VI.

Dial. cum

36.

ART. the Jews, as appears from Justin Martyr, and the Gentiles, as appears by Celsus, knew that these were the books in which the faith of the Christians was contained. Trypho. 4thly, That some question was made touching some of them, because there was not that clear or general knowledge concerning them, that there was concerning the others; yet upon fuller inquiry all acquiesced in them. No doubt was ever made about thirteen of St. Paul's Epistles; because there were particular churches or perTertul. de sons, to whom the originals of them were directed: but Presc. cap. the strain and design of that to the Hebrews being to remove their prejudices, that high one, which they had taken up against St. Paul as an enemy to their nation, was to be kept out of view, that it might not blast the good effects which were intended by it; yet it is cited oftener than once by Clemens of Rome: and though the ignorance of many of the Roman Church, who thought Orig. Ep. ad that some passages in it favoured the severity of the NoAfrican. vatians, that cut off apostates from the hopes of repentOrig. Exh. ad Martyr. ance, made them question it, of which mention is made Euseb.Hist. both by Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, who frequently lib. vi. c. 20. affirm, that the Latin Church, or the Roman, did not reHieron. Ep. ad Dardan. ceive it; yet Athanasius reckons both this and the seven Cyr.Catech. general Epistles among the canonical writings. Cyril of Jerusalem, who had occasion to be well informed about it, says, that he delivers his catalogue from the Church, as she had received it from the Apostles, the ancient bishops, and the governors of the Church; and reckons up in it both the seven general Epistles, and the fourteen of St. Paul. So does Ruffin, and so do the councils of Laodicea and Carthage; the canons of the former being received into the body of the Canonsb of the Universal Church. Irenæus, Origen, and Clemens of Alexandria c, cite the Epistle to the Hebrews frequently. Some question was made of the Epistle of St. James, the second of St. Peter, the second and third of St. John, and St. Jude's Epistle. But both Clemens of Romed, Ignatius, and Origen, cite St. James's Epistle; Eusebius e says it was known to most, and read in most Christian Churches: the like is testified by St. Jerome f. St. Peter's second Epistle is cited

iv.

• Apud Hieron.

b Can. 60. Can. 47.

Iren. 1. iii. c. 38. Orig. 1. iii. et vii. cont. Cels. Dial. con. Marc. et Ep. ad Afric. Clem. Alex.

d Ignat. Ep. ad Eph. Orig. Hom. 13. in Genes.

• Eus. Hist. 1. ii. c. 22. 1. iii. c. 24, 25.

f Hieron. Pref. in Ep. Jac.

b

ART.

VI.

by Origen and Firmiliana; and Eusebius says it was held very useful even by those who held it not canonical: but since the first Epistle was never questioned by any, the second that carries so many characters of its genuineness, such as St. Peter's name at the head of it, the mention of the transfiguration, and of his being an eye-witness of it, are evident proofs of its being writ by him. The second and third Epistles of St. John are cited by Irenæus, Clemens and Dennis of Alexandria, and by Tertullian . The Epistle of St. Jude is also cited by Tertullian. Some of those general Epistles were not addressed to any particular body, or Church, that might have preserved the originals of them, but were sent about in the nature of circular letters; so that it is no wonder if they were not received so early, and with such an unanimity, as we find concerning the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and thirteen of St. Paul's Epistles. These being first fixed upon by an unquestioned and undisputed tradition, made that here was a standard once ascertained to judge the better of the rest: so when the matter was strictly examined, so near the fountain that it was very possible and easy to find out the certainty of it, then in the beginning of the fourth century the Canon was settled, and universally agreed to. The style and matter of the Revelation, as well as the designation of Divine given to the author of it, gave occasion to many questions about it: Clemens of Clem.in Ep. Rome cites it as a prophetical book: Justin Martyr says it ad Cor. was writ by John, one of Christ's twelve Apostles; Ire-Justin.cont. Tryphon. næus calls it the Revelation of St. John, the disciple of our Iren. 1. v. Lord, writ almost in our own age, in the end of Domitian's c. 30. reign. Melito writ upon it: Theophilus of Antioch, Hip-Eus. 24, polytus, Clemens and Dennis of Alexandria, Tertullian, 26. Cyprian, and Origen do cite it. And thus the Canon of the 1. v. c. 18. New Testament seems to be fully made out by the concurrent testimony of the several Churches immediately after the Apostolical time.

Here it is to be observed, that a great difference is to be made between all this and the oral tradition of a doctrine, in which there is nothing fixed or permanent, so that the whole is only report carried about and handed down. Whereas here is a book, that was only to be copied out and read publicly, and by all persons, between

• Orig. cont. Marcion. Firmil. Ep. 75. ad Cypr.

Eus. Hist. 1. iii. c. 3.

• Iren. 1. i. c. 13. Clem. Alex. Strom. 2. Tertul. de Carne Chr. c. 24. Eus. Hist. 1. vi. c. 24. Tertul de cultu fœm.

1.

Hist.

1. vii. c. 27.

VI.

ART. which the difference is so vast, that it is as little possible to imagine how the one should continue pure, as how the other should come to be corrupted. There was never a book of which we have that reason to be assured that it is genuine, that we have here. There happened to be constant disputes among Christians from the second century downward, concerning some of the most important parts of this doctrine; and by both sides these books were appealed to: and though there might be some variations in readings and translations, yet no question was made concerning the Canon, or the authenticalness of the books themselves; unless it were by the Manichees, who came indeed to be called Christians, by a very enlarged way of speaking; since it is justly strange how men who said that the author of the universe, and of the Mosaical dispensation, was an evil God; and who held that there were two su preme Gods, a good and an evil one; how such men, I say, could be called Christians.

The authority of those books is not derived from any judgment that the Church made concerning them; but from this, that it was known that they were writ, either by men who were themselves the Apostles of Christ, or by those who were their assistants and companions, at whose order, or under whose direction and approbation, it was known that they were written and published. These books were received and known for such, in the very apostolical age itself; so that many of the apostolical men, such as Ignatius and Polycarp, lived long enough to see the Canon generally received and settled. The suffering and depressed state of the first Christians was also such, that as there is no reason to suspect them of imposture, so it is not at all credible that an imposture of this kind could have passed upon all the Christian Churches. A man in a corner might have forged the Sibylline oracles, or some other pieces which were not to be generally used; and they might have appeared soon after, and credit might have been given too easily to a book or writing of that kind: but it cannot be imagined, that in an age in which the belief of this doctrine brought men under great troubles, and in which miracles and other extraordinary gifts were long continued in the Church, that, I say, either false books could have been so early obtruded on the Church as true, or that true books could have been so vitiated as to lose their original purity, while they were so universally read and used; and that so soon; or that the writers of that very age and of the next should have been so generally and so grossly imposed

upon, as to have cited spurious writings for true. These ART. are things that could not be believed in the histories or VI. records of any nation: though the value that the Christians set upon these books, and the constant use they made of them, reading a parcel of them every Lord's day, make this much less supposable in the Christian religion, than it could be in any other sort of history or record whatsoever. The early spreading of the Christian religion to so many remote countries and provinces, the many copies of these books that lay in countries so remote, the many translations of them that were quickly made, do all concur to make the impossibility of any such imposture the more sensible. Thus the Canon of the New Testament is fixed upon clear and sure grounds.

From thence, without any further proof, we may be convinced of the Canon of the Old Testament. Christ does frequently cite Moses and the Prophets; he appeals to them; and though he charged the Jews of that time, chiefly their teachers and rulers, with many disorders and faults, yet he never once so much as insinuated that they had corrupted their law, or other sacred books; which, if true, had been the greatest of all those abuses that they had put upon the people. Our Saviour cited their books according to the translation that was then in credit and common use amongst them. When one asked him which was the great commandment, he answered, How readest thou? And he proved the chief things relating to himself, his Death and Resurrection, from the prophecies that had gone before; which ought to have been fulfilled in him: he also cites the Old Testament, by a threefold division of the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms; according Luke xxiv. to the three orders of books into which the Jews had 44. divided it. The Psalms, which was the first among the holy writings, being set for that whole volume, St. Paul says, that to the Jews were committed the oracles of God: Rom. iii. 2. he reckons that among the chief of their privileges, but he never blames them for being unfaithful in this trust; and it is certain that the Jews have not corrupted the chief of those passages that are urged against them to prove Jesus to have been the Christ. So that the Old Testament, at least the translation of the LXX Interpreters, which was in common use and in high esteem among the Jews in our Saviour's time, was, as to the main, faithful and uncorrupted. This might be further urged from what St. Paul says concerning those Scriptures which Timothy had learned of a child; these could be no other than the books of the Old Testament. Thus if the writings of

VI.

ART. the New Testament are acknowledged to be of divine authority, the full testimony, that they give to the books of the Old Testament, does sufficiently prove their authority and genuineness likewise. But to carry this matter yet further:

Moses wrought such miracles both in Egypt, in passing through the Red Sea, and in the wilderness, that if these are acknowledged to be true, there can be no question made of his being sent of God, and authorised by him to deliver his will to the Jewish nation. The relation given of those miracles represents them to be such in themselves, and to have been acted so publicly, that it cannot be pretended they were tricks, or that some bold assertors gained a credit to them by affirming them. They were so publicly transacted, that the relations given of them are either downright fables, or they were clear and uncontested characters of a prophet authorised of God. Nor is the relation of them made with any of those arts that are almost necessary to impostors. The Jewish nation is all along represented as froward and disobedient, apt to murmur and rebel. The laws it contains, as to the political part, are calculated to advance both justice and compassion, to awaken industry, and yet to repress avarice. Liberty and authority are duly tempered; the moral part is pure, and suitable to human nature, though with some imperfections and tolerances which were connived at, but yet regulated and for the religious part, idolatry, magic, and all human sacrifices were put away by it. When we consider what remains are left us of the idolatry of the Egyptians, and what was afterward among the Greeks and Romans, who were polite and well constituted as to their civil laws and rules, and may be esteemed the most refined pieces of heathenism, we do find a simplicity and purity, a majesty and gravity, a modesty with a decency, in the Jewish rituals, to which the others can in no sort be compared.

:

In the books of Moses, no design for himself appears; his posterity were but in the crowd, Levites without any character of distinction; and he spares neither himself nor his brother, when there was occasion to mention their faults, no more than he does the rest of his countrymen. It is to be further considered, that the laws and policy appointed by Moses settled many rules and rights that must have perpetuated the remembrance of them. The land was to be divided by lot, and every share was to descend in an inheritance; the frequent assemblies at Jerusalem on the three great festivals, the sabbaths, the new moons,