the false doctrines, therefore, which are pretended to be proved by Scripture, arise only from an ill use of it, and show us the danger of studying with a biassed or corrupted mind, but do not weaken its authority or clearness.

Having thus proved that whatever is necessary for salvation is contained in Scripture, it follows that the converse of this proposition must likewise be true, that "Whatever is not contained in Scripture cannot be necessary for salvation," and cannot therefore be " required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith." Hence we are justified in seceding from the Roman Church, the errors of which not only defile the worship of Christians with idolatry, but are rendered still more intolerable by being imposed as necessary articles of faith, on all that are in her communion.

II. The article asserts, that the books which we receive are the only canonical Scripture. This proposition is evidently resolvable into two. 1st. The books which we receive are canonical, and 2d. None others are canonical.

1st. The books which we receive are canonical. The criterion proposed by the article in order to prove this assertion, is "there never was any doubt of their authority in the Church."a

To

aThat is, in the Universal Church; for the authenticity of some parts of our present canon was doubted by particular Churches and persons, as we shall see hereafter.

To this criterion we shall apply in establishing,

1. The canon of the New Testament.

The genuineness and authenticity of the books which compose it, appear from the evidence of competent witnessess.a

b

Papias, who conversed with the disciples of the Apostles, says St. Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew, and that St. Mark's was composed from St. Peter's preaching.

Irenæus says St. Luke wrote his Gospel by the direction of St. Paul, which seems to be confirmed by the similarity between some passages in that Gospel and in the Epistles of the latter. The same writer speaks at large on the Gospel of St. John.d

Tertullian and Origen mention the four Gospels in order. The latter writer gives also a catalogue of the New Testament, agreeing with our canon. A similar catalogue is given by Athanasius, and by the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage in the fourth century. To these au

a See Paley's Evidences of Christianity in his Works, v. 3. p. 106. Ed. Lond. 1821.

b In Euseb. Hist. 1. 3. c. 39. c. 25. and 1. 2. c. 15.

C

Particularly the account of the Lord's Supper in Luke xxii. 19, and 1 Cor. xi. 23.

d L. 3. c. 11.

e Tert. Cont. Marc. 1. 4. c. 1. Orig. Apud. Euseb. 1. 6. c. 25. Athan. in Synop. Conc. Cac. 60. Cartha. iii. c. 47.

thors, others might be added, but their testimony is sufficient.

The value of this testimony is greatly increased by the following considerations: 1. The books of the New Testament were read in all their churches and at all their assemblies. This, therefore, is a point on which the authors we have mentioned could make no mistake. 2. It is probable, that the originals of the Apostles' writings were preserved at the time to which the preceding testimony refers. 3. The Jews and Gentiles knew that these were the books in which the faith of the Christians was contained. 4. There happened to be constant disputes among Christians, from the second century downwards, on doctrinal points. Both sides appealed to these books, and though there might be some variations in readings, yet no doubt was ever made concerning the canon or authenticalness of the books themselves. 5. Some doubts were raised as to the authenticity of particular books, because there was not the same degree of certainty about them as about others, yet upon fuller inquiry all acquiesced in them. These were the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of St. James, the second of St. Peter, the second and third of St. John, that of Jude, and the Revelations. With respect

a Instin. Dial cum. Trypho. See Lardner's Jew. and Heath. Test. v. 2. p. 274. v. 3. p. 166, and Michaelis Introd. v. 1. sec. 8. Ed. Marsh. 1793.

to the first, as the design of it was to remove the objections of the Jews, and as they were very much prejudiced against St. Paul, from an idea that he was an enemy to their nation, his name was therefore concealed, lest the discovery of it might blast the good effects intended by his Epistle. And this might have been the occasion of the doubts which were raised about it, for as it was not addressed to any particular Church or person, the original perhaps was not preserved with the same care as the others; it is, however, frequently cited by Clemens of Rome, as having been composed by St. Paul." Among the Latins, it was rejected because it seemed to favour the heresy of the Novatians, that cut off apostates from the hopes of repentance, yet its authenticity is recognised by several writers. Thus Athanasius includes it and the seven general Epistles among the canonical writings. In like manner Cyril reckons in his catalogue (which he says he delivers from the Church as she had received it from the Apostles) the seven general Epistles and the fourteen of St. Paul. The same is testified by Ruffin, by the Council of Laodicea, the canons of which were afterwards received into the code of the

с

a Tert de Præsc. c. 36.

b See Whitby's Preface to this Epistle.

C

Orig. Ep. ad African. Orig. Exh. ad Martyr. Euseb, Hist. 1. 6. c. 20. Hieron. Ep. ad Dardan. Cyr. Catech. 4.

Universal Church,a and by the Council of Carthage. The Epistle to the Hebrews is likewise cited frequently by Irenæus, Origen, and Clemens Alexandrinus.b

St. James's Epistle is cited by Clemens of Rome, Ignatius, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome.c

St. Peter's second Epistle is cited by Origen, Firmilian and Eusebius.d This Epistle, however, besides the external evidence in its favour, has several internal marks of genuineness as St. Peter's name at the beginning, and his allusion to the transfiguration.

The second and third Epistles of John are cited by Irenæus, Clemens and Dennis of Alexandria, and by Tertullian, who also quotes the Epistle of St. Jude.

f The Revelation of St. John is also cited by Clemens of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Melito, who wrote a commentary on it, Theophilus

a Can. 60. Can. 47.

b Iren. 1. 3. c. 38. Orig. 1. 3. and 7. Cont. Cels. Dial. Cont. Marc, and Ep. ad Afric. Clem. Alex.

Ignat Ep. ad Eph. Orig. Hon. 13. in Genes. Eus. Hist. 1. 2. c. 22. 1. 3. c. 24, 25. Hieron. Pref. in Ep. Jac.

d Orig. Cont. Murc. Firmil. Ep. 75. and Cypr. Euseb. Hist. 1. 3. c. 3.

e Iren. 1. 1. c. 13. Clem. Alex. Strom. 2. Tert. de Car. Ch. c. 24. Euseb. Hist. 1. 6. c. 24. Tert. de Cult. Fan.

f Clem. in Ep. ad Cor. Justin. Cont. Tryphon. Iren. 1. 5. c. 30. Euseb. Hist. 1. 4. c. 24, 26. l. 5. c. 18. l. 7. c. 27.