A

DISSERTATION

CONCERNING

THE NECESSITY

OF SETTLING

THE CANON

OF THE

NEW TESTAMENT.

HE defign of the following volumes being to establish the Canonical authority of the books of the New Testament, I imagined nothing could be a more fuitable introduction to the work, than a differtation concerning the neceffity of it. My defign is not to make any fervile apology for this work's appearance in the world (every man not only having a right, but being also obliged to do all he can for the interests of Christianity); but only, if it may be, to evidence the absolute neceffity of a Chriftian's employing his utmost diligence, in order to be upon good grounds determined in a question of fo great importance as that is, What books are to be received as the word of God?

What I defign in this matter shall be comprised under the ollowing obfervations; viz.

VOL. I.

B

I. That

I. That the right fettling the Canonical authority of the books of the New Teftament is attended with very many and great difficulties.

II. That it is a matter of the greatest consequence and importance.

III. That a great number of Christians are destitute of any good arguments for their belief of the Canonical authority of the books of the New Testament.

IV. That very little has yet been done on this subject.

OBSERV. I.

That the right Settling the Canonical Authority of the Books of the New Teftament is attended with very many and great Difficulties.

AM

very fenfible fuch a propofition as this may seem at firft surprising to many; and that what is faid under it may perhaps be, on the one hand, mifimproved by the enemies of Revelation, to fet them more against it; and, on the other, by the weaker Chriftians, to fhock their faith in it. But as the enfuing volumes are principally intended for the service of these two forts of perfons, viz. to confute the former, and establish the latter in their principles; so I cannot but defire, they would form no judgment from what is here faid relating to the main queftion, till they have honestly perused the book itself.

This premised, I fay, it is not fo eafy a matter as is commonly imagined, rightly to fettle the Canon of the New Teftament. For my own part, I declare with many learned men, that in the whole compass of learning I know no queftion involved with more intricacies and perplexing difficulties than this. There are indeed confiderable difficulties relating to the Canon of the Old Teftament, as appears by the large controverfies

controverfies between the Proteftants and Papifts on this head in the last, and latter end of the preceding century; but these are folved with much more eafe than thofe of the New: For,

1. The Canon of the Jews was fettled by Ezra, an infpired writer ; but there is no fuch thing to be faid concerning the Canon of the New. It is uncertain, either by whom, or at what time, the present collection was made.

2. The Jewish Canon was certainly approved by our Saviour and his Apoftles; but it is impoffible, in the nature of the thing, the Christian Canon should receive the fame evidence and authority.

3. In fettling the Old Testament collection, all that is requifite is to difprove the claim of a few obfcure books, which have but the weakest pretences to be looked upon as Scripture; but in the New, we have not only a few to difprove, but a vast number to exclude the Canon, which feem to have much more right to admiffion than any of the Apocryphal books of the Old Teftament; and befides, to evidence the genuineness of all thofe which we do receive, fince, according to the sentiments of fome who would be thought learned, there are none of them, whose authority has not been controverted in the earliest ages of Christianity. In fhort, whatever almost can be objected against the authority of the present Canon of the Old Teftament, either in behalf of any books which are not in it, or against any that are, may easily be answered by this fingle confideration, viz. that we receive the fame and no other books, than what the Jewish Church received in our Saviour's time, as is evident from the copies the Chriftians procured of them, and the catalogues they made of them (especially that of Melito Sardenfis") foon after the destruction of Jerufalem. But the cafe is very different with respect to the books of the New. The queftion concerning them di

a If otherwise, they had certainly cenfured the Jews for their fault in this, as well as other religious matters. Befides, St. Paul evidently allows, that all their Scriptures, were the oracles of God, Rom. iii. 2.

and that what they called Scripture was every part of it infpired.

b Vid. Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 4. c. 26. There are others very early, as Origen's in Pfal. primo, &c.

B 2

vides

vides itself into these two, viz. 1. Whether any other books are to be received with the fame authority, which they are; and, 2. Whether they are all of them of the fame authority, which the Church allows them by admitting them into her Canon.

If we confider either of these questions, we fhall find it perhaps not fo eafily folved, as we are apt to imagine.

I. As to the first, viz. Whether there are any other books to be admitted as Canonical, befide thofe which now are; it will appear difficult, if we confider,

1. The number of books that claim admiffion is very confiderable. Mr. Toland, in his celebrated catalogue, has presented us with the names of above eighty, which he would have us receive with the fame authority, as those we now do. I cannot do him that honour, which Mr. Nye does in his Answer, viz. to say his catalogue is complete; for it will fufficiently appear, there are many more of the fame fort, which he has not mentioned.

2. Their pretences are fpecious and plaufible, for the most part going under the names of our Saviour himself, his Apostles, their companions, or immediate fucceffors.

3. They are generally thought to be cited by the firft Chriftian writers with the fame authority (at leaft many of them) as the facred books we receive. This Mr. Toland labours hard to perfuade us; but, what is more to be regarded, men of greater merit and probity have unwarily dropped expreffions of the like nature. Every body knows (fays the learned Cafaubon against Cardinal Baronius), that Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and the rest of the primitive writers, were wont [laudare libros] to approve and cite books, which now all men know to be Apocryphal. Clemens Alexandrinus (fays his learned annotator Sylburgius ) was too much pleafed with Apocryphal writings. Mr. Dodwell (in his learned dissertations on Irenæus ) tells us, that till Trajan, or perhaps Adrian's time, no Canon was fixed -the fuppofiti

Annot. in Clem. Oper. in ipfo

fine.

Differt. 1. §. 38, 39.