BIFDIM T.TST APR 1 5 1924,
A Defence of the
Canon of the Newt*
L
iWttNftfcM^lMMMMa^ -—***»
K. A N b
HISTORICAL ACCOUNT,
AND
DEFENCE,
O F T H E
CANON
• ' -i-«iu
O F T H E
In Anfwer to A MI NT 0^
The weaker- fight ed ever look too nigh ;
But their Dijfutes the Sacred Page make good :
As doubted Tenures, which long Pleadings try,
Authentick grow ', ly being much withftood.
By Sir William
in Gondib.
LONDON
Printed by J. Darby, for Jonathan Robinfon at the
Golden Lion in St. Paul's Church- yard, and Andrew
Bell at theGrofs-Keys and Bible in Cmvhil. M.DGC.
•riS-fi
i-l *.f
. t
(55
A N
HISTORICAL ACCOUNT^
AND
D E F E N C E,
OFT H E
Canon of the New Teftament.
SIR,
AT the Suggeftion of a Learned
Friend $ I am about to anfwer
to a Book, .AmyvUr^ dedicated,
to very formidable Patrons. For
in his Title Page, the Author makes this
addreis.
Di quibus imfermm Animarum eft^ Z m-
Et Chaos, & rPhlegcthot?i loco, vo&e tacen-
tia late 5
Sit wihi fas audita, loqni : Jit Numuie
veftro,
TPandere res aha terra* & caligme
A 3 We
6 A "Defence of the Canon
We may Englifli it, thus.
Ye Gods and Ghofts of Hell, to Human
fight
Not yet reveal'd, and thou whole Realm
of Night,
Proteft me 5 that I fafely may relate
The blackgr Secrets of our Church, and
State.
There will not want thofe, who will fay
hereupon : From praying, to the Holy Vir
gin, and the Saints 5' Amyntor is improved^
into invoking the Devil and his Angels.
They will (ay, he is the firft, that ever pub
licly put hirnfelf, under fuch a Protection.
That however, a Book directed againft the
Sacred Ganon, would not eafily find other
Patrons: So that this Extravagance of the
Author, was as much the Effeft, of Necef.
fity 5 as of Inclination, In fhort, I wifti,
he had not given occafion to his Adverfa-
ries, to jeftuponhim} for what (I believe)
was not defign, but obreption and over-
fight.
In the firft place, he prefents us with a
Catalogue of Antient Books, and other
Writings 3 concerning which, he is of a
different (and contrary) mind3 in divers
parts of his Book.
b/ tie New Teflament*. ?
Sometimes, he feems to complain, that
we do not receive 'em into the Canon of
the New Teftament$ there being (accord
ing to him) the fame Reafbns to admit, or
to exclude them, a&for the Gofpels, Epiftler,
and other yVritings of our Canon, Name
ly, that fo many of em were Cited by the
Fathers, as Scripture 5 and the reft, by very
confiderable Parties of Chriftians: which
(he faith again) is as much as can be alledg-
ed, for any of the Books of our Canon $
and more than can be truly faid, for divers
of them. But otherwhile, he fpeaks to this
Effect : That they are the Forgeries, partly
of zealous Bigots 5 who were follicitous to
provide thefe Crutches, for lame Chriftia-
nity : and partly of fome Heathen?, that
were tickl'd with the pleafure of impofing
on the (known) fimplicity, and credulity,
of the firft Chriftians 3 who were wonf'to
(wallow any Book as Divine Revelation,
if it had but a great many Miracles, fprinkled
with a few good Morals,
He hath difpofed thefe Books, under the
following TitleSj and Diftin&ions/
I. Books, reported to be written by Chrift
himfel^ or that particularly concern him.
His Letter, in anfwer to that of ^4bgaru^
King of Edeffa. A Letter to Peter and P<wl.
A 4 His
I A Defence of the Canon
Hi? Parables and Sermons. A Hymn, which
he Iccretly taught to his Apoftles and Difci-
ples, A Book of the Magic of Chrift $ if it
be not the fame with the Epiftle to Peter and
P<rtf/, A Book of the Nativity of our Sa
viour, of the Holy Virgin his Mother, and
lier Midwife. But he believes, this laft is the
fame with the Go(pel of J amet*
II. By the Virgin Mary, or concerning
her. Her Epiftle to Ignatius. Her Letter
to the Inhabitants of ^Mejfina. Her Book
concerning the Miracles of Chrift, and the
Ring of King Solomon. A Book of the Na
tivity of the Virgin Maty, and another of
Jjer Peatb,
III. By St. Peter. Peer's Gofpel,
Revelation, Do&rine, Judgment, Preach
ing, Liturgy, Itinerary 5 being fo many fe
ver d Books: but the laft, he thinks, is 'the
fame with the Recognitions of St. Clement $
wherein we have a very particular account
of Peter's Voyages and Performances. An
of JP^/er to Clement,
IV. By St. dndnw* His Golpel,
Y- By St. James. A liturgy, and GoG
f d« His Bopk cqncernipg the Death of thfi
% Virgin
oftto New Teftamentl p
Virgin Mary, but there are Reafons (he
faith) to believe, John was author of it, not
VI. By St. John. His Afts, Liturgy, Iti
nerary, and Traditions. Another Gofpel,
different from ours. His Book of the Death
of the Virgin Mary 5 mentioned twice al
ready.
VII. By St. Philip. The Gofpel of Philip,
the Afts of Philip.
VIII. By St. ^Bartholomew. A Gofpel
|X. By St. Thorns. A Gofpel, Ads, Re
velation, and Itinerary 3 as alfb a Book of
the Infancy of Chrift,
X. By St. ^Matthew. A Liturgy, There
js alfo another by
£1. By St.Thadd<tus. A Gofpel.
XII. By St, Matthias. A Gofpel, and
Traditions,
XIII. By St. Paul Paul's Revelation,
and Preaching > his Anabaticon, and Narra
tive concerning the charming of Vipers.
His Epiftle to the Laodicean^ his Second
io A ^Defence of tie Canon
Epiftle to the £phefans$ his Third to the
Thejjalonians^ and (^again) to the Corinthi
ans 3 his Gofpel. His Epiftles to Seneca 5
his Afts. The A<2s alfo of Paul and Thecla.
XIV. Other Gofpels and Remarkable
Books. The prophetical Gofpel of Eve,
the Gofpel of the Twelve Apoftles, the
Gofpels of the Hebrews and the Egyptians 5
the Gofpel of Judas I/carrot. The Books
of jiddm^ the Prophecy of Enoch 3 the Re
velation, and Aftrology of Abraham. The
Teftament of the twelve Patriarchs, the
Aflumption of Mofes^ the Book of Eldad
and Medad, the Pfalms of King Solomon^
the Vifion of Ifaiah, the Revelation of Ze-
chary.
XV. Some other general Pieces. The
Apoftles Creed. The Do&rine of the ApoP
des, there are, befides, Doftrines attributed
to every one of the Apoftles fingly, and
alfo to their Companions and immediate
Succeffors. The Doctrines of the twelve
Apoftles compoftd (by them) with the
aiiiftance of St. *PauL The Canons and
Confutations of the Apoftles. The A&s of
the Apoftles, written by themfelves. The
Gofpel of Perfection 3 the Precepts of Pe-
fer and Taul. The Itinerary of all the
Apbftles, as well as of every one of them
fingly, was formerly extant. XVI.
of the New Teftamentl i §
XVI. Writings of the Companions and
Difciples of the Apoftles. The Epiftles of
Clemens Tfymanus to the Corinthians 5 his
Recognitions, Decretals, and other Pieces
bearing his Name. The Epiftles of Ignatius.
An Epiftle of^Pofycarp to the T^hilippians^
with his other Writings: the Afts of the
Martyrdom of Ignatius^ and of polycarp.
The Paftor of Hermas, an Epiftle of Barna
bas ^ the works of Dionyfitu ^freopagita: an
Epiftle of Marcellus (Difciple of Peter)
to Nereis and Achilleus: his Treatife of the
con Sift of Peter and Simon Magus. The
Life of St. John^ by Prochortts 5 the Petition
of Veronica to Herod, on behalf of Chrift 5
the Paffion of Timothy, by Polycrates 5 the
Paffion of Pe/er and TW, in two Books,
by Linus. Two Epiftles of Martial of Lf-
w^»5 his Life by ^fnreliams: the Gofpel
of y^icodemns 5 the Hiftory of the Apofto-
lical Conflia, by Abdikt^ the Paffion of St.
Andrew, by the Presbyters of Achaia. The
Epiftle of Svoditts, entituled the Light '5 the
Altercation of Jafon and P^7^/: the Afts
of r/^/9 compofed by Zena companion of
Paul: with a multitude of other Afts and
Paffions. The Gofpel of Barnabas^ the Paf
fion of Barnabas: the Epiftles ofjofephof
Arimathea, to the Britain/.
' .» "i; -•' '
XVJL
II A Defence of the Canon
XVH. Pieces alledged in favor of Chrifti-
anity, which were forged under the names
of Heathens. The works of Trifotegijlus,
and Afclepins^ the Books of Zoroafler^ and
Hipafpes, Kings in the Orient 3 the Sifyllin
Oracles. A Letter of Pontius 'Pilate, to
Tiberius 3 the fpeech of Tiberius •, to the Se
nate : the Epiftle of Lentulus, giving a De-
fcription of the Perfon of Chrift. The E-
piftles or Orders of ^ddrian, Antoninus Pius,
and M. Aurelins, in favor of the Chriftians 3
extant in Jujiin Martyr.
Upon this Catalogue, and from it, Amyn-
tor makes divers ( marvellous ) Remarks,
and Inferences 5 to this effeft. The Anti-
ents reckned the Paftor of tttrmas , the
Epiftles of Barxabas, of Polycarp and Clemens
Remanu^ to be as good, as any part of the
New Teftament. And \f^ faith He again,
thefe pieces are not Impoftures^ but were
really theirs, whofe name they bear: why
are they not received into the Canon of
Scripture 3 the Authors of them having
been the Companions and Fellow-laborers
of the Apoftles, as well as St. Mn-^and St.
Lukf .<? If this quality was fufficient, to in-
title the two latter to Infpiration^ why
ihould it not do as much f >r the two firft?
And if this be not all the reafon 3 pray, let
us
of the New Teftament. i j
us know the true one : for / never heard of
any other. 'The fecond Epiftleof Peter ^ the
Epiftles of James and Jude, the fecond and
third of John, the Epiftle to the Hebrew^
and the Pvevelation, were not approved as
Canonical 5 till after the time of Eufebius*.
therefore, why may not we alfo eftablifh
the Epiftles of Clemens^ and of Barnabas 3
if indeed they be theirs? jj
It may be, faith our ^fttthor, all the Books
( particularly, all the Gofpels ) in the fore
going Catalogue, were not (purious or forg
ed 3 but rather, Genuine, and of right be
longing to the Canon of Scripture : as in
the dark Ages of Popery, divers Books
were added to the Bible 3 fo in the no lefi
ignorant firft Ages of Chriftianity, other
Books might be taken from it 5 becaufe they
did not fute with all the Opinions of the
ftrongeft fide. How many true, or falfe
Gofptls were extant in Lukes time, God
knows: but that there were feveral, may
be inferred from his own words. ** Many
" have taken in hand, to fet forth a decla-
c ration of thole things, which are believed
c among us 3 as they delivered 'era to us,
: who (from the beginning) were Eye*
" witneffes, and Minifters of the WORD.
1*1$ i. i, 2, 3,
Several Books (particularly Gofpels) of
the before-recited Catalogue, were quoted
by
14 A Defence of tfo
by the moft celebrated Fathers, fays Amyn*
tor 5 to prove important Points of the Chri£
tian Religion : and this Teftitnony of thofe
Fathers, was the principal Reafon, of our
putting the Gofpels and Epiftles, that are
now approved and received, into the prefent
Canon. Enfebius reje&s the Afts, Gofpels*
Preaching, and Revelation ofTPeter^ be-
caufe no Antient nor Modern Writer, fays
he, has quoted proofs out of them : on the
fame account, he rejefts alfo the Gofpels of
Thomas, Matthias 5 and fuch like $ as alfo the
Afts of Andrew^ John, and other Apoftles,
as fpurious. But herein Eufebius was mit
taken 5 as appears, fays our Author y?/7/, by
the Teftimonies I have citedTj Had £.ufebius
found any of Thefe Pieces, alledged by pre*
cedent Orthodox Writers 5 he would have
owned them as part of the Scripture-Canon :
but I have fhown, proofs were quoted out
of feme of them j fo that they may ftill be
long to the Canon, for all Eufebiut.
It is certain, fo he goes off 5 the Epiftle to
the Eebnwsi the Epittles of James and Jude,
thefecond and third ofjohn^ the ftcond of
Pe/er, and the Revelation^ were doubted by
the foundeft of the Ancients; and yet are
received by the Moderns f7 1 fay therfore?
by more than a parity of reafbn, the
Preaching and Revelation of Peter were
received by the Antients, and ought not to
be
of the New Teftamtnt. \ 5
be rejected by the Moderns, if the appro
bation of the Antients (or Fathers) be a
proper recommendation of Books.
The Council of Laodicea, convened about
the year 360, is the firft Affembly in which
the Canon of Scripture was eftablifht. In
fuch a variety of Books, they could not
determine which were the trjie Monuments
of the Apoftles$ but either by a particular
^velation, of which we hear not a word 5
or by the Teftifftony of their Predeccffors ^ I
have the fame Teftimony, for the Books I
defend. He means, for the Preaching and
Revelation of Peter, the Paftqr of Hermas^
the Epiftle of Barnabas 5 and divers Gof-
pels.
He wifhes, fbme qualified Perfbn would
endeavor, to extricate the erroneous out of
thefeand fuch like difficulties 5 that we may
difcover, by (bme infallible marks, in fuch
an extraordinary number of Books (all of
them equally pretending to Divine Origin)
which of them are the proper Rule: left we
unhappily miftake a falfe one, for the true.
He tells us again, jthe Philofopher Cdfns
exclaims againft the liberty which Chriftians
had taken, of changing the firft Writing
of the Gofpel, three or four, or more
times 5 that fo they might deny whatfoever
was urged againft them, as retraced before.
The MaftiMees, a very considerable Seel,
(hewed
i 6 A Defence of the Cdnoti
(hewed other Scriptures 5 and denied the*
Genuinnefs of the whole New Teftament:
particularly Fanftus (a Manufoe) com
plains, the TeftatMettt of the ^on is corrupted,
by obfctire Perfons, who have put the
Names of the Apoftles and their Succeffors,
to falfe Gofpels, that are full of Miftakes,
and of contraditfory Relations and Opini
ons. After the deceafe of Chrift and the
Apoftles, fays the Manickee^ a Fett of Half-
Jews picked up (from Fame and flying Re
ports) a great many Lies and Errors 3 which
thej alfo publifhed, under the names of the
Apoftles, and of thofe that fiicceeded thenii
Add to all this, that 5 the Ebionites or Na-
toarens, who were the oldeft Chriftians, had
a different Copy (from ours) of St. Mat
thew's Gofpel. The iMarcionites read the
Gofpel of St. Luke very diverfly from us}
the Gofpel of Sr. John was attributed to
Cerinthusi all the Epiftles of Paul were
denied by fbme, a different Copy (hown of
them by othersTj It would be commendably
done, he fays, to prevent the Mi(chievous
Inferences, which Hereticks may draw from
all this 3 and to remove the Scruples of
doubting, but fincere Chriftians 2 as for his
own part, if he is in any fault about th^e
matters, it is not too rtmch Incredulity } but
that, it may be, he believes more Scripture
Ihtn his Adverfaries. He gives hopes,, he
Wifl
of the NeW Ttftammti 17
write a Hiftory of the Canon of Scrip
ture 5 the faireft, riay the only one of the
kind, that ever was penned. t
He concludes with an extraft, as he faith,
out of Mr. Dodml$ to thi£ purpofe. The
Books of the New Tdftanient lay hid in
the Archives of <Jhurbhes3 and Desks of
private Perfons 5 to whom they were writ
ten: till the latter end of the Reign of
the Emperor Trajan, or rather of Adrian $
that is, till about the year aftfer Chrift 130-
Even the latter Evangelifts had not feen the
Golpels of the forriiei* , elie St. Luke would
never have given fiich a different Genealo
gy of our Saviour, from that by St. Mat-
thew^ without the reafori bf fo wide a dip.
fent : nor would there be found in the other
Evangeliits fo marly apparent contradictions^
as have harafled the Wits of Learned Mep,
slmoft fince the firft conftitut'ion of the
Canon, St. lJtk$ plainly intimates that, the
Evangelifts and Gofpels he had feen, wer^
not furnifht with the relations th^y make,
by Eye-witnefles 3 as himfelf was. We have
dt this day, fays Mr. Dodml^ fbme writings
of Ignatius^ Poljcarp) Hernias^ Barnabas^ Cle~
mens Ro manus $ thefe V^ere latet than the
other Writers of the NevV Teftamerit, ex-
ifept Jvde and John : and yet Herwas cites
nothing out of the New Teftament $ nor in
a!! the refl^ are any of the Evangdifts nam-
B fcd*
1 8 A Defence of the Caribii
ed. If they cite any paflages, like to thofe
we read in our preient Gofpels 5 they are
withal fo unlike, that it cannot be known,
whether they are alkdged out of ours, or
fome Apocryphal Gofpels: they cite alfo
Paffages which are not in the prefent Go£
pels. Nay, we cannot fay from thofe Ca*
tionical Books that were laft written, that 5
the Church knew any thing of the Gofpels,
or that the Clergy made -a common ufe of
them-, 1 We can't tell, whence St. Paul had
that moral Aphorifm of our Saviour $ which
he quotes, ASs 20. 35. Jn thofe early times*
the true Writings of the Apoftles ufed to
be bound up, together with thofe now cal
led Apocryphal and Spurious % that it Was not
tnanifeft, by any mark or public Cenfure of
the Church, which of tjiem ftiould be pre
ferred to the other.
Upon this judgment made by Mr. food-
frel, Amjntor fays =» he agrees with Mr. Dod-
foelt as to. matter of Fa ft. And he fhnts
np allj with adding, that 5 whofoever has
an inclination to write on this Subjefi, is
How furnifht with a great many curious DiC-
qaifiiions^ whereon to fliow his Penetra^
tion, and Judgment Asjjiow the immedi
ate Sudcefibrs and Difciples of the Apoflles^
could fo grofly confound the genuine Writ
ings of their Matters; with fuch as are falily
ftitttbutid to them? And if they were in
ihtf
if the NeW fcfanienti t $
the dark about thefe matters, in tHofe early
times } How came th£ following Ages by 3
better Light? Why all thole Books, whicfci
arc cited by Clemens Alex&ndrinHf^ and
the reft, fhould not be accounted equally
authentic $_ And laftly, \frhdt ftrefi can we
lay, on the Writings of thofe Fathers |
Who not only contradid one another, but:
are alfo inconfiftent with themfelves, iri
their relations of the very fame Fafts ?
The whole amounts, to thus much. , " The
<c Books we ndw own as Canonical, were
" never feen$ till about r%8 years aftei'
u Chrift: and when they appeared, 'twad
not poffible to diftirigiiifll them^ but by
foriie Revelations frotii Apocrypha! Oof-
pels and Epiftles, which bore the nanie^
(as thefe do) of the Apoftles and theid
Synergifts. From the earl'ieft times,; con*
^ trary Copies of them were (bown5 and
5S not one of theni but was fejed:ed3 by
€c confiderable and potent Parties of Chrife
*c tians: the tery Parties thdt deceived
^ them, have changed era three or fourj
<; or more times^ that they inight be at li-
J berty, to a'ffirm or deny, as prefent Exi-,
" gencelhould require, The Figments of
" Htrtnas^ the Tra(h of B&natittj and
^c others fuch like, have an equal right to i
^ place in the Canon of Scripture 5 Withi
*" the Gofpels of M^r^and JL//4* The
B i
i o A Defence of tie fonon
" thority and Credit of both, and of all the
" other Canonical and Extra- canonical Writ-
" ings, depending, on the Quotations made
<c from them, by Sn Ireneus, Clemens Alexan-
" drinus^ Origen^ and one or two more of
" the Antients : and on their having been
" Contemporaries and Coadjutors to the
c* Apoftles. And Co in few words, Friends^
bonas noQes to the Chriftian Religion. Our
Author however, that we may not forget
to do him that right, is a compleat Gentle
man : tho he has us, and our Canon, at
thefe Advantages } he faith, He wiU deter
mine nothing^ but faff end his Judgment. P.
58.
On
of tie New Tefldmmt. % i
On the C A T A L o G u E
in general
THE Catalogue, by Amyntor^ is con-
fiderable on divers accounts :
At it is pretty Perfeff, He has omitted
but few, of thofe Antient Pieces $ and not
fo often miftaken, as fome others, the feve-
ral and like Titles of the fame Book, for (e-
veral and diftinft Books.
And, as it naturally gives one, a gnat Idea
of the Chriftian Religion. By informing us
of (b many Perfons that wrote Gofpels, Afts,
Revelations, Liturgies, Itineraries, Martyr
doms 5 either on their own knowledg, or
on credible report made to them : and
which have not been loft on any other ac
counts, but fuch as are common to things
Valuable, and Great in their kind. Such
as, the Deluge of (an immenfe) time, al-
inoft 1700 years 3 the abfolute Certainty, and
apparent Sufficiency, of the Gofpels, Ads,
£piftle§> &c. which (on thofe accounts)
the Church has preferved, and contents her
felf with them.
And laftly, As nothing can be objeded to it,
, 0r inferred from it 3 but what in fuch a cafe a
B man
5 1 A Defence of the Canon
%ta& (of arty Experience or Prudence J would
certainly expert. Namely that, in (b impor
tant and various a Subjeft, there would be
fome more X^riter? and Writings $ than the
extreme Caution of the Catholic Church,
Would intirely approve: and even that fome
Ifriflers, and Irjipoftors, would intermit and
intrude themfelves, among the approved
find well-meaning. It will be requisite, to
enlarge a little, on thefe general Reflefti-
1 •- i: ' .> 4* ' y~~ • ; ' '*'' •< v ' •' ?
Thatj the Catalogue is indifferent perfe$9
I grant. However, (bme Books (and other
\Yritings) are omitted 5 and others, never
really extant, or pretended to be extant,
added. For inftance ; under the frj$
1, or of Books afcribed to our
that fanimlarly concern Urn 4 thefe
^verlopkt.
' A Book by St. M*tt tew, dittin^: from
that by Thomas^ concerning the Infancy of
pur Saviour 5 being the Hiftory of his
younger Years. *T}s very antieat 5 for it
ftathforne Paffages, that are alfb mentioned
by St, Irexcw: and whicb, he feitb, were
|n the Books fhown by the Vdlentinians .
A Letter of our Saviour 5 that fell downi
from Heaven : it being indeed an Epiftle, for
ged by a certain notable Enthufiaft, a frzncfa
Bsfhop^ whoforthis, and fome other fuch-
like Facis, v/as deprived and put to penance,
of tie New Teftamenf. 3 j?
by a Council aflembled at Rome, An. 745.
The Letter however was kept in the Librar
ry of the Roman Church, by order of Pope
Zechary.
A Liturgy of our Saviour 3 received as
his, by the Ethiopians ; it was brought out
of the Orient, by Father J.Vanfkbws^ who
promifes alfo to publiffi it at Paris, together
with other rare Ethiopic Pieces. But Lu~
dolphus, in his Ethiopic Hiftory and Com*
mentary, gives the true Account of this Li
turgy.
As to TSw^f added, under the fame Head |
Amyntor miftakes whefy as from Eufebius%
he attributes to our Saviour a Book^of Para-^
ties and Sermons. For, on the contrary,
ihele Proverbs and Doffrmes (as Eitfcuhis
calls them) were all of them only Traditi
onal: they were Doftrines and Proverbs
that Tafias (BiQiop ofHierapol/s) had heard
from (bme Perfons, that they were fpoke
and taught by Jefiis Chrift 3 but they never
were committed to writing, as a particular
Book3 by any body, The Millennium^ c£
thoufand-years Reign^ w;as onq of thefe
Traditional Doftrmes. ' ^
I oblerve alfo that, jAmyrior very oftea
Confirms the Books of his Catalogue, by
witneis of Authors who never mention any
fuch Book %or Books $ but only are thought
by fon^ and that not very probably* to
1 4 A Defence of the Canon
allude to them, or to have made ufe of
them. When he gives us that tron-fuch
Hiftory of the Scripture- Canon, I hope,
he will oftner himfelf ccnfolt the Anthors he
cites ^ and left truft to the References of
others : elfe it will be far from meriting the
praifes, he has before-hand given to it.
I incline to think, the Books wrote by
the Apoftles? their Contemporaries, and
Synergiftsj are vaftly more than Amyntor^
pr any other now, can give us the Titles,
or other Traces of them : St. Ireneus calls
them. Lib. i. c. 17. In-enarrabilem ntultitu-
dinem Apocrypkwum 5 an innumerable multi
tude of Apocryphal Books. ] For we are no,t
to confider all Authors and Books as Apocry
phal •-) that are cenfur'd, under thofe names,
by Ireneus : I am of opinion, we may apply
to St. Jreneus 5 arguing againft the Gvoftics9
Vdlentimans, and other Antient Se&s and
Books, that platonized too much 3 what,
C. RhodigitiHs (Lett, ^dntiq. §. i. C. 12.)
fays of LactantiuS) and the Platonifts. Ea9
qu£ fllvelatis traduntur ftguris, a Platonlcis 5
tiec niji .JHegoricis enarrationibtis inteUigenda :
ifte fit fiMpliciter dififa accepzt. Qblitus.> nun*
quam fnturum PlatQmcum^ qui ncn putet P/a-
lonent attegorke intelligendum. " What the
* Platonifts have delivered in dark, and
u figurative expreffions^ and muft not be
^ interpreted, but only in the Allegorical
* " way:
of the New Teftament^. i j
*c way: that, he has underftood, asfpoken
«6 direftly, and absolutely} forgetting, or
<c not knowing that, a man (hall never be a
*c Platonift, who imagines Plato is to be
*' taken, not alk gorically, but literally.
But this great number of A&s, Gofpels,
Itineraries, Revelations, &c. as I faid, be
fore they give Authority, and Luftre, to the
Chriflian Religion. As we came hereby to
underftand, it was an extraordinary Fi*
gure that Chriftianity made in the World,
at its very firft appearance. It (hould feem,
men thought; they had never wrote enough
Concerning it: its admirable Morals, the
Miracles of its Author and other firft Preach-
ers of it, its Revelations and Prophecies,
verified by almoft an immediate completi
on, did (b convince and affeft 'em} that
they even filled the world with their ao
pounts of thefe things, under the names of
A8s^ Revelations, Itineraries, Epiftles, Gof
pels, Martyrdoms, Liturgies, Precepts, Recog
nitions, Injiitutions, Oracles, and fomemore.
Tis of fome of thefe, that St, Lukg Ipeaks
in the firft Verfes of his Gofpel. He meant
not the Gofpel of John\ for 'tis agreed on
all hands, John wrote his Qofpel long after
the other tvangelifts, and to fupply (bme
of their Omiffions. That he did not intend,
only Matthew and Markj> who indeed
wrote before him 3 may be inferred from
A "Defence of the Canon
his own words, when he fays. cc Not, TIV\^
,*6 feme, one or two^ but noAAc/, MANY
*c hav£ taken in hand to fet forth a Decla-
*c ration of thofe things, that are moft fure-
^ ly believed among iis$ even a? they de-
*6 liverecj them unto us, who from the' be*
*6 girnifa% tyeYe Bje-n>ittteffef, and Minifters
?' of th6;WOElD.
Amjniey and M. Bodwel believe St. i^
doth not fpeak of the\0ofpels of Johri9
^Matthew and M^r^S they fuppofe, he had
tidt fo much as feen any of thoie Gofpels,
But what is in their mind/ to tell us that 5
^ Luke plainly intimates, the Authors of
** the Gofpels which he had feen, had con-
•M fulted neither any Perfons that had been
u Eye-witMejfes ^ nor fb much as thofe who
cc had Teen or fpoke with any fuch: and
*** that on thrfe Accounts, the Credit of
*c thofe Gofpels, is fufpeded and dubious.
For St. Lukgy as before quoted, exprefly
lays 5' the Authors by him intended, had
wrotie concerning our Saviour, his Miracles
and Dodnne3 juft in the manner as they
delivered the'tit to us^ who from the beginning
wre E^vjttnejjes. He could not poffibly
fcave giyinri more ample Teftimony3 ^ithe^
to their fidelity, or their Accuracy,
In acdOtinting for the Reafoos, why the(e
Books are loft 5 too many People have learn-
led to fpeak With intolerable Effro^ry,
'
of 1 be New Teftamentl
Profanity. I will firft give the true Rea-
fons, of fo great a lofss and then examine
the fcurrilous Conjectures of fome, who
glory in their (hame.
In general 5 " I could never wonder*
# we have loft fo many of the Apoftolic
fc Writings, and other Antient (impdrt-
?4 ant) Monuments of the Chriftian Religi-
tc on 5 fince I took notice, We have loft
<c alfo the very beft Books of the Antients,
? in all parts of Learning and Science.
In Philofophy $ to the times of our Savi-
pur, we have almoft nothing left to u%
but the Works of Plato and AriJIotI?: the
Jeaft valuable, it may be, of all the Anti-
ents. The Philofophy of ^rijloth being
Jittle elfe, but fome dry Definitions 5 that
give no light to the Natures of things : and
lhat of Plato9 fuch a futility 13 Philofophy,
as Behwenifw in Religion and Chriftianity 3
even a Rspfody of fome Myftical (or Non-
tenfical) Terms, fprinkled here and there
ith a bright Thought, or lively Expreffion.
Of all the Philosophical Writers 3 face
r SdvioHr, there remain (in my prefent
remembrance) only two or three Platonift*
and Stoics, that were Greecs: by the Latins9
there are only (I think) fome Natural Quefti-
ons by §eveca 3 and a few moral Pieces by
the fame Setteca, and by M Cicero. Phi-
iofgphy was cultivated, above 700 years,
•5 , _. .*- •» —
ia
1 8 A Defence of the Canon
in JtS I A 3 as alfo in Egypt, Greece,
and moft other Provinces of £ V R 0 P
in AFRICA, from Cyrene to the Pillars
of Hercules and the Ocean, being one
of the Iqngeft trafts of Ground in the
World. It grew into fueh reputation, that
there were very many Academies 3 and an
incredible number qf Profeffors and Teachr
ers, divers of them in high efteem. But
few Perfons of the better fort, that did not
caufe their Children to be educated, in fome
of thefe Academies : even the principal No
bility, whether Greecs or Latins, after hav
ing bore the Chief Offices of the Common
wealth, did not diOain to learn Philofophy
in 'their years, if they had miffed it in their
youth 3 nay a Nobleman was not efteemed,
if he were not a competent Orator and
Philofopher. We may be affured therefore,
we have loft a prodigious multitude of Phi-
loibphical Books, in the feveral parts of Phi
lofophy ; wrote by the moft Eminent Maf-
ters, among the feveral Sefts : undoubtedly
it was then, as now, a cuftomary things
that, famous Profeffors wrote fomething,
more or Ids, either led by their own Incli
nation, or by occafion of fome Provocati-
*9n, or perfwaded by their Scholars and 'Ad
mirers. Who (as I faid but now) were
all the Nobility 3 and all Perfons of Diftinc-
tion, whether for Wealth or Wit,
The
T
of the $ew Teftciment* i p
The like may be (aid of Authors, and
Books, concerning Aftronoray, Aftrology,
Divination, Magic, Geometry, Mechanics,
Medicine , Anatomy , Botanies, Poetry ,
Painting, Architecture, Statuary, the Origin
and Rites of the Paganic Religions 5 Hifto-
ry, both Natural and Civil. AmyniorMvm-
felf fomewhere puts us in mind, what is the
Damage in the Hiftorical part of Learning.
u The lofs, fays fo, of fo many Decads of
w the Roman Hiftoriographer, T. Livius^ is
" alone as much to be regretted 5 as if alt
" the Fathers had mifcarried. 'Tis eafy to
guefs the Reafon, He was a Heathen^ and
they were Christians. But we fee however,
by all this 3 that, the mere force, or edacity
of time, bears away, 'or devours the tnoft
excellent Inftances of Human Induftry> and
Wit : that we ought not to marvel/ if we
have not (till <?//, or even had not the frmci-
pal Labors, of the Apoftles, and ApoOolical
men. If Amyntors Catalogue of Books,
fome of them once reverenced by the Church,
and now loft, 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 Chriftianityy
as abounding only with Fables and Impol-
tures. There being, we have feerr, no part
of Learning (tho never ib ufeful and ne-
edTary, or fo curious and diverting $) but
ftas
P Z efence
has differed extremely, by the lo(s of foriie
excellent Books and Authors^ nay of moft
fuch Authors and Books.
I believe alfo, " The unqueftionable O-
*6 thodoxyi the yielded certainty, or genti-
*' innefi*) and apparent fujfltiency, of the
** prefent Scripture-Canon, were great Oc-
*6 cafi.^ns that the Books in the Catalogue,
*' fell (gradually) into dif-ufe, and were
*c afterwards loft.
As to the fujficieiity of the Books of tha
Canon 5 I mean, of all them taken to
gether 5 it fe (elf-evident. For they con
tain, a (repeated) Abrogation of the Afo-
faic Law^ fofar as 'tis Ritual and Judicial 5
a compleat Syftem, of Morals ^ the Hiftory
bf the Parentage, Conception, Birth, Ml-
tacles, Doftrine, Death, Refurfedion, and
Afcenfion of our Saviour: the defcent of
the Holy Spirit on the Apoftles, their Di
vine Infpiration, and Miraculotis Powers 5
their Epiftles^ to private Perfons, to Chur-
thes, and Nations 5 in which they ofteri
(profefledly) repeat the Subftante of the
Chriftian Religion, as well in what refpefif s
Faith as Manners. In ihort, a man cannot
tead thefe Books, without moft plainly per
ceiving, that $ they are fuch an Account
of the Religion they teaehj as needs nd
Supplement
e/ tie l$ew Teflamentl i tf
Their Genuinnefs, and Orthodoxy 5 or that
they are the very Books of the Authors
whofe names they bear, and are true Repre*
fentations of the Dodirines of Chriftianity
as delivered to ike Churches by the firft ( Mi
raculous) Preachers? this is inferred^ with
abfolute certainty, from their reception by all
thofe Churches, as fuch 5 and that thefe, ra
ther than the Books of the Catalogue '(tho
divers of them^lfo were highly valued}
have been preferved.
If it be urgedi that^ fuppofing, a$ this
Anfwer does, the Books in the Catalogue
(tuoft of them, or fime of them) were
Orthodox, and Gemixe, and owned to b®
fuch by the Churches: 'tis much, they
Ihould be loft 5 and only the Books of the
prefent Canon preferved. Which have
been preferved, it feeras, for no other Rea-
fonss but what are commoe alfo to the
Books of the Catalogue: namely, 1 ecaufe
they are (undoubtedly) Orthodox, and
(certainly) Genuine,
I anfwer, tints the Books of the Cata
logue that are loft* or rejected, were not
fa certainly Germin, to alt the Churches 3
as thefe that are prefer ved^ and made parts
of the Canon. And as to the Orthodox^
tho that (as 4O many of them) was not
queftioned 3 yet the Book* not being fo
as to their Genuinnefi in all p^rts of
the
J i A Defence of the Qmoti
the Chriftian World, and therefore not
allowed as (unexceptionable) Evidences iri
the numerous Controversies that arofe iri
the Catholic Church 5 and the un-fufpefted
Books being abundantly fuffitient to ferve
the ends of Religion, in refpeft both of
Gontroverfy, and Inftitution iii manners:
the former (hereupon) almoft unavoid
ably began to be negledted, and in time
were loft $ and only the latter were kept.
We have now the advantages of Printing,
and of a ready Communication (by the
increafe of Trade, and Improvement of Na
vigation) between Nation and Nation:
the Antients wanted thefe helps 3 therefore
with them, a Book concerning the Chri
ftian Religion, if it were not publiftied
in Judea, or at Rome, of- in fome part of
Greece, or fome confiderable City of Afia^ it
might not coine to be known of a long
time 5 not vulgarly and generally known
in the Churches^ till the Evidences that it
was Genuine were all wholly loft, or become:
of but little Authority. The Books of our
prefent Canon, were immediately commu
nicated by the Churches, of Perfbns, to
whom they were written 3 unto all the
Famous Churches. Like Induftry was not
ufed, on behalf of the Books of the Cata
logue 5 therefore thefe laft were read only,
or chiefly, in the places ©f their Publication^
of the Nelb Teftamtnt. 3 3
and in the Churches to which they were
addrefled : and thus being long unknown
to the Churches, and Illuftrious Writers^
of other places 5 tho many of them were
approved as to their Dodrine and Ufeful-
neft, on which accounts they are often quo
ted by (thofe two, the moft Learned of
the Antenicen Fathers ) Siemens of Alexan
dria and Origen, yet they did not obtain
to be adopted into the Scripture- Canon ^
as not fo certainly the Works of Apoftles
and Apoftolical men, as thbfe that were
received for fiich every where^ and from the
beginning.
Farther, it may be divers Books of the
Catalogue, titled with the name of an Apof-
tie, of Synergift of the Apoftles* " were
" rejected (and in procefs of time, loft,)
cl for that very reafbn. It was fuppofed
that, the Book having to it a name of one?
of the Apoftles, or (bine Apoftolical Per-
ibn 5 therefore the Author claims to be that
Perfon, or that Apoftle: it might appear
however, by fome things in the Book it fel£
or by fotne Circumftances commonly knowQj
that the Author Was not the Apoftle, or
otherPerfon vulgarly thought to be defigned
in the Title ^ and hereupon the Book was
confider'd as a Forgery and Impofture, and
as wrote ( probably ) with fome difhoneft
Intention and Aim, But as now, fothen$ ancl
C then
34 d Defence of the Canon
then much more than nou>^ abundance of
People had the fame names with the Apof-
tles, and other firft Preachers : it may be,
mod Chriftians took thofe Names, either
at their Converfion, or Baptifiii. A Book
therefore, (fuppofe a Gofpel, Epiftles,
Ads,) might really be the Work of the
Author in the Tile-page, or elfwhere in
the Book 5 and yet in (bort time be reje&ed,
negle&ed, and finally loft, as an Impofture
and Forgery, on that falfe Jkppojlticw, that
the Author affeded to feem the Perfon that
he was not, and that (in truth) he never
pretended to be. This very thing hath cer
tainly hapned, in divers Works of the
Fathers 5 as well thofe of the fourth and
fifth Ages, and later, as thofe of the fecond
and third : and it might happen, I fay, in
divers Writings of the Catalogue that we
are considering.
I take thefc to be forne of the Caufes,
that To many Books of the Catalogue are
loft: Time 5 the Sufficiency of the Books
preferved 5 and that., fome of them came
not to general knowledg, till the Evidences
that they were Genuine, were not fo cer
tain. Thefe are fuch Reafons, and Occa-
fionsof it, that we cannot much wonder at
the misfortune of this (invaluable) Da
mage. And after this, 'tis but little to the
credit of thtir Judgment^ and lefs of their
Morals,
of the Nety Teftamnt,
Morals, that fome affed to guefs at the
Caufes of this Mifhap, in a fort that reflefts
on the Chriftian Religion } as if it had no
manner of certainty, and that we cannot
now (nor ever could) diftinguifh Fables
and Impoftures, from Authentic Monu
ments. If a man is difpofed, to employ his
Wit in fcurrilous Corijedures : he may
fay many things on fuch a Suhjed as this,
that fhall be loudly applauded by the Parti-
fans of Scepticifm a'nd Profanity 5 and that
will furprife the Superficial, tho they be
ferious and well-difpofed. But I maintain,
that 5 after we have difcovered fuch Rea-
fons of the lofs of thefe Books, as every
body muft allow that fome of them are cer
tain, and others of them are probable, and
all of them confident with the reverence
due to Religion: thole other (Sportive, or
Malevolent) Conjectures will be infifted
on, only by fuch as affed to be Infidels 5 or
that love to be vain, tho in a ferious and
weighty Subjed. And tho to convince fuch
People, is ( it may be ) an impoffible Task 5
it being fo 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* fatif-
fy the Indifferent, that 5 thofe Guefles are
not'&e refults of Judgment, but only of a
Fceptical, abufeful, prejudicate, and intere£
fed Par fiality and Vanity.
C 2 They
} 6 A Defence of the Qtnon
They tell us, thefe Books were not loft,
they were fuppreft^ becaufe they contained
ibme things, contrary to the Perfuafions of
the ftrongeft fide 5 which always calls it felf
the Church, .y;
Or, they were grofe, and lend Forgeries 5
compofed by the Enemies of Chriftians :
with defign only to make (port with a Crew
of Blockheads, that were always ready to
fwallcw any thing } never fo filly and ridi
culous 5 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 fought to magnify Chriftianity, by thefe
pompous Tales and Additions to it: the
true Apoftolic Writings being too imper-
feft, to raife in mens Minds any great appre-
henfions of the Chriftian Religion.
Yet left we (hould not by all this fully un-
derftand them, they are mindful and careful to
add, that } thefe Writings and Books how
ever were quoted, and reverenced by many
of the Antients or Fathers: and thatj no
more than this can be faid, on behalf of the
Books (of our Canon ) that are preferved ;
and 'not fo much, for divers of them. Or
more .in (hort^ the latter are not a rufli
better, or wifer, than the former: faving
only that, they have had the good IHC\ to be
) by Knaves 5 and magnifed^ by
Fool/.
of the New Teftament. % 7
Foils. Let us call over, and difcufs thefe
things.
The Books of the Catalogue were once
in reputation, in fome Places, and with
divers Learned Perfons } but they are now
partly loft, partly very much fufpe&ed as
not Genuin.
We anfwer. Seventeen hundred years,
the undeniable fufficiency of the Books
which are preferved, and that the Books of
the Catalogue were not timely communicated
to the principal Churches, are obvious and
probable Reafons, that Co many of 'em have
mifcarried, and the reft are of doubtful
Credit. Some People are pleafed to laugh
at this , and choofe rather to gueis, that, the
Books we talk of, have been either fuppreft
or flighted, becaufe they were not to the
tooth of the Jirongcft fide 5 or were the
Mock;Contfofitio»S) of Enemies-^ or the Holy
Cheats of Perlbns that fought to aggrandize
Chriftianity. That is, without ever having
leen theft Books 3 without having heard of
moft of them, under any other Character
by the Antients, than that they were kpown
but to few : they pronounce over them, in-
definitly, or without diftitJgnifiwg them 3 that,
they were lend Cheats, or fious Frauds, or
told fome datigtrous Tales that the political
and prevailing Party thought fit to fup-
prtfi.
<C 3 Who
} 8 A Defence of tfo Canon
Who fees not, thefe are Suppofitions that
a man may make at will, concerning any
Books that are loft 5 or any fuch Books,
that the Evidences of their being Genuin
and found, have mifcarried? but they are
men Conje&ures 3 and fuch as neither Cha
rity, nor Prudence, fuffers us to make,
when we have others that are extremely
probable, and fome of them certain.
I gave fome Infra nces before of Ma
thematical, Hiftorical, and Philofophical
Books 5 that are loft: there is no learned
Man that would approve of fiich a Judg
ment as this, concerning them 5 they have
perifht becaufe they were Trifles, or Itxpof-
tures, or (hot fome fuch Bolts, as the genera
lity ofwifir men could not away with. I leave
the matter with the indifferent, to judg of
it } as their Wir, and Honefty, ihall difpofe
cm.
I added, at our entrance into this Differ-
tation 5 " Nothing can be obje&ed to the
*; Catalogue, but what one would look for :
" that, in fo various a Subjeft, fome more
" Books are written, than the fevere fcru-
: tiny of the Catholic Church would ( ab~
*c folutely) approve $ and that^ fome Tri-
cc flers and Impoftors would perhaps be ex-
" erciiing their fhameful Talents, among
" the honeft and well-qualified. I meant
hereby, if we grant that mod or almoft all
of the New Teftament. 39
(or if you will, all) the Books of the Ca
talogue were Spurious 5 that they were
pious Frauds, or impious Cheats, or have
been fuppreft by the Jealoufy of the pre
vailing fide : it will not in the leaft affeft the
Scripture-Canon, or Chjiftian Religion 5
which are not the lefs true, or lefs certain,
becaufe there have been fome falfe Evange-
lifts, and falfe Pretenders to Revelation.
Infidelity and Profanity are hard put to it,
when their whole ftrength is reduced to
this: there have been fome filfe Evangelifts,
feigned Afa, Epiftles, Revelations 3 there
fore we have no certainty of any true Gof-
pels, Revelations, Epiftles or Ads. As if
they had faid} Lucius^ Awbrofe, md^rtfor,
were fabulous Rings of Britain^ and J*fffj
of Monmoutb has contrived a Britifh Chroni
cle, confifting chiefly of Tales of his own
devifing: therefore neither can we prove
Cajfibelan, CaraSacus, and Arviragtts, were
fometimes Kings in this Ifland. Or if you
will, thus 5 Ifldore Mercator publiftied a
Volume of Spurious Epiftles of Popes and
Biftiops, and Decrees of Councils : jfnnins
of Viterbmm fomewhile deceived every body,
with a Counterfeit Mttafthenes , a Berofits,
£Manetho and Philo. Therefore, we ought
not to think, there were ut all any fuch
Councils, Bifhops, and Popes 5 or a real
Mrtaftheues, &f'Berofits, Philo^ and hLnetho^
C 4 who
40 A Defence of the Canon
who were Learned and celebrated Writers
and Hiftorians. Why don't they alledg the
^flchoran too, as an Exception, and Objefti-
on to the Scripture Canon 5 and fay, be-
caufe one was an Impoftuye, fo muft the
other ?
Our Author feems to be aware, of fome
fuch Exceptions as thefe$ and therefore
makes fhort work with us, by intimating
(in a great many places) that 5 " The rea-
* font are the fame, why we Ihould rejeft,
* or receive the Catalogue, and (prefent)
| Scripture-Canon : as much may be faid
lC for, or againft one, as the other. We
will examine this 5 and the Pretences, witH
which 'tis fupported, very carefully.
of the Ntw Teftament". 41
Of the Ferity., and Certainty
of the Scriftwe-Canon.
I Shall reduce into the beft Method, and
moft natural Order that I can, what is any
way confiderable in our Author's Books
concerning the Scripture-Canon : difcuffing
every particular, as I recite or mention
it
From P. 69, to P. 79 3 he has a Quota
tion out of M. Dodml) to this (enfe. " The
" Books of the prefent Canon, lay conceal-
" edin the Coffers of particular Churches,
*c or of private Men $ £ the Churches and
" Mep to whom they were written] till
" the latter times of Trajan^ or rather of
" Adrian: [that is, till about 130 years
" after Chrift.] We are not to think that $
" the Writers of the New Teftament, knew
u any thing of the Gofpels, or other Books
" of the Canon, that were not wrote by
" themfelves5 or that, the Clergy made
" a Coinmon ufe, either of the one or
*• other. We have ftill fome Ecclefiaftical
u Writers, of thofe early times 5 Clemens
*' Romams , Barnabas^ Her mas , Ignatius,
*c and Polycarp : but in Hermas^ there is not
*f one paflage out of the New Teftament 3
* in
A "Defence of the Canon
66 in the reft, not any of the Evangelifts is
6C called by his Name, or is particularly
<c named; Nor can we know, whether the
" Paflages they cite, are alledged out of
cc the Gofpels or other Books of our prefent
" Canons or from other Gofpels and Books,
" namely the Books of the Catalogue : for
*4 the Citations are very different, from the
*c Words in our prefent Golpels and other
" Canonical Books 5 and for the moft part
ic have fomething added to them?
dmyntor declares, he aflents to all this 5
and farther to recommend it, he complements
M. Dodwel after a very extraordinary man
ner. He affirms, *4 M. Dodml^ thoa Lay-
" man, knows as much of thefe matters, as
" the Divines of all Churches put together.
What an advantage is it (bmetimes to a man,
not to be a thing in Holy Order s^ how much
more knowing, and Learned (hall he be,
than himfelf was aware : for I take it for
granted, this Bounce of a Complement was
wholly intended to M. DodweFs Lay-quality.
I am content for my part, M. Dodwd be the
next H£RO, to -At Milton.^ I hope how
ever 'twill be granted, that how much foever
M. Dodml knows, be does not kpow that to
be true^ which is falfe : and in confidence
of this, I intend to dilcufs, what ht hath
faid. Or rather, to fpeak with due referve
of a Perfon and Matter that I my felf do
not
of the New Teftamentl
not know, what Amyntor hath imputed to
him.
He fays, " The Writers of the New Tef-
*c lament were unknown to one another,
" and to the Churches, and Clergy 5 till
*c 130 years after Chrift. How do I .fear,
left he that is (aid to know as much of thefe
Matters, as the Clergy of all Churches put
together, fhould be found to know le(s of
'em 5 than any of us Country-Curats ? For
firft, as to the Writers of the four Go/pels^
all the Church-Hiftorians agree, St. Matthew
wrote firft, fo it will not be expefted we
fhould prove, that he had (een the reft: but
'tis apparent, the next Evangelift, Mark^
had fcen and read the Gofpel by St. Matthew $
becaufe £MarK$ Gofpel is indeed nothing
elfe but an abridgment of St. Aid/flip's, as
the Critics and Interpreters have ( many of
them) obferved. They are the words of
H. Grot ins ^ on Mark I. I. Ufum e/e <3Mar-
citm iZMatthai Evangelia^ apertum facit colla-
ti(Li i. e. If we compare their Gofpels, it
will be evident that St, Marl^ made great
ufe of the Gofpel by JMatthew. ,vSt. Anjii»,
de Conf, Ewl. c. 2. fays: Marcus 3llatth&um
fubfecuttis $ tavquam fedijfeqtws, <& breviator
ejHf videtHrrj i. e. As St. *Marl^ wrote in
time after St. £Mattheu>i fo he follows him
as it were at the very heels, m refpeS of the
things related^ only abridging What St. Mat-
had more largely faid. After
44 A Defence of the Canon
After Matthew and Mar^ can\e St. Lul$ $
he is very reafonably and probably thought
to intend (befides we know not whoelfe)
Matthew and Mar fa in thofe firft words of
his Golpel. " For as much as MANY
<c have taken in hand, to fet forth in order
** a Declaration of thofe things, which are
" (urely believed among us 3 even as they
" delivered them to us, who from the be-
*6 ginning were Eye-witneffes^ and tMinifters
** of the Word : it feemed good to me al-
is fo, &c. Thofe Characters of Eye-wit-
xeffes, and front the beginning, and Mini-
jierj of the Word^ agree to the Perfon of St.
Matthew i and the two laft to St. Marfa
that to fly ihe whole Period was intended of
tbtnt^ at leaft with others^ is what has been
reafoiiably believed hitherto 5 and is not
made lefi reafonable by the two Exceptions
\zyAmynior, taken (as he faith) out of M.
D$dwd. They alledg, that} St. Luk$ has
given a different Geneabgy of our Saviour,
from that fay St. Matthew^ without giving
any reafon for it : and that, there are many
apparent ContradiSions, between thefe (and
other) Writers of Scripture. But if thefe
Gentlemen pleafe to look into Malth. i. 6.
and Luke 3. 31. they will fee a reafen of the
difference of the Genealogies : namely that,
St. Mattkerv deduces the Genealogy from &?-
ry St. Luke from Nathat? 3 both of them
Sofls
of tie New Teflamnt. 4 j
Sons of David, and Anceftors to our Savi
our, m the fenfe that David KM his ^nce-
flor. As for the apparent Contradi&wns^
between thefe Evangelifts 5 if it were true,
it would rather prove that St. LnJ(e had (cen
and read thofe other two Evangelifts: be-
caufe by writing any thing contrary to them,
he intended without ctoiibt to corre& their
Miftake , and rightly .ihform their common
Readers. But 'tis .certain he was inot irt
the leaft aWare, that thofe former Evange
lifts needed any correftion 5 for himfel£
vve have feen before,, bears 'em witncE, that
they had written' /'all, .'things as thofe Perfons
have alfo delivered them to w, vcho from the
beginning were Eye-witneffes, and ZMmiJlers of
the WORD: that i^ as the ofhbr Apo-
files, ar.d firft Preachers, Have ajfo deliver'd
them, by word of mouth.
The laft Evangelift was St. John • how he
c 3me to be an Evangelifl:, or on what occa-
fion he wrote, Eufebiu* (the firfi dpd learn-
edeft Hjflorian of the Church) will tell us,
in thefe words : " The Gbfpels of Matthew^
" Mar^ and Lnke^ being in all trtens bands
c cave alfo to the facrvledg of the ^fpoftl
c John^ who approved them, as faithfully
".written. But^he obferved, they were de-
*c ficientin this refpeft, that '; they fed o-,
sc mitted that part of our Saviour's Adiors
" and Preach! ngiSvhich preceded the Im-
« -r •
prffcn-
46 A Defence of the Canon
4< prifonment of J okn the Tiaptift : for they
" all begin their Narratives, with the Im-
<c prifonment of John. - — Hereupon, St.
€C John being thereto requefted, added ( in
*c a Golpel by him) the Time and Tranfa&i-
cc ons that had been omitted by the other E-
" vangelifts. Eufeb. H. E. /. 3. c. 24.
The Epiftles of St. *JW are another confl-
derable part of the Canon of the New Te£
lament > our Oppofers fay,, "They lay hid
cc in the coffers of the Churches and Perfons
" to whom they were written, till 130
" years after Chrift. I ask, How then came
St. Peter to fay> 2*Pet. 3. 15. ce As our
" beloved Brother T^/,. according to the
" Wiflpra given to him, hath written to
*ff you 5 ^ dfo in all hit Epiftles^ fpeaking
ce (to them) of thefe things: in which (E-
" piftles) are fome things, hard to be un-
" derftood 3 which they that are unlearn^
€C ed and unftable do wreft (as they do
" alfo, the other Scriptures) to their own
" Damnation. This Teftimony proves, not
St. Teter had feen the Epiftles of
/5 but that they -were commonly read,
and a very bad life made of .'em , by
fome.
The remaining part of the Canon, even the
Catholic or General Epifties, by St. James9
St. Peter, St. John, St. jude 3 and the Revela
tion «: becaufe they were written fome" of
theni
of tie New Teftamnt. 47
them to whole Nations •, and the reft to all
Chriftians, not to particular Perfons ot
Churches 5 we muft needs underftand they
were fublified, by thofe Apoftles themfelves.
They could be no otherwife written and
addrefled to Nations, and to all Chriftians}
but by fuch a general Publication, as when
we now give a Copy of a Letter or Book,
to a Bookfeller, to be by him made corfc-
mon.
It appeals (I fuppofe) by all this, to
indifferent Perfons, that 5 'tis utterly un
true, that the Writers of the New Tefta-
ment were ftratigers to the Writings of one
another 5 is it any better, what follows
next ? namely that:
" Neither did the Ctergy, 'of Churches,
know of the Gofpels 5 and other Books,
c of our prefent Canon. We have ftill*
" fay thefe Gentlemen , fome Ecclefiaftical
Writeb of thofe early times 5 Clemens
Romanus, Barnabas, Bermat, Ignatius^ and
; Polycarp. Of thefe, liermas h^s not one
' paifage out of all the New -Tcftament:
c and for the places that are cited by the
c reft, omcanmfteli whether they are taken
c out of the Books of the prefent Canon 5
c or out of the SpWiom Books, [even
' thofe of the Catalogue, or feme fuch.l
Hermas has not one paflage 'out of tie
NewTejlamxt, Therefore,' What? Why,
therefore
48 A Defence of the £anon
therefore as we were faying, and are novf
proving 5 Hermat had not read the Books
of the New Teftament, which were all ftill
(and long after, even to the year 130) in
the Coffers of Perfons and Churches to
whom they were writen. And I fay, Her-
was has not cited a word out of the whole Old
Teflamtnt. Had he not therefore read any
of the Books, of that Teftament? had not
a profeft Chriftian, and a Writer (think
they) read any Book of the Old or New
Teftament? It is apparent, he had read
both: by the Do&rine of his Book 3 by
his Difcourfes on Baptifm, Repentance, and
all Chriftian Virtues 5 by his Vifions, SimUi-
tudes, and Commands, of all which he
had his Hints from the Books of Holy Scrip
ture, efpecially the Prophetical. He even
fometimes exprefles himftlf in the very
words of the New Teftament 3 , as when he
(ays, Com. 4. Se&. I. He that futteth away
his wife^ and marrieth another, committeth
.Adultery. Which he took, no doubt, from
St. Luke? whoufes thofe very words, Lukf
16. 1 8. '
Clemens Romanns manifeftly alludes, to
divers Expreffions and Paflages of the New
Teftament 5 and fome he exprefy repeat?,
as Charity cover eth a multitude of Sins 3 I P£t.
4. 8. We are Members one of another^ Rom.
12. 5. He (Chrift) is fo much greater than
Argds 5
of the NeHb Teftamenf. %$
Angels $ as he hath by inheritance obtained a
more excellent Name, than they. Heb. 1.2,4.
Forgive, and ye flail be forgiven $ — with
what meafure ye meet, it fiatt be meafkred to
yon again. Luke 6. 37. Wo unto him by
whom Offences come : It were better for him^
that a ^Milftone were hanged about his neck^
and that he were caft into the Sea 3 than that
he jhould offend one of my little ones. Luke
17. I, 2.
St. Polycarf takes notice, of the Epiftle
written by St; JFW, to the Philiffians 5 and
laith, that Apoftle mentions the Philippiavs
with much Honor, in the beginning of his
Epiftle to them. So indeed he dos 3 calling
them, the Saints at Philippi 5 and profeffing
that, upon every remembrance of them^ he
giveth thank* to God. Phil. I. I, 2. He cittS
alfo the words of St. Paul to other Chur
ches, as, Do ye not know that the Saints foall
jndg the World? i Cor. 6. 2. Neither For-
nicators^ nor 'Effeminate^ nor abufers of the fa-
felves with mankind^ /half inherit the Kingdom
of God. I Cor. 6. P, IO. We brought nothing
into thit World, and we can carry nothing out
of it. i Tim. 6. 7. He often repeats the
Words and Exprefljons of St. Peter. Whom
not having feeto) ye love \ in vohom^ tho now
ye fee him not, ye rejoice, with joy unf\ tactile
and fall of Glory. I Pet, I. 8. Who his own.
bare our Sins, in his own Body , on the
O Tree;
5 o A Defence of the Canon
Tree : '•— * who did no Sin 5 nor was Guile
found in his Mouth. I Pet. 2.22,24. Having
your Converfation^ honefl among the Gentiles,
Out of St. John, he hath 5 Whofoever doth
wot confefs, that 5 J efus Chrift is come in the
Flefl)$ this is ^fnti-Ghrift . I John. 4. 3.
From the Evangelifts Matthew and Luke,
he gives us thefe Paflages. Ttiejfid are they,
that are perfecuted fir Tjighttoufnefs fake 3 for
theirs is the Kingdom of God. Mattb. 5. 10.
Elejjed are the Poor, for theirs is the Kingdom
of God. Luke 6. 10. The Spirit truly is
willing^ but the Flejjj is weak. Matth. 26.
41.
Clemens and Poljcarp afFed to fpeak, what-
foever they have to {ay, in the words of
Scripture^ efpecially of the New Tefta-
raent : St. Jgnatins rather ufes his own way
of Expreffion, but he faith from St. Mat"
thew$ He that is able to receive this, let him
receive it. Matth. 19. 12. The Tree is known,
by his Fruit. Matth. 12. 53. From St. Faul
he borrows, who bath given himfdf for us, an,
Offirh'g and Sacrifice^ to God. Eph; 5. 2.
&e perfectly joined together^ in the fame mind^
and in the jamt judgment 5 and all fpeak the
feme things, i Cor. 1. 10.* Where is the Wife^
where is the Diff liter ? \ Cor. I. 23.
They have but one Witnefi more, to caH5
St. Barnabas i) who aifo is againft them, not
n;uch kfs than the former : for he alledges
firoia
of the NeV> Teftammti f f
from St.tfttatthew, Many are called, but few
arechofen. Matth.2o. 16. and 22. 14. He
came not to call the Righteous, but Sinners to
repentance. Matth. 9.13. In his i$th Se&i-
on, he giveth an Abftraft or Summary of the
Moral and Practical Duties of Ghriftianity^
or the way of Life as he fpeaks : it appears,
both by the matter and manner of (peaking,
He meant to abridg the morality, of the 0/5,
and New Teftaments.
If we now confider that, thefe Pieces
are only Epiftles, or Letters, and fome of
them fb brief, that they may be written on
a (heet of Paper : we may rather wonder,
that thefe Fathers have quoted- fo much
Scripture 3 than that we meet fo little
in their Letters. And when M. Dodwel
and Amyntor (ay, They cannot tell, whether
thefe Citations are from the Boo fa of our Ca-
non^ or from fome of the Apocryphal Books
of the Catalogue 5 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^ unle(s they fhould be in the invalua
ble (loft J Decads of Titus Livins.
As to other Quotations out of thefe Fa
thers, that might alfb have been oblerved 3
in which, in repeating the words of Scrip
ture, they fometimes fubftitute an equivalent
D 2 wojd
A Defence of the (jtnm
word (or words) for the word in the
Scripture-Text : it was not, becaufe they
were quoting fome Apocryphal Gofpel, E-
piftle, or A&SJ but becaufe they cited by
memory. Wanting Concordances,, and our
other Modern Helps 5 they could not, with
out much trouble to themfelves, be always
exaft in repeating Scripture-Texts as to the
words, tho they keep well enough to the
fenfe. And for this reafon alfoj they do not
always name the Scripture- Author whom
they alledg; even to avoid the (poffible)
Miftake of one Writer for another.
I make but this one remark more, on the
Citations of Scripture, by thefe Fathers.
It is reckned, they all wrote before the
whole Canon of the New Teftament was
compleated 5 JM. Dodwel fays exprefly, be
fore Jude or the two Johns had written.
And they wrote from places, very diftant
from Judea, and from one another 3 Her-
mas and Clemens from Rome, TSarnabas from
Cyprus , T^olycarp from Smyrna in jdjta, Ig
natius from Syria. This ferves to allure us
that, the Gofpels and Apoftolic Writings
were immediately communicated 5 either by
particular care of the Churches, or (more
probably) by a publication 5 to tfe #toft
remote Bifhops and Churches : that there can
be nothing more contrary to Truth, and to
the Zeal and Diligence of the firft Chriftians
and
oftbeNewTeftament: jj
and Churches, than this Affirmation of 3M.
Dodwel, and his Second 3 that the Apoftolic
Writings were lockt up in Coffers, of the
Churches and Perfons to whom they were
written, till 130 years after Chrift. Which
is fo far, we have feen, from being trues
that all the Writers of thofe times, tho
living in places fome Thoufands of miles dif-
tant from 0m another , and from Jndea^
adorn even their familiar Letters, with
Flowers from the four Gofpels, and Epiftles
of the prefent Canon : nor do they cite,
that we know of, a fingle Sentence from the
Books of the Catalogue.
lAmyntor however, tho he affents to M.
Dodwel) in faying that, our prefent Scrip
ture-Canon, and the Books that compofe
it, were unknown to the Churches and
Clergy, till 130 years after Chrift: yet he
doth not think, Barnabas^ Htvma^ Chmzns^
Polycarp, or Ignatius, were the real Authors
of thofe Epiftks that go under their Names 5
but that thefe Epiftles were forged about
fuch time, as fo many other Impoftures ap
peared in the Catholic Church, namely a
good while after the year 130. But here
by, he hath entirely given up the Caufe he
was maintaining. eW. Dodml fpeaks con-
fiftently to himfcl£ th.o not truly 5 when
he fay§, the Scripture-Canon was not known
to the Churches or Clergy till about the
D 3 year
54 ^ Defence of the Canon
year 130, becaufe Clemens (and the other
Waiters of thofe times) cite nothing out
of the faid Canon. But Amyntor forgets to
be confident to his Caufe, when he fays,
the Canonical Books were not known till
the year 1305 and at the fame time denies,
we have any Monuments left of thofe anti-
ent times, Clemens and the reft being of
much later date, and alfo Impoftures.
Befides, granting to him, that thefe E-
piftles are Impoftures 5 devifed more than
130 years after Chrift, as 150 or 1 80 after
our Saviour : yet having quoted abundance of
Paragraphs out of our prefent Canon, and
wove out of the Books of the Catalogue 3 as we
are hereby affured, that the former were then
known, and approved as Books of received
tnd allowed Authority, fo " the other either
" were not known, or not confider'd as
** Books whofe Authority could oblige, or fo
" much as perfuade.
There were divers other Writers of thofe
early times, befides Clement and the reft
mentioned by M.Dodwel^ and tho their
Works are loft, yet we have certain aflu-
ranee that they quoted the Books of the
New Teftament. Papias, Bifhop of Hiera-
yolif} was Scholar of St. John> and Com
panion of Poljcarps £ufebms had read his
Works, and takes (occafional) notice that
fa quotes the Epiflles of St. John, and
of the New Teflameni. j j
ft. Peter. %e£. H. E. /. 3. C*/>. */f.
Contemporaries to Papias and 'Polycarp^
and much within the term of 130 after
Chrift, was guadratus, Agrippa firnamed
Cajlor, and Bajiltdes. Of thefe, Bafilides
wrote 24 Books of Commentaries ( or Ex
planations) on the Gofpels. Concerning
the other two, Eufebius faith, " They, with
cc many more, made it their bufinefs, to
" preach in places, where as yet Churches
* were not gathered , and ( ™> 6eia>v 'fiuotv^-
cc Aioov Tra^StSpm y^^^v) f<? beftow and dif-
" perfe Copies of the Infphed Gofpels. H. E.
Lib. 3. c. 37. Lib. 4. c. 7.
jf&/2/» Martyr in his Second Apology, but
140 years after Chrift, (as Dr. Cave hath
proved 3) makes us to know that, there
was then a particular Officer in the Churches,
called the Trader , diftinft from the Preach
er $ whofe bufinefi it was, (aith he, to read
the ^Prophetical and Apoftolical Book* to the
Congregation, until it is fufficient. ^Amyntor
mutt fuppole with great liberty, if he fup-
pofes, that in the year 130 the Books of
the New Teftaraent were unknown to the
Churches and Clergy, and that, but ten
years after, they were fo known, and in
fuch credit, that the Churches entertained
an Officer on purpofc to read them, in their
D 4 But
5 6 A Defence of the Canon
But why do we protraft a Difpute 5 and
feek to old Authors known to few People,
to determine it 3 when it jnay be ended by
one ( demonftrative ) Argument, and of
which all Perfons are capable ? " The four
" Gofpels, A&s, general Epiftles, and Re-
" velation, were not written to particular
" Peribns, or particular Churches 5 but
" written,, and published to all the World.
cc Let me hear Amjntor^ or M. Dodwel, (ay 5
cc they were not written to be fublffied, or
" were not published Jo foon as written :
" if they dare not (ay fo , why do they
fay, they were kept in private Goffers,
till 139 years after Chrift? I don't think,
any body will believe 3 $h^t, the Chur
ches oi1 Clergy were ignorant of the pttblijht
Bocks of their T^eligion.
c;
<f the Ne» Tefiamntl
Continuation of the Defence
of the Canon,
ANother ^Detraftion of our Author,
from the Credibility and juft Au
thority of theGanon, is that 5 cc The prin-
tc cipal Fathers of the three firft Ages, Ire-
<€ neus, • Clemens Alexandrians, and Origen^
" did quote divers Books of the Catalogue
" (particularly Barnabas, Herwat, Ignatius^
" T*ofycarp, and Clemens Romanusf) as Scrip-
cc ^re. And why (hould not all the Books
<c that are cited by thefe Learned Fathers,
" as Scripttre, be accounted equally Authen-
" tic and Canonical ? Or if thefe Difciples
" and Succeflbrs of the Apoftles, could fo
cc grofly confound the genuin Writings of the
" lEvangelifts and Apoftles,. with fiichasare
tc (purious and falfly attributed to them show
" carae others [the following Fathers, and
" the Councils, who have undertaken to
cc declare which Books are Canonical, and
5 which not,] to be better or more certain
ly informed? In (hort, he faith 3 Clement
Rovtanus, Barntbas, Ignatius, Hermas^
and Poljtcarp, were efteemed by the Anti-
c ems to be as good as any fart of the New
f Tetfamnt \: and feeing hereia they were
66 fa
"
5 8 A Defence of the Canon
*€ Co grofly miftaken 3 what ftrels can be
** laid on their Teftimony, concerning the
* Books of the New Teftament itfelf ? which
" Teftimony however, both formerly and
<c at prefent, is alledged as the principal rea~
" fin ( fometimes he maketh it to be the
€C onlyreafon^) why the Books of the New
<c Teftaraent are received asGanonical, Amynt.
« p. 44, 45, 46, 52, 79, 80. He adds, at p.
" 57o 58- The Gouncil of Laodicea, An.
" 360 after Chrift, is the frft ^family
" wherein the Ganon of Scripture was de-
cc termined. In (b great a variety of Books
" (thofe of the Catalogue, he means , and
" thofe of the Canon , ) how could that
" Council determine, which were the true
" Writings of the Apoftles, and which not}
46 but by Revelation^ or the written Teflimo-
lc **y of their FredeceJJbrs $ Revelation in the
<c cafe thereby as none : and for Teftimony,
tc I have the fame Teftimony for the Books
" I defend, which is ufually urged in behalf
* 6 of the Canon.
We may abridg, and diftinguifli this Judg
ment, into thefe Propofitions.
i. The beft of the Antients efteemed the
Writings that now go under the names of
Clemens Romany* , Herma^ ^Barnabas ^ Jg-
natius^ and Tolycar^ to be as good Scrip
ture 5 as any part of the New Teftament
was then, or is now? accounted.
2. The
of tie New Teftament] jp
2. The true Canon can be afcertained,
only by Revelation, or the Teftimony of
the Fathers: Revelation there was none 5
and the Teftimony of the Fathers is as
home and full for Clemens, Ignatius, and
the reft, not to mention many other Books
of the Catalogue, as for our Canonical
Books.
3. Tis even certain that, the Fathers
were miftaken in the Opinion they had
concerning (the pretended) Clemens, Her-
ntas , Barnabas, 'Pofycarp , and Ignatius $
therefore, neither is their Teftimony va
luable concerning the Books of the New
Teftament, or prefent Scripture Canon.
We (hall anfwer diffidently, if we prove
clearly and indubitably thefe two things 5
Tihat the Antients had not the fame, or likf
regard for Clemens Tfymanw , Barnabas, or
any other Books of the Catalogue, as for
the Books of the Canon : and that, they
had other (and/nwger) reafons, befides
the Teftimony of their PredeceJJbrs, why they
eftablilh'd the prefent Canon 5 or in other
words, why they received the Books of the
Canon, and not thofe of the Catalogue.
When Amyntor fays, the beft of the Fa
thers and Antients quote the Writings of
Barnabas, Hermas, Clemens Romanus, Ig-
natiw, and'Polycarps as Canonical, and Scrip*
lure : and that, they efteemed them
6o A Defence of tie Canon
good #* Any part of the New Teflament. For
this latter he will never be able to produce
one Teftimony of any of the Antients 5
and I ftiall abundantly prove the contra
ry, from thofe Fathers to whom he ap
peals, and whofe fenfe he hath fo much
miftaken : for the other, were it true, yet
'tis not to the purpofe. For 'tis certain,
and granted by all Learned Men, that 5
thofe Fathers called all the Antient Eccle-
fiaftical Books, if they were Orthodox,
Scripture, and Canonical; the terms Canoni-
cal, and Scripture were not then appropri
ated, to Books written by Infpiration^ but
were common to all Ecclefiaftical Writers and
Books* if Orthodox. Origen^ for inftance,
often cites the Apocryphal Books of the Old
Teftament, as Scripture, and Canonicals
in his Homilies, and fometimes when he is
difputing: but when he difcourfes profef-
fedly, what Books are Divine Scripture^ and
what are not 5 he admits only thofe Books
of the Old Teftament that are received by
Proteftants, reje&ingthe Apocryphal Books 5
fee concerning this Eufeb. H. E. /. 6. c.2$.
Clemens T\omanv* , Hermas^ and divers
more, are cited as Scripture by the Antients
and Fathers 5 (ays ^Amyntor.
By which of 'em ? He anfwers 5 by Irene-
«f, Clemens Alexandrine •, and Or/g^r.- and
be refers us to places in theij: Writings. But
in
of the New Teftcmitnt. 6i
In (bme of thofe places, nothing at all is
faid by thofe Fathers, concerning the Books
pf which we are inquiring 3 in other places,
the Authors are named, but nothing is
quoted out of them : elfewhere are Cita
tions out of them, but not under the
names of Scripture or Canonical $ and
where they are (b called^ 'tis only in the
fenfe that the fame (and many later) Fa
thers call the ^focryfhal Boo^s of ibe Old
Teftament., 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 Iren&u*^ in the alledg-
ed place or elfewhere, calls the Epiftle of
Clemms Romany Scripture. He cites it,
only to prove that, " ^foftolical Tradition
c is contrary to the Herefy which teaches,
c there if a God above the Creator of the World ;
' becaufe, faith he, the faid Epiftle of C/e-
c mens to the Corinthians^ which is older
6 than that deteftable and fooliih Herefy,
; teaches but one God, ^ill-mighty ^ Maker of
c Heaven and Earth. In the (ame Book and
Chapter (/. 3. c. 3.) he commends the E-
piftle of T*oljcarf^ but cites nothing out
o£ or calls it Scripture and Canonical
That, Hermas is mentioned by lren<ew, I
don't remember : Amyntor refers to Lib. 4.
*c^p. 3. but nothing is there faid of him* As
to
A Defence of tie Canon
to Ignatift) Iren<ev* only calls him, <>>uen-
dam ex Noftrfc adjudicatum ad Befttas prop"
ter Deum, " One of us Ghriftians condemn-
cc ed to the Beads for the caufe of God,
He doth not fo much as name him 3 but
'tis guefled he means Ignatiw, becaufe the
words he quotes are found in an Epiftle of
Ignatius.
Tis no wonder that, Clement ^dlexandri-
nu* may call the Epiftle of TSarnabas and
the Paftor of Hennas, Scripture 5 in the (enfe
before mentioned : as a term of diftin8ion>
or to diftinguifh them from the Writings of
the Gentile Moralifts and Philofbphers, whom
alfo he often cites, and explains their Opi
nions. EHJebiv* (H. E. /. 6. ^.13.) obferves
that, Clemens of Alexandria quotes the Wif-
dom of Solomon^ and Ecclejiafticw, or the
Wifdom of Jefos Son of Syrac$ and with
them , the Epiftles of TSarnabaSs Clemens
Tfymanuf) and others not univerfally re
ceived among Chriftians. Now as the Wif
dom of Solomon and Ecclefiaftiws were never
reckoned by the Catholic Church, and there
fore (undoubtedly) neither by Clemens^ as
pans of the Old Teftament, but only as
laudable Appendices to it: fo when we
find him quoting alfo Hermas, ^arnabaf^
or Clemens T^&manus^ under the feme names
and Epithets that he gives to JScclejiafticus
and (the falft) Solomon , he intended no
more
of tU New Teftament. 6 J
more thereby to make them parts of the
New Teftament, than he (or the Catholick
Church) accounted the other to be parts of
the Old Teftament.
What I fay, is yet more plain from Ori-
gen, the laft of Amyntofs Fathers. All the
Apocryphal Books of the Old Teftament,
are frequently alledged by Origen 5 in com
pany with his Citations out of the genu
ine Books of the New and Old Teftaments :
he has caufed us however to know the
vaft difference, he put between them $ and
that the Catholick Church received only
the prefent (Proteftant) Canon, as Diviue
Scripture^ the other Books (whether the
Apocryphal Books of the Old Teftament) or
thole of the Catalogue?) only as ufeful and
commendable Writings. He tells us, as? to
the Canon of the New Teftament , " There
cc are only four Go/pels : the firft by Matthew^
4< written for the ufe of the Jews } the
next by Mar^ who had his Information
by St. Pettr , the Gofpel by Lufa intend
ed for the Gentiles 5 laftly, Jokn*s Gofpel
Concerning the Writings of St. rPaul*> he
" mentions only his Epiftles : they are fhort,
«6 faith fe, and not to all the Churches which
" he had planted, or where he had taught,
* Peter, fo he goes on^ wrote an Epiftle
*c that is received and efteemed by all 5 we
* may grant he wrote a fecond Epiftle, but
" it
cc
cc
cc
cc
$4 A Defence of the £
ec it is doubted of. John wrote a Gofpelj
" aud Revelation^ a (hort Epiftle: and
" if you will, a fecond, and third Epiftle 5
" bat the two laft are alfo queftioned by
" fome. He thinks thofe Churches are to
<c be commended, that receive the Epiftlc to
" the Hebrews ^ for our Anceflws reckon it
" to St. TW, and had doubtlefi good rea-
" fons why they did fo, Origen^ Expof. in
Joan. 1. 5. & in Matth. 1. i. Eufeb. H. E.
1.6. c. 25. We fee then, in reckoning up
the genuin Works of the Apoftles, and
Books that they thought to be Divine Scrip*
ture^ Origen does not vouchfafe fo much as
to mention any of the Books of the Ca^
talogue : he knows nothing of other Go-
fpels, A&s, Revelations, orEpiftles, befides
thofe of our prefent Canon, Not that in
deed he did not well know them, and alfo
efteeni fome of them } for he frequently
quotas them both in Preaching and Argu
ing : but when he profeffes to declare the
true Ecdejiaftical Canon, and genuin Works
of the Evangelifts and Apoftles 3 he forgets
all the Books of the Catalogue;
Amjntor is very earneft for the Dottrine,
and the Revelation of St. Peter 5 on the Ac
count that they were approved, he feitk,
by the Ancients, in particular by Origen : he
aitby they may be preferred on that ac
count before P^;//'s Epijile to the Hebrew /,
and
of the New Teftamenf.
other Books of our prefent Canon 3
which were doubted of, by the Antients.
We have juft now heard Origen fay the di-
reft contrary : we have feen, he and thole
other Fathers make (bme doubt of the Epiftle
to the Hebrews, the zd of 'Peter, the id
and %d of John 5 but they fpeak very favo
rably and very refpeftfully of them, andfb
as plainly to intimate that they incline to
them : but the Revelation, and DoSrine of
'Peter, and other Books of the Catalogue^
they never once name em, in recounting
the Books of the Canon, or of the Evange-
lifts and Apoftles. The teftimony of Or*'-
gen in the cafe is fo much the more con-
fiderable, becaufe he was undoubtedly the
moft learned of all the Antients 5 the firft
Divine the Church ever had, fome doubt
not to add and the laft.
Our Antagonift has not yet done with
us, he fays 5 " The Council of Laodicea, a-
4C bout 360 Years after Chrift, is the fafi
" Affimbly wherein the prefent Canon of Serif •
*c ture was ejtabli/h'd. In fo great a variety
** of Books, (thofe of the Catalogue, and
" thofe of the Canon) how could that
44 Council determine which were the true
" Writings of the Apoftles, and which.not^
u but by Revelation, or the written Tefti-
u mony of their Predeceflbrs ? Revelati-
" on m the Cafe there was none 5 and for
•E " Tcfti-
6 6 A Defence of the Canon
" Teftimony, I have the fame Teftimony
" for many Books of the Catalogue. Elfe-
" where (p. 48.) he adds } Divers Books of
"the Catalogue were verily fuppofed by
<c the Antients, to be written by the E-
tc vangelifts, Apoftles, and their Synergifts
<c whofe name they bear : why then do we
fsti not receive 'em into the Canon, fince
* the Authors of 'em were (at leaft) Com-
cc panions and Fellow-laborers of the A-
" poftles$ as well as St. <3Wark and Sta
• «.Luk$3 Why are they excluded from the
" Canon, and thofe Evangelifts not exclud-
*c ed ? ,If this quality (to have been a Com-
<c pardon and Synergift of the Apoftles)
*ft was fofEcient to entitle Mark^ and Luke
" to Infpiration , why (hould it not do as
" much for Barnabas and Clemens Rcmanus £
" And if this be not all the reafbn 5 pray
*c let us know the true one, for I never
6C heard of any other.
He is entred, I confefs, on the merits ofx
the Caufe. He laith , the Council of Lao-
duea^ that eftablifli'd our preCent Canon,
could no other ways diftinguifh the genu-
in Writings of the Apoftles from thofe falfiy
imputed to 'em, but by the Teftimony of
their Predeceflors : he hath the lame Tef
timony, for the Books of the Catalogue*
He knows no other reafon, why tfylarl^ and
are believed to write by Infpiration,
but
of the NeTb Te ft merit! 6?
but that they were Synergifts and Compa
nions of the Apoftles. I anfwer,
That, he hath the fame Teftimony for
fome Books of the Catalogue, as we for the
Books of the Canon $ he attempted to
prove from Iren&Hs, Clemens of Alexandria^
and Origen, his only Witneffes. But Ire-
K<eut> I have fhown, barely names fome of
thofe Books $ and for others, he cites them
only as good Wiimffts of the true Ecdefiafiical
Tradition, not as Divine Scripture. Ckmens
Alexandrines and Origen^ may fometimes call
them Scripture 5 in the fenfe that they fo call
the Apocryphal Books of the Old Tefta-
ment, which they (with the Proteftants)
deny to be farts of that Teftament : and
in reciting the Books of the Canon, and
Works of the Apoftles, they wholly omit,
and fometimes exprefly cenfure thefe Books
of the Catalogue.
The Council of Laodicea^ nor any other,
ever pretended, to eftaUifi the Canon of Scr/f*
ture^ which is precedaneous to all Coun
cils, and receives no Authority from them,
but they from it. Amyntor (hould have
ftid, the Council of Laodic$a is the firft A£
fembly that, on occafion of fome fpurious^
and many doubtful Books, declared which
were the Books that had been certainly left
to the Church by the Apoftles and other Mi
raculous (firft) Preachers.
E 2 »Ti9
<J 8 A Defence of tfa £anon
Tis no more true, that 3 Mark, and
are fuppofed to write by Infpiration, only
becaufe they were Companions and Syner-
gifts of the Apoftles : and that, the Council
of Laodicea declared the Scripture-Canon,
from only the Teftimony of their Anceftors
or Predeceffors: that is, of the preceding
Fathers, fuch as Iren&us, Clemens of Alexan
dria^ and Origen. Eufebius, a long time be
fore the Council of Laodicea, informed every
body of the (found) Reafons, why the
Catholic Church receives fome Books as Di
vine Scripture, and others not: his words
are thefe. " Many Books have been pub-
" lifhed by Heretics, under the names of the
44 Apoftles 3 as the Gofpels of Peter, Tho-
*c was, Matthias, and others $ the Afts of
" Andrew, John, and divers more. But
a firft, they are not cited £he means, not as
" Divine Scripture 3 for that they are indeed
<c quoted by Clemens of ^Alexandria and Ori-
^ gen the learnedft of the Antenicens, he
44 tells us before and after 5] by the DoSors
^ of the Church. Secondly, their way of
*' writing is wholly different from the Spirit,
" Genius, and M inner of the Apoftles. Laft-
ic ly, the Doftrine, Opinions, and other
" Matters, advanced in thofe Books, are fo
" contrary to Truth, and to Orthodoxy 5
ic that we muft not barely call them Spuri-
" ous , but Abfurd, and Impious. Eufeb.
HE. 1.3. c.25. I
I muft a little enlarge, on this important
Teftimony 5 which overthrows all Anyntor*
and M. Dodwel's Pretences, either for the
Books of the Catalogue, or againft thofe of
the Canon.
Thefe Books, faith Enfebius^ are never cited
(as Divine Scripture) by the Doftors of the
Church: direftly contrary to ^Antyntors I
have the fame Teftimony of \he jfntients (the
very beft and foundeft of them ) for thefe
Books, that is alledged (or can be) by
others for the Canon.
Thefe Writings, (ays ^felius again, have
nothing of the ^Apoftolical Way and Spirit.
They want that honeft Plainnefs, in their
Style 3 that Integrity of manners, that Ele
vation of Piety, that Salt of Virtue, that
exemption from Partialities and Paffions $
which fo effectually recommend, and even
point put to us, the Infpired Writings,
Above all, they are fluffed with abun
dance of notorious Falfities in Doftrine,
and in Matters of Faft 5 and thofe alib as
ridiculonSi as they are erroneous.
Here fore we have, wherewith to anfwer,
to all the bold Suggeftions, of the Book
under confideration. If the Author pre
tends, he has the (ame Teftimony of fbme An-
tients,for the Books of the Catalogue, as there
is for the Canon : ^ufebms replies, none of
the Doftors have quoted thofe Pieces, as
E 3 Divine
A Defence of the Canon
Divixe Scripture. If he demands, what other
Exceptions we can advance againft them 5
or what we can fay farther, for the Books
of the Canon : Eufebius again anfwers, the
Books of the Canon and of the Catalogue
differ, as Pious and Impious 5 as True and
Fal(e$ as Credible and Ridiculous: and that
thefe are the Churches Reafons, why (he
venerates the latter, and no lefs difefteems
(to ufe no harder word) the other. In (hort,
befides the unanimous Teftimony of the
Antients, which was Amyntors only Reafbn :
ilufebms infifts, on the fo different Spirit^
and Morality , of thefe two forts of Books 5
and on the known Verity in Matters of Fad,
and felf-evident (bundnefs in Do&rine, fo
remarkably appearing in one, and wanting
in the other. When Amyntor fairly fatisfies
ihefe Anfwers, of this Learned Father 3
fhillida folyshabeto. ' r
farther
of the New Teftament. 7*
Farther Continuation of the
Defence of the Canon.
t •''<•>••' -Oft" A i "o'*> * f'T !-T>pi'»v-^'
IT feems however, by all this we have
gained nothing at all 5 for Amyntor (ays
again. " If fome of the Antients made
u thefe Exceptions, to the Books of the
<6 Catalogue 3 they were not fo thought of,
w by fome whole Parties^ who made ufe of
^ em. And, there is not a fingle Book of
" the New Teftament, which was not re-
" fufedby fome of the Antients 5 as unjiiftly
" fathered on the Apoftles, and really for-
u ged by their Enemies. And laftly, he
" has Witnefles for it, that, were the
" Books of the Canon never fo certainly
* written by the Apoftles : they have been
<c however (b changed, and that too divers
" times, that (perhaps) not a fingle Rib
a or Plank of the old Argos is left. To
this effeft he (peaks at p. 19,56, 60, 64,
But who told him, or how will he prove
it, that 3 whereas fome of the Amients
made Exceptions to the Books of the Cata
logue, they were otherwife thought o£
by fome whole Parties of Chriftians ? It is
not true, nor will he be able to bring any
proof for it, from Antiquity 5 that the GoC-
E 4 pels,
71 A Defence of the Canon
pels, Afts, Epiftles, Revelations, of the Ca
talogue, were efpoufed by whole Parties or
Sefts, On the contrary, they were read
indifferently by fome of all Parties 5 they
had a little while jotne Credit with fome
Perfbns in all the Denominations of Chrif-
tians : till for the Reafons, but now alledged
from EufebiuS) they grew (" firft) into dif-
ufe, and (then) were loft. Or if fome
few of 'em were the Compofitipns of pro-
fefled Heretics, in order to countenance the
Opinions of a fmall Party } as the Gofpel of
•Judas Ifcariot, (aid by Epifhanius to be de-
vifed by the Cainits^ a Gnoftic Se& : their
manifeft Difagreement to the DoSrine and
Hifforj of the Gofpels Known by all to be
Authentic, would (and a&ually did) im
mediately deteft, and juftly difcredit them.
Some whole Parties, fays ^fmyfitor^ efpoufed
fome Books of the Catalogue. Yes, the
Cainits 5 a Seft of two days continuance,
and confifting (it may be) qf twenty or
thirty Perfons, Libertines 5 boafted of the
Gofpel of Jqdas. How does this weaken
the Judgment, made of that Gofpel, by all
the Churches, and reported by Eujebius and
Epiphaviys $ that this and fome fuch Pieces
werefbolUb, and falfe, even to ridiculout
nefs? We don't deny, there were fuch
Books as thefe in the Catalogue 3 or that
they were fometime in fuch credit, and eyeq
4, favoured
of the New Teftamtfltl 75
favoured by particular Perfons of fome
Churches andSe&s: but we (ay, thereafons
alledged againft them by the body and ge
nerality of the Churches, and that hereupon
they foon became univerfally flighted, and
fhortly quite perifhed 3 are juft fuch Pre-
fumptions againft them, as it will be in after-
Ages againft the (fpurious) Metajihenes^ Be-
rofiu, and Philo of Annius, that they had ap
peared but a very little while, e're they were
wholly difcredited by the concurrent Judg
ment and clear Arguments of Learned Men.
As no body hereafter will appear for ^4nmus
his Philo, Berofus^ or Metafthenes : 'tis an at
tempt not left worthy to be laught at, that
the Gofpel of Judas has now any Fautors 5
or that any are found, who with great con
fidence do mind us, that, it was efteewed
fome time by a Party. When the Judgment
that Learned Men, and the Catholic Church,
made of this Gofpel and other fuch like
Pieces, has been confirmed by the immedi
ate difappearing of the Books and Parties
that maintained them , what can we reafo-
nably think of the matter but that, as the
Roman Orator has worded it for us, Opini-
onum portent a ddet dies 5 Follies and Errors,
that are too extravagant and monftrous^ foon
( like the Monfiers of Nature ) perijh .<?
If there were any thing (indeed) that
We could I^y in the Contrary Scale, had we
any
74 A Defence of the Canon
any thing to alledg in favor of thefe con
demned and loft Books 3 it were a neceflary
Caution and Juftice, not to condemn 'em
merely on the account that the Fathers and
firft Churches cenfur'd and rejeded 'em:
but their Judgment, and Reafons, againft
them 3 fo approved by all, that the Books
thereupon were all immediately put to necef-
fary ufes 5 ought to fatisfy us concerning
them.
To that 3 " There is not a fingle Book
*c of the New Teftament, which was not
<c refufed by fome of the Antients, as un-
<c juftly father'd on the Apoftles, and really
^ forged by their Enemies 5 P. 56, 64.
Thought I, when I read it 3 has this Gentle
man found forne of the firft (loft) Hifto-
rians of the Church,pack'd up in a clofe Cheft,
or Hogfhead, and buried fo many Ages un
der ground ? Has he recovered Hegefippus^
or other Antient Writers 3 that are (b much
praifed by Ettfebivs, St.Jerow, Photius^ and
other Fathers who were curious of Antiqui
ties, and have left fome fmali account of
tho(e loft Treafures? But Amyntor quickly
delivered me, from my doubt, andmyfur-
priie : for the proof he offers, is from very
vulgar Books 5 either miftaken, or mifre-
ported by him. He fays, u The Manichees
" rejefted the whole NewTeftament, the
tf Ebionits or Ntzarensi who were the firft
M Chrifti-
of the NewTeftamentl
& Chriftians, had a different Copy of St.
" Matthews Gofpel from ours, and the
" JMarcionits of St. Luke's. John's Gofpei
" was attributed, to Cerinthtis^ *#theEpi£
ic ties of St. Paul were denyed by fome, and
•" a different Copy of 'em (hown by others :
<c and the ftven Pieces we mentioned before,
*' (he means, theEpiftles of St. James, St.
" Jude, the fecond of Peter, the fecond
" and third of John, the Epiftle to the He-
" brews, and the Revelation) were refuted a
" long time by all Chriftians, with almoft
« Vniverfil Confent. P. 64, 65. By all
Chriftians, with almoft Umvtrfal Confent, is
a Contradiftion : for if by all Chriftians^
then with Univerfal Confent 5 and if, only
with almofl Univerfal Confent, then not by
att Chriftians. But it matters not } for we
fhall fee, neither of em is True.
Whepi his hand was in, why did he not
alfo (from as good Authority as he has a-
gainft the whole Canon of the New Tefta-
inent) rout all the Authors of the Old TeP
tament? For he might have faid from Epipha-
mus, H<eref. £bion. c. ig0 p. 38. " Some
<c Jw, called Nazaritet, rejefted Sacrifices s
" affirming that the Books of Mofes which
" we now have, are (purious, the true
44 Writings of Mofes being altogether difFe-
i4 rent from our Copies of them 5 which
6c true Writings are ftill preferved by their
2 Party.
7 6 A Defence of tie Canon
iC. Party. He repeats the lame thing, Ana*
« cep. p. 134, Others who owned the five
€i Books of M?/?/, yet refuted all the other
44 Books of the Old Teftament 5 Epiphanius
<c Htref.Sam. c. 2. To thefe laft, for Kb
" much as concerns the Old Teftament,
ic were joined (bme Ebiottits^ faving that
a they approved the Book of Jofbua. E-
fiphan. H<eref. Ebion, c. 13. Let us exa
mine all this s it will be undeniable, that
almoft all of it is falfe ; and that little of it
that is true, is of no weight.
As to the Mankhees, who ('tis pretend
ed) denyed all the New Teftament 3 that
is, denyed it to be written by the Authors
whofe Names it carries, or faid that at leaft
'tis fo very much interpolated and corrupt
ed, that 'tis now of no Authority : I will
referve the Difcuffion of it, till we come
alfo to the Philofopher Celfat^ who fays
that the Chriftians had twice or thrice (or
more times ) altered their Gofpel.
*' The Ebionits and Nazarensjajs oar A%-
ic thor, had a different Copy of Matthews
^ Gofpel, from ours. Why does he con
found the Ebionits and Nazarens, as if they
were one , and ufed the fame Copy of Mat
thews Gofpel ? They were no more the fame
Seft of Chriftians, than the Church of Eng
land and the Qpakers are : and were fo far
from ufing the fame Copy of ^Matthew,
that
o/ the New Teftament. 77
that a common Enemy to both, witness,
the Copy of the Nazaren* was (TTA^^TCV )
vtoft ferfeft 3 but that of tbcJj£/00ds ( Adul-
teratum & Mntilum ) corrupted by Interpo
lations, and defaced by Omiffions. £/>/-
phanitts Hxref. Nazar. c. 9. Haref. Ebion. c.
13.
This Gofpel of the Etiomts lacked the two
firft Chapters 5 namely the Genealogy of
Jofefh from David^ and the Hiftory concern
ing the three wife men out of the Eaft : it
began at the Baptifm of John. As for the
Additions, 'tis not (aid exprcfly what they
were : likely, the Hiftory of the Woman
that was taken in Adultery 5 related in many
Copies of St. John's Gofpel, particularly in
thofe from which our Englifa Tranflation
was made. Alfo, fome Anfwers of our Sa
viour, the Names alfo and Qualities of fome
of the Perfons he healed* All which might
be added, from common Report of the DiP-
ciples of our Saviour, and of others who
knew the Fafts and Perfons. Thefe things
are faid to be in the Hebrew Gofpel, either
of the Nazaretts or Ebionits 5 by Eufefauf,
Jerom, Auftin^ Photins, and others. It was
a hard Cenfure by Epipbattius, to call 'em
Adulterations: U|feo more can be objected
to the Copy ufed by the Ebionits, than thefe
traditional Memoirs added in focne places, it
were (if extant) to be highly valued.
The
7 8 A Defence of the Canon
The omiffion in their Copy, of the two
firft Chapters, was indeed the occafion of
great Difputes and Heats among the Anti-
ents. Not uncredibly, the Ebionits might
follow the firft Edition of St. ^Matthews
Gofpel, or his Hebrew Gofpel 5 which might
begin at Chap. 3. that is, at the Baptifin of
John: but when ^latthew publifhed his
Gofpel the fecond time, mGreefa he might
add the Genealogy, and the Hiftory of the
Wife men. TheEbionits being all Jews^ and
underftanding only the Hebrew .(the Syro-
Chaldaic) they adhered to the firft Edition 5
rejecting the other : which alfo not being
publifhed (it may be) in Jud&a, but from
(bme other place 5 they might doubt, whe
ther it were really St. Matthews. I can't
fee, what can be inferred from this, to the
prejudice of Chriftianity, or the Canon of
Scripture 5 except by Perfons, who having
a great mind to be Infidels, pleafe themfelves
with Trifles.
But, " the Marcionites alfo had a different
" Copy, of the Gofpel of Lukf. I con-
fefs, the Antients fpeak of ^Marcions Copy
of St. Luke, as adulterated } particularly 0-
rigen, Irw&us^ Juftin Martyr^ Tertullian : and
laftly Epiphanius, who h^p*noted the parti
cular Alterations, and Subftradions by Mar*
cwn^ they are thefe. He omits the two
firft Chapters, beginning his Gofpel with
the
of the New Teftament.
the Preaching of John Baptifl, Prsscurfor
to our Savior 3 and where the Prophets
were alledged, or were fpoken of, he re
trenches it. The reft, objected to JMard-
on\ Copy, is but ill- grounded , for they
are only various readings, not defigned De^*
pravations. Marcion intended by thefe chan
ges, to conform the Gofpel, to the Sentiments
of his Party., concerning the Prophets : bii
he fo did this, that the fubftance of Chrifti-
anity was ftill the fame , and that, 'twas ea$
to fee, on which fide the Truth lay. This laft
is proved by the event 5 for the Marcionite
Herefy foon became extinft of it fd£ An
attempt to cut off fuch large portions of
this Gofpel, that were found in all the
Copies ufed.in the Churches, was too ex
travagant to fucceed 5 or be long counte
nanced, by aqy (fober) men, unlefi fup-
porttd by Intered
Marcion had been excommunicated by his
own Father, who was a BiQiop, for For
nication : hereupon, he went to Rome 3 but
Letters from his Father, following him,
they would not there receive him into Com
munion. Enraged at this, he fet up a new
Seft 5 being a Leaned Man, he procured
not a few Followers, who made him their
Bilhop: in this Station, he wrote divers
Books 5 and publiftici a new Copy of the
Gofpd by St.£»%, as alfo of St,P^/s E-
piftles,
80 A Defence of the £anon
piftles, making in both divers Alterations.
He repented however, of thefe wicked en
deavors againft Truth, and Peace : he re
conciled himfclf to the Church, undeceived
raoft of his Followers ^ and would have
reduced the reft, but was prevented by
Death. We have this Information, from
the tnoft Antient of the Latin Fathers 5 Ter-
tnllian^ Praefcript. c. 30.
He alledges farther 5 " Johns Gofpel was
cc attributed by fome, to the Heretick Cerin-
<c thus : all the Epiftles of Taul were de-
" nyed by fome 5 and a different Copy fhown
" of em, by others. This (boafted) dif
ferent Copy, is only the Copy of ^Marcion 5
voluntarily and pioufly retraced by himfelf.
Thar, any denyed St. Paul's Epiftles 3
meaning thereby, denyed them to be his $
our Author will not prove, from any of the
Antients. If by denying them, he means,
rejefted the Doftrine of em 5 we grant,
th^y were denyed by the Ebionits : the
witnefs againft 'em is Epiphanius , H<eref.
Ebion. c. 13. The Ebionits were thofe Jew-
id Chriftians, who contended that, the
Law was to be obferved together with the
Gofpel: T>aul obtained againft 'em a De
cree, by the Apoftles and Elders at Jerufa-
km 9 recorded ^5/15. from verf.^^. and
often argues againft their Opinion, in his
Epiftles. This occafioned their reje#ing
thofc
of tie NeV> Teftamentl 8 1
thofe Epiftles} and a great many Calum
nies, againft the Perfbn of that Apoftle : a-
mong other things, they devifed that, Paul
was a Gentile of Tarfus^ and that miffing an
intended Marriage with the Daughter of
a Pried at Jerufalem> he fet himfelf to de-
ftroy the Priefthood and the Law.
The ground on which St. TWs EpifHes
were rejefted by the Ebiomts^ namely that^
in thofe Epiftles he denies that the Gentile
Chriftians were obliged by the Law of J%?-
/e/, being condemned at the Council of
Jewfalem , mentioned ^43s 15. 24. and
the(e Epiftles being warranted, by exprefs
Authority of St. Teter, above quoted : me-
thinks the Ebionits are here objefted with
as little color of Reafon, as Marcion in the
foregoing Paragraph.
'Tis another Exception, that 5 " Johns ^
<c Gofpel was afcribed by fame, to Cmnthus
cc a great Heretick. By the Alogians : but
fb, that this Party embraced in a little time
the common Opinion, that 5 St. John was
indeed the Writer of this Gofpel. Paul of
Samofatum^ Patriarch of jiniioch^ and Pho-
tinut Archbi(hop of Sirmmm, Heads of the
^flogian party, even alledged for their Opi
nion the firft Verfes of St. John's Gofpel $
and made not the leaft doubt either of the
Anchor or Authority of this Gofpel. Epiphar.
Hxref. Samofot. & Photin.
F He
8 2, A Defence of the Canon
He ftill proceeds 3 " The Epiftlesof James
" and Jude^ the 2^ of Peter, the id and 3^
" of jf ob#9 that to the Hebrew f, and the Re-
" relation, were refufed d /0#g f*«/e, by rf/7
*c Chriftians, with d/*»0/2 univerfal Content.
The leaft we can make of this, is that 5
the ^Majority of Chriftians reje&ed thefe
Writings, and that too a long time. But
Eufebius, from whom our Author had his
intelligence, fays otherwife 5 he faith, " thofe
" pieces a re of the number '&$ avnAeyi^W,
" but withal <yvop!/A6)v TOIS noMois, i. e. Gain-
u faid indeed, by we know not who } ^w^
<c received by the Generality. Euftb. H. E. 1. 3.
c. 25.
It feems however they were rejefted by
feme, and that alfo a long time. I anfwer,
they were all received, as foon as the
Churches had full communication with one
another 5 by the Convention of Councils:
which, for fmall Books, containing nothing
that is fingular^ was foon enough. They
were received in the Council of Laodicea^
by obfervation of our Author himfelf.
Thofe feven pieces having nothing, as I
faid, that is fingular $ nothing that is wont
to be alledged by the contending Parties,
againft one another : that Council was at
perfeft Liberty, whether they would re
ceive, or rejeft them 3 they might do ei-
ihtr, without diminution of Imereft, or
of
of the NeD> Teftmentl
of Reputation. I believe therefore, feeing
the Scripture Canon was (b fufficicnt (in
the Opinion of all Parties) without tbofe
'Books 5 they were not owned by the Fa
thers of that Council, but on moft con
vincing reafons. Such as7, that, they had
certain Information that thefe Books were
•read, as Writings of the Apoftles, in all
Churches of antient Foundation 3 that them-
felves found 'em quoted (as Apoftolick
Compositions) in and from the times of the
Apoftles : alfo that there is in them a like-
nefs of the Thoughts, and Expreffion, and
whatever elfe recommends to us the other
Books of Scripture , to the Expreffion, and
Thoughts of the other Divine Books : or
more briefly, they are written with the
fame kind of Spirit, that the undoubted
portions of Scripture are. There might
even "be Teftimony from fome of the
Churches, that 3 they had ftill the firft pub-
lifhed Copies of thefe Books and Epiftles^
with their Dates correfponding to the Age
and Time of the Writers of them.
Can any thing like to this, be faid 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 Apoftolick
Age > Is it not faid by thofe Antients who
had read 'em, and could beft judg of em 5
F 2 they
84 A Defence of the Qtnon
they are compofed with an Addrefi, and Air, '
quite different from that of the Infpired
Books 5 and are not only falfe in the Doc
trine and Fa&s, but very foolifh alfo? If
forae of em were read, in fome Churches 5
was it not, only till the Catholick Church
began to fill with learned and able Perfons,
who could make a Judgment ? And when by
thefe, they were difcharged 5 was there any
Contention for 'em, as there would certain
ly have been, if the fame (or like) reafons
could have been urged for 'em, as for the
Books truly Canonical ?
Of
,'t* J
of the New Teftament. By
Of the Pbilofofber Oelfus, and
Fauftus the Manichee.
I Come therefore, to the laft Refuge of
the Anti-Chriftian party. " Admitting
ct that, the Books of the Canon were (for
" the main of 'em) written by the Apof-
" ties, and their Synergifts : they have been
" however Ib changed, and that divers
" times 5 that now there is little, perhaps
45 nothing left of 'em, in thofe Books that
" fland for them, in our prefent Canon.
The witnefs for this, is the Philofopher Cel-
fis 5 to whom (great) Origen immediatly
anfwered. This Philofopher, lays ^tmyntor^
informs us 3 that " the Chriftians, as if they
" were drunk, had changed the Writing of
" the Gofpel, three or four (or more)
" times : to the end they might deny what-
" foever is urged againft them, as before
" retrafted.
The Philofopher however doth not fay,
the Chriftians have changed (or altered) their
Gofpel 5 he fays only ^s Tn^uovTzw, fbme of
thofe called TSelievers^ have altered the writing
of the Gofpel. Origen makes us to underftand
the meaning of this, in his Anfwer to it 5
which is thus. " Indeed Marcion, and Fa*
F 3 "
8 6 A Defence of the Canon
" lentinnS) and Lucanus^ have prefumed to
a corrupt the Sacred Books. But what is
" that to Chriftianity? He intended here
by 5 does the Church follow the (vitiated)
Copies of Marcion^ or of ( the two Gnof-
tics) Valentinus and Lucarws ? are theirs the
Books we (how, as our Rule of Faith and
Manners? are thefethe Books read in the
Churches of Chriftians ?
In fbort, they would prove : the Books
of our prefect Canon are corrupted , and
greatly altered from what they were 5 and
how is it proved ? Why, MarciotJ^ and Va-
lentwus, and Lmatins^ publifhed fome de
praved Copies, that were reje&ed, fo foon
as they appeared, by all the Churches. Why
do they not fay, the Bibles of the Englifh
Church were corrupted in the Reign of K.
Charles the ^Martyr 3 when the King's Print
ers publifhed an Edition, in which the words
of the Pfalmift were thus printed, The Fool
bath faid in his Heart , there is a God : for
which the Printers were fined 3000 /. and
all the Copies fuppreft by the Ktng s Order.
Has lAtnynior any Evidence, that the
Copies of Vakntinus, Lucanus and Marcion^
or any of them, is the Copy now ufed by
the Catholick Church 5 or doth not he him-
felf certainly know the contrary ? He hath
no fuch Evidence, and he knows the con
trary jwith certainty : therefore, he affeft-
* edl7
"
ct
cc
of the New Teftameni. 87
cdly abufed his Reader 5 and too much for
got that, a deceitful Management of fuch
Subje&s as this, obliges his Reader to diftruft
all he fays, and more efpecially his Quotati
ons.
We {ball be troubled but with one Oppo-
fer more, 'tis Fauftus the Manichee 5 let us
take the matter in our Author's own words.
Nay, as low as St. Anftms time, was
there not a very conjiderable Seff, of the
Ghriftians themfelves, I mean the Xt$Mick*-
ansi) who Jfjewed other Scriptures, and dc-
nyed the genuinnefs of the whole New Tef-
4C tawetit? one of thefe called Fauftus^ 8cc,
In thefe few Lines, are more Fallities, than
Periods.
For the Mwichees were never accounted
a Se8 of Chriftians 5 and whether to be cal
led Chriftians or not, they were far from be<>
ing a very confiderable Se£l : nor did they
fliow other Scriptures^ as written by Chrift:
or his Apoftlesj nor deny the genuinnefs
of the whole New Teftament^ or fo much rs
of any Book, of it. All the bufinefs is, A-
ntyntor knew not how to point the words of
Favftus, nor how to render them into Eng-
lifh 5 his Tranflation of em is not only falfe,
but 'tis non-fenfe.
By the fame figure of Speech, that he calls
the ManicbeeSi Chrijiians ^ he muft alfo call
the Mahometans, Christianas: nay there is
F 4 incom-
88 A Defence of tie Canon
incomparably more reafbn, fo to call the lat
ter, than the former 5 but the latter were
never fo called by any, therefore neither
may the former. Manichaus and Mahomet
equally pretended that, he was the Parackt
(or Comforter) promifed to his Difciples by
our Saviour 5 in thofe words recorded by St.
John : If I go it of, the Comforter (or Paraclet)
mil not co we tint o you 5 but if I depart,! will fend
Urn to you. — When he, the Spirit of Truth,
is come^ He mil guide you into all Truth.
John 1 6. 7, 13. ^Mahomet innovated but
little, comparatively, in the Articles of Re
ligion } Manichtus fubverted all things. He
taught, and his (few) Followers believ
ed 5
i.
There are two Co- eternal Principles, God
and Hj/e $ 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 fome
part of his Divine Subftance is captivated,
by Hyle $ nor (hall it ever be wholly releaf-
eda
3-
God is not the Creator of Mankind, but
INature,
4. The
of the New Teftamenf. 89
4- (
The God of the Old Teftament is a lying,
and impotent Spirit 5 falfe and harlh to his
Servants : and who was neither able, nor
willing to proted, or do good to the Syna
gogue, or Church of the Jews 5 which ferved
him, as an Hand- maid her Miftrefs.
Jefus Chrift was neither born, nor died 5
but is the offfpring of the Holy Spirit, gene
rated in the Earth, and fub/ifting in all liv
ing Creatures 5 as alfo in all Fruits and Vege
tables : the vifible Jefus was only a Phan
tom.
6.
The Patriarchs and Prophets of the Old
Teftament, were the moft flagitious of all
men 5 and ought not to be named, without
ibme particular and remarkable Detefta-
tion.
7-
Souls are a part of the Subftance of God $
and when the Body dies, they enter into
other Bodies of men, or of Beafts, or Fifli 5
or of fome Tree, Herb, or Flower, as their
defert in the prefent Life hath been: except
however, fbme few thorowly purified Souk,
which re-afcend into Heaven 5 where they
live, and row in Boats of Light.
8.
The Sun and Moon are to be adored.
It
po A Defence of the Canon
It is evident by thefe Articles of the Ma~
mchtian Creed, that 5 our Author might as
well (or better) have faid, a There is a
" very confiderable SeS of Chriftians them-
" felves, I mean the ^Mahometans 5 who
<6 (hew other Scriptures, and deny the Books
" of our prefent Canon. If this would be
ridiculous 5 the other, a confiderable Sett of
Chriftians, 1 mean the ^frlanichees, is much
more (b.
Well, let em be a Sett of Chriftians $
yet they were not, as he (aith, a very con-
jiderable Seft. St. */4uftin , who for nine
years was of their Number, (ays 5 in tarn
exigvo, & fene nullo Numero veftro : i. e. you
are a very few, and almoft none at all. And
again, " I confefi, good Chriftians are but
u few : but thofe of our Denomination,
u who are really good, are vaftly more than
<c all you ^Manichees whether good or bad.
Contr. FanftuM) I 20. c. 23.
They (hall be Chriftians, and a very con-
fderableSetf. What then? Why, they fieu>-
ed other Scriptures, different from thofe that
are read and ufed by the Church. If he
means* they (hew Ifome Writings of Mani-
J J Cj
cb&us^ which, among them were valued,
as the Scriptures of the Evangelifts and
Apoftles are efteemed among Chriftians : 'tis
true indeed, but not to the purpofe. No
more than if be had faid 5 the Mahometans
(how
of t\)t New Teftamentt 91
(how an Alchofan^ asChriftians do a Bible:
therefore the Bible is a fpurious, fuppofiti-
tious Book, never wrote by the pretended
Authors of it. The queftion is, whether
the Books of the New Teftament are genu
ine } were indeed written by the Perfons
whole names they bear ? Amyvtor anfwers,
No 5 for the Manichees (a very confiderable
Seft of Chriftians themfelves) (hew other
Scriptures. Plainly if he means, they alfb
fhew Books written by the Patriarch of
their Seft 5 'tis a random Bolt : the enquiry
not being, Whether the Manichees had cer
tain Books, which they followed 5 but,
whether they pretended to prove, that the
Chriftian Bible is not genuin, by (hewing
other (different) Copies of it? And this,
without doubt, Amyntor intended : there
fore I anfwer, they never pretended to
(hew other Copies of the Chriftian Bible,
than thofe in the Catholic Church.
Fattfttts, their Advocate, never fays§
fuch a Text is not in our Copies : he fays
only, I believe 'tis foifted into the Scripture-
context , becaufe ft is a manifefl Falfoood. The
two Paraclets, Manich&us and Mahomet 3
were altogether unlearned 5 they both pre
tended that, the Chriftian Bible was in many
places greatly corrupted: but this they
proved, only by arguing againft the particu
lar Paffages, which they difliked $ not by
pro-
A Defence of tie Canon
producing other Copies, different from thofe
of the Church. In fhort, the way they took,
might prove the Scriptures of Chriftians to
be erroneous $ but by no means to be fpuri-
ous, interpolated, or not gemin. How this
madnefs of the Paraclet^ is to be anfwered,
we (hall confider by and by , we muft now
examine what Amyntor has here added : he
faith,
" The Mamchees not only (hewed other
" Scriptures5but denied alfo the gevninnefs of the
" whole New Tejiament. He hath no witnels
of it 3 Fauftus, whom he alledges, (ays the
contrary. I don't deny, he has truly recited
thofe places of Faujins^ which he hath put
into his Margin : but, as I intimated before,
he hath neither feen, how to rightly point
them, nor truly tranflate them 5 and the
reafon of both (I imagine) was, he oyer-
lookt the Explanations that Faujius gives
(in other Sections) of his meaning and in
tention.
Firft, As to the Epiftles of St. TW, and
of the other Apoftles, both Faujius and St.
^ujlm own exprefly, they were allowed by
the Mamchees. Their words are thefe}
Apoftolum C P^uhm J Accjpis § Muxime.
<* Do you receive Paul'* Epiftles £ Moftreadi-
ic ly^ and efpecially. Lib. H. c. I. Again,
Lib. 12. c. 24. hfiftolas ^Apoftolornm Legi-
tis. Tenttis* Pradtcatti. " Ton read, be-
of tie New Teftamtnt. pj
ci lieve, and even extol the Epiftles of the Apof-
« ties.
As to the Gofpels, Faufius even difdains,
that it fhould be questioned, whether they
are received by the Manichees* " If, faith
" he^ by receiving the Gofpel, you meat!
" obe)wg\t$ it is the Rule of my Life and
<c Conversion. You (Catholics) pretend
** to receive the Gofpel, without giving
" any figns of it, in your manners : and
a you ask me, whether I receive ir, who
" do all things that it requireth} even all
" things that might prevent fuch a Queftion.
Lib. 5. c. i5 2.
Elfwhere he deals more explicitly and
clearly. Lib. 32. c. 7. " We receive as Sa-
" cred Truth, all that the Son hath faid 3
c and even all that was (aid by his Apoftles^
" after they were perfeS and fully inttrucied.
: Wepafiover, and negleft what the ApoP-
<c ties (aid, while they were Novices and
' Ignorant 5 and what was objected to em,
£ and not faid really by 'em : as alfo what
1 has been falfly imputed to 'em, by the
1 Writers $ namely that^ Jefus was (foully)
c born of a Woman, was circnrndfed like
c the jFe^j, offered Sacrifice like the Gextiles,
' was baptized in a fordid manner, was car-
c tied about and miferably tempted by the
: Devil. Thefe few things excepted, to-
" gether with all their Quotations out of
A "Defence of tie Canon
u the old Testament $ we receive the Writers,
" £ he means the four Evangelifts,] and all
" they have recorded, or taught in their
" Books : more efpecially, we receive the
a Myftical Crucifixion 5 with the Precepts,
a Parables, and whole Divine Word of
" Chrift.
If ^fntyntor had attended to thefe Paflages,
he would have perceived, how the words of
this iManichee ( which he cites ) are to be
Pointed, and Tranflated into the Englifi.
Let us firft fee, how Awyntor reads, and
renders 'era.
Solius Filii putatis Teftamentum non potuijfe
corruwpi 5 folnm non habere aliquid quod in fe
debeat improbari : prsefertim quod nee ah ipfo
fcrtytum cottjtat) nee ab ejus Apoftolti : fed
longo pojl tempore a quibufdam incerti nominis
viriS) qni^ nefibi non haberetur fides fcribenti-
bus qua nefcirent^ partita ^fpoftolorum nomtna^
partim eorum qui ^fpoflolos fecuti viderentur^
fcrtytorum fuorum frontibus indiderunt^ ajfive-
rarztesfecundumeosfefcripfljje qu&fcripferint. He
englifhes it, thus. u You think, that of all
" the Books in the world, the Tejtament of
" the Son only could not be corrupted, that
" ic alone contains nothing which ought
" to be difallowed 5 efpecially when it appears,
" that it was neither written by himfilfy nor
" his ^poftles, but a long time after by cer-
<4 tain obfcure Perfons, who, left no credit
fhould
of tie New Teftament. 9 5
" (hould be given to the Stories they told of
" what they could not know, did prefix to
" their Writings partly the names of the
" Apoftles, and partly of thofe who fuc-
** ceededthe Apoftles $ affirming that what
rt they wrote themfelves, was written by
" thefe.
We (hall fee prefently, Light and Dark-
nels are not more contrary, than this ac
count of the Books that make the prefent
Canon of the New Teftament, is to the
real Opinion of Fauffus^ 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 3 it offers to prove a
certain point, by a Confederation quite con
trary to it. It reprefents the Manichee as
faying 5 you (Catholics) think the Teffa-
fftent of the Son contains nothing that may be
difallowed: becaufe it appears that, neither
himfelf nor his Apoftles wrote it 5 but cer
tain obfcure Fellows, who to make them-
felves believed in matters of which they fy?ew
nothing^ put the Names of the Apoftles to
their own Flams and Forgeries. I demand
now of Amyntor+ was this a Reafon, fit to
prove that the Teftament of the Son has no
thing in it that can be difallowed 5 even this,
'twas written by obfcure Fellows, who hav
ing Feigned the(e Matters, fet to 'em the
Names of the Apoftles and their Succeflbrs >
Tis
9<5 A Defence of tie Qmon
'Tis a Reafon, that moft plainly overthrows
the Propofition, which it was to confirm 3
in (hort, 'tis a Bull, a Contradiction, and
Nonfenfe. Tis as if I ftiould fay, the King
of Spam is like to live this three (even years 3
for he is very infirm, and dying (in a man
ner) every day.
Well 3 lee us again fet down the Latin of
the Manichee, and Pointing it right, fee what
fenfe it will make.
Solius Filii, ptitatis, Teftamentum von po-
turffe corrumpi 3 folum non habere aliquid, qu&d
in fe Meat improbari .<? Prxfertim, quod nee
ab ipfo fcriptum conftat, nee ab ejus Apoftolis 3
fed longo poft tempore, a quibufdam incerti no-
minis viris : qui^ ne fibi non baberetur Fides.,
firibwtibus qu<z nefcirent 5 partim Apoflolorum
nomina, partim eorum qui Apoftolos fecuti vi-
derentur^ feriptorum fuorum frontibus indide-
runt 5 affeverantes, fecvndum eos fe feripjt/e
qua fcripferunt.
To be Englifhed thus. J Do ye think
« that, of all Books in the World, only the
" Teflamext of the Son could not be de-
" praved 3 and that, it alone contains no-
" thing that can be gainfaid ? EfpeciaUy^
" that of it (or that part of it) which not
*c only, was not written by himftlf 3 buY
" not by his Apoftles : but a long time af-
<c ter, by certain obfcure Fellows. Who,
« left no Credit (hould be given to what
Teftmentl 97
ft they wrote, concerning matters which
" they could not know, put the names of
a Apoftles and their Succeflbrs, in the front
" of their Books 3 affirming that, what they
" wrote themfelves, was written by thofe
" Apoftles.
He (peaks here of the Alts, Revelations,
Epiftles, Gofpels of the Catalogue 5 he fays,
the genuine Teftantent of the Son is much
depraved by thefe (purious Books: which
were contrived and publifhed long after the
deceafeof the Evangelifts and Apoftles that
wrote the Books truly Canonical 5 by ob*
(cure Wretches, that put to their ft.gned
Gofpels and Ads the names of Andrew^ Tho-
wa*^ *Philip, ^Bartholomew^ and other A pot
tles, and their Succeffors. Briefly, Faujlus
meant not in the leaft, to fay 3 the Booly of the
Canon are falQy intitled to the Apoftles,
and Evangelifts, whofe names they bear 2
but that, the Teftamevt of the Son has beep
vitiated, and difgraced, by divers other Go
fpels, Afts, Epiftles, meaning thofe of the
Catalogue 3 which never were the Works of
true Apoftles, but of certain Botchers, who
Hitching together fome flying Reports, ex-
pofed their wares to lale, under the names
of fome of the Apoftles, and of their im
mediate Succeffors.
Q His
p 8 A Defence of the Qtnon
His other Citation, out of Fauftus, is no
betters nor (upon the main) better under-
flood by him: it is this.
Mult a a Majoribus ueftrit, eloquiis Domini
noftri inferta font verba9 qu& nomine Jignata
ipftus cum ejut fide non congruunt 5 prtfertiat
quia, ut jam fepe probatum £ Nobis eft,
nee ab ipfo h*c font, nee ab ejus Apoftolis fcrip-
ta : fed multa^ poft eorum affumptionem & m-
few quibitSt & ipfis infer fe non concordant*-
bus Semi-judais^ per f&mas opinionefque com*
pert A funt.
He renders it in thefe words. " Many
"• things were foifted by your Anceftors8
a into the Scripture of our Lord 3 which,
" tho marked with his Name* agree not with
" his Faith. And no wonder, fince, asthofe
(( of our Tarty have already frequently proved,
" thefe things were neither written by him-
" felf nor his Apoftles : but (everal matters
" after their deceafe were pick'd up from
" Stories and flying Reports, by I know
" not what (et of Half- Jews 5 and thefe alfo
^ not agreeing among themfelves.
Reach me the Ferula, for they are School
boys Miftakes. In this place, Jam is not,
already 5 or fope, frequently : much lefs is 2f
Nobti) thofe of our Party ^ which it never fig-
nifies, and had Fauftus intended to (ay by
thofe of our Party , he would have (aid a No£
trif,
of tfa Neft> Teftdmenf. 9^
trif. His vfords Jam fepe ptobatum eft a No-
bjf, were thus meant, As I have but now
f roved, by divers Examples : for he refers to
the feveral Examples he had juft before given,
of Doftrines and FaSts, which (as he Jnp-
pofcd, and foppofed he had proved it) were
added to the Go/pels of Matthew and Luke 5
only he fpeaks of him(el£ as Authors are
commonly wont, in the Plural number, fay
ing a Nobis for a me.
But from all this, Amyntor infers, and im-
mediately fubjoins 5 fincc therefore the Mani-
chxans rejected the whole ?AQn> 1'eftarttent, &C.
You are a great deal too hafty, Son 5 your
Friends the Maniehees received the wfiole
Genuine Canon of the New Teftament : they
rejected only, the corrupt part of the Tefta
ment of the Son^ even the Gofpels and other
pieces of your Catalogue $ and feme Ptjfiges
which (they pretended) had been unduly infert-
ed into the Epiftles and Gofpels of the Canon 3
nor will you ever make more of your Cita
tions from Fauftw, by whatfoever ftretching
and (training them,
By this it appears, how much our Author
is pleas'd with Hyperbolies $ he fays, " A
" very considerable Se<5t, of Chriftians them*
" felves, I mean the Manichees^ (hewed o~
*c ther Scriptures, and denied the Genuin-
€c nefs of the whole New Tejiartent. He (bould
have faid, a f#Httt T*arty^ left Chriftians by
G a much
A "Defence of tie Canon
He that is hanged^ is accurfed of God^ Deut.
21. 23.
The God of the Old Teftaraent, faid the
Manichees, appears to have been a wicked,
and impotent Spirit , chiefly, by his com-
mandingthe {laughter of innocent Beafts, for
the Sins of guilty Men : and by dealing fo
har(lijy? with his Slaves the Jews. There
fore, his Prophets ajfo are to be rejefted :
as for the fame reafon we wpuld (and do)
rejed the Priefts and Prophets, of the other
evil Gods of the Nations,
If: is not to- be thought,, fo they went o&9
that, Jefus Chrift commended, or his Apop
ties cited, the writings of the Prophets and
Servants of fuch an impure God : no, all
fuch Citations and Commendations have
been (undoubtedly) added, by certain Peo
ple that were half Jews and half Chriftians,
to the Gofpels and Epiftles of the New Tef-
tament. So alfo was whatfoever is found
in thofe Books concerning the Genealogy,
Birth, Gircumcifion5 Temptationj Baptifin,
or Death of Chrift, Who being God, un
derwent all thefe things 5 only in appear
ance, and by that Phantom (which the Vul
gar took to be real Chrift) that reprefent-
ed him : even as Angels feem to have Bo«?
dies, to be clothed, to eat and {Irink£ when
in truth they neither drink nor eat$ nor aje
nor have real Bodies,
* This
of the New Teftameni. To J
This was the Manichaan Do&rine, with
refpeft to the Chriftian Religion, and Books
of the New Teftament , to which they ad
ded the eight Articles, before mentioned,
taught 'em by Manich<ew, and his Second
jtdimantuS) and maintained by Faujiw.
Says St. Attftin. One may eafily make
(hort work, with this wild People. For
whereas all depends on the Authority of
Manichtv* : I defire to know, how they
prove he was that Paraclet 3 that Spirit of
Truth, that was to lead us into all truth 5
promifed by our Saviour ? They anfwer in-
deed> out of St. John's GofpelY / veil! fend
the Comforter (or Paraclet) the Spirit of
Truth, who /halt lead yon Into all Truth : but
they (ay withal, the Gofpels (and other
Books of the New Teftament) are fo cor
rupted, that there is no (abfolute) trufting
to em. We demand a Witnefs, on behalf
of their Paraclet : they alledg one, out of
our own New Teftament 5 whi£h (they
(ay) isafalfeand corrupted Witnefs. Any
Book or other Witnefs, convift of Falfhood
and Corruption, in bearing its Teftimony 5
efpecially, of many Corruptions, and Falfi-
ties s is uncapable of ftanding again as a
Witnefs (merely on its own Credit) in
whatfoever Cafe. Briefly, by accufing the
New Teftaraent, as a Book in fo many places
G 4 corrupt-
i oo A Defence of the Canon
much than the Mahometans, denied the
genuinnels of thofe farts of the Gofpels and
Epiftles, where the Books of the Old'Tef-
tament are cited : as alfb where mention is
made of the Genealogy, Birth, Temptati
on, Baptifm, or Death of Ghrift 3 becaufe
they fuppofed, Chrift was God only, and
Man not at all 3 and that it was unworthy
of God to be born, tempted, baptized, or
put to death.
The Obje&ion however hath ffill fome
force.- 'tis thus far true, that fome there
were who faid, the Books of the Canon are
not now altogether Gncere 5 they are cor
rupted by divers Additions. Yes, the Ma-
uichees faid fo : and if our Author had
pleafed, he could have told us, by what
Arguments they were convinced of their
Impertinence and Folly 3 it would very well
have become him, to have taken that (little)
tarther pains.
\ V' u ,?~f. nan
•. ^_-
Of
tf the New Teftament. i o i
Of the (pretended) Interpola
tions*, and Additions, in the
Books of the Canon.
TH E Mamchees faid : The JBromhor,
the Spirit of Truth, promifed to the
Faithful by Chrift, even the bleffed Mani-
chms^ was ftnt by God, to inform his E-
led, and all other his People, concerning
his farther Will and good-pleafure : as alfo
to inftruft them, what of the New Tefta
ment is genuine, and to be received by all 3
and what to be rejefted, as either mifiafyn
by the Apoftles yet unperfeft, or fince 'ad-
ded by others to the Writings of the Apof
tles and Evangelifts.
Being asked, What thefe Miftakes, and
Additions were ? They anfwered 5 whatfc-
ever • is ; faid of the Genealogy, Birth, Bap-
ti(m, Temptation, artd real Death of Chrift 5
all quotations out of, and all honourable
mention any where made concerning the
Patrkrchs, Prophets and Writers of the Old
Teftament. When demanded, farther $ on
what grounds they prefiimed to rejeft, ei
ther the Old Teftament, or fuch large por
tions of the New ? They replyed 3 IMofis
has blafphemed Chrift, in thofe words of his,
'G-- Be
i*4
corrupted , they deprive themfelves of what-
foever benefit, that might arife to them,
from its Teftimony.
But to forgive to Fools, an overfight ,
that deftroys their whole Caufe : -St. Job*
(hall be a fincere Evangelift, in fpeaking of
the Spirit, or Paraclet 5 tho the other Books
-and Writers, and he himfelf in other mat
ters, hath been miftaken, or is corrupted by
others. But as this is the Evangelift, who
has foretold the fending of the Paraclet^
fb he hath alfb foretold the time when he
fhouldcome: for he faith, John 7.39. The
Holy Spirit\was not yet given , becaufe Jefu*
was not yet glorified. The reafbn, it feems,
that the Spirit was not then given, w^$
becaufe Jefus not being yet glorified, that is,
not departed from his Difciples into Hea
ven, 'twas not neceflary he ftould be yet
given : but when Jefw was deacj, raifed, and
afcended into Heaven , then was the time
to fend forthwith the Paraclet. According
ly, we find in the A&s of the Apoftles, in
the fecond Chapter of thofe A&s, fifty days
after our Savior's Refurreftiop, $nd but ten
days after his Afcenfion into Gl^ny, the Spirit
(the promifed Paraclet) defcended on the
Apoftles. What room now is here for Mon-
tanw^ or for tMankh&u* ? The Spirit of
Truth was to come, fo foon as Chrift was
gone
of the New Teftamentl ¥05
gone from his Apoftles, and entred into the
Glory defigned for him 5 but ^Montanus came
not till 1 70 years after Chrift was glorified,
and Manichtfus (as if our Savior had ut
terly forgot his promife) not till the year
275.
The Father goes on. I will take no Ad
vantage of all this 5 I will otherwife con
vince you, that your Patriarch was a Sedu
cer, and a Liar. He fays, the Books of the
New Teftament have been corrupted, by
Additions made to 'em : certain Half-Jem
have added Citations out of the Old Tefta
ment 5 and falfe Tales concerning the Pa
rentage, Nativity, Circumcifion, Tempta
tion, Baptiftn, Death of Chrift : all which
are impoffible flams, becaufe he that was
God, and not Man at all, could neither do
nor fujffer any of thefe things. Therefore I
ask, did Manich&us alledg, or can you pro
duce, any Copies of the New Teftament ;
therein all thefe things are not found?
When fome Copies of a Book have fome-
thing, that others have not , there is either
Miftake, or Fraud, in one or other of them :
and we are wont in that Cafe, to confult
more Copies $ efpecially thpfe that are An-
tient, and thofe that are preierved in Libra
ries, or in Archives that have been long
and religioufly kept. From the greateft
number
i 06 rA Defence of tie Canon
number of Copies, and thole that are tnoft
Antient 3 and that have been kept in pla
ces, where they could not eafily or likely be
violated, by Additions or Subftra&ions 5 we
judg reafonably, and fafely, concerning the
Copies that are fufpe&ed or queftioned. I
pray, therefore, (how us, or refer us to Co
pies, where thefe (pretended) Additions
are not reads in what Libraries, in what
Archives of Churches or Se&s, are fuch
Copies to be found ? But as you never pre
tended, to any fiicb Copies 3 fo 'tif imfof*
jible^ there (Iwuld be any fuch. For the New
Teftament being in the hands of *#Chrifti-
ans, and read in all Churches : thefe (pre
tended) Additions could never be made,
and leaft of all in the publick Books of the
Churches 5 without being obferved, known,
and oppofed in their very firft appearance.
Are there fo many thoufand Churches, and
diftant from one another fo many thoufand
Miles, under the Infpe&ion of fo many di£
tinft Bifhops and Presbyters 5 nay and of
ieveral Princes : and could all thefe Books,
think you, be corrupted, without their ob-
ferving it ? Or what is as impoffible, or
i-ather more impoffible $ by common Agree
ment ? For are fo many wont to agree, to
falfe Addition to their Books of
goni*
Thefe
of the Neu> Teflameni. 107
Thefe arefome of the Argument*, of that
difcerning Father, againft Fautfus, and his
Patriarchs Manubtns and «4dii»antus ; I am
of opinion, we have here given to Aw$ntQr9
as 'tis faid in the Proverb, A Rowland for
his Oliver. Fau&us is not fo confiderable,
but that St. ^uttin appears much more con
fiderable. In Fauffus, one may fee an »»-
reafonable Infidelity, a precipitate and un
grounded ScepticiGn ; in St, ^/«i?/», Cauti
on and Faith, led on by Judgment } a Judg<-
ment enlightqed by Learning, and Expert
ence.
I omit what he faith, of the God of the
Pld Teftament 3 of the Patriarchs and Pro
phets 3 as forein to my prefent Undertaking
and Subjeft ; I only obferve farther, that $
What he hath fo well argued againft Mo»ta-
»#f, and ManJchtw, is no lefi efFeftual, ar
gainft the third Paraclet^ Mahomet, who
arofe after St. Au&in. If Montana in the
year after Chrift 170, or JManichxus in 275,
could not be the promifed Paraclet 3 becaufc
the Evangelift, on whofe Authority their
Claims are founded, fets a time (whet*
Jefus foall be glorified) that difagrees fo
widely from the time of their appearance,
and agrees fo exa&ly with the time of the
defcent of the Holy Spirit oq the Apoftles ;
I fay 5 if for this fo clear Reafon 5 neither
Monte-
i o 8 A ^Defence of the Canon
Wlontanus in 170, 'nor Manichdus in 255,
could be that Parade* that was to lead into all
Truth: much lefs:ccmld Afe/x^e* be he, in
the year after burLord 612 $ feeing neither
did Mahomet pretend to any other ground,
for his Novelties, biit-thofe words in St.
jf0£»'s Gofpel concerning "a future Parackt.
See Father Simons Belief and Cnttoms of the
Eastern Nations^ Ghap. 1 5. When the fame
Importer, as his Predeceffor Mamchtus, ac-
cufes the Bible of ?Chriftians $ as having
many corrupt Additions!, and other Falfifica-
tions^ he is unanfwerably refuted by the
fame Confiderations, that were objefied,
(before) to Manicktxs.
SIR, I have now anfwered as fully as (I
think ) is needful, to a Book 3 which, you
tell me, is fo much magnified by the Anti-
Chriftian Party about Town. They fay,
this Book has fo difcovered, and laid bare,
the (unfound) Foundations of Ghriftianity 5
that 'tis now to be blowri down by the very
weakeft Breath : and tba}> if an Anfwer any
what valuable, be made to it $ the Author
will take cccafion thereat, by new and more
and greater Authorities, to level all revealed
Ifftpoffure with the very Ground. He can
level nothing by fuch an attempt, but his
own Reputation 5 nror do I think, he ap
proved
of the New Teftamentl i o$>
proves thefe impious Boafts, of that Party of
men. It may be queftioned, whether he
bad any formed Defign , to attack Ghrifti-
anhy, by this Book : it feems rather, that,
when his Paffions were up, againft Mr. Black?
hal^ he inadvertedly dropt thefe Exceptions
and Doubts, of which fome make fo bad
ufe$ or (rather) ftrain fuch malignant
Gonfequences, from them. To cut out
work for Mr. Blacfyal, with whom he was fo
much difpleafed} he difcharged upon him,
whatfoeyer occurred to his Memory, Ftom
firft Antiquity 5 with intent to engage him
in laborious, difficult, and unwelcome
Searches. However it be, it appears he is a
Perfon of great Abilitys, and Addrefi, in
matters of this kind : and it were to be
wifh'd, men of very diftinguifhing Parts
and Sufficiency, were not made Enemies to
the Church, or to the Public, either by
being abufed, or becaufe they are negle&ed.
You (hall not awe fuch Perfons by your Me
naces, or your Severities 5 when even fuch
mean Rogues as Houfe- breakers, and High
way-men, are not feared by the Gibbet and
Gallows. The only effeft to be expefted,
from neglefit of, or harQinefs toward fuch,
is that, they go at length into the interefts
of fome difaffe&ed Party, or ereft a new
one : after which, whatfoever becomes of
them,
i lo A Defence of tU
them, the Public and the Church are fore
to be infinitly more lofers 5 than it would
have coft to gain, and to affure them, to the
Public. But, manum de tabula $ for who
made me a Gounfellor to the Church, or the
Public? You 'will pleale, Sir, to believe
that, I am, with great Tenderneli and Re*
fpeft,
Your affured Friend,
STEPHEN NY&
of the New Teftamtnt. i i \
There is room, in this Leaf, for two Stan-
sas by Sir William Davenant : Which are per
tinent to the Subjeft, that we have been
treating.
In ike darkJVal^ to our la& Howe, defignd 5
'lit fafe, by well-inftru&ed Guides to go :
Left we in Death too late the Science find
Of what in Life 'twas foffible to kpow.
And if they fay (while daily fome renew
fiijputes) your Oracles are doubtful ftilt $
Like thofe of Old : yet more regard it
To Painty where Jo uneajy it the tk}ll.
THE END.
.. ^
•*
AN
ABSTRACT
Of the foregoing
DISPUTATION, ri
THE Controverfy hath been,
partly concerning the Books of
tie fanoriy and partly concerning thofc
of the (Catalogue.
Of the Boofy of the Canon,
Amyntor fays ;
i;
ALL the Authors of the Canon >
wen wholly grangers to one a-
nothers Writings.
I have proved on the contrary,
that, Mark's Gofpel is but an Abridg
ment, of the Gofpel by Matthew ,-
that, St, Luke ( in the firft Verfes of
H his
ii4 A Defence of the
his Gofpel ) commends the Gofpels of
Matthew and Mark : that, St. John ap
proved the Goipels of thefe three for
mer Evangelifts ; and wrote his Gof
pel, only by way of Supplement to
theirs : that, St. Peter commends the
Epiftles of Paul; and fignifies at the
fame time, that they were commonly
read, and a bad Ufb made of them
by fome: that, the Catholick Epif
tles, (by James, Peter, Judey and Jobn ,•)
the Epiftle to the Hebrews, and the
Revelation > being written either to
whole Nations, or to all Chriftians,
were certainly publifh'd as foon as
written.
At leaft, tie Clergy and Churches were
unacquainted with the Books of the New
Teftament, till 150 years after Chrift.
I have ihown, they were quoted
by all the (extant) Writers of thofe
Times,- tyBarnabM, Hennas^ Ignati-
u*, Tolycarp, Clemens ®£manw : and by
lome
of the Nefr Teftaminf. 1 1 j
fbrtie riot Extant, as Hfyw* of Hiera-
poli* in the year 1 1 o. Farther thatj
the four Gofpels, the A6ts, Revela
tion, Catholick Epiftles, and Epiftle
to the Hebrews, being written for *
general Information, or to whole
Churches or Nations ; they were writ
ten to be ptibli/b'di and fi&tifltd M foori
as toritten : and that, 'tis a very preca
rious and withal an unreafbnable fap-
poficion , that , the Clergy and
Churches were ignorant of the pub~,
lijh'd 'Booh of their Religion. Jbat,
the contrary (in truth) is evident :
for as early as Juftin Martyr's time,
the Churches entertained a Deader ;
befides the Deacons, Presbyters, and
Bifhop ; who read the Old and New
Teftaments to the Affembly.
.
It teas impoffible, wfan the Books of tbe1
Canon fir ft appeared , to Jiftinguifi them from
fpurious GoJpels^Afts^iftlesyand fyvdati-
Ms ,- wbicb were alfo entitled to the slpoftks*
H i I
^ 1 6 A "Defence of the Canon
I have replyed, there was nothing
more obvious or eafy to the then
Churches, than to diftinguifh them,
with abfolute certainty ; by their A-
greement or Difagreement with the
Doctrine, and Hiflory of our Savi
our ; which thofe Churches had but
juft before received by word of Mouth,
from the Apoftles and other firft
(miraculous) Preachers.
••S J-'v^oiSSS S/i-S "
Different Copies were fhown of all the
Canonical Booh, from the Very firft :
the Nazarens and Ebionits had a Gofyel
of St. Matthew, different from ours ;
the Marcionits of St. Luke,, and of the
Epiftks of Paul.
I have anfwer'd, Marcion was fo
ingenuous, as to retraft his vitiated
Copies of St. ^Paul's Epiftles, and of
-St. Luke's Gofpel; the Copy of Mat-
•then? uled by the Nazarens y was (fay
the Antients ) 7rA«f eWrw, mojt perfect :
the Eb'wnite Copy, being probably St.
Matthews
of the New Teftament. i 17
Matthew's fir ft ( or Hebrew ) Edition
of his Gofpel, did indeed want the
two firft Chapters ,• and in time
they had added fome Traditional Me
moirs, from the Witnefs of (bme Dif-
ciples that had feen the Fa&s, and
knew the Perfons ,- it were to be
wifh'd, we had ftill this Copy.
Jbe Books of the Canon mere imputed
by Jome Very con fider able Setts of Chrlftl*
ansy not to the dpofties wbofe names they
bear ; but either to Hereticfa , or to a
fet of Hdf-Jews and Half-Cbriftians>
wbo bad written them only Jrom bear fay
and flying %torfr.
I have evinced, that, only the
Gofpel o£ John was ever miflayed :
and that, the Alogtcffts fbon faw their
Error in the Cafe ,• not only receiving
that Gofpel, but receiving it alfo
(with all other Seels and Church
es) AS St. JohnV. 7hat, the Mani*
dees (the other conjiderable Sett of
H 3
1 1 8 A 'Defence of the Canon
Cbriftians iqtpnded in the Objection )
owned our four Gofpels, the Epif-
tlesqf 5W, all the Catholick Epif-
tics, and all other Books of our Ca
non : in fliort that, Amyntor certain
ly (and inadvertently enough) mif-
topk the meaning of the Author
( Pauftu* the Manichee ) whom he ak
ledged.
"The Pbilofofler Celfus complains
Cbriftians bad alter 'd tbeir Gofyd ,
tbree or four, or more times.
Celfu*^ I have faid, meant this, of
the Copies of Manion, and of Vdwr
tinus and Lucanus : which never were
ufed in the Churches ; but at their
fitft appearance were dete^ed,
rejefted by fll Churches,.
Of
of the New Teftament.] 1 1 ^
Of the Booty of the Catalogue,
be faith;
• J >Y .
t
MA N T o/ *m toe ntf for
fuppreft, by the ftrongeft fide
m the Cburcby than loft : and that, pro* .;
fcaWj ffo)/ were the genuin Works of the
Apoflles. \\\
I have granted, divers of 'em
might be the real Works of thofc
whofe names they bore j and that
our lofs of them is to be regretted :
but the whole body of Learning has
fuffer'd extremely, by the lofs of fome
of the beft Books in every Science
and Art. Notwithftanding, the Rea-
fons alledged by the Antients againft
many of them, are fufficient to con
vince us that, there was juft caufe
to flight, and even to fupprefs them*
H
i zo A Defence of the Canon
Tk Epiftles of Barnabas, Ignatius,
Polycarp, Clernsns Roraanus, and the
<Paftor o) Her mas, were efteemed by the
Antknts to be as good Scripture, as any
part of the New Teftament : they were
received, by tfa founde/i of the Antients ;
who at the fa^netime rejected divers Booh
of our prefent Canon? namely, the Reve
lation, the Epiftle to the Hebrews, the
Epiftle of Jude, the Jecond of Peter,
and the fecond and third of John.
But I have produced unqueftion-
able Teftimoray, of 'tbe< Antients ;
that thefe4effer pieces of the Canon
were always received by the genera
lity, of Churehesan4Chriftians : and
that, when they were owned in the
Council of Laodicea, 'twas on very
good grounds*- on the yiw^Reafons-
xphieh oorwirtced 'em o:^ ttie genuin-
iieis of tfe^ otiier Books of the
As to tBarxabM Jgnati-
, and Clemens (%o
of 'the New Teflammtl 1 2?
manus*; they were considered indeed
as pious and well-minded Compofi-
tions ; but were read no otherwife,
but as we now read in our Churches
the Apocryphal Books of the Old Tef-
tament : which, for all that, we di-
redly deny to be Divine Scripture*
and many think them not very Edi
fying or Profitable, efpecially fbme
of them.
The principal (Ante-nicen) Fathers quo
ted diVtu- Gofpds, Epiftles, and Atts of
the Catalogue ; as Scripture, and Cano
nical : and this is all that can be faidf
for the Books of the Qnivh ,• and more than
can he truly- /aid, for fame of them.
I have alledged the very words of
thofe Fathers : it appears, they never
cite the Books of the Catalogue, as
Divine Scripture ; and in reciting the
Books of the true Scripture-Canon
and of the Apoftles, they always omit
d//the Gofpels and other Books of the
Cata-
'in A Defence of tie Canon, Sec.
Catalogue. I grant however, that-
the mere Terms Scripture and Canonical
were at firft applied to all Ecclefiaflical
Books, that were judged Orthodox «
as alfo to the Apocryphal Books of the
Old Teftament • to diftinguifh them
from the Moral pieces, of the Hea
then Philofophers : but the (alledged)
Fathers hawmadeus know the great
difference, they put between mem
Scripture, and Divine Scripture ; betweei)
Canonical, and Infpired.
Nam pudet, 1><ec opprolria
Et did potuijfe, Cr non potuijfe
• ':r, 31 : ?,i
\ '•_
1o <-.
FINIS.
•
bn;;.dsq;k}3 :
ALL
•TX if/;
Advertifentent.
the Works of the late Reverend and Learned
William Bates, D. D. and (brae Account of him
in a Funeral Sermon by Mr. John How^ with an Alpha
betical Table to the whole, are propofed to be printed
in a large Folio, on an extraordinary Paper and Cha
racter, at twenty five Shillings in quires-, they that
fubfcribe for fix to have a feventh gratis : The Book to
contain about 250 Sheets. They that arc willing to
incourage fo ufeful an Undertaking, are defired to (end
in their Subfcriptions with all fpeed to
Jonathan Robinfon at the Golden Lion in St. PauF s
Church-yard *, or to
Brabazon Aylmw at the three Pigeons againft the
Royal-Exchange in CornbiL
The fourth Edition of Mr. Pook's Annotations on the
Bible is now in the Prefs, and will be (hortly pub-
lilhed : it is propos'd to Subfcribers at fifty Shillings
in Quires, tho printed on a much better Paper than
the former Edition. They that fubfcribe for fix to
have a feventh. Subfcriptions are taken by the feme
Perfons,
A Complete Hiftory or Survey of the various Methods jmdi
Difpehfations of Religion, from the beginning of the World
to the confummation of all things, as reprefented in the Old
and New Teftament. In which the Almighty's Wifdom is
difplayed in the Government of the Church, thro the fe-
veral Ages of it. In 2 Vol. By John H<fo?7ffc> &•!>• Price 10 />
Sold by J. Ro
BOOKiS fold by Andrew Bell m Cornhil.
A ..Complete Hiflory of the Canon and Writers of the
Books cf the Old and New Teftament, by way of Dif-
fertatjon : with ufcful Remarks en that Subjeft. Vol. /. On
tbs Boo^s of the Old Teftament. By L. E. Du Pin, Doftor of
the Svtion, and Reglm. Profefibr of Philofophy in Paris.
J>one from^the French. Price 12 s.
Difcourfes concerning Government, by Algernon Sidney
Son to Robwt Earl of Lekefter, and Ambafiador from the
Commonwealth of England to Charles Guftavws King of
Sweden. Publiflxd from an Original Manufcript of the Author.
Price 1 5 s.
.A complete Colleftion of the Hiftorical, Political, and
Miscellaneous Works of John Milton, both Engliih and Latin.
With fome Papers never before publifh'd. In 3 Vol. To
which h prefix'd, The Life of the Author, containing, befides
the Hiftory of his Works, feveral extraordinary Charafters of
Meji and Books, Sefts, Parties, and Opinions. Price 3 5 s.
The General Hiftory of England both Ecclefiaftical and
Civil, from the earlieft Accounts of Time to the Reign of
his prcfent Majefly King William III. Taken from the moft
intient Records, Manuscripts and Hifrorians. Containing the
Lives of the Kings, and Memorials of the mod Eminent
•Fcrfons both in Church and State^ With ^hc Foundations
of the Noted Monafteries, and bath the Univerfities. Vol. f,
By James Tyrrcl Efq^ Price 20 j-. The fecond Volume is
in the Prefs, and will fhortly be publifhed.
An Inquiry concerning Virtue, in two Difcourfes : the firfl
of Virtue, and the belief of a Deity j the fecond, cf the Ob
ligations to Virtue. Price 2 s.
An Eifay concerning the Power, of the Magistrate, and the
Rights of Mankind in Matters cf Religion. With fome Rea-
fons in particular for the Diifenters not being oblig'd to take
the Sacramental Teft but in their own Churches, and for a Ge
nera! Naturalization, Together with a Foft&ript in anfwer
co the Letter to a Convocation-man. Price 2 s.
The Stage condemned , and the Incouragement given to- the
Immoralities and Profanenefs of the Theatre,- by the.Eng-;
liflr Schools, Univerfities and Pulpits vcenfur'd^ K. Charles'.
the frrfVs Sundays Mask and Declaration for Sports and Paf-
times on the Sabbath, largely related and animadverted^ on :
The Arguments of all the Authors that have writ in de
fence of the. Sage againft Mr. Coflfer, confider'd ; And the
fente
Books fold by Andrew Bell.
Icnfe of the Fathers, Councils, antient Philofophers and
Poets, the Greek and Roman States, and of the firft Chriftian
Emperors concerning the Drama, faithfully delivered 5 with
other ufeful matters. Price 2 s. 6 d.
A Detection of the Court and State of England during the
four laft Reigns, and the Interregnum ; condfting of private
Memoirs, foe. With Obfervations and Reflections -, and an
Appendix diicovering the preient State of the Nation. Where
in are many Secrets never before made publick j as alfo a
more impartial Account of the Civil Wars in England than ha*
yet been given. By A. Coke Efq^ The 3^ Edition very much
corrected, with an Alphabetical Table. Price 7 y.
A Complete Hiftory of Europe, or a View of the Affair,
thereof, Civil and Military, from the beginning of the Treaty
of Nimeguen 1676. to the Peace concluded with the Turks
1699. including the Articles of the former^ and the fevcral
Infringements of them •, the Turkiih Wars 5 the forming of
the Grand Confederacy ; the Revolution in England, gf&
With a particular Account of all the Aftions by Sea and Land
on both fides -, and the lecret Steps that have been nude to*
wards a Peace, both before as well as during the lafl Negoti
ation. Wherein are feveral Treaties at large. The whole in-
termix'd with divers Original Letters, Declarations, and Me
moirs never before publifh'd. The id Edition corrected, and
very much inlarg'd. Price 6 s.
An Account of the firft Voyages and Difcoveries made by
the Spaniards in America. Containing the moft exaft Relati
on hitherto publifh'd, of their unparallel'd Cruelties on the
Indians, in the deftruftion of above 40 Millions of People.
Together wich the Proportions offered to the King of Spain
to prevent the further Ruin of the Weft-Indies. By Don Bar
tholomew de la* Cafas, Biihop of Chiapa, who was an Eye-
witnels of their Cruelties. Illuftrated with Cuts. To which
is added, The Art of Travelling, (hewing how a Man may dif-
pofe his Travels to the beft advantage. Price 3 s. 6 d.
The complete Gardner ; or Directions tor cultivating and
right ordering of Fruit-gardens, and Kitchin-gardens. By
Monfieur De La. -Qumtinye. Now compendiouHy abridg'd,
and made more ufeful, with very confiderable Improvements.
By George London, arid Henry Wife. The fecond Edition cor
rected. Price 5 •*"•
The Art of Memoir}': ATreatife ufefwl for all, efpecially
fuch as are to fpeak in publick. The fecond Edition.
Price 12 d,
Booh fold by Andrew Bell
Rketarica Anglorutn, vel Exercitathnes Oratorio in Rhetori-
cam Sacram & Commnnem. Quibus adjiciuntur qn&dam re-
gul& ad imbecittes memorias corroborandas. Omnia ad ufum fy
in gratiam Academiarum ^r Scholarum in Anglia compofita.
Approved and Recommended by the chief Matters of Mer-
chant-taylors, Wejlminfter, and the Charter-houfe Schools^
Price 1 8 d. Both by Marm VAffigny E.D.
A Rational and Speedy Method of attaining to the Latin
Tongue. In 2 parts. The firfl containing fuch Precepts as are
common to all Languages : The fecond what is more pecu
liar to the Latin Tongue. The whole being accommodated
to the meaneft Capacities, not only Perfons of riper years,
but any Child that can read Englifh, may by this method in
a little time arrive to more knovvledg than is ufually attain'd
after leveral years drudgery in the common Road. Price i2d.
A Letter to his Majefty K. W/#WH III. Ihewing, I. The
Original Foundation of the Englifh Monarchy. II. The
Means by which it was removed from that Foundation*
III. The Expedients by which it has bin fupported fince that
Removal. IV. Its prefent Conftitution as to all its integral
parts. V. The beft Means by which its Grandure may be
for ever maintain'd. Price 3 &
The Militia Reform'd, or an eafy Scheme of furnifhing
England with a conftant Land Force, capable to prevent or
to fubdue any Foren Power, and to maintain perpetual Qui
et at home,without indangering the Public Liberty. Price izd. _
A fliort Hiftory of Standing Armies in England, together
with feveral other Pamphlets, fhewing that a Standing Army
is inconfiilent with a Free Government.
A Letter to a Member of Parliament^ fhewing that a Re*
ftraint on the Prefs is inconfiftent with the Proteftant Religi
on, and dangerous to the Liberties of the Nation. Price 6 d.
Scotland^ Sovcraignty afierted : being a Difpute concern
ing Homage, againf! thofe who maintain that Scotland is a
Fee Liege qf England, anckhat the King of Scots ows Homage
to the King of England. Wherein are many Judicious Reflec
tions on moft of the Englifh Hiftdrians who wrote before 1 600.
and feveral considerable Parlages illuftrating the Hiftory of
both Kingdoms. By Sir Tho. Craig,. Author- of the Book de
Feudis. Tranflated from the Latin Manufcript, with a Pre
face containing an account of the Author, and a Confutation
of the Homage faid to be performed by Malcolm III. K. of
•Scots to Edward the ConfefTbr, foand m the Archives of
land, and publjlh'd by Mr. Rimer. Price 5 s.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11