On the CATALOGUE in general.

THE Catalogue, by Amyntor, is con­siderable on divers accounts:

As it is pretty Perfect. He has omitted but few, of those Antient Pieces; and not so often mistaken, as some others, the seve­ral and like Titles of the same Book, for se­veral and distinct Books.

And, as it naturally gives one, a great Idea of the Christian Religion. By informing us of so many Persons that wrote Gospels, Acts, Revelations, Liturgies, Itineraries, Martyr­doms; either on their own knowledg, or on credible report made to them: and which have not been lost on any other ac­counts, but such as are common to things Valuable, and Great in their kind. Such as, the Deluge of (an immense) time, al­most 1700 years; the absolute Certainty, and apparent Sufficiency, of the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, &c. which (on those accounts) the Church has preserved, and contents her self with them.

And lastly, As nothing can be objected to it, or inferred from it; but what in such a case a [Page 22]man (of any Experience or Prudence) would certainly expect. Namely that, in so impor­tant and various a Subject, there would be some more Writers and Writings; than the extreme Caution of the Catholic Church, would intirely approve: and even that some Triflers, and Impostors, would intermix and intrude themselves, among the approved and well-meaning. It will be requisite, to enlarge a little, on these general Reflecti­ons.

That, the Catalogue is indifferent perfect, I grant. However, some Books (and other Writings) are omitted; and others, never really extant, or pretended to be extant, are added. For instance; under the first Head, or of Books ascribed to our Saviour, or that particularly concern him; these are overlookt.

A Book by St. Matthew, distinct from that by Thomas, concerning the Infancy of our Saviour; being the History of his younger Years. 'Tis very antient; for it hath some Passages, that are also mentioned by St. Ireneus: and which, he saith, were in the Books shown by the Valentinians.

A Letter of our Saviour; that fell down from Heaven: it being indeed an Epistle, for­ged by a certain notable Enthusiast, a French Bishop; who for this, and some other such­like Facts, was deprived and put to penance, [Page 23]by a Council assembled at Rome, An. 745. The Letter however was kept in the Libra­ry of the Roman Church, by order of Pope Zechary.

A Liturgy of our Saviour; received as his, by the Ethiopians: it was brought out of the Orient, by Father J. Vanslebius; who promises also to publish it at Paris, together with other rare Ethiopic Pieces. But Lu­dolphus, in his Ethiopic History and Com­mentary, gives the true account of this Li­turgy.

As to Books added, under the same Head; Amyntor mistakes when, as from Eusebius, he attributes to our Saviour a Book of Para­bles and Sermons. For, on the contrary, these Proverbs and Doctrines (as Eusebius calls them) were all of them only Traditi­onal: they were Doctrines and Proverbs that Papias (Bishop of Hierapolis) had heard from some Persons, that they were spoke and taught by Jesus Christ; but they never were committed to writing, as a particular Book, by any body. The Millennium, or thousand-years Reign, was one of these Traditional Doctrines.

I observe also that, Amyntor very often confirms the Books of his Catalogue, by witness of Authors who never mention any such Book or Books; but only are thought by some, and that not very probably, to [Page 24]allude to them, or to have made use of them. When he gives us that non-such History of the Scripture-Canon, I hope, he will oftner himself consult the Authors he cites; and less trust to the References of others: else it will be far from meriting the praises, he has before-hand given to it.

I incline to think, the Books wrote by the Apostles, their Contemporaries, and Synergists, are vastly more than Amyntor, or any other now, can give us the Titles, or other Traces of them: St. Ireneus calls them, Lib. 1. c. 17. In-enarrabilem multitu­dinem Apocryphorum; an innumerable multi­tude of Apocryphal Books. For we are not to consider all Authors and Books as Apocry­phal; that are censur'd, under those names, by Ireneus: I am of opinion, we may apply to St. Ireneus; arguing against the Gnostics, Valentinians, and other Antient Sects and Books, that platonized too much; what, C. Rhodiginus (Lect, Antiq. § 1. c. 12.) says of Lactantius, and the Platonists. Ea, quae obvelatis traduntur figuris, a Platonicis; nec nisi Allegoricis enarrationibus intelligenda: iste ut simpliciter dicta accepit. Oblitus, nun­quam futurum Platonicum, qui non putet Pla­tonem allegoricè intelligendum. ‘What the Platonists have delivered in dark, and figurative expressions; and must not be interpreted, but only in the Allegorical [Page 25]way: that, he has understood, as spoken directly, and absolutely; forgetting, or not knowing that, a man shall never be a Platonist, who imagines Plato is to be taken, not allegorically, but literally.’

But this great number of Acts, Gospels, Itineraries, Revelations, &c. as I said, be sure they give Authority, and Lustre, to the Christian Religion. As we came hereby to understand, it was an extraordinary Fi­gure that Christianity made in the World, at its very first appearance. It should seem, men thought, they had never wrote enough concerning it: its admirable Morals, the Miracles of its Author and other first Preach­ers of it, its Revelations and Prophecies, verified by almost an immediate completi­on, did so convince and affect 'em; that they even filled the world with their ac­counts of these things, under the names of Acts, Revelations, Itineraries, Epistles, Gos­pels, Martyrdoms, Liturgies, Precepts, Recog­nitions, Institutions, Oracles, and some more. 'Tis of some of these, that St. Luke speaks in the first Verses of his Gospel. He meant not the Gospel of John; for 'tis agreed on all hands, John wrote his Gospel long after the other Evangelists, and to supply some of their Omissions. That he did not intend, only Matthew and Mark; who indeed wrote before him; may be inferred from [Page 26]his own words, when he says. ‘Not, τινὲς, some, one or two; but πολλὸι, MANY have taken in hand to set forth a Decla­ration of those things, that are most sure­ly believed among us; even as they de­livered them unto us, who from the be­ginning were Eye-witnesses, and Ministers of the WORD.’

Amyntor and M. Dodwel believe St. Luke doth not speak of the Gospels of John, Matthew and Mark; they suppose, he had not so much as seen any of those Gospels. But what is in their mind, to tell us that; ‘Luke plainly intimates, the Authors of the Gospels which he had seen, had con­sulted neither any Persons that had been Eye-witnesses; nor so much as those who had seen or spoke with any such: and that on these Accounts, the Credit of those Gospels, is suspected and dubious.’ For St. Luke, as before quoted, expresly says; the Authors by him intended, had wrote concerning our Saviour, his Miracles and Doctrine, just in the manner as they deliver'd them to us, who from the beginning were Eye-witnesses. He could not possibly have given a more ample Testimony, either to their Fidelity, or their Accuracy.

In accounting for the Reasons, why these Books are lost; too many People have learn­ed to speak with intolerable Effrontry, and [Page 27]Profanity. I will first give the true Rea­sons, of so great a loss; and then examine the scurrilous Conjectures of some, who glory in their shame.

In general; ‘I could never wonder, we have lost so many of the Apostolic Writings, and other Antient (import­ant) Monuments of the Christian Religi­on; since I took notice, we have lost also the very best Books of the Antients, in all parts of Learning and Science.’

In Philosophy; to the times of our Savi­our, we have almost nothing left to us, but the Works of Plato and Aristotle: the least valuable, it may be, of all the Anti­ents. The Philosophy of Aristotle being little else, but some dry Definitions; that give no light to the Natures of things: and that of Plato, such a futility in Philosophy, as Behmenism in Religion and Christianity; even a Rapsody of some Mystical (or Non­sensical) Terms, sprinkled here and there with a bright Thought, or lively Expression.

Of all the Philosophical Writers; since our Saviour, there remain (in my present remembrance) only two or three Platonists and Stoics, that were Greecs; by the Latins, there are only (I think) some Natural Questi­ons by Seneca; and a few moral Pieces by the same Seneca, and by M. Cicero. Phi­losophy was cultivated, above 700 years, [Page 28]in ASIA; as also in Egypt, Greece, Italy, and most other Provinces of EƲROPE; in AFRICA, from Cyrene to the Pillars of Hercules and the Ocean, being one of the longest tracts of Ground in the World. It grew into such reputation, that there were very many Academies; and an incredible number of Professors and Teach­ers, divers of them in high esteem. But few Persons of the better sort, that did not cause their Children to be educated, in some of these Academies: even the principal No­bility, whether Greecs or Latins, after hav­ing bore the Chief Offices of the Common­wealth, did not disdain to learn Philosophy in their years, if they had missed it in their youth; nay a Nobleman was not esteemed, if he were not a competent Orator and Philosopher. We may be assured therefore, we have lost a prodigious multitude of Phi­losophical Books, in the several parts of Phi­losophy; wrote by the most Eminent Mas­ters, among the several Sects: undoubtedly it was then, as now, a customary thing; that, famous Professors wrote something, more or less, either led by their own Incli­nation, or by occasion of some Provocati­on, or perswaded by their Scholars and Ad­mirers. Who (as I said but now) were all the Nobility; and all Persons of Distinc­tion, whether for Wealth or Wit.

The like may be said of Authors, and Books, concerning Astronomy, Astrology, Divination, Magic, Geometry, Mechanics, Medicine, Anatomy , Botanics, Poetry, Painting, Architecture, Statuary, the Origin and Rites of the Paganic Religions; Histo­ry, both Natural and Civil. Amyntor him­self somewhere puts us in mind, what is the Damage in the Historical part of Learning. ‘The loss, says he, of so many Decads of the Roman Historiographer, T. Livius, is alone as much to be regretted; as if all the Fathers had miscarried.’ 'Tis easy to guess the Reason, He was a Heathen, and they were Christians. But we see however, by all this; that, the mere force, or edacity of time, bears away, or devours the most excellent Instances of Human Industry, and Wit: that we ought not to marvel, if we have not still all, or even had not the princi­pal Labors, of the Apostles, and Apostolical men. If Amyntor's Catalogue of Books, some of them once reve [...]enced by the Church, and now lost, were much larger than it is: it would by no means prove, they were all Trivial, Spurious, or Erroneous Books; 'twould be no imputation on Christianity, as abounding only with Fables and Impos­tures. There being, we have seen, no part of Learning (tho never so useful and ne­cessary, or so curious and diverting;) but [Page 30]has suffered extremely, by the loss of some excellent Books and Authors, nay of most such Authors and Books.

I believe also, ‘The unquestionable Or­thodoxy; the yielded certainty, or genu­inness; and apparent sufficiency, of the present Scripture-Canon, were great Oc­cations that the Books in the Catalogue, fell (gradually) into dis-use, and were afterwards lost.’

As to the sufficiency of the Books of the Canon; I mean, of all them taken to­gether; it is self-evident. For they con­tain, a (repeated) Abrogation of the Mo­saic Law, so far as 'tis Ritual and Judicial; a compleat System, of Morals; the History of the Parentage, Conception, Birth, Mi­racles, Doctrine, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Saviour: the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles, their Di­vine Inspiration, and Miraculous Powers; their Epistles, to private Persons, to Chur­ches, and Nations; in which they often (professedly) repeat the Substance of the Christian Religion, as well in what respects Faith as Manners. In short, a man cannot read these Books, without most plainly per­ceiving, that; they are such an Account of the Religion they teach, as needs no Supplement.

Their Genuinness, and Orthodoxy; or that they are the very Books of the Authors whose names they bear, and are true Repre­sentations of the Doctrines of Christianity as delivered to the Churches by the first (Mi­raculous) Preachers: this is inferred, with absolute certainty, from their reception by all those Churches, as such; and that these, ra­ther than the Books of the Catalogue (tho divers of them also were highly valued) have been preserved.

If it be urged, that; supposing, as this Answer does, the Books in the Catalogue (most of them, or some of them) were Orthodox, and Genuine, and owned to be such by the Churches: 'tis much, they should be lost; and only the Books of the present Canon preserved. Which have been preserved, it seems, for no other Rea­sons; but what are common also to the Books of the Catalogue: namely, because they are (undoubtedly) Orthodox, and (certainly) Genuine.

I answer, that; the Books of the Cata­logue that are lost, or rejected, were not so certainly Cenuin, to all the Churches; as those that are preserved, and made parts of the Canon. And as to the Orthodoxy, tho that (as to many of them) was not questioned; yet the Books not being so certain as to their Genuinness in all parts of [Page 32]the Christian World, and therefore not allowed as (unexceptionable) Evidences in the numerous Controversies that arose in the Catholic Church; and the un-suspected Books being abundantly sufficient to serve the ends of Religion, in respect both of Controversy, and Institution in manners: the former (hereupon) almost unavoid­ably began to be neglected, and in time were lost; and only the latter were kept.

We have now the advantages of Printing, and of a ready Communication (by the increase of Trade, and Improvement of Na­vigation) between Nation and Nation: the Antients wanted these helps; therefore with them, a Book concerning the Chri­stian Religion, if it were not published in Judea, or at Rome, or in some part of Greece; or some considerable City of Asia, it might not come to be known of a long time; not vulgarly and generally known in the Churches, till the Evidences that it was Genuine were all wholly lost, or become of but little Authority. The Books of our present Canon, were immediately commu­nicated by the Churches, or Persons, to whom they were written; unto all the Famous Churches. Like Industry was not used, on behalf of the Books of the Cata­logue; therefore these last were read only, or chiefly, in the places of their Publication, [Page 33]and in the Churches to which they were addressed: and thus being long unknown to the Churches, and Illustrious Writers, of other places; tho many of them were approved as to their Doctrine and Useful­ness, on which accounts they are often quo­ted by (those two, the most Learned of the Antenicen Fathers) Clemens of Alexan­dria and Origen, yet they did not obtain to be adopted into the Scripture-Canon; as not so certainly the Works of Apostles and Apostolical men, as those that were received for such every where, and from the beginning.

Farther, it may be divers Books of the Catalogue, titled with the name of an Apos­tle, or Synergist of the Apostles, ‘were rejected (and in process of time, lost;) for that very reason.’ It was supposed that, the Book having to it a name of one of the Apostle, or some Apostolical Per­son; therefore the Author claims to be that Person, or that Apostle: it might appear however, by some things in the Book it self, or by some Circumstances commonly known, that the Author was not the Apostle, or other Person vulgarly thought to be designed in the Title; and hereupon the Book was consider'd as a Forgery and Imposture, and as wrote (probably) with some dishonest Intention and Aim. But as now, so then; and [Page 34] then much more than now; abundance of People had the same names with the Apos­tles, and other first Preachers: it may be, most Christians took those Names, either at their Conversion, or Baptism. A Book therefore, (suppose a Gospel, Epistles, Acts,) might really be the Work of the Author in the Title-page, or elswhere in the Book; and yet in short time be rejected, neglected, and finally lost, as an Imposture and Forgery, on that false supposition, that the Author affected to seem the Person that he was not, and that (in truth) he never pretended to be. This very thing hath cer­tainly hapned, in divers Works of the Fathers; as well those of the fourth and fifth Ages, and later, as those of the second and third: and it might happen, I say, in divers Writings of the Catalogue that we are considering.

I take these to be some of the Causes, that so many Books of the Catalogue are lost: Time; the Sufficiency of the Books preserved; and that, some of them came not to general knowledg, till the Evidences that they were Genuine, were not so cer­tain. These are such Reasons, and Occa­sions of it, that we cannot much wonder at the misfortune of this (invaluable) Da­mage. And after this, 'tis but little to the credit of their Judgment, and less of their [Page 35]Morals, that some affect to guess at the Causes of this Mishap, in a sort that reflects on the Christian Religion; as if it had no manner of certainty, and that we cannot now (nor ever could) distinguish Fables and Impostures, from Authentic Monu­ments. If a man is disposed, to employ his Wit in scurrilous Conjectures: he may say many things on such a Subject as this, that shall be loudly applauded by the Parti­sans of Scepticism and Profanity; and that will surprise the Superficial, tho they be Serious and well-disposed. But I maintain, that; after we have discovered such Rea­sons of the loss of these Books, as every body must allow that some of them are cer­tain, and others of them are probable, and all of them consistent with the reverence due to Religion: those other (Sportive, or Malevolent) Conjectures will be insisted on, only by such as affect to be Infidels; or that love to be vain, tho in a serious and weighty Subject, And tho to convince such People, is (it may be) an impossible Task; it being so much in the power of the Mind, whether it will admit a light to which it has prejudices: yet it will not be hard, to satis­fy the Indifferent, that; those Guesses are not the results of Judgment, but only of a sceptical, abuseful, prejudicate, and interes­sed Partiality and Vanity.

They tell us, these Books were not lost, they were supprest, because they contained some things, contrary to the Persuasions of the strongest side; which always calls it self the Church.

Or, they were gross, and leud Forgeries; composed by the Enemies of Christians: with design only to make sport with a Crew of Blockheads, that were always ready to swallow any thing; never so silly and ridi­culous; provided it were but miraculous, and had a few good Morals.

Or, we owe them to a certain pious fraud, to which the Antients were much given; that sought to magnify Christianity, by these pompous Tales and Additions to it: the true Apostolic Writings being too imper­fect, to raise in mens Minds any great appre­hensions of the Christian Religion.

Yet lest we should not by all this fully un­derstand them, they are mindful and careful to add, that; these Writings and Books how­ever were quoted, and reverenced by many of the Antients or Fathers: and that, no more than this can be said, on behalf of the Books (of our Canon) that are preserved; and not so much, for divers of them. Or more in short; the latter are not a rush better, or wiser, than the former: saving only that, they have had the good luck to be preserved, by Knaves; and magnified, by [Page 37]Fools. Let us call over, and discuss these things.

The Books of the Catalogue were once in reputation, in some Places, and with divers Learned Persons; but they are now partly lost, partly very much suspected as not Genuin.

We answer; Seventeen hundred years, the undeniable sufficiency of the Books which are preserved, and that the Books of the Catalogue were not timely communicated to the principal Churches, are obvious and probable Reasons, that so many of 'em have miscarried, and the rest are of doubtful Credit. Some People are pleased to laugh at this; and choose rather to guess, that, the Books we talk of, have been either supprest or slighted, because they were not to the tooth of the strongest side; or were the Mock compositions, of Enemies; or the Holy Cheats of Persons that: sought to aggrandize Christianity. That is, without ever having seen these Books; without having heard of most of them, under any other Character by the Antients, than that they were known but to few: they pronounce over them, in­definitly, or without distinguishing them; that, they were lend Cheats, or pious Fraeuds, or told some dangerous Tales that the political and prevailing Party thought fit to sup­press.

Who sees not, these are Suppositions that a man may make at will, concerning any Books that are lost; or any such Books, that the Evidences of their being Genuin and sound, have miscarried? but they are mere Conjectures? and such as neither Cha­rity, nor Prudence, suffers us to make, when we have others that are extremely probable, and some of them certain.

I gave some Instances before of Ma­thematical, Historical, and Philosophical Books; that are lost: there is no learned Man that would approve of such a Judg­ment as this, concerning them; they have perisht because they were Trifles, or Impos­tures, or shot some such Bolts, as the genera­lity of wiser men could not away with. I leave the matter with the indifferent, to judg of it; as their Wit, and Honesty, shall dispose 'em.

I added, at our entrance into this Disser­tation; ‘Nothing can be objected to the Catalogue, but what one would look for: that, in so various a Subject, some more Books are written, than the severe seru­tiny of the Catholic Church would (ab­solutely) approve; and that, some Tri­flers and Impostors would perhaps be ex­ercising their shameful Talents, among the honest and well-qualified.’ I meant hereby, if we grant that most or almost all [Page 39](or if you will, all) the Books of the Ca­talogue were Spurious; that they were pious Frauds, or impious Cheats, or have been supprest by the Jealousy of the pre­vailing side: it will not in the least affect the Scripture-Canon, or Christian Religion; which are not the less true, or less certain, because there have been some false Evange­lists, and false Pretenders to Revelation. Infidelity and Profanity are hard put to it, when their whole strength is reduced to this: there have been some false Evangelists, feigned Acts, Epistles, Revelations; there­fore we have no certainty of any true Gos­pels, Revelations, Epistles or Acts. As if they had said; Lucius, Ambrose, and Arthur, were fabulous Kings of Britain; and Jeffry of Monmouth has contrived a British Chroni­cle, consisting chiefly of Tales of his own devising: therefore neither can we prove Cassibelan, Caractacus, and Arviragus, were sometimes Kings in this Island. Or if you will, thus; Isidore Mercator published a Volume of Spurious Epistles of Popes and Bishops, and Decrees of Councils: Annius of Viterbium somewhile deceived every body, with a Counterfeit Metasthenes, a Berosus Manetho and Philo. Therefore, we ought not to think, there were at all any such Councils, Bishops, and Popes; or a real Metasthenes, a Berosus, Philo, and Manetho, [Page 40]who were Learned and celebrated Writers and Historians. Why don't they alledg the Alchoran too, as an Exception, and Objecti­on to the Scripture Canon; and say, be­cause one was an Imposture, so must the other?

Our Author seems to be aware, of some such Exceptions as these; and therefore makes short work with us, by intimating (in a great many places) that; ‘The rea­sons are the same, why we should reject, or receive the Catalogue, and (present) Scripture-Canon: as much may be said for, or against one, as the other.’ We will examine this; and the Pretences, with which 'tis supported, very carefully.

Of the Verity, and Certainty of the Scripture-Canon.

I Shall reduce into the best Method, and most natural Order that I can, what is any way considerable in our Author's Book; concerning the Scripture-Canon: discussing every particular, as I recite or mention it.

From P. 69, to P. 79; he has a Quota­tion out of M. Dodwel, to this sense. ‘The Books of the present Canon, lay conceal­ed in the Coffers of particular Churches, or of private Men; [the Churches and Men to whom they were written] till the latter times of Trajan, or rather of Adrian: [that is, till about 130 years after Christ.] We are not to think that; the Writers of the New Testament, knew any thing of the Gospels, or other Books of the Canon, that were not wrote by themselves; or that, the Clergy made a Common use, either of the one or other. We have still some Ecclesiastical Writers, of those early times; Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp: but in Hermas, there is not one passage out of the New Testament; [Page 42]in the rest, not any of the Evangelist is called by his Name, of is particularly named. Nor can we know, whether the Passages they cite, are alledged out of the Gospels or other Books of our present Canon; or from other Gospels and Books, namely the Books of the Catalogue: for the Citations are very different, from the Words in our present Gospels and other Canonical Books; and for the most part have something added to them.’

Amyntor declares, he assents to all this; and farther to recommend it, he complements M. Dodwel after a very extraordinary man­ner. He affirms, ‘M. Dodwel, tho a Lay­man, knows as much of these matters, as the Divines of all Churches put together.’ What an advantage is it sometimes to a man, not to be a thing in Holy Orders? how much more knowing, and Learned shall he be, than himself was aware: for I take it for granted, this Bounce of a Complement was wholly intended to M. Dodwel's Lay-quality. I am content for my part, M. Dodwel be the next HERO, to M. Milton; I hope how­ever 'twill be granted, that how much soever M. Dodwel knows, he does not know that to be true, which is false: and in confidence of this, I intend to discuss, what he hath said. Or rather, to speak with due reserve of a Person and Matter that I my self do [Page 43]not know, what Amyntor hath imputed to him.

He says, ‘The Writers of the New Tes­tament were unknown to one another; and to the Churches, and Clergy; till 130 years after Christ.’ How do I fear, lest he that is said to know as much of these Matters, as the Clergy of all Churches put together, should be found to know less of 'em; than any of us Country-Curats? For first, as to the Writers of the four Gospels; all the Church-Historians agree, St. Matthew wrote first, so it will not be expected we should prove, that he had seen the rest: but 'tis apparent, the next Evangelist, Mark, had seen and read the Gospel by St. Matthew; because Mark's Gospel is indeed nothing else but an abridgment of St. Matthew's, as the Critics and Interpreters have (many of them) observed. They are the words of H. Grotius, on Mark 1.1. Ʋsum esse Mar­cum Matthaei Evangelio, apertum facit colla­tio: i. e. If we compare their Gospels, it will be evident that St. Mark made great use of the Gospel by Matthew. St. Austin, de Cons. Eccl. c. 2. says: Marcus Matthaeum subsecutus; tanquam pedissequus, & breviator ejus videtur. i. e. As St. Mark wrote in time after St. Matthew; so he follows him as it were at the very heels, in respect of the things related, only abridging what St. Mat­thew had more largely said.

After Matthew and Mark, came St. Luke; he is very reasonably and probably thought to intend (besides we know not who else) Matthew and Mark; in those first words of his Gospel. ‘For as much as MANY have taken in hand, to set forth in order a Declaration of those things, which are surely believed among us; even as they delivered them to us, who from the be­ginning were Eye-witnesses, and Ministers of the Word: it seemed good to me al­so &c.’ Those Characters of Eye-wit­nesses, and from the beginning, and Mini­sters of the Word, agree to the Person of St. Matthew; and the two last to St. Mark: that to say the whole Period was intended of them, at least with others, is what has been reasonably believed hitherto; and is not made less reasonable by the two Exceptions by Amyntor, taken (as he saith) out of M. Dodwel. They alledg, that; St. Luke has given a different Genealogy of our Saviour, from that by St. Matthew, without giving any reason for it: and that, there are many apparent Contradictions, between these (and other) Writers of Scripture. But if these Gentlemen please to look into Matth. 1.6. and Luke 3.31. they will see a reason of the difference of the Genealogies: namely that, St. Matthew deduces the Genealogy from So­lomon, St. Luke from Nathan; both of them [Page 45]Sons of David, and Ancestors to our Savi­our, in the sense that David was his Ance­stor. As for the apparent Contradictions, between these Evangelists; if it were true, it would rather prove that St. Luke had seen and read those other two Evangelists: be­cause by writing any thing contrary to them, he intended without doubt to correct their Mistake; and rightly inform their common Readers. But 'tis certain he was not in the least aware, that those former Evange­lists needed any correction; for himself, we have seen before, bears 'em witness, that they had written all things as those Persons have also deliver'd them to us, who from the beginning were Eye-witnesses, and Ministers of the WORD: that is, as the other Apo­stles, and first Preachers, have also dediver'd them, by word of mouth.

The last Evangelist was St. John; how he came to be an Evangelist, or on what occa­sion he wrote, Eusebius (the first and learn­edest Historian of the Church) will tell us, in these words: ‘The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, being in all mens hands, came also to the knowledg of the Apostle John; who approved them, as faithfully written. But he observed, they were de­ficient in this respect, that; they had o­mitted that part of our Saviour's Actions and Preaching, which preceded the Im­prisonment [Page 46]of John the Baptist: for they all begin their Narratives, with the Im­prisonment of John. — Hereupon, St. John being thereto requested, added (in a Gospel by him) the Time and Transacti­ons that had been omitted by the other E­vangelists. Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 24.’

The Epistles of St. Paul are another consi­derable part of the Canon of the New Tes­tament; our Opposers say, ‘They lay hid in the coffers of the Churches and Persons to whom they were written, till 130 years after Christ.’ I ask, How then came St. Peter to say, ‘2 Pet. 3.15. As our beloved Brother Paul, according to the Wisdom given to him, hath written to you; as also in all his Epistles, speaking (to them) of these things: in which (E­pistles) are some things, hard to be un­derstood; which they that are unlearn­ed and unstable do wrest (as they do also the other Scriptures) to their own Damnation.’ This Testimony proves, not ⟨only⟩ that St. Peter had seen the Epistles of Paul; but that they were commonly read, and a very bad Use made of 'em by some.

The remaining part of the Canon, even the Catholic or General Epistles, by St. James, St. Peter, St. John, St. Jude; and the Revela­tion: because they were written some of [Page 47]them to whole Nations, and the rest to all Christians, not to particular Persons or Churches; we must needs understand they were published, by those Apostles themselves. They could be no otherwise written and addressed to Nations, and to all Christians; but by such a general Publication, as when we now give a Copy of a Letter or Book, to a Bookseller, to be by him made com­mon.

It appears (I suppose) by all this, to indifferent Persons, that; 'tis utterly un­true, that the Writers of the New Testa­ment were strangers to the Writings of one another; is it any better, what follows next? namely that:

‘Neither did the Clergy, or Churches, know of the Gospels; and other Books, of our present Canon. We have still, say these Gentlemen, some Ecclesiastical Writers of those early times; Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Of these, Hermas has not one passage out of all the New Testament: and for the places that are cited by the rest, one cannot tell whether they are taken out of the Books of the present Canon; or out of the Spurious Books, [even those of the Catalogue, or some such.]’

Hermas has not one passage out of the New Testament. Therefore, what? Why, [Page 48]therefore as we were saying, and are now proving; Hermas had not read the Books of the New Testament, which were all still (and long after, even to the year 130) in the Coffers of Persons and Churches to whom they were writen. And I say, Her­mas has not cited a word out of the whole Old Testament. Had he not therefore read any of the Books, of that Testament? had not a profest Christian, and a Writer (think they) read any Book of the Old or New Testament? It is apparent, he had read both: by the Doctrine of his Book; by his Discourses on Baptism, Repentance, and all Christian Virtues; by his Visions, Simili­tudes, and Commands, of all which he had his Hints from the Books of Holy Scrip­ture, especially the Prophetical. He even sometimes expresses himself in the very words of the New Testament; as when he says, Com. 4. Sect. 1. He that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth Adultery. Which he took, no doubt, from Sr. Luke; who uses those very words, Luke 16.18.

Clemens Romanus manifestly alludes, to divers Expressions and Passages of the New Testament; and some he expresly repeats, as Charity covereth a multitude of Sins; 1 Pet. 4.8. We are Members one of another, Rom. 12.5. He (Christ) is so much greater than [Page 49]Angels; as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name, than they. Heb. 1.2, 4. Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; — with what measure ye meet, it shall be measured to you again. Luke 6.37. Wo unto him by whom Offences come: It were better for him, that a Milstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were cast into the Sea; than that he should offend one of my little ones. Luke 17.1, 2.

St. Polycarp takes notice, of the Epistle written by Sr. Paul, to the Philippians; and saith, that Apostle mentions the Philippians with much Honor, in the beginning of his Epistle to them. So indeed he dos; calling them, the Saints at Philippi; and professing that, upon every remembrance of them, by giveth thanks to God. Phil. 1.1, 2. He cites also the words of St. Paul to other Chur­ches; as, Do ye not know that the Saints shall judg the World? 1 Cor. 6.2. Neither For­nicators, nor Effeminate, nor abusers of them­selves with mankind, shall inherit the Kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 6.9, 10. We brought nothing into this World, and we can carry nothing out of it. 1 Tim. 6.7. He often repeats the Words and Expressions of St. Peter. Whom not having seen, ye love; in whom, tho now ye see him not, ye rejoice, with joy unspeakable end full of Glory. [...] Pet. 1.8. Who his own self hare our Sins, in his own Body, on the [Page 50]Tree: — who did no Sin; nor was Guile found in his Mouth. 1 Pet. 2.22, 24. Having your Conversation, honest among the Gentiles. Out of St. John, he hath; Whosoever doth not confess, that; Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh; this is Anti-Christ. 1 John. 4.3. From the Evangelists Matthew and Luke, he gives us these Passages. Blessed are they, that are persecuted for Righteousness sake; for theirs is the Kingdom of God. Matth. 5.10. Blessed are the Poor, for theirs is the Kingdom of God. Luke 6.10. The Spirit truly is willing, but the Flesh is weak. Matth. 26.41.

Clemens and Polycarp affect to speak, what­soever they have to say, in the words of Scripture; especially of the New Testa­ment: St. Ignatius rather uses his own way of Expression, but he saith from St. Mat­thew; He that is able to receive this, let him receive it. Matth. 19.12. The Tree is known, by his Fruit. Matth. 12.33. From St. Paul he borrows, who hath given himself for us, an Offering and Sacrifice, to God. Eph. 5.2. Be perfectly joined together, in the same mind, and in the same judgment; and all speak the same things. 1 Cor. 1.10. Where is the Wise, where is the Disputer? 1 Cor. 1.23.

They have but one Witness more, to call, St. Barnabas; who also is against them, not much less than the former: for he alledges [Page 51]from St. Matthew, Many are called, but few are chosen. Matth. 20.16. and 22.14. He came not to call the Righteous, but Sinners to repentance. Matth. 9.13. In his 19th Secti­on, he giveth an Abstract or Summary of the Moral and Practical Duties of Christianity, or the way of Life as he speaks: it appears, both by the matter and manner of speaking, He meant to abridg the morality, of the Old, and New Testaments.

If we now consider that, these Pieces are only Epistles, or Letters; and some of them so brief, that they may be written on a sheet of Paper: we may rather wonder, that these Fathers have quoted so much Scripture; than that we meet so little in their Letters. And when M. Dodwel and Amyntor say, They cannot tell, whether these Citations are from the Books of our Ca­non, or from some of the Apocryphal Books of the Catalogue; they put me hard to it, to imagine what they can tell: for they are the very words, neither more nor fewer, of the Canonical Books; and are extant in no other Writers, that I, or that they know; unless they should be in the invalua­ble (lost) Decads of Titus Livius.

As to other Quotations out of these Fa­thers, that might also have been observed; in which, in repeating the words of Scrip­ture, they sometimes substitute an equivalent [Page 52]word (or words) for the word in the Scripture-Text: it was not, because they were quoting some Apocryphal Gospel, E­pistle, or Acts; but because they cited by memory. Wanting Concordances, and our other Modern Helps; they could not, with­out much trouble to themselves, be always exact in repeating Scripture-Texts as to the words, tho they keep well enough to the sense. And for this reason also, they do not always name the Scripture-Author whom they alledg; even to avoid the (possible) Mistake of one Writer for another.

I make but this one remark more, on the Citations of Scripture, by these Fathers. It is reckned, they all wrote before the whole Canon of the New Testament was compleated; M. Dodwel says expresly, be­fore Jude or the two Johns had written. And they wrote from places, very distant from Judea, and from one another; Her­mas and Clemens from Rome, Barnabas from Cyprus; Polycarp Smyrna in Asia, Ig­natius from Syria. This serves to assure us that, the Gospels and Apostolic Writings were immediately communicated; either by particular care of the Churches, or (more probably) a publication; to the most remote Bishops and Churches: that there can be nothing more contrary to Truth, and to the zeal and Diligence of the first Christians [Page 53]and Churches, than this Affirmation of M. Dodwel, and his Second; that the Apostolic Writings were lockt up in Coffers, of the Churches and Persons to whom they were written, till 130 years after Christ. Which is so far, we have seen, from being true; that all the Writers of those times, tho living in places some Thousands of miles dis­tant from one another, and from Judea, adorn even their familiar Letters, with Flowers from the four Gospels, and Epistles of the present Canon: nor do they cite, that we know of, a single Sentence from the Books of the Catalogue.

Amyntor however, tho he assents to M. Dodwel, in saying that, our present Scrip­ture-Canon, and the Books that compose it, were unknown to the Churches and Clergy, till 130 years after Christ: yet he doth not think, Barnabas, Hermas, Clemens, Polycarp, or Ignatius, were the real Authors of those Epistles that go under their Names; but that these Epistles were forged about such time, as so many other Impostures ap­peared in the Catholic Church, namely a good while after the year 130. But here­by, he hath entirely given up the Cause he was maintaining. M. Dodwel speaks con­sistently to himself, tho not truly; when he says, the Scripture-Canon was not known to the Churches or Clergy till about the [Page 54]year 130, because Clemens (and the other Writers of those times) cite nothing out of the said Canon. But Amyntor forgets to be consistent to his Cause, when he says, the Canonical Books were not known till the year 130; and at the same time denies, we have any Monuments left of those anti­ent times, Clemens and the rest being of much later date, and also Impostures.

Besides, granting to him, that these E­pistles are Impostures; deviled more than 130 years after Christ, as 150 or 180 after our Saviour: yet having quoted abundance of Paragraphs out of our present Canon, and none out of the Books of the Catalogue; as we are hereby assured, that the former were then known, and approved as Books of received and allowed Authority, so ‘the other either were not known, or not consider'd as Books whose Authority could oblige, or so much as persuade.’

There were divers other Writers of those early times, besides Clemens and the rest mentioned by M. Dodwel; and tho their Works are lost, yet we have certain assu­rance that they quoted the Books of the New Testament. Papias, Bishop of Hiera­polis, was Scholar of St. John, and Com­panion of Polycarp; Eusebius had read his Works, and takes (occasional) notice that he quotes the Epistles of St. John, and [Page 55]St. Peter. Euseb. H. E. l. 3. Cap. ult.

Contemporaries to Papias and Polycarp, and much within the term of 130 after Christ, was Quadratus, Agrippa sirnamed Castor, and Basilides. Of these, Basilides wrote 24 Books of Commentaries (or Ex­planations) on the Gospels. Concerning the other two, Eusebius saith, ‘They, with many more, made it their business, to preach in places, whereas yet Churches were not gathered; and (τῶν θείων Ἐυανγε­λίων παραδιδόναι γραφὴν) to bestow and dis­perse Copies of the Inspired Gospels. H. E. Lib. 3. c. 37. Lib. 4. c. 7.’

Justin Martyr in his Second Apology, but 140 years after Christ, (as Dr. Cave hath proved;) makes us to know that, there was then a particular Officer in the Churches, called the Reader, distinct from the Preach­er; whose business it was, saith he, to read the Prophetical and Apostolical Books to the Congregation, until it is sufficient. Amyntor must suppose with great liberty, if he sup­poses, that in the year 130 the Books of the New Testament were unknown to the Churches and Clergy; and that, but ten years after, they were so known, and in such credit, that the Churches entertained an Officer on purpose to read them, in their Assemblies.

But why do we protract a Dispute; and seek to old Authors known to few People, to determine it; when it may be ended by one (demonstrative) Argument, and of which all Persons are capable? ‘The four Gospels, Acts, general Epistles, and Re­velation, were not written to particular Persons, or particular Churches; but written, and published to all the World. Let me hear Amyntor, or M. Dodwel, say; they were not written to be published, or were not published so soon as written: if they dare not say so; why do they say, they were kept in private Coffers, till 130 years after Christ? I don't think, any body will believe; that, the Chur­ches or Clergy were ignorant of the publishst Books of their Religion.’

A Continuation of the Defence of the Canon.

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

We may abridg, and distinguish this Judg­ment, into these Propositions.

• 1. The best of the Antients esteemed the Writings that now go under the names of Clemens Romanus, Hermas, Barnabas, Ig­natius, and Polycarp, to be as good Scrip­ture; as any part of the New Testament was then, or is now, accounted.
• [Page 59]2. The true Canon can be ascertained, only by Revelation, or the Testimony of the Fathers: Revelation there was none; and the Testimony of the Fathers is as home and full for Clemens, Ignatius, and the rest, not to mention many other Books of the Catalogue, as for our Canonical Books.
• 3. 'Tis even certain that, the Fathers were mistaken in the Opinion they had concerning (the pretended) Clemens, Her­mas, Barnabas, Polycarp, and Ignatius; therefore, neither is their Testimony va­luable concerning the Books of the New Testament, or present Scripture Canon.

We shall answer sufficiently, if we prove clearly and indubitably these two things; That the Antients had not the same, or like regard for Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, or any other Books of the Catalogue, as for the Books of the Canon: and that, they had other (and stronger) reasons, besides the Testimony of their Predecessors, why they establish'd the present Canon; or in other words, why they received the Books of the Canon, and not those of the Catalogue.

When Amyntor says, the best of the Fa­thers and Antients quote the Writings of Barnabas, Hermas, Clemens Romanus, Ig­natius, and Polycarp; as Canonical, and Scrip­ture: and that, they esteemed them as [Page 60]good as any part of the New Testament. For this latter he will never be able to produce one Testimony of any of the Antients; and I shall abundantly prove the contra­ry, from those Fathers to whom he ap­peals, and whose sense he hath so much mistaken: for the other, were it true, yet 'tis not to the purpose. For 'tis certain, and granted by all Learned Men, that; those Fathers called all the Antient Eccle­siastical Books, if they were Orthodox, Scripture, and Canonical: the terms Canoni­cal, and Scripture were not then appropri­ated, to Books written by Inspiration; but were common to all Ecclesiastical Writers and Books, if Orthodox. Origen, for instance, often cites the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament, as Scripture, and Canonical; in his Homilies, and sometimes when he is disputing: but when he discourses profes­sedly, what Books are Divine Scripture, and what are not; he admits only those Books of the Old Testament that are received by Protestants, rejecting the Apocryphal Books; see concerning this Euseb. H. E. l. 6. c. 25.

Clemens Romanus, Hermas, and divers more, are cited as Scripture by the Antients and Fathers; says Amyntor.

By which of 'em? He answers; by Irenae­us, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen: and he refers us to places in their Writings. But [Page 61]in some of those places, nothing at all is said by those Fathers, concerning the Books of which we are inquiring; in other places, the Authors are named, but nothing is quoted out of them: elsewhere are Cita­tions out of them, but not under the names of Scripture or Canonical; and where they are so called, 'tis only in the sense that the same (and many later) Fa­thers call the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament, Canonical or Scripture, and yet deny them to be of Divine Authority, or to be received by the Churches as a Rule of their Faith. Yet more particularly,

It is not true that Irenaeus, in the alledg­ed place or elsewhere, calls the Epistle of Clemens Romanus, Scripture. He cites it, only to prove that, ‘Apostolical Tradition is contrary to the Heresy which teaches, there is a God above the Creator of the World: because, saith he, the said Epistle of Cle­mens to the Corinthians, which is older than that detestable and foolish Heresy, teaches but one God, All-mighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth.’ In the same Book and Chapter (l. 3. c. 3.) he commends the E­pistle of Polycarp, but cites nothing out of, or calls it Scripture and Canonical. That, Hermas is mentioned by Irenaeus, I don't remember: Amyntor refers to Lib. 4. cap. 3. but nothing is there said of him. As [Page 62]to Ignatius, Irenaeus only calls him, Quen­dam ex Nostris adjudicatum ad Bestias prop­ter Deum, ‘One of us Christians condemn­ed to the Beasts for the cause of God.’ He doth not so much as name him; but 'tis guessed he means Ignatius, because the words he quotes are found in an Epistle of Ignatius.

'Tis no wonder that, Clemens Alexandri­nus may call the Epistle of Barnabas and the Pastor of Hermas, Scripture; in the sense before mentioned: as a term of distinction, or to distinguish them from the Writings of the Gentile Moralists and Philosophers, whom also he often cites, and explains their Opi­nions. Eusebius (H. E. l. 6. c. 13.) observes that, Clemens of Alexandria quotes the Wis­dom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Syrac; and with them, the Epistles of Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, and others not universally re­ceived among Christians. Now as the Wis­dom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus were never reckoned by the Catholic Church, and there­fore (undoubtedly) neither by Clemens, as parts of the Old Testament, but only as laudable Appendices to it: so when we find him quoting also Hermas, Barnabas, or Clemens Romanus, under the same names and Epithets that he gives to Ecclesiasticus and (the false) Solomon; he intended no [Page 63]more thereby to make them parts of the New Testament, than he (or the Catholick Church) accounted the other to be parts of the Old Testament.

What I say, is yet more plain from Ori­gen, the last of Amyntor's Fathers. All the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament, are frequently alledged by Origen; in com­pany with his Citations out of the genu­ine Books of the New and Old Testaments: he has caused us however to know the vast difference, he put between them; and that the Catholick Church received only the present (Protestant) Canon, as Divine Scripture, the other Books (whether the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament, or those of the Catalogue,) only as useful and commendable Writings. He tells us, as to the Canon of the New Testament; ‘There are only four Gospels: the first by Matthew, written for the use of the Jews; the next by Mark, who had his Information by St. Peter; the Gospel by Luke, intend­ed for the Gentiles; lastly, John's Gospel. Concerning the Writings of St. Paul; he mentions only his Epistles: they are short, saith he, and not to all the Churches which he had planted, or where he had taught. Peter, so he goes on, wrote an Epistle that is received and esteemed by all; we may grant he wrote a second Epistle, but [Page 64]it is doubted of. John wrote a Gospel, and Revelation; a short Epistle: and if you will, a second, and third Epistle; but the two last are also questioned by some. He thinks those Churches are to be commended, that receive the Epistle to the Hebrews; for our Ancestors reckon it to St. Paul, and had doubtless good rea­sons why they did so. Origen, Expos. in Joan. l. 5. & in Matth. l. 1. Euseb. H. E. l. 6. c. 25.’ We see then, in reckoning up the genuin Works of the Apostles, and Books that they thought to be Divine Scrip­ture, Origen does not vouchsafe so much as to mention any of the Books of the Ca­talogue: he knows nothing of other Go­spels, Acts, Revelations, or Epistles, besides those of our present Canon. Not that in­deed he did not well know them, and also esteem some of them; for he frequently quotes them both in Preaching and Argu­ing: but when he professes to declare the true Ecclesiastical Canon, and genuin Works of the Evangelists and Apostles; he forgets all the Books of the Catalogue.

Amyntor is very earnest for the Doctrine, and the Revelation of St. Peter; on the Ac­count that they were approved, he saith, by the Antients, in particular by Origen: he saith, they may be preferred on that ac­count before Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, [Page 65]and other Books of our present Canon; which were doubted of, by the Antients. We have just now heard Origen say the di­rect contrary: we have seen, he and those other Fathers make some doubt of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the 2d of Peter, the 2d and 3d of John; but they speak very favo­rably and very respectfully of them, and so as plainly to intimate that they incline to them: but the Revelation, and Doctrine of Peter, and other Books of the Catalogue, they never once name 'em, in recounting the Books of the Canon, or of the Evange­lists and Apostles. The testimony of Ori­gen in the case is so much the more con­siderable, because he was undoubtedly the most learned of all the Antients; the first Divine the Church ever had, some doubt not to add and the last.

Our Antagonist has not yet done with us, he says; ‘The Council of Laodicea, a­bout 360 Years after Christ, is the first Assembly wherein the present Canon of Scrip­ture was establish'd. In so great a variety of Books, (those of the Catalogue, and those of the Canon) how could that Council determine which were the true Writings of the Apostles, and which not; but by Revelation, or the written Testi­mony of their Predecessors? Revelati­on in the Case there was none; and for [Page 66]Testimony, I have the same Testimony for many Books of the Catalogue. Else­where (p. 48.) he adds; Divers Books of the Catalogue were verily supposed by the Antients, to be written by the E­vangelists, Apostles, and their Synergists whose name they bear: why then do we not receive 'em into the Canon, since the Authors of 'em were (at least) Com­panions and Fellow-laborers of the A­postles; as well as St. Mark and St. Luke? Why are they excluded from the Canon, and those Evangelists not exclud­ed? If this quality (to have been a Com­panion and Synergist of the Apostles) was sufficient to entitle Mark and Luke to Inspiration; why should it not do as much for Barnabas and Clemens Romanus? And if this be not all the reason; pray let us know the true one, for I never heard of any other.’

He is entred, I confess, on the merits of the Cause. He saith; the Council of Lao­dicea, that establish'd our present Canon, could no other ways distinguish the genu­in Writings of the Apostles from those falsly imputed to 'em, but by the Testimony of their Predecessors: he hath the same Tes­timony, for the Books of the Catalogue. He knows no other reason, why Mark and Luke are believed to write by Inspiration, [Page 67]but that they were Synergists and Compa­nions of the Apostles. I answer,

That, he hath the same Testimony for some Books of the Catalogue, as we for the Books of the Canon; he attempted to prove from Irenaeus, Clemens of Alexandria, and Origen, his only Witnesses. But Ire­naeus, I have shown, barely names some of those Books; and for others, he cites them only as good Witnesses of the true Ecclesiastical Tradition, not as Divine Scripture. Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, may sometimes call them Scripture; in the sense that they so call the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testa­ment, which they (with the Protestants) deny to be parts of that Testament: and in reciting the Books of the Canon, and Works of the Apostles, they wholly omit, and sometimes expresly censure these Books of the Catalogue.

The Council of Laodicea, nor any other, ever pretended, to establish the Canon of Scrip­ture; which is precedaneous to all Coun­cils, and receives no Authority from them, but they from it. Amyntor should have said, the Council of Laodicea is the first As­sembly that, on occasion of some spurious, and many doubtful Books, declared which were the Books that had been certainly left to the Church by the Apostles and other Mi­raculous (first) Preachers.

'Tis no more true, that; Mark and Luke are supposed to write by Inspiration, only because they were Companions and Syner­gists of the Apostles: and that, the Council of Laodicea declared the Scripture-Canon, from only the Testimony of their Ancestors or Predecessors: that is, of the preceding Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Clemens of Alexan­dria, and Origen. Eusebius, a long time be­fore the Council of Laodicea, informed every body of the (sound) Reasons, why the Catholic Church receives some Books as Di­vine Scripture, and others not: his words are these. ‘Many Books have been pub­lished by Heretics, under the names of the Apostles; as the Gospels of Peter, Tho­mas, Matthias, and others; the Acts of Andrew, John, and divers more. But first, they are not cited [he means, not as Divine Scripture; for that they are indeed quoted by Clemens of Alexandria and Ori­gen the learnedst of the Antenicens, he tells us before and after;] by the Doctors of the Church. Secondly, their way of writing is wholly different from the Spirit, Genius, and Manner of the Apostles. Last­ly, the Doctrine, Opinions, and other Matters, advanced in those Books, are so contrary to Truth, and to Orthodoxy; that we must not barely call them Spuri­ous, but Absurd, and Impious. Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 25.’

I must a little enlarge, on this important Testimony; which overthrows all Amyntor's and M. Dodwel's Pretences, either for the Books of the Catalogue, or against those of the Canon.

These Books, saith Eusebius, are never cited (as Divine Scripture) by the Doctors of the Church: directly contrary to Amyntor's I have the same Testimony of the Antients (the very best and soundest of them) for these Books, that is alledged (or can be) by others for the Canon.

These Writings, says Eusebius again, have nothing of the Apostolical Way and Spirit. They want that honest Plainness, in their Style; that Integrity of manners, that Ele­vation of Piety, that Salt of Virtue, that exemption from Partialities and Passions; which so effectually recommend, and even point out to us, the Inspired Writings.

Above all, they are stuffed with abun­dance of notorious Falsities in Doctrine, and in Matters of Fact; and those also as ridiculous, as they are erroneous.

Here sure we have, wherewith to answer, to all the bold Suggestions, of the Book under consideration. If the Author pre­tends, he has the same Testimony of some An­tients, for the Books of the Catalogue, as there is for the Canon: Eusebius replies, none of the Doctors have quoted those Pieces, as [Page 70]Divine Scripture. If he demands, what other Exceptions we can advance against them; or what we can say farther, for the Books of the Canon: Eusebius again answers, the Books of the Canon and of the Catalogue differ, as Pious and Impious; as True and False; as Credible and Ridiculous: and that these are the Churches Reasons, why she venerates the latter, and no less disesteems (to use no harder word) the other. In short, besides the unanimous Testimony of the Antients, which was Amyntor's only Reason: Eusebius insists, on the so different Spirit, and Morality, of these two sorts of Books; and on the known Verity in Matters of Fact, and self-evident soundness in Doctrine, so remarkably appearing in one, and wanting in the other. When Amyntor fairly satisfies these Answers, of this Learned Father; Phillida solus habeto.

Farther Continuation of the Defence of the Canon.

IT seems however, by all this we have gained nothing at all; for Amyntor says again. ‘If some of the Antients made these Exceptions, to the Books of the Catalogue; they were not so thought of, by some whole Parties, who made use of 'em. And, there is not a single Book of the New Testament, which was not re­fused by some of the Antients; as unjustly fathered on the Apostles, and really for­ged by their Enemies. And lastly, he has Witnesses for it, that; were the Books of the Canon never so certainly written by the Apostles: they have been however so changed, and that too divers times, that (perhaps) not a single Rib or Plank of the old Argos is left.’ To this effect he speaks at p. 19, 56, 60, 64.

But who told him, or how will he prove it, that; whereas some of the Ancients made Exceptions to the Books of the Cata­logue, they were otherwise thought of, by some whole Parties of Christians? It is not true, nor will he be able to bring any proof for it, from Antiquity; that the Gos­pels, [Page 72]Acts, Epistles, Revelations, of the Ca­talogue, were espoused by whole Parties or Sects. On the contrary, they were read indifferently by some of all Parties; they had a little while some Credit with some Persons in all the Denominations of Chris­tians: till for the Reasons, but now alledged from Eusebius, they grew (first) into dis­use, and (then) were lost. Or if some few of 'em were the Compositions of pro­fessed Heretics, in order to countenance the Opinions of a small Party; as the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, said by Epiphanius to be de­vised by the Cainits, a Gnostic Sect: their manifest Disagreement to the Doctrine and History of the Gospels known by all to be Authentic, would (and actually did) im­mediately detect, and justly discredit them. Some whole Parties, says Amyntor, espoused some Books of the Catalogue. Yes, the Cainits; a Sect of two days continuance, and consisting (it may be) of twenty or thirty Persons, Libertines; boasted of the Gospel of Judas. How does this weaken the Judgment, made of that Gospel, by all the Churches, and reported by Eusebius and Epiphanius; that this and some such Pieces were foolish, and false, even to ridiculous­ness? We don't deny, there were such Books as these in the Catalogue; or that they were sometime in such credit, and even [Page 73]favoured by particular Persons of some Churches and Sects: but we say, the reasons alledged against them by the body and ge­nerality of the Churches, and that hereupon they soon became universally slighted, and shortly quite perished; are just such Pre­sumptions against them, as it will be in after-Ages against the (spurious) Metasthenes, Be­rosus, and Philo of Annius, that they had ap­peared but a very little while, e're they were wholly discredited by the concurrent Judg­ment and clear Arguments of Learned Men. As no body hereafter will appear for Annius his Philo, Berosus, or Metasthenes: 'tis an at­tempt not less worthy to be laught at, that the Gospel of Judas has now any Fautors; or that any are found, who with great con­fidence do mind us, that, it was esteemed some time by a Party. When the Judgment that Learned Men, and the Catholic Church, made of this Gospel and other such like Pieces, has been confirmed by the immedi­ate disappearing of the Books and Parties that maintained them; what can we reaso­nably think of the matter but that, as the Roman Orator has worded it for us, Opini­onum portenta delet dies; Follies and Errors, that are too extravagant and monstrous, soon (like the Monsters of Nature) perish?

If there were any thing (indeed) that we could lay in the contrary Scale, had we [Page 74]any thing to alledg in favor of these con­demned and lost Books; it were a necessary Caution and Justice, not to condemn 'em merely on the account that the Fathers and first Churches censur'd and rejected 'em: but their Judgment, and Reasons, against them; so approved by all, that the Books thereupon were all immediately put to ncces­sary uses; ought to satisfy us concerning them.

To that; ‘There is not a single Book of the New Testament, which was not refused by some of the Antients, as un­justly father'd on the Apostles, and really forged by their Enemies; P. 56, 64.’ Thought I, when I read it; has this Gentle­man found some of the first (lost) Histo­rians of the Church, pack'd up in a close Chest, or Hogshead, and buried so many Ages un­der ground? Has he recovered Hegesippus, or other Antient Writers; that are so much praised by Eusebius, St. Jerom, Photius; and other Fathers who were curious of Antiqui­ties, and have left some small account of those lost Treasures? But Amyntor quickly delivered me, from my doubt, and my sur­prize: for the proof he offers, is from very vulgar Books; either mistaken, or misre­ported by him. He says, ‘The Manichees rejected the whole New Testament; the Ebionits or Nuzarens, who were the first [Page 75]Christians, had a different Copy of St. Matthew's Gospel from ours, and the Marcionits of St. Luke's. John's Gospel was attributed, to Cerinthus; all the Epis­tles of St. Paul were denyed by some, and a different Copy of 'em shown by others: and the seven Pieces we mentioned before, (he means, the Epistles of St. James, St. Jude, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, the Epistle to the He­brews, and the Revelation) were refused a long time by all Christians, with almost Ʋniversal Consent. P. 64, 65.’ By all Christians, with almost Ʋniversal Consent, is a Contradiction: for if by all Christians, then with Universal Consent; and if, only with almost Universal Consent, then not by all Christians. But it matters not; for we shall see, neither of 'em is True.

When his hand was in, why did he not also (from as good Authority as he has a­gainst the whole Canon of the New Testa­ment) rout all the Authors of the Old Tes­tament? For he might have said from Epipha­nius, Haeres Ebion. c. 13. p. 38. ‘Some Jews, called Nazarites, rejected Sacrifices: affirming that the Books of Moses which we now have, are spurious, the true Writings of Moses being altogether diffe­rent from our Copies of them; which true Writings are still preserved by their [Page 76]Party. He repeats the same thing, Ana­cep. p. 134. Others who owned the five Books of Moses, yet refused all the other Books of the Old Testament; Epiphanius Haeres. Sam. c. 2. To these last, for so much as concerns the Old Testament, were joined some Ebionits; saving that they approved the Book of Joshua. E­piphan. Haeres. Ebion. c. 13.’ Let us exa­mine all this; it will be undeniable, that almost all of it is false; and that little of it that is true, is of no weight.

As to the Manichees, who ('tis pretend­ed) denyed all the New Testament; that is, denyed it to be written by the Authors whose Names it carries, or said that at least 'tis so very much interpolated and corrupt­ed, that 'tis now of no Authority: I will reserve the Discussion of it, till we come also to the Philosopher Celsus; who says that the Christians had twice or thrice (or more times) altered their Gospel.

‘The Ebionits and Nazarens, says our Au­thor, had a different Copy of Matthew's Gospel, from ours.’ Why does he con­found the Ebionits and Nazarens, as if they were one; and used the same Copy of Mat­thew's Gospel? They were no more the same Sect of Christians, than the Church of Eng­land and the Quakers are: and were so far from using the same Copy of St. Matthew, [Page 77]that a common Enemy to both, witnesses, the Copy of the Nazarens was (πληρέςατον) most perfect; but that of the Ebionits (Adul­teratum & Mutilum) corrupted by Interpo­lations, and defaced by Omissions. Epi­phanius Haeres. Nazar. c. 9. Haeres. Ebion. c. 13.

This Gospel of the Ebionits lacked the two first Chapters; namely the Genealogy of Joseph from David, and the History concern­ing the three wise men out of the East: it began at the Baptism of John. As for the Additions, 'tis not said expresly what they were: likely, the History of the Woman that was taken in Adultery; related in many Copies of St. John's Gospel, particularly in those from which our English Translation was made. Also, some Answers of our Sa­viour, the Names also and Qualities of some of the Persons he healed. All which might be added, from common Report of the Dis­ciples of our Saviour, and of others who knew the Facts and Persons. These things are said to be in the Hebrew Gospel, either of the Nazarens or Ebionits; by Eusebius, Jerom, Austin, Photius, and others. It was a hard Censure by Epiphanius, to call 'em Adulterations: if no more can be objected to the Copy used by the Ebionits, than these traditional Memoirs added in some places, it were (if extant) to be highly valued.

The omission in their Copy, of the two first Chapters, was indeed the occasion of great Disputes and Heats among the Anti­ents. Not uncredibly, the Ebionits might follow the first Edition of St. Matthew's Gospel, or his Hebrew Gospel; which might begin at Chap. 3. that is, at the Baptism of John: but when Matthew published his Gospel the second time, Greek; he might add the Genealogy, and the History of the Wise men. The Ebionits being all Jews, and understanding only the Hebrew (the Syro-Chaldaic) they adhered to the first Edition; rejecting the other: which also not being published (it may be) in Judaea, but from some other place; they might doubt, whe­ther it were really St. Matthew's. I can't see, what can be inferred from this, to the prejudice of Christianity, or the Canon of Scripture; except by Persons, who having a great mind to be Infidels, please themselves with Trifles.

But, ‘the Marcionites also had a different Copy, of the Gospel of Luke.’ I con­fess, the Antients speak of Marcion's Copy of St. Luke, as adulterated; particularly O­rigen, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian: and lastly Epiphanius, who has noted the parti­cular Alterations, and Substractions by Mar­cion; they are these. He omits the two first Chapters, beginning his Gospel with [Page 79]the Preaching of John Baptist, Praecursor to our Savior; and where the Prophets were alledged, or were spoken of, he re­trenches it. The rest, objected to Marci­on's Copy, is but ill-grounded; for they are only various readings, not designed De­pravations. Marcion intended by these chan­ges, to conform the Gospel, to the Sentiments of his Party, concerning the Prophets: but he so did this, that the substance of Christi­anity was still the same; and that, 'twas easy to see, on which side the Truth lay. This last is proved by the event; for the Marcionite Heresy soon became extinct of it self. An attempt to cut off such large portions of this Gospel, that were found in all the Copies used in the Churches, was too ex­travagant to succeed; or be long counte­nanced, by any (sober) men, unless sup­ported by Interest.

Marcion had been excommunicated by his own Father, who was a Bishop, for For­nication: hereupon, he went to Rome; but Letters from his Father, following him, they would not there receive him into Com­munion. Enraged at this, he set up a new Sect; being a Learned Man, he procured not a few Followers, who made him their Bishop: in this Station, he wrote divers Books; and publish'd a new Copy of the Gospel by St. Luke, as also of St. Paul's E­pistles, [Page 80]making in both divers Alterations. He repented however, of these wicked en­deavors against: Truth, and Peace: he re­conciled himself to the Church, undeceived most of his Followers; and would have reduced the rest, but was prevented by Death. We have this Information, from the most Antient of the Latin Fathers; Ter­tullian, Praescript. c. 30.

He alledges farther, ‘John's Gospel was attributed by some, to the Heretick Cerin­thus: all the Epistles of Paul were de­nyed by some; and a different Copy shown of 'em, by others.’ This (boasted) dif­ferent Copy, is only the Copy of Marcion; voluntarily and piously retraced by himself.

That, any denyed St. Paul's Epistles; meaning thereby, denyed them to be his; our Author will not prove, from any of the Antients. If by denying them, he means, rejected the Doctrine of 'em; we grant, they were denyed by the Ebionits: the witness against 'em is Epiphanius, Haeres. Ebion. c. 13. The Ebionits were those Jew­ish Christians, who contended that, the Law was to be observed together with the Gospel: Paul obtained against 'em a De­cree, by the Apostles and Elders at Jerusa­lem, recorded Acts 15. from vers. 24. and often argues against their Opinion, in his Epistles. This occasioned their rejecting [Page 81]those Epistles; and a great many Calum­nies, against the Person of that Apostle: a­mong other things, they devised that, Paul was a Gentile of Tarsus, and that missing an intended Marriage with the Daughter of a Priest at Jerusalem, he set himself to de­stroy the Priesthood and the Law.

The ground on which St. Paul's Epistles were rejected by the Ebionits, namely that, in those Epistles he denies that the Gentaic Christians were obliged by the Law of Mo­ses, being condemned at the Council of Jerusalem, mentioned Acts 15.24. and these Epistles being warranted, by ex press Authority of Sr. Peter, above quoted: me­thinks the Ebionits are here objected with as little color of Reason, as Marcion in the foregoing Paragraph.

'Tis another Exception, that ‘Johns Gospel was ascribed by some, to Cerinthus a great Heretick.’ By the Alogians: but so, that this Party embraced in a little time the common Opinion, that; St. John was indeed the Writer of this Gospel. Paul of Samosatum, Patriarch of Antioch, and Pho­tinus Archbishop of Sirmium, Heads of the Alogian party, even alledged for their Opi­nion the first Verses of Sr. John's Gospel; and made not the least doubt either of the Author or Authority of this Gospel. Epiphan. Haeres. Samosat. & Photin.

He still proceeds ‘The Epistles of James and Jude, the 2d of Peter, the 2d and 3d of John, that to the Hebrews, and the Rev­elation, were refused a long time, by Christians, with almost universal Consent.’

The least we can make of this, is that; the Majority of Christians rejected these Writings, and that too a long time. But Eusebius, from whom our Author had his intelligence, says otherwise; he saith, ‘those pieces are of the number [...], but withal [...], i. e. Gain­said indeed, by we know not who; but received by the Generality. Euseb. H. E. l. 3. c. 25.’

It seems however they were rejected by some, and that also a long time. I answer, they were all received, as soon as the Churches had full communication with one another; by the Convention of Councils: which, for small Books, containing nothing that if singular, was soon enough. They were received in the Council of Laodicea, by observation of our Author himself. Those seven pieces having nothing, as I said, that is singular; nothing that is wont to be alledged by the contending Parties, against one another: that Council was at perfect Liberty, whether they would re­ceive, or reject them; they might do ei­ther, without diminution of Interest, or [Page 83]of Reputation. I believe therefore, seeing the Scripture Canon was so sufficient (in the Opinion of all Parties) without those Books; they were not owned by the Fa­thers of that Council, but on most con­vincing reasons. Such as, that, they had certain Information that these Books were read, as Writings of the Apostles, in all Churches of antient Foundation; that them­selves found 'em quoted (as Apostolick Compositions) in and from the times of the Apostles: also that there is in them a like­ness of the Thoughts, and Expression, and whatever else recommends to us the other Books of Scripture; to the Expression, and Thoughts of the other Divine Books: or more briefly, they are written with the same kind of Spirit, that the undoubted portions of Scripture are. There might even be Testimony from some of the Churches, that; they had still the first pub­lished Copies of these Books and Epistles, with their Dates corresponding to the Age and Time of the Writers of them.

Can any thing like to this, be said for the (rejected) Books of the Catalogue? Were they ever approved, in any Council? Are any of them quoted, or pretended to be quoted, by Writers of the Apostolick Age? Is it not said by those Antients who had read 'em, and could belt judg of 'em; [Page 84]they are composed with an Address, and Air, quite different from that of the Inspired Books; and are not only false in the Doc­trine and Facts, but very foolish also? If some of 'em were read, in some Churches; was it nor, only till the Catholick Church began to fill with learned and able Persons, who could make a Judgment? And when by these, they were discharged; was there any Contention for 'em, as there would certain­ly have been, if the same (or like) reasons could have been urged for 'em, as for the Books truly Canonical?

Of the Philosopher Celsus, and Faustus the Manichee.

I Come therefore, to the last Refuge of the Anti-Christian party. ‘Admitting that, the Books of the Canon were (for the main of 'em) written by the Apos­tles, and their Synergists: they have been however so changed, and that divers times; that now there is little, perhaps nothing left of 'em, in those Books that stand for them, in our present Canon.’ The witness for this, is the Philosopher Cel­jus; to whom (great) Origen immediatly answered. This Philosopher, says Amyntor, informs us; that ‘the Christians, as if they were drunk, had changed the Writing of the Gospel, three or four (or more) times: to the end they might deny what­soever is urged against them, as before retracted.’

The Philosopher however doth not say, the Christians have changed (or altered) their Gospel; he says only τίνες πισέυοντων, some of those called Believers, have altered the writing of the Gospel. Origen makes us to understand the meaning of this, in his Answer to it; which is thus. ‘Indeed Marcion, and Va­lentinus, [Page 86]and Lucanus, have presumed to corrupt the Sacred Books. But what is that to Christianity?’ He intended here­by; does the Church follow the (vitiated) Copies of Marcion, or of (the two Gnos­tics) Valentinus and Lucanus? are theirs the Books we show, as our Rule of Faith and Manners? are these the Books read in the Churches of Christians?

In short, they would prove: the Books of our present Canon are corrupted, and greatly altered from what they were; and how is it proved? Why, Marcion, and Va­lentinus, and Lucanus, published some de­praved Copies, that were rejected, so soon as they appeared, by all the Churches. Why do they not say, the Bibles of the English Church were corrupted in the Reign of K. Charles the Martyr? when the King's Print­ers published an Edition, in which the words of the Psalmist were thus printed, The Fool hath said in his Heart, there is a God: for which the Printers were fined 3000 l. and all the Copies supprest by the King's Order.

Has Amyntor any Evidence, that the Copies of Valentinus, Lucanus and Marcion, or any of them, is the Copy now used by the Catholick Church; or doth not he him­self certainly know the contrary? He hath no such Evidence, and he knows the con­trary with certainty: therefore, he affect­edly [Page 87]abused his Reader; and too much for­got that, a deceitful Management of such Subjects as this, obliges his Reader to distrust all he says, and more especially his Quotati­ons.

We shall be troubled but with one Oppo­ser more, 'tis Faustus the Manichee; let us take the matter in our Author's own words. ‘Nay, as low as St. Austin's time; was there not a very considerable Sect, of the Christians themselves, I mean the Manichae­ans; who shewed other Scriptures, and de­nyed the genuinness of the whole New Tes­tament? one of these called Faustus, &c.’ In these few Lines, are more Falsities, than Periods.

For the Manichees were never accounted a Sect of Christians; and whether to be cal­led Christians or not, they were far from be­ing a very considerable Sect: nor did they show other Scriptures, as written by Christ or his Apostles; nor deny the genuinness of the whole New Testament, or so much as of any Book of it. All the business is, A­myntor knew not how to point the words of Faustus, nor how to render them into Eng­lish; his Translation of 'em is not only false, but 'tis non-sense.

By the same figure of Speech, that he calls the Manichees, Christians; he must also call the Mahometans, Christians: nay there is [Page 88]incomparably more reason, so to call the lat­ter, than the former; but the latter were never so called by any, therefore neither may the former. Manchaeus and Mahomet equally pretended that, he was the Paraclet (or Comforter) promised to his Disciples by our Saviour; in those words recorded by St. John: If I go not, the Comforter (or Paraclet) will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him to you.—When he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all Truth. John 16.7, 13. Mahomet innovated but little, comparatively, in the Articles of Re­ligion; Manichaeus subverted all things. He taught, and his (few) Followers believ­ed;

1. There are two Co-eternal Principles, God and Hyle; the former the Author of all Good, the other of all Evil.

2. God very hardly defends his Frontiers, from the encroachments of Hyle: even some part of his Divine Substance is captivated, by Hyle; nor shall it ever be wholly releas­ed.

3. God is not the Creator of Mankind, but Nature.

4. The God of the Old Testament is a lying, and impotent Spirit; false and harsh to his Servants: and who was neither able, nor willing to protect, or do good to the Syna­gogue, or Church of the Jews; which served him, as an Hand-maid her Mistress.

5. Jesus Christ was neither born, nor died; but is the off-spring of the Holy Spirit, gene­rated in the Earth, and subsisting in all liv­ing Creatures; as also in all Fruits and Vege­tables: the visible Jesus was only a Phan­tom.

6. The Patriarchs and Prophets of the Old Testament, were the most flagitious of all men; and ought not to be named, without some particular and remarkable Detesta­tion.

7. Souls are a part of the Substance of God; and when the Body dies, they enter into other Bodies of men, or of Beasts, or Fish; or of some Tree, Herb, or Flower, as their desert in the present Life hath been: except however, some few thorowly purified Souls, which re-ascend into Heaven; where they live, and row in Boats of Light.

8. The Sun and Moon are to be adored.

It is evident by these Articles of the Ma­nichaean Creed, that; our Author might as well (or better) have said, ‘There is a very considerable Sect of Christians them­selves, I mean the Mahometans; who shew other Scriptures, and deny the Books of our present Canon.’ If this would be ridiculous; the other, a considerable Sect of Christians, I mean the Manichees, is much more so.

Well, let 'em be a Sect of Christians; yet they were not, as he saith, a very con­siderable▪ Sect. St. Austin, who for nine years was of their Number, says; in tam exiguo, & pene nullo Numero vestro: i. e. you are a very few, and almost none at all. And again, ‘I confess, good Christians are but few: but those of our Denomination, who are really good, are vastly more than all you Manichees whether good or bad. Contr. Fausium, l. 20. c. 23.’

They shall be Christians, and a very con­siderable Sect. What then? Why, they shew­ed other Scriptures, different from those that are read and used by the Church. If he means, they shew some Writings of Mini­chaeus; which, among them were valued, as the Scriptures of the Evangelists and Apostles are esteemed among Christians: 'tis true indeed, but not to the purpose. No more than if he had said; the Mahometans [Page 91]show an Alchoran, as Christians do a Bible: therefore the Bible is a spurious, suppositi­tious Book, never wrote by the pretended Authors of it. The question is, whether the Books of the New Testament are genu­ine; were indeed written by the Persons whose names they bear? Amyntor answers, No; for the Manichees (a very considerable Sect of Christians themselves) shew other Scriptures. Plainly, if he means, they also shew Books written by the Patriarch of their Sect; 'tis a random Bolt: the enquiry not being, Whether the Manichees had cer­tain Books, which they followed; but, whether they pretended to prove, that the Christian Bible is not genuin, by shewing other (different) Copies of it? And this, without doubt, Amyntor intended: there­fore I answer; they never pretended to shew other Copies of the Christian Bible, than those in the Catholic Church.

Faustus, their Advocate, never says; such a Text is not in our Copies: he says only, I believe 'tis foisted into the Scripture-context, because it is a manifest Falshood. The two Paraclets, Manichaeus and Mahomet, were altogether unlearned; they both pre­tended that, the Christian Bible was in many places greatly corrupted: but this they proved, only by arguing against the particu­lar Passages, which they disliked; not by [Page 92]producing other Copies, different from those of the Church. In short, the way they took, might prove the Scriptures of Christians to be erroneous; but by no means to be spuri­ous, interpolated, or not genuin. How this madness of the Paraclets, is to be answered, we shall consider by and by; we must now examine what Amyntor has here added: he saith,

‘The Manichees not only shewed other Scriptures, but denied also the genuinness of the whole New Testament.’ He hath no witness of it; Faustus, whom he alledges, says the contrary. I don't deny, he has truly recited those places of Faustus, which he hath put into his Margin: but, as I intimated before, he hath neither seen, how to rightly point them, nor truly translate them; and the reason of both (I imagine) was, he over­lookt the Explanations that Faustus gives (in other Sections) of his meaning and in­tention.

First, As to the Epistles of St. Paul, and of the other Apostles, both Faustus and St. Austin own expresly, they were allowed by the Manichees. Their words are these; Apostolum (Paulum) Accipis? Maxime. ‘Do you receive Paul's Epistles? Most readi­ly, and especially. Lib. 11. c. 1.’ Again, ‘Lib. 12. c. 24. Epistolas Apostolorum Legi­tis, Tenetis, Praedicatis. You read, be­lieve, [Page 93]and even extol the Epistles of the Apos­tles.’

As to the Gospels, Faustus even disdains, that it should be questioned, whether they are received by the Manichees. ‘If, saith he, by receiving the Gospel, you mean obeying it; it is the Rule of my Life and Conversation. You (Catholics) pretend to receive the Gospel, without giving any signs of it, in your manners: and you ask me, whether I receive it, who do all things that it requireth; even all things that might prevent such a Question. Lib. 5. c. 1, 2.’

Elswhere he deals more explicitly and clearly. ‘Lib. 32. c. 7. We receive as Sa­cred Truth, all that the Son hath said; and even all that was said by his Apostles, after they were perfect and fully instructed. We pass over, and neglect what the Apos­tles said, while they were Novices and Ignorant; and what was objected to 'em, and not said really by 'em: as also what has been falsly imputed to 'em, by the Writers; namely that, Jesus was (foully) born of a Woman, was circumcised like the Jews, offer'd Sacrifice like the Gentiles, was baptized in a sordid manner, was car­ried about and miserably tempted by the Devil. These few things excepted, to­gether with all their Quotations out of [Page 94] the old Testament; we receive the Writers, [he means the four Evangelists,] and all they have recorded, or taught in their Books: more especially, we receive the Mystical Crucifixion; with the Precepts, Parables, and whole Divine Word of Christ.’

If Amyntor had attended to these Passages, he would have perceived, how the words of this Manichee (which he cites) are to be Pointed, and Translated into the English. Let us first see, how Amyntor reads, and renders 'em.

Solius Filii putatis Testamentum non potuisse corrumpi; solum non habere aliquid quod in se debeat improbari: praesertim quod nec ab ipso scriptum constat, nec ab ejus Apostolis: sed longo post tempore a quibusdam incerti nominis viris, qui, ne sibi non haberetur sides scribenti­bus quae nescirent, partim Apostolorum nomina, parting corum qui Apostolos secuti viderentur, scriptorum suorum frontibus indiderunt, asseve­rantes secuncdumeos se scripsisse quae scripserint. He englishes it, thus. ‘You think, that of all the Books in the world, the Testament of the Son only could not be corrupted, that it alone contains nothing which ought to be disallowed; especially when it appears, that it was neither written by himself, nor his Apostles, but a long time after by cer­tain obscure Persons, who, lest no credit [Page 95]should be given to the Stories they told of what they could not know, did prefix to their Writings partly the names of the Apostles, and partly of those who suc­ceeded the Apostles; affirming that what they wrote themselves, was written by these.’

We shall see presently, Light and Dark­ness are not more contrary, than this ac­count of the Books that make the present Canon of the New Testament, is to the real Opinion of Faustus, and the intention of his words in the Latin: but now I will only take notice that, this Translation is a pure piece of Jargon; it offers to prove a certain point, by a Consideration quite con­trary to it. It represents the Manichee as saying; you (Catholies) think the Testa­ment of the Son contains nothing that may be disallowed: because it appears that, neither himself nor his Apostles wrote it; but cer­tain obscure Fellows, who to make them­selves believed in matters of which they knew nothing, put the Names of the Apostles to their own Flams and Forgeries. I demand now of Amyntor, was this a Reason, fit to prove that the Testament of the Son has no­thing in it that can be disallowed; even this, 'twas written by obscure Fellows, who hav­ing feigned these Matters, set to 'em the Names of the Apostles and their Successors? [Page 96]'Tis a Reason, that most plainly overthrows the Proposition, which it was to confirm; in short, 'tis a Bull, a Contradiction, and Nonsense. 'Tis as if I should say, the King of Spain is like to live this three seven years; for he is very infirm, and dying (in a man­ner) every day.

Well; let us again set down the Latin of the Manichee, and Pointing it right, see what sense it will make.

Solius Filii, putatis, Testamentum non po­tuisse corrunipi; solum non habere aliquid, quod in se debeat improbari? Praesertim, quod nec ab ipso scriptum constat, nec ab ejus Apostolis; sed longo post tempore, a quibusdam incerti no­minis viris: qui, ne sibi non haberetur Fides, seribentibus quae nescirent; partim Apostolorum nomina, partim corum qui Apostolos secuti vi­derentur, scriptorum suorum frontibus indide­runt; asseverantes, secundum eos se scripsisse quae scripserunt.

To be Englished thus. ‘Do ye think that, of all Books in the World, only the Testament of the Son could not be de­praved; and that, it alone contains no­thing that can be gainsaid? Especially, that of it (or that part of it) which not only, was not written by himself; but not by his Apostles: but a long time af­ter, by certain obscure Fellows. Who, lest no Credit should be given to what [Page 97]they wrote, concerning matters which they could not know, put the names of Apostles and their Successors, in the front of their Books; affirming that, what they wrote themselves, was written by those Apostles.’

He speaks here of the Acts, Revelations, Epistles, Gospels of the Catalogue; he says, the genuine Testament of the Son is much depraved by these spurious Books: which were contrived and published long after the decease of the Evangelists and Apostles that wrote the Books truly Canonical; by ob­scure Wretches, that put to their feigned Gospels and Acts the names of Andrew, Tho­mas, Philip, Bartholomew, and other Apos­tles, and their Successors. Briefly, Faustus meant not in the least, to say; the Books of the Canon are falsly intitled to the Apostles, and Evangelists, whose names they bear: but that, the Testament of the Son has been vitiated, and disgraced, by divers other Go­spels, Acts, Epistles, meaning those of the Catalogue; which never were the Works of true Apostles, but of certain Botchers, who stitching together some flying Reports, ex­posed their wares to sale, under the names of some of the Apostles, and of their im­mediate Successors.

His other Citation, out of Faustus, is no better; nor (upon the main) better under­stood by him: it is this.

Multa à Majoribus vestris, eloquiis Domini nostri inserta sunt verba, quae nomine signata ipsius cum ejus fide non congruunt; praesertim quia, ut jam saepe probatum à Nobis est, nec ab ipso haec sunt, nec ab ejus Apostolis scrip­ta: sed multa, post eorum assumptionem à ne­scio quibus, & ipsis inter se non concordanti­bus Semi-judaeis, per famas opinionesque com­perta sunt.

He renders it in these words. ‘Many things were foisted by your Ancestors, into the Scripture of our Lord; which, tho marked with his Name, agree not with his Faith. And no wonder, since, as those of our Party have already frequently proved, these things were neither written by him­self nor his Apostles: but several matters after their decease were pick'd up from Stories and flying Reports, by I know not what set of Half-Jews; and these also not agreeing among themselves.’

Reach me the Ferula, for they are School­boys Mistakes. In this place, Jam is not, already; or saepe, frequently: much less is à Nobis, those of our Party, which it never sig­nifies; and had Faustus intended to say by those of our Party, he would have said a Nos­tris. [Page 99]His words Jam saepe probatum est a No­bis, were thus meant, As I have but now proved, by divers Examples: for he refers to the several Examples he had just before given, of Doctrines and Facts, which (as he sup­posed, and supposed he had proved it) were added to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke; only he speaks of himself, as Authors are commonly wont, in the Plural number, say­ing à Nobis for à me.

But from all this, Amyntor infers, and im­mediately subjoins; since therefore the Mani­chaeans rejected the whole New Testament, &c. You are a great deal too hasty, Son; your Friends the Manichees received the whole Genuine Canon of the New Testament: they rejected only, the corrupt part of the Testa­ment of the Son, even the Gospels and other pieces of your Catalogue; and some Passages which (they pretended) had been unduly insert­ed into the Epistles and Gospels of the Canon; nor will you ever make more of your Cita­tions from Faustus, by whatsoever stretching and straining them.

By this it appears, how much our Author is pleas'd with Hyperbolies; he says, ‘A very considerable Sect, of Christians them­selves, I mean the Manichees, shewed o­ther Scriptures, and denied the Genuin­ness of the whole New Testament.’ He should have said, a small Party, less Christians by [Page 100]much than the Mahometans, denied the genuinness of those parts of the Gospels and Epistles; where the Books of the Old Tes­tament are cited: as also where mention is made of the Genealogy, Birth, Temptati­on, Baptism, or Death of Christ; because they supposed, Christ was God only, and Man not at all; and that it was unworthy of God to be born, tempted, baptized, or put to death.

The Objection however hath still some force: 'tis thus far true, that some there were who said, the Books of the Canon are not now altogether sincere; they are cor­rupted by divers Additions. Yes, the Ma­nichees said so: and if our Author had pleased, he could have told us, by what Arguments they were convinced of their Impertinence and Folly; it would very well have become him, to have taken that (little) farther pains.

Of the (pretended) Interpola­tions, and Additions, in the Books of the Canon.

THE Manichees said: The [...] the Spirit of Truth, promised to the Faithful by Christ, even the blessed Mani­chaeus, was sent by God, to inform his E­lect, and all other his People, concerning his farther Will and good-pleasure: as also to instruct them, what of the New Testa­ment is genuine, and to be received by all; and what to be rejected, as either mistaken by the Apostles yet unperfect, or since ad­ded by others to the Writings of the Apos­tles and Evangelists.

Being asked, What these Mistakes, and Additions were? They answered; whatso­ever is said of the Genealogy, Birth, Bap­tism, Temptation, and real Death of Christ; all quotations out of, and all honourable mention any where made concerning the Patriarchs, Prophets and Writers of the Old Testament. When demanded, farther; on what grounds they presumed to reject, ei­ther the Old Testament, or such large por­tions of the New? They replyed; Moses has blasphemed Christ, in those words of his, [Page 102] He that is hanged, is accursed of God, Deut. 21.23.

The God of the Old Testament, said the Manichees, appears to have been a wicked, and impotent Spirit; chiefly, by his com­manding the slaughter of innocent Beasts, for [...] of guilty Men: and by dealing so harshly, with his Slaves the Jews. There­fore, his Prophets also are to be rejected: as for the same reason we would (and do) reject the Priests and Prophets, of the other evil Gods of the Nations.

It is not to be thought, so they went on, that, Jesus Christ commended, or his Apos­tles cited, the writings of the Prophets and Servants of such an impure God: no, all such Citations and Commendations have been (undoubtedly) added, by certain Peo­ple that were half Jews and half Christians, to the Gospels and Epistles of the New Tes­tament. So also was whatsoever is found in those Books concerning the Genealogy, Birth, Circumcision, Temptation, Baptism, or Death of Christ. Who being God, un­derwent all these things: only in appear­ance, and by that Phantom (which the Vul­gar took to be real Christ) that represent­ed him: even as Angels seem to have Bo­dies, to be clothed, to eat and drink; when in truth they neither drink nor eat, nor are clothed, nor have real Bodies.

This was the Manichaean Doctrine, with respect to the Christian Religion, and Books of the New Testament; to which they ad­ded the eight Articles, before mentioned, taught 'em by Manichaeus, and his Second Adimantus, and maintained by Faustus.

Says St. Austin. One may easily make short work, with this wild People. For whereas all depends on the Authority of Manichaeus: I desire to know, how they prove he was that Paraclet; that Spirit of Truth, that was to lead us into all truth; promised by our Saviour? They answer in­deed, out of St. John's Gospel; I will send the Comforter (or Paraclet) the Spirit of Truth, who shall lead you into all Truth: but they say withal, the Gospels (and other Books of the New Testament) are so cor­rupted, that there is no (absolute) trusting to 'em. We demand a Witness, on behalf of their Paraclet: they alledg one, out of our own New Testament; which (they say) is a false and corrupted Witness. Any Book or other Witness, convict of Falshood and Corruption, in bearing its Testimony; especially, of many Corruptions, and Falsi­ties; is uncapable of standing again as a Witness (merely on its own Credit) in whatsoever Case. Briefly, by accusing the New Testament, as a Book in so many places [Page 104]corrupted; they deprive themselves of what­soever benefit, that might arise to them, from its Testimony.

But to forgive to Fools, an oversight, that destroys their whole Cause: St. John shall be a sincere Evangelist, in speaking of the Spirit, or Paraclet; tho the other Books and Writers, and he himself in other mat­ters, hath been mistaken, or is corrupted by others. But as this is the Evangelist, who has foretold the sending of the Paraclet [...]; so he hath also foretold the time when he should come: for he saith, John 7.39. The Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. The reason, it seems, that the Spirit was not then given, was; because Jesus not being yet glorified, that is, not departed from his Disciples into Hea­ven, 'twas not necessary he should be yet given: but when Jesus was dead, raised, and ascended into Heaven; then was the time to send forthwith the Paraclet. According­ly, we find in the Acts of the Apostles, in the second Chapter of those Acts; fifty days after our Savior's Resurrection, and but ten days after his Ascension into Glory, the Spirit (the promised Paraclet) descended on the Apostles. What room now is here for Mon­tanus, or for Manichaeus? The Spirit of Truth was to come, so soon as Christ was [Page 105]gone from his Apostles, and entred into the Glory designed for him; but Montanus came not till 170 years after Christ was glorified, and Manichaeus (as if our Savior had ut­terly forgot his promise) not till the year 275.

The Father goes on. I will take no Ad­vantage of all this; I will otherwise con­vince you, that your Patriarch was a Sedu­cer, and a Liar. He says, the Books of the New Testament have been corrupted, by Additions made to 'em: certain Half-Jews have added Citations out of the Old Testa­ment; and false Tales concerning the Pa­rentage, Nativity, Circumcision, Tempta­tion, Baptism, Death of Christ: all which are impossible flams, because he that was God, and not Man at all, could neither do nor suffer any of these things. Therefore I ask, did Manichaeus alledg, or can you pro­duce, any Copies of the New Testament; wherein all these things are not found? When some Copies of a Book have some­thing, that others have not; there is either Mistake, or Fraud, in one or other of them: and we are wont in that Case, to consult more Copies; especially those that are An­tient, and those that are preserved in Libra­ries, or in Archives that have been long and religiously kept. From the greatest [Page 106]number of Copies, and those that are most Antient; and that have been kept in pla­ces, where they could not easily or likely be violated, by Additions or Substractions; we judg reasonably, and safely, concerning the Copies that are suspected or questioned. I pray, therefore, show us, or refer us to Co­pies, where these (pretended) Additions are not read; in what Libraries, in what Archives of Churches or Sects, are such Copies to be found? But as you never pre­tended, to any such Copies; so 'tis impos­sible, there should be any such. For the New Testament being in the hands of all Christi­ans, and read in all Churches: these (pre­tended) Additions could never be made, and least of all in the publick Books of the Churches; without being observed, known, and opposed in their very first appearance. Are there so many thousand Churches, and distant from one another so many thousand Miles, under the Inspection of so many dis­tinct Bishops and Presbyters; nay and of several Princes: and could all these Books, think you, be corrupted, without their ob­serving it? Or what is as impossible, or rather more impossible; by common Agree­ment? For are so many wont to agree, to false Additions, to their Books of Reli­gion?

These are some of the Arguments, of that discerning Father, against Faustus, and his Patriarchs Manichaeus and Adimantus: I am of opinion, we have here given to Amyntor, as 'tis said in the Proverb, A Rowland for his Oliver. Faustus is not so considerable, but that St. Austin appears much more con­siderable. In Faustus, one may see an un­reasonable Infidelity, a precipitate and un­grounded Scepticism: in St. Austin, Cauti­on and Faith, led on by Judgment; a Judg­ment enlightned by Learning, and Experi­ence.

I omit what he saith, of the God of the Old Testament; of the Patriarchs and Pro­phets; as forein to my present Undertaking and Subject: I only observe farther, that; What he hath so well argued against Monta­nus, and Manichaeus, is no less effectual, a­gainst the third Paraclet, Mahomet, who arose after St. Austin. If Montanus in the year after Christ 170, or Manichaeus in 275, could not be the promised Paraclet; because the Evangelist, on whose Authority their Claims are founded, sets a time (when Jesus shall be glorified) that disagrees so widely from the time of their appearance, and agrees so exactly with the time of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles: I say, if for this so clear Reason; neither [Page 108] Montanus in 170, nor Manichaeus in 255, could be that Paraclet that was to lead into all Truth: much lest could Mahomet be he, in the year after our Lord 612; seeing neither did Mahomet pretend to any other ground, for his Novelties, but those words in St. John's Gospel concerning a future Paraclet. See Father Simon's Belief and Customs of the Eastern Nations, Chap. 15. When the same Impostor, as his Predecessor Manichaeus, ac­cuses the Bible of Christians; as having many corrupt Additions, and other Falsifica­tions; he is unanswerably refuted by the same Considerations, that were objected, (before) to Manichaeus.

SIR, I have now answered as fully as (I think) is needful, to a Book; which, you tell me, is so much magnified by the Anti-Christian Party about Town. They say, this Book has so discovered, and laid bare, the (unsound) Foundations of Christianity; that 'tis now to be blown down by the very weakest Breath: and that, if an Answer any what valuable, be made to it; the Author will take occasion thereat, by new and more and greater Authorities, to level all revealed Imposture with the very Ground. He can level nothing by such an attempt, but his own Reputation; nor do I think, he ap­proves [Page 109]these impious Boasts, of that Party of men. It may be questioned, whether he had any formed Design, to attack Christi­anity, by this Book: it seems rather, that, when his Passions were up, against Mr. Black­hal, he inadvertedly dropt these Exceptions and Doubts, of which some make so bad use; or (rather) strain such malignant Consequences, from them. To cut out work for Mr. Blackhal, with whom he was so much displeased; he discharged upon him, whatsoever occurred to his Memory, from first Antiquity; with intent to engage him in laborious, difficult, and unwelcome Searches. However it be, it appears he is a Person of great Abilitys, and Address, in matters of this kind: and it were to be wish'd, men of very distinguishing Parts and Sufficiency, were not made Enemies to the Church, or to the Public, either by being abused, or because they are neglected. You shall not awe such Persons by your Me­naces, or your Severities; when even such mean Rogues as House-breakers, and High­way-men, are not scared by the Gibbet and Gallows. The only effect to be expected, from neglect of, or harshness toward such, is that, they go at length into the interests of some disaffected Party, or erect a new one: after which, whatsoever becomes of [Page 110]them, the Public and the Church are sure to be infinitly more losers; than it would have cost to gain, and to assure them, to the Public. But, manum de tabulâ for who made me a Counsellor to the Church, or the Public? You will please, Sir, to believe that, I am, with great Tenderness and Re­spect,