5eO 
 
THE ^y^ ^^ . 
 
 CANON ^ 
 
 eitK a^nTi JLe^ ^ei^tamentfii 
 
 ASCERTAINED J 
 
 THE BIBLE COMPLETE 
 
 "WITHOUT THE 
 
 AFOCBTFHA 8c UWrWRITTBN TRADITIONS. 
 
 BY 4JICHIBALD ALEXANDER, 
 
 Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology, in the Theological 
 Seminary, at Pnnceton, J\'. J. 
 
 And that from a cliild thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, 
 which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith 
 which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration ot 
 God, and is profitable. —Paul. 
 
 PRIjYCETOJV PRESS: 
 Printed and Published by D. A. Borrenstein, 
 FOR G. AND C. CARVILL, NEW YORK. 
 
 i82ei 
 
. ->r A ^^ -^^^^ XN.^'^^ ^X *^V^ 
 
 
 \ 
 
 District of J\''e-d> Jersey, to -wit .• 
 ********* JHE IT REMEMBERED, That on the Nine- 
 *Sc t^'* teenth day of September, in the Fifty -first year of 
 * .«. the Independence of the United States of America, 
 
 ********* Anno Domini 1826, D. A. Bokrenstein, of the 
 said District, hath deposited in this Office the title of a book, the 
 I'ight whereof he claims as proprietor, in the words following, to 
 wit : 
 
 The Canon of the Old and JVev Testaments ascertained ; or the 
 .Bible complete xvithout the Apocrypha and TJmuritten Traditions. 
 By AncHiBALn ALF.xAxnF.n, Pi-ofessor of Didactic and Polemic 
 'I heology, in the Theological Seminary, at Princeton, New Jersey. 
 And that from a child thou hast knoivn the Holy Scriptures, ivhicJi 
 are able to make thee 7vise imto salvation, through faith which is in 
 Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is 
 profitable . — Paul. 
 
 In conformity to an act of the Congi ess of the United States, 
 entitled, "An act for the encouragement of learning by securing die 
 copies of Maps, Charts, and Books to the authors and proprietors 
 of such copies during the times therein mentioned." And also to 
 the act entitled, " An act supplementary to an act entitled, An act 
 for the encouragement of learning by securing the copies of Maps, 
 Charts and Books to the authors and proprietors of such copies du- 
 ring the times therein mentioned, and extending the benefits there- 
 of to the arts of designing, etching, and engraving historical prints. 
 
 Wm. PENNINGTON, 
 
 Clerk of the District ofJK'eiu Jersey. 
 
PREFACK. 
 
 OxE motive which induced the author to undertake 
 tlie following compilation, was the desire of furnish- 
 ing a supplement to the little volume which he recent- 
 ly published, on the Evidences of the Christian 
 Religion ; for the argument for the truth of Divine 
 Revelation cannot be considered complete, without 
 the testimonies, by which the Canonical authority of 
 the several books of Scripture is established. But he 
 Avas also influenced by the consideration, that a con- 
 venient and compendious work on this subject, is a 
 desideratum^ in our English Theological Literature. 
 The works which we possess on the Canon of Scrip- 
 ture, are either too learned or too voluminous, for the 
 use of common readers. Besides, the whole subject 
 has been seldom treated by the same author ; for while 
 one vindicates the Canon of the Old Testament alone, 
 another confines himself to the settling of the Canon 
 of the New Testament. 
 
 The object of the writer of this work is to exhibit a 
 compendious view of the whole subject, and in such a 
 form as will be level to the capacities of all descrip- 
 tions of readers. He has aimed at bringing forward 
 the result of the researches of learned men, who have 
 
IV. 
 
 treated this subject, in such a manner, that the sub- 
 stance of their works might be easily accessible to that 
 numerous class of readers, who are unskilled in the 
 learned languages. It was, moreover, his opinion, 
 that such a volume as this, would not be unacceptable 
 to theological students, and to clergymen, who have 
 it not in their power to procure more costly works; 
 
 As a considerable portion of the materials used in 
 composing this treatise have been derived from others, 
 the author feels it to be incumbent on him, to give due 
 credit to those learned authors from whom he has re- 
 ceived aid ; which can be more conveniently done, at 
 once, in this place, than by perpetual references, in 
 the body of the work. 
 
 In the First Part, which relates to the Canon of the 
 Old Testament, assistance has been derived from 
 Tlie Panstratia of Chamier, The Isagoge of Buddeus^ 
 The Thesaurus Philologicus of Hottinger, Prideaux's 
 Connexion^ Wilson on the Apocrypha ; and above all, 
 from Bishop Cosin's Scholastick History of the Canon 
 of the Old Testament. 
 
 In the Second Part, on the Canon of the New Tes- 
 tament, the testimonies adduced, have been principal- 
 ly selected from the ample collections of the impartial 
 and indefatigable Lardner ; but in all that relates to 
 the Apocryphal books of the New Testament, little 
 else has been done, than to abridge and arrange the 
 
information contained in the valuable work of the 
 learned Jeremiah Jones, on the Canon of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 On the subject of the Oral Law of the Jews, the 
 author lias freely availed himself of the labours of 
 that great polemic, Hohnsrek, in his learned work, 
 Contra Jtidoeos. On that of Unwritten Tradi- 
 tions, he found no uriter more satisfactory, than 
 Chemnitius, in his Exameu Con. Trid. By the in- 
 troduction of a discussion on these points, into a trea- 
 tise on the Canon of Scripture, he acknowledges that 
 he has departed from the usual method of treating the 
 subject ; but he is persuaded, that a little considera- 
 tion will convince every candid reader, that the suffi- 
 ciency and perfection of the Scriptures, cannot be de- 
 monstrated, unless it be shown, that no part of divine 
 revelation was left to be handcvl down bv unwritten 
 tradition. For if, as many believe, an important part 
 of the doctrines and institutions of Christianity has 
 been transmitted to us, only through this channel, it 
 will answer very little purpose to prove, that our Bi- 
 bles comprehend all the books ever written by inspi- 
 ration for the use of the Catholic Church ; since, on 
 this hypothesis, an essential part of divine revelation 
 is not contained in the Scriptures, and was, indeed, 
 never committed to writing. But the object in this 
 work is to show, that the Bible is complete^ containing, 
 A 2 
 
VI. 
 
 all things necessary to guide the faith and practice of 
 every sincere Christian ; and that the church is in pos- 
 session of no other revelation, but what is recorded in 
 these Sacred Books. 
 
COJ^TE^TTS. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 SECTION. ^ PIOE. 
 
 lNTRODfijm(<#" The importance of ascertaining the 
 true Canon of the Holy Scriptures. . . 
 
 I. Early use and import of ilie word Canon . 20 
 
 II. Constitution of the Canon of the Old Testament by 
 
 Ezra. — Tlie Canon of the Old Testament as it 
 now exists, sanction'^d by Ciiristand ins Apostles — 
 Catalogues of the Books by some of the early fa- 
 thers — Agreement of Jews and Christians on this 
 subject. ........ 23 
 
 III. Apocryphal books — Their origin — In'portance of dis- 
 
 tingnishinir between Canonical and Apocryphal 
 books — Six books o\ thi,- class pronounced Canoni- 
 cal by the Councd of Trent — Not in the Hebrew, 
 nor received by iht .Tews, ancient or modem. 39 
 
 IV. Testimonies of tiie Christian fiithers, and of other 
 
 learnt.'d men dmvn to 'he time of the Council of 
 Trent, respectmg the Apocrv;)ha. . • .51 
 
 V. Internal evidence that these books are not Canoni- 
 cal — The writers not prophets, and do not claim to 
 be inspired. ,,,.... 74 
 
 VI. No Canonical book of the Old Testament has been lost. 95 
 VII. The Oral Law of the Jews without foundation. . 106 
 
 PART II. 
 
 I. Method of settling the C.uion of the New Te.stament. 129 
 II. Catalogues of the books of the New Testament — 
 Canonical books only cited as authority by the Fa- 
 thers, and read in the churches as Scripture. 144 
 HI. Order of the Books of the New Testament — Time of 
 the Gosp'^ls being written — Notice of the Evan- 
 gelists. . . ..... 1G4 
 
 IV. Testimonies to Matthew's Gospel— Time of publica- 
 tion --Language in which it was origmally com- 
 posed 17G 
 
 V. Gospel of Mark — On what occasion published— As- 
 cribed to the dictation of Peter by all the Fathers. IGj 
 
Vlll. 
 
 SECT. 
 
 VI. Gospel of Luke — Testimonies of the Fathers respec- 
 ting it. 194. 
 
 VII. The objections of J. D. Michaelis, to the CanonicaJ 
 
 authority of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, con- 
 sidered, and answered. .... 200 
 
 VIII. The Gospel of John— -Life of the Evangelist — Occa- 
 
 sion and time of his writing — Canonical authority 
 indisputable. . ..... 214 
 
 IX. The Acts of the Apostles — Luke the author — Ca- 
 nonical authority undisputed by the Fathers; Re- 
 jected only by heretics. .... 223 
 
 X. Testimonies to the Canonical authority of the four- 
 teen Epistles of Paul 228 
 
 XI. Canonical authority of the seven Catholic Epistles. 253 
 XII. Canonical authority of the Book of Revelation. . 263 
 
 XIII. No Canonical book of the New Testament has been 
 
 lost 287 
 
 XIV. Rules for determining what books are Apocryphal ; 
 
 some account of the Apocryphal books which have 
 been lost : All of them condemned by the forego- 
 ing rules; Reason of the abounding of such books. 302 
 
 XV. Apocryphal books which are still extant ; Lptter of 
 
 AbgarusKing of Edessa to Jesus, and his answer; 
 Epistle to the Laodiceans ; Letters of Paul to Sen- 
 eca ; Protevangelion of James ; The Gospel of 
 our Saviour's infancy; The Acts of Pilate ; The 
 Acts of Paul and Thecla. .... 315 
 
 XVI. No part of the Christian Revelation handed down by 
 
 unwritten tradition 339 
 
 Notes, 392 
 
PART K. 
 
IN-TRODUOTIOSr: 
 
 THE I.VirORTAXCE OF ASCERTAINING THE TttUfi 
 CANON OF HOLY SCUIFl UUE. 
 
 The Bible includes a large number of separate 
 books, put)lisiied in different ages, during a space 
 of more than fifteen hundred years. Each of 
 tliesf- books, vvlien fiist publi'^hed, formed a vol- 
 ume ; or at least, the writings of each aiithor, 
 were, in the beginning, distinct: and if they had 
 Continued in that separate form, and had been 
 transmitted to us, in many volumes instead of 
 one, their authority would not, on this account, 
 have been less, nor their usefulness diminished. 
 Their collection into one volume, is merely a 
 matter of convenience; and if any persons choose, 
 now, to publish these books in a separate form, 
 they cannot with jir-jptiety be charged with cast- 
 ing any indignity on the word of God. 
 
 Hence it appears, that besides general argu- 
 ments to demonstrate that the Bible contains a 
 divine revelation, there is need of special proofs 
 to evince, that each of the books now included 
 in that sacred volume, has a right to the |)lace 
 which it occupies ; or does in reality contain a 
 part of that revelation "> hich God has given. 
 9 
 
10 
 
 If, therefore, it could be shown (which how- 
 ever it never can) that some particular book, 
 now included in the Bible, was not authentic, 
 the conclusion thence derived would only affect 
 that single production ; unless it were recognized 
 as divine by the writers of the other books. 
 The credit of the whole volume would not be 
 destroyed, even if it could be proved, that one 
 half the books of which it consists were spurious. 
 Infidels have much more to effect in overthrow- 
 ing the Bible, than they commonly suppose. It 
 is incumbent on them to demonstrate, not only 
 that this, or that book, is false, but that every 
 one of these productions is destitute of evidence 
 that it has been derived from the inspiration of 
 God. 
 
 On the other hand, it is manifest, that the advo- 
 cate of divine revelation is bound to defend the 
 claims of every separate portion of this volume; 
 or to reject from it that part, which has no evi- 
 dence of a divine origin. It is necessary, that 
 he should be able to render a good reason why he 
 admits any particular book, to form a part of th.e 
 inspired volume. 
 
 It is true, that the antiquity of this collection 
 clninis for it a high degree of respect : the trans- 
 mission of this volume to us, tlirough so many cen- 
 turies, as Holy Scimptuke, should teach us to 
 be cautious how we question what is so vener- 
 able for its antiquity. But this only furnishes 
 
11 
 
 one presuni])live ar^umont in fnvonr of each book. 
 It by no means renders all fnrtber investigation 
 unnecessary ; mucb less impious. 
 
 It is easy to conceive, tbat books not written 
 by the inspiration of God, mis;bt, by some casu- 
 alty, or mistake, find a |)lacein the sacred volume. 
 In fact, we have a strikin}*; example of this very 
 thing, in the Greek, and Latin Bibles, wbicb 
 are now in use, and held to be sacred, by a 
 large majority of those who are denominated 
 Christians. These Bibles, besides the books 
 which have evidence of being truly inspired, 
 contain a number of other books, the claim of 
 which to inspiration, cannot be sustained by solid 
 and satisfactory reasons. This inquiry therefore, 
 is far from being one of mere curiosity : it is, in 
 the highest degree practical, and concerns the 
 conscience of every man, capable of making the 
 investigation. We agree, in tlie general, that the 
 Bible is the Word of God, and an authoritative 
 rule ; but the momentous question immediately 
 presents itself, what belongs to the Bible ? Of 
 what books does this sacred volume consist ? And 
 it will not answer, to resoh e to take it as it has 
 come down to us, without further inquiry ; for the 
 Bible has come down in us, in several different 
 forms. The Vulgate Latin Bible, which only was 
 in use, for hundreds of years before the era of the 
 reformation, and also the Greek version of the Old 
 Testament, contain many books, not in the copies 
 
12 
 
 of^the Hebrew Scriptures. Now to determii^e 
 which of these contains the whole inspired books 
 given to the Jews before the advent ofChrist,and no 
 more, requires research, and accurate examination. 
 The inquir3-,therefore,is not optional, but forces it- 
 self upon every conscientious man: for as no one is 
 at liberty to reject from the sacred volume, one sen- 
 tence, much less a whole book of the revelation of 
 God ; so, no one has a right to add any thing to the 
 word of God ; and of consequence, no one may 
 receive as divine, what others have without au- 
 thority added to the Holt Scriptures. Every 
 man, therefore, according to his opportunity and 
 capacity, is under a moral obligation to use his 
 best endeavours to ascertain what books do, really, 
 and of right, belong to the Bible. An error here, 
 on either side, is dangerous : for on the one hand, 
 if we reject a part of divine revelation, we dishon- 
 our God, and deprive ourselves of the benefit which 
 tnight be derived from that portion of divine truth; 
 and on the other hand, we are guilty of an equal 
 offence, and may suffer an equal injury, by adding 
 spurious productions to the Holy Scriptures ; for 
 thus we adulterate and poison the fountain of life ; 
 and subject our consciences to the authority of 
 mere men. 
 
 I think, therefore, that the importance and ne- 
 cessity of this inquiry must be evident to every 
 person of serious reflexion. But to some it may 
 appear; that this matter has been long ago settled. 
 
13 
 
 on tlic firmest principles ; and that it can answer 
 no 2;oo(l purpose to asjitatc questions, wiiicli liave 
 a lendency to produce doubts and misgivings in 
 the minds of common Christians, ralhcr than' a 
 confirmation of their faith. In reply to the first 
 part of this objection, I would say, that it is freely 
 admitted, that this subject has been ably and fully 
 discussed long ac;o, and in almost every age until 
 the present lime ; and tlic author aims at nothing 
 more, in this short treatise, than to exhibit to the 
 sincere inquirer, wlio may not enjoy better means 
 of information, the substance of those discussions 
 and proofs, which oup;ht to be in the |)osscssion of 
 evciy Christian : iiis object is not to bring forth 
 any thing new, but to cdlect, and condense in a 
 narrow s|,ace, wiiat has been written by the judi- 
 cious and the learned, on this important sul)ject. 
 But, that discussion ten<ls to induce doubting, is a 
 sentiment unworthy of Chiisiians, who maintain 
 that their religion is founded on the best reasons, 
 and who arc comnianded to give Lo every man a 
 reason of the hope thai is- in Lheni. That faith 
 which is weakened by discussion is mere Jiroju- 
 dice, not true Jaith. They who receive the most 
 impoitani articles of their religion, upon trust, 
 from luimaii authority, are continually liable to be 
 thrown into doubt : and ihc only niethoil of obvi- 
 ating this evil, is to dig deep and lay our founda- 
 tioii upon a rock. If tliis objection had any weight, 
 it would discourage all ai tempts to esiablisfi the 
 b2 
 
14 
 
 trulh of our holy religion, by argument ; and would 
 also damp the spirit of free inqjiry, on every im- 
 portant suhject. It is true, however, that the first 
 efifect of free discussion, may be, to shake that ea- 
 sy confidence., which most men entertain, that all 
 their opinions are correct : but the beneficial result 
 will be, that instead of a persuasion, having no oth- 
 er foundation than prejudice, it will generate a faith 
 resting on the firm basis of evidence. 
 
 There is undoubtedly among Christians too great 
 a disposition to acquiesce, without examination, in 
 the religion of their forefathers. There :s too 
 great an aversion to that kind of research, which 
 requires time and labour ; so, that many who are 
 fully competent to examine the foundation on which 
 their religion rests, never take the pains to enter- 
 on the investigation ; and it is to be regretted, that 
 many who are much occupied with speculations on 
 points of theology, waste the energies of their 
 minds, on subjects, which can yield them no nian- 
 ner of profit, while they neglect entirely, or but 
 superficially attend to points of fundamental impor- 
 taiice. 
 
 The two great questions most deservingthe atten- 
 tion of all men are ; first, whether the Bible, and 
 all that it contains, is from God : second, what 
 are those truths which the Bible was intended to 
 teach us. These two grand inquiries are sufficient 
 to give occupation and vigorous exercise, to intel- 
 lectual faculties of tne higiiest order ; and they 
 
15 
 
 are not removed entirely out of the reach ol" plain, 
 uneducated Christians. From the fountain of di- 
 vine truth any one may draw according to iii.s ca- 
 pacity. But these inquiries are neglected, not so 
 much for want of time and capacity, as because we 
 take no pleasure in searching for, and comtempla- 
 ting, divine truth. Just in proportion as men love 
 the truth anil value the Bible, they will take an 
 interest in all inquiries which relate to the authen- 
 ticity, canonical authority, and correct interpreta- 
 tion of the sacred books. The time will come, 
 I doubt not, when these studies will occupy the 
 minds of thousands, where they now engage the at- 
 tention of one. The Bible will grow into impor- 
 tance in the estimation of men, just in the same 
 proportion, as true religion flourishes. It will not 
 only be the fashion to associate for printing and 
 circulating the Holy Scriptures ; but it wil be- 
 come customary, for men of the highest literary 
 attainments, as well as others, to study the sacred 
 pages with unceasing assiduity and prayer. Andy 
 in proportion as the Bible is understood in its 
 simplicity, and momentous import, the mere doc- 
 trines of men will disappear ; and the dogmas of 
 the schools and the alliance with philosophy be- 
 ing renounced, there will be among sincere inqui- 
 ries after truth, an increasing tendency to unity of 
 sentiment, as well as unity of spirit. The pri- e of 
 learning and of intellect being sacrificed, and all 
 distinctions counted but loss for the excellency of 
 
16 
 
 the knowlerI,2;e of Christ, a thousand knotty ques- 
 tions, which now cause divisions, and i2;en(ler strifes, 
 will he forgotten ; and the wonder of our more en- 
 lightened posterity will be, how good men could 
 have wasted their lime and their talents in such 
 unprofitable speculations : and more especially, 
 ho>v they could have permitted themselves, to en- 
 gage in fierce and unbrotherly contentious, about 
 matters of little imporlance. 
 
 Then also, men will no more neglect and un- 
 dervalue the Scriptures, on j)retence of possessing 
 a brighter lii^ht witiiin them, than that wliich em- 
 anates from the divine word. That spurious de- 
 votion which affects a superiority to external means 
 and ordinances, will be exchanged for the simple, 
 sincere reliance on the revealed will of Gotl ; and 
 those assemblies from which the sacred volume is 
 now excluded, while the effusions of every heated 
 imagination are deemed revelations of the Spirit, 
 will become under the influence of divine truth, 
 churches of tlie living God. 
 
 In those future days of the prosperity of Zion, 
 the service of the most High God will be consider- 
 ed by men, generally, as the noblest employment ; 
 and the best talents and aitainments sviH becf)nse- 
 ciateil, on the altar of God ; and the same etiier- 
 prizes, and the same labours which lliey now un- 
 deit.3ke to graiify an avarici(jus, an>hitions. or 
 voluptuous di -piisiti.'n, will I)'.- inusut.i fronr ' 've 
 to God and man. The nitrchant will plan, and 
 
17 
 
 travel, and traffic, to obtain the means of propaga- 
 ting the 2;ospel in foreign parts, and promoting 
 Christian knowledge at home ; yea the common 
 labourer will cheerfully endure toil and privation, 
 that he may have a mite to cast into the treasury 
 of the Lord. 
 
 Now, many consider all that is given to circu- 
 late the Bible, and to send missionaries and tracts 
 for the instruction of the ignorant, as so much wast- 
 ed ; but then., all expenditures will be considered 
 as profuse and wasteful, which terminate in mere 
 selfish gratification ; and those funds will alone be 
 reckoned useful, which are applied to promote the 
 glory of God and the welfare of men. 
 
 These, however, may appear to many as the vis- 
 ions of a heated imagination, which will never be 
 realized ; but if the same change in the views and 
 sentiments of men which has been going on for 
 thirty years past, shall continue to advance with 
 the same steady pace, half a century will not have 
 elapsed from the present time, before such a scene 
 will be exhibited to the admiring eyes of believers, 
 as will afford full ground to justify hopes as san- 
 guine, as those expressed in the foregoing antici- 
 pations. 
 
 But I have wandered, wide of my subject — I 
 will now recall the attention of the reader to the 
 consideration of the exceeding great importance of 
 ascertaining the true Canon of Holy Scripture. 
 This investigation may indeed, appear dry, and un- 
 
18 
 
 enlertaining;, but every thins; which bears any 
 relanon to the great Cliarler of our privileges 
 and our hopes ought to be interesting to us. It 
 has been my object, lo bring thi."? subject not only 
 more c.-nvenientiy withiu the reach of the The- 
 ological student, but also to a level withthe capa- 
 city of* the common christian. That this little 
 woik may in some humble degree subserve the 
 cause of the Bible, is the sincere prayer of 
 
 THE AUTHOR 
 
SECTIOir I. 
 
 KARLY USE, AND IMl'OUr OF TEIK WORD CANON. 
 
 The word canon, literally, signif-es JP rule ; 
 and it is used in this sense, several times in the 
 New Testament, as Gal. vi. Hi. Jis many as 
 walk according lo this rxdc. V\\\\. iii. 16. Lei 
 lis walk by the satne. rule. 
 
 But in these passages, there is no reference to 
 the Scriptures, as a volume. 
 
 The word canon, however, was early used by 
 the Christian Fathers, to clesio;iiate the inspired 
 Scriptures. Iken(ei's, speakinp; of ihe Scriptures, 
 calls them the ca.non ov truth. Clement of 
 Aifxandria, referring; to a quotalion of tin; Gospel 
 accordiiia; to the Ksiyptians, says, " Hni ihcy 
 follow any thing, rather than 'jhe true evangel- 
 ical CANON." 
 
 Elsebius says of Origen, " But in tlie firsL 
 book of his comnientarits on the Gospel of Mat- 
 thew, observing the ECCLKsiAsriCAL canon, 
 he d'clii ., that he knew uf four Gosjiels «inly." 
 
 Athanasius, in his Festal Epistle, speaks of 
 three sorts of l)o((ks ; 'ihe canomcai. ; sucli as 
 were allowed to he read ; and buch as were Apo- 
 
20 
 
 ci'vphal. By the first he evidently means, such as 
 we now call canomcal. 
 
 The Council of Laodicea ordained, "that 
 none but canonical books should be read in the 
 church ; that is, the books of the Old, and New 
 Testament." 
 
 Ru I^, after enumerating; the bonks of the Old 
 and New Teslanients, goes on to mention three 
 classes of books, l. Such as were included in 
 the canon ; 2. Ecclesiastical, or such as were al- 
 lowed to be read ; 3. Apocryphal, such as were 
 not permitted to be puhlicly read. 
 
 Jekome often speak-^ of the canon of Scripture, 
 and mentions books which might be read, but 
 did not belong to the canon. 
 
 The third council of Carthage ordained, 
 "that nothing beside the canonical scriptubes 
 be read in the ctiurch, under the name of the 
 Divine Scriptures." 
 
 Augustine often makes mention of the can- 
 onical scriptuues, and the whole canon of 
 scuiptuke ; meaning to designate all the sacred 
 books of the Old and New Testaments. " We 
 read of sonse," says he, "that they searched the 
 Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. 
 Wliat Scriptures, I pray, excppt the canonical 
 Scuptures, of the Law and the Prophets. To 
 them have been since added, the Gospels, the 
 Epistles of the Apostles, the Acts of the Apostles, 
 and the Revelaiion of John." 
 
21 
 
 Chkysostom says, ^'Tliey fall info great absurd- 
 ities, who will not follow the Canon of the Di- 
 vine Scripture, but trust to tbeir own reason- 
 ing. " 
 
 Isidore of Pelusium observes, "That these things 
 are so, we shall perceive, if we attend to the Canon 
 OP truth; the Divine Scriptures." 
 
 And LtONTius of Constantinople, having cited 
 the whole catalogue of the books of Sacred Scrip- 
 ture, from Genesis to Revelation, concludes, "These 
 are the ancient and the new books, whicii are re- 
 ceived in the church, as CAi>fONicAi,. " 
 
 From the authorities cited above, it will evident- 
 ly appear, that at an early period, the Sacred Scrip- 
 tures were carefully distinguished from all other 
 writings, and formed a rule, which all Christi ms 
 considered to be authoratative : and that this col- 
 lection of sacred writings, received the name of 
 Cano.v. 
 
 The division of the sacred books which is most 
 ancient and universal, is, into the Old Testamknt, 
 and the New Testament. The Apostle P.uil, 
 hiinself, lays a foundation for this distinction ; 
 for, in his second Epistle to the Corinthians, he 
 uses the phrases. Old Testament, and New Test- 
 ament : and in one instance, designates the Scrip- 
 tures of the Law, by the former title; For until 
 this day, says he, remainetfi the same veil un- 
 
 2 Cor. ill. 14. 
 C 
 
23 
 
 taken away in tKe reading of the Old Testa- 
 ment, 
 
 It is our object, in this work, to inquire into 
 the Canon, both of the Old and New Testament, 
 and to discuss all the principal questions, connect- 
 ed with this subject. 
 
SEOTIOXr iz. 
 
 lIONSTITiniON OF THK CANON OF THE OIJ) TKS- 
 TA.MENT UY KZUA-TIIK CANON OF THI, OLD I KS- 
 TAMFAT AS IP NOW EXISIS, SANC IIONKI) l»Y 
 CriRIST AND HIS APOSTLES— CAT A LO( J UES OF I HE 
 BOOKS HY SOME OF THE EARLY FA IIIEItS— A(iUEE 
 MENT OF JEWS AND CHKIS I lANS ON llllS SUUJEC T. 
 
 The five books of Moses, were, when finished, 
 carefully deposited by the side of the ark of ihe 
 Covenant, Ueut. xxxi. 24, 25, 26. And it came 
 to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing 
 ihe words of this Law in a Iwok, until they were 
 finished, that Moses commanded the Levites 
 which bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, 
 sayins^, take this hook of the Law, and put it in 
 the side of the ark of the covenant of tlie Lord 
 your God, that it may be there for a witness 
 against thee. 
 
 No douljt, copies of the sacred volume were 
 made out before it was deposited in the most holy 
 place ; for as it was there inaccessible to any but 
 the priests, the people generally must have remain- 
 ed ignorant, had there been no copies of the Law. 
 But we know that copies were written, for it was 
 one of the laws respecting the duty of a king, when 
 
24 
 
 such an officer should be appointed, that he should 
 write out a copy of the Law with his own hand. 
 Deut. xvii. 18 — 20, And it shall be lohen he sit. 
 teth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall 
 write him a copy of this taw in a book, out of 
 that which is before the priests, the Levites. 
 *^nd it shall he with him, and he shall read 
 therein, all the days of his life ; that he may 
 lenrn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the 
 words of this laio and these statutes to do them,. 
 That his heart be not lifted up above his breth' 
 ren, and that he turn not aside from the com- 
 rnandment to the right hand or to the left : to 
 the end that he may prolong his days in his 
 kingdom,, he and his children in the midst of 
 Israel. It is related by Josephus, that by the di- 
 rection of Moses, a copy of the law was prepared 
 for each of the triljes of Israel. 
 
 It seems that the book of Joshua was annexed to 
 the volume of the Pentateuch ; for we read, that 
 Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law 
 of God. And the matters contained in this book, 
 were of public concern to the nation, as well as 
 those recorded in the law. For, as in the latter 
 were written statutes and ordinances, to direct 
 them in all matters sacred and civil; so, in the for- 
 mer was recorded, the division of the land among 
 the tribes. The possession of each tribe was here 
 
 See Josh. i. 8, xxiv. 26. 
 
25 
 
 accurately flpfined ; fo that this hook served as a 
 National tlce-il of eonveyanco. When oilier books 
 were added to the Canon, no doubt, the inspired 
 men who were moved by the Holy Spirit to write 
 them, would he c;ireful to deposit copies in the 
 sanctuary, and to have other copies put into circu- 
 lation. But on this subject we have nopreci>«e in- 
 formation. We know not with what deorree of 
 care the sacred books were guarded, or to what ex- 
 tent copies were multiplied. 
 
 A sin';le fact shows that the sacred auton;raph 
 of Moses had well nigh perished, in tlie idolatrous 
 reigns of Manasseh and Anion, but was found, 
 during the reign of the pious Josiah, among the 
 rubbish of the temple. It cannot, however, be 
 reasonably supposed, that there were no other co- 
 pies of the law scattered through the nation. It 
 does indeed seem that the young king had never 
 seen the book, and was ignorant of its contents, un- 
 til it was now read to him ; but while the copy in 
 the temple had been misplaced, and buiied among 
 the ruins, many pious men might have possessed 
 private copies. 
 
 And although at the destruction of Jerusalem and 
 of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, this precious 
 volume was, in all probability, destroyed with the 
 ark aiid all the holy apparatus of the sanctuary j 
 yet, we are not to credit the Jewish tradition, too 
 readily received by t le Christian Fathers, thit on 
 tJiis occasion all the copies of the iicriptures were 
 c2 
 
26 
 
 lost, and that Kzra restored the whole by miracle. 
 This i>> a mere Jewish fable, depending on no 
 higher authority than a passage in the fourth book 
 of Esdras, and is utterly inconsistent with facts 
 recorded in the sacred volume. Wc know, that 
 Daniel had a copy of the Scriptures, for he quotes 
 thern,and makes express mention of the Prophecies 
 of Jeremiah. And Ezra is called, a ready scribe 
 in the Law ; and it is said, in the sixth chapter 
 of Ezra, that when the temple was finished, 
 the functions of the priests and Levites were re- 
 gulated, as it is written in the book of Mo- 
 ses. And this was many years before Ezra 
 came to Jerusalem. And in the eighth chapter of 
 Nehemiah, it is said, that Ezra, at the request of 
 the people, brought the law before the congrega- 
 tion, and he read therein from the morning un- 
 til mid day. *find Ezra opened the book in the 
 sight of all the people. It is evident, therefore, 
 that all the copies of the Scpritures were not lost 
 during the captivity. This story, no doubt, orig- 
 inated from two facts : the first, that the auto- 
 graphs, in the temple had been destroyed with 
 that sacred edifice ; and the second, that Ezra 
 took great pains to have correct copies of the Scrip- 
 tures prepared and circulated. 
 
 It seems to be agreed by all, that the forming of 
 the present Canon of the Old Testament, should be 
 attributed to Ezra. To assist him in this work, the 
 Jewish writers inform us, that there existed in his 
 
27 
 
 time, A UREAT SYNAGOGUE, consistirifij of one hund- 
 red and twenty men, including Daniel and liis three 
 friends, Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego ; the 
 prophets Hag;a;ai and Zechariah ; and also Simon the 
 Just. }juf it is very absurd to suppose that all these 
 lived at one time, and formed one synaf^oguc, as 
 they are pleased to represent it: for, from the time 
 of Daniel to that of Simon the Just, no less than 
 two huiulred and fifty years must have intervened. 
 It is, liowever, no how improbable, that Kzra 
 was assisted in this great work by many learned 
 and pious men, who were contemporary with him ; 
 and as prophets had always been the superintend- 
 ents, as well as writers of the sacred volume, it is 
 likely that the inspired men who lived at the 
 same time as Ezra, would give attention to this 
 work. But in regard to this great synagogue, the 
 only thing probable is, that the men, who are said 
 to have belonged to it, did not live in one age, but 
 successively, until the time of Simon the Just, who 
 was made high priest about twenty five years af- 
 ter the death of Alexander the Great. This opin- 
 ion has its probability increased, by the considera- 
 tion, that the Canon of the Old Testament appears 
 not to have been fully completed, until about tne 
 time of Simon the Just. Malachi seems to hive 
 lived after the time of Ezra, and therefore his pro- 
 phecy could not have been added to the Canon by 
 this eminent scribe; uidess we adopt the opinion 
 of the Jews, who will have Malachi to be no other 
 
28 
 
 than Ezra himself ; maintaining, that while Ezra 
 was Ills proper name, he received that of Malachi, 
 from the circu instance of his having been sent to 
 superintend the religious concerns of the Jews ; 
 for the import of that name is, a viessenger, or 
 one sent 
 
 But this is not all, in the book of Nehemiah, men- 
 tion is made of the high priest Jaddua, and of Da- 
 rius Codomannus, king of Persia, both of whom 
 lived at least a hundred years after the time of 
 Ezra. In the third chapter of the first book of 
 Chronicles, the genealogy of the sons of Zerubbabel 
 is carried down, at least to the time of Alexander 
 the Great. This book, thereC^re, could not have 
 been put itito the Canon by Ezra ; nor much ear- 
 lier than the time of Simon the Just. The book of 
 Esther also was probably added during this in- 
 terval. 
 
 The probable conclusion, therefore, is, that Ezra 
 began this work, and collected and arranged all tlie 
 sa.M-fd books which belonged to the Canon before 
 his time, and that a succession of pious and learn- 
 ed men continued to pay attention to the Canon, 
 until tlie whole vvas completed, about the time of 
 Simon the Just. After which, nothing was ever 
 added to the Canon of the Old Testament. 
 
 Most, however, are of opinion that nothing was 
 added after the book of Malachi was written, ex- 
 
 Neh. xii. 22. 
 
S9 
 
 cept a few names, and notes; and that all the books 
 hflonjrino; to the Canon of tlieOl.i Testament, were 
 collected and inserted in the sacred volume by Ez- 
 ra himself. And tiiis opinion seems to bo the sa- 
 fest, and is no how incre«lible in itself. It accords 
 also with the uniform tradition of the Jevvs, that 
 Ezra completed the Canon of the Old Testament ; 
 an(. that after Malachi there arose no prophet, who 
 added any thino; to the sacred volume. 
 
 Whether the books were, now collected into a sin- 
 o-le volume, or were bound up in several codicea^ 
 is a question of no importance: if vve can ascertain 
 what books were received as Canonical, it matters 
 not in what form they were preserved. It seems pro- 
 bable, however, that the sacred books were at ihis 
 time distributed into three volumes, the Law; the 
 Prophkts ; and the HAGif)GKAPHA. This divis- 
 ion, we know to be as ancient as the time of our 
 Saviour, for he says, These, are the words which 
 I spake unto yon while I was yet with yoK, that 
 all things /night be fulfilled, which are written 
 in THE Law, and in the Phophets, and in ihe 
 Psalms, concerninic me. Josephus, also, makes 
 mention of this division, and it is by the Jews, 
 wiih one consent, referred to Ezra, as its author. 
 
 In establishing the Canon of the Old Testament, 
 we miujht Inhour under considerable uncfTtainty 
 and embarrasment, in regard to several books, 
 
 Luke xxiv. 44. 
 
36 
 
 were it not, that the whole of what were called 
 THE ScKiPTURES, aiid which were included iu the 
 threefold division, mentioned above, received the 
 explicit sanction of our Lord. He was not back- 
 ward to reprove the Jews for disobeying, misinter- 
 preting;, and adding their traditions, to the Scrip- 
 tures, but he never drops a hint that they had been 
 unfaithful or careless, in the preservation of the sa- 
 cred books. So far from this, he refers to the 
 ScKiPTUREs as an infallible rule, which must he 
 fulfilled, and could not he broken. Search the 
 scriptures, said he, for hi them ye think ye have 
 eternal lif chut they are they which testify of me. 
 The errors of the Sadducees are attributed to an 
 ignorance of the Scriptures : and they are never 
 mentioned but with the highest respect, and as the 
 unerring word of God. The apostle Paul, also, 
 referring, principally, if not wholly, to the Scrip- 
 tures of the Old TestaiTient, says, ^nd that from 
 a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, 
 which are able to make thee wise unto salvation. 
 Sll Scripture is giveti by inspiration of God. 
 They are also called by this apostle the oracles 
 OF God ; the livi.ly oracles, the word op 
 GOD ; and when quotations are made from David, 
 it is represented as the Holy Ghost speaking by 
 
 Mark xiv. 49. John x. 35. 
 
 John V. 39. 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. 
 
 Heb. ui. 7. James i. 21—23. 
 
31 
 
 the mouth of David. The testimony of Peter is 
 not less explicit, for he says : The prophecy ; 
 came not in old time l)y the. will of m.uii, but holy 
 men of God spake as they were moved by the 
 Holy Ghost. And the apostle James speaks of 
 the Scriptures, with pqual confidence and res- 
 pect ; Jind receive with meekness, says he, the in- 
 grafted ivord tohich is able to save your souls. 
 Jind the scripture tvas fulfilled ivhich saith, 
 &c. Do ye think that the Scripture saith in 
 vain? &c. 
 
 We have, therefore, an important point estab- 
 lished with the utmost certainty, that the volume 
 of Scripture which existed in the time of Christ 
 and his apostles, was unconupted, and was esteem- 
 ed by them an inspired and infallible rule. Now, 
 if we can asccrlain what books were then included 
 in the Sacred Volume, we shall be able to settle 
 the Canon of the Old Testament without uncer- 
 tainty. 
 
 But here lies the difficulty. Neither Christ, , 
 nor any of his apostles has given us a catalogue 
 of the books, which composed the Scriptures of 
 the Old Testament. They have distinctly quoted 
 a number of these books , and so far the evidence 
 is complete. We know, that the Law and the 
 Pkopiiets and the Psal^is were included in 
 their Canon. But this does not ascertain, particu- 
 
 2 Pet. i. 21. James iv. 5. 
 
32 
 
 laHy, whether the very same hooks which we 
 now find in the Old Testament were then found 
 in it, and no others. It is necessary then, to re- 
 sort to oihersources of information. And happily, 
 the Jewish historian Josephus furnishes us with 
 the very information which we want; not indeed 
 as explicitly, as we could wish, but sufficiently 
 so to lead us to a very satisfactory conclusion. 
 He docs not name the books of the Old Testa- 
 ment, but he numbers them, and so describes 
 them, that there is scarcely room for any mistake. 
 The important passa^je to which we refer, is in his 
 first book at ai ist Apion, "We have" says he "only 
 two and twenty books, which are to be believed 
 as of divine authority ; of which five are the books 
 of Moses. From the death of Moses, to the reign 
 of Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes,king of Persia, the 
 Prophets who were the successors of Moses have 
 written in thirteen books. The remaining four 
 books contain hymns to God, and documents of 
 life, for the use of men." Now the five books of 
 Moses are universally agreed to be, Genesis, Exo- 
 dus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The 
 thirteen books, written by the prophets, will in- 
 clude Joshua, Judges with Ruth, Samuel, Kings, 
 Isaiah, Jeremiah with Lamentations, Ezekiel, 
 Daniel, the Twelve minor Prophets, Job, Ezra, 
 Esther, and Chronicles. The four remaining 
 books will be, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 
 and the Song of Solomon, which make the whole 
 
S3 
 
 number twentt/-iwo ; the Canon then existing iS 
 proved to be the same, as tliat which we now 
 possess. It would appear, indeed, that these books 
 might more conveniently be reckoned ticenty- 
 J\)ur ; and this is the present method of num- 
 berinjc them, by the modern Jews ; but form- 
 erly, the number was regulated by that of the 
 Hebrew alphabet, which consists of twenty two 
 letters, therefore, they annexed the small book 
 of Ruth to Judges; and probably it is a contin- 
 uation of this book by the same author. They 
 added, also, the Lamentations of Jeremiah to his 
 prophecy, and this was natural enough. As to 
 the Minor Prophets, which form twelve separate 
 books in our Bibles, they were anciently, always 
 reckoned one book, so they are considered in ev- 
 ery ancient catalogue, and in all quotations from 
 thern. 
 
 It will not be supposed that any change could 
 have occurred in tlie Canon from the time of our 
 Saviour and his a|)ostles, to that in which Jose- 
 phus wrote. Indeed, he may be considered the 
 c -nleniporary of the apostles, as he was born 
 about the time of Paul's conversion to Christianity; 
 and was therefore grown up to man's age, long 
 before the death of this apostle ; and the apostle 
 Joiin probably survived him. And it must be re- 
 mtmbored, that Josephus is here giving his testi- 
 mony to a public fact: he is declaring what books 
 were received as divine by his nation j and he 
 
34 
 
 does it without hesitation, or inconsistency. " We 
 have" says he *' only twenty two books, which are 
 believed to be of divine authority." 
 
 We are able also to adduce other testimony, to 
 prove the same thing. Some of the early Clirist- 
 ian Fathers, who had been brought up in Pagan- 
 ism, when they embraced Christianity, were 
 curious in their inquiries into the Canon of the 
 Old Testament ; and the result of the researches 
 of some of them, still remain. Melito bishop of 
 Sardis travelled into Judea, for the very purpose of 
 satisfying himself on this point. And although, 
 his own writings are lost, Eusebius has preserved 
 his catalogue of the books of the Old Testament ; 
 from which it appears, that the very same books 
 were, in his day, received into the Canon, as 
 are now found in our Hebrew Bibles. And the 
 interval between Melito and Josephus is not a 
 hundred years, so that no alteration in the Canon 
 can De reasonably supposed to have taken place in 
 this period. Very soon after Melito, Okigen fur- 
 nishes us with a catalogue of the books of the Old 
 Testament, which perfectl}?- accords with our Ca- 
 non, except that he omits the Minor Prophets ; 
 which omihsion muat have been a mere slip of the 
 pen, in him or his copyist, as it is certain, that he 
 received this, as a book of Holy Scripture r and the 
 number of the books of the Old Testament, given 
 by him in this very place, caunot be completed, 
 
66 
 
 ^vithout reckoning the Twelve Minor Prophets as 
 one. 
 
 After Driven, we have catalogues, in succession, 
 not only by men of the first authority in the church, 
 bill by councils, consisting of numerous bishops, all 
 which are perfectly the same as our own. It will 
 be sufficient merely to refer to these sources of in- 
 formotion. Catalogues of the books of the Old 
 Testament ha e been given by Athanasius ; by 
 Ctkil ; by Augustine ; by Jebomk ; by Rupin ; 
 by THE COUNCIL OF Laodicea, in their LX. Ca- 
 non : and by i he council of Cakthage. And 
 when it is considered, that all these catalogues ex- 
 actly correspond with our present Canon of the 
 Hebrew Bible, the evidence, I think, must appear 
 complete to every impartial mind, that the Canon 
 of the Old Testament is settled upon the clearest 
 historical grounds. There seems to be nothing to 
 be wished for further, in the confirmation of this 
 point 
 
 But if all this testimony had been wanting, 
 there is still a source of evidence, to which we 
 might refer with the utmost confidence, as per- 
 fectly conclusive on this point ; 1 mean the fact 
 that these books have been, ever since the time of 
 Christ and his apostes,in the keeping of both Jews 
 
 and Chrislians,who have been constantly arrayed in 
 opposition to each other ; so that it was impossi- 
 ble, that any change should have been made in the 
 
 Canon, by either party, without being immediate- 
 
ly detected by the other. And the conclusive cr- 
 idenee that no alteration in the Canon has oc- 
 curred, is, the perfect agreement of these hostile 
 parties, in regard to the books of the Old Testa- 
 ment, at this time. On this point, the Jew and 
 Christian are harmonious. There is no complaint 
 of addition or diminution of the sacred books, on 
 either sifle. The Hebrew Bible of the Jew, is the 
 Bible of the Christian. There is here no diffei'ence. 
 A learned Jew and Christian have even been uni- 
 ted, in publishing an excellent edition of the He- 
 brew Bible.* Now, if any alteration in the Canon 
 has occurred, it must have been by the concert, or 
 collusion of both parties, but how absurd this idea 
 is, must be manifest to all. 
 
 I acknowledge what is here said of the agree- 
 ment of Christians and Jews, can Only be said in 
 relation to Protestant Christians. For as to those 
 of the Romanist and Greek Communions, they have 
 admitted other books into the Canon, which Jews 
 and Protestants hold to be Apocryphal ; but these 
 books will form the subject of a particular discus- 
 sion, in the sequel of this work. 
 
 The fact is important, that a short time after the 
 Canon of the Old Testament was closed, a transla- 
 tion was made of the whole of the books into the 
 Greek language. This translation was made, at Al- 
 exandria, in Egypt, at the request, it is said, of 
 
 * See tbe Biblia Hebraica, edited by LeusdenaJid Athiar 
 
37 
 
 Ptolemy Philadelpbus, kinw of Ea^ypt. that he 
 niis;ht have a copy of these saciod books in the fa- 
 mous library which he was en^a^ed in collecting. 
 It is called the Septuagint, from its beinpf made 
 accordino; to the accounts which have been handed 
 down, by seventy, or rather seventy two, men ; 
 six from each of the tribes of Israel. So many fab- 
 ulous thinsjs have been reported concernina; tliig 
 version that it is very difficult to ascertain the pre- 
 cise truth. But it is manifest from internal evi- 
 dence, that it was not the work of one hand, nor, 
 probably, of one set of translators : for, while some 
 books are rendered with great accuracy, and in a 
 very literal manner, others are translated with lit- 
 tle care, aud the meaning of the original is very 
 imperfectly given. 
 
 The probability is, that the Pentateuch was first 
 translated, and the other books were added from 
 time to time, by different hands ; but when the' 
 work was once begun, it is not likely that it would 
 be long before the whole was completed. 
 
 Now this Greek version contains all the books 
 which are found in our Canonical Hebrew Bibles. 
 It is a good witness therefore to prove, that all 
 these books were in the Canon, when this version 
 was made. The Apocryphal books which have 
 long been connected with this version, will furnish 
 a subject for consideration herafter. 
 
 There is, moreover, a distinct and remarkable 
 testimony to the antiquity of the four books of Mo- 
 D 2 
 
38 
 
 ses in the Samaritan Pentateuch, which h^s exist- 
 ed in a form entirely separate from the Jewish ca- 
 pies, and in a character totally different from that, 
 in which the Hehrevv Bible has been for many 
 a^es written. It has also been preserved and 
 handed down to us^, by a people, who have ever 
 been hostile to the Jews. This Pentateuch hasy 
 without doubt, been transmitted through a sepa- 
 rate channel, ever'since the ten tribes of Israel 
 were carried captive. It furnishes authentic testi- 
 mony to the gtpat antiquity of the books of Mo_ 
 ses, and shows how little they have been corrupt- 
 ed, during the lapse of nearly three thousand 
 years. 
 
SECTiosr iir. 
 
 APOCRYPHAL HOOKS, THEIR OKIGIS— IMPORT \XCE 
 OF ;)1^I'[N'GU[.SI11XG BKIVVKKV CANONICAL A\D 
 APOCUY' lAI. BOOKS— SIX BOOKS OF PHIS (JLASS 
 
 pu)\0UNC!'i) <;a\omcal ijy riiE council of 
 
 TRIvVr— NOr IV THE IIEURLW, NOK RECEIVEU BY 
 THE JEWS, AXCIENP OR MODERN. 
 
 The word Apocuypha signifies, concealed, ob- 
 scure, without authority. In reference to the 
 Bihle, it is einjiloycd to desia;;iate such books as 
 clai(n a phice in the sacred volume, but which are 
 not Canonical. It is said lo have been first used 
 by Melito bisliop of Sardis. 
 
 An inquiry i ito tliis subject cannot be uninfer- 
 estins; to the friends of the Bi!)ie ; for it behoves 
 the:n to ascertain, on the best evidence, what l)ooks 
 belong; to the sacred vohiine, and also, on what 
 grounds other books are rejected from the C:vc>n. 
 This subject assumes a liigher importance fioni t'le 
 faor, that Cliristians are niu^h divide ! on this point; 
 for, some receive as of CanoMicai authority, bixdvs 
 which others reject as spiriou^s, or coiisi(U'r merely 
 as human cotnposilioiis. On suci) a pcjint, every 
 Christian should form his opinion ujion tlie best 
 information which he can ibttin. 
 
 In controversy with the Konianists, this subject 
 
40 
 
 meets us at the very threshhold. It is vain to dis- 
 pute about particular doctrines of Scripture, until 
 it is determined what books are to be received, as 
 Scripture. 
 
 It has also bi^en recently found, that this was a 
 point of great iinpurtance, in the circulation of the 
 Bible. This Book oughtnot to be distributed, maim- 
 ed of some of its parts ; nor should we circulate 
 mere human compositions, as the word of God. 
 The Committe of the British and Foreign Bible 
 Society, were recently called upon to decide this 
 question, in a case of great practical importance. 
 That noble and Catholic society, have, from time 
 to time, aided the exertions of the pious and liber- 
 ally minded members of the Romanist church, in 
 circulating their own versions of the New Testa- 
 ment. Here there existed no difference of opini- 
 on, as to the books which were Canonical; but they 
 lately received an application from that zealous and 
 indefatigable friend of the Bible, ProfessorVAN'Ess, 
 to grant him aid from their funds, to enable him 
 to put the Old Testament also into circulation, 
 among the people of his communion. To this no 
 objection was at first made ; and the funds of the 
 Society w re applied to aid in printing and circu- 
 lating Bibles which contained the Apocrypha, on 
 the Continent of Europe. But the Auxiliary Bi- 
 ble Society of Edinburg, not being satisfied with 
 this proceeding, sent up to the P.irent Society a 
 protest against it, as being inconsistent with the 
 
41 
 
 rarlical principle of their constitution ; viz. that 
 they would circulate tlie Bible without note or 
 comment. Tliis brought the question before tlic 
 Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Socie- 
 ty, under very interesting; circumstances, and the 
 opinion of the friends of the Society appeared to 
 be much divided ; so that great fears were enter- 
 tained, lest it should become the occasion of dis- 
 turbing the harmony of this important Association. 
 But the business was managed by the Committee, 
 with that consummate wisdom which has uniform- 
 ly marked their counsels and proceedings. The 
 whole subject was referred to a select and learned 
 sub-committee : who afier mature deliberation, 
 brought in a report, which was adopted, and led 
 to the following wise resolution in the General 
 Committee, viz. "That the funds of the S ciely 
 be applied to the prmting and circulation of the 
 Canonical books of Scripture, to the exclusion of 
 those books and parts of books, which are termed 
 Apocryphal : and that all copies printed, either en- 
 tirely or in part, at the expense of the Society, 
 and whether such copies consist of the whole,or of 
 any one or more of such books, be invariably is- 
 sued bound, no other book whatever being bound 
 with them ; and farther, that all money grants, to 
 Societies or indivir'uitls, be made only in conformi- 
 ty with the principle of this regulation." 
 
 *' In the Sacred Volume, as it is to be hereafter 
 distributed by the Society, there is to be nothing 
 
42 
 
 but rl"''ine truth, notbino; but what is aoknow- 
 leilfij'd by all Christians to Ke siicli. Of course all 
 may unite in the work of (tistrllnition, even should 
 they regard the Volume as containing but part of 
 the inspi ed writinsrs : just as they might in the 
 circulation of the Pr;ntateuch, or the Book of 
 Psalms, or the Prophets, or the New Testament. 
 Such harmonious operation would not, hovvever, 
 be possible, if the books of the Apocrypha were 
 mingled, or joined with the rest ; and besides, 
 those, who have the strongest obj^-ction to the 
 Ap'crjpha, are, ordinarily, tliose who are most 
 forward in active and liberal efforts to send the 
 word of God to all people." 
 
 This judicious decision of the Committee of the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society depends for its 
 correctnessjon the supposition, that the books of the 
 Apocrypha are not Canonical; fr, whatever may be 
 said about circulating a part of the Bible, it was un- 
 doubtedly the original object of this S-ciety to 
 print and circulate the whole of the Sacred Vol- 
 ume. Hence appears the practical importance of 
 the inquiry which we have here instituted, to as- 
 certain, whether these books have any claim, what- 
 ever, to a place in the Sacred Canon. 
 
 At a very early period of the Christian churchj 
 great pains were taken to distinguish between such 
 books as were inspired and Canonical, and such as 
 were written by uninspired men. It has neve 
 
43 
 
 been doubted amons; Christians, that thcCanonical 
 books only, were of divine aulli^rity, and furnish- 
 ed an infalible rule of faith and pr.ictice ; but it 
 has not bi-en agreed what books ought to be con- 
 sidered Canonical, and what Ai)Ocryphal. In regard 
 to those which have already been enumerated, as 
 belonging to the Old Teslament, th> re is a pretty 
 general consent of Jews and Christians, of Roman- 
 ists and Protestants ; but in regard to some other 
 books there is a wide difference of opinion. 
 
 The council of Trent in their fourth session 
 gave a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, 
 among which are, included, Tobias, Juijith,Wis- 
 
 .DOM, ECCLESIASTICUS, BaRUCH, and TWO BO )KS 
 
 OFTHt Maccabees.* Besides, they included un- 
 der the name of Esther and Daniel, certain addi- 
 tional chapters, which are not found in the He- 
 brew copies. Tlie hook of Esliier is made to con- 
 sist of sixteen chapters; and prefixed to the book 
 of Daniel is the the histoky of Susanna ; the 
 Song of the three Children, is inserted in the 
 third chapter; and the history of Bel and the 
 Dragon is added, at the end of this book. Other 
 books, which are found in the Greek, or Latin Bi- 
 bles, tney rejected, as Apocryphal ; as, the third 
 and fourth books of Esdras ;t the third book of 
 
 " See Note A. 
 
 f The First and Second books of Esdras, are very fre- 
 quently called the Third and Fourth; in which case the 
 'wo canoiucul books Ezra and NeJieiniah are reckoned th-? 
 
44 
 
 Maccabees ; the cli. Psalm ; the Appendix to Job ; 
 
 and the Preface to Lamentations. 
 
 Both these classes of books, all denominations 
 of Protestants consider Apocryphal ; hut as the 
 Kno:lish churcli,'in her Litiiri;;y, dirpcts, ihat cer- 
 tain lessons shall be read from the former, for the 
 insiructiun of the people, hui not for c.tnfirmation 
 of doctrine, they are retidned in the larger co- 
 pies of the English Bible, but are not mingled 
 w'ilh the Canonical books, as in the Vulgale, but 
 pUiced at the end of the Old Testament, under the 
 title of, Apocrypha. It is certainly U) be regret- 
 ted, that tbese books are permitted to be included 
 in the same volume, which contains the livkly or-- 
 
 ACLES ; THE WOKD OF GoD ; — THE HoLY ScKIP- 
 
 TTTREs ; all of which were given by inspiration : 
 and more to be regretted still, that they shuuld 
 be read in the church, promiscuously with the les- 
 sons taken froni the canonical books ; especially 
 as no notice is given to the people, that what is 
 
 Fh-st and Second: for both these books have been ascribed 
 to Ezra as their author; but these are not mcluded in the 
 Ust ofCanonica] books, sanctioned by the Couiicd of Trent, 
 and therefore they do not come into controver&y. Indeed, 
 the Second of these books is not found even in the Gieek, 
 but only in the Latin Vulgate, and is so replete with tables 
 and false Etatements,that it has never been esteemed of any 
 vakio. They are both however retained in our larger En- 
 g\if.h Bibles; and are honoured with the foremost place, in 
 the -order of the Apocryphal books. 
 
45 
 
 rea<l from tliese books is Apocryphal; and as, in the 
 Prayer Book of the Episcopal church the tables 
 which refer to the lessons to be read, have this ti- 
 tle prefixed ; Tables of lessons of Holy Script w'c 
 to be read at morning and evening prayer 
 throtighoiit the year. Now, however good and 
 instructive these Apocryphal lessons may be, it ne- 
 ver can be justified, that they should thus be put 
 on a level with the word of God.* 
 
 But it is our object, at present, to show, that 
 none of these books, Canonized by the council of 
 Trent, and inserted in our larger English Bibles, 
 are Canonical. 
 
 1. The first argument by which it may be prov- 
 ed that these books do not belong to the Canon of 
 the Old Testament, is, that ihey are not found in 
 the Hebrew Bible. They are not written in the 
 Hebrew language, but in the Greek, which was not 
 known to the Jews, until long after inspiration had 
 ceased, and the Canon of the Old Testament was 
 cloacd. It is rendered probable, indeed, that sonic 
 of them were written originally in the Chaldaic ; 
 Jerome testifies this to be the fact, in regard to 
 1. Maccabees, and Ecclcsiaslicus; and he says, that 
 he translated the book of Tobit, out of Clialdee in- 
 to Latin ; but this bouk is now found in the Greek, 
 and there is good reason for believing, that it was 
 
 * See Tables prefixed to the Book of Common Prayer; 
 also THE SSixTU Article of Religion, of thu Episcopal 
 Cliurch. 
 
 £ 
 
48 
 
 written originally, in this language. It is certainj 
 however, that none of these books were composed 
 in the pure Hebrew of the Old Testament 
 
 Hoitinger, indeed, informs us, that he had seen 
 the whole of the Apoci-ypha in pure Hebrew, 
 among the Jews ; but he entertains no doubt, that 
 it was translated into that language, in modern 
 times : just as the whole New Testament has re- 
 cently been translated into pure Hebrew. 
 
 It is the common opinion of the Jews,and of the 
 Christian Fathers, that Malachi was the last of 
 the Old Testament prophets. Books written by 
 uncertain authors, afterwards, have no claim to be 
 reckoned Canonical ; and there is good reason 
 for believing, that those books were written long 
 after the time of Ezra and Malachi ; and some of 
 them, perhaps, later than the commencement of the 
 Christian era. 
 
 2. These books, though probably written iiy 
 .Tews, have never been received into the Canon, by 
 that people. In this, the ancient and modern Jews 
 are of the same mind. Josephus declares, "That 
 no more than twenty two books were received as 
 inspired by his nation.'' Philo who refers often 
 to the Old Testament, in his writings, never makes 
 the least mention of them ; nor are ihey recognized 
 in the Talmud, as Canonical. Not only so, but 
 the Jewish Rabbies expressly reject them. Rab- 
 bi Azariah, speakingof these books, says, "They 
 are received by Christians, not by us." 
 
47 
 
 R. Gedaliaii, after giving a catalogue of llie 
 books of (lie Old Testament with some account of 
 their authors, adds these words, " It is worth while 
 to know that the nations of the world wrote many 
 other books, which arc included in their system of 
 sacred books, but arc not in our hands." To which 
 he adds, "They say that some of these are found 
 in the Chaldee ; sonic in the Arabic ; and some in 
 the Greek language." 
 
 11. AzARiAii ascribes the book called, the Wis- 
 dom OF Solomon, to Philo ; and R. Gedaliaii ia 
 speaking of the same book says, '< That if Solomon 
 ever wrote it, it must have been in the Syriac lan- 
 guage, to send it to some of the kings in the remo- 
 test parts of the East." '' But," says he, '' Ezra 
 put his hand only to those books which were pub- 
 lished by the prophets, under the guidance of the 
 Holy Spirit, and written in the sacred language ; 
 and oui- wise men prudently and deliberately re- 
 solved, to sanction none but such as were establish- 
 ed and confirmed by him." 
 
 "This book," says he, "the Gentiles (i. e. 
 Christians) have added to their Bible." 
 
 "Their wise men," says Buxtorf, "pronounced 
 this book to be Apocryphal." 
 
 The book called Ecclesiasticus, said to be 
 written by THE son of Sikacii, is expressly num- 
 bered among Apocryphal books, in the Talmud. 
 " In the book of the Son of Sirach, it is forbidden 
 to read." 
 
48 
 
 Manasseh Ben Israel has this observation, 
 ■^^ Those things which are alleged from a verse in 
 Ecclesiasticus are nothing to the purpose, because 
 that is an Apocryphal book." Another of their 
 writers says, "The book of the son of Sirach is 
 added to our twenty-four sacred books, by the 
 Romans." This book also, they call extraneous , 
 which some of the Jews prohibit to be read. With 
 what face then can the Romanists pretend, that 
 this book was added to the Canon, not long before 
 the time of Josephus ? 
 
 Baruch, says one of their learned men, "is re- 
 ceived by Christians" (i. e.. Romanists.) "but not 
 by us." 
 
 Of ToBiT, it is said in Zemach David " Know 
 then that this book of Tobias is one of those which 
 Christians join with the Hagiographa." A little 
 afterwards, it is said, "Know then that Tobit 
 which is among us in the Hebrew tongue, was 
 translated from Latin into Hebrew, by Sebas- 
 tian Munster." The same writer aflfirms of the 
 history of Susannah, "That it is received by 
 Christians, but not by us." 
 
 The Jewsjin the time of Jerome, entertained no 
 other opinion of these books, than those who came 
 after them ; for in his Preface to Daniel he in- 
 forms us, " That he had- heard one of the Jewish 
 doctors deriding the history of Susannah, who 
 said, ' it was invented by some Greek, he knew 
 not whom."* 
 
 * See the Thesaurus Philologicus of Hottinger, 
 
49 
 
 The same is the opinion of the Jews respecting 
 the ot Ik r hooks, which we call Apocryphal, as is 
 manifest from all the copies of the Hehrew Bihie, 
 extant ; for, undoubtedly, if they l)clieved that 
 an\' of these books were Car.onical, they would 
 give them a place in their sacred volume. But 
 will any ask, what is the opinion of the Jews to 
 us? I answer, much, on this point. The oracles 
 of God were C'lmmited to them ; and they pre- 
 served them with ar religious care, until the advent 
 of Messiah. Christ never censures them for adding 
 to the Sacred Scriptures, nor detracting from them. 
 Since their nation has been in dispersion, copies of 
 the Old Testament, in Hebrew, have been scatter- 
 ed all over the world, so that it was impossible to 
 produce a universal alieration in the Canon. — But 
 it is needless to argue this point, for it is agreed 
 by all, that these books never were received by 
 the Jewish nation. 
 
 3. The third argument against the Canonical au- 
 thority of tliese books, is derived from the tot^l 
 silence respecting them, in the New Testament. 
 Thev are never quoted by Christ and his apostles. 
 This fact, however,is disputed by theRomanists,and 
 they even attempt to e'-taiiiish their right ti< a pi ace 
 in the Canon, from the citations, which tliey pretend 
 have been made from tliesc books by the apostles. 
 They refer to Rom. xi. and Heb. xi where they 
 allea:e, that P..ul has ci'ed passages from the B<H)k 
 of Wisdom. For who hath known the mind of 
 E 2 
 
50 
 
 the Lord^ orwh'o hath been his counsellor ? — For 
 before his translation he had this testimony 
 that he pleased God. But both these passages are 
 taken directly from tlio Canonical books of the Old 
 Testament. The first is nearly in the words of 
 Isaiah ; and the last from the book of Genesis ; 
 their other examples are as wide of the mark as 
 these, and need not be set down. 
 
 And it has already been shown that these books 
 were included in the volume quoted, and referred 
 to, by Christ and his apostles, under the title of, 
 THE Scriptures, and are entirely omitted by Jo- 
 sephus in his account of the Sacred books. It 
 would seem therefore, that in the time of Christ, 
 and for some time afterwards, tiiey were utterly 
 unknown, or wholly disregarded. 
 
SECTION" IV. 
 
 TESTFMOXIKS OF THK CHIUSTIAN F\TFIERS, AND 
 OFOTIIElt LKAltNKD MEN DOW N TO IIIK I I\IE OF 
 THR COUNCIL OF TliKN I', UESl'EC IING THE AI'OC- 
 UYIMIA. 
 
 The fourth argument, is, that these books were 
 not received as Canonical, by the Christian Fathers, 
 but were expressly declared to be Apocryphal. 
 
 JnsTiN Martyk does not cite a sinsjle passage, 
 in all his writinpjs, from any Apocsyph.d book. 
 
 The first catalogue of the books of the Old Tes- 
 tament which we have, after the times of the apos- 
 tles, from any Cliristian writer, is tliat of M.:hto 
 bishop of Sardis, before the end of the second cen- 
 tury, which is preserved by F'iUsebius. The frag- 
 ment is as follows, "Mr.juiTO to his brother Onks- 
 iMi's, greeting. Since you have often earnestly 
 reque>ted of ine, in consequence of your love of 
 leari(ing,a colkcfion of the Sacred Scriptures of the 
 Law, and the Prophets, and what rela»cs to the 
 Saviour, and concerning our whole faitii ; and 
 since, moreover, you wish to obtain an accurate 
 ktujwlcdge of our ancient books, as it respects their 
 number, and order, I have used dilia;ence to accom- 
 plish this, knowing your sincere affection towards 
 the faith, and your tarnesl desire to become ac- 
 quainted witti the word : and that striving after 
 
52 
 
 eternal life, your love to God induces vou to pre- 
 fer these to all other tliins;s. Wherefore, ^oin<^ 
 into the East, and to the very place where these 
 things were published and transacted ; and having 
 made diligent search after the books of the Old 
 Testament, I now subjoin, and send you, the fol- 
 lowing catalogue. Five books of Moses, viz. Gen- 
 esis, Exndus, Leviticus, Numbers and Dput(;rono- 
 my. Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Four books of Kings, 
 Two of Chronicles, The Psalms of David, The 
 Proverbs of Solomon, (or) Wisdom,* Ecclc^iastes, 
 The Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Twelve 
 in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra."t 
 I OsiGEN also says, " We should not be ignorant, 
 '' that the Canonical books are the same which the 
 H brews delivered unto us, and are twenty two 
 in au nber,according to the numb..r of letters of the 
 Hebrew alphabet. '^' Then besets dou ti, in order, 
 the names of the books, in Greek and Hebrew. 
 
 * Whether Melito, in this catalogue, by the woitl Wis- 
 dom, meant to designate a distinct book; or whether It 
 was used as an other name for Proverbs, seems doubtful. 
 Tlie latter has generally been understood to be tlie sense; 
 and this accords with the understanding of the ancients; for 
 Rutin, in iiis translation of this passage of Busebius,rendcrs 
 ■Tra^oij-iaj >; (So(pla SaLrmonis Froverbia, guce est sapientia ; 
 that is. The Proverbs of Solcmon^which is Wisdom. Pineda, 
 a learned Romanist, says, " The word Iflsilom should hero 
 be taken as explicative of the former, and should be under- 
 stood to mean, The Proverbs." 
 
 t Euseb. Hist. Ecc. Lib. v. c 24. 
 
53 
 
 Athanasius, in his Synopsis, says, ''All the 
 Scriptures of us Christians are divinely inspired; 
 neither are they indefinite in Iheir number, but 
 determined, and reduced into a Canon. Those of 
 the Old Testament are. Genesis, Exodus, Leviti- 
 cus, Numbers, Joshua, Jiido;es, Ruth, Four books 
 of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, 
 Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job. The twelve prophets, 
 Isaiah, Jeremiah, P^zekiel, Daniel." 
 
 HiLAKV, who was contemporary with Athana- 
 sius, and resided in France, has numbered the Ca- 
 nonical books of the Old Testanient, in the follow- 
 ing manner, "The five of Moses, the sixth of 
 Joshua, the seventh of Jud2;es including Ruth, the 
 eighth of first and second Kings ; the ninth of third 
 and fourth Kings ; the tenth of the Chronicles, two 
 books ; the eleventh, Ezra (which included Nehe- 
 miah;) the twelltli, tlie Psalms. Proverbs, Eccle- 
 siastes, and the Son^ of S )ngs, the thirteenth, 
 fourteenth, and fifteenth; the Twelve Prophets, the 
 sixteenth ; then, Isaiah and Jeremiah including 
 Lamentations and his Epistle, Daniel, Ezekiel, 
 Job, and Esther, making up the full nninber of 
 twenty two." And in his Preface, he adds, "That 
 these books were thus numbered by our ancestors, 
 and handed down by tradition from them."* 
 
 GuKGOiiY Nazianzen exhorts his readers to 
 study the sacred books with attention, but to avoid 
 
 * Proleg. in Psalmos. 
 
 / 
 
54 
 
 such as were Apocryplial ; and then gives a list of 
 the books of the OJfl Testament, and at'cordino: to 
 the Jewish nielhod, makes the"nuinl)er two and 
 TWENTY. He complains of some, that min2;led 
 the Apocryphal books with those that were inspir- 
 ed "Of the truth of which last," says he, "we 
 have the most perfect per'^uasion, therefore it seem- 
 ed good to me, to enumerate the Canonical books, 
 from the beginning : and those which belong to 
 the Old Testament are two and twenty, according 
 to the number of the Hebrew alphabet, as I have 
 understood." Then he proceeds to say, "Let 
 no one add to these divine books, nor take any 
 thing away from them. I think it necessary to 
 ad'i this, that there are other books besides those 
 which I have enumerated as constituting the Canon, 
 which however do not appertain to it ; but were 
 proposed by the early Fathers, to be read for the 
 sake of the instruction which they contain. " Then, 
 he expressly names, as belonging to this class, 
 
 THE WISDOM OF SoLOMON, THE WISDOM OF SiRACH, 
 
 Esther, Judith, and Tobit.* 
 
 Jerome, in his Ej)isrlp to Paulinus, gives us a 
 catologue of the bouks of the Old Testament, ex- 
 actly corresponding with that which Protestants 
 receive. " Which," says he, " we believe agreea- 
 bly to the tradition of our ancestors, to have been 
 inspired by the Holy Spirit." 
 
 * Epist. ad Thcod. and Lib. Carm. 
 
55 
 
 Epiphanius, in his book conccrninjr Weiochts 
 and Measures, distributes the books of the Old 
 Testament into four divisions, of five each. "The' 
 first of which contains the Law; next, five Poetical 
 books, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song 
 of Songs ; in the third division, he places Joshua, 
 Judges including Ruth, First and Second Chroni- 
 cles, Four books of Kings. The last dve, the 
 twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiol, Da- 
 niel. Then there remain two, Ezra and Esther," 
 Thus he makes up the nnml)cr twknty-two. 
 
 Cykil of Jerusalem, in his Catechism, exhorts his / 
 catechumen diligently to learn from ti e church, what 
 books appertain to the Old and New Testament, and 
 he says, "Read nothing which is Apocryphal. Read 
 the Scriptures, namely, the twenty-two books of 
 the Old Testament, which were translated by the 
 Seventy-two interpreters. " And in another place, 
 "Meditate, as was said, in the twenty two books 
 of the Old Testament, and if you wish it, I will 
 give you their names." Here follows a catalogue, 
 agreeing with those already given, except that he 
 adds Baruch to the list. When Baruch is men- 
 tioned as making one book with Jeremiah, as is 
 done by some of the Fathers, it is most reasona- 
 ble to understand those parts of Jeremiah, in the 
 writing of which, Baruch was concerned, as 
 particularly the lii. chapter; for, if we under- 
 stand them as referring to the separate book, 
 now called Baruch, the number, which they are 
 
5e. 
 
 so careful to "preserve, will be 'exceeded. This 
 Apocryphal Baruch never existed in the Hebrew, 
 and is never mentioned separately, by any ancient 
 author, as Bellarmine confesses. This book was 
 originally written in Greek, but our present copies 
 differ exceedingly from the Old Latin translation. 
 
 The cou>xil of Laodicka forbad the reading 
 of any books in the churches, but such as were Ca- 
 nonical ; and that the people might know what 
 these were, a catalogue was given, answering to 
 the Canon which we now receive. 
 
 Origen barely mentions the Maccabees. Atha- 
 NAsius takes no notice of these books. Etsebius, 
 in his Chronicon, speaks of the History of the Mac- 
 cabees, and adds, "These books are not received 
 as divine Scriplures" 
 
 Philastkius, an Italian bishop, who lived in 
 the latter part of the fouith Century, in a work on 
 Heresy, says '"It was determined by the apostles 
 and their successors, that nothing should be read in 
 theCalholic church, but the Law. Prohets, Evange- 
 lists, &c." — And he complains of certain Heretics, 
 "That they used the book of Wisdom, by THi. son 
 or SiRACH, who lived long after Solomon." 
 
 Chrysostom, a man who excelled in the know- 
 ledge of the Scriptures, declares, "That all the 
 divine books of the Old Testameni were ori<j:;i!ial- 
 ly written in the Hebrew tongue, and that no other 
 books were received."* 
 
 * Horn. 4. In Gen. 
 
57 
 
 ]iiif Jerome, already mentioned, who Imd dili- 
 g;entiy studied the Hibrcw ScripUircs, by the .tid 
 of tlie brst Jewish leacliers, entitis into tliis subjt ct 
 more fnlly and accurately than any of the rest of 
 the Fathers. In lii^ 2;encral Pix-face to ids version of 
 the Scriptures, lie mentions the books which he had 
 translated out of Hebrew into Lniin ; "All besides 
 them," sa3s lie, "must be placed amona; the Apoc- 
 ryphal. Tiierefore, VN'isdom, which is aserilxnl to 
 
 Solomon, THK BOOK OF JfcSUS THt; SON OF SiRACH, 
 
 JuDrrn, ToBiT, and 1'asiok, are not in the Canon. 
 I have found the lirst bnuk of. JVIaccabees in He- 
 brew (Chaldec); the second in Greek, and ;is the 
 style sliows, ii must have been composed in ihat lan- 
 guage." And in his Preface to Ezra and Nehemiah, 
 (always reckoned one l)0(di by the Jews,) he says, 
 ** Let no one bo dislurbed, mat 1 have edited but 
 one book nniler this name ; nor let any one j)lease 
 himself with the dreams contained in lb third and 
 foui'lh Apociyphal bo(dis, ascribed to this author; 
 for with the Hebrews, Kzra and Nehemiali make 
 but one book ; and those things not contained in 
 this are to be lejected, as not belonging to the Ca- 
 non." And in his preface to thebioks of Solomon, 
 bespeaks "of Wisdom, and Ecclesiaslicus ; the 
 former of which" he says, "he found in Hebrew, 
 (Chaldee) but not the latter, which is never found 
 among the Hebrews, but the style strongly savours 
 o fllie Grecian eloquence." He then adds, " As 
 the chujcii reads the books of Judith, Tubil, and 
 
the Maccabees, but does not receive them among 
 the Canonical Scriptures, so also, she may read 
 these two books for the edification of the common 
 people, but not as authority to confirm any of the 
 doctrines of the church." 
 
 Again, in his Preface to Jeremiah, he says, 
 **The book ofBaruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, is 
 not read in Hebrew, nor esteemed Canonical, 
 therefore, I have passed it over." And in his Pre- 
 face to Daniel, " This book among the Hebrews has 
 neither the history of Susanna, nor the song 
 OF the three Children, nor the eabees of 
 Bel and the Dragon, which we have retained, 
 lest we should appear to the unskilful to have cur- 
 tailed a large part of the Sacred Volume." 
 
 In the Preface to Tobit, he says, "The He- 
 brews cutoff the book of Tobit from the catalogue 
 of Divine Scriptures." 
 
 And in his Preface to Judith, ''Among the He- 
 brews, Judith is placed among the Hiagiographa 
 which are not of authority to determine controver- 
 sies." 
 
 RuFiN, in his Exposition of the Creed, observes, 
 <'That there were some books, which were not 
 called Canonical, but received b}' our ancestors; as 
 the Wisdi. m of Solomon, and another Wisdom of 
 the Son of Sirach; of the same order , are the books 
 of Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees " 
 
 Grkgobt the First, speaking of the testimony 
 in the Maccabees respectiug the death of EleazeVf 
 
59 
 
 says, " Concerning; which tiling we do not act in- 
 onlinately, althous;h \vc lirin^; onr testimony from 
 a hook, whicli is not Canonical." 
 
 Augustine, is the only one among the Fathers, 
 who liv^d within four hundred years after the 
 apostles, \/l^o seems to favour the introduction of 
 these six disputed books, into the Canon. In his 
 work On Christian Df)ctrine, he gives a list of 
 the books ofthe Old Testamcnt,amon2; which he in- 
 serts, Tobit,. Judith, the two books of Maccabees, 
 two of Esdras, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus. 
 These two, last mentioned, he says, are called So- 
 lomon's, on account of their resemblance to his 
 writings ; although it is known, that one of them 
 was composed by the Son of Sirach : which de- 
 serves to be received among the prophetical 
 books." But this opinion he retracted after- 
 wards. * 
 
 Augustine was accustomed to the Greek and 
 Latin Bibles, in which those books had been 
 introduced, and we must suppose, unless we 
 would make him contradict himself, that he meant 
 in this place, merely to enumerate the books then 
 contained in the Sacred volume; for in many 
 other places, he clearly shews, tlmt he enter- 
 tained the same opinion ofthe books of the Old 
 Testament, as the other Fathers. 
 
 In his celebrated work, Op the citv of God, 
 he expresses this opinion most explicitly, << In that 
 * Sec ills Retractions. 
 
60 
 
 whole period, after the return from the Babylo- 
 nish captivity, after Malachi, Haj2;2;ai, Zachriah, 
 and Ezra, Ihc}' had no prophets, even until the 
 time of the advent of our Saviour. As our L.ord 
 says. The Lino and the Prophets loej'e until 
 John. And ^ven the reprobate Jews hold that 
 Hag_2;ai, Zachariah, Ezra, and Maiaciii, were the 
 last books received into Cononical authority." 
 
 In lii.s commentary on the xl. Psalm, he says, 
 " If any adversary should say, you have foraged 
 these prophecies ; let the Jewish books be produ- 
 ced — The Jews are our librarians.'^ And on the 
 Ivi. Psalm, " When we wish to prove to the Pa- 
 gans, that Christ was predicted, we appeal to writ- 
 ings in possesion of the Jews j — they have all these 
 Scripures." 
 
 And aa;ain, in the work first cited, The Israel- 
 itish nation, to whom the oracles of God were in- 
 trusted never confounded false prophecies with 
 the true, but all these writings are harmonious'. " 
 Then, in another work, in speaking of the books 
 of the Maccabees, he says, " This writing, the 
 Jews never received, in the same manner as the 
 Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the 
 Lord gave testimony, as by his own witnesses." 
 And frequentl}' in his works, he confines the Ca- 
 nonical hooks, to those properly included in this 
 threefold division. He also repeatedly declares, 
 that the Cano'dcal scriptures which are of the most 
 eminent authority, are the books committed to 
 
61 
 
 the Jews. But in the eip;liteenth book of The 
 CITY OP God, speaking of Judith, he says," Those 
 things whicii are written in this book, it is said 
 the Jews have never received into the Canon of 
 Scripture." And in the seventeenth book of the 
 same work, "There are three books of Solomon, 
 which have been received into Canonical author- 
 ity. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles ; the other 
 • two, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, have been called 
 by his name, through a custom which prevailed, 
 on account of their similitude to his writings ; but 
 the more learned are certain that they are not his ; 
 and they cannot be brouglit forward with much 
 contidence for the conviction of gainsayers. " 
 
 He allows that the book of Wisdom may be read 
 to the people, and ought to be preferred to all 
 other tracts ; but he Joes not insist, that tlie testi- 
 monies taken from it are decisive. 
 
 And respecting Kcclksiasticus, he says, when 
 speaking of Samuel's prophesying after his d -ath, 
 <♦ But if this book is objected to, because it is not 
 found in tlie Canon of the Jews," &c. 
 
 His rejection of the books of Maccabees from 
 the Canon is repeated and explicit. "The calcula- 
 tion of the times after the restoring of tne temjile 
 is not found in the Holy Scriptures, wliicli are 
 called Canonical, but in certain other Oooks, among 
 which are the two books of M iccabees. — The 
 Jews do not receive (he Maccabees, as the Law 
 and the Prophets." 
 
 D 2 
 
62 
 
 It may be admitted, however, that Augustine 
 entertained tt)0 higli an opinion of tiiese Apocry- 
 phal books, but it is certain, that he did not put 
 them on a level with the genuine Canonical books. 
 
 He mentions a custom which prevailed in his 
 time, from which it appears, that although the 
 Apocryphal books were read in some of the church- 
 es, they were not read as Holy Scripture, nor put 
 on a level with the Canonical books ; tor he in-, 
 forms us, that they were not permitted to be read 
 from the same desk as the Canonical Scriptures, 
 but Irom a lower place in the church. 
 
 Innocent the first, who lived about the same 
 time, is also adduced as a witness, to prove, that 
 these disputed books were tiien received into 
 the Canon. But the Epistle which contains his 
 catalogue is extremely suspicious. No mention is 
 made of this Epistle by any writer for three hun- 
 dred years after the deatli of Innocent. But it is 
 no how necessary to our argument, to deny, 
 that in the end of the fourth, and beginning of the 
 fifth century, some individuals, and perhaps some 
 councils, received these books as Canonical : yet 
 thore is strong evidence that this was not the 
 opinion of the universal churcli ; for in the coun- 
 cil of Chalctdon, which is reckoned to be oecu- 
 menical, the Canons of the coui.cil uf Laodicea 
 "whicli contain a cataloguiJ of the genuine books of 
 > the Old Testament, are adopted. And it lias been 
 
shewn already, that these Apocryphal Iwoks were 
 exckuletl from that catalogue. 
 
 But it can be proved, that even until the time of 
 the mcetingof the council of Trent, by which these 
 books were solemnly Cdnoaized, the most learn- 
 ed and judicious of. the Popish writers, adhere to 
 the opinions of Jekomk and the ancients ; or at 
 least, make a marked ilistinction between these dis- 
 puted books, and those which are acknowledged to 
 be Canonical by all. A few testimonies fromdis- 
 tinguislucl writers, from the commencement of the 
 sixin century, down to the era of the Reformation, 
 shall now be given. 
 
 It deserves to be particularly observed, here, that 
 in one of the laws of the Emperoi Justinian, con- 
 cerning Ecclesiastical matters, it was enacted, 
 "Tiiat the Canons of the first lour general councils 
 should be received, and have the force of laws. " 
 
 Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch, in a work 
 on the Creation, makes " The number of books 
 which God hath appointed for his Old Testament" 
 to be no more than twenty two ; although he speaks 
 in very liigli terms of Wisdom and Ecclesias- 
 ticus. 
 
 Leontius, a learned and accurate writer, in his 
 book agahist tlie Skcts, acknowledges no other 
 Canonical books of the Old Testament, but those 
 which llie Hebrews received ; namely, Twelve His- 
 torical books. Five Prophetical, Four ot Doctrine 
 
 and lubli uciion, and One of Psalms 3 making the 
 
64 
 
 number twenty two, as usual ; and he makes not 
 the least menlion of any others. 
 
 Gregory, who lived at the beajinning of the 
 seventh century, in his book of Morals, makes an 
 apology for alleging a passage from the Maccabees, 
 and says, "Though it be not taken from the Ca- 
 nonical Scri|)ture, yet it is cited from a book which 
 was published for the edification of the church." 
 
 Isidore, bishop of Seville, divides the Canoni- 
 cal books of the Old Testament into 'hree orders, 
 the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa ; and 
 afterwards adds : " That there is a fourth order of 
 books, which are not in the Hebrew Canon of the 
 Old Testament." Here he names these books, 
 and says, "Though the Jaws rejected them as 
 Apocryphal, the church has received them among 
 the Canonical Scriptures." 
 
 John Daviasckne, a Syrian Presbyter,who lived 
 early in tiie eighth century, adheres to the Hebrew 
 Canon of tne Old Testament, numbering only two 
 and twenty books. Of Maccabees, Judith, and To- 
 bit, hesiys not one word ; but he speaks "Of Wis- 
 dom and Ecclesiasticus, as elegant and virtuous 
 writings, yet not to be numbered among the Ca- 
 nonical books ot Scripture, being never laid up in 
 the ark of the Covenant." 
 
 Venehable Bkde follows the ancient method of 
 dividing the books of the Old Testament into three 
 classes ; but he remarkably distinguishes the Mac- 
 cabees from the Canonical bouks, b_> classing them 
 
65 
 
 with the \vritini!;s of Jose|)hiH, anil .T'iliii-5 Ihc Af- 
 ricjii. 
 
 Alcitin, the disciple of ficde, snys, ''.Thut tiie 
 hock of the son of Sinich w.is re|jiUc(l an A|jocry- 
 phal ami dubious SLM-iptun;. " 
 
 RiTPEiJT, a lenrned man of the twelfth ceiiluiy, 
 expressly rejects the hook of Wisiloni, from i.ie 
 Canon. 
 
 Peter ATauritius, after sjivino; a catalogue of 
 the autheiiiic Sci iptures of the Old rpsiainent,adds 
 the six disputed hooks, and says, "They are useful 
 and commendal)le in the. church, but are not to be 
 placed in the sain.' dignity with tiie rest." 
 
 Hugo de S. Victoke, a Saxon by hirtJi, but 
 who resided at Pans, gives a catalogue of the books 
 of the Ohl Testament, whicb includes no otners 
 but the two and iwetily received from the J.ws; 
 and of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, and Judith, 
 hesa\s, '''Phey«are used in the church, but not 
 written in the Cinon.'' 
 
 RiCH.AKD DE S.VicTORE, also of the twelfth centu- 
 ry, in his Books of Collections, explicitly di'clares, 
 ''Tlial there arc but twenty two books in the Canon; 
 and thai Wisdom Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Jndilh, and 
 the Maccabees are not esteemed Canonical, al- 
 though they are rearl in the churches " 
 
 Pt 'rER LoMRAKU, in his Scholastic History, 
 enumerates the books of liu' Old Testament, thus; 
 Fi\e books of M ise>, eight of the prophets, and 
 nine of the Hagiographa, whicii leaves no room 
 
66 
 
 for these six disputed books ; but in his Preface to 
 Tobit, he sa^'s expressly, "That it is in no order 
 of the Canon ;" and of Judith, 'Hhat Jerome, and 
 the Hebrews, place it in the Apocrypha. " More- 
 over, he calls the story of Bel and the Dragon, a 
 fable ; and says, that the History of Susanna, is 
 not as true as it should be. 
 
 In tills century, also, lived John op Salisbury, 
 an Englishman, a man higlily respected, in his 
 time. In o.ie of his Epistles, he treats this subject 
 at large, and piofesses to follow Jerome, and un- 
 doubtedly to believe, that th^re are but twenty 
 twi: books in the Canon of the Old Testament, all 
 which he names in order,and adds, "That neither 
 the buok of Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor Ju- 
 dith, nor Tobit, nor the Paslor, nor the Maccabees, 
 are esteemed Canonical." 
 
 In the thirteenth century, the opinion of the 
 learned was the same, as we may see, by the Oii- 
 Di>'ARY Gloss on the Bible, in the composition 
 of which, many persons were concerned, and 
 which was highly approved by all the doctors 
 and pastors in the Western churches. In the 
 Pieface to this Gloss, they are reproached with 
 ignorance who hold all the books put into the 
 one volume of Scripture, in equal veneration. 
 The difference between these books is asserted to 
 be as great as bet\\een certain, and doubtful 
 works. The Canonical books are declared, "To 
 have been written by the inspiration of the Holy 
 
G7 
 
 Ghost; but who were the authorsof the ofhers, 
 is unknown." Then it is declared: "Thai ihe 
 church permitteth the reading; of the Apocryphal 
 books, for devotion and instiuction, but not for 
 authority to decide matters of controversy in faith. 
 And that there are no more tlian twenty two 
 Canonical books of the Old Testament, a\u\ all 
 besides are Apocryphal." Tlius we have 
 the common judgment of the church, in the 
 thirteenth century, in direct opposition to the 
 decree of the council of Trent, in the sixteenth. 
 But this is not all, for when the writers of this 
 Gloss come to the Apocryphal books, they prefix a 
 caution, as: "Here begins the book of Tobit, 
 which is not in the Canon ;" — "Here begins the 
 book of Judith, which is not in the Canon," and so 
 of every one of them: and to confirm their opinion 
 they appeal to the Fathers. 
 
 Hugo, the cardinal, who lived in this cen- 
 tury, wrote commentaries, on all the Scrip- 
 tures, which were universally esteemed ; in 
 these, he constantly keeps up the distinction be- 
 tween the Canonical, and Ecclesiastical books ; 
 and he explicitly declares thafKcclesiasticus, Wis- 
 dom, Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, are Apoc- 
 ryphal ; — dubious; — not Canonical ; — not received 
 by the church for proving any mailers of faith, but 
 for information of manners." 
 
 Thomas Aquinas, also, the most famous of the 
 schoolmen, makes the same distinciion between 
 
68 
 
 these classes of bonks. He maintains, that the 
 bo<.k of Wisdom was not helci io i)e a part of the 
 Canon, and ascribes it to Philo. The story of Bel 
 and the Diag;on, he calls a fable; and he siiows 
 clearly enongh, that he did not believe that Eccle- 
 siasticus was of Canonical authority. 
 
 In the fourteenth century, no man acquired so 
 extensive a reputation, for his commentaries on 
 the Bible as, Nicholas I^yra, a converted Jew, 
 In his Preface to the book of Tobit, he says, '• That 
 bavins; commented on all the Canonical books, 
 from the beginnlna; of Genesis, to tJie end of Re- 
 velation, his intention now was, to write on those 
 books which are not Canonical." Here he enu- 
 merates, Wisdom, Ecclesiasiicus, Judith, Tobit, 
 and the Maccabees, and then adds, "The Canon- 
 ical books are not only before tiiese in lime, but 
 indignity ami authority" — And ajrain, " I'hese 
 are not in the Canon, but received by ihc church 
 to be read foi" instruction in manners, not to he used 
 for deciding controversies respecting; Ibe faitli ; 
 whereas the others are of such authority, that what- 
 ever tlicy contain is to be lield as undoubted truth;" 
 
 The Englishntan, William Occam, of Oxford, 
 accounted the most learned doctor of his age, in 
 his Dialogues, acknowledges, "That, that honour 
 is due only to the divir e writers of Scripture, tiiat 
 we should esteem them free from all trror." 
 Moreover in Ins Prologues, he fully assents to the 
 opinion of Jerome and Gregory, "That neither Ju- 
 
69 
 
 dith, nor Tohit, nor the Maccabees, nor Wisdom, 
 nor EcclesiasUcus, are to be rceived into the same 
 place of honour, as the inspired books ; for," says 
 he, "The church doth not number them among 
 the Canonical Scriptures." 
 
 In the fifteenth centurj^ Thomas Anglicus, 
 sometimes called the angelical doctor^ on account / 
 of his excellent judgment, numbers twenty four 
 books of the Old Testament, if Ruth be reckoned 
 separately from Judges, and Lamentations from 
 Jeremiah. 
 
 Paul Burgensis, a Spanish Jew, who, after his 
 conversion to Christianity, on account of his supe- ' 
 rior knowledge and piety, was advanced to be bishop 
 of Burgos, wrote Notes on the Bible, in which he 
 retains the same distinction of books, which has 
 been so often mentioned. 
 
 The Romanists have at last, as they suppose, 
 found an authority for these disputed books, in 
 THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ; from the Acts of 
 which, they produce a decree, in which the Six 
 disputed books are named, and expressly said 
 to be written by the inspiration of the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 If this Canon were genuine, the authority of a 
 council sitting in such circumstances, as attended 
 the meetingof this, would have very little weight ; 
 but Dr. Cosins has shewn, that in the large copies 
 of the Acts of this council, no such decree can be 
 found ; and that it has been foisted into the abridg- 
 
70 
 
 men*-, by some impostor, who omitted something 
 else, to make room for it ; and thus preserved the 
 number of Canons unchanged, while the subsiance 
 of them was altered. 
 
 Alphonso Tostatus, bishop of Avila, who, 
 on account of his extraordinary learning, was 
 called the wonder of the world, has given a clear 
 and decisive testimony on tliis subject. This 
 learned man declares, " That these controverted 
 books were not Canonical, and that the church con- 
 demned no man for disobedience, who did not re- 
 ceive them as the other Scriptures ; because they 
 were of uncertain origin ; and it is not known 
 that they were written by inspiration. And 
 again, *' because the cliurch is uncertain, whether 
 heretics have not added to them." This opinion he 
 repeats in several parts of his works. 
 
 Cardinal Ximenes, the celebrated editor of 
 the Complutensian Polyglot, in the preface to that 
 work, admonishes the reader, that Judith, Tobit, 
 Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, with the Ad- 
 ditions to Esther and Daniel, which are found in 
 the Greek, are not Canonical Scripture. 
 
 John Picus, the learned count of Mirandula, 
 adhered firmly to the opinion of Jerome and the 
 other Fathers, on the subject of the Canon. 
 
 Faber Staptjlensis, a famous doctor of Pa- 
 ris, acknowledges that these books are not in the 
 Canon. 
 
 LuDovicus VivEs, one of the most learned men 
 
71 
 
 of liis agn, in his commentaries on AugutIne's 
 CiTV OF God, rejects the third and fuurth books 
 of Ebdras, and also the History of Susa;»nah, and 
 TJel, as Apocryphal. He speaks also in such a man* 
 ner of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticns as to shew, thai 
 he did not est:'em them Canouic:il ; for, he makes 
 Philo to be tiie author oF the former, and 4:he Son 
 of Sirach of the latter, who lived in the time of 
 Ptolemy, about an hundred years after the last of 
 the Prophets ; and of the Maccabees, he doubts, 
 whether Joscphus was the author or not ; by 
 which, he sufliciently siiews,that he did not believe, 
 that they were written by inspiration. 
 
 But there was no man in this a^e who obtained 
 so hi2;h a reputation for learning and critical skill, 
 as Erasmus. In his exposition of the Apostle's 
 Creed and the Decalogue, he discusses this question 
 respecting the Canmical books; and after enumerat- 
 ing the usual books of the Old Testament, he 
 says, "The ancient Fathers admitted no more;" 
 but of the other books, afterwards received into 
 Ecclesiastical use, (naming the whole which vve 
 esteem Apocryphal,) "it is uncertain what au- 
 thority should be allowed to them ; but the Canon- 
 ical Scriptures are such, as without controversy, are 
 believed to have been written by the inspiration 
 of God." And in his Scholia on Jerome's Preface 
 to Daniel, 416 expresses his wonder, tliat sucli sto- 
 ries as Bel and the Dragon, should be publicly read 
 in the churches. In his address to students of the 
 
72 
 
 Scriptures, he admonishes them to consider well, 
 " That the church never intended to give the same 
 authority to Tobit, Judith, and Wisdom, which is 
 given to the Five Books of Moses, or the Four 
 Evangelists." 
 
 The last testimony which we shall adduce, to 
 shew, that these books were not universally, nor 
 commonly received, until the very time of the 
 Council of Trent, is that of Cardinal Cajetaw, 
 the oracle of the church of Rome. In his com- 
 mentaries on the Bible, he gives us this, as the 
 rule of the church. ^' That those books which 
 were Canonical with Jerome, should be so with us,- 
 and that those which were not received as Canon- 
 ical by him, should be considered as excluded by 
 us." And he says, "The Church is much indebt- 
 ed to this Father for distinguishing between the 
 books which are Canonical-, and those which are 
 not, for thus he has freed us from the reproach of 
 the Hebrews, who otherwise might say, that we 
 had framed a new Canon for ourselves." For this 
 reason, he would write no commentaries on these 
 Apocryphal books, for, says he, "Judith, Tobit, 
 Maccabees, Wisdom, and the Additions to Esther, 
 are all excluded from the Canon, as insufficient to 
 prove any matter of faith, though they may be 
 read for the edifying of the people." 
 
 From the copious citations of testimonies which 
 we have given, it is evident, that the books in dis- 
 pute, are Apocryphal, and have no right to a place 
 
73 
 
 in the Canon ; and that the council of Trent acted 
 unwisely, in decrcein^^,vvith an anathema annexed, 
 that they should be received as divine. Surely no 
 council can make that an inspired hook, which was 
 not written by inspiration. Certainly these books 
 did not belong to the Canon while the apostles li- 
 ved, for they were unknown both to Jews and 
 Christians. Sixtus Sinensis, a distinguished Ro- 
 manist, acknowledges, that it was long after the 
 time of the apostles, that these writings came 
 to the knowledge of the whole Christian church. 
 But while this is conceded, it does not terminate 
 ihe controversy, for among the many extraordina- 
 ry claims of the Romanist church, one of the most 
 extraordinary is, the authority to add to the Canon 
 of Holy Sciipture. It has been made sufficiently 
 manifest, that these Apocryphal hooks were not in- 
 cluded in thcCanonduring the first three centuries; 
 and can it be doubted whether the Canon was ful- 
 ly constituted before the fourth century ? To sup- 
 pose, that the Pope, or a Council, can make wiiat 
 books tiiey please Canonical, is too absurd to de- 
 serve a moment's consideration. If,upon this prin- 
 ciple they could render Tobit and Juditli Canoni- 
 cal, upon the same, tliey might introduce Hero- 
 dotusy Livy, or even the Koran itself. 
 
 G '2 
 
SECTIOIT V. 
 
 INTERNAL EVIDENCE THAT THESE BOOKS ARE NOf 
 CANONICAL— THE WRITERS NOT PROPHEl'S, AND 
 DO NOT CLAIM TO BE INSPIRED. 
 
 I come now to the fifth argument to disprove 
 the Canonical authority of these books, which i& 
 derived from internal evidence. Books which 
 contain manifest falsehoods ; or which abound in 
 silly and ridiculous stories; or contradict the plain 
 and uniform doctrine of acknowledged Scripture, 
 cannot be Canonical. Now I will endeavour to 
 .show, that the books in dispute, are all, or most 
 afthem, condemned by this rule. 
 
 In the book of Tobit, an angel of God is 
 made to tell a palpable falsehood, / am Jiza- 
 rias, the sonof Ananias the great, and of thy 
 bretheren.* By which Tobit was completely de- 
 ceived, for he says, Thou art of an honest and 
 good stock. Now in chapter xii, this same angel de- 
 clares, / am Raphael, one of the seven Holy An- 
 gels, which present the prayers of the saints, and 
 go in and out before the glory of the Holy One. 
 
 Judith is represented as speaking scarcely any 
 thing but falsehood to Holofornes ; but what is 
 most inconsistent with the character of piety given 
 
 »= Tobit V. 12. 
 
75 
 
 her, is, that she is made to pray to the God of 
 Truth, in the following words, Smite by the de» 
 ceit of my lips, the servant with the prince and 
 the prince with the servant : v/ho does not per- 
 ceive, at once, the impiety of this prayer ? It is a 
 petition, that He who holds in utter detestation all 
 falseliood, should give efficacy to premeditated de- 
 ceit. 
 
 This woman, so celehrated for her piefy, is also 
 made to speak with commendation of the conduct 
 of Simeon, in tire cruel slaughter of the Shechemi- 
 tes; an act, against which God, in the Scriptures, 
 has expressed his high displeasure. In the second 
 hook of Maccabees, Razis, an Elder of Jerusalem, 
 is spoken of with higli commendation, for destroy- 
 ing his own life rather than fall into the hands of 
 his enemies ; but certainly suicide is not, in any 
 Oase, agreeable to the word of God. 
 
 The author of the l)ook of Wisdom, speaks in the 
 name of Solomon, and talks about being appointed 
 to build a temple in the holy mountain ; whereas 
 it has been proved by Jerome, that this book is 
 falsely ascribed to Solomon. 
 
 In the book of Tobif, we have this story ; ^jlnd 
 (IS they ivent on their journey they came to the 
 river Tigris, and they lodged there, and when the 
 young man went dotvn to wash himself, a fsh 
 leaped out of the river, and would have drowned 
 him. Then the angel said unto him^ take the 
 fish. xS.nd the young man laid hold of the fish 
 
76 
 
 and dreio it to land. To whom the angel said, 
 open the fish, and take the heart, and the liver, 
 and the gall, and put them up safely. So the 
 young man did as the angel commanded him, 
 and ivhen they had roasted the fish, they did eat 
 it. Then the young man said unto the angel, 
 brother Jlzarias, to what use is the heart and the 
 liver and the gall of the fish? And he said unto 
 him, touching the heart and the liver, if a devil, 
 or an evil spirit trouble any, we must inake a 
 smoke thereof before the man or the woman^ 
 and the party shall he no more vexed. As for the 
 gall, it is good to anoint a man that hath white- 
 ness in his eyes ; he shall be healed. If this story 
 does not savour ^f the fabulous, then it would be 
 difficult lo find any thing that did. 
 
 In the book of Baruch, there are also several things 
 which do not appear to be true. Baruch is said to 
 have read this book, in the fifih year after the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem, in the ears of Jeremiah, the 
 king, and all the people dwelling in Babylon, 
 who upon hearing it, collected money and sent ii lo 
 Jerusalem, to the priests. Now Baruch, wh > is 
 here allegef! to have read this book in Ijabylon, is 
 said, in the Canonical Scriptures, to have been car- 
 ried captive into Egvpt, with Jeremiah, after the 
 .mui'der of (Jedaliah. Again, he is represented to 
 have read in the ears of Jeconias the king, and of all 
 
 Tobit. c. vi. Baruch. i. Jeremiah, xl. 
 
77 
 
 th6 people; but Jeconias is known to have been shut 
 up in prison, at this time, and it is no how probable 
 that Baruch would have access to him, if he even 
 had been in Bal)ylon. The money that was sent 
 from Babylon was to enable the priests to offer sac- 
 rifices to the Lord, but the temple was in ruins and 
 there was no altar.* 
 
 In the chapters added to the book of Esther, we 
 read, that Alordocheus, in the second year of %^r- 
 tcijcerxes the great, was a great man, being a 
 servitor in the king^s court. And in the same, 
 That he ivas also one of the captives which Nahu- 
 chodonosor carried from Jerusa/em,ivith Jeconias 
 kingofJudea. Now, between these two periods, 
 there intervened one hundred and fifty years ; so 
 that, ifhe was only fifteen years of asje, when caried 
 away, he must have been a servitor in the kuig'a 
 court, at the age of one hundred and seventy five 
 years ! 
 
 Again, Mordocheus is represented as being <» 
 great man in the court, iyi the second year ofJir- 
 taxerxes, before he detected tlie conspiracy against 
 the king's life Now Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus 
 were the same, or they were not; if the former, 
 this history clashes vvith the Scriptural account, 
 for there it appears, that Mordecai, was not, before 
 
 * Barach, i. 10. And Ihey said beho/d we have sent you 
 money to hui/ you burnt ojjferin'^s, and incense, and prepare 
 ye manna, and offer upon the altar of the Lord our God. 
 
78 
 
 this time, a courtier, or a conspicuous man ; if the 
 latter, then this addition is manifestly false, be- 
 cause it ascribes to Artaxerxes, what the Scriptures 
 ascribe to ^nofher person. 
 
 Moreover, this Apocryphal writing places the 
 conspiracy a^aiist the king's life before the repudi- 
 ation of Vashri ;ind the marriage of Esther, but 
 this is repugtiant to the Canonical Scriptures. 
 
 It is also asserted, in this book, that Mordoche- 
 us received honors and rewards for the detection 
 of the Conspiracy ; whereas, in the Canonical book 
 of Esther, it is declared, tlirit he ncf.ived no re- 
 ward. And a different reason is assigned, in the 
 two books, f -r Haman's hatred of Mordecai. In 
 the Canonic?!, it is his neglect of shewing respect 
 to this proud courtier ; in the Apocryphal, it is 
 the punishment of the two Eunuchs,who had formed 
 the co'.ispirricy. 
 
 And tindly, Haman, in this spurious work, is 
 call'.d H Macedonian ; and it is said, that he medi- 
 tated the design of transferring the Persian king- 
 di m to the Macedonians. But this is utterly in- 
 credible. The kingdom of Macedon must have 
 bet n, at that time, most obscure, and probably 
 wholly unknown, at the Persian Court. But this 
 is not all, iie who is here called a Macedonian, is 
 in the Canonical book said to be an Agagite. 
 The proof of the Apocryphal character of this 
 
 * See chap. xvi. 
 
79 
 
 Addition to Kst^er, which has been adduced, is 
 in all reason sufTicient. 
 
 The advocates of these books are greatly per- 
 plexed to find a place in the history of the Jewish 
 nation, for the wonderful deliveiance, wrought by 
 means of Judith. It seems strange that no aU 
 Iusii)n is made to tliis event in any of the acknow- 
 ledged books of Scripture ; and more unaccounta- 
 ble still, that Josephus, who was so much disposed 
 to relate every tiling favourable to the character of 
 his nation, should never make the least mention of 
 it. Somo refer this history to the period preceding 
 the Babylonish captivity ; while others are of opin- 
 ion, that the events occurred in the time ofCam- 
 byses, king of Persia. But the name of the 
 High Priest, here mentioned, does not occur with 
 the names of the High Priests contained in any of 
 the genealogies. From the time of the building of 
 the temple by Solomon, to its overthrow by the 
 Assyrians, this name is not found in the list of 
 High Priests, as may be seen, by consulting the vi. 
 chapter of 1 Chronicles ; nor, in the catalogue giv- 
 en by Josephus, in the tenth chapter of the tenth 
 book of his Antiquities. That this history cannot 
 be placed after the captivity, is manifest, from this 
 circumstance, that the temple of Solomon was still 
 standing when the transactions which are related 
 in this book, occurred. 
 
 Another thing in the book of Judith, which is 
 very suspicious, is, that Holofernes is represented 
 
so 
 
 as saying, Tell me now, ye Sons of Canaan, who 
 this people is, that dwelleth in the hill country ^ 
 and what are the cities that they inhabit. But 
 how can it be reconciled with known history, that 
 a prince of Persia should be wholly ignorant of the 
 Jewish people ? 
 
 It is impossible to reconcile what is said, in the 
 close of the book, with any sound principles of chro- 
 nology. Judith is reprsented as young and beautiful, 
 when she slew Holofernes; but here it is saifl, That 
 she waxed old in her husband's house, being an 
 hundred and Jive years old. And there was none 
 that made the children of Israel any more afraid^ 
 in the days of Judith; nor a long time after her 
 death. In whose reign, or at what period, we 
 would ask, did the Jews enjoy this long season of 
 uninterrupted tranquillity ? 
 
 Some writers who are fully convinced that the 
 history of Judith cannot be reconciled with authen- 
 tic history, if taken literally, are of opinion, that 
 it contains a beautiful allegory ; — that Bethulia, 
 [the i;/r^«w,)represents the church of God; that the 
 assault of Nebuchadnezzar signifies, the opposition 
 of the world and its prince; that the victory obtain- 
 ed by a pious woman, is intended to teach, that 
 the church's deliverance is not effected by human 
 might or power, but by the prayers and the piety 
 of the saints &c. This, perhaps, is the most fa- 
 vourable view which we can take of this history ; 
 but take it as you will, it is clear that the book is 
 
SI 
 
 Apocryphal, and has no right to a place in the 
 Sacred Canon. 
 
 Between tlie first and second hooks of Macca- 
 bees, there is a palpable contradiction ; for in the 
 first book it is said, that Judas died in the one 
 hundred and fifty second year: hut in the 
 second, that in the one hundred and eigh- 
 ty eighth year, the people that wei^e in Judea, 
 and Judas, and the council, sent greeting and 
 health unto j^ristobulus. Thus, Judas, is made 
 to join in sending a ktter six and thirty years after 
 his death ! The contradiction is manifest. In the 
 the same first chapter of the second book, there is a 
 story inserted, which has very much the air of a 
 fable. For when our Fathers were led into Per- 
 sia, the priests that were then devout, took the 
 fire of the altar privily arid hid it in a hollow 
 jilace of a pit without water, where they kept it 
 sure, so that the place was unknown to all men. 
 Now after many years, when it pleased God^ 
 Nehemias, being sent from the king of Persia j 
 did send of theposterity of those priests that had 
 hid it, to the fire: but when they told us they 
 found no fire, but thick loater : then command- 
 ed he them to draw it up and bring it, and when 
 the sacrifices were laid on, Nehemias command- 
 ed the priests to sprinkle the wood and things 
 laid thereon, with the water. IVhen this was 
 done and the time cai^e that the Sun shone, 
 which before was hid in the clouds, a great fire. 
 
 H 
 
82 
 
 was kindled. But the Jews were not carried to 
 Persia but to Babylon, and the rest of the story 
 has no foundation, whatever, in truth. 
 
 In the second chapter we have another fabulous 
 story of Jeremiah's taking the ark and altar, and 
 altar of incense, to mount Pisgah, and hiding 
 them in a hollow cave, and closing them up. This 
 place Jeremiah declared should be unknown, Until 
 the time that God gathered his people again 
 together, and received theni into mercy. When 
 the cloud a% it appeared unto Moses, shall ap- 
 pear again. 
 
 There is another conti-adiciion bptvveen these 
 books of Maccabees, in relation to the death of An- 
 tiochus Epiphrtnes. In the first it is said, that he 
 died at Elymais, in Persia, in the hundred 
 and f.*rty ninth year ; but in the second bdok, 
 it is related, that after entering Persopolis, with a 
 view of overthrowing the temple and city, he was re- 
 pulsed by the inhabitants ; and while on his journey 
 from this place, he ivas seized with a dreadful 
 disease of the bowels, and died in the moun- 
 tains. 
 
 Moreover, the accounts given of Nicanor, in the 
 seventh chapter of the first book, and in the four- 
 teenth and fifteenth chapters of the second book, are 
 totally inconsistent. 
 
 In the first book of Maccahees an erroneous 
 account is given of the civil government of 
 
 2 Mac. if. 1 jSIiic. viii. 16. 
 
the Romans, where it is snid, That they committed 
 their government to one man every year, ivho 
 ruled over all their country, and that all were 
 obedient to that one. Where:is, it is well known 
 that no such form ofgovernment ever existed among 
 the Romans 
 
 6. Finally, it is manifest that these books were 
 not inspired, and therefore not Canonical, because 
 they were not written by prophets ; but by men 
 who speak of their labours in a way wholly incom- 
 patil)le with inspiration. 
 
 Jerome and Eusebius were of opinion, that .To- 
 sephus was the author of the books of the Macca- 
 bees ; but it has never been supposed by any, thai 
 he was an inspired man; therefore if this opinion 
 be correct, these books are no more Canonical, than 
 the Antiquities or Wars of the Jews, by the same 
 author. 
 
 It has been the constant tradition of Jews and 
 Christians, that the spirit of prophecy ceased with 
 Malachi, until the appearance of John the 13aptist. 
 Malachi has, on this account, been called by the 
 
 Jews, THE SEAL OF THE PROPHETS. 
 
 Josephus, in his book against Apion, after say" 
 ing, that it belonged to the prophets alone, to writ.: 
 inspired books, adds these words, <' From the time 
 of Artaxerxes, there were some among us, who 
 wrote books even to our own times, but these are 
 not of equal authority with the preceding, because 
 the succession of prophets was not complete." 
 
84 
 
 EusEBius, in giving a catalogue of the leaders of 
 the Jews, denies that he can proceed any lower 
 than Zerubbabel, ''Because," says he, "after the 
 I'eturn from captivity untill the advent of our Sa- 
 viour, there is no book which can be esteemed sa- 
 cred." 
 
 Augustine gives a similar testimony. "After 
 Mailachi the Jews had no prophet, during that 
 whole period which intervened between the 
 return from captivity and the advent of our Savi- 
 our." 
 
 Neither does Genebrard dissent from this opin- 
 ion, " From Malachi to 'John the Baptist," says he, 
 *' no prophets existed." 
 
 Drusius cites the following words, from the 
 Compiler of Jewish History, "The rest of the dis- 
 courses of Simon, and his wars, and the wars of his 
 brother, are they not written in the book of Joseph, 
 the Son of Gorion, and in the book of the Asmone- 
 ans,and in the books of the Roman kings." Here, 
 the books of the Maccabees, are placed between the 
 writings of Josephus and the Roman history. 
 
 The book of Wisdom does indeed claim to be the 
 work of Solomon, an insjiired man -^ but this claim 
 furnishes the strongest ground for its condemna- 
 tion. It is capable of the clearest proof, from inter- 
 nal evidence, that this was the production of some 
 person, probably a Helenistic jew, who lived long 
 after the Canon of the Old Testament was comple- 
 ted. It contains manifest allusions to Grecian qus- 
 
&5 
 
 lonis, and is tinctured with the Grecian philoso- 
 phy. The manner in which tlie author praises 
 himself is fulsomo, and has no parallel in any in- 
 spired writer. This hook has been ascribed to Phi- 
 lo Judjeus ; if this conjecture be correct, doubtless 
 it lias no just claim to be considered a Canonical 
 book. But whoever was the author, his endea- 
 vouring; to pass his composition off for a writiuj^ of 
 Solomon, is sufficient to <lecideevery question re- 
 specting his inspiration. If Solomon had written 
 this book, it wouUl have been found in the Jewish 
 Canon, and in the He brew anguage. The writer is 
 also guilty of shameful flattery to h.is own nation, 
 which is entirely repugnant to the spirit of all the 
 pr >phets. He has also, without any f(iundation,added 
 many things to the sacred narration, contained m the 
 Canonical history ; and has minglcfl with it, mucli, 
 which is of the nature of poetical embellishment. 
 And, indeed, ihe whole style of the composition, 
 savours too much of artificial eloquence, to be attri- 
 buted to the Spirit of God ; the constant character- 
 istic of whose productions arc, simplicity and sub- 
 limity. 
 
 EccLESiASTicus, which is superior to all the 
 other Apocryphal books, was written by one 
 Jesus the sun of Sikach. His grandtather, 
 of the same name, it seems, had wrivten a book, 
 which he left to his son Sirach : and he delivered 
 it to his son Jesus, who loolc great pains to reduce 
 u 2 
 
3& 
 
 it into orfler ; but he no where assumes the char- 
 acter of a prophet himself, nor does he claim it for 
 the original author, his grandfather. In the pro- 
 rogue, he says, Mi/ grandfather Jesus, when he 
 had much given himself to the reading of the 
 Law and the prophets, and other books of our 
 fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, 
 was drawn on also himself to write something 
 pertaining to learning and luisdom, to the in- 
 tent that those which are desirous to learn, and 
 are addicted to these things, viight profit much 
 Tnore, in living according to the Law. PVhet^e' 
 fore let me intreat you to read it loith favour 
 and attention,and to pardo7ius,ivherein we may 
 seem to come short of some words which we have 
 laboured to biterpret. Farther, some things ut- 
 tered in Hebrew, and translated into anothev! 
 iongue,have not the same force in them. — From 
 the eight and thirtieth year, coming into Egypt 
 luhen Euergetes was king, and continuing there 
 for some time, I found a book of no small learn- 
 ing : therefore I thought it most necessary for 
 me to bestow some diligence and. travail to inter- 
 pret it ; using great watchfulness, and skill, in 
 that space to bri?ig the book to an end, &c. Sure- 
 ly, there is no need of further arguments to prove, 
 that this modest author did not claim to be inspired. 
 The author of the second book of the Maccabees 
 professes to have reduced a work o(^ Jason of Cy- 
 rcne, consisting of live volumes, into one volume^ 
 
87 
 
 Concerning which work he says, Therefore to 
 lis that have taken upon us this painful labour of 
 ahridirins^, it was not easy, but a matter of sweat 
 and watching. Again, Leaving to the author^ 
 the exact handling of every particular ^ and labor- 
 ing to follow the rules of an abridgment. To stand 
 upon every point and go over things at large, and 
 to be curious in particulars, belongeth to the first 
 author of the story ; but louse brevity and avoid 
 much labouring of the ivork, is lobe granted to 
 hitn that maketh an abridgment. Is any thing 
 mure needed to prove, that this writer did not pro- 
 fess to be inspired? If there was any inspiration 
 in the case, it must be attributed to Jason of Gy- 
 rene, the original writer of the history ; but his 
 work is long since lost ; and we now possess only 
 the abridgment which cost the writer so much la- 
 bour and pains. Thus, I think it sufliciently ap- 
 pears, that the authors of these disputed books, 
 were not prophets ; and that, as far as we can as- 
 certain the circumstances in which they wrote 
 they did not lay claim to inspiration, but expressed 
 themselves in such a way, as no man under the 
 influence of inspiration, ever did. 
 
 The Popish writers, to evade the force of the 
 argument.-, of their adversaries, pretend, that there 
 was a twofo Id Canon ; that some of the books of 
 Scripture are protocanonical ; and others deute- 
 rocanonical. If, by this distinction, they only- 
 meant that the word canon was often used by the 
 
8S 
 
 Fathers, with great latitude,so as to include all books 
 that were ever read in the churches, or that were 
 contained in the volume of the Greek Bible, the 
 distinction is correct, and signifies the same, as is 
 often expressed, by calling some books, Sacred 
 and Canonical, and others, Ecclesiastical. But 
 these writers make it manifest, that they mean 
 much more than this. They wish lo put their 
 deuterocanonical books, on a level with the old 
 Jewish Canon ; and this distinction is intended to 
 teach, that after the first Canon was constituted, 
 other books were, from time to time, added : but 
 when these books thus annexed to the Canon have 
 been pronounced upon by the competent authority, 
 they are to be received as of equal authority with 
 the former. When this second Canon was consti- 
 tuted, is a matter concerning which they are 
 not agreed ; some pretend, that in the time of 
 Shamnai and Hillel, two famous rabbies, who 
 lived before the advent of the Saviour, these books 
 were added to ihe Canon. But why then are 
 they not included in the Hebrew Canon ? Why 
 does Josephus never mention them ? Why are 
 they never quoted nor alluded to, in the New 
 Testament ? And why did all the earlier Fathers 
 omit to cite them; or, expressly reject them ? The 
 difficulties of this theory bt^ing too prominent, the 
 most of the advocates of the Apocrypha, suppose, 
 that these books, after having remained in doubt 
 before, were received by the Supreme authority 
 
89 
 
 of the church, in the fourth century. They allepje, 
 that these books were sanctioned by the council of 
 Nice, and by the third council of Carthage, which 
 met A. D. 397. But the story of the method 
 pursued by the council of Nice, to distinguish 
 between Canonical and spurious books, is fabulous 
 and ridiculous. There is nothing in the Canons of 
 that council relative to these books ; and certainly 
 they cited no authorities from them, in confirma- 
 tion of the doctrines established by them. And as 
 to the third council of Carthage, it may be asked, 
 what authority had this provincial s)^nod to deter- 
 mine any thing for the whole church, respecting 
 the Canon. But there is no certainty that this coun- 
 cil did determine any thing on the subject; for in ihe 
 Same Canon, there is mention made of Pope Boni- 
 fase, as living at that time, whereas he did not rise to 
 this dignity, until more than twenty years after- 
 wards ; in which time, three other popes occupied 
 the see of Rome; so that this Canon could not have 
 been formed by the third Council of Carthage. And 
 in some copies it is inserted, as the fourteenth of the 
 seventh council of Carthage. However this may 
 be, we may be confident, that no Council of the 
 fourth century had any authority to add to the 
 Canon of Scripture, books which were not only 
 not received before, but explicitly rejected as apoc- 
 ryphal, by most of the Fathers. Our opponents 
 say, that these books were uncertain before, but 
 oow received confirmation. How could there be 
 
90 
 
 any uncertainty, in regard to these books, if the 
 church was as infallible, in the first three ages, as 
 in the fourth. These books were either Canonical 
 before the fourth century, or they were not : if 
 the former, how came it to pass they were not re- 
 cognized by the apostles ? How came they to be 
 overlooked and rejected by tbe primitive Fathers ? 
 But if they were not canonical before, they must 
 have been made Canonical by the decree of some 
 Council. That is, the church can make that an 
 inspired book, which was never given by inspira- 
 tion. This absurdity was before mentioned, but 
 it deserves to be repeated, because however unrea- 
 sonable it may be, it forms the true, and almost 
 the only ground, on which the doctrine of the Ro- 
 mish church, in regard to these Apocryphal books, 
 rests. This is, indeed, a part of the Pope's supre- 
 macy. Some of their best writers, however, de- 
 ny this doctrine; and whatever others may pretend, 
 it is most certain, that the Fathers, with one con- 
 sent believed, that the Canon of Sacred Scripture 
 was complete in their time : they never dreamed of 
 books not then Canonical, becoming such, by any 
 authority upon earth. Indeed, the idea of adding 
 to the Canon what did not, from the beginning, 
 belong to it, never seems to have entered the mind 
 of any person, in former times. If this doctrine 
 were correct, we might still have additions made 
 to the Canon, and that too, of books which have 
 existed for hundreds of years. 
 
91 
 
 This question may be bro«o;ht to a speedy issue, 
 with all unprejudiced juflges. These books were 
 either written by divine inspiration for the gui- 
 dance of the churcli in matters of faith and prac- 
 tice, or they were not ; if the former, they always 
 had a right to a place in the Canon ; if the latter, 
 no act of a Po|)e or Council could render that di- 
 vine, which was not so before. It would be to 
 change the nature of a fact, than which nothing 
 is more impossible. 
 
 It is alleged, with much confidence, that the 
 Greek Bibles, used by the Fathers, contained 
 these books ; and, therefore, whenever they give 
 their testimony to the Snored Scriptures, these are 
 included. This argument proves too much, for 
 the third book of Esdras and the prayer of Man- 
 asses were contained in these volumes, but these 
 are rejected by the Romanists. The truth, howe- 
 ver, is, that these books were not originally con- 
 nected with the Septuagint ; they were probably 
 introduced into some of the later Greek versions, 
 which were made by heretics. These versions, 
 particularly that of Theodotion, came to be used 
 promiscuously with- that of the LXX ; and to this 
 day, the common copies contain the version of the 
 book of Daniel by Theodotion, instead of that 
 by tlic LXX. 
 
 By some such mean*, these Apocryphal books 
 crept into the Greek Bible ; but the early Fathers 
 were careful to distinguish between them and the 
 Canonical Scriptures, as we have already seen. 
 
92 
 
 Thattiiey were read in the churches is also true ; 
 but not as Scripture ; not for the eonfirrnation of 
 doctrine ; but for the edification of the common 
 people. 
 
 Some of the Fathers, it is true, cited them as 
 authority, but very seldom, and the reason which 
 rendered it difficult for them to distinguish accu- 
 rately between Ecclesiastical and Canonical books 
 has already been given. These pious men were 
 generally unacquainted with Hebrew literature, 
 and finding all these books in Greek, and frequently 
 bound up in the same volume, as the Canonical 
 Scriptures ; and observing that they contained ex- 
 cellent rules for the direction of life and the regu- 
 lation of morals, they sometimes referred to them? 
 and cited passages from them, ano permitted them 
 to be read in the church, for the instruction and edi- 
 fication of the people. 
 
 But the more learned of the Fathers, who ex- 
 amined into the authority of the sacred books 
 with unceasing diligence, clearly marked the dis- 
 tinction between such books as v/ere Canoni- 
 cal, and such as were merely human composi- 
 tions. And some of them even disapproved of the 
 reading of these Apocryphal books by the people ; 
 and some councils warned the churches against 
 them. It was with this single view that so many 
 catalogues of the Canonical books were prepared, 
 and published. 
 
 Notwithstanding that we have taken so much pains 
 to shew that the books called, Apocrypha, are ao 
 
93 
 
 Canonical, we wish to avoid the opposite extreme 
 of regartliuo; them as useless, or injurious. Sonric 
 of theso books are important for the historical in- 
 formation which they contain ; and, especially, as 
 the facts recorded in them ai"C, in some instances, the 
 fulfilment of re.narkahic prop'aecies. 
 
 Oihorsof ihem are r 'plctc with sacrrnl, moral, and 
 prudential maxims, very useful to oil, in the regu- 
 lation of life and manners ; but oven with these, 
 arc inicr^piM'sed seniiments, which are not perfectly 
 accordant with the word of God. In sliort, these 
 bo'iksare of very different value, but in the best of 
 them there is so much error and imperfection, as 
 to Convince us, that they are human producti )ns, 
 and should be used as such : not as an infallible rule, 
 bui as useful helps in the attainment of knowledire, 
 and ill the practice of virtue. 'I^h'-rvfore, when 
 wewouul exclude them fi-o:n a place in the ni''.)le, 
 we would not proscribe them as unlit to be read ; but 
 wc would have them published in a separate Vol- 
 ume, and studied much more carefully, than they 
 commonlyhave been. 
 
 And "vhile we would dissent from the prarti^^e 
 of reading ie.^sons from these !)Ooks, as Scriptural 
 Lessons are read in the chorch, we wo .Id cordially 
 recommend the frequent perusal, in private, of the 
 first of Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and 
 abo^e all, Ecclesiasticus. 
 
 It is a lishonour to fli.d, and a <lisn!rao;ement of 
 his word, to place other books, in any respect,oa a Ic- 
 z 
 
94 
 
 vel with THE DIVINE ORACLES ; but it is a privilege 
 to be permitted, to have access to the writings of 
 men, eminent for their wisdom and piety. And it 
 is also a matter of curious instruction to learn, what 
 were the opinions of men, in ages long past,and in 
 countries far remote. 
 
SECTION- Vi. 
 
 XO CANONICAL BOOK OF TFIE OLD TESTAMENT 
 HAS BEEN LOST. 
 
 On this subject, there has existed some diversity 
 of opinion Chrysostom is cited by Bellarmine. 
 as saying, "That many of the writings of the pro- 
 phets had porished, which may readily be proved, 
 from the history in Chronicles. For the Jews were 
 negligent ; and not only negligent but impious, so 
 that some books were lost through carelessness, and 
 others were burned, or otherwise destroyed." 
 
 In confirmation of this opinion, an appeal is 
 made to 1 Kings iv. 3:2, 3J, where it is said of So- 
 lomon, That he spake three thousand proverbs, 
 and his songs were a thousand and five. Jlnd 
 he spake of trees^ from the cedar in Lebanon, 
 even unto the hyssop, that springeth out of the 
 wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and 
 of creeping thiiigs, and of fishes. All these pro- 
 ductions, it is acknowledg d, have perished. 
 
 Again it is said in I Chroii. xxix. 'i^, 30. Now 
 the acts of David the king, first and last, be- 
 hold they are written in the book of Samuel the 
 seer, and in the hook of Nathan the prophet, 
 and in the book of Gad the seer. JVith all his 
 reign, and his might, and the times that went 
 
96 
 
 over hJtn^ and ooer Israel, and over all the king- 
 doms of the countries. The book of.Tasher, also, 
 is twice mentioned in Scripture. In Joshua x. 13, 
 J2nd the sun stood stilly and the rnoon stayed^ 
 iintil the people had avenged themselves on their 
 enemies. Is not this written in the hookof Jash- 
 er ? And in 2 Sam. i. IS, ^nd he bade them teach 
 the chidren of Israel the use of the bow : behold 
 it is written in the hook of Jasher. 
 
 The book of the Wars of the Lord, is re- 
 ferred to, in Num. xxi. 14. 
 
 But we have in the Canon no books under the 
 name of Nathan and Gad : nor,any book of Jasher ; 
 nor.of the wars of the Lord. 
 
 Moreover, we frequentl}' are referred, in the Sa- 
 cred history, to other Chronicles or Annals, for a 
 fuller account of the matters spoken of, which 
 Chronicles are not no^v extant. 
 
 And in 2 Chron. ix. 2y, it is said, Now the rest 
 of the ^cts of Solomon, first and last, are they 
 not written in the book of Natha7i the prophet, 
 and in the prophecy ofJlhijah the Shilojiite, and 
 in the visions of Iddo the seer, against Jeroboam 
 the son of Nehat. Now it is u ell known, that none 
 of these writings of the propiiets are in the Canon j 
 at least, none of them under their names, 
 
 Ii is sai ' also in 2 Chron. xii. .5, Now the acts 
 of Behoboam, first and last, are they not ivrit- 
 ten in flie book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of 
 Iddo the Seer, concei ning genecUogies ? Of w hicls 
 
97 
 
 works notiiins; remains, under the names of these 
 proplicis. 
 
 1 . The first observation which I would make on 
 this subject, is, that every book referred to, or quo- 
 ted, in the Sacred writings, is ni't necessarilv an in- 
 spired, or Canonical book. Because Paul cites 
 passages from the Greek poets, it docs not fol- 
 low, that we must receive tlw^ir poems, as inspi- 
 red, 
 
 2. A book may be written by an inspired man, 
 and yet be neitlicr inspired nor Canonical. Inspira- 
 tion was not constantly afforded to the prophets,but 
 was occasioniil. and for particular, important jnupo- 
 ses. In common matters, and especially in things 
 noliow connected witli religion, it is reasonable to 
 suppose, that the prophcis and apostles were left to 
 tlie .same guidance of reason and common sen>ic, as 
 other men. A man, therefore, inspired to deliver 
 some proj)hecy, or even to write a Canonical book, 
 might write other books, with no greater assistance 
 than other good men receive. Because S domon 
 was inspired, to write some Canonical books, it docs 
 not follow, that wliat he wrote on NaturaJ History, 
 was also inspired. The Scriptures, however, do not 
 say, that his Three tiiousand provei'bs, and his dis- 
 couiscs on Natural History were ever committed 
 to writing. It only says, that he spake these 
 things. But supposing that all these discourses 
 were committed to writing, which is not improba- 
 ble, there is not the least reason for believing that 
 
 t 4 
 
 '• 
 
98 
 
 they were inspired ; any more than Solomon's pri- 
 vate letters to his friends, if he ever wrote any. 
 Let it be remembered, that the prophets and apos- 
 tles were only inspired on special occasions, and 
 on particular subjects, and all difficulties resptscting 
 such works as these will, vanish. How many of 
 the books referred to in the Bible, and mentioned 
 above, may have been of this description, it is 
 now impossible to tell ; but probably several of 
 them belong; to this class. No doubt there were 
 many books of Annals, much more minute and 
 particular in the narration of facts, than those which 
 we have. It was often enough to refer to these 
 5/«/ejo«/7£'r.S', or public documents, as being suffi- 
 ciently correct, in regard to the facts on account of 
 which the reference was made. There is nothing 
 derogatory to the word of God, in the supposition? 
 that the books of Kings and Chronicles, which we 
 have in the Canon, were compiled by the inspired 
 prophets from these public records. All that is 
 necessary for u?, is, fhnt the facts are truly related; 
 and this could be as infallibly secured on this hy- 
 pothesis, as any other. 
 
 The book of the Wars of the Lord, might, 
 for ought that appears, have been merely a muster- 
 roll of the arm}'. The word translated hook, has 
 so extensive a meaning in Hebrew, that it is not 
 even necessary to suppose, that it was a writing at 
 all. The book of Jasher, (or of Rectitude, if we 
 translate the word,) might have been some ust-ful 
 
99 
 
 compend taken from Scripture, or composed by the 
 wise, for the regulation of justice and equity, be- 
 tween man and man. 
 
 Augustine, in his City of Ood, has distin- 
 guished accurately on this subject. "I think," 
 says he, " that those books which should have au- 
 thority in religion were revealed by the Holy Spi- 
 rit, and that men composed others by historical dil- 
 igence, as the prophets did these by inspiration. 
 And these two classes of books are so distinct, that 
 it is only by those written by inspiration, that we 
 are t > suppose that God, through them, is speak- 
 ing unto us. The one class is useful for fulne^s of 
 knowledge ; the other for authority in religion j 
 in which authority the Canon is preserved." 
 
 3. But again, it may be maintained, without 
 any prejudice to the completeness of the Canon, 
 that there may have been inspired writings which 
 were not intended for the instruction of the church 
 in all ages, but composed by the prophets for some 
 special occasion. Tliese writings, though inspired, 
 were not Canonical. They were temporary in 
 their design, and when that was accomplished, they 
 were no longer needed. We know, that the pro- 
 phets delivered, by inspiration, many discourses to 
 the people, of which we have not a trace on record. 
 Many true prophets are mentioned, vvho wrote no- 
 thing that we know of; and several are mention- 
 ed, whose names are not even given. The same 
 is true of the apostles. Very few of them had 
 
100 
 
 any concern in writina: the Canonical Scriptures, 
 and yet ih. y all possessed plenary inspiration. 
 And if they wrote letttrs, on special occasions, to 
 the cliurehes plaiit( d by them ; yet these were not 
 designed for the perpetual instruction of the univer- 
 sal church. The: (fore, Shemaiah, and Iddo, and 
 Nathan^ and Gad, might have written some things 
 by inspiration, which wire never intend d to form 
 a part of the Sacred Volume. It is not asserted, 
 that thfre certainly existed such temporary, inspi- 
 red writings: all that is neces'^ary to be inainiain- 
 ed, is, that supposing such to have existed, which 
 is not in'probabie, it does not follow thiit the Canon 
 is incomplete, by reason of their loss. As this opi- 
 nion may be startling to some, who have not tho- 
 roughly considered it, I will call in to its support, 
 the opinions of some distinguished Theologians. 
 " It has bien observed," says Francis Junius, 
 "that it is one thing to call a book Sacred, ano- 
 ther to say that it is Canonical ; for every book 
 was sacred which was edited by a prophet, or apos- 
 tle ; but it does not follow that every such sacred 
 book is Canonical, and was designed for the whole 
 body of the church For example, it is credible 
 that Isaiah the Prophet wrote many thmg^, as a 
 prophet, which were truly inspired, but those \\ri- 
 tings only were Canonical, which God consecrated 
 to the treasure of the church, and which by special 
 diiection were added to the public Canon. Thus, 
 Paui and the other apostles, may have written ma.- 
 
101 
 
 ny thinsjs, by divine inspiration, wliicli arc not now 
 extant ; but those only are Cmiunical, whicli were 
 placed in the Sicred \'olunie, for the use of ilie 
 universal church : which Canon received the ap- 
 probation of the apostits, especially , of John, who 
 so long i;re3ided over the churches in Asia."* 
 
 The Kvangelical VVirsius, of an age somewhat 
 later, delivers his opinion on this point, in the fol- 
 lowing nfianner ; "No one, 1 think, can doubt, but 
 that all the apostles in tlie diligent exercise of their 
 office, wrote frequent letters to the cijurclies under 
 their care, when they could not be present uith 
 them ; and to whou) they might ofien wish to com- 
 municate some instruction necessary for them in 
 the circumstances in which they were placed. It 
 would seem to me to be injurious to th. reputation 
 of those faithful and assiduous men, to sui)|)osc, 
 that not one of them ever wiole any epistle, or ad- 
 dressed to a church, any writing, except thwSe ff;w, 
 whose Kpislles are in the Canon. Now, as Peter, 
 and Paul, and James, and John, were induced to 
 write to the churches, on aocount of the need in 
 which the) Stood of instruction, why would not 
 the same necessity induce the otner apjsilesfo 
 write to the cliurclies under their care. Nor is 
 there any reason why we should complam of the 
 great loss which we have sustained, b< cause these 
 precious ilocunients have perished ; it is ralnur mat- 
 
 "■ Explic. Ill i\um. xxi- 
 
102 
 
 ter of gratitude, that so many have been preserved 
 by the pr *•- i:lent benevoitiiice of God towards us, 
 and so abu-idantiy sufficient to instruct us, in the 
 thit^gs pertaining to salvation."* 
 
 Although I have cited tins passage from this ex- 
 celknit and orthodox thei logian, in favour of the 
 sentiment advanced ; \ el 1 do not f el at liberty 
 to go the whole lens'th of his opinion, here expres- 
 sed. There is no reason to ihink, th;tt any of the 
 other apostles co^•.p(l^ed such works, as those which 
 constitute the Canon of the New Testament. If 
 they had, some of them would have been pr ser- 
 ved ; or at least, some memorial of such writings 
 would have been handed down, in those churches 
 to which they were adi.li'essed. These churches 
 received and preserved the Canonical books, of 
 those whose writings we have, and why should 
 they neglect, or suffer to sink into oblivion, simi- 
 lar writings of apostles, from whom they first re- 
 ceived the Gospel ? 
 
 Indeed, after all, this argument is merely hypo- 
 thetical, and wouM be sufficient to answer the ob- 
 jections which might be made, if it could be proved, 
 that some inspired vvriti gs had perished ; but, in 
 fact,tliere is no proof that any such ever existed. It 
 is, therefore, highly probable, that we are in acuial 
 pi ssession of all the books penned under the ple- 
 nary inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 -* Meletem. De Vita Pauli. 
 
103 
 
 4. The last remark which I shnll make in re- 
 lation to the hook« of the Old Testament suppt.sed 
 to he lost, is, that it is hi2;hly probable, that we have 
 several of them now in the Canon, under another 
 name. The books of Samuel, Kings, and Chroni- 
 cles, were, probably, not written by one, but by a 
 succession of prophets. 
 
 There is reason to believe, that until the Canon 
 of Sacred Scripture was closed, the succession of 
 prophets was never interrupted. Whatever was 
 necCvSsary to be added, by way of explanation, to 
 any book already received into the Canon, they 
 were competent to annex ; or, whatever annals or 
 histories, it was the purpose of God to hive trans- 
 mit'ed to posterity, they would be directed and in- 
 spired to prepare. Thus, different par's of these 
 books, might have been penned hy Gad, Nathan, 
 Iddo^ Shemaiah,, &c. 
 
 That some parts of these histories were prepared 
 by prophets, we have clear proof, in one instance ; 
 for, Isaiah has inserted in his prophecy, several 
 chapters, which are contained in 2 Kings, and 
 which, I think, there can be no doubt, were origi- 
 nally written by himself. * 
 
 The Jewish doctors are of opinion, that the book 
 of Jasher, is one of the books of the Pentateucii, 
 or the whole Law. 
 
 * See 2 Kings xviii. .yx. .xx. Compared v.ilh Isaiah xxxvi. 
 ■xxxvii. xxxviii. 
 
104 
 
 The book of the wars of tlie Lovrl, has by ma- 
 ny, been sMppused, to be no other than the book of 
 Numbers. 
 
 Thi'S I think, it sufficiently appears, from an ex- 
 amination of particulars, that there exists no evi- 
 dence, that any Canonical bo. k of the Old Testa- 
 ment has been lost. To \\ hi;h we may add, that 
 there are many general considerations of great 
 weight, which go to pro\e,that no pn-tof the Scrip- 
 tures ^f (he Old Testament hnve been lost. 
 
 The first is, th:it God by his providence would 
 preserve from destruction, books given by in>-pira- 
 tiiln, ai'd inter^ded for the perpetual instruction of 
 his church. It is reasonable to think, that he would 
 not suffer his gracions purpose to be frustrated: and 
 this argument, apriorl, is greatly strengthened by 
 tl'C f^ict,1hat a remarkable providential cnre hns lieen 
 exercistd, in the preservation of the Sacred Scrip- 
 turtis. It is trulv w.indeiful, that so many books 
 shoiild have bef^n preserved unmutilated, throuij;h 
 hundreds and thousands of years ; and during vi- 
 cissitudes so great ; and especially, when powerful 
 tyrants were so desirous of annihil.Tting the reli- 
 gion of (he Jews, and used their utmost exertions 
 to destroy their sacred books. 
 
 Another consideration of great weight is, tlie 
 reli;*;i'us, and even scrupulous care, with which 
 the Jews, as far as we can trace the history of the 
 Sacred Scriptures, have \\ atched overtheir preser- 
 vation. There can, I think, be' little doubt, that 
 
105 
 
 they exercised the same vigilance during that pe- 
 riod of their history, of which we have no monu- 
 ments. 
 
 Tlie translation of tlicse books into Greek, is 
 sufficient to show, that the same books existed, 
 nearly two hundred years before the advent of 
 Christ. 
 
 And above all, the unqualified testimony to the 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament, by Christ and his 
 Apostles, ought to satisfy us, tliat we have lost 
 none of the inspired books of the Canon. 
 
 The Scriptures are constantly referred to, and 
 quoted as itilallible authority, by them, as we have 
 before shown. These oracles were committed to 
 the Jews as a sacred deposit, and they are never 
 charged with unfaithfulness, in this trust. The 
 Scriptures are declared to have been written for 
 our learning ; and no intimation is given tiiat tliey 
 had ever been mutilated, or in any degree cor- 
 rupted. 
 
SECTION* VII, 
 
 THE ORAL LAW OF THE JEWS, WITHOUT FOUN- 
 DATION. 
 
 ' But however the Jews may seem to agree with 
 us, in regard to the Canon of the Old Testament, 
 this concord relates only to the written law; for, 
 they obstinately persist in maintaining, that besides 
 the law which was engraven on tables of stone; 
 and the other precepts, and ordinances, which were 
 communicated to Moses, and were ordered to be 
 written, God gave unto him, another Law^ ex- 
 planatory of the first, which he was commanded 
 not to commit to writing, but to deliver down by 
 oral tradition. 
 
 The account which the Jewish doctors give of 
 the first communication and subsequent delivery 
 of this law, is found in the Talmud. It is there 
 stated, that during the whole day, while Moses con- 
 tinued on the mount, he was learning the written 
 law, but at night he was occupied in receiving the 
 oral law. 
 
 "When Moses descended from the mount, they 
 say, that he first called Aaron into his tent, and 
 communicated to him all that he had learned of 
 
107 
 
 this oral law, then he placeil him on his i-ia;ht hand; 
 next he called in Eliezer and Ithamar, the sons of 
 Aaron, and repeated the whole to them; on which 
 '.licy also took their scal^, the one on his right hand, 
 the other on his left. After this the seventy el- 
 ders entered, and received the saaie instruction, as 
 Aaron and his sons. And finally, the same com- 
 inunicatiou was made to the whole multitude of 
 people. Then Moses arose and departed, and 
 Aaron who had now heard the whole, four times, 
 repeated what he had learned, and also withdrew. 
 In the same manner, Eliezer and Ithamar, each in 
 turn, went over the same j^round, and departed. 
 And finalh', the seventy elders repeated the whole 
 to the people; every one of whom delivered what 
 he had heard, to his neis:hbour. Thus, according 
 to Maimonidks, was the oral law first ajiven. 
 
 And tlie Jewish account of its transmission to po- 
 sterity, is no less particular. They pretend, that JMo- 
 ses, when forty years had elapsed from the time of 
 the Israelites leaving Egypt, called all the people, 
 and telling them that his end drew near, reques- 
 ted, that if any of them had forgotten aught of what 
 he had delivered to them, they should repair to 
 him, and he would repeat to them anew what they 
 niiglit have forgotten. And they tell us, that Irom 
 tiie first day of the eleventh month, to the sixth 
 day of the twelfth, he was occupied in nothing 
 else, than repeating antl explaining the law to the 
 people. 
 
lOS 
 
 But, in a special manner, he committed this law 
 to Joshua, by whom it was communicated, shortly 
 before his death, to Phineas, the son of Eliezer ; 
 by Phineas, to Eli ; by Eli, to Samuel ; by Sam- 
 uel, to David, and Ahijah ; by Ahijah, to Elijah ; 
 by Elijah, to Elisha ; by Elisha, to Jehoiada ; by 
 Jehoiada, to Zechariah ; by Zechariah, to Hosca ; 
 by Hosea, to Amos ; by Amos, to Isaiah ; by Isa- 
 iah, to Micah ; by Micah, to Joel ; by Joel, to 
 Nahum ; by Nahum, to Habbakuk ; by Habbakuk, 
 to Zephaniah ; by Zephaniah, to Jeremiah ; by Je' 
 remiah, to Baruch ; by Baruch, to Ezra, the presi- 
 dent of the ^reat synag02;ue. By Ezra, this law 
 was delivered to the hi^h priest, Jaddua ; by Jad- 
 dua, to Antigonus ; by Antig;onus, to Joseph son 
 of John, and Joseph son of Jehezer ; by these to 
 Aristftbulus, and Joshua the son of Perechiah ; by 
 them toJudah son of Tiboeus,and Simeon son of Sa- 
 tah. Thence to Shemaiah — To Hillel — To Sim- 
 eon his son; supposed to have been the same who 
 took our Saviour in his arms, in the temple, when 
 brought thither to be presented by his parents. 
 FromSimeun, it passed to Gamaliel, tlie preceptor, 
 as is supposed, of Paul. Then to Sineoi his son; 
 and finally, to the son of Simeon, Jui-ah Hakka- 
 DOSH, by whom it was committed to writing. 
 
 But, although, the above lisi brings down an un- 
 broken succession, from Moses to Judah the Holy, 
 yet to render the tradition still more certain, the 
 Jewish doctors inform us, that this oral law, was 
 
109 
 
 also committed, in a special manner, to the hi^h 
 priests ; and handed down, through iheir line, un- 
 til! it was committed to writing. 
 
 Judah Hakkadosh was the president of the Acad- 
 emy at Tiberias, and was held in great reputation 
 for his sanctity, from which circumstance, he recei- 
 ved his surnsime,fIakkado.^h,the Holy The tem- 
 ple being now desolate, and the nation scattered 
 abroad, it was feared, lest the traditionary law 
 might be lost; therefore it was resolved, to pre- 
 serve it by committing it to writing. Judah the 
 Holy, who lived about the middle of the second 
 century, undertook this work, and digested all tlie 
 traditions he could collect, in six books, each con- 
 sisting of several tracts. The whole number is 
 Sixty three. But these tracts are again subdi- 
 vided, into numerous chapters. This is the fa- 
 mous MisHNA of the Jews. When finished it 
 was received by the nation with the highest res- 
 pect and coafidence ; and their doctors began, forth- 
 with, to compose commentaries, on every part of it. 
 These comments are called the Geaiaka, or the 
 COMPLETION ; and the Mishna and Gemara, to- 
 gether, form the Talmud. But as this work of 
 commenting on the text of the Mishna was pursu- 
 ed, not only in Judea,but in Babylonia, where a large 
 number of Jews resided; hence it came to pass, 
 that two Talmuds were formed ; the one called, 
 the Jerusalem Talmud, the other, the Ba- 
 jsYLgMsa Talmud. In both these; the iVIxsuj^A; 
 * 2 
 
110 
 
 committefl to writing by Judah, is the text ; but 
 the commentaries are widely different. The for- 
 mer was completed before the close of the third cent- 
 ury ofthe Christian era; the latter, was not complet- 
 ed until towards the close of the fifth century. The 
 Babylonish Talmud is much the largest ofthe two; 
 for while that of Jerusalem has been printed in one 
 folio volume, this fills twelve folios. This last is 
 also held, in much higher esteem, by the Jews ; 
 and indeed it comprehends, all the learning and re- 
 ligion of that people, since they have been cast off" 
 for iheir unbelief and rejection of the true Mes- 
 siah. 
 
 Maimonides has given an excellent digest, of 
 
 all the laws and institutions, enjoined in this great 
 ■work. 
 
 The Jews place fully as much faith in the Tal- 
 mud, as they do in the Bible. Indeed, it is held 
 in much greater esteem, and the reading of it is 
 much more encouraged. It is a saying of one of 
 their most esteemed Rabbies, " That the oral law 
 is the foundation of the written ; nor can the writ- 
 ten law be expounded, but by the oral." Agree- 
 ably to this, in their confession, called, the golden 
 altar, it is said, " It is impossible for us to stand 
 upon tiie foundation of our holy law, which is the 
 written law, unless it be by the oral law, which is 
 the exposition thereof." *In the Talmud it is writ- 
 en, "Thit tog ve attention to th study of the 
 Bible is some virtue; but he who pays attention to 
 
Ill 
 
 the study ol* the Mishna, possesses a virtue which 
 shall receive a reward; and he who occupies him- 
 self in reading the Gemara, has a virtue, than 
 which, there is none more excellent." Nay, they 
 go to the impious length of saying, "That he who 
 is employed in the study of the Bible and nothing 
 else, does but waste his time." They maintain, 
 that if the declarations of this oral law be ever so 
 inconsistent with reason and common sense, they 
 must be received with implicit faith, " You must 
 not depart from them," says Rabbi Sol. Jarchi, 
 " if they should assert that your right hand is your 
 left; or your left your right. " And in the Tal- 
 mud it is taught, " That, to sin against the words 
 of the scribes, is far more grievous than to sin 
 against the words of the Law." "My son attend 
 raiher to the words of the scribes, than to the words 
 of the Law." *' The text Oi'the liible is like water, 
 but the Mishna is like wine ;" with many other 
 similar comp.ii iaons. 
 
 Without the oral law, they assert, that the writ- 
 ten law remains in perfect darkness : for, say they, 
 "There are many things in Scripture, which are 
 contradictory, and which can in no way be recoii- 
 cileti, but by the oral law, which Moses received 
 in Mount Sinai." In conformity with these senti- 
 ments, is the conduct of the Jews, until this day. 
 Their«learned men spend almost all their time, in 
 p'.ring over tlie Talmud ; and he, among them, who 
 knows must ui the coniunts of this monstrous lar- 
 
112 
 
 rago of lies and nonsense, is esteemed the most 
 learned man. In consequence of their implicit 
 faith in this oral law, it becomes almost useless to 
 reason with the Jews out of the Scriptures of the 
 Old Testament. It is a matter of real importance, 
 therefore, to show, that this whole fabric rests on a 
 sandy foundation ; and to dfemonstrate, that there 
 is no evidence, whatsoever, that any such law was 
 ever given to Moses, on Sinai. To this subject, 
 therefore, I would now solicit the attention of the 
 reader. 
 
 Here then, let it be observed, that we have no 
 controversy with the Jews concerning the written 
 law, Moral, Ceremonial, or Political : nor do we 
 deny that Mo^es received from God on Mount Sinai, 
 some explication of the written law. But what 
 we maintain, is, that this exposition did not form 
 a second distinct law ; that it was not the same as 
 the oral law of the Jews, contained in the Tal- 
 mud ; that it was not received by Moses in a dis- 
 tinct form from the writien law, and attended with 
 a prohibition to commit it to writing. 
 
 In support of these positions, we solicit the at- 
 tention of the impartial reader, to the following ar- 
 guments : — 
 
 1. There is not the slis;htest mention of any such 
 law in all the sacred records ; neither of its original 
 communication to Moses, nor of its transmission to 
 posterity, in the way ptetendcd by the Jews. 
 Now, we ask, is it probable, that if such a law had 
 
US 
 
 been given, there should never have been any Iiint 
 of the matter, nor the least reference to it, in the 
 whole Bible? Certainly, this total silence of Sorip- 
 tnic is very little favourable to the doctrine of an 
 oral law. Maimonides, does indeed, pretend to 
 find a reference to it, in Exodus xxix, 12. I will 
 give you saith the. Lord,, a law, and common d- 
 ment ; by the first of these he understands, ihe 
 written law, and by the last, the oral. But if he 
 had only attended to the words next ensuin^;, lie 
 would never have adduced this text in confiim:ni'jn 
 of an oral law ; luhich I have written (hut thou 
 mayest teach them. And we know that it is very 
 common to express the written law by both these 
 terms, as well as by several others of the same im- 
 port. Now if no record exists of such a law hav- 
 ing; been given to JNIoses, huw can we, at tliis late 
 period, be satisfied of the fact ? If it was never 
 heard of for more than two thousand years after- 
 wards, what evidence is thrre that it ever existed. 
 
 2. Again, we know, that in the time of king 
 Josiah, the written law which had been lost, was 
 found again. How great wjs the consterna'i )n 
 of the pious king and his court, on this occasion ! 
 How memorable the history of this flict! But u hat 
 became of the oral law, during this period .'' Is it 
 reasonable to think, that this would remain unin- 
 jured through successive ages of idolatry, when 
 the written law was so entirely rfjeoli-d ? If they 
 had iorgoiien wlial was in their wriuen law, would. 
 
114 
 
 they be likely to retain that which was oral ? If 
 the written law was lost, would the traditionary 
 law be preserved ? And if this was at any time 
 lost, how could it be recovered ? Not from the 
 written law, for this does not contain it; not from 
 the memory of man, for the supposition is, that 
 it was thence obhterated. If then, this law, by 
 any chance, was once lost, it is manifest, that it 
 could never be recovered, but by divine revelation. 
 And when we survey the history of tlie Jews, is it 
 conceivable, that such a body of law, as that con- 
 tained in the Talmud, immensely larger than the 
 written law, could have been preserved entire, 
 through so many generations, merely by oral com- 
 munication ? The Jews, indeed, amuse us with a 
 ^able, on this subject. They tell us that while the 
 Israelites mourned on account of the death of Mo- 
 ses, they forgot three thousand of these traditions, 
 which were recovered by the ingenuity of Othniel 
 the son of Kenaz. This is ridiculous enough. 
 What a heap of traditions must that have been, 
 from which three thousand could be lost at once? 
 And how^ profound the genius of Othniel, which 
 was able to bring to light such a multitude of pre- 
 cepts, after they had been completely forgotten ? 
 But the proof of this fact is more ludicrous still. 
 It is derived from Joshua xv. 16, 17. ^nd Ca- 
 leb said, he that smiteth Kirjath-Sepher, and 
 taketh it, to him loill I irive Achsuh my daugh- 
 ter to wife, t/ind Othniel the soil of Kenaz, the 
 
115 
 
 brother of Caleb, took H : and he gave hint 
 Jiehsah his ({(ins^htcr to wife. 
 
 Tlie iinleiirin'tl reader slutuld be informed that 
 Kirjath-Sepher, means, the cittf nf tfie book. 
 
 Kilt, who retr.ined the oral law safely preserved 
 in his memor}', during the I0112; reign of INIanasseh; 
 and during the reign of Amon, and of Josiah ? 
 AVhere was (hat law, during the seventy years cap- 
 tivity, in Babylon? Have we not a word to in- 
 form us of the fate of this law, in all the histories 
 of those times ? What, is there not a hint concern- 
 ing the preservation of a deposit so precious, as 
 this law is pretended to be ? We must say again, 
 that this continued silence of Scripture, through a 
 period of so many hundreds of years, speaks liille 
 in favour of the unwritten law. 
 
 3. The Jews agiun inform us, that tliis law was 
 prohibited to be written ; but whence do they de- 
 rive the proof of this assertion ? Let the evidence, if 
 there be any, be produced. Must we have recourse 
 to the oral law itself, for testimony ? Be it so. But 
 why then is it now written, and has been, for more 
 than fifteen hundred years .' In the Talmud, it is 
 said, <' The words of the written law, it is not law- 
 ful for you to commit to oral tradition ; nor the 
 words of the oral law to writing." And Sol. Jar- 
 HCi says, '' Neither is it lawful to write the oral 
 law." Now we say, there was a law containing 
 such a prohibition, or there was not. If the form- 
 er, then the Talmudisls liavc transgressed a positive 
 
lie 
 
 precept of this law, in committing it to writing; 
 if the latter, then tlieir Talmud and their Rabbies 
 speak falsely. Let them choose, in this dilemma. 
 
 4. But it can be proved, that whatever laws Mo- 
 ses received from God, the same he was command- 
 ed to write. It is said, tdnd Moses came and told 
 the people all the words of the Lord. — Jind Mo- 
 ^es wrote all the words of the Lord. 
 
 And again, it is said, Jlnd the Lord said to 
 Moses, write these loords, for according to these 
 tvords, have I made a covenant ivith you and 
 ivith Israel. And it is worthy of particular obser- 
 vation, that wherever the people are called upon 
 to obey the law of the Lord, no mention is made 
 of any other than the written law. Thus Moses, 
 \\hen his end approached, made a speech unto the 
 people ; after which it is added. And Moses wrote 
 this law and delivered it unto the priests the sons 
 of Levi, ivhich bare the ark of the covenant of 
 the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel. 
 And Moses commanded tJiem saying, At the 
 end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the 
 year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when 
 all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy 
 God, in the place ivhich he shall choose, thou 
 shall read it before all Israel in their hear- 
 ing. 
 
 Here, observe, there is no mention of any other 
 
 * Exod. xxiv. 3, 4. xxxiv. 27, 28. Deut. xxxi. 9, 24, 
 
117 
 
 but the written law. There is no direction to re- 
 peat the oral law, at this time of leisure ; but sure- 
 ly it was more necessary to command the people 
 to do this, if there had been such a law, than to 
 hear the written law which they might read from 
 time to time. 
 
 In the time of Ahaz, tlie sacred historian informs 
 us, That the Lord testified against Israel and 
 against Judah, by ail the prophets, and by all 
 the seers, saying, turn ye from your evil way Sf 
 and keep my commandments and my statutesy 
 according to all the law which I commanded 
 your fathers, and which I sent luito you by my 
 servants the prophets. 
 
 Now it is very manifest, that the law which they 
 are reproved for breaking, was the written law ; 
 for in the same chapter, we have the Ibilowing ex- 
 hortation ; ^nd the statutes, and the ordinances, 
 and the law, and the commandments which he 
 WKOTE for you, ye shall observe to do for ever- 
 more. 
 
 The prophets continually refer the people to the 
 law and to the testimony, and declare, if they 
 speak not according to this word, it is because 
 there is no light in them. 
 
 When Jchoshaphit set about reforming and in- 
 structing th'pLople,and seton foot an important mis- 
 sion, consisting of princes and levites, to teach them, 
 
 2 Kings xvii. 13, 37. 
 
lis 
 
 they confined themselves to what was written in the 
 Scriptures, And they taught in Judali, and had 
 the book of the laiu of the Lord with them, and 
 toent about through all the cities ofJudah, and 
 taught the people. 
 
 So also Ezra, when he instructed the people, 
 who had returned from Babylon, made use of no 
 other than the written law ; Jind Ezra the priest 
 brought the law before the congregation, both of 
 men and women, and all that could hear with 
 understanding. — And he read therein before the 
 street, that was before the lo at e.r gate, from the 
 morning nntil m,id-day, before the men and the 
 tvomen, and those that could understand : and 
 the ears of all the people were attentive unto the 
 hook of Me law — And Ezra stood upon a pulpit 
 of wood, which they had made for the jnirpose ; 
 — And Ezra opened the book in sight of all the 
 people, and when he ojiened it, all the people stood 
 up. And the priests and the Levites caused the 
 people to understand the law ; — And they read 
 in the book, in the laio of God distinctly, and 
 gave the sense, and caused the peojyle to under- 
 stand the reading. 
 
 5. Besides, the written law is pronounced to be 
 
 perfect, so that nothing need, or could be added to 
 
 it, therefore the oral law was superfluous. The 
 
 luiv of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. 
 
 Ye shall not add unto the word ivhich I command 
 
 2 Chron. xvii. 9. Neh. viii. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8. 
 Psalm xix. 8. Deut. iv. 1, 2. 
 
119 
 
 f/ou,neither shall yc diminish ought from it, thai 
 ye may keep the commandments of the Lord 
 your God which F com.mand you. 
 
 It is not a valid objection wliich they bring 
 against this argument, that Christians add the gos- 
 pel to the law ; for this is not, properly speaking, 
 a new law. The gospel is a promise of grace and 
 salvation. The precepts of the law are, indeed, 
 spcciall}' employed in the gospel, to a purpose for 
 which they \v( re not originally intended : but the 
 gospel, in whatever light it may be viewed, is 
 committed to writing, and no part of it left to de- 
 pend on oial tradition. 
 
 6. In the numerous exhortations and injunction^ 
 of Almighty God, recorded in the Old Testament, 
 there is not an instance of any one being command- 
 ed to do any thing, not contained in the written 
 law, which proves, that, either there was no other 
 law in existence, or that obedience to it was not re- 
 quired ; and if obedience was not required, then, 
 certainly, there was no law.* 
 
 Moreover, many of the .Tews,thcmselves,ooncur 
 with us. in rejecting tiie oral law. The chief ad- 
 vocates of traditions were the Pharis-es, who arose 
 out of Iho schools of Ilillc'l and Sliammai, that lived 
 after the times of the Maccabees. On this. subject, 
 
 * It would be tedious to refer to all the texts in which 
 commands and exhortations arc {riven, but the reader may 
 consult the folIowin<r: Dcut. x. 12, 1:1. xi. 32. xxviii. 1. 
 XXX. 20. xxix 9, 20. xxxi. 4,5, '\r,. Jo.?h. i. 7. xxiii. 0. 2King8 
 xiv. r.. 2 Chroji.xxv. 4. xxx. 1«. 
 
120 
 
 we have the testimony of Jerome, who says, 
 "Shammai and Hillel, from whom arose the Scribes 
 and Pharisees, not long before the birth of Christ ; 
 the first of whom was called the dissipator, and 
 the last, profane ; because, by their traditions, 
 they destroyed the law of God."* But on this 
 point, the Sadducees were opposed to the Phari- 
 sees, and according to Josephus, rejected all tradi- 
 tions, adhering to the Scriptures alone. With 
 them agreed the Samaritans, and Essenes. The 
 Karaites also, received the written word, and re- 
 iected all traditions ; although, in other respects, 
 they did not agree with the Sadducees. And in con- 
 sequence of this, they are hated and reviled by the 
 other Jews, so that it is not without great difficul- 
 ty that they will receive a Karaite into one of their 
 synagogues. Of this sect, there are still some re- 
 mainino-, in Poland, Russia, Turkey, and Africa. 
 It now remains to mention the arguments by 
 which the Jews attempt to establish their oral law. 
 These shall be taken from Manasseh bkn Israel, t 
 one of their most learned and liberal men. He 
 argues from the necessity of an oral law,to explain 
 many parts of the written law. To confirm this 
 opinion, he adduces several examples, as Exodus 
 xii. 2. This month, shall be unto you the begin- 
 ning- of months, it shall be the first month of 
 the year. On this text he remarks, «'That the 
 name of the month is not mentioned. It is not 
 
 * In Jesa viii. I Condi. In Exod. 
 
121 
 
 said, whether I lie months were lunar or solar, 
 "both of which were in ancient use ; and yet with- 
 out knowinjj; this, the precept could not be observ- 
 ■ed. The same ditiiculty occurs, in regard to the 
 other annual feasts." 
 
 *♦ Another example is taken from Lev. xi. 13, 
 where it is commandetl, that unclean birds shall not 
 be eaten, and yet we are not furnished with any 
 criteria, by which to distinguish the clean from the 
 unclean, as in the case of beasts. A third exam- 
 ple is from Exod. xxi. 29, Let no man go out 
 o/ his place on the seventh day, and yet we are 
 not informed, whether he was forbidden to leave 
 his house, his court, his city, or his suburbs. So, 
 in Lev. xxi 1^, the priest is forbidden to go out 
 of the Sanctuari/, and no time is limited, hut 
 we know that the residence of the priests was 
 without the precincts of the tcmj)le, and that they 
 strved there, in rotation." 
 
 ''Again, in Lxod. xx. 10, all work is prohibited 
 on thf sabbath, but circumcision is commanded to 
 be performed on theeiglitii day ; and ii is no where 
 declared, whether this rile should be deferred, 
 when the eighth day occui-red on the sabbath. 
 The same dlfllCll^ly t-xists in r«:gard to the sl;iyin"- 
 of the pasch.i: laitd), which was coiilined by t!ie 
 law to thefjui teenth day oi the month, an<l we are 
 no wh ri! intVirmt^d wha^ was to be dofie, when this 
 was the sa )biiir' " 1 i Dent. xxiv. we have •, a- 
 ny lawa reJaung to marriage, buL we are i\o wiiere 
 L 2 
 
122 
 
 informed what ronstitutcd a legal marriase,'^ ''lu 
 t!ie feast of the Tabernacles, beautiful branches of 
 trees are directed t) be used, but the species of tree 
 is not mentioned. And in the Feast of Weeks, it 
 is commanded, that on the fiftieth day, theivave- 
 sheaf should be offered from their habitations ; 
 but where it should be offered, is not said. And, 
 finally, amon^ proliibited marriages, tlie wife of an 
 uncle is never mentioned." 
 
 In these, and many other instances, the learned 
 Jew observes, that the law could only be under- 
 stood by such oral tradition, as he supposes accom- 
 panied the written law. 
 
 Now,in answer to these things, we observe, first, 
 in the general, that however many difficulties may 
 be started respecting the precise meaning of many 
 parts of the law, these can never prove the exist- 
 ence of an oral law. The decision on these points 
 might have been left to the discretion of the wor- 
 shippers, or to the common sense of the people. 
 Besides, many things may appear obscure to us, 
 which were not so to the ancient Israelites ; so 
 that they might have needed no oral law to explain 
 them. 
 
 Again, it is one thing to expound a law, and ano- 
 ther to add something to it : but the oral law for 
 which they plead, is not a mere exposition, but an 
 additional law. 
 
 It is one thing to avail ourselves of traditions to 
 'interpret a law, and another to receive them as di- 
 
123 
 
 vine, and absolutely necessary. We do not deny, 
 that nnny things may be pcrfornr-d accordiiii; to 
 ancient custom, or the traditions of proocdinu; 'Ji;r:s, 
 in things indiflerent ; bnt uc do den} , that these can 
 be considered as divine, or nccessnrv. 
 
 l>ut particularly, wo answer, that the alleged 
 difficulty about the name of the month, has no ex- 
 istence, for it can be very well ascertained fr )ni 
 the circumstances of the case ; and in Exod. xiii. 
 the month is named. The civil year of the Jeu's 
 began with the month Tisri, hut the Ecclesiastical, 
 with Abib. Therein, in fact, no grca'er difTicuity 
 here, than in any other case, wjiere the ciiTum- 
 stance of time is mentioned. Tliere was no need 
 of understanding the method of reducing solar and 
 lunar years into one another, to decide this matter. 
 And if the Talmud be examined on this point, 
 where the oral law is supposed to be now contain- 
 ed, there will be found there, no satisfactory me- 
 thod of computing time. And, indeed, the Tal- 
 mudic doctors are so far from being agreed on this 
 subject, that any thing else may be found sooner, 
 thsn a law regulating tins matter, in the Talmud. 
 
 And in regard to the unclean binls, why w:is it 
 necessary ti have criteria to distinguish them> 
 since a catalogue of them is given in the very pas- 
 sage to which reference is made. And I would 
 ask, does the pretended oral law contain any such 
 criteria to direct in this case ? Nothing less. The 
 difficulty about the people leaving their place on 
 
124 
 
 the sabbath, and the priests leaving the temple, 
 is really too trifling; to require any serious consid- 
 eration. And as to what should be done when the 
 day of circumcising a child, oi' of killing the pass- 
 over happened on the Sabbath, it is a point easily 
 decided. These positive institutions ought to have 
 been observed, on whatever day they occurred. 
 
 The question respecting matrimony, should rather 
 provoke a smile, than a serious answer ; for who is 
 ignorant, what constitutes a lawful marriage? Or 
 who would suppose that the ceremonies attend- 
 ant on this transaction ought to be prescribed by 
 the law of God ; or, thatanother law was requisite 
 for the purpose. As well might our learned Jew, 
 insist on the necessitj' of an Oral Law, t-o teach us 
 how we should eat, drink, and perform our daily 
 work. 
 
 If the law prescribed heautifnl branches of trees, 
 to be nsed in the Feast ot Tabt.rnaclrs. what need 
 wa< tliere of ju oral law, to teach a ly thing more. 
 If such branches were nse'l,it was of course indiffer- 
 ent, whether they were of this or that species. 
 
 Eq'ia'lv futile are the other ariiuments of the au- 
 thor, ml ne>'d not be answ; ;• d in detatl. 
 
 It appears, therefore, that thove is no evidence, 
 thatO"d ever L^ave any law t'> Moses, distinct from 
 that which is writb-n in the Pfniateuch. And 
 there is good reason to believe, that vhc vari us Invs 
 found in th'! Mi-hna, wer- n ;ver ree. iv •. fiOai 
 God, nor derived by tradition from iVioses ; but 
 
125 
 
 were traditions of the Fathers, such as were in use 
 in the time of our Saviour, who severely reprehends 
 the Scribes and Pharisees, for settjng aside, and ren- 
 dering of no effect, the word of God, by their unau- 
 thorized traditions. 
 
 The internal evidence is itself sufficient to con- 
 vince us, that the laws of the Talmud are human 
 inventions, and not divine institutions ; except,that 
 those circumstances of divine worship which were 
 left to the aiscrttion of the i}eople, and which were 
 regulated by custom, may be often found preserved^ 
 ill this immense work. 
 
PART )^ >E. 
 
 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
^^■7 
 
 SECTIOU I. 
 
 3IETII0D OF SETTLING THE CANON OF THE NFW 
 TESIAMENT. 
 
 At first view, it would seem, that there would bd 
 fouiul much !es> diliiculty in determiii 11115 ^'^^ Canon 
 of the New 'restunuut,ihan thai of the Old ; seeing 
 the books v\hich comijose the former are much 
 more recent, than those of the latter. And we have 
 historical records, which reach up to the time, 
 when tn^iDiinon of the New Testament was form- 
 ed, but in regard to most of the books of the Old Fest- 
 aiiiciiljtiicro are extant no coilaleril documenls,iior 
 any autnentic h'storics, which j>;o back to a j)eriod 
 within some liundrcd years of the time, when tiiey 
 weie jjenned. But houever plausible tbis may ap- 
 pear, It is entirely fallacious ; and, when we come 
 to examine into the Canonical aulliority of the 
 books of tlie New Tertament, much greater dilBcuI- 
 ties are found to exist, tlian were e icountered, in 
 esiasjiisiiing the Canon of the OkI Testament. The 
 reasons of this dillerence, aie, such as these; 
 
 1. ^w^i. Canon of the Old Testament was settled 
 by Ezra, an inspired m:ui, but the books of the 
 iM'exv I'cstatneiit were collected into the Canon, 
 after inspiration had ceased, in the Ciinsnan 
 cimrch. 
 
 M 
 

 130 
 
 2. The Canon of the Old Testament received 
 the sanction f)f Christ and his apostles, but when 
 the Canon oftlie New Testament was completed, all 
 the apostles were dead. 
 
 3. The number of Apocryphal books which 
 claim admission into the Canon of the Old Testa- 
 ment is inconsiderable, and the invalidity of their 
 title, easily demonstrated ; but the Apocryphal 
 books ol the New Testament are very numerous ; 
 and some of ihem have a much higher claim to Ca- 
 nonical authority, than any of those obscure 
 books, which claim admittance into the Old Tes- 
 tament. 
 
 Toland in his famous catalogue of the books of 
 the New Testament, lays in a claim for more than 
 eighty, which he pretends ought to be received in- 
 to the Canon. 
 
 While there was a universal agreement, in 
 the primitive church, in regard to the Canonical 
 authority of most of the books of the New 'J'es- 
 tanient, there were some who doubted, res- 
 pecting the Epistle of James, The Second of Pe- 
 ter, The Second and Third of John, The Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, and ihe R( veiaiion. 
 
 4. There has been, moreover, much more doubt 
 and controversy respecting some of the genuine 
 books of the New Testament, than ever existed in 
 regard to any contained in the Jewish Canon. 
 
 5. While some of the ancient Fathers disputed 
 the right of some t f the books which have been 
 received into the Canon, some modern doctors, of 
 
131 
 
 wo inconsulerable learning;, have been of opinion, 
 that several, which were formerly excluded, oiip;ht 
 yet to he receiveil. This opinion was explicitly 
 declared hy archbishop Wake, and Mr. VVhiston, 
 to ^ay nothing about Toland, who was an enemy to 
 the gospel.* 
 
 6. To all which we may add, that some moderns, 
 of great name, have expressed doubts respecting 
 some of the books now in the Canon of the New 
 Tesiani'Mit ; as Lutlier, for a while, rejected tiie 
 Epistle of James : and Erasmus, Calvin, Cajetan, 
 and Kirslenius, hesitated respecting the authority 
 of the book of Revelation : and J. D. Michaelis re- 
 jected this book from the Canon, and expressed him- 
 self very unfavourably respecting the gospels of 
 iVIark and Luke. 
 
 After vvhat has been said, in the former part of 
 this work, respecting the importance of settling the 
 Canon on correct principles, it will be unnecessary 
 to add any thing here on that subjVct, except to say, 
 that this inquiry cannot be less interesting in rc- 
 gird to the New Testao'ent, than to the Old. It is 
 a subject which calls for our utmost diligence and 
 impartialty. It is one which we cannot neglect 
 with a gool conscience ; for the inquiry is nothing 
 less tlian to ascertain, what revelation God has 
 made to us, ami where it is to be found. 
 
 And, as to tlic proper method of settling the 
 
 • Soc Jones on tlic Canon. 
 
132 
 
 Canon of the New Testament, the same course must 
 be pursued, as has been done, in respect to the Old. 
 We must have recourse to authentic history, and 
 endeavour to ascertain, what books were received 
 as genuine, by the primitive church and early 
 Fathers. The conlemporaries, and immediate suc- 
 cessors of the apostles, are the most competent 
 witnesses, in this case. If amon:^ these, there is 
 found to have been a general agreement, as to what 
 books were Canonical, it will go far to satisfy us 
 respecting the true Canon ; for it cannot be suppos- 
 ed, that they could easily be deceived in a matter 
 of this sort. A general consent of the CArly Fathers, 
 and of the primitive church, therefore, furnishes 
 conclusive evidence, on this point ; and is that spe- 
 cies of evidence, which is least liable to fallacy, or 
 abuse. The learned Huet, hns, therefore, assum- 
 ed it as a maxim, That every book is genuine, 
 which was esteemed genuine, by those who lived 
 nearest to the time when it loas written, and by 
 the ages following, in a continued series.* The 
 reasona^ileness of this rule will appear more evident, 
 when we consider the great esteem with which 
 these books were at first received ; the constant 
 public reading of them in the churches ; and the 
 carl}" version of them, info other languages. 
 
 The high claims of the Romish church, in regard 
 to the authority of fixing the Canon, has already 
 
 * Demonstratio Evang-. 
 
lS.T 
 
 bern disprnvcl, as it relates to the bonks of the 
 Old Testmnent ; and the same arsjuments apply 
 wiih their full force, to the Canon of the New Tes- 
 tament, and need not be- repealed. It may not he 
 amiss, however, to hear from distingnislied writers 
 of that oommunion, what their real opinion is, on 
 this •subject. Hkuman asserts, <' That the Sa. red 
 Scriptures, without the authoi'ity of the cluuchj 
 have no more authority than ^sop's Fables ;" 
 And Baili.ik, " That he would give no more credit 
 to St, Matthew, than to Livy, unless the church 
 obliged him." To the same purpose, speak, 
 PiGHius, EcKius, Hkllarmixe, and many othei-s 
 of thf'ir most distinguished writers. By the auiho- 
 rity of the church, they understand a power" lodged 
 in the church of Rome, to deiermine what books 
 shrill be received as the word of God, than which 
 it is scarcely possible to conceive of any thing more 
 absurd. 
 
 In avoiding this extreme, some Protestants have 
 verged towards the opposite, and have asserted, 
 that the only, or j)rincipal evidence of the Canonic 
 cal authority of the Sacred Scriptures, is, their in- 
 ternal evidence. Even some churches went so far, 
 as to insert this opinion in their public confess- 
 ions.* 
 
 Now it ought not to be doubted, that the inter- 
 nal evidence of the Scriptures, is exceedingly 
 
 * See the Confession of the Reformed Galilean Cbureh. 
 M 2 
 
134 
 
 strons: ; and that when the mind of the reader is 
 truly ilkiminated, it derives from this source, the 
 most unwavering convicti m of their truth and 
 divine authority ; but that every sincere Christian 
 should be able, in all cases, b}- this internal light, 
 to distinguish between Canonical books and such 
 as are not, is sur /ly no very safe or reasonable opin- 
 ion. Suppose, that a thousand books of various 
 kinds, including the Canonical, were placed before 
 any sincere Christian, would he be able, without 
 mistake, to select from this mass, the twenty seven 
 books of which the New Testament is composed, if 
 he had nothing to guide him but the internal evi. 
 dence ? Would every such person be able, at once 
 to determine, whether the book of Ecclesiastes, or 
 of Ecclesiasticus belonged to the Canon of the Old 
 Testament, by inter al evidence alone? It is cer- 
 tain, that the influence of the Holy Spirit is neces- 
 sary to produce a true faith in the word of God, but 
 to make this the only criterion by which to judge 
 of the Canonical authority of a book, is certainly 
 liable to strong objections. The tendency of this 
 doctrine is to enthusiasm, and the consequence of 
 acting upon it, yvould be to unsettle, rather than 
 establish the Canon of Holy Scripture ; for it would 
 be stiange, if some peisons, without any other 
 guidance than their own spiritual taste, would not 
 pretend that other books besides those long receiv- 
 ed, were Canonical ; or, would be disposed to reject 
 some part of these. If this evidence were as infal- 
 
135 
 
 liblc as some would Imvc it to he, Oicn the auHien- 
 ticity of every* disputed text, as well as the Cation- 
 ical authority of every book, mifj;ht he asccrt;iincd 
 bjv it: Hut we have already seen, ihai a few eiiii- 
 uently pious men doubted for a while, respecting 
 the Canonical authority of sonic genuine books of 
 the Nevv Testament. 
 
 And if the internal evidence were the only crite- 
 rion of Canonical autiiority to which we could re- 
 sort, there would remain no possibility of convinc- 
 ing any person of the inspiration of a book, unless 
 he could perceive in it the internal evidence of a 
 divine origin. In many cases this species of evi- 
 dence can scarcely be said to exist, as \\ hen for 
 wise purposes God directs or inspires a prophet to 
 record genealogical tables; or, even in the narration 
 of common events, I do not see hovv it can be 
 determined from internal evidence, that the history 
 is written by inspiration ; for, the only circum- 
 stance in which an inspired narrative diObrs from a 
 faithful human history, is that the one is infallible, 
 and the other is not ; but the existence of this infal- 
 libility or the absence of it, is not apparent from 
 reading the books. Both accounts may appear consis- 
 tent, and it is only, or chiefly, by external evidence 
 that wc can know that one of them is inspired^ 
 A\'ho cuuld undertiike to say, that from inteinal evi- 
 dence alone, he could determine, ihat the book of 
 Kslher, or the Chronicles, were written by di\ ine 
 inspiration .'' Besides, some books are obscure and 
 
136 
 
 not easily understoorl; now, how couVl any one dis- 
 cern theinternalevidenceof a book, the meaning of 
 which he did not yet understatid ? 
 
 The evidence, arising frona a general view of 
 the Scriptures, collectively, is most convincing, but 
 is not so well adapted to determine, whether s^ome 
 one book considered separately, was certainly writ- 
 ten by divine inspiration. 
 
 It is necessary, theiefore, to proceed to our des- 
 tined point, in a more circuitoi;s way. We must 
 be at the pains to examine into the history of the 
 Canon ; and as was before said, to ascertoin what 
 books were esteemed Canonical by all tliose who 
 had the best opportunity of judging of this matter ', 
 and when the internal evidence is lound corroborat- 
 ing the external, the two combined, rnay produce 
 a degree of conviolion, which leaves no room to 
 desire any stronger evidence. 
 
 The question to be decided, is a matter of fact. 
 It is an inquiry respecting the real authors of the 
 books of the New Testament : whether they were 
 written by the persons whose names they bear ; 
 or by others under their names. The inspiration 
 of these books, though closely allied to this sub- 
 ject, is not now the object of inquiry. The pro- 
 per metliod of determining a matter of fact, evi- 
 dently is, to have recourse to those persons who 
 were witnesses of it, or who received their infor- 
 mation from others who were witnesses. It is 
 only in this way that we know, that Homer, Ho- 
 
137 
 
 race, Virgil, Livy, and TuUy, wrote the books, 
 which now j;o under their names. 
 
 The early Christians pursued this method of de- 
 termining what books were Caiionicul. They 
 searched into the njcons of the chuich, l)efore 
 their time, and from these ascertained what bonks 
 should be received, as belonging to the Sacred 
 Volume. They appealed to that certain and uni- 
 versal tradition, which attested the genuineness of 
 these books. Irenjeus, Tertullian, EnsEBixTs, 
 Cyril, and ArorsTiNE, have all made use cf this 
 argument, in establishing the Canon of the New 
 Testament, 
 
 The question is often asked, when wns the Can- 
 on of ilie JNew Testament constituted ? and by 
 what authority ? Many persons who write and 
 speak on this subject, appear to entertain a wrong 
 impression, in regard to it : as if the books of the 
 New Testament could not be of authority, until 
 they were sanctioned by some Ecclesiastical Coun- 
 cil, or by some publicly expressed opinion of the 
 Fathers of the church ; and as if any ptirtinn of 
 their authority depended on their being collected 
 into one volume. But the truth is, that every one 
 of these books was of authority, as far as known, 
 from the moment of its publication ; and its r'gi;t 
 to a place in the Canon, is not derived from the 
 sanction of any church, or Council, but from the 
 fact, that it was written by inspiration. And the 
 appeal to testimony is not to prove, tijat any 
 
138 
 
 Council of bishops, or others, gave sanction to the 
 boL'lc, but to show, that it is indeed the g;pnuirie 
 work of Matthew, or John, or P'ter, or Paul, whom 
 we know 1o have been inspired. 
 
 The books of the New Testament were, tliere- 
 fore, of full authority, before they v\ ere colled ed 
 into one volume ; and it would have made no dif- 
 ference, if they had never been included in one vol- 
 ume, but had retained 'haf separate f.rm, in which 
 they were first published. And it is by no means 
 certain, that these books v\ere, at a very early pe- 
 riod, bound in one volume. As far as we have 
 any testimony on the subject, the probability is, 
 that it was more customary to include them in two 
 volumes ; one of which was called the Gof^PEL, and 
 the other, the Apostles. Some of the oldest MSS. 
 of the New Tesiament extant, appear to have been 
 p'lt up in this form; and ihe Fathers often refer to the 
 Scriptures of the New Testament, U!)der these two 
 titles. The qae>tion, when was the Canon consti- 
 tuted, admits th refore, of no other projier answer 
 than this, that as soon as the last book of the New 
 Tes; anient was written and published, tlie Canon 
 was completed. But if the question i-elates to the 
 time when thi-se b)oks were coHoctec! tojjeiher, 
 and p iblished in a single volume, or in two vol- 
 umes, it admits of no definite ansvver ; for those 
 churches whicii were situated nearest to the i-lace, 
 where any particular bonks were published, would, 
 of course, obtain copies much earlier, than church- 
 
139 
 
 es in a remoto part of the world. For a consider- 
 able p.-riod, tin- collection uf thrsi books, in ctcli 
 clr.rch, nmst have bet-n necc s irily incumplete ; 
 for il would lake some time to sciul to the church, 
 or people, with whom the autojj^raphs were dep s- 
 ited, and to write o(T fair copies. This necessary 
 process will also account for the fact, th.it soni', of 
 the smaller books were not received by the churches 
 so eirly, nor so univers.illy, as the larj^er. Tiic 
 solicitude of the churches to possess, ininiediately, 
 the more extensive books of the New Testament, 
 would, doubtless, induce them to make a ^reat ex- 
 ertion to acquire copies; but prubably,the smaller, 
 would not be so much spoken of, nor would there 
 be so strong a desire to obtain them without delay. 
 Considering how ditTicult it is now, with all our 
 improvements in the typograjjhical art, to multiply 
 copies of the Scriptures with sullicient rapidity, it 
 is) truly wonderful, how so many churches as were 
 foundt^d during the first century, to s.iy nothing of 
 individuals, could all be supplied with copies of 
 the Nfw Testament, when there was no speedier 
 method of producing them, than by writing every 
 letti r witii the pen ! Tiie pen of a ready wriier 
 must then, indeed, have been of immense v due. 
 Tlie idea entertainetl by some, es,jecialiy by D.jd- 
 wtLL, thai .hese books lay f<jr a long lime h.ck d 
 up in the cotfers of tiie churches to which they were 
 ad'lre-soil, and totally unkiiown to the ii si of the 
 world, IS ii\ ilaclf most improbable ; anil is repug- 
 
140 
 
 nant to all the testimony which cxisls on the sub- 
 ject. Even a> early as the time when Peter wrote 
 his second Epistle, the writings of Paul were in 
 the hands of the churches, and were classed with 
 the other Scriptures.* And the citation from 
 these books by the earliest Christian writers, living 
 in diff rent countries, demonstrates, that from the 
 time of tlieir publication, they were souoht after 
 with avidity, and were widely dispersed. How 
 intense the interest which the fiist Christians 
 felt in the writings of the apostles can scarcely be 
 conceived b) us, who have been fjuniiiai- with 
 these books from our earliest years. How so- 
 licitous would they be, for example, who had 
 never seen Paul, but had heard of his wonderful 
 conversion, and exlraordiiiary labours and gifts, 
 to read his writings? and probably they who had 
 enjo) ed the high privilege of hearing this apostle 
 prciicd, wiiuld not be less desirous of reading his 
 Epistles! As we know, from the nature of the case, 
 as well as from testimony, that many uncertain ac- 
 counts of Cia-ist's discourses and nnracles had ob- 
 tain»;d ciicuiation, how greatly would the primitive 
 Christian^ rejoice, to obtain an authentic history, 
 from the pe.i of an apostle, or from one who wrote 
 precisely what was uict;iteu by an apostle } We 
 need no longer wonder, tlierefore, that every 
 church should wish to possess a collection of the 
 
 • 2 Pet. ill. 14, 15. 
 
141 
 
 writings of the apostles ; and knowing them to be 
 the productions of inspired men, they would want 
 no furiher sanction of their authority. All that 
 was requisite was to be certain, that the book was 
 indeed written by the apostle, whose name it l)ore. 
 And this leads me to observe, that some tilings in 
 Paul's Epistles, which seqm to common readers to 
 be of no importance, were of the utmost conse- 
 quence. Such as, / Terfius luho wrote this 
 Epistle Sf'c. — The salutation with mine own 
 hand. — So I write in every epistle. — Ye see how 
 large a letter I have written unto you with 7nine 
 own hand. — The salutation by the hand of me 
 Paul. — The salutation of Paul with mine own 
 handy which is the token in every Epistle.* This 
 aposile commonly employed an amanuensis ; but 
 that the churches to which he wrote, might have 
 the assurance of the genuineness of his Epistles, 
 from seeing his own hand writing, he constantly 
 wrote the Salutation, himself. So much care 
 was taken to have these sacred writings well au- 
 thenticated, on their first publication. And on 
 the same account it was, that he and the other 
 apostles, were so particular in giving the names, 
 and the characters, of those who were the bearers 
 of their Epistles. And it seems, that they wera 
 always committed to the care of men of highesti- 
 
 • Rom. xvi. 22. 1 Cor. xvi. 21. Gal. vi. 11. 2 Tlies. 
 iii. 17. 
 
 N 
 
142 
 
 Miation in the church ; and commonly, more than 
 one appears to have been intrusted with this im- 
 portant commission. 
 
 If it be inquired, what became of the autographs 
 of these sacred books, and why they were not 
 preserved ; since this would have prevented all 
 uncertainty respecting the true reading, and 
 would have relieved the Biblical critic, from a large 
 share of labour? It is sufficient to answer, that 
 nothing different has occurred, in relation to these 
 autographs, from that which has happened to all 
 other ancient writings. No man can produce the 
 autograph of any book as old as the New Testament, 
 unless it has been preserved in some extraordinary 
 way, as in the case of the Manuscripts of Ilercula- 
 neum; neither could it be supposed, that in the midst 
 of such vicissitudes, revolutions, and persecutions, 
 as the Christian church endured, this object could 
 have been secured, by any thing short of a miracle. 
 And God knew, that by a superintending provi- 
 dence over the Sacred Scriptures, they could be 
 transmitted with sufficient accuracy, by means of 
 apographs, to the most distant generations. In- 
 deed, there is reason to believe, that the Christians 
 of early times were so absorbed and impressed with 
 the glory of the truths revealed, that they gave 
 themselves little concern about the mere vehicle 
 by vvliich they were communicated. They had 
 matters of such deep interest, and so novel, before 
 their eyes, that they had neither time, nor incli- 
 nation, for the minutiae! of criticism. It may be, 
 
143 
 
 ihcrelbrc, that they did not set so high a value on 
 the possession of the autograph of an inspired hook, 
 as we shouhl, but considered a copy, made with 
 scrupulous fidelity, as equally valuable with the 
 original. And God may have suffered these auto- 
 graphs of the sacred writings to perish, lest in pro- 
 cess of time, they should have become idolized, 
 like the brazen serpen! ; or lest men should be led 
 superstitiously to venerate the mere parchment 
 and ink, and form and loiters, employed by an 
 apostle. Certainly, the history of the church is 
 such, as to render such an idea far from being im- 
 probable. 
 
 But, although, little is said about the originals of 
 the apostle's writings, we have a testimony in Tcr- 
 tullian, that the Authentic Lktters of the apos- 
 tles, might be seen by any that would take the 
 pains to go to the churches, to which they were 
 addressed. Some, indeed, think, that Tertullian 
 does not mean to refer to the autographs, but to 
 authentic copies ; but why then send the inquirer 
 to the churches to which the Epistles were ad- 
 dressed ? Mad not other churches, all over the 
 world, authentic copies of these Epistles also ? 
 There seems to be good reason therefore, for be- 
 lieving, that the autographs, or original letters of 
 the A|)Ostles, were preserved by the churches to 
 which they were addressed, in the time of Ter- 
 tullian.'' 
 
 * Soe note B. 
 
SECTION- II. 
 
 GATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TES- 
 TAAIENI— CANONICAL BOOKS ONLY CUED AS 
 ALIHOKITY BY THE FATHERS, AND READ IN 
 THE CHURCHES AS SCRIPTURE. 
 
 Having declared our purpose, to place the set- 
 tling of the Canon of the New Testament, on the 
 fooling of authentic testimony, we will now pro- 
 ceed to adduce our authorities, and shall begin 
 with an examination of the ancient cataiogrues of 
 the New Testament. 
 
 The slightest attention to the works of the 
 Fathers, will convince any one, that the writings 
 of the apostles were held, from the beginning, 
 in the highest estimation ; that great pains were 
 taken to distinguish the genuine productions of 
 these inspired men, from all other books ; that they 
 were sought out with uncommon diligence,and read 
 with profound attention and veneration, not onlv in 
 private, but publicly in the churches ; and that they 
 are cited and referred to, universally, as decisive 
 on every point of doctrine, and as authoritative 
 standards for the regulation of faith and practice. 
 
 This being the state of the case when the books 
 of the New Testament were communicated to the 
 churches, we are enabled, in regard to most of 
 
145 
 
 them, to produce testimony of the most satisfactory 
 kind, that thoy were admilted into the Canon, and 
 received as inspired, by the universal consent of 
 Christians, in every part of the world. And as to 
 those few books, concerning which some persons 
 entertained doubts, it can be shown, that as soon 
 as their claims were fully and impartially investi- 
 gated, they also were received with universal con- 
 sent. And that other books, however excellent 
 as human compositions, were never put upon a 
 level with the Canonical books of the New Testa- 
 ment; that spurious writings, under the names 
 of the apostles, were promptly and decisively re- 
 jected, and that the churches were rept?aledly 
 warned against such Apocryphal books. 
 
 To do justice to this subject, will require some 
 detail which may appear dry to the reader, 
 but should be interesting to every person who 
 wishes to know assuredly, that what he receives 
 as Sacrefl Scripture, is no imposture, but the genu- 
 ine, authentic productions of those inspired men, 
 whom Christ appointed to be his witnesses to the 
 world, and to whom was comni tted the sacred 
 deposit of divine truth, intended for the instrtiction 
 and government of the church in all future ages. 
 
 In exhibiting the evidence of the Canonical au- 
 thority of these books, we shnll first attend to some 
 general considerations, which relate to the whole 
 volume, and thon adduce te^timony in favour of 
 each book, now included in the Canon. 
 N 2 
 
146 
 
 And here, as in the case of the Old Testan^ent, 
 we find, that at a very early period, catalogu'.s of 
 these books were published, by most of ihe distin- 
 guished Fathers whose writings hive come down 
 to us : the same has been done also, by several 
 Councils, whose decrees are still extant. 
 
 These catalogues, are, for the most part, perfect- 
 ly harmonious. In a few of them, some books 
 now in the Canon, are omitted, for which omission 
 a satisfactory reason can commonly be assigned. 
 In the first circulation of the Sacred Scriptures 
 there was great need of such lists ; as the distant 
 churches and common Christians, were liable to 
 be imposed on by spurious writings, which seem 
 to have abounded in those times. It was, there- 
 fore, a most important part of the instruction given 
 to Christians, by their spiritual guides, to inform 
 them accurately, what books belonged to the Can- 
 on. Great pains were taken, also, to know the 
 truth on this subject. Pious bishops, for this sin- 
 gle purpose, travelled into Judea, and remained 
 there for some time, that they might learn accurate- 
 ly, every circumstance, relative to the authenticity 
 of these writings. 
 
 The first regular catalogue of the books of the 
 New Testament, which we find on record, is by 
 Origen, whose extensive Biblical knowledge high- 
 ly qualified him to judge correctly in this case. 
 He had not only read much, but travelled exten- 
 sively, and resided a great part of his life on the 
 
147 
 
 confines of .Tiulea, in a situalion favonrablc fo accu- 
 rate information, from every part of the church, 
 where any of these books were originally pubhshcd. 
 Origen lived, and nourished, ahont one hundred 
 years after the de ith of tiie Apostle John. He 
 was, therefore, near enoug;h to the time of ti)e pub- 
 lication of tliese books, to obtain the most certain 
 information of their authors. Most of the orijjinal 
 writings of this great and learned man have per. 
 islied, but his catidogue of the books of ihe New 
 Testament has been preserved bv Eusebius, in his 
 Ecclesiastical History.* It was contained in 
 Origen's Homilies on the gospel of Matthtu ; and 
 was repeated in his Homilies on the gospel of John. 
 In this catalogue, he mentions. The fopr gos* 
 PELS, THE Acts op the Apostles, Foukteen 
 Epistles of Paul, Two op Peter, Three op 
 John, and The book op Revelation This 
 enumeration includes all the present Canon, except 
 the Epistles of James, and Judf, but these were 
 omi ted by accident, not design ; for in other parts 
 of his writings, he acknowledges these Epistles as 
 a part of the Canon. And while Origen furnishes 
 us with so full a catalogue of the books now in the 
 Canon, he inserts no others, which proves, thnt in 
 his time, the Canon was well settled aniong the 
 learned ; and that the distinction between inspired 
 writings and human compositions, was as clearly 
 marked, as at any subsciquent period. 
 
 * Lib. vi. c. 25. 
 
148 
 
 In the work entitled, Apostolical Consti- 
 TUTIO'S, ascribed to Clemewt of Rome, there is a 
 catalogue of tl^e books of the Nev\ Testfiment; 
 but as this work is not 8;enuine, and of an uncertain 
 author and age, I vvill not make use of it. 
 
 So also, the catalogue ascrib'id to tl)e Council 
 OF Nice, is not genuine, and is coijnect d with a 
 story, which bears every nark of superstitious 
 crcduliiy* This ihrrefore. shall be likewise omit- 
 ted. We stand in no need of suspicious testimony, 
 on this subject. Witnesses of the most undoubted 
 ve.'iicity, and distinguiahed intelligence, can be 
 found in every succes^^ive age. 
 
 2. The next catalogue of the books of the New 
 Testament to which I will refer, is that of EusE- 
 Bius, the learned Hist< ri.jn of the church; to whose 
 diligence and fidelity, in collecting Ecclesiastical 
 fact-, we are more indebted, than to the labouis of 
 all «.ther men, for that period which intervened be- 
 tween the days of the Apostles and his own times. 
 
 * The story is briefly this. The Fathers of the Council 
 of Nice pn^ all the books which claimed a place in the 
 Sacred Cannon under the comn)union table of the church, 
 and tiien prayed that such of them as were inspired might 
 be found upperniobt. and the Apocryphal below; where- 
 upon the event occurred agreeably to their wishes ; and 
 thus a clear line of distinction was made between Canonical 
 books and such as were not Canonii-al. 7'his story is rela- 
 ted in the Synodicon of Popus, an obscure writer, and is un- 
 deserving of the smallest credit. 
 
149 
 
 KtJSEBius may be considered as giving his tes- 
 timony about one hundred years after Ori«en'. 
 His catalogue may be seen in his Ecclesiastical 
 History.* In it, he enumerates every book which 
 we now have in the Canon, and no others ; but he 
 mentions that the Epistle of James, The second of 
 Peter, and second and tliird of John, were (Joubt- 
 ed of by some ; and that Revelation was rejected 
 by some, and receivetl by others ; but Eusebius him- 
 self declares it to be his opinion, that it should be 
 received without d lubt. 
 
 There is no single witness among the whole 
 number of Ecclesiastical writer--, who was more 
 competent to give accurate information on this sub- 
 ject, than Eusebius. He had spent a great part of 
 his life in searching i:ito the antiquities of the 
 Christiai. church ; and he had an intimate acquaint- 
 ance with all the records relating to Ecclesiastical 
 affairs, many of which are now lost ; and almost 
 the only information which we have of them has 
 been transmitted to us, by this diligent compiler. 
 
 3. Athanasius, so well known for his writings 
 and his sufferings in defence of the divinity of our 
 Saviour, in his Festal Epistle, and in his Synopsis 
 of Scripture, has left a catalogue of the books of 
 the New Testament, which perfectly agrees with 
 the Canon now in use. 
 
 * Enseb. Ecc. Hist. L. iii. c. 25. comp. with c 8. 
 
150 
 
 4. Cyril, in his Catechetical work, has also 
 givefl us a catalogue, perfectly agreeing with ours, 
 except that he omits the book of Revelation. Why 
 that book was so often left out of the ancient cata- 
 logues and collections of the Scriptures, shall be 
 mentioned hereafter. Athanasius and Cyril were 
 contemporary with Eusebius ; the latter, however, 
 may more properly be considered, as twenty or 
 thirty years later. 
 
 5. Then, a little after the middle of the fourth 
 century, we have the testimony of all the bishops 
 assembled in the Council or Laodicea. The ca- 
 talogue of this council is contained in their sixtieth 
 Canon, and is exactly the same as ours, except that 
 the book of Revelation is omitted. The decrees 
 of this council, were, in a short time, received into 
 the Canons of the universal church ; and among 
 the rest, this catalogue of the books of the New 
 Testament. Thus, we find, that as early as the 
 middle of the fourth century, there was a universal 
 consent, in all parts of the world to which the 
 Christian church extended, as to the books which 
 constituted the Canon of the New Testament, vvith 
 the single exception of the book of Revelation ; 
 and that this book was also generally a- mitted to 
 be canonical, we shall take the opportunity of 
 proving, in the sequel of this work. 
 
 6. But a lew years elnpsed from the meeting of 
 this council, before Epiphanius, bishop of Sala- 
 
151 
 
 mis, in the Island of Cyprus, published his work 
 ON Heuksif.s. in whicli he gives a catalogue of the 
 Canonical books of the New Testament, which, in 
 every respect, is the same, as the Canon now re- 
 ceived. 
 
 7. About the same time, Gregory Nazianzen, 
 bishop of Conslantinojjle, in a Poem, on the riirjE 
 AND Genuine Scriptures, mentions distinctly, 
 all the books now received, except Revelation. 
 
 8. A few years later, we have a list of the books 
 of the New Testament in a work of Philastrius, 
 bishop of Brixia, in Italy, which corresponds, in 
 all respects, with those now received ; except tliat 
 he mentions no more than thirteen of Paul's Epis- 
 tles. If the omission was designed, it probably re- 
 lates to the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 9. At the same time, lived Jeho.aie, who trans- 
 lated the whole Bible into Latin. He furnrshcs 
 us with a catalogue answering to our present Can- 
 on, in all respects. He does, however, speak 
 doubtfully about the Epistle to the Hebrews, on 
 account of the uncertainty of its author. But, in 
 other parts of his writings, he shows, that he re- 
 ceived this book as Canonical, as well sjs the rest. * 
 
 10. The catalogue of Rufin varies in nothing 
 from the Canon now received .t 
 
 11. Augustine, in his work on Christian 
 
 • Epist. ad Paulinum. 
 
 t Expos, in Symbol. Apost. 
 
152 • 
 
 Doctrine, has inserted the names of the books of 
 the JNew Testament, which, in all respects, are the 
 same as ours. 
 
 12. The council of Carthage, at which Au- 
 gustine was present, have furnished a catalogue, 
 which perfectly agrees with ours. At this coun- 
 cil, forty four bishops attended. The list referred 
 to, is found, in their forty eighth canon. 
 
 13. The unknown author, who goes under the 
 name of Dyomsius the Areopagite, so describes 
 the books of the New Testament as to show, that he 
 received the very same, as are now in the Canon. 
 
 Another satisfactory source of evidence, in fa- 
 vour of the Canon of the New Testament, as now 
 received, is the fact, that these books were quoted 
 as Sacred Scripture, by all the Fathers, living in 
 parts of the world the most remote from each other. 
 The truth of this assertion will fully appear, when 
 we come to speak, particularly, of the books which 
 compose the Canon. Now, how can it be account- 
 ed for, that these books, and these alone, should 
 be cited as authority, in Asia, Africa, and Europe ? 
 No other reason can be assigned, than one of these 
 two ; either, they knew no other books which 
 claimed to be Canonical ; or, if they did, they did 
 not esteem them of equal authority, with those 
 which they cited. On either of these grounds the 
 conclusion is the same, that the books quoted 
 AS Scripture are alone the Canonical books. 
 To apply this rule to a particular case; The first 
 
153 
 
 Epistle op Peter is Canonical, becaus'^ it is cob* 
 tinually cited by the most ancient Christian writers, 
 in every part of the vvorlci ; but the book called, 
 Thk Revelation of Peter, is Apocr phal, be- 
 cause none of the early Fathers have takm any tes- 
 timonies from it. The same is true of the Acts 
 OF Peter, and The Gospel of Peter. These 
 writings were totally unknown to the primitive 
 church, and are therefore spurious. This argu- 
 ment is perfectly conclusive, and its foice was per- 
 ceived by the ancient defenders of the Canon of 
 the New Testament. Eusebius, repeatedly has 
 recourse to it : And, therefore, those persons who 
 have aimed to unsettle our present Canon, as Po- 
 land and Dodwell, have attempted to prove that 
 the early Christian writers were in the habit of 
 quoting indifferently, and promiscuously, the books 
 which we now receive, and others which are now 
 rejected, as Apocryphal. But this is not correct, as 
 has been shown, by Nye, Richardson, and others. 
 The true method of determining this matter, is by 
 a careful examination of all the passages in the 
 writings of the Fathers, where other books besides 
 those now in the Canon have been quoted. Some 
 progress was made in collecting the passages in the 
 writings of the Fathers, in which any reference is 
 made to the Apocryphal books, by the learned Je- 
 remiah Jon* s, in his New Method of skttlino 
 THE Canon of the New Testament, but the 
 work was left incomplete. This author, however, 
 o 
 
154i 
 
 positively denies, that it is common for the Fathers 
 to cite these books as Scripture, and asserts, that 
 there are only a very few instances, in which any 
 of them seem to have fallen into this mistake. 
 
 A third proof of the genuineness of the Ca- 
 non of the New Testament, may be derived from 
 the fact, that these books were publicly read as 
 Scripture, in all the christian churches. 
 
 As the Jews were accustomed to read the Sacred 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament, in their Syna- 
 gogues, so the early Christians transferred the 
 same practice to the church ; and it seems to have 
 been in use even in the apostle's days, as appears 
 by Col. iv. 16', where Paul speaks, of readmg the 
 Epistles, addressed to the churches, as a thing of 
 course, Jind ivhen this Epistle is read among 
 you, cause that it be read also in the church of 
 the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise, read the 
 Mpistlefrom Laodicea. 
 
 Justin Martyr explicitly testifies, that this 
 was the custom in the beginning of the second 
 century. "On. the day," says, he "which is 
 called Sunday, there is a meeting of all (Christ- 
 ians) who live either in cities, or country places, 
 and THE MEMOIRS OP THE AposTLEs, and wri- 
 tings of the prophets, are read."* 
 
 Tertullian is equally explicit ; for, in giv- 
 ing an account oi the meetings of christians for 
 worship, he says, "They assemble to read the 
 
 * Apol. ii. p. 93. 
 
155 
 
 Scriptures, and offer up prayers." andin another 
 place, among; the solemn exercises of the Lord 3 
 Day, he reckons, ** Reading the Scriptures, sin^- 
 int; Psalms. &c."* 
 
 The same account is given by Cyprian, t and by 
 the ancient author under the name of Dyonisius 
 THE Areopagitk \X ^^'^ ^Y Several other ancient 
 authors. Now this practice of reading the Sacred 
 Scriptures in the christian churches, began so ear- 
 ly, that it is scarcely possible, that they could have 
 been imposed on by supposititous writings. A 
 more effectual method of guarding against Apoc- 
 ryphal writings obtaining a place in the Canon, 
 could not have been devised. It afforded all the 
 members of the church an opportunity of knowing 
 what books were acknowledged as Canonical, and 
 precluded all oppoitunity of foisting in spurious 
 works ; since, if this had be mi done in some one 
 churoh, the practice of all otlier churches would 
 qtiickly have exposed the imposture. According- 
 ly, the Fathers often referred to this custom, as the 
 guide to the people, respecting the books which 
 they should read ; " Avoid Apocryphal books," 
 says CvRiLto his catechumen, *' And study careful- 
 ly those Scriptures only, which are publicly 
 READ IN THE CHCiicH." Again, having given a cata- 
 logue of the books of Scripture, he adds, *' Let 
 others be rejected, and such as are not read 
 
 • Tortull. DeAnima. f Cyp. EpisU 36, 39. 
 
 t Hiorarch. Eco. c. 3. 
 
156 
 
 IN THE Churches, neither do you read in prr- 
 Tate." 
 
 It was decreed in the Cofncil of Laodicea, 
 "That no private Psalms should be read in the 
 churches, nor any books without the Canon ; but 
 only the Canonical writings of the Old and New 
 Testament." The same thing was determined in 
 THE Council of Carthage. But notwithstand- 
 ing these decrees, and the opinions of learned Fa- 
 thers, there were some pieces read in some of the 
 churches, which were not Canonical. Thus, Dy- 
 ONisius bishop of Corinth, in the second century, 
 in a letter to the church of Rome, tells them, 
 "That they read in their assemblies, on the Lord's 
 day, Clement's Epistle :" And Eusebius declares, 
 *'That in his, and the preceding times, it was al- 
 most universally received, and read inmost church- 
 es." He says also, " That the Shepherd of 
 Hermas, was read in many churches," which is 
 confirmed by Athaiiasius and Rufin. Whilst these 
 books which are not now in the Canon, were pub- 
 licly read in many churches, the book of Revela- 
 tion was not,aecording to Cyril,read in the church- 
 es ; nor commanded to be read, by the Council of 
 Laodicea. It would seem, therefore, at first view, 
 that the application of this rule would exclude the 
 book of Revelation from the Canon, and take in 
 the Epistle or Clement, and the Shepherd 
 OF Hermas. But the rule does not apply to every 
 thing which was read in the churches, but to such 
 
157 
 
 books as were read as Sacred Scripture. It has 
 fippeared in a former part of tliis work, that several 
 hooks, not in the Canon of the Old Testament, 
 were nevertheless read in tiie churches ; but the 
 Fathers carefully distinguished between these, and 
 the Canonical books. They were read for instruc- 
 tion and for the improvement of manners, but not 
 as authority in matters of faith. They distins^uish- 
 ed the books read in the churches, into Canoni- 
 cal and Ecclesiastical ; of the latter kind, were 
 the books mentioned above, and some others. 
 The reason why the book of Revelation was not 
 directed to be read publicly, shall be assigned, 
 when we come to treat particularly of the Canoni- 
 cal authority of that book. 
 
 A fourth argument to prove, that our Canon of 
 the New Testament is substantially correct, may 
 be derived from the early versions of this sacred 
 book, into other languages. 
 
 Although the Greek language was extensively 
 known through the Roman empire, when the apos- 
 tles wrote ; yet the Christian church was in a short 
 time extended inio regions, where the common 
 people,' at least, were not acquainted with it; nor 
 with any language, except their own vernacular 
 tongue. While the gift of tongues continued, the 
 difficulty of making known the Gospel to such 
 people, would, in some measure, be obviated, but 
 when these miraculous powers ceased, the necess- 
 ity of a version of the Gospels and Epistles into 
 o 2 
 
158 
 
 the language of the people, Avould become mani- 
 fest. As far, therefore, as we may be permitted to 
 reason from the nature or the case, and the neces- 
 sities of the churches, ilis exceedingly probable, 
 that versions of the New Testament were made 
 shortly after the death of the apostles, if they were 
 not begun before. Can we suppose that the num- 
 erous Christians in Syria, Mesopotamia, and the 
 various parts of Italy, would be long left, without 
 having these precious books translated into a lan- 
 guage which all the people could understand ? But 
 we are not left to our own reasonings on this sub- 
 ject. We know, that at a very early period, there 
 existed Latin versions of the New Testament,which 
 had been so long in use before the time of Jerome, 
 as to have become considerably corrupt, on which 
 account, he undertook a New Version, which soon 
 superseded those that were more ancient. Now, 
 although, nothing remims of these ancient Latin 
 Versions, but uncertain fragments, yet we have 
 good evidence.that they contained the same books, 
 as were inserted in Jerome's Version, now deno- 
 minated, the Vulgate. 
 
 But, perhaps the Old Syriac Version of the New 
 Testament, called Pkshito, fiirnisiies the strong- 
 est proof of the Caaouical authority, of all the 
 books which are conained in it. , This excellent 
 version has a very high claim to antiquity ; and in 
 the opinion ofsomeof the bestSyriuc scholars, who 
 have prufoanily examined this subject, .was made 
 before the close of tne fiist century. 
 
159 
 
 The arguments for so earl}' an orio;in,are not, in- 
 deed, conclusive, but they possess mucii probabi' 
 lity, whether we consider the external, or internal 
 evidence. The Syrian Cliristians have always in- 
 sisted that this version was made by the apostle 
 Thaddeus; but without admitting; this claim, which 
 would put it on a level with the Greek original, 
 we may believe, that it ought not to be brought 
 down lower than the second century. It is uni- 
 versally received by all the numerous sects of Sy- 
 rian Christians, and must be anterior to the exist- 
 ence of the 'ddest of tliem. Manes, who lived in the 
 second century, probably had read the New Tes- 
 tament in the Syriac, which was his native tongue; 
 and JustinMartfr, when he testifies that the 
 Scriptures of tlie New Testament, vvere read in the 
 Assemblies of Christians, on every Sunday, proba- 
 bly refers to Syrian Chrislians, as Syria was his 
 native place; where aiso he had his usual residence. 
 And, JVIiCHAELlsis of opinion, that Mkhto, who 
 vvtote about A. D 170, has expressly declare!, 
 that a Svrian Version of the Bible existed in his 
 time. Jerome alsotestifi> s, explicitly, that when 
 h*^ wrote, the Syriac Bihle was publicly rea I in 
 the churches ; fir, says he, '' Ephr.'m th 'Syrian is 
 held in such veneration, that his writitigs are read 
 in several churches, iminediately after 'i he Les- 
 sons FROM THE Bible. It is also well known, 
 that the Armenian Version, which itself is ancient, 
 was made from the Syriac. 
 
Now, this ancient Version contains the Four 
 Gospels, The Acts of the Apostles, The Epistles 
 of Paul including that to the Hebrews, The First 
 Epistle of John, The First Epistle of Peter, and 
 the Epistle of James. Thus far then, the evidence 
 of the present Canon is complete ; and as to those 
 books omitted in this Version except Revelation, 
 they are few,and small, and probably were unknown 
 to the translator; or, the evidence of their geunine- 
 ness was not ascertained by him. And as it re- 
 lates to Revelation, the same reasons which ex- 
 cluded it from so many ancient catalogues, proba- 
 bly operated here. It was judged to be too mys- 
 terious to be read in the churches, and by common 
 Christians, and therefore was not put into the Vol- 
 ume which was read publicly in the churches. 
 
 The arguments for a Latin origin of this Version, 
 possess, in my judgment, very little force.* 
 
 On the general evidence of the genuineness of 
 our Canon, I would subjoin the following remarks. 
 
 1. The agreement among those who have given 
 catalogues of the bo ks of the New Testament, 
 from the earliest times, is almost complete. Of 
 thirteen catalogues to which we have referred, 
 seven contain exactly the same books, as are now 
 in the Canon Three of the others differ in nothing, 
 but the omission of the. hook of Revelation, for 
 which they had a particular reason, consistent with 
 
 * On this whole suhjpct, consult Jones on the Canon, 
 Michaelis's Introductioii, MiU'e I'roJegomena. 
 
161 
 
 their belief of its Canonical authority ; and in tw« 
 of the remaining; catalogues, it can be proveil, that 
 the books omitted, or represented as doubtful, 
 were received as authentic, by the perwjns who 
 have given the catalogues. It may be asserted* 
 therefore, that the consent of the ancient church, 
 as to what books belonged to the Canon of the New 
 Testament, was complete. The Sacred Volume 
 was as accurately formed, and as rle.irly distin- 
 guished from other books, in the third, fourth, and 
 fifth centuries, as it has ever been since. 
 
 2. Let it be considered, moreover, that the ear- 
 liest of these catalogues was given by Okigen, who 
 lived within a hundred years of the death of the 
 Apostle John, and who by hi.s reading, travels, 
 and long residence in Palestine, had a full know- 
 ledge of all the transactions and writings of the 
 church, until his own time. In connexion with 
 this, let it be remembered, that these catalogues 
 were drawn up by the most learned, pious, and 
 distinguished men in the church ; or by councils ; 
 and that the persons furnishing them, re>ided in 
 different and remote parts of the world ; as for ex- 
 ample, in Jerusalem, Cesaraea, Carthage and Hippo 
 in Africa, Constantinople, Cyprus, Alexandria in 
 Egypt, Italy, and Asia Minor. Thus, it appears, 
 that the Canon was early agreed upon, and that it 
 was every where the same ; therefore, we fuul the 
 Fathers, in all their writings, appealing to the same 
 Scriptures ; and none are charged witli rejecting 
 any Canonical book, except herelios. 
 
S, It appears from the testimony adduced, that 
 it was never considered necessary, that anj' Coun- 
 cil or bishop, should give s;inction to these books, 
 in any other way, than as witnesses, testifying 
 to the churches, that these were indeed the genu- 
 ine writings of the apostles. These books, there- 
 fore, were never considered as deriving their au- 
 thority from tl e Church, or from Councils, hat 
 were of complete authority as soon as published : 
 and were delivered to the churches to be a guide 
 and standard, in all things relating to faith and 
 practice. The Fathers would have considered it im- 
 pious, for any bishop, or Council, to pretend to add 
 any thing to the authority of inspired books ; or to 
 claim the right to add other books to those banded 
 down from the Apostles. The church is founded 
 on THK Apostles and prophets, Jes' s Christ 
 BEING THE CHIEF CORNER STONE ; but the Sacred 
 Scriptures are no how dependent for their author- 
 ity, on any set of men, who lived since they were 
 written. 
 
 4 We may remark, in the last place, tlie be- 
 nignant providence of God towards his church, 
 in causing these pn cious books to be written, and 
 in watching over their preservation, in tlie midst of 
 dangers and persecutions ; so, that notwithstanding 
 the malignant designs of the enemies of the church, 
 they have all come down to us unmutilated, in the 
 original tongue, in which they were penned by 
 the Aposilet*. 
 
163 
 
 Our liveliest p;ratilude is due to the great Head 
 of the cliuich fortius divine treasure, from which 
 we are ptrmilted freely to draw, whmtever is need- 
 ful lor our instruction and consolation. And it is 
 our duty to prize this precious gift of divine reve- 
 lation, above all price. On the Law of the Lord, 
 we siiould meditate day and night. It is a perfect 
 rule ; it shines with a clear light ; it exercises a 
 salutary influence on the heait ; it warns us when 
 we are in danger ; reclaims us when we go astray; 
 and comforts us when in affliction. The word of 
 the Lord is ninre to be desired than gold, yea^ 
 than 7nuch fine gold , sweeter also than hotiey, 
 and the honey comb. They who are destitute of 
 this inestimable volume call for our tenderest com- 
 passion, and our exertions in circulating tlie Biljle 
 should never be remitted, until all are supplied 
 with this divine treasure ; but they who possess this 
 Saered Volume, and yel neglect to study it are still 
 more to be pitied, for they are perishing in the 
 midst of plenty. In the midst of light, they walk 
 in darkness. God has sent to them the word of 
 LIFE, but they have lightly esteemed the rich gift 
 of his love. that their eyes were opened, that 
 they might behold wondrous things in the Law of 
 the Lord! 
 
 Ps. xix. 10. 
 
SEOTIOir III. 
 
 ORDER OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT- 
 TIME OF THE GOSPELS BEING WRITTEN— NOTICE 
 OF THE EVANGELISTS. 
 
 The order of the books of the New Testament 
 is not uniform, in the Manuscripts, now extant ; 
 nor, as they are mentioned by the Fathers. Eu- 
 SEBius arranges them thus ; The Four Gospels? 
 The Acts of the Apostles, The Epistles of Paul, 
 The First Epistle of John, and The Revelation of 
 John. *' These," says he, " were received (except 
 the last mentioned) by all christians." Then, he 
 mentions those which were not unanimously re- 
 ceived; as, The Epistle of James, The Epistle of 
 Jude, The Second of Peter, and the Second and 
 Third of John. 
 
 Iren^us, who lived long before Eusebius, has 
 not given a regular catalogue of the books of the 
 New Testament, but he seems to have followed the 
 same order. 
 
 But Athanasius, in his Festal Epistle, has 
 given the following order ; The Four Gospels, 
 The Acts of the Apostles, The Seven Catholic 
 Epistles, The Fourteen Epistles of Paul, and The 
 Revelation. The ancient, and celebrated Alexan- 
 drian Manuscript follows the same order ; as also 
 
165 
 
 does Cyrtl of Jerusalem, but he does not mentioa 
 Revelation. 
 
 The arranajement in the cat;i]ogne of the Coun- 
 cil OF Laodicea, is exactly the same as that of 
 Cyril; the book of Revelation bei,io; lelt out. 
 John Damascene, and Leontifs, follow thesame 
 order 
 
 The order of the Syrian cataloo^nes as sjiven b}' 
 Ebedjesit, is ; The Four Gospels. The Arts of the 
 Apostles, The Three Catholic Epistles, (their Can- 
 on at first contained no more) and The Fourteen 
 Epistles of Paul. 
 
 Rufin's order, is ; The Gospels, The Acts, 
 Paul's Epistles, The Catholic Epistles, and The 
 Revelation. 
 
 The Council op Carthage, has the same. 
 
 Gregoky Nazianzen the same ; only, Revela- 
 tion is omitted. 
 
 Amphilochius thesame, and the book of Reve- 
 lation, mentioned as doubtful. 
 
 NicEPHORus of Constantinople,the same, and Re- 
 velation omitted. 
 
 This, therefore, appears to have been the order, 
 in which the books of the New Testament succeed- 
 ed each other in most ancient copies; and is the 
 one now in general use. 
 
 But EpipiiAxius has an order different from 
 any of these, as follows ; The Four Gospels. Paul's 
 Epistles, The Acts of the Apostles, The Seven 
 Catholic Epistles, and the Revelation, 
 p 
 
166 
 Jekome follows the same order ; and also Eu- 
 
 THALIUS. 
 
 Augustine varies, in his arrangement of the 
 Sacred books. In one place, he puts the Acts 
 last, except Revelation ; and in another, he places 
 it iifter Revelation. He also varies in his arraiig;e- 
 ment of the Epistles of Paul, and of the Catholic 
 Epistles. 
 
 The order of Innocent the First, bishop of 
 Rome, is ; The Four Gospels, Paul's Epistles, The 
 Catholic Epistles, The Acts, and Revelation. 
 
 Isidore of Seville, has, in his writings, given 
 several catalogues, in all of which, he pursues the 
 order last mentioned. The same writer informs 
 us, that the books of the New Testament were 
 usually included in two divisions, or volumes ; the 
 first containing the Gospels ; the second. The Acts 
 and The Epistles ; the book of Revelation being 
 omitted. 
 
 Chrysostom follov^'s an order, which appears to 
 be peculiar : he places first. The Fourteen Epistles 
 of Paul ; next, The Four Gospels ; then, the Acts ; 
 and in the last place, The Catholic Epistles. 
 
 Gelasius places Revelation before The Catholic 
 Epistles. 
 
 The Apostolical Canon, as it is called, con- 
 tains tlie following catalogue ; The Four Gospels, 
 Fourteen Ejiistles of Paul, Seven Catholic Epis- 
 tles, Two Epistles of Clement, The Constitutions, 
 and The Acts. If this were, indeed, the genuine 
 t'anon of the Apostles, as the title imports, it would 
 
167 
 
 he decisive, and all other authorities would he su- 
 perfluous ; but it is acknowlcdojcd, by all good 
 critics, that it is spurious, and of no authority in 
 settling the early Canon. 
 
 The order of the Four Gospels has generally 
 been, as in our copies, Matthew, Mark, Luke, 
 John. Ircnaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, 
 The council of Laodioea, Gregory Nazianzen, 
 Amphilochius, The Syrian Catalogues, Jerome, 
 Rufin, Augustine, The Alexandrian Manuscript 
 with most others, agree in this order. 
 
 But that this order was not uniform, appears 
 from Tertullian, who arranges them thus, Matthew, 
 John, I^uke, JVIark. And the same order of the 
 Gospels is followed, in the very ancient Manuscript, 
 commonly called. Codex Cantabrgiensis. 
 
 There is very little variation observed, in the 
 arrangement of Paul's Epistles ; they are generallj'' 
 found in the same order, as we have them in our 
 copies ; but this is not universally the case ; for 
 in some copies. The Epistle to the Hebrews occu- 
 pies the Fourteenth place ainong Paul's Epistles, 
 and in others the Tenth. But in all copies. The 
 E[)istle to the Romans, stands first ; though not 
 first, in the order of time. 
 
 With respect to tlie time, when the Gospeh 
 were written, no precise information can be ob- 
 tained, as ancient authors differ considerably, on 
 the subject. It seems to be agreed, however, that 
 they were not published immediately after the 
 ascension of Christ: nor, all at the same time. The 
 
168 
 
 best thin^ wliicl) we can do, is to place before the 
 reader, the principal testin^onies of the Fathers, 
 and leave him to judge for himself.* 
 
 The earliest writer who says any thina; explicitly 
 on this subject, is, Ieen^us ; but he does not in- 
 form us wh?t time intervened between the resur- 
 rection of Christ, and the writing of these Gospels. 
 Bis words are ; *' For we have not received the 
 knowledge of the way of salvation, from any others 
 than those by whom the Gospel has been brought 
 lo us, which Gospc) they first preached, and after- 
 wards, by the will of God, con)mitted to writing, 
 that for time to ^ome it might be the foundation 
 and pillar of our faith. Nor, may any say that 
 they preached before they had a competerit know- 
 lerlge of the Gospel ; for after that our Lord rose 
 from the dead, and they were endued, from above, 
 with the power of the Holy Ghost, which had 
 come down upon them, they received a perfect 
 Ijnnwledge of all things. They went forth to all 
 the ends of the earth, declaring to men the bless- 
 ing of heavenly peace ; having all of them, and 
 every one of them, the Gospel of God " 
 
 Now let it be considered, that Irenaeus was the 
 Disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of the 
 apostle J(.hn, and this testimony will have great 
 weight, in confirming the fact, that the Gospels 
 were written by the apostles, some time after they 
 
 * The testimonies here adduced, are for the most part, 
 selected from the Collections of Lardner, to whose works 
 the reader is referred. 
 
16^ 
 
 l>es:an to proarh. And tliat, wherever the apostles 
 went, they preached the same Guspel to thu peo- 
 ple. 
 
 ErsEBius, to wlioni we arc ohIiyj;ed so often to 
 have recourse, as a witness of ancient Ecclesiasti- 
 cal facts, does not fail us here ; "Those admirable 
 and truly divine men," says he, "the apostles of 
 Christ, did not attempt to deliver the doctrine of 
 their master, with the artifice and eloquence of 
 words. . . . Nor were they concerned about writ- 
 ing books, beinjj; eng;aired in a more excellent min- 
 istry, which is above all human power. Insomuch 
 that Paul, the most al)le of all, in the furniture of 
 words and ideas, has left nothing in writing; but a 
 few Epistles. — '' Nor were the rest of our Saviour's 
 followers unacquainted with these thin°;s, as the 
 seventy disciples and many others, besides the 
 twelve apostles. Nevertheless, of all the disciples 
 of our Lord, Matthew and John only have left us 
 any Memoirs ; who, also, as we have been inform- 
 ed, were impelled to write, by a kind of neces- 
 sity." 
 
 Theodore of Mopsuesta, who lived in the lat- 
 ter part of the fourth century, has left us the fol- 
 lowing; testimony ; " After the Lord's ascension 
 to heaven, the di^ciples staid a good while at Je- 
 rusalem, visiting the cities in the virinity, and 
 preaching chiefly to the Jews : and the great Paul 
 was appointed, openly to preach the Gospf'l to th? 
 Gentiles.'' 
 
170 
 
 "In nroefss of Divine Providence, they, not be- 
 ins; allovverl to confine ihenis Ives to any one part 
 of the earth, vvere conchicted to remote countries. 
 Peter went to Rome ; the others elsewhere. John 
 took up his abode at Ephesus, visifina;, however, 
 other parts of Asia. . . . About this time, the 
 Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, publish- 
 ed their G >spels, which were soon soread over 
 the world, and were received by all the faithful 
 with great regard. . . . That, numerous Christians 
 in Asia having brought these Gospels to John, 
 earnestly entreated him to write a further account 
 of such things as were needful to be known, and 
 had been omitted by the rest ; with whicli re- 
 quest he complied." 
 
 By divers Christian writers of antiquity, it has 
 been asserted, that Mark, the disciple and inter- 
 preter of Peter, at the earnest request of the breth- 
 eren at Rome, wrote a short Gospel, according to 
 what he had heard related by Peter. This testi- 
 mony among others is given byJ^ROME, in his 
 book of Illustkious Men. 
 
 It is probable, that Peter did not visit Rome be- 
 fore the reign of Nero ; perhaps, not until Paul 
 had returned a second time to that city, which 
 must have been as late as the year A. D. 63, or 
 A. D. 64. Nnw, as the brethren requested of 
 JSlark, to give them in writing the substance of 
 Peter's preachiig, his gospel could not have b^-en 
 written, at an earlier period. And, it would seem, 
 
171 
 
 if tl>is fiict l)P undoubted, that thev had, until (his 
 timr, n^'.'t*r seen a writlcn (iu.spel ; .n-!. probably, 
 did not know that there was one in existence. 
 
 The Jewish war, according lo Josephns, began 
 iii the year of our Lord Gli, and ended in Septem- 
 ber, of the year 70 ; when the city and temple 
 were brought to desolation. Now, there is strong 
 probable evidence, that the Gospels of Matthew, 
 Mark, and Luke, w(M'e finished before this war 
 commenced ; that is, before the year of our Lord 
 sixty six. Each of them contains the predictions 
 of our Lord, respecting the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem, and there is no hint in any of them, that the 
 remarkable ev'ents connected with this ov^ertbrow, 
 had begun to make their appearance. But there 
 are some expressions in these (iospels, which prob- 
 ably indicate, that the writers thought, that these 
 \von<lerful events were at hand. Such as the fol- 
 loiving admonition, let him that reaiiethy under- 
 stand. 
 
 It is certain, that the Acts of the Apostles could 
 not have been finished before A D. 6si, or 63, be- 
 cause the history which it contains comes down to 
 that time. The Gospel by Luke, was probably 
 written a short time before. At least, this seems 
 to be the common opinion of learned men. Jerome 
 supposes, that he composed his Gospel at Home : 
 Grotius thinks, that when Paul left Rome, Luke 
 went into Greece, and there wrote his Gos^xil an* 
 the Acts. 
 
172 
 
 Prom the introduction to Luke's gospel, it would 
 seem, that he knew nothing of any authentic, wj it- 
 ten gospel at that time ; for he cannot be supposed 
 to refer to such, when he says, Forastnuch as 
 many have taken in hand to set forth in order 
 a declaration of those things which are most 
 surely believed atnons; tis ; and if he had known 
 tliat Matthew had written a gospel, he could not 
 easily have avoided some reference to it in this 
 place. But the inference of Lardner from this 
 fact, that no authentic gospel had been written be- 
 fore this time, is unauthorized, and repugnant to all 
 the testimony which we have on the subject. The 
 gospel of Matthew might have been circulating for 
 some time among the churches in Judea, and yet 
 not be known to Luke whose labours and travels 
 led him, in company with Paul, to visit the Gen- 
 tile countries and cities. If we pay any regard to 
 the opmions of tnose, who lived nearest the 
 times of the Apostles, we must believe, that the 
 Gospel of Matthew was lirst written, and in the 
 vernacular dialect of Judea, commonly called He- 
 bj ew. The writer of this gospel is also called Le- 
 vi, 'he son of Alpheus. He was a Galilean, by 
 n tiion, anfl a Publican by profession. When called 
 to followChr'St, he was sitting at the receipt of cus- 
 tom, where the taxes were paid, but he immediate- 
 ly left all these temporal concerus,ynd attached him- 
 self to Christ, who afterwards selected him as one 
 of the Twtslve. From this time he seems to have 
 
173 
 
 been conslantly with Christ unfil his crucifixion, 
 of which event he was doubtless a witness ; as lie 
 was also of tlic resurrcciion and asqension of liis 
 Lord. On the day of Pentecost, he v\as present 
 with his brethren, and partook of the rich spiritual 
 endowments, which were then bestowed on the 
 apostles. ]3ut, afterwards, there is no explicit 
 mention of him in the New 'I'estament. In liis 
 own cataloojue of the Twelve, his name occupies 
 th*^ eig;hth place, as it does in the Acts; but 
 in tlip lists of the apostles, contained in the e;os- 
 pels of Luke and Mark, it occupies the seventh 
 place. 
 
 There is an almost total obscurity, resting on the 
 history of this Apostle and Evang;elist. The scene 
 of his labours, after he left Judea, seems to have 
 been in regions, of which we possess ver}' little ac- 
 curste infnrmntion lo this day. But whether he 
 had Parthia and Persia, or P^thiopia, for the field 
 of his apostolical labours, the ancients are not 
 agreed. It is by no means impossible that he 
 shouM have preached the gospel. and planted church- 
 es, in each of these countries. The historian Soc- 
 rates in his distribution of the apostles among the 
 countries of the globe, assigns Ethiopia to Mat- 
 thew, Parthia to Thomas, and India to Bartholo- 
 mew. 
 
 The testimony of EusEBirs is as follows ; "This 
 then was the ptate of the Jews, but the apostles 
 and disciples of our Lord, being Uispersod abroad, 
 
174 
 
 prPThed in the whole worlH, Thomas in Parthia ; 
 An irew in Sythia ; John in Asia, who having 
 lived there a long; time, died at Epliesus. Pe- 
 ter preached to the dispersed Jews, in Pontus, 
 Galutia.Bytliinia, Cappadocia, and Asia ; at length, 
 coniipo:; to Rome, he was thtre crucified, with his 
 liPi'd turned down towards the earth, at his own 
 r* quost. Paul also died a martyr at Rome, as we 
 are informed by Origen, in the third Tome of his 
 work on CJenesis." But P^usebius makps no men- 
 tion of the arostle Mathew ; nor does Jerome, in 
 his account of Illustrious IMen. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria mentions a circumstance 
 of this apostle's mode of life, but nothing more ; he 
 says, ''That he was accustomed to use a very spare 
 diet, eating veii;etablf,s, but no flesh." 
 
 Chrysostom, in one of his Homilies, gives the 
 character of Matthew, but furnishes us with no 
 facts. 
 
 It is probable, therefore, thit very little was 
 linown ill the West, respi cting th; lives, labours, 
 and death, of those apostles who travelled far to the 
 East. None of thei)i,it is probable, ever returned; 
 and there existed no regular channels for the com- 
 nmnicaiionof intelli/ence., from ihose tlisiant re- 
 gions. The honour of mart} rdom has been given 
 to them all, and the thing is not im})robable, but 
 there are lO authentic records, from which we con 
 derive any certain information on this subject i he 
 Fathers, whose wriungs have come down to us,seem 
 
175 
 
 to have been a.s much in the dark as \vc arc, respect- 
 ills' the preaching and death, of the majoriiy ol' the 
 apostles. There are, it is true, traditions in Ethi- 
 opia an(i the East, in regard lb sbnie of »hem, but 
 they arc too uncertain lo deserve any serious con- 
 sideration. 
 
SECTIOW IV. 
 
 TESTIMONIES TO MATTHEW'S GOSPEL— TIME OF 
 PUBLICATION— LANGUAGE IN WHICH IT WAS ORI- 
 GINALLY COMPOSED. 
 
 But while we know so little of the apostolical la- 
 bours of the Evangelist Matthew, it is pleasing to 
 find that the testimonies respecting the genuine- 
 ness of his gospel, are so early and full. To these 
 we will now direct our attention. 
 
 Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who was acquaint- 
 ed with the apostle John, expressly mentions Mat- 
 thew's gospel; and asserts, " That he wrote the 
 divine oracles in Hebrew.'' 
 
 Iren^us, bishop of Lyons, who was born in 
 Asia, and was acquainted with Pblycarp, the disci- 
 ple of the apostle John, gives the following testi- 
 mony ; " Matthew, then among the Jews, wrote a 
 gOspel in their language, while Peter and^Paul were 
 preaching at Rome .... And after their decease, 
 JVlark, also the disciple of Peter, delivered to us 
 the things which had been preached by Peter ; and 
 Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book, 
 the gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, 
 who leaned on his Lord's breast, published a gos- 
 pel for the inhabitants of Asia. " 
 
177 
 
 In another place he says, " The gospel of Mat- 
 thew Wits deliv< re«» to the Jews." 
 
 Origen, who was born in the second century, 
 and wrote and flourished, in the bt-j^inning of ihe 
 third, has left us the following testimony, '^Aecord- 
 ing lo ihe traditions receivd by me, the first gos- 
 pel was v\riiten by Maithew, once a pubhcau, af- 
 ter war s a disciple of Jesus Christ, who dvlivored 
 it to the Jewish believers, composed in the He- 
 brew la guage. " 
 
 And in another place he says, '< Matthew wrote 
 for the Hebrews." 
 
 Ku>EBius, who lived about a hundred years la- 
 ter than Origon, informs us, that, *'Mattnew hav- 
 ing (irst preached the gnspel to the Hebrews, when 
 about to go to other ptople, deliver<;d to them, in 
 their i>wn language, the gospel wrii ten by himself; 
 hy that supplying the want of his presence with 
 them, whom he was about to leave." 
 
 In the Synopsis, which has been ascribed to 
 Atuanasius, it is said, " Matthew wrote his gos- 
 pel in the Hebrew, and published it at Jerusa- 
 lem." 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem testifies, "That Mathew 
 wrote in Hebrew." 
 
 EpipHanius says the same, and adds, '* Mat- 
 thew wrote tirsi, and Mark soon after him, bcinga 
 follower of Peter at Rome," 
 
 GRhG.uY Nazianzen, *<That Matthew wrotr 
 for the Hebrews." 
 
 a. 
 
178 
 
 Ebedjesu, the Syrian, "That Matthew, the 
 first Evangelist, published his gospel, in Palestine, 
 written in Hebrew. '^ 
 
 JEEOMKjin hisCommentary on Matthew, testifies, 
 that "The first Evangelist is Mai;thew,the Publican, 
 surnamedLevijwho wrote his gospel inJudca,in the 
 Hebrew language, chiefly for the Jews, who be- 
 lieved in Jesus, and did not join ihe shadow of the 
 Law with the truth of the gospel." 
 
 Again, in bis book of Ecclesiastical Writers, he 
 says, "Matthew, called also Levi, of a Publican 
 made an apostle, first of all wrote a gospel in the 
 Hebrew language, for the sake of those in Judea 
 who believed. By whom it was afterwards trans- 
 lated into Greek is uncertain." 
 
 Chrtsostom, in his Introduction to this gospel, 
 writes, "Matthew is said to have written his gospel 
 at the request of the Jewish believers, who desired 
 him to put down in writing, what he had said to 
 them by word of mouth ; and it is said, he wrote 
 in Hebrew." 
 
 It would be unnecessary to adduce any testimo- 
 nies from later writers ; but as they mention some 
 circumstances, probably received by tradition, and 
 not contained in the earlier testimonies, I will sub- 
 join a few of them. 
 
 CosMAS,who lived in the sixth century, reports, 
 that " Matthew is the first that wrote a gospel. A 
 persecution having arisen after the stoning of Steph- 
 eli,and he having resolved to go from that place, the 
 
179 
 
 believers entreated him, to leave with them u 
 written iustruction ; with which request he com- 
 plied." 
 
 Another author of this century, who wrote a dis- 
 course on Mattlicw, has left this testimony, "The oc- 
 casion of Matthew's writing is said to have been this, 
 there bfing a great persecution in Palestine, so that 
 there was danger lest the faithful should be dispersed; 
 that they might not be without teaching, they re- 
 quested Matthew to write for them an accurate his- 
 tory of all Christ's words and works ; that where- 
 ever they should be, they might have with them 
 the ground of their faith." 
 
 In the Paschal Chronicle, written in the sev- 
 enth century, it is intimated, that Matthew pub- 
 lished his gospel, about fifteen years after our 
 Lord's ascension. 
 
 EuTHrMius,inthe beginning of the twelfth centu- 
 ry, says, " That this gospel was first written in the 
 Hebrew language, for the Jewish believers, eight 
 years after our Lord's ascension." 
 
 From these testimonies, it appears, that the Fa- 
 thers had no certain knowledge of tlie exact time 
 when Matthew wrote his gospel. Irenaus re- 
 fers it to the period when Paul and Peter were 
 preaching at Rome, but he speaks vaguely on the 
 subject. 
 
 The writers who mention a precise timc,livedat 
 too late a period to give testimony on this subject. 
 But all agree, that this was the first gospel written. 
 
180 
 
 Among the moderns, there is much diversity oi 
 opinion, as might be expected, where there is lit- 
 tle else than conjecture to guide them. 
 
 Lardner and Basnage supposed that this gos- 
 pel was not written before A. D. 64. 
 
 Cave thought that it was written fifteen years af- 
 ter the ascension of Christ. 
 
 Jer. Jones is in favour of that opinion, which 
 places it eight years after the ascension. 
 
 Grotius and G. J. Vossius are of the same 
 opinion. So also is Wetstein. 
 
 But, TiLLEMONT Carries it up to the third year 
 after the crucifixion of our Saviour.* 
 
 Lardner and Percy have adduced arguments 
 for a late origin of this gospel, derived from internal 
 evidence,but they are of very inconsiderable weight. 
 
 As it is agreed that it was written before Mat- 
 thew left Judea to preach the gospel in foreign 
 parts, and as this event seems to have occurred af- 
 ter the persecution which was raised in Judea; 
 against the church, it seems probable, that they are 
 nearest the truth, who place it about eight years 
 after the ascension of Christ ; which date unites 
 more writers in its support than any other. 
 
 Not only the date, but the original language 
 of this gospel has been made a subject of contro- 
 versy. By the testimonies already cited, it seems 
 
 * Tomline,Townson, Horne,Tovvnsend, &c. plead for an 
 oUrly origin of this Gospel, referring it to A.D. 36, or A.D.. 3X 
 
ISl 
 
 tliat there was but one opinion among; the ancients, 
 in ref;;ar:l to this matter. VVitli one voice they in- 
 form us, that it was written in Hebrew ; or in the 
 vernacular tongue of the Jews, which in the Scrip- 
 tures, and by the Christian Fathers, is called He- 
 brew. This lan^UMge is now called Syro-Chal- 
 daic, or Western Aramean, but it consisted chiefly 
 of words derived from a Hebrew origin, and was 
 in fact, the Hebrew corrupted by a large mixture 
 of foreign words, and by various changes in the pre- 
 fixes and affixes of the words. This was the lan- 
 guf\ge in which Jesus Christ spoke, and delivered 
 all his discourses ; and which the apostles were ac- 
 customed to speak, from their childhood. 
 
 Although the Greek language was understood 
 by all the learned in Judea, at this time, and by- 
 many of the people, yet it was not the vernacular 
 language of the Jews, dwelling in Palestine. In a 
 book composed for the immediate use of the church- 
 es in Judea, it was necessary, that it should be in 
 that language which they all understood ; which 
 was neither pure Hebrew, nor Greek. The testi- 
 mony of the Fathers, is therefore strengthened by 
 a consideration of the nature f>f the case. And if 
 it were not so, yet when the judgment of modern 
 critics stands opposed to the universal testimony 
 of the ancients, in reg;ard to a matter of fact, which 
 occurred not long before their time, there ought to 
 be no hesitation which is most deserving of credit. 
 
 There is, however, one difficulty attending this 
 
182 
 
 opinion, which is, that it supposes that theorrginal 
 of this gospel is lost, and that we have nothing but 
 a translation, which opinion would lessen its Canon- 
 ical authority. 
 
 It must be confessed., that this is a consequence 
 of a serious kind, and one which ought not to be 
 received respecting any Canonical book, without 
 necessit}'. But does this conclusion necessarily 
 ibllow from the admission, that this gospel was 
 originally composed in the Hebi'ew language ? 
 Might there not have been a version immediately 
 prepared by the writer himself, or by some other 
 person under his supermtendence ? This being the 
 first gospel, that was composed, it would naturally 
 be in great request, with all Christians who knew 
 of its existence, and as none but the Jewish Christ- 
 ians could understand it, as first published, it is ex- 
 ceedingly probable, that a request was made of the 
 author to publish an edition of it in Greek also, by 
 those who did not understand the Hebrew ; or by 
 such as were going to preach the Gospel in coun- 
 tries where the Greek language was in common 
 use. 
 
 It has been considered a strong objection to the 
 Hebrew original of this Gospel, that no person, 
 whose writings have come dowa to us, has in- 
 timated that he had ever seen it ; and from the 
 earliest times it seems to have existed in the Greek 
 language. But this fact is perfectly accordant 
 Tvith the supposition now madej for, the desolation 
 
183 
 
 of Judea, and dispersion of the Jewish Christians, 
 havina; fakon |>laco within a few years after the 
 publication of Matthew's Gospel, thi" copies of the 
 original Hebrew would be confined to the Jewish 
 coi' verts, and as other Cliristians had copies in the 
 Greek, of equal aut.enticity with the Hebrew, no 
 inquiries would be made after the latter. These 
 Jewisii Christians, after their removal, dwindled 
 away in a short time, and a large part of them be- 
 came erroneous in their faith ; and though ihey 
 retained the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, they 
 altered and corrupted it, to suit their own heretical 
 opinions. There is reason to believe, that the 
 Gospel of the Nazarenes was the identical Gospel 
 of Matthew, which in process of time, was greatly 
 mutilated and corrupted by the El)ionites. Of this 
 Gospel much is said by the Fathers, and in the 
 proper place we shall give some accouut of it. 
 
 Tlie only remaining objection, of any weight, 
 against the ancient opinion, is, that the Gospel ac- 
 cording to Matthew, as we now have it, has no 
 appearance of being a translation, but has the air 
 and style of an original. But if the hypothesis, 
 suggested above, be adopted, this objection also 
 will vanish ; for according to this, the Greek is an 
 original as well as the Hebrew, it having been 
 writt?n by Matthew himself, or by some disciple 
 under his direction. But whether the Greek of 
 St, Matthew; was written by himself or not, if is 
 
184 
 
 certain, that it was not later than the Apostolic 
 age, and received the approbation of apostles or 
 Apostolic men, which is sufficient to establish its 
 authenticity.* 
 
 * The learned world have been nearly equally divided 
 on the question, whether Matthew wrote his Gospel in 
 Hebrew or Greek. In favour of the former opinion, may 
 be cited, Bellarmine, Grotius, Casaubon, Walton, Tomline, 
 Cave, Hammond, Mill, Harwood, Owen, Campbell, A. 
 Clarke, Simon, Tillemont, Pritius, Du Pin, Calmet, Mi- 
 chaelis, and others* In favour of the Greek origin of this 
 Gospel the names are not less numerous, nor less respect- 
 able. Among these may be mentioned, Erasmus, Paraeusj 
 Calvin, Le Clerc, Fabricius, Pfeiffer, Lightfoot, Beausobre, 
 Basnage, Wetstem, Rumpoeus. Whitby, Edehnan, Hoff- 
 man, Moldenhawer Viser, Harles, Jones, Jortin, Lardner> 
 Hey, Hales, Hewlett, and others. 
 
 The two opinions were supported by a weight of argu- 
 ment and authority, so nearly balanced, that Dr. Townson, 
 and a few others, have adopted a middle course, viz ; the 
 opinion stated above, that there were two originals ; by 
 which theory all difficulties are removed. The only objec- 
 tion is, the want of evidence. Home, and Townsend have 
 adopted this opinion. See Home's Introd. Vol. iv. Part h. 
 C. ii. Sec ii. p- 287. 
 
SECTIOSr V, 
 
 aOSPEL OF MARK— ON \VH\r OCCVSIOV PURI,1SHKD 
 — \SCR1BKD ro THE DICIA-TION OF PE I F.U, UY 
 ALL THE FATHERS. 
 
 The author of the second Gospel, as they stand 
 in the Canon, was Mark ; the same who is men- 
 tioned in the First Epistle of Peter, v. 13; but 
 whether he was the same as John Mark, of Je- 
 yusalem, who travelled for a while with Paul and 
 Barnabas, has been doubted by Grotius, Cave, 
 Dupin, and Tillemont ; but the common opinion 
 is in its favour, and the objections to it, are not of 
 much weight : and as thftre is no clear evi'lence, 
 that there were two persons of this nam&, mention- 
 ed in Scripture, I shall consider all that is said of 
 Mark, as having reference to the same person. 
 
 Paul was offended at him because he declined 
 accompanying him and Barnabas trn the wliole tour 
 which they took, to preach the Gospel ; for, when 
 they came to Perga, Mark departed from th^m, 
 and returned to Jt-rurtalcm. And when Paul and 
 Barnabas were about to undertake a second journey, 
 together, the latter insisted on taking Mark, as 
 their minister, but Paul, would by no means con- 
 sent to it, because he had forsakon them on their 
 first mission. This dilTereuce of opinion gave rise 
 
186 
 
 (.0 a sharp altercation, which terminated in the separ- 
 ation of these venerable colleagues. Mark now tra- 
 velled with Barnabas, but probably, soon afterwards 
 attached himself to Peter, with whom he seems to 
 have continued until the death of that apostle. 
 
 But Paul himself seems to have been reconciled 
 to Mark, and to have valued his assistance, in the 
 work of the ministry ; for, in his second Epistle 
 to Timothy, he writes, *' Take Mark and bring 
 him with thee for he is profitable unto me for 
 the ministry/. He also mentions him in his Epis- 
 tle to Philemon. 
 
 When this gospel was composed, has not heea 
 particularly mentioned by any ancient author, 
 except that it is said to have been after Peter came 
 to Rome, which could not be much earlier than 
 A. D. 62, or A. D. 63. It is stated, that Mark 
 was requested by the brethren at Rome to put 
 down in writing the substance of Peter's preach- 
 ing ; and on this account, this Gospel among the 
 primitive Christians was as familiarly know by the 
 name of the Gospel of Peter, as of Mark. This 
 circuins^tance has led some to assert that Mark 
 wrote his Gospel in Latin, as this was the language 
 of Rome ; but in those days, almost all the Romans, 
 understood Greek ; and the Jewish converts who 
 composed a large portion of the first churches, un- 
 tierstood Greek much better than Latin, But 
 
 2 Tim, iv, 11, Phil, 24, 
 
187 
 
 there is no nred to nrguo his point. There is no 
 ancient anihi»r who ti-siifit's ;hat Mdik wnte in 
 Latin. The tesiimony is uniform, that he wrote 
 in G»eek. 
 
 Baronius is almost the only leirucl man who 
 has advfK'atcd the Latin oria;inaJ i.f the Oospel of 
 MtIc, and he h <s iioihing to produce in fivonr of 
 this opiiion, fnvn anti; lity, except the subsr rip, 
 tion to th'- Syriac, Arabic, and Fer>ic versions of 
 the New Testament, where, .tit the end of Mark's 
 Gospel, ii is said, '* He ^•poke and preached in Lafin 
 at Rome ," but this does not say that he wrote his 
 Gospel in Latin. 
 
 But these subscriptions are of very little author- 
 ity in matter> of tliis kind. No one knows wheti, 
 or by whom, they were placed there : ami althouu;h 
 three version^ are mentioned, they m ike up no 
 more than one witness, for probably all the others 
 borrowed this insciiption froin the Syriac. 
 
 AuGusTiNi; called Mark, the abridgcr of Mat- 
 thew ; and it must be confessed, that he often uses 
 the same wordx, and tells more concisely what the 
 other h id related more copiously ; yet there is 
 satisfactory evidence, tl,a; Mark's Gospel is an ori- 
 ginal work. There are many thinii;s which arc not 
 in the Gospel of Matthew, and some, mentioned 
 by that Evangelist,are here related with additional 
 circumstances. 
 
 All authors do not agree that Mark wrote his 
 Gospel at Konae, but some think at Alexandria : 
 
188 
 
 fhe former opinion, however, was received by the 
 Falhei -5 vvi;h almost universal consent. 
 
 Some of th-; Testimonies of ihe Fathers respect- 
 ing ir.is (iosppl, will now be given. 
 
 El ^! BTc's, out of Papias and a lost work of 
 Clbaient of Al-'X.>nfiria, relates, " That when 
 Ptter,iii th.- rcigi! of Clau'iins, had come to Rome, 
 ax, ' hdd defeaifid Simon Ma^rus, thr pe pie were 
 So inflamed '. ith love for the Chi'iatian truths, as 
 not to be satished with the hearinj^ of them, unless 
 they also had them wiitttu down. Tha:,accordi!ig- 
 ly,triey, with earnest entreaties, applii d tht mselves 
 to Mark, the companion of Peter, and whose 
 Gospel we no-.^ have, praying him that he would 
 write down for them and leave with them, an ac- 
 count of the doctrines which had been preached to 
 tht in : that tht-y did not desist in their request, 
 till they had prevailed on him, and pr jcured his 
 writing ihat, which is now the Oosp -1 of Mark. 
 Thai when Peter came t.^ know this, he was, by 
 the direction of the Holy Spirit, pleased with the 
 request of the people, and confirmed the Gospel 
 wiiich was written for the use of the Churches."**^ 
 
 Thi same Eusebius relaies,in anoilierpart of his 
 works, what Papjas had testified concerning 
 Mark's Gospel, "That Mark, wiio wa.-- Peter's 
 intei |jr^ ier, exacily wrote down whaisoever he re- 
 membered, thougii not in the same order of time 
 
 =*' Ecc. Hist. Lib. II. c 25. 
 
189 
 
 io which the sevei'al things were said or done by 
 Christ ; for he neither heard nor foHowefl Christ, 
 but vvas a companion of Peter, and composcil his 
 Gospel, rather with the intent of the people's pro- 
 fit, than writing a regular history ; so that he is in 
 no faidt, if he wro'c some things according to his 
 memory, he designing no more than to omit nothing 
 which he had heard, and to relate nothing false,"* 
 
 Another testimony, from Clement of Alexan- 
 dria, is given by Eusebius, in which it is said, 
 *' When Peter was publicly preaching the Gospel 
 at Rome, by the influences of the Holy Spirit many 
 of the converts desired Mark, as having been a long 
 ■companion of Peter, and who well remembered 
 what he preached, to write down his discourses : 
 that upon this he composed his Gospel, and gave 
 it to those who made this request, which when 
 Peter knew, he neither obstructed nor encouraged 
 the work."t 
 
 iRENiEus says, " That after the death of Peter 
 and Paul, who had been preaching at Rome, Mark 
 the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote dowa 
 what he had heard him preach." 
 
 Tertullian informs us, '* That the Gospel pub- 
 lished by Mark may be reckoned Peter's, whose 
 interpreter lie was." 
 
 Origen adds, " That Mark wrote his Gospel ac- 
 cording to the dictates of Peter." 
 
 * Ecc. Hist. Lib. iii. c. 39. f Lib- vi. c. 14. 
 
 R 
 
190 
 
 Jerome tells us, " That Mark the disciple and 
 interpreter of Peter, wrote a short Gospel, from 
 what he had heard of Peter, at the request of the 
 brethren at Rome, which when Peter knew, he 
 approved, and published it in our churches, com- 
 manding the reading of it by his own authority.'* 
 Besides these testimonies which are very explicit? 
 and all go to show, that Mark received his Gospel 
 from the preaching of Peter, there are some inter- 
 nal evidences which look the same way. There 
 are in the other Evangelists several circumstances 
 and facts which make very much for the credit of 
 Peter, not one of which is hinted at in this Gospel. 
 Particular instances of this kind may be read, in 
 the Third Volume of Jones on the Canon. 
 
 Of the Canonical authority of this Gospel, no one 
 of the ancients, I believe, ever entertained a doubt. 
 Some of the moderns, however, have question- 
 ed whether we have any evidence, that Mark and 
 Luke wrote by a plenary inspiration, since they 
 were not apostles. But that Mark's Gospel is Ca- 
 nonical, is established by all the rules applicable to 
 the case. It was always contained in the early 
 catalogues; was read as Scripture in the churches ; 
 was quoted as Scripture by the Fathers ; was in- 
 serted in the earliest versions ; and never doubted 
 formerly, by any christian writer. But this subject 
 will be resumed, hereafter. 
 
 Ettsebius reports, ''That Peter, out of the 
 abundance of his modesty, did not think himself 
 
191 
 
 worthy to write a Gospel ; but Mark, who was his 
 iriend and disciple, is said to have recorded Peter's 
 relations, and the acts of Jesus.'* And again, " Pe- 
 ter testifies these things of himself, for all things re- 
 corded by Mark, are said to be memoirs of Peter's 
 discourses." 
 
 In the Synopsis, ascribed to Athanasius, it is 
 said, "That the Gospel according to Mark waS 
 dictated by Peter, at Rome, alid p;iblished by 
 Mark ; and preached by him in Alexandria, Pen- 
 tapolis, and Lybia." 
 
 The testimony of Epiphanius is, "That Mat. 
 thew wrote first, and Mark soon after him, being 
 a companion of Peter, at Rome ; — that Mark was 
 one of the seventy disciples, and likewise one ol 
 those who were offmded at the words of Christ, 
 recorded in the sixth chapt'?r of the Gospel of 
 John ; — that he then forsook the Saviour, but was 
 afterwards reclaimed by Peter, and being filled 
 with the Spirit, wrote a Gospel." 
 
 Gregory N azianzen says, * ' That Mark wrote 
 his Gospel for the Italians." 
 
 Chrysostom testifies, that ''Mark wrote in 
 Egypt at the request of the believers there ;" but 
 in another place, he says, **lt cannot be ascertained 
 in what place each of the Evangelists wrote." 
 
 Victor informs us, « That Mark was also called 
 John, and was the vSon of Mary ; — that he tvrote 
 a Gospel after Matthew ; — that for a while he ac- 
 companied Paul, and Barnabas his relation, but 
 
192 
 
 when he came to Rome, he joined Peter. When 
 he was obliged to quit Rome, he was requested by 
 the brethren to write a history of his preaching, 
 and of his heavenly doctrine ; with which request 
 he readily complied." 
 
 CosMAs of Alexandria, writes, " That Mark the 
 second Evangelist, wrote a Gospel at Rome, by 
 the dictalion of Peter." 
 
 CEcuMEMUs says, " This John, who also is 
 called Mark, nephew to Barnabas, wrote the Gos- 
 pel which goes by his name ; and was also the 
 disciple Df Peter." 
 
 Theophylact informs us, ^'' That the Gospel 
 according to Mark, was written at Rome,ten years 
 after the ascension of Jesus Christ, at the request 
 of the believers there; for, this Mark was a disciple 
 of Peter. His name was John, and he was nephew 
 to Barnabas, the companion of Paul." 
 
 EuTHYMius concurs exactly in this testimony. 
 His words are, "The Gospel of Mark was writ- 
 ten about ten years after our Lord's ascension, at 
 the request of the believers at Rome ; or as some 
 say, in Egypt ; — that Mark was, at first, much 
 with his uncle Barnabas, and Paul, but afterwards 
 went with Peter to Rome, from whom he received 
 the whole history of his Gospel." 
 
 NicEPHORUs says, " Only two of the Twelve 
 have left memoirs of our Lord's life, and two of 
 the Seventy, Mark and Luke." And a little after- 
 
193 
 
 **Mark and Luke puhlishcd their Gospels, by 
 the direction of Peter and Paul." 
 
 EuxrcHius, patriarch of Alexandria, has the 
 following words, *' In the time of Nero, Peter the 
 prince of the apostles, making use of Mark, wrote 
 a Gospel at Rome, in the Roman languasje. " 
 
 The reader will recollect, that this last writer 
 lived as late as tlie tenth century, which will ac" 
 count for his callino; Peter the prince of the apos- 
 tles, a language entirely foreign to the early Eccle- 
 siastical writers. And Selden is of opinion, that 
 l)y the Roman language, he meant the Greek, 
 which was then in common use, at Rome ; and it 
 is well known, that in our times, the modern 
 Greek language, is called, Uomaic. Jones and 
 Lardner concur in the opinion of Selden. 
 
 ji a. 
 
SEOTIOZr VT, 
 
 GOSPEL OF LURE— TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS 
 RESPECTING IT. 
 
 The Third Gospel is that of Luke, He is men- 
 tioned in Scripture, as the companion of Paul, in 
 his travels : and when that apostle was sent a pri- 
 soner to Rome, this evangelist accompanied hinr, 
 and continued wi>h him daring his two year's con- 
 finement in th;it city, as may be gathered from 
 Paul's Epistles, written durmg this period. Whe- 
 ther he was the same as The beloved jihysicianj 
 mentioned by Paul, is uncertain, but the general 
 opinion is in favour of it. It is also ciisputed, whe- 
 ther or not he was one of the Seventy disciples. 
 Without undertaking to decide these points, 1 will 
 proceed to lay before the reader, the principal test i- 
 motjies of the Fathers, respecting this gospel and 
 its author. 
 
 Iren^us asserts, *' That Luke the companion of 
 Paul, put down in a booky the gospel preached by 
 him." A;r;nn, he says, " iiUke was not only a 
 companion, but a fellow labourer of the apbstles, es- 
 pecially oi Paul " He calls Ijim, " A disciple and 
 fellow labourer of the apostles." " The apostles," 
 Says he, *' envying none^ plainly delivered to ail, 
 
195 
 
 the things whirh they had heard from the Lord. 
 So lik»;\vi.sc Luke envyine; no man, has delivert'd to 
 us wliat he learned from them, as he says, Even as 
 they delivered t hem unto us, who from the begin- 
 ning ivere eye-witnesses, and ministers of his 
 ■loord." 
 
 EusEBius informs us, that Clement of Alexandria 
 bore a large testimony tb this, as w( 11 as to the 
 other gospels ; s^nd he mentions a tradition con- 
 cerning the order of the j^ospels, which Clement 
 had received from presbyters of more ancient 
 times, " That the gospels containing the genealo- 
 gies, were written first." 
 
 Teutullia> speaks of Matthew and John as dis- 
 ciples of Christ ; of Mark and Luke as disciples of 
 the apostles ; however, he ascribes the same author- 
 ity to the gospels written by them, as to thp others. 
 "The gospel," says he, '« which Mark published, 
 may l)e said to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark 
 was; and Luke's digest, is often ascribed to Paul. 
 And indeed it is easy to take that for the Master'? 
 which the disciples publishetl." Again, "More- 
 over, Luke was not au apostle, but an apostolic 
 man ; not a master, but a disciple : certainly less 
 than his master ; certainly so much later, as he is a 
 tbilower of P;iul, the last o» the apostles." 
 
 Obioen mentions the gospels in the order com- 
 monly received, '' The third,'' says he, " is that 
 acoor'ling to Ltske, the gospel commended by Paul, 
 published for the sake of the Gentile converts." 
 
196 
 
 In his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 
 which we now have in a Latin version only, he 
 writes, "Some say Lucius is Lucas the Evange- 
 list, as indeed it is not uncommon to write names, 
 sometimes accord inji; to the original form ; some- 
 times, according to the Greek, and Roman termina- 
 tion." 
 
 EusEBiirs has left us the following testimony, con- 
 cerninji Luke the evangelist, '' And Luke who was 
 ef Antioch, and by profession a physician, for the 
 most part a companion of Paul, who had, likewise, 
 more than a slight acquaintance withtheother apos- 
 tles, has left us, in two books, divinely inspired, ev- 
 idences of the art of healing souls, which he had 
 learned from them. One of them, is, the gospel which 
 he professeth to have written, as they delivered it to 
 him, wlio, from the beginning, were eye-witnesses 
 and ministers <if his word." With all whom, he 
 says, he had been perfectly acquainted, from the 
 first. And in another place, he says, " Luke hath 
 delivered, in his gospel, a certain account of such 
 things as he had been assured of by his intimate 
 acquaintance and familiarity with Paul, and his 
 conversation withtheother apostles." 
 
 In the synopsis, ascribed to Athanasius, it is 
 said, " That the gospel of Luke was dictated by 
 the apostle Paul, and written and published by the 
 blessed apostle and physit'ian Luke." 
 
 Gkegory Nazianzen says, " That Luke wrote 
 for the Greeks ;" and Gregory Nyssen, *' That 
 
197 
 
 Luke was as imicli a physician for the soul as the 
 body." 
 
 The testimony of Jerome, concerning Luke, is 
 as follows : " Luke, who was of Antioch, and by 
 profession a physician, not unskilful in the Greek 
 lansjuaoje, a disciple of the aposile Paul, and the 
 constant companion of his travels, wrote a gospel, 
 and another excellent volume entitled, the Acts of 
 the Apostles .... It is supposed that Luke did 
 not learn his gospel from the apostle Paul only, 
 who had not conversed with the Lord in the flesh, 
 but also from other apostles, which likewise he 
 owns, at the beginning of his volume, sa)'ing, Eve7i 
 as they delivered them unto t/.y, loho from the be- 
 ginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the 
 word. Therefore, he wrote the gospel from the in- 
 formation of others; but the Acts he composed 
 from his own knowledge.* 
 
 The same writer, in the preface to his commen- 
 tary on St. Matthew, says, "'I'he third evangt list 
 is Luke, the physician, a Syrian of Antioch, who 
 WTisa disciple of the apostle Paul, and published 
 his gospel in the countries of Acliaia and Boe- 
 otia." 
 
 In another place, he observes, *<That some said 
 that Luke had bem a proselyte to Judaism, before 
 his conversion to Christianity." 
 
 Chrysostom, in his first homily on the gospel of 
 
 * Book of Illustrioas Men 
 
198 
 
 Matthew, has this remark : ''Luke had the fluency 
 of Pa'il, Mark the conciseness of Peter, both learn- 
 ing 6f their masters." 'nomijr 
 
 Isidore of Seville says, " Of the four evangelists, 
 the first and last relate what they had heard Christ 
 say, or had seen him perform Matthew wrote his 
 gospel first, in Judea ; then Mark in Italy ; Luke, 
 the third, in Achaia : John, the last, in Asia." 
 And again, of all the evangelists, Luke, ihe third in 
 order, is reckoned to have been the must skilful in 
 the Greek tongue. For he was a physician, and 
 wrote his gospel in Greek. -i^tHa mo{\ 
 
 InTHEOPHYLAcx's preface to St. Matthew's Gos- 
 pel, it is said," There are four Evangelists, two of 
 which, Matthew and John, were of the apostles ; 
 the other two, Mark and Luke, were of the num- 
 ber of the Seventy. Mark was a disciple and com- 
 panion of Peter, Luke of Paul .... Luke wrote 
 fifteen years after Christ's ascension." 
 
 In his commentary on Luke, he observes, " That 
 it appears from Luke's Introduction, that he was 
 not from the beginning a disciple, but only after- 
 wards. For others were disciples from the begin- 
 ning, as Peter, and the sons of Zebedee, who de- 
 livered to him the things whieh they had seen or 
 heard." 
 
 EuTHYMius says, "Luke was a native of Antioch, 
 and a physician. He was a hearer of Christ, and 
 as some say, one of his Seventy disciples, as well as 
 Mark. He was afterwards very intimate with Paul 
 
iy9 
 
 He wrote his Gosppl, with Paul's permission, iii- 
 teen years after our Lord's ascension." 
 
 EuTYCHius, patrinrch of Constantinople, has hand- 
 ed down the following account : " In the time of 
 the same empcMor (Nero) Luke wrote liis sjospel 
 in Greek, to a notahio and wise man (if the Ro- 
 mans, whose name was Theophilus ; to whom also 
 he wrote the Acts, or the history of the d'sciples. 
 The evangelist Luke, was a com|)anion of the apos- 
 tle Paul, going with him, wherever he went. For 
 which reason, the apostle Paul, in one of his epis- 
 tles, says, Luke the physician salutes ynu.'''' 
 
 The same arguments by which the Canonical au- 
 thority of the gospels of Matthew and Mark were 
 established, apply with their full force to the gos- 
 pel of Luke. It was universally received as Ca- 
 nonical by the whole primitive church ; has a place, 
 in every catalogue of the books of the New Testa- 
 ment which was ever published ; is constantly re- 
 ferred to and cited by the Fathers, as a part of Sa- 
 cred Scripture ; and was one of the books con- 
 stantly read in the churches, as a part of the rule of 
 faith and practice for all believers. 
 
 Marcion, the heretic, it is true, had a gospel 
 according to Luke, which differed essentiallv from 
 that in the Canon, but his authority has no weight. 
 
SECTION- VII. 
 
 —»»©©»•«-- 
 
 THE OBJECTIONS OF J. D. MICH \ELIS, TO THE CAN- 
 ONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE GOSPELS OF MARK 
 AND LUKE, CONSIDERED, AND ANSWERED. 
 
 J. D. Michaelis, in his Introduction to the New 
 Testament, as translated from the German, by 
 Bishop Marsh, in the Third Soction'of the Third 
 Chapter, speaking of the gospels of St. Mark and 
 St Luke, and of the Acts of the Apostles, and of 
 the 2;rounds of placing them in the Canon, says, 
 "I must confess that I am unable to find a satis- 
 factory proof of their inspiration, and the more I 
 investigate the subject, and the oftener I compare 
 their writings with those of St. Matthew, and St. 
 John, the greater are my doubts." He then goes 
 on to say, that in a former edition of this work, he 
 had stated the arguments on both sides of the 
 question, but although uncertain which he should 
 prefer, yet he had rather inclined to the affirmative. 
 But now, he tells us, that he is strongly inclined to 
 the negative. 
 
 The first argument for the inspiration of these 
 gospels, which the learned professor considers, is de- 
 rived from the fact, that Mark and Luke were com- 
 panions and assistants of the apostles. This, he 
 
201 
 
 can aftord no proof of their inspiration, even if ir 
 could be shown tliat they were enrlovvcd uiih the 
 extraordinary o;ifts of tlie Holy Ghost, of which, 
 liov'ovcr, there is no historical proof. Because a 
 disciple might possess these e;ifts, and yet his Wri- 
 tings not he inspired. And if we gr-an.d ihear- 
 ginn.-nt for their inspinition on th^ ci aractcr of an 
 apusile's assistant, then we must rt.'reive as Cawon- 
 ical the genuine Epistle of Clement of Rome, and 
 Iho writings of other apost'djcul Fathers. 
 
 The next argument which he cons:iders, is, that 
 the apostles themselves have recommended these 
 gosj.H'ls lis Canonical, in their f^pistlcs. That the 
 passigps depended on for proof do refer to these or 
 any other writtet) gospels, the professor denies : 
 hut even if they did, he considers the evidence un- 
 satisfactory ; for he supposes that thty mighr have 
 commendida hook as containing gtnuine historical 
 accounts, without vouching for its inspiration. 
 
 The tfsiiuioiiy of the Fathers, that th'-se go>;pels 
 Aver^' approved by Peter and Paul, respectively ; 
 and, with Matthew's gos|)el were shown to the 
 apostle Jnhn, the It-arned professor sets aside with 
 vtTy little ceremony. 
 
 And finally, he demurs, in regard to the evi- 
 dence of the Canonical authority of these books, de- 
 rived from the testimony of th»^ whole primitive 
 church, by which tluy were undoubtedly received 
 into the Canon ; and suggests that the apos'le?^ 
 might have recommended them, and the primitive 
 
 9 
 
202 
 
 church have accepted them, as works indispensa- 
 ble to a Christian, on account of the iriipurtance of 
 their contents, and that by insensible dt grees they 
 acquired the character of being; inspired. 
 
 On these reasonings and objections, against the 
 inspiration and Canoni( al authority of several im- 
 portant books, which havf hitiicito held an unques- 
 tioned place, in the Canon of the New Testament, 
 anti coming from the pen of a man too, of .-uch ex- 
 tensive Biblical learning, I think it necessary to de- 
 tain the reader with some remarks, which I hope 
 will have the t fleet uf counteracting the peria^ious 
 influence of the opinions, which have been exhioit- 
 ed above. 
 
 1. In the first place, then, I would observe, that 
 it will be admitted, that Mark and Luke were 
 humble, pious men; als'i, that they were intelligent, 
 well-informei] men, and must have known that the 
 committing to writing the facts and doctrines com- 
 prehended in the gospel, was not left to the discre- 
 tion or caprice of every disciple, but became the 
 duty of those only, who were inspired by the Holy 
 Ghost to undertake the w^irk. Now, if these two 
 disciples had been uninspired, or not under the 
 immediate direction of apostles who possessed ple- 
 nary inspiration, it would have argued great pre- 
 sumption in them, without any direction, to write 
 gospels for the instruction of the church. The ve- 
 ry fact of tlieir writing is, ttierefore, a strong evi- 
 dence, that they believed themselves to be inspired. 
 
1203 
 
 There is tlien little force in tlte remark of the learn- 
 ed professor, that neither St. Mark nor St Luke 
 have declared, in any part of their wrltins^s, that 
 they were inspired : fbr such a declaration was un" 
 necessary ; their conduct in undertikine; to write 
 such books, is the best evidence that they believed 
 themselves callc(^ to this work. 
 
 And the objection to this argument, from the wri- 
 tings of other apostolical men, is not valid ; for none 
 of them ever undertook to write Gospels, for the 
 use of the church. All attempts at writing ot- er 
 Gospels, than the four, were considered by the 
 primitive church, as impious; because, the writers 
 were uninspired men. 
 
 2. But the universal reception of these books by 
 the whole primitive church, as canonical, and that, 
 while some of the apostles were living, is the evi- 
 dence which to my mind is conclusivci that they 
 were not mere human j)roductions, but composed 
 by divine inspiration. That they were thus uni- 
 versally received, I think is manifest, from th 
 testimonies which have already been adduced. 
 There is not in all the writings of antiquity, a hint, 
 that any Christian belonging to the church, ever 
 suspected that these Gospels were inferior in au- 
 thority to the others. No books in the Canon ap- 
 pear to have been received with more universal con- 
 sent, and to have been 1«"Sr disputed. They arc 
 contained in every cainlogue, w'lich has come down 
 to us. They are cited a? Scripture, by all that men- 
 
204 
 
 tion them ; and are expressly declared by the Fa- 
 th' rs, to be Canonical and inspired hooks. Now, 
 let it be remembered, that this is the best evidence 
 which we can have that any of the books of the 
 New Testament were written by inspiration. I 
 kn"w. indeed, thatMichaelisplace&ihe whole proof 
 of inspiraiion on the promise made by Christ to his 
 aposlle^ ; b'i' while it is admitted that this is a 
 weighty consideration, it does not appear to us to 
 be f^qua! in force lo the testimony of the Universal 
 Church, incluHina; the apostles themselves, that 
 these writings were penned under the guidance of 
 the Holy Spirit ; for it is not perfectly clear, that 
 the promise referred to was confined to the twelve. 
 Certainly, Paul, who was not of that number, was 
 inspired in a plenary manner, and much the larger 
 part of the twelve never wrote any thing for the 
 Canon. There is nothing in the New Testament 
 wliich forbids our supposing, that other disciples 
 might have b"en selected to write for the use of 
 the church. We do not wish that this should be 
 believed, in regard to any persons, without evi- 
 dence, but we think that the proof exists, and ari- 
 ses from the undeniable fact, that the writings of 
 these two men were, frmn the beginning, received 
 as inspired. And this belief must have prevailed 
 before the death of the apostles ; for all the testi- 
 monies concur in stating, that the gospel of Mark 
 was seen by Peter, and that of Luke by Paul, and 
 approved by them respectively. Now is it credi- 
 
xJ05 
 
 ble that those apo«5tlt^s, and John who survived 
 them many years, would have recommended to the 
 Christiao churfh, th" productions of uninspired 
 men ? No doubt, all the churches, at that time, 
 looked up to thf apostles fDr sjuidance, in all mat- 
 ters that related to the rule <»f their faith, and a 
 g' nerai opinion that these jjospels were CannnicaJ, 
 ctiuld not have obtained, without their concurrence. 
 The hypothesis of Michaclis, that they were rc- 
 eommen led as useful human productions, and by 
 deojrees came to be considen^d as inspired writings, 
 is in itself improbable, and repugnant to all the tes- 
 timony which has come down to us on the subjectr 
 If this had been the fact, they would never have 
 been placed among the books, universally acknow- 
 ledgerl, hut would have been doubted of, or dispu- 
 ted by some. The difference made between inspi- 
 red books, and others, in those primitive times, 
 was as great as at any subsequent period ; and the 
 line of distinction was not only broad, but great 
 pains were taken to have it drawn accurately ; and 
 when the common opinion of the church, respect- 
 ing the gosjiels, was formed, there was no difficulty 
 in coming to the certain knowledge of the truth. 
 For thirty years and more, before the death of the 
 aposth' John, these two gospels were in circulation. 
 If any doubt had existed respecting their Canoni- 
 cal authority, would not the churches and their 
 Elders have had recourse to this infallible autho- 
 rity ? The general agrt ement of all Christians, 
 
 62 
 
20t> 
 
 over the whole world, respecting most of the books 
 of the New Testament, doubtless, should be at- 
 tributed to the authority of the apostles. If, then, 
 these Gospels had been mere human productions, 
 they mio;ht have been read privately, but never 
 could have found a place in the Sacred Canon. 
 The objection to these books comes entirely too 
 late to be entitled to any weight. The opinion of 
 a modern critic, however learned, is of small con- 
 sideration, when opposed to the testimony of the 
 whole primitive church ; and to the suffrage of 
 the universal church, in every age, since the days 
 of the apostles. The rule of the learned Huet, 
 already cited,; is sound, viz. " That all those books 
 should be deemed Canonical and inspired, which 
 were received as such, by those who lived nearest 
 to the time when they were published." 
 
 8. But if we should, for the sake of argument, 
 concede, that no books should be considered as 
 inspired, but such as were the productions of apos- 
 tles, still these gospels would not be excluded from 
 the Canon. It is a fact, in which there is a won- 
 derful agreement among the Fathers, that Mark 
 wrote his gospel from the mouth of Peter; that 
 is, he wrote dovvn what he had heard this apostle 
 every day declaring, in his public ministry. And 
 Luke did the same, in regard to Paul's preaching. 
 These gospels therefore, may, according to this 
 testimony, be considered, as more prabably be- 
 longing to these two apostles, than to the Evange- 
 
207 
 
 lists who pcnncfl tlicm. They were little more, 
 it would scf-m, if we give full credit to the testi- 
 mony which has been exhibited, than amanuenses 
 to the apostles, on whom they attended. Paul, 
 we know, dictated several of his Pipistles to some 
 of his companions ; and if Mark and Luke heard 
 the gospel from Peter and Paul, so often repeated, 
 that they were perfect masters of their respective 
 nan-atives, and then committed the same to wri- 
 ting, are they not, virtually, the productions of 
 these apostles which have been handed down to 
 us ? And this was so much the opinion of some o£ 
 the Fathers, that they speak of Mark's gospel, as 
 Peter's, and bf Luke's, as Paul's. 
 
 Bui this is not all. These gospels were shown: 
 to these apostles, and received their approbation. 
 Thus speak the ancients, as with one voice, and if 
 they had been silent, we might be certain, from 
 the circumstances of the case, that these Evange- 
 lists would never have ventured to take such an 
 important step, as to write and publish the preach- 
 ing of these inspired men, without their express 
 approbation. Now, let it be considered, that a. 
 narrative prepared by a man well acquainted 
 with the facts related, may be entirely correct 
 without inspiration ; but of this we cannot be sure, 
 and therefore, it is of great importance to have a 
 his'ory of facts from men, who were rendered in- 
 fallible by the inspiration of t lie Moly Spirit. It. 
 should be remembered, however, that the only 
 
2 OS 
 
 advantae;e of inspiration ir jrivina; such a narrative, 
 coiisjsts in thf proper selncfioti of facts and cir- 
 cumstances, and in the infallible certainty of the 
 writing. Suppose, then, that an uninspired man 
 shi'uld prepare an account of such transactions as 
 he had seen, or heard from eve-witnesses, of un- 
 doubied veracity, and that his narrative should be 
 submitted to the inspection of an apostle, and re- 
 ceive his full approbation ; might not such a book 
 be considered as ins[)lred ? If in the origioal 
 composition, there should have crept in some er- 
 rors, (for to err is human) the inspired reviewer 
 would, of course, point them out and have ihem 
 corrected ; now such a book would be, for all im- 
 portant purposes, an inspired volume ; and would 
 deserve a place in the Canon of Holy Scripture. 
 If any credit, th»n, is due to the testimony of the 
 Christian Fathers, the gospels of JNIark and Luke, 
 are Canonical books ; for, as was before stated, 
 there is a general concurrence among them, that 
 these Evangelists submitted their wiirks to the in- 
 spection, and received the approbation, of the 
 apostles Peter and Paul. 
 
 4. Fmally, the internal evidence is as strong in 
 favour of the gospels under consideration, as of any- 
 other book-^ of the New Testament. There is no 
 reason to think that Mark or Luke were capable 
 of writing with such perfect simplicity and pr 'prie- 
 ty, without the aid of inspiration, or the assi^innce 
 of inspired men. If we reject these books irom 
 
;ioy 
 
 the Canon, \vc niu-st a;ive up tlie argument derived 
 from internal evidence for the inspiration of the 
 Sacreil S('ri|)turc.s, altogether. It is true, tiic learn- 
 ed professor, whose opinions we are opposing, has 
 said, "The oftener I compare their writings 
 (Mark's and Luke's) with those of St. Matthew 
 and St. John, the greater are my doubts." And 
 speaking in another place of Mark he says, "In 
 some immaterial instances he seems to have erred ,'* 
 and gives it as his opinion, " That they who un- 
 dertake to reconcile St. Mark wit li St Matthew, or 
 to show that he is nowhere corrected by St. John, 
 experience great difficulty, and have not seldom to 
 resort to ininatural explanations." But the learned 
 professor has not mentioned any particular cases of 
 irreconciloable discrepancies between this evange- 
 ist and St. Mattln;w ; nor does he indicate in what 
 statements he is corrected by St. John. Until 
 something of this kind is exhibited, general re- 
 marks of tiiis sort are deserving of no considera- 
 tion. To harmonize the evangelists has always 
 been found a difficidt task, but this docs not prove 
 that they contradict each other, or that their ac- 
 counts are irreconcilable. Many things, which, at 
 first sight, appear contradictory, arc found, upon 
 closer examination, to be perfectly harmonious ; 
 and if there be some things, which commentators 
 have been unable satisfactorily to reconcil'*, it is no 
 more than what mighi be expected, in narratives so 
 concise, and in which, a strict regard to chronolo- 
 
210 
 
 gical order, did not enter into the plan of the wri- 
 ters. And if this objection be permitted to influence 
 our judgment, in this case, it will operate against 
 the inspiration of the other evangelists as well as 
 Mark ; but in our apprehension, when the discre- 
 pancies are impartially considered, and all the cir- 
 cumstances of the facts candidly and accurately 
 weighed, there will be found no solid ground of ob- 
 jection to the inspiration of any of the gospels ; — 
 certainly nothing, which can counterbalance the 
 strong evidence arising from the style ai>d spirit 
 of the writers. In what respects these twoEvang> 
 lists fall short of the others, has never been shown; 
 upon the most thcjrough exammation and fair compa- 
 rison of these inimitable productions, they appear to 
 be all indited b}' the same spirit, and to possess the 
 same superiority to all human compositions. 
 
 Compare these gospels with those which are ac- 
 knowledged to have been written by uninspired 
 men, and you will need no nice power of discri- 
 mination to see the difference : the first appear in 
 every respect worthy of God ; the last betray, in 
 every page, the weakness of man. 
 
 I beg leave, here, to use the words of an excel- 
 lent writer, in a late work : " The gospel of St. 
 Luke was always from the very moment of its pub- 
 lication, received as inspired as well as authentic. 
 It was published durmg the lives of St. John, St. 
 Peter, and St. Paul, and was approved and sanc- 
 tioned by them as inspired ; and received as such 
 
211 
 
 by the clnn'chps,in conformity to thoJewi'^hCnnon, 
 which tic'ci I.mI on Uie geiiuiiier.jbS c* >; ".rioni-ntss 
 of ihi ins|;ired books ul theii" own church, by re- 
 ceiviiii;- h ni as a prophet, who was ackou'lfcigctl as 
 sii. ii by the tistiniony of an eslablishtd prophet. 
 On tiie same grounds Lnkeniust be considered as a 
 true Kvan<;elist: his gospel bei. g dictaled and ap- 
 pr v<:d by ai aposile, of whose authority there can 
 be- iio qucsiii)n. 'I'hen; is lik>vvise sufficient evi- 
 dence to warrant the conclusions of Whitby — that 
 both St. Mark and St. Luke were of tlie number 
 of the s<:veniy, who had a commission from li.-ist 
 to preach llie gospel not to the Jews only, bul to 
 the other nations — That the Holy Ghost foil on 
 those among the numbers of the seventy, who 
 formed a part of the hundred and twenty, assembled 
 on the day of Pentecost, and from that time thev 
 were guided by the influences of the Holy Spirit, 
 in writing or preaching the gospel. And if the 
 Uuiversal Cluirrh, from the tirsi ages, received 
 this gospel as divinely inspired, on these satisftcto- 
 ry grounds, distance of time cannot weaken the 
 evidences of truth, and we are recpnred to receive 
 it on the same testimoii}-. That wliich satisfied 
 those who iiad much better means of judging, 
 should certainly satisty us, at this time."* 
 
 There is sometiiing reprehensible, not to say 
 
 * New Testament, by the Rev. George Townsend. Vol- 
 1. p. 5. 
 
212 
 
 impioiis,in that bold spirit of modern criticism,whicU 
 has \t'd m:my eminent Biblical schi-lars, especi ily 
 in (lermany, first to attack the authority of parti- 
 cular bioks of Scti[ ture, and next to call in ques- 
 tion ihe inspiration of the whole volume. To 
 what extent this licentiousness of criticism has 
 been carried, I need not say ^ for it is a matter of 
 noiorietv, thit of late, the most dangerous enemies 
 of the FUbie, have been found occupying the places 
 of its afiv icaies; and the critical art, w! ich was in- 
 tended for the correction of the text, and the in- 
 terpretation (if the Sacred books, hiS, in a most 
 unnatural way, been turned agamst the ; iblf; and 
 finally, the insjiiration of ail the sacred hooks, 
 has not only been questioned, but scornfully re- 
 jected, bi/ Fro/essnrs of Theology ! And these 
 meo, wliile living on endowments which pious 
 benevolrnce had consecrated for the support of re- 
 ligion, and openly connected with churches whose 
 creeds contain orthodox opinions, have so far for- 
 gotten their higli rpsponsibilities,and neglected the 
 claims which the church had on them, as to exert 
 all their ingenuity and learning, to sap the foun- 
 dation of that system, which they were sworn to 
 def nd. They have had the shameless haniihood. 
 to ■^end forth into the world, books under their 
 own names, w'.ich contain fully as much of the 
 poi'^on of infidelity, as ever di.Ntilled from the pens 
 of the most malignant deists, whose writings have 
 fallen, as a curse upon the World. The only effec- 
 
313 
 
 tual security which we have agjainst this new and 
 most danojerous form of inftclclity, is found in the 
 spirit of the age, which is so superticiai and curso- 
 ry in its reading, that however many elaborate 
 criliical works may be published in foreign langua- 
 ges, very few of them will be read, even by Theo- 
 logical students, in this country. 
 
 May God overrule the efforts of these enemies 
 of Christ and the Bible, so that good may come 
 out of evil ! 
 
fv 
 
 SECTIOir VIZI. 
 
 THE GOSPEL OP ioHlV— LIFE OF THIS EVANGELIST- 
 OCCASION AND TIME OF HIS WRITING— CAN ONI» 
 CAL AUTHOIilTY, INDISPUTABLE. 
 
 The Fourth gospel was written by John, the soo 
 of Zebedee and Salome, who was originally a fish- 
 erman of Galilee, and brother of James; and we 
 may suppose, was the younger of the brothers, as 
 he is generally mentioned last, and is commonly 
 reported to have been the youngest of all Christ's 
 disciples. They were plain, uneducated men, as 
 their occupation sufficiently indicates. Probably 
 they had been disciples of Jolm the Baptist, and 
 some have conjectured that John the Evangelist 
 was one of the two, to whom John the Baptist 
 pointed out Jesus, and who went after him to his 
 lodging. The other we know was Andrew, Si- 
 mon Peter's brother ; and John, in other cases, has 
 concealed his own name, where any thing is 
 mentioned, which could be interpreted to his ho- 
 nour. 
 
 Why these two brothers were surnamed Boaner- 
 ges, by the Lord, does not clearly appear, unless 
 we suppose that the names were prophetic of the 
 manner of their preaching, when commissioned as 
 apostles. But there are no facts recorded, from 
 
215 
 
 which any inference can be drawn, in relation to 
 this subject. Jhhn has been long celebrated for 
 his aflfectionate temper and for the suavity of his 
 manners, which appear very remarkably in all his 
 writinsjs ; but tbere is no evidence that he was na- 
 turally of a meek temper. The facts in the g;ospel 
 history would seem to indicate, that both be and 
 his brother were of a fiery temper, and very am- 
 bitious by nature ; and some iiave supposed, that 
 their surname had relation to this ardour of temper, 
 but this is not very probable. 
 
 We know that John was the bosom friend of 
 •Jesus, the disciple whom he loved with a peculiar 
 ajSecfion ; and that he was admitted to all those 
 soent'S of a very interesting nature, from which 
 most of the other disciples were excluded. 
 
 It is also certain, that he was present at the crucl- 
 iixion ; stood near the cross in company with Mary 
 the mother of our Lord ; and that he remained 
 at the place until the body of Jesus, now dead, 
 was pierced with a spear. On the morning of the 
 resurrection, John visited the sepulchre, in compa- 
 ny with Peter, and wis present when Christ made 
 His first appearance to the Eleven ; and when he 
 manifested himself to his disciples, at the sea of Ti- 
 berias. 
 
 After Pentecost, he was with Peter in the tem- 
 ple, when the lame man was healed ; accompanied 
 Peter also to Samaria, and wa.*? present at the 
 council of Jerusalem. 
 
216 
 
 From the book of Revelation we learn, that thiis 
 evangelist was for a time an exile in the island of 
 Patmos, for the testimony of Jesus, where he was 
 favoured with wonderful visions and communica- 
 tions from the Lord. 
 
 It seems to have been intimated to him by his 
 Lord, at the sea of Tiberias, that be should sur- 
 vive the destruction of Jerusalem; for, when Peter 
 asked, Lord what shall this man do? Jesus saith 
 iinto hinif if I will that he tarry till I come, 
 what is that to thee? which saying gave rise to an 
 opinion among the disciples, that, that disciple should 
 not die ; Yet Jesus said not unto him, he shall 
 not die, but if I xoill, that he tarry till I come, 
 luhat is that to thee ? And this accords very well 
 with the testimonies of the ancients,, who inform us^ 
 that John lived to a great age, 
 
 iRENiEUs, in two places of his work against He- 
 retics, says, "That John lived to the time of Tra- 
 jan," which will bring us down to A.D. 98. 
 
 EusEBius understands Clement of Alexandria 
 to say the same thing. 
 
 Origen also testifies, <' That John having lived 
 Jong in Asia, was buried at Ephesus." 
 
 FoLTCRATES, who wrote in the second century, 
 and was bishop of Ephesus, asserts, *' That John 
 was buried in that city." 
 
 Jerome, in his book of Illustrious Men, and in 
 his work against Jovinian, sa) s, " That the apos. 
 tie John lived in Asia to the time of Trajan 5 and 
 
817 
 
 dying; at a sjreat ag;e, in the sixty -eighth year of 
 our Lord's passion, was buried near the city of 
 Ephesus. " This account would bringdown the 
 death of John to A. D. 100, in which year, it if= 
 placed by this writer, in his Chronicon. 
 
 The testimonies for the genuineness of the gospel 
 of John, are as full and satisfactory as could be de- 
 sired. 
 
 Irenjeus tells us," That the evangelist John de- 
 signed, by his Gospel to confute the errors, which 
 Cerinthus had infused into the minds of the people, 
 and had been infused by those who were called 
 Nicolaitons ; and to convince them, tbat there was 
 one God, who made all things by his Word ; and 
 not as they imagined, one who was the Creator, 
 and another, who was the Father of our Lord ; one, 
 who was the Son of the Creator, and another who 
 was the Christ, who continued impassible, and de- 
 scended upon Jesus, the Son of the Creator." 
 
 Jerome fully confirms this testimony of Irenacus, 
 and says, '^* That when St. John was in Asia, where 
 there arose the heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus, 
 and others, who denied that Christ was come in the 
 flesh; that is, denied his divine nature, whom he, in 
 his Epistle calls Antichrists, and St. Paul frequent- 
 ly condemns, in his Epistles, he was forced by al- 
 most all the bishops of Asia, and the deputations 
 of many other churches, to write more plainly con- 
 cerning the divinity of our Saviour, and to soaraFoHt 
 T 2 
 
sis 
 
 in a discourse on the word, not more bold than 
 happy/' 
 
 " It is related in ecclesiastical history, that John, 
 when solicited by the brethren to writCyansweredy 
 that he would not do it unless a public day of faS't- 
 ing and prayer was appointed to implore God's as- 
 sistance ; which being done, and the solemnity be- 
 ing honoured with a satisfiictory revelation from 
 God, he broke forth into these words, In the be- 
 
 GIMilNG WAS THE WORD," &C. 
 
 Jerome in his book of Illustrious Men, says, "John 
 wrote a gospel at the desire of the bishops of Asi;i, 
 against Cerinthus, and other heritics,especially liie- 
 doctrine of the Ebionites,^ then springing up, who 
 say, that Christ did not exist before the birth of 
 Mary: for vvhir-h reason he was obliged to declare 
 his divine nativity. Another reason of his writing 
 is also n-entioned, which is, that after having read 
 the volumes of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he ex- 
 pressed his appiobation of their history as true : 
 bur observed, tliat they had recorded an account of 
 but one year f our Lord's ministry, even the last 
 after the imprisonment of John, (the Bautist) in 
 which ali^o he suffered. Omitting therefore that 
 year, /"in a great measure) the history of which 
 had been written by the .jther three, he related 
 the Acts of the preceding time, before John was 
 shut up in prison, as may appear to those who read 
 the four Evangelists, which may serve to ac- 
 
ei9 
 
 count, for the seeming diflerence between Joha 
 ami tl)e rest" 
 
 AirorsTiNE, in conformity with the account of 
 Jerome, says, "That this Evang<list wrote con- 
 cerning the co-eternal divinity of Christ against 
 heretics." 
 
 Lampk has called in question these early testi- 
 monies re«if)ecting the occasion of writing this Gos- 
 pel, and has attempted to prove by argument, that 
 John had no view to any pariicular hereiics, in the 
 coinnienrement of hi> Go^pil. 
 
 Laroner has taken the same side, and adduces 
 several argumcnis in favour of Lanipf 's opinifm. 
 TiTMAN adopts the satue opinion But the probable 
 reasonings if ingeni' us mm, u hen opposed ti> such 
 a weight of ancit nt tcstimtmv, in relation to a mat- 
 ter o I tact, which occnrred at no lontc distance be- 
 fore their time, deserve very little coniiideration. 
 And, indeed, after reading Lardner's arguments, I 
 must say, that ihey appear to me to have no high 
 degree of plausibility. 
 
 Tliat C'l RiN J nrjs lived in the time of the apostle 
 John, and was kno^n to him, is evident from ano- 
 ther tes'intony of Ike'jEV:^, which has been often 
 (pioted. It is a stoiy, \\hich he says, some i^ersuns 
 in his time I ad fmm Polycahp, the disciple of 
 John ; which, is as follo\»8, *• John goins lo i cer- 
 tai'i b ttb .It Fphesus. a d perceivin;i that Cerin- 
 thus, that noted arch-here>lic, was in the bath, im- 
 
220 
 
 mediately leaped out, and said, Let us go home, 
 lest the bath siiould fall down upon us, having in 
 it such a heretic, as Ceriuthus, that euemy of 
 truth." 
 
 Augustine, moreover, asserts, " That John is 
 the last of the Evaiig;eUsts. '^ 
 
 Chrysostom supposes, that John did not write 
 his gospel till after the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 
 Paulinus sa}'S, ''It had been handed down by 
 tradition, that Jo'in survived all the other apostits, 
 and wrote the last of the four Evangelists, and so 
 as to C'infirm thtir most certain history." Again, 
 he observes, " That in the beginning of John's gos- 
 pel all heretics are confuted. " 
 
 CosMAs, of Alexandria, informs us, "That when 
 John dwelt at Ephesus, there were deavered lo 
 him by the faithful, the writings of the other 
 three Evangelists. Receiving them he said, that 
 what they had written was well written ; but some 
 things were omitted by them, which were need- 
 ful to be related. And being desired by the faith- 
 ful, he also published his writing, as a kind of 
 supplement to the rest." 
 
 Isidore of Seville, says, ** That John wrote the 
 last in Asia." 
 
 Theophylact computed, that John wrote 
 about two and thirty years after Christ's Ascen- 
 sion. 
 
 EuTHYMius, says, " That this gospel was no 
 
221 
 
 written until long after the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem." 
 
 Ntcephortts, ** That John wrote ,last of all, 
 about six and thirty years, after our Lord's ascen- 
 sion to Heaven." 
 
 Havingexhibited the testimonies of the ancients* 
 it may not be amiss, to set down the opinions of 
 some ot the moderns, relative to the time when 
 this fjospel was written. 
 
 Mill, Fabricius, LeClerc, Jones, and many 
 others, aojree that John wrote his gospel, about the 
 year of our Lord, 97. 
 
 Wetstein thinks it mischt have been written 
 about thirty two years after the ascension. 
 
 Basnagk and Lampe, are inclined to believe, 
 that it was written before the destruction of Je- 
 rusalem. 
 
 Whiston and Lardner adopt the same opin- 
 ion. 
 
 The gospel of St. John is cited by Clement o^ 
 Rome ; by Uarnabas ; by Ignatius ; by Theo- 
 PHiLus of Antioch ; by Iken^us ; and by Cle- 
 ment of Alexandria, in mote than forty instances. 
 And by all those writers, who lived with, or imme- 
 diately after the apostles, this gospel is appealed to, 
 as inspired Scripture : and trie saine is the fact, in 
 regard to Orioen, Jlrome, Augustine, and all 
 the Fathers who came aft* r this period. Nearly 
 the whole of this gcspel could be made u[) from the 
 citations of the writers of the first four centuries. 
 
123 
 
 It was never excluded from any church, or any 
 catalogue of the books of the New Testament, 
 and therefore possesses every evidence of being 
 Canonical, which any reasonable man could de- 
 mand. 
 
SBOTION" IX. 
 
 — ~«©e«— 
 
 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES— LUKE THE AUTFrOR 
 — CVVOMCVL AUTHOHirV UN'DISPU IK!) IIY THE 
 FA rilKRS— KEJEGIKL) ONLY BY IICKETICS. 
 
 That the Acts of the Apostles is the writing; of 
 Luke the Evatig;elist, is manifest from the dedica- 
 tion to Theophiliis, in which reference is made to 
 his gospel, which was first written. And it is niso 
 cvi(ient, from the uniform testimony of all antiqui- 
 ty ; the fact never havinj; 'leen once questioned, 
 by any member of the catholic ohur-h. 
 
 But it is pleasint to read the explicit testimonies 
 of the Fathers, to the sacred books of the Nevv 
 Testament : I will, therefore, bring forward, the 
 most important. 
 
 Iren^us, repeatedly cites passages from this 
 book, saying, << Luke the disciple and follower of 
 Paul, says thus." "Luke the inseperable com- 
 panion and fellow labourer of Paul, wrote thus." 
 He takes particular notice of Luke's using the 
 first person plural, xve endeavoured — we came — we 
 went — we sat down — toe spoke, &c. And enters 
 into some discussion to pro\'e ♦* Luke's fitness for 
 writing a just and true history." 
 
 In another place, he shous, "That St. Luke's 
 Acts of the Apostles, ought to be equally received 
 
224 
 
 with his gospp] ; for that in them he has carefully 
 delivered t. us the truth, and given to us a sure 
 rule for salvation." Again, he says, -'Paul's ac- 
 count of ills going to Jerusalem, exactly agrees 
 with Luke's, m the Acts." 
 
 Clemens Alexan-irinus, citing PauFs speech at 
 Athens, introduces it thus, "So Luke, in the Acts 
 of the Apostles, relates." 
 
 Tertullian cites several passages out of the 
 Acts of the Apostles, which he calls, Commen- 
 tarius Lucse^ The Commentary of Luke. 
 
 Okigen, ascribes the Acts of the Apostles to 
 Luke. 
 
 EusEBius says, " Luke has left us two inspired 
 volumes, The Gospel, and the Acts." 
 
 Jerome expressly asserts, "That the Acts, was 
 the composition of Luke." 
 
 The Syriac Verion of the New Testainent, as- 
 cribes the Acts to Luke ; and in some very an- 
 cient Manuscripts of the New Testament, his name 
 is prefixed to this book. 
 
 To this uniform body of ancient testimony, there 
 is nothing which can be objected, except that the 
 author of the Synopsis, commonly ascribed to 
 Athanasius, says, "Peter dictated the Acts of 
 the Apostles, but Luke wrote them." But if this 
 were true, it would not in the least detract from 
 the authority of the book, but rather increase it. 
 One testimony, however, can be of no avail, against 
 
986 
 
 so many ; and we know, that Luke knew most of 
 tlie facts recorded in this book, by his own person- 
 al observation, and needed no one to dictate them 
 to him. Besides, Peter was nOt an eye-witness of 
 the greater number of the facts, related in this 
 book. 
 
 The time when the Acts of the Apostles was 
 written, may be determined pretty accurately, by 
 the time when the history which it contains ter- 
 minates ; that is about A. D. 62 ; for no doubt, he 
 began to write soon after he left Rome. 
 
 That the Acts of the Apostles is of Canonical 
 authority is proved, from its having a place in all 
 the ancient catalogues of the books of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 The same is evinced, by the numerous citations 
 from this book, by the early Fathers ; who expli- 
 citly appeal to it, as of divine authority — as an in- 
 spired book. 
 
 It is plainly referred to in more instances than 
 one, by Clement of Rome, the fellow labourer of 
 Paul. 
 
 PoLYCARP the disciple of John, also cites a pas- 
 sage from the Acts, in his Epistle to the Philip- 
 pians. 
 
 It is cited by Justin Martyr, in his Exhor- 
 tation to the Greeks. 
 
 It is distinctly cited by Irenjeus, more than 
 thirty times, in some of which inslancfs it is ex- 
 pressly called, Scripture ; and the credit and au- 
 
226 
 
 thority of the book are largely discussed, in hi« 
 work against Heretics. 
 
 The citations of Terttjlltan, from this book, 
 are too numerous to be particularized. He also 
 quotes it expressly, under the nameof Scuipture; 
 *' Which part of Scripture," says he, " they who 
 do not receive, must deny the descent of the Holy 
 Ghost, and be ignorant of the infant state of the 
 Christian Church."* 
 
 This book was also constantly read as Scripture, 
 in the weekly assemblies of Christians, all over the 
 world. 
 
 From the testimonies adduced above, it will ap- 
 pear with convincing evidence, how unfounded is 
 the opinion of some learned men, tliat the Acts, in 
 the early period of the church, was verylittle known^ 
 comparatively, and very little esteemed. This 
 opinion has been favoured by such men as Father 
 Simon, and Dr. Mill; and has no other foundation 
 than a passage in the Prolegomena to the Acts, as- 
 cribed to Chrtsostom, the genuineness of which is 
 very doubtful. But if Chrysostom was the au- 
 thor of this passage, how little can it weigh against 
 such a host of witnesses. The passage referred to, 
 is, " This book is not so much as known to many; 
 they know neither the book nor by whom it was 
 written." Now, the same might be asserted, re- 
 specting all the books in the Canon, There are ma- 
 
 * De Prescriptione. 
 
227 
 
 iiy persons ignorant of what ihey contain, and un- 
 acquainted with their object. But there is no need 
 to dwell longeron this objection. 
 
 The Acts of the Aposiles, therefore, has 
 an indisputable claim to a place in the sacred Canon. 
 No better, or stronger evidence, can be desired. 
 It is true, that some of the earliest heretics did not 
 receive this book as (Canonical. Tertullian in- 
 forms us, that it was rejected by Cerdo, the mas- 
 ter of Marcion, and some others whom he does not 
 name, but whom he refutes. 
 
 PniLASTRius informs us, that the Cerinthiansdid 
 not receive this book. 
 
 And Augustine tells us, that thcManichees did 
 not, because they considered Manes to be the Par- 
 aclete, promised by the Saviour ; but in the Acts^ 
 it is declared to have been the Holy Ghost, which 
 descended on the apostles, on the day of Pentecost. 
 
 " But, " says Father Simon," let us leave these 
 enthusiasts, who had no other reason for rejecting 
 the books, received by tlie whole church, except 
 that they did not suit with the idea which they 
 had formed of the Christian Religion, " 
 
SECTION X. 
 
 TESTIMONIES TO THE CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF 
 THE FOURTEEN EPISTLES OF PAUL. 
 
 On the subject of Paul's Epistles, there is a 
 universal consent among the ancients, except as it 
 relates to the Epistle to the Hebrews ; which hav- 
 ing been published without the apostle's name and 
 usual salutation, many conjectured, that it was the 
 production of another person : and while some as- 
 cribed it to Barnabas, others thought that either 
 Clement, or Luke, was the writer. There seems 
 to have been a difference between the Eastern and 
 Western churches on this subject ; for the Greeks 
 appear to have entertained no doubts, in regard to 
 Paul's being the author of this Epistle : it was 
 only among the Latins, that its genuineness was 
 a matter of uncertainty. And the most learned 
 among these, adopted the opinion, that it was the 
 production of Paul ; and, by degrees, its autho- 
 rity was fully established in the West, as well as 
 the East. The true state of the case will, how- 
 ever, appear more clearly, by citing the testimonies 
 of the Fathers, than by any general representa- 
 tion. 
 
 Although, Clement, the fellow-labourer of 
 Paul, frequently citesr passages from the gospels 
 
«29 
 
 and Epistles, yet he never expressly mentions 
 any book of the New Testament, except Paul** 
 First Epistle to the Corinthians ; to whom also 
 Clement's Epistle was addressed. His words are, 
 **Take into your hands the Epistle of blessed 
 Paul, the apostle. What did he at first write to 
 you, in the beginning of the gospel ? Verily he 
 did, by the Spirit, admonish you, concerning 
 himself, and Cephas, and Apollos ; because that 
 even then you did form parties." There are ia 
 this Papistic of Clement, many other passages, in 
 which the words of Paul are cited, but tliis is the 
 only one in which his name is mentioned. 
 
 Her]mas, and Ignatius also, often quote the 
 words of Paul's Epistles, but the book from which 
 they arc taken, is not designated. 
 
 PoLTCARP, the disciple of the apostle John, and 
 bishop of Smyrna, who suffered martyrdom, in 
 extreme old age, about the middle of the second 
 century, after sentence of death was pronounced 
 upon him, wrote an Epistle to the Philippians, in 
 which he makes express mention of Paul's First 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, '*Do ye not know, 
 that the saints shall judge the worlds as Paul 
 teaches." 
 
 He also quotes a passage from the Epistle to 
 the Ephesians, under the name of Holy Scripture. 
 **For I trust," says he, *' ihat ye are well exer- 
 
 See 1 Cor. vj. 2. 
 
 XT 2 
 
330 
 
 cised in tlie Holy Scriptures — As in tliese Scrip- 
 tures it is said, Be ye angry and sin not ; let not 
 the sun go down upon your wrath. Poly- 
 carp, also cites passages from the second Epis- 
 tle to the Corinthians ; from the Epistle to the 
 Galatians ; from the First and Second to the 
 Thessalonians ; from the Epistle to the Hebrews \ 
 and from both the Epistles to Timothy; but 
 as is usual, with the apostolical Fathers, he does 
 not refer to the books or authors from which he 
 makes his citations. 
 
 Justin Martyr, quotes many passages in 
 the very words of Paul, without mentioning his 
 name. But iRENiEus distinctly, and frequent- 
 ly, quotes thirteen of Paul's Epistles. He takes 
 nothing, indeed, from the short Epistle to Phile- 
 mon, which can easily be accounted for, by the 
 brevity of this letter, and the special object which 
 the apostle had in view, in penning it. 
 
 It would fill a large space, to put down all the 
 passages cited by Irenaeus, from the Epistles of 
 Paul. Let it suffice to give one from each : " This 
 same thi:ig, Paul has explained, writing to the 
 Romans, Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ, sepa- 
 rated to the gospel of God. And again, wiiting 
 to the Romans of Israel, he says. Whose are the 
 Fathers, and of whom, concerning the fleshy 
 Christ came, who is God over all blessed forever- 
 
 Ephes. iv. 26. 
 
231 
 
 more. "This also Paul manifestly shows, iu 
 his Epistle to the Corinthians, saying, Moreover 
 brcthi'en I would no/ that ye should he igyiorantj 
 how that all our fathers were under the cloud. 
 Paul, in the Second to the Corinthians, says, In 
 whom the God of this world hath blinded the 
 eyes of them that believe not.'' " The aposile 
 Paul says, in his Epistle to the Galatians, fVhere- 
 fore then serveth the law of works ? It ivas added 
 until the seed should come, to whom the prom- 
 ise was made.'' '* As also the hiesscd Paul says, 
 in ihc Epistle lo the Ephesi.nis, For ive are mem- 
 bers of his body, of his Jlesh, and of his bones." 
 "As also Paul says to the Philippians, I am full 
 having received of Epaphroditus, the things 
 which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet 
 smell, a sacrifice, acceptable^ well pleasing to 
 God.'" "Again, Paul says, in his p]pistle to the 
 Colossians, Luke the beloved physician saluteth 
 you." "The apostle in the First Epistle to the 
 Thessalonians says, Jind the God of peace sancti- 
 fy you wholly." '* And again, in iht; Second Epis- 
 tle to the Thessalonians, speaking 'tf Antichrist, he 
 says, ^nd then shall that wicked one be reveal- 
 ed." In the heginning of his work against here- 
 
 Rom. i. 1. ix. 5. Cor. x. 1. 
 
 2 Cor. iv. 4. Gal. iii. 19. 
 
 Ephes. V.30. Phil. iv. 13. 
 
 Col. iv. 14. 1 TJies. V. 23, 
 
 Thes. XI. 
 
252 
 
 aifs, he says, << Whereas some havinpj rejected the 
 truth, hringin lying words, and vain getiealogies, 
 rather than godly edifying, which ?s in faithy 
 as saith the Apostle." This Epistle is often quoted 
 by Irenaeus, in the work above mentioned. Speak- 
 ing ot Linus, bishop of Rome, he says, *' Of this 
 Linus, Paul makes mention in his Epistle to Tim- 
 othy, Eubulus greeteth thee^ and Pudens, and 
 Linus " '* As Paul says,.^ man that is an here' 
 tic after the first and second admonition, reject.'* 
 Thus, we have seen, that Irenaeus, who lived in 
 tht age immediately succeeding that in which Paul 
 lived and wrote, has borne explicit testimony to all 
 the Epistles of that apostle, which have his name 
 prefixed, except the short Papistic to Philemon, from 
 which, it is probable, he had no occasion to take 
 any authorities, as it is very concise, and addressed 
 to a friend on a particular subject, in which Paul 
 felt deeply interested. 
 
 As to the Epistle to the Hebrews^ which is ano- 
 nymous, there is ample evidence, that Irenjeus 
 was acquainted with it ; but it is doubtful, whei her 
 he esteemed it to be the production of Paul, or 
 some other person. As he resided in France, it is 
 very possible, that he participated in the prejudice 
 of tlie Western church, on this point. Euskbius in- 
 forms us, that he had seen a work of Iren^us, 
 which has not reached our times, in which he 
 
 1 Tim. i. 4. 2 Tim. iv. 21. Tit. iii. 10. 
 
333 
 
 cites passaoces from the Epistle to the Hehrews ; 
 bii he does not siy, that he quoted them as Paul's. 
 A.iul in his works, which are still extant, there 
 are several passagjes cited from this Epistle, but 
 without direct reference to the source whence thej 
 were derived. 
 
 Athenagoras quotes from several of Paul's 
 Epistles ; but as has been seen to be the custom of 
 the early Fathers, he commonly uses the words, 
 without informing the reader, from what author 
 they were borrowed. There is, hOwevfr, one 
 passage, in which he refers to both the First and 
 Second Epistles to the Corinlhiana, as being the 
 production of the apostle Paul. *' It is manifest 
 therefore," says he, " that according to the apostlC; 
 This corruptible and dissipated yniist put on 
 incorniption, that the dead heiix^ raised itp.^ and 
 the separated and even consumed parts being 
 again united, every one may receive justly, the 
 things he hath done in the body^ whether they 
 he good or bad.''''* 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, abounds in quotations 
 from Paul's Epistles ; a few of which will be suf- 
 ficient for our purp'jse. •* The apostle, in the 
 Epistle to the Romans,, says. Behold therefore the 
 goodness and severity of God.^^ *'The blessed. 
 Paul, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, says, 
 Brethren be not children in understanding, how- 
 
 I Cor. XV. 54. 2 Cor. v. 10. 
 
234 
 
 beitf in malice be ye children, but in under- 
 standing be ye men. " He hus also many quotations 
 from the Second to the Corinthians, " The apos- 
 tle," says he, "calls the common doctrine of the 
 Faith, a savour of knowledge, in the Second to 
 the Corinthians." '< Hence also," says Paul, " ye 
 have these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse 
 our hearts from all filthiness of the flesh and 
 spirit, perfecting holiness, in the fear of God. 
 "Whereupon, Paul also writing to the Galatians, 
 says, My little children of whom I travail in 
 birth, again until Christ be formed in you.^' 
 
 *' Whereupon the blessed apostle says, I testify 
 in the Lord that ye walk not as other Gentiles 
 tvalk.^^ Again ; ^^ Submitting yourselves one to 
 another in the fear of God.''^ He quotes part of 
 the First and Second chapters of the Epistle to the 
 Philippians, expressly ; and in another place, he 
 quotes the same epistle, after this manner : '* The 
 Apostle of the Lord also exhorting the Macedon- 
 ians, says, The Lord is at hand, take heed that 
 ive be not fou7id empty." 
 
 Clement, also, quotes the Epistle to the Colos- 
 sians, and the Epistles to the Tiiessalonians. From 
 the First Epistle to Timothy, he cites this passage, 
 OTlmothy, keep that which is committed to thy 
 trust, avoidins^profane and vain bablings, and 
 oppositions of science, falsely so called, which 
 
 1 Cor. xiv. 20. 1 Cor. ii. 14. 2 Cor. vii. 1. 
 
 Gal iv. 9. Ephes. iv. 17, 18. Eph. V. 21.» 
 
 Eph. iv. 5. 
 
2S5 
 
 som/i pre/em' nsc, have erred concernitiff the 
 Jailh. Oil wiiich he Dbs('rv<s, <'llerciic>» con- 
 futed hy this saying, reject both Epistles to riino- 
 thy." The Epistle to Tilus, is also quoted sev- 
 eral tim»^s ; and he remarks, in one place, " that 
 Paul had cited F^pimenides, he Cretan, in his Kois- 
 tl to Titus, after this mann»r, Owe of them.sr/i'cs, 
 a poet of their oion, said, the Cretans ac lU 
 luays liars. ^^ The Epistle to the Hebnw- is il- 
 so disti!,ctlv quot' d and is ascribed to Paul, as its 
 author. Wherefore, vvriting to the Hebrews, who 
 were declining from the faith to the Law, Paul says, 
 Have ye need that any teach yon again, which 
 he the frst principles of the oracles of God, and 
 are become such, as have need of milk, and not 
 of strong meat. 
 
 Tkrtullian frequently, and expressly, quotes 
 most of Paul's Epistles. In one place, he says, "I 
 will therefore by no means say, God, nor Lord, 
 but I will follow the apostles ; so that if the Father 
 and the Son are mentioned together, I will say, 
 God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Lord. But 
 when I mention Christ only, I will call him God 
 as the apostle does, Of tohom Christ came, ivho 
 is over all God blessed for evermore." 
 
 Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, speaks 
 ot tliose, who doubted, or denied the resurrection. 
 
 In his Treatise on Monogamy, he computes, that it 
 
 1 Tim. vi. 20 21. Tit. i. 12, 13. 
 
 Heb. V. 12. Rom. ix.'s. 
 
236 
 
 was about one hundred and sixty years from Paul's 
 writing this Epistle, to the time when he wrote. 
 '^'In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, they sup- 
 pose the apostle Paul to have forgiven the same 
 fornicator, who in the First, he declared, ought to 
 be delivered to Satan tor the destruction of theflesh." 
 '' But of this, no more need be said, if it be the 
 same Paul, who, writing to the Galatians, reckons 
 heresy among the works of the flesh ; and who di. 
 rects Titus to reject a man that is a heretic, after the 
 first admonition, knowing that he that is such is 
 subverted and sinneth, being condemned of him- 
 
 self.'' 
 
 " I pass," says he, *•' to another Epistle, which 
 
 we have inscribed to the Ephesians ; but the he- 
 retics, to the Laodiceans." Again, "According 
 to the true testimony of the church, we suppose 
 this Epistle to have been sent to the Ephesians, 
 and not to the Laodiceans ; but Marcion has en- 
 deavoured to alter this inscription, upon pretence 
 of having made a more diligent search into this 
 matter. But the inscriptions are of no impor- 
 tance, for the apostle wrote to all, when he wrote 
 to some." 
 
 Speaking of the Christian's hope, he says, <<0f 
 which hope and expectation, Paul to the Galatians 
 says. For we through the spirit wait for the hope 
 of righteouness by faith. He does not say, we 
 have obtained it, but he speaks of the hope of the 
 righteousness of God, in the day of judgment, when 
 
237 
 
 our reward shall be decided. Of which bcine; ia 
 suspense, when he wrote t.j the Ptiiiippians, he 
 said, If by any means, I might attain unto tlic 
 resiirrection of the dead; not as though I fuid 
 already attained, or ivere already perfect. "The 
 aposile, writiiigto the Colos>.ians, expressly cautions 
 against philosophy, Beware lest any man spoil you 
 through philosophy and vain deceit^ after the 
 tradition of men, and not after the instruction 
 of the Spirit." "And in llie Epistle to the Thes- 
 salonians, the aposile adds, But of the times 
 and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that 1 
 write iDitoyon. For yourselves knotv perfectly, 
 that the day of the Lord so comet h as a thief in the 
 ?iight." "And in the second episile to the 
 same persons, he writes with gpreater solicitude. 
 But I beseech yon, brethren, by the coming of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, thai ye be ?wt soon shaken in 
 mind, nor be troubled." "And this word, Paul 
 has used in writing to Timotby, O Timothy keej} 
 that which is committed to thy trust." 
 
 That remarkable passag;e of Tertullian, in 
 which he is supposed to refer to the existina; auto- 
 i;raphs of the Epistles of Paul, althouijb referred to 
 already, may with propriety be here introduced. 
 "Well,".says he," if you be vvillin;:; to exercise your 
 curiosity profitably, in the business of your salvation, 
 visit the apostolical churches, in which the very- 
 chairs of the apostles still preside, in which their 
 
 Phil. iii. 11,12. 1 Tlics. v. 1, 2, 3. 2 TJies. ii. 2. 
 
 Col. ii. 8. 1 Tim. vi. 30. 
 
 X 
 
238 
 
 very authentic letters (Authenticse Literae) are re- 
 cited, sending forth the voice, and representing 
 the countenance of each one of them. Is Achaia 
 near you ? You have Corinth. If you are not 
 far from Macedonia ; you have Philippi ; — :you 
 have Thessalonica. If you can go to Asia ; you 
 have Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you 
 have Rome, from whence also we may be easily 
 satisfied." 
 
 There are three opinions respecting the meaning 
 of this phrase .^z«Me«Y?c« Literse ; authentic let- 
 ters ; the first is, that it signifies the original manu- 
 scripts of the apostles; — the authographs which were 
 sent severally to the churches named, to all of 
 which Paul addressed Epistles; the second opinion 
 is, that Tertullian meant to refer his readers to 
 the original Greek of these epistles, which they had 
 been accustomed to read in a Latin version ; and 
 the third is, that this phrase means, well authenti- 
 cated letters; Epistles, which by application to 
 these churches, could be proved to be, genuine wri- 
 tings of the apostles. 
 
 Now, that the first of these is the true sense of 
 Tertullian's words, will, I think, appear very 
 probable, if we consider, that if those autographs 
 were preserved, even with common care, they 
 would have been extant in the time of Tertullian, 
 who reckons only 160 years from the time oi 
 Paul's writing to his own time. 
 
 And again, unless he meant this, there is no reason 
 why he should direct his readers only to those ci- 
 
239 
 
 lies \\ liicli had received Epistles ; for doubtless ma- 
 ny other churches, which mi»;ht he more accessi- 
 ble, had aiithenlic copies, in the Greek languap;e. 
 Such copies undoubtedly existetl in Africa, where 
 Tcrtullian lived. Miey need not therefore have 
 been directed to go to Rome, or Corinth, or F^phe- 
 sus, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, to seethe Epis- 
 »los of Paul, in Greek. 
 
 Neither was it necessary to take a journey to 
 these cities to be fully convinced, that the letteris 
 Nvhich had been received by them, were genuine; for 
 thft evidence of this fact was not confined to these 
 distinguished places, but was diflfused all over 
 the Christian world. 
 
 From these considerations, I conclude, that in 
 Tertullian'^ time, tliese churches had in possession, 
 and preserved with care, the identical Epistles sent 
 to them, by Paul. This sense is confirmed, by 
 what he says, of their being able to hear the voice, 
 and behold the countenance of the apostles, and sees 
 the very seats on which they had been accus- 
 tomed to sit when they presided in the church. 
 These scats were still occupied by the bishops, and 
 seemed to preside, as they were venerable from 
 having been once occupied by the apostles. 
 
 Tertullian was acquainted with the Epistle to the 
 Ilebrovvs, for he quotes several passages from the 
 sixth chapter, but he ascribes it to Barnabas, and 
 not to Paul. In this opinion, I believe he is singular. 
 
 O'dGEN, quotes Paul's Epistles, as expressly and 
 frequently, as is done, by almost any modern writer. 
 
.240 
 
 To transcribe all the pa^sasffs cited by him, would 
 be to put down a larsre portion of tliC vvritings 
 of this apostle. A few instances, Avill be sulficient. 
 In one passage, in his wtjrk against Celsiis, he 
 mentions several of Paul's f^pistles t02;tther, in the 
 following manner, "Do you, first of all explain the 
 Epistles of h:m who says these things, and having 
 diligently read, and atteijded to tiie sense of the 
 words there used, particularly, it) that to the Ephe- 
 sians ; tothe Thessaloaians ; to the Philippians ; to 
 the Romans, &c." The epistle tothe Ephesians, is 
 elsewhere quoted by Origen, with the inscription 
 which it now bears. 
 
 After employing an argument founded on a pas- 
 sage, quoted from the Epistle to the Hebrews, he 
 observes; "But possibly someone pressed with 
 this argument, will take refuge in the opinion of 
 those who reject this Epistle, as not written by 
 Paul.'^ In answer to such, we intend to write a 
 distinct discourse, to prove this to be an Epistle of 
 Paul.'^ In his citations of this Epistle, therefore, he 
 constantly ascribes it to Paul, in such expressions 
 as these, "Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews," 
 *'In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the samePaul says." 
 
 But Origen not only expresses his own opinion 
 on this subject, but asserts that by the tradition re- 
 ceived by the ancients, it was ascribed to Paul. 
 His words are, "For it is not without reason, that 
 the ancients have h:ii.ded it down to us as Paul's.'* 
 Now. when we take into view that Origen lived 
 
 J 
 
241 
 
 within one hunclretl years of Ihe time of the apostles, 
 and that he was a prrson of most extraordinary 
 learning;, and that he had travelled much through 
 difTercnt countries, his testimony on this point is of 
 great weight ; especially, since his opinion is found- 
 ed on the testimony of the ancients, by whom he 
 must mean the contemporaries of the apostles. 
 At the same time, however, he mentions, that 
 some ascribed it to Luke, and others to Clement of 
 Rome. 
 
 CvrKiAx, often quotes the Epistles of Paul. 
 *' According," says he, ''to what the blessed 
 apostle wrote in his Epistle to the Romans, Every 
 07ie shall give accoiail of himself to God^ there- 
 fore, let us not judge one another." In his 
 First hook of Testimonies, he says. In the First 
 Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, it is said, 
 Moreover, brethren, I ivojild not ye should be 
 ignorant, hoiv that all our Fathoms were bapti- 
 zed unto Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea." 
 *' Likewise, in the Second Epistle to the Corin- 
 thians, it is written, '•' Their minds ivere blinded 
 until this day." '^In like manner, blessed 
 Paul, by the inspiration of the Lord, says, Ao^i/ 
 he that ministereth seed to the sower, ininistei- 
 bread for your food and multiply your seed 
 sown, and increase the fruits of your righteous- 
 ness, that ye m,ay be enriched in all things.'" 
 
 Rom. xiv. 12. 1 Cor. .x. 1. 
 
 2 Cor. iii. 15. 2 Cor. ix. 10. 
 
242 
 
 ''Likewise Paul to the Galatiaiis, says, When the 
 jfulness of time ivas comCy God sent forth his 
 Son, made of a woman. " 
 
 Cyprian, expressly quotes the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians, under that. title. "But the apostle 
 Paul, speaking of the same thing more clearly and 
 plainly, writes to the Ephesians, and says, Christ 
 loved the church,, and gave himself for it, that 
 he m,ight sanctify and cleanse it, ivith the wash- 
 ing of ivater. So also, Paul to the Phillppians, 
 says, Who being appointed in the form of God, 
 did not earnestly affect to be equal with God, 
 hut m.ade himself of no reputation, taking on 
 him the form of a servant ; and being made in 
 the likeness of man, and found in fashion as a 
 man^ he humbled himself, becoming obedient 
 unto death, even the death of the cross." "In 
 the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians, it is written. 
 Continue in prayer, watching i7i the same.^^ 
 ■' Likewise, the blessed apostle Paul, full of the 
 Holy Ghost, sent to call and convert the Gentiles, 
 warns and teaches. Beware lest any man spoil you 
 through philosophy, &c.'' He also quotes both 
 the Epistles to the Thessalonians. In his book of 
 Testimonies, he says, " If the apostle Paul writing 
 to Timothy, said. Let no 7nan despise thy youth, 
 mucii more may it be said of you and your col- 
 leagues, let no man despise thy age." " Therefore 
 
 Gal. iv. 5. Ephcs. v. 25, 26. Phil. ii. 6—B- 
 
 Col. ii. S. vi. 2. 1 Tim. w. W. 
 
243 
 
 the apostle wriles to Timothy, and exhorts, thai 
 a bisfmp shuit/d not strivCy but be gentle, mid 
 apt to teach.'''' These two Epistles arc elsewhere 
 quoted distinctly, as the First and Second to Tim- 
 othy, lie also quotes from the Epistle to Titus, 
 the passage, <'»^ man that is an heretic after 
 the first and second admonition, reject.''^ 
 
 Cyprian, no where, quotes the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews. Il IS prohal)'e therefore, that he, like 
 some others of the Latin Fatlu.rs, did nut believe 
 it to be Paul's ; or was iloubtful respecting it 
 
 Neither dues he cite the Epistle to rhileinon , 
 of this 1)0 oihrr reiison need be scnight, hut its con- 
 tents, and bif.'vity. How many Christian autiiors 
 have written volumes, without any citation of that 
 Ejiistle. 
 
 VicToRiNUS, who lived near the close of the 
 third century, often quotes Paul's Epistles ; and 
 among the rest, he cites the Epistle to the He- 
 brews, which he seems to have believed to be the 
 production of Paul. 
 
 DvoNisiusof Alexandria, also a contemporary of 
 Origen, and a man of great learning, in the few 
 fragments of his works which remain, often refers 
 to Paul's Epistles. 
 
 NovATUs, presbyter of the church of Rome, who. 
 flourished about the middle of the third century, 
 expr;ssly cites from the Epistle to the Romans, 
 thai famous testimony to Christ's divinity, so often 
 quoted by the Faihers, ff'hose are t/ie Fathers, 
 
 Tit. jii. 10. 2 Tnn. ij. 24. 
 
244 
 
 of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who 
 is over all God blessed forever. And it deserves 
 to be r»col]ected, that althous;^ so many, begin- 
 ning with Irenaeus, have cited this passage, yet none 
 of them appear to have th ^ught the words capable 
 of any other meaning, than the plain, obvious 
 sens-, which strikes the reader at first. That it 
 was a mere exclamation of praise, sterns never to 
 have enti^red their minds. Novatus, also, quotes 
 the First and Second EpistUs to the Corinthians, 
 the Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, 
 and to the Philippians. From this last Epistle he 
 cites thcise remarkable words. Who being in the 
 form of God, and interprets the following clause 
 in exact accordance with another of the Fathers, 
 did not earnestly seek to be like God,ur to be equal 
 with God. He quotes from the Epistle to the Culos- 
 sians, these words, Whether they he tht^ones or do- 
 minions, or principalities, or powers, things vis- 
 ible and invisible, by him all things cofisisf. 
 The Epistles to Timothy, and to Titus, are also 
 cited by this author. 
 
 Methodius, who lived in the later part of the 
 third century, quotes Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 
 Firtst and Second to the Corinthians, To the Gala- 
 tians, To the Ephesians, To the Philippians, To 
 the Colossians, The First to the Thessalonians, 
 and the First to Timothy. He has also taken se> 
 
 Phil. ii. 6. Col. i. .16> 17, 
 
245 
 
 veral passages from the Epistle to the Hehr^vvs ; 
 anil quotes it in such a manner, as to retuhr it 
 highly prohahlc, that he estee(iie«l it to ho a part 
 of Sacred Scripture, and ascribed it to P;iul. 
 
 .Eu!»EBins, the learned historian, undonlitedly re- 
 ceived thirteen Epistles of Paul as genuine ; and 
 he seems to have entertained no donht, res|>ecting 
 the Canonical auth-'Hty of the Epistle to i he. He- 
 brews ; but he sometimes expresses himsell doubt- 
 fully, of iis author; while at other times he quotes 
 it as Paul's, without any a[)parent hesitation. In 
 speaking of the universally acknowjedged Epistle 
 of Clement of Rome, he observes, " In which, 
 inserting many sentiments of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, and also using some of the very words 
 of it, he plainly manifests that Epistle to be no 
 modern writing. And hence, it has, not without 
 reason, been reckoned among the other writings 
 of the apostle ; for Paul having written to the 
 Hebrews in their own language, some think that 
 the Evangelist Luke, others, that this very Clem- 
 ent, translated it ; which last is the more probable 
 of the two, there being a resemblance between the 
 style of the Epistle of Clement, and that to the 
 Hebrews ; nor are the sentiments of these two 
 writings very ditferent." In his Ecclesiastical His- 
 tory, he speaks " Of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 and divers othfr Epistles of Paul." And Theo- 
 doret positively asserts, tiiat Euscbins received this 
 Epistle as PaiiP.-J, and tiiat he manilested that all 
 
246 
 
 the ancients, almost, were of the same opinion. 
 It seems, from these facts, that in the time of Eu- 
 sebius,the churches with which he was acquainted, 
 did generally receive the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 as the writing of Paul. 
 
 Ambrose, bishop of Milan, received fourteen 
 Epistles of Paul. 
 
 Jerome received as undoubted, all Paul's Epis- 
 tles, except that to the Hebrews, concerning which 
 he says, in his Letter to Evanjj;elius, '' That all 
 the Greeks and some of the Latins, received this 
 Epistle." 
 
 And in his letter to Dardanus, "That it was not 
 only received as Paul's, by all the churches of the 
 East, in his time, but by all the Ecclesiastical wri- 
 ters, in former times ; though many ascribe it to 
 Barnabas, or Clement. He u\s'> says, that it was 
 daily read in the churches ; and if the Latiiss did 
 not receive this Epistle, as the Greeks rejected 
 the Revelation of John, he received both ; not be- 
 ing so much influenced by present times, as the 
 judgment of ancient writers, who quote both ; and 
 that not as they quote apocryphal books, and even 
 Heathen writings, but as Canonical and Ecclesias- 
 tical." 
 
 Jerome, in speaking of the writings ofPaul,gives 
 the following very full and satisfactory testimony ; 
 **He wrote,'' says he, '*nine Epistles to seven 
 churches. To the Romans, one; to the Corinthians, 
 two ,: to the Galatians, one ; to the Philippians. 
 
247 
 
 one ; to the Colossians, one ; to the Thessalonians, 
 two ; to tho Ephesians, oru* ; to Timothy, two ; 
 to Titus, one ; to Philemon, one. liutthe Kpistle, 
 cailciJ, TO THK TIkbuews, is not thougiit to be 
 his, bei^iuse of the dilTerence of ai t>;ument ami style ; 
 buf rather Barnabas's, as Teriulli;in thought ; or 
 Luke's, accordino; to some oth r.^ ; or Clement's, 
 who was afterwards bisho]) of Rome ; who bring 
 much with Paul, clothed and adorne Paul's sense, 
 in his own language. Or if it be Paul's, he might 
 decline putting his name to it, in the inscription, 
 for fear of offending the Jews. Moreovi'r, he 
 wrote as a Hebrew to the Hebrews ; it being his 
 own language, whence it came to pass, that being 
 translated, it has more eh gance, in the Greek, than 
 his other Epistles. This they say is the reason 6f 
 its differing from Paul's other writin-js. There 
 is also an Epistle to the Laodiceans ; but it is re- 
 jected by every body." Jerome, commonly quotes 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, as the Apostle Paul's ; 
 and as we have seen before, this was his prevailing 
 opinion, which is not contradicted in the long pas- 
 sage, just cited. 
 
 Augustine received fourteen Epistles of Paul, 
 the last of which, in his catalogue, is, the E[)islle 
 to the Hebrews ; he was aware however, that some 
 in his time thought it of doubtful authority,** How- 
 ever, says he, '* I am inclined to ffdiow the opin- 
 ion of the churches of the East, who receive it, 
 amongthe Canonical Scriptures. 
 
248 
 
 The time when each of these Epistles was writ* 
 ten, taniioc be ascertaineti with any exaotness. 
 It is not t ven aaived Tm<>ng the learned, which was 
 the First of Paul's Epistles. Geuerally, indeeti, it 
 has been thought, that tiie two Epistles to the Tiies- 
 salonians, were composed earliei thaii the others ; 
 but, bf late, some learned men have given prece- 
 dence to the Epistle to the Galatians. And this opin- 
 ion is not altogether confined to the moderns, for 
 Tertullian mentions this Epistle as among; the first 
 of Paul's writings. But the more common opin- 
 ion is, that it was written during the long abodt: of 
 this apostle, at Corinth, Among the advocates of 
 this opinion we find L'Enfant, Beausobre, Lard- 
 ner, &c. ; Grotius, Capel, Witsius, and Wall, sup- 
 pose, that it was written at Ephesus. These last, 
 together with Fabricius and Mill, place the date of 
 this Epistle to the Galatians, after that to the Ro- 
 mans. 
 
 Macknight maintains, that it was written from 
 Antioch, after the Council of Jerusalem ; and of- 
 fers in support of his opinion several plausible ar- 
 guments, v\hich, if they do not prove all that he 
 wishes, seem to render it probable that the time 
 of this Epistle being written, was soon after the 
 Council of Jerusalem. 
 
 Semler, however, is of opiniton that this Epis- 
 tle was written prior to the Council of Jerusa- 
 lem. 
 
,249 
 
 JiVom these various opinions, it is sufficiently 
 evident, that tlic precise date of the Epistle to the 
 Galatians, cannot be ascertained. If we lake the 
 opinions of tho><c who give the earliest date, the 
 time of writing will not be later than A. D. 47. 
 But if we receive as more probable the opinions of 
 thtise who think that it was written after the Coun" 
 cil of Jerusalem, we shall bring it down to the year 
 .50 ; while according to the opinion more com- 
 lYionly adopted, its date will be A. D. 52, or A. D- 
 5.^. And if we prefer the opinions of those who 
 assign the latest date to this Epistle, we shall bring 
 it down several years later, and instead of giv- 
 ing it the first place, will give it the ninth or 
 •tenth. 
 
 There seem to be better daia for determining, 
 that the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, was 
 written from C«)rmlh, ahout the y«ar 51 ; and the 
 First Epistle to the Thessalonians, was probably 
 Avritten a few months afterwards, from the same 
 7)lac*e. 
 
 Michaclis and Dr. H des unite, in giving the 
 next place, in the order of tinnie, to the Epistle to 
 Titus. Lardner, however, places it considerably 
 later; and Paley assigns to it a date, later than any 
 other author. On this subject, there is little else 
 than conjecture to gtiide us. 
 
 The year in which this Epistle was written, ac- 
 cording to Michaelis and Males, was 53 ; ace rd- 
 ing to Lardner, 5b ; according to Jiarringion, 
 
250 
 
 57 j and according to Whitby, Pearson, and Pa- 
 ley, 65, 
 
 The Epistle next in order, is the First to the Co- 
 rinthians, the date of which can be determined 
 with considerable precision, from theEpisfle itself. 
 I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost. These 
 words teach where this Epistle was written, and by a 
 comparison with other passages of Scripture, that 
 it was penned near the close of Paul's long; resi- 
 dence at Ephesus, from which place he departed, 
 about A. D. 57. This then is the proper date of 
 this Epistle. 
 
 The First Epistle to Timothy will stand next, 
 if we follow the opinion most commonly entertain- 
 ed by learned men; and its date >vill be, A. D. 57, 
 or A. D. 5S. This opinion is supported by the 
 authority of Athanasius, Theocloret, Baronius, Ca- 
 pellus, Blondel, Hammond, Grotius, Salmasius, 
 Lightfoot, Benson, Barrington, Michaelis, Dod- 
 /dridge, and others. But Pearson, Rosenmiiller, 
 JMacknight, Paley, Tomline, &.c. place it as low as 
 the year of our Lord G4, or 65. 
 
 The Second Epistle to the Corinthians was writ- 
 ten, probably, about a year after the First, which 
 will bring it to A. D. 58. 
 
 ' In the same year, it is thought, that Paul wrote 
 his very important Epistle to the Romans. On 
 this point however, there is some diversity of opi- 
 
 1 Cor. xvi. 8. 
 
251 
 
 moil. Rut the Epistle itself contains internal evi- 
 dence that it was written at Corinth, when the 
 a])i)Stle was preparing to lake the contributions of 
 the churches to Jerusalem. 
 
 The date of the Epistles to the Ephesians, to the 
 Philippians, and to the Coiossians, can be ascertain- 
 ed pretty nearly, from the circumstance, that Paul 
 was prisoner at Rome, when they were written. 
 Tlio Epistle to the Epiiesians, may, with much pro- 
 bability, be referred to A U. (il ; the Epistle to 
 the Philippians to A. D. 62 ; and the Epistle to 
 the Colossians to the same year. 
 
 The short Epistle to Philemon was written, as 
 appears by several coincidences, about the same 
 time, as those just mentioned. 
 
 The Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been 
 written about the termination of Paul's first impri- 
 sonment at Rome. Its date, therefore, may with- 
 out much danger of mistake, be referred to A. D. 
 62, or A.D. G3. 
 
 J. D. Michaelis, who, as has been seen, has done 
 much to unsettle the Canon of Scripture by calling 
 in question the _s;enuineness of some of the books, 
 as well as the inspiration of some of the writers, 
 has, in an elaborate essay, (Vol. iv.) endeavoured to 
 lessen the authority of this Epistle. For an 
 answer to the arguments of this learned, but scep- 
 tical Professor, I would refer the mador to Town- 
 
252 
 
 send's New Testament, Arranged in Chro- 
 nological AND Historical Okdek. 
 
 Paul's Second Epistle to Timothy seems to have 
 been written during his second imprisonment at 
 Rome, and shortly before his death, A. D. 66. 
 
SEOTIOXr xz. 
 
 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE SEVEN CATHOLIC 
 EPISTLES. 
 
 The First Epistle of Peter, and the First ot'' 
 John, are quoted by Ignatius, Polycarp, and 
 Papias, but not expressly, as the writings of these 
 apostles. For tlie particular passages cited, the 
 reader is referred to Lardner, 
 
 Justin Martyr has a saying which is now here 
 found in Scripture, cxce|)t in the Second of Peter. 
 It is, That a day of the Lord is a thousand 
 years. 
 
 DioGNETiis quotes several passages from the 
 First of Peter, and the First of John. 
 
 Irenjeus quotes the First Epistle of Peter, ex- 
 pressly; " And Peter says, in his Epistle, JVhom 
 haviiig not seen, ye love.'^ And from the Second, 
 he takes the same passage, which has just been cit- 
 ed, as quoted by Justin Martyr. The First and 
 Second of John are expressly quoted by this Fa- 
 ther, for after citing his gospel) he goes on to say, 
 " Wliercfure also in his Epistle, he says, Little 
 children it is the last time.'' And again, "In 
 the forementioned Epistle, the Lord c»3mmands u? 
 tD shun those person?, who bring false doctrine, 
 T 2 
 
254 
 
 saying, Many deceivers are entered into the 
 worldy loho confess not that Jesus Chynst is come 
 in the flesh. This is a deceiver, and an Jlnti- 
 christ. Look to yourselves that ye lose not 
 those things which ye have wrought." Now these 
 words are undoubtedly taken from John's Second 
 Epistle. Irenaeus, seems indeed, to quote them from 
 the First, but this was probably a slip of the me- 
 mory. 
 
 Several passages out of the Epistle of James, are 
 also cited by this Father, but without any distinct 
 reference to the source whence they are derived. 
 
 Athenagoras, also, has some quotations which 
 appear to be from Jamesj and Second Peter. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, often quotes First Pe- 
 ter ; and sometimes Second Peter. The First 
 Epistle of John is often cited by liim. Jude also 
 is quoted several times expressly, as, ''Of these 
 and the like heretics, I think Jude spoke propheti- 
 cally, when he said, / ivill that ye should know, 
 that God having saved the people out of Egypt, 
 &c. He has a rcmai'k on Jude's modesty, that he 
 did not style himself the brother of our Lord, al- 
 though he was r-lated to him, but begins his Epis- 
 tle, Jude the servant of Jesus Christ, and broth- 
 er of James. 
 
 Tertcllian, often quotes the First Epistle of 
 John ; but he has in none of his remaining wri- 
 iings cited any thing from James, Second Peter, 
 or the Second of John, He has, however, onr 
 
255 
 
 express quotation from Judc, ** Hence it is," says 
 lie, "that Enoch is quoted by the aposile Jude.>' 
 
 Obigi.x, in his commentary on Si. John's dos- 
 pel, expressly quotes the Epistle of James, in the 
 following passa'jje, " For though it be called faith, 
 if It be without works, it is dead, as we read in the 
 Epistle ascribed to James.'' This is the only 
 passage in the remaining Greek works of this 
 Father, wliere this Ijook is quoted ; but in his Lat- 
 in works, translated by Rufin, it is cited as the 
 Epistle of James, the apostle, and brother of our 
 Lord ; and as '^Divine Scripture." The First of 
 Peter is often quoted expressly. In his book against 
 Celsu', he says, "As it is said by Peter, Ye a.^ 
 lively stones are built up a spiritual hotise." 
 Again, '* Peter in his Catholic Papistic, says. Put 
 to death in the Jlesh^but quickened in the spirit^ 
 
 According to Eusebius, Origen considered the 
 Second of Peter as doubtful, and in his Greek 
 works there are no clear citations from it ; but 
 there are found a few in his Latin works. 
 
 In the passage preserved by Eusebius, he says, 
 that some were doubtful, respecting the Second 
 and Third of John, "but for my part," says he, 
 ** let them i)e granted to be his." 
 
 0"iOEN has cited several passages from Jiulc, 
 which are found in no other part of Scripture ; and 
 in one plare remarks, ''Jude wrote an Epistle of few 
 lines iruiced, but full of powerful words, and Heav- 
 enly grace, who at the beginning, says, **Jude ths 
 
256 
 
 servant of Jesits Christ, and brother of Janies.'^ 
 In another place, he shows, that some were doubt- 
 ful of this Epistle, for he says, " But if any one 
 receives also the Epistle of Jude, let him consider 
 what will follow, from what is there said," Tliis 
 Epistle is cited in his Latin works also ; and sev- 
 eral times, in a Latin Epistle ascribed to Origen. 
 
 Cyprian no where quotes the Epistle of James ; 
 but the Frst of Peter is oflen cited. Several times 
 he speaks of it, as the Epistle of Peter to the peo- 
 ple of Pontus. He expressly ascribes it to "Pe- 
 ter the apostle," "the apostle of Christ," <^'C. 
 
 The Second of Peter, he never quotes. The 
 First of John is often quoted by Cj'prian. " The 
 apostle John," says Ii^, "mindful of this com- 
 mand, writes in this Epistle, Hereby we perceive 
 that toe know him, for we keep his command- 
 ments. He that saiih I know hiin, andkeepetli 
 not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth 
 is not in him." The Second and Third of John, 
 he never mentions, nor the Epistle of Jude. 
 
 The opinion of Eusebius of Cesarsea, respecting 
 the Epistle of James, was, that it was written by 
 one of Christ's disciples, by the name of James, but 
 he makes three of that name. Although he admits, 
 that the writer of this Epistle was the brother of 
 our Lord, who was made the first bishop of Jeru- 
 salem ; yet he will nDt allow, that he was one of 
 the Twelve. In his commentarv on the Psalms, 
 be says, ." Is any among you afflicted? let him 
 
pray. Is any merry ? let him sing psalms, as the 
 sacred apostle says." In other parts of his works, 
 he speaks very doubtlully of this Epistle, and in one 
 passage, whrre he distributes the books into class- 
 es, he mentions thiS Epistle among the books which 
 he calls spurious ; by which, however, he only 
 means, that it was not canonical. In his Ecclesi- 
 astical history, he speaks of the Epistles of Peter, 
 in the following manner, "One E|;istle of Peter, 
 called his First, is universally received This the 
 presbyters of ancient times, have quoted in their 
 writings, as undoubtedly genuine ; but that called 
 his Second Epistle, we have been informed, has 
 not been received in:othe Testament. Neverthe- 
 less, it appearing to many to be useful, has been 
 carefully studied with the other scriptures." And 
 in another passage, he says, " That called the First 
 of John and the First of Peter, are to be esteemed 
 authentic. Of the controverted, yet well known or 
 approved by the most, are, that called the Epis- 
 tle of James, and that of Jude, and the Second of 
 Peter, and the Second and Third of John, wliether 
 they were written by the Evangelist, or by ano- 
 ther." 
 
 A iHANAsius quotes the Epistle of James, as writ- 
 ten by the a^)^slle James. The First Epistle of 
 Peter is frequently quoted by him ; and he also 
 cites passages from the second Epistle, and ascribes 
 them to Peter, lioth the fust and second Epis- 
 ties of John, ;ue distinctly, and expressly quoted ; 
 
258 
 
 the third is not mentioned. He also, in two instan- 
 ces, cites the words of Jude. - 
 
 Jerome's testimony coiicerninjo; the Epistle of 
 James, is full and explicit. His words are, '" James-, 
 called the Lord's brother, suniamed Justus, as 
 some think son of Joseph, bv a former wife ; but 
 as I rather thi-ik, the son of Mary, the sister of ou^" 
 Lord's mofh'^r, mentioned by John in his gospel, 
 (soon after our Lord's passion ordained by the 
 apostles bishop of Jerusalem,) wrote but one 
 Epistle, which is among; the Seven Catholic Epis- 
 tles ; which too has been said to ha.ve been pub- 
 lished by another in his name ; but' gradually, in 
 process of time, it has gained authority. This is 
 he of whom Paul writes, in the Epistle to the 
 Galatians ; and he is often mentioned in the Acts 
 of the apostles ; and also several times in the gos- 
 pel, called, ACCORDING TO THE Hebrews lately 
 translated by me into Greek and Latin." 
 
 Attgustine received all the Catholic Epistles. 
 H-' quotes James as an apOstle. He often cites 
 both the Ei)istles of Peter. He also refers to 
 John's three Epistles, and quotes Jude, and calls 
 him an apostle. 
 
 In the works of Ephrem, the Syrian, who lived, 
 and wrote voluminously, in the 4th (^e^ntury, there 
 are express quotations from the Epistle of James, 
 from the Second of Peter, the Second and Third 
 of John, and from Jude,as well as, from those 
 Catholic Epistles which were undisputed. 
 
jg59 
 
 RrFix received all the l)oolis asCaiionical, vviucli 
 are now so esleemed by christians generally. 
 Why these Kpisilcs have received llu; appella- 
 tion of Catholic, various reasons have heen assign- 
 ed. 
 
 Some have supposed that they were so called, 
 because they contain the one catholic docirine 
 which was delivered to the churches by Ike apos- 
 ties of our Saviour, and which might be read by the 
 universal church. 
 
 Others are of opinion that they received this 
 appellation, because they were not addressed to 
 one person, or church, like the Epistles of Paul ; 
 but to the Catholic church. This opinion seem>« not 
 to be correct, for some of them were written to 
 the Christians of particular countries, and others to 
 indi\ iduals. 
 
 A third opinion, advanced by Dr. Hammond, 
 and adopted by Dr. IMacknight, and which has 
 some probability, is, that the First of Peter, and 
 First of John, being received by all Christians, ob- 
 tained the name of Catholic, to distinguish them 
 iVom those which at first were not universally re- 
 ceived ; but in process of time, these last coming 
 to be universally received, were put into the same 
 class with the first, and the whole thenceforward 
 had the appellation of Catholic 
 
 'I'his denomination is as old as the time of Euse- 
 bius. and probably older, lor Origen repeatedly 
 /called John's First Epistle Catholic ; and the same 
 
mo 
 
 IS done by Dyonisius, Bishop of Alexandria. The 
 sanip appellation was given to the Whole seven by 
 Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Jerome. 
 
 Of these, it is probable, that the Epistle of James 
 was first written, but at what precise time, cannot 
 be determined. 
 
 As there were two disciples of the name of 
 James, 4t has been much disputed, to which of 
 them, this Epistle shoukl be attributed. Lardner 
 and Mackiiight, have rendered it exceedingly 
 probable, that this Epistle was vvritten by James 
 1he Less, who is supposed to have been related to 
 our Lord, and who seems for a long time to have 
 had the chief authority in the church at Jerusalem: 
 but Michaelis, is of a different opinion, and says, 
 th;)t he sees no reason for the assertion, that James, 
 the son of Zebedee, was not the author of this 
 Epistle." But the reasons which he assigns for 
 his opinion, have very little weight. 
 
 The date of this Epistle, may, with considerable 
 probability, be referred to the year 62 ; for it is 
 supposed that James was put to death, in the fol- 
 lowing year. 
 
 Its Canonical authority and divine inspiration, 
 although called in question by some,in ancient as well 
 as modern times, ought to be considered as un- 
 doubted. One strong evidence that it was thus re- 
 ceived by earlyChristians, may be derived from the 
 old Syriac version of the New Testament; which, 
 while it leaves out several other books, contains 
 this. 
 
261 
 
 It seems not to have been as well known in the 
 Wesiern rhui'chesas niost utlicr buoks of Scrij>iure, 
 but learned men lia\e obsi-rved, that Clrmeni of 
 Rome has quoted it no kss than four limes ; and it 
 18 also quottd by Ignatius m his genuine Epistle to 
 theEphehians ; and we have already shown, th;it it 
 was received as the writing ot the apostle James, 
 by Origo;., Athanasius and Jerome. 
 
 Tlie First Epistle of Peter has ever been consi- 
 dered authentic, and has been cited by Clement 
 of Rome, Polycarp, The Martyrs of Lyons, Theo- 
 phikis J3isiiopof Antioch, Papias, Irenaeus, Cle- 
 ment of Alexandiia, and Tcrtullian. The only 
 matter of doubt respecting this Epistle is, what 
 place we are to understand by Babylon, where Pe- 
 ter was, when he wrote. On this subject, there are 
 three opinions; the first, that by this name a place 
 in Egypt is signified; the second, that Babylon in 
 Assyria properly so called is meant; and the third, 
 which is generally maintained by the Romanists, 
 and some Protestants, is, that Rome is here called 
 Babylon. Eusebius and Jerome understood, that 
 this Epistle was written from Rome. 
 
 The time of this Epistle being written was pro- 
 bably about the year of our J^ord 65 or 66. 
 
 Tlie date of the Epislle of Jude, may as well be 
 placed about the same period as at any other time,for 
 we huve nt; documents which can guide us to any 
 certain decision. The objection to the Canonical au« 
 thority oi this Epistle, derived from the author's hav- 
 
 7. 
 
263 
 
 irig quoted the Apocryphal book of Enoch, is of no 
 validity ; for the f^ct is, that Jucle makes no men- 
 tion of any book, but only of a prophecy, and there 
 is no evidence that the Apoci yphal book of Enoch 
 was then in existence; but if he did quote a truth 
 from such a book, it argues no more against his in- 
 spiration, than Paul's quoting Epimenides does, 
 agaiiist his being an inspired man. 
 
 The three Epistles of John were probably writ- 
 ten about the year 96 or 97. It has commonly 
 been supposetl that the Apocalypse was the last 
 ■written book of the New Testament, but Town- 
 send insists, that the Three Epistles of John were 
 l^st written. See Townsend's New Testament, 
 Vol ii. 
 
SECTION ZZI. 
 
 ViANONlCAL AUTHORITY OF THE BOOK OP REVE-, 
 LATION. 
 
 Hermas gives many indications of having read 
 the Revelation ; for he often imitates John's de- 
 scription of the New Jerusalem ; and sometimes 
 borrows his very words. He speaks of the Book 
 OF Life, and of those whose names are wrritten in 
 it. He speaks also of the Saints, whom he saw, 
 being clothed in garments white as snow. 
 
 Papias also, doubtless had seen the book of 
 Revelation ; for some of his opinions were founded 
 on a too literal interpretation of certain prophecies 
 of this book. But neither Papias nor Hermas ex 
 pressly cite the Revelation. 
 
 Justin Martyr, is the first, who gives explicit 
 testimony to the Apocalypse. His words are, 
 *' And a man from among us, by name, John, one 
 of the apostles of Christ, in the Revelation made 
 to him, has prophesied, that the believers in our 
 Christ, shall live a thousand years in Jerusalem ; 
 and after that shall be the general, and indeed 
 eternil resurrection, and judgment of all men, 
 together." 
 
 In THE Epistle of the Church at Lyons 
 AND ViENNE, in France, which was written, 
 
264 
 
 about the year of our Lord, one hundred and eigh- 
 ty, there is one passage cited from the book of Re- 
 velation : " For he was indepd a genuine disciple 
 of Clirist, following the Lamb, whiihepsoever he 
 s^oes.'" 
 
 Iren^us expressly quotes the Revelation, and 
 ascribes it to John, the apostle. And in one place, 
 he says, " It (The Revelation,) was seen no long 
 tim*^ ago, in our age, at the end of the reign of 
 Doniitian." And in the passage preserved by Eu- 
 sebius, he speaks of the exact and ancient copies 
 of this book ; which he says, '' was confirmed 
 likewise by the concurring testimony of those who 
 had seen Jolm." 
 
 Theophilus of Antioch, also, as we are assur- 
 ed by Eusebius, cited testimonies from the Apo- 
 calypse of John, in his book against Hermogenes. 
 And in his works, which are extant, there is one 
 passage which shows, that he was acquainted with 
 the Revelation, "This Eve," says he, "because 
 she was deceived by the serpent — the evil demon, 
 who is also called Satan, who then spoke to her 
 by the serpent — Joes not cease to accuse : this 
 demon is also called, the Dragon." 
 
 The Revelation of John, is often quoted by Cle- 
 ment of Alexandria, In one passage he says, 
 *<Such an one, though here on earth, he be not 
 honoured with the hrst seat, shall sit upon the 
 four and twenty thrones, judging the people, as 
 John says in the Revelation." That Clemeat be. 
 
265 
 
 lieved if to he the work of the apostle John, is 
 manifest, because in another place, he expressly 
 cites a passage, *'As the words of an apostle ;" 
 and we have just seen tha't he ascribes the work to 
 John. 
 
 Tertullian cites many things from the Reve- 
 lation of John ; and he seems to have entertained 
 no doubt of its being the writing of tlie apostle 
 John, as will appear by a few quotations ; "John, 
 in his Apocalypse, is commanded to correct those 
 who atf things sacrificed to idols, and comniit 
 fornication." Again, *^The apo.stle John, in the 
 Apocalypse, describes a sharp two-edged sword, 
 coming out of the mouth of God." — " We have 
 churches, dis'^iplcs of John, for though Marcion 
 rejects his Revelation, the succession of bishops, 
 traced to the original, will assure us, that John is 
 the autlior. " And in another place, he has a long 
 quotation from the book of Revelation. 
 
 HippoLYTL's, who lived in the third century, 
 and had great celebrity, both in the Eastern and 
 Western churches, received the Revelation, as 
 without doubt the production of the apostle John. 
 Indeed, he seems to have written a comment on 
 this book, for Jorome in the list of his works, men- 
 tions one, "Ot> the R''velati()n." 
 
 Ilippolytus was hrld in so liigh esteem, (hnt a 
 
 noble monument was erected to hinr) in thr city of 
 
 Rome, which after lying for a long time biu'ied, 
 
 was dug up, near that city, A. I). 15!)1. 1V]< 
 
 7. 2 
 
266- 
 
 name, indeed, is not now on the monument, but* 
 it -contains a catalogue of his works, sev»'ral of 
 which have the same titles as those ascribed to 
 Hippolytus, by Jerome and Eusebius ; together 
 with others, not mentioned by them : among 
 which, is one, " Of the Gospel of John, and the 
 Revelation." 
 
 Origen calls the writer of the Apocalypse, 
 " Evangelist and apostle;" and on account of the 
 predictions wliich it contains, ^' Prophet" also. 
 In his book against Celsus, he mentions, " John's 
 Revelation, and divers other books of Scripture." 
 
 It was Origen's intention to write a commentary 
 on this book, but whether he ever carried his pur- 
 pose into execution, is unknown. Nothing of 
 the kind has reached our times. 
 
 Dyonisius of Alexandria, who lived about ,the 
 middle of the third century, and was one of the 
 most learned men of his time, has entered into a 
 more particular discussion, of the Canonical antho- 
 rity of the book of Revelation than any other an- 
 cient author. From what has been said by him,. 
 we learn, on what account it was, that this book, 
 after having been universally received by the ear- 
 lier Fathers, fell, with some, into a certain degree 
 of discredit. About this time, the Chiliasts, or 
 Milienarians, who held that Christ would reign 
 visibly on earth with his Saints for a thousand years, 
 during which period, all manner of earthly and sensi- 
 ble pleasures would be enjoyed, made their appear- 
 
261 
 
 ance. This opinion they derived from a literal iu- 
 terpretation of some passages in the book of Reve- 
 lation ; and as their error was very repugnant to 
 the feelings of the most of the Fathers, they were 
 led to doubt of the authority, or to disparage ihe 
 value of the book, from which it was derived. 
 
 The first rise of the Millenarians, of the grosser 
 kind, seems to have been in the district of Arsi- 
 noe, in Egypt ; where one Nepos composed seve- 
 ral works in defence of their doctrine; particular- 
 ly a book ♦* Against the Allegorists. " Dyor)isius 
 took much pains with these errorists, and entered 
 with them into a free and candid discussion of 
 their opinions, and of the true meaning of the book 
 of Revelation : and had the satisfaction to reclaim 
 a number of them from their erroneous opinions. 
 His own opinion of the Revelation he gives at 
 large, and informs us, thai some, who lived before 
 his time, had utterly rejected this book, and ascri- 
 bed it to Cerinihus ; but for his own part, he pro- 
 fesses to believe, that it was written by an inspired 
 man, whose name was John, but a different person 
 from the apostle of that name ; for which opiniouj^ 
 he assigns several reasons, but none of much weight. 
 His principal reason is, that the language of this 
 book is different from that of the apostle John, in 
 his other writings. To which Lardner judiciously 
 answers, that supposing this to be the fact, it will 
 not prove the point, for tlie style of prophecy is 
 very different from the epistolary, or historical 
 
268 
 
 style. But this laborious and learned collector of 
 facts, denies, that there is such a difference of style, 
 as to lay a foundation for this opinion : and in con- 
 firmation of his own opinion, he descends to parti- 
 culars, and shows, that there are some striking 
 points of resemblance between the language of 
 the Apocalypse and the acknowledged writings of 
 the apostle John. 
 
 The opinion of those persons who believ- 
 ed it to be the work of Cerinlhus, is utterly 
 without foundation; for this book contains opinions 
 expressly contrary to those maintained by this 
 heretic ; and even on the subject of the Millenium, 
 his views did not coincide with those expressed in 
 the Revelation. 
 
 Caius seems to have been the only ancient author 
 who attributed this book to Cerinthus, and to him 
 Dyonisius probably referred, when he spoke of 
 some before his time, who held this opinion. 
 
 CypRiAN, bishop of Carthage, received the book 
 of Revelation, as of Canonical authority, as appears^ 
 by the manner in which he quotes it. " Hear," 
 says he, " in the Revelation, the voice of thy Lord, 
 reproving such men as these, Thou sayest I am 
 rich and increased in goods, and have need of 
 nothings and knowest not that thou art wretch- 
 ed, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and 
 naked " 
 
 Again, ''So in the Holy Scripture?, by which 
 
 Rev. iii. 17- 
 
269 
 
 ihe Lord would have us to be instructed and warn- 
 ed, is the harlot city described." 
 
 Finally, *' That waters signify people, the divine 
 Scriptures show, in the Revelation." 
 
 VicTORiNUS, who lived towards tlie close ot 
 the third c^-ntnry, often cites the book of Revela- 
 tion, and ascribes it to John the Apostle. 
 
 That Lactantius received this bi)ok, is mani- 
 fest, because he has written much rc^specting the 
 futiire destinies of the church, which is founded on 
 the prophecies whieh it contains. 
 
 Until the fourth century, then, it nppears, that 
 the Revelation was almost universally received ; 
 not a writer of any credit calls it in question ; and 
 but one hesitates about ascribinsj it to John the 
 apostle ; but even he held it to be written by 
 an inspired man. But about the heginninej of 
 the fourth century, it began to fall into discredit 
 with some, on accoufit of the mysterious nature of 
 its contents ; and the encouragement w ich it was 
 supposed to give to the Chiliasts. Therefore Eu- 
 sebius of Cesaraea, after giving a list of such books 
 as were universdly receive I, adds, "After these, 
 if it be thought fit, may he placed the Revelation 
 of John, concerning which we shall observe the 
 different opinions, -At a pr^iper time " And 'g'hi, 
 " There are, concerning this book, diflerent opin- 
 ions." 
 
 Rov. xvii. 1 , 2, 3. 
 
270 
 
 This is the first doubt expressed by any respect- 
 able >^riter, coiicernino; the Canonical authority of 
 this book ; and Eusebius did not reject it, but 
 Would have it placed next after those which were re- 
 ceived with universal consent. 
 
 And wp find, at this very time, the most learned 
 and judicious of the Fathers received the Revelation 
 witiioiit scruple, and annexed it to their catalogues 
 of the books of the New Testament. 
 
 Thus, Athanasius, after giving an account of the 
 twenty two Canonical books of the Old Testament, 
 proceeds to enumerate the books of the New Testa- 
 ment, in the following manner, which he makes 
 oight in number. 1. Matthew's Gospel ; 2. Mark's ; 
 3. Luke's ; 4 John's ; 5. The Acts ; 6. The Ca- 
 tiiolic Epistles ; 7. Paul's Fourteen Ep'Stles ; And, 
 8. The Revelations, given to John the Evangelist 
 and divine, in Patmos. 
 
 Jerome, in giA'itig an account of the writings of 
 John the Evana;elist, speaks also of another John, 
 called the Presbyter, to whom some ascribed the 
 Second and Third Epistles, under the name of 
 John. And we have already seen, that Dyonisius 
 of Alexandria, ascribe-i the Revelation to another 
 John. This opinion, we learn from Jerome, origi- 
 nated in the fact, that two monuments were found 
 at Ephesus, each inscribed with the name, John ; 
 but he says, " Somt; think, that both the monu- 
 ments are of John the Evangelist." Then be pro- 
 ceeds to give soire account of the Revelation ; 
 
«7l 
 
 ^<Domitian," says he " in ihv f<.ur)oentli v'^a'-of his 
 rei^n,rai»iiigthe second pers'cu ion art*TNtro,.lohm 
 w.is biitiislitrd iiitotrif Isle of P:'tm( s,\v hrrc Ip ^vrote 
 the Rt velation, which Justin JM;trt}rand Ircnaous 
 explain." 
 
 AuousTiNE also received th(' Ijook of Revelation, 
 and quotes it very frequently. 
 
 He ascribes it to the same John, who wrote the 
 Gospel and the Epist'es. 
 
 From the view which has been taktn of the tes- 
 liinonies in favour of the book of Revelation, I 
 think it must appear manifest to evrry candid read- 
 er, that few hooks in the New Testament, have 
 mort' C0'ij)lete evidence of Canonical authorit)', 
 than the book of Revelation. The only thing which 
 requires ex[)laiiation is, tlie oinission of this book 
 in So many of 'ho cataIoo;ues of the Fathers, and of 
 ancient councils. Owing to the mysterious nature 
 of the contents of this ho'.k, and to the abuse of its 
 proph' ci«.s. by the tou literal construction of iheni, 
 by the Milleitarians, it was judged expedient not 
 to have this book read publicly in the churches. 
 Now the end of forming these catalogues was, to 
 guide the people in reading the Scriptures ; and 
 as it seems not to liave been desired that the peo- 
 ple should road this myst(ri>)us book, it was omit- 
 ted by many, in their catalogues. Still, however, 
 a majority of tliem have it ; and some, wlio onit- 
 ted it, are known to have received it as Canonical. 
 
 This aUo will account for the fact, that many 
 
&72 
 
 of the Manuscripts of the New Testament, are 
 without (he Kevflatiun ; so that iliere are extant 
 couip^ratively f i w copies ol' this book. 
 
 But the authenticity and authority of the Apoca- 
 lypse stand on ground, which c^n never be shaken; 
 and the internal evidence is strojig in favour of a 
 divine origin, Th're is a sublimity, purity, and 
 consistency in it, which could not have proceeded 
 from an impostor. In addition to all which, we 
 observe, that tl)e fulfilnient of many of the predic- 
 tions of this book is ^o remarkable, that to many 
 learned men who have attended to this subject, the 
 evidence from this source alone, is demonstrative 
 of its divine origin. And there is every reason 
 to believe, that in the revolution of events, this 
 book which is now to many, sealed with seven 
 seals, will be opened, and will be so explamed, 
 that all men will see and acknowledge, that it is 
 indeed The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which 
 God gave unto him, to show xinto his servants, 
 tilings which must shortly come to pass — and 
 sent and signified it by his angel, to his serv- 
 ant John ; tvho bare record of the word of God, 
 and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Alter having given a particular account of the 
 several books of the New Testament, it may be 
 useful to subjoin a few general remarks on the tes- 
 timony exhibited. 
 
 1. The writings of the apostles, from the time 
 
 Rev. i. a, 2. 
 
273 
 
 -of their first publication, were distinguished by all 
 Chnstia.is from all other bo<.ks. They were spok- 
 en of by the Fathers as Scripture ; as divine 
 Scripture ; as inspired of the Lord ; as, 
 
 GIVEN BY the INSPIRATION OP THE HoLY GhoST. 
 
 The only question ever agitated, respecting any of 
 these books, was, whether they were indeed, the 
 prociuctions of the apostles. When this was clear, 
 no man disputed their di\ ine authority ; or f.oa- 
 sidered it lawlul to dissent from their dictates. 
 They were considered as occupying the same place, 
 in reg;ird to inspiration and authority, as the 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament, and iii imitation 
 of tliis denomination, they were called the New 
 Tcftament, The other names by which they 
 were distinguished, were such as these, the Gos- 
 i'El; — theApostles; — riit: divinlGospels; -the 
 
 /\1VANG1CLICAL INSTRUMENT ; — THE ScRIPTURES OF 
 
 THE Lord; — Holy ScKirruitEs; — Evangelic 
 VOICE ; — DIVINE Scriptures ; — Oracles of the 
 Lord ; — divine fountains ; — fountains of the 
 divine fulness. 
 
 2. These bo )ks were not in obs "Urlty, but were 
 • cad with veneration and avidity, by multitudes. 
 They were read n. t only by tlie learned, but by 
 the people; not only in private, but constantly 
 in the pubhc assemblies of Christians, as appears 
 by the explii-it testimony of Justin Martyr, Ter- 
 tullian, Kusebins, Cy[)rian, and Augustine. And 
 no other books were thus venerated and read. If 
 a a 
 
274 
 
 some other pieces were publicly read, yet the 
 Fathers always made a wide distinction between 
 them and the Sacred Scriptures. 
 
 3. In all th« controversies which arose in the 
 church,these books were acknowledged by all to be 
 decisive authority, unless by some few of the very 
 worst heretics, who mutilated the Scriptures, and 
 forged others for themselves, under the names of 
 the apostles. But most of the heretics entleavour- 
 cd to support their opinions, by an appeal to the 
 writings of the New Testament. The Valenti- 
 nians, the Montanists, the Sabelleians, the Arte- 
 monists, the Arians, received the Scriptures of 
 the New Testament. The same was the case with 
 the Priscillianists, and the Pelagians. In the 
 Arian controversj^, which occupied the church 
 so long and so earnestly, the Scriptures were 
 appealed to by both parties ; and no controversy 
 arose, respecting the authenticity of the books, of 
 the New Testament. 
 
 4. The avowed enemies of Chiistianity, who 
 wrote against the truth, recognized the books which 
 are now in the Canon, as those acknowledged by 
 Christians in their times, for they refer to the 
 matters contained in them, and some of them men- 
 tion several books by name ; so that it appears 
 from the accounts which we have of these writings 
 that they were acquainted with the volume of the 
 New Testament. Celsus, who lived and wrote 
 less than a hundred years after the apostles, says. 
 
275 
 
 •9 is testified by Origen who answererl him, "I 
 coulxl say many things conceriiinsi; the aflf^iirs of 
 Jesus, and thuse too, diflVreni from what is wiilten 
 by the disciples of Jesus, but I purposely omit 
 them." That Celsus here refers to the gospels, 
 there can be no doubt. In another place, he says, 
 ** These things then, we have alleged to you, out of 
 your own writings.^' And that the gospels to 
 which he referred, were the same as those which 
 we now possess, is evident from his references to 
 matters contained in them. 
 
 PoRPKYRV, in the third century, wrote largely, 
 and professedly, against the Christian Religion; arxl 
 although his work has shared the same fate as that 
 of Celsus, yet from some fragments which have 
 been preserved, we can ascertain, that he was well 
 acquainted with the four gospels ; for the things to 
 which he objects, are still contained in ihcm. 
 
 But the emperor, Juliav, expressly mentions 
 Matthew and Luke ; and cites various things nut 
 of the Gospels. He speaks also of John, and al- 
 leges, that none of Christ's disciples beside, ascrib- 
 ed to him the creation of the world ; — And also, 
 "That neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor 
 Mark, have dared to call Jesus, God ;" — *'That 
 John wrote later than the other Evangelists, and 
 at a time, when a great number of men in the 
 cities of Greece and Italy were convened." He 
 alludes to the conversion of Cornelius and Sergius 
 Paulus ; to Peter's vision ; and to the circular 
 
27e 
 
 letter sent by the apostles, at Jerusalem, to the 
 churches ; which things are recorded in the Acts of 
 the n pestles.* 
 
 Now, if the g;enuineness of these books could 
 have been impugned, on any plausible grounds; 
 or if any doubt had existed respecting this matter? 
 «ureiy such men as Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, 
 could not have been ignorant of the matter, and 
 would not have failed to bring forward every thing 
 of this kind which they knew ; for their hostility 
 to Christianity was unbounded. And it is certain, 
 that Porphyry did avail himself of an objection 
 'of this kind, in regard to the book of Daniel. Since, 
 then, not one of the early enemies of Christianity 
 ever suggested a doubt of the genuineness of the 
 books of the New Testament, we may' rest assured, 
 that no ground of doubt existed, in their day ; and 
 that the fact of these being the genuine writings of 
 the men whose names they bear, was too clearly 
 established, to admit any doubt. The genuineness 
 of the books of the New Testament having been 
 admitted by friends and enemies, — by the orthodox 
 and heretics, in those ages, when the fact could be 
 ascertained easily ; it is too late in the day, now, 
 for infidels to call this matter in question. 
 
 5. But the testimony which we possess, is not 
 only sufficient to prove, that the books of the Ne^^'' 
 Testament were written by the persons whose 
 names they bear ; but also, that these books, ia the 
 
 * See Lardner and Paley. 
 
277 
 
 early ages of the church, contained the same 
 things which are now read in them. Omitting 
 any particular notice of ahont half a dozen passa- 
 ges, the genuineness of which is in dispute, I would 
 remark, that when we compare the numerous and 
 copious quotations from these books, which are 
 found in the writings of the Fathers, with our 
 own copies, the argument is most satisfactory. Ft 
 is true, indeed, that the Fathers do sometimes ap- 
 parently quote from memory ; and in that case, 
 the words of the sacred writer are a little changed 
 or transposed, but the sense is accurately retained. 
 In general, however, the quotations of Scripture, 
 in the writings of the Fathers, are verbally exact : 
 there being no other variation, than what arises from 
 the different idiom of ihe language which they 
 use. I suppose, that almost every verse, in some 
 books of the New Testament, has beeti cited by 
 one or another of the Fathers ; so that if that book 
 were lost, it might be restored, by means of the 
 quotations from it in other books. 
 
 I3ut, besides these quotations, we have versions 
 of the whole New Testament, into various langua- 
 ges, some of wliich were maae very early, pro- 
 bably, not much later than the end of the first, or 
 beginning of the second century. Now,on a com- 
 parison, all these versions contain the same dis- 
 courses, parables, miracN-s, doctrines, precepts, 
 and divine institutions. Indeed, so literal have 
 been most versions of the New Testament, that 
 
 A A 9 
 
278 
 
 they answer to one another, and to the original, 
 ahiiost word for word. 
 
 Besides, there are in existence, hundreds and 
 thousands of Manuscripts of the New Testament 
 which were written in diflerent agos of the 
 church,from the fourth or fifth century, until the 
 sixteenth. Most of these have been penned 
 with great care, and in the finest style of Calligra- 
 phy. The oldest are written on beautiful parch- 
 ment, in what are called uncial, or capital letters. 
 Some of these Manuscripts, contain all the books 
 of the New Testament ; others only a part ; and in 
 some instances, a single book. Some are in a state 
 of good preservation, while others are worn and 
 mutilated ; and the writing so obscure, as to be 
 scarcely legible. And what is very remarkable, 
 some copif s of the New Testament on parchment, 
 have been found written over again with other 
 matter, after the original words had been as fully 
 obliterated as could easily be done. This seems a 
 very strange practice, considering that good copies 
 of the Bible must have been always too few; but 
 the scarcity of parchment was so great, that men 
 who were anxious to communicate their own lu- 
 cubrations to the public, would resort to any shift, 
 to procure the materials for writing. And this is 
 not more culpable or more wonderful, tiian what 
 has been known to take place in our own land 
 and times, where the leaves of Walton's Polyglot 
 
279 
 
 Bible, have been torn and used lor wrapping pa- 
 ])er. 
 
 The exact age of the oldest MSS. of the Neu 
 Testament Ciinnot be accurately ascertained, as 
 they have no d ites accompanying them which can 
 .safely be depended on : but as iJ is pretty well 
 known at what period Greek accents were intro- 
 duced ; and also, whon the large or uncial letter, 
 as it is called, was exchanged for the small letter 
 now in common use; if a MS. is found written 
 in the old fashion, in large letters, without inter- 
 vals between the words, and without accents, it is 
 known that it must be more ancient than the pe- 
 riod when the i mode of writing was changed. 
 Now, it is manifest, that when these MSS. were 
 penned, the Canon was settled by common consent; 
 for thoy all contain the same books, as far as they 
 
 go- 
 
 I will sum up my observations on the Canon, ot 
 the New Testament, by quoting a sensible and 
 very appropriate passage, from the late learned Mr. 
 Rknnell. It is found, in his Remarks on Hone's 
 Collection of the Apocryphal writings of the apos- 
 tolic age. 
 
 *' frjien, was the Canon of Scripture deter- 
 mined. It was determined immediately after 
 the death ,of St. John, the last survivor of the 
 Apostolic order. The canon of the Gospels was 
 indeed determined before his death, for we read 
 in Ensebius, that he gave his sanction to the three 
 
280 
 
 other Gospels, and completed this part of the New- 
 Testament with his own. By the death of St. 
 John the cataloecue of Scripture was completed and 
 closed. We have seen both from the testimony 
 of themselves and of their immediate successors, 
 that the inspiration of writing was confined strictly 
 to the apostles, and accordinsjly we find, that no 
 similar pretensions were ever made by any true 
 christian to a similar authority. 
 
 ^' By whom was the Canon of Scripture deter- 
 mined ? It was determined not by the decision of 
 any individual, nor by the decree of any council, 
 but by the general consent of the whole and every 
 part of the Christian Church. It is indeed a re- 
 markable circumstance, that among the various dis- 
 putes which so early agitated the church, the Can- ■ 
 on of Scripture was never a subject of controversy. 
 If any question might be said to have arisen, it 
 was in reference to one or two of those books which 
 are included in the present canan ; but with respect 
 to those which are out of the Canon, no difference 
 of opinion ever existed. 
 
 " The reason of this agreement is a very satisfac- 
 tory one. Every one who is at all versed in Ec- 
 clesiastical History is aware of the continual inter- 
 course* which took place in the Apostolical age be- 
 tween the various branches of the church univer- 
 sal. This communication, as Mr. Nolan has well 
 ohserved, arose out of the Jewish polity, under 
 
which, various synacjosjiies of the Jews whioh were 
 dispersed throu2;iiout the Gentile W)rl(l, were all 
 subjected to the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and main- 
 tained a constant correspondence with it. When- 
 ever then an episiie arrived at any particular church, 
 it was first authenticated ; it was then read to aU 
 the holy brethren, and was subsequently transmit- 
 ted to-some other neighbouring church. Thus we 
 find that the authentication of the Epistles of Paul 
 was, ^' The salutation with his own hnnd," by 
 which the church to which the Epistle was first ad- 
 dressed, might be assured that it was not a forgery. 
 We find also a S)lemn adjuratiijn of the same apos- 
 tle, that his Epistle, 'should be read to all tlic holy 
 brethren.* 'When this Epistle is read among you, 
 cause that it be read ;dso in the church of the Lao- 
 diceans, and that ye likewise read the Epistle from 
 Laidicea.* From this latter pissage we infer, that 
 the system of transmission was a vory general one, 
 as the Epistle whicli St. Paul directs the Oolossi.ms 
 to receive from the Laodiceans was not origi'ially 
 directed to the I itter, but was sent to them from 
 some other chuich. To prevent any mi'stake or 
 fraud, this trans nission was made by the higiicst 
 authority, nnnely by ihat of the bishop. Through 
 him, oflicinl co.oTiunicalioiis were sont from one 
 church toaiio'iier, eveo in the re notest couniries, 
 Clemi.nl, the bishop 6f Ro:iio, convmuiiiculed with 
 
 2 Thes. iii. 17, 1 Thes. v. 27. Col. is*. 6. 
 
282 
 
 the church at Corinth ; Poly carp, the bishop of 
 Smj'rna, wrote an Epistle to the Philippians ; Ig- 
 natius, the bishop of Antioch, corresponded with 
 the churches of Rome, of Magnesia, of Ephesits, 
 and others. These three bishops were the com- 
 panions and immediate successors of the apostles, 
 and followed the system of correspondence and in- 
 tercourse which their masters had begun.- Con- 
 sidering all these circumstances, we shall be con- 
 vinced how utterly improbable it was, that any 
 authentic work of an apostle should have existed 
 in one church, without being communicated to 
 another. It is a very mistaken notion of Dod- 
 well, that the books of the New Testament, lay 
 concealed in the cofters of particular churches, 
 and were not known to the rest of the world until 
 the late days of Trajan. This might have been 
 perfectly true, with respect to the originals, which 
 were doubtless, guarded with peculiar care, in the 
 custody of the particular churches, to which they 
 were respectively addressed. But copies of these 
 originals, attested by the authority of the bishop, 
 were transmitted from one churcii to another, with 
 the utmost freedom, and were tlius rapidiy dispers- 
 ed throughout the Christian world. As a proof 
 of this, St. P'ter, in an Epistle addressed gener- 
 ally to the churches in Asia, speaks of '' All the 
 Epistles of Paul," as a body of Scripture univer- 
 sally ciri^ulated and known. 
 
 "The number of the apostles, including Paul 
 
2S3 
 
 ami Barnabas was but fourteen — to these, and these 
 aloiu', ill the opinion of the early church, was the 
 inspiration of writing coiifinecl, out of these, six 
 only deemed it necessary to write; what they did 
 write, was authenticated with the greatest caution, 
 and circulated with the utmost rapidity ; what was 
 received in any church as the writing of an apos- 
 tle, was pul)licly read ; no church was lef? to itself, 
 or to its own direction ; but was frequently visited 
 by the apostles, and corresponded with by their 
 successors. All the distant members of the church 
 universal, in the apostles' age, being united by fre- 
 quent intercourse, and cf)mmunication, became one 
 body in Christ. Taking all these things into con- 
 sideration, we shall see with what ease and ra- 
 pidity the Canon of Scripture would be formed, 
 there being no room cither for fraudulent fabrica- 
 tion on the one hand, or for arbitnify rejection 
 on the other. The case was too clear to require 
 any formal discussion, nor does it appear that tliere 
 was any material forgery, that could render it ne- 
 cessary. 
 
 The writings of the apostles, and of the apostles 
 alone, were received as the word of God, and were 
 separated from all others, by that most decisive 
 species of authority, the authority of a general, 
 an immediate, and an undisputed consent. 
 
 This will appear the more satisfictory to our 
 minds, if we take an example frbm the age in which 
 we live. The letters of Junius tor instance, were 
 
284 
 
 published at intervals within a certain peHod. 
 Since the pubiication of the last aui hen tic letter, 
 many under that signature have appeared, purport- 
 ing to have been written by the same author. 
 But this circumstance throws no obscuritj' over the 
 matter, nor is the Canon of Junius, if I may trans- 
 fer the term from sacreo to secular writing, invol- 
 ved in any difficulty or doubt. If it should be 
 hereafter inquired, at what time, or by what au- 
 thority the authentic letters were separated from 
 the spurious, tiie answer will be, that such a sepa- 
 ration never took place ; but that the Canon of Ju- 
 nius was immediately tleiermined after the last 
 letter. To us who live so near the time of publi- 
 cation, tlie line of distinction between the genuine 
 and spurious is so strongly marked, and the evi- 
 dence of authenticity on the one side, and of for- 
 gery on the ©ther, is so clear and convincing, that 
 a formal rejection of the latter, is unnecesary, I'he 
 case has long since been determined by the tacit 
 consent of the whole British nation, and no man 
 in his senses would attempt to dispute it. 
 
 '* Yet how much stronger is the case of the Scrip- 
 tural Canon. Tlie author of Junius was known to 
 noi-e, he could not therefore of himself bear any 
 testimony to the authenticity of his works ; the 
 audiersof the New Testament were knuwn to all, 
 and were especially carelul to mark, to authenticate, 
 and to (iislms:"ish their wri'ings. I'he author of 
 Junius had no personal character which could stamp 
 
283 
 
 his writiiifi; with any hisjh or special authority ; 
 whatever proceed tl from tlie apostles of Christ, \va^ 
 immediately rea;arded as the ofTsprinoj of an exchi- 
 sive inspiration. For the Canon of Junius we have 
 no external evidence, but that of a single publisher J 
 lor the Canon of Scripture we have the testimony 
 of churches which were visited, bishops wlio were 
 appointed, and converts innumerable, who were in- 
 structed by the apostles themselves. It was nei- 
 ther the duty nor the interest of any one, excepting 
 the publisher, to preserve the volume of Junius 
 from spurious editions: to 2;uard the integrity of the 
 sacred volume was the buunden duty of every 
 Christian who believed that iis words were tlie 
 words of eternal life. 
 
 " If then, nolwiihstanding these and other dif- 
 ficulties, wliicli might be adduced, the Canon of 
 Junius, is established beyond controversy or 
 dispute, by ihe tacit consent of all who live in the 
 age in whicii it was written ; there can be no 
 reason why the Canon of Scripture, under circum- 
 stances infinitely sir mger, should not have be m 
 determined in a manner precisely the same ; es- 
 pecially when we remember, that in both case's, 
 t!ui forgciit s made their apj)earance, subsequently 
 to the determinati >n of the Canon. There is lot 
 a single b')(dc in ilic spurinus department of tjie 
 Apocryphal v du iie which was even known, when 
 thi^ Canxij of Scipure was determine I. !"his 
 is a fact which consider ibly strengthens the case. 
 B u 
 
28G 
 
 fl'here was no difficulty or dispute in li-aming the 
 Canon of Scripture, because there were no compe- 
 titors, whose claims it was expedient to examine, 
 no forgeries whose impostures it was necessary to 
 detect. The first age of the church, was an age 
 of too much vigilance, of too much communication, 
 of too much authority for any fabrication of Scrip- 
 ture, to hope for success. If any attempt was 
 made it was instantly crushed. When the autho- 
 rity of the apostles and of apostolic men had lost 
 its influence, and heresies and disputes had arisen, 
 then it was that forgeries began to appear . . . 
 Nothing, indeed, but the general and long deter- 
 mined consent of the whole Christian world, could 
 have preserved the sacred volume in its integrity, 
 unimpaired by the mutilation of one set of ht-retic?, 
 and unincumbered by the forgeries of another.'' 
 
Xi>/. 
 
 SEOTIOU Xlll. 
 
 VO CANONICAL BOOK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 HAS BEEN LOST. 
 
 This was a subject of warm dispute brtwoin the 
 Romanists and Protestants, af the time of the Re- 
 formation. The former, to make room for their 
 farriffo of unwritten traditions, maintamed the af- 
 firmative ; and such men as BoUarmine anfl Pineda 
 asserted roundly, that some of the most valuable 
 parts of the Canonical Scriptures were lost. The 
 Protestants, on the other hand, to support the suf- 
 ficiency and perfection of the Holy Scriptures; the 
 corner stone of the Reformation, strenuously and 
 successfully contended, that no part of the Canoni- 
 cal volume had been lost. 
 
 But the opinion that some inspired books, which 
 once belonged to the Canon, have been lost, has 
 been maintained by some more respectable writers, 
 than those Romanists just mentioned. Chrysostom, 
 Thcophylact, Calvin, and Whitaker, have all, in 
 some degree, countenanced the same opinion, in 
 order to avoid some difficulty, or to answer some 
 particular purpose. The subj'ct, so far as the Old 
 Tehtament is concerned, has already been consider- 
 ed ; it shall now be our endeavour to show, that 
 
.^^^» i^s 
 
 288 
 
 no Canonical book of ihe New Testament has been 
 lost. 
 
 And here, I am ready to concede, as was before 
 done, that there may have been books written by 
 inspired men, that have been lost: for inspiration 
 was occasional, not constant ; and confined to mat- 
 ters of faith, and not afforded on the affairs of this 
 life ; or in matters of mere science. If Paul, or 
 Peter, or any other Apostle, had occasion to write 
 private letters to their friends, on subjects not con- 
 nected with religion, there is no reason to think, 
 Ihatthese were inspired; and if such writings have 
 been lost, the Canon of Scripture has suffered no 
 more, by this means, than by the loss of any other 
 uninspired books. 
 
 But again, I am willing to go farther, and say, 
 that it is possible, (although I know no evidence 
 of the fact,) that some things, written under the in- 
 fluence of inspiration, for a particular occasion, 
 and to rectify some disorder in a particular church, 
 may have been lost, without injury to the Canon. 
 For, as much that the apostles preached by inspira- 
 tion, is undoubtedly lost ; so there is no reason 
 why every word which they wrote must necessa- 
 rily be preserved, and form a part of the Canonical 
 volume. For example, suppose that when Paul 
 said, 1 Cor. v. 9. Iivrote to you in an Epistle not 
 to company with fornicators, he referred to aa 
 Epistle which he had written to the Corinthians, 
 before the one now called, the Fjrst. it might never 
 
289 
 
 have been iniondctl that this letter should I'orm a 
 conslituentpiti'i of the Canon: for although it treat- 
 ed of subjects connected with Christian faitli or 
 practice; yet, an occasion having arisen, in a short 
 time, of treating these subjects more at large, every 
 thingin thatEpistle, (supposing it ever to have been 
 written,) may have been included in the two f'pis- 
 lles to the Corinthians, which are now in the Ca- 
 non. Or, to adopt for illustration, the ingenious 
 hypothesis of Dr. Lightfoot; the Epistle referred 
 to, wliich was sent by Timothy, who took a cir- 
 cuitous route tlirough Macedonia, might not have 
 reached them, until Paul wrote the long and inte- 
 resting Epistle, called, the First to the Corinthi- 
 ans; and thus the former one would be superseded. 
 But we adduce this case, merely for illustration; 
 for we will attempt, presently, to show, that no 
 evidence exists, that any such Epistle was ever 
 written. 
 
 1. The first argument to prove thai no Canonical 
 book has been lost, is derived from the watchful 
 care of Providence, over the Sacred Scriptures. 
 
 Now to suppose that a book written by the in- 
 spiration of the Holy S|)irit, and intended 1 6 form 
 a part of the Canon, which is the rule of faith to 
 the church, should be utterly and irrecovojably 
 lost, is surely not very honourable to the wisdom 
 of God; and no how consonant witli the ordinary 
 method of his dispensations, in regard to his pre- 
 cious truth. There is good reason to think, that 
 B 3 2 
 
290 
 
 if God saw it needful, and for the edification of tite 
 church, that such books should be written, un.Ier 
 the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by his provi- 
 dence he would have taken care to preserve rhem 
 from destruction. We do know, that this treasure 
 of divine truth has been, in all ao;es, and in the 
 worst times, the special care of God, or not one 
 gf I he sacred books would now be in existence. 
 And if one Canonical book might be lost through 
 the negligence or unfaithfulness of men, why not 
 all? And thus the end of God in making a revela- 
 tion of his will, might have been defeated. 
 
 But whatever other corruptions have crept into 
 the Jewish or Christian cliurches, it does not ap- 
 pear, that eitrier of them as a body, ever incurred 
 the censure of having been careless in preserving the 
 Oracles of God. Our Saviour never charges the 
 Jews, who perverted the Sacred Scriptures to their 
 own ruin, wiili having lost any portion of the sa- 
 cred deposit, intruited to them. 
 
 History informs us of the fierce and malignant 
 design ofAiitiochusEpiphanes,to abolish every ves- 
 tige of the sacred volume ; but the same history 
 assures us, that the Jewish people manifested a lie- 
 roic fortitude, and invincible patience, in resist- 
 ing and defeating his impious purpose. They 
 chose rather to sacrifice their lives, and suffer a 
 cruel death, than to deliver up the copies of the 
 Sacred volume, in their possession. And the same 
 f'pirit ^Yas manifested, and with the same result, in 
 
291 
 
 the Dioclcsian persecution of the Christians. Every 
 effort was made to obliterate the sacred writings 
 of C'liiislians, and iniiJlitudes suffered death for re' 
 lusiiig to di. liver up the New Ti-staiueiit. Some, 
 indeed, overcome by the terrors of a ciuel perse- 
 cution, did, in the hour of temptation, consent to sur- 
 render the h tly book; but ih y were ever ufter- 
 wards called traitors; and it was with tlie utmost 
 difliculty, that any of them could be received again, 
 into the communion of th(; ciiuroli ; after a long 
 repentance, and the most humbling confessions of 
 their fault. Now, if any Canonical book was ever 
 lost, it must have been in these early limes, when 
 the word of God was valued far above life, and 
 when every Christian stood ready to seal the truth 
 with his blood. 
 
 2. Ano-iher argument, which appears to me to 
 be convincing, is, tiiat in a little time, all the sa- 
 cred books were dispersed ovir the whole world. 
 If a book had, by some accident or violence, been 
 destroyed in one region, the loss coold soon have 
 been repaired, by sending for copies to other coun- 
 tries. 
 
 The consideratiojis just mentioned, would, I 
 presume, be satisfactory to all candid minds, were 
 it not, that it is supposed, that there is evidence 
 tliat some things were written by the Aj)ostles, 
 which are not now in the Canon. We have al- 
 ready referred to an Ejiistle to the Corinthians, 
 which Paul is supposed to have written to themj 
 
292 
 
 previously to the writing of those which we now 
 possess. But it is by no means certain, or even 
 probable, that Paul ever did write such an Epistle: 
 for not one ancient writer makes the least mention 
 of any such letter; nor is there any where to be 
 found any citation from it, or any reference to it. 
 
 It is a matter of testimony, in which all the Fa- 
 thers concur, as with one voice, that Paul wrote no 
 more than fourteen Epistles, all of which we now 
 have. 
 
 The testimony of Clement of Rome, is clear on 
 this subject; and he was the friend and companion 
 of Paul, and must have known which was the First 
 Epistle addressed by him to the Corinthian church. 
 He saj's, in a passage before cited, "Take again 
 the Epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul into your 
 hands. What was it that he first wrote to you, 
 in the beginning of his Epistle ? He did truly by 
 the Spirit write to you concerning himself, and 
 Cephas, and Apollos, because even at that time, 
 you were formed into divisions or parties.'* 
 
 The only objection which can be conceived to 
 this testimony, is, that Clement's words, when 
 literally translated, read, <'Take again the Gospel 
 (EuayyeXi's) of the blessed apostle Paul ;" but it is 
 well known, that the early Fathers called any 
 book, containing the doctrines of Christ, the Gos- 
 pel ; and in this case, all reasonable doubt is pre- 
 cluded, because Clement identifies the writing, to 
 which he referred, by mentionmg some of its con- 
 
S93 
 
 lenfs, which aie found in the First Epistle to the 
 Ct'riniiii;ii.s, ami novvhtTi- else. 
 
 But SI ill, Paul's own <leclaralion, stands in the 
 way of our opinion, / ivrote to you in an Epis- 
 tle ; 'the words m the oriajinal are, 'E7^a4'a l\tA\ iv 
 'rr) ^•jri?&X^,' thf- literal version of which is, I have 
 written to you in i/ic Epistle, or, in this Epistle; 
 that is, in the former part of it ; where, in fact, 
 wc find the very thing xrhirh he says, that he had 
 \\Tiitcn. See v. 2. 5, 6, of this same 5th cliap- 
 tcr. But it is thought by learned and judicious 
 commentators, that the v ords following, Ni/vi (5? 
 iy^a-l^a i^Tv, but now I have ivritten unto you, 
 require, that we should understand the former 
 clause, as relating to some former time ; but a 
 careful attention to tlu context will convince us, 
 that this reference is bv no means necessary. 
 The apostle had told them, in the beginning of 
 tie chapter, to avoid the company of fornicators, 
 &c. ; but it is manifest, from the 10th verse, that 
 he appreliended that his meaning might be misun- 
 derstood, by extending the prohibitir.n too f;(r, so 
 as to decline all intercourse with the world, there- 
 fore he repeats what he had said, and informs 
 them, that it had relation only to th- pr'.f'ssors of 
 Christianity, who should be guilty of siicfi vices. 
 The whole may be thus paraptirased, '• 1 wrote to 
 you above, in my letter, th:it > "u stiould separate 
 Irom those who were fornic.ttors ; and that you 
 
 .1 Cor. V. ^, W. 
 
294 
 
 should purge them out as old leaven ; but fearing 
 lest you should misapprehend my meaning, b% in- 
 ferring that I have directeil you to avoid all inter- 
 course with the heathen around you, who are ad- 
 dicted to these shameful vices, which would make 
 it necessary that you should go out of the world, 
 I now inform you, that my meaning is, that you 
 do not associate familiarly with any who make a 
 profession of Christianity, and yet continue in these 
 evil practices." 
 
 In confirmation of this interpretation, we can 
 adduce the Old Syriac Version, which having been 
 made soon after the days of the apostles, is good 
 testimony, in relation to this matter of fact. In 
 this venerable version, the meaning of the ilth 
 verse, is thus given, " This is what I have written 
 unto you," or, "The meaning of what I have writ^- 
 ten unto you."* 
 
 Dr. Whitby understands this passage, in a way 
 different from any that lias been mentioned ; the 
 reader is referred to his commentary, on the 
 place. 
 
 And we have before mentioned the ingenious 
 conjecture of Dr. Lightfoot, to which there is no 
 objection, except, that it is totally unsupported by 
 evidence. 
 
 It deserves to be mentioned here, that there is 
 now extant, a Letter from Paul to the Corinthians, 
 distinct from those Epistles of his, which we havi 
 
 * See Jones on the Canon, Vol. i. p. 139, 140. 
 
295 
 
 (n the Canon ; and also an Epistle from the cliurch 
 ol Corinth, to Paul. These Epistles are in the 
 Armenian lano;uag;e, but have bucn translated into 
 Latin. Tlic Epistle ascribed to Paul is very 
 short, and undoubtedly spurious. It contains no 
 prohibitions, relative to keeping company with 
 fornicators. It was never cited by any of the 
 early writers ; nor indeed heard of, until within 
 a century past. It contains some unsound opin- 
 ions, concernino; the speedy appearance of Christ, 
 which Paul, in some of his Epistles, took pains to 
 contradict. 
 
 The manner of salutation, is very diflprent from 
 that of Paul ; and this apostle is made to declare 
 that he had received what he taught them, from 
 the former apostles, which is contrary to his re- 
 peated solemn asseveration, in several of his Epis- 
 tles. 
 
 In regard to the Epistle under the name of 
 the Church of Corinth, it dors not properly fall 
 under our consideration, for if it was genuine, it 
 would have no claim to a place in the Canon. 
 
 The curious reader, will find a literal translation 
 »f both these Epistles, in Jones's New metho I of 
 settling the Canon.* 
 
 The only other passage in the New Testament, 
 which has been thought to refer to an Epistle of 
 Paul, not now extant, is that in Col. iv. 16. 
 
 * Vol. i. p. 14. 
 
296 
 
 And luhen this Epistle is read among yoic^ 
 cause also that it be read in the church of th^ 
 Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the Epis- 
 tle from Laodicea. 
 
 Now, there is clear evidence, that so early as 
 the beginning of the second century, there existed an 
 Epistle, under this title ; but it was not received 
 by the church, but was in the hands of Marcion, 
 who was a famous forger and corrupter of Sacred 
 books. He was contemporary with Polycarp, and 
 therefore very near to the times of the apostles, 
 but he was stigmatized as an enemy of the truth ; 
 for he had the audacity to form a Gospel, accordmg 
 to his own mind, which went by his name ; and 
 also an Apostolicon, which contained only ten of 
 Paul's Epistles , and these altered and accommo- 
 dated to his own notions. These, according to 
 Epiphanius, were, The Epistle to the Galatiansy 
 the two to the Corinthians, to the Romans, the 
 two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, to 
 Philemon, and to the Philippians. — And, says 
 he, " He takes in, some part of that whii-h is 
 called, THE Epistle to the Laodiceans, and 
 this he styles, the eleventh, of those received by 
 Marcion." 
 
 Tertullian, however, gives a very different ac" 
 count of this matter. He asserts, " That Mar- 
 cion and hi* fi.'llotvers, called that the Epistle to 
 the Laodiceans, which was the Epi-.tle to the 
 Ephesians: <whichEpistle,' says he, 'we are assured 
 
297 
 
 by the testimony of tlie church, was sent to the 
 Ephosians, and not to the Laoilicvais ; though. 
 Marcion has taken upon him, falsely, to prefix 
 that title to it, pretending therein, to have made 
 some notable discovery." And, again, "I sliall 
 ^ay nothing now of that other Epistle, which we 
 have inscribed to tlie Ephesians ; but the heretics 
 entitle it, to the Laodiceans." 
 
 Tliis opinion, vvhicli by TertuUian is ascribed 
 10 ^Marcion, respecting the true title of the Epis- 
 tle to the Ephesians, lias been adopted, and inge- 
 niously defended, by several disiiiiguished mod- 
 erns, as Grotius, Hammond, Whitby, and Paley. 
 They rely principally on internal evidence ; 'for 
 unless jMarcion be accepted as a witness, I cio not 
 recollect that any of liie early writer-^ can be quot- 
 ed in favour of thai opinion ; but in the course 
 of this work, we have put down ihe express tes- 
 timony of some of tlie most respectable anil learn- 
 ed of tlie Fathers, on the other side ; and all .hose 
 passages in the Epistle, which seem inconsistent 
 wiih its being addressed to the Ephesians, and 
 neighbouring churches of Asia, can easily be ex- 
 plained. See Lardner and Macknight. 
 
 iiut there is also an Episti.e to the La)DI- 
 CEANs, now extant, againsi which nothing can be 
 said, except that almost every thing contained ia 
 if, is taken out of Paul's othet EpisHi-s, so that if 
 it should be received, we add nothing in reality 
 to the Canon ; and if it should be rt-jucied, we 
 c c 
 
298 
 
 lose nothing. The reader may find a translation of 
 this Epistle, inserted in the notes at the end of the 
 volume. 
 
 But what evidence is there, that Paul ever 
 wrote an Epistle to the Laodiceans ? The text 
 on which this opinion has been founded, in ancient 
 and modern tinies, correctly interpreted, has no 
 such import. The words in the original are, xcd 
 vi\v sx AaoSixsTas iva -xaT ifhsTg dvayvt^s, j9nd that ye 
 likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea. These 
 words have been differently understood; for by 
 them some understand, that an Epistle had been 
 written by Paul to the Laodiceans, which he de- 
 sired might be read in the church at Co.'osse. 
 Chrysostom seems to have understood them thus : 
 and the Romish writers, almost universally, have 
 adopted this opinion. " Therefore," says Bellar- 
 mine, "it is certain that Paul's Epistle to the La- 
 odiceans is now lost." And their opinion is fa- 
 voured by the Latin Vulgate, where we read, 
 Eamque Laodicensium ; that lohich is of the 
 Laodiceans ; but, even these words admit of on- 
 olher construction. 
 
 Many learned Protestants, als(i, have embraced 
 the same interpretation ; while others suppose, 
 that Paul here refers to the Epistle to the Ephe- 
 sians, which they think he sent to the Laodiceans ; 
 and that the present inscijption is spurious. 
 
 Col. iv. IG. 
 
299 
 
 But that neither of these opinions is correct, 
 inay be rendered very probable. In repjard to the 
 'alter, we have already said as much as is necessa- 
 ry ; and that Paul could not intend by the lan- 
 gUMoje used in the pass;iu;e under consideration, an 
 Epistle written by himself, will appear by the fol- 
 lowing; argiinients. 
 
 1. Paul could not with any propriety of speech, 
 have called an Epistle written by himself, and 
 sent to the Laodiceans, an E|)istle from Laodi- 
 cea. He certainly would have said, <T^og Aao5ixeiav, 
 or some such thing. Who ever heard of an Epis- 
 tle addressed to any individual, or to any society, 
 denominated, an Epistle, from them ? 
 
 2. If the Epistle referred to in this passage, 
 had been one written by Paul, it would have 
 been most natural for him to call it his Epistle, 
 and tliis would have rendered his meaning incapa- 
 ble of misconstruciion. 
 
 3. All those best qualified to judge of the fact, 
 and who were well acquainted with Paul's history 
 and writings, never mention any such Epistle : 
 neither Clement, Hermas, nor the Syriac Inter- 
 preter, knew any thing of such an Epistle of 
 Paul ; and no one seems to have had knowledge 
 of any such writing, except Marcion, who pro- 
 bably forged it to answer liis own piir[)Oses. But 
 whether Marcion did acknowledge an Epistle dif- 
 ferent from all that we have in the Canon, lesison 
 the authority of f^piphanius, who wrote a criti* 
 
300 
 
 cism on the Apostolicon of Marcion ; but as we 
 havf' seen, Tertulliaii tells us a difff rent story. It 
 is of little importance to decide which of these 
 testimonies is most credible : for Marcion's autho- 
 rity, at best, is worthless, on such a subject. 
 
 But it may be asked, to what Epistle then, dt)e5 
 Paul refer ? To this inquiry, various answers 
 have been given, and perhaps nothing determin- 
 ate can now be said. Theophylact was of opinion, 
 that Paul's First Epistle to Timothy, was here in- 
 tended. But this is not probable. Dr. Lightfoat 
 conjectures, that it was the First Epistle of John, 
 which he supposes, was written from Laodicea. 
 Others have thought that it was the Epistle of 
 Paul to Philemon. But it sterns safest, in such 
 a case, where testimony is deficient, to follow the 
 literal sense of the words, and to believe, that it 
 was an Epistle written by the Laodiceans, proba- 
 bly to himself, which he had sent to the Colos^ 
 sians, together with his own Epistle, for their peru- 
 sal. 
 
 That the Epistle which is now extant, is not the 
 same as that which formerly existed, at least as 
 early as tlie fourth century, is evident from the 
 quotations from the ancient Epistle, by Epiphani- 
 us ; for no such words as he cites, are in the Epis- 
 tle, now extant. But candour requires that it be 
 mentioned, that they are contained in the Epistle 
 to thfc- Ephesians. Let this weigh as much as it is 
 worth, in favour of the opinion^ that the apostle, ia 
 
301 
 
 the passage under consideration, refers to the Epis- 
 tle to the Ephesians. This opinion, however, is 
 perfectly consistent with our position, that no Ca- 
 nonical BOOK OF THE NlW TeSTAMENT HAS 
 BtEN LOST. 
 
 This proposition, we hope, will now appear to 
 the re'ader, sufficiently established. 
 
 u 2 
 
jm. 
 
 SECTIOIT ZIV. 
 
 RULFS FOR DEI ERMIXIMC WHAT BOOKS ARE APOC- 
 RYPiiAL— SOME \CC;(;UN I OF THE APOCRYFH \.L 
 BOOKS WHICH HAVE I5KE.V LOS T— ALL OF. THEM 
 CONDEMNED BY I'HE FOREGOING RULES— REASON 
 OF THE ABOUNDING OF SUCH BOOKS. 
 
 Of ihe Apocryjihal books of the New Tes- 
 tament, the greater part have long since sunk 
 into oblivion, but a few of them are still extant. 
 All of them can be proved to be spurious, or at 
 least not Canonical. Their claims have so little 
 to support them, that they might be left to that 
 oblivion, into which they have so generally fallen, 
 were it not, that from time to time, persons unfriend- 
 ly to our present Canon, bring forward these books, 
 and pretend that some of them, at least, have as 
 good claims to Canonical authority, as those which 
 are received. It will be satisfactory to the reader, 
 therefore, to know the names of these books, and 
 to understand the principles on which they have 
 been uniformly rejected by the church. 
 
 In the first place, then, 1 will mention the 
 rules laid down by the Rev. Jeremiah Jones, by 
 which it may be determined that a book is Apoc- 
 ryphal, and then I \Yill give some account of the 
 hooks nf this class, w^hich have been lost ; and 
 finally, consider the character of those which are 
 still extant. 
 
303 
 
 1. That book is certainly .Apocryphal, which 
 contains ?nani/cst cunt rudict ions. 
 
 Tlic reason of this rule, is tot) evident to need 
 any elucidation. 
 
 '^. That book is Apocryphal, tohich contains 
 any doctrine or histo7\i/, plainly contrary to 
 those IV Inch arc certainly known to be true. 
 
 This rule also is too clear to require any thin<' 
 to be said in confirmation of its propriety, 
 
 3. That book is Apocryphal which contains 
 any thing ludicrous or trijiin<r, or ichich 
 abounds in silly and fabulous stories. 
 
 This rule is not only true, but of great impor- 
 tance, in this inquiry ; as on exaniin;.tion, it will be 
 found, that the largest part of apocryphal books may 
 be detected by the application of this single rule. 
 
 4. That book is Apocryphal, which me/itions 
 things of a date ?nuch later than the tiine in 
 ivhich the author, ufider whose nariie it goes, 
 lived. 
 
 This rule does not apply to predictions of future 
 events, which events occurred long after the death 
 of the prophet; but to a reference to facts, or 
 names of places, or persons, as existing when the 
 book was written, which are known to have ex- 
 isled, only at a period lung since the time when 
 the supposed author lived. The rule will be bet- 
 ter unilerstood, if illustrated by particular exam- 
 ples. The book entitled, The Constitutions of 
 THE Apostles, speaks of the controversy which 
 
304 
 
 arose in the" third century, respecting the rehapti- 
 zation of heretics, therefore, it is not the work 
 of Clement of Rome, to whom it has been ascribe^d, 
 nor was it written in his time, but long after- 
 wards. 
 
 Again, the bonk under' the name of Hf.gesip« 
 PUS is not genuine, for if mentions Constantine, 
 and Constantimple, which had no existence until 
 long after the death of Hegesippus. 
 
 Moreover, in The Constitutions of the 
 Apostlks, there is mention of rites and ceremo- 
 nie*', relative to baptism, fasting, celibacy, &c. 
 wiiich it is certain had no existence in the times 
 of the apostles, therefore this book was not written 
 by an apostolical man, nor in the days of the apos- 
 tles, but centuries afterwards. 
 
 5. That book is Apocryphal, the style of ivhich 
 is entirely different from the known style of the 
 author, to lohom it is ascribed. 
 
 It is easy to counterfeit an author's name, age, 
 country, opinions, &c. ; but it will be found almost 
 impossible to imitate his style. An author, it is 
 true, may vary his style, to suit different subjects, 
 but there is commonly some peculiarity by which 
 he maybe distiiguished, from all others. "Je- 
 rome," says Sixtus, " writes one way, in his 
 epistles, another in his controversies, a third, in 
 his commentaries ;-- one way when young, another 
 when old, yet he always so writes, that you may 
 know him to be the same Jerome still, as a man 
 
305 
 
 knows his friend, under all the various casts and 
 turn.s ol hs cuiitcnancr." 
 
 Thus, Augustine says of Cyprian, '•' His st\ le 
 has a certain peculiar face, by which it may be 
 known." 
 
 It should be remembered, h<'\vcver, tliat this 
 rule, alth()us;h it may often furnish a certain de- 
 tecti in of spurious \vritin;i;s, is one which requires 
 mucii caution in the application. There is ne.cl 
 of a lonji; and intimate acquaintance with the st) le 
 of an author, before we are competent to determine 
 whciher a book could have been written by him: 
 and the difference oua;ht to be very distinctly 
 marked, bi'fore we make it the ground of any im- 
 portant judgment, respictino; the genuineness of a 
 work ascribed to him, especially if there be exter- 
 nal evidence in its favour. In fact, too free an ap- 
 plication of this rule has led to many errors, both 
 in ancient and modern times. 
 
 6. That book is spurious and JJpocryphal, 
 whose idinrn and dialect are different from 
 tho^e of the country^ to which the reputed au- 
 thor belonged. 
 
 The idiom and dialt^ct of a language, are very dif- 
 ferent from the style of an author. Every lan- 
 guage is susceptible of every variety of style, but 
 the idiom is iht sime, in all who use the laiigju.ige : 
 it is the peculiarity, not of an individual, but of a 
 while -ountry. 
 
 "But as every writer has a style of his own, whiol; 
 
t 306 
 
 cannot easily be imitated by another ; so, ever}- 
 country has an idiom, which other nations, even 
 if they learn the language, cannot, without g;reat 
 difficulty, acquire. And for the same reason that 
 a writer cannot acquire the idiom of a foreign 
 tongue, he cannot divest himself of the peculiari- 
 ties of his own. 
 
 An Englishman can scarcely write and speak 
 the French lanjguage, so as not to discover by 
 his idiom, that it is not his vernacular tongue. 
 Hence also, a North Britton can be distin- 
 guished, not only from the peculiarity of his pro- 
 nunciation, but by his idiom. And this is the 
 reason, that modern scholars can never write Latin, 
 in the maimer of the classic authors. 
 
 This rule, thercfoiC, is of great importance in 
 detecting the spuriousness of a book, when the 
 real author lived after the time of the person whose 
 name is assumed, or in a country where a diffrrtnt 
 language, o- a difftrent dialect, was in use. It will 
 be found almost imj)ossibie, to avoid phrases and 
 modes of speech, which were liot in Uvse in the 
 time of the person, under whose name the work 
 is edited : and the attempt at imitating an idiom 
 ■which is not perfectly familiar, leads to an affecta- 
 tion and stiffness of manner, which usually betrays 
 the impostor. 
 
 The influence of native idiom, appears no where 
 more remarkably, than in the writirngs of the New 
 Testament. These books, although written in the 
 
307 
 
 Greek tonsjue, coniiiiii an idiom so manifestly dif- 
 ferent from that of tlie lan<^uaa;e in common use 
 at iliat time, that it cannot but be observed by all, 
 who liave even a superficial acquaintance with Gre- 
 cian literature. 
 
 The fact is, as has often been observed by learri' 
 ed men, that while the words of these books are 
 Greek, the idiom is Hebrew The writers liad, 
 from their infancy, been accustomed to the 
 Syro-Chaldaic language, which is a corruption 
 of the ancient Ilel)rew. Now, this peculiarity 
 of idiom could never have been successfully imitat- 
 ed by any native Greek ; nor by any one,not early 
 conversant with the vernacular tongue of Pales- 
 tine, ai that time. When, therefore, men of other 
 countries, and other times, undertook to publish 
 books, under Xh'- name of the apostles, the im- 
 posture was manifest at once, to all capable o? 
 ju'lging correctly on the suhj- ct; because, although 
 they could write in the same language as the apos- 
 tles, they could not |)ossibIy imitate their idiom. 
 This theref)re furnishes a most i'liportant charac- 
 teristic, to distinguish between the genuine writ- 
 ings of the apostles, and such as are supp isiiious. 
 
 7. That hook is .spurious which exhibits a dis- 
 position and temper of mind, very different 
 from that of the person to whom it is ascrit)ed. 
 
 'Vh'xs rule depends -in .» principle in humin na- 
 ture, well understood, and needs no particular elu- 
 cidation. 
 
308 
 
 6. That book is not genuine, which consists 
 principally of tnerc extracts from other books. 
 
 This is also so evident, that it requires no illus- 
 tration. 
 
 9. Those books lohich were never cited, nor 
 7'eferred to as Scripture, by any ivriter of cre- 
 dit for the first four hundred years after the 
 apostles^ days, is Apocryphal. 
 
 10. Those books which were expressly rejected 
 by the Fathers of the first ages as spurious, and 
 attributed by them to heretics, are Jlpocryphal. 
 
 By the application of the foregoing rules, it 
 can be shown, that every book which claims 
 Canonical authority, not included in our present 
 Canon, is apocryphal. When we denominate all 
 books apocryphal, which are not Canonical, we do 
 not mean to reduce them all to the same level. 
 A book whicli is not Canonical may be a very in- 
 structive and useful book. As a human composi- 
 tion, it may deserve to be highly esteemed ; and 
 as the writin_sj; of a pious and eminent man of anti- 
 quity, it n)ay claim peculiar respect. 
 
 The ancient method of division was more accu- 
 rate than ours. They divickd all books into iliree 
 classes ; first, the Canonical ; SC' ondly, the Eccle- 
 siasdcal ; and tliirdl}^ the Spurious. And there 
 is reason to believe, that some books which were 
 written without the least fraudulent desig , by 
 anonymous authors, have, by the ia;norance of ;beir 
 successors, been ascribed to the wrong persons* 
 
309 
 
 That the Fathers did sometimes cite apocryphal 
 books, in their writinojg, is true ; hut so did Paul 
 cite ilie Hralht-n Poets. If 'hrs*- hooks an* some- 
 times mentioned, without any note of disapproba- 
 tion annexed, it can commonly he cle;trly ascer- 
 tained from other places in the same author, that 
 he held them to he Apocryphal. Thus, Okigen, 
 in one place, quotes the (;o.>>pel accirding to 
 THK Hebri-,w>, withont any expression of disap- 
 probation ; but in another pince, he rejects it, as 
 spurious, and declares, "That the church receivei: 
 no more than four o^nspels." 
 
 Sometimes, the Fathers cited these Apocryphal 
 books, to show that their knowledge was not con- 
 fined to their own books, and that they did not 
 reject others, through ignorance of their contents. 
 Remarkably to this purpose, are the words of Ori- 
 gen. *' The chunh," says he, "r<c>ives only 
 four gospels: heretics have many, such as, the 
 gnspel of the Egyptians, the gospel (^f Thomas, 
 &.C.: these we reatl, that we may not seem to he 
 iguorant, to those who think they know something 
 extraordinary, if they are acquainted with those 
 things which are recorded in these books." 
 
 To the same purpose, speaks Ambrose ; for 
 havii'.g mentioned several of these books, he says, 
 " VVc read these that they may not be read by 
 others ; we read them, that we may not seem 
 to be is^norant ; we read ihem, not that we receive 
 them, bui that we may reject them ; and may 
 D n 
 
310 
 
 kno'v what those things are of which they make 
 such a boast." 
 
 In some instances, it seems probable, that some 
 of the Fathers took passages out of these books, 
 because they wore acknowledged by those against 
 whom they were writmg ; being v\illing to dispute 
 with them on their own principles, and to confute 
 them by their own books. 
 
 It may perhaps be true also, that one or two of 
 the Fathers, cited passages from these books, be- 
 cause they contained facts, not recorded in the Can- 
 onical gospels. The apostle John informs us, that 
 our Lord performed innumerable miracles, besides 
 those which he had recorded, the which, if they 
 should be ivritten, every one, I suppose the world 
 itself, could not contain the books lohich should 
 be written. Now, some tradition, of some of 
 th* se things, would undoubtedly be handed down 
 as low as to the second century, and might find 
 its way into some of the Apocryphal gospels, 
 and might be cited by peisons who did not be- 
 lieve the book to be of Canonical authority, just 
 as we refer to any profane author, for the proof of 
 such facts as are credibly related by tiien. Tliere 
 is, at least, one example of this. Jerome, refers 
 to 'he gospel according to the Hebrews, for a fact : 
 and yet he most explicitly rejects this book, as 
 Apocryphal 
 
 The only books which were ever read in the 
 churches, besides tiie Canonical, were a few writ- 
 
311 
 
 ten bv apnsfolioal men : which, althono;h not writ- 
 ten by a [)|{?nnry i: spiration, wrrc thi' iiriiuiiie 
 writings ol' tht.- persons wliose ii;ini»'S th'y b<Te, 
 and were pious produriions, and tonilocl to edifica- 
 tion ; such as, the Kpislh- of Cl( nient^ the Sl.ep- 
 herd of Hernias, ai.d the Epistle of Barnabas ; 
 but no spurious books were ever read in the 
 churchi s. 
 
 None of the writings falsely ascribed to Christ 
 and bis apostles, ever acquirrd so much authority, 
 :is to be publicly read in any church, as far as we 
 knou-. Indeed, although the Apocryphal books of 
 the New Testament, were very numerous, yet 
 they did not appear in the aj^e of the church, next 
 after the times of the apostles. In the first centu- 
 ry, no hooks of this rlcscripiion are referred to, 
 unless we suppose that Luke, in the beginning of 
 his gospel, intends to speak of such. In the second 
 •■entury, a few s))urious writings began to be first 
 put into circulation, as, the Tiospel accokding 
 TO THK Hebrews ; the (Jospel op Truth, used 
 by the Valentinians ; the Pkeaching of Petek ; 
 the Tkadttions op Matthias ; the Acts of 
 Paul and Thecla ; the Gospel of Marcion ; 
 THE Revelation of CERrNTnus; and a few others 
 <jf less note. Hut in the third century, the num- 
 ber of Apocryphal books, was considerably in- 
 creased ; and in the fourth and fifih centuries, 
 t.hey were exrefdingly multiplied. 
 
 If it be inquired, how it happened that so many 
 
313 
 
 Apocryphal books were written, it may confidently 
 be answered, ll.at the principal cause was, the 
 aboui.dii g of heresies. Ahnost all tht- spurious 
 writings, under the names of the aposiles, are the 
 produciions of heretics, as we learn from the tes- 
 timony iftho.se Fathers who have made mention 
 of them. It is, hnwevr, true, that some mistaken 
 well-measiing people, thought, that they could 
 add honour to the apostles, or contribute to the 
 edification of ;he church, by resorting to (what 
 have improperly been cd\\e.6) piovs frauds. They 
 imagined, also, that they could recommend Christ- 
 ianity to the Gentiles, by inventing stories, which 
 they rashly pretended, were sayings, or actions of 
 Christ. Thus a opting the pernicious maxim, so 
 peremptorily denounced by Paul, that we may 
 do evil that good may come ; or that the good- 
 ness of the end, will satisfy the badness of the 
 means. Of this, we have one remarkable exam- 
 ple, in the spurious book, still extant, entitled, 
 The %B.cts of Paul and Thecla, which a certain 
 Asiatic presbyter confessed that be had forged, 
 and assigned as his reason for this forgery, that 
 he wished to show resiiect to Paul. But in con- 
 nexion with this fact, we have satisfactory proof 
 of the vigilance of the church, in guarding the 
 Sacred Canon from corruption ; for the book was 
 no sooner published, than a strict inquiry was 
 instituted into its origin, and the prtsbUer men- 
 tioned above, having been detected as the author. 
 
d!3 
 
 was deprived of his ofticc in tlic church. This 
 account is given hy Tertullian ; and Jerome adds, 
 that the detection of this forgery was made by the 
 apostle John. 
 
 It is probable, also, that sonic of ihese books 
 were written without any evil purpose, by weak 
 men, who wrote down ail the stories they had re- 
 ceived by tradition ; for, no doubt, a niultitudc 
 of traditions rcvspecting Christ and his apostles, 
 with extravagant distortions and additions, would 
 be handed down for several generations. 
 
 By all these means, the number of Apocryphal 
 books of the New Testament was greatly multiplied. 
 But by far the greater number of these liave perished; 
 yet there is no difficulty in determining, that none 
 of them had any just claim to a place m the Canon. 
 By one or more of the rules laid down above, they 
 can all be demonstrated to have been Apocryphal : 
 and indeed most of them are never mentioned by 
 any ancif-nt author, in any other light than as spu- 
 rious writings. * There is a famous deciee of pope 
 Gelasius, in which, at least twenty -five of these 
 books are named, and declared to be Apocryphal. 
 It is not certain, indeed, whether this decree ought 
 to be ascribed to Gklasius, or to one of his pre- 
 decessors, Damasus ; but there can be no doubt 
 that it is very ancient, and is by most sufiposed to 
 have been formed, in the council which met at 
 
 * See Note D 
 D D * 
 
»14 
 
 Rome, A. D. 494. A translation of this deeret 
 exir-jcied from Jones, will be found in the notes 
 at the end of the vokime. 
 
 * See Note E. 
 
8E0TZ0IT XV. 
 
 — .e®e— 
 
 AFOrRYPHAL ROOKS WHICH AUK STIIX EXTANT- 
 LEI TER OF ARCiAKUS KIN(; OF EDESSA I O JESl'3, 
 AND HIS ANSWER— EPISILE lO THE LAODICEANS 
 — I.El TRRS OF PAUL TO SENECA— I'UOTEVANCiE- 
 LlOV OF JAMES— THE COMPEL OF 0«R SWIOUR'S 
 INFANCY— IHE AC I S OF PILATE— THE ACTS OF 
 PAUL AND IHECLA. 
 
 We come now to consider those Apocryphal 
 books which are still extant, and concerning, 
 which, therefore, we can speak more particu- 
 larly. 
 
 The first of these, is the Letter of Abgarus, 
 King of Edessa, addressed to Jesus, us sent 
 hy hh footman Jinanias. 
 
 EusKRius is the first who makes mention of this 
 Epistle, and the sum of his account is. that our Sa- 
 viour's miraculous works drew innumerable per- 
 sons to him, from the most remote countries, to be 
 healed of their diseases ; — that Abgakus, a famous 
 King beyond the Euphrates, wrote to him, be- 
 cause he was afflicted with a malady, incurable by 
 human art. Our Lord promised to send one of his 
 disciples to him, and Thaddeus, one of the seventy 
 disciples was sent by Thomis after the ascension 
 of Jesus, by an intimation given him from hea- 
 
316 
 
 ven. For the truth of this story, Eusehius appeals 
 to thf public records of the city of Edessa, where, 
 he says, all the transactions of the reign of Abgarus 
 are preserved in the Sj^-iac language ; out of which 
 he translated these Epistles, and the accompanying 
 history. He proceeds to relate, that Thaddeus 
 having come to Edessa, wrought many miracles, 
 and healed many that were diseased, Abgarus, 
 supposing that this was the person whom Christ 
 had, in bis letter, promised to send to him, as soon 
 as Thaddeus was introduced lo him, perceiving 
 something extraordinary in his countenance, fell 
 down before him, at which his nobles were greatly 
 surprised. The king having inquired, whether he 
 was the person sent by Christ, he answered that 
 on account of the faith of Christ he was sent, and 
 assured him, that all things should be according to 
 his faith. To which the king replied, that he be- 
 lieved so much in Christ, that he was resolved, 
 had it not been for fear of the Romans, to hare 
 made war with the Jews for crucifying him. 
 Thaddeus informed him of the ascension of Christ 
 to his Father ; the king replied, I believe in him> 
 and in his Father also ; on which the apostle said, 
 I lay my hand on you in the name of the Lord Je- 
 sus Christ ; and the king was instantly cured of his 
 disease. He also cured others who were diseas- 
 ed ; and on the morrow, the king ordered all the 
 city lo meet together, to hear the apostle preach. 
 The king offered him gold and silver, which he re- 
 
817 
 
 fuspH, sayinc;, ff^e have left our own, und fthould 
 we take I hat which is aii()thcr\s? 
 
 These Epistles are also mentioiifd by Ephrkm, 
 the Syrian, who was a deacon in the cliurch of 
 Edessa, in the latter end of the fourth century. 
 His account of this matter, as je;iven by Dr. Grabe, 
 is as follows ; " Blessed be your city, and mother 
 Edessa, which was expressly blessed by the mouth 
 of the Lord, and his disciples, but our apostles ; 
 for ^vhen Ab^arus the kine;, vvho built that city, 
 thought fit to send and acknowledge Christ, the 
 Lord and Saviour of all, in his pilgrimage on 
 earth ; saying, I have heard all things which are 
 do'ie by you, and how much you have suffered by 
 tht> Jews, who contemn you ; wherefore, come 
 hither, and take up your r sidence with mo. I 
 have a little city, whirh siiall be equally yours and 
 mine. Hereupon, the Lord admiring his faith, 
 sent by messeugt-rs a blcs^iig unto the city, which 
 should abide forever, till the Holy One be revealed 
 from Heaven, even Jesus Christ the Son of God, 
 and God of God." 
 
 No other writir of the first four centuries, makes 
 any explicit mention of this Epistle ; but Proco- 
 pius, in the sixth century, in his history of the 
 Persian war, relates, <'That Abgarus had been 
 long afflicted with the gout, and finding no relief 
 from the physioians, but hearing of the miracles of 
 Christ, sent to him, and desired that he would come 
 and live with him j and Uiat upon his receiving 
 
318 
 
 an answer from Christ, be was immediately cured : 
 and that our Saviour in the end of his let er, gave 
 Abojarus assurance, that his city should never be 
 tak^n by enemies." 
 
 EvAGRius, in ihe Intter end of the sixth centu- 
 ry, appeals to this account of Procopius, and con- 
 firms the story, that the city never should be taken 
 by enemies, by a r< ference to some facts, particu- 
 larly the failure of Chosioes, to take the city, 
 when he laid siege to it. But this author adds a 
 circumstance, which has nuch the air of a fable, 
 tha' this failure of cap'uring the city was brought 
 ab iut by a picture of Christ's face, which he had 
 impressed on a handkerchief, and sent to Abga- 
 Rus, ai his earnest request. 
 
 Cedrenus adds to all the rest, that Christ sealed 
 his lett( r, with a seal consisting of seven Hebrew 
 letters, the meaning of which was, the divine niir- 
 acle of God is seen. 
 
 Among the moderns, a very large majority 
 are of opinion, that this Epistle is Apocryplial. 
 Indeed the principal advocates of i's genuineness, 
 are a few 1< arned Englishrnen, particularly, Dr. 
 Parker, Dr. Cave, and Dr. Grahe, but they do 
 not speak confidently on the subject ; while on the 
 oti'er side, are fuund almost the whole body of 
 learned erities, hoth Protestants and Romanists. 
 !Now, tt>a! rhis Epistle and history existed iu the 
 Archives of Ed-'ssa, in the tio'e of EuseHius, 
 there is no room to doubt, unless we would accuse 
 
3)9 
 
 this respectable hisforian of the most deliberate 
 lais(>hoocl ; for he asserts thnt ho himspjf, hail taken 
 them thence. His words, however, must not be 
 too strictly interpreted, as though he had himself 
 been at Edessa, and had translated the Epistle 
 from the Syriac ; for there is reason to believe, that 
 he never visit: d that place^ and that he v^-as not 
 acquainted with the Syriac ton^;ue. The words 
 will be sufiRciently verified, if this document was 
 translated and transmitted to him, through an au- 
 thentic channel, fmm Edessa. 
 
 It is probable, therefore, that this story has some 
 foundation in truth. Probably, Thaddeus, or some 
 other apostle, did preach the gospel and pcrf )rm 
 miracles in that city ; but how much of the story 
 is credible, it is not now easy to determine. But 
 I think, it may be shown, that this Epistle was ne- 
 ver penned by Jesus Christ, for the following rea- 
 sons. 
 
 1. It is never mentioned, in the genuine gos- 
 pels ; nor referred to by any writer of the first three 
 centuries. 
 
 2. If this account had been true, there never 
 could have been any hesitation, among the apos- 
 tles, about preaching the gospd to the Gen- 
 tiles. 
 
 3. It is unreasonable to believe, that if Christ 
 had been applied to by this king for healing, he 
 would have deferred a cure, until he could send 
 an apostle, after his ascension. This does not cor- 
 
320 
 
 respond with the usual conduct of the benevolent 
 Saviour. 
 
 4. It seems to have been a tradition universally 
 received, that Christ never wrote any thing him- 
 self ; and if he had written this letter, it would 
 have been more prized than any other portion of 
 Scripture, and would have been placed in the 
 Canon, and every where read in th^ churches. 
 
 5. After it was published by Eusebius, it ne- 
 ver gained so much credit, as to be received as a 
 genuine writing of Christ. As it was unknown in 
 the first three centuries ; so, in the fourth, 
 when published, it was scarcely noticed by any wri- 
 ter. 
 
 6. The plain mention of our Lord's ascensif>n,in 
 the Epistle, is an evidence of its spuriousness ; 
 for in all his discourses, recorded by the Evange- 
 lists, there is no such explicit declaration of this 
 event ; and it cannot be su[)posed, that he would 
 speak more explicitly to a Heathen king, than to 
 the ^.ersons, chosen to be witnesses of his actions, 
 and dispensers of his doctrine. 
 
 There is, however, nothing in the sentiments 
 express d in this Epistle, unsuitable to the liumble 
 and benevolent character of the Saviour ; but learn- 
 ed n.en have supposed thst there are several inter- 
 nal evidences of spuriousi ess, besides the one just 
 iTiCtitioned. I conceive, h v\ ever, that the re.ison? 
 alrradv aS'-ian- d will be c 'nsidere>! as sufficient to 
 prove, that this Letter forms no part of tne Sacred 
 
321 
 
 Canon. It is excluded by several of the rules laid 
 down, above; and even if it was genuine, it seems, 
 that it ought ralher to be received as a private com- 
 munication, than as intended for the edificatioti of 
 the whole church. The history, which accompanies 
 the letter, has several strong marks of >parious- 
 ness, but as this does not claim to be Canonical, 
 we need not pursue the subject further. It may, 
 however, not be amiss tu remark, that the story of 
 (he picture of our Saviour impresstd on a hand- 
 kerchief and sent to Abi^arus, is enough of itself 
 to condemn the history as fabulous. This s.ivours 
 not of the simplicity of Christ ; and has no par- 
 allel in any thing recorded in the Guspel.* 
 
 II. There is now extant, an E|)isile, under the 
 title of, Paui. to the Lacdickans ; and it is 
 known, that as early as the beginning of the second 
 century, a work exisied under ihis name, which 
 was received by INIarcion, the heretic. Hut 
 there is good reas )n for thinking, that the Epistle 
 now extant, is an entir.ly different work. fr.)ni the 
 one which ancieiitly exi-ted ; for the prcsciit Epis- 
 tle does not contain the words, whicii Epipha.iius 
 has cited from thit used by M iroion : and wiiat 
 renders this clear is, that the ancient E|)istle was 
 heretical, and was rejected by the Fathers of the 
 church, with one cons, nt ; whenas, the Ejjisile 
 whicli we now have, c>tntaiijs nothing erroneous j 
 
 " See Note F- 
 
 E E 
 
322 
 
 for it is a mere compilation from the other Epistles 
 of Paul, with a few additional sentences, which 
 contain no heretical doctrine. 
 
 As the Epistle is short, a translation of it will 
 be given in the Noies, at the eml of the volume.* 
 
 Concerning the ancient Epistle, under this title, 
 PhilasJrius says, " That some were of opinion, 
 that it was written by Luke ; but because the 
 heretics have inserted some (false) things, it is for 
 that reason not read in the churches. Though it 
 be read by some, yet there are no more than thir- 
 teen Epistles of Paul read to the people in the 
 church, and sometimes, that to the Hebrews " 
 
 '' There are some," says Jerome, " who read 
 an Epistle, under the name of Paul, to the Laodi- 
 ceans, but it is rejected by all." 
 
 And Epiphanius calls it, " An Epistle not writ- 
 ten by the apostles." 
 
 The Epistle now extant, never having been re- 
 ceived into the ancient catalogues, read in the 
 churches, or cited as Scripture, is of course Apoc- 
 ryphal. 
 
 It is also proved not to be genuine, because it 
 is almost entirely, an extract from the other Epis, 
 ties of Paul. 
 
 III. Another writing which has been ascribed 
 to Paul is. Six Letteks to Seneca ; with which 
 are connected, Eight Letters from Seneca to Paul. 
 These Letters are of undoubted antiquity ; and 
 
 * See Note G- 
 
323 
 
 several learned men of the Jesuits, have defended 
 them as •jenuine ; and allege, that th'-y are similar 
 to other Epistles received into the Canon, which 
 wer^; addressed to individuals. That such letters 
 were in existence as early as the fourth century, 
 appears from a passagje in Jerome's Catilogjue of 
 Illusirious Men, where he fjives the following; ac- 
 count of Seneca; <* Lucius Annaeus Seneca, born 
 at Corduba, a disciple of Sotio, a Stoic, uncle of 
 Lucan the poet, was a person of very exinor- 
 dinary temperance, whom I slionjcl not have rank- 
 ed in mv Cafalogue of Saints, but that I was 
 determined to it, by the Kpistles Of Paul to 
 Senka, and Seneca to Paul, vvhicli are n-ad by 
 many. In which, thoiiujh he was at tliat lime 
 tutor to Nero, and made a very consideridjle fi;i;urc, 
 he saitli, he wishes to be of the same repute among 
 his countrymen, as Paul was among the Christians. 
 He was slain by Nero, two years before Peter 
 and Paul were hon >ured witii martyrdom." 
 
 There is also a prissage in Augustine's 54th Epis- 
 tle, to Macedonius, which shows that he was i ot 
 un:icqnainted with these Letters. His words are, 
 •* It is true, which Seneca, who lived in the tim.-s 
 of the ap 'Sties, and ?^7-^o wrote certain Epistles 
 to Paul whirh are now read, s;iid, he who will 
 hate those who are wicked, must hate all men " 
 
 There is no authentic evidence, that these Let- 
 ters have been rioiiced by any of the rest of the 
 Fathers. Indeed, it has been too hastily asserted 
 
334 
 
 by several eminent critics, that Aujjjustine believed 
 that the Letteis of Paul to Seneca were genuine ; 
 but the fact is, that he makes no mention, whatever, 
 of Paul's Letters ; he only mentions ihose of Se- 
 neca to Paul. The probability is, that he never 
 saw them, for had he been acquainted with them, 
 it is scarcely credible, that he would have said 
 nothii'ir respectina; tliem, in this place. 
 
 Neither does Jerome say any thing from which 
 it can with any ct rtainty be inferred, that he re- 
 ceived these Letters as genuine. He gives them 
 the title by which they were known, and says, 
 they were read by many ; but if he had believed 
 them to be genuine Letters of Paul, would he not 
 have said much more? Would he not have claimed 
 for them a place among Paul's Canonical P^pisties ? 
 And what proyes, that this Father did not believe 
 them to be genuine is, that in this same book, he 
 gives a full account of Paul and his writings, and 
 yet does not make the least mention of theseLetters 
 to Seneca. 
 
 But the style of these Letters sufficiently de- 
 monstrates, that t! ey are not genuine. Nothing 
 can be more dissimilar to the style of Paul, and 
 of Seneca, thai; that of these Epistles. The style 
 of those attributed to Seneca, says Du Pin, is bar- 
 barous, and full of idioms that do not belong to 
 the Latin tongue. "And those attributed to Paul''' 
 says Mr. Jeremiah Jones, <'have not the least tine 
 
:f25 
 
 ture ol the j^ravity of the apostle, but are rathet 
 couijjlimcnt-* hin instructions." 
 
 The subscriptions to these Letters, are very dif- 
 ferent from those used by these writers in their 
 genuine F]pistles Seneca is made to salute Paul 
 by the name of brother ; aff a]>p''lation not in use 
 amonsjtltc Ht^athen, but peculiar to Christians. 
 
 By several of these Letters it would appear, that 
 Pan! was at Rome ivhcn they were written, but 
 from others, the contrary may be iiiferred. 
 
 It seems strmeje, if they wore both in the city, 
 that they should dat" iht-ir Letters by consulships; 
 and, indeed, this method of dating Letters, was 
 wholly unkno^vn among the Romans; and there 
 are several mistakes in them, in reg »rd to the con- 
 suls in authority, at the time. 
 
 Their trifling contents is also a strong argument 
 of spui iousness. "They contain nothing," says 
 Du Pi), " worthy eithur of Seneca or of Paul ; 
 scarcely one moral sentiment in the Lttiters. of Se- 
 neca, nor any thing of Christianity in those of 
 Paul." 
 
 What can be more unlike Paul than the Fifth 
 Letter, which is occupied with a servile ajjology 
 for p'ltting his own name before Seneca's, in the 
 inscription of his Letters, and declaring this to be 
 contrary to Christianity ? 
 
 These Letters, moreov r, coi;tain some things 
 which are not true, as, *< That the ^mperor Nero 
 was delighted and surprised at the thoughts in 
 E K 2 
 
'326 
 
 Paul's Epistles to the Churches :" — '• Ami that 
 N^-ro was both ati admirer and favourer of Christi- 
 anity.'^ But very incongruous with this, and also 
 with Paul's character, is that which he is made to 
 say, in his Fourth Epistle, where he entreats Si^n- 
 eca to say no more to the Emperor respecting him 
 or Christianity, lest he should offend him. Yet, in 
 the Sixth Letter, he adVises Seneca to take conve- 
 nient opportunities of insinuating the Christian re- 
 ligion, and things favourable to it, to Nero and 
 his family. But for further particulars, the reader 
 is referred to the Epistles themselves, a translation 
 of which, extracted from Jones, is inserted in the 
 Notes* 
 
 IV. There is extant a spurious gospel, entitled, 
 The Protevangelion of James, in the Greek 
 language, which was brought from the East by 
 FosTELL, who asserts, that it is held to be genu- 
 ine by the Oriental churches, and is publicly read 
 in their asse.nblies, with the other Scriptures. 
 This learned man, moreover, undertakes the de- 
 fence of this gospel, as the genuine production 
 of the a[)OStle James ; and insists, that it ought at 
 least, to have a place in the Hagiographa. But 
 his arguments are weak, and have been fully refu- 
 ted by Fabricius and Jones. 
 
 This Apocryphal book, however, appears to be 
 ancient ,; or at least, there was formerly a book un- 
 
 ^ See Note H. 
 
;j27 
 
 der the same name, but that it is not Canonical, is 
 easily proved. It is quote<l by none of the ancii'nt 
 Fathers, except Epipl>anius, who explicitly rejects 
 it, as Apocryphal. It is found in none <•{ the cata- 
 logues, and was never read in the primiilve church. 
 It contains many false and triflinj>; stories ; and in 
 its style and composition, is a perfect contrast to 
 the genuine gospels of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 From the Hebraisms with which it abounds, it 
 has been supposed to he the work of some person, 
 who was oriu;inally a Jew ; but as il was anciently 
 used by the Gnostics, there can be little doubt, 
 that the author when he wrote, belonged lo some 
 one of the heretical sects, which so abounded in pri- 
 mitive times. 
 
 There is also another work, wliicli has a near ai- 
 iinity with this, called, Tub Nativity of Ma- 
 KV. And although these books poss-ss a similar 
 character and contain many things in common ; 
 yet in other points ihcy are contradictory to each 
 other, as they both are, to the Evangelical his- 
 tory. 
 
 The internal evid"nce is itself sufficient to satis- 
 fy any candij reader of their Apocryphal charac- 
 ter. * 
 
 V. The largest Apocryphal gospel extant, is en- 
 
 * Both these Apocryphal works, may be seen in the sc- 
 1,'ond volume of Jones' learned work on the Canon. 
 
32S 
 
 titled. The Gosfel of our Saviour's Inpancv, 
 There is also remaining a fr>gment t^f a g sp^l as- 
 cribed to Thomas, which probably was, originally, 
 no other than the one just mentioned. 
 
 These gospels were never supposed to be Canon- 
 ical by any Christian writer. They were forj^ed 
 and circulated by the Gnostics, and altered from 
 time to time, according to their caprice. 
 
 The G spel of our Saviour's Infancy, seems to 
 have been known to Mohammed, or rather to his 
 assistants ; for occ rding to his own account, in 
 the Koran, he was un vble to read. Many of the 
 things related in the Koran, respecting Christiani- 
 ty, are from tliis Apocryphal work. 
 
 This Gospel is condemned by almost every rule 
 laid down for the detection of spurious writings ; 
 and if all other evidence were wanting, tlie silly, 
 trifling, and ludicrous stories, with which it is stuff- 
 ed, would be enou2;h to demonstrate, that it was 
 spurious and Apocryphal. To give the curious 
 reader an opportunity of contrasting these Apocry- 
 phal leg-nds with the gravity and simplicity of the 
 genuine gospels, I have inserted some of the mira- 
 cles recorded in this book, at the end of the vol- 
 ume.* 
 
 It seems highly probable that this gospel of the 
 Saviour's Infancy, and the book of the Nativity of 
 Mary? were originally parts of the same work ; an 
 
 '■ Sfte Note I- 
 
329 
 
 evidence of which is, that in the Koran, there is a 
 continued ami connected story, whicli is tHken 
 partly from the one, and partly from the other * 
 The same thing is proved by ihefact, that Jerome, 
 in one place, speaks of a preface whicli he had writ- 
 ten to the gospel of our Saviour's Infancy, in 
 which he condemns it, bicaus*- it contradicts 
 the g spel of John, and in another place, he uses 
 the same words, and says they are in the preface 
 to the Nativity of Mary. 
 
 Both thfihc Apocryphal h(ioks have been former- 
 ly ascribed to Leucids Charintis, who lived in 
 the latter part bf the third century, and who ren- 
 dered himself famous, by forging spurious works, 
 under the name of the apostles. 
 
 VI. There is anoth. rApocryphal gospel.entitled, 
 THE Gospel op NiroDEMUs, or, the Acrs of 
 Pilate, which was probably forsj;pd about the 
 same time, as the one last treated of, and it is very 
 likely, by the same person. 
 
 That it was the custom for the governors of 
 provinces in the Roman Empire, to transmit to 
 the emperors an account of all remarkable oc- 
 cnrrencfts under their government, is capable of 
 proof from the Roman history; and Eusebius ex- 
 pressly informs us, that this wns customarv ; and 
 Philo JufloE' s speaks, " Of the daily memoirs 
 which were transmitted to Caligula, from Alexan- 
 dria." 
 
 * See Koran, chap. iii. 
 
330 
 
 That Pontius Pilate transmitted some account 
 efthe crucifixion of Christ, and of Ins wondeiful 
 works, is, therefore, in itself, highly probable ; 
 but it is rendered certain, by the public appeal 
 made to these Acts of Pilate, boih by Jttstin 
 Martyr, and Terttlljan, in iheir Apologies ; 
 the one addressed to the Ronian emperor, Antom- 
 wrs Pius ; and the ottier, pobiibly, to the Roman 
 Senate. The words of Justin Martyr, are, "And 
 of the truth of thv se farts you may be infoimed, 
 out of the Acrs which were written by Pontius 
 PiLAiE." And in the same Apology, he r< f rs to 
 these Acts f r proof, ''That our Saviour cured 
 all sorts of diseases, ai)d raised the dead." 
 
 T£Kii i,LiAN, in two placts of his Apology, ap- 
 
 P'als to R, CURDS WHICH WERE TRANSMITTED TO 
 
 TiBEUius, FROM JERUSALEM. His testimony is 
 remarkable in both places, and deserves to be 
 transcribed; "Tiberius," >ays he. "in whose 
 time the Christian name becanie first known in 
 the world, having; received information from Pal- 
 estine, in Syria, that Jesus Christ had there given 
 manifest proof of the truth of his divinity, com- 
 municated it to the Senate, insisting upon it as his 
 prerogative, that they should assent to his opinion 
 in that matter ; but the Senate not approving it, 
 refused. Caesar continued in the same opinion^, 
 threatening those who were accusers of the Christ- 
 ians." 
 
 In the other passage, after enumerating many of 
 
831 
 
 the miracles of Christ, ho adds, <' All these things, 
 Pilatc liimself, who was in iiis onscii- ice fur Ibl- 
 lowinj; Christ, transmitied to Tibeiius Caesar ; and 
 even the Caestrs themselves had been Christians, 
 if it had been consistent with thcr secular inte- 
 rest." Both Eusebins and Jerome, cite this testi- 
 mony of Tertuili »n, as authentic. It seems there- 
 fore certain, that some account of Christ and his 
 actions was transmitted by Pilate to the emperor. 
 **F()r," to use the words of an eminent man, 
 '* Terlullian, though a Christian writer, durst never 
 have presumed to impose upon the Seniite them- 
 selves, with such a remirkable story, if he was 
 not able to prove it ; and that he was, is 6' ident 
 from Justin M iriyr, who often appeals to the Acts 
 of Pilate, Concerning thi' history of our Saviour — 
 That Pilate did send niich Acts is evident, forsorce 
 any man, much less such a man as Justin M irtyr, 
 W(nild have been so foolish, or so confident, as to 
 affirm a thi.ig in v\hich it vvoulil be so easy to con- 
 vict him of falsehood. "* 
 
 Aiid another, speaking of 'he same thing, says, 
 " They were men of excellent learning and judg- 
 ment ; but no man who could write an Apology, 
 can be supposf-d to hav<; so liitle understanding, as 
 to appeal to that account which Pilate sent to Tibe- 
 rius, concrning the rcsurr'etion of Chnsi, in Apo- 
 logies, dedicated to tiie Rcunan emperor himself, 
 
 ■^ Dr. Parker. 
 
332 
 
 and to the Senate, if no such account had ever 
 been sent."* 
 
 It does not follow, however, that these Fathers 
 had ever seen the se Acts, or that they were ever 
 seen by any Christian. During the reigns of Hea- 
 then emperors. Christians could have no access to 
 the archives of the nation ; but the fact of the ex- 
 istence of such a record, might ha^■e been, and pro- 
 bably was a matt^er of public not .riety ; otherwise, 
 we never can account for the confident appeal of tliese 
 learned and respectable writers. There is no difficul- 
 ty in conceiving how such a fact might have been cer- 
 tainly known to theseFathei s,without supposing that 
 they had seen the record. As the learned Casau- 
 bon s;iys, '' Some servants or officers of one of the 
 Caesars, who were converted to Christianity, and 
 had opportunity of searching the public records at 
 Rome, gave this account to some Christians, from 
 whom Justin and Tertullian had it." 
 
 It may seem to be an objection to the existence 
 of such Acts, that the}' were never made public, 
 when the emperors became Christian ; but it is alto- 
 gether probable, that they were destroyed through 
 the malice of tiie Senate, or of some Ron-.an Empe- 
 ror who was hostile to Ci.ristianity. They who 
 took so much pains to destroy the writings of Chris- 
 tians, w )uld not sufl'er such a monument of the 
 truth of Christianity to remain, in their own palace. 
 
 • Dr. Jenkin. 
 
33S 
 
 But as to those Acts of Pilate which are now 
 uxtani, ao one supposes that th y ar*; genuine. 
 They have every mark of bring spurious. Tlie ex- 
 ternal and internal evidence is cqudly against 
 them ; and it would be a watste of time to enter in- 
 to any discussion of this point. 
 
 It may, however, be worth while to enquire into 
 the motives wliich probably led some mistaken 
 Christian, to forge such a narrative. And there 
 seem to have been two ; first, to have it in his 
 power, to show the record, to which the Fathers 
 had so confidently referred. The Heathen adver- 
 saries might say, after the destruction of the gena- 
 ine Acts of Pilate, where is the document to which 
 this appeal has been made, let it be produced. 
 And some man thinking that he could serve the 
 cause of Christianity, by forging Acts under the 
 name of Pilate, was induced through a mistaken 
 zeal, to write this narrative. 
 
 But there was another reason which probably 
 had some influence on this fact. About the close 
 of the third century, the Heathen had forged and 
 published a writing, called rnio Acts of Pilate, 
 the object of which was, to render tlie Christians 
 odious and contemptible to the public, by foul ca- 
 lu:nnies against their Founder and his ipostles. Of 
 tliis fact, EiisEBius gives us express and particular 
 inf irmation ^ " From whence," says he, '• the for- 
 gery of these is manifestly detected, who have late- 
 ly published certain Acts, against our Saviour. In 
 p F 
 
334 
 
 which, lirst, the very time which it> assis;iied to 
 them, discovers the imposture ; for those things 
 which they have impudently forged to have come 
 to pass at our Saviour's crucifixion^ are said to 
 have occurred in the fourth consulship of Tiberius, 
 which coincides with the seventh of his reign ; at 
 which time, it is certain, Pilate was not yet come 
 into Judea ; if any credit is due to Josephus, who 
 expressly says, that Pilate was not constituted go- 
 vernor of Judea, until the twelfth year of Tibe- 
 rius."* 
 
 And in another place, he says, *' Seeing therefore 
 that this writer, (Josephus) who was himself a Jew, 
 has related such things in his history concerning 
 John the Baptist and the Saviour, what can they 
 possibly say for themselves, to prevent being con- 
 victed of the most impudent forgery, who wrote 
 those things against John and Christ." 
 
 And in the ninth book of his Ecclesiastical His- 
 tory, this writer gives us informntion, still more 
 particular, respecting this malicious forgery. "At 
 length (the Heathen) having forged certain Acts of 
 Pilate, concerning our Saviour, which were full oi 
 •all sorts of blasphemy against Christ, they caused 
 them, by the decree of Maximinus, to be dispersed 
 through all parts of the empire; commanding by 
 letters, that they should he published to all persons, 
 in every place, both in cities and country places : 
 
 -* Euseb. Ecc. Hist Lib. L c. 9, 1 1 . 
 
335 
 
 and that schoolmasters should put them into the 
 hands of their children, and oblifre them to learn 
 tJieni by heart, instead of their usual lessons." 
 
 Here it may be observed, that while this impu- 
 dent for2;ery clearly shows with what malicious 
 efforts the attempt was made to subvi;rt the gctspel, 
 it proves at the same time, that there had existed a 
 document under the name of^ The Acts of Pi- 
 late. 
 
 Now, the circulation of such aA impious piece of 
 blasphemy, probably instigated Chakincs, or who- 
 ever was the author of these Acts, to counteract 
 them by a work of another kind, under the same 
 name. 
 
 How this book came to be called, The Gospel 
 OF NicoDEMUs, will appear by the subscription 
 annexed to it, in which it is said, "The empe- 
 ror Theddosius the g;reat, fout)d at Jerusalem, 
 in the hall of Pontius Pilate, among the public re- 
 cords ; — the things vvliich were transacted in the 
 nineteenth year of Tiberius Cajsar, emperor of the 
 Romans — being a History written in Hebrew by 
 N'codemus, of what happened after our Saviour's 
 crucifixion." And if this subscription be no part 
 of the original work, still it may have occasioned 
 this title; or, it may have originated in the fact^ 
 that much is said about Nicodemus, in the story 
 which is here told. 
 
 But even if we had the original Acts of Pilate, 
 or some History of Nicodemus, it needs no proof 
 
 J 
 
336 
 
 that they could have no just claim to a place in the 
 Capor. 
 
 VII. The last Apocryphal book, which I shall 
 mention, is that entitled The Acts op Paul and 
 Thkcla. 
 
 There is no doubt, but that this book is Apocry- 
 phal. It was so considered by all the Fathers, 
 who have mentioned it. 
 
 Tertitllian says, respecting it ; "But if any 
 read the Apocryphal books of Paul, and thence de- 
 fend the right of women to teach and baptize, by 
 the example of Thecla, let them consider, that a 
 certain presb)^tpr of Asia, who forged that book, 
 under the name of Paul, being convicted of the 
 forgery, confessed that he did it out of respect to 
 Paul, and so left his place."* 
 
 And Jerome, in his life of Luke, says, *' The 
 Acts of Paul and Thecla, with the whole sto- 
 ry of the baptized lion^ I reckon among the Apoc- 
 ryphal Scriptures." 
 
 And in the decree of pope Gelasius, it is 
 asserted, ** That the Acts of Thecla and Paul are 
 Apocryphal." 
 
 It is manifest, however, that the primitive Christ- 
 ians gave credit to a story respecting Paul andThec- 
 la, on which this book is founded ; for it is often 
 referred to, as a history well known, and common- 
 ly believed. 
 
 " Tertnll. De Baptismo. 
 
337 
 
 ThuSfCTPRiAN, or some anrient writrr unrlcr his 
 name, says, '* Help us, Lord, as ihou ditlst help 
 the apostles,in theirimpnsonTnents,THECLA amidst 
 tlio ftamcs, Paul in his persecutions, and Peter 
 amidst the waves of the sea." 
 
 And again, " Deliver me, Lord, as thou didst 
 deliver Tliecla, when in the midst ©f the am- 
 phitheatre, slve was in conflict with the wil-d 
 beasts." 
 
 EusEBiTTS mentions a woman by tliis name, but 
 he places her lono; after fhe apostle Paul, and she is 
 therefore supposed to be another person. 
 
 EpiPiiANius relates, ** That when Thecla met 
 Paul she determined against marriage, although she 
 was then engaged to a very agreeable youngj 
 mafl."* 
 
 AuousTiNE refers to the same thing, and say?, 
 *^ By a discourse of Paul's, at Iconium, he incited 
 Thecla to a resolution of perpetual virginity, al- 
 though siie was then actually engaged to be mar- 
 ried." 
 
 Many others of the Fathers speak of Thecla, 
 as of a person whose history was vvell known. 
 
 And among the moderns, Baronius, Locrinus, 
 and Gral)e, look upon this history as true and gen- 
 uine, written in the apostolic age, and containing 
 nothing superstitious, or unsuitable to that time. 
 But none have ventured to assert, that these Acts 
 ought to have a place in the Canon. 
 
 ♦ Epiph. liter. Ixviii. 
 P P 2 
 
3S6 
 
 No doubt, the book now extant, is greatly altered 
 from that ancient history, referred to by the Fa- 
 thers ; and probably, the original story was found- 
 ed on some tradition, which had a foundation in 
 truth ; but what the truth is, it is impossible now 
 to discover among snch a mass of fables, and ridi- 
 culous stories, as the book contains. As it now 
 stands, it contains numerous things, which are false 
 in fact; others, which are inconsistent with the Ca- 
 nonical Scriptures ; and some, totally incompatible 
 with the true character of Paul. Moreover it is 
 favourable to several superstitious practices, which 
 had no existence in the apostles' days; and finally, 
 the forgery was acknowledged, as it relates to the 
 ancient Acts ; and those now existing, cannot be 
 more genuine than the original ; but to these many 
 things have been added, of a silly and superstitiou'^ 
 
C^K^Z. 
 
 SEOTIOM' XVI. 
 
 — ♦©©»»— 
 
 NO PART OF THR CHRISTIAN REVELATION HANOEb 
 DOWN BY UNWRITTEN TRADI I'lON. 
 
 In the former part of this work, it was seen, 
 that it was not only necessriry to show, that the 
 Apocryphal writingrg had no right to a place in 
 the Sacred Volume, hut that there was no addi- 
 tional revelation which had been handed down, 
 by oral tradition. The same necessity devolves 
 upon us, in relation to the New Testament ; for 
 while it is pretty generally aajreed, by all Christ- 
 ians, what books should be received into the Canon, 
 there is a large Society which strenuously main- 
 tains, that besides the revelation contained in 
 the divine record, written by the apostles and 
 their assistants by the plenary inspiration of the 
 Holy Spirit, there is a further revelation, consist- 
 ing of such things as were received from the 
 mouth of Christ himself while upon earth, or 
 taught to the churches by his inspired apostles, 
 which were not by them, nor in their time, com- 
 mitted to writing, but which have come down to 
 us by unbroken tradition. 
 
 The importance of this inquiry, is exceedingly 
 manifest : for if, in addition to the written word. 
 

 340 
 
 there are important doctrines, and necessary sacra- 
 ments of tne cliuich, which have come down by 
 traditioii ; it would be a perilous thing for us to 
 remain ignorant of those thino;s, which God has 
 enjoined, or to deprive ourselves of the benefits 
 to be derived from those means of grace which 
 he has instituted for the edification and salvation 
 of the church. But, seeing traditions are much 
 more liable to alteration and corruption than writ- 
 ten documents, it is very necessary that we should 
 be on our guard against imposition ; and if it is a 
 duty to exercise much care and diligence, in dis- 
 tinguishing between inspired books and such as 
 are spurious, it cannot be less incumbent, to ascer- 
 tain first, whether any part of God's revealed will 
 has been handed down by tradition only ; and 
 next, to learn accurately, what those things are, 
 which have been thus communicated. And as 
 there are Apocryphal books which claim a place 
 in the Canon ; so, doubtless there would be Apoc- 
 ryphal traditions, if any truths had been conveyed 
 to the church, through this channel. But if there 
 be no satisfactory evidence of any such revelation 
 having come down to us ; nor any possibility of 
 ascertaining what proceeded from the apostles, and 
 what from the fancy and superstition of men, th^n 
 we are right in refusing the high claims of tradi- 
 tion, and adhering inflexibly to the written word, 
 which is able, through faith, to make us wise 
 unto salvation. 
 
341 
 
 This doctrine of traditions, is most convenient 
 and favoiirahle to the church of Rome, in all her 
 controversies with Protestants and others ; for 
 whatever she may assert, as an article of faith, or 
 tearh as a part of Christian duty, althousjh there 
 be no vestipje of it in the word of God, may rea- 
 dily be established by tradition. For as the church 
 alone has the keepinsj of this body of oral law, she 
 only is the proper judge of what it contains, and 
 indeed can make it to suit herself. If we shoidd 
 concede to the Romanists what they claim, on this 
 point, the controversy with them, migjht well be 
 brought to an end ; and all we should have to do, 
 wouW be, to yield implicit faith to whatever they 
 miffht please to teach us. And even if we should 
 be required to believe and practise, in direct oppo- 
 sition to the plain declarations of Holy Scripture; 
 yet, as the true interpretation of Scripture, on this 
 plan, is only in the hands of the infallibir. head of 
 the church, and is indeed understood by means of 
 unwritten traditions, we must not trust to our own 
 understanding in the most evident matters, nor 
 even to our own senses, although several of them 
 should concur in giving us notice of some fact. 
 Now, before we give ourselves up to be led bhndly 
 in such a way as this, it behoves us, diligrntly 
 and irn|)artial!y, to inquire, wiiethcr God has re- 
 quired of us, this implicit subm ^^ion to men. VVe 
 ought tt) be assured, that their suthoiity over our 
 faith and conscience, has a divine warrant for its 
 
348 
 
 exercise ; and especially, we should be satisfied, 
 on sufficient grounds, that these unwritten tradi- 
 tions, on which the whole fabric rests, are truly 
 the commands of God ; for if they are not, we 
 have the hi<j;hest authority for rejectinj^ them. And 
 if their claim to a divitie origin cannot he made 
 out clearly, they cannot, in reason, bind us to obe- 
 dience ; for, when God gives a law, he promul- 
 gates it with sufficient clearness, that all wliom it 
 concerns, may know what is required of them. 
 
 To exhibit fairly, the true point of controversy 
 on this subject, it will be requisite to make seve- 
 ral preliminary observations, that it may be clear- 
 ly understood what we admit, and what we de- 
 
 1. In the first place, then, it is readily admit- 
 ted, that a law revealed from Heaven and com- 
 municated to us, orally^ with clear evidence of 
 its origin, is as binding, as if written ever so of- 
 ten. When God uttered the ten commandments, 
 on Mount Sinai, in the midst of thunderings and 
 lightnings, it surely was as obligatory on the 
 hearers, as after He had written them on tables of 
 stone. 
 
 It is a dictate of common sense, that it is a matter 
 of indifference, how a divine revelation is Com- 
 municated, provided it come to us properly au- 
 thenticated. 
 
 2. Again, it is conceded, that for a long time, 
 there was no other method of transmitting the re- 
 
343 
 
 velations received from Heaven, from sjeneration 
 to generation, but by oral tradition, and sucb ex- 
 ternal memorials, as aided in keeping up tbe re- 
 membrance of important transactions. As far as 
 appears, books were unknown, and letters not in 
 use, until a considerable time after the flood. Du- 
 ring the long period which preceded the time of 
 Moses, all revelations must have been handed 
 down by tradition. But, while this concession is 
 willingly made, it ought, in connexion, to be re- 
 marked, that this mode was then used, because no 
 other existed ; and that, in the early ages of the 
 world, the longevity of tlie patriarchs, rendered 
 that a comparatively safe channel of communica- 
 tion, which would now be most uncertain ; and 
 not.vithstanding this advantage, the fact was, that 
 in every instance, as far as we are informed, in 
 which divine truth was committed to tradition, it 
 was utterly lost; or soon became so corrupted by 
 foreign mixtures, that it was impossible to ascer- 
 tain what part of the mass contained a revelation 
 from God. It is therefore the plausible opinion of 
 some, that writing was revealed from heaven, for the 
 very purpose of avoiding the evil which had been 
 experienced, an<l that tliere might be a certain vi-hi- 
 cle for all divine communications: and it is certain, 
 that all that we know of the history of alpbal)etical 
 writing, leads us to connect its origin with tiie 
 commencement of wrii-ten revelations. 
 
 It is therefore not an improbable supposition, that 
 
344 
 
 ■God taught letters to Moses, for the express pui- 
 pose of conveying, by tliis means, his iaw>, to dis- 
 tant ages, without alteration; and it deserves to be 
 well considered, that after the command was given 
 to Moses, to write in a book the laws and statutes 
 delivered to him, nothing was left to oral tradition, 
 as has been shown in the former par4; of tliis work. 
 
 3. It will be granted also, that tradition, especial- 
 ly when connected with external memurials,is suffi- 
 cient to transmit, through a long lapse of time, the 
 knowledge of particular events, or of transactions 
 of a Vf^ry simple nature. 
 
 Thus, it may be admitted, that if thegopels had 
 not come down to us, we might by tradition be 
 assured, that Christ instituted the Kucharist, as a 
 memorial of his death ; for, from the time of its 
 institution, it has, in every successive age, and in 
 many countries, been celebrated to perpetuate the 
 remembrance of that event. And it is not credi- 
 ble, that such a tradition should be uniform, at all 
 times, and every where, and be connected with 
 the same external rite, if it was not founfled in 
 fact. Besides, the thing handed down, in this in- 
 stance, is so simple in its nature, that there was no 
 room for mistake. 
 
 There is one fact, for the truth of which, we 
 depend entirely on tradition, so far as external tes- 
 timony is concerned, and that is the truth which 
 in this work we have been attempting to establish, 
 ^at the books of tlie New Testament were writ- 
 
345 
 
 ten by the persons undei- whose names they have 
 come down to us. Tlii.s fact is incapable oi" lieiiig 
 proved from ihe Scripiures, because we niusi first 
 be assured ihat they contain the testimony of in- 
 spired men, befure we can prove any thing by 
 them. The point to be c>tal)lished here, is, that 
 the aposth'S wrote tiiese books. If it yvtre ever 
 so often a.sserted m a book, that a certain person 
 was its author, this would not be sati.sfactory evi- 
 dence of its genuineness, because any impostor 
 can write what f;ds.'hoo>ls he pleases in a hook, 
 and may a>cribt' it to whom he will ; as in f;ict, 
 many have written spurious works, aid a->cribed 
 them to the apostles. We must therefore have 
 the fe^timony of (hose who had the oppnrtuniiy 
 of judging uf the fait, given either ex|;licitly, or 
 inijjlicitly. In njost cases, whore a book is pub- 
 lished under the name of some certain author, in 
 Ihf co'iiitry in wliich he lived and was known, a 
 general, >ilent acquiescence in the fiict, b\ the peo- 
 pl-'' of that age and cmititry, w itti tlie cohsent of 
 all tliat came after them, may be consiilen d as sa- 
 tisfactory evidence of thf giuuineness of such book. 
 But wliere much dt-pends on the certainty oi (he 
 fact in question, it is nt'cessary to have positive 
 testimony ; and in order that it be satisfactory, it 
 should be univ- isal, and uncontradicied. When, 
 thenfore, a certMiu viinnie is expieS'ly received 
 as the work of certain individuals, by all v\h lived 
 at or near tiie lime when h was published, and ail 
 
346 
 
 succeeding writings concur in ascribing it to the 
 same persons, and not a solitary voice is raised 
 in contradiction, the evidence of its genuineness, 
 seems to be as complete as the nature of the case 
 admits. Just such is the eviilence of the genuine- 
 ness of the books of the New Testament ; or, at 
 least, of most of them. It is, however, the evi- 
 dence of tradition; but of such a tradition, as is 
 abundantly sufficient to establish a fact of this sort. 
 The thing attested is most simple in its nature,and not 
 liable to be misunderstood. This necessity of tra- 
 dition to establish the authenticity of the bot>ks 
 of the New Testament, has been made a sfreat 
 handle of, by the Romanists, in the defence of 
 their favourite doctrine. They pretend, that 
 the point which we have here conceded, is aH 
 that is necessary to establish their whole system, 
 on the firmest foundation. They argue, that if we 
 must receive the Scriptures themselves, by tradi- 
 tion, much more other things. Indeed, they as- 
 cribe all the authority which the Scriptures pos- 
 sess, to the testimony of the church, without 
 which, they assert, that they would deserve no 
 more credit than any other writinos. But, be- 
 cause a single fact, incapable of proof in any other 
 way, must be received by tradition, it does not 
 follow, that numerous other matters which might 
 easily have been recorded, must be learned in the 
 same manner. Because a document requires oral 
 testimony to establish its authenticity, it is nof: 
 
347 
 
 therefore necessary to prove the iruth oi tlie mat- 
 ters contained in that record, by the same means. 
 The very purpose of written records, is, to prevent 
 the necessity of trusting to the uncertainty of 
 tradition ; and as to the allegation, that the Scrip- 
 tures owe their authority to tiie church, it amounts 
 to no more than liiis, which we freely admit, that 
 it is by the testimony of the early Fathers, that 
 we are assured that these writings are the produc- 
 tions of the apostles ; and it is true, that most of 
 those witnesses who have given testimony, were 
 members of the Catholic church. But our confi- 
 dence in their testimony, on this point, is not be- 
 cause they were members of the church, but be- 
 cause they lived in times and circumstances, fa- 
 vourable to an accurate knowledge of the fact 
 which they report. And accordingly, we admit 
 the testimony of those who were out of the church; 
 yea, of its bitterest enemies, to the same fact, 
 an<i on some accounts, judge it to be the most un- 
 €Xceptional)le. While we weigh this evidence, 
 it would be absurd to make its validity depend on 
 tlve witnvsses being members of the church ; for 
 that would be to determine, that the church was 
 divine and infallible, before we had ascertained 
 that the Scriptures were the word of God. Sure- 
 ly, if on examination, it had turned out, that the 
 Scripiurcs were not inspired, the authority of the 
 Christian church would have been worth nothing : 
 and therefore, previously to the decision on thif 
 
34a 
 
 pomt, we cannot defer any thing to the authority 
 of the church. The truth is, that the wiin» sses be- 
 ino- of the church, is, in this inquiry, merely an 
 incidental circumstance. A sufficient mimbnr'of 
 competent and credible witnesses, not of (he 
 church, would establish the fact just as well as th<se 
 who have given testimony ; and, as was before ob- 
 served, such testimony, on the score of freedom 
 from all partiality, has the advantage. The testi- 
 mony of Jews and Heathen, has, on this account, 
 been demanded by infidels, and has been suught 
 for with avidity by the defenders of Christianity, 
 and in the view of all considerate men, is of great 
 weight. But it is not just to ascribe the authority 
 of these books to the church, because the greater 
 number of the witnesses of their apusiolical origin, 
 were members of the church. The law enacted 
 by the Supreme Legislature of the State, does not 
 owe its authority to the men who attest its genu- 
 ineness. It is true, it would not be known cer- 
 tainly to be a law, without the attestation, but 
 it would be absurd to ascribe the authority of 
 the law to the persons whose testimony proved 
 that it was really a law of the State. The cases 
 are exactly parallel. The Scriptures cannot owe 
 their authority to the church, for without them, 
 the church can have no authority ; and although 
 she may, and does give ample tfstimony in fa- 
 vour of their divine origin, this confers no autho- 
 rity on them ; it only proves to us, that they have 
 
349 
 
 authority, which is derivecl from the spirit of God, 
 by whom thev wf-re indited. It is truly won- 
 derful, how this |>l;iin case h:is been perplexed 
 and darkened, by the artittce and sophistry of the 
 wril(;rs of tlic church of Rome. 
 
 But if it be insi>ted, that if we admit tradition as 
 sufficient evidence of a fact in one case, we ought 
 to do so in every other, where the tradition is 
 as clear. We ans^ver, that t » this we have no ob- 
 jection, provided this species of proof be as neces- 
 sary, and as clear in the one case as the other. 
 Let any other fact be shown to be as fully attest- 
 ed, as the genuineness of the books of the New 
 Testament, and to need this kind of proof as much, 
 and we will not hesitate to receive it as true, 
 whatever may be the consequence. But the very 
 fact which we have been cotisiderin^jj, seems to 
 raise a sironsj pi'esumption a^ninst the necessit}"^ 
 of depending on tradition for any thing else. Why 
 were these books written ? Was it not to convey 
 to us, and to all future ages, the revelations oi 
 God to man ? Because it is necessary to authen- 
 ticate, by testimony, this record, must we depend 
 on the same testimony for information on the 
 points of which the record treats ? Surely not. 
 For the proof of these we have nothing to do, but 
 refer to the document it^clf: otherwise, the pos- 
 session of written records would be useless. If, 
 indeed, a dotibt should arise about the meaning oi 
 aomelhiug in the record, it would not be unreason- 
 
 G G 2 
 
350 
 
 able to.inquire,how it bad been understood and prac- 
 tised on, by those wlio received it at first; butif >ve 
 should find a society acting in direct opposition to a 
 written charter, on which their existence depended, 
 and pretending to prove that they were right, by ap- 
 pealing from the written documents to vague tra- 
 ditions, all sensible men, not interested, would 
 Judge that the case was a very suspicious one. 
 
 4. We are, moreover, ready to acknowledge, 
 that the gospel was, at first, for several years, com- 
 municated orally, by the apostles and their assis- 
 tants. The churches when first planted, had no 
 written gospels ; they received the same truths, 
 now contained in the Gbspels and Epistles, by the 
 preaching of the apostles and others; and doubtless 
 were as well instructed as those churches which 
 have had possession of the whole inspired volume. 
 And what they had thus received, without book, 
 they could communicate to others ; and thus, if the 
 Gospels and Epistles had never been written, the 
 Christian religion might have been transmitted 
 from generation to generation. Then it may be 
 asked, why the wriling of these books should hin- 
 der the transmission of many things which might 
 not be contained in them, to future generations ? 
 for it cannot be doubted that many tinngs were 
 said and done by Christ, which were not recorded 
 in the gospels : and there is reason to think, that 
 the apostles were mucli fuller in their sermons, than 
 in their writings : and that they established many 
 
351 
 
 rules for the good order and government of the 
 church, of Avhich, we have in their Epistles, either 
 no itccount, uronly brief hints; which though they 
 might be readily understood by those who had re- 
 ceived their verbal instructions, are insufTicient, 
 without tradition, to teach us what rules and insti- 
 tutions were established in the churches^ by aposto- 
 lical authority. Now if these were transmitted by 
 tradition, to the next generation, and by them to the 
 following, and so on, in an uninterrupted series un- 
 til the present time, are we not as much bound to 
 receive such traditions, and be governed by them, 
 as by the written u ord ? 
 
 I have now presented the argument ia favour of 
 traditions, in the strongest light, in which I am 
 able to place it ; and it would be uncandid not to 
 admit, that it wears at first sight a face of plausibi- 
 litv ; and if the whole case as here stated, could be 
 made out with satisfactory evidence, I think we 
 should be constrained to receive, to some extent, 
 this oral law of the Romish church. But before 
 any man can reasanably be req'iired to rest his faith 
 on tradition, he h:is a right to be satisfied on seve- 
 ral important points ; as, whether it was th'^ pur- 
 pose of God to permit any part of the revelation 
 intended for the use of the church, in all future 
 ages,to be handed down by traditon, For,as he di- 
 rected every thing in the law given at Mount Si- 
 nai, intended to regulate the faith and practice of 
 the Israelites, to be committed to writing, by Mo- 
 
353 
 
 ses, it is no how improbable that the same plan was 
 pujsue'l, in regiri to tiie writini:;s of 'h^^ Nt^w Co- 
 venait; especially, when it is consi ierrd, how 
 much superior written communic::>tii>iis are to ver- 
 bal, as it respects accuracy. When a chaanel 
 for conveying the truth had been provided, calcu- 
 lated to preserve all communications from corrup- 
 tion; and when it is acknowledged, th t this 
 was user! for a part of the matter to be tran^miued, 
 how can it be accounted for, that another part 
 should be committed to the uncertainty of oral 
 tradition ? Why not commit the whole to wri- 
 ting ? 
 
 But it is incumbent on the advocates of tradi- 
 tion to show by undoubted proofs, that what they 
 say has come do\An by tradition, was really receiv- 
 ed from the mouth of Christ, or from the teaching 
 of his apostles. As they wish to claim for this 
 rule an aithority fully equal to that which is given 
 to the Scriptures, they ougiit to be able to produce 
 the very tvords, in which these instructions w^re 
 given. But this they do not pretend to do. It 
 may be said, indeed, that vvords and sentences, 
 in their just order and connexion, cannot be convey- 
 ed by tradition, and therefore this demanrd is un- 
 reasoiiable. I answer, that this allegation is most 
 true, but instead of making in favour of traditions, 
 it is a strong argument to prove, that nothing thus 
 received, can be of equal certainly and authodty 
 with the written word. When an article of faith 
 
f5S 
 
 ispropospd, which is contained in the Scriptures^ 
 we can turn to the sacred text, and read the words 
 of Christ and his apostles; and may he assnrrd, 
 tlial they express the truth contained in said article; 
 but if an article of faith he asserted to have come 
 down by tradition, we have no opportunity of 
 knowing the words in whieh it was expressed: for, 
 while it is pretended that the doctrine or instruct- 
 ion has reached us, the words have been lost ; for 
 what advociite of traditions is able, in any single 
 case, to furnish us with the words of any divine 
 revelation, which is not contained in the Sacred 
 Scriptures? 
 
 But it is essential to the credit of traditions, 
 that it be proved clearly, that those articles of re- 
 ligion, or institutions of worship, said to be receiv- 
 ed fron) this source, have indeed been handed 
 down without alteration or corruption, from Christ 
 and hisaposiles. It is not suflBcient, that they have 
 been Ions: received and have now the sanction of 
 the belief and practice of (he whole Catholic church; 
 it oua;hl to be shown, that they have always, from the 
 very days of the apostles, been received with uni- 
 versal consent. We know that the (-hurch has un- 
 dergone many vicissitudes; that she has sometimes 
 been almost extirpated by the sword of peisecution; 
 has been overrun with d;ingerous errors ; has been 
 ovf-rwhelmed with the darkness of Gothic igno- 
 rance ; and we believe, has greatly apostatized from 
 purity of doctrine and worship ; and this accords 
 
354 
 
 with the prophecy of Paul, who clearly intimates, 
 that a time would come, when there should be a 
 falling away. Now it may have happened, that 
 during this long period of adversity, heresy, dark- 
 ness, and corruption, many things may have 
 crept in, and may have obtained* an extensive 
 and firm footing, which were totally unknown 
 in the days of the apostles, or in the primitive 
 church ; and that this has in fact occurred, we are 
 not left to conjecture. It is a matter of historical 
 record, which cannot be disputed, and which is not 
 denied, even by the Romanists themselves. Who 
 that is not insane with prejudice, could persuade 
 himself, that all the opinions, rites and ceremo- 
 nies, which now exist in the Romish church, were 
 prevalent in the times of the apostles, and were re- 
 ceived from them by tradition ? 
 
 Besides, there is a multitude of other things re- 
 ceived and held to be important, by the church of 
 Rome, of which there is no vtstige in the Scrip- 
 tures, and concerning which there is no early tra- 
 dition. Many rules and ceremonies which have 
 been long in use, ^an be traced to their commence- 
 ment, at a period much later than that of the apos- 
 tles. Now amidst such a mass of traditions, how 
 can it be ascertained which have come down from 
 Christ and his apostles? Perhaps we shall be told, 
 that the infallible head of the church can determine^ 
 
 3 Thes. ii. 3. 
 
3S5 
 
 with certainty, what we ought to believe and prac« 
 tise; hut if there be on eartli an inf:tlli!>l«; Ju l^'"* we 
 have no tieed of iraditi ms. All thtt is nei^essiry. is, 
 for this p'T8on to eslahlish his claim to iufallihili- 
 ty, and then all will be as much bound to receive 
 liis decisions, as if they were expressly written in 
 the Holy Scriptures. On this ijrouiid the controver- 
 sy between the Romanists and Protestants first com- 
 menced. The dff(Mutersof the v)l(l 8> siem appealed 
 to the authority of the Pope, and tl)e infallibility of 
 the church, hut as it was impossible to sustain thcm- 
 sclvi-s by Scripture, on these points, they found it 
 vtry convenient to have recourse to thedoctrine of 
 unwritten traditions, which they pretended had 
 been handed down from Christ and his Apostles. 
 Grant them this, and theje is no doctrini , how- 
 ever absurd, which may not be supported. Grant 
 ihem this, and it will l)e in vain to appeal any 
 m'ir<- to the Sacred Scriptures, as a standard of 
 truth; for this traditionary law not only inculcates 
 what is not found in ihe Scriptures, but teaches 
 the only true interpretation of Scripture. Tradi- 
 tions may, therefore, be considired as the bulwark 
 of the Romish church. Concede to them, the 
 ground which they assume, and the whole body 
 of their ceremonial laws, and unscriptnral practices, 
 are safe. For as they can feij^n what traditions 
 they please, having the keeping of them entirely 
 in their own hands, they are prepared to defend 
 every part of their system : but take this away 
 
356 
 
 from them, and their defence is gone. Bring 
 them to the ground of clear Scriptural testimo- 
 nies, and they are weak ; for it is manifest, tUat 
 the Bibii; knows nothJMg of their monstrous accu- 
 mulation of superstitious rites. 
 
 Tiie Council of Trent, therefore, early in their 
 sessions, ma.ie a decree on this subject, in vvhifh, 
 after recognising the Scriptures, they add. — "iVec 
 non tradttiones ipsas, turn ad fidem, turn ad 
 mnres pertinenfes, tanquam vel oretenus a 
 Chrislo, vel a spiritu sancto, dictatus et conti- 
 niia successione in Ecclesia Catholica conser- 
 vatas, pari pietatis affectu et reverentia suscipit 
 ac veneratur.^^ The meaning of which is, that 
 The Holy Synod receives and venerates traditions 
 relnti^ig both to faith ai^d manners, as proceeding 
 from the mmiih of Christ himself, or as dictated by 
 the Holy Spirit, and preserved in an uniutt rrupted 
 succession in theCaiholic church, with equal affec- 
 tiun and reverence, as the writt-n Scriptures ! 
 This was the first decree of the fourth Session of 
 this ffimous Council. 
 
 Before leaving this subject, it will be proper to 
 consider somti of the other aigunients, wluch the 
 Romanists bring forward in support of their belov- 
 ed traditions. 
 
 And the first is imposing, as it is derived from 
 the express declarations of Scripture, in which ^ve 
 are exhorted to obey traiiitions. Now we com- 
 mand you brethren.) in the name of our Lord 
 
357 
 
 Jesus that ye withdraw yourselves from every 
 brother that ivalketh disorderly, and not after 
 the tradition which he received of us. Here 
 P;iul inak« s express mention of tradiloii. And in 
 {}\^' precedinaj chapter, Therefore brethren stand 
 fist (Did hold the TRAninoNs which ye hove been 
 tuui^/it lohether by word^ or our Epistle. Now 
 all that is necessary to refute the argument derived 
 from these and such like passages, where the word 
 tradition is used, is to observe, tiiat Paul employs 
 this word in a very extensive sense, to signify 
 whatever doctrines or institutions he had delivered 
 to the churches, whether by liis preaching or wri- 
 ting. And in the verse first cited, he evidently 
 reft-rs to what he had said to them in his First 
 Epistle, for the words following are. For your- 
 selves knoiu how ye ought to follow us; for we be- 
 haved not ourselves disorderly arnong you ; nei- 
 ther did ive cat any man's bread for nought, &c. 
 Now this tradition which he commanded the 
 Thessalonians to obey, was contained in the for- 
 mer Epistle addressed to tliecn, where it is said, 
 ^^nd that ye study to be quiet, and to do your 
 own business, and to work with your own 
 hands, as we commanded you. And in the 
 quotation from the 2il chapter, it is clear, that by 
 traditions, the apostle did not mean merely oral 
 communications, for lie explains hims.lf, by say- 
 ing, whether by word or our Epistle. It is not 
 
 2 Thes. ill. 6,7, II, 15. 1 Thcs. iv. 11. 
 
 n H 
 
358 
 
 denied, that Paul delivered many things orally to 
 the churches, as has been ah'eady acknowledged ; 
 all the instructions given to the churches, first 
 planted, were oral, for as yet no Gospels nor Epis- 
 tles were written ; but the true point in dispute, 
 is, whether any article of faith, or any important 
 institution, thus originally communicated, was 
 omitted, when the books of the New Testament 
 were written, by divine inspiration ? Whether, 
 while a part of the revelation of God, for the use 
 of his churcl), was committed to writing, another 
 important pai't was left to be handed down by tra- 
 dition ? That the word tradition, as used by 
 Paul, makes nothing in favour of the doctrine of 
 the Romish church, is evident, because by this 
 word he commonly means such things as were dis- 
 tinctly recorded in the Scriptures. Thus in his 
 First Epistle to the Corinthians, he says. For 1 
 delivered unto you first of all, where the word 
 for ti-ansmitting by tradition, is used ; but what 
 were those things which he had by tradition 
 communicated to them ? He informs us in the 
 next words, How that Christ died for our sins 
 according to the Scriptures, and that he loas 
 buried, and that he rose again the third day, 
 according to the Scriptu es. 
 
 It is manifest, therefore, that the arguinent de- 
 rived from the exhortation of Paul to obey tra- 
 dition, is but a shadovv, and vanishes upon the 
 slightest touch of fair examination. 
 1 Cor. XV. 3, 4. 
 
^. Tlieir next, ami principal argument, is deri- 
 Ced from the iVeqiicnt declarations of the early 
 Fnthers, in favour of tradition. Cyprian refers 
 those who might he in doubt respecting any doc- 
 trine, to the hoh/ trddition, received from Christ 
 and his apostles : and Irenaius, as cited by Euse- 
 bius, says, " That those things which lie heard 
 Polycarp relate concerning Christ, his virtues 
 and his doctrines, which he had learned from con- 
 verse with the apostles, he had inscribed on his 
 heart, and not on paper." But after a few senten- 
 ces, he informs us, ^'That all wliich he had heard 
 from them was in accordance with the Scriptures, 
 (ir'avTa tfijixtpwva Tar? y^«^a(5.)This sentence of Irenaeus 
 is of great importance, for it teaches us how the 
 Fathers understood this subject. They received 
 such traditions as came down through pious men 
 from the apostles, but they compared them with 
 the Scriptures : even then the Scriptures were the 
 standard by which all traditions must be judged. 
 Irenscus insinuates, plainly enough, that if what 
 he had heard from Polycarp, had not been in ac- 
 cordance with the Scriptures, he would not have 
 considered it as deserving attention 
 
 But the same Irenaius, and Tertullian, have 
 spoken, in still stronger terms, in favour of tradi- 
 tion, in their controversies with heretics. The 
 former, in the third chapter, of the third 
 book of his work, on Heresies, says ; ** The tra- 
 
 Lib. V. c. 20. 
 
360 
 
 dition of the apostles is manifest, in the whole 
 woild. In the church it is exposed to the view of 
 all, who are willing to know the truth." And in 
 the fourth chapter, " It is not necessary to seek 
 the truth from others, which can easily be acquired 
 from the c urch, since the blessed apostles have 
 deposited in her, most fully, all those truths which 
 are needful, so that every one who will, may 
 drink of the water of life. This is the true 
 door of life, and all others are thieves and robbers: 
 them we should avoid : but those things which 
 appertain to the church, we should delight in 
 with great diligence, and should lay hold of the 
 tradition of Iruth. For what if the apostles had 
 left us no writings, ought we not to follow the or- 
 der of traditions, which they, to whom the 
 churches were committed, have delivered to us ? 
 To which institution, many barbarous nations have 
 submitted, having neither letters nor ink, but hav- 
 ing the tradition of the apostles, inscribed an 
 their hearts; which also they follow." 
 
 And Tertullian, in his work, concerning Pre- 
 scriptions, says, "If Christ commissioned cer- 
 tain persons to preach his gospel, then certainly 
 none should be received as preachers, except those 
 appointed to office by him. And as they preach, 
 ed what Christ revealed unto them, what they 
 tauglit can only he known, by applying to the 
 churches, which the apostles planted, by preach- 
 ing to them, whether 7^iva vocp. or bv their Epis 
 
lies. Therefore, all doctrine which agrees with that 
 held hy the apostolical churches, is to he consider- 
 ed as Irue, and held fust, hecause the churches re- 
 ceived it from the apostles, the apostles from 
 Christ, aiul Christ fiom God ; hut all other doc- 
 trine whici) is repugnant to that received by the 
 churches, should be rejected as false, as being 
 ref)U2nant to that tnitfi taught by the apostles, by 
 Chri>t, and hy God." 
 
 These declarations, from such men, in favour 
 of tradition, seem at first vii \v, to be altogether 
 favour:d)h to the doctrine of the church of R'me ; 
 but we despair not of bcin<; able to convince the 
 candid reader, that when the occasion on which 
 these things wore said, and the character and opin* 
 ions of the persons against whom these Fathers 
 wrote, arc considered, ih'.ir testimony, instead of 
 making against the sufliciency of the Scrijiluros 
 will be found corroborative of thu opinion which 
 we maintain. They do not apfical to tradition, 
 let it be oljservcd, for confirmation of articles of 
 faith, not contained in the »Scriptures ; but the 
 doctrines whicli they are defending, are among 
 the most fundamental, contained in the New Tes- 
 tament. They are precisely the doctrines wliich 
 are comprehended in the Apostles' Creed. Now, 
 to appeal to tradition for the confirmation of 
 such doctrines as these, never can be of any 
 force lu prove, that other doctrines, not contained 
 in the Scriptures, may be established by tradition. 
 H H 2 
 
se2 
 
 But it may be asked, if those doctrines concern- 
 ing which they disputed, are plainly inculcated in 
 the New Testament, why have recourse to tradi- 
 tion ? Why not appeal, at once, to the Scrip- 
 tures ? To which I would answer, that Irenasus 
 does little else, in the third, fourth, and fifth 
 books of his work, than confirm the truth by a 
 copious citation of Scripture, Nothing can be 
 more manifest, therefore, than that the matters in 
 dispute were not such as could only be proved by 
 tradition, but they were such truths as lie a. the 
 very foundation of the Christian reliiijion, and to 
 record which, the Gospels and Epistles were 
 written. But still the ques'ion returns, why did 
 these Fathers appeal for proof to tradition, when 
 they had testimony so full and decisive from the 
 Scriptures? The answer to t;;is question will 
 show us, in th.e clearest manner, that the views 
 of Irenaeus and Terlullian, relative to the Scrip- 
 tures and lo traditions, wore such as are now held 
 by Protestants, and that the heretics whom the}' 
 opposeiK occii;>!<h1 nearly the same ground as the 
 Romanists now do, in this controversy. These 
 heretics, either rejected the Scriptures as being an 
 insufficient rule, and asserted that they were not 
 competent for the decision of such matters ; or 
 they so corrupted them, that it was useless to ap- 
 peal to them for proof: for testimonies derived 
 from the genuine Scrip! urt-s, they vvould not admit. 
 This is not conjecture j for Irenaeus has explicitly 
 
363 
 
 stated the case. <'When," says lu-, <Mhey are 
 conlutt'd iVuin the Siriptures liiem>^clv('s, they 
 alltge, that thi'y are not lorrect, or not oi" autho- 
 rity, and assert that they speak so variously, iliat 
 the truth cannot he cstabhshcd by iheni, wiihonl 
 tradition ; f»>r say they it was handed down, not 
 by letters, but viva voce." And Tertullian says, 
 "This heresy does not receive some parts of 
 the Scriptures ; and what they do receive is 
 so corrupti'd by additions, or detract ions, to 
 suit tlieir own doctrine, that they cannot be said 
 to receive the Scriptures entire, &c " Again : 
 "They pretend that the apostles did not wish 
 to reveal all things plainly, for while they made 
 known certain truths to all, tliere were others, 
 which they communicated secretly, and to a hw 
 pers >ns, which they say, the apostle Paul meant, 
 by the c/eposittim." 
 
 From these quotations, the reason why these 
 Fathers had recotirse to traditions, ig most manifest. 
 It was the only ground on which these heretics 
 could be met ; for they denied, (as the Romaii- 
 ists now do,) that the Scriptures were a certiun 
 and sufficient standar<l of troth. They said, that their 
 meaning could nut he ascertained without tradi- 
 tion ; that tliey were defective 5 and abo, that 
 there were some parl« which they did not acknow- 
 ledge ; and they held moreover, that some things 
 
 1 Tim. VI. 20 
 
364 
 
 were never committed to writing, but designedly 
 handed down by tradition. We did not, indeed, 
 expect to find 'he exact doctrine of ti»e Roman- 
 ists, respecting the Scriptures and tradition, at so 
 earJy a period of the church ; but unfortunately 
 for their cause, the persons who are found agree- 
 ing with them, are gross heretics. 
 
 It is now easy to see, why the appeal was 
 made by the Fathers, to universal tradition ; and 
 they show, that in iheir day, tiadition and Scrip- 
 ture were harmonious ; and that if the apostles 
 had written nothing;, the consent of all the church- 
 es would be sufficient to prove, that the doctrines 
 which they defended, were received from the 
 apos'les. Instead, therefore, of using tradition, 
 as thp Romanis s do, to prove some doctrine not 
 contained in the Scrip'ure, they used it merely 
 to confirm the truths wiiic hare manifestly contain- 
 ed in the New Testament The}' were at no loss 
 for Scripture testimonies to establish these truths, 
 but they were ('isputing with men who did not 
 admit the authority of the Scriptures to be decis- 
 ive, and therefijre they appeal to universal tradi- 
 tion, in support of them It is said, indeed, by 
 Irenseus, that many barbarous nations had received 
 the fpith, among whom letters and writing were 
 unknown. They must, therefore, it is conclud^'d, 
 have received it from tradition. Very good. Just 
 as heathen tribes now receive, from those mis- 
 sionaries who preach the gospel to them, a short 
 
865 
 
 summary of the most important doctrines of the 
 New Testament. The truths which these harha- 
 rous nations received, were not diflferent from 
 those contained in the Sacred Scriptures, but the 
 very same, taught in a short conipreh«-nsive creed. 
 In fact, we have hero, the true origin of that sym- 
 bol of doctrine, commonly caHed, 'I'he Apostles' 
 Creed, which was a summary of Christianity, 
 used in very early times, in the instruction of 
 those who were not able to read the Nevv Tt sta- 
 i^sent, or who had no access to it. That Irenaeus 
 actually referred, in the p:iss:igp alluded to, to these 
 elementary doctrines, he explicitly informs us • 
 for, immediately after mentioning these barbarous 
 nations, who were destitute of ** letters and ink," 
 he adds, *' Believing in one God, the maker of 
 heaven and earth, and all things which are therein; 
 and in Jesus Christ the Son of God, who for his 
 exceeding great love to his creatures, submitted 
 to be born of a virgin, by himself uniting man to 
 God ; and having suUored under Pontius Pilate, 
 and having risen again, w:is received into heaven ; 
 about to come again in glory ; the Saviour of 
 those who are saved, and the judge ol tho><e who 
 are judged ; and will send into eternal fire, the 
 perverters of the truth, and the despisers of his 
 Father, and of his coming ; which bmbarians, if 
 any one should announce to them the doctrines in- 
 vented by herctic>, stopping their ears, t'ley would 
 fly far away from them. Thus, the ancient apos- 
 
366 
 
 tolical tradition does not sanction those monstrous 
 opinions inculcated by heretics." 
 
 In the second chapter, of the first book, of the 
 same work, Irenaeus describes the apostolical 
 doctrine, thus: "The church," says he, "plant- 
 ed by the apostles and their disciples throughout 
 the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, 
 receives the same faith ; which is, In one God 
 Almighty, the Father, who made Heaven and earth, 
 the sea and all things which are therein ; in one 
 Jesus Christ, the Son of God, incarnate for our 
 salvation ; and in the Holy Spirit, who by the 
 prophets, predicted the good-will of God ; his ad- 
 vent ; his generation of a virgin ; his passion, and 
 resurrection from the dead ; and the ascension in 
 the flesh of our beloved Lord Christ Jesus ; and 
 his coming again from Heaven, in the glory of 
 his Father, as our Lord Jesus Christ ; our God, 
 Saviour, and King ; before whom, according to 
 the good pleasure of the Father invisible, every 
 knee shall bow, of things in heaven and things in 
 earth, and things under the earth, and every 
 tongue shall confess the justice of his judgments 
 towards all, when he will send wicked spirits, 
 fallen and apostate angels, and blaspheming men, 
 into eternal fire ; but the just and upright who 
 have kept his precepts, and persevered in his love, 
 some indeed from the beginning, and otiiers as hav- 
 ing received the gift of repentance, he will sur- 
 round with eternal glory. This faith, the church 
 
367 
 
 spread over tlie whole world, diligoiitly konp5, as 
 if siie iiiliahited one house, and believes in it, as 
 it' possessing but one soul and one hciirt ; ind in 
 accordance with the same, sho leaches and pf' ach- 
 es, as with one mouth. Althousi;h the languages 
 which are in the world are difTerenf, yet there is 
 one and the same tradition. Neither do the 
 churches which are founrlcd in Germany, believe 
 difftrently, from those in Italy, nor fiom those 
 among the Celts, nor from thnse in the East, nor 
 from those which are in Egypt, or in Lybia, or in 
 the middle of the world. But as the Stm is one and 
 the same through the whole world, so the liglit 
 and preaching of the truth, every where shines, 
 and illumiiiatos all men, who are willing to come 
 to the knowledge of the truth, 4'C." 
 
 This then is the apostolical tradition, of which 
 these Fathers speak so muguiticenlly. Not 
 any secret doctrine never commitled to wri- 
 ting; not any articles of faith, or rites of wor- 
 ship, of which no vestige can be found in the 
 Bible ; but the plain, prominent, fundamental 
 doctrines of the Christian religion : the very 
 doctrines contained in the Apostles' Creed. That 
 the preaching of the gospel preceded the circula- 
 tion of the Scriptures, we admit, but this preach- 
 ing we insist, and have proved, contained nothing 
 different from that which is written in the Gospels 
 and Epistles. 
 
 Tertullian speaks to the same purpose, and 
 
S(j8 
 
 furnishes us with another summary of the common 
 faith of primitive Christians ; "^ The rule of faith," 
 says l-.e, " is that hy which it is behevtd, that 
 there is no more than one God, and no other be- 
 side the Creator of the world, who produced al 
 things out of nothing by h'S Word, first of all sent 
 forth, which Word, is called his Son ; was seen 
 Under different forms by the Patriarchs ; was al- 
 ways heard by the prophets ; and finally, by the 
 Spirit and Power of God, being conceived by the 
 Virgin Mary, became flesh in her womb. Jesus 
 Christ having thus become man, published a new 
 law, and a new promise of the kingdom of hea- 
 ven ; was crucified ; rose again the third day ; 
 was caugiit up into heaven ; sat down on the right 
 hand uf God the Faiher ; sent as his substitute, 
 the Power of the Holy Spirit, to influence those 
 who believe ; ivill come again in glory to take his 
 Saints to the fruition of eternal life, and of the 
 celestial promises; and to 'adjudge the profane 
 to eternal fire ; at which time there will be a re- 
 suscitation of both pai'ts, and the flesh will be 
 restored. This rule of fiith was instituted by 
 Christ, and is questioned by none but heretics, and 
 such as teach those things which make here- 
 tics."* 
 
 These are the apostolical traditions, wiiich were 
 •universally received ; the very plainest, and most 
 
 * TertuU. De PrsescriiJlionibus. 
 
36» 
 
 fundamental articles of tlic Christian ReligIoii> 
 which are written amply in every gospel, and re- 
 cognized fully, in every Epistle. Thus far then, 
 it does not appear that any thing was left to un- 
 written tradition, to be communicated to future 
 ages ; for those very truths which were at first de- 
 livered orally by the apostles, were afterwards re- 
 corded by inspiration ; and when the preachers of 
 the gospel instructed the ignorant who were unac- 
 quainted with letters, they taught them, precisely, 
 but in a summary way, what is written in the New 
 Testament. 
 
 3. Another argument depended on by the advo- \ 
 cates of tradition, is derived from the fact, that there \ 
 are some doctrines, not expressly mentioned inScrip- * 
 ture, which are universally inculcated by the Fa- 
 thers, which all true Christians have received as 
 articles of faith in all succeeding ages, and which 
 are not denied even by Protestants themselves. 
 To this class, belong, the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 the doctrine of the Son being of the same sub- 
 stance as ihe Father, the deity of the Holy Spirit, 
 his proceeding from the Father and the Son, the 
 two natures in Christ constituting one person, the 
 baptism of infants, the religious observance of 
 the Lord's day, &.c. Now, in regard to these ar- 
 ticles of religion, we observe, that although they 
 are not contained in Scripture, in so many words, 
 they may be derived from Scripture, by legiti- 
 mate inference : and conclusions fairly deduced 
 I J 
 
370 
 
 from the declarations of the word of God, are as 
 truly parts of divine revelation, as if they were 
 expressly taught in the Sacred volume. All the 
 articles mentioned above, are capable of satis- 
 factory proof from Scripture ; and if we did 
 not find them taught there, we should feel un- 
 der no obligation to receive them. We do not 
 deny, however, that the universal consent, and 
 uniform practice of the primitive church, ought 
 to have great weight in confirming our faith in 
 important doctrines, and in satisfying us that 
 certain things not explicitly mentioned in Scrip- 
 ture, were practised by the apostles. Although 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, and the essential deity 
 of the Son and Holy Spirit, are doctrines very 
 plainly taught in the New Testament, 37et in a 
 matter of such vast importance, it cannot but af- 
 ford satisfaction to every sincere inquirer to find, 
 that these doctrines were universally believed by 
 the Fathers to be taught in the writings of the 
 apostles. 
 
 And, although, there are principles and iacts 
 recorded in the New Testament, from which it 
 can be fairly concluded, that the first day of the 
 week v\as set apart for public worship, and that 
 the infants of believers were, from the beginning, 
 baptized, and thus connected with the visible 
 church ; yet, as these institutions are not so ex- 
 pressly included in Scripture, as to remove all 
 uncertainty, the fact of their universal observance, 
 
371 
 
 in the primitive church, has, deservedly, great 
 influence in convincing us, that our reasonings and 
 inferences from Scrijitural principles, are correct. 
 But why should wo be required to receive these 
 things merely on the authority of tradition, when 
 the Fathers themselves, appealed for their truth to 
 the infallible rule contained in the New Testament r 
 Thus, on the subject of infant baptism, which the 
 Romanists pretend is derived solely from traditioa, 
 we fmd the Fathers appealing not only to univer- 
 sal practice and apostolical tradition, but frequent- 
 ly to the words of Scripture, in which they be- 
 lieved, that the practice was implicitly autho- 
 lized. Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, Cyprian, 
 Ambrose, and Chrysostom, do all appeal to Scrip- 
 ture, when treating this subject, although they do, 
 indeed, lay great stress on the derivation of this 
 practice from the apostles, by undoubind tradition. 
 It is not denied, however, that after some time an 
 undue deference was paid to traditions. It will 
 be shown, hereafter, that many were misled from 
 the simplicity of the gospel by this very means. 
 By yielding too ready an assent to traditions, they 
 were leil to adopt false opinions, si»me of which 
 were directly repugnant to the written word. It 
 can have no weight with us, therefore, to adduce 
 such a writer as Epiphanius, extolling tradition ; 
 for it can be proved, that from this source he im- 
 bibed many foolish notions, and fabulous stories, 
 which the jnore impartial among the Romanist?. 
 
372 
 
 are as far from receiving, as we are. Nor, do we 
 Ibel bound, on this subject, to adopt all the opin- 
 ions any where found in the writings of Origen, 
 Basil, Augustine, &c.; for we are persuaded, that 
 this was one of the errors of antiquity, and that 
 it was prolific of numerous evils, by which the 
 church of God became greatly corrupted, in 
 after times. But it answers no purpose to the 
 Romish church to plead these authorities, for- 
 they themselves do not receive as articles of faith 
 or parts of divine worship, all that these Fatherg 
 received from tradition. The principle of Pro-* 
 testants ever has been, that the Scriptures contain 
 all things necessary to guide the faith and practice 
 of believers ; and they feel under no obligations, 
 to receive any article of religion which cannot be 
 proved to be contained in the Sacred volume. If, 
 in the explanation of Scripture, light can be de- 
 rived from tradition, or the universal opinion or 
 practice of the prinjitive church, they are very 
 willing to avail themselves of it ; as they are to 
 derive aid from any other quarter : but when 
 they are convinced that the Fathers were fallible 
 men, and actually fell into many mistakes, it 
 would be folly to build their faith on their opin> 
 ions ; much more to adopt their errors, knowing 
 them to be such. " The Bible is the Religion 
 oir Protestants." 
 
 The fact is, that the Fathers generally dcr 
 peuded on Scripture for the proof of their dox:- 
 
373 
 
 Irincs ; and called in the aid of tradition, only to 
 confirm the doctrines which they derived from the 
 written word. And Iiert- it is important to re- 
 mark, that tradition, in tlie earlier and pui'er 
 times of the church, was a very different thing 
 from what it is now. Men wlio lived within one or 
 two hundred years of the apostles, had an oppor- 
 tunity of ascertaining their opinions and practi- 
 ces, from tradition, nith a degree of certainty, 
 which is utterly unattainable, after the lapse of 
 ages of error and darkness. If it should be agreed 
 to receive as apostolical, every thing vvhich the 
 early Fatliers professed to have received by tra- 
 dition from tlie apostles, yet it would be most un- 
 reasonable to be required to admit as divine, the 
 monstrous mass of traditions held by the Romish 
 church, which has been accumulating for ages. 
 
 liut it is cajiable of the clearest proof, that great 
 uncertaiity attended all matters received by tradi- 
 tion, which were not contained in Scripture, even 
 in those limes tliat were nearest to the days of the 
 apostles. This fact is manifest, in the case of Papias, 
 who was contemporary with the last of the apos- 
 tles ; and of Clement of Alexandria, who lived in 
 tlie second century. If then tradition was so un- 
 certain, at its very source, who can place any confi- 
 dence in lliis channel of communication, after it 
 has been increasing in impurity, for seventeen 
 hundred years ? If the stream had even been 
 1 I 2 
 
3741 
 
 pure in Its commencement, it would, by this time, 
 have become so turbid, and so poisoned, that no 
 dependence could be placed in the information 
 conveyed by it. But where certain thins^s are said 
 to have been received by tradition from the apostle 
 John n second hand, it was deemed important to ve- 
 rify them, by a .comparison with the Scriptures, as 
 we have already seen. How unreasonable then 
 is the demand, that we should now receive all 
 traditions, which have come down to us, without 
 any test of their genuineness, or any comparison 
 of them vvith the Oracles of God ! 
 
 Here also, it is necessary to observe, that there 
 is a wide distinction to be made between articles 
 of faith and institutions of worship, which arr ob- 
 ligatorv on all, and such modes of worship as were 
 adopted under the s;eneral rule, o{ doing all thitigs 
 decently and in order ; or frf)m notions of ex- 
 pediency, with a view of conciliating; those that 
 were without. It w.^y be pro\ ed, indeed, from 
 the writings of the Fathers, that many things of 
 this kind ^;xisted, vvhich they never thoug;ht of 
 placing on a level with the faith received from the 
 apostles. And it may be here remarked, that it 
 was one of the first and greatest mistakes into 
 which the church fell, after inspiration ceased, to 
 make too free a use of this doctrine of expediency. 
 The ahuses which have crept in under this spe- 
 cious disguise were not foreseen. The Fathers 
 
375 
 
 saw no harm in an indifferent ceremony, to which., 
 perhaps, their new converts were attached from 
 lone; custom. By adopting things of tliis kind, the 
 church, which was t fiist simple and unencumber- 
 ed with rites, became strangely metamorphosed ; 
 and in place of her simple robe of white, assumed 
 a gorgeous dress, tricked off with gaudy orna- 
 ments and various colours. And this practice of 
 inventing new ceremonies, went on increasing, 
 until, in process of time, the burdensome ritual 
 of the Levitical law was not comparable to the 
 liturgy of the Christian church. Who that now 
 attends a Romish chapel, on some high day, 
 would suppose that the service performed, was 
 connected with tiie religion of the New Testa- 
 ment ? 
 
 It is of no consequence, therefore, to adduce 
 testimonies from thr Fathers, of the second, third, 
 and fourth ajjes, of the Christian church, to show, 
 that such ceremonies were then m use, in some 
 particular part of the church ; or even in the 
 church universal. All know by what means these 
 things were received, and obtained prevalence. 
 But let it be kept in memory, that the Fathers 
 do not assert that these usages were derived from 
 the apostles ; nor do they pretend that they were 
 necessary ; and acordingly we find, that in differ- 
 ent countries, they were not the same, 
 
 4. I come now to consider the last argument 
 for unwritten traditions, which I have been able 
 
376 
 
 to discover. It is this, that without the aid of 
 tradition, the Scriptures will be of no real benefit 
 to ua, because it is only by this means that we 
 can arrive at their true meaning. And, it is 
 alleged, that the Fathers, in all disputes with he- 
 relics, when they referred to Scripture, still 
 appealed to universal tradition, for a true ex- 
 position of the meaning of the passages addu- 
 ced. 
 
 In returning an answer to this argument, 
 would observe, that should we even grant all 
 that is contended for, it would not be a concession 
 of the main point in controversy. The claim of 
 the Romanists, so unblushingly advanced, in the 
 decree of Trent, already cited, is, " That traditions 
 relating both to faith and manners, are ttt 
 he received with equal affection and reverence, 
 as the Canonical Scriptures.'^ And, lest we 
 should be at any loss to kn 'W what articles of faith 
 are pretended to be received by tradition alone, 
 Peter a Soto, one of the great defenders of the 
 decrees of the Council of Trent, and a member 
 of that Council, explicitly declares, "That the 
 rule is infallible and universal ; that whatever 
 things the Romish church believes and holds, 
 which are not contained in the Scriptures, are to 
 be considered as derived from the apostles ; pro- 
 vided the observances cannot be traced to any cer- 
 tain origin, or author." Every thing in use in 
 this church, of the commencement of which we 
 
377 
 
 are ignoranf, must be ascribed to Uie apostles 
 without doubt, and without further proof. And 
 then he descends to particular doctrines and rites, 
 which, according to this sweeping rule, we must 
 receive, as handed down by tradition, from the 
 apostles ; among which are, *' The oblation of thfe 
 Sacrifice of the altar, Unction with Chrism or the 
 holy oil, invocation of saints, the merit of good 
 works, the primacy of the Roman pontifi", the 
 consecration of the water in baptism, the sacra* 
 ment of confirmation, of orders, of matrimony, 
 prayers for the dead, extreme unction, auricular 
 Confession, and satisfaction, &c. But beside these, 
 there are innumerable other things which are held 
 sacred by the Romish church, which cannot be 
 proved from Scripture, such as the mutilation of 
 the Lord's Supper, the celibacy of the clergy, the 
 distinction of meats, purgatory, pilgrimages, indul- 
 gences, the worship of images, and relics, the 
 canonization of saints, &c. &c. Now, she cannot 
 pretend that all these were received from the 
 apostles, for some of them are in direct repugnance 
 to the plain declarations of Scripture ; and the 
 occasion of the introduction of some of them is 
 matter of history, and acknowledged by the Ro* 
 manists themselves. And surely, it is not a very 
 convincing argument of the apostolical origin of 
 doctrines or ceremonies, that we do not know when 
 they took their rise. 
 Bufe the argument pow undef consideration, r^. 
 
378 
 
 iinquishes this ground, and goes back to the Scrip- 
 tures as the foundation of faith, but insists, that the 
 true interpretation of Scripture can only be known 
 by tradition. On which we remark ; — 
 
 That many thin2;s in Scripture are so clear, 
 that they stand in need of no interpretation. 
 They are already as plain as any exposition can 
 make them. Who wants tradition to teach him, 
 that Christ is the Son of God ; was born of the 
 virgin Mary ; was crucified under Pontius Pilate ; 
 rose again the third day ; and ascended to hea- 
 ven, whence he will come again to judge the 
 world } If we cannot understand the plain de- 
 clarations of Scripture, neither could we under- 
 stand an exposition. If we cannot know what the 
 apostles and evangelists mean, in their plainest 
 declarations, when we have their very words be- 
 fore us, how shall we know what is the meaning 
 #f the vague language of tradition .'' 
 
 There are many parts of the New Testa- 
 ment, of which tradition has handed down no in- 
 terpretation. If we wish to know their meaning, 
 it is in vain that we apply to the Fathers, for in- 
 struction. They are silent. They have not com- 
 mented on these books and passages. To which 
 of the Fathers shall I go for an exposition of the 
 book of Revelation ^ Or will the Pope himself, 
 aided by all his cardinals, or by an oecumenical 
 Council, undertake to give us the true interpreta- 
 fion of this prophecy ? It cannot be true, that 
 
379 
 
 Scripture can be interpreted only by tradition ; 
 unless we agree to give up a large part of the New 
 Testament, as wholy incapable of being under- 
 stood. 
 
 We cannot build our faith on the interpreta- 
 tion of the Fnthcrs, in all cases, because they often 
 fall into palpable mistakes, which is not denied by 
 the Romanists themselves ; and again, they differ 
 among themselves. How then can it be known 
 what that interpretation is, which was received 
 from the apostles ? Must I follow Justin, or 
 Iren^.us, or Clement of Alexandria ? or must 
 1 believe in all llie allegorical interpretations con- 
 tained in the Homilies of Origen, according to 
 which, the plainest passages arc made to mean 
 something perfectly foreign from the literal sense ? 
 If the tradition which brings down this interpreta- 
 tion is not found in the writings of the Fathers, 
 where is it ? And how has it come down .'' Surely 
 that which was never mentioned nor recorded b}'^ 
 the ancient church, ought not to be received as an 
 apostolical tradition ; for as the great Chilling- 
 worth says, "A silent tradition, is like a silent 
 thunder," a thing inconceivable. But we shall 
 be told, that the church has preserved this deposit, 
 and can testify that it was derived from the apos- 
 tles. What church ? And where is her testimo- 
 ny ? And how do we know, that among such a 
 mass of traditions, some have not crept in, which 
 originated in other sources than the teaching of 
 
380 
 
 Christ and his apostles ? Who kept these tradi- 
 tions securely when the church was overrun with 
 Gothic ignorance and barbarism ? Who kept this 
 treasure unadulterated, when Arianism was pre- 
 dominant ? If there be such an oral law, contain- 
 ing an exposition of Scripture, how has it hap- 
 pened that there have existed such dissensions 
 about doctrine, in the Romish church itself? And 
 as it is acknowledged, that many usages of the 
 church have had their origin, long since the apos. 
 ties' days, what authority is there for these inno- 
 vations ? If the authority of the church was suffi- 
 cient to establish these, it could as easily establish 
 all the rest, and there is no need of apostolical tra- 
 dition : but if there is a distinction to be made be- 
 tween observances derived from the apostles, 
 and such as have been invented by men, how 
 can we draw the line between them ? 
 
 An implicit believer in the infallibility of the 
 Pope, would deem it sufficient to answer, that his 
 holiness, at Rome, knows certainly what is apos- 
 tolical, and what not ; what is obligatory, and 
 what not. All we have to do, is to believe what 
 he believes, or what he tells us to believe. Now, 
 without disputing the pretensions of the Bishop of 
 Rome, to such extraordinary knowledge, at pre- 
 sent, I would ask, if we must go to an infallible 
 judge to learn what are appstolical traditions, what 
 use is there in traditions ? Why does not this in- 
 fallible teacher declare, at once, what is truth, in all 
 
381 
 
 cases, without the trouble of searching into antiqui- 
 ty after traditions, which never can be found ? 
 
 But if it be alleged, that ihe traditions which 
 ought to be received as the rule of our faith, are 
 such as were universal, and concerning which, 
 there cannot be any doubt, I answer, that many 
 such traditions may indeed be found, but what do 
 they respect ? Those very doctrines which are most 
 plainly and frequently inculcated in Scripture ; 
 and of which we need no exposition ; for as was 
 said before, they are expressed as perspicuously 
 as any exposition can be. But it affords us satis- 
 faction to find the church openly professing, from 
 the beginning, those truths, which we find record- 
 ed in Scripture. If it does not add confirmation 
 to our faith, in these points, it gives us pleasure 
 to find such a harmony in the belief of true Chris- 
 tians. 
 
 Finally, it is dangerous to rely upon traditions. ■ 
 Heretics, in all ages, sheltered themselves under 
 this doctrine. Those with whom Tertullian con- 
 tended, alleged, that the apostles did not know every 
 thing necessary, as Christ declared he had many 
 things to say, which they could not bear yet ; or, 
 there were some things which they did not teach 
 publicly, nor commit to writing, but communi- 
 cated privately to a few chosen persons, and there- 
 fore they declined the autiiority of Scripture. The 
 same is true of those against whom Irena'-us wrote. 
 They appealed from Scripture to tradition, and he 
 
 K K 
 
382 
 
 answers thera by showing, that universal traditioh 
 was conformable to Scripture. 
 
 Eusebius informs us, that Artemon, who assert- 
 ed that Christ was a mere man, pretended that he 
 had learnt, from tradition, that all the apostles 
 were of his opinion.* 
 
 Thus also, Clement of Alexandria, says, <'That 
 Basilides gloried in having received his doctrine, 
 through a few hands, from Peter ; and Valeniinus 
 gloried, in having been instructed by one who had 
 been a disciple of Paul, "t The Marcionltes pro- 
 fessed to have received their doctrines from St. 
 Matthew. The Arians, as appears by an oration 
 against them by Athanasius, appealed to tradition, 
 for the confirmation of their tenets. 
 
 In fact, this doctrine of unwritten traditions, has 
 been justly compared to Pandora's box, which is 
 calculated to fill the world with evils and heresies. 
 
 But not only have heretics availed themselves of 
 this corrupt fountain, but good men have been de- 
 ceived by lending too credulous an ear to tradi- 
 tions. 
 
 Papias, one of the hearers of John the apostle, 
 was a great collector of traditions. He was inquis- 
 itive to know what each of the apostles had, at any 
 time, said; and there was some chance of coming at 
 the truth from oral tradition, by one who was a 
 hearer of one of the apostles. But what valuable in- 
 formation did this good man obtain by all his inqui- 
 ries, which is not in Scripture .-* Let Eusebius an- 
 * Liber v. c. 28. f Strom, xiii. 
 
383 
 
 swer: "Papias adopted many paradoxical opinions 
 by giving heed to unwritten traditions, {ira^a5o(ttu^ 
 «7^a(p8,) and received certain strange parables of 
 our Saviour, mixed with fabulous things, among 
 which was the error of the Chiliasts ; by which 
 many other excellent men were deceived, paying too 
 much deference to antiquity and unwritten tradi- 
 tions. Even such men as Irenaeus, Apollinarius, 
 Tertullian,Victorinus, and Lactantius, were misled 
 by these ancient traditions, so that they adopted an 
 opinion for which there is no foundation in Sacred 
 Scripture,and not only so, but which is repugnant to 
 the doctrine of Christ and his apostles. " 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, too, than whom no man 
 of the ancient church was more celebrated, speaks 
 of certain persons who had taken much pams to 
 preserve the sayings of the apostles, handed down 
 by tradition, among whom he mentions a Hebrew, 
 who is supposed to be Papias ; but when he comes 
 to tell us what he had learned from these unwrit- 
 ten traditions, which is not contained in Scripture, 
 it amounts to this, "That there was a public doc- 
 trine %nd a secret doctrine ; the one esotericy and 
 the other exoteric ; that the former was commit- 
 ted to writing, and was in the hands of all ; but the 
 latter was communicated secretly to chosen disciples. 
 And if we may judge of the secret doctrine handed 
 down by tradition , from some speci mens of it which 
 he had learned, we will not appreciate unwritten 
 traditions very highly, in comparison with the 
 
384 
 
 written word. Among these, is the Opinion, that 
 the Greek Philosophy answered the same purpose 
 as the Law of Moses, and was a schoolmaster to 
 bring those that professed it unto Christ ; that this 
 philosophy, as well as the Law of Moses, was able 
 to justify men ;-and that there were many ways of 
 obtaining life. From the same tradition, he teach- 
 es, that Christ's ministry was finished in one year, 
 which opinion Irenasus ascribes to heretics, and de- 
 clares it as a tradition from John, that Christ, when 
 he was crucified, was nearly fifty years of age. 
 Clement relates it as a tradition, "That the apostles 
 after their death, went and preached to the dead, 
 who descended with the apostles into a place of 
 water, and then came up alive," and many other 
 like things.* 
 
 There is much reason to believe, that the cor- 
 ruption of the church, which commenced about 
 this time, was owing to a disposition which began 
 to be indulged, of lending too credulous an ear 
 to traditions, and to Apocryphal writings. 
 
 But among the Fathers, no one gave himself up 
 so entirely to unwritten traditions, and^ Apocry- 
 phal fables, as Epiphanius. His writings abound 
 with things of this kind : but who would assert 
 that we are bound to receive these stories, as arti- 
 cles of faith ? Even the Romish church, with 
 all her store of legends, will not receive as true 
 
 * Strom. Lib. If. 
 
385 
 
 and necessary, all that is handed down by tradi- 
 tion from one and another of the Fatluwa. 
 
 From what has been saiti therefore, the conclu- 
 sion is clear, that the Scriptures are complete 
 without unwritten traditions: that no articles of 
 faith, nor institutions of worship, concerning 
 which the Scriptures are silent,have cO'Ue down to 
 us by tradition ; that wo have uniform, universal 
 tradition, on those points, whirh are plainly taught 
 in Scripture ; that many thi y;s pretended to have 
 been received from the AjjOstles by tradition, can- 
 not be tractd to tht^m ; and that many other things 
 made equally nectssarv by the Romish church, can 
 be proved to have orij:;inatod many hundreds of 
 years since the death of il»o Apostles. It has- also' 
 been shown, that there is no ct-rtain method ofdis- 
 tingiuishitijj; between what is apostolical, and what 
 has been derived from other sources, unless we make 
 the Scriptures our standard ; that tradition cannot 
 be our guide even in inttrpreting Scripture ; and 
 finally, that tradition has been the common refuge of 
 heretics, and has greatly misled good and orthodox 
 men, by inducing theui to adopt wild theories, fab- 
 ulous stories, and paradoxical opinions, some of 
 which, are directly repugnant to Scripture. 
 
 The traditions of the Romish Church stand on no 
 higher ground, than the traditions of the Scribes 
 and Pharisees, in the time of our Saviour j but he 
 rejected these traditions as having no authority, and 
 as making void the law of God. Why doyCf says 
 
 K K 3 
 
SS6 
 
 Christ, also transgress the commandment of 
 God by your tradition ? — Thus have ye m,ade 
 the commandment of God of none effect by your 
 tradition. — Howbeit^ in vain do they worship 
 mcy teaching for doctrines the commandments 
 of men. The -same questions and reproofs may 
 with equal propriety be addressed lo the Pope, and 
 the doctors of the Romish church. But we say, 
 To the Law and to the testimony ; if they speak 
 not according to these^ it is because there is no 
 ^ight in them. '" ^ 
 
 Thus have we brought this work to a close ; and 
 it affords us pleasure to believe, that most who 
 read these pages, will be convinced, thai the Bi- 
 ble IS A COMPLETE RULE, BOTH OF FAITH AND 
 
 PRACTICE. The Law of the Lord is perfect. 
 What a treasure havf we in the Old and New Tes- 
 taments! Here, God speaks to us by his lively 
 oracles. The truth is taught so plainly, in this 
 Sacred volume, that he who runs may read. The 
 way of life is delineated so distinctly, that the 
 wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not err therein. 
 We have, indeed, a sure word of prophecy, to 
 which ye do well that ye take heed, as to a light 
 shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, 
 and the day star arise in your hearts. 
 
 There is nothing lacking to him that is in pos- 
 session of the Scriptures ; for, t/2ll Sanpture is 
 
 Matt. XV. 3, 6. Mark. vii. 7. Isaiah, viii. 20. 
 
587 
 
 given hy inspiration of God^ and is profitable 
 for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for in- 
 struction in righteousness. That the man of 
 God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto 
 all good works. 
 
 Let us then be mrateful to God, and give him 
 unceasing thanks foi^his precious deposit, which 
 he has committed to his church ; and vvhich by his 
 Providence he hath preserved uninjured, through 
 all the vicissitudes, through which she has passed. 
 
 Let us praise God, tliat in regard to us, that 
 night of darkness is past, in which^there was a 
 famine, not of bread, nor of water, but of the word 
 of the Lord ; when the light of this brilliant 
 lamp was put out, or rather <put under a bushel,' 
 and the feeble erring light of tradition, was sub- 
 stituted in its place. 
 
 Let us be glad and rejoice that we have lived to 
 see the day, when copies of theBible arc mulii|)lied, 
 and when many run to and fio, to circulate them ; 
 and let us wait in assured hope for the day, when 
 
 THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LoKD SHALL COVER THE 
 EARTH, AS THE WATERS COVER THE SEA. EvEN 
 
 so, COME Lord Jesus. Amen. 
 2 Tim, iii. 10, 17. 
 
m- 
 
NOTES. 
 
note; A. 
 
 irn.MLM DIXURIUM QUART.E SESSIOXIS, QLIKTO 
 APKILIS CELEBUAT.E, CONCILH TUIDENTINI, A. D. 
 
 1546. 
 
 Sacrosancta cccumcnica ct generalis Ti-iclentina Synodus, in Spi- 
 
 lilu sancto legitimo congregata, presidentibus in eatribus Apostolicx 
 
 scdis legatis, hoc sibi ante omnia pcrpetuo proponens, \t sublatis 
 
 omnibus erroribus, puritas ipsa Euangelii in Ecclesia conservctur, 
 
 (juod promissuni anl^ per Froi)iietas in Scripturis Sanctis, Dominus 
 
 tioster lesus Cliristus Dei filius proprio or<^ primum pronuulgavit, 
 
 deinde per suos Apostolos, tanquam fonfem oinnis salutaris verilatis 
 
 ct morum disciplina: oinni creaturx prxdicari iussit, perspiciensque 
 
 banc veritatcm et disciplinani contineri in libris scriptus, ct sine 
 
 icripto traditionibus, qua: ex ipsius (Jhristi ore ab Apostolis accop- 
 
 tx, aut ab ipsis Apostolis Spii'itu sancto dictante, quasi per manus 
 
 tradittc ad nos vsque pei-venerunt, orlliodoxoruni Patruin exempla 
 
 secuta, omnes libros, tam veleris,quknj noui 'I'estnincnti (cum vtrius- 
 
 que vnus Ueus sit autor) ncc non traditiones illas, turn, ad fidcra turn 
 
 ad mores pcrtinentes, tanquam vcl ore tcnus a Christo, tcI ii Spiritu 
 
 sancto dictataset continua succe ssione inecclesiacatholicaconsen'atas, 
 
 pari |iictatis affcctUjac reucrenlia suscipitac veneratur. Sacrorum vero 
 
 librorum inilicem, liuic •leci-elo asscribendum ccnsuit : nccui dubitutio 
 
 fiuboriri possit, quinani sint, qui ab ipsa Svnodo susoipiantur, Sunt 
 
 vei-6 infVk scripti I'eslamenti vetcris. Quinque libri Moysi, scilicet 
 
 GenesiSjExodus, Leviticus, Nunieri, Deuteronomiuin, Deinde, losuc, 
 
 ludicum, Kuth, Quatuor Rtgum, Faralipomenon duo, Esdrse duo, 
 
 piimus scilicet et secundus, qui dicitur Nclieiiiias, Thobias, ludith, 
 
 Ester, lob, Fsalterium Davidicum, centum quincjuaginta {'salmorum, 
 
 Parabolse Salomonis, Ecclesuistes, Canticum Cunticorum, Sapientia, 
 
 Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Hici-eniias, [Jarueh, F.zccbiel, Daniel, duo- 
 
 decim Froplictx niitmns, s; ilic et. Osoo, lool, Amos, Abdias, lonas, 
 
 Miclieas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Z.-icliarias, Mala- 
 
 fhias. Duo Macbabieorum, primus scilicet et secundus. Teslamenti 
 
 noui, Quatuor Euangelia, secundum Matthaium, .Marcum, Lucam 
 
 et lo.innem. Acta \postolorum a Luca Evangelista conscripta, 
 
 •^uatuordecim Epistolae beali Pauli Apostoli, scilicet ad Koinanos 
 
392 
 
 ad Coi'intliios (luce, ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, ad Philippenses, ad 
 Colossenses, ad Thessalonisenses duse, ad Timothseum duse, ad Ti- 
 tiun, ad Philemonem, ad Hebrieos, Petri Apostoli dua, loannis 
 Apostoli tres, lacobi vna, vna ludae A postoli, Apocalypsis loannis 
 Apostoli. 
 
 Si quis aiitem libros ipsos integros, cum omnibus suis partibuS 
 prout in Ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata 
 Latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, 
 et Iraditiones prfedictas sciens et prudens ccntempserit anathema sit. 
 
 Omnes itaque intelligant, quo ordine et via ipsa Synodus post 
 jactura fidei confessionis ifundamentum sit progressura, et quibus 
 potissimum testimoniis ac prsesidiis, in confirmandis dogmatibus et 
 instaurandis in Ecclesia moribus sit usura. 
 
 Which may be thus translated. " The holy, oecumenical, 
 and general Council of Trent, legitimately convened in the 
 Holy Spirit, under the presidency of three legates of the 
 Apostolic see, constantly proposing this before all things^ 
 that all errors being taken away, the Gospel in its purity 
 may be preserved in the Church, which was promised before 
 by the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures, but which was pro- 
 mulgated by our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, with 
 his own mouth : moreover, he commanded it to be preached 
 to every creature by his apostles, as the fountain of oil sav- 
 ing truth and moral discipline; which truth and discipline 
 he provided should be contained in the books of Scripture, 
 and in unwritten traditions, received from the mouth of 
 Christ by the Apostles, or from the Apostles speaking by 
 the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and handed down to us; 
 therefore this Synod following the example of the orthodox 
 Fathers, receives and venerates with equal pious affection 
 and reverence, all the books both of the Old and New Tes- 
 tament (for one God is the author of both :) Likewise those 
 traditions relating to faith and manners, which were receiv- 
 ed from the mouth of Christ himself, or from his inspired 
 Apostles, and which have been preserved in an uninterrupt- 
 ed succession, in the Catholic Church. Moreover, this 
 
393 
 
 SvNOD, judges it proper to give a catalogue of the Sacietl 
 Books, lest any doubt should arise in the minds of any res- 
 pecting THE BOOKS received by thoni, the names of wliicli 
 are here inserted in this decree; viz. The Five Books of 
 ,Moses, Gen. ^Exodus, Lev. JVumb. Deut. — Next, Joshua, 
 Judges, Ruth, Four buohs of Kings, Two of Chronicles. Tico 
 of Lira, viz. The First, uml the Second wjiich is called Ne. 
 hemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, CL. Psalms of David, 
 Proverbs of Solomon, Eccttsiasles, Song (f Songs, Wisdom, 
 Ecclcsiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, 
 Twelve J\Iinor Prophets, viz. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 
 Jonali, J\Iicah, JVahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, 
 Zechariah, Jilalachi, Two of J\Jcucabees, First and Second. 
 Of the New Testament, The Four Gospels, viz. 'Matthew, 
 Mark, Luke, John ; The Acts of the Apostles, written by 
 Luke the Evangelist ; Fourteen Epistles of the blessed Apos- 
 tle Paul, viz. T> the Romans, To the Corinthians, Two ; To 
 the Galatians ; To the Ephesians ; To the Phillippians ; To 
 the Colossians ; To the Theasalonians, Two ; To Timothy, 
 Two ; To Titus ; To Philemon ; To the Hebrews. Of the 
 Apostle Peter, Two. Of the Apostle John, Three. Of James 
 One. Of the Apostle Jude, One. The Apocalypse, o/' John, 
 the Apostle. 
 
 "But if any one shall not receive as Canonical and Sacred, 
 all these books, witjj all their parts, as they are used to be 
 read in the Catholic Church ; or shall knowingly and inten- 
 tionally contemn any of the aforesaid traditions, let liim be 
 anathema. 
 
 " Hence all may understand, in what order and way, the 
 Synod, after laying the foundation of the Confession of 
 thoir Faith, will proceed; and what testimonies and proofs 
 Uiey will especially use in confirming doctrines, and in the 
 reformation of manners, in the church." 
 
 L L 
 
394 
 
 NOTE B. 
 PASSAGE PROM TERTUJLLIAN. 
 
 The original of this passage is as follows, " Age jam, 
 qui, voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis 
 luas percurre Ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsse adhuc 
 cathedrae prsesident: apud quas ipste authentic.^ literj^ 
 eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem, et reprasentantes faci- 
 em uniuscujuscunque. Proxima est tibi Achaia? habes 
 Corinthum. Si non longe es a Macedonia, habes Philip- 
 pos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes Asiam tendere, 
 liabes Ephesum. Si autem Italise adjaces, habes Romam^ 
 unde nobis quoque auctoritatas prajsto est." 
 
 De Prxscnp. cap. 36. 
 
 NOTE C. 
 
 GOSPEL OF THE NaZAREISES. 
 
 There ia no Apocryphal book of the New Testament, 
 which has been so much spoken of both by the ancients 
 and moderns, as The Gospel of the Nazarenes. By 
 some, not only of the Romanists, but also of the Protes- 
 tants, it has been exalted very nearly to an equality with 
 the Canonical books of the New Testament. It seems 
 necessary, therefore, to examine its claims, with more at- 
 tention than is requisite in the case of other books of this 
 class. 
 
 This gospel was known among the ancients under several 
 different titles. It was sometimes called, the gospel ac- 
 cording TO the twelve apostles ; THE GOSPEL OF Bar- 
 THOLEMEW; THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS; 
 
 THE Gospel of the Ebionites, &.c. 
 
 It is the opinion of some, that this is the gospel to which 
 
395 
 
 Paul alludes, (Jal. i. 6, where lie spcaksof tviol he v gospel. 
 However this may be, if we credit Eusebius, we must be- 
 lieve, that it existed as early as tlio beginning: of the second 
 century ; for he represents Hcgcsippus as writing some 
 things concerning the gospel according to the Hebrews and 
 St/iHans.* 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, cites from it the following passage, 
 He who (ulm<res sh<tll reign, and hr who reigns sluill be at ease. 
 
 Origen speaks of it in this manner, " If any one will re- 
 ceive the Gospel according to tlic Hebrews, in which ouf 
 Saviour says. The HolyGhost my mother lately took me by one 
 fifmy hairs, and led me to the great mountain Thabor." And 
 in another place, '' It is written in a certain gospel whicli 
 is entitled, according to the Hebrews, (if anyone be pleased 
 to receive it not as of authority, but only for illustration of 
 the present question,) ^ certain rich man said to Christ, -u-hat 
 good thing shall I do that I may inherit life ? He said to him, 
 pian keep thi Latv and the I'rophets : he answered Idm, that I have 
 done ; he said to ftirn, go sell all things that thou hast, and distri- 
 bnle among the poor, and come andfolloiv me. The rich man here- 
 npon began to scratch his head, and was displeased. JInd the 
 Jjord said unto him, hotv can you say that you have kept the LmiIi 
 and the Prophets ? seeing it is ivritten in the Ixitv, thou shall love 
 thy neighbour as thyself; but behold, many of thy brethren, children 
 of Abraham, arc clothed with nnstiress, and ready to perish for hun- 
 ger, w/ule thy home abounds iinth all sorts of delicacies, and nothing 
 is sent out of it to them. . ind turning about, he said to his disciple, 
 Simon, who sat by him, Simon son of Joanna, it is easier for a camel 
 to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into 
 the hingdom of heaven.^ 
 
 Eusebius, speaking of Apocrypiial and spurious books, 
 says, "In this number, some have placed the gospel ac- 
 'ORntNO TO THE Hebrews, with which, thoy of the Jews 
 who profess Christianity are very much delighted." And 
 speaking of the Ebionites, he says, " They made use only 
 
 • Em. Hist. Lib. iv. p. 58. t Strom. Lib. i». p. 380. 
 
 '. Horn, in Jc-rcm. 
 
396 
 
 of that which is called, the Gospel according to the He- 
 brews, very little esteeming any others."* 
 
 Epiphanius has left several testimonies respecting this 
 Gospel; among which are the following: "The Naza- 
 renes have the Gospel of Matthew most entire in the 
 Hebrew language ; for this is still preserved among them. 
 as it was at first, in Hebrew characters. But I know not 
 whether they have taken away the genealogy from Abra- 
 ham to Christ." 
 
 In another place, speaking of the Ebionites, he sayS) 
 "They also receive the Gospel according to Matthew. 
 For this both they and the Cerinthians make use of, and no 
 other. They call it the Gospel according to the Hebrews \ 
 for the truth is, that Matthew is the only one of the New' 
 Testament writers, who published his gospel and preach- 
 ing in the Hebrew language, and Hebrew characters." 
 
 And again, " In that Gospel which they (the Ebionites) 
 Jiave called, according to St. Matthew, which is not entire 
 and perfect, but corrupted and curtailed, and which they 
 call the Hebrew Gospel, it is written. That there was a 
 certain man called Jesus, — and he being about thirty years of 
 a-ge, inade choice of us. And coming to Capernaum, he en- 
 tered into the house of Simon called Peter, and opening his 
 mouth said^ When I passed by the lake of Tiberias, I chose John 
 and James the sons of Zebedce, and Simon and Andrew, and 
 Thaddetts, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas Iscariot, and thou 
 Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, I called, and thou 
 didst follow me. I will therefore that ye be my twelve apos- 
 tles, for a testimony to Israel The meat of 
 
 John the Baptist, according to this gospel, was, wild honey, 
 the taste of which was like manna, or as cakes made with 
 honey and oil. Thus they change the true account into a 
 falsehood, and for locusts, put cakes made with oil and 
 honey." "The beginning of the Gospel was this. It came 
 to pass in the days of Herod, ^' &lc- After relating the bap- 
 * Ecc. Hist. Lib. iii. c. 25, 27. 
 
397 
 
 tisrn of Christ, as it is recorded in the other Gospel, ex 
 ccpt that it asserts, that the voice from heaven, saying. 
 This is my beloved Son, &-C. was repoated, it frocs on to say, 
 T/iat liereupon John fell douii before him, and said, O Lord, J 
 pray thee baptize me, but he Idndered him, saying that it is Jit that 
 all these tldngs should be fulfilled. "See," says Epiphanius, 
 " how their false doctrine appears every where, how all 
 things are imperfect, disordered, and williour any truth !' 
 .So also Cerinthus and Carpocratos, usinir this same Gospel 
 of theirs, would ))rove that Christ proceeded from the seed 
 of Joseph and Mary. "• 
 
 But tiie testimony of Jerome respecting this Gospel is 
 the most full. " Matthew also called Levi," says he, "who 
 became from a publican an apot-tle, was the first who com- 
 posed a Gospel of Christ, and for the sake of those who be- 
 lieved in Christ among tlie Jews wrote it in the Hebrew 
 language and letters, but it is uncertain who translated it 
 into Greek. Moreover, the Hebrew (copy) is to this time 
 preserved m tlie library of Cffisarea, which Pamphilus, the 
 martyr, with much dilijrence. collected. The Nazarenes 
 who live in Beroea, a city of Syria, and made use ol this 
 volume, granted me the favour of writing it out. In which 
 (Gospel) there is this observable, that wherever the Evan- 
 gelist either cites himselt, or introduces our Saviour as cit- 
 ing, any passage out of the Old Testament, he does not fol- 
 low the translation of the LXX, but the Hebrew copies, of 
 which there are these two instances, viz. Out of Eg^ypt have 
 I called my Son; and. He shall be called a JVazarene." 
 This testimony is found in Jerome's life of Matthew. And 
 m his life of James, wc find the following account. "The 
 gospel also, which is called. According to the Hebrews, and 
 which I lately translated into Greek and Latin, and which 
 Origen often used, relates, That after our Saviour's rcsur- 
 rection, when our Lord had given tlie linen cloth to the priest's sev 
 rant, he went to James and appeared to lam ; for James had rwom, 
 
 * Epiph. Hares, 
 LL 2 
 
39S 
 
 thai he -.vould not eat bread from that hour in ivMch he drank the 
 nip of the Lord, Hill he shonld see the Lord risen from the dead. 
 And a little after, the Lord said, Bring the table and the bread ; 
 and then it is added, He took the bread, and blessed it, U7id brake it, 
 and gave it to James the Just, and said to him, my brother, eat thy 
 bread, for the Son of man is risen from the dead." 
 
 And in a work against Pelagius, he says, " In the gospel 
 according to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldo- 
 Syriac language, which the Nazarenes use, and is that ac- 
 cording to the Twelve Apostles, or as most think, accord- 
 ing to Matthew, which is in the library of Csesarea, there is 
 the following history : Jiehold the mother and brethren of Christ 
 ■ifiake to him; John the Baptist baptizes for the remissio7i of sins 
 'ct us go and be baptized of him. He said, in ivhat have I sinned^ 
 that I have need to go and be baptized of him ? Unless my sayirig 
 this proceed perhaps from ignorance . And in the same Gospel it is 
 said, Tf thy brother offend thee by any word, and make thee satis- 
 faction, if it be seven times in a day, thou must forgive him . Simon 
 his disciple said unto him. What .' seven times in a day ? 7 'he Lord 
 answered and said unto him, I tell thee also till seventy times seven." 
 
 The same author, in his commentary on Isaiah, mentions 
 this Gospel in the following manner; "According to their 
 Gospel, which is written in the Hebrew language, and read 
 by the Nazarenes, the whole fountain of the Holy Ghost 
 descended upon him. B'l'sides, in thai Goppel just mention- 
 ed, we find tiiese things written. It came to pass ivhcn the 
 Lord ascended from the -zvaters, the -whole fomitain of the Holy 
 Ghost descended and rested upon him, and said to him, .My son, 
 among, for during the time of J all the prophets, Iivas ~i<aiting for thy 
 coming, that I might rest upon thee : thou art my first begotten Son, 
 7vh} shall reign to everlasting ages." 
 
 And in his commentary on Ezekiel, " In that which is en- 
 titled, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, it is reckon- 
 ed among the chief of crimes, for a person to make sorrow- 
 ful the heart of his brother." 
 
 In his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, he has thg 
 following; "In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebi- 
 onites use, which I lately translated out of Hebrew into 
 
399 
 
 fircck. and which is by most esteemed tlie authentic Gos- 
 jiel of Matthew, the man who had the withered hand, is 
 said to be a mason, and prayed for relief in the following 
 words: /r;"os a mason who ^ot my livelihood by my hands ; I be- 
 nrrch thee Jesus, that thou -wouldest restore me to my strength, that 
 I may no longei- thus scandalously beg my bread. " 
 
 " In tlie Gospel which tiie Nazarencs use, for the son of 
 Barachiah, I find written, liie son of Jchoiada." " In this 
 Gospel we read, not that the veil of the temple was rent, 
 but that a lintel or beam of a prodigious size fell down." 
 "In the Hebrew Gospel we read, that our Lord said to his 
 disciples. Be ye never cheerful, unless when you can see your 
 brother in love.'' 
 
 Concerning tliis gospel according to the Hebrews, very 
 difierent opinions have been exprcsed by learned men- 
 Some have even pretended, that if it was now in exist- 
 ence, it would be gready superior to the Greek copy, but 
 generally it has been considered Apocryphal, for very good 
 reasons, some of which I will now set down. • , 
 
 1. It was never received b\ any of the Fathers as Canon- 
 ical, nor citod as of any authority, by any writer, during 
 the first four centuries. 
 
 For full proof of the fact here stated, I would refer the 
 reader to Jonc- on the Canon, vol. iii. 
 
 2. This gospel was Apocryphal because it contained se- 
 veral things contrary to known and undoubted truths. Of 
 this sort, are the passages which have been cited respect- 
 ing Christ's manner of speaking, in regard to the baptism 
 cf John. Also the account which it contains of the oath 
 of the apostle James; for it is evident that the disciples 
 know nothing of Christ's resurrection from the dead, until 
 after that event occurred. 
 
 3. A third argument of the Apocryphal character of this 
 Gospel, is derived from the ludicrous and silly relations 
 which it contains. As that of the rich man's scratching his 
 
400 
 
 head; and the Holy Ghost taking up Christ by one of 
 his hairs, and carrying him to the great mountain Ta- 
 bor, «&c. 
 
 The most probable opinion of the origin of this Gospel is, 
 that it was a corruption of the original Hebrew gospel of 
 Matthew, by the Ebionites. These heretics having this 
 gospel in their possession, and having departed from the 
 true faith, mutilated the gosp6l of Matthew, by striking out 
 such things as were unfavourable to their heresy, and add- 
 ing such fabulous stories as suited their purpose. Of the 
 fragments which remain there is not one which agrees ex- 
 actly with the authentic gospel of Matthew. Epiphanius 
 expressly asserts, that the Ebionites used the gospel of 
 Matthew alone, and that in Hebrew, but not entire, but 
 corrupted, and adulterated ; and that they had taken away 
 the genealogy from the beginning, and commenced their 
 gospel with these words, Jlnd it came to pass in the days of 
 Herod, &c. 
 
 NOTE D. 
 
 AN ALPHABETICAL LIST OF APOCRYPHA.L BOOKS 
 MEN i lONED BY ONE OH A.NOTHEK (JF THE FA- 
 THERS, WHICH ARE NOT NOW EXTANT ; EX- 
 TRACl'EU FROM "JONES ON THE CANON." 
 
 Tlie Acts of Andrew. 
 
 The Gospel of Andrew. 
 
 The Gospel of Apelles. 
 
 The Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles. 
 
 The Gospel of Barnabas, 
 
 The Gospel of Bartholomew. 
 
 The Gospel of Basilides. 
 
 The Gospel of Cerinthus. 
 
401 
 
 The Revelation of Ccrinthus. 
 
 An Epistle of Christ to Peter and Paul. 
 
 Another Epistle of Christ produced by the Manichers. 
 
 A Hymn which Christ taught his disciples. 
 
 The Gospel accorditig to the Egyptians. 
 
 The Acts of the Apostles, used by the Ebionites. 
 
 The Gospel of the Ebionites. 
 
 Tlie Gospel of the Encratites. 
 
 The Gospel of Eve. 
 
 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. 
 
 The Book of the Helkesaites. 
 
 The False Gospels of Hesychius. 
 
 The Book of James. 
 
 The Acts of John. 
 
 The Gospel of Jude. 
 
 The Gospel of Judas Iscariot. 
 
 Tlie Acts of the Apostles, by Leucius, 
 
 The Acts of the Apostles, by Lentitius. 
 
 Tlie Arts of the Apostles, by Leontius. 
 
 The Acts of the Apostles, by Leuthon. 
 
 The False Gospels by Lucianus. 
 
 The Gospel of Matthias. 
 
 Traditions of Matthias. 
 
 The .^cts of the Apostles, used by the Mamchees. 
 
 The Gospel of Marcion. 
 
 The Gospel of Merinthus. 
 
 The Gospel according to toe Nazarenes. 
 
 The Gospel of Perfection. 
 
 The Acts of Paul. 
 
 Preaching of Paul and Peter. 
 
 The Revelation of Paul. 
 
 The Acts of Peter. 
 
402 
 
 The Doctrine of Peter. 
 
 The Gospel of peter. 
 
 The Judgment of Peter. 
 
 Tlie Preaching of Peter. 
 
 The Revelation of peter. 
 
 Tlie Acts of Philip. 
 
 Thf Gospfl f Philip. 
 
 Th,e Gospel of Scythianus. 
 
 The Acts of the Apostles, by Sehucus. 
 
 The Revelation of Stephen. 
 
 The Gospel of Tatian. 
 
 The Gospel of Thaddeus. 
 
 The Gospel of Truth. 
 
 Tlie Acts of Thomas. 
 
 The Gospel of Thomas. 
 
 The Revelation of Thomas. 
 
 The Gospel of Valentinus. 
 
 For an account of the writers who have mentioned these 
 spurious works, the reader is referred to Jones on the 
 Canon, vol. I. part i. c. xx. But it should be remem- 
 bered, that all these books are spoken of as Apocryphal, bv 
 the writers who make mention of them. 
 
 NOTE E. 
 
 THE DECREE OF POPE GELASIUS, CONCERNING 
 APOCRYPHAL BOOKS. 
 
 1. The Travels under the name of Peter, which is also 
 called the Eight Books of St. Clemens, is Apocry- 
 phal. 
 
403 
 
 2. The Acts under the name of Andrew the Aposlle, urt 
 
 Apocryplittl. 
 
 3. The Acts umior the name of Philip the Apostle are 
 
 Apocrypliul. 
 
 4. The Acts under tiic uauio of Peter are Apocryphal. 
 
 j. The Acts under the name of Thomas the Apostle, are 
 Apocryphal. 
 
 6. The Gospel under the name of Thaddeus, is Apoc- 
 
 ryphal. 
 
 7. The Gospel under the name of Thomas the Apostle, 
 
 is Apocryphal. 
 
 8. The Gospel under the name of Barnabas, is Apocry- 
 
 phal, 
 y. The Gospel under the name of Bartholomew is Apoc- 
 ryphal. 
 
 10. The Gospel under the name of Andrew the Apostle, 
 
 is Apocryphal. 
 
 11. The Gospels corrupted by Lucianus are Apocryphal. 
 
 12. The Gospels corrupted by Hesychius are Apocryphal. 
 
 13. The Gospel of the Infancy of our Saviour is Apocry- 
 
 phal. 
 
 14. The Book of the Nativity of our Saviour is Apocry- 
 . phal. 
 
 15. The Book called the Shepherd is Apocryphal. 
 
 IG. All the Books made by Lentitius the disciple of tiie 
 Devil, are Apocryphal 
 
 17. The Acts of Paul and Thecla are Apocryphal. 
 
 18. The Revelation of Thomas is Apocryphal. 
 
 19. The Revelation of Paul is Ajiocrylial. 
 
 20. The Revelation of Steplien is Apocryphal. 
 
 21. The Travels, or Acts of Mary arc Apocryphal. 
 
 22. The Book called the Lots of the Apostles is Apocry- 
 
 phal. 
 
 23. The Book called the Praise of th<? Apostles is .Vpocry- 
 
 phal. 
 
404 
 
 24. The Book of the Canon of the Apostles is Apocryphal. 
 
 25. The Letters of Jesus to king Abgarus is Apocryphal. 
 
 NOTE F. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE OF CHRIST AND ABGARUS. 
 
 .? copy -of a letter ■written by King Abgarus to Jesics, mid sent to 
 him by Ananias, his footman, to Jerusalem. 
 
 Abgarus, king of Edessa, to Jesus the good Saviour, who 
 appears at Jerusalem, greeting. I have been informed con- 
 cerning you and your cures, which are performed without 
 the use of medicines and herbs. For it is reported that you 
 cause the blind to see, the lame to walk, do both cleanse 
 lepers, and cast out unclean spirits and devils, and restore 
 them to health who have been long diseased, and raisest 
 up the dead : all which when I heard, I was persuaded of 
 one of these two, viz. either that you are God himself 
 descended from heaven, who do these things, or a Son of 
 God. On this account therefore I have wrote to you, ear- 
 nestly to desire you would take the trouble of a journey 
 hither, and cure a disease which I am under For I hear 
 the Jews ridicule you, and intend you mischief. My city 
 is indeed small, but neat, and large enougli for us both. 
 
 The atisiuer of Jesus by Ananias the footman to Abgarus the king. 
 Abgarus, you are happy, forasmuch as you have believed 
 on me, whom you have not. seen. For it is written concerning 
 me, that those who have seen me should not beheveon me, 
 that they who have not seen might believe and live. As to 
 that part of your letter, which relates to my giving you a 
 visit I must inform you, that 1 must fulfil all the ends of 
 my mission in this country, and after that be received un 
 
405 
 
 again to him who sent rao. But after ray ascension I will 
 send one of my disciples, who will cure your disease, and 
 ^'ive life to you, and all that are with you. 
 
 NOTE G. 
 PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE LAODICEANS. 
 
 The Epistle of St. Paxil to the Laodiceans. 
 
 1. Paul an Apostle, not of men, neiti)er by man, but by 
 Jesus Christ, to the brethren wliich are at Laodicea. 
 
 2. Grace be to you, and peace from God the Father, and 
 our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 3. I thank Christ in every prayer of mine, that ye conti- 
 nue and persevere in good worka, looking for that which is 
 promised in the day of judgment. 
 
 4. Let not the vain speeches of any trouble you, who 
 pervert the truth, that they may draw you aside from the 
 truth of the Gospel which I have preached. 
 
 5. And now may God grant, that my converts may at- 
 tain to a perfect knowledge of ihe truth of the Gospel, be 
 beneficent, and doing good works which accompany salva- 
 tion. 
 
 6. And now my bonus, which I suffer in Christ, arc ma- 
 nifest, in which I rejoice and am glad. 
 
 7. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation for 
 ever, which shall be through your prayer, and the supply 
 of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 0. Whether I live or die; (for) to me to live shall be a 
 life to Christ, to die will be joy. 
 
 9. And our Lord will grant us his mercy, that ye may 
 have the same love, and be likemmded. 
 
406 
 
 10. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have heard of the 
 coining of the Lord, so think and act in fear, and it shall 
 ^ato you life eternal ; 
 
 1.1. For it is God who worketh in you ; 
 
 12. And do all things without sin. 
 
 13. And what is best, my beloved, rejoice in the Lord 
 .lesus Christ, and avoid all filthy lucre. 
 
 14. Let all your requests be made known to God, and be 
 steady in the doctrine of Christ. 
 
 15. And wliatsoever things are sound, and true, and of 
 good report, and chaste, and just, and lovely, these things 
 do. 
 
 16. Those things which ye have heard, and received, 
 tliink on these things, and peace shall be with you. 
 
 17. And all the saints salute you. 
 
 18. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your 
 spirit. Amen. 
 
 19. Cause this Epistle to be read to the Colossians, and 
 the Epistle of the Colossians to be read among you. 
 
407 
 
 NOTE H. 
 
 S r. PAUL'S EPISTLES TO SENECA, WITH SENECA'*^ 
 TO PAUL. 
 
 ^nnttus Seneca to Paul, Greeting. 
 
 Epistle I. 
 
 I fcupposc, Paul, that you have been informed of that con- 
 versation, which passed yesterday between me and my Luci- 
 lius, concerning hypocrisy and other subjects; for there were 
 some of your Disciples in company with us ; for when wc 
 were retired into the Sallustian gardens, through which 
 they were also passing, and would have gone another way, 
 by our perstiasion they joined company with us. I desire 
 you to believe, that we much wish for your conversation; 
 we were much delighted with your book of many Epistles* 
 which you have wrote to some cities and chief towns of pro- 
 vinces, and which contains wonderful instructions for moral 
 conduct ; such sentiments, as I suppose you were not the 
 author of, but only the instrument of conveying, though 
 sometimes both the author and the instrument; for such is 
 the sublimeness of those doctrines, and their grandeur, that 
 I suppose the age of a man is scaroe sufBcient to be in- 
 structed and perfected in the knowieugo of them. I wish 
 your welfare, my brother. Farewell. 
 
 Paul to Seneca, Greeting. 
 
 EflSTLE I. 
 
 1 received your letter yesterday with pleasure; to which 
 I could immediately have wrote an answer, had the young 
 man been at home, whom I intended to have sent to you : 
 for you know when, and by whom, at what seasons, and to 
 whom I must deliver every thing which I send. I deairc 
 
408 
 
 therefore you would not charge me with negligence, if I 
 Wait for a proper persoH. I reckon myself very happy in 
 having the judgment of so valuable a person, that you are 
 delighted with my Epistles : for you would not be esteem- 
 ed a censor, a philosopher, or be the tutor of so great a 
 prince, and a master of every thing, if you were not sin- 
 cere. I wish you lasting prosperity. 
 
 Amixus Seneca to Paul, Greeting. 
 Epistle II. 
 
 I have completed some volumes, and divided them in- 
 to their proper parts. I am determined to read them t© 
 Ctesar, and if any favourable opportunity happens, you also 
 shall be present, when they are read ; but if that cannot 
 be, I will appoint and give you notice of a day, when wc 
 will together read over the performance. I had determin- 
 ed, if I could with safety, first to have your opinion of it 
 before 1 published it to Cassar, that you might be convin- 
 ced of my affection to you. Farewell dearest Paul. 
 
 Paul to Seneca, Greeting, 
 
 Epistle II. 
 
 As often as I read your letters, I imagine you present 
 with me; nor indeed do I think any other than that you 
 are always with us. As soon therefore as you begin to 
 come, we shall presently see each other. I wish you all 
 prosperity. 
 
40<> 
 
 .innsnis Seneca to Pan!, Greeting. 
 Epistle III. 
 We are very much concerned at your too long absence 
 from us. What is it, or what affairs are they, which ob- 
 struct your coming ? If you fear the anger of Ctesar, be- 
 cause you have abandoned your former religion, and made 
 proselytes also of others, you liavc this to plead, that your 
 acting thus proceeded not from incontilancy, but judg- 
 ment. Farewell. 
 
 Paul to Seneca and ImciUus, Greeting. 
 Epistue III. 
 Concermng those thinij.s, about which ye wrote to mc, 
 it is not proper for me to mention any thing in writing with 
 pen and ink : the one of which leaves marks, and tlie other 
 evidently declares tilings. Especially since I know that 
 there are near you, as weii as me, those who will under- 
 stand my moaning. Deference is to bt^ paid to all men 
 and so much the more, as they are more likely 'o take oc- 
 casions of quarrelling. And if we show a submissive tem- 
 per, we shall overcome effectually in all |)oint8, if so be 
 they are such, who are capable of seeing and ackuowlcdg. 
 ing themselves to have been in the wrong. Farewell. 
 
 Jlnnseus Seneca to Paul, Greeting, 
 Epistle IV. 
 I profess myself extremely pleased with the reading your 
 letters to the Giilatians, Corinthians, and people ofAchaia. 
 For the Holy Glio>tiias in them by you delivered those sen- 
 timents which are very lofty, sulilime, deserving of all rei- 
 
 MM 2 
 
410 
 
 pect, and beyond }'Our own invention. I could wish there- 
 fore, that when you are writing- things so extraordinary 
 there might not be wanting an elegancy of speech agreea" 
 bleto their majesty. And I must own, my brother, that I 
 may not at once dishonestly conceal any thing from you, 
 and be unfaithful to my own conscience, that tiie Emperor 
 is extremely pleased with the sentiments of your Epistles ; 
 for when he heard the beginning of them read, he declar- 
 ed, " that he was surprised to find such notions in a per- 
 son, who had not had a regular education." To which I re- 
 plied, "that the Gods sometimes made use of mean (inno- 
 cent) persons to speak by, and js^ave him an instance of this 
 in a mean countryman, named Vatienus who, when he was 
 in the country of Reate, had two men to appear to him, 
 called Castor and Pollux, and received a revelation from 
 the Goda. Farewell. 
 
 Paul to Seneca, Greeting: 
 
 Epistle IV. 
 
 Although I know the Emperor is both an admirer and fa- 
 vourer of our (religion,) yet give me leave to advise you 
 against your suffering any injury [by showing favour to us.] 
 I think indeed you ventured upon a very dangerous at- 
 tempt, when yoii would declare [to the Emperor] that which 
 is so very contrary to liis religion, and way of worship ; 
 seeing he is a worshipper of the Heathen gods. I know 
 not what you. particularly had in view, when you told him 
 of this; but I suppose you did it out of a too great respect 
 for me. But I desire that for the future you would not d» 
 so ; for you had need be careful, lest by showing your af- 
 fection to me, you should offend your master : his anger 
 indeed will do us no harm, if he continue a heathen ; nor 
 v^'ill his not being angry be of any service to us : and if the 
 
411 
 
 Empress act wortliy of her cliaractcr, she wtU'riot be angry ; 
 but if she act as a woman, she will be affronted. Farewell. 
 
 Annxus Seneca to Paul, Greeting. 
 Epistle V. 
 I know that my letter, wherein I acquainted you, that I 
 had read to the Emperor your Epistles, does not so much 
 affect you as the nature of the things [contained in them,] 
 which do so powerfully divert men's minds from their former 
 manners and practices, that I have always been surprised, 
 and have been fully convinced of it by many arguments 
 heretofore : let us therefore begin afresh ; and if any thing 
 heretofore has been imprudently acted, do you forgive. I 
 have sent you a book de copia verborum. Farewell, dear- 
 est Paul. 
 
 I*aiil to Seneca, Greeting. 
 Epistle V. 
 As oflen as I write to you, and place my name before 3'ours, 
 I do a thingboth disagreeable to myself, and contrary to our 
 religion : For I ought, as I have oflen declared, to become 
 all things to all men, and to have that regard to your quali- 
 ty which the Roman Law has honoured all .ecnalnrs with ; 
 viz. to put my name last in the [niscription of the] Epistle, 
 that I may not at length with uneasiness and shame be 
 •bliged to do that which it was always my inclination to do. 
 Farewell, most respected master. Dated the tillh of the 
 calends of July, in the fourth Consulship of Nero and 
 McssaU. 
 
412 
 
 Annssits Seneca to Paul, Greeting. 
 Epistle VI. 
 All happiness to you, my dearest Paul. If a person so 
 great, and every way agreeable as you are, become not 
 only a common, but most intimate friend to me, how hap- 
 py will be the case of Seneca ! You, therefore, who are so 
 eminent, and so far exalted above all, even the greatest, do 
 not think yourself unfit to be first named in the mscription 
 of an Epistle ; lest I should suspect you intend not so much 
 to try me, as to banter me ; for you know yourself to be a 
 Roman citizen. And I could wish to be in that circum- 
 stance or station which you are, and that you were in the 
 same that I am. Farewell, dearest Paul. Dated the tenth 
 of the calends of April, in the Consulship of Aprianus and 
 Capito. 
 
 Annaeus Seneca to Paul, Greeting. 
 Epistlk Vil. 
 All happiness to you my dearest Paul. Do you not sup- 
 pose I am extremely concerned and grieved, that your in- 
 nocence should bring you into sufferings? And that all 
 the people should suppose you [Christians] so criminal, and 
 imagine all the misfortunes that happen to the city, to be 
 caused by you ? But let us bear the charge with a patient 
 temper, appealing (for our innocence) to the court (above,) 
 which is the only one our hard fortune will allow us to ap- 
 peal to, till at length our misfortunes shall end in unaltera- 
 ble happiness. Former ages have produced (tyrants) Al- 
 exander the son of Philip, and Dionysius ; ours also has 
 produced Caius Caesar; whose inclinations were their only 
 laws. As to the frequent burnings of the city of Rome, the 
 cause is manifest; and if a person in my mean circumstan- 
 ces might be allowed to speak, and one might declare these 
 
413 
 
 dark thinpfs without danger, every one should see the whole 
 of the matter. The Clinstians and Jews are indeed com- 
 monly punished for the crune of burning; the city; but that 
 impious miscreant, vvhodehghts m murders and butcheries, 
 and disguises his villanies with lies, is appointed to, or re- 
 served till, his proper time ; and as the life of every excel- 
 lent person is now sacrificed instead of that one person (who 
 is the author of the miscliief,) so this one shall be sacrificed 
 for many, and he shall bo devoted to be burnt with fire in- 
 stead of all. One hundred and thirty two houses, and four 
 whole squares [or islands] were burnt down in six davs; 
 the seventh put an end to the burning. I wish you all hap- 
 piness. Dated the fifth of the calends of April, in the con- 
 sulship of Frigius and Bassus. 
 
 ^nnaus Serntca to Paul, Greeting. 
 
 El'ISTLE VIII. 
 
 All happiness to you, my dearest Paul. You have 
 wrote many volumes in an allegorical and mystical style, 
 fcnd therefore such might v matters and business being com- 
 mitted to you, require not to be set off with any rhetorical 
 flourishes of speech, bu' only with some proper elegance. 
 I remember you ofttn say, that " many by affecting such a 
 style do injury to their subjects, and lose the force of the 
 matters they treat of." But in this I desire you to regard 
 me, viz. to have respect to true Latin, and to choose just 
 words, that so you may the better manage the noble trust 
 which is reposed in you. Farewell. Dated 5th of the 
 nones of July, Leo and Savinus consuls. 
 
414 
 
 J^aul to Seneca, Greeting. 
 Epistle VI. 
 Your serious consideration is requited with those discov- 
 eries, which tlie Divine Being has granted but to few. 1 
 am thereby assured that I sow the most strong seed in a fer- 
 tile soil, not any thing material, which is subject to corrup- 
 tion, but the durable word of God, which shall increase and 
 bring forth fruit to eternity. That which by your wisdom 
 you have attained to, shall abide without decay forever. 
 Believe that you ought to avoid the superstitions of Jews 
 and Gentiles. The things which you have in some mea- 
 sure arrived to, prudently insinuate [make known] to the 
 Emperor, his family, and to faithful friends; and though 
 your sentiments will seem disagreeable, and not be compre- 
 hended by them, seeing most of them will not regard your 
 discourses, yet the Word of God once infused into them, 
 W'ill at length make them become new men, aspiring to- 
 wards God. Farewell Seneca, who art most dear to us. 
 Dated on the calends of August, in the consulship of Leo 
 and Savinus. 
 
 NOTE I. 
 
 MIRACLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIS T IN THE BOOK, EN- 
 TITLED, "THE GOSPEL OF OUR SAVIOUR'S IN- 
 FANCY." 
 
 Christ is represented as speaking in the cradle and telling 
 his mother, that he was her son. 
 
 The swaddling clothes in which he was wrapped, when 
 thrown into the fire, would not burn. When his parents 
 entered Egypt in liieir flight from the cruelty of Herod, the 
 girth of the saddle on which Mary rode, broke ; and the 
 
415 
 
 1 
 •^ 
 
 wreat idol of Egypt fell down at the approach of the infant 
 Jesus. 
 
 By means of the babe's swaddling clothes, several devila 
 were cast out of a boy's mouth, in the ahape of crows and 
 serpents. 
 
 A company of robbers, at the approach of Jesus, were 
 frightened by being made to hear a sound, as of an army, 
 &,c. 
 
 It is related, that a girl was cured of a leprosy, by means 
 of water in wliich Christ's body had been wasiied. 
 
 That a young man, wlio by witchcraft Jiad been turned 
 into a mule, was, upon Christ's mounting him, turned again 
 into a man. 
 
 Many otiier cures and miracles are wrought by means of 
 Christ's swaddling clothes, and the water in which his body 
 had been washed. 
 
 A girl possessed of the devil, who appeared to her in the 
 shape of a dragon, and so sucked her blood, that she looked 
 like a dead carcass, was relieved by means of the swaddhng 
 clothes of the infant Jesus, from which issued flames and 
 coals of fire, wiiich fell upon the dragon, so that he was 
 frightened and left the girl. 
 
 Another woman had a son named Judas, who was inclin- 
 ed to bite all that were present, and if he found no one else 
 near him, he woidd bite his own hands and other parts. 
 This child they brought to Jesus, and Satan coming upon 
 hira as usual, he went about to bite the Lord Jesus, and be- 
 cause he could not do it, he struck hiui on his right side, so 
 that he cried out, and in the same moment, Satan went out 
 of the boy, and ran away like a mad dog. Tiiis child was 
 no other than Judas Iscariot, who atlerwurds betrayed Jesus 
 to the Jews. 
 
 When Jesus was about seven years of age he was at play 
 with several other boys of the same age, who were occupied 
 in moulding clay into the shapes of oxen, asses, birds, &c. 
 
416 
 
 Then the Lord Jesus said to the boys, ' I will command 
 these figures which I have made to walk;' and immediate- 
 ly they moved, and when he commanded them to return, 
 they returned. He also made the figures of birds and spar- 
 rows which, when he commanded, did fly — and if he gave 
 them meat and drmk, they did eat and drink. When the 
 boys related these things to their parents, they warned 
 them to shun ins company, for he was a sorcerer. 
 
 It is moreover related, iJiat when Joseph, who was not 
 very skilful at the carpenter's trade, had made any article 
 which was too long or snort, too wide or narrow, the Lord 
 Jesus by stretching his hand towards it, would reduce it at 
 once to the proper dimensions. Joseph being employed by 
 the King of Jerusalem to make him a throne, was two years 
 employed in the work, but when it came to be set up, want- 
 ed two spans of the proper measure, upon which Joseph 
 Avas greatly troubled,.and went to bed without his supper, 
 but Jesus told hiin not to be cast down, and seizing the 
 throne on one side, and Joseph on the other, they drew it 
 immediately into its proper dimensions. 
 
 On one occasion he is said to have turned certain boys 
 who hid themselves from him, into kids, and then at the 
 intercession of their mothers, restored them again to their 
 proper shape. 
 
 A boy having put his hand into a partridge's nest to take 
 out the eggs, was bit by a serpent, whereupon they brought 
 him to Jesus, who directed them to carry him before him, 
 to the place where he had received the injury. On coming 
 to the spot, Jesus called for the serpent, and it presently 
 came forth; and he said '-go and suck out the poison 
 which thou hast infused into that boy ;" so the serpent 
 crept to the boy, an J took away all its poison again. He 
 also cures his brother James, who, in gathering sticks, 
 was bitten by a viper. 
 Being one day on the house top, playing with some boys, 
 
417 
 
 •ne of tliem fell down and was instantly killed. And the 
 boys relations came and said to the Lord Jesus, " thou didst 
 throw our son down from the house top;" but ho denied it, 
 and said "let us go and ask himself." Then the Lord 
 Jesus goinrr down, stood over the dead body, and said 
 with a loud voice, " Zeinunus, Zeinunus, who threw thee 
 down?" Then the dead boy answered, " Thou didst not 
 throw me down, but such a one." 
 
 Being, on a certain occasion, sent by his mother to the 
 well for water, the pitchor bmkp. and he gathered up the 
 water in his garment, and brought it to her. 
 
 On another day, when he was occupied with other boys, 
 in making little fisb pools, the Lord Jesus made twelvo 
 gparrows%nd placed them about his pool ; but it was the 
 Sabbath, and the son of Kanani, a Jew, came by and saw 
 them making these things, and said ' Do ye thus make 
 firrures of clay on the Sabbath ?" And he broke down the 
 fish pools. But when the Lord Jesus clapped his hands 
 over the sparrows wiiich he had made, they flew away, 
 chirping. And when tlie son of Kanani came to his fisli 
 pool to°destroy it, the water vanished away, and the Lord 
 Jesus said to him, ' as this water has vanished, so shall thy 
 life vanish;' and presently the boy died. 
 
 On another occasion a boy ran against him, and threw 
 him down, whereupon the Lord Jesus said, ' as thou hast 
 thrown me down, so slialt thou fall never to rise,' and that 
 moment the boy fell down and died. 
 
 There was at Jerusalem a school-master named Zachc- 
 us, who said to Joseph ' why dost thou not send Jesus to 
 me, that he may learn his letters ?' And upon his being sent, 
 the master bid him say Alepfi, and when he had pronounced 
 t, he bid him say Belli; and the Lord Jesus said, tell me first 
 the meaning oi Aleph, and when the teacher threatened to 
 whip him, he began and explained to him the meaning of 
 the letters, describing them according to their forms, tcll- 
 
 N N 
 
418 
 
 jDg which had double figures, and which were furmshed 
 with points, and which not : on which the master said, ' I 
 beheve this boy was born before Noah.' 
 
 But after a while Joseph said to Mary ' Henceforth we 
 will not let him go out of the house, for every one who dis- 
 pleases him is killed.' 
 
 When at the age of twelve years Jesus was at Jerusa- 
 lem, a certain Astronomer asked him, whether he had stu- 
 died Astronomy ? Upon which he told him the number of 
 the spheres and heavenly bodies, &c. There was there 
 also a philosopher who asked the Lord Jesus whether he 
 had ever studied physic ; he replied and explained to him 
 physics and metaphysics; the powers of the body; its anat- 
 omy, &.C. But from this time he began to conceal his mira- 
 cles, and gave himself to the study of the Law, till he ar- 
 rived to the end of his thirtieth year. 
 
 [See the Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy, complete in the 
 Second Volume of Jones on the Canon, from which work 
 this translation is taken.]