"hath left us in two divinely-inspired books the doctrines of curing "fouls, &c." If he mean, that they were revised, and approved of, by infpired perfons; otherwife he would contradict St. Luke himself, who faith, Luke i. 1. that "it feemed good to him to write, "according to the information, which he had received from "others, &c." Nay; as Eufebius immediately subjoineth this declaration of St. Luke; and, a little after, takes notice that the ancients afcribed St. Luke's gospel to St. Paul; it should seem that Eufebius apprehended, that St. Luke's writings derived their authority from the teftimony of an apoftle; and, therefore, might be called "books "divinely inspired."

Upon the whole; the infpiration, or canonicalnefs, of any book of the New Teftament, is not to be deduced merely from any internal marks, or characters; but is a fact, with which we have no other way of coming acquainted, but by the teftimonies of the ancients. And, if they (who had a fair and fufficient opportunity to know that fact) acknowledged any book to have been written by an apostle, approved by him, or confirmed by his authority,-we ought to receive it as canonical; unlefs, by fome evident, internal marks, it could be made appear, that it was not authentic, nor could poffibly have been written, or approved, by an apoftle. Now,

As to the hiftory of the Acts of the Apoftles, it is found in all the catalogues of the books of the New Teftament, which the fthers have left us. It is quoted, as Scripture, in the writings of the primitive Chriftians: it was read, as Scripture, in the primitive churches; and is found among the books of the New Testament, in the ancient MSS. and verfions, and particularly in the Syriac verfion, which is, by fome, reckoned the most ancient. So that the fact (of its being canonical) is fufficiently attefted. And there are no internal marks, or characters, to induce us to exclude it; but, on the contrary, many, which may induce us to receive and efteem it.

All the other books of the New Teftament were written by apoitles and, confequently, they are all infpired and canonical. For,

As to the apoftles themselves, whenever they fpoke or wrote concerning Chriftianity, that fund of revelation kept them right. But they were reasonable creatures, as well as infpired apoftles: and, therefore, could fpeak, or write, about common affairs; as men, that have the ufe of their reafon, without any infpiration, can eafily do. St. Paul therefore, without any infpiration, could give fuch a direction as this to Timothy, viz. "to mix a little wine with "the water which he drank;" or, "to take care of his health;" because he was a very ufeful and pious young man, or defire Timothy (as he doth, 2 Tim. iv. 13.) " to bring along with him the "cloak," [or bag to carry books in, λón] which he had left at Troas, with Carpus; and the books; but especially the parchments: or defire Philemon to provide him a lodging, at Coloffe,

Philem.

Philem. ver. 22. or acquaint Timothy, that Eraftus abode at Corinth; but that he had left Trophimus fick at Miletus. 2 Tim. iv. 20. [See F. Simon's critical hiftory of the New Teftament. Part II. P. 61. 73. 78, &c.].

Nay, in truth, this account of the matter is not mine, but St. Paul's. 1 Cor. vii. 10. "This" (fays he)" the Lord commandeth; " and not I." And, ver. 12. "But to the reft fpeak I; not the "Lord." And, again, ver. 25. "Now, concerning virgins, I “have no commandment of the Lord, but I give my opinion, &c. grúμnv de dídwus, &c." And we find, Acts xvi. 6. that, when he defigned to have preached in Afia, he was forbidden by the Holy Spirit. And, ver. 7. he attempted to go into Bithynia, but the fpirit would not permit him. So that, in the apoftles, there were two principles of action [reafon and revelation]; one of which directed them, in common affairs; and the other, in matters relating to the Chriftian doctrine. Hence it came to pafs, that the apoftles, in things relating to common life, or their own private defigns and actions, were mistaken, as well as other men. Acts xxiii. 3; 5. Rom. xv. 24; 28. 1 Cor. xvi. 5, 6; 8. 2 Cor. i. 15-18.

I will only add, that what St. Paul faith, 1 Cor. vii. 40. ought not to be understood, as if he had been dubious whether he himfelf was infpired. For, in faying, "I think I have the fpirit of God," he fpoke ironically to the Corinthians, who had pretended to call his infpiration in queftion, after he had given them fo many and fuch unquestionable proofs of it. But, that he himfelf fhould queftion it, when he could work miracles, fpeak fo many languages, had fuch a vaft illumination, could exercife fo many fpiritual gifts, and impart fuch gifts and powers to others-was certainly impoffible; and what no thinking perfon can fuppofe.

60

Corollary I. As the apoftles had the whole fcheme of the Chriftian doctrine, by revelation, from our Lord Jefus Chrift; and completed that fcheme, which was begun by the ancient prophets :how very juftly are we faid to have been built upon the founda"tion of the apoftles and prophets, Jefus Chrift himself being the "chief corner-ftone?" [Eph. ii. 20.] And how beautiful and just was the vifion, that was feen by St. John, one of the apostles of the circumcifion, [Rev. xxi. 14.] which reprefented the foundations of the wall of the new Jerufalem as twelve; on which were infcribed the names of the twelve apostles of the lamb?

Not only the primitive Chriftians, but Chriftians of all ages and places, have received all that they have known, of the fcheme of the Christian doctrine, from the apostles. They were the perfons, who were illuminated by our Lord Jefus Chrift, and who have enlightened the earth."

Corol, II. As the writings of the New Teftament contain the only account of the Chriftian religion, that is inspired and infallible; let us make that, and that alone, the RULE AND STANDARD OF OUR FAITH AND PRACTICE. For all other accounts of the Chriftian revelation are uninspired and fallible.

When

When corruptions have crept in, either as to faith, or practice, let us reduce things to that primitive ftandard, as the juft method for a thorough reformation. And, when the prevailing doctrine and practice are agreeable to the Scripture, let us ftill adhere to that ftandard, that the purity of fuch a reformation may

continue.

Corol. III. May not what hath been faid fhew us the reafon, why fome points of lefs importance are minutely determined in the writings of the apoftles (and efpecially in their epiftles), whilft other. things of equal importance are not particularly determined?

66

They taught the effential and abfolutely neceffary doctrines of Chriftianity to all the churches and Chriftians, wherever they came; but they determined the things of lefs importance [" pro re "nata"]"as occafions offered." [For inftance], to guard againft the feductions of falfe apoftles, or to fatisfy fcrupulous confciences, or to decide the controverfies of their day. But what was not then controverted, or where there were no fcruples, or dangers-there they did not defcend to every minute particular; but have left us to determine many fmaller things, and lefs important points, by applying the general rules, which they have left us; or by arguing from the particulars, which they have determined; as far as the cafes can be fairly fhewn to be parallel.

Corol. IV. By this account of infpiration, we take away the very ground and foundation of one of the strongest objections of the antirevelationifts; who allege," that Chriftians have afcribed that to

66

infpiration which any man might fay, or do, as well without "it; and that we reflect upon the divine wifdom, when we have "recourfe to fupernatural power, where there is no occafion for "it. It is the beauty of providence, that it doth not interpofe "but in extraordinary cafes, And why, then, fhould recourfe be "had to inspiration, where infpiration is unneceffary?

"Nec Deus interfit, nifi, &c."

Whereas; by the account that hath been given, fuch things only. are afcribed to inspiration as (all circumstances confidered) required infpiration; and fuch things to human reafon, as human reafon alone was capable of: I hope, therefore, that both the friends and enemies to revelation will carefully and impartially confider, "Whe"ther the folution here offered be well-grounded, or no?" For I would be understood to propofe it as a query, which may deferve a careful examination.

Corol. V. The difputes, which have been raised, about the time of fettling the canon of the New Testament, will hence appear to be groundlefs and of little moment.

As foon as any book, or epiftle, was known to have been written by any of the apostles, approved by them, or confirmed by their authority, it was immediately acknowledged to be canonical. The knowledge of this fact came more early to fome churches, and later to others. They, that lived when and where any book was

written,

written, or published, most know it immediately; and from thence. it fpread gradually. But the book was infpired, as it came from the apoftles. And that did not depend upon the authoritative confirmation of fathers or councils, of that or any fucceding age.. Vid. Clerici Hiftor. Ecclef. p. 520, &c.].

Corol. VI. Hence it will follow, that not only the fpurious books, afcribed to the apoftles, are to be rejected; but even the. genuine and valuable productions of the apoftolic fathers are to be excluded the canon of facred fcripture; as they want this apoftolic fanction.

As to the former part of this obfervation, it was evidently the rule, which the ancients went by. For the epiftle to the Hebrews, the epiftle of St. James, the fecond epiftle of St. Peter, the fecond and third epiftles of St. John, the cpiftle of St. Jude, and the Revelation, were excluded the canon,-only by fuch as thought they were not written by the apoftles. Whereas; fuch, as thought them ge nuine, received them as canonical *. And,

If the epistle ascribed to Barnabas were genuine, it ought (according to this account) to be received into the canon of the New Testament because he was an apoftle. [Acts xiii. 2. and xiv. 14. 1 Cor. ix. 1, &c. Gal. ii. 9.] But, though I allow that epistle to be of great antiquity; and to have been written, after the deftruction of Jerufalem, by a primitive Chriftian, probably, of the name of Barnabas; yet I am very well fatisfied that it is not, now, commonly afcribed to the right author; nor could, poffibly, be an epiftle of Barnabas the apoftle, efpecially as we now have it †.

And, unlefs we follow the guidance of this clue (fo as alfo to exclude from the canon all," even the genuine," writings of the "apoftolic fathers, which want this apoftolic fanction"), what reafon can we give for receiving the writings of St. Luke into the canon; and excluding Hermas; and (efpecially) that golden remain of Clemens his first epiftle to the Corinthians? For, as to the laft, it hath all the marks of pure and genuine antiquity; is allowed to have been written by a companion of St. Paul, whom that apoftle hath mentioned with great honour, Phil. iv. 3. and to have been written before fome of the books of the New Teftament itfelf. For my own part, I cannot fee any fufficient internal marks, for which it ought to be excluded; and apprehend, that it was excluded, merely for want of the apoftolic atteftation.

Thus I have briefly gone through what I reckon the juft account of infpiration, as it relateth to the New Teftament. How far it

* Vide Millii prolegom. 203, &c.

"Eufebius (Hift. Ecclef. 1. III. c. 25.) places that, which is called the epiftle of "Barnabas, įv Teig vegg, by which he cannot, poffibly, mean less than that it was of ambiguous and contested authority." [Vid. Valel. & Bevereg. Cod. can. I. II. c. 9. Pearfon. Vindic. Ignat. 1. 8. Dr. Jortin's Difcourfes, p. 203. See alfo Abp. Laud's Letter to Menard, &c. in the first volume of Le-Clerc's edition of the Apoftolic Fathers, at the bigianing; Dr. Lardner's Credibility, &c. Part 11. vol. I. p. 27. Mr. Jones's Canon, &c. vol. II. c. 38, 39.]

will

will agree to the Old Teftament alfo, I leave to men of leifure and learning to confider.

I was willing to do my best, to clear up a matter of such great importance; not only as every man hath a right to publifh his own fentiments at any time; but as this fubject hath, of late, been rudely handled by the enemies of the moft reasonable, virtuous, and benevolent religon; and the friends to revelation have, many of them (as I apprehend) afcribed too much to infpiration; though fome, on the other hand, have afcribed too little.

ESSAY