Hey on Article VI: Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation

Preface. Our Church, having laid down some fundamental doctrines, comes to settle the prin- ciples, on which any disputes are to be carried on. This might have been done first ; but the Articles

*being formed with a view to a separation from the Church of Rome, it might seem most proper to lay down, in the first place, such things concerning the nature of the Deity, as had not occasioned any controversy with the Romish Church,

It is always useful to put ourselves in the place of those, who wrote what we are to subscribe, by means of Historical reflexions;—but the present

Article differs from the preceding in respect to His- tory. Generally, we have only to take one station, as it were, and look back into past times; but here we must take several stalions; a circumstance, which will be the occasion of our using a different method, in treating of the present Article, from

that to which we have adhered in the five preceding Articles.

1. A

BOOK IV. 11. 453

1. A person well informed in History, if he

was to read our Article, would fir cast his eyes

on those, whom the reformers had most immediately

in view; and run over the different notions of men,

who lived at the time of the Reformation. Then,

when he saw a set of Books mentioned as sacred,

the last of which had been published above 2000 years, he would find himself, in the /econd place,

carried back to those remote times; nay, to all the ages, of which those Books gave an account. — When he perceived, in the 7hird place, a question, whether a certain number of Books should be ranked in this old class, or not; he would contem- plate those events, persons, circumstances, by which such question should be decided: — And lastly, when he read of another set of Books, which had been gradually received as of Divine Autho-

rity in the earlier times of Christianity, he would

examine the {tate of things in those times; as re- lating to Christians, Jews, and Pagans.

These four different views, or /ations, will divide

our considerations on the present Article into four parts: in each of which, Aistorical reflexions will naturally occur before others. 11. 1. Let us first then consider those, whom the authors of our Article had most inmediately in view. And here, I think, we need do little more than look into the earlier sessions of the Council of Trent, especially the fourth“. This Council met Dec. 13, 1545, for the purposes of reformation, &c. and “ ad extirpationem heresi um,” but ad- journed

2 Tt might be proper to oppose to the Romish Council, our Refermatio Legum. De summa Trinitate ; and De Hæresibus, Cap. 3. |

FF 3

N […] 3 2 5 — T —- — 2 — Po […] . : . . — - — N : _ — 1 — — ä * = , an ACS. a a. […] n r Gs ee R . 88 ; bo == EO fn […] of ru . my 2 4 To Kc […] 4 4 n 3 — n * — 3 err TEE” Ho A sn N 8 1 * h 1 oo a. a […] ug 2 6 . TE — 4 — —_ a 24 […] 4 […] 23 2 — © Ao. — — 1 — 5 — 2 — v — - — 5 — . […] 8 […] - 2 […] - - - — 232 […] fi A 5 5 ww 7; —

nr *

454 BOOK IV. ART. Vi. SECT. Lt.

journed till after the holidays :—at their second session, Jan. 7, 1546 (N. S.) they settled the man- ner of conducting the Council ;—at the third, Feb. 4, they fixed upon a Creed; and at the fourth, (April 8), they settled their Canon of Scripture. — But, besides Scripture, they mention, as the ground of their faith, Traditions; and pronounce: an Ana- thema on those, who do not receive both Heir Scriptures“, according to the ancient Latin Yulgate, and their Traditions, They mention also © the Fa- thers, the Councils, and the Church: sometimes thele seem to be separate from the traditions, and some- times they look as if the traditions were made up of them, or things contained in their records.— Our Reformers would have all these in view ; the Canon of Scripture will come under our second part; at present, we may confine ourselves to tra- _ dition : for we have treated“ of the Fathers in the first Book; and the subjects of the Church and Councils will occur in the 2oth and 21st Articles. It is natural to aik, whether there are any col- lectious of traditions, as there are with us of maxims of unwritten law ? The Council of Trent mentions none, nor. Calmet, under Traditions: several doctrines founded on tradition are to be found in the Rhemih Testament®, and Bishop Bur- net speaks * of several of those doctrines, which our Articles oppose seemingly, as having this origin. Bishop Porteus, from Archbishop Secker, mentionss

« the

d Our Art. of 1552 seems to take for granted, that the Romish Church and ours hold the /ame Scriptures, by saying only Scriptura sacra, and not giving a 4%.

< See fifth Session, and safe conduct in the 1 5th,

d B 1, Chap. x11. Sect. x1.—xvr.

© ‘The Index to Fulke’s Rhem. Test. shews one what things are founded on tradition.

! Burnet on Art. 6, p. 97, Odtavo. # Chap. 4. p. 7.

BOOK IV. ART, VI. SECT. 11. 455

the Popish Creed,” as composed of a great num-

ber of doctrines (amongst others) founded on tra- dition; but J suppose this is not meant of any written Creed, properly fo called“.

[…]

from Fathers, &c. One might mention here the Legends of the

Romish Church. Legends were originally only

things legenda, to be read, at religious meetings;

chiefly narratives, either from Scripture, or from

accounts of devout men, or Martyrs. Ere long,

the histories of Saints seem to have superseded the Scripture, probably by being made more striking

or extravagant, better suited to a weak judgment,

or a vitiated taste. What is called the Golden Le- gend was a collection of these Histories of Saints made by an Archbishop of Genoa, near the end of the 13th Century. Some legends used to be print- ed in the Breviaries, or abridgments of Liturgies but, at the revival of learning, people began to be ashamed of them; and even Prelates began to be ambitious of shewing themselves enlightened, by lopping off a Legend.

But, when the Reformers opposed the authority of Traditions, 1s 1t to be concerved, that they de- spised all traditional knowledge? not fo; but the number and the folly of things built upon tradition had got to be so great, and they had become of such high authority, that it was necessary to rescue the judgment from the slavery, under which it laboured, to papal decrees, canons of councils, and passages of Fathers, genuine and spurious.

Else, while every thing else became improved and

enlightened, Religion would have continued in darkness: however, it is to be remembered, that those, In Books of Travels, one finds many traditions mentioned. — See allo Broughton’s Dictionary, Legends. F F 4

— <2 r

Ds — . 12402 —2 — Ta WISE

— 0 — — 29 — — DE IS - — ” pa ab So 4 7 -— = 14 […] DES As. TN 8 ny < 7 — — ht at a Re 5 -—— . wi. Att Hci Faw… of, oro Id ei, ARC : : es, * . ; — 1 - = = - — LED […] nn […] PEI — on, —e— P — * , CD — — 8 = — —

[…] **

456 BOOK IV. tt.

those, who did thus labour to free the judgment from the decisions of barbarous ages, and give scriptural authority its due pre-eminence, were not of the common people; they were no mob; they were so qualified to judge, that no man had a right to impose any human judgment upon them, so as to check the course of their own. And, though de- crees, &c. profess to be founded on Apostolical au- thority, yet we consider them as merely human. Bishop Pearson insists on the perpetual Virgiuity of the Mother of our Lord, as proved by tradition; but then this is not made, by our Church, an Article of Faith © necessary to salvation.” Such was the situation of those, whom the au- thors of our Article had most immediately in view. As to explanation, this part does not seem to admit of any, except what arises from the historical ac- count. Under the 34th Article, indeed, we shall lee a different kind of tradition mentioned ; such as our Church approves, in its way: relating to cus- toms in matters of inferior moment. And it might here be observed, with regard to the docirinal tra- dition now before us, what is the real fate of the question between us and the Romanists;—we are not contending, that 4 regard to Councils, Fathers, ecclesiastical decrees, traditional notions - (really such) should be set aside; in our Article, it is in- plied, that both fides respect all these highly: the question 1s only, whether they should be obeyed implicitly as divine, or only reverenced as human; reverenced, when it appears to our reason, that they are worthy to be reverenced. If the Roman- ists are right, these things are to judge 5; if we are right, we are to judge them”.

Some

i In this place, we might refer to B. 111. Chap. 1x. Sect. x. and we might compare the Articles of 1 552 and af 1562.

BOOK IV. ART. VI, SECT, 111. 457

Some Christians have undervalued the study of Scripture, who have been no particul:r friends to tradition; these are some species of Myftrcs; but, as we have treated largely of mysticism in the last Chapter of the third Book, and as Mystics will be mentioned under the seventh Article, we need not consider them here; — we may however refer to Re- formatio Legum, de Hæresibus, Cap. 3. 111. We might now proceed to prove the truth of the first part of our Article; but, as the proof mult be taken from what is said in Scripture with regard to the Traditions of the Fews, it will be re- quisite to give some idea of them; and, when we have once begun, it will be natural to go on, fo as to take in the Jewish traditions after our Savi- our’s time, as well as before it; indeed they are, in themselves, much the same. _

Long before our Saviour’s time, it seems pro- bable, that the Jews had some sort of traditions ;— traditional narratives, prophecies, or modes of in- terpreting prophecies; modes of arranging, con- struing, applying the Psalms, and other parts of

Holy Writ; methods of allegorizing; all these our Saviour and his Apostles seem to have so far adopt- ed, as to make v/e of them in reasoning with the Jews. It seems generally allowed, that we see, in the New Testament, instances of referring back, and quoting, which imply some old writing allow- ed as authentic by the Jews, when we do not find in the Old Testament the passage * quoted or referred to. For a more particular account of this, I refer to Allix s Judgment of the Jews, Chap. 2, 3, 4; from which I will read a passage or two by way of 1}lustration.—Besides these traditions, the Jews

seem

—

[…] or ml _ - — — 92 Y - — * - N 5 22 = Bs LE - — — 4 ne nee NG B - — 1 =. 5 — . ” 8 […] : - of 2 = : […] 1 — 4 * oy — 29 * 4 * 2662 et r: “Mn. ä […] 8 = 2 N — _ — - = - - _— . — 9 * 7 Y * — 2 — — 1 . af £ LEM z 4&7 — By * A _— . — = 22 […] 2 IDs * 2 — r “x hag ft I 8 a — — 2 — ä […] 3 — — ak — — 0 B © — 5 — 1 _ - _ E […] o F 8 a” OS […] I I — E 2 — * _ — by 6 = - — wy 2 — 22% 0 4 —— — . 4 2 — ud _— : — — . „F ee Ro HENS CANES 1 […] - — an […] ho 8 FR * Ne 3 4 8 […] - _ - — — HERD — — 5 2 N _ . 2 — = - — nth […] a […] 2 […] 22 Y — — —

1 — A OE I —

E See B. 1. Chap. xv iI. Sect. xix.

These passages of Allix, Chap. 2, 3, 4, will easily appear from running over the heads, or paragraphs,

458 BOOK IV. 111.

seem to have had some, which they made a bad use of, and which seem indeed to have been, for the ’ most part, faulty in themselves, or of a bad ten- dency. Allix reckons ive sorts of traditional sub- jects, which the Jews profess to study: 1. Inferences from the Law, though of these he approves, sup- posing them to be rightly drawn. 2. Ceremonies and rites. 3. Judicial cafes, like law precedents. 4. Constitutions, intended as a fence or fortification to the law. 5. Customs®. All these might con- tain something reasonable, supposing no want of reason in using them; but, in the hands of a peo- ple, who prided themselves on productions of reli- gious fancy, it is easy to imagine, that these latter torts of traditions, especially the two last, would get 700 far from the Law of God, and become fan- ciful and trifling, or pernicious. Nay, probably they would many of them be mere eva/ions ® of the law: however, as what 1s most outre generally strikes and takes most, one may conceive how it came about, that these traditions were even pre- ferred * to the law. Though, besides evading the law, and indulging foolish fancies, there was the spirit of contradiction to help them forwards ; I mean in the controversy with the Caraites, who denied the authority of tradition wholly.—Here we see what it principally was, that our Saviour so much condemns, —Thote, who are opposed ro the Caraites, are called Rabbani/is?; but the“ Phart- saical innovations” were rejected by the Shammeans*, Though

m Allix, p. 12, See Wotton, Misna, Chap. 2. Wotton has five orders, as well as Allix, and there is a considerable likeness between them; but some difference.

n Wotton, p. 68, 69.

o See Wotton, p. 69, Collier’s sacred Interpreter, Val. 2. # y Wotton, Chap. 6. or p. 72.

BOOK IV. ART, VI. SECT, 111. 459

Though we may make a distinction between the times before and after the time of Christ, yet the

fame traditions seem to have been continued: ex-

cept that they multiplied, and at last got recorded.

— About the middle of the © second Century, (or,

according to Lardner, 1n the year 180) R. Judah, surnamed the Holy, gathered the Jewish traditions into one volume, consisting of fix books, contain- ing 63 treatises. This is called the Misua“, or

secondary Law. As soon as it was published, it

was studied and commented upon: the comment is called Gemara, or the completing» of the Misna. Indeed the Jews of Judea made one Gemara, b about A. D. 3oo, called the Jerusalem, those of Babylonia another, by about A. D. 500, called the Babylonish.— The word Talmud is not used steadily and uniformly; it sometimes signifies the Misna, or text; sometimes the Gemara, or completion, or comment; and sometimes the whole, consisting of Misna and Gemara. However, when we read of the Ferusalem Talmud, we must understand only the

| Gemara made by the Jews of Judea: and so of the

Babylonisi Talmud: the former is in ne Volume folio, the latter in twelve Volumes folio.—The Babylonish is the most fanciful and extravagant, and the most followed. —I will now only add how this tradition is supposed by the Rabbanists to have

been carried on. Many things were delivered

orally to Moses from Mount Sinai, which were not written in the Law, These he delivered to Joshua, and he to the Elders, and they to those that came after them, one generation after another; and these

were

r Prideaux. See Lardner’s Test.— Works, Vol. 5, p. 138. By the Jews, the plural word Mzi/raioth is more commonly used; see Wotton, Note to the beginning of 2d Chapter, —

MW to reiterate, do a thing a second time. 2) perfecit, &c, 10 didicit, docuit.

— — *

r —

= —

[…] 2

[…] *

FTT […] . — =

— $i tt […] —

• _ — * _

1’s # Of

1:0

;

is on vo. ‘S

460 . BOOK iv. ART. VI. SECT, IV.

were thus orally delivered, till this [oral] Law was [in danger of being] forgotten, and then the men of the age thought it proper to write them with ink in a book, as every man had received them from those that were before him.”

Iv. We may now proceed to the Proof of the first part of our Article; namely, of this Proposi- tion; no doctrine is necessary, which is not sup- ported by the written word of God.“

1. We have sufficient reason to think, that whatever was necessary to be known or done, would de written in the Christian Law, from what was done with regard to the Jerist. In the earliest times indeed, the will of God must (humanly speak- ing) be taught without writing; and simple man- ners, with great length of life, might, for a while, keep such teaching tolerably incorrupt; but it seems as if writing had been used as soon as possible. What could be more likely to be remembered than the Law delivered at Mount Sinai? yet it was

written, or engraved. What could make a deeper impression than the deliverance from Agyptian bondage? yet it was zritten, even though ceremo- nies were appointed to renew annually the sense of it.— While the Urim and Thummim might be con- suIted, why write so much, if oral Law could be so perfectly preserved ?—If you say, the danger of Idolatry made writing the more needful, you only give another general reason against trusting to tradition : yet nothing could make writing so ne-

cessary, in the Jewish religion, as it is in the Ghrif-

riau. The Jews were a {mall body, kept united | by a number of ceremonial observances, separated more from other nations, than any other people ever were. Christianity was to be preached to all nations,

Wotton’s Misna, p. 52. See Maimonides’s 3 p. 10, which is longer and more Rabbinical.

BOOK IV, ART, VI. SECT. iv. 461

nations, was to mix with all kinds of customs and

manners, with all sorts of philosophy, all sorts of business and pleasure; it was to be supported by a very {mall number of external duties; only two indeed that were positively enjoined. What tra- a could withstand so many shocks? We may collect, that oral Law would not 8 any thing necessary to Salvation, from our Saviour’s practice and discourses. Though he does sometimes, seemingly, adopt some traditional rules,

in arguing with the Jews, it does not appear, that

he would have used the same in converting the Gen- tiles, though he won/d have mentioned the pro-

phecies of the Old Testament. His preaching

tended much more to invalidate tradition, than to confirm it. What was his Sermon on the Mount“, or the chief part of it, but rectifying errors of tra- dition? If he had intended, that his Religion should be grounded on tradition in any considerable de- gree, would he bave spoken of tradition in the manner he has * spoken? of any tradition whatso- ever? - But, say the Romanists, the tradition spoken againlt 1 in Ms: xv. is either ©* repugnant to God’s? Laws, — or © frivolous, unprofitable,” &c. not like theirs! —then we are to judge of the reclitude and utility of tradition? we wish nothing more. May we not judge of evidence to0?—a real tradi- tion, that is virtuous * and useful, no reasonable man can object to: but, if we are to judge tradi-

tion,

v Collier, Vol. 2. p. 21. * Matt. xv. 1-9.

y Rhemish Test. on Matt. xv. 9.

z Our Art. of 1552 seems to allow something to tradition, which that of 1562 does not; perhaps the order and decorum might be thought to belong more properly to the 34th Article than to this?—no; rather see afterwards Art. xx. Sect, 1. where this being left out is thought one possible reason why the first clause in the 20th should have been inserted.

z: […] —

6 * Y - * PPA 7 SR. _ - — 2 W —— 2 N Nin 5 „ Pre * AA 8 e — _ 4 ee ann . = „ l : 22 rn E ren ** D — - = b _ wet 8 * - = — TIT […] A : — l […] -

2 _ ON

————D—mC_—C_—

— w—_ I ——

„

462 BOOK IV. 1V.

tion, its authority is gone: that is, if we are only to adopt it, when we think it useful.

3. The Apostles do not give encouragement to tradition. They taught indeed first by preaching; but they took opportunities of writing to their converts, and more fully, as it should seem, than they would have done, if they had meant to leave an oral Law. Four Disciples, that we know of, undertook to write the acts and discourses of their Lord; and one of them records the acts of the Apostles also: might not many things, which are written, have been as well trusted to tradition, as those things, which have been said to be trusted to it? Had we sufficient evidence, that the Apos- tles really did preach a particular doctrine, we should accept it as well as those persons, who were told it half an hour after 1t was preached: but we hope we shall not be blamed for searching whether things reported are really true; we hope we shall be reckoned, like the Bereans, more noble” | (eyeverrtees) for our disposition to examine. — The Apostles, like their master, seem inclined to reason with the Jews on their own principles, and received Histories; but I do not remember their saying, or implying, that the Jews would lose the favour of God, or be accursed, if they neglected some par- ticular traditional observance. When they seem to adopt traditions, they do it in things not gen- tial; and even then some have thought they re- ferred to some part of the Old Tefament®; if they did not, they might only argue with the Jew from what he would allow.—Augustin might often ad- mit traditions, though he did not think himself bound

See Hammond’s Note on 2 Tim. iii. 8. Parenthesis about Jannes and Jambres. | |

d See Lardner, Suppl. to Cred. Works, Vol. 6, p. 618.

Bound to admit them. © Quia canonicum non est, non me conflringit®.” | It appears to me, that some passages are urged on the fide of our Church, in this question, which have not much weight. As Deut. iv. 2, and xi.

32. which seem only to mean, It is God, who

gives laws to the Israelites; he does not intrust men as legislators ; they therefore can neither make new laws, nor repeal old ones.’—Yet they might inter- pret, and even make bye Laws, fo long as they grounded them on the old ones, or only applied the

old ones to particular cases, and settled the means of

executing them ; such sayings might be added to bodies of College Statutes, &c. Indeed, when the Jews came to evade their written law, they then

disobeyed these precepts; but many bye laws might

have been made, without doing that. They dis-

obeyed the rest of the Law, in general, when they disobeyed these precepts.—St. Paul may mean no

more by Gal. 1. 8, 9, than to exclude all subse- quent Gospels : nor, by 2 Tim. iii. 14, 15, &c.

than to desire his assistant to adhere to the Old

Testament, rather than favour any of the notions of the Gnoftics, &c. And, by Rev. xxii. 18, 19, nothing more may be meant than, that the Apoca- lypse was to be the last public Prophecy. To make these passages exact to our purpole, the scriptural authors and those who were cautioned, or forbids den, to add, should both have a respe# and reve- renee for that which was forbidden, fo long as it was not carried 200 far: whereas St. Paul had: no

respect

e Contra Faustum, 1. , in Pearson, Creed, Art. 3, p. 346, 1ft Edit. | ;

4 Tt is natural, on putting the finishing stroke to any great and important work, to feel, with the glow of self-applause, some fear, lest the busy and impertinent, by their forward

attempts to rectify and amend, should destroy the effects of industry and in genuity.

464. BOOK IV. v.

respect whatever for a new Gospel ; and fo of the other passages.

v. I shall add nothing to what I have now said, in the way of direct proof; but it may be proper to mention an oh7efion or two.—It may be said, that St. Paul introduces a saying of our Lord ; “ it is more blessed to give than to receive *;” which may be considered as traditional. We might re- ply, 1. That these words, of themselves, & not contain © an article of Faith,” which could not be derived from Scripture. But 2. They are a part of Scripture; St. Luke might have his choice, whe- ther he would put them into the mouth of Chris, in his Gospel, or into the mouth of St. Paul, in his History of the Acts of the Apostles. 3. Now again suppose the clause a mere tradition, we fay, give us as good evidence of a saying of our Lord, as St. Paul had of this, and we will accept it j05fülly-

Again, it may be urged, that, even in Scrip- ture, traditions are sometimes commended.— First, take 1 Cor. xi. 2. keep the ordinancess, as | have delivered them to you”—in Greek ragadoceig, and indeed in our margin“ traditions,” though the Rhemish Testament blames * us for concealing | traditions, —There is no doubt but every founder of a Church must make bye-laws and give directions not worth writing down, which yet it is laudable to observe, and blameable to neglect. That or- dinances here relate to matters of inferior conse- | quence, is very probable from the whole passage, consisting of sixteen verses. —But this objection be- longs properly to the 3474 Article, about customs.

« We 8 Acts XX. 35. f See what Menard says, Lard. Vol 2, p. 22, on a e of Barnabas, which he (Barnabas) probably heard from his Lord. 5 1 Cor. xi. 2. 8 d On 2 Thess. ii. 15. where, in our pręsent translation, the word wadition is used,

TOO IV. v. 465

ee We have no such custom, neither the * Churches of God.” Another instance, in which traditions are com- mended, is 2 Thess. ii. 15.—“ Stand fast, and hold the rraditions, which ye have been taught, whether by word or our Epistle,” —Nothing 1s more clear, than that the Thessalonians must have had verbal as well as written instruction: but the difficulty with vs is, to know what the verbal in- struction was: this to tem was no difficulty at all. Let us know any thing, that St. Paul said, as well as they knew what he had delivered to them “ by word,” and we shall raise no dispute about receiv- Ing it.—St, Paul had been represented as encou- raging a notion, which was propagated in the Church of Thessalonica; he means only to di- claim giving such encouragement; and’to exhort his converts to abide by what he had really taught them: for wapadorus here seems to denote what- ever had been delivered: it clearly includes what- ever had been taught by writing. Here an objection occurs of a very different na- ture from the preceding. It is the nature of morality to keep n improving, if men make a right use of their expe- rience. Now, suppose any new virtue to appear, are we not to practice and inforce it, because it is not in Scripture? will not disobedience to it be 1 punisted? even in a future state? or will it be said, [4 that Scripture now contains a perfect morality Ke answer, I oy e that scripture-morality may, in some sense, be considered as imperfect. It is not syRematical, it does not describe limits, &c. of rights and obligations; it rather inforces what it takes for granted*, than teaches what is perfectly neuw. But ; this —

rr OO TIGER ee, Ts ns A ©

466 BOOK IV. v.

this 1s not any. reason against its divine original Why should moral philolophy be revealed all at once, rather than natural? we improve gradually in making natural bodies promote our happiness, why should we not improve gradually in making our own conduct promote happiness? indeed improve- ment in morals is sometimes impossible without im- pProvement in understanding the powers of nature; as in the case of temperance. Shall virtue be so re- vealed, that man shall have no occasion to fudy it ?

that is against all our ideas of the government of

the world. Besides, all the dispensations of Grace are progressive; why not the improvements of na- tural virtue? Indeed the lower degrees of virtue, as well as of Revelation, seem necessary in order to prepare us tor the higher. The uncivilized can neither conceive nor feel the refinements and deli-

cacies of the improved heart and mind. Well, but now give us an iy/fance of a virtue invented within these last 1800 years (surely a sufficient time) and not to be found. in Scripture, nor © proved thereby; —dare any system of pA/o- fophy make pretension to such a virtue? As we are at liberty to prove by inference, it is probable, that we shall find your virtue in Scripture : for Scrip- ture searches, rectifies, and warms the heart, from which all particular modes of conferring happiness flow. There it fixes principles, that act incessantly; love of God—ot man—(and love worketh no 1 to his neighbour;) forgiveness of injuries; overcoming evil with good doing to others as you would they should do to you: — being pitiful, courteous; pleas- ing your neighbour to edification; sympathizing with the happy and the miserable ;—give us your newly-invented virtue; let us try whether an heart warmed

i Law’s Theory of Religion.

| BOOK IV. v. 467

warmed with these sentiments and impelled by

these motives of Scripture, would not have mo

tised it, in the proper circumstances, Suppose we fail, yet the failure could not affect

any one, who was only i inquiring whether he could

assent to our Article, though we own, that the new virtue ought to be practised : for the case has no- thing to do with the purpose ® of the Article: nor can any dispute about it turn upon opposite inter- pretations of Scripture, which is the case with all our Christian Articles of Religion.

Lastly, when you bave found a virtue, which you fancy is not supported by Scripture, you have

no authority to inforce it: can you say, it is * ne- cessary to Salvation? — all men have a right to op- pose you, and to questiou such necessity; and run what hazards they please. You cannot © require” of any man, that he should believe what you assert: and therefore our present proposition remains un- shaken. But how wonderful is it, that the moral part of the Scriptures should be so framed as continually to give a sanction to virtue, of every kind, and in every stage of its progression! whether its improve- ments happen to be quicker or flower | how asto- nishing, that moral precepts, published as these were, should be thought more and more excellent, in proportion to the advancement men make in virtue, taste, and wisdom! I verily believe this to be the fact; and, if it is, how absurd does it make the supposition appear, that such morals could be invented by a let of Fishermen and Me- chanics*!

Tg m See B. 111. Chap. 1x. Sect. x. \ n This last thought is much the same, or intirely the cd with Book 1. Chap. xIII. conclusion; but it is wanted in both

places, and Cannot appear uninteresting any where,

1E ²˙ :

— —

• 5 * - . 7 […] ; — — : - N — 5 […] - . — of […] 5 * vip Pe […] 22 * - * 2 C o U * - 7 - […] be — —ͤ— 71 = \ a v——— 3 1 2 8 0 6 Fl 5 8 - N […] 2 8 n J 2 ny — —_ pins — ? s N. s - — r 4 … Tm a + gp — * 222 […] POETS — wg OA — A — Dy Ja […] SRL 1 Eo So — IC 1 — 1 fame Bo 4 3’& v WR 2 - q — 2 S 3 r : 8 * AR […] - — 3 * 2 is — . - * 7 — a — * AE ee es * — K 8 wy 1 —— _— Y „ “Et jk . 4 1 […] as AO * 5 x ca * ra -B p 8 G , 7 * FIVE 7 EET, - […] 4 7 I 2 Wo Sor 2 Does Oe g 2 * a a — 4 : “SF \ nt wad dF “Rams 4 d * _ _ […] e 2 2 D, a 2220 Ie 1 12 . 2 + — _ FIR * 1 3 2 9 * 1 # 1 2 - 3 ** 4 22 — r […] K D 3 8 N ” N * 5 * E r 2 a . - Aa : — _ * * by - 4 0 =) Y I 5 Nw. - 3 * 5 q $ 1 : […] po. aw * — _ * * N * 8 * 1 r * * l LY ” 12 ——ö— 13. co RE. EEE — r . 2 IN […] -

% 2 0 3 r — —— er — - 5 . £ os _— 22 + « _ py IF » - pf * » a… 8 * 2 POT. DP ’. 88 Soak * 2 ; 3”. VV 5

—

=

Sy

— — ”

— —

A * Do T — Þ 3 EIN . d cot SER

IA N

„ DN E 6 8 […] DPS […] 0 * — - wo . = Fs. 4. IEF; . ? _ — A IO Og. cog P > * 4 — CS […] Ca r e 2 : —

r

463 book IV. v.

To conclude this first part of our Article, con- cerning Tradition.—W hatever particular traditions we may think it right to set aside, it does not seem as if we ought to entertain any general prejudice against every thing that is unwritten. In times of

simplicity and unimproved ignorance, all know- ledge and all laws must be unwritten, or traditional; and in every state of literature, there must be some bye laws, some particular methods of obeying ge- neral rules, which cannot well be committed to writing; and which had better be left unwritten and changeable; there will also be respectable in- terpretations of what has been written, and cus- tomary practices implying unwritten regulations :— sometimes we only collect previous regulations from their present presumed effes.—This is applicable to Chrifianity, For some considerable time, there were comparatively very few written records in the Christian Church; during that time, a good deal mult go on tradition. If we had any verbal di- rections, which had been really given, by Christ or his Apostles, to the newly-formed Churches, we should value them very highly; these indeed leem advantages not to be expected in any degree; but very early cstoms and practices in such Church- es, afford so strong a presumption of their having been owing to such directions, as to demand our highest respect. And writings of Fathers and de- crees of Councils are to be considered in the same light; that is, as conveying an evidence of some- thing unwritten: early comments also are esteemed as telling us received interpretations. All these ought to have weight, whenever there is no ap- pearance of indirect motives; and when the persons, whose accounts we receive, were competently qua- lied to inform us. But, 0 Wall reasons about Infant-Baptisa on this n 5

BOOK IV. v. 469

But, whenever we have any reason to distrust,

we should be at full liberty to negle& every thing of this kind: which is a very different thing from its being held © necessary to salvation.” And herein consists the happiness of us reformed Christians, that we have got rid at once of an enormous quan- tity of such tradition, as we could not but 3 to be corrupt. In a course of years, there will nerally be a good deal to be rejected; but, if there have been ignorance and superstition and interest to generate, and artifice, party zeal, ambition, and _ enthusiasm to nourith, there is no laying to what degree the corruption may have increased, At our reformation, it was high time to extirpate all that diseased tumor, which had been formed: the same _ notices are {till to be examined as at first, and the same respect to be paid to whatever appears to be credible evidence; but now we are not afraid of examining freely; be our minds ever so improved, we can make ule of all their powers, to judge of the past, and provide for the future.

Yet, when we fay, that we can do this, we

must not forget the distinction“ between those, whoare qualified to judge for themselves, and those, who ought to be guided, in a good measure, by the judgment of others, between Philosophers, as we have called them, and People. Indeed, the distinction is never more wanted than here’s for all imperfect reasonings with regard to traditions seem, on both sides, to owe their imperfections to the want of it. Those, who are against 1 all tra- ditions, reason as if all men were Philosophers : those, who plead most strongly for * traditions, reason as if all men were ordinary people.

vI. 2. We P Book 11. Chap. 1v. Sect. 111. &, See Lardner’s article of Vincent of Lerins. Works, Vol. 58. r Popish writers: Sec also Vincentius Lirinensis, p. 360.

6 8 3 Edit.

— „% . : […] - - […] _ […] - = - […] . […] a… — hn a - W— g […] - —

OOO, 2 — — alli ——-„-—- — 2 — ws i s 3.4 ww 2 […] —

470 BOOK iv. ART, VI. SECT. vi. vir.

vi. 2. We come now to take our second station, and consider the Books of the Old Testament. The difference between our Old Testament and that of our adversaries, will easily appear, from a compa- rison of our Article with the acts of the fourth Ses- sion of the Council of Trent; but any reasoning .concerning that difference will come under the third part of our Article ; about what we call the Apocryplia.

If we were here to attempt to deliver ali the hifto- rical reflexions, which might occur to the mind of a thinking person very conversant in history, we must stop short; the field is too wide for us; and I should hope, that we might receive satisfaction concerning the truth of every part of our Article, without involving ourselves in perplexed and intri- cate disquisitions concerning events of very remote antiquity*.

vii. With regard to explanation of this second part of our sixth Article, I do not see that it is wanted, except with regard to the word “ cano- nical,” which has been considered in the first ® Book. It may be as well to add here, that, in the Article, | those Books are called the first and second Book of Esdras, which we commonly call the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, Ezra and Nehemiah were employed much in the same way; and the Book called Nehemiah 1s a fort of continuation of the Book of Ezra; hence, the Jews often counted them

Edit. Baluz. though, in the Gallican Church, the Bishops and Doctors claim a richt to think and judge for themselves and the common people: but the Popes do not approve. Mosheim, 8vo. Vol. 4. p. 209.

Council of Trent, Sess. 4th, Decree ist.

t What Collier says, Vol. 1. p. 284, about the settlement of the Canon by Ezra, &c. might be read here,

U . Xlle 08. 11.

as one Book; and hence, they have been named as two parts of the fame Book: its name taken from the principal person concerned. Esdras is the way, in which the LXX write the Hebrew name Ezra, N y ;—but, in the Hebrew Bible, the second Book is called Nehemiah, DN) The Council of Trent, Session 4, fay, Esdræ « secundus qui dicitur Nehemias.“

VIII. We will come then to that, which seems our principal concern, the ruth of this second part of our Article; and we will endeavour to prove, that we may have sufficient reason for receiving, as sacred and authentic, those ancient writings, which we commonly call the Books of the 01d 7 2 Zament,

Perhaps, if we wanted no more than a strict

proof, it might be sufficient to use the single argu- ment, which we used formerly*; that, as Christ and his Apostles acknowledged the authority of these Books, we ought also to acknowledge it:

this argument we must use of course; but there

seem to be some reasons independent of this, which are not to be neglected : let us first conceive these to be weighed by some one before the coming of Christ, and then let us see what reasons a Christian, as such, has for adopting the same conclusion.

Before the coming of Christ, those, . who were

not Jews, were Idolaters; yet some there might be

ready to acknowledge, that * an Idol is“ nothing;” and desirous to worship, at least principally, a su- preme invisible God. Nothing could be more natural for a person so disposed, than to endeayour to unite 1n divine worship with those, who would take no offence at his opinions,—Let us conceive what would be his reflexions.

Here

• Opening of Introd. to Book 1. Chap. x11. Y Cor. viii. 4.

GG 4

— WD ———

AMC IDES. AD 002 ooo. 92 oo […] *

EA — — adn i ee = — - h — =

_. © Here is a people wonderfully separated from the rest of the world! they worship no Idols, but ac- knowledge one supreme Deity, spiritual in his na- ture: how could this happen? they are no way improved beyond their neighbours, in philosophy, or arts. The account they give of this matter themselves, 1s quite out of the course of common experience; but yet I see no other, which can solve. the difficulty; and, if I allow theirs, I must confess all is at least consistent. Here is a system ’ of government, which no lawgiver can have in- vented; and it has been carried on for a long suc- cession of ages. The Founder of it, as far as any Z man is entitled to be called a founder, seems to have something in common with the Agyptians; but yet he contradicts the notions of Ægypt in several im- portant particulars. — According to the history of this singular people, a series of miracles has been performed in their favour and support, which would exceed all credibility in common cafes, but here it seems to make an indispensible part of the whole plan;—the religion would be more strange without the miracles, than the miracles would be without the religion. And these miracles are be- lieved, not, like prodigies amongst us, only by the vulgar, but by all the most eminent, by the rulers themselves. Nay, at this time, the Teachers seem not only to be sublime and pathetic beyond any thing I can conceive, but seem also to be conti- nually supported by divine power; and to consist of a regular succession ; many of them seem to have had a supernatural power of foretelling future events. © What am ] to think of this people? if what they say is not true, the wonder is greater than the agoregate

= Div. Leg. B. 4. Sect. 6. Prop. 3.

OTIS ene ou OG moi 4+ 9» 7 > * fs. I… > I CAPs Qs UE AGES EN.

BOOK IV. ViiI. 473

aggregate of all the miracles, of which they boast. I therefore give myself up to worthip their God ; whole unity and spirituality accord with all my best notions.”

Nou this people have a number of Books, which they account sacred: —these they have preserved

carefully, and read * publicly; and a number of copies of them have been in different families*: — am I to make any question of the authenticity of these Books? if I do, I must give up all my rea- soning, and revoke the belief of every thing, which I have now concluded to be credible |

Can we doubt, that a person, who reasoned thus, before the coming of Christ, had sufficient ground of assent to the authenticity of our Books of the Old Testament? and there is nothing in the reasoning, which any person may not make use of at this time.

Indeed it should be observed, that, if our exa- miner was supposed to live after the building of the second Temple*, there are some of the above expressions, which he could not use with strict propriety*; namely, those which imply a set of Pro- .phets actually existing; but then he has a longer series of proofs. And he might have the advan- tage of this material question, why, if the Prophets were im posters, should no man prophecy of the Messiah after Malachi? who lived 450 years? be- fore Christ.

We,

copies would Nene afterwards. e Built 415 years before Christ, Blair. 4 Collier’s sacred Interpr. Vol. 1, p. 281. © Josephus contra Apion. lib, 1. p. 1333. Edit. Hul.

CR Un-: . . eee ie tre and. —— iid

IT — — 2 kf —— ol AGE CB OED —— . . […] 2 […] meg ep utes

—ͤ— ä […] ³ 4 — ———— —

ber; nor had any difficulties on that head.

474 voor 1. ART. VI. SECT, IX.

We, at this time, though we may not see this

evidence in so striking a light, nor be so much af-

fected by it, have a strict right to make use of it in all its parts.

1x. We are next to see what reasons a Christian, as such, has for receiving the Books of the Old Testament as sacred and authentic. And it must be enough to say, that our Saviour and his Apostles constantly acknowledge them as sacred. The Jews are commanded to “ search the Scriptures’;” Ti- mothy is told particularly their beneficial effeCtss, Prophecies are frequently applied to Jesus, and,

with regard to the greater and more extraordinary

events, the Jews are called upon to acknowledge,

that „thus it was ® 2written;” that jt behoved Christ

(the expected Messiah, whenever he came) to suf- fer; and fo on. And St. Paul expressly calls the Jewish Scriptures, © the Oracles of God.”—A point fo clear need not be laboured.

But it may be said, this is only to acknowledge the volume col/eftively; not to tell us, that the par-

ticular Books, which we receive, were those meant.

The answer to this 1s, that we receive the same Books, which the Jews received, and their Scrip- tures are authorized by our Saviour without any exception. —When he blames the Jews for super- seding their Scriptures by their zraditions, he gives no intimation of their having added to their Scrip- tures, or diminished, or in any way corrupted them. And St. Paul’s calling them the © Oracles of God,” in the manner he does, seems allo to imply, that he found no fault with the usual num-

One

• John v. 39. 5 2 Tim. iii. 15. * Luke xxiv. 26, 46. i Rom. iii. 2.—ix. 4, 5. […] Jerom’s Canon of the Old Test. was that of the Jews.“

Lard. Vol. 5, p. 21. and there have always been Jews.

One passage of the New Testament contains a _ division of the sacred Books of the Old Testament into the Law of Moses,” * the Prophets,” and the Psalms.” But it may be said, are not the Historical Books here omitted? First, we might say, that if there were any books merely historical, the rest might be considered as the Scriptures, in the strict sense, and the historical Books as an i- lustration. What the Jews did, is not always what they were commanded to do; and History relates what they did. The Scriptures were the same, whatever / was made of them. But I know not that this remark is of much 2; the books called historical are not merely such ; and the authors of them were Prophets in the scripture sense; that is, inspired persons, and teachers: consequently, the historical Books must either come under Law, Prophets, or Psalms.—We can immediately see how these three kinds of sacred books must be the most eminent and important: - Law commanded ; Prophecy was requisite to shew the plan of God’s dealings; and such parts of the Psalms as were not prophetic, would act as incitements to piety and virtue. py N 85 Different solutions have been here * offered ; but

— _ […] - = — _ — — 2 2 : Sa _ — os - […] 2 […] - […] - — — 3 — 4 * * 228 […] mais, “Wo . n= = A […] 5 pod […] 22 % 7 Sees 3 — 33 25 PEEL 2 „ ends — I «

m 2 — Nee - — —

4 6 4nd Matt ͤ REI ind rs 22 - 28 8 D ——_— N © 4H 3 $50), 4 r —

— A EIT rs en nn -

22 Books; which he divides into three Classes; the first contains the Law, the second the Prophets, and the third the P/a/ms, In the first class, he reckons five books; in the second, Hirten; in the third, four. How our 39 books are more parti- cularly reduced to this number, does not seem to

be

the true answer to this question concerning our |; Saviour’s omission of the historical Books of Scrip- 9 ture must seemingly come from Foephus, though 11 he does not fully explain himself. In his first Book KIN against Apion, he says, that the Jews have only 1 |

476 BOOK IV, ART. vi. SECT. IX,

be settled by any * authority ; but we have evidence enough, from the modern Fews compared with Josephus, that all our Books are comprehended in the three classes. The Jews used to be desirous to reduce their sacred Books to 22, because that was the number of letters in their Alphabet; but now, we are? told, they make 7wenty-four Books. This is easily accomplished, as the Chronicles may be either as two Books or one; the minor Prophets are rec- koned as making one Book; and so of Ezra and Nehemiah; &c.

It may be objected to our present argument 91 the authenticity of the Books of the Old Testament, namely, their being acknowledged by Christ and his Apostles, that our Saviour might mean only to argue with the Jews on what they acknowledged, in order to convince them they were wrong in some respects. And it does indeed seem as if he had * sometimes this end in view; but it cannot thence be concluded, that he always had. That would be to admit the fallacy before marked out”, that - because a remark is true in some cases, it is true in all.—Besides, how could it answer any purpose to apply prophecies to Christ, if they were not to be understood * as really divine; and, in

other

ee ways of reducing them in Hudson’s Josephus, Fol, Vol. 2, p. 1333. Also in Lard. Works, Vol. 5, p. 25.

0 3 s Prol. Galeatus ; beginning.

P Broughton’s Dictionary; under Bible.

r Art 11. Sect. Xxxv. and Art. v. Sect. xv.

3 Book 1. Ch. xvii. something was said of Collins’s scheme, now and then; that is, as the Prophecies are applicable to some event before Christ, it is not right to apply them to kim also : they ought therefore to be applied to Christ only in an argu- mentum 2d hominem. But here we do not want to see how

Christ

-_ BOOK I, ART. vi: ner 1

other things, we cannot conceive our Saviour to carry compliance with Jewish notions fo far as to

mislead a great number of his Disciples.

The Mosaic Dispensation receives great support from the 16th Chapter © of Grot:ins’s first Book De veritate religionis Christianz;—the Chapter is en- titled, Teftimonium extraneorum, and the matter of it | seems well dige/ed. —The passages referred to may _ exercise the diligence of the Student, if he endea-

vours to form a judgment concerning the weight,

which ought to be allowed to each. To co-ope- rate with him in such a work would carry us out too far. The authorities are now reduced into a

small compass, and the work 1s 1n * every one’s

hands. 333 x. 3. We now take our Aird Station.

After considering what our Article affirms with regard to the Books of the Old Testament, we

come to what it lays down respecting those Books, which have made pretensions to be ranked in that

number; those, which we commonly call collec-

tively the Apocrypha. 815 As our proof of what 1s affirmed will be chiefly

historical, we shall not need to give much previous

Hisiory. If a person, in our present situation, were

well versed in history, he would naturally take a view of all the forts of writings, which had been

thought divine by some, and not by others ; or which had been composed with a view of being admitted into the sacred Canon, or read in religious 1 — | assemblies,

Christ eugkt to have applied Prophecies to himself; but only

how he did apply them. If he considered the sacred Books as authentic, that 1s enough for our argument. t Grotius de veritate, Lib. 1, cap. 16. x u Could any thing be formed out of the ancients, Diodorus Siculus, & c. in defence of the Old Testament and the Masaic Dispensation, similar to Lardner’s Heathen Testimonies to the Truth of the CAristian Religion?

—

— e * KY

—

— —— ä—IT’

FP A ]. […] - […] a

Ez

—

——

—

If — - […] Vu — -_ […] pa […] FG ä — — —ů—

.. MY YT

• n © 2 ——

— 2 , * 3 8 2 2 — VES 2 n = I PE * 8 * D i” 4

2 Ss E — — - […] : — = —

= : : […] K […] _ […] . = A — — oy * - jm me […] SECS ERS. 2 2 — 8 […] I — - £ tara At 2 * - K LARS 2 […] 2 — 3 * e .. “WM

—

i te oa 22 […] a, _—— ”> —

od […] I —

[…] - — Go […] . — ry […] : — — —

— ng — — IS 4 095 i ep jp ry > arg gee es ne —— Cre . or td I TS

rg oe eren

478 BOOK Iv. x.

assemblies, but had failed of success. Now this might in a great measure be done by recollecting

what has been mentioned in our first Book; both as to the several kiads * of writings, which come under this description, and as to the means of di. Zinguifhing between them, and such as ought to be deemed canonical.

There were nine sorts of writings mentioned : on the present occasion, the sixth sort would be par- _ ticularly recollected, those composed by weak and credulous men: also the seventh sort, called herett- cal. — The idea would also recur, that writings may be useful in some respects, though some foolish or hurtful things have crept into them; that some writings have acquired respect by bearing respect- able names; and that some anonymous writings have got to be read with great veneration, or even in religious assemblies, by a successful imitation of some writers already deemed in a manner sacred.

But, though any one should take this review of writings already described, and in some degree, or by some persons held sacr ed; yet, in the first Book, we were attending solely to the canon of the New Teffament ;—our view is no to be confined to such as have pretended to be parts of the Old Testament, or Few1i/h Scriptures, before the time of Christ; and such as we exclude from the canon, although we give them a recommendation as moral wri- tings.

All the locks enumerated in our apocryphal catalogue, are mentioned as canonical 1n the 4th Session of the Council of Trent, (though they never before were received by any formal act into a Church, on the same footing, ) except the third and fourth Books of Esdras and the prayer of Manasses, which are not mentioned at all. I do not see, that

the * Book 1. Chap. x11, Sect. iv. v.

BOOK iv. 479

the Romanists have any thing in the way of our Apocrypha; though they publish these two or three Books after the Apocalypse, in the Latin transla- tion, which they authenticate; alledging, that they would not have them perisi, as they have been quoted by some Holy Fathers, and are found in some Latin Bibles, printed and manuscript.

Ferom translated some of these books, Tobit and Judith, but, as he says, at the desire of Friends); — and he takes care to prevent any one from con- cluding, that he thought them authentic.

Grotius has thought fit to write a comment upon them, but he calls some of them, the Book of Misdom in particular, I think, inter polated by Chris- tians, As his Socinian principles led him to lay this charge, and he seems * to fail in the proof of it, he incidentally proves, that the Books contain some things, by which orthodox Christians are |

| supported in their opinions.—These I take to be descriptions of the Ace, and the Spirit of God, which are used to shew, that St. John spoke of the Ward, and others of the Spirit pear according to notions already established amongst the Jews?.

As the Papists receive our apocryphal Books, those, who have desired to separate the farthest from them, have been most averse to these Books: as Puritans, Presbyterians, &c; accordingly, they have been a subject of dispute © amongst Protestants,

whenever

Y See Lard. Vol. 5, p. 21. jerom’ s Preface to Tobit. The friends were, Chromatius and Eliodorus.

z See Grotius’s opening on Wisdom.

= See Allix’s Judgment of the Jews, Chap. 5.

For Son, fee Wild. x. 5. — Ecclus. xlviii. 10.— For Spirit, fee Jud. xvi. 14.— Wisd. i. 7. — vii. 7.—ix. 12.—xii. 1. Eccluf. xxxix. G.—xlviii. 12.—For Word, see Wild. xvi. 26.— Bar. v.

© See Neal’s Hist, Puritans, Index; and Candid Disquisitions, Appendix, Sed, 6,

430 BOOK Iv. ART. V1. SECT. X1.

whenever any change in our Englith forms of worship has been debated.

xI. For the reason already given, we say no more of History at present. — Explanation will turn chiefly on the word Apocryplal. It has had {everat meanings given it; one thus; — Apocryphal wri- tings are writings aro T15 xevrT15, removed from the place, receptacle, chest, where the sacred books were commonly kept: but apocryphal is generally considered as coming from aroxgurru, to conceal, or hide. Yet this derivation does not reduce the senses to one; for a book may be hidden or secret in different respectr. Perhaps the most ancient idea of an apocryphal or secret book is, that it was con- cealed from the People; according to this, books were apocryphal, when they were thought such as ought not to be read: which agrees with the ancient division * of Books, into canonical, and such as were to be read, and such as were apocryphal :—the foolish and hurtful writings would be amongst the apocryphal, in this sense : and it has been thought, that some books were kept secret from the People, though received by the Church. (See Lardner, Vol. 3, p. 529, bottom).,——Our Apocalypse and Canticles are in England very little read to the People.—But a book may be hidden or secret, in respect of the name of its author ;—though this is not so likely to occasion any difficulty in the case of anonymous books, as when a name is affixed to it, which there is reason to think is not really the name of its author: consequently, secret or apo- cryphal, in this way, will be nearly equivalent to spurious; and will soon come by custom to be fully equivalent to it. In this sense, apocryphal is some-

times

4 Broughton’s Di. 7 5 © See Notes on Cyril’s 4th Catechesis, Edit, Mill. Oxon. 1703. | |

BOOK IV. X11, 481 times used*. Lastly, a Book may be secret or hidden, in respect of that authority, to which it

pretends; this sense 1s associated with the preceding,

as authority is with author. In this sense, apocry- phal is used by Augustin, who thinks it worth while to reject one of the senses just now * mentioned viz. that Apocryphal Books were such, as were ’ purposely kept secret from the People. His idea of apocryphal books is, whose origin was hidden to

the Fathers; wanting festimonials; by authors un-

known; of character suspecled. — This sense is near- est ours, already given.

Me may close this explanation by observing, that the words in our present paragraph, zhe Church, *

do not seem to mean our Church, the Church of England, but the Christian Church at large.—

However, it may be proper to observe, that —

Church does not read the whole of the Apocrypha

in religious assemblies. We do not read either

Book of Esdras, nor either Book of Maccabees; nor Hester, nor the. Song of the three Children, nor the Prayer of Manasses. 2 55 Article, or Jerom quoted

in it, means, probably; that Christians do not ob.

Jett to this body or collection of writings, so as not to read them publicly: not that every Christian Church reads them 4. Even the Romanists seem to omit some.

X11. We come next to our Proof.

There seem to be but two propositions in the part of the Article now before us, which require proof.

The Books here opposed to those called ca- nonical, ought not to be e « to establisi any

Doctrine. The

f See Lard. Vol. 2, p-. 363. | 2 Lard. Vol. 3. p. 529,530.

• Book 1. Chap. x11. Set. 11.

i Lardner, Vol. 6, p. 8, end of SeR. 3, gives as good an account as I have seen, of canonical, ezcle Hastical, and apocty- phal. It i is very short,

a » : 4 […] ik 1 4 Y

4 © N

j * 2

11 p 2 […] 5

. Lo

\ in 3 N . 2 L > 00’s

| Aj.

. N

N ! . N ; #

i C :

. in 4 [is 3 1:8 . 4 J + s 2 ist

iT 7 !B 3 ; 1

—

• T 2 * * “EL

_ ’ — — 5 —— mn 1 4 8 — _ 9 — = 23-2. = ga — - […] n * bt. v Pp g — go — 3 — . es * 7 8 L 3 ; _ bp —— : 7 — 3 C wa 5 K A ˙‚U;t. no 8 n ee 2 ccc HOY ccc c OTSIED 5 - 2 . I/ 2 4 Aren wal SI” - Ihe * an 4 2 22 […] 6 * 3 — _ W n — 2 — E 44S 2 oy I = Far y 2 . r — an, N N ee n — : £4 2 * 3 7 X N p * 1 * 3 — — 2

$, ii “#4 34 ”| “8 h £48

Se

ICRC […] r * 2 2 LIB 9 D n r 4 * ’ . 3 — Se. = IS […] P57

The Church doth read these as moral: and Jerom affirms the same. _ 2 85 The first of these is the principal proposition. And I should think no farther proof of this is absolutely needful, than that the Fews did never receive the books in question as canonical, What judgment can any one now form, which shall be compared to that of the ancient Jews? nothing can be more definite than Fosephrs’s * receiving the usual 22, and then rejecting all others. These apocryphal books are probably not di- rectly quoted in the New Testament: Allix speaks of St. Paul’s quoting them, but I do not see of what passage of St. Paul he affirms * this: and I observe, that, in the Vulgate, though there is a regular list of places of the Old Testament, which

are cited in the New, there 1s not one citation

from any of the Apocryphal Books. The Roman- ists, who must have made this list, would have rejoiced in any instance of Christ or his Apostles giving credit to the disputed books. |

Ot the early Christians | think it may be fairly said, that they prove no do&rine by them; though they sometimes introduce passages on account of some moral sentiment. That this 1s not giving authority to such Books, appears from St. Paul’s doing the same at Athens with Heathen Poets. *© It was no unusual thing,” says Lardner®, © for the ancient

Christians

I Wisd. ini. 8. has been berroxved by St. Paul, 1 Cor. vi. 2. so says Allix, p. 113. borrowing is not quoting, But he says quoted, p. 74. I do not see why 1 Cor. vi. 2. may not come from Dan. vii. 22. Matt. xix. 28. Luke xxii. 30. and Rev. passim — should conceive rather, that Wisd ii. 8. might come from Daniel vii. 22. 1

n Vol. 2. p. 65 end of Hermas,

BOOK IV. ART. vi. SECT. XI. 483

Christians to quote Jeroist as well as heathen books, without intending to give them any authority.”

Those Christian writers, in early times, (suppose the first four Centuries), who give Catalogues of canonical books, may be said to omit them; though exceptions may sometimes be found of a single book or so. Bishop Burnet mentions ® several such Catalogues; made by Melito?, Origen, (quoted probably by Eusebius? Hist. 6. 25), Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Jerom. He might, I think, have added Au- gustin, though he, a Latin Father, admits some of our Apocrypha: Bishop Burnet closes with the Catalogue of the Council of * Laodicea, on which he dwells; —-and indeed its decrees are of great weight, though the Prophecy of Baruch (with the Epistle of Jeremiah) is, in its Canon, not sepa- rated from the Prophecy of Jeremiah, as it is in Cyril’s Catalogue. Any little exception of this kind will seem more strange to us, than it would do to the ancients, as they had not, even in the time of Augustin (who died 430), a regular established catalogue of sacred books; but were searching after them amidst a crowd of false pretenders.

Ambrose seems to have had more relish and more respect for apocryphal books, than the generality of the Christian Fathers. Lardner* mentions one passage, in which he quotes Ecclesiasticus in the

3 e way

• P. 110, 111, Bvo.

„ Melito, in some editions of Euseb. (4. 26.) calls Proverbs by the additional name, of the Wisdom of Solomon: see the note in Reading’s edit. Cant. 1720.

P See Lard. 2. 509. 4 Lard, Vol. 4, p. 309. | Vol. 4, p. 448, from Ambr. on Psal 118, [our 119) . I. p. 1224 E; the passage quoted is Ecelus. ii. 5. Pf xviii. 1633 vide humilitatem meam et erue me, or something like that: — Ambrose says, one may use humilitatem meam in trials, in mar- tyrdom, Ke. as appears from Ecc lestasticus ii. 5.

H H 2

484 _. BOOK IV, ART. YI. SECT. XII,

way of proof; but Ecclefiasticus ii. 5. is merely moral, and © testimonus * sceripturarum”” may only mean, the witness or weight of good moral writings. ’— The word Prophet he uses in a large sense, if he does not mean to make some of these books sacred; but he speaks with warmth, and unfleadily.

_ Ambrose was far removed from Judea, and, being converted late in life, had probably not much Fewifh learning; none at all before he was Bishop ; but Jerom was distinguished for Jewish learning, and is called the most learned“ of all the Fathers. I should think his authority decisive in our present question. In his Prefaces, which are published with the Vulgate, it 1s easy to see, that he expressly sets aside every one of our apocryphal books; or, if he does not set aside those, which the Church of Rome gives up, it is only because he despised them; for, in other parts of his works, he speaks of them more slightly than I could have

imagined. 5 Ih he reasons for rejecting some of the apocryphal books, are mentioned in the Titles, respectively. Jerom gives the same; entirely or chieffy“.

Me seem now to have shewn, that the Books in question ought not to be admitted into the Canon. But our conclusion will scarce be satisfactory, unless

we

• Good moral writings, used to have the name of Scripture. DB. 2; Chap. x:1, Sed. ir |

Hurd on Prophecy, p 221.

u See Lard. Works, Vol. 5, p. 17— 20. * Hesther is said, in the title, not to be found in the Hebrew ; so are the Song of the three Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. — Wisdom is called the Wisdom of Solomon; but does not that mean an Imitation of Solomon ?— The Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, by the Son of Sirach, gives us the idea of the Laas and the Prophets being distinct things; and Law and the Pro- phets sometimes meant the whole Old Testament; and of others writing in order to /#cord their purposes. —lt professes Eccle- siasticus, as we have it, to have been published in Greek.

BOOK IV. ART. vi. SECT. x11 485

we add to what is here said negatively, something

of a positive or affirmative fort.

Although Christians might sometimes write apo- cryphal Books belonging to the Old Testament, yet it seems agreed, that ors were all written by

Jews: even Grotius“ allows this, who would have

wished to have them prove the works of Christians. They appear to me imitations of some part of Scripture, or something in the way of supplement,

or sequel. The third and fourth Books of Efdras

profess themselves to be such; they were probably

written from a natural desire, in persons attached to their country, of enlarging on any interesting part of its history : and the latter of these might be a supplement to the first. The Book of Tobit reminds one of Ruth; and Fudith of Deborah; and

of David and Goliah ; as also of the distresses of

Hezekiah from the Assyrian armies. Of Hester there

can be no question.— The books of Wisdom* and Ecclesiasticus seem evidently imitations of the works of Solomon; and Baruch’s prophecy has been owing

to his having been a secretary to Jeremiah: — the three writings cut off from the Book of Daniel,

shew plainly to what stock they belong, and what

they were intended to imitate, or fill out. The

Prayer of Manasses, and we may add the Epistle * of

Jeremiah, may have been attempts to succeed on

the credit of the fine Psalm, © By the waters of Babylon,” &c.— The first Book of Maccabees has some appearance of an original narration, composed on the principle just now noticed, of relating hand- somely an interesting piece of. national history:

the

Y Allix, p p. 67.

= The first prologue to Ecclefiasticus says, that the author of that Book did imitate Solomon.”

In the 29th Chap, of Jeremiah, there is an Epistle from Je- remiah to the captives in Babylon,

HH 3

486 BOOK Iv. X11;

the second Book of Maccabees is a supplement» as before. The latter E/dras seems to me somes times to imitate Zzekrel’s manner. | What I have farther to mention may be intro- duced in the way of remarks on two expressions of Bijhop Burnet’s, He says, with regard to the Jews, it is not pretended, that ever these books ere so much as known to them“. —And after- wards, * the CAristiau Church were for some ages an utter stranger” to them. As to early Christiaus, J have resected my me- mory in Clement’s first Epistle to the Corinthians, and 1n Polycarp’s to the Philippians, which are al- ways reckoned genuine, and I find quotations from {ome books of our Apocrypha, made with the same degree of exaCtnels as those from the canonical books. —In the former, Wisdom xii. 12. is quoted, and afterwards the heroism of Judith is described. In the latter, there is a quotation from Tobit, (xu. 9.)=And, though some zterpolations have been suspected, I should think, from the context, that sentence about Judith unlikely to be one. Not that it proves Clement to have thought the Book of Judith on a footing with the Scriptures, becaule he first mentions © Heathens, who have run into danger in order to fave their country, and then Judith. But, supposing these passages genuine, which I see no reason to doubt, the Christian. Church could not for some ages be an “ utter

firanger” to our Apocrypha. Lardner says, in several * places, that there are no quotations of apocryphal books in the Aposto-

b On the Articles, p. 110, 8vo. | The same thing has {truck a commentator in Russebs Patres Apostolici. | I Vol. 6, p. 662. Vol. 5, p. 358, 412, &c.

lic Fathers; but he means apocryphal books writ- ten in the early times of Christianiry. That these writings should not be“ so much as known” to the Jews, appears to me improbable. The wri- tings of the Jews have been more defiroyed, in proportion at least, than those of any © other peo- ple: yet we still seem to have some testimonies.

Allix says*, that Phils quotes our apocryphal

Books. Josepsius, in the part where he mentions

the 22 books of Scripture, and adds, that other

books had been written after the time of Malachi, does not, to be sure, mention any names of authors; but he describes the kind of Books according to our idea of the more valuable parts of our Apo-

crypha: he disowns their being so sacred as to be authentic; but he seems to treat them as next to divine: nay, as if nothing hindered them from

being accounted divine, but a failure in the regu- lar succession of Prophets.—In his History of the Maccabees*, he is thought to have followed our first Book of Maccabees; and in his account of

Zorobabel, to have adopted the ideas of the author

of the third Book of Es/dras. In Hudson’s Jose- phus, the zexts are put in the margin of the His- tory; so any one may compare them, and judge for himself. —Both the Prologues to Ecclesiasticus seem to speak the same language with Josephus about ** other books.” — And Ferom {ays*, that some ancient writers thought, that Misdom was written by Philo; but probably it was written earlier; however, Jerom must think it was known to the

Jews.

© See Chandler on Prophecy, Pref. p. xiv, mentioned B. 1 Chap. v. Se&. v111, of this.

FP. 73.

s The genuineness of this work 1 is suspected; see Lard. Works, Vol. 7, p. 35. h Pref. to Books of Solomon.

H H 4

Allix

„

— HDH

E […] 2 […] U ET =. : * * L - 1 — — . _ — - oy * oy 2 Y A 4 Ix: xy Ew —_ . b 2 4 je — 2 © - Mites + ” 8 — Xx * = : : 5 . - 3 4 — — Ss […] 1 a wth — 1 . * . - * — _ „ —— Tz * pra 8 ** 5 = py oO * 2 A 2 ” x Þ . 3 = - […] - — — - . — 8 […] 2 8 = 2 . C 4 8 2 — 12 N — ts 2 : n e aq 2 8 2 e — * BI PP.” 5 2 — — 2 ———— - Ke 4 8 ——— 1 . 2 REF i l = 1 11 Kone W TY D ” a - 8 ” . 88 IE Senn Le 8 5 NIE 5 — A 2 r 4 4 TW” 2 2 . 1 2 TEM ens n * 2 J 1 er — 2 * 1 2 * err N […] ce ** SEV 3 #6) “WY OH ad eo ERA we SF 2 yr: 8 * — 2 A n “4 8 i W […] 5 8 […] n n Sn ** * : […] ed] eg * . ”. SST 200 hong, m WADING 2 . […] 2 5 — 5 r 222 — Gy — =

—— r gs

— N

488 BOOK IV. ART. vi. SECT, XI.

Allix says, that Ramban* speaks of Ecelesiasti- cus as being in Chaldee, and quotes Jerom for To- bit’s having been in the same!; now®, whatever books have been in Chaldee, originally, or by translation, must have been known to the Jews.

He accounts for their having been laid aside by the Jews, from those passages, which Grotius af- firms to be interpolated ; which favour the Chris- tian cause, The Jews are said to speak unfavour- ably of Joseplus; probably because so many testimonies? are accidentally to be deduced from him in favour of Christians, though he was no

Christian himself: this is no reason why he should be generally undervalued: then he was a kind of Roman; actually with the Romans in camp during the siege of Jerusalem: and he is valued by Hea- thens as well as Christians: this may account for the Jewish prejudice.

Allix, in his 5th Chapter, goes through the whole catalogue, and speaks more learnedly than I have done of each book, except perhaps the prayer of Manasses; but, afice. what has been said, I will content myself with referring to him for particu- lars, and will only take the result of his 1 inquiries and my own.

It seems probable, that, under the Ptolemies in Egypt, and the Seleucide in Syria, authors amongst the Jews were numerous; not only in Alexandria,

but

P. 68, 69-.

[…]

1 See Jerom’s Preface to Tobit. m From the Author’s Prologue to Ecclus. it appears, that his 9 collected the matter of that Book in Hebrew,

n 23

See authorities collected, Lard. Vol. 7, p. 34.

BOOK IV, X11; 489

but at Jerusalem, and Babylon; —and that their chief purpose in writing was, to promote good morals; but that they executed their purpose al- ways with some sort of view to their Scriptures and national /jfory; enlarging, imitating, supplying, as their judgment and imagination dictated. Some wrote in Chaldee (or possibly Hebrew) but more

in Greek: and it seems conceivable, that some works might be original in B Hebrew and Greek! .- Some of these authors had more solid

understanding, others less; but they all delivered

something of what was cu/fomary in the notions of

the Jews, which turned frequently on the expecta-

tion of a Mesiah.—A great number of their writings have been destroyed; of the few remain-

ing, some seem to us valuable; but the Jews do

not value them as they ought, being determined to reject Jesus as Messiah, and indulging them- selves, especially since the coming of our Messiah, in an immoderate regard for traditions, and a boundless range of childish conceits and fancies. The ancient Jewish writings in our Apocrypha are too rational for them, as well as too moral: I speak of the more respectable part.

As to the manner, in which Apocryphal books

got in some places into the Canon of Scripture, I

agree with Bishop Burnet a; — they were first esteem-

ed as pious, and as related, as it were, to Scrip- ture; then they were read in Churches; and the canonical Scriptures being read there also, these got associated in, men’s minds, till, at last, they came to be upon one and the same footing,

It might greatly facilitate their reception amongst

Christians, if they seemed, in any way, to favour the Christian cause.

This is mentioned B. 1. Chap. v vi. Seth. 1. 1 P. 111, bro.

— — - 4 — - to ty _ […] p […] 3 - 3 * ack […] I J — a […] - — — pm ye […] . 8 —— — 2 2 — 2 * — q — . - 3 - - […] f55020 . S - — P Ae TR . 8 […] 4 p […] 7, ” XY — 3 2 PIE we =? 27 Sd FE 2 rn Oy Raf © _ . 2 - — / 2562p py 9H ASE. 5%) * r 2 C 0 5 — 8 on - 3 me : LY x 5 a” — . * , Ne . * AR 8 ** GA — 8 — 10 — 1 […] 6 = 8 1 Po 1 r 2 8 5 - ” 0 Y . 8 4 a - 1 n „ n * is 2 . n P 8 8 6 n 9 5 I lll . F . be r - 8 * WE re TIT . 1549 - ma, * r r a * 1 oY 8 Wwe * W rH 2 […] ry ; I I. 2 CEE ES - — — 9 2

SE . ——

490 BOOK iv. X11.

X111., The second proposition remains: that is, the Church reads the Apocryphal books as mo- ral; and Ferom affirms the same. _ WER

It may be thought of little moment to prove this, unless it were proved, that the Church ovg/t to read them for such purpose. But the practice of those, whom we are to respect, is a strong argu- ment of itself for the continuance of such practice. — The passages already mentioned in Clemens and Polycarp may answer our purpose. Athanasius says*, that these Books © were appointed by the Fathers to be read by those, who first come to be instructed in the way of Prety,” What Ferom says, in his | Preface to the Books of Solomon, is doubly to our purpose, as it proves both parts of the proposition now before us. Sicut ergo Judith, et Tobiz* et Macchabæorum Libros legit quidem ecclefia, fed eos inter canonicas scripturas non recipit, fic et hæc duo volumina (Wisdom and Ecclefiasticus) . legat ad ædificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem Ecclesiasticorum dagmatum confirmandam.” And lastly, Bishop Burnet proves © the general custom of reading things not canonical in the Church.—lIn- deed, calling some writings ecclefastical, which were not accounted canonical, shews preity plainly what we mean to prove. |

With regard to present times, though there may be some-doubts about reading in Church the spu- rious additions to the Book of Dane, yet I think it would not tend to edification to banish Ecclessasti- cus and Wisdom®, The more Grotius n, on ome

See Burnet, p. 110, 8 vo.

Articles, p. 111, 8vo. See also of this. B. 1. Chap. x11. Sect. 1 v.

u At the Reformation, when men had been brought up to revere them, it would have been both imprudent and cruet to set them aside, |

BOOK Iv. 291

Tome passages being interpolated by Christians; the more plainly do we see the propriety of reading those books, which contain those paslages, in Chrijtian Conzregations. — And the recommendations which we find of them in the Christian Fathers, must at least make us judge candidly and cau- tiously of any of our Christian brethren, who are inclined to pay them great attention, as books of morality: though the truth probably is, that the Christian Fathers were much better judees of the Scriptures, than of Ezhics.

XIV. 4. We are now come to our four!/ and last fation; where we are to consider, what our Article affirms with regard to the Books of the New Testament ; whether our Church rightly re- cerves them, and accounts them canonical. = As, in this, our Church agrees with alle Churches, we might have discussed this subject in our first book; but as mention was to be made of these books in an Article, it seemed as well not to anticipate every thing that should be said upon it. No Church can well compose a set of Doctrines,

without settling a Canon of Scripture.

But, though something has been deferred, yet we have employed eight Chapters of the first Book in proving the authority of the New Testament. The only question is now, of what writings does the New Testament const? Besides those, which have been universally acknowledged as divine, there are some now found in our volume, whose autho- rity has been controverted: a thing so well known, as to divide the writings of the New Testament into /wo classes; the ouoroyepeire and the avrinzye- were, —Are we safe in admitting these last into our Canon? some examination off this point may be proper, in order to dispel doubts and suspicions;

Richardson call them the first Canon and the second Canon.

492 BOOK IV xv.

it may also be useful as a specimen of the manner of inquiring into the authority of particular books. — lags writings we mean was mentioned formerly“. Here, our first reflexions must be kifort- 1 We have not any exact and minute accounts of the publication and reception of the controverted books or writings: we are only told, after a con- fiderable time, that doubts had been entertained about them at some times and in some places, though they had been received by? many. These doubts do not seem to have been quite cleared up, in all places, even in the fourth century, nor, with regard to the Apocalypse, till later*. But this is exaggerated and misrepresented by Mr. Toland, when he says?, of the books in question, that“ they were rejected a long time by al! Christians, almost with universal consent.” —I do not understand, that any of them was ever rejected, properly speak- Ing, because rejection 1mplies previous examina- tion; and, I think, we have no account of any of them being first examined, and then let aside. They seem to have continued without sufficient _ motice; too little distinguished from the crowd of writings, with which they had got mixed : but that only in some places; they were always received by many, (as was just now observed from Eule- blus*). At length however they attracted notice,

they

„B. 1. Chap. x11. Se. iv. Heb,—James—2 Pet, 2 and 3 John Jude — Rev. 2 KEuseb. 3. 25. 5244

vb. Amyntor, See Leland’s Deist, Letter 3; or rather Rich- ardson’s Canon, &c. p- 3. and 30: mentioned Book 1. Ch. xi 1. SeR. 1v.

$ Of the Apocalynlkc Eusebius says, aI:rgo:;, Euseb. 3. 257 which 15 translated, ex albo {cripturaram eapungunt I some, says Eusebius, «9:72&04 the Apocalypse, and —.— reckon it among the 0p0A0 Brave L * N seems oppoled to opuoroyeir :

translated

BOOK IV. xv. 493

they were all examined, by different persons suc- cessively, till they were all found to merit what they claimed; and then they were separated from the crowd, and received due honour from the Universal Church. The delay in each place was probably proportioned to the difficulty of getting due Information there; whether that difficulty depended upon di/tance, or prejudice, or indifference, as to the subjeft of the writing neglected. This sounds well; but still you will fay, why were these writings ever controverted at all? 1 would answer briefly, because they were * Catholic Epistles: and on this will a more particular answer turn. But, in opposition to this account, it must immediately occur, that the Apocalypse is not an Epistle at all, and that the second and third Epis- tles of John are each of them addressed to a private person. One word, to obbiate this difficulty, will leave us free to pursue our intended reply. —Sup- pose the Apocalypse authentic, yet can you wonder at its not being generally received all at once? if you had seen it amongst eighty © or an hundred books, all claiming to be received, would you

have

translated twice in Lard, Works, Vol. 4, p. 229, and Vol. 6, p. 391. Lardner uses the word reject; I mean in the passage about the Ep. to Hebrews. Euseb. 3. 3. The above passage, Euseb. 3. 25. about the Apocalypse is translated, Lard. Vol. 4, p. 227, and the word rejed is used. On reflexion, it seems as if the controverted pieces, or some of them, might /ometimes be rejected after being noticed; though they might be more frequently neglected, or considered slightly.

4 It occurred to me here, that 1 Fer. and 1 Join are also Catho/ic Epistles, yet were never controverted.— That 21g happen, and yet the others might be obstructed by being Ca- tholic: the first writing of Peter, and the first of John, might come out under circumstances, which might occasion imme- diate success ; and yet the worth of the subsequent ones might be less striking: and more spurious writings might rival them.

e Leland, p. 44. Of this B. 1. Ch. x11. as before: 40 Gospels, 36 Acts, known; and many mult have been 4%.

494 BOOK Iv. xv.

have dared to take 1t out of the crowd, except you had received particularly good information con- cerning its author £ With the progress of the Apo- calypse there was some regress; its claim to be treated as Scripture was sacrificed to a controversy about the Millennium; as was that of the Epistle to the Hebrews to a dispute about the efficacy of

Repentance. And certainly, the Apocalypse was Catholic, though not an Epistle; no particular Church had the charge of it, or the care of circu-

lating it.—And, if the second and third Epistles of John are not properly catholic, (though the ancients call them * so), they must be private Letters;

would not that have been sufficient to have prevent- ed your making them canonical? Hebrews, James,

2 Pet. and Jude, are Catholic Epistles undoubtedly. It has been generally understood, that they were addressed to Jes wheresoever dispersed; but, though we take Lardaer’s opinion, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was addrefled to Christians in Fudea, who had been Jews: James, to all descendants of Jacob, whether converted to Christianity or not: — 2 Pet. to all converts, but particularly to those, who had been Gentiles; and Jude to all converts: still the principal idea remains unaffected; that the persons addressed were not collected in any one City, but

were dispersed without regularity through a number |

of places. So that it was no one’s particular business

[…]

| tion. = B

f See Lard, Vol, 6, P- 892. £ ** . 10

IE ; 6 - - * Fo ? o + ”

\ * 1 1

%. » Oo __ , e * * K

END OF THE SECOND VOLUME. *=—k

• bs I

:

Page

19. 1. 6 from bottom, read

minutes. 34. and a few other places, for practiced r. practised. 75. 1. 14 from bottom, for with guards, r. avithout gards.

go. |. 10, r. heretical. III, note, r. oyicopaTraha.

117.1 8 from bottom, r. con- seientiously,

122. lowest line, dele «vorks in Italics, and place a period after 372.

123. I. 22, r. Science.

124. I. 17, after legislators,

insert yet

140. I. 6, before ignorance, insert the.

141. I. 26 and 27, r. ze Church,

142. note, r. Dr. Dodaridge.

143. 1. 5, after /aft, insert may.

T71. J. 3 trom bottom, r. en- lighitenel.

181. 1. 11, after be, insert the.

182. Note s, after Maxims,

insert, by Fenelon. 192. Note 4, I. 2, r. abouf. 211.1. 7, for which, r. whom.

225. 1. 3 from bottom, r. re-

dent.

Page

249. I. 23, dele hat.

250. 1. 26, for knew, r. Ane et.
251. 1. 16, r. /. 290. I. 27, r. spurious. 293. I. 15, for too, r. to.

| 294. 1. I, after for, insert his, |

344+ 9 g r. say. | 367. I. 5, r. edified.

375. lowest line of text, for «,

T. E16.

376. 1. 14, r. Coca,

377. I, T. & dn.

378. I. 28, for this, r. thine.

379. Note a, for Anima, r. Animas, |

380. I. 14, r. Augustin,

381. I. 10, r. Article.

36＋ Q— I, 30, r. occasional,

407. I. 24, r. invisible.

416.1. 1, r. Sadducees.

425.1. 27, r. something. 433-14, 3. Joh ©

439. I. 5 from bottom, r. Father. 449. I. 27, for may, r. mayest. 467. I. 16, r. question.

440. I. 5, r. Grotius’s.

441. 1. 2. from bottom, r. /econd. 486. ends of lines 21 and 22, r. lat and not. |

Circumflexes are omitted in seyeral Greek words.—Some few times, the ae is put where the oe ought to be; as in Oecumenicus,

p, 429. and in Prosopopœia, p. 442, 449.

. , : ————2—2 OS 1 2 a Ca = 4 A Ds a SOT OO re AO OS” 9 = N=» C90) ot WEL. ER SW It 9

kg +8. N

Ds

DEA.

; 9 3 A es M220 ys — - Urs . Trey Fg N N * — hs “ew KEE S ” 8 * ” 23 4 a a D XY. 4 es ci 5 * — 9 AA 5 […] Ares * * .. .. * 2 ö

9 — DO — -_ […] , — * O T2

——

N

3 — — x — ——

OUS HOUNSLOW EI . . ⁰˙iͥ—h .. GEE TOR ee ee A ere oo ers ad” —

BY — q< kr

—

PRINTED BY JOHN BURGES PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY ;

AND SOLD BY J. DEIGHTON, CAMBRIDGE; LEIGH & SOTHEBY, . CHURCH-YARD, PAYNE, MEWS-GATE, SHEPPERSON & REYNOLDS, NO. 137, AND W. H. LUNN, No. 332, OXFORD-STREET, LONDON ; AND - DX —

EY kx Fa + 7 by. »$ Y - pa 1 a2 4 ” od

. ab Ae […] E. 3 a a 5 . - 4

Page | 7. 5. 3 from bottom, for re- lating, read making.

9. I. 12. for Hebrews, r. the Hebrews.

10. lowest line but one, for Is,

11. 1. 11 from bottom, for Epistles, r. Epi/tle. , 1%. at top, put 15. + 7 I. 27. for his, r. the. 18, 1. 3 from bottom, for also, r. also. 38. 1. 9 from bottom, f. cir- cumstances. 50. I. 7 from bottom, for aud, 1. and. $6.1, 8 from bottom, r. Whit- gift. 60. 1. 13. for Articles, r. Article. 79. 1. 8. from bottom, for nor, r. or. 80. 1. 3. for must, r. might. 94. 1. 7. for use, r. the »/e. 100. I. 3 from bottom, r. mi- liter. | 1 6 from bottom, r. Au- ustint 101. |. 8. for unto, r. into. 111. J. 7 for Aticles, r. Articles.

12. Il. 3. r. impracticable desireable.

13. 1. 19, 20, for it is, r. they

Are.

130. I. 8 from bottom, for within, r. u.

131. I. 25. for seems, r. cem.

132. I. 7 from bottom, for they, r. /ome.

16m. 1. 3. for was, r. were.

163. I. 21. r. opinion.

164. I. 31. r. zndividual.

165. J. 14. for -A a, r. this is a.

166. 1 8 from bottom, for xvii, r. æ⁰jIW. |

Page

187. lowest line, r. Sect. xvi.

of Introd. to Part 11.

201. I. 12. r. speak.

202. I. 5. for fate, r. /at.

211 & 218. r. Appello.

211. I. 23. for tenet, r. tenets,

212. I. 4. for practice, r. prac- tise: and practised, page 396, 1. 1.

213. J. 3 from bottom, for ix, r. Jo.

214. 1, 12 from bottom, r. pla- risaical.

215. I. 23, r. extend.

216. 256, These numbers are printed twice,

262, I. 13 from bottom, for

goods, r. good. 295. i 16. put out the second a,

305. 1. 7 from bottom, r. righ-

teousness.

364. 1. 14. for also, we, r. al/o,

if we. 369. 1. 10. before one, insert on. 373. lowest line, for et, r. and. 376. I. 23. r. the, 377. I. 14. r. connect. 379. I. 15. for have, r. are. 395. I. 25. r. declarations. 426. 1.4. r. JI.

429. 1. 7 from bottom, for this,

r, the, 440. 1. 8. for sensible, r. „en- feble

443. J. 7 from bottom, r. pro/-

ternantur.

449. 1. 10 from bottom, for

Peleg. r. Pelag.

460. 1. 8 from bottom, r. Chris- tan,

461. I. 11. r. annulled,

—— |. 5 from bottom, r. Sect. XV111.

Some words end with //, which should end with 1, some periods

are omitted, and some points over the letter z. a

[…] —

[…]

—— my I N

ET us then endeavour to put ourselves in the

place of early Christians, and fee how writings, circumstanced as these Catholic Epistles were, might be authentic, and yet not at once universally received.

1. First, take a geographical view of the countries, in which Christianity was professed in the fourth Century: examine the extent of the Eastern and Western* Church, and you will readily admit, that

| a writing

® In Bingham’s Antiquities, Book 1x. we have ecclesiastical maps; particularly of the three Patriarchates, of Antioch, Alex- andria, and Jerusalem; nor can it be difficult, in any book of Geography, to trace out the extent of the See of Rome, by the directions of ecclesiastical bistory, at any period: or that of any of the European Churches. Indeed Bingham might suffice for the present purpose, 18

VOL. 111,

2 BOOK IV. ART. VI. Ser. XVI.

a writing, which was to be separated by careful exa- mination from a number of other writings, might reach some places a long time before it reached others. There might indeed accidentally be a communication between one place and another very distant from it, not affecting intermediate places; while there was no intercouise between two places very near;—but, in calculating the effect of dis- tance, some kind of average might be taken, of communication, or intercourse. And then we

might say, if a Bishop of Sardis is obliged to travel

into the East, in order to inform himself of the several claims of various writings, how is an Epistle addrefled to inhabitants of judea to arrive, in its proper form and character, on the coasts of Spain or Italy?

2. We should consider what great obstructions and delays must arise from a want of a legal pro- vision for conveyance, such as our Posts, Apparitors, &c. and we may add, from a want of the art of printing. Some writings used to be called indeed £Yyxvxk%, because they were to be sent round®; that is, after being copied by one Church, they were to be forwarded to another: but this would be flow work; and the copy would sometimes muss its way, or stop short, or be lost. Then suppose it made a considerable progrets, nay a great one; that would be nothing to the present question,” which 1s only, why were not all our sacred writings at once nie“ that they were always received in many places, cannot well be au ae,

3. Gospels must spread more than Epifles. No one could well go to teach Christianity any where,

withour

d See Du Cange, lia, and ,, NEW v, Cir- cular Letters.

Lardner gives good reasons to think, that no Scriptures Pave been finally lat. See Vol, C. last Chapter.

CS - * , […] I 2 org Brie IF by

• • • 1 […] 3 . XX oo nt og

2 8 o — : * IF.” be EE

BOOK IV: 3

without having a Gospel with him. Epistles of any sort would have a more confined and local re- ference; so that the carrying of them to every place would not be wholly indispensible: till less needful would it be to carry round the Apocalypse.

4. Epistles to particular Churches would sooner be acknowledged by any individuals, and fo after- wards universally, than Epistles to any converts that were dispersed, Suppose, for instance, any one to ask himself whether the first Epistle to the Corinthians was to be received; and, at the same time, whether he was to receive the Epistle of James :—he might be sure to find the former at a known place; and many witnefles ready to vouch for its genuineness: and this certainty would have weight even at a distance, nay, at any distance from Corinth : whereas the evidence of the latter would be more scattered and feeble.

5. Supposing the progress of a writing once de- layed, or its reception disputed, then, if Christianity

kept spreading, the longer any doubts continued,

the greater difficulty would there be found in ac- complishing the end we are speaking of. Not but the writing might go on continually gaining ground; but it would be longer in becoming uni- ver sal.

6. The longer the reception of any writing was delayed, the more spurious works would it have to fight its way through.—Every one of our sacred pieces must have its claims set in opposition to the claims of a great many others: the more of these it has to contend with, the longer it must be in making its claims universally allowed: and such competitors would, for some time, increase and

multiply.—At any time, the Protevangelium © of

James

1 See, Jeremiah Jones, or Fabricius’s codex Apocryphus, mentioned before, B. 1. Chap. x 11. Sect. Iv. |

A 2

x BOOK Iv. ART. VI. SECT, XVII, XVIII. XIX. James might retard the Epistle of James; but the

more of such obstacles stood in the way, the greater would be the retardation,

7- One principal thing to help forwards a disputed Book or writing, would be internal evidence: but, though nothing works more surely,, yet nothing works more slowly: common people will for a while swallow, or rather devour, great absurdities, though after a time they will be convinced by better judges: indeed internal evidence 1s only evidence to the best judges, at first. The internal evidence of the Apocalypse must work very slowly indeed. Before the completion of some of the Prophecies which it contains, it must be received merely on the probability of its being written by St. John, x

XVII. I look upon these observations to be historical ; though their tendency 1s, to shew how the controverted pieces of the New Testament might be obstructed, even if really authentic. And

I should hope, that such remarks might moreover

tend to fix our thoughts on the growth of Chris- tianity, and make it an interesting subject. They therefore open the suhject to us, and explain its nature; and they may be called explanatory, as well as historical. —As the Article has no words about controverted Books, I shall offer no other Explanation.

XVi1l, We come then to our proof: - which is only concerned with one proposition.

The seven controverted Books of the New Tes- tament ought to be deemed canonical.”

We will prove this of these Books, first co/lec- tively, then separately.

xix. Coll:&ively, This has been already done in some measure, Their being acknowledged upon examination, after being confounded with a number

of

x 3 a N

E. 883 * -. - TR — * 5 2 Pg

• 2 9 […] 8 2 […] 3 SIS,

• “Fs. - OY ©. =, 2 55 . as 3g. L „

of other books, implies a good deal: a more severe trial than if they had met with a welcome recep- tion on their first appearance. We might also conceive, that, had the time of their probation been shorter, this argument in their favour might have been less powerful. The want of credulity of the Fathers, in the matter now before us, like the want of belief in St. Thomas, is a very powerful confirmation of our faith. And it must be a plea- sing reflexion to any one under doubt about any of these books, to think, that its title had been examined carefully, by better judges than himself, when the materials for judging were much more attainable than at present. — Pursuing this thought, we ask how it happens, that all Christians are agreed on the subject of their authenticity? this is no ordinary phznomenon: when a point has once been disputed, it generally continues to be dif. puted : but, in this, there 1s no diffenting Church nay, scarcely an hesitating individual. To offer as a reason, that the authenticity of the books in ques- tion has been settled publicly, in a Cauncil, is to say little. Those, who composed that Council,

must have received conviction as private men.

I will now read to you some Catalogues of an- cient times, from which it appears, when the con- troverted Books of our New Testament had been received amongst those always acknowledged as canonical. —And the Letter of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, to Onesimus, though only on the Old Tes- tament, might give us a right feeling of the situ- ation of Christians before the Canon was settled. — Cyril’s Catalogue, and that of the Council of Laodi- cea, may be sufficient for the present. Those, who chuse to cousult more catalogues, may find them in Lardner’s Works, by his Indexes*; or in that Chapter

e Particularly Index v. under Tefament.

6 BOOK IV. xx. XXI.

Chapter of the Supplement to his Credibility, which treats of the Order of the Buoks of the New ‘Testamentf.— 4/hanafius and Ryffinus not only give their own opinion, but the evidence of writings now losts.

XX. Separately, We begin with the Epistle to the Hebrews: there are two parts in each proof; we would both see, that the work in question is written by an Apo/tle, and that there are sufficient witnesses of its being sacred. That is, we would

rove its being genuine, and its being authentic.

hese two proofs may unite their force, but they are strictly independent of each other’.—If a wri- ting is proved authentic, it is to be received, who- ever wrote 1t; if an Apostle wrote it, it 1s to be received on his account*; and the evidence, that a writing 1s either genuine or authentic, may either be internal, or external. — During our separate

_ proofs, the state of early Christians now described,

as to their having a number of books claiming to be received as sacred, should be constantly kept in mind, |

xxl. The Epistle to the Hebrews may be proved authentic by a number of credible witnesses. Barnabas’, Clemens Romanus, and Polycarp may

be

1 Chap. xx11Tt.

b Genuine, distinguished from authentic, B. 1. Chap. x11. Sect. 11.

i Grotius and Le Clerc think the Epistle to the Hebrews au- thentic, but not the work of St. Paul. Dionysius of Alexandria thought the Apocalypse sacred, and written by a John, but not the Evangelist. | k See Bishop Hallifax’s quotation, p. 211, from Erasmus; though it belongs properly to the Apocalypse. :

Lardner does not allow, that Barnabas des refer to Hebr. though he calls Moses a Servant (Heb. iii. 5.) and in the capa- city of a serrant opposes him to Crit: Barnabas does not 00

| N : dee

— 4 , * 1 9 […] Y rr „ ES27 ——

• • CES 75 „ 1

be reckoned, as they shew, that the matter of it was familiar to them, though it is not their custom to quote formally. The force of this argument is best feen by looking into I ardner’s Credibility, &c. There, in the account of each Father, it is easily found what Scriptures he quotes, or alludes to. And in his Supplement, the opinions of the Fathers with regard to each Epistle may be found collected. The Epiftle to the Hebrews is quoted by Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem; and with particular attention by Ori- gen.—We may add the authority of the Councils of Laodicea (in 364, or about that time,) and Carthage (in 397, the third.)—Thele authorities

do not go lower than the fourth century: but

such as are later are useful in shewing, that all disputes were at an end. However, I will only

mention Theodoret, who told the Arians, that

they ought to respect this Epistle, as one which had been * read as early as the Apostolic writings.— ‘These witnefles seem sufficient. A student, who chose to attend particularly to this subject, might read that part of Lardner’s Supplement to his Cre-

dibility, which is about this Epistle in particular”. Xx11, As the Epistle to the Hebrews is anony- mous, we cannot perhaps be properly said ro prove its genuineness; but we may prove, that it is written by an Apestle; which is all we have in view, in | proving

deed at the same time call Christ a Son, but still the opposition strikes ne: nor does any thing come near obviating it but the supposition, that Barnabas might originally have the same ideas with St. Paul. See Lard. Works, Vol. 2, p. 20.

m ‘Fheodoret begins his Preface to Hebr. with saying, that the Arians endeavoured to lessen its authority; but I have omitted relating an exact reference to the passage, from which this was taken. I may find it hereafter, |

A 4

8 BOOK IV. xxi1.

proving any Epistle to be genuine. We will now therefore offer some reasons for concluding, that it is written by St. Paul. Grotius and Le Clerc are of a different opinion; but, though they are learned men, we find ourselves obliged to differ from them sometimes.

Compare Heb. v. 12. with 1 Cor. 11. 2.—Heb. X11. 3. with Gal. vi. 9.—Heb. xiii. 16. with Phil. iv. 18.—And compare conclusions*. Christ is called Mediator in the Epistle to the Hebrews three times, and twice in the Epistles always ascribed to St. Paul, and no where else in Scripture. —St. Paul

makes use of allusions to the public Games; and

such allusions are found in the Epistle to the He- brews?.

2 Pet. iii. 15, 16, is often used to prove, that Paul wrote the Epistle to Hebrews. The argu- ment takes for granted the authority of the second Epistle of Peter, but that is proved independently. The reasoning I take to be this: Peter writes to the same persons, that Paul had addressed in some Epistle of a singular nature: fo strictly singular, that it might be contradistinguished to the rest of St. Paul’s Epistles: or, what seems till stronger, to <* all his Epistles,” (ver. 16); now, how can this be solved so well, as by making the Epistle to the Hebrews to be one class, and the rest of his Epis- tles another ?—Lardner* will not ute this passage, because he supposes Paul to write to Jetoisi con- verts in Judea, and Peter to converts in general. But, on Mis supposition, Peter and Paul would ad- dress some of the fame converts; —and it seems

quite clear, from ver, 15, that they did write to

tome of the same persons, whoever they were.— The o Gibson gives more initances,—3d Past, Letter: see Contents.

P Compare Heb. 1 with 1 Cor. ix. 24. and Phil. lii. I, 44 2 Tardner’s Works, Vol. 6, p. 404.

The things hard io be understood,” seem to be in the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians parti- cularly; and the © as also” does seem to me to make one class of what went before, and another of what follows: and I cannot divide the writin

of Paul fo well into 7wo classes, as by supposing the

Epistle to the Hebrews fingly to make one of them.

In Heb. xiii. 23. Timothy is spoken of in a man- ner like that of St. Paul ;—and one can scarce con- ceive any person besides St. Paul to speak of him in such a manner.—Such is the internal evidence, that the Epistle to Hebrews is St. Paul’s: we may add as much external almost as we please.

This Epistle is 3 to St. Paul by many of the ancients; whose names may be seen in Lard- ner”, and in Bishop Gibson’s third Pastoral Letter. All those, who reckon fourteen Epistles of Paul, ascribe that to the Hebrews to him. Origen iu- tended* a proof, that Paul wrote it; whether he exe- cuted his intention or not, it shews his opinion: but Lardner thinks* he did execute it;—in his Homilies.

xxiII. Here we may rest our direct proof, though other arguments are to be found — The indirect proof, in the present question, is very con- siderable: that is to say, answering oljjectious opens the subject farther, and confirms our reasoning.

Obj. 1. If this Epistle had such good evidence for it as is here said, why was it not at first better received in the Christian world? In answer, we might first apply what has been said about the controverted pieces in general. And we may add, it was the less readily received on account of its

being

r Lard. Vol. 6, p. 391, &c.

• See Lard. Works, Vol. 2, p. 472.

t Lard. Works, Vol. 2, p. 458.

u Richardson’s Canon, p. 40, and p. 41; note.

JO BOOK iv. XXI1T,

being anonymous. If you ask, why then was it ano- nymous? you swerve from the present business.— It seems to have been received wherever it was known, till writings grew too numerous. In the Eastern Church, that is, in its own country, or near it, there does not seem to have been any doubt about it. At one time, it had not reached the Mestern Church, or not all parts of it; but af- terwards it did reach them al. The high things it contains concerning the Son of God, have made many depreciate it. The Latins would probably think it too Rabbinical for them. And certain se- vere passages relating to Apostacy, would deter fome men, and make them with to ayoid it and keep clear of it, whether the Novatians had any concern in the affair, or not.

Obj. 2. It Paul was the author, why did he not put his ame? — He might have good reasons unknown to us; and it would have been absurd for him to assign reasons why he did not own him- self to be the author; that would have been own- ing himself to be fo, in other words.—Then he was the Apostle of the Gemtiles*; and the Jews were much prejudiced ? against him: perhaps as an Apostate. He wrote indeed to converts; but Christian converts could retain Jewish prejudices; — his reasoning with them shews, that he was obliged to turn their own arms against them, which s a sort of hostile treatment.—In this Epistle, he lowers the value of Judaism, making it only in- troductory and temporary; whereas many, even Christians, wanted to make it perpetual.

Oh. 3. It this Epistle was so well attested, how

could some early Fathers be ignorant of St. Paul’s being the Author? we reply;—Irenzus might not know

x See Gibson; 3d Past. Letter. Adds xx1. 21, 28. Gibson, as before,

know the author, but he knew of the Epistle, and has quoted it. He was Bishop of Lyons; perhaps the Epistle might be less perfectly known in France than in Judea, so soon as the time of Irenzus.— Tertullian ascribed it to Barnabas; but he also was a Latin Father: it was no bad compliment, how- ever, to the composition to ascribe an Epistle of Paul, to his companion and fellow-preacher; to give it to one, who, if he was not an Apostle in the highest sense, was as near to one as possible. But any one, who happened to look at the end of this Epistle, might say, no one must conclude that Irenzus, &c. did not know it because they were Latin Fathers; for the Epistle was written from [taly. EygaÞn aro Tn; Iranians dic TiyneoJer,.— Suppose it was, when it once got into Judea, it might be as if it had been written in Judea. But this subscription is of very doubtful authority“. It might be occasioned by © they of Italy salute you,” just before; but ano ve Tran e might mean persons in Judea, or elsewhere, come hither from Italy*.—Then, it is not likely, that this Epis- tle was sent by Timothy; for the author says, he would come wit, Timothy, (Heb. xiii. 23.) if he came soon; sending implies separation; and, if Ti- mothy

2 In the Alex. MS, it is, from Rome.

= Notwithstanding the little credit of this subscription, Lard- ner is of opinion, that the Epistle was written from Rome; and there is a great weight of learning on the side of its comin from Italy. See Lard. Vol. 6, p. 413. I am not clear enou k in the order of the incidents at present, to contend about - matter.— I may however adhere to what I say fr/t, that it might be unknown at Rome, though written from a prison there.— Eusebius says, it was controverted, because not received by the Church at Rome.

„ In Viger, . 1. 13. we have not only & amo Ty oa, for Stoics, but & amo Tus Keatixs; for Gauls, Galli,—-The word &%A@u, added in MS Veles. Is not well supported, else it would take off the force of this phrase.

— w ˙ W —— © z —ꝓ1:̃ q —— — OOO

a […] . […] x — — ä — —

12 BOOK IV. XXI1t.

mothy delayed his journey, it is probable the Epiftle would be sent by some other hand.—ln the authorities, Clemens of Rome 1s mentioned as having known the Epistle: but he might know it on the return of travellers, who had visited their brethren in the East: or as a Bishop of a great city: —those in high authority have intelligence, which does not reach common people.

Obj. 4. Some have thought, that this Epistle could not be written by St. Paul, because the „ile and manner appeared unlike St. Pauls :—less vehe- ment, less digressive; in better Greek than could be expected from St. Paul; and more politely ex-

prefled?.—Yet we may say, in reply, the Epiftle to

the Hebrews is by no means deficient in spirit and energy; nor are St. Paul’s other Epistles without instances of fine writing. Then, whatever made St. Paul conceal his ame, would make him write with reserve and caution, if not attempt to make fome alteration in his {tile and manner of writing. This would naturally give a polish and softness, and, by abating vehemence, would prevent digres- sions. As to the Greek, I shall content myself with giving you the hypothesis of Lardner, © My conjecture,” says he, is, that St. Paul diftated the Epistle in Hebrew, and another, who was a great master of the Greek language, immediately wrote down the Apostle’s sentiments in his own elegant Greek. But who this assistant of the Apos- tle was, is altogether unknown*.”—Any person,

| who

This was the opinion of Origen. See Lard. Vol. 2, p. 477- * Lard. Works, Vol. 6, p. 410. P. 477+

© On review, I cannot feel contented with this conjecture of Lardner’s:—if it were well grounded, the Epistle in Greek would have the air of a 7ran/lation, contrary to what is quoted hy him, Vol. 2, p. 477, and Vol. 4, p. 269,—St. Paul wrote many Epistles in Greek; would he have employed any one t write

BOOK IV. ART, vi. SECT. XXIV. 13

who did not think himself a judge of the elegance of Greek, might perceive, that the language of the Epistle was more pure, clear and free from em- barrassment than St. Paul’s usually is: —it is above Barnabas, or Clement; what primitive Christian do we know of, except Paul, that it is not above? — With regard to the matter of the Epistle, good judges esteem that to be truly worthy of the Pupil of Gamaliel*.

xxiv. We come next to the Epistle of James. It is entitled IaxwSs rs Arge, and addressed, ac-

cording to Lardner’s opinion, to the twelve Tribes,

that is, to all descendants ® of Jacob, probably, whether

write this for him? and, if he dictated at all, why in Hebrew, to one well skilled in Greek? - As he did not write in his own name, I can conceive him to have thought more about his ex- pressioxs than in his other writings; and to have consulted some

friends upon them: this would sufficiently alter his sty le.

f See Wotton’s Misna from Simon : Postscript to Preface.

s Lardner is of this opinion; sce Works, Vol. 6, p. 307. In a Sermon, I have said, it seemed to me, that St. James meant to correct the mistakes and faults of pious Christians, who had abused Christian doctrines, so as to evade the moral purpoles of Christianity. I feel a reluctance to give up this opinion, though I wrote my Sermon in 1794, unmindful of this Lecture, written in 1790.—lIt seems to me a less difficulty to leave some expressions unaccounted for, (such as that about wars) than to suppose James to address persons so very dissimilar as Jews, (sup · poled fixed and determined. in Judaism) and Christians; or to suppose him to say things so uninteresting as some parts. of his Epistles would be to Jews. —I can conceive James to have had enlarged notions, and to have seen amongit Jews persons, who had all imaginable degrees of inclination to Christianity ; and

some moreover, who wanted to be both Jews and Christians at

the same time. Nay, I can conceive him to consider all Jews in the light of future converts, probable or possible: or as those, whose true interest it was to become converts; but I cannot conceive him to address Jews, as Fews. He might, according to this, be unwilling to nit the number of those he addressed; but I think he addressed no one, whom he did not consider as Banding in some relation to Christianity, -He might m_e min

[…] f […] —

14 BOOK Iv. ARr. vi. SECT: xxv.

whether converted to Christianity or not.— lt is a Catholic Epistle, as being addressed to no particular city, or settled Church. We are not to conclude, from 1ts being called Catholic, that it was indus- triously and immediately circulated all over the Christian world; probably it cold only be circu- lated within a moderate compals.

We will first give some reasons for believing it to be written by an Apastle of the name of James, and then produce some witnesses of its authenticity. In treating on the Epistle to the Hebrews, we took the opposite method ; spoke of the authority be- fore the Author; becaule, that Epistle being ano- nymous, it seemed best to give it a credit from testimony, before we proved it to be the compo- fition of an Apostle.

XXV. 1. James, the Author of this Epistle, was an Apostle in the strictest sense“. It may seem more easy to prove this than it really is. The name of James occurs several times in Scripture, without any mention of Parents, or any other mark to distin- guish one James from another. In primitive times, there was no need of any such mark; the context was sufficient. But we have James son of Zebe- dee, James son of Alpheus, James the Less (pmeos)’, James the Lord’s Brother, &c; and some of the ancients*, and the Greeks in modern times, have conceived, that James the son of Alpheus and James the Less might be different persons, It will not suit our plan to enter very minutely into

| this mind, that the Jews, who were imperfectly converted, might be ended, by any perversion of Christian doArines to immoral purposes; and he might have such Jews in view; sensible that his Epistle would be read by many of them.

n Some account has been given of the four Evangeli/ts, B. 1. Ch. x111. Se. ix.

i Mark xv. 40. | = Sec Lardner’s Works, Vol, 6, p. 474, 475.

BOOK Iv. xxv. ts

this matter. We may give some data, on which it may be solved. Any one, who wishes to examine it, must collect all the texts, in which James is mentioned, and compare them; allo all those, in which the brethren of our Lord are mentioned ; either all together (Matt. xiii. 55.) or separately. If we divide the twelve Apostles into three qua- ternions, the order in which they occur 1s always the same: the first four are always, Peter (or Si- mon), Andrew, James son of Zebedee, and John. The second four are always, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, and Matthew (or Levi.) The third four are always, James son of Alpheus (or of Cleophas), Simon the Canaanite (or Zelotes); Jude or Judas, (or Lebbeus surnamed Thaddeus), and Judas If- cariot. The same person has different names, we see; but the Hebrew names might take sometimes a Latin turn, from the connexion of the Jews with the Romans; or sometimes a Greek turn, Greek being the general language: the inscription on the Cross was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. To the above may be added, that James, the Lord’s brother, is called an Apostle by St. Paul, Gal. i. 19. But after all, we must content our-

selves with taking the result of inquiries made at

other times. There were, then, but zwo, proba-

_ bly, of the name of James; both reckoned in all

the four enumerations of the twelve Apo/tles. First, James the son of Zebedee and Salome“, called tometimes, though not in Scripture, major, or the elder; brother of John the Evangelist, who, with his brother John, and Peter, was present at the transfiguration, and during the agony of Christ in the Garden; who was one of those surnamed Boa-

PIE $I 2 nerges,

Matt. x. 2=4. Mark iii. 18. Luke 6. 15. AQs i. 13.

® Salome seems to have been the name of the mother of James major, and of the sister of James minor.

— — - […] . . […] —

16 BOOK IV. xxv.

nerges, and a Martyr under Herod®. - Second; James the fon of Alpheus, or the 4%, in opposi- tion to the other James, who 1s always mentioned first, and was most eminent and most employed, brother of Jude, and of Simon Zelotes, or the Canaanite, called, for some reason, or in some re- spect, the Brother of our Lord; and by early Christians, though not in Scripture, James the just : brother also of Joses, who was not an Apostle. It our Epistle was written by either of these, it was written by an Apostle.— No one amongst the an- cients, who had thought about it, denied, that it was written by one James, a man of very great emi- nence amongst the first Christians : =now, James the fon of Zebedee suffered martyrdom oo soon to write it; it was therefore (if our conclusion con- cerning the number of James’s is right).written by James the Son * of Alpheus. Indeed the things which are said of James, when no explanatory title is added, and after the death © of James the son of Zebedee, are sufficient to shew, that he a&ed in an Apostolic character; nay, in a character higher than the generality even of Apostles, after Christ’s ascension. When Peter was released out of prison by the Angel, as soon as he got into an house, he gave this order*; “ Go, shew these things unto James, and unto his brethren;” —as one would send to let a ruling Magistrate know any thing, and add, and tell it also to the other persons concerned.” James

n Acts x11. 2.

o As being Cousin; see Bp. Pearson on the Creed, concerning the perpetual Virginity of Mary, p. 175, Fol,

P A. D. 44.

4 Our Church takes part of the Epistle of James for the proper Lesson for St. Philip and St. James, May 1st. The festival of James major is July 25th.

r He suffered A. D. 44. Acts xv. is dated 51.

Acts xii. 17.

4 Do : , ry 8 AY by + „ oy > 8 […] : AK I K […] 8 #%

1 HD. II 2 q “A IG. No 1 5 TAS

BOOK IV. ART. VI. SECT, xxv. 17

James * seems to presde in making a speech on a difficult question, and what he dictates is put in execution. James presides at Ferusalem; the an- cients have called him Bifop of Jerusalem. James is one of those, who reconcile * Paul and Barnabas. And his weight appears in the obedience of Peter

to a commission deputed and sent” by him. —The

word Ares in the title, is in most manuscripts. And though the word Apostle, like other titles of honour, has got extended, yet the twelve seem to have been upon a different footing from the seventy, or any other disciples*,—It need scarce be men- tioned, that the writer of the Epistle calls himself the Servant * of Christ, whereas he, whom we sup- pole to have written it, 1s called by St. Paul * and the Evangelists, his Brother. After the Ascension of Christ, James became his Minister, or Servant: he was never a ftri& or proper Brother, nor per- haps would he ever have called 4imse/f so; except it might be in boyhood. To the Messias, to the Lord, he was Servant; though he might be Brother to the Carpenter’s Son.

What has now been said, with regard to St. James, will make us ready to accept the evidence of antiquity concerning the genuineness and authen- licity of his Epistle. Internal evidence we can ex- pect none, except the reasonableness and moralit of the composition, considered with the discretion

and

Acts xv. 13. u Acts xxi. 18. * Gal. ii. 9.

Y Gal. ii. 12.—Lardner, Vol. 2, p. 357, thinks, with Gro- tius and Beza, that Jews coming from James, means only coming from Jerusalem: but I hesitate: —Peter might be 700 familiar with Gentiles; the Jews from James might intimate this; Peter might grow more reserved to Gentiles than seemed to him/e/f needful or right; and in that sense he might di/emble.

• Luke vi. 13. Christ called his Disciples, and distinguished the twelve! whom al he named Apostles.” 88 hae. eln.

VOL. 111. B

TC Or ů ä —ů— —

—

and amiable goodness of St. James’s conduct.— His character is drawn by Lardner, Vol. 6, p. 473. Some Latin Fathers, who lived at a distance from Judea, do not. speak as if they had been acquainted with this Epistle; as Tertullian, and Cyprian: Irenæus is thought by some to have known of it, at least in some degree*®.—Origen says, in the part of his works which we have in Greek, that this Epistle is ascribed to James; but, in that part of his works, which were translated into Latin by Ruffinus (it there has been no interpolation made by Ruffinus), he speaks of it as the Epistle of James Apostle and Erother of the Lord, and divine Scripture*.” If we found a MS fo inscribed as our Epistle 1s, in any other case, we should not think of making much doubt about the author, except some particular difficulty occurred. —But 1 will not dwell more upon the genuinene/s of St. James’s Epistle, as it is attested by most of the witnesses, who come next to be considered.

xXxVI. Now we may call our witnefles to the authenticity of our Epistle. They are so numerous*, that I can only make a selection. The witnesses of authenticity will generally be witnesses of genuine- ness; conversely not fo often. The earliest Fa-

thers

© Clemens Alexandrinus occasions some difficulty. See Lard- ner’s Works, Vol. 2, p 226. Lardner is very candid in not reckoning any of his passages to refer to James.—I do not fee how to account for James’s Epistle not having made its way to Alexandria before 194 : but that might not be the case; Clem. Alex. might only omit James, or have no occason to quote any passage from a writing rather moral than doctrinal; nay, one seemingly avoiding the mention of doctrines, except when endeavouring to prevent their being abused.

d See Lard. Vol. 2, p. 479.

e See Index to Lardner’s Works, under St. James, his Epis- tle. And the same might be done also with regard to Hebrews, &c.— consult also Gibson’s third Pastoral Letter: Richardson’s Canon, p. 42. |

— wt 4 […] 4 . * ug wi At Fer w […] . * cy * * I - 7 * —

· 5% SY 52 eh

thers seem to have known and acknowledged what we call the Epistle of James, as authentic: Cle- ment of Rome and Hermas are to be consulted particularly : the Apostolic Fathers were more moral than some who came after them. — Origen has been already mentioned. —Eusebius and Jerom should be added; the former of whom says, that the Epistle was known to most*; and the latter, that gradually, in process of time, it obtained“ autho- rity ; which accounts agree with what we have said about the manner of the circulation of the sacred writings. We are moreover told, that the Epistle of James was translated into Syriac with the first of Peter and the first of John.

The particular obstacle, by which this Epistle might be impeded on its first outset, seems well assigned by“ Bishop Gibson. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans was universally received, and this seemed to contradict it with respect to justification by faith. We may add, its being moral more than doctrinal: it seems frequently of use to observe, that the Fathers were more Divines than Moralists. Lardner also mentions as an obstacle, its being thought by some, that there were more than two James’s (Lard. Vol. 4, p. 253.) : this is also men- tioned by Bishop Gibson. Martin Luther went farther when he rejected this Epistle, on account of what it contains with regard to faith, after it had been many centuries established * in the Canon.

Notwithstanding

f By the way, this is not said about the Epistle of James as distinguished from the other av7iAryopun; it is said of them all, though James is specified first, | Whitby. And in Gibson, p. 199, there is a second pas- sage about Jerom stronger than the first, Bp. Gibson is not strong enough about Eusebius; yg pwr g Te onRorgs L. 3. S.25. See also Lardner, 4. 227.

Third Past. Letter, p. 199. 5

See Bp. Hallifax, Ser, 7. p. 212. Jer. Jones 1. 10.

B 2

20 BOOK iv. XXv11.

Notwithstanding this exception of some Anti- nomians, I shall venture to read you a passage, which Whitby quotes from Esthius, a celebrated Divine of Holland or Flanders, who lived till the year * 1613,—With this Bishop Gibson concludes his account; and I will conclude mine with Dr. Lardner’s final opinion“.

XXVI1., Our next object is the second Epistle of Peter: which Grotius thinks may have made wo Epistles: the former containing the two first Chap- ters, the latter, the third Chapter. But, as this supposition has no support, and is formed only in order to support the notion, that this Epistle was written by Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, we may pass it over, and proceed to our proofs. Here we will first take internal evidence, then external, hav- ing, in the present case, something with which we can compare the composition in question.

Peter, mentioned in the Gospels, was unques- tionably an Apastle in the highest sense. If this Epistle was written by Jim, that is enough. We must be allowed to go upon the supposition, that he wrote the fir/# Epistle of Peter, as upon an axiom: and then we may produce reasons why this /econd Epistle was written by the author of the first, — The _ Simon Peter do not belong jointly to any other person. No other Peter could with propriety be called © an Apostle of Christ,” in any sense. The Author of this Epistle was pre- sent at our Lord’s Transfiguration, as appears by Chap. i. 18.—He writes © this second Epistle” to the same persons with the first: (though this ar- gument will not have weight with those, wha suppose Peter to begin a new Epistle with what we

| | commonly

x Bishop Gibson seems to refer to Jerom for this passage, p. 199, but there must be a false print.

commonly call the third Chapter.) In the second verse of the third Chapter, is a second claim to Apostleship: © the commandment of us the Apos-

tles of the Lord and Saviour.“ —If we take for

granted the authority of the Epistle of Jude, we may prove that of the second of Peter from it; for Jude refers to the second of Peter; I think I may say, no less than forrteen times. And, in the 14th verse, Jude puts Paul on the same footing with the writer of what we call the second Epistle of Peter; for they are the two, who speak of mockers or scoffers to come in the last time*®.—In John xxi. 18, 19, our Saviour foretels St. Peter’s death: in 2 Pet. i. 14. the writer says, I must shortly put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath fhewwed me.” —St. Peter is said to have been cruci- fied at Rome in Nero’s persecutionꝰ; a little while before the destruction of Jerusalem: he says, “ in his first Epistle, © the end of all things 1s at hand.” John xxi. 18, 19, seems to imply a violent death. Some reasoning has taken place about a supposed difference in regard to ile between the first and second Epistle of Peter. But Blackwall thinks

there is scarce any difference. It is not easy to

| prove any thing upon this point to offers; each person must judge, or feel, for himself *. The

n Compare 1 Tim. iv. 1. and 2 Tim. iii. 1. with 2 Pet. iii.

3. Yet I doubt whether Paul comes up quite to the idea of scoffers or meckers :“ despisers of those that are good,” a Tim. iii. 3. comes the nearest,

o See Lardner, Vol. 6, Chap. 18.

1 Pet. iv. 7.

4 The second Chapter is lofty by containing infinuations against false teachers, and others, perhaps, pretending to take the lead in sanctity without being the best moral men: these in- sinuations must be the most decorous when made in allusions to writings deemed sacred : but such must raise the stile: St. Paul uses the same kind of stile about the Fornicator at Corinth.

#3

22 BOOK Iv.

The general scope of this Epistle seems to me such.as might have been expected in a second Epis- tle.—Converts had used the privileges of Christian- ity (as some have done in all ages) as an exemption from moral obedience: St. Paul’s obscurity had forwarded this error. James was obliged to set himself about rectifying it; and so was St. Peter in a supplementary address. With this view compare e ęlect“ 1 Pet. i. 2. with 2 Pet. i. 10. and read 2 Pet. 1. 1, 3, 5—11; or even to 15.—i1. 10, &c. to the end; (all about persons, who presume upon their Holiness to be vicious; Chap. m. 11, to the end; particularly ver. 15 and 16 about St. Paul:— comparing that with James ii. 14, &c. There are indeed some things about false teachers, which might be occasioned by other circumstances; as also a presumption obviated, that, because the second coming of Christ had not happened already, as expected by some, it need not be feared at all.

On the whole, we mult either own, that St. Pe- ter wrote the Epistle before us, or say, that some person forged it, intending to impose upon the Christian Church. The latter supposition 1s scarcely admissible, because the Author must be a good and pious Christian; and such an one would not take pains to deceive. We have indeed spoken * of some, who were well-meaning, and yet did en- deavour to recommend their writings and make them useful, by affixing a great name to them;

but, in the present case, the writer must not onl intend to recommend his Epistle, but actually to be believed to be Peter*, by all Christians. - Those, who think the marks sufficient, can receive the

Epistle r Salvian, &e. B. 1. Ch. x11, SeRt. ry.

• Compare 1 Pet. iv, 5. with 2 Pet. iti. 4.— and 1 Pet. i. 9. with 2 Pet. i. 6.—and 1 Pet. i. 2. with 2 Pet, i. 10. could

wish more of these comparisons to be made.

BOOK-IV, AR r. vi. SECT, XXVITI. XXIX. 23 Epistle only as Peter’s; if it is not that, it is not what it pretends to be. * XXVIII. Nevertheless, we may add any external testimony, for the authenticity of our Epistle. Or, if external testimony at the same time proves its genuineness, no confusion will ensue. Grotius was desirous * to have it pass for the work of Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, and succeffor to St. James ; though without any warrant from antiquity. Clemens Romanus makes repeated allufions to the second Epistle of Peter: Hermas seems to have known it: Justin Martyr may be produced as a witness :—Irenzus has one passage, at least, to our purpose; and one is as good as more, when suffi- ciently clear. Origen may be worth citing; and Firmilian, though his expression is ambiguous ; it is, Paul and Peter in their Epistles.” (Lard. Vol. 2. p. 548.)—I will only add, that, though. these passages afford arguments for the authority of the Epistle, silence of authors does not prove equally against it. There is no doubt about the Epistles to the Thessalonians; yet I remember ob- serving, in a pretty long course of reading, that I never met with any reference to either of them. After the fourth century, no more doubt re- mained, | XxX1x. We proceed, in the next place, to the second and third Epistles of St. Jon. That these should be at first neglected as minute, does not seem wonderful; even Eusebius seems to speak of them with 1ndifference®; yet afterwards, in the Council of Laodicea, Iwaws Tees are necessary to make up the inra xaboanai, And so long as they were

t Grotius in 2 Pet. Lardner, 6. 56 2 u Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 3. 25. Also Origen; see Lardner’s Works, Vol. 2, p. 467. |

TY 24 BOOK IV. xxix.

were considered as private letters to two individuals, they would be little attended to: whatever made them regarded as * catholic, and called by that name, did probably occasion their being univer- sally respected. Some have understood the word Kue (2 John 1. 1.) to mean? a Church; but that does not appear consistent with what follows. If we understand the Letters, or Epistles, as intended to remedy wo evils very common amongst Chris- tians, though they were written with a view to two particular iz/tances of those evils, they might soon be perceived to be generally applicable, and fo come to be universally read, 1n private and public, and, in time, to be received as the injunctions of

an Apostle. | In order to make the fir of these two small Epistles seem natural and generally useful, we need only suppose, that some of the Docetæ had at- tempted to instill their notions into the mind of a devout and respectable mistress of a family :—and that she had given them rather too much encou- ragement. In such a case, reproof was to be ap- plied before the disorder had got to too great an height; it was also to be sweetened by pure and unaftected benevolence. Right reproof always allows the real good qualities of the person re- proved. | + IE In order to make the second Epistle seem easy and intelligible, we need only suppose an opulent and hospitable convert, of the name of Gaius, to have been somewhat too attentive to a preacher, or minister, called Diotreplies, who, being of an ambitious

*The second and third of John were always called Catholic Epistles; see before, Sect. xv. | |

[…] Art. 11. Sect. ry, xXXVIIL.

ambitious and turbulent disposition, wished to as- sume some authority of is own, or to abuse such as was committed to him; and, as a means of succeeding, depreciated St. John, or, possibly, his first Epistle: the attention shewn to this aspiring minister may be supposed to have had the particu- lar inconvenience of causing Demetrius to be ne- glected; a plain, modest, orderly preacher*.

In such a case, Gaius, or Caius, was to have the praise due to his hospitality; and beneficence was to be encouraged in general: the evil was to be complained of, and the offender reproved ; but it need but be briefly stated ; it need not be prefled, or exaggerated. Indeed the fault was properly in Diotrephes, not in Gaius; but Gaius was to be cautioned against giving it any encouragement.

The situations which I have imagined (for I speak not as determining any thing) were probably not unfrequent about the end of the first Century; and therefore the best means of obviating their incon- veniencies might be made public, and be of general concern: this they would naturally be by degrees : and these Letters would be of general use, not onl to those who ran into the same faults, but to cho, Ministers who had occasion to check and reprove them. They both seem, at bottom, to intend reproof for some different sorts of unsteadiness: and probably the one for yielding to Heresy, and the other for yielding to ambition. But, as I have marked out the path, by which the Student may investigate the genuineness and authority of such writings, I will content myself with referring to authors before mentioned, Lardner, Richardson, Bithop Gibson, &c.

As

2 Lardner, I see, thinks Demetrius may have carried the Letter; — he struck me as some way opposed to Diotreples; and sill does. But, as a fat, at least, I may be allowed to mention what occurred to me on reading the Epistles, |

26 BOOK lv. xxx.

As a thing peculiar to these two small Epistles, J may just mention, that John, by calling himself the Elder, made some imagine, that they were written by John the Elder or Presbyter, mentioned by Eusebius, and not by the Evangelist; but there is every reason to think, that St. John only gave himself this title on account of his od age, and in order to avoid affuming too much consequence. He wished to appear to the devout Matron, and the hospitable Gaius, rather in the light of an elderly friend, than in that of a person, who had authority to diftate and enjoin.

xxx, Nor, after the specimens already given, do I mean to be long upon the Epistle of Jude. The writer, by calling himself “ Servant of Jesus Christ, and Brother of James,” must mean to be thought that person, who 1s always reckoned in the third quaternion of the twelve Apastles; and is called Jude, Judas, Lebbeus, and Thaddens; and te not Iscariot. An Epistle fo subscribed must be taken as the composition of him who subscribes it, if we find no particular reason to the contrary, And there is a presumption against the idea, that a pious Christian would endeavour to deceive. This was before observed, with regard to the author of the latter Epistle of Peter, which Epistle Jude means to second, —We might here produce evr- dence; Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and Origen are full in our favour :—nay, even Hermas might be adduced, if not Polycarp and Irenzus*®. hut, as wl. at difficulty there has been, has arisen

from

d John xiv. 22. 5

© 1796. It appears, from Mr. Marsh’s Edition of Michaelis’s Introduction, that the latter gave up the authority of the Epistle of Jude. But I do not apprehend, that more will follow from this, than from Martin Luther’s giving up the Authority of the Epistle of ame. 5

1 = 8 — L CI = I Tas gs. n 8 2 N 2 7 72 2 5

• • CY ” EE 8 3 2 N 8 — 2 i, —_ pa n FR. * 2 3 […] A * 5

r ID > e […] K

res

F

• = CEE ; „FP PPP

Fx =

Pe KS Fa) 5, = LY F “1 BY „

from the credit seemingly given in our Epistle to some fabulous stories, we may confine ourselves to that point. 1. Supposing the stories not true, but only believed to be true, there seems no reason why Jude might not allude or refer to them, in the way of an argumentum ad hominem. For so doing he would have had the highest authority. 2. Sup- posing them frue, but conveyed down only by tradition, Jude had certainly as good a right to introduce them, as Paul to introduce Fannes and Zambres*. But 3. we are told, it is possible that Jude might refer only to the canonical books of the Old Testament: and that what he says, which seems not to be contained in the Old Testament, might be collected from it, and expressed in his own manner, according to some allowed modes of speaking, 1aterpreting, and applying. — The He- brews used feigned speeches; so that one of them might give that which he, from circumstances, supposed Enoch might probably foretell, as if Enoch had foretold it*. The Rabbins, says Grotius, use to ascribe to Angels and great men that, which might probably be said by them. — Thus 2 Pet. ii. 7, 8, about Lot, is all supposed to be collected from the Book of Genesis. However, it does not seem to be denied, that St. Jude may have made use of a traditional Prophecy of Enoch: or of an Hebrew book now lost. Though Jude 8, and q, is fully thought by Lardner to be taken from the three first verses of the third Chapter of Zechariah. If, however, we can defend the writer on the least favourable supposition, we shall have no need to apologize for him on any other. If Jude’s mode of using Scripture, by putting speeches into the mouths of great personages, was known and used, 42 Tim. iii. 8. * See Lardner’s Works, Vol. 6, p. 619, &c.

; ”

23 BOOK iv. xxxI.

used, it would not deceive the Fews, though it

might disgust and perplex others: yet did not Livy do much the same ?

Lardner, Vol. 6, thinks this Epistle was written to all Converts, Gentiles as well as Jews: to me the allusions to Jewish writings seem too frequent far this opinion.

XXX1. The last Book, of which we are to speak, is the Apocalypse—which was probably written by St. Jom the Evangelist, in the Island of Patmos, about the last year x 4 Domitian’s* reign, A. D. 96; though not published till St. John went from his banishment there, to Ephesus, fome little time afterwards, where he presided.

The proof of the authority of this Book will be wholly a proof of its genuineness; or that it was written by St. John the Evangelist. Such is the nature of the Book, as to make it unlikely that it should be received on any other account. Indeed Dionysius ? of Alexandria did hold, that it was written by another John, and in later times: Eras-

mus and Luther * have allowed the authority, and

denied the Author; but Dionysius having had a particular end in view, and the two others being

comparatively moderns, they need not be consi- dered particularly by us.

The genuineness of the Apocalypse seems capa- ble of a most full and complete proof: as may easily be seen by looking into Lardner’s Chapter on this book, in his Supplement to his Credibility.

I will

This is not unquestioned : some have thought the Apoca- lypse was written before the year 20.—Some, at different times ; and collected. Sir I. Newton, Michaelis, and Wetstein are all for the earlier date; but ey go a good deal on the /ile; the arguments for the later date seem to me much the more forcible.

s See Lardner’s account of him.

b See Bp. Hallifax’s 7th Sermon, p. 211.

i Chap. 22, |

I will only sele& a few arguments; some internal, others external.

Internal marks may be, the author’s calling

Christ the #ord*;—and also the Lamb: his using the word Amen four times;—and the phrase pe- culiar to St. John, of overcoming the world, or the wicked one; for being unmoved under trials“. Lardner is most struck with this last mark. A few external proofs, or a few witnesses may be adduced. Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito, and Irenæus, may be sufficient, And what they say cannot be collected more easily than by means of Lardner’s credibility; either in the body of that work, or in the Supplement. Lardner * thinks Irenzus’s testimony alone sufficient to establish the genuineness, and consequently the authority, of the Apocalypse.

Yet it must not be dissembled, that the wit- nesses cannot be traced down to the present times in an uninterrupted succession. The Apocalypse is not in the Canon of the Council of Laodicea, nor in the Catalogues of Cyril and others, Chrysostom takes no notice of it, in his voluminous works, What may this mean?—The case seems to be, that Caius a Presbyter, probably a Roman, and Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, were determined, at all hazards, to overthrow the errors and expose the follies of those, who believed in a voluptuous Millennium ; and, when that state seemed to be promised in the Apocalypse, they proceeded to leflen the authority of that Book: their argu-

| ments,

• Compare Rev. xix. 13. with John i, 1.—1 John i. 1,— also Rev. v. 6, 12. with John i. 36. |

| Michaelis; see end of John; and of 1 John and 2 John.

mn Compare Rev. ii. 7, &c.—iii. 21, &C.—xxi. 7. with John xvi. 33.—1 John ii. 13, 14.—iv. 4.—V. 4, 5.

» Before, Sect. XY,

30 BOOK iv. ART, VI. SECT. xxxi.

ments, together with the difficulties contained in . the Book, seem to have been the real reasons why Christians began to doubt about it, even after its credit had been in a manner established. Its cre- dit would be the more easily overthrown, at any time, as but few copies, comparatively, would be taken of it. And therefore few would be able to defend it. Nay, some doubts existed after it had been again established, in a very great measure, and thele continued for a length of time: and be- fore the Reformation, disputes being dropped, the Book had become neglected and almost ? forgotten. The times immediately preceding the reforma- tion were times of ignorance; but, with regard to the more enlightened times of the fourth and fifth centuries, it has been said, that the Apocalypse was received in the Western Church before it was re- ceived in the Eastern, contrary to what we have said of things published in the East. This seems a misrepresentation :—Papias, Justin, Melito, were all of the Eastern Church: and Melito, Bishop of Sardis, a Church which was one of the sever that were addressed in the Book, also went farther into

the Ea/? than Sardis in search of canonical books.

— Go lower, we have little to say: but, on the whole, the truth seems to be, that, at first, the proofs, that St. John wrote the Apocalypse, were too strong to be resisted; that it made its way all over the Christian. world: though Christians in general would always be attached to other sacred Books in a greater degree :—but that ere long, it

not only occasioned perplexity, but gave rise to

error, folly, dispute: it occasioned disgust; it was opposed, laid aside :—this more in some places than in others, according to particular circumstances; but in fact it was laid aside more in the East than

IR

? Sec Bp. Hallifax, 7th Sermon.

;

e

BOOK IV. xxxtt. 31

in the Vest: nevertheless, this probably was acci- dental; that is, it had nothing to do with any difference between the Eastern and Western Churches. |

What is said * about the Council of © Laogicea seems reasonable; that they were selecting books for public reading to the people: the Apocalypse was not adapted to that use: and such is the judg- ment of the Church of England.

XXx11., Though we are speaking immediately of the Authority of the Apocalypse, yet its great obscurity makes one naturally say a word or two of its meaning. Many learned men have professed not to understand it: Lardner does* this with the greatest plainness and simplicity. Calvin seems to have done the fame, and the learned Scaliger com- mends him for it: Sapuit Calvinus,“ says he, e qui non scripsit in Apocalypsin.” Vet Joseph Mede, Fellow of Christ’s College, who died about the middle of the 17th Century, has made won- derful efforts to explain it. And, I suppose, has been the means of our now having fo easy and pleasing a way laid open to some view of its con- tents, in the Sermons of Bishop Hurd and Bishop Hallifax, preached at the Lecture founded by Bishop Warburton*. The general idea of the contents is, that it contains prophecies relating to

| | the

r Laodicea was one of the seven Churches addressed.

Vol. 6, p. 635.

t Whitby was learned; but he declined commenting on the Revelation: he has left a Dissertation on the Millennium. He appears to have been a candid, conscientious, and industrious man: but I am not clear that he was a man of very great pe- netration, or critical sagacity. He died in 172b, aged 88.

u Joseph Mede is said to have refused the Provostship of Dub. lin, &c. he died in 1658: aged only 52. |

• B. 1. Chap. xy 11. Set, X1%,

32 BOOK IV. ART. vr. SECT. xxxi 11.

the fortunes of the Christian Church, which his-

tory is continually interpreting and unfolding. —A short account may bo found in Bishop Percy’s Key to the New Testament.

xXXX111, Having now gone through the four parts of our Article, it seems proper to take some notice of one expression in it; © of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church;” especially as we have been just now speaking of controverted Books. |

Probably, when these words were used, nothing more was thought of than the Old Tęsament. For the last sentence, or paragraph, about the New, begins as if nothing had been said about it before. And one’s idea, in reading the Article, is, we receive all the Books of the Old Testament, which

have been always, in a manner, received; —but by

as to those, which the Romanisis receive, though the ancients speak doubtfully of them, we wish them to be read publicly, as having a good moral tendency, but we cannot allow them to have au- thority in settling Doctriues: so far, we think of nothing but the Old Testament :—after this, of nothing but the New. The New Testament we receive as the Romanists do.’/—“The words, * and new,” have the air of an insertion?, by way of cor- refion.—Indeed they had better be omitted. The whole phrase, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church,” is only incidental; a kind of Epithet, meaning uncontroverted: and, if it was not strictly proper, it need not occasion scruple, fo

long as it did not affect the declarations, strictly fo

called, of our Article: it does not imply, that we

receive one book more or less. If any one did not find this sufficient to make him easy, when he used the expression in question, | recollecting

7 I find nothing in Bennet’s Callations to favour this.

BOOK Iv. xxxIII. 33

recollecting the avriaeyouera, he might consider farther;

1. That an Article 1s to be interpreted by the occasion*, on which it was made: ours was made with a view to the Church of Rome; and they have never doubted the authority of those Books of the New Testament, which were once controverted.

2. Thole persons may properly be said never to have doubted, who never had opportunity of getting good information, Whatever time elapsed, in any case, before Christians got sufficient evidence of the authority of any Book, during that time they are not to be considered as dowbting; and, if they never doubted after they got such evidence, they never properly doubted at all. It a man be- lieved the genuineness of Row!ley’s Poems, as soon as the proofs of it were digested in his mind, he might be said never to have doubted of it; and, if that were the case with all men, 1t might properly be said, that their genuineness had never been questioned,—W hat time should be allowed for suf- ficient evidence to pervade the whole Christian world, fo that we might say, if the controverted books were received in that time, they were never properly doubted, it may be difficult to settle pre- cisely, at this distance of time but, in settling it as well as we are able, we must take into our

minds

z Pook 111, Chap. ix. WH. Wo

minds all those ob/aacles, which have before been described*. |

xxxiv. We may come now to what we have called the Application of our Article. We may keep up the 1dea of its consisting of the same parts as before®; though little need be said on any of them.

As to assenting; a person, who mentioned what passed in his mind when he gave his assent, might perhaps say something of the following sort ;

It is in vain to dispute, except we settle some common principles with our adversaries. As there- fore the Romanisis exalt the authority of their Church, and of Traditions in general, we must de- clare, that we only allow the authority of Scrip- ture: though we grant, that whatever is fairly deduced from Scripture, has scriptural authority. — But, as different 1deas have been annexed to the word Scripture, it seems best to specify what wri- tings we comprize under that term. We receive no Books, which the Romanists reject; but fome, which they hold to be canonical, we consider only as improving; and these we agree to read publicly, in imitation of early Christians, and in compliance with the wishes of those, who may bave been brought up to revere and esteem them.”

We hold the same Books of the New Testa- ment to be authentic, which the Romanists do.”

As to mutual concessions, 1t does not appear how

a dispute concerning first or fundamental principles

admits of any compromise. | And lastly, with regard to Improvements, those belonging to this Article are improvements in stu- dying Scripture, and in settling the provinces of written and unwritten authority: new proofs of the genuineness and authority of any sacred books, would * Set. xv1, d Art. 1. Se. ix. |

would also come under the present class of im- provements: as would any new lights with regard to the ancient Jewish Books, which we commonly call the Apocryp/a.

The short rule for improving our knowledge of Scripture is, to get, as nearly as possible, into the place of those, whom it was most immediately in- tended to suit: to give ourselves their ideas and feelings. It is these, which must enable us to limit and apply expressions, such as, from the imperfection of human language, are too general and extensive to be taken literally. In order to get into the situation of others, and learn their ideas and feelings, we must acquaint ourselves with the history of their customs and opinions; and with all the objects, natural © and artificial, which most usually engaged their attention.—bFresh travels, undertaken by good antiquaries, naturalists, artists, with due encouragement, might continually pro- mote this purpose.

And, when we could not investigate immediately the 1deas and feelings of those, for whom Scripture was first intended, we might find them out, in some degree, by their effects; which are to be un-

derstood by means of Ecclesiastical History.

© See Book 1. Chap. x. and x1,

( 2 ARTICLE

ä —:.:. . ĩͤ . —

• […] AIDE —— 2 2 = * 2 4 5 „„ — 4 — 8 tn. Bu — — TT am_S + 3 > ES

Toca ven LORE… WW 4a” ES”

36 BOOK 1V. 1.

Notes

• Wotton, Preface, p. xlvi. Note.
• x Cor. 1. 16. * Balguy, p. 87, 194, 196. Eph. vi. 1. VOL. 11. G 6
• See Deut. xxxi. 10. > See Deut. vi. 7. The account of the single copy in the time of Josiah (2 Kings xxii. 8.) is understood in different senses; (see Collier, 1. p. 263): supposing it literally true,
• Luke xxiv, 34. m See Lardner, Vol. 5, p. 24.
• Matt. xii. 27. John x. 35. See Div. Leg. Vol. 4, g vo. p. 366. Sherlock’s Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 3, top.— Also Book 1. Chap. xv11. Sect. x ix. of this; and 11. 11. XI11. |
• Contra Apion r. p. 1333, Ed. Hudson.
• Terom, Pref, to his Translation of the Books of Solomon from the Hebrew. In English, Lard. Works, Vol. 5, p. 13.
• Bishop Hallifax on 3 p. 209.
• Richardson’s Canon, p. 39, 40; or Lardner, as above.
• Larduer’s Works, Vol. 6, p. 381-4135.
• Lard. Works, Vol. 6, p. 505. m 2 Pet. i. t.
• See the opinions collected in Lard. Vol, 6, Chap. 20, p.
• Works, Vol. 2, p. 170.
• Richardson’s Canon, p. 15. Gibson, Lardner as before: the words are, dc der picnic arayuuoxiol as.
• . It cannot perhaps be said properly, that the Church ever doubted of the Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, &c.—i1ndividuals have doubted, but no act of the Church ever proclaimed them doubtful. The Council of Laodicea omitted the Apocalypse; but that has been accounted for : and that Council was formed only by Deputies from the Provinces of Asia Minor.