epistles, called St. John's, not to have been written by John the apostle, but by another John, an elder or presbyter who lived about the same time, and after him at Ephesus.

m

And the epistle called St. Jude's, he thought to have been written by one of that name, who was bishop of Jerusalem in the time of the emperor Adrian, and not till after there had been several other bishops of that church, since the death of the fore-mentioned Simeon. If so, I believe all men may be of opinion, that this epistle ought not to be placed in the canon of the New Testament.

It may not be thought right, if I should here entirely omit Mr. Whiston, whose canon consisted of the " Apostolical Constitutions, and divers other books, as sacred, beside those generally received: and the Constitutions, in particular, as the most sacred of all the canonical books of the New Testament.

Concerning which I beg leave to observe; First, that the receiving the Constitutions as a sacred book, and part of the rule of faith, would make a great alteration in the christian scheme. Some might be induced to think it no great blessing to mankind, and scarcely deserving an apology. Secondly, Mr. Whiston's canon is not the canon of the christian churches in former times; as is manifest

Et magna sunt in id argumenta. Nam duos fuisse Johannes Ephesi, apostolum, ac presbyterum ejus discipulum, semper constitit ex sepulcris, alio hujus, alio illius; quæ sepulcra vidit Hieronymus. Grot. Annot. in ep. Joan. secund. Quare omnino adducor, ut credam esse hanc epistolam Judæ episcopi Hierosolymitani, qui fuit Adriani temporibus, paulo ante Barchochebam. Id. in Annot. ad ep. Judæ.

n

'The sacred books of the New Testament still extant, both those in the ⚫ 85th canon, and those written afterwards, are the same which we now receive; together with the eight books of the Apostolical Constitutions, and their epitome, the Doctrine of the Apostles; the two epistles of Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and perhaps the second book ' of Apocryphal Esdras, with the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp.' Essay on the Apostolical Constitutions, ch. i. p. 70, 71.

If any one has a mind to sort the several books of the New Testament, he may in the first place set the Apostolical Constitutions with its extract, or Doctrine of the Apostles, as derived from the body, or college of the apos'tles met in councils. In the next place he may put the four gospels, with their appendix, the Acts of the Apostles. The Apocalypse of John also can'not be reckoned at all inferior to them, though it be quite of another nature 'from them. In the third rank may stand the epistles of the apostles, Paul, • Peter, and John. In the fourth rank may stand the epistles of the brethren of our Lord, James and Jude. In the fifth and last rank may stand the epistles and writings of the companions and attendants of the apostles, Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp. All which, with the addition per⚫haps of apocryphal Esdras, and of the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Acts of 'Paul where now extant, I look upon, though in different degrees, as the sacred books of the New Testament.' Ibid. p. 72, 73.

from the large collections made by us in the preceding volumes, from ecclesiastical writers of every age to the beginning of the twelfth century. Thirdly, Mr. Whiston, notwithstanding all his labours, made few converts to this opinion: which I impute to the knowledge and learning of our times. And as the christian religion is built upon facts, the study of ecclesiastical antiquity will be always needful, and may be of use to defeat various attempts of ingenious, but mistaken and prejudiced men.

III. A short canon of scripture is most eligible.

Religion is the concern of all men. A few short histories and epistles are better fitted for general use, than numerous and prolix writings. Besides, if any writings are to be received as the rule of faith and manners, it is of the utmost importance, that they be justly entitled to that distinction: otherwise men may be led into errors of very bad consequence. If any books pretend to deliver the doctrine of infallible, and divinely-inspired teachers, such as Jesus Christ and his apostles are esteemed by christians; great care should be taken to be well satisfied, that their accounts are authentic, and that they are the genuine writings of the men whose names they bear. The pretensions of writings placed in high authority, to which great credit is given, ought to be well attested.

Dr. Jortin, speaking of the work called Apostolical Constitutions, says: The P authors of them are, it is pre'tended, the twelve apostles and St. Paul, gathered to'gether, with Clement their amanuensis.

If their authority should appear only ambiguous, it 'would be our duty to reject them, lest we should adopt as 'divine doctrines the commandments of men. For since ' each gospel contains the main parts of christianity, and 'might be sufficient to make men wise to salvation; there is less danger in diminishing, than in enlarging the number of canonical books: and less evil would have ensued 'from the loss of one of the four gospels, than from the ad'dition of a fifth and spurious one."

In my opinion, that is a very fine and valuable observation.

And I shall transcribe again an observation of Augustine, formerly taken notice of: Our canonical books of scripture, which are of the highest authority with us, have been settled with great care. They ought to be few, lest their value should be diminished and yet they P Dr Jortin's Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I. p. 229. 4 See Vol. iv. ch. cxvii. num. xvii.

are so many, that their agreement throughout is won'derful.'

IV. I have been sometimes apt to think, that the best canon of the New Testament would be that which may be collected from Eusebius of Cæsarea, and seems to have been' the canon of some in his time.

The canon should consist of two classes. In the first should be those books which he assures us were then universally acknowledged, and had been all along received by all Catholic Christians. These are the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen epistles of St. Paul, one epistle of St. Peter, and one epistle of St. John. These only should be of the highest authority, from which doctrines of religion may be proved.

In the other class should be placed those books of which Eusebius speaks, as contradicted in his time, though well known concerning which there were doubts, whether they were written by persons whose names they bear, or whether the writers were apostles of Christ. These are the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistle of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, the epistle of Jude, and the Revelation. These should be reckoned doubtful, and contradicted: though many might be of opinion, that there is a good deal of reason to believe them genuine. And they should be allowed to be publicly read in christian assemblies, for the edification of the people but not to be alleged, as affording, alone, sufficient proof of any doctrine.

That I may not be misunderstood, I must add, that there should be no third class of sacred books: forasmuch as there appears not any reason from christian antiquity to allow of that character and denomination to any christian writings, beside those above mentioned.

In this canon the preceding rule is regarded. It is a short canon. And it seems to have been thought of by some about the time of the reformation.

Vol. iv. p. 94-100.

We learn from Paul Sarpi's History of the Council of Trent, that one of the doctrinal articles concerning sacred scripture, extracted, or pretended to be extracted, out of Luther's works, was this: That no books should be reckoned a part of the Old Testament, beside those received by the Jews; and that out of the New Testament should be excluded the epistle to the Hebrews, 'the epistle of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, the 'epistle of Jude, and the Revelation.' And there were some bishops in that council, who would have had the books of the New Testament divided into two classes in one of which should be put those books only, which had 'been always received without contradiction; and in the other those which

V. Nevertheless that which is now generally received is a good canon.

For it contains not only those books, which were acknowledged by all in the time of Eusebius, and from the beginning, and seven others, which were then well known, and were next in esteem to those before mentioned, as universally acknowledged: and were more generally received as of authority, than any other controverted writings. Nor is there in them any thing inconsistent with the facts or principles delivered in the universally acknowledged books. And moreover, there may be a great deal of reason to think, that they are the genuine writings of those, to whom they are ascribed, and the writers were apostles. This evidence will be carefully examined, and distinctly considered as we proceed.

In this canon likewise the above-mentioned rule is regarded. It is a short canon. For out of it are excluded many books, which might seem to make a claim to be ranked among sacred and canonical scriptures.

VI. There are not any books, beside those now generally received by us, that ought to be esteemed canonical, or books of authority.

I suppose this to be evident to all, who have carefully attended to the history in the several volumes of this work; and that there is no reason to receive, as a part of sacred scripture, the epistle of Barnabas, the epistle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Recognitions, the Clementine Homilies, the Doctrine of the Apostles, the Apostolical Constitutions, the Gospel of Peter, or Matthias, or Thomas, the Preaching of Peter, the Acts of Peter and Paul, of Andrew, and John, and other apostles, the Revelation of Peter and Paul, their Travels or Circuits. That these books were not received as sacred scripture, or a part of the rule of faith, by christians in former times, has been shown nor can they therefore be reasonably received by us as such.

The only writing of all these, that seems to make a fair claim to be a part of sacred scripture, is the epistle of St. Barnabas, if genuine, as I have supposed it to be. Nevertheless, I think it ought not to be received as sacred scripture, or admitted into the canon, for these reasons:

⚫ had been rejected by some, or about which at least there had been doubts.' And Dr. Courayer, in his notes, seems to favour this proposal. See his French translation of the History of the Council of Trent. Liv. 2. ch. 43. tom. I. p. 235. and ch. 47. p. 240. and note i.

See Ch. ii. Vol. ii. p. 18-21.

1. It was not reckoned a book of authority, or a part of the rule of faith, by those ancient christians, who have quoted it, and taken the greatest notice of it.

W

Clement of Alexandria has" quoted this epistle several times, but not as decisive, and by way of full proof, as we showed nor is it so quoted by Origen; nor is the epistle of Barnabas in any of Origen's catalogues of the books of scripture, which we still find in his works, or are taken notice of by Eusebius. By that ecclesiastical historian, in one place it is reckoned among spurious writings, that is, such as were generally rejected and supposed not to be a part of the New Testament. At other times, it is called by him a controverted book, that is, not received by all.

X

a

Nor is this epistle placed among sacred scriptures by following writers, who have given catalogues of the books of the New Testament. It is wanting, particularly, in the Festal Epistle of Athanasius, in the catalogue of Cyril of Jerusalem, of the council of Laodicea, of Epiphanius, a Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, and Jerom, Ru& finus, the council of Carthage, and Augustine. Nor has it been reckoned a part of the canonical scripture, by later writers.

e

2. Barnabas was not an apostle.

For he was not one of the twelve apostles of Christ: nor was he chosen in the room of Judas; nor is there in the Acts any account of his being chosen into the number of apostles, or appointed to be an apostle by Christ, as Paul was. What St. Luke says of Barnabas is, "that he was a good man and full of the Holy Ghost, and of faith," Acts xi. 24. And in ch. xiii. 1, he is mentioned among prophets and teachers in the church of Antioch. But St. Luke speaks in the like manner of Stephen, of whom he says, he was a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost," ch. vi. 5. "full of faith and power," ch. v. 8. "full of the Holy Ghost," ch. vii. 55. And all the seven were "full of the Holy Ghost, and wisdom," ch. vi. 3.

66

That Barnabas was not an apostle, I think, may be concluded from Gal. ii. 9, where Paul says: "And when James, and Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship." By grace I