VI. we can at best but make conjectures about them; yet, ART. upon the whole matter, we may well understand all that is neceffary to falvation in the Scripture. : We may indeed fall into mistakes as well as into fins; and into errors of ignorance, as well as into fins of ignorance. God has dealt with our understandings as he hath dealt with our wills: he proposes our duty to us, with ftrong motives to obedience; he promises us inward affiftances, and accepts of our fincere endeavours and yet this does not hinder many from perifhing eternally, and others from falling into great fins, and fo running great danger of eternal damnation; and all this is because God has left our wills free, and does not constrain us to be good. He deals with our understandings in the fame manner; he has fet his will and the knowledge of falvation before us, in writings that are framed in a simple and plain ftyle, in a language that was then common, and is ftill well understood, that were at firft defigned for common ufe; they are foon read, and it must be confeffed that a great part of them is very clear: fo we have reafon to conclude, that if a man reads thefe carefully and with an honest mind; if he prays to God to direct him, and follows fincerely what he apprehends to be true, and practifes diligently thofe duties that do unquestionably appear to be bound upon him by them, that then he fhall find out enough to fave his foul; and that fuch mistakes. as lie ftill upon him, fhall either be cleared up to him by fome happy providence, or thall be forgiven him by that infinite mercy, to which his fincerity and diligence is well known. That bad men fhould fall into grievous errors, is no more ftrange, than that they fhould commit heinous fins: and the errors of good men, in which they are neither wilful nor infolent, will certainly be forgiven, as well as their fins of infirmity. Therefore all the ill ufe that is made of the Scripture, and all the errors that are pretended to be proved by it, do not weaken its authority or clearness. This does only fhew us the danger of ftudying them with a biaffed or corrupted mind, of reading them too carelessly, of being too curious in going farther than as they open matters to us; and in being too implicit in adhering to our education, or in fubmitting to the dictates of others. So far I have explained the first branch of this Article. The confequence that arifes out of it is fo clear, that it needs not be proved: That therefore nothing ought to be efteemed an Article of Faith, but what may be found in it, or proved from it. If this is our rule, our entire and only rule, VI. ART. rule, then fuch doctrines as are not in it ought to be rejected; and any Church that adds to the Chriftian religion, is erroneous for making fuch additions, and becomes tyrannical if the impofes them upon all her members, and requires pofitive declarations, fubfcriptions, and oaths, concerning them. In fo doing fhe forces fuch as cannot have communion with her, but by affirming what they believe to be falfe, to withdraw from that which cannot be had without departing from the truth. So all the additions of the five Sacraments, of the invocation of angels and faints, of the worfhipping of images, croffes. and relics; of the corporal prefence in the Eucharift; of the facrifice offered in it for the dead as well as for the living, together with the adoration offered to it, with a great many more, are certainly errors, unless they can be proved from Scripture; and they are intolerable errors, if as the Scripture is exprefs in oppofition to them, so they defile the worship of Chriftians with idolatry: but they become yet moft intolerable, if they are impofed upon all that are in that communion, and if creeds or oaths in which they are affirmed are required of all in their communion. Here is the main ground of justifying our forming ourselves into a diftinct body from the Roman Church, and therefore it is well to be confidered. The further difcuffing of this will come properly in, when other particulars come to be examined. From hence I go to the fecond branch of this Article, which gives us the Canon of the Scripture. Here I fhall begin with the New Teftament; for though in order the Old Testament is before the New, yet the proof of the one being more diftinctly made out by the concurring teftimonies of other writers, than can poffibly be pretended for the other, and the New giving an authority to the Old, by afferting it fo exprefsly, I fhall therefore prove first the Canon of the New Testament. I will not urge that of the teftimony of the Spirit, which many have had recourfe to this is only an argument to him that feels it, if it is one at all; and therefore it proves nothing to another perfon: befides, the utmost that with reafon can be made of this is, that a good man, feeling the very powerful effects of the Chriftian religion on his own heart, in the reforming his nature, and the calming his confcience, together with thofe comforts that arife out of it, is convinced in general of the whole of Chriftianity, by the happy effects that it has upon his own mind: but it does not from this appear how he fhould know that fuch books and such paffages in them should come from a divine ori : VI. ginal, or that he should be able to distinguish what is ART. genuine in them from what is fpurious. To come therefore to fuch arguments as may be well infifted upon or maintained. The Canon of the New Teftament, as we now have it, is fully proved from the quotations out of the books of the New Teftament, by the writers of the first and fecond centuries; fuch as Clemens, Ignatius, Juftin, Irenæus, and several others. Papias, who converfed with the difciples of the Apoftles, is cited by Eufebius in confirma- Lib. iii. tion of St. Matthew's Gofpel, which he fays was writ by Hift. c. 39? him in Hebrew: be is alfo cited to prove that St. Mark c. 25. writ his Gospel from St. Peter's preaching; which is also confirmed by Clemens of Alexandria; not to mention later writers. Irenæus fays St. Luke writ his Gospel ac- Euf. 1. ii. cording to St. Paul's preaching; which is fupported by Hiß. c. 15! fome words in St. Paul's Epiftles that relate to paffages in that Gospel; yet certainly he had likewife other vouchers; those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and minifters of the Word; though the whole might receive its full authority from St. Paul's approbation. St. John writ later than the other three; fo the teftimonies concerning his Gofpel are the fulleft and the moft particular. Irenæus has Lib. iii. cap. laboured the proof of this matter with much care and at- 11. tention he lived within an hundred years of St. John, and knew Polycarp that was one of his difciples: after him come Tertullian and Origen, who fpeak very copi- Tert. 1. iv. oufly of the four Gofpels; and from them all the ecclefi- cont. Mar. aftical writers have without any doubting or controversy Orig. apud acknowledged and cited them, without the leaft fhadow Euf. lib. vi. of any oppofition, except what was made by Marcion and cap. 25. the Manichees. сар. 1. 60. Carth. Next to these authorities we appeal to the catalogues of the books of the New Teftament, that are given us in the third and fourth centuries by Origen, a man of great industry, and that had examined the ftate of many churches; by St. Athanafius, by the council of Laodicea Athan. in and Carthage; and after thefe we have a conftant fuccef- Synopf. fion of teftimonies, that do deliver these as the Canon Conc. Can. univerfally received. All this laid together does fully iii. c. 47prove this point; and that the more clearly, when these particulars are confidered. 1. That the books of the New Teftament were read in all their churches, and at all their affemblies, fo that this was a point in which it was not easy for men to mistake. 2dly, That this was so near the fountain, that the originals themfelves of the Apoftles were no doubt so long preserved. 3dly, That both the VI. Trypho. Orig. Exh. ART. the Jews, as appears from Juftin Martyr, and the Gentiles, as appears by Celfus, knew that thefe were the books in which the faith of the Chriftians was contained. Dial. cum 4thly, That fome queftion was made touching some of them, because there was not that clear or general knowledge concerning then, that there was concerning the others; yet upon fuller enquiry all acquiefced in them. No doubt was ever made about thirteen of St. Paul's Epiftles; because there were particular churches or perTertul. de fons, to whom the originals of them were directed: but Pretc. cap. the train and defign of that to the Hebrews being to re36. move their prejudices, that high one, which they had taken up against St. Paul as an enemy to their nation, was to be kept out of view, that it might not blaft the good effects which were intended by it; yet it is cited oftener than once by Clemens of Rome: and though the ignorance of many of the Roman Church, who thought Orig. Ep. ad that fome paffages in it favoured the feverity of the NoAfrican. vatians, that cut off apoftates from the hopes of repentad Martyr. ance, made them question it, of which mention is made Eufeb. Hift. both by Origen, Eufebius, and Jerome, who frequently Jib. vi.c. 20. affirm, that the Latin Church, or the Roman, did not reHi and Eceive it; yet Athanafius reckons both this and the feven Cyr.Catech. general Epiftles among the canonical writings. Cyril of Jerufalem, who had occafion to be well informed about it, fays, that he delivers his catalogue from the Church, as fhe had received it from the Apostles, the ancient bishops, and the governors of the Church; and reckons up in it both the leven general Epiftles, and the fourteen of St. Paul. So does Ruffin, and fo do the councils of Laodicea and Carthage ; the canons of the former being received into the body of the Canons of the Univerfal Church. Irenæus, Origen, and Clemens of Alexandria, cite the Epiftle to the Hebrews frequently. Some question was made of the Epiftle of St. James, the fecond of St. Peter, the fecond and third of St. John, and St. Jude's Epiftle. But both Clemens of Rome, Ignatius, and Origen, cite St. James's Epiftle; Eufebius fays it was known to moft, and read in moft Chriftian Churches: the like is teftified by St. Jerome'. St. Peter's fecond Epistle is cited ad iv. Apud Hieron. Can. 60. Can. 47. Iren. 1. iii. c. 38. Orig. 1. iii. et vii. cont. Celf. Dial. con. Marc. et Ep. ad Afric. Clem. Alex. Ignat. Ep. ad Eph. Orig. Hom. 13. in Genef. Euf. Hift. 1. ii. c. 22. 1. iii. c. 24, 25. f Hieron. Pref. in Ep. Jac. by b VI. by Origen and Firmilian; and Eufebius fays it was ART. held very useful even by thofe who held it not canonical: but fince the first Epiftle was never queftioned by any, the fecond that carries fo many characters of its genuinenefs, such as St. Peter's name at the head of it, the mention of the transfiguration, and of his being an eye-witnefs of it, are evident proofs of its being writ by him. The second and third Epiftles of St. John are cited by Irenæus, Clemens and Dennis of Alexandria, and by Tertullian . The Epiftle of St. Jude is alfo cited by Tertullian. Some of thofe general Epiftles were not addreffed to any particular body, or Church, that might have preferved the originals of them, but were fent about in the nature of circular letters; fo that it is no wonder if they were not received fo early, and with fuch an unanimity, as we find concerning the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apoftles, and thirteen of St. Paul's Epiftles. Thefe being firft fixed upon by an unqueftioned and undifputed tradition, made that here was a standard once ascertained to judge the better of the reft: fo when the matter was strictly examined, fo near the fountain that it was very poffible and easy to find out the certainty of it, then in the beginning of the fourth century the Canon was fettled, and univerfally agreed to. The ftyle and matter of the Revelation, as well as the defignation of Divine given to the author of it, gave occafion to many questions about it: Clemens Clem.in Ep. of Rome cites it as a prophetical book: Juftin Martyr ad Cor. fays it was writ by John, one of Chrift's twelve Apofiles; Tryphon. Irenæus calls it the Revelation of St. John, the difciple of Iren. 1. v. our Lord, writ almost in our own age, in the end of Do- c. 30. mitian's reign. Melito writ upon it: Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, Clemens and Dennis of Alexandria, 26. Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen do cite it. And thus 1. v. c. 18. the Canon of the New Teftament seems to be fully made l. vii. c. 27. out by the concurrent teftimony of the feveral Churches immediately after the Apoftolical time. Here it is to be obferved, that a great difference is to be made between all this and the oral tradition of a doctrine, in which there is nothing fixed or permanent, so that the whole is only report carried about and handed down. Whereas here is a book, that was only to be copied out and read publicly, and by all perfons, between Iren. l. i. c. 13. Clem. Alex. Strom. 2. Tertul, de Carne Chr. c. 24. Euf. Hift. 1. vi. c. 24. Tertul. de cultu fœm. Juftin.cont. Euf. Hift. 1. iv. c. 24. |