confirmed by the Apostolical Canons, or the Canons of Councils.

II. There is fufficient Evidence to believe, that St. John did both finish and settle the Canon of Scripture. There is no doubt to be made, but that St.John, in fo long a Life, had feen the Writings of all the reft of the Apostles and Evangelists, and fignified his Approbation of them to those with whom he converfed. For what could be more worthy of his care, or more necessary, than for him to ascertain the Authority of those Writings, that were to be the Rule of Faith and Practice, and the Preservative of the Church against Herefies, which were very numerous even in his time, and which he forefaw would give fo much trouble and scandal in future Ages? And it is upon this occafion obfervable, that these Books, the Authority whereof has been called in queftion, were chiefly defigned against the Herefies and Corruptions of falfe Brethren, which might be some hindrance at first to their Reception, thro' the fubtilty and infinuation of Hereticks; but these Books, upon this very account, were the more proper to be recommended by St. John. Three of them likewife out of feven, were of his own Writing. It is evident beyond all contradiction, that St. John must have seen, at least, the Epistle of St. Paul to the Church of Ephefus, where he prefided. And yet this is taken notice of by no ancient Writer, but is left to be collected by circumstances: Eufebius only informs us, that St. John revised the other Three Gofpels, before he wrote his own; and this Eufebius mentions upon a particular occasion, thinking it concerned him to give fome account how it came to pass, that St. John added a Fourth Gospel to the Three written before: And yet this very thing is omitted by St. Athanafius, and by St. Gregory Nazianzen. And we learn from Photius a remarkable circumstance

i Cod. CCLIV.

omitted

omitted by Eufebius and St. Jerom, viz. that the Verfions of the Gofpels were approved by St. John, as well as the Originals. So little are Negative Arguments in this cafe to be relyed upon.

III. Tho' the Councils, mentioned by Tertullian, as having attefted and confirmed the Canon of Scripture be omitted by other Authors, yet this is no proof that the Canon of Scripture was not attefted and confirmed by fuch Councils: for it only fhews, that a Negative is no fufficient proof in this cafe, as I shall fully make appear. Eufebius had occafion enough to take notice of the fe Councils, tho' they had never had the Canon of Scripture under debate; at least, where he writes of Hermas's Paftor, upon the account whereof, Tertullian fpeaks of thefe Councils, it might be expected, that he should have mentioned them. The Omiffion of Eufebius, I prefume, will not be alledged as any prejudice to the truth of what Tertullian relates, as to that Book; why then fhould it be urged in any other refpect? The Synods of Ancyra, and Neocafarea, are omitted by Eufebius: Were there therefore never any fuch Synods? Were not their Canons received into the Code of the Catholick Church? The Council of Nice is little more than mentioned by him; and, how many Reafons or Accidents might occafion the omiffion of others?

k

But Eufebius himself does fhew fufficiently, that there was a Canon of Scripture fix'd before his time, tho' he omitted the mention of thofe Councils, by which it was established, as Tertullian informs us. Eufebius fpeaks of certain Books, which were acknowledged to belong to the New Testament, contained in a Canon or Catalogue; and when it was ftill doubted of fome Books, whether they belonged to this Canon, or not, he produces the Teftimony of ancient Writers. St. Athanafius does not exprefly

1

* Hift. 1. 3. c. 3.

! L. 4. c. 26. 1. 6. c. 25. mention

m

mention Councils, but he styles all the Books of Scripture Canonical, which implies as much as what I have argued from Tertullian. He fays, " that the Scriptures were not an uncertain, but a determined number of Books, established by Canon; that the Books of the New Testament had been long ago thus eftablished; and exprefly fays, that the facred Canons of the Holy Catholick and Apoftolick Church, had declared the Four Gofpels to be of Divine Authority.

Since the Council of Laodicea was held A. D. CCCLXVII. and St. Gregory Nazianzen died not till A. D. CCCLXXXIX. he might have mentioned this Council as well as thofe of Greece, held either in Tertullian's time, or before it; fo might St. Jerom and Ruffinus: Which, instead of difproving what I alledged from Tertullian, is a confirmation of it, and proves, that thofe Councils might fettle the Canon, tho' these Fathers omit the mention of them, because they did not think it necessary to mention the Council of Laodicea, when they treated of the Canon of Scripture; tho' this Council is, by all, acknowledged to have established, or rather declared and afferted the Canon. But we understand from Tertullian, both that Councils had in his time rejected Hermas's Paftor, and that they had received the controverted Books; because it appears from his words, that they had determined and established the Code of the New Teftament; and these controverted Books, are upon occafion, cited by Clemens Romanus, Ireneus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and by Tertullian himself, which agrees with what has been alledged, that they had been approved by the Councils mentioned by Tertullian, and

- Πᾶσα γραφὴ ἡμ χειςιανῶν θεόπνοςός ἔειν, ἐκ αόριςα δε, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ὡρισμούα και κεκανονισμούα ἔχε τα βιβλία. Synopf. Sacr. Script. Edit. Par. p. 55. Ta j ↑ naivus dianens πάλιν ώρισμα τε καὶ κεκανονισμούα βιβλία ταῦτα. p. 59. Εὐαγγέλια η τέωαρα ἐθέσια ἡμῖν οἱ ἱεροὶ κανόνες - ἁγίας καθολικής και Αποςολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας. Ρ. 155.

established

established by ancient Canons, as St. Athanafius af

firms.

IV. Tho' uncanonical Books were read in Churches, and the Authority of fome Books, which had been received into the Canon, was afterwards difputed, this doth not prove that these Books were not inferted by St. John into the Canon, which was attested and confirmed by thofe Councils, as fix'd and establish'd by him. The First Epistle of Clemens Romanus, and fome other Treatifes, were read in the Chriftian Affemblies, not as Canonical Scripture, but only as proper for Edification, in the nature of Homilies, and exhortations to Vertue and Piety. But in process of time, this Practice was found inconvenient: For when, under the name and countenance of fome ancient Author, Errors were propagated, by this means a way was opened for them into Churches; on which account, it was found requifite to exclude from thence all Books but those of the Canonical Scriptures.

And tho' there was fome difagreement about the Number of Canonical Books, after the determination of Councils, yet this only fhews that these Councils were not alike known, or that their Authority was not alike acknowledged in all Churches. The Council of Nice was Univerfal, and under a Christian Emperor, who fent out his Edicts to inforce its Determinations; yet St. Auguftin confeffes, that he, thro' ignorance, tranfgreffed a Canon of this Council, and

n

St. Hilary declares, that he had been a Bishop fome time, and was to fuffer Banishment for the Faith contained in the Nicene Creed, before he had heard the Creed it felf. How much more likely then was this to befal the Determinations and Canons of Councils, which were not fo general, and were held in times of Perfecution? P Tertullian informs us, that Councils

were very numerous, and very frequently held in Greece; and Juftinian fays, that the Holy Apostles and Fathers ordained, that Synods of Bifhops should be convened twice every Year. But it is incredible, that when Councils did fo often meet, they should not determine a thing of that importance, as the Canon of Scripture is; but the Determinations of Councils were not alike known to all, or all did not equally acquiefce in them.

A learned Author has lately endeavoured to prove, that the Code of the Four Gofpels was confirmed by a Council or College of the Apoftles at Ephefus, A. D. CVII. and placed in the Archives of that See. But was any of the Apostles living at that time? Did St. John, the last of the Apostles, furvive till then? And for the Reafons above-mentioned, there is no cause to confine the Code, confirmed and fettled by St. John, to the Four Evangelifts, or to fuppofe, with the fame Author, that the Authority of the other Gospels was not established in the Church till St. John wrote his, because the other Three Gofpels were approved by St. John; whereas, he argues, that they had not needed St. John's approbation, if their Authority had been certain before, or if they had been publickly known, and had not lain concealed in few hands for which Eufebius is cited, tho' all this is confuted by his account in every part of it. For Eufebins does not fay, that St. John, at the time of his writing his own Gospel, first received and approved the other Three, but that having, by his own Teftimony, confirmed the truth of them, he had received them as authentick: Eufebius does not fay that the other Gospels were known before but to few; but exprefly, that they were known to all, and to St. John, as well as to others; and that St. John undertook the writing of his Gofpel, to fupply what was omitted by the former Evangelifts.

2

• Nov. 136. T. 20. c. 4.
*

Hift. 1. 3. C. 24.

As