nonical, because recited in such a Canon, and yet the book not there, is much the fame as to say, the book is, and is not in the Canon.

Notwithstanding what has been faid, there is no doubt but this denomination of the facred books is of the greatest antiquity. Irenæus, fpeaking of the Scriptures, styles them, ròv navóva Tñs andeías, i. e. the Canon of Truth'. Clemens Alexandrinus, difputing with fome heretics of his time, blames them for making use of Apocryphal Scriptures, choofing rather to follow any, than the true Canonical Gospels 8. Eufebius h in so many words tells us, that Origen, in his Expofition on Matthew, enumerates the books of Scripture according to the Canon of the Church; i. e. the Canon received and established in the Church. Athanafius i (if that book be his, de Synopf. Scriptur.) expressly mentions the books of Scripture, as contained in a certain Canon. And Epiphanius *, speaking of the heretics called Apotacticks, fays, they received the Apocryphal Acts of Andrew and Thomas, rejecting the Canon received by the Church. Philaftrius ufes the diftinction of Canonical and Apocryphal, as well known in his time'. I fhall only add, that in the writings of Ruffin ", Jerome ", and especially Auftin, we meet with these words in innumerable places.

CHA P. II.

An Enquiry into the Intimations there are in the received Writings of the New Testament, of Spurious and Apocryphal Pieces extant in the Apoftles' Time.

PROP. I.

Befide those books, which are now commonly received into the Canon of the New Teftament, there have been many others, under the names either of our Saviour, his Apoftles, or their contemporaries, which may seem to claim the fame authority.

IN

N order to eftablish the Canon of the New Testament, it is of abfolute neceffity, that the pretences of all other books to Canonical authority be first carefully examined and refuted. The large number of these books, the plaufible arguments some of them are supported with, and the too favourable and unguarded expreffions of many learned men relating to them. (as has been hinted in the preceding differtation, Obferv. I.), make it impoffible rightly to fettle the Canon, without a particular confideration of them. My first bufinefs therefore will be, to give the Reader as large and particular an account of these as I can; in order to which I obferve, in the first place,

That there are fome intimations of fuch books in the now received Scriptures of the New Teftament; so very early was this artifice of Satan against the true interest of Christianity. The most remarkable places of the New Testament are the following; viz.

1. That of St. Luke in the preface to his Gofpel, c. i. v. I, 2,3. Forafmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things, which are most furely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and minifters of the Word, it feemed good to me alfo, having had perfect understanding of all things

C 4

from

from the very firft, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus. A little confideration on these words will oblige us to conclude, that there were in St. Luke's time many false and fpurious gospels, or histories of our Saviour's life and doctrine. For the defign of them is evidently this, to give Theophilus an account of the reafon or motives, which induced him to write his Gospel, viz. because many others had engaged in the fame work before. But this could not poffibly have been any reason for his writing, unless those others had been defective or false in their accounts. If otherwife, viz. if those other Gospels had been genuine and true, the number of them should rather have prevented than forwarded him in his work. Thus the antients P, as well as moft modern writers, underftand Saint Luke in this place 9: But having treated of this matter more largely in another place ', I muft refer the Reader there. Nor fhall I here enquire, what those Gospels were, which St. Luke refers to; though several of the antients, and Dr. Grabe of late, have imagined, he especially respected the Gospel of the Egyptians and the Nazarenes, as extant at that

time.

t

2. Another inftance of a spurious writing under an Apostle's name seems to me fairly to be gathered from those words of St. Paul, 2 Theff. ii. 2. Be not foon fhaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by fpirit, nor by letter, as from us, as that the day of Chrift is at hand. The plain purport of which words is, to guard them against a groundless expectation they were in danger of being wrought up to, of Chrift's fecond coming, by the delufive artifices of falfe Apoftles. He cautions them not to be deceived by any of their falfe methods, and particularly not by any Epiftle they fhould produce under his name. Nothing

Origen. Homil. in Luc. i. 1. Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 24. Ambrof. Comment. in Luc. i. Auguft. de Confenf. Evang. 1. 4. c. 8.

9 Erafmus in Luc. i. 1. Bellarm. de Matrim. Sacr. l. 1. c. 16. Grot. in Luc. i. 1. Huet. Demonft. Evang. Prop. 1. §. 16. Father Simon Critic. Hift. of the New

can be more evidently implied in the words μήτε δι' ἐπιστολῆς ὡς δι ̓ , than that the Apostle fufpected fome fpurious Epiftle to be published under his name in Theffalonica. Some of our best expofitors, not obferving the force of the particles here, have imagined Saint Paul in these words to refer to his former Epiftle: but nothing can be more improbable; for, 1. It renders the fignificant particles quite ufelefs and fuperfluous: 2. It makes the Apostle rank his own Epiftle in the fame clafs with fpurious revelations and false discourses, which he warns them not to be influenced by. Hence the antient writers of Christianity, Tertullian, Origen, and others, who knew what great numbers of books were forged early under the Apostles' names, expound this paffage of some fuppofititious pieces falfely afcribed to St. Paul; and fo also several of our modern writers. I would only add, that this expofition is most clearly confirmed by the conclufion of the Epistle, which runs thus, The falutation of me Paul with my own hand, which is the token in every Epiftle, so I write. In which words, by reason of the fuppofititious Epistle under his name, he gives them a certain mark, by which they should be always able to distinguish his genuine writings, from any that pretended to be his. It is plain, therefore, that even while St. Paul was alive, there were counterfeited Epiftles published under his name.

3. I offer it as a conjecture, that St Paul hath refpect to the Apocryphal Gospel of the Nazarenes, in thofe words, Gal. i. 6. Imarvel, that ye are fo foon removed from him that called you into the grace of Chrift, unto another Gospel. For though it is always supposed, the word Gospel here means the doctrine of the Gofpel; yet perhaps, as I faid, it is that fuppofititious Gofpel, which the Chriftianized Jews were so fond of, that is here meant. The reasons of my conjecture I fhall lay down in the following obfervations; for the fupport of which, I think it needless

Beza, Hammond, and Whitby in loc.

w Tertullian. de Refurrect. Carn. c. 24. Origen. Epift. ad Charos fuos apud Ruffin, de deprav. Origen.

* Grotius et Calvin. in loc. Cocus Cenf. vet. Script. Præfat. Eftius in 2 Thef. iii. 17. Fabrit. Cod. Apocr. Nov. Teft. Tom. 2. p. 916. 1 2 Theff. iii. 17.

to

to offer any arguments, the things being, I fuppofe, well known to all, who are at all versed in Christian antiquities.

1. A great number of the converts to Christianity, at first, were fuch as profeffed the Jewish Religion. We are told, Acts xxi. 20. of many (uupides) ten thousands of Jews, that believed and received the doctrines of Chrift. Nor are we to suppose this true only of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the land of Paleftine, but of those also who lived in Gentile countries, and very probably many of them, fuch who had been converted before from Paganisin to Judaism.

2. These were generally fuch, who were for mixing Judaism with Christianity, and taught as necessary, not only a belief of Fefus as the Meffiah, but an obfervance of the laws of Moses. This is very evident from the whole scope of several of St. Paul's Epiftles. And Epiphanius tells us, the Nazarenes (by which name these half-christians were called) differed little or nothing from the Jews in any thing, only that they believed in Christ.

3. The better to fupport and propagate their principles, they had a Gofpel fuited to their own judgements, and called by their own names. This they were fo exceeding fond of, as to reject all others ".

4. The converts to Chriftianity among the Galatians were certainly much prevailed upon by thefe Nazarenes, to intermix Judaifm with Chriftianity. And for this very reafon St. Paul wrote this Epiftle to them, in order to prevent their being any farther deluded by them. This is plain by the whole defign of the Letter; and therefore,

5. When in this Epiftle he makes mention of any false Gospel, by which they had been feduced to the principles of the Nazarenes, it must be very unreasonable to suppose, he did not mean the Gospel of the Nazarenes.

z Il femble qu'une grande partie de ceux qui embrassèrent les premiers l'Evangile dans ces lieuxÎà, étoient des gens qui étoient paffez premierement du Paganisme dans le Judaïfme, et qui reçurent enfuite la Religion Chrêtienne. Vid. Le Clerc. in Gal. i. 6.

a

Τὰ πάντα δέ εἰσιν Ιεδαῖοι, καὶ ἐδὲν ἕτερον καὶ ὡς οἱ Ἰδαῖοι πάντα καλῶς ὁμολογᾶσι, χωρὶς τὸ εἰς Χρισὸν δῆθεν πεπιτευκέναι. Hæref. 29. §.7.

b Vid. Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 25. et 27.

Coroll.