopsuestia as a Witness for the Doctrine of the first 300 years in the case now before us, since, if his Testimony proves any thing, it must necessarily reach a great way farther. For, as Dr. Cave observes in his Historia Literaria, He was made Bishop of Mopsuestia in the Year 392, and Governed that Church for 36 Years, not Dying before the Year 428. So that if his Authority be looked upon as sufficient to declare the Judgement of the Catholic Church in his days, it must prove that the Canon of the Old Testament was not settled for above 400 Years; but that it was Lawful for any one, during that time, to admit or reject what Books thereof he pleased. This, I am sure, is a very odd notion, and will never be admitted by those who know, that, in the Fourth Century, 
(t) Festiv. Epistle 39  Athanasius of Alexandria, 
(u) Prologue to the Psalms.  Hilary of Poitiers, 
(x) Catech. 4.  Cyril of Jerusalem, 
(y) Heres. 76.  Epiphanius of Cyprus, 
(z) Of the Genuine Books of the Scripture.  Gregory of Nazianzum, 
(a) Prologue to the Books of Kings.  Jerome of Palestine, and 
(b) On the Creed.  Rufinus of Aquileia, were of a quite different Opinion. There is not one of all these, but was more considerable than Theodorus, and fit to give an account of the Judgement of the Catholic Church then he; and therefore when all of them join in asserting the Authority of the Books, which he rejected, 'tis absurd to pretend that the Opinion, he entertained must be of more Authority then all theirs put together, and assure us that the Church had then not Settled Canon of the Old Testament, when every one of these teach the direct contrary. These great Names, I think, are sufficient to oppose to Theodorus of Mopsuestia, if I had nothing else to say. But I shall proceed further, and allege, the Council of Laodicea, which met about the Year 360, and owned all the Books of the Old Testament, that were received by the Jews, for Canonical. The Decrees of this Council were soon after taken into the Code of the Universal Church, and are, upon that account, an undeniable Testimony of the Opinion of the whole Christian World in this matter; and withal inform us, that the Bishop of Mopsuestia, in slighting the Books abovementioned, did directly contradict the Judgement and Practice of the Catholic Church.  
(3.) This will be still further manifest, if we consider that, for this very thing, among others, he was censured and condemned by the Fifth General Council. We have none of the Writings of Theodorus now extant; nothing but what is quoted from him and preserved by others. Neither can we judge what he believed and taught but by these Citations. There are many Passages taken out of his Works in the Fourth Collation of the Fifth Council, at Constantinople, and among others, Six or Seven Passages, wherein it appears, that he allowed neither the Book of Job nor the Canticles, nor perhaps the Proverbs or Ecclesiastes, to be of Divine Authority. But for this, he is in plain terms condemned 
(c) Coll. 4. and 8.  by the Fathers of that Synod; and we are thereby taught, that the Doctrine which he embraced in this Particular, was so far from being approved, that it was indeed Rejected and Censur ' d by the Catholics. It is therefore a very strange method of arguing, to pretend to give an account of the Judgement of the Church, by the Opinions of this Bishop, when yet the Church expressly Condemned him for holding and maintaining those very Opinions.  
That he called the Books of Chronicles and Esdras, a vain Rhapsody, I do not find. If he did, both the Council of Chalcedon, which 
(d) Can. 1.  Established the Decrees of that of Laodicea, and also the Fifth General Council, of which we have been now speaking, by 
(e) Collat. 8.  subscribing to the Canons of the other, plainly condemn what he held as to these Books too. So that if we'll make an estimate of the Doctrine of the Church rather from Three such Eminent Counsels as these were, then from the Writings of a Single Bishop, 'tis most certain and evident, that all the Books, which he rejected, were admitted by the whole Body of Catholics both before and after his time, and consequently that the Argument, which endeavours to prove the contrary from his particular Opinion, is of no force and efficacy.  
I proceed now to some other Passages, which seem exceptionable, and find (p. 281.) the following Words,— Our Author says the Second Epistle of St. Peter is received by all Churches at this day, and many of the Fathers cited it as Genuine, forasmuch as Athanasius makes use of it against the Arians, Oration the 2d. If it be Insinuated by these Words, that Athanasius was the first who quoted it for Genuine, I have proved that to be a mistake in the following Papers, and if the Reader pleases to consult the Answer I have given to the Fifth Objection, he'll easily see, that there were those, who 
(f) See the Festival Epistle above mentioned.  ascribed it to St. Peter, long before Athanasius appeared in the World. And this Father testifies as much himself, who, reckoning this Epistle among the Authentic Books of the New Testament, assures us, that he had the Warrant of the Ancients and first Preachers of Christianity for all the Pieces, which he there puts into his Catalogue.  
The Objection from the difference of Style, between this and the first Epistle, Mr. B. answers himself; and therefore I pass on to what follows.  
Eusebius (l. 3. c. 3.) Writes that he heard from his Ancestors, that this Epistle was not at first inserted into the Canon, etc. Eusebius says something to this purpose, but, I think, what we here Read, carries the matter a little too far. The Historian indeed tells us, that he had received by Tradition, or from his Predecessors, that the Second Epistle, ascribed to St. Peter, was (or aught to be) no part of the New Testamant. But he does not acquaint us of what Antiquity or Extent the Tradition was, much less does he say, as this Translation would induce an unwary Reader to Suppose, that it was everywhere rejected upon its first Appearance; but only, that those Books or Persons, from which he derived his Information, did not acknowledge it.  
Immediately after we are told, That in Gregory Nazianzen's time, few of the Orthodox received it for Divine. Where we may learn this, I cannot tell: I am sure the Father says no such thing in those Places, where he treats Professedly of the Books of the Scripture. He acknowledges indeed in his Verses to Seleucus, 
(g) Vol. 2. p. 194.  that some received, and some rejected it. But he does not say, that the former were fewer than the latter; neither does he interpose his own Judgement there. Though he does in 
(h) p. 98.  another Poem, where he expressly reckons Two Epistles of St. Peter among the Genuine Books of the New Testament. It follows, The Syrians have not inserted it in their ancient Verson, neither do they Read it at this day, unless privately. What may be the Reason of this, I have ventured to guests in the Notes on p. 18. to which I refer the Reader.  
We are further told, That the Spaniards persisted in the same Error till the Seventh Century,— and also afterwards (p. 283.) That the Epistle to the Hebrews was not received as Sacred and Authentic, in the Western Church, till the same time.  
What particular Reasons Mr. B. has for these Two Assertions, I cannot judge, because his Epitomiser does not all edge any. But I have this (besides the Testimony of Single Persons) to urge on the contrary side; that the Council of Laodicea acknowledged both for Canonical, about the year 360, which being not long after, taken into the Code of the Universal Church, and also farther Established by the Fourth General Council, in the middle of the Fifth Century, is as clear an Evidence, that the Whole Catholic Church, in all the Provinces thereof, received both these Epistles for Genuine Parts of the New Testament, as the Sixth of the Thirty Nine Articles sufficiently Testifies what Books the Church of England acknowledges for Authentic at this day.  
And therefore I wonder at what is said 
(i) p. 282.  concerning the Epistles of St. James, that in the Fifth Age it was [first] received by all as Canonical, because all the Fathers of that Age cite it— and the African Counsels inserted it into their Canons. How far it appears now to have been admitted before the Fourth Age, I have shown in the Following Treatise; but that both it and the other Controverted Pieces were generally received in that Century, I have proved 
(k) See the Account of the 2d. Canon, p. 14 etc.  from several Testimonies, whereof the Council of Laodicea is one; and certainly the Canons thereof, which were every where acknowledged, had more Influence upon the general reception of this Epistle, than the Synods of Carthage could have, which were never Submitted to by the Eastern Christians.  
But we are further told (p. 283,) that it was after the Seventh Century, before the Revelation was acknowledged by the Eastern Churches— and again, (p. 284.) That the Laodicean Council was the first that struck the Revelation and Book of Judith out of the Sacred Canon. What is to be thought of the Revelation, I have hereafter declared (p. 42.) But as to the Book of Judith, I answer, (1.) That the Laodicean Fathers could not strike that out of the Canon of the Primitive Church, because it does not appear that it was ever in; any more than Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, etc. (2.) As to the Story of the Council of Nice 's alleging it as Divine (which is here hinted at) I believe it to be all Fable. St. Jeromo only tells us that it was reported or said so; and notwithstanding that, it is plain by his Preface to the Proverbs, that be looked upon it as Apocryphal; which he would never have done, if he had really believed the Nicene Fathers had taken it into the Canon. Neither if there had been the least Evidence that they had so done, would the Synod of Laodicea have rejected it. For all the World knows, that the Catholics had every where so profound a Reverence and Veneration for the Decrees of the First General Council, that it is impossible to suppose a Provincial Synod would, so quickly after, attempt to rescind what they had once Established.  
I have now done with the Account of the Ecclesiastical History of Mr. B. and do here again declare to the World, that none of the Mistakes, which I have been here examining, aught to be imputed any farther to him, than the Undertakers at Rotterdam have Transmitted a Faithful Account of that Work to their Correspondents at London. If they have failed therein, what Errors there be, must be laid at their door, and not at that of the Learned Author. I would gladly indeed have consulted the Original, but not having the opportunity of so doing, I thought myself under a kind of Obligation to take notice of the Passages abovementioned, because they might be urged as Objections against some of those Truths, which I have asserted and (I hope) proved in the following Discourse.   

THE CONTENTS.  

J. 't's Objections against the Canon of the New Testament proposed. Page. 2.  
Of the Word Canon, what makes any Book Canonical, etc. Page. 6  
When the Books of the New Testament generally were sent over the Church. Page. 9  
Of the first Canon, and the Evidence for the Books thereof. Page. 10.  
Of the second Canon, and the Evidence for the Books thereof. Page. 14, 38.  
Of Ecclesiastical Books. Page. 19  
Of Spurious Books. Page. 20  
J. 't's first Objection answered. Page. 21  
— 2d. Objection answered. Page. 23  
A Book, though called Scripture, or Read in the Church, not therefore judged Canonical. Page. 26  
The Pastor of Hermas Particularly considered see also the Preface. Page. 29  
The Canonical Books depend not on the Testimony of a single Father. Page. 30.  
J. 't's Third Objection answered. Page. 32.  
— Fourth Objection answered. Page. 35.  
Why the Testimonies of Heretics not so valued, as that of the Catholics, in the case of the Canon. Page. 36.  
It was Death to keep the Books of the New Testament, under Persecution. Page. 38.  
J. 't's Fifth Objection answered. Page. 38.  
Testimonies for the Books of the Second Canon, or Seven Controverted Pieces, when our Author says they were rejected by all, etc. Page. 39  
St. James, the Apostle, Author of the Epistle that Name. Page. 40.  
St. Judas, the Apostle, Author of the Epistle under under that Name. Page. 42.  
Not so good Reason to admit the Preaching and Revelation, attributed to St. Peter, into the Canon, as the Seven Controverted Pieces. Page. 43.  
J. 't's Sixth Objection answered. Page. 49.  
— Seventh Objection answered. Page. 50.  
Of the Manichees. Page. 50.  
How far they rejected the New Testament. Page. 51.  
St. Augustin 's Arguments to prove, against them, that the Books of the New Testament are Genuine, not corrupted, or Contradictory, and that the Scriptures, peculiar to them, are Forgeries. Page. 54.  
J. 't's Eighth Objection answered. Page. 65.  
Of the nazarenes and Ebionites, their Gospels, etc. Page. 66.  
Of the Marcionites, and their Scriptures. Page. 71.  
St. John 's Gospel not Wrote by Cerinthus. Page. 72.  
J. 't's Ninth Objection answered. Page. 73.  
— Tenth Objection, from Mr. D. answered. Page. 77.  
Apostolical Writings dispersed in the first Century. Page. 79.  
Clemens, Barnabas, etc. as far as appears, quote no Spurious Writings. Page. 85.  
Of other Gospels, and the Doctrines of the Apostles, etc. Page. 86.  
The Apostle John, Author of the two last Epistles and the Revelation. Page. 88  
J. 't's First Difficulty, drawn from Mr. D. answered. Page. 92.  
— Second Difficulty. Page. 93.  
— Third Difficulty. Page. 95.  
— Fourth Difficulty considered. Page. 99  
Of the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions. Page. 101.  
Ireneus Vindicated. Page. 103.  
Barnabas Vindicated, Page. 105.  
An Index of Places in Ireneus and Tertullian, where the Books of the New Testament are ascribed to those Authors, whose Names they now bear. Page. 107.  
Their Arguments to prove those Books Genuine and not Corrupt. Page. 111,  
What Jul●an the Apostate thought of the Genuineness of the Books of the New Testament, with some Reflections thereon, etc. Page. 115.    

ERRATA.  
PAge 7. Line 5. for Writ Read Written. p. 9 l. 3. for Writ r. Wrote. p. 11. l. 26. add in the Margin c. 36. p. 12. in the margin for l. 3. c. 39 r. l. 2. c. 39 p. 13. in the Notes l. 8. after proved insert Sect. 34. p. 25. in the Notes l. 7. for 140. r. 410. l. 26. for many r. any. p. 32. l. 25. in the very beginning, insert 111. p. 35. l. 24. as also p. 36. l. 21. for 17. r. 10. p. 43, in the Notes, l. 2. r. n. 1. and 2. p. 52. l. 10. for understood r. understand. p. 59 References in the Margin belong not to the words that are within, but to those that are without, the Parenthesis. p. 61. l. 21. for would r. will p. 79. l. 11. for proceeds r. precedes. p. 91. in the Margin for l. 3. c. 3. r. l. 3. c. 1. p. 106. l. 2. for unrightness r. uprightnefs. p. 110. l. 26. for 71. r. 72. p. 113. l. 11. and 13. for Writ. r. Writ.   

THE CANON OF THE New Testament VINDICATED.  
I. OUR Author, in the beginning of this Treatise, falls very severely on Mr. Blackall, who had charged him, in a Sermon before the House of Commons, with questioning the Authority of some of the Books of the New Testament, in his History of the Life of Milton. This he says was an uncharitable as well as Groundless Accusation, and brings many Arguments to prove his Innocence as to that matter. I shall not concern myself at present in that controversy, nor examine whether our Author be guilty or not of what is laid to his charge. I am sure all he alleges for his own Vindication is a grand Impertinency, and such a Notorious abuting of his Readers, as is not easily to be found in Writers, who are not of his Complexion. It is just as if a Man should Vindicate himself from having ever Robbed on the Highway, and as soon as he had finished his discourse, should fall upon and Spoil the next Traveller he meets For thus he after a long harangue, wherein he pretends to clear himself from the Aspersions of Mr. Blackall, and prove that he never insinuated that any of the Books of the New Testament might justly be questioned, proceeds (if I understand English) to assert the same with open Face, and brings several Arguments, which can aim at nothing else but to sink their Authority, and make Men believe there is no sufficient ground for receiving the present Canon. Whether this be his Intention or no, I think will easily appear to any one who shall consider the following Particulars.  
(1.) He affirms (p. 52.) that several spurious Pieces have been quoted by the Fathers as of equal Authority with those which we receive; even by those Fathers upon whose Testimony the present Canon is Established. From whence it is evident, he would infer, that those Spurious and our Canonical Books ought to go together, and either be equally admitted or equally rejected, since they are founded upon the same Testimonies.  
(2.) He looks upon the Epistles of Barnabas, the Pastor of Hermas, the Epistles of Polycarp, of Clemens Bishop of Rome, and Ignatius, to be all Forgeries, (p. 43, 46.) and yet he tells us (p. 44.) that the Ancients paid them the highest Respect, and reckoned the first four of them especially as good as any part of the New Testament. So that the Testimony of the Ancients for the Canon of the New Testament seems to be of no value, since, if we'll believe our Author, they put Forgeries in the same rank with the Books thereof, and esteemed them of the same Authority.  
(3.) He urges (p. 47.) that he can't understand why the Writings of St. Mark and St. Luke should be received into the Canon, and those of Clemens Bishop of Rome and St. Barnabas be excluded, by those who look upon them as Genuine. Since the two former were not Apostles, but only Companions and Fellow-Labourers with the Apostles, and so were the two latter as well as they.  
(4.) We Read (p. 56.) in so many words, that, There is not one single Book of the New Testament, which was not refused by some of the Ancients as unjustly Fathered upon the Apostles, and really forged by their Adversaries.  
(5.) He tells us in the same Page, That the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of St. James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. John, the Epistle of St. Judas, and the Revelation, were a long time plainly doubted by the Ancients. And as if this had not been enough he adds (p. 64.) that they were rejected a long time by all Christians, almost with universal consent.  
(6.) To show that he'll leave no Stone unturned to express the favourable Opinion he has of the New Testament, he brings in Celsus a Heathen (p. 60.) as a Witness against the Christians, Who exclaims against the too great Liberty they took (as if they were drunk) of changing the first Writings of the Gospel, three or four or more times, that so they might deny whatever was urged against them, as retracted before.  
(7.) To Celsus in the same Page, he joins the Manicheans, (fitly enough I confess) who showed other Scriptures, and denied the Genuineness of the whole new Testament.  
(8.) We are told (p. 64.) that the Ebionites or nazarenes (who were the oldest Christians) had a different Copy of St. Matthews Gospel; the Marcionites had a very different one of St. Luke's; St. John's was attributed to Cerinthus; and all the Epistles of St. Paul were denied by some, and a different Copy of them showed by others.  
(9) He urges (p. 53, 54.) that Eusebius rejects the Acts, Gospel, Preaching and Revelation of Peter from being Authentic for no other reason, but because no Ancient or Modern Writer (says he) has quoted proofs out of them. But herein Eusebius was mistaken, for the contrary appears by the Testimonies marked in the Catalogue, which any Body may compare with the Originals. In another place be says that the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Mathias, and suchlike, with the Acts of John, and the other Apostles are Spurious, because no Ecclesiastic Writer, from the Times of the Apostles down to his own, has vouchsafed to quote them, which is absolutely false of some of them, as we have already shown.— Had Eusebius found any of these Pieces cited by the precedent Orthodox Writers, he would have owned them as Genuine Productions of the Apostles, and admitted them, as we say, into the Canon. But having met no such Citations, he presently concluded there were none, which made him reject those Books. And I say (what I have already demonstrated) that Proofs were quoted out of some of them long before, so that they might still belong to the Canon for all Eusebius.  
(10.) He Produces (p. 69, etc.) a long Passage out of Mr. Dodwell, which, (if we'll believe him) Reflects more upon the Canon of the New Testament, as to the certainty and Authority of it, than any thing which had been before excepted against in the Life of Milton.  
Now let any one lay all these Passages together, and I fancy he'll be of my mind, and easily believe that our Author's Vindication of himself against Mr. Blackall was impertinent, and such a presuming on the weakness of his Readers, as is not usual; since he presently after commits that fault (though I doubt he'll not call it so) from which just before he attempted to clear himself, and makes no scruple at all of exposing the Writings of the New Testament, which we believe to be Canonical, as doubtful and uncertain.  
II. I suppose it will not be thought sufficient for me only to have proceeded thus far, and (in our Author's Language, p. 8.) to have shown the Enemy and given an account of his Forces, except I endeavour to weaken them too, and thereby hinder them from doing such Execution as they seem to threaten.  
But because the Particulars above-alleged, are Objections against the general Doctrine of the Church in the matter now before us, I think it will be proper, before I examine them, to lay down the Grounds upon which the Canon of the New Testament has been fixed and determined. Which I shall do with all the Brevity, the Subject will admit of, as designing to enlarge upon and confirm several Particulars in the sequel of this Discourse, where fit occasion will be offered.  
The Word Canon is Originally Greek, and in the Ordinary acceptation signifies a Rule, and therefore when made use of in Divinity, we understand by the Canon and Canonical Books, those Books, which were designed by God to be the Rule of our Faith and Practice.  
I shall not discourse any thing now concerning the Books of the Old Testament, because they are no part of the present controversy. 
† 
I think it pertained to the Apostles, to approve the Sacred Books— Neither have we any Canonical Books, either of the Old or New Testament, but those which the Apostles approved and delivered to the Church. Melchior Canus in his Common Places, l. 2. c. 7. p. 43. Edit. Lov. 1569. Octavo.  
The Church, like a faithful Guardian, hath preserved and conveyed to her Children, as Writings received from the Apostles, not only what they Penned themselves, but also those Pieces too, which being Wrote by Persons who were not Apostles, yet were by the Apostles confirmed, Publicly Approved, and recommended to the Church. Arch Bishop of Spalleto, in his Christian Commonwealth, l. 7. c. 1. S. 15. Edit. Hanou. 1622.  
— No other Books properly belonging to the Holy Scriptures, but such as the Apostles of Christ left behind them. Bp. Cousin's Hist. of the Canon of the Old Testament. Sect. 73. p. 80.  
So likewise Episcopius, in his Institutions, (l. 4. Sect. 1. c. 5.) Remarks that those Books make up the Canon of the New Testament, which were either Wrote by the Apostles or with their Approbation. And again in his Treatise of the Rule of Faith, c. 7.— Whatever was Wrote or Approved by the Apostles, was, without Controversy, dictated by the Holy Ghost.   But in the New Testament, those Books only are accounted Canonical which were Writ, or however Authorised, by the Apostles.  
For they being the Immediate Disciples of, and Attendants upon our Lord, and being Commissioned by him to instruct the World in the Doctrine which he taught them, were without doubt 
* It is not my Business here to prove that the Apostles were Infallible, but only to show the Necessity that they should be so.  infallible (for else they might have led the World into Error) and therefore their Teaching, their Writings, their Judgement ought to be received with all Veneration and Submission.  
St. Paul is reckoned justly of the same Authority with the rest, because our Saviour was pleased to appear to him from Heaven, reveal his Gospel to him in his own Person, and appoint him an Apostle after an extraordinary manner; for he Received his Commission not from Men (as himself tells us, Gal. 1.1, 12.) but from Jesus Christ and God the Father.  
What the Apostles Wrote, and what they Authorised, can be known no other way, then by the Testimonies of those who lived at the same time with them, and the Tradition of those who succeeded them.  
And therefore whenever any Churches received any Writings, to Instruct them in Religion, from the Apostles, they looked upon those Writings as Canonical, or a Rule of their Faith and Manners, in the Particulars whereof they Treated. And whenever any other Churches were assured, either by the Testimony of those who knew it themselves, or by certain Tradition, that such and such were Apostolical Writings, they too esteemed them Canonical, preserved them as such themselves, and as such transmitted them to others.  
III. Hence it appears, that the Written Canon increased gradually in itself, as the Apostles Writ new Books, and was likewise gradually spread over the World, as Particular Churches received those Books from others, with good Testimonies and Evidences of their being the gennine Works of those, under whose Names they were conveyed to them. No wonder then, if some Books were sooner and some later received as Canonical, by the Universal Body of Christians in all Places, because either the Books themselves, or the Testimonials to prove them Apostolical, might, nay Naturally would, be transmitted to some Churches later than others, as they were Situated nearer to, or removed farther from, those Cities or Countries, where they were first Published, or enjoyed a greater or less intercourse with them.  
But the General conveying of a great part of them over the whole Christian Church, seems to have been performed in the Beginning of the Second Century, about the time of St. John's Death, or immediately after it. For as Eusebius tells us, in his Ecclesiastical History (l. 3. c. 37.) there were then great numbers of Persons, Disciples of the Apostles, who travelled over the World, building up Churches where the Apostles had before laid the Foundations, and Preaching the Faith of Christ in other Places, which had never heard of it before, carrying along with them the Copies of the Gospels to all Countries whither they Travelled. And it is very probable, that they took with them some other parts of the New Testament besides, since as we shall immediately see from the Testimonies of Jreneus and Tertullian, they were owned and admitted everywhere soon after.  
iv For the clearing of which, I shall consider what Books were first taken into the Canon, by the whole Church, and what afterwards; not omitting also to remark that they had besides, some that were styled Ecclesiastical, and others Spurious or Suppositious.  
(1.) The Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, (that to the 
† Eusebius seems in l. 3. c. 25. to take the Epistle to the Hebrews into the Canon, but because he does not expressly name it there, and in the 3d. Ch. of that Book, he tells, that it was questioned by some; I have therefore left it out, as a Book that was not universally taken into the Canon at that time.  Hebrews being excepted) the first of St. Peter, and the first of St. John, were all received over the Christian World, in the time of Eusebius, as appears from his 
(a) L. 3. C. 25.  Ecclesiastical History. To him I might join Athanasius, the Council of Laodicea, Epiphanius, Ruffinus, etc. But because they Wrote a while after, when the whole Canon of the New Testament began to be settled, their Testimony will reach the other Books, as well as these under consideration, and therefore I shall reserve them for a fit place. It's true indeed Eusebius and those others did not Publish their Judgements on this Subject till above 300 Years after Christ, and therefore seem something of the latest to be Witnesses in a case of this Nature. But then we ought to observe, not only that they speak positively what was the general Judgement of their Days, but that three of them appeal to the Tradition of the Church, and the Testimony of the Ancients, who, living nearer the Age of the Apostles, had better opportunities of informing themselves from Authentic Proofs, what were their true and Genuine Works. It was upon this Testimony of Primitive and succeeding Writers, that the Catholic Church did, in the time above mentioned, admit these Books as Apostolical, and account them for Canonical Parts of the New Testament. Many of the Writings, which they consulted, are now Perished, but some have been preserved to our days, from which I shall produce an Instance or two, to show that the Church, in the time of Eusebius, had real warrant from Antiquity, to look upon the Books, whereof I am now speaking, as Canonical or Rules of Faith, since they had been esteemed for such long before, and were attributed to them, whose Names they bear, by their Predecessors. Thus Tertullian, who flourished at the end of the Second Century, tells us expressly, in his Discourse of the Prescription of Heretics, that the Law and the Prophets, 
C. 36  the Gospels and Apostolic Writings, were the Books, from whence we are to learn our Faith. And that we may know what he meant by Gospels and Apostolic Writings (for about them we are only concerned at present) he does, as occasion was offered, in his several Treatises, appeal to all the Books abovementioned (
* If it be enquired what Evidence we have that the Epistle to Philemon (since it's quoted neither by Tertullian nor Jreneus) belongs to this first set of Canonical Books. I answer, (1.) That Eusebius, and Gregory Nazianzen both in his Iambics to Soleucus, and his Poem concerning the genuine Books of the Scripture, manifestly reckon this Epistle among those parts of the Canon which were never doubted of. (2.) Origen expressly ascribes it to St. Paul, in his Nineteenth Homily on Jeremy, (Ed. G. L.) p. 185. (3.) Though Tertullian does not in direct terms tell us that it was accounted one of the Canonical Books in his time, yet he says that from whence it necessarily follows. For (l. 5. against Martion c. 21.) he wonders why that Heretic rejected the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, which concern the State of the whole Church, when yet he received another written to a single Person, as well as these; whereby none can be understood but this to Philemon. Since 'tis well known that Martion rejected all the Canonical Epistles, and consequently the Second and Third of St. John; which also were not at that time generally embraced by the Catholics. And therefore since he joined with the Catholics in receiving one Epistle to a single Person, it must necessarily be this: For he rejected all the others.  excepting only the Epistle to Philemon, out of which, being very short, he had no occasion, I suppose, to produce any Testimonies) as the real Writings of the Apostles and Persons to whom we ascribe them. And Jreneus before him, who conversed, as we learn from himself, with 
(b) L. 3. C. 3.  Polycarp and 
(c) L. 2. C. 39  others that had been instructed by the Apostles and immediate Disciples of our Lord, mentions 
(d) L. 1. C. 1. L. 3. C. 12.  the Code of the New Testament as well as of the Old, calls the one as well as the other, the 
(e) L. 1. C. 1.  Oracles of God, and 
(f) L. 2. C. 47.  Write dictated by his Word and Spirit, speaks expressly several times 
(g) L. 3. C. 1. etc.  of the four Gospels, and quotes the same Books of the New Testament, which we observed Tertullian does, and under the Names of the same Authors that he does, even of those by whom we now believe they were written, and blames 
(h) L. 3. C. 2.  the Heretics of those times for rejecting their Authority. They were Heretics only that rejected them in those early Ages, neither does it appear that so much as one of the Books we are now considering, was ever doubted of, or called in question by any of the Members of the Catholic Church, after they were once publicly known. This is enough to evince that Eusebius and the Church in his time had Testimonies of the Ancients to assure them, that the Books above-specified were really the Writings of the Disciples and Followers of our Saviour. And besides these 
† Jreneus and Tertullian ought not to be accounted here as single Witnesses; but as those which deliver what was the Judgement of all those Churches, with which they conversed. See hereafter Sect. XXXIII. where particular Places are produced out of both of them, in which they quote the several Books under the Names of those Authors, to whom they are now ascribed; and 'tis also proved, that what they believed concerning them, was confirmed by the Suffrage of the Universal Church, that is, all those parts of it with which they had Correspondence.  two Authors now mentioned, there are others still Extant, as Clemens of Alexandria, Origen and Cyprian, who ' confirm the same Truth, and many now lost, which they then had in their hands, from whence they drew further proofs and Evidences in this matter.  
(2.) The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. John, the Epistle of St. James and of St. Judas, and the Revelation, were at the beginning questioned by some, as Eusebius informs us in the Book and Chapter above-alleged; but then, as the same Author in the same Places assures us, they were received and acknowledged by many others. The Agreement about these, was not so general and uniform as about the other Books. Some Persons, and Churches perhaps, received them all, but the whole Body of the Catholics did not, as being not then fully satisfied, , concerning the Evidence which was produced for them. Yet neither were they generally rejected, as some pretend. For several of them were received in several Places, as it would be very easy to prove from Jreneus, Tertullian and others of the Fathers yet extant Of which more by and by when we come to our Authors fifth Objection. But however the case was at first, it is apparent that upon a due Examination of the Testimonies of the Ancients, produced on their behalf, these also were in process of Time received into the Canon. For 
(i) Athanas Vol. 2. G. L. p. 39 and Balsam. p. 921  Athanatius, in one of his Festival Epistles, Wrote about 20 Years after the History of Eusebius, reckons them expressly among the rest. So does also 
(k) Ibid. p. 850.  the Council of Laodicea 
* The Council of Laodicea (Can. 59) forbids reading Psalms of private Composition or uncanonical Books in the Church, and commands, that only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament should be read there. And then adds (Can. 60.) These Books of the Old Testament ought to be Read, Genesis, Exodus, etc. And of the New, these, the four Gospels, etc. Reckoning up all those which we count Canonical, only leaving out the Revelation. Now the difficulty is, whether the Revelation be left out, as a Book that is not Canonical, in the Judgement of the Council, or as a Canonical Book, which is not fit to be Publicly Read, because not intelligible by the generality. For my part. I must say, that I cannot determine this Question either the one way or the other. For since the Fathers have not expressly declared themselves, they might, for aught we can tell, leave it out as a Book which they thought not Canonical; or they might leave it out as a Canonical Book, which could not be rightly understood by Common Hearers. For thus the Church of England does not Read this Book in the Lessons, for that very Reason, but only some small Portions, instead of the Epistles, on some peculiar Festivals. And thus also she Reads no part at all of the Canticles upon the same account, and yet has asserted both the one and the other to be part of the Canon, in the Thirty Nine Articles. , excepting only the Revelation. So does 
(l) Heres. 76. p. 941.  Epiphanius, and so also does 
(m) On the Creed p. 26.  Rufinus towards the end of that Century, and vouches the Authority of the Ancients and the Monuments of his Predecessors for so doing. As Athanasius also had done before him.  
Nazianzen 
(n) Vol. 2. p. 194.  indeed in his Iambics to Seleucus (which sometimes go under the Name of Amphilochius) tells us that the controverted Books were in his time doubted of by some. But 'tis plain from the Verses, under his own Name, 
(o) P. 98.  concerning the Genuine Books of Scripture, that he received them all, the Revelation only excepted. And it appears too by 
(p) F. 24.  St. Jerome, that when he Wrote his Letter to Dardanus, several of the Latin Church rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, and several of the Greek the Revelation. But he declares positively, that he owned both for Canonical, because most of the Ancients had done so before him. However the Council of Laodicea being admitted into the Code of the Universal Church, and afterwards more solemnly ratified, among others, in the first Canon of the 
(q) A. C. 450. See also Act. 11. of that Council, p. 406.  Fourth General Council, shows plainly that both the Eastern and Western Churches did then receive all the Pieces mentioned above, for Canonical, excepting the Revelation only; and what opinion they had of that, we can't Judge from this Argument, because the Laodicean Fathers had said nothing of it in their last Canon. When it was first universally received is not very easy to decide. Certain it is from the Sixteenth Canon of the Fourth Council at 
(r) A. C. 633.  Toledo, that there were very many then, at least in Spain, who rejected it. And certain it is from the same Canon, if we may believe the Fathers who composed it, that it had been declared formerly part of the New Testament by many Councils and Synodical Decrees. But the Names of those Councils, which had asserted the Divine Authority of this Book, are not there set down; and therefore. I must Ingenuously confess that I can't tell what Synods the Fathers had an Eye to therein, besides that of 
(s) A. Cti. 419.  Carthage, which reckons the Apocalypse by Name, among the Canonical Books of the New Testament. For as to the Famous Decree of the Roman Council under Gelasius, I suppose that was not forged till some years after the Fathers at Toledo made that Canon which we are now considering. However, it is Evident that many of the most Primitive Fathers acknowledged the Revelation to be 
(t) See hereafter Sect. XI. and XXV.  Divine, and Written by St. John the Apostle; it is Evident too from what has been above alleged, that Athanasius, Jerome, and Rufinus received it, and appealed to the Ancients as their Warrant for so doing. We have seen likewise that it was owned by Epiphanius, and acknowledged as Canonical by a Synod at Carthage. It was admitted also for such by 
(x) L. 3. of Virgins p. 98.  St. Ambrose, 
(y) Of Heres. c. 30.  St. Augustin, and many others of that and succeeding Ages. But whether the diffusive Body of the Church, was so far satisfied of its being Authentic, as to receive it every where for such till it was Established by the Sanction of the Sixth General 
(z) A. C. 680.  Council, I shall not take upon me to determine. However, than the Controversy seems to have been brought to an end, if not before. For the Fathers of that Assembly having received, not only the Decrees of the Council of Carthage, but also (which is more express in the case) 
(a) Can. 2.  the Epistle of Athanasius abovementioned, did thereby own the Revelation to be properly Canonical, and the whole Church of that Age 
† That the Syrians Read none of the Controverted Pieces in their Churches, besides the Epistle to the Hebrews and that of St. James, is Evident from the New Testament, which Ignatius Patriarch of Antioch, sent to be Printed in Europe, the last Century, and was actually Printed by Widmansiadius at Vienna in the Year 1555. But why they do so may be a question. It does not seem to be because they look upon the rest as not Canonical, for they have them too in the Syriack Tongue, as we may learn from Ep. Walton and F. Simon. If I may have leave to interpose my Conjecture, I should think it proceeds from hence; That this Translation is very Ancient, and was Certainly made before the controverted Books were universally received, and their Lectionaries or Rubrics adapted to it. And having no other Version made, till many years after, of the rest of the Catholic Epistles and the Revelation, they would not alter the old Lectionaries (when they had one) as they must have done, if they had taken in the other Pieces. This may be judged a fond thing, and so it is; but not half so fond and contrary to common Sense, as what is practised by the Romanists, these very Syrians, and some others of the Eastern Churches. For the Scriptures having been of old Translated into the Languages of Particular Countries, that they might be understood by the Common People as well in the Public Service as in their Private Reading, they still continue (so Superstitious are they in observing an old Custom) to Read them and Celebrate their Liturgies in Latin and the Ancient Tongues of the Places specified, though they are now grown quite out of use, and the Unlearned understand not one word of them.  (especially the Orientals among whom this Book had been most questioned) submitting to their Authority, backed with so good Evidence, This, as well as the other controverted Pieces had been, was afterwards reckoned as a Genuine part of the New Testament.  
That these Books were not every where admitted upon their first appearing, shows that the Church did not proceed rashly and carelessly in the case. And that they were  admitted afterward, shows that there was clear Proof and Evidence on their behalf, and therefore they have been ever since joined to the rest of the Books, which we esteem Canonical. The case of those Spurious Pieces, which were thrust into the World under venerable Names, was clear contrary. They flourished a little and made a show, when they first came abroad, but after a while, not being able to stand a strict Examination, vanished and fell to nothing; so that little has been left of most of them, besides their Names, for many Ages.  
(3.) There have been always in the Church, besides these, other Writings that were called Ecclesiastical. Such under the New Testament, are the Works of the Ancient Fathers, which have ever been looked upon as useful and of good Authority (though not infallible as the Canonical Scripture is,) being generally composed, not only by Pious and Learned Men, but also by those, who lived in, or near, the Primitive Ages of Christianity, and consequently had better opportunities of being acquainted with the Doctrine and Practice of the first Preachers thereof, than we have. And among these, they have always been esteemed of the greatest Authority (if their Character was answerable upon other accounts) who flourished and wrote nearest the times of the Apostles. Of this sort is (that which is called) the first Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians, which though Eusebius tells us was of so great Estimation 
(b) Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 16.  as to be Read Publicly in several Churches, yet he 
(c) L. 3. c. 25.  excludes it from the Canon. And so he does the Pastor of 
(d) Ibid.  Hermas, which both he, and 
(e) In the places above cited n. 1. of this Section.  Athanasius and Rufinus, acknowledge to have been Read too, openly in some places, yet they all join in raising it no higher than an Ecclesiastical Piece. Which I therefore remark here, because we shall find our Author hereafter making a great stir with these two Treatises.  
(4.) Several 
* Those Writings, which were Published under false Names, were certainly Spurious. But it is not necessary to suppose that all, which the Fathers called Apocryphal, were of that sort. For the Title of Apocryphal is often applied to such Ancient Books, as were no part of the Canon; many of which were certainly no Forgeries. See hereafter Sect. XXIII.  Spurious Writings were also Published very early in the Church, under the Names of the Apostles and other great Men of which our Author has given a large Catalogue. These were for the most part composed by 
(f) Jren. l. 1. c. 17.  Gnostick and other Heretics to maintain and propagate their False and Wicked Opinions, and some too were the Works of Zealous but Simple Catholics. As for instance, the Travels of Paul and Thecla, the Author of which, as 
(g) Treatise of Bapt. c. 17.  Tertullian and 
(h) Treat. of Eccles. Writ. in Luke.  St. Jerom inform us, wrote it out of Love to St. Paul. He was discovered in the Life time of St. John, and by him Censured. Many of these were found out to be Cheats assoon as they came abroad, and others, not till after some years. However they were generally discovered sooner or later, so that of the Forgeries of the first Ages, there is little remaining to our Times, except the bare Titles.  
Having premised thus much, I shall now proceed to consider the Objections of our Author.  
I. Then he affirms (p. 52.) that several Spurious Books were quoted by the Fathers, as of equal Authority, with those which we now receive, even by those Fathers, upon whose Testimony the present Canon is Established. From whence, it is Evident, he would and must infer that those Spurious and our Canonical Books ought to go together, and either be equally admitted or be equally rejected, since they are founded upon the same Testimony.  
To which I Answer,  
(1.) That the quoting other Authors in the same Discourses, wherein we appeal to the Writings of the Sacred Volumes, is no Evidence that we Judge them of the same Authority. For is there any thing more usual in Moral and Theological Treatises, then to Cite the Scriptures and Fathers and Philosophers, and Poets too, sometimes, Promiscuously, as there is Occasion? And yet no Man in his Wits ever thought, that by so doing, these three last were declared as infallible as the first. How often have Tully and Seneca and Plato and others of their Rank, been quoted by Christian Writers in the same Discourses, wherein they have fetched Proofs from the Evangelists and Apostles? And yet, I dare say, they never dreamt that, for so doing, they might be charged as making Tully equal to St. John, or Seneca to St. Paul. We quote Authors, not always as convincing Proofs of the Truth of what we deliver, but sometimes because they express themselves handsomely, argue Pathetically, Reason closely, or to show that others have been of the same Judgement with us, though at the same time we think them no more infallible than we do ourselves. And after this manner, (that I may come close to our Author's Objection) did Origen proceed, who is observed to have cited as many Apocryphal Writings as any almost of the Fathers (though he produces generally, if we'll believe 
(i) Monsieur Valois' notes on Euseb. l. 3. c. 38.  a Learned Man, nothing but what is profitable or useful from them) and yet he does not advance any of them into the Canon, but reserved that Honour for those Books to which it did belong.  
(2.) Though our Author affirms in this Objection, that the Fathers quoted several Spurious Books as of equal Authority with those which we account Canonical, yet he gives us no proof thereof, since the bare Citing both together is, as we have seen, no Evidence. Something indeed he offers at (p. 44.) which sounds like an Argument, and to that perhaps he may here refer, and therefore I have put it in the Second place, that I may allow every thing, he urges, its due force.  
II. Therefore, He looks upon the Epistle of Barnabas, the Pastor of Hermas, the Epistles of Clemens Bp. of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius to be all Forgeries (p. 43. 46.) and yet tells us (p. 44.) that the Ancients paid them the highest respect, and reckoned the four first of them especially as good as any part of the New Testament. So that the Testimony of the Ancients for the Canon of the New Testament seems to be of no value, since, if we'll believe our Author, they put Forgeries in the same Rank with the Books thereof, and esteemed them of the same Authority.  
(1.) To which I Answer, That the Positive Charge of Forgeries seems a little too confident, at this time of day, upon so many Books at a clap; most of which have had a good Reputation for several Ages, and have been of late days justified and defended by the Pens of divers of the first Rank for Learning and Criticism. But our Author has no consideration for that. The Writers of these Pieces were all (if we'll be persuaded by him) Ignorant and Superstitious, whatever Opinion the World may have formerly entertained of the Knowledge and Piety of any of them; and their Assertors, Men of no Judgement and Understanding, who undertook a cause, which can't be defended. For so we Read (p. 38.) It's the easiest task in the World (next to that of showing the Ignorance and Superstition of the Writers) to prove all these (and a great many more there reckoned up) Spurious. But I shall crave leave to say, that talking and doing are very different things, and our Author will find it a more difficult Employment to run down some of these Pieces, than it was to heap together a Catalogue of Writers, where so many Collections had been already made to his hand. Close Reasoning and Arguing are quite of another Nature, and what an excellent Talon he has at making out Forgeries, will easily appear to any one who shall take the pains to compare what he says in Answer to the Vindication of K. Charles the Martyr, either with the Book itself, or the Reply of his Learned Adversary.  
But however, let that be as it will, I say he extremely wrongs the Ancients in the accusation he here brings against them, when he says, that they reckoned the four first of these especially, as good as any part of the New Testament. For (1.) Eusebius was certainly as proper a Judge of what the Ancients held, as our Author; and yet he plainly sets the Books we mentioned (p. 10.) above all others, and makes them only to be Canonical in the Judgement of the generality of his Predecessors, And though the Church in the days of 
(k) See these Authors in the places above cited Sect. IU. n. 1.  Athanasius, Epiphanius, etc. saw Reason to take some more Books into the Canon, than were admitted by Eusebius, yet these, we are now considering, were still excluded, as we may easily see in the Catalogues Published by those Authors. As to Barnabas and Hermas, 
(l) Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 25.  Eusebius expressly reckons both of them among those which were judged Apocryphal. 
(m) In the places above cited.  Athanasius and Rufinus sink the latter into the Rank of Ecclesiastical Writers, and do not by Name indeed mention the former, but however leaving his Epistle out of the Number of Canonical Writings, and vouching the Ancients for what they do, plainly show they knew nothing of any of these being made equal to the Books of the New Testament. (2.) 
† 
Our Author fetches a large compass in some of his References here, but however, having formerly made some remarks of this Nature, in Reading these Fathers, I may possibly be able to trace him in the Books he directs us to, on this occasion. I find therefore that Clemens of Alexandria (Ed. Par. G. L. 1641.) citys Barnabas, Stromat. l. 2. p. 373, 375, 396, 340. l. 5. p. 571, 577, 578.— Origen citys him l. 1. against Celsus p. 49. l. 3. of Principles c. 2. f. 144. Edit. Par. 1522. Jrenaeus quotes Hermas, l. 4. c. 37 (not c. 3. as 'tis in our Author) p. 370,— Clemens quotes him, Strom. l. 1. p. 311, 356. l. 2. p. 360. l. 4. p. 503— l. 6. p. 679.— Origen quotes him, l. 1. of Principles c. 3. f. 117. l. 2. c. 1. f. 124.— Comment. on Hos. G. L. p. 202. Now how fairly the Sense of these places is represented, will appear from what follows.  
He tells us first (p. 44.) that Clemens of Alexandria and Origen quote the Epistle of Barnabas, as Scripture; which is not true (though if it was, it signified nothing:) For in the places referred to, they cite it indeed, but under no such Title. He says (p. 45.) that the Pastor of Hermas is cited as Canonical Scripture, by Jreneus, Clemens of Alexandria and Origen. Jreneus indeed and Origen calls it Scripture, but not Canonical: That's our Author's addition. But Clemens does not so much as call it Scripture, in many of the Places mentioned. What follows concerning the Epistles of Clemens, Bishop of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius, was needless. We not only grant, but assert that they have been esteemed by the Ancients, though not as equal to the Books of the New Testament. And I doubt not but they'll continue in the same estimation, notwithstanding the mighty attacks, with which they are threatened by this vain boaster.   The Arguments our Author brings to prove the Primitive Fathers looked upon the four Treatises abovementioned to be as good as any part of the New Testament, are much too weak for that end, for which they are designed. They are in short these three, (1.) That the Books are either quoted by the Ancients, or (2.) called by the Name of Scripture, or (3.) have been Publicly Read in Churches. Now that the bare quoting an Author does not raise him to an equality with the Writers of the Canon, has been already made apparent in Answer to the first Objection. And as to the Title of Scripture, though that be commonly attributed to the Books of the Old and New Testament, yet it is sometimes used in a more large and Lax Sense for any Religious Writings, both by Ancients, and Moderns. For thus, it is evident from 
(n) Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 25.  Eusebius, and owned by Melchior Canus and Sixtus Senensis, that Origen cast all those Books out of the Canon of the Old Testament, which are esteemed by the Church of England for Apocryphal, and yet in his 
(o) F. 114.  Third Homily on the Canticles, he expressly calls the Book of Wisdom, Scripture; and so he does the Maccabees in his 
(p) F. 124  Second Book of Principles and the first Chapter; which (that I may remark that by the way) is the only place of all those named by our Author, where Origen gives that Title to the Pastor of Hermas, and by joining it in the same appellation with a Book which he expressly asserted to be Apocryphal, plainly declares that he did not intent, by ascribing to it the Name of Scripture, to advance it into the honour and Authority of the Canon. Neither did Tertullian without doubt, when in his Treatise of Chastity, (c. 10.) he calls the same Book of Hermas, Scripture; for he censures and inveighs against it in the same place, and tells us, that it had been condemned by more than one Council of the Catholics. Rufinus also in his Exposition on the Apostles Creed, does not scruple the calling even those Treatises, Scripture, which were forbidden to be Read in the Public Assemblies. And St. Augustine, in his Work concerning the 
(q) L. 15. c. 23.  City of God, tells us there were many Fables contained in those Scriptures, which are called Apocryphal. From whence, and from all the other Passages beforementioned it is Evident that the Title of Scripture was applied by the Ancients to other Writings as well as to those which they judged Canonical. And thus too, though our Church has cast the Books of Wisdom, Tobit and Ecclesiasticus out of the Canon, yet she gives them the Appellation of Scripture, in the 
(r) 3d Serm. against the fear of Death, p. 65. 3d. Serm. against Idolatry p. 57 2d Serm. of Almsd. p. 160.  Book of Homilies, and appoints part of them and other Apooryphal Books to be Read in Churches, which is a clear proof that the Ancients, by doing the same thing, did not declare the pieces, which they so Read, to be Canonical or even as good as Canon.  
And indeed I cannot but wonder how our Author could be guilty of such a mistake, as to think that the bare Reading of a Book in the Public Assemblies was an Argument, that it was esteemed part of the Canon, when not only the Constant Practice of our Church, but also the positive declarations of the Ancients themselves do in express words teach us the contrary. For thus Rufinus in his Exposition on the Creed, reckons up several Books, which he says were styled Ecclesiastical and Read Publicly by the Ancients in the Church, but not admitted as of sufficient Authority to Establish or confirm Articles of Faith. The same is also affirmed by St. Jerom, in his 
(s) 3d Tome of his Epist. p. 9  Preface to the Proverbs, where he tells those to whom he directs it, that the Church Read indeed the Books of Judith and Tobit and the Maccabees, but yet did not look upon them as Canonical; and so (adds he) let her Read Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Wisdom for the Edification of the People, but not for the proving of any Doctrines or Ecclesiastical Opinions. And thus much too we may gather from Eusebius, who 
(t) Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 16.  relates that the first Epistle of Clemens, Bishop of Rome, was Read in most Churches, and yet 
(u) L. 3. c. 25.  he plainly excludes it from being any part of the Canon of the New Testament. All which are evident demonstrations, that it has been an usual Custom, not only of the Church of England, but also of Antiquity too, to have such Books Read in Churches for the Instruction of the Hearers in Moral Duties, as were never esteemed by them to be parts of, or equal to, the Canonical Scripture.  
What has been said, I suppose is sufficient to show that none of our Author's Arguments answer what he designed, or prove that those Fathers whom he quotes, looked upon the Books abovementioned to be as good as any part of the New Testament. And therefore I shall desire him, when he publishes his History of the Canon, not to produce either them, or any other, as esteemed Canonical in the Judgement of Antiquity, only because they were cited by the Fathers, or called Scripture, or Read in the Church. For none of these Particulars prove it, as we have now made Evident.  
But it may be urged, that, though none of the places expressly set down by our Author, do sufficiently make out that, for which they are produced; yet however there is a passage of Origen in reserve which will do the Business. And that is in his Explanation of the Epistle to the Romans, (c. 16. v. 15.) where he tells us, that the Pastor of Hermas is an useful Book, and, as he thinks, divinely Inspired. He does say so indeed in that place, but then he does not tell us what sort of Inspiration he means. There have been different degrees of it in the Opinion of all Men, especially of the Ancients. For thus Clemens of Alexandria (who was Origen's Instructor) promises to Write 
(x) Strom. l. 4. p. 475.  as God should inspire him. And he informs us too, that the Philosophers, who wrote Truth, did it by the 
(y) Admon. to the Gentiles p. 46, 47.  Inspiration of God: and yet I dare say never dreamt that either his own Writings or theirs aught for that Reason, to be taken into the Canon. And we know, the Divine Plato, is a common Expression. But I answer more directly, (1.) That if Origen did look upon this Book as of Divine Authority, the Church in his time was not of the same Opinion. For himself 
(z) Comment. on St. Mat. p. 361. Philoc. c. 1. p. 9  tells us, that there were those who slighted and rejected it, and upon that account he questions whether he may venture to draw a Testimony from it; and 
(a) Of Chastity c. 10.  Tertullian assures us that it had been censured by every Conncil of the Catholics. (2) I think it is plain, that, Origen, whatever Character he may have occasionally given of this Book, did not judge it any part of the Canon, because in the beginning of the Philocalia, and particularly (c. 6.) we find him several times distinguishing the Books of the New Testament into the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles. Now 'tis certain that the Pastor of Hermas can be reduced to neither of these heads, and therefore in the Judgement of Origen 
* If we look into the Philocalia (c. 1. p. 9) we may there observe that Origen does not speak of the Pastor of Hermas with the same Honour and Respect, that he does of the genuine parts of the Canon.  was not Canonical. If it be asked to which of these two Classes we assign the Acts of the Apostles, I answer to that of the Evangelists, as being the Work of one of them; and that Origen intended so to do, and have it reckoned among the Books that were part of the Canon, is apparent from hence, that he Wrote Homilies thereon, which neither he nor any of the Fathers did upon Barnabas, Hermas, Clemens or any other of the Ecclesiastical or Apocryphal Pieces under the New Testament. But we need not use any Argument in the case. Origen himself expressly ascribes the Acts of the Apostles to St. Luke more than once, and reckons them by Name among the other Books of the New Testament, in his Seventh Homily on Joshua (f. 156.) where none of the Apocryphal, none of the Ecclesiastical Books are joined with them.  
However it may not be amiss to add upon this occasion, that if a single Father, or two, have had a higher Opinion of a Book than it did deserve, or a wrong Opinion of the Author, this will not overthrow the Argument, upon which the Divine Authority of the Books of the New Testament is built. We look upon them as Divine and strictly binding to Obedience, because they were either wrote or confirmed by the Apostles of our Saviour, and we believe that they were so wrote or confirmed by them, not upon the Testimonies of one or two Fathers only, but of the whole Primitive Church, who were capable of Judging in this question. Our Author prevaricates, if he'd persuade us, that the Ancients formed their Judgement in this matter, only upon the Tradition of one or two Persons, or even of those few Treatises of the Ancient Writers, which are now Extant. These indeed they appeal to, and that justly, but besides these, there were great Numbers more in being in those days which (
(b) See Tertul. of Prescript. c. 36.  as well as the several Churches which were the depositaries of the several Epistles and Gospels) they consulted, and were from thence enabled to determine whether this or that Book was Genuine or no. If any one doubt this, I shall send him, as our Author does Mr. Blackall, to Dr. Cave, Du Pin, etc. where he may learn, that all the Works of some, and many Treatises of others, of the most Ancient Fathers, are now perished, which yet were every where to be had in the days of Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius and Rufinus and their Predecessors and by the assistance of which they and the Church in their times, judged the several Books of the New Testament to have been indeed wrote by those Persons, to whom we ascribe them.  
From hence it may appear, how trifling and impertinent the Raillery is, which our Author (p. 57) flings upon the Council of Laodicea. They were indeed the first Public Assembly, that we know of, which Established, by a Solemn Decree, the Canon of the Old and New Testament, such as the Church of England now Embraces (excepting only the Revelation) about the Year 360. This they were enabled to do, whatever our Author pretends to the contrary, by the Testimony of their Predecessors. There was no need of a Particular Revelation, no need of Oral Tradition neither, at that time, as he would Insinuate. There were numerous Books abroad in the Church, some of which are now lost and some we still have. By the help of them they were Instructed how to form a right Judgement, how to distinguish what was Genuine from what was Spurious; most of this latter sort also having been already discovered and rejected to their hands, as is apparent from Eusebius. Though our Author seems to have for got that, when he was Reflecting upon this Venerable Assembly.  
He urges (p. 47.) that he can't understand, why the Writings of St. Mark and St. Luke should be received into the Canon, and those of St. Clemens Bishop of Rome and St. Barnabas excluded, by those who look upon them as Genuine. Since the two former were not Apostles, but only Companions and Fellow-Labourers with the Apostles, and so were the two latter as well as they.  
In Answer to this, I shall tell our Author, that if he had Read those Books he pretends to quote, he might have found a reply to this Objection before he made it. For in the beginning of that Dissertation of Mr. Dodwell, from whence he citys so long a Passage, that Learned Man would have informed him (Sect. 5.) that the compilers of our Canon designed only to take in the Writings of the Apostles, whose Authority was unquestionable, and that they took in the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, not barely upon their own account, but upon that of St. Peter and St. Paul, whose Companions and Fellow-labourers they were, and 
* The Attestation of a Person, of whose Prophetic Spirit there was no question, was one way of being certified concerning the Divine Mission of a Prophet among the Jews. According to that Maxim of the Masters, A Prophet of whom some other undoubted Prophet Witnesseth that he is a Prophet, is assuredly a Prophet. See Dr. Spencer of Vulgar Prophecies, c. 4. This seems to have been exactly the case of St. Mark and St. Luke. Their Writings were Authorised and their Inspiration thereby attested by the Apostles, who were undoubtedly inspired, and therefore we may safely conclude, that these two Evangelists were inspired likewise.  who attested their Inspiration and Fidelity in what they Wrote. And this may be easily proved from the Testimony of the Fathers. For thus, Tertullian in his Fourth Book against Martion (c. 5.) tells us, The Gospel, which Mark Published, is affirmed to be Peter 's, and that which was drawn up by Luke, is ascribed to Paul. And we learn from 
(c) Ecel. Hist. l. 2. c. 15.  Eusebius, that both Papias and Clemens of Alexandria attested, that the Romans having prevailed with St. Mark to Write his Gospel, what he had done was revealed to St. Peter by the Holy Ghost, who thereupon Authorised the Work and appointed it to be Read Publicly in the Church. And the same 
(d) L. 6. c. 25.  Historian informs us from Origen, that St. Paul approved and recommended the Gospel of St. Luke, 
† St. Jerom (in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers in Luke) tells us, that many supposed that when St. Paul spoke of his own Gospel (Bom. 2.16. 2 Tim. 2.8.) he meant that of St. Luke. And he informs us also before (in Simon Peter) that the Gospel according to St. Mark was said to be St. Peter's: That is, I suppose, Wrote by his Instruction, and with his Approbation.  being drawn up principally for the use of the Gentiles. To which may be added what he tells us in 
(e) L. 3. c. 24.  another Place, that the three other Gospels being brought to St. John, he Read them over and Perused them carefully, and when he had so done, justified what they had wrote and confirmed the Truth thereof with his own Testimony. Though, for Reasons there set down, he thought fit to make another Relation of his own, and add thereto such Parriculars as had been omitted by the others. The Acts of the Apostles (as Mr. Dodwell observes, Sect. 39) were probably wrote by St. Luke at the same time with the Gospel or History of our Saviour, and therefore fall under the same Consideration. They were the Second Volume, Part, or Treatise of the same Book (as appears from Acts 1.1.) and therefore though St. Luke's Name was not put to them, yet it was never doubted in the Church, who was the Author. His Name was prefixed to, learned from, and preserved in, the first part, the Gospel: from which the Acts seem afterwards to have been separated, (though at first they went together) for the convenience of the Readers, that so the Gospels all making up one Book by themselves (as was usual formerly under the Name of the Book of the Gospels) might be the more easily compared together. Now this makes a great difference between the Writings of these two Evangelists and those of St. Clemens and St. Barnabas, though supposed Genuine. These latter were never recommended or attested by any of the Apostles, and therefore could never expect that Reception and Authority in the World, which the others found, nor to have the same place in the Canon.  
iv We Read (p. 56.) in so many words, that there is not one single Book of the New Testament, which was not refused by some of the Ancients, as unjustly Fathered upon the Apostles, and really forged by their Adversaries. To which I answer, That either our Author Equivocates, in this Place, or asserts that which he can never prove to be true. For as I showed above (p. 10, etc.) the four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, the first of St. Peter and the first of St. John, were all along admitted by the Catholic Church, and never, that appears, after a sufficient Promulgation, opposed by any who held her Communion. The Heretics indeed rejected, some, one, some, other parts of the New Testament, but to understand them only, by the Word, Ancients, exclusively of the Catholics, was certainly designed to impose upon the unwary Reader, and can never be excused from foul dealing, since that Expression is commonly taken in another Sense.  
But perhaps it may be here asked, why the Testimony of Heretics, in a matter of Fact, should not be as good as that of Catholics, and why they may not be admitted as Witnesses of what Books were or aught to be esteemed Canonical, as well as others.  
To this I answer (1.) That the Catholics gave clear and evident proof of the Truth of what they asserted, when the Heretics could give none that was of any value. For as we learn from 
(f) L. 4. c. 63.  Jreneus, 
(g) I. 4. against Martion c. 4. Of Presciption c. 36. See these places insisted on hereafter Sect. XXXIV  Tertullian. and others, All the Churches, which had been planted by the Apostles, and those who held Communion with them, were on their side. These all agreed in the Books, these all agreed in the same Gospels and Epistles, which they affirmed, they had received in a certain succession from the first Age. The Tradition was every where the same, as to the Books mentioned (p. 10.) and might well be esteemed undoubted, since they were no further removed from the Disciples of our Saviour in the days of Jreneus, than we are now from our Grandfathers. The Bishops and Churches of his time conveyed the Canon by Written as well as Oral Testimony to the next Ages, and so enabled them to run down the Forgeries of Heretics, as they had done before them; who could not give that Proof and Evidence for their Suppositions, which the Catholics did for their True and Genuine Writings. They could not deduce them from the Apostles, since 
(h) Jreneus l. 3. c. 4. l. 5. c. 20. Tertul. of Prescript. c. 29, 30. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. p. 764.  the Founders of the several Sects, the Authors of these Heresies, Forgeries and Corruptions, (as Valentinus, Basilides, Apelles, Martion, etc.) were much latter than they. And when application was made to the most Ancient Churches in the World, which the immediate Disciples of our Lord had taught in their own Persons, or to those which joined in Communion with them, they all gave in their Testimonies both against the Books and Doctrine. And this brings me to a Second Argument. (2.) 
(i) Jren. l. 1. c. 17. Coll. cum. l. 3. c. 2, etc. Tertull. of Prescript. c. 32, 38. See also Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 25. at the end. See these places out of Jreneus and Tertullian insisted on more fully hereafter. Sect. XXXIV.  The Books which the Heretics forged, contradicted that Doctrine which the Apostles had taught in the Churches they planted. This was sufficiently known in those Ages (which were at so little a distance from our Saviour) by the general Tradition of all the Churches in the World And therefore those 
* Eusebius (l. 3. c. 25.) tells us that several Books Published under the Venerable Names of St. Peter, St. Thomas, St. Mathias, etc. were and aught to be rejected as Spurious, for this Reason (among others) that they contained Doctrines contrary to those which had been Taught and Published by the Apostles; whence it was Evident that they were the Forgeries and Contrivances of Wicked Men.  Books were justly concluded Authentic, that (besides good Testimony) agreed with, and those Supposititious, which were repugnant to, the Doctrine of the Apostles. (3.) These Arguments have been judged so convincing, that the whole Christian World has given a Verdict on their side. For the Doctrine of most of the Primitive Heretics has appeared so Monstrous and Extravagant, the Books, which they forged to assert it, so ill attested, that the one has now been rejected every where for many hundreds of years, and the other condemned and in a manner quite vanished. Whereas the Doctrine of the Catholics maintained itself under the sharpest Persecutions, and their Books were preserved 
† See the Passion of Felix, Bishop of Tubyza in Africa, who was put to Death in the year 303, because he would not deliver the Scriptures to be burnt, according to the express Decree of Dioclesian and Maximian, the Emperors, to that purpose. Many others also suffered on that account, and they, who, for fear of Death, did deliver the Scriptures to the Heathen, were called Traditores (whence our English word, Traitors) and fell under the Church's Censure, as is notoriously evident from the famous case of Cecilian and the Donatists.  when it was Death to keep them, and so both have been conveyed together to the present time, notwithstanding all opposition.  
V Our Author tells us again (p. 56.) That the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of St. James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. John, the Epistle of St. Judas and the Revelation were a long time plainly doubted by the Ancients. And as if that had not been enough, he adds (p. 64.) that they were rejected a long time by all Christians, almost with Universal consent. But to this I have spoken already (p. 14, etc.) and therefore think it necessary to add no more, by way of Answer, in this place, than what a Learned Man has said concerning the Epistle of St. James, which may with equal Reason be applied to all the rest of these once controverted Pieces: Though the Ancients have been divided as to this point, it is enough that the succeeding Ages, after a due Reflection on this matter, have found in Antiquity certain Acts, sufficient to place them in the rank of the Canonical Books of the New Testament, and that all Churches in the World, have, since that, received them as such. However before I dismiss this Objection, it will not be improper to take a little notice of our Author's Ingenuity, and consider with what truth he could affirm, that these Books were rejected for a long time by all Christians, almost with an universal consent. The contrary to which will appear Evident, if we produce those, who owned them (during the time he says they were so rejected) as the Genuine Writings of the Authors under whose Names they are now Published and Read in the Church of England.  

The Epistle to the Hebrews, owned as St. Paul's, by Clemens of Alexandria in his Stromata, (l. 4. p. 514.)— by Origen in his Comment on St. John, (G.L. To. 2. p. 56.)— He affirmed, as we find in the Ecclesiastical History of 
* It would have been an easy matter to have produced several Passages of most of the Fathers here alleged, to prove that they held the respective Books, for which they are quoted, Canonical, or Genuine Writings of those Apostles to whom they are ascribed. But I waved that as needless; and thought one Testimony sufficient to show the Judgement of one Writer. Otherwise I could have brought more than Twenty Places of Origen (for Example's sake) to show that he held the Epistle to the Hebrews to have been Wrote by St. Paul, four or five from Clemens of Alexandria, etc. I could also have produced other Authors, in whom Passages out of these Pieces are made use of, without naming the Books, from which they are borrowed; but that did not answer my design.  Eusebius (l. 6. c. 25.) that many of the Ancients believed it to be St. Paul's. Ensebius (l. 3. c. 3.) says it was rejected only by some, and seems to have admitted it into the Canon with the rest, for his own part, (l. 3. c. 25, and 38.) St. Jerome in his Epistle to Dardanus (f. 24.) says that it was received by most of the Ancients, and quoted by them as Canonical Scripture. I don't produce the Testimony of St. Jerome upon his own account, in this place, either for this Epistle or for the Revelation; but only as he informs us what was the belief of most of the Ancients in the case before us. 
(k) See before p. 18.  The Ancient Syriack Version has this Epistle and 
(l) F. Simons Critical History of the N. Test Part. 2. c. 15. p. 140.  ascribes it to St. Paul.  
The 
† Some will have St. James, the Author of this Epistle, to be a distinct Person from the two Apostles of that Name. They say that there was a Third, the Brother of our Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem and that he Wrote this Epistle. To which I answer (1.) That the Scripture no where mentions any more than two of this Name, and St. Paul (Gal. 1.19.) tells us expressly, that James, the Brother of our Lord was an Apostle. (2.) Clemens of Alexandria and Eusebius from him (Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 1.) reckon no more than two, one James the Son of Zebedee, and the other James called the Just, the Brother of our Lord, who was also Bishop of Jerusalem. The same is asserted by Epiphanius, (Heres. 29. n. 3.) and St. Jerome against Helvidius (f. 10.) So that since there were but two, called by the Name of James, and both of them, Apostles, let which of them can, be the Author of the Epistle, it was certainly wrote by an Apostle. Though it is generally concluded to be that James, who was our Lord's Brother (probably so styled, either because the Son of Joseph by a former Wife, or the Son of the Virgin Mary's Sister, as St. Jerome will have it;) for the other James, the Son of Zebedee was killed by Herod at the first planting of the Church. And therefore to this James, Fusinus expressly ascribes it in his Exposition of the Apostles Creed, calling him Apostle and Brother of our Lord. See Dr. Cave's Life of St. James the Less.  Epistle of St. James, was owned as that Apostles, by Origen (in his Eighth Homily on Exodus, f. 43.)— Eusebius (in his Ecclesiastical History, l. 3. c. 25.) says it was approved by many. The Ancient Syriack Version has this Epistle.  
The Second Epistle of St. Peter, owned as his by Origen (in his Seventh Homily on Joshua, f. 156.) and by Firmilian of Cappadocia (in his Epistle to St. Cyprian, among the Epistles of that Father, Ep. 85. p. 220.) Eusebius says the same of this as of the Epistle of St. James, and in the same place.  
The Second Epistle of St. John, owned as that Apostles by Jreneus (l. 1. c. 13. p. 95.) by Clemens of Alexandria who wrote a short Explanation of it, (which see at the end of his Treatise concerning the Salvation of the Rich. Ox. Edit. p. 142.) by a Council at Carthage (in the year 256, among St. Cyprians Tracts. p. 242.) Dionysius of Alexandria mentions this Second and also the Third Epistle as commonly ascribed to St. John the Apostle, in his time, about the year 260 (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 25.) Eusebius says the same of this, as of the Epistle of St. James.  
The Third Epistle of St. John. 
(n) See also his Seventh Homily on Joshua f. 156.  Origen allows that both it and the Second might be admitted as the Apostles, and plainly acknowledges that many received both as Genuine, when he says that all did not. (See Euseb. l. 6. c. 25.) Dionysius says the same of this, that he does of the Second; and Eusebius the same that he says of St. James' Epistle.  
The Epistle of 
* That St Judas was an Apostle is evident from the first Verse of his Epistle; for there he styles himself, the Brother of James. And that there was a Judas or Judas (for both are the same in the Original) the Brother of James, among the Apostles, appears from St. Luke 6.16. and Acts 1.13. He is called Lebbeus whose Surname was Thaddeus by St. Matthew (c. 10. v. 3.) the reason of which see in Dr. Cave's History of his Life.  St. Judas, owned as his by Tertullian (l. 1. Of the Ornament of Women, c. 3.) by Clemens of Alexandria (in his Pedagogue l. 3. c. 8. p. 239.) by Origen (in his Comment. on St. Matthew, Tom. 11. p. 223.) Eusebius says the same of this, that he does of St. James.  
The Revelation, ascribed to St. John the Apostle, by Justin M. (in his Dialogue with Trypho. p 308.) by 
(o) See hereafter Sect. XXV.  Jreneus (l. 4. c. 37. p. 373.) by Clemens of Alexandria (in his Stromata l. 6. p. 667.) by Origen (in his Commentary on St. Matthew, Tom. 16. p. 417.) by Tertullian (l. 3. against Martion c. 14, and 23.) By St. Cyprian (in his Treatise of the Benefit of Patience) to John, without any Epithet; who quotes this Book, I believe, a hundred times. St. Jerome in his Epistle to Dardanus (f. 24.) says that it was received by most of the Ancients, as Canonical, and that they cited Testimonies from it as such.   
From what has been here alleged, I suppose it is evident, that there were those (many of those, and they very considerable Persons too) who are now known to have owned the Authority of the controverted Books, 
† It must be here also remembered (what was observed before Sect. IU. n. 1.) that Athanasius and Rufinus appeal to the Ancients for these Pieces, as well as for the rest of the New Testament, and do it after such a manner as informs us, that they found so many of their Predecessors citeing and owning them for Authentic, and upon so good grounds, as made them too, without scruple, acknowledge them all for the Genuine Writings of those to whom they are ascribed. And this (I mean the Testimonies of the Ancients, both Particular Fathers, and Churches) was undoubtedly the ground upon which they were at length received every where.  even before they were generally received by the whole Church. All the Reflection I intent to make upon it, shall be only this, that we may certainly expect a very accurate and impartial History of the Canon from our Author, who takes not the least notice of all these Places, but notwithstanding them and others of the same Nature, had yet the confidence to say, that these seven Pieces were rejected a long time (even in that time, wherein the Authors I have now quoted, lived) by all Christians, almost with universal Consent. Such as have a mind, may take his word for it, if they please. But, I believe, few, who shall consult the quotations produced above, will admire him either for an exact or faithful Historian.  
But however, before I proceed any further, I must observe that I find him here in a complying humour, and because he is seldom so, I think myself obliged to take notice of it. For he acknowledges (p. 57) that these seven Pieces are now received (not without convincing Arguments) by the Moderns. Thus far is very well; and I should have been glad to find our Author so frank in his concessions, if what he grants, had not been attended with a sting in the Tail. For it follows, Now I say, by more than a parity of Reason, that the Preaching and Revelation of Peter (for Example) were received by the Ancients, and ought not to be rejected by the Moderns, if the approbation of the Fathers be a proper recommendation of any Book. The short of the Business is this; that, in our Author's Opinion, there's more reason to look upon the Revelation and Preaching of St. Peter as Canonical, than the Seven Pieces abovementioned, which are now embraced by the whole Church as such. We'll try if you please, and turning back to p. 22, consider what Testimonies are there brought to prove these Treatises, which bear the Name of St. Peter, to have been formerly esteemed Genuine.  
First, for his Revelation, we find that it's quoted by Clemens of Alexandria; mentioned by Eusebius, St. Jerome, and Sozomen. All this I grant, but then must beg leave to add, that none of these Writers, excepting the first, will do our Author's cause any manner of Service. For Eusebius and St. Jerome expressly declare this Piece (as also the Preaching too) to be Spurious; and Sozomen assures us, that though it was indeed Read in some Churches of Palestine once in the year, yet the Ancients absolutely judged it a Forgery.  
As for the Preaching of Peter, Clemens of Alexandria I own, quotes it several times, and he's the only Person I can allow that does as much as seem to favour our Author in the present controversy; excepting only Damascen, whom I have not at hand, and therefore can't say what his Opinion might be. Origen says not a word of it in the Preface to his Treatise of 
* The Doctrine indeed of St. Peter is mentioned there, but rejected as an Apocryphal Book, neither Wrote by him, whose Name it bears, nor by any Inspired Person.  Principles, (as is pretended.) He does indeed in his 14th Tome on St. John, but then he considers the Passage there alleged as an Objection urged by Heracleon, and is very far, as any one may perceive, from owning the Authority of the Book. Lactantius 
(p) L. 4. c. 21.  tells us (in the place cited) that the Apostles Peter and Paul Preached at Rome, and delivered several Prophecies against the Jews, which were kept in Writing and confirmed by the Event. But he does not say, that the Book wherein they were preserved, was called the Preaching of Peter, neither does it any other ways appear that such Prophecies were contained in the Book now before us, and therefore his Testimony signifies nothing to the question in hand. As for the Discourse concerning the Baptism of Heretics, among the Works of St. Cyprian, I grant the Preaching of Peter is there quoted, if we'll allow the conjecture of Rigaltius 
† I could not but smile here at the ingenuity of our Author, in his contrivance to multiply Testimonies for Spurious Pieces. For he alleges (p. 32.) this Writer to prove there was a Book called the Preaching of St. Paul, because it is actually so in the Text. And he quotes the very same place (p. 23.) for the Preaching of St. Peter, because Rigaltius corrects it so in his Notes. , that Paul is by mistake set for Peter, for 'tis Paul in the Text. But what will our Author get by this Concession? Truly very little; he may put it all in his Eye and see never the worse. For that Writer says positively, that the Composer of the Preaching of Peter was an Heretic, and proves it too by good Arguments. So that after all, 
* I say we have the Testimony but of one single Father for any Authority of these Books (for the Reading one of them once a year in an obscure Church or two, is a mean thing; see above Sect. VI) And yet under what notion he quotes them does not appear; much less what Authority he ascribes to them. he no where tells us that he looked upon the Preaching and Revelation of St. Peter to have been Wrote by himself and upon that account to be Canonical. He might take them for Ecclesiastical Pieces, and suppose (which yet was an Error) that the Writer of them gave a true account of some Discourses of that Apostle. As he does in his Treatise, concerning the Salvation of the Rich, furnish us with some Passages concerning St. John, which Eusebius has transferred into his Ecclesiastical History. It can by no means be proved that this Father judged these Pieces part of the New Testament, because be quotes them. It was the custom of the Ancients (as well as Moderns) to cite Writings, which they knew, not to be Canonical, as well as those that were. This is sufficiently Evident, and St. Jerom takes Particular notice of it in his Epistle to Dardanus. And therefore till there be very good proof to the contrary, we ought not to believe that St. Clemens differed so very far from the rest of the Fathers, as to advance those Pieces into the Canon, which they generally rejected for Spurious; but rather conclude, that he esteemed them at best no more than Ecclesiastical. And so Eusebius seems to affirm concerning him and them. See hereafter Sect. XIX. However the case be, see before Sect. VII.  we have the Testimony of one single Father, and an obscure Church or two in Palestine only, for any Authority of these Books, and what Authority they designed them, we cannot tell, and all the rest of the Catholics of those times, and before them, and since (as far as appears) rejected them as Forgeries; and if we may make an Estimate of the whole by the Fragments, which yet remain, 'tis evident they were the Forgeries of Heretics. For in the 
(q) See Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 6. p. 635. Orig. Tom. 14. on John p. 211.  Preaching of Peter, we Read, that the Jews Worshipped Angels, and Archangels and the Months and the Moon. Which they are charged with doing, not when they fell into Idolatry, but in the ordinary Practice of their Religion. We are told also 
(r) Treatise of Bapt. of Heret. p. 30.  that Jesus acknowledged himself guilty of Sin, and was in a manner compelled to submit to the Baptism of John, by his Mother, against his will, etc. which are gross and 
† There is another passage, that does not (methinks) sound well, quoted by Clemens, out of the Preaching of St. Peter, in the sixth Book of his Stromata (p. 678.) where we are told, that the Prophets named Jesus Christ in express words. Whether this can be fairly reconciled with Truth, I shall not determine, but leave to the Reader's Judgement.  notorious falsehoods. And the Revelation of Peter informs us, that 
(s) Clem. Al. Extracts out of Thedot. p. 806, 807.  abortive and exposed Infants are committed to the conduct of a Guardian Angel, who may instruct and educate them, and secure their Happiness after they have suffered such things as they should have endured in the Body; that they shall be as those who have been faithful here for a hundred years; that flashes of fire shall break from these Infants, etc. with more of the same Nature. Now whosoever shall consider this, and call to mind the perfect silence of the Scripture in such Curiosities, will easily conclude that these discoveries had the same Original with the Whimsical Fancies, which the Gnostics Published to the World about that time.  
The case therefore of the Books called, the Preaching and Revelation of St. Peter, is, in a Word, this. They contained false and Extravagant Doctrine, have no Body on their side at all but one Father and some unknown Churches of Palestine (whose just opinion of them we know not,) and were universally rejected by the whole Body of the Catholics besides, as far as we can Judge at this distance. Now let's turn the Tables, and we shall find the whole Christian World agreed that there is nothing in the Seven Pieces, which we have now under consideration, repugnant to the rest of the Scripture; that even at that time, when they were doubted of by some, they were yet received by many others; among whom were several of great Piety and Learning; that Athanasius, Rufinus, and others vouch the Authority of the Ancients to prove that they were and aught to be judged and accounted Canonical; that since that, Councils and the whole Church have received and owned them for Genuine, and if, after all this, our Author will still say, that there's more reason to receive the Preaching and Revelation of St. Peter, than the Pieces we are now examining, into the Code of the New Testament, he may say so, if he pleases; but I believe he'll meet with but few that are of his Opinion.  
VI To show he'll leave no Stone unturned to express the favourable Opinion he has of the New Testament, our Author brings in Celsus a Heathen (p. 60.) as a Witness against the Christians, who exclaims against the too great Liberty they took (as if they were drunk) of changing the first Writing of the Gospel, three or four or more times, that so they might deny whatever was urged against them, as retracted before. Our Author somewhere complains of the Clergy for their harsh Language, and violating the Rules of Decency and Civility in their Writings. But certainly there are some cases, wherein it is very difficult to forbear a little severity of Expression. And this I take to be one of them, which I have now before me. To see a Man, who professes himself a Christian, rake up the Objections, not only of the grossest and most Profligate Heretics, but even of the very Heathens, and make use of them to run down the most Ancient and Venerable Monuments of our Religion, might easily raise a Passion, justifiable by the strictest Rules of Morality. Especially when we find the same Person so resolutely bend on doing all the mischief that he can, as to take not the least notice of the answer, which is to be found in the same place from whence he drew his Objection. For this Objection is quoted by our Author from the Second Book of Origen against Celsus (p. 77.) and there he might have found this answer too, that they were the Heretics, the Marcionites, the Valentinians, and the Lucianists (some of whom also 
(t) L. 1. c. 29.  Jreneus and 
(u) Against Martion l. 4. c. 5.  Tertullian positively accuse of the same tricks) who were guilty of these Prevarications. For which the Catholics were no more answerable than the Church of England was for the Murder of Charles the First.  
VII. To Celsus, in the same Page, our Author joins the Manicheans (fitly enough I confess) who showed other Scriptures and denied the Genuineness of the whole New Testament.  
Whether will not Men go, or what will they not do, to serve a design? He knows, or at least might know, that the Manicheans were as Extravagant and Whimsical a sort of Heretics as any that troubled the Christian Church. They held, as 
(x) Heres. 66.  Epiphanius informs us, That there were two Supreme Gods, the one, a good, the other, a bad one; that they were always at War with one another; that Manes was the Holy Ghost; that the Souls of Men, after their decease, should pass into the Bodies of such Beasts as they had Eaten when they were alive, or be united to those Trees which they had planted; that the Sun and Moon were Ships, which conveyed the faithful of their Sect to Heaven, and that the Light of the Moon depended on the number of the Souls in it, which, when she was full, she emptied into the Sun by degrees, and so grew dark again. These things they believed, or at least maintained, with Twenty more of as absurd a Nature. And now, I pray, what does the Opinion, which such as these had of the Canon, signify? They could find nothing in the Books of the Catholics, wherewith to justify their Notions, and therefore 
(w) S. Aug. Treatise of Heresys. n. 46.  rejected their Authority, and made use of others for their peculiar Doctrines. But our Author might as well have set up the Koran in opposition to the New Testament, and for so doing have alleged the Judgement and Testimony, of the Turks. For laying aside the Name, they seem to be every jot as good Christians as the Manicheans.  
Here our Author brings in two Passages from Faustus the Manichee, to show that He and those of his Sect rejected the whole New Testament. That they did so in effect, is evident and undoubted; for they made it of no Authority, by refusing to be concluded by Arguments drawn from thence, pretending that it contained many Errors, which had been foisted into the several Books thereof, by the Tricks and Cheats of succeeding Ages, long after the Deaths of the Apostles. They maintained it was full of Corruptions and Falsifications. And therefore Faustus boasts 
(y) St. August. against Fausius l. 18. c. 3.  that the Manichean Faith alone secured the Professors thereof from all danger of Heresy, by instructing them not to believe every thing which was written in the Name of our Saviour, but to try whether what they Read to have been taught by him, was really true, sound and uncorrupted. For (as he goes on) there are many Tares mingled with the Wheat, which an Enemy, during the times of Night and Darkness, has Sown and Scattered in almost all the Scriptures, for the infecting and poisoning the good seed. And again, 
(z) L. 32. c. 1.  he asks the Catholics, What reason they had to think it strange, if he, selecting those Passages out of the New Testament, that were most pure, and conduced to his Salvation, should fling away all the rest, which had been fraudulently conveyed into it by their Predecessors and sullied the Native Beauty and Majesty of the Truth? This was their constant Practice; when they were pressed with any Texts, which they could not reconcile to their fond Opinions, they without more ado slighted their Authority, affirming the Testimonies produced against them, were forged and no part of the Doctrine delivered by our Blessed Lord and his Apostles. And therefore St. Augustine 
(a) L. 13. c. 5. l. 22. c. 15. l. 32. c. 19  accuses them, as receiving the Scriptures only for fashion's sake, while by asserting them to be falsified and corrupted, they perfectly detracted from their Authority; that is, if I understood him aright, they pretended, upon occasion to have a deference for the New Testament, whereas really they had none. For they charged it with Corruption, and acknowledged nothing as an Article of Faith, purely because contained in the Books, and upon the warrant, thereof, but because they judged it true upon other accounts, and for this Reason were willing to own that it 
(b) L. 33. c. 3.  might possibly have been delivered by Christ or his Disciples.  
And therefore I readily join with our Author, and acknowledged that the Manichees really rejected the whole New Testament; not only because there are several passages of Faustus, which plainly intimate as much, but also because St. Augustine himself seems clearly to have understood them in that Sense. For thus we learn from him, 
(c) L. 32. c. 16.  that these Heretics affirmed their Paraclet Manicheus had taught them, that the Scriptures (even 
(d) See the beginning of that Chapter.  the Scriptures of the New Testament, received for Canonical by the Catholics) were not the Works of the Apostles, but wrote by others in their Names. And we Read again how the same worthy Teacher had informed them, 
(e) L. 32. c. 18. towards the end.  that the Evangelical Writings, part of which they refused to admit were not the Apostles. And accordingly we shall observe by and by, that this Father was so sensible, how far these miserable Heretics had been seduced in this matter, that he thought himself concerned directly to answer this Objection, and prove against his Adversary Faustus, that, whatever he and his Party pretended, the Gospels and Epistles, admitted by the Catholic Church, were Genuine and Authentic.  
That therefore we may allow our Author, and his Objection against the Canon of the New Testament, drawn from the Manicheans, all the fair play that can be desired, I shall state the full Sense thereof in the two following Propositions.  
(1.) The Books of the New Testament were not wrote by the Apostles or Apostolical Men, 
(f) See S. Aug. against Faustus l. 33. c. 3.  but drawn up several years after them out of reports, Traditions, and Historical Memoirs.  
(2.) Whoever they were that drew them up, they falsified and corrupted the pure Doctrines of Christianity, by inserting several Errors and contradictions among the Truth. And therefore the Manichees admitted the Books just so far and in such particulars as they judged them true, and rejected the rest as of no value.  
This is the utmost force, which can be put into the Objection; and we'll now inquire in the next place, what St. Augustine returned by way of Answer.  
First, then, to prove that the Writings of the New Testament were Genuine, and that the Evangelists and Apostles were the real Authors of those Pieces, which bear their Names, he thus reasons with Faustus and his Followers.  

(g) L. 33. c. 6.  O unhappy and wretched Enemies of your own Souls! Tell me, I pray, what Books can ever be judged Authentic, if the Evangelical, if the Apostolical Writings done't deserve to be so esteemed? How can we be ever certain of the Author of any Treatise in the World, if those Writings, which the Church, planted by the Apostles in all Nations, affirms and maintains to be theirs, may yet be rejected as false and Supposititious; and instead thereof, others be received as really Apostolical, which were first brought to light by Heretics, whose very Masters, from whom they take their donominations, did not live till long after the Apostles, and yet pretend to have known better than the Universal Church, what Writings those first Preachers of our Religion, left behind them? Consider the case of several Pieces Published about Secular and Human Learning. There are many of this sort, which appear under great Names, that are yet justly rejected by the Judicious, because they are by no means consistent with the Style and Genius of them, whose Names they assume; or have never, by such as were capable of knowing, been declared and acknowledged to be the Genuine Works of those to whom they are ascribed by the Ignorant. Do not Physicians, for Examples sake, reject the Authority of divers Treatises, which fly abroad under the Name of Hypocrates? And though there may perhaps be some resemblance in Thought and Expression, yet notwithstanding that, they condemn them as Spurious, because they fall short of the real Performances of that great Man, and have no sufficient Evidence to prove their being Genuine. And for those, which are indeed his Works, Whence is it that the Learned conclude they belong to him, whence is it that those, who should question the same, would be laughed at, not refuted, but only because a constant Tradition, from his Age down to the present days, has attested them? And he that should pretend to doubt of a matter, established by the continued succession of so long a time, would be accounted mad or distracted. Whence do Men learn that the Books of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro and other Authors, are indeed of their composing, but because they are so informed by the Testimonies of several Ages, succeeding and following one another? Many too have Wrote largely concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs, not indeed with Canonical Authority, but with a desire of profiting others or themselves. How know we to whom any of these Discourses is to be assigned, but only from hence that their respective Authors acquainted others with what they Wrote at the time when they first Published the same, from whom it has been conveyed by several hands successively to the present time, so that, without any doubting or hesitation we can, when examined concerning any particular Discourse, tell presently what to answer? But why do I insist upon things long since past? Consider what is now before us. Behold here the Treatise of Faustus; behold my Answer. If any should in future times inquire, which way they might be assured, that I Wrote the one, and Faustus the other, how could they be informed of the Truth, but only by appealing to the Tradition, which had, from those who were our contemporaries and knew what we did, been transmitted to Posterity? Since then the case is plain and evident, and esteemed so by all the World, in other Writings, why should it not be so in those of the Apostles? Who is there so blinded with Madness, and Possessed with the Malice of deceiving and lying Devils, as to affirm that the Church has not the same security for the Books, which she receives? Can we imagine, that so many Witnesses of the greatest Faithfulness and Integrity, that such an unanimous Number of Brethren in all Places, agreeing in the same assertions, should conspire to impose upon the World with false Pieces? Or that the Churches, which derive their succession in a continued line from the Apostles, should not have their Books likewise conveyed to them, with as certain and steady a Tradition, as is that upon which we admit Ecclesiastical or Profane Writings? And again in another Place, You that raise so many scruples about the Authority of our Books, How will you justify the Epistle of Manicheus 
(h) L. 32. c. 21.  and prove that it was Wrote by him? If any one should contradict you in this matter, and boldly affirm that it was none of his, but a down right Forgery, what would you reply? Would you not be ready to laugh at the confident Talker, would you not tell him, that it was Impudence and Dotage to move any doubts concerning that, for which you had the successive Testimony of so many Persons from the days of your Paraclet? And have not we the same too, nay one of a much larger extent, for the Books of the Apostles? If it would be Ridiculous and Impertinent, to question whether the Pieces of your Manicheus be Genuine, is it not much more so, to doubt of the Apostolical Writings? And are not you to be derided, or rather to be pitied, who raise so many difficulties about them, which are Established upon the Authority of so large and diffusive a Testimony, through the several Ages and places of the Church, from the days of their first Authors?  
Thus does the learned Father answer the first Objection, by producing those grounds and reasons, upon which the Catholics embraced the Books of the New Testament as Authentic and Genuine.  
We proceed now to the second Objection, which was, that whoever the Men were, which drew up the Books of the New Testament, they falsified and corrupted the pure Doctrines of Christianity, by inserting several Errors and Contradictions among the Truth. Now it having been already proved, that these were really the Writings of the Apostles and Apostolic Men, we have nothing else to do but represent the Reasons St. Augustine alleges to show, that they neither were nor could be Corrupted, nor yet had any Errors or Contradictions inserted in them.  
That they were not falsified or corrupted, he thus argues, 
(i) L. 32. c. 16.  You pretend to prove that Manicheus is the Paraclet or Comforter from some Passages in our Books, which yet you say have been corrupted. What would you reply, if we should retort the charge upon you, and affirm that you had falsifiyd them in those Particulars which concern your Paraclet? I suppose, you'd tell us that we accused you of a thing impossible, because the Books were in the hands of all Christians before, and you might easily be convict of false dealing by numerous and more ancient Copies. We say the same too, and urge that those Arguments which are alleged, to show you are Innocent in this matter, prove also that no Body else did or could corrupt them. For whoever should first set about such a thing, would quickly be confuted, and the Imposture be discovered, by consulting other Copies, of which there is a great multitude, dispersed over all Countries and in all Languages: so that such an attempt would be equally silly and impossible.  
And that there might be no Cavil, upon the account of little mistakes to be observed in some Copies, the Father adds— For even in our days some Errors of the Transcribers are usually corrected, either by the assistance of more ancient Books or other Languages.  
To this he had spoken more fully before,— 
(k) L. 11. c. 2.  If there happen any dispute concerning the exactness of Copies, as to the various Readins, which are but few in number and sufficiently known to the Learned, we have recourse to the Books of those Countries from whence we received our Copies and Religion together, and are willing they should determine the Controversy. Or if there still appear any difference, the greater number of Copies ought to be preferred before the less, those which are most Ancient to those of a later date, and the Original Languages to all others. Thus do they proceed, who, when they meet with any difficulties in the Holy Scriptures, search and examine things with a desire to be instructed, not merely to cavil and dispute.  
As to the Contradictions and Errors, which Faustus pretended are to be found in the New Testament, St. Augustine goes through all the Particulars of the Charge as they are urged by his Adversary. But I suppose, it will not be expected that I should do so too, that is none of my business. The Charge contained in the Passages, produced from Faustus, by our Author, is conceived in general terms, and it will be sufficient for me, if thereto I return the Sum of the Father's General Answer, which is this,— that, Since the Scriptures are Books of so great Authority (that is, clearly proved to have been Wrote 
(l) L. 11. c. 6. l. 32. c. 16. l. 33. c. 7.  by the Followers of our Lord, and by no means wilfully Falsified or Corrupted) we ought to Read them out of a Principle of Piety, not Contention; we ought to use the greatest Industry and Application in the study of them, and rather accuse our own Dulness, Negligence, or want of Apprehension, then blame those Excellent and Divine Writings, when at any time we can't understand or reconcile them.  
There remains but one Particular more to be examined at present, and that is urged above in the Words of the Seventh Objection, where we are told that the Manicheans, not only denied the Genuineness of the whole New Testament, but also showed other Scriptures.  
It is not easy to determine what Books are here more especially designed by this Expression. Perhaps our Author may intent thereby, the various Treatises Published 
(m) Epiphan. Heres 66. Sect. 13.  by Manicheus, or the four Pieces, long before Written by 
(n) Ib. S. 2.  Scythianus, who lived about the time of our Saviour, and was indeed the first Author of most of the Extravagant Opinions, afterwards Publicly asserted and maintained by the Manichees.  
But because there is place for doubting, I think it fair and reasonable to take this Passage in such a Sense, as seems to me most serviceable to the design our Author is here carrying on, and shall therefore suppose he especially intended some Books, that were spread abroad in the Apostles Names, distinct from those acknowledged by Catholics, which are all comprehended in the New Testament.  
That the Manichees had such Pieces is sufficiently evident from St. Augustine, who tells us 
(o) L. 22. against Faustus c. 79.  that they Read Apocryphal Books, drawn up by certain Forgers of Tales, under the Names of the Apostles. And again, 
(p) Ibid. See also l. 13. c. 5. l. 33. c. 6. Treatise against Adimantus c. 17.— of Heresies. Num. 46.  that they received such Scriptures for sincere and Genuine, as were rejected by the Ecclesiastical Canon. Such Scriptures therefore these Heretics certainly had, different from those of the Catholic Church; and by the assistance of them, they endeavoured to support those Erroneous and false Doctrines, which they embraced.  
But before I proceed any farther, I think myself here obliged to take notice, that our Author 
(q) P. 20.  in his Catalogue, mentions an Epistle of Christ to Peter and Paul, and vouches for it the Twenty Eighth Book of St. Augustine against Faustus, Chapter the Thirteenth: which may perhaps make the unwary Reader believe, that such an Epistle is there set down, as part of the Scripture received by, and peculiar to, the Manichees.  
But I must tell him, (1.) That there are but five Chapters in all the Twenty Eighth Book, and therefore the citing the Thirteenth is a mistake. (2.) In the Fourth Chapter, where the Father speaks of an Epistle of our Saviour, there is not one word to intimate that it was Wrote, or pretended to be Wrote, to the two Apostles above mentioned. (3.) Neither indeed could there be. For it would be Evident to any one, who shall seriously consider the Place, that St. Augustine is there arguing against the Manichees for pretending they would rather believe the Testimony of Christ concerning himself then any of his Apostles. To which, the Father replies, that Our Saviour Wrote nothing, and therefore, if we'll believe any Relations concerning him at all, we must believe those which were drawn up by his Disciples; that if any Epistle or other Piece should be now produced in his Name, Men would presently inquire, How it came to lie hid all this while, who it was that first brought it to light, whence it was that it had not been before acknowledged, Read, Celebrated every where in the Church, from the days of the Apostles? And that therefore it would be a prodigious want of consideration to admit that for an Epistle of Christ, which a Manichees should perhaps pretend so to be at this time of day, and not assent to those things as done or said by him which are related by St. Matthew, etc. Whence it is apparent, that the Manichees had not actually produced any Writings in the Name of our Saviour at that time; and if they had, the same Argument would have overthrown them, which St. Augustine urges against those Pieces which were sheltered under the Titles of the Apostles. For certainly, as he tells Faustus, If there Writings had been Genuine, if they had taught nothing but what was agreeable to the Truth, 
(r) l. 22. c. 79.  They would have been owned and acknowledged by those Holy and Learned Men, who lived in the days of their pretended Authors, and been by them and succeeding Ages received among the Books, which were accounted Canonical, and submitted to as an infallible Rule of Faith and Manners. To this effect he presses these Heretics in one place; and in 
(s) l. 28. c. 2.  another he thus bespeaks them,— You produce a Book perhaps, which bears the Name of one of the Apostles, who were really chosen by our Lord, where you Read that Christ was not born of a Virgin. It is undoubted that either your Gospel or ours must be false, and which do you think in your Consciences it is most reasonable to believe? Shall not I assent to a Book, which the Church, that was begun by Christ, and carried on every where by his Apostles in a certain order of Succession to these days, has received and preserved from the beginning? Or shall I give credit to a Piece produced by you, which the same Church rejects as utterly unknown to her, and was at first brought to the Public view, 
(t) l. 13. c. 5.  by Men so few in number, if compared with the whole Body of Christians, and of so little veracity, as that they are not ashamed to charge our great Master himself with falsehood and deceiving?  
And thus I have gone through all the Parts of the Argument against the Canon of the New Testament, drawn from the Opinions and Practices of the Manichees, and furnished the Reader with the Answers, which St. Augustine gives to every Branch thereof. This our Author, if he had so pleased, might have done before me; for the Replies are found in the very same Treatise from which he fetched his Objections. And I shall appeal to himself whether this be an ingenuous and fair way of proceeding, to revive an old weatherbeaten Cavil, and furbish it up with a great deal of Pomp and Ostentation, as if it was able to run down a whole Army of opposers, when yet he neither was nor could be Ignorant, how all the force of it had been shattered and broken in pieces above a Thousand years before he was born.  
But perhaps our Author will tell me, as he does Mr. Blackhall in the case of the Eikon Basilike, that he is of another Opinion, that he knew of these Answers indeed well enough before, but passed them over in silence, because he judged them insufficient. If he'll venture his Reputation on such a Reply, I cannot help it; though I would advise him as a friend, to offer any thing else rather for his Justification. For the World will not ' twice be imposed upon by the same trick; and since, for instance, after all his Labour and shuffling, the Testimonies of Mrs. Gauden and Doctor Walker will not be reconciled, which he had pretended might be done with a wet Finger, Men will be so surly and ill natured, as to think, that it is something else, and not the weakness of an Argument, or Answer, that makes him say nothing to it.  
But to let that pass at present, I proceed to remark how upon this occasion we are told (p. 63.) that the Adversaries of the Manicheans had power enough to be counted Orthodox. And was there indeed no difference, good Sir, between the two Parties, but that? Do you indeed believe the Manichean Doctrine was true? Do you believe the Existence of two Supreme Gods, a Good one and a Bad? Do you believe the Transmigration of Souls, and the other Whimsies which were asserted by those Brainsick Heretics? If you do, speak out, and then we shall know (as you express it p. 49.) where to have you, and how to deal with you. If you do not, is not this an excellent and very commendable way of proceeding, to endeavour to draw your Readers to believe that of which you believe nothing yourself; and to persuade them that it was nothing but Power, which distinguished the Catholics from the Manicheans, and made them be accounted Orthodox. This is the Eternal Clamour of this kind of Men. They'll have it to be only Power and Interest, which keeps us in the acknowledgement of the Catholic Doctrine, and if it was not for that, they say we would quickly forsake it. But, pray, Sir, (not to insist now upon the fury and violence of the Arians) What Power had the Catholics in the first 300 years? What force had they then to compel Men to embrace their Doctrine, when they lay under the sharpest Persecutions, and were constantly exposed to the Fire, to the Sword, and to other severe Tortures, themselves? And yet even then, they stood up stoutly for the Truth, and inflicted Ecclesiastical Censures on those Heretics who corrupted the Faith, and met together in Councils, to condemn their Erroneous Opinions, even at the Peril of their Lives. This they did in the case of Paulus Samosatenus, Bishop of Antioch. They held two Councils there upon his account; the Bishops when they heard his Opinion, that he asserted Jesus Christ to be no more than a mere Man, came together from several parts, as against a Spoiler and Destroyer of our Lords Flock (so Eusebius 
(a) Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 27.  tells us) and having first condemned his Doctrine, they afterwards deposed him and substituted another in his Place. Though he kept Possession of the Episcopal Chair and House for three years after the Sentence (as the Learned inform us) by the Assistance of Zenobia Queen of Palmyra. And here I hope (what our Author in his fleering way calls) Orthodoxy and Power were not on the same side. Nevertheless the Fathers did not flinch for the matter, but though Zenobia asserted the cause of Paulus, yet they refused to Communicate with him as being a Convict Heretic, after they had sufficiently proved him so to be.  
VIII. We are told (p. 64.) that the Ebionites or nazarenes (who were the oldest Christians) had a different Copy of St. Matthews Gospel; that the Marcionites had a very different one of St. Luke's; that St. John's Gospel was attributed to Cerinthus, and all the Epistles of St. Paul denied by some, and a different Copy of them shown by others.  
Our Author has here jumbled a great many Heretics together, and one Answer might serve them all, by referring to what has been already said by way of reply to the Fourth Objection (p. 35, etc. But I shall distinguish, and give a different account of them severally, that so we may understand how far each of them proceeded and with what they are justly chargeable, and so give every one a Separate Answer. He tells us, that the Ebionites or nazarenes were the oldest Christians. We'll lay the Name of Ebionites aside for a while, and shall grant what he says concerning the nazarenes; for that indeed was the common Appellation given by the Jews at first to all Christians. For thus we find Tertulius accusing St. Paul (Acts 24.5.) as a Ringleader of the Sect of the nazarenes. But afterwards this Title was appropriated to a particular Faction. Before the Destruction of Jerusalem, (as 
(b) Eccl. Hisi. l. 3. c. 5.  Eusebius and 
(c) Heres. 29. Sect. 7.  Epiphanius tell us,) all the Christians, who were there, being admonished from above, retired to Pella, a City beyond Jordan, and by that means escaped those horrible Plagues, which fell upon the rest of their Countrymen. After the departure of the Roman Army, the greatest part returned to Jerusalem, as we are informed by 
(d) l. 3. c. 11.  Eusebius, and there continued under the Government of the Bishops of that Church; the Succession of whom we have set down by 
(e) Her. 66. n. 20.  Epiphanius, from St. James the Apostle to his own time. Those Christians, which stayed behind at Pella, were ever after, 
(f) Her. 29. n. 7.  as the same Author informs us, called nazarenes, and differed from the Catholics in this, that they thought themselves still obliged to Circumcision and all the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law. Out 
(g) Epiph. Her. 30. n. 1, 2.  of them sprang the Ebionites, who, as we learn from 
(h) l. 3. c. 27.  Eusebius, were of two sorts; One of them affirmed that our Saviour was really the Son of Joseph, born of him and Mary, as other Men used to be of their Parents. The other asserted his Miraculous Incarnation from a Virgin, and yet maintained, that he was a mere Man, absolutely denying his Divinity. We see then, how our Author equivocated when he told 
* Of the nazarenes mentioned in the Acts, St. Paul was said to be a Ringleader. But these nazarenes, of which we are here speaking, detested him as an Apostate.  us the nazarenes were the oldest Christians. Those indeed whom Tertullus, in the Acts, called by that Name, were so; but not those, among whom the Ebionites sprung up, and who joined with one or other part of this Sect, and therefore, as Eusebius, in the place now quoted, tells us, were all called promiscuously by that Name; though the more Moderate sort were 
† Both sorts of Ebionites, as Eusebius tells us (l. 3. c. 27.) adhered to the Institutions of the Law of Moses, and so says Epiphanius (Heres. 29. n. 7.) did the nazarenes, among whom the same Author acknowledges (Heres. 30. n. 1, 2.) the Ebionites sprang up and took from them, some of their Opinions. 'Tis plain therefore that the nazarenes (who agreed with them in many of their Doctrines) were one sort of the Ebionites, since else we cannot make two. Epiphanius indeed seems to say (Heres. 29. n. 7.) that the nazarenes received all the New as well as the Old Testament. But he owns there, that he had not a perfect account of their Tenants, and 'tis Evident he was mistaken in this particular. For since he affirms in the same place, that they strictly adhered to the Mosaical Law, they must reject the Epistles of St. Paul, which declared against the Obligation thereof. And that there were two sorts of Ebionites, which agreed in this matter, Origen (l. 5. against Celsus p. 274.) affirms, as well as Eusebius; and also tells us before (l. 2. p. 56.) that the Jews called all those, who cleaving still to their Rites and Ceremonies, owned Jesus for their Messiah, Ebionites. And therefore since the nazarenes did so, they were undoubtedly somerimes called by that Name, as well as other times by that of nazarenes.  
(i) Compare Euseb. l. 3. c. 27. with Epiphan. Heres. 29. n. 7.  also often called only nazarenes. These still adhering to the Jewish Law, as we above observed, rejected all the Epistles of St. Paul, calling him an Apostate and Deserter, and received only the Gospel according to the Hebrews, slighting all the rest, as Eusebius there further relates. The Gospel according to the Hebrews was, as we may learn from 
(k) Heres. 29. n. 9  Epiphanius and 
(l) Against the Pelagians l. 3. in the beginning.  St. Jerome, the Gospel, of St. Matthew in Hebrew, but yet with several interpolations and additions of their own, 
* Epiphanius in the Place just before cited tells us that they had the Gospel, according to St. Matthew, complete and entire; therefore it was neither mutilated nor corrupted. And St. Jerome in divers places mentions several Historical Passages that are not in our Gospel; thence it appears they made additions.  though without making any alterations in what they found in the Authentic Copies before. The other Party, more properly called Ebionites, corrupted the Gospel of St. Matthew in several Particulars, took away the Genealogy of our Saviour, and altered it in other Passages, as 
(m) Heres. 30. n. 13.  Epiphanius teaches us. Besides, they only admitted the Books of Moses and Joshua of the Old Testament, rejecting all the Prophets, deriding and cursing David and Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Esay, Jeremy and the rest, wherein they were perfectly distinguished from the nazarenes, who owned and esteemed them all. However both Parties, as we have seen, agreed in this, that they rejected all St. Paul's Epistles, despised all the other Gospels, and received only that of St. Matthew, which they had more or less altered with their interpolations.  
And now are not these excellent Witnesses for our Author against the established Canon? Do not they effectually prove, that the Epistles, we have under St. Paul's Name, are falsely ascribed to him, who (as we above observed) inveighed against St. Paul himself, as a Deserter of the Law, as a Cheat and Impostor; and in contempt, as Epiphanius farther remarks, used to call him, the Man of Tarsus, and would needs have him, though born a Jew, to be a Gentile Proselyte. They rejected not the Epistles, but because they rejected the Apostle himself and his Doctrine. When our Author tells the World he does so too, I may think myself obliged to defend our Religion against him, and these Judaizers, whom we are now considering.  
At present, my business is only to assert that our Canon is Genuine, and the Books, which we receive, the true Writings of those to whom they are ascribed. This the Ebionites denied not, but endeavoured to run down the Writers themselves, and since they had so little Christianity as to attempt that, I think, I may safely say, there can be no difficulty in determining whether the Copies of St. Matthew, which they kept, or that which was preserved by the whole Catholic Church besides, aught to be looked upon as Authentic.  
We must distinguish here between the Copy of the nazarenes, and of the Ebionites strictly so called. The latter had corrupted and altered and interpolated the Gospel according to St. Matthew, and therefore their Copy was justly styled Spurious. But the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which the nazarenes embraced, contained no alterations (as was above observed) of what St. Matthew Wrote, but only the addition of some Historical Passages that had been gathered from Oral Information or Tradition, and were added in their proper Places, to preserve them and make the story more full and complete. Several of these might probably be true, and therefore, when not pretended to be Wrote by St. Matthew, ought not to be called Spurious or a Forgery. Canonical indeed they were not, because not the Work of the Apostle, as appears from all the Copies of the Catholics; but they might deserve the Name of Ecclesiastical History, and under that notion be quoted (with Caution) as well as any other Writing of that Nature.  
It follows, the Marcionites had a very different Copy of St. Luke. No doubt of it. He might have added too, that these were the Men, 
(n) Jren. l. 1. c. 29. Epiphan. Here. 42. n. 9  who showed a different Copy of most of St. Paul's Epistles, that is, of such as they allowed; 
† Epiphanius also tells us that Martion rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews; but he ought not to be charged with that as a Crime, because it was not then generally admitted by all the Catholics, and therefore Tertullian remarks only that he did not receive the two Epistles to Timothy and that to Titus. What Opinion this Heretic had of the other three Gospels, and of the Canonical Epistles, does not belong to my present business, which is only to follow my Author, whether he leads me.  
(o) Io. and Tertull. a. 'gainst Martion l. 5. c. 21.  for they rejected those to Timothy and Titus. And there was good Reason for what they did. Since they held that there were two Gods, one of the Old Testament and another of the New; that the former made the World, and was the cause of all Wars and Contentions; that Jesus Christ was the Son of the other, and sent by his Father to overthrow and destroy all the Works of the Old-Testament-God; with more such stuff, as we may Read in 
(p) l. 1. c. 29.  Jreneus, 
(q) Against Martion  Tertullian. and 
(r) Heres. 42.  Epiphanius. Now what should these Men do with our Gospels and Epistles, at least till they had changed and altered them? Since there is nothing in them, which Establishes, but many Passages which overthrow their fond and lewd Opinions. Jreneus and Tertullian therefore proceeded rationally in appealing to all the Churches in the World against them. The former urges that the Disciples of our Lord taught no such Doctrines, 
(s) l. 3. c. 4.  either in the Churches, which they founded, or 
(t) l. 3. c. 5, 6.  yet in those Writings, which they left behind them, and 
(u) l. 4. c. 63.  which were preserved entire in all the World, by the whole Body of Christians. The latter presses them to consult 
(x) l. 4. against Martion c. 4, 5. Of Prescript. c. 32, 33, 36. See this prosecuted more at large hereafter, Sect. XXXIV.  the Apostolic Churches and those that held Communion with them, and then tell him, in which of them, those Heresies that Martion maintained, or those Scriptures, that he had altered and corrupted, were embraced. The contrary to all this was evident. The Catholics Copies were all the same, as to the Books the Heretic rejected, as well as to the Places he had corrupted; the Catholic Doctrines were all the same, and none agreed with Martion, and therefore these Fathers concluded, as justly they might (especially being no farther removed from the Apostles themselves, than the Second Century) that the Cheat and Imposture lay on the side of Martion and his Followers.  
Our Author proceeds, St. John's Gospel was attributed to Cerinthus. This we confess is very true, and it was done, as we find in 
(y) Heres. 51. n. 3.  Epiphanius by some, who upon that account were called Alogi. They rejected the Logos or Word, and would not allow what St. John Writes in the beginning of his Gospel to be true concerning our Saviour. And because they had not the face openly to appear against what was taught by an Apostle, they bring several Objections to show that it was none of his (which Epiphanius answers at large) and after all, would have it fixed on the Heretic Cerinthus. But they were very absurd in so doing, as the same Father observes in the following Section? 
(z) Ib. n. 4.  For how could those things be Wrote by Cerinthus, which do in direct terms contradict his Doctrine? He asserted Jesus Christ to be a mere Man, whereas the Author of this Gospel asserts him to be the Word, which was from Eternity, which came down from Heaven, and was made flesh for our sakes. Cerinthus therefore was not, could not be the Author, unless we'll suppose, that he forged a Gospel under the Name of an Apostle, on purpose to overthrow what himself taught and maintained every where. We see then that St. John's Title, notwithstanding what has been said, remains firm and unshaken; and it will be further strengthened, if we consider that Ireneus (l. 3. c. 11. 
(a) p. 257. ) makes it his business to prove that the beginning of this Gospel was Wrote expressly by the Apostle to oppose the Heresies and Errors of Cerinthus.  
IX. Our Author further urges (p. 53, etc.) that 
(b) Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 3.  Eusebius rejects the Acts, Gospel, Preaching and Revelation of Peter from being Authentic, for no other Reason, but because no Ancient or Modern Writer (says he) has quoted proofs out of them. But herein Eusebius was mistaken; for the contrary appears by the Testimonies marked in the Catalogue, which any body may compare with the Originals. In 
(c) l. 3. c. 25.  another place he says that the Gospel of Peter, Thomas, Mathias and such like, with the Acts of Andrew, John and the other Apostles are Spurious, because no Ecclesiastic Writer, from the time of the Apostles down to his own, has vouchsafed to quote them; which is absolutely false of some, as we have already seen.— Had Eusebius found any of these Pieces cited by the precedent Orthodox Writers, he would have owned them as genuine Productions of the Apostles, and admitted them, as we say, into the Canon. But having met with no such Citations, he presently concluded there were none; which made him reject these Books. And I say (what I have already demonstrated) that proofs were quoted out of some of them long before, so that they might still belong to the Canon for all Eusebius.  
This is a longwinded Objection, but we shall better understand what strength there is in it, if it be divided into the three following Propositions. (1.) That Eusebius rejects the aforesayed Books, only because he thought that none of them had been quoted and mentioned by the Ancients; when yet some of them really were. (2.) That if he had known, they had been so quoted, he would have looked upon them as Canonical. (3.) It being evident therefore, that they were so quoted by the Ancients, they ought, according to Eusebius his Principles, to be esteemed Canonical. This is the force of the Objection, and to this there are two Answers drawn up, which it is pretended we are like to make. But of all People in the World, I shall not trust our Author to give in any Answers in my Name. If they be good for any thing, he'll certainly leave them behind him. Thus he did in the case of Origen and St. Augustine, who had furnished him with very good ones to the Objections of Celsus and Faustus, but he fairly dropped them by the way, and so left the Heathen and the Heretic in Possession of the Field. And I dare say, that if he had not thought he could easily overthrow those Answers he produces in this place in the Name of his Adversaries, we should never have heard one word of them. I am resolved therefore, to have nothing to do with his Answers, whether good or bad, but shall give in such as I will stand by, and accordingly speak to the abovementioned Propositions in their order.  
The first is, that Eusebius rejects the forefaid Books only because he thought they were none of them quoted or mentioned by the Ancients, when yet some of them really were. To which I answer, (1.) That Eusebius could not be Ignorant, that some of these Pieces are quoted by Clemens of Alexandria (who mentions them several times) being very much conversant in the works of that Father, and having expressly taken notice that 
(d) Eccl. Hist. l. 6. c. 14.  one of them was cited by him; and therefore when he says that none of these Books are quoted by the Ancients, he must be understood to mean (not that they are never quoted at all, for that he knew they were, and says so expressly concerning the Revelation of St. Peter (Eccles. Hist. l. 3. c. 25.) but) that they were never quoted by any as Canonical, and this was a sufficient reason, why he should not admit them under that notion. Though (2.) this is not the only Reason; for he observes of several of them, that 
(e) l. 3. c. 25.  they contained a Doctrine contrary to the Catholic Faith which was planted by the Apostles, and therefore aught to be censured and rejected as the undoubted Contrivances and Forgeries of Heretics.  
The Second Proposition is, That if Eusebius had known that any of these Pieces had been ever quoted by the Ancients, he would have esteemed them Canonical. I answer, it is evident from what has been just now said, that Eusebius did know it and yet would not receive them into the Canon. The bare quoting a Book, except it be quoted as part of the Rule of Faith, or a Genuine Writing Composed or Authorised by the Apostles, signifies nothing in this case, as has been already proved. Nay, I shall further add, that if Eusebius had known, that some of the Ancients had really quoted one or more of these Pieces as Canonical, that alone would not have induced him to receive them as such. For this was the very case of the Epistle of St. James, the Second of St. Peter, and the rest of the once controverted Pieces. They were quoted by many, and quoted by many too as Canonical, yet because the whole Church was not then acquainted with the Reasons, which afterward satisfied her to admit these Books as parts of the Code of the New Testament, we see that they were laid aside and not advanced to that honour by Eusebius.  
The Third Proposition is, That since these Acts, Gospel, Preaching, Revelation of St. Peter, and the others, were some of them really quoted by the Ancients, they ought, according to the Principles of Eusebius, to be received for Canonical. I answer, No; unless quoted as Canonical, and proved Canonical too, by such Testimonies as were sufficient to satisfy the Catholic Church, as appears by the Instances of the Epistle of St. James, and the rest abovementioned. When Eusebius could not meet with so much as one Primitive Father, who cited these Books for Canonical, that alone (though he had another reason too against divers of them, as appears before) was sufficient warrant for him to reject them. But for the introducing them into the Canon, a constant and well attested Tradition, by such as were capable of Judging, from the first Ages, that they had been proved Genuine, upon Authentic Testimonies, was requisite in his Opinion, and therefore our Author's Objection vanishes into air and signifies just nothing.  
X. I come now to the last Objection, which is founded on a long Passage of Mr. Dodwell, who (as is insinuated) reflects more upon the Certainly and Authority of the Canon of the New Testament, than any thing, which had been before excepted against, in our Author. This is ushered in, with great Pomp and Ceremony; for we Read (p. 69.) that Mr. D. alone, though a Layman, understands as much Ecclesiastical History, as the Divines of all Churches put together. This is a high flight indeed; methinks it had been enough to have made him understand as much as all the English Divines, but to bring in the Divines of all other Churches besides, is a little too Extravagant, and more, I am certain, than our Author can possibly know. I shall not in the least detract from the true Character of that worthy Gentleman, who ought to be (and I believe generally is) valued for his great Learning and Piety, and will, I am confident give our Author no thanks for his Compliment, or for bringing him in as a Witness in the case now before us. For he is quite of another Opinion, and tells us expressly but a few Pages before that Passage which is produced by our Author, that 
(f) Sect. 36. p. 62.  there is no manner of reason to doubt of that Tradition, which has transmitted to us the Canon of the New Testament. This, I think, is a point blank contradiction to the Natural design and tendency of the Treatise we are now considering, since that runs all into confusion, and plainly aims at the persuading Men, that in the Business of the Canon, we have nothing but Darkness and Obscurity.  
Mr. Dodwell's Principal Intention in the long Passage quoted from him, was to show, that we have as good Evidence, that the Practical Traditions (as for Instance, Episcopal Government) which obtained in the time of Ireneus, and were delivered as such, were really Apostolical Institutions, as there is for the Canon of the New Testament; because the Books, we now receive for Canonical or our Rule of Faith, were not so fixed and determined till the beginning of the Second Century, as to be appealed to by the Christian Church under that notion. And they were then settled upon the Testimony of the same Persons (and sent 
(g) See his Addenda to p. 73. and his Chronology.  abroad too into all places in the year 107) who conveyed these Traditions, and who having been conversant with and instructed by the Apostles, were without doubt sufficiently qualified to give in Evidence concerning their Writings and to distinguish them from all others, which might go abroad falsely under their Names.  
This I take to be the main design of the Passage now before us, with what proceeds and follows in the Original (from Section 35 to Section 41 inclusively;) but because there are some Particulars therein, which may deserve a little further clearing or illustration, I shall employ a few Pages thereupon, and if in any thing I differ from that Learned Gentleman, I know he'll allow me the same Liberty of Thought and Judgement, concerning matters of Fact, which himself took before me.  
While the Apostles travelled up and down, Preaching in several Places and Countries, they Wrote those Pieces, which we now have under their Names, but for the most part, as Critics observe, after the middle of the First Century. This is a sufficient Reason, why in those times of War and Persecution, some of them might not come to the hands of many, who lived in remote and distant Places, till that Age was almost or perhaps quite expired. Though that several were carefully transmitted by the depositaries of them to other Churches and Persons, with whom they had the most convenient Correspondence, is a thing easy to be proved, because we find them borrowed by the earliest Writers.  

* There may be other Passages in the Epistle of St. Clemens, taken out of the New Testament, which have escaped my Observation. And there are some (besides these) of which I did take notice, but omitted them, because they are in the Old Testament too, and therefore, for aught I could tell, might be borrowed from thence. That this Father had Read the Epistle to the Romans, there can be no doubt, and therefore I did not remark, that he Salutes the Corinthians almost in the very same words that St. Paul used to the Romans.  For thus there are two Passages of 
(h) p. 18, 60.  St. Luke, and one 
(i) p. 64.  of St. Peter's first Epistle, and another 
(k) p. 4.  of the Second to Timothy, and divers of the Epistle 
(l) p. 12, 13, 15, 23, 47.48.  to the Hebrews, made use of by Clemens, Bishop of Rome; and the first Epistle 
(m) p. 61. Ox. Edit. 4 to. 1633.  of St. Paul to the Corinthians, is very much recommended by the same Father to the Christians of that City. Barnabas gives us the direct words of two Texts in St. 
(n) p. 217.  Matthew and 
(o) p. 218. Lond. Ed. 4 to. 1680.  St. Luke. There are four or five Passages in Hermas, which seem to have great affinity with so many Texts in the Old and New Testament: But I own they may be disputed, especially by those who look upon the Visions and Conversations, mentioned in that Book, to have been real, and I will not insist upon them, but only observe, that there is as much Evidence that this Author borrowed from the New Testament as there is that he borrowed from the Old. Ignatius mentions 
(p) Epis. to the Ephes. p. 24.  St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, and seems plainly to have taken Expressions 
(q) Epis. to Polycarp p. 13.  from it, 
(r) Ib. p. 11.  from St. Matthew, and from the first 
(s) Epist. to the Ephes. p. 27. Lond. Edit. 4 to. 1680.  Epistle to the Corinthians. 
(t) In many places  Polycarp. is Copious in his quotations. In him, we meet with Words taken out of St. Matthew, St. Luke, the Acts, the Romans, the first Epistle to the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the first Epistle of St. Peter, and of St. John, and he twice mentions St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians.  
All the Inference I intent to make from hence, is only this, that these Books, from whence the Authors just now mentioned, fetched all the Passages we refer to, were then undoubtedly dispersed abroad in some parts of the Christian World, since they had been Read by these Fathers, and were made use of by them in their Writings. And, I think, I need not attempt to prove, that they were looked upon as Canonical, at the same time. For it is morally impossible to suppose, that Pieces Wrote or Authorised by the Apostles, should not be esteemed Canonical or Rules of Faith by all Christians to whom they were communicated, since the Knowledge which they had of the Doctrine of Faith was entirely derived from them and their Instructions.  
It's true, the Writers we are now considering, very rarely give us 
† This is urged as an Objection, that none of the Evangelists is called by his own Name, in the Writings of Clemens, etc. I grant it; but what would be inferred from thence, besides what is here considered, I cannot imagine. Whatever is intended, will equally affect the Old Testament. For St. Clemens, among all the quotations he fetches thence, does not that I perceive (and I was careful in making the observation) so much as once directly cite by Name any of the Writers thereof, except Moses and David once or twice, from which he Produces his Testimonies. And yet there's no question, but he judged the Old Testament Canonical. As Justin M. certainly did the New; and yet though he makes use of many Places, out of several Books thereof, and speaks of the Gospels, and Monuments of the Apostles, in general, I am very much mistaken, if he quotes any of them by Name, besides the Revelation, which he expressly ascribes to St. John the Apostle.  the Name of the Book or Author from whence they fetch any Passage, and therefore Mr. D's remark is very just, that the succeeding Ages of the Church could not, in such cases, learn from them what Pieces were to be parts of the Christian Canon. They produce Texts indeed from Authors that were Canonical, but they don't always tell us so, when they produce them; and therefore their Testimony alone is not sufficient to inform us, what are the Genuine Writings of the Apostles and what are not. This we can learn from none but those, who either recommend a particular Book by Name, or at least tell us whence they draw their Passages. And this is so seldom done by the Authors now mentioned, that all the Evidence we can derive from them, will not extend to above 
(u) The first Epistle to the Corinth. the Epistles to the Ephes. and to the Philippians.  three or four Pieces. The assurance we have that the other Books of the New Testament are Canonical, must be taken from the Writers of the Second Century, at least as far as we know now, (I mean such Writers as followed Ignatius and Polycarp here mentioned by Mr. D.) and the Testimony of them is unexceptionable, since conversing with the Disciples of the Apostles, they could easily be informed by them what Books were really Genuine and Apostolical.  
But we are told, that the Writers of those times do not chequer their Works with Texts of the New Testament, which yet is the custom of the more Modern, and was also theirs in such Books as they acknowledged for Scripture. For they most frequently cite the Books of the Old Testament, and would doubtless have done so by those of the New, if they had been received for Canonical. That the Books of the New Testament could not fail of being judged Canonical, by those who knew their Authors, has been observed already more than once; and therefore I proceed to remark, that if these words refer to the latter Writers of the Canon, they are expressed very obscurely, and will fall under consideration immediately. If they be designed to comprehend Clemens, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius and Polycarp (and I think, they can't be understood otherwise) I must confess that I wonder very much at them. For the two first fetch Passages from the New Testament as well (though not so often) as from the Old. The third may be supposed to cite neither or both. The fourth and fifth have certainly more Texts out of the Gospels and Epistles then out of the whole Old Testament. And the latter of these two, I mean Polycarp, has above Twenty Passages out of the New Testament in his short Epistle, so that it may very well be said to be chequered with them.  
Whether the later Writers of the New Testament saw all that had been Wrote by the former, I shall not take upon me to determine. But I think the not quoting them or the seeming contradictions between them, are no arguments to the contrary. For the former is the case of several Prophets and Writers of the Old Testament, who don't quote their Predecessors; and those things which now seem contradictions to us, might perhaps be little or none to them, who were acquainted with the Circumstances of the Age, and admit, it may be, as easy a solution, as the difference of the genealogies upon account of the Natural and Legal Fathers, does from 
(x) See Eu. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 7.  the relation of Africanus. Sure I am that St. Peter was acquainted with 
(y) 2 Epist. 3.15, 16.  some of St. Paul's Epistles, and that they were then judged Canonical. And that he had also Read St. Mark's Gospel, St. Paul that of St. Luke, and St. John, all the other three, has been above proved by Ecclesiastical Testimony. To which I shall add, that Grotius affirms St. Luke to have certainly Read the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, and proves it from hence, because in reporting the same Passages, he sometimes uses their very Words.  
I dare not affirm, that the Fathers of whom we are now speaking, cited any Texts from such Gospels, as are properly Spurious, because it does not appear to me; 
(z) See above Sect. V in answer to the first Objection.  much less that they attributed the same Authority to them, that they did to the Genuine Writings of the Apostles, because of this there is no manner of Evidence. For though there be some Passages in them which are not mentioned in our Evangelists, and others differently expressed from what we now Read, yet no such consequence can be drawn from these Premises.  
For first, the Citations might perhaps be made from no Books at all. Thus, though it be true that St. Paul, St. Barnabas, and St. Ignatius, cite an Expression or two as spoken by our Saviour, which are not to be found in our Gospels, yet it does not follow that they took them from Spurious Writers; they might easily receive them from Ear-Witnesses. They were removed at so little a distance from our Saviour, that they certainly conversed with his immediate Disciples, from whom they might hear Relations of several considerable Actions and Say of his, which were not recorded by the Evangelists.  
Neither does it follow, that if a Passage be not expressed just after the same manner that we find it in the New Testament, therefore it ought to be looked upon as interpolated or drawn from the Books of some Spurious Writers. For it is well known, that many of the Fathers, as well of the later as of the first Ages, quote the Texts of Scripture by memory, and often design to give the Sense, without confining themselves to the Words, of the Original. Many Instances might be given of this Nature, but I shall refer the Reader at present only to the Epistle of St. Barnabas, where he'll find numerous proofs of this assertion in Texts cited from the Old Testament; particularly 
(a) p. 221.  in the Promise of entering the Holy Land, 
(b) p. 228, 229.  the Sacrificing of the Goat and 
(c) p. 229.  the Circumcision of the Heart.  
But if we should go further, and suppose that some of the Writers of that Age, quoted other Gospels or Histories of our Lord, than those which are now esteemed Authentic in the Church, yet I don't see what can be inferred from thence, that may be in the least a Prejudice to our cause, or show that there was no difference then put between Spurious and Genuine Writings. 
* Though it is possible there might be some Spurious Gospels at those times forged and set forth under great Names; yet that there were some too Wrote by honest Christians, besides the inspired ones, cannot, I think, be doubted by any who shall consider what is the usual Practice of Mankind on such great Occasions. And to some of these as well as the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, St. Luke in all probability refers at the beginning of his. For notwithstanding what our Author (p. 50.) and others besides him are pleased to say, yet I doubt not to affirm, that St. Luke does not fasten any bad Character on the Gospels he had Read, nor can his Words be drawn to insinuate any such thing without the greatest Violence. Nay it seems plain to me that the two first Verses of his Gospel intimate the direct contrary. And in this I am the more confirmed, because since the Writing of this, I find that Casaubon and Lightfoot are of the same Opinion as to the whole; and Grotius seems to have judged so too in the main. Only he thinks that some of these Writers, gathering what they related, from uncertain Report, fell into great Errors. That may be (and questionless was) true of some, but not of all. And St. Luke does not seem to have seen any Spurious (if at least any such were extant so early) or Erroneous Gospels. For he does not charge those, who laboured before him in that Argument, either with wilful falsifications or negligent mistakes.  For I think, it can't be questioned, but that several would Publish Accounts of the Life and Actions of our Saviour, who were his honest and Faithful Disciples, and inserted nothing in the Story, but what they had good ground to believe true and certain, though they were not infallible in their Narrations. From some of these, the Writers that followed after might quote Passages, and that justifiably enough, as from those, whom they esteemed (and who were as to the main) faithful Historians. Though when the four Gospels, which we now have, were Published to the whole Church, the estimation of those other Histories might sink, and so they not be transmitted to Posterity, as not being of equal Authority.  
And as there were Histories of the Life and Preaching of our Lord, so were there too without doubt Relations of the Miracles and Actions of his Followers, and Summaries of the Doctrines and Instructions of the Apostles: which being drawn up by those who heard and conversed with them, were really of great use to the faithful, and might be quoted by them upon occasion without any manner of blame. Many of these, Learned Men judge it probable, were in process of time collected into one Body with the Doctrines of Apostolical Men written afterwards, and make up the best and most Instructive part of those, which are called the Apostolical Constitutions. Though the addition of several Impertinences, Errors, Heresies and Contradictions, and especially the pretending (in divers places) the whole to have been dictated by the Twelve Apostles, St. James Bp. of Jerusalem (whom they Erroneously distinguish from the Apostle of that Name) and St. Paul, in the presence of the Seven Deacons, (though it's plain St. Stephen suffered Martyrdom, before St. Paul's Conversion,) cause the composition, as we now have it, to be justly censured for Suppositious.  
From what has been said, it is apparent, I think, that we ought not presently to conclude every thing which is not found in our Bibles, to be fetched from Spurious Writings, since nothing deserves that Name, but what is properly a Forgery. Several of these there were indeed in those early days, but it no ways appears that the Writers we are now discoursing of, borrowed from them. More likely it is that what they took from Books not Apostolical, was from the accounts (given by the true Disciples of our Lord) of the Actions, and Preaching and Doctrine of himself and his Apostles; which though they were not part of the Canon, yet were really useful, and might, for that reason, be Read with Profit and quoted with Authority as Pieces Ecclesiastical.  
But there is one Particular, which deserves a more accurate examination. It is p. 72. of our Author's Citation out of Mr. D. were two john's are reckoned among the Writers of the New Testament. This that Learned Gentleman had before enlarged on in the 4th and 5th Sections of the same Discourse, and will have John, a Presbyter of that time, and not John the Apostle, to have been the Author of the Revelation and also of the Second and Third Epistle. The main Arguments he insists upon are, (1.) The Authority of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, part of whose Discourse upon that Subject, we have in the 
(d) l. 7. c. 25.  Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. (2.) The Reasons of that Father, which are the difference of the Style, and that the Author of the Revelation sets down his Name frequently, which St. John the Apostle does not in his other Pieces.  
To which I Answer, That neither the Authority nor the Reasons of Dionysius affect the two Epistles. He does not at all argue against them; and therefore they may be the Genuine Works of that Apostle, to whom (as he owns) they were commonly ascribed, for all him. And Monsieur du Pin, who has the deserved Reputation of an able Critic, tells us that the Style, the Spirit, and the Thoughts of these Epistles, as well as the concurring Judgement of most of the Fathers, make it evident that they belong to the Evangelist.  
Setting them therefore aside, I shall consider what force there is in these Reasons as they are levelled against the Revelation. And I must say, that, if they have any strength in them, they may as well be urged to prove the Prophecy of Jeremy and the Lamentations were not wrote by the same Person. For in the former, the Prophet often Names himself, which he does not once in the latter; and the difference of Expression seems every jot as great between these two Pieces, as it is between them we are now considering.  
Neither is it any wonder to find the same Person (as Dr. Cave observes in another case) vastly to alter and vary his Style, according to the Times when, or the Persons to whom, or the Subjects about which, he Writes; or the Temper and disposition he is in, when he Writes, or the Care, that is used in doing it. So that it is Evident, nothing certain can in this case be inferred from that Particular.  
To the Authority of Dionysius and his Reasons too, we oppose the Judgement of many of the Ancients, who were of another Opinion. The Arguments he urges, were obvious to them as well as him. They knew what difference there was between the Style of the other Pieces of St. John and the Revelation; they knew, that in one, the Writers Name was several times mentioned and not at all in the other; and yet concluded there was no force in these Arguments, concluded notwithstanding them, that all the Pieces were Wrote by the same Author, even the Apostle, of which they could easily receive information as being removed at so little a distance from his time. Two of them seem to have been Born soon after, if not before his Death.  
Let us hear therefore what may be alleged on the other side. (1.) The Author of the Revelation 
(e) c. 1. v. 9  tells us himself, that he was Banished to the Isle of Patmos, for the Word of God, and the Testimony of Jesus. Now that this was the case of St. John the Apostle, we have the Witness of 
(f) Of Prescript. c. 36.  Tertullian, 
(g) In Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 23.  Clemens of Alexandria, 
(h) l. 3. c. 18.  Eusebius, 
(i) In Eccles. Writers in John.  Jerome, etc. (2.) We have the express Testimonies of the Ancients, that the Apostle, (and not another John) was he who Wrote the Revelation. This is affirmed by 
(k) See all these above Sect. XI.  Justin Martyr, by Origen, by Tertullian. Clemens indeed of Alexandria, attributes it simply to St. John, without any addition, but then Mr. D. himself owns (Sect. 20.) that it is evident by the Circumstances of the Relation in Eusebius l. 3. c. 23. that the Apostle, and no other, is designed by him. Ireneus frequently citys it under the Name 
(l) l. 4. c. 37. and 50. l. 5. c. 26.  of John the Disciple of the Lord, which is the very Expression he uses when he 
(m) l. 2. c. 39 l. 3. c. 3.  speaks of the Apostle; and he tells us also, that he who saw those Visions, was the Disciple 
(n) l. 4. c. 37.  which lay in our Saviour's Bosom, which was the Apostle too. And he again informs us (l. 5. c. 30.) that he had the Explication of a passage there mentioned, from those who conversed with St. John the Author; and they certainly could and would tell him, which of the john's it was. And therefore since he, besides all the others beforementioned, fixes it on the Apostle, it is, I think, an unanswerable Argument, that he, and not the Presbyter, is the Person to whom it ought to be ascribed.  
I now return to our Author, who tells us that the Passage he cited from Mr. D. will furnish those who have an inclination to Write on this Subject with many curious disquisitions, wherein to show their Penetration and Judgement. It was not my own Inclination, but the design of serving an Honourable Person to whom I am much obliged, which drew me to Write upon this Subject, neither do I pretend to a greater share of Penetration and Judgement than my Neighbours; but yet I shall venture to say, that I think it is no great presumption to undertake the difficulties which are here proposed by our Author, nor any mighty task to Answer them.  
The first difficulty is, How 
(o) p. 79.  the immediate Successors and Disciples of the Apostles could so grossly confound the Genuine Writings of their Masters with such as were falsely attributed to them. To this I reply, that it does not appear to me, that they ever did (grossly, or not grossly) mistake any Spurious Pieces for the Genuine Writings of the Apostles. They have indeed a few Passages (of which more in the proper Place) that do not occur in our Bibles, but that they were taken from Books Published under the Names of the Apostles, and which they judged to have been really the Apostles Works, will puzzle our Author, with all his Learning about him, to make out. But if the thing had happened, and some subtle Sophister had so far imposed upon Clemens, Ignatius, and the rest, by counterfeiting their Instructors Hands and Styles, as to put a false Epistle or Gospel upon them for a while, (of which I am not sensible,) this would not have been so wonderful a thing, as we are made to believe, since even Scriveners and Merchants, those cunning Masters of defence, have yet been tricked after this manner.  
However I shall readily yield, that (whether the Apostolic Persons just now mentioned were so imposed on or no, and I believe they were not, yet) many of that Age, might and probably were deceived, for some time, with Supposititious Writings, ushered into the World, under the Title of great Names. And this concession will make room for our Author's second difficulty.  

(p) p. 79.  Since they were in the dark, how came others after them to a better light? Before I give an answer to this question, I cannot but remark, that it comes very oddly from our Author, who pretends to make such discoveries, and undertakes to prove those Pieces full of Ignorance and Supersitition, which had been generally well esteemed till his days. Do you think, Sir, there was never an I. T. among the Ancients? None that could smell out an Imposture, or by making a few remarks and ask a few questions, find that a Book was ascribed to a wrong Author? You may think thus if you please, and value yourself as much as you can upon the account of your great Achievements; but I believe others are of Opinion, that, if the Fathers had gone your untoward way to work, and dealt no fairer, when they were in quest of Forgeries, than you have done with the Evidences in relation to the Eikon Basilike, many of those cheats might have remained longer in credit, which yet they quickly fling out of doors, only by the assistance of a little Reason, Honesty, and common Sense. We had an instance of this nature among us at the beginning of the late Revolution. Three Declarations were then Published in the Name of the Prince of Orange, and esteemed his for some time by the whole Nation. But upon a strict examination of the matter, the Third was found Supposititious, disowned by the pretended Author, 
(q) History of the Desertion. p. 89.  and acknowledged by all to be a Forgery. And thus it was in the Primitive times. Some indeed of the Pieces which appeared in the Apostles Names, seem to have been so contrary to their Doctrine, that they quickly sunk and were rejected on all hands. But others, being of a more skilful composition, preserved their Reputation for a longer time, and were esteemed by such as knew no better, for the Monuments of them, whose Names they carried in their front. However these, by comparing them with their Genuine Writings, or enquiring of the Apostles, or those who conversed with and were instructed by them, had their Glorious Vizours plucked off and were exposed as Impostures. But this could not be done so soon as the Third Declaration was unmasked here. It was a single Piece, ascribed to a single Person, and scattered abroad no further than the compass of a narrow Island, and therefore Application might in a few days be made to the Prince, as it was, and the cheat, by that means, speedily laid open. Whereas in the case, concerning which we are now discoursing, the Forgeries were many, they were attributed to several Persons, and spread abroad over different Places of the Christian Church, so that it must necessarily require a considerable time, before they could be sufficiently examined, before the pretended Authors, or those acquainted with them, could be consulted. But at last Truth prevailed, and all the Impostures of the first and also of the second Age, when they afterwards appeared, were (as we learn from Ecclesiastical Story) found out to be what they really were, and as such slighted and generally undervalved. Though still, after the cheat was exposed, Learned Men used them upon occasion, and quoted such single Passages out of them, as they thought might be of value, and Pertinent to the designs upon which they were Writing.  
I proceed now to our Authors third difficulty, 
(r) p. 79.  Why all those Books, which are cited by Clemens and the rest, should not be accounted equally Authentic. Whoever Reads this Passage, and does not understand the case, will, I believe, be apt to imagine that the Fathers here referred to, quote many Books that have Relation to the state of things under the Gospel, some of which we do, upon their Authority, admit for Canonical, while we reject others, that are equally cited by them, as Spurious.  
How far we make use of these Fathers for settling the Canon, has been above explained. It's manifest from what is there said, 
(s) Sect. XXI.  that we employ them, only (in conjunction with others) to assert the Title of three or four Pieces. So many they expressly Name and ascribe to their proper Authors, and thereby teach us that they were composed by the Apostles, and consequently aught to be reckoned as Wrote by Inspiration, and of Divine Authority. We infer nothing from them to justify the rest, but support them by other Evidence.  
Well, but ought not the Testimony of these Fathers be allowed in behalf of other Pieces, which they quote, and transfer them from the Rank of Spurious, wherein they are now placed by some, to that of Canonical Writings? Why, truly, much might be done, if we knew what the Books were, and that they designed to quote them as the Genuine Writings of the Apostles. But this is our unhappiness (of which our Author seems not to have been sensible, though he has undertaken, upon occasion, to blast the credit of all these Pieces together) that though Clemens has quoted three, Ignatius as many, and Barnabas seven or eight short Passages, that do not occur in our Books of Scripture, yet they neither give us the Name of the Treatise, nor yet of the Author, whence they produce them, and how, without that, the Books or the Authors should be put into the Canon, I can't imagine.  
However, I love to deal fairly, and shall own that one of the Passages, which we find in 
(t) Ep. to the Smyrneans p. 3.  Ignatius, is said to have been found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is the same with that of the nazarenes. So it may be, but Ignatius does not quote it from thence. He might have it from other Books besides that, or receive it from Tradition, or take it upon Memory. The Words in Ignatius are, Handle me, and feel me, and see that I am not an Incorporeal 
† I render the Greek (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Spirit or Apparition, because one of those Words is always used by the English to express the same thing, which is here intended by the Greek.  Spirit or Apparition. In 
(u) C. 24. v. 39  St. Luke we Read, Handle me and see, for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones, as ye see me have. The Sense is exactly the same in both, and if the Father made the quotation, without looking into the Book, he might easily mistake as far as this comes to.  
But what, if we grant our Author all he can desire, and should yield that this Passage was taken by Ignatius out of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, (which will never be proved,) what can he infer from thence? That we shall easily see, if we compare this with those places, where Texts taken out of the Gospels and Epistles have been mentioned by these Writers. We find, for Instance, that St. Clemens gives us several Passages that are to be met with, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that St. Ignatius also gives us one or two, that are in the Gospel according to St. Matthew or the Epistle to the Corinthians. All that we argue from hence, is, that those Books, from which these two Fathers borrow those Passages, were then extant and abroad in the Church. But we cannot, we do not hence infer, that they were Canonical or Wrote by those Apostles, whose Names they now bear; because neither Clemens nor Ignatius tell us so, and therefore that must be Learned from other Authors. In like manner, supposing that Ignatius took the expression we are now considering, from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, all we can gather from thence, is, that there was such a Gospel then extant, wherein that passage was Read. But that it was of Divine Authority, or Wrote by any of the Apostles, we cannot gather, for St. Ignatius says no such thing; we must learn that, if it can be learned, from other Writers. Since than we allow as much Authority to this Father in one case, as we do to him or St. Clemens in the other, certainly our Author can desire no more, and therefore I suppose we are agreed as to this matter.  
But 
* Whether what our Author produces out of Origen, as from Ignatius concerning the Devils being ignorant of the Virginity of the Virgin Mary, etc. be designed as an Objection against the genuineness of that Epistle wherein these Expressions are found, or no, I cannot tell. If it be, I shall refer the Reader for an Answer to A. Bp. Usher in his Prolegomena to the Epistles of that Father. c. 12. p. lxxxi. Ox. Edit. 1644. 4●o ..  perhaps it may be Objected, that if we grant this, we grant that St. Ignatius quoted a Spurious Gospel. To this I answer, (1.) That the question before us at present, is not, whether this Father quoted a Spurious Gospel or no, but whether, by borrowing a Passage after this manner, from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, he advances it into the Canon. The contrary to which I have plainly proved to be true. (2.) This Gospel, with the additions, ought not to be looked upon as Spurious or a Forgery, but rather as a Piece of Ecclesiastical History. See above at the end of Section XVI.  
And if we proceed to Hermas, it must be owned that he produces not one Text (that we can be sure of) out of either the Old or New Testament; but quotes one short Sentence out of an Apocryphal Book, called the Prophecies of Eldad and Medad. And therefore since we make no manner of use of this Writer for the Establishing the Canon, we cannot be obliged by our Author's Argument to embrace this Apocryphal Piece upon his Authority. Only I shall add, that the Passage is good and true, whosoever said it. The Lord is nigh unto all those, who turn unto him; and therefore might be quoted, not upon the Authority of the Book, but the Intrinsic Value of the Expression, which may be cited without danger, from the Mouth or Pen of the greatest Impostor.  
And thus I have answered our Author's third difficulty, why all the Books, which are cited by Clemens and the rest should not be equally Authentic; and shown, that there is but one single Piece, that we count Suppositious, quoted by Name, and that too, not referring to the time of the New but Old Testament; and quoted it is by an Author of whose Testimony we make no use in settling the Canon, and therefore we cannot be tied and bound by it in the case of this pretended Prophecy; neither indeed ought any one else. For he is alone in the matter (as far as appears at present,) and contradicts the whole Jewish Church, who knew nothing of this Book nor ever admitted it among their Canonical Writings. As for the Passage of Ignatius, pretended to be borrowed from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, I hope, what has been above-sayed, is satisfactory; and for the rest, in him and Clemens and Barnabas, when our Author shall please to tell us, whence they were fetched, and under what notion they are quoted, he shall hear more of my mind.  
Polycarp has not one Passage out of any Spurious or unknown Writer that I can find, and therefore I suppose he may be dismissed without further trouble.  
The last difficulty, is, 
(a) p. 80.  What stress should be laid on the Testimony of those Fathers, who not only contradict one another, but are often inconsistent with themselves in the relations of the very same facts.  
Here, I think, our Author's Expression is obscure. He does not tell us, whom he means by Fathers, or what Contradictions (as he calls them) he had more especially in his Eye, when he Wrote these Words. I was once about venturing to guests, but upon Second Thoughts forbore, lest I should be censured as severely as Mr. Bl. was, for mistaking (or too well understanding) his meaning, and be told, that I am one of those, 
(b) p. 81.  who are Sagacious enough to discover the hidden Poison of every Word, and will be sure to give loud warning of the danger, to show where the Snake lies in the Grass, and to tell what's in the Belly of the Trojan Horse. And therefore, that I may avoid such a dreadful Thunderclap, shall say no more, but that he's in the Clouds, and there I must leave him for the present.   

Postcript.  
THere are two or three Passages, which would not fall in regularly with the Foregoing Discourse, without too much breaking the Coherence, therefore I shall consider them here.  
The first is, what we Read, (p. 37. n. 6.) and is in the following Words, We need not produce our Authors for the Canons and Constitutions of the Apostles, since so many Learned Members of the Church of England have Written large Volumes to prove 'em Genuine. Now this directly overthrows what has been asserted at the beginning of these Papers. For if the Genuine Works of the Apostles, and such as were Authorised by them, make up the Code of the New Testament, why should not these Constitutions and Canons partake of the same honour too, since our Author tells us, they are asserted Genuine by many Learned Members of the Church of England in large Volumes, Wrote for that very end and purpose? To which I shall reply no more at present, but only this, that I was much surprised at this assertion of of our Authors. For I thought I had known, so far at least, what most of the Learned Men of our Church, whether Living or Dead, have delivered in this matter, as that large Treatises of many of them upon this Subject had not escaped me; and I thought too, that I had understood so much of the merits of the cause, as to give me reason to believe, that very few impartial and understanding Persons were like to maintain what our Author says they do in the case, and therefore was ready, without any farther debate, to pronounce him mistaken. But because I was unwilling he should charge me, as he does Mr. B. 
(c) p. 54.  with making my own Reading and Knowledge the measure of Truth, (who had too been retired from the Public Stations of Learning for many years together,) I resolved to inquire of such as I thought could inform me, whether any thing had been lately (or formerly) Published, which might justify our Author's affirmation. But I soon found that they knew no more in the matter then myself; and therefore I shall desire I. T. at his leisure, to acquaint the World 
† To prevent all cavilling, I here own (what I observed many years ago) that there is one Learned Writer of our Church, who does upon occasion speak as favourably of the Constitutions, as Turrian the Jesuit himself could do, who Wrote a Book in defence of them. But then I must add, that he gives us no Reasons for his Opinion, and what he says, is comprehended within the compass of a few lines. And I am sure, that a single Person and two or three Sentences, can, by no Logic, be multiplied into many Members and large Volumes.  who those many Learned Members of the Church of England are, that have Written large Volumes to prove the Constitutions and Canons, we are now considering, and as we now have them, to be the Genuine Works of the Apostles.  
There is another Passage of our Author, 
(d) p. 50, 51.  where he ridicules Ireneus, as having argued very sillily concerning the number of the Gospels. To give a large account of the matter would be tedious and impertinent (since the whole thing is a mere Cavil,) and therefore I shall only remark briefly,  
(1.) That our Author grossly wrongs Ireneus in his Latin quotation. For the Father having (l. 3. c. 9, 10. and part of the 11th.) argued against the Heretics of those times from the four Gospels, adds, that these Gospels were received, one or other of them, by the Heretics themselves, and therefore his argument from them was strong and true. These last words our Author parts from the rest of the Sentence to which they belong and tacks them to what follows, as if Ireneus had said, the Argument for the four Gospels from the four Regions is firm and strong; whereas (whatever he might think) he does not say so.  
(2.) Neither does he say afterward, that they are vain and unlearned and bold, who reject the number of the four Gospels, thus proved from the four Regions, etc. (as our Author represents him,) but those who reject the things, which he judged were foresignified as the subject of the several Gospels, ('tis Speciem Evangelij, and Personas Evangelij,) by the four Faces in the Cherubin of Ezekiel, that is (as he tells us) the Humanity, the Prophetical and Priestly Offices, and Divinity of our Saviour.  
(3.) After all, the Father does not pretend to prove from the four Quarters or the four Winds, that the Gospels we have were Wrote by those Persons whose Names they bear: For that he Learned from such as conversed with the Writers themselves, as was above-observed. Neither does he pretend to prove from thence 
(e) p. 19, etc.  that the Gospels were Canonical or Rules of Faith; for that depends upon their being Wrote or Authorised by the Apostles; so that the merits of the cause under debate are not in the least concerned in the Argument. All that he pretends to, is, that as there were Four Principal Quarters of the World, etc. and no more, so God would have it that there should be four Gospels in the World and no more; and did think fit to foresignify, the Temper of the Writers, and the Subject of each Book by the four Faces in Ezekiel's Cherubin. Now what though there seems to be more of Fancy then Solidity, more of Plausible Allusion then close Reasoning in this way of Arguing, yet I don't see why our Author should so much insult upon the Father for it, since Instances of the like nature may be found in Eminent Writers of all Professions, and Heathens as well as Christians. If we make it our business to Weed Books, which are otherwise Learned and Rational, and pick out the Weakest Expressions we can find in them, we shall proceed very unjustly, and I doubt, that very few, if this method be used, will escape Censure.  
I did not think to have said any thing to our Author's Reflection 
(f) p. 44, 45.  on the Epistle of St. Barnabas, because I am not concerned, at present, whether it be Genuine or no. But observing that he designs to improve the Expression he fetches thence to the Prejudice of the Christian Religion, I thought myself obliged to add a few lines upon that occasion: The Words in the Original are thus, Christ chose for his Apostles— those who were the greatest of Sinners, that he might show, how he came to call, not the Righteous, but Sinners to Repentance. We have little or no account in the Scripture of the Apostles Morals, before they were chosen by our Saviour, and therefore we'll, for the present, let this Passage of Barnabas go for true. What will follow? Nothing else, as far as I see, but that our Lord was an Excellent Physician of Souls, who wrought so perfect and Effectual a cure upon Men in such a dangerous condition, and brought them to a true Sense of Piety and Religion, for the Encouragement of others to Repent and Reform. Ay, but if they were once such, 
(g) p. 45.  this would Rob us of an Argument, we draw from their Integrity and Simplicity, against Infidels. Would it so indeed? Methinks now this is very strange, and does not conclude so well, as the Argument of Ireneus from the four Winds, with which we see what a stir our Author made, a little before. For may not a Wicked Man prove good, and may he not give us such Evidences of the Sincerity of his Reformation, that we are bound in Justice to believe him? Let us examine the case a little, and see what Arguments can be produced for the unrightness and integrity of the Apostles after their Conversion. They Preached a most Excellent and Holy Religion over all the World, and endeavoured to bring People every where to the Belief and Practice of it. And that they were in good earnest in all their undertake, and did not act a part for carrying on any Worldly design, is apparent from hence, that they knowingly and willingly exposed themselves to Pains, to Troubles, to Losses, to Contempt, to Persecutions, to Torments, to Death itself. This, I think, is sufficient to show, that they really believed what they affirmed, concerning the Doctrine, Works and Resurrection of our Saviour; that they did not design to put a Trick upon Mankind in the Relations, they gave thereof, since they readily exposed themselves to such Sufferings for the asserting of it. And that they asserted nothing but what was true, God himself did also further attest, by the Miracles he enabled them to work, of which we have  proof, as has been so often observed by others that I need not to insist upon it here. So that though we do suppose the Epistle of St. Barnabas to be Genuine, and the Passage quoted from it to be really true, yet it is plain nothing can be thence inferred to prove our Religion false or ill grounded.  
Since the finishing this, 
* I was persuaded by a Friend to add the ensuing Catalogue from Ireneus and Tertullian, to which I easily agreed, as having made the Collection many years ago, when I Read those Fathers, for my own Satisfaction. The Edition of Tertullian that I used, was Printed at Paris 1669, and that of Ireneus is pretended, in the Title Page, to be Printed there too, 1675.  I thought it advisable, for the preventing Doubts or Cavils, to subjoin the Testimonies of Ireneus and Tertullian, for those Books of Scripture which belong to that, we above called the first Canon. I begin with Ireneus.  
In his Third Book and 
(h) p. 229.  first Chapter, he expressly asserts the four Evangelists by Name to be the Authors of the four Gospels. And particularly, he attributes that, which goes under his Name, to St. Matthew, 
(i) p. 275.  (l. 3. c. 18.) St. Mark's, to him (
(k) p. 276.  l. 3. c. 18.) that of St. Luke, to him (
(l) p. 254.  l. 3. c. 11.) and St. John's, to that Apostle (
(m) p. 257.  l. 3. c. 11.)  
He asserts the Acts of the Apostles to have been Wrote by St. Luke the 
(n) p. 271.273.  Evangelist (l. 3. c. 14, 15.) and attributes all the following Epistles to St. Paul, in the following Places.  

The Epistle to the Romans— l. 2. c. 38. p. 190  
The first to the Corinthians— l. 1. c. 1. p. 33  
Second to the Corinth.— l. 3. c 7. p. 248  
The Epistle to the Galatians— l. 3. c. 7. ibid.  
to the Ephesians— l. 5. c. 14. p. 455  
to the Philippians— l. 4. c. 34. p. 363  
to the Colossians— l. 3. c. 14. p. 267  
The first to the Thessalonians— l. 5. c. 6. p. 442  
Second to the Thessaly.— l. 3. c. 7. p. 249  
The first to Timothy— l. 2. c. 19 p. 172 and Pref. p. 3  
Second to Timothy— l. 3. c. 14. p. 267  
The Epistle to Titus— l. 3. c. 3. p. 233   
To St. Peter he ascribes the first Epistle, which goes under his Name, (l. 4. c. 22. 
(o) p. 338. )— to St. John the Apostle, his first Epistle (l. 3. c. 18. 
(p) p. 277. )  
There are several other Places (I may say numerous, for most of them) where these Books are ascribed to those Writers, whose Names they now bear; but I thought one Testimony sufficient to Evince what Opinion Ireneus had of each Book. And I shall use the same method as to Tertullian.  
He assigns the four Gospels to the four Evangelists, by whose Names they are called, (l. 4. against Martion c. 2. and 5. p. 414. and 416.)  
The Acts of the Apost. to St. Luke. Treatise of Fasting c. 10. p. 549  
The following Epistles are attributed to St. Paul, in the following Places.  

The Epist. to the Romans— Scorpiace c. 13. p. 498  
The first and second Epist. to the Corinth Of Chastity. c. 13, 14. p. 564, 565  
The Epist. to the Galatians. l. 5. against Martion c. 2. p. 462  
to the Ephesians Of the Resur. of the Flesh. c. 40. p. 349  
to the Philippians— ib. c. 23. p. 339  
to the Colossians— ib. p. 338  
The first and second Epistles to the Thessalonians.— ib. c. 24. p. 339  
The first to Tim.— against Praxeas c. 15. p. 509  
The second to Tim.— Of the Resur. of the Flesh c. 23 p. 339   
The Epist. to Titus— Of Prescription c. 6. p. 204  
The first of St. Peter, is quoted as his; Scorpiace c. 12. p. 497.  
And so likewise the first of St. John— against Praxeas c. 15. p. 50●.  
Those of the Seven Controverted Pieces, which are quoted by either of these Fathers, don't properly belong to this place, and are mentioned above (Sect. XI.) What ground we have to insert the Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon, in the number of those Writings, which were never disputed, see before (Sect. iv)  
From what has been here produced, it is evident that these two Fathers attributed all the Books abovementioned, to those Persons, by whom we now think they were Wrote, and 
(q) See Sect. II.  consequently esteemed them Canonical.  
And that the whole Catholic Church in their days was of the same Opinion, is evident from the Testimonies of 
(r) l. 3. c. 25.  Eusebius and 
(s) In the places cited above Sect. IU.  Gregory Nazianzen, who reckon these Books as those which were never questioned. And so much may we learn likewise from these two Fathers, now under consideration, in the passages referred to above, (p. 36. and 72.) part of which it may not be impertinent to set down here at large.  
Ireneus tells us, 
(t) l. 4. c. 63.  that true Knowledge consists in understanding the Doctrine of the Apostles and the Ancient state of the Church in the whole World, according to the Succession of the Bishops, to whom they consigned the care of the Church in every Place, which has been continued down to our times, 
† I render (tractatione plenissim:) a complete Body or Treatise; because it can signify nothing else here; though the Expression in the Latin is not very proper. But he that Translated this Work of Ireneus out of Greek, did not understand the Latin Tongue, and has hundreds of Expressions more barbarous and improper than this.  and a complete Body of the Scripture preserved, without either Forgery or Falsification, without either Addition or Substraction, etc. Which Words are an express assertion, that the Doctrine and Discipline and Scriptures which they then had, were the same which the Apostles delivered, and were then received in all Churches of the World, with which Ireneus and the Gauls had any Communication.  
Tertullian 
(u) l. 4. against Martion c. 5.  appeals to all the Apostolic Churches, to the Galatians, to the Thessalonians, to the Romans, to the Colossians, to the Ephesians, etc. and, in a word, to all the Churches which joined in Communion with them, to prove the Copy of St. Luke, which the Catholics had (and not that of Martion) to be Genuine and Sincere. He adds too, that the same Authority will justify the other three Gospels likewise, since they were received 
(x) Per illas & secundum illas.  from, and according to, the Copies of those Churches. 
(y) Of Prescript. c. 33, 34.  He produces, in another place, Testimonies from several Epistles of St. Paul, from St. Peter and St. John, and then for further confirmation of the Truth of what he urges 
(z) c. 36.  exhorts those who had a mind to exercise their Curiosity in the business of their Salvation, to run over the Churches planted by these and the other Apostles, where they might find 
* Rigaltius and after him, F. Simon, will have no more meant here by Authentic Letters or Writings, then that what the Apostles Wrote was still preserved in the Original Language, in those Places. But I would fain know what great matter there was in that. The Epistles were first Wrote in Greek, and were without question still Extant in Greek (not only in the Apostolic, but) in all those Churches, to which that Language remained still familiar, if not in others too. Tertullian certainly designed something Singular and Peculiar to the Churches planted by the Apostles, when he said their Authentic Letters or Writings were kept there, and consequently must intent the very Originals of them: And why these two Learned Men should judge otherwise (since this is the most natural, though not the only, Sense of the Word) I cannot guests. For 'tis certain, Manuscripts have been preserved many hundred years longer than the time was, which passed between the Apostles and the days of Tertullian.  their Authentic Writings (or Letters) still remaining, 
(a) Authenticae literae.  expressing the Doctrine and representing the Piety of each of them. A little after he brings in the Catholic Church thus arguing with the Heretics concerning the Scripture,— 
(b) c. 37. p. 215.  Who are you? When and whence came you hither? What do you in my ground, since you belong not to me? By what Right, O Martion, do you cut down my Woods? What Authority have you, Valentinus, to turn the Course of my Fountains? Who gave you Power, Apelles, to overthrow my Fences? What do you Sowing and Feeding here at your Pleasures? The Possession is mine, I have enjoyed it for a long time, I first enjoyed it. I derive a certain Original from the Authors themselves, whose it was. I am the Heir of the Apostles, etc. Thus Writ Ireneus and Tertullian concerning the Scriptures of the New Testament; and what they thus Writ, certainly concerns all those Pooks, which they held for Genuine and Pure, in opposition to the Heretics of their Times. These, they tell us, were derived from the Apostles, by the hands of those Churches, which they founded all over the World; them they produce for their Vouchers in the present case: and appeal likewise to the Doctrine embraced in every one of them, which was very consonant to the Books of the Catholics, but not to those of the Heretics.  
Thus much we may easily learn from Ireneus He tells us, 
(c) l. 1. c. 17.  That the several sorts of Heretics, with which he had to do, had forged a great number of Apocryphal and Spurious Pieces. These without question, contained the Principles of their Doctrine, and were sent abroad into the World as the chief Grounds and Foundations of what they taught. But all was Cheat and Cozenage, and the Fictions of their own Brains. What they vented, was Heretical and Erroneous, as this father proves at large from hence, 
(d) l. 3. c. 3, 4.  that it was contrary to the Faith, which the Apostles had planted in all places, and which had been larnt, and might be learned every day, from the Churches founded by them. And again in another Place (l. 3. c. 11. p. 259.) he rejects some Gospels of the Valentinians, because they contained Blasphemies, and Doctrines contrary to those which had been Published by the Apostles. So likewise Tertullian speaks of some of the same Heretics— 
(e) Of Prescript. c. 32. p. 213.  Let their Doctrine be compared with the Apostles and we shall quickly see by the contrariety thereof, that it proceeds neither from any of them nor their Disciples. The Apostles did not contradict one another, neither did their Disciples contradict them. The Churches, which they founded agree in the same Doctrines, and so do those too, which being of a later Original, derived their Instruction from them which were planted before them; and therefore may be called Apostolical as well as they, because owning and embracing the same Faith. Let the Heretics show that they deserve that Title upon either of these accounts, that these Churches acknowledge the same Doctrine which they do, and receive them to Peace and Communion as Brethren. But this they cannot do.— 
(f) c. 38. p. 216.  They are Foreigners, they are Enemies to the Apostles, because they teach a different Faith.— And since their Faith is so different, we may be sure they have adulterated the Scriptures. For they, who were resolved to teach perversely, were under a necessity of corrupting those Books, upon which their Doctrine was to be grounded.— Whereas we, who preserve the Doctrine entire, have preserved the Books so too, without changing or adding or taking away.— We teach nothing but what was to be found in the Scriptures from the beginning, before they were corrupted and interpolated.— Before Martion had laid violent hands upon them, employing a Knife and not a Style, and cutting away whatever he thought convenient and was contrary to his Errors and Heresies.— 
(g) c. 19  
† Vbi apparuerit esse veritatem & disciplinae, & fidei Christianae, illic erit & veritas Scripturarum.  For where the Truth of the Christian Faith and Doctrine appears, there the Genuine and true Copies of the Scripture are certainly to be found.  
Having thus given a large account of the Testimony which these two very Ancient Writers of the Christian Church give to the Books of the New Testament, I shall now pass on to remark, before I conclude, what Opinion an Eminent Heathen, even Julian the Apostate (that bitter and inveterate Enemy of Christianity) entertained concerning them. This we may easily learn from what he Wrote and Published against our Holy Religion; which may be seen in Mr. Spanheim's Edition of his Works, wherein St. Cyril's Answer to the Books of that Emperor, with what remains of the Books themselves, against the Christians is Printed, as it is also in Cyril's own Works. There we shall find, that Julian expressly mentions the Writings of 
(h) l. 10. p. 327.  the Four Evangelists by Name, of St. Paul and St. Peter as their own proper and undoubted Works; that he speaks 
(i) l. 8. p. 253.  of the Genealogy of our Saviour, as Recorded by St. Matthew and St. Luke; that he quotes Passages 
(k) l. 9 p. 291. l. 10. p. 335.  out of St. Matthew, 
(l) l. 8. p. 261, 262. l. 10. p. 335.  out of St. John, 
(m) l. 9 p. 314.  out of the Acts of the Apostles, 
(n) l. 9 p. 320. l. 10. p. 351.  out of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and 
(o) l. 7. p. 245.  out of the First to the Corinthians; and disputes against them. To which may be added, that he speaks of the Writings of St. Matthew and St. Luke, 
(p) Ep. 42. p. 423.  also in his Epistles.  
The Inferences, which naturally arise from hence, are these two, First, that it was well known among the Heathens, that the Books of the New Testament, as embraced by the Catholics, were the Records, upon which the Christian Religion was founded; and accordingly Julian sets himself directly to oppose, what was delivered in them, as the most ready way to overthrow and ruin Christianity. Secondly, That there was then no Reason known, why the Books should be suspected, as not really Wrote by those Persons, to whom we ascribe them, or why they should be judged to have been changed and altered by the Catholics. For if there had been the least probable ground for such an accusation, we may be sure, this Learned and keen Adversary of theirs would not have forgot to lay it to their charge; he would never have cited the Books, as the Genuine Works of St. John St. Paul, etc. but affirmed plainly they were the Forgeries and Contrivances of later times, drawn up, by he knew not whom, to advance the Credit and Reputation of their Master. Since therefore he does nothing of this, but the quite contrary; since he quotes these Pieces as the Writings of the Apostles and Apostolic Men, and never accuses the Christians of Falsifications or Corruptions, we may be certain that he knew of nothing, which could be justly objected against them, as to this Particular.  
I would offer the serious consideration of this Instance to the mighty discoverers of the present Age. We have here an Emperor, who wanted neither Learning, nor Wit, nor Industry, inflamed with a most eager desire of running down Christianity; assisted therein, not only with the Writings of Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, and others, who had engaged in the same cause before him; but also with the best advice and directions (we may be sure) of Libanius, Jamblichus, Maximus, and the rest of the Sophists and Philosophers, who flourished in his time; who yet, with all these helps, could find no solid Grounds or Reasons for representing the New Testament as a Forgery. So far was he from pretending thereto, that, on the contrary, he owns the Books thereof, which he had occasion to mention, for the Genuine Works of those Persons, to whom we attribute them at present, and does not any where declare his suspicions, that either they, or any of the rest, were either forged or corrupted by the Catholics. Whereas there are those in our days, who, above Thirteen Hundred years after him, pretend to discover that, which neither he, nor any of the Learned asserters of Heathenism (who doubtless supplied him, upon occasion, with their most Curious and Critical Remarks and Observations) could do; and bear the World in hand, that those Ancient Monuments of our Faith, which are ascribed to the Evangelists and Apostles, are none of theirs, but the Impostures and Contrivances of designing Men, who have imposed them upon the Credulous and unthinking part of Mankind. As if they had greater means and opportunities of discovering the Forgery at this distance (if there was one) then Julian and the zealous maintainers of the Pagan Religion had so long ago; or as if all the Christian World, for so many Centuries, (except themselves and a few more,) had been destitute of Integrity and Understanding. But whether the weakness or confidence of such pretences be greater, I shall leave the Reader to determine.  
FINIS.   

Books Printed for Richard Sare, at Grays-Inn-Gate, in Houlborn.  
FAbles of Aesop and other eminent Mythologists, with Morals and Reflections. In two Parts. Folio.  
Quevedo's Visions. Octavo.  
Twenty Two Select Colloquies out of Erasmus, pleasantly representing several superstitious Levitieses that were crept into the Church of Rome in his time, Octavo. The Third Edition.  

By Sir Roger L'Estrange.  
The Genuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers St. Barnabas, St. Ignatius, St. Clemens, and St. Polycarp, the Sheperd of Hermas, etc. with a large Preliminary Discourse relating thereto. Octavo.  
The Authority of Christian Princes over Ecclesiastical Synods, Octavo Price 5 s.  
An Appeal to all the True Members of the Church of England, on behalf of the King's Supremacy, Octavo. Price 1 s. 6 d.  
A Practical Discourse against Profane Swearing, Octavo. Price 1 s. 6 d.  
The Principles of the Christian Religion Explained in a Brief Commentary on the Church Catechism, Octavo. Price 2 s.  
Also several Sermons on special Occasions.   

By the Reverend Dr. Wake.  
Epictetus' Morals, with Simplicius' Comment, with the Addition of his Life, from the French of Mr. Bolleau, Octavo. Price 5 s.  
The Christian's Pattern, or a Treatise of the Imitation of Jesus Christ, written by Thomas a Kempis. To which are added Meditations and Prayers for sick Persons, with Cuts, Octavo.  
Price 5 s. and also in Twelves. Price 2 s.  
Several Sermons upon several Occasions.   

These by the Reverend Dr. Stanhop.  
Parsons' Christian Directory, being a Treatise of Holy Resolution, in two Parts, Purged from all Errors, and put into Modern English, and now made public for the Instruction of the Ignorant; The Conviction of Unbelievers; The Awakning and Reclaiming the Vicious, and for Confirming the Religious in their Good Purposes. Octavo, Price 5 s.  
Moral Maxims and Reflections, Written in French, by the Duke of Roachfoucault, Twelves, Price 1 s. 6 d.  
Essays upon several Moral Subjects, in Two Parts. The Fourth Edition, Octavo. Price 5 s.  
A short View of the Profaneness and Immorality of the English Stage, with the Sense of Antiquity upon that Argument. The Fourth Edition, Octavo. Price 3 s. 6 d.  
A Defence of the Short View of the Profaneness and Immortality of the English Stage, etc. Being a Reply to Mr. Congreve, etc. Octavo, Price 1 s. 6 d.  
A Second Defence of the said Short View, etc. in Answer to a Book entitled the Ancient and Modern Stages surveyed, etc. Octavo. Price 1 s. 6 d. These Four by the Reverend Mr. Collier.  
Maxims and Reflections on Plays, (in answer to a Discourse of the Lawfulness and Unlawfulness of Plays, Printed before a late Play, Entitled Beauty in Distress.) Written in French by the Bishop of Meaux, with an Advertisement concerning the Author and the Translation, by Mr. Collier, Octavo. Price 1 s. 6 d.