1048. CREATION. The reasonableness of the account that Moses gives of the creation of the world as represented by Mr. John Hubbard in the Berry Street Sermons, Serm. 6.

¶ 1060. Concerning the CANON of the NEW-TESTAMENT. Proposition. The greatest part of Christians were very early agreed what books were canonical and to be looked upon as the rule of their faith.

¶ It is impossible in the nature of things but some churches must recieve the books long after others, as they lay at a greater distance from the places where they were written or had less convenience of communication with them.

[This obviously was written to combat deist objections. It is very, very long and shows great kn of the early ch and fathers and basic arguments still made today for the canon over ag the numerous pseudepigrapha, most of which E cites]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¶ 1048. CREATION. The reasonableness of the account that Moses gives of the creation of the world as represented by Mr. John Hubbard in the Berry Street Sermons, Serm. 6.

¶ "How naturally & properly is light made to spring up as the first remove from a chaos involved all in darkness? Whether this light might be of use to the angels in their viewing the process of the other days or no it served no doubt to adorn & beautify the rising face of nature, and to forward by its concomitant heat the succeeding productions.

¶ The produce of the second day was the firmament or atmosphere extracted out of the circumfused waters How fitly now does air take the next place to light and preceed vegetables and animals neither of which can live at all without air

¶ On the first part of the third day the waters which hitherto covered the whole surface of the earth were drawn off into channels at the same time prepared for them. And this could not so well be before, since the air might better be raised out of the waters while they were diffused all abroad than when they were collected into one place But then it was necessary previous to the production of that useful & pleasant variety of the vegetable kinds which at the second fiat of this day the earth plentifully brought forth and both these works of the third day must needs go before the formation of all living creatures that they might have a proper seat for their reception and store of food for their sustenance against their appearance in the world. Yet one day is interposed between finishing the seat and introducing any of its inhabitants in order to make a standing provision of light & heat. The sun moon & stars were now on the fourth day lighted up in heaven and fix'd in their respective orbs and their courses & uses appointed them which they have constantly fulfilled from that time. How wisely was this work deferred 'til now but no longer were it only for the greater decorum & harmony that the parts of the universe purely material & void of sense might be finished together and this as most glorious come last Besides perhaps the same degrees of light & heat might not be so convenient to the world while it was forming as when it was compleatly formed & inhabited. and were incapable of nourishing & improving what they might conduce to raise either because they were too feeble or else too powerful & intense. much less may they be thought adapted to the more delicate & complicate [sic] frame of animals which requires the communication of light & heat to them in an exact medium at once to suit their organs of sight and to cherish in them a due vital warmth.

¶ Now follows where it ought & where it only well could the production of all sorts of living creatures And first on the fifth day fishes great & small were produced to stock the sea & rivers. And all the feathered winged tribes to fly in the air. These were both made of the same watry materials and before the terrestrial animals as having their texture more simple and the places of their residence the water & air sooner ready for their accommodation

¶ On the sixth day God formed out of the ground now grown solid & firm enough to support the bodies & steps of its destined natives & inhabitants all the various species of them The irrational first as beasts both wild & /p./ tame & creeping things innumerable And last of all one only rational creature to have the supream dominion over & use of all the rest even man to whom quickly after was join'd the woman made out of him. Thus was the masterpiece and chief end of this goodly frame reserved to crown the whole as was certainly most meet for his honour convenience & entertainment Most of the preceeding operations were absolutely necessary to make him a seat fit to live in. all together contributed such furniture & ornaments as left nothing wanting to the immediate gratification of his nature as soon as it was formed. And as they prepared the way for his entrance they so declared his superious rank & preeminence" . [finis]

 

1049. ORIGINAL SIN. IMPUTATION OF ADAMS SIN. "Eccles. 7. 29. God made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions. This remarkable change of the singular number into the plural shews that the term man in the text, is to be taken collectively for all mankind as included in Adam the first man. He whom God created after his own image is to be considered as a publick person who was to hold or lose that happy state not only for himself, but for all his natural offspring" Dr. Guise in the Berry Street Sermons Serm. 9. [finis]

 

¶ 1050. INTERCESSION OF CHRIST The nature of it is excellently described by Mr John Hubbard in the Berry Street Sermons Serm. 18 and especially the propriety & fitness of his performing such a part in heaven for us & the uses of it [finis]

 

¶ 1051. LORD'S DAY. The expression that is used in the 118 Ps. with respect to the day wheron [sic] God wrought that great work which is spoken of as so marvellous in the eyes of Gods people making the stone which the builders rejected to become the head of the corner even that expression Let us be glad & rejoice is elsewhere used to signifie the commemmoration of a work of creation thus in Isai 65. where [A: when] the Spirit of God signifies that in the days of the gospel God's people people [sic] should no more remember or commemorate the first creation but should forever commemorate the new creation 'tis expressed thus The former shall no more be remember'd nor come into mind but be you glad & rejoice forever in that which I create &c--<Tis implied that we should not keep the sabbath appointed in commemoration of the redemption out of Egypt in that Isai 43. 18 with the context.> [finis; last sent. after next No. begun.]

 

¶ 1052. JUSTIFICATION by free grace in the Scripture notion of it is justification without <any [c]> sort of amiableness in us to recommend us to the divine acceptance. The following passages from Dr. Guise in the Berry Street Sermons Serm. 21. illustrate this point. "The Apostle states the notion of grace in justification saying If by grace then it is no more of the works: otherwise grace is no more grace But if it be of works then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work Rom. 11. 6. But least we should take the term grace in some laxer sense, as it is concerned in our justification it is further said to be freely by his grace Rom. 3. 24 to exclude all conceit as tho' there were any thing in us, for which this favour of God is extended to us And in the following chapter, the Apostle excludes all our works from having any share in our title to this blessing that the reward may be reckond to be of grace not of debt & speaks of Gods justifying the ungodly to shew what their character was till he justified them Rom. 4. 2---5. And what but grace could move him to justify persons of that character Accordingly in the next chap. he seems to strain the powers of language to set out the freeness & riches of this grace calling it the grace of God, and the gift by grace which had abounded unto many and the free gift in delivering from many offences unto justification; chap. 5. 15,16. If therefore we have forgiveness of sins it is according to the riches of his grace Eph. 1. 7. The greater & lesser sinner having nothing to pay he frankly forgives them both Luke 7. /p./42. and having no worthiness or merit in themselves to induce his favour He blotteth out their transgressions for his own sake and will not remember their sins Is. 43. 25. If we are justified 'tis entirely by his grace, that we might be heirs according to the hope of eternal life Tit. 3. 7. And if God takes us into the number of his sons & daughters He predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus X to hims. according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace Eph. 1. 5,6.------Considering what we had made our selves by sin how provoking & odious how guilty & how vile God might have said with scorn & detestation to the apostate race one & all How shall I put thee among the children? & yet he says in the greatness of his love to his people Thou shalt call me my Father & shalt not turn away from me Jer. 3. 19." [finis]

 

¶ 1053. PREPARATORY WORK. God usually does much to prepare his people for those things which yet if he pleased he could bring to pass and that in a due perfection without any preparation Thus much was done to prepare Joseph for his exaltation in Egypt <much was done to prepare Moses for his high priviledges & employment in his 40 years banishment> Much was done to prepare the children of Israel to enter into covenant with God at Mt Sinai in the hard bondage they suffered in Egypt & the great & terrible things which they had seen wrought by God on the Egyptians & much was done to prepare them for the blessings of Canaan in their 40 years travel through the wilderness Deut 8. Much was done to prepare David for the crown of Israel in the troubles he met with through Sauls persecution &c-- How much was done to prepare the chh for the blessings of the gospel introduced by Christ What a law was given to [be (om.E)] their tutor & schoolmaster to train up the church for tho<e>se priviledges & their glorious inheritance & what a variety of dispensations of providence did the chh pass under from the calling of Abraham for that end. John the Bap. [sic] was sent to prepare the minds of men for Christs coming What a long preparation had Christ himself for the work he had to do before he entred on his publick ministry how much did the man X Jesus pass through to fit him for the glory of his exaltation How much did X do to the disciples to prepare them for their priviledges & business after his ascension how long a time of preparation had they the Apostle Paul was long in Arabia to fit him for the great things he was designed for. And how much have the church of God to prepare them for the latter day glory. & how much have the saints in this world to fit 'em for the heavenly state. Gods church and people are represented in SS. by those plants that come to their perfection & ripe fruit through much preparation & by many degrees. Gods [sic] reaps his harvest & [wwxo] when it is ripe & when the fields are white to the harvest & gathers his fruits when come to maturity Christ came into the world in the fulness of time when all things were ready & so God accomplishes all that appertains to the salvation & glory of his people in the fulness of time If the wisdom of God did not see it meet that there should be preparation for that spiritual good that he bestows on his church & people there would be no use at all of means of grace, & prayer to God for the blessings we need would be of no benefit [finis]

 

¶ 1054. LORDS DAY As to what some object against the perpetual obligation of a law appointing one day in seven to be kept as a sabbath that Christians are obliged to keep every day holy and that it is their priviledge to enjoy a constant holy rest in God, I answer so Adam if he had remain'd in his primitive innocency & holiness /p./ would have kept every day holy and he also while innocent enjoyed a constant holy rest neither was he obliged to those labours that fallen men are eating his bread with the swet of his face is a curse that followed his transgression But the sabbath was hallowed for Adams observation & he was laid under this law while in innocence and in paradise "Now there [is (om.E)] at least as much reason and as much need for all the children of Adam in all ages & nations in their feeble & sinful state to have a day appointed for their own rest & for the worship of their God as there was for Adam himself in paradise & in a state of innocence, for his body was then in perfection of health & vigour & his mind more inclined to remember God & worship him" Dr Watts in Berry Street Sermons Vol. 2. Serm. 31. [finis]

 

¶ 1055. DEACONS their office. The Apostle insisting upon it that the contributions of the Christian churches should be on the Lords day when the disciples came together to break bread is an argument that it was intended that such deeds of charity should be a part of the publick service of the Christian church. [finis]

 

¶ 1056. DEATH threatend to Adam. That the word grave & hell (which are the same in the Hebrew) is often in the old Testament put for the state of future punishment is an argument that by the death God threatens so often in Scripture for sin is not meant only temporal death. [finis]

 

¶ 1057. OCCASION OF THE FALL OF THE ANGELS. How tis agreable to the opinions of many divines that their refusing to be ministring spirits to beings of inferiour rank and to be subject to Jesus Christ in our nature when the design of his incarnation was first reveal'd in heaven and how that as man he was to be the Head of the angels. See Mr. Charles Owens Wonders of Redeeming love p 74 &c-- in our Young Peoples Library. See Mr. Glas's Notes on Scripture Texts Num. 3 p. 1---7. [finis; Glas ref later Is Owens (Owen?) ref. to a general title or to an actual library?]

 

¶ 1058. ENTHUSIASM. John the Baptist was a person greatly moved by the Spirit He preached to the people in a very earnest manner warning of their danger calling upon 'em to fly from the wrath to come with great pathos manifesting his great engagedness not only in words but deeds his incessant labour & great self-denial & great boldness in his work fearing none reproving great & small whereby the people & seeing & hearing were mightily moved Christ therefore says concerning him Math 11. 7. & Luke 7. 24. What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind? Which seems to imply that there is such a thing as mens being mightily moved & actuated by something that is pretended to be the Spirit of God but yet is vain & empty as the wind exceeding unsteady & soon comes to nothing <tho> violent & that the persons that are the subjects of this emotion <do> shew their great weakness in yielding to it & being governed by [it (om.E)] Such there were many of them in the primitive ages of the Christian chh Christ denies John the Baptist to be such an one [finis]

 

¶ 1059. That the HAPPINESS of the SAINTS in HEAVEN consists much in beholding the displays of Gods mercy towards his chh on earth may be strongly argued from those texts that speak of the just & the meek inheriting the earth and there [sic] having in this present time much more given of this world houses & lands &c--than they parted with in the suffering state of the church Christs comforting his disciples when about to leave em that that [sic] tho [they (om.E)] should week & lament & the world rejoice yet their sorrow should be turned into joy as a woman has sorrow in his [sic] travail, but much more than joy enough to balance it when she is is [sic] delivered & its being promised to the good man Ps. 128. that he should see the prosperity of Jerusalem & peace in Israel. The manner in which the promises of the future prosperity of the church were made of old to the chh then in being & the manner in which the saints received [sic] em as all their salvation & all their desire are are [sic] said to hope & wait for the fulfilment from time to time. See after the next concerning the canon of the SS. No. 1061. [finis; several verbal lapses]

 

¶ 1060. Concerning the CANON of the NEW-TESTAMENT. Proposition. The greatest part of Christians were very early agreed what books were canonical and to be looked upon as the rule of their faith.

¶ It is impossible in the nature of things but some churches must recieve the books long after others, as they lay at a greater distance from the places where they were written or had less convenience of communication with them. Besides <,as[c]> Christianity for a long time laboured under the disadvantages of continual persecution; no general councils could be convened, & so <there could be [c]> no publick notification of universal agreement in this matter. But notwithstanding all these things 'tis yet discoverable that as soon as can be supposed after the writing the books the Xtians in all countreys remarkeably agreed in recieving them as canonical. For a proof of which I observe

1. That in the few genuine writings of the first ages now extant the same books are cited as Scripture. 'Tis indeed without just reason commonly presumed that the first writers cited the now recieved books of the canon & others promiscuously. But as I shall hereafter shew this to be a mistake so it will be enough here to observe, that they were generally agreed in recieving the same books for canonical which we now do and this appears from their agreement to cite them, as everyone must acknowledge, who has but cast his eye upon the writings of the first centuries. To say nothing of the apostolick fathers such as Clemens, Barnabas &c-- 'Tis evident that Justin Martyr at Neapolis, Theophilus at Antioch, Irenaeus in France, Clemens at Alexandria, Tertullian at Carthage &c-- (who all lived within 120 or 130 years of our Lord's ascension & some of them much sooner, & but a very short time after the writing of the books) have all tho in very remote countreys quoted many or most, if not all the same books as Scripture. The same might be observed concerning Origen, Cyprian, & other writers of the next century. It has been already proved by Mr Nye & Mr Le Clerk that the writers of the apostolick age were well acquainted with, because they frequently cite several books of our present canon And if it had not been so it would have been impossible for 'em to have spread so much by the middle of the 2d century as to have been quoted by all the writers of it in whatever countreys they lived

2 Several of the first writers of Christianity, have left us in their works catalogues of the sacred books of the New Testament, which tho made in countreys at a vast distance from each other, do very little differ A particular account of all the catalogues I shall give hereafter in this volume I shall only instance now in those of Origen & Eusebius which he that will be at the pains to compare will easily percieve to be very nearly the same. So great was the pains & care of those early Christians to be well assured what were the genuine writings of the Apostles and to distinguish them from all pretended revelations of designing men, and the forgeries they published under sacred titles. Thus when the presbyter of Asia above mention'd, had published a spurious piece under the name of Paul, he was immediately convicted, and notice of the forgery was soon convey'd to Carthage and the churches of Africa.

¶ Corol. Hence it follows that the primitive Xtians are proper judges, to determine what book is canonical and what not. For nothing can be more absurd than to suppose in those early ages an agreement so universal without good and solid foundation; or in other words 'tis next to impossible, either that so great a number of men should agree in a cheat, or be imposed upon by a cheat. -----But there are some particular circumstances that make the inference more clear as to the Xtian books, than others: such as the prodigious esteem the books at first were recieved with; the constant use that was made of them in their religious assemblies; the translations made of them very early into other languages, &c. Jones's Canon of the New-T. Part 1. Cap. 5.

¶A LIST of all those places in the Xtian writers of the four first centuries in which are to be found catalogues of the books of the New- Testament.

¶N. B. The omision of a book in some one or two particular catalogues, cannot with any reason be urged against its canonical authority If it be found in all, or most of the others, & any good reasons can be assigned, for the omission where it is. Thus for instance the Revelation is omitted, either perhaps because it was not known to the author, or its credit <was [c]> not sufficiently established in the countrey where he lived; or perhaps which may be as probable as the other, because it being so full of mysteries, few or none were judged proper or able to read it to any purpose. This was certainly the case in England: this book being for this reason omitted in the publick calendar for reading the Scriptures, tho it be recieved into the canon. If therefore these, or any such good reasons can be assigned for the omission of a book in a particular catalogue (as I hope will appear in the particular examination of the books) it will be very unfair to infer that such book is apocryphal, especially when it is to be found in many or most other catalogues

The Names of The The variation or ag- The places of their

the writers times reement of their writings in which

in catalogues with ours these catalogues are

which now recieved

they

liv'd

 

I.ORIGEN, a A.C. Omits the epistles of Comment. in Math.

Presbyter of 210 James & Jude, tho' he apud. Euseb. Hist.

Alexandria, who owns them both in oth- Eccl. 1[ib] 6. C.

imployed incred- er parts of his writ- 25. & 1[ib] 5.

ible pains, in ings. Exposit. in Joan.

knowing the ibid.

Scriptures.

 

II. EUSEBIUS 315 His catalogue is exact- Hist. Eccles. 1[ib].

Pamphilus, whose ly the same with the 3. c. 25. Confer

writings evidence modern one, only he ejusdem. lib.

his zeal about says, the epistles of C. 3.

the sacred writ- James, Jude the 2d of

ings, & his great Peter, the 2d & 3d of

care to be in- John tho' they were

formed which generally recieved yet

were genuine & had been by some doubt-

which not ed of As to the Revel-

ation, tho' he says

some rejected it, yet

he says other recieved

it & himself places it

among those which are

to be reciev'd with-

out dispute.

 

III.ATHANASIUS 315 The same perfectly Fragment. Epist.

Bp. of Alexan- with ours now reciev'd Testal. [sic] Tom.

dria 2. & in Synops. Tom 1.

IV. CYRIL, Bp. 340 The same with ours Catech. 4. §. ult.

of Jerusalem only the Revelation p. 101.

is omitted

 

V. The bishops 364 The Revelation is Canon LIX. N.B. The

assembled in the omitted canons of this council

Council of were not long after

Laodicea recieved into the body

of the canons of the

universal chh.

 

VI.EPIPHANIUS 370 The same with ours Hæres. 76. cont.

Bp of Salamis now reciev'd anom. p. 399.

in Cyprus.

 

VII. GREGORY 375 Omits the Revelation Carm. de veris &

NAZIANZEN Bp genuin. Scriptur.

of Constanti-

nople.

 

VIII. PHILASTRIUS 380 The same with ours now Lib. de Haeres.

Bishop of Brixia recieved except that Num. 87.

in Venice. he mentions only 13 of

Paul's epistles (omitt-

ing very probably the

Epistle to the Hebrews)

& leaves out the Rev-

elation

 

IX. JEROME 382 The same with ours, ex- Epist. ad Paulin

cept that he speaks du- 83. Tract. 6. p. 2.

biously of the Epistle also commonly pre-

to the Hebrews tho' in fix'd to the Latin

other parts of his vulgar.

writings he recieves

it as canonical

 

X RUFFIN Pres- 390 It perfectly agrees Expos. in symbol.

byter of Aquileg with ours Apostol. §.36 int. Ep.

ium Hieron. Par. 1 trac.

3. p. 110. & inter

Op. Cypr. p 575.

 

XI. AUSTIN Bp. 394 It perfectly agrees De Doctrin. Christ.

of Hippo in with ours 1[ib].2. C. 8. Tom.

Africa Op. 3. p. 25.

 

XII. The 44 Bps St. It perfectly agrees Vid. Canon 47.

assembled in Austin with ours & Cap. ult.

the 3d Counc- was

il of Carth- present

age at it

 

XIII. The anon- 390 It seems perfectly to Lib. de Hierarch.

ymous author of agree with ours for Eccles. C. 3. p 3.

the works under tho' he doth not for

the name of good reasons produce

Dyonisius the the names of the books,

Areopagite yet (as the learned

Daille says de Script.

suppos. Dionys. C. 16)

he so clearly describes

them, as that he has

left out no divine book,

may be easily perciev'd

 

See Jones's Canon of the New-T. Part 1. C. 8.

¶ An universal agreement of writers in the most remote countreys, in quoting the same books as Scripture, and no other as such is if the fact be true a very plain & demonstrative indication of the true canon. 'Tis not at all necessary I should here go about to prove the fact viz that the writers of the four first centuries, have cited such & such books, & universally omitted others This I hope to make good hereafter. ---- And I can't but think it worth observing that Eusebius (to whom above all others we are indebted for our helps to establish the Canon) makes frequent use of the same proposition to distinguish between those books that are or are not to be recieved. So for instance he proves the first Epistle of Peter to be genuine, because [xo c] because the most antient writers of Xtianity before his time, made continual use of it in their writings, as an undoubted book. and a little afterwards <he [c]> proves the Acts of Peter, the Gospel, the Preaching & the Revelation of Peter to be apocryphal, because none of the writers of the Xtian church have in their writings taken any testimonies out of these books. And elsewhere having mention'd several spurious books under the apostles names such as the gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias the Acts of Andrew and John, & others, he rejects them, because no ecclesiastical writer hath made any use of them in his writings. See Jones's Canon of the New T. P. 1. C. 9.

¶ Those books are canonical which the primitive Xtians read in their churches or publick assemblies as the Scriptures or word of God

¶ As it was the constant practice of the Jewish church in their synagogues, so it was of the Xtians in their religious meetings to read the sacred Scriptures This practice is clearly proved from Col. 4. 16. where St Paul mentions the reading publickly in the church of the Colossians and Laodiceans his Epistle to the former as also an Epistle from the latter in the church of the former This we find in the beginning of the second century from Justin Martyr "On the day says he which is called Sunday there is a meeting of all [the Xtians] [Prob. Jones' brs.] who live either in cities or countrey places and the memoirs of the apostles and writings of the prophets are read". So Tertullian giving an account of the Xtians meetings, says, "they assembled to read the Scriptures and to offer up prayers." & in another place among the solemn exercises of the Lords day he reckons reading the Scriptures singing Psalms &c. The same account we have in Cyprian the antient book under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite and several other antient writers cited by Pamelius, in his learned notes on Tertullian's Apology. Now I say these books are to be recieved by us as canonical forasmuch as this practice of reading the Scriptures was so very early, that it is hardly possible to suppose the churches imposed upon by any spurious or forged pieces. [<E's brack.> 'Tis not likely that any church would thus introduce the publick reading of any new book <or book newly come to hand,> as SS. that never h<e [c]>ard of any other churches doing of it unless it be those that first recieved it & knew it to be from some sacred writer by their own knowledge; & especially that other Xtian churches in general should so soon follow the example of that church that introduced a new writing into publick reading without such foundation. & hence no spurious writing that none knew to be from any sacred writer could be introduced into the publick reading of the Christian church.]<E's brack.> Cyril of Jerusalem instructing his catechumen concerning the Scriptures tells him to avoid apocryphal books, & study carefully those Scriptures only, which were publickly read in the church; & a little after having given him a catalogue of the sacred books, he adds Let all others be rejected; and such as are not /p./ read in the churches, neither do you read in private. Hence in the middle of the fourth century it was decreed in the Council of Laodicea in their fifty ninth Canon, that no private Psalms should be read in the church, nor any books without the Canon, but only the canonical ones of the old & New Testament. Jones's Canon of N. T. P. 1. C. 10.

¶ The translation of the books of the New-T. into Syriack is of very considerable service in determining & fixing the canon of those books.

¶ The truth of this proposition depends upon the antiquity of the version. For if the most antient Xtians are to be judge<s> and their testimony [xo c] and their testimony is to determine in this matter as has been proved; their judgment can no way be more evident than in the collection or choice which they made of books to be translated into their own language: & if such collection of books was made by the eastern churches in the time or at least near the time of the Apostles, it must consequently be of great weight in deciding this matter. I shall endeavour therefore to shew that the Syriack version was made in or near the apostles times and in order to this I shall

¶ First, produce all that is historical concerning it. & as to the history of this version 'Tis a constant and antient tradition among the Syrians that it was made by St Mark This account we have from Pastellus who travell<' [c]>d into the eastern parts of the world, in order to inform himself of all that he could among them who declares that the Syrians deliver'd it to him as an antient tradition that St Mark translated his own gospel and the rest of the books of the New Testament into his own countreys language [i.e the Galilean or Syriack.] [Jones' brack.?] The first time the Europeans became acquainted with this version was in the year of X 1562, on this occasion Ignatius a patriarch of Antioch hearing of the advantages of printing sent a certain priest of Mesopotamia called Moses Meridineeus into Europe with a copy of the Syriack Testament to be printed for the benefit of the Xtians in those eastern parts of the world. after this were taken notice of some antient manuscripts of it that had lain hid in Europe

¶ And as to the antiquity of this version I shall

¶ 1. Mention the opinion of learned men

¶ The first is Tremellius who published & translated it into Latin who says of it that it "seems every way probable that it was made in the very infancy of the church of X either by the apostles themselves or the disciples; unless we will imagine them in their writings, to have had a concern only for the churches of foreign nations & none for those of their own countrey."

¶ Our learned Fuller calls it "most antient, a very excellent, & truly divine monument of Xtianity."

¶ Alsted; "The Syriack version of the New-Test <ament, [c]> is to be attributed to the church of Antioch, while yet in its infancy, & to those in that city who were first called Xtians. and tho the author of it be not certainly known yet it was very likely it was made by some apostles or their disciples"

¶ Jacobus Martini, in his preface to Trastius's edition "It is a version but the first and most antient of all ----- It is a version preferable to all others: It is a version made either by one of the Evangelists, or by some of the Xtians at Antioch who had the opportunity of consulting with /p./ the apostles there"

¶ Frederick Spanheim the father had the same opinion of its antiquity

¶ Bishop Walton has attempted to prove that it was made in the apostles time

¶ Frederick Spanheim the son in his Ecclesiastical History places this version in the 2d century after X; assenting to the agreed opinion of learned men that it was made very near the apostles time.

¶ Father Simon allows its claims to the greatest antiquity just, and well observes, that it preceeded all those schisms which afterwards divided the eastern nations into different sects: & this he adds is the cause that they all equally esteem it.

¶ Such have been the recieved sentiments of the learned concerning this version.

¶ 2. It was absolutely needfull that such a version should be made in or near the apostles time<s> & therefore very probable that one was then made

¶ It was at that time the language of the first Xtian churches & those innumerable multitudes that were converted to Xtianity in Jerusalem Galilee Caesarea Damascus Antioch & all the countreys round about It was the language spoken by the Jews in those countreys as well as the Gentiles that were the original natives. Here were the first converts to Xtianity made & the first Xtian churches founded & 'tis unreasonable to suppose that they were long destitute of those books which contain'd the records of what X had said & done & the foundations of their religion

¶ 3. The Christians of Syria were wont to read the sacred Scriptures of the New-T. in their churches and publick assemblies very soon after the apostles time; and therefore a translation of them was made into the Syriack language. This is manifest by a passage of Justin Martyr who lived in the beginning of the second century and plainly speaks of himself as being a disciple of the apostles. He tells us that in their religious assemblies every Sunday the writings of the apostles & prophets were read [by Christians doubtless he must be understood to include the Christians in that part of the world where he dwelt] <E's on J's bracks.> Now Justin was a native as he himself says of Palestine in Syria viz. Neapolis in Samaria & dwelt in Syria in which countrey as has been proved Syriack was the language If the writings of the New-T. were read in the churches where Justin Martyr lived, They were read in Syria & if they were read in Syria they were read in the Syriack language because no other was there understood and consequently a translation of the New T. into Syriack was made out of Greek in Justin Martyrs time i.e within a few years of the apostles time. and the Syriack version of the New T. now extant is very probably the same which was made in or near the apostles time This is constantly asserted by the Syrian churches from whom we had it & there was no more probability of the Syrian churches loosing their translation, than of the western churches loosing their Greek copies. For the same reason as Greek copies did multiply, the Syriack ones would multiply too

¶ 4. There are some internal characters in the translation it self that evidence its great antiquity As particularly the name Ptolemais Act. 21. 7. is render'd by its antient Jewish name Aco [line by c.] which it is not likely that it would be known by among Xtians long after the destruction of Judea & Jerusalem after which there was no body of Xtian Jews by themselves but they were mingled with Gentile Xtians & were of the same communion with them And in the translation of the Greek words and their adverbial derivatives & in all places where either of these words occur they are rendered according to that understanding or sense of such phrases which was peculiar to the Jews as seperated from all the rest of the world who looked upon the rest of the world profane & therefore can't be thought <to have [c]> be <en [c]> so used by any other Xtians than the primitive Christian Jews still retaining the phraseology of their nation which could not be long after the destruction of Jerusalem for the Christian Jews after this being of the same communion with the Gentile Xtians were soon mix'd with them & must be supposed to use the like kind of language. Thus the word properly signifies a Greek but among the Jews it was used to denote all the world besides the Jews Hence we frequently find in the New Testament the distinction of all mankind into Jews & which our translators render Jews & Gentiles. & so the word in the New Testament denotes in a peculiar sense all nations besides the Jews. In the ideas of both these words the Jews implied something that was bad, or (which is the same thing), they looked upon all the world as profane, sinners, unclean &c--& agreable to this in the Syriack version the word is translated very often by a word that signifies profane, impious, or sinfull, [c's lines] & in many places he [xo c] <it is[c]> translates <d> it [xos c] a Syrian [E's line] Arameus. & the word is translated profane or impious, [c's lines] & which we translate after the manner of the Gentiles, [E's line] Gal. 2. 14. is there translated after the manner of the Syrians [E's line] & is very often renderd profane. [c's line] Now none but the Christian Jews would have formed a translation so exactly according to the Jewish notions & phrases & tis not likely that the eastern Xtians, tho' they had some Jewish blood in them would so naturally fall into such a way of speaking long after the wall of partition between Jews & Gentiles was entirely broken down which was kept up in some measure till the destruction of Jerusalem but then was utterly abolished between Xtian Jews & others. But to put the matter out of doubt I will single out <one word, [c]> viz Armojo which he most commonly uses for which signifies a Syrian Now to understand the reason of this appellation viz. why Gentile & Syrian or profane were among the Jews synonymous terms we must observe that they alwaies had a contemptible opinion of the Syrians as being idolaters. So we find in Onkelos's Chaldee version the words uncircumcised and Syrian are used promiscuously to denote any foreigner or profane person Levit. 25. 47 because they were their nearest neighbours & idolaters by this, it is evident that the Syrian interpreter was a Xtian Jew that lived either before or not long after the destruction of Judea by the Romans The word is so translated Syrian instead of Gentile in Act. 16. 1.3. & 19. 10,17, & 20. 21. Rom 1. 16. & 2. 9,10. 1 Cor. 1. 22. &c. & 10. 32. & 12. 13. & Gal. 2. 3. 14. & 3. 28. Col. 3. 11.

¶ It can't be objected that the translator knew no other Syriack words whereby to translate the above-mention'd Greek ones: for 'tis certain that he not only knew others but with a great deal of accuracy & justice has made use of them Thus when the word in the N.T. is put to denote those who were properly Grecians, or inhabitants of Greece he makes use of the word i.e a Greek properly so called. So when Paul divides all mankind into Greeks & Barbarians the Syriack interpreter uses that word Rom. 1. 14. So Colos. 3. 11. So when the proper natives of Greece are meant as Act. 14. 1. & 17. 4. 12. &c-- & so when the Greek language is spoken of in the New Testament as Luke 23. 38 & Joh. 19. 20 Act. 9. 29. & 21. 37. This is a most convincing argument, that where he translates the word in the other manner he spake according to the language of the Jews, and therefore that he lived in the time above-mention'd

¶ 5. There is a most remarkeable agreement between the Syriack translation and our best and most antient copies of the New Testament, as with Beza's famous MS. which he gave to the University of Cambridge undoubtedly the oldest now in the world. The same may be said of several other antient copies.

¶ 6. 'Tis an argument of the great antiquity of this translation, that it hath not in it, the four Catholick epistles viz. the 2d of Peter the 2d & 3d of John & the Epistle of Jude nor the Revelation. Now these being wanting must necessarily proceed from one of these three causes. 1. Because they were not written when the version was made or 2. Because the knowledge of them was not yet come to the Syrian churches or 3. Because they were not yet universally reciev'd into the number of the canonical books. Now which soever of these be said, the antiquity of the version will be sufficiently established. But the first of these seems most probable, because as I shall hereafter shew the churches of Syria did both know and recieve several of these books at least as canonical in the second century as 'tis certain they do now tho' it seems they are not ordinarily bound with the others in the same volume, and read in their churches. This argument was thought so conclusive by Tremellius, & our learned Bp. Walton, that from it they were perswaded to believe this version was made in the apostles time.

¶ See Jones's Canon of the N.T. P. 1. 14 & following chapters.

¶ Let this that now follows be added to what is contain'd in the little paper here [xo?] inserted at the left hand.

¶ [This inserted leaf is now lost, but text is preserved in MO, 198-200, and is here copied from the printed copy.]

¶ What follows is extracted from the bishop of London's third Pastoral Letter, p. 14, &c.

¶ We find all the four gospels, under the names of the several evangelists, distinctly spoken of by the most early writers of the church, as the known and undoubted records of our Saviour's live and actions, and, as such received by all the Christian churches, and read in their public assemblies. Clement, the disciple of St Paul, cites many passages out of them: and in one place, having quoted the prophecy of Isaiah, he adds, "And another scripture saith;" and then quotes the gospel of St Mark. In another place, he cites the gospel of St Luke, with these words immediately prefixed, "The Lord saith in the gospel." Polycarp, a disciple of St John, mentions these four gospels distinctly, and by name, with particular circumstances relating to each. Justin Martyr, speaking of the institution of the Lord's Supper, says, The apostles, in their records, which are called gospels, declared, that it was commanded by Christ so to be performed: and a little after, adds, That those records were publicly read in the Christian assemblies on the Lord's day. And in his other works, he uses the same style of the records of the apostles, and cites several passages out of them, as the standing records of the church. Tatian, the disciple of Justin, reduced the four gospels into one, which, in after ages, was usually called the harmony of the four gospels. Irenaeus gives this account of all the four:-- Matthew, says he, delivered his gospel to the Hebrews, while /p.199/ Peter and Paul preached at Rome; after whose departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, conveyed to us in writing the things which Peter had preached; and Luke, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel which Paul preached. Afterwards, John, the disciple of our Lord, who also leaned on his breast at supper, published his gospel while he staid at Ephesus in Asia. The same Irenaeus, speaking of the authority of the gospels, says, That the very heretics gave their testimony to them, while each laboured to support his opinion from them. And as to the number, they were neither more nor less than four; and that they who made them either more or fewer, were vain, ignorant, and presuptuous. Clement of Alexandria, speaking of a passage cited out of the Egyptian gospel, says, It is not to be found in the four gospels which have been delivered down to us. And Origen, mentioning the writers of the four gospels by name, and in their order, says, That those alone, and no other gospel, had been universally received in the church.

¶ P. 23. Speaking of the Acts of the Apostles, he says, Citations out of this book are found in Clement, the companion of St Paul, and in Polycarp, the disciple of St John. Irenaeus, in the second century, writing against the heretical doctrine of two principles, (one good, the other evil), argues throughout the whole chapter from passages taken at large out of Acts, to shew the contrariety of that heresy to the doctrine of the apostles. Eusebius gives an account of the same, as follows: Luke, a native of Antioch, and a physician by profession, who had lived long and intimately with Paul, and was much conversant with the other apostles, left two books written by divine inspiration, one of them his gospel, the other, intituled the Acts of the Apostles; which he did not write after the revelations of others, but as facts that he saw with his own eyes: and elsewhere, among the books that were universally received, he /p.200/ reckons the Acts of the Apostles next to the four evangelists.

¶ P. 35. Eusebius, reckoning up the books of the New Testament, which were universally received, after mention made of the four gopels, and the Acts of the Apostles, adds, Next to these, we are to reckon the epistles of Paul, every one of which, except that to the Hebrews, expressly bears his name; and they are frequently cited and referred to by the most early writers of the church, as has been abundantly shewn by many learned men; and may easily be seen, by looking into the writings of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, in the first century; and after them, into those of Irenaeus and Tertullian, in the second. The same thing is there affirmed by Eusebius, of the first epistle of St Peter, and the first of St John, namely, that they had been received universally.

¶ See the proofs of the remaining parts of the New Testament's being authentic, well set forth in the following parts of the letter.

¶ P. 64. And what renderd it yet more impracticable, (to alter or corrupt the books of the New Testament), was the appeal that might be made, upon any suspicion of forgery, to the authentic writings remaining, and kept with the greatest care, in the archives of several churches that had been planted by the apostles, to which Tertullian expressly refers, in his reasonings against the heretics of those times, as then in being, and to be freely consulted. --Thus far the bishop of London. [End of text on inserted leaf, now lost, between pp. 7 and 8 of E's number. This letter has since TS transcribed this been located. I attach a copy.]

¶ Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History tells us that "When the three Gospels of Mathew Mark and Luke, were published and known to every body St John at length saw them approved them and confirmed the truth of them but own'd that they were defective as to the account of those things which were done by our Saviour at the beginning of his ministry --- For which reason John being desired by his friends supplied the defects of the three others, and wrote his Gospel to inform us of that time, & the things which were done by our Saviour in it viz. before the imprisonment of John the Baptist."

¶ Besides this testimony of Eusebius I find <in[c]> a very old book entitled the Martyrdom of Timothy the Apostle of which we have an extract in Photius “that when after the death of Domitian Nerva became emperour <& [c]> John return'd to Ephesus from which place he had been banished by Domitian /p./ he then took the several books which contain'd the history of our Saviour's sufferings, and miracles, & doctrines, and were now translated into several different languages, review'd them rectified them, & join'd hims. to the former three evangelists by writing his gospel." Thus Mr Jones Part 4. at the begin. and then he goes on to mention the same things that the Bp. of London mentions in his Pastoral Letter in the foregoing extract & Besides Mr Jones adds that Tertullian has expressly determined the number of Gospels which were recieved by the chh in his time to four. says he "the credit of the gospel history is confirmed to us by two that were apostles viz. Mathew and John & two that were apostolick men Mark & Luke" And in the same book speaking of the same four Gospels & naming them he says "they were patronized or confirmed by the authority of the apostolick churches." Origen the scholar of Clemens Alexandrinus says "that though there were many Gospels forged by hereticks which (says he) we read that we mayn't be thought ignorant, yet the church recieves only four Gospels" & a little after "There are only four Gospels made use of out of which the articles of our religion as from Jesus X are to be proposed" Once more a few lines after "Among all these Gospels we approve none but those which the church approves that is that only the four gospels are to be reciev'd" It would be madness for any one who ever saw Origens works to ask what four gospels he meant. Besides he elsewhere "reciting (as he expresses himself) the Canon of the church" names these four gospels "which four alone (says he) are recieved without controversy in the church of God which is all over the world" Eusebius who lived in the beginning of the fourth century expressly excludes all other gospels from the Canon besides those four which we now recieve but places them among the books which were without controversy recieved by the consent of the whole church. In the Synopsis under the name of Athanasius the author tells us "that all the gospels which are read by any are rather fit to be conceald than read except the four alone which are deliver'd to us" Ambrose in his Preface to his Commentary on Luke has almost transcribed Origen's words on the same place "Accordingly (saith he) that tho' the hereticks have many gospels the church hath only four &c---" Jerome mentions some false gospels & says "he will only be concerned with four which (says he) are in the following order Matthew, Mark, Luke & John." And it would be endless to cite the many numerous proofs that may be easily produced out of the fathers of the fourth century. [See further next p. but one. paragraph 2 & also p. 13. parag. 2d.] [Ref. xo by E]

¶ As to St MATTHEWS. Gospel in particular Mr Jones observes that tis in all the catalogues of sacred books. 'Tis often cited in the writings of the fathers that are called the apostolical fathers i.e. the fathers that lived in the apostles days, viz Barnabas, Clemens Romanus the Shepherd of Hermas Polycarp & St Ignatius. Concerning whom Mr Jones says that tho' he did not believe the writings under their names were all genuine & of that age to which they pretend yet they are undoubtedly very antient & refer'd to by some of the earliest fathers & some of them were commonly read in the churches /p./ churches [sic] of Xtians as pious & usefull books as Mr Jones observes, Part 3 chap. 10 p. 84. 85. Thus says he Dionysius a Bp. of Corinth in the second century in a letter to the church of Rome tells them they read on the Lords day Clements Epistle to them in their assemblies; & Eusebius declares it to have been universally reciev'd & read in most churches both in his & former times. The same he says of the Shepherd of Hermas that it was read in many churches which is confirmed by Athanasius & Ruffinus both concerning this & some other books. St Mathew's Gospel is cited twice by Clemens Romanus in his first Epistle to the Corinthians & eight times in the remaining fragment of the second; & in one of his citations he says thus and another Scripture saith I come not to call the righteous but sinners. [E's line] The Shepherd of Hermas cites St Mathews Gospel six times & tis cited seven times in the Epistle that is called the Epistle of Barnabas which tho' it was not written, as is pretended by Barnabas the Apostle yet is very antient <T [c]>this epistle is often cited by Clemens Alexandrinus a writer of the second century. Tis also sometimes cited by Origen who was Clemens's scholar & afterwards by Eusebius & St Jerome as Mr Jones shews P. 3. chap. 37. St Mathews Gospel is cited six times in Polycarps small epistle & besides those in the fragments of the Responsiones of Polycarp published by Feu<na MO?>ordentius [sp?] there are two places in St Mathews Gospel expounded or paraphrasd in these words "Mathew (says he) testifies that our Lord said it was written by Moses that Adam said thus This now is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh: for this cause shall a man leave father & mother &c--" see Math 19. 5. & Gen 2. 23.24. & in another place he has these words, "Ye shall indeed drink of my cup &c-- by which cup he meant the martyrdom of those two apostles John & James." In the lesser epistle<s [c]> of Ignatius that are supposed to be his genuine epistles St Mathews Gospel is cited seven times

¶ St Matthews Gospel is also often cited by the fathers next the apostolick age so often that Mr Jones says to produce all the places at large would be almost to transcribe the gospels. Thirty five places are particularly taken notice of in Justin Martyr's works several times mentioning passages in St Matthews [sic] Gospel he once adds these words This was written in the Commentaries of the Apostles & once recites a considerable part of Xs Sermon in the Mount in St Matthews [sic] words & once having cited some of the words of St Mathews [sic] Gospel he adds "This is delivered by the apostles in the commentaries or books made by them called gospels" St Mattews [sic] Gospel is cited four times in the small treatise of Athenagoras viz his excellent Apology for Xtianity, which is inscribed to M. Aurelius Antoninus & L. Aurelius Commodus. He was a writer of the second century either coeval with or not long after Justin Martyr. And Theophilus Antiochenus who lived under the same emperours & was contemporary with Athenagoras wrote three small treatises inscribed to Atolychus [sic] against the enemies of Xtianity in which are 5 citations out of St Matthews Gospel & cites Math 5. 28 under the name of Irenæus who lived in the 2d century has at least two hundred & /p./ fifty times cited passages out of the Gospel and does 9 times cite St Matthew [sic] by name <It is cited [c]> & [xo c] an hundred times in the works of Clemens Alexandrinus & in his citation of Math 5. 3. St Matthew [sic] is cited by name & citing Math 23. 12. he calls this Gospel, i.e the word of God The citations of the fathers of the following centuries as Origen Cyprian Cyril Austin & others are omitted there being innumerable places wherein they cite this as well as the other gospels

¶ St Matthews Gospel is canonical because it was read as SS. in the assemblies or churches of the primitive Christians. Justin Martyr (who cites the gospels under the name of the memoirs or commentaries of the apostles as is evident by what was just now observed of his citations) tells us that on every Sunday there was an assembly of the neighbouring Xtians and the memoirs or commentaries of the apostles were read & that under this word were included those books that are now called gospels is plain from what he said immediately before, viz. these words 'in the commentaries made by the apostles which are called gospels. Cyril of Jerusalem who flourished An. 340. enumerating the books which ought to be read in the churches says among the New Testament books there were only four gospels & that all others were spurious & hurtfull See next p but one 2d paragraph. p. 13. [circle by c; xo by E.]

¶ Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History says that Bartholemew the Apostle when he went forth to preach & propagate the Christian faith took along with him the Gospel of St Matthew and particularly that he preach'd according to this gospel among the Indians and left it among them at his departure from them and that Pantænus afterwards in the 2d century found this Gospel among them this also is related by Jerome which seems clearly to prove that St Matthews Gospel met with a suitable reception and was esteem'd of the greatest authority even in the apostles time. Eusebius further more relates that Papias who was according to Irenaeus a disciple of John and an acquaintance of Polycarp intimates very clearly that St Matthews Gospel was in common use in his time & that Hegesippus a writer of the 2d century wrote some dissertations upon the Gospel of the Hebrews or the Gospel of St Mathew which the Nazarenes made use of

¶ The cause or occasion of St Matthews writing his Gospel is generally agreed upon by the antient writers, who have made any mention of the matter viz. that he wrote it at Jerusalem, for the sake of the convert Jews who desired him to write it, when he was about to travel, to the Gentile countreys to preach the gospel. So Origen "The first Gospel was written by Matthew , first a publican, then an apostle of Jesus Christ and published among the converted Jews in Hebrew" Irenaeus says "that St Matthew publish'd his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language while Peter & Paul were preaching at Rome Now tho' it is not certain when Peter was at Rome yet Paul was there in the 3d of Nero i.e in or about the year of X 59. or 60. as Eusebius relates in his Chronicon & to this most chrono- /p./ logers and writers of church history agree. Eusebius tells us "that Matthew having first preached to the Hebrews when he determin'd to travel into other countreys published his Gospel in the language of his countrey & left it with them to supply the want of his own presence among them" To the same purpose Jerome "Matthew sirnamed Levi was the first who published a Gospel, & that in Judea in the Hebrew language principally for the sake of those Jews, who were converted and did not <only [c]> regard the truth of the gospel (but observed the law also) tho' the law being but as a shadow was abolished.

¶ [<E's> N. B. Mr Jones, tho he allows that St Matthews gosp. was very early translated into the Hebrew Part 4. p. 55. yet speaks of his having very particularly & largely proved that this Gospel was originally written in Greek in a book he published under the name of a Vindication of St. Matthews Gosp. See Part 2. p. 380: & there & in the following page mentions one very probable argument for it.] <E's>

¶ Eusebius in his Chronicon placing the writing of St Matthews Gospel in the 3d year of Caligula i.e eight years after Xs ascension or in the year of X 41. The modern writers generally credit & follow Eusebius in this matter scarce any follow Irenæus. I shall transcribe what Mr Le Clerc has said on this head "They who think that the gospels were written as late as Irenæus saith & suppose that for the space of about 30 years after our Lords ascension there were many spurious gospels in the hands of Xtians & not one that was genuine and authentick do unwarily cast a very great reflection on the wisdom of the apostles for what could have been more imprudence in them, than tamely to have suffer'd the idle stories concerning X to be read by the Xtians & not to contradict them by some authentick history" Many of the most antient MSS of this Gospel do agree with Eusebius that Matthews Gospel was wrote in the eighth year after our Saviours ascension Thus it is in Beza's MS. the oldest now in the world So it is in the end of several very antient Greek MSS. which F<ather [c]> Simon saw & more which are cited & refer'd to by Dr Mill. The old Arabick version joins in the same account viz that he st Matthew wrote his gospel in Palestine eight years after our Saviours ascension. Theophlact & Euthymius do also assert this gospel to have been written in the eighth year after Xs ascension & it may not be foreign to the purpose to observe how diligent & carefull Eusebius was in collecting his accounts of this sort & that tho' there are some mistakes in his works (which in so vast undertaking, could hardly be avoided) yet for the most part he is very accurate & exact as a chronologer & historian but Irenæus seems not so exact & in the next words gives an evidently false account of the time of St Marks writing his Gospel See Jones's Canon of N. T. P. 4. Ch. 5.

¶ [<E's brack.> Tis exceeding natural to suppose that these two things together would soon lead the apostles <soon [xo c]> to write some history of the acts & doctrine and sufferings of X their great Lord & Head of the Xtian chh viz The unavoidable experience of the need of such a thing & 2dly the example of the penmen of the Old Testament in writing the history of Abraham, Moses David Solomon & others whose persons & actions they esteem'd of vastly less importance than those /p./ of the Son of God who was greater than Jonas or David or Solomon or Moses or Abraham.] <E's>

¶ [<E's brack.> Tis a great argument that there were some genuine gospels or authentick histories of Xs life & death that the Xtian chh had under the name of Gospels that there were such a multitude of forged fabulous accounts or histories of X all under the same name of gospels These fictions are evidently counterfeits or imitations of something that standing forth [xo c] that was looked up[on] <om E> by all as true & undoubted] [xo E] <and that there should be such a multitude of counterfeits & imitations of these gospels shews not only that there were genuine gospels but also shews the great value & importance of those genuine gospels & the high repute they had in the Xtian chh.] <E's>> [last sent. after next par. begun] See further p.20

¶ St Mark's Gospel is also evidently canonical because it is in all the catalogues of canonical books that we have in writings of the primitive Xtians & is one of those four Gospels that are spoken of so often by the fathers as those only that ought to be receiv'd as above & tis in the Syriack version of the New T. and (which is remarkeable) tho' there be so few passages in Mark but what are in St Mathews Gospel more largely and St Mathews Gospel be first & written by an apostle and so more likely to be taken notice of yet St Marks Gospel is often cited by the fathers in those few passages in Mark but what are in St Mathews Gospel more largely and St Mathews Gospel be first & written by an apostle and so more likely to be taken notice of yet St Marks Gospel is often cited by the fathers in those few passages and sometimes cited by name as Justin Martyr once does in these words "Tis said that he changed the name of one of his apostles into Peter & the fact is related in his commentaries or Gospel" this is not in Matthew but in Mark 3. 16 & tho' it be in Luke yet 'tis evident that Justin refers to Marks & not Lukes Gospel which he calls the commentaries or Gospel of Peter. for Marks Gospel & not Lukes was so called by the fathers. Irenæus in his writings cites six places that are only in St Marks Gospel & twice cites him by name Clemens Alexandrinus in his little tract entitled quis dives salvetur [line, c] has cited a long paragraph out of Marks Gospel viz chap 10. from v. 17. to v. 32. & then adds these things are written in the Gospel according to Mark. [E's line] Tertullian has cited 9 places in St Marks Gospel that are not in any other. It would be a superfluous & endless labour to go in like manner thro' all the writers of the four first centuries Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Austin &c--have made too many references to this Gospel to require a collection of them besides several of the fathers of these times have wrote commentaries or homilies upon this Gospel. And tis evident from Justin Martyr & Cyril of Jerusalem & the Council of Laodicea that this Gospel was read as Scripture among other books of the sacred Scripture in the assemblies or churches of primitive Xtians

¶ As to the penman of this gospel the name is mention'd four times in the Acts of the Apostles viz. chap. 12. 12.25 & chap. 15. 37,39. ([ <E's parenth. changed to bracket by Jr.> The same person is also mention'd chap. 13. 5. 13)] Thrice in St Paul's epistles viz. Colos. 4. 10. 2 Tim 4. 11. Philem 24 once by St. Peter 1 Pet. 5. 13.

¶ The antients all agree that Mark the Evangelist was a companion or interpreter of Peter So Papias, Irenaeus, the author of the Hypotyposes which went under the name of Clemens Alexandrinus & was supposed to be his by Eusebius, Origen, Eusebius [sic] Jerome & many others of /p./ the fathers. which is confirmed by 1 Pet 5. 13. The church that is at Babilon elected together with you saluteth you and so doth Marcus my son (The name is the same in the original that elsewhere is renderd Mark) He calls him his son because he was his companion and assistant in preaching the gospel as Paul for the same reason calls Timothy his son and particularly said of him that as a son with a father he served with him in the gospel

¶ The antients say that Mark was with Peter at Rome and that afterwards he went down into Egypt where he preach'd the gospel which he had written at Rome and founded many churches in Alexandria. This is related by Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome & many succeeding writers which I shall pass over only observing that the tradition of Mark's founding the church at Alexandria, which Du Pin calls an antient and certain tradition was alwaies credited in Egypt

¶ Eusebius relates that Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome when he was there with Peter in the reign of Claudius on the earnest request of the people who desired to have the truths they had heard written down and that Peter approved of it & confirmed the Gospel that he had written. This says Eusebius is related by Clemens Alexandrinus in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes & confirmed by the testimony of Papias. The same Eusebius in two other places of his works relates particularly what Papias & Clemens had written concerning St Mark's Gospel confirming that he wrote his Gospel as Peters interpreter. Irenæus says that after the death of Peter & Paul who had been preaching at Rome Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote down what he had heard him preach Origen adds, that Mark wrote his Gospel according to the dictates or directions of Peter. The author of the Synopsis under the name of Athanasius, saith the same as the last Jerome tells us, that Mark the disciple & interpreter of Peter at the request of the brethren at Rome wrote a short gospel from what he had heard of Peter which when Peter knew he approved of & published it in the churches, commanding the reading of it by his own authority. and it may accordingly be observed that Justin Martyr calls this gospel the commentaries or Gospel of Peter as above, & in the Syriack version of the N.T. at the end of Marks Gospel are these words "The end of the holy Gospel of the preaching of Mark, which he spake & preach'd in Latin at Rome". as to what is cited to this purpose from Papias it may be noted that Papias declares that he had all traditions of this sort from Aristion & John the Elder and he introduces this very testimony concerning the place, occasion & manner of Mark's writing his Gospel thus And this the Elder John said viz. that Mark the interpreter of Peter &c-- St Mark's publishing his Gospel as Peters interpreter may probably be the reason that the account of Christs pronouncing Peter blessed when he had confess'd him & his declaring that he had his faith & knowledge from God & his promise of the keys & that large power which is made to him &c. are omitted by St Mark tho' the former & succeeding parts of this discourse are both told by him see Math 16. 16---20 compared with Mark 8. 29.30. Eusebius takes notice of this & the learned Doway professour Estius whose words are to this purpose “Why sais he St Mark should omit in his Gospel those great & honourable promises made to St Peter which we read in Math 16. may be seen in Eusebius <ii [c]> [xo c] Demonstrat. Evangel. Lib. 3. C. 7. St Peters humility would not suffer him to tell these things to St Mark when /p./ he was writing his Gospel. Tis remarkeable that the three other evangelists relate those things which tend to advance the honour & prerogative of Peter only St Mark who wrote his Gospel from what he heard from St Peter hath omitted them which evidences the great modesty of the apostle" & Dr Hammond has another argument by which he endeavours to prove the truth of the account given by the antients of St Marks writing under the direction of Peter after he had produced the account he adds "And of this there be some characters discernable in the writing it self as that, setting down the story of Peters denying X, with the same enumeration of circumstances & aggravations of the fault that Matthew doth, when he comes to mention his repentance and tears consequent upon it he doth it as became the true penitent, more coldly than Matthew had done, <saying [c]> only he wept whereas Matthew hath it he wept bitterly". Tertullian expressly tells us that in the primitive chh the Gospel of Mark went under the name of the Gospel of Peter. And if the word Babilon 1. Pet. 5. 4. be put for Rome as is generally thought by the antients, all the Popish writers & many Protestants we have then hence a further confirmation of the antients account of the occasion of Marks writing viz his writing from Peters direction at Rome, and that he made use of him in the service of the gospel because he calls him his son The words are "The church which is Babilon elected together with you saluteth you & so doth Marcus my son."

¶ [<E's > 'Tis a great argument that St Mark's Gospel was written honestly & that it was no knavish forgery that 'tis so much like St Matthew's only shorter. for what could induce a knave a knave [xo c] to go about to forge a history of Xs life & death having scarce any thing remarkeable in it but what was in an history already extant & very little differing from it in any respect but [xo c] only that it has not so much in it. If the writer was a cheat he must know of St Matthew's Gospel: for a meer fiction would never happen to agree so exactly with another history through such a series of wonderfull things without knowing of that other history & copying from it. and what could induce an impostour to publish a new Gospel without any thing new in it we see in all those spurious gospels that so abounded in the primitive ages of the chh <,that [c]> they abound in new & strange things not related in the gospels that had been before extant. The likeness between St Marks & St Matthews Gospels argues the honesty of the penman of St Marks Gospel whether we suppose he had the other before him or not. <I [c]>if he knew of the other & had it before him then if he had been a knave & writ [xo c] <wrote [c]> with a dishonest design he would have added some remarkeable things of his own unless we suppose he knew of St Matthews Gospel & that Matthew & Mark & all <were [MO]> cheats & wrote to confirm one anothers lies which is not supposeable. for if St Mark had writ [xo c] <written [c]> with this design he would not have said less than St Matthew & there should have been none of those seeming differences & inconsistences which there are between St Matthews Gospel & his and he would not have omitted to have [xo c] added [xo c] his own or some feigned name himself to his work that the world might know whose testimony it was he would probably <have [c]> pretended to have been an eye witness &c--. And on the other supposition viz of his not knowing of the other or not copying from it, it is <its [c]> [probably sic; xo c] likeness with it is a demonstration of [wwxo] that he did not make or feign what he wrote /p./ for it is impossible that two, without consulting one another, should make two such stories so much alike.] [bracket is E's, om. in MO.]

¶ St Lukes Gospel also is to be esteem'd canonical. for besides what has been observed before of the Syriack version and the antient catalogues, and what has been observed above concerning all the four gospels together this Gospel is often cited by the fathers in those things that it contains that are not in the other gospels five such citations are found in the epistles of Clemens Romanus. St Ignatius cites St Luke in his Epistle to the Smyrneans. Justin Martyr cites this gospel 9 times & Irenæus cites St Lukes Gospel above an hundred times & (Lib. 3. adv. Hæres. c 14.) he vindicates the authority & perfection of St Lukes Gospel and has made there a collection of many or most of the histories which this evangelist has recorded, which are not mention'd by either of the other and says the histories of X which Luke alone has recorded were received by all Xtians and in very many places cites this Gospel by the name of Luke Clemens Alexandrinus cites St Lukes Gospel 27 times. The citations out of this gospel in the works of Tertullian, Origen, Cyril, Cyprian, Ambrose, Austin Jerome &c-- are so very numerous, & so easy to be observed every where in their writings that I shall omit making any collections out of them. These as the preceding fathers appeal alwaies to this Gospel as Scripture & no wonder they should when they were assured it was as Eusebius calls it an inspired book And that this book was read as SS. in the churches of the primitive Xtians there is the same evidence that there is for the foremention'd gospels. Marcion the heretick & his heretical followers had a different Gospel of Luke from that which we now recieve which has largely been refuted by Irenæus, Tertullian & Epiphanius. [<E's> That St Lukes Gospel should be so early counterfeited is an evidence that there was a genuine Gospel of St Luke & is also an evidence of the value & importance of that genuine Gospel<] [c]>

¶ The penman of this Gospel is mention'd Colos. 4. 14. Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you 2 Tim. 4. 11. Only Luke is with me. Philem. 24. Marcus Aristarchus Demas Lucas my fellow labourers. He was not a Jew as is evident because he intimates that the dialect of the Jews was not his language Act. 1. 19. It was called Aceldama in their own proper language. & St Paul distinguishes him from those of the circumcision Col. 4. 10.11. compared with <v. [c]> 14. He saith that Marcus Aristarchus & Jesus called Justus, were the only fellow labourers of the circumcision who were with him & yet tis plain that Epaphras Demas & Luke were fellow labourers that were then with him wherefore these were not of the circumcision & to confirm this it is an observation both of the antients and moderns that Luke's Gospel & Acts are written in much purer & more elegant Greek than the other evangelists as Jerome Isidorus Hispalensis Dr. Cave &c--. He was a long time the constant companion of St Paul in his travels This is proved both by the New T. & the fathers In the Acts of the Apostles (16.10 &c) which book at present I shall take for granted was written by Luke we find him accompanying St Paul in his voyage from Troas to Macedonia for he speaks there in the first person plural. The twentieth & twenty first chapters tell us of Luke's accompanying Paul to Jerusalem as the 27 does his going along with him to Rome & accordingly St Paul in several of his epistles written from Rome mentions St Luke as being with him there Nothing is more commonly affirmed by the antients as Irenæus, Eusebius, Jerome, Isidorus Hispalensis &c nor has it that I know of ever been question'd. see p. 21. <here insert the first paragraph page 21st [c]> /p./ The particular view or design which St Luke had in this Gospel seems to have been to confute the many silly apocryphal gospels, which were then extant & to prevent the bad influence of them and their heretical doctrines upon the Xtian converts. This is what is so manifest from the first words of the Gospel and the universal voice of antiquity that I need say no more

¶ As to ST JOHNS GOSPEL, there are the same arguments from the Syriack version and the primitive catalogues of sacred books, & from what the antient fathers have testified concerning the four gospel gospels [sic] together to prove the [mg; xo c] prove the authority of this Gospel as of the preceding. And this Gospel also was abundantly cited or appealed to as Scripture in the writings of the primitive Xtians. Clemens Romanus, in Epist. 1. §. 49. manifestly uses those words of this Gospel Ch. 10. 15. and the author of the writing called the Epistle of Barnabas has manifest reference to St John's Gospel, when he speaks of Xs being pierced at his crucifixion and applies thereto Zech. 12. 10. And they shall look on him whom they have pierced in the same words that Johns Gospel does which are very different from the words of the translation of the LXX who through confounding of with & with in one & the same word reading instead of they [xo c] have render'd it insulted instead of Pierced which mistake of the LXX was first observed by Jerome and after him by Erasmus Beza, Lightfoot, Hammond & other criticks on Joh. 19. 37. The author of this Epistle did not understand the Hebrew not being a Jew [<E's> as mr Jones has demonstrated]. & therefore used no other old Testament but the LXX.

¶ St Ignatius cites this gospel three times & Justin Martyr five times & Theophilus Antiochenus in his second book to Autolychus, cites Joh. 1. 1,2. &c-- and introduces it thus "So the Holy SS. teach & all inspired writers, among whom is John who saith in the beginning was the word &c--" Irenæus has appealed to or cited this gospel in above 120 several places, & eleven times cites it by name & several times cites this gospel under the express & distinguishing name of Scripture or the Scripture so for instance citing Joh. 1. 3. he introduces it thus as the Scripture saith again citing Joh. 14. 6 he says he takes the proof from the Scriptures Clemens Alexandrinus has cited this gospel in 42 several places. The matter is so clear & the citations so numerous in the writings of Tertullian Origen Jerome Austin &c-- that I thought it needless to collect them. and there is the same evidence of this gospel's being read as SS. in the assemblies or churches of the primitive Xtians as of the other gospels. In the Hypotyposes under the name of Clemens Alexandrinus the author stiles him [xo c] <John [c]> inspired by the Holy Ghost in writing his gospel and Origen says "this gospel was recieved as among the books that were admitted by all the churches in the world"

¶ The penman of this gospel by the account which other writers of the history of the N. T. gives us was one of those apostles that <were [c]> most highly favoured & honoured of X. He was one of those three that were admitted to be /p./ in the mount with X at his transfiguration, & to be present with him when he raised Jairus's daughter & that he took with him in his agony and that was sent with Peter to prepare his last passover, Luke 22. 8. after Xs ascension he preach'd with Peter in the temple, & heal'd the lame man preach'd to the people was apprehended of the Sadducees imprison'd & boldly pleaded in defence of Xtianity He was the deputy of the apostles with Peter to go to Samaria to confirm the disciples there and is one of those three which the Apostle Paul speaks of as the main pillars Gal. 2. 9. and when James Cephas & John who seemed to be pillars percieved the grace that was given unto me &c--

¶ St John seems to have had two particular designs in writing his gospel viz the confuting certain hereticks, and supplying the defects of the history of X in the other gospels Irenæus tells us "That the evangelist design'd by his gospel to confute the errours which Cerinthus & the Nicolaitans had infused into the people who imagined that there was one God who was the Creatour and another who was the Father of our Lord Jesus one who was the son of the Creatour, and another who was the X, who continued impassible and descended upon Jesus the Son of the Creatour" Epiphanius says John's Gospel was written against Cerinthus. Jerome is most particular & informs us "That when St John was in Asia where then arose the heresies of Ebion & Cerinthus, & others who denied that X was come in the flesh, i.e denied his divine nature, whom he in his Epistle calls AntiXs, and St Paul frequently condemns in his epistles, he was forced by almost all the bps <bishops [c]> of Asia, & the deputations of many other churches, to write more plainly concerning the divinity of our Saviour" Whence we are told in Ecclesiastical History, that when he was sollicited by the brethren to write, he answer'd he would not do it unless a publick day of fasting & prayer was appointed to implore Gods assistance, which being done and the solemnity being honoured with a satisfactory revelation from God he brake forth in these words In the beginning was the word, & the word was God &c-- To the same purpose Austin saith this evangelist wrote concerning the coeternal divinity of X against the hereticks. Epiphanius says he wrote his gospel against Ebion Cerinthus Marcion &c-- Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius Jerome &c-- testify that he wrote his gospel to supply the defects of the other gospels.

¶ As to the ACTS OF THE APOSTLES St Luke was the penman of the book so called, as is apparent from the constant testimony of <all> antiquity the matter being never once question'd by any of the Catholic Chh. Irenæus hath in several places ascribed this history to St Luke as its author citing history [xo c] Acts 8. 9. he introduces it thus Luke the disciple and follower of the apostles says thus a certain man named Simon ---- in another place citing Act. 15. 39. &c-- he saith Luke was the inseparable companion, & fellow labourer of Paul & wrote thus viz concerning the contention of Paul & Barnabas & then proceeds largely to prove that St Luke was the constant companion of St Paul, because in the Acts chap. 16. 10,11,12,16,17, & chap. 20 & 21 & 27 he speaks in the first person plural The same he proves from several places viz. 2 Tim. 4. 11. & Colos. 4. 14. & concludes from the whole Lukes fitness for writing a just & true history. In another place he shews that St Lukes Acts of the Apostles ought to be equally reciev'd with his Gospel; for that in them he has carefully delivered to us the truth, & given us a sure rule for salvation &c--. Again Lib. 3. C. 13. he observes that St Pauls account Gal. 2. 1. of the time when he went to Jerusalem exactly agrees with Lukes account in the Acts. Lastly this father citing part of Stephens speech Act. 7. introduces it thus so Luke writes &c-- /p./

¶ Clemens Alexandrinus citing Pauls speech at Athens Act. 17. 22. introduces it thus so Luke in the Acts of the Apostles relates that Paul said &c-- The author of the Hypotyposes under the name of Clemens Alexandrinus speaks of the likeness there is between the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews & the Acts of the Apostles & would from thence argue that Luke translated the Hebrews out of Hebrew into Greek by which 'tis manifest that it was then a think <g [c]> unquestion'd that Luke was the writer of the Acts. Tertullian cites several places out of the Acts of the Apostles which he calls the commentary of Luke. Origen ascribes the Acts of the Apostles to Luke. Eusebius saith Luke hath left us two inspired volumes viz. the Gospel & the Acts. Jerome also expressly asserts the Acts to be the composure of Luke. And several antient manuscript Greek copies have the name of St Luke prefix'd to the history as also hath the old Syriack version

¶ The Acts of the Apostles contains the history of the infant state of the Xtian church for the space of about twenty eight years. he [c. overwrites “Luke”] Hence we may [xo E] begins <t [c]>his history where his Gospel left off, & ends it with the relation of Pauls being brought to Rome and his abode there for the space of two years. Hence we may see near to what time this history of the Acts was written viz either in the year of X 62 or not long after It being altogether probable that St Luke would not defer his writing long after his departure from St Paul which seems to have been now when he was set at liberty from his confinement at Rome. [& 'tis probable that Luke would continue his history to the time wherein he wrote.]<E's brack.> 'Tis probable that Luke continued at Rome after St Paul was set at liberty & went from thence & that there he wrote his gospel & the Acts for they seem to be as it were one work one of them is to be looked upon as the second part or a continuation of the other. The Acts of the Apostles seems very early to have been translated out of Greek into Hebrew This Epiphanius tells us he had by information from several Jews & afterwards that one Josephus found a copy of the Acts in Hebrew in the Jewish archives at Tiberias

¶ The Acts of the Apostles are of canonical authority because 'tis found in all the catalogues of sacred books which we have in the writings of the primitive Xtians & is in the Syriack version, & was read as SS in the churches or assemblies of Xtians of the first ages. and is cited and appealed to as SS. in the writings of the primitive Xtians. Clemens Romanus cites the words which are Act. 20. 35. He certainly made use of and appears to have read Act. 13. 22. for whereas Paul in that place manifestly cites Ps. 89. 20. and makes an addition or paraphrase in the citation inserting these words which are not in the Psalm Clemens citing the same Psalm, has inserted Pauls addition, which is neither in the original Hebrew nor in any copies of the Septuagint nor any various reading like it to be found Polycarp in his Epist. to the Philip. cites those words of Peters speech which are recorded Act. 2. 24. Justin Martyr cites Act. 7. 22. viz. that Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians & <as [xo c]> Justin could not gather this out of the book of Exodus In the book under Justins name undoubtedly antient the Acts are often referr'd to. There are cited Act. 1. 7. & 7. 22. & 4. 18. & the whole of the 10 chap. of Acts. & Act. 9. 15. & Act 23. 3. and many other places. Irenæus has made 30 citations out of the Acts of the Apostles & several times calls this book Scripture, & in citing the Acts he names Luke as the author & calls him a disciple and companion of the Apostles. & particularly argues for the credit of St Luke & this book that he had written, in one place & in another /p./ place citing some part of the history of the Acts <,he [c]> spends a whole chapter in asserting the credit of St Luke & the usefullness of his writings & makes many large citations out of the history of the Acts Clemens Alexandrinus seven times cites the Acts of the Apostles Sometimes St Luke is cited by name as the author of this book & <Clemens [c]> makes large citations out of this history. Tertullian makes numerous appeals to and citations from these Acts it would be tedious to collect them all --- This father cites it under the express name of SS. "which part of the SS. (says he) they that don't recieve must deny the descent of the Holy Ghost, and be ignorant of the infant state of the Xtian church" In like manner he calls it Scripture in another place disputes against the Marcionites and condemns them for rejecting the Acts proving their truth & genuineness by the testimonies of St Paul in his epistles and in another place expressly calls it the composure of Luke. --- The later fathers cite them continually as the only authentick history they had of the primitive state of the church.

¶ [<E's; om.MO.> 'Tis a great evidence, that there was some book of Acts that was very early universally known & esteemed of great value and authority in the Xtian church, & accounted a sacred book, that there was such a multitude of spurious books forged & published under the same name of The Acts. Nothing that had not great repute would have set so many to work to counterfeit it & make 'em so fond of paralleling their spurious pieces with that book that was originally recieved & many of them bearing the very same name of the Acts of the Apostles. Mr Jones mentions the following spurious books of acts in the primitive times of the church. viz. mentiond by writers of the 2d century The Acts of Paul & Thecla By writers of the 3d century The Acts of Paul & the Acts of Peter & by writers of the 4. century The Acts of Andrew The Acts of John The Acts of Thomas The Acts of the Apostles by Leuthon or Seleucus The Acts of the Apostles by the Ebionites The Acts of Lentius The Acts of Lentitius The Acts of Leontius The acts of the Apostles made use of by the Manichees The Acts of Philip.]<E's>

¶ p. 13. [<E's> Mr Jones mentions the following spurious gospels now not extant mentiond by the writers of the primitive chh: By the writers of the 2d century the Gospel of Judas Iscariot The Gospel of Truth The Gospel of the Egyptians The Gospel of Valentinus The Gospel of Marcion. By writers of the 3d century, The Gospel of the 12 Apostles The Gospel of Basilides the Gospel of Thomas The Gospel of Matthias The 4th century The Gospel of Scythianus The Gospel of Bartholemew The Gospel of Appelles The Gospel of Lucianus The Gospel of Hesychius The Gospel of Perfection The Gospel of Eve The Gospel of Philip The Gospel of the Ebionites The Gospel of Jude The Gospel of Encratites The Gospel of Corinthus The Gospel of Merinthus The Gospel of Thaddeus The Gospel of Barnabas The Gospel of Andrew . & some he mentions besides, that are now extant as the Gospel of our Saviours Infancy The Gospel of Nicodemus.].<E's> /p./

_________________________________________________________________

¶ See at the bottom of p. 16.]<E's> The evangelist Luke seems to be spoken of by the Apostle Paul as a man of extraordinary note in the Xtian church in general as a person of great integrity & faithfullness and as therefore a fit person to be chosen [xo c] above any other to be joined with the Apostle in having [xo c] <the care & disposal of [c]> so great a summ as the collection made in Macedonia & Greece for the saints at Jerusalem be committed [xo c] [to them (om.E)] as a most effectual means for the avoiding all suspicion of dishonesty in the managemt. of so great a trust. 2. Cor. 8. 18.19.20. And we have sent with him the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches (and not that only but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord and declaration of your ready mind) avoiding this that no man should blame us in this abundance (i.e this large summ) which is administred by us. Mr Locke says in his notes on this passage "This brother most take to be St Luke who now was & had been a long while St Paul's companion in his travels" <This to be inserted p. 16. [c]>

____________________________________________________________________

¶ Julian openly confesses that the<o>se were Peters, Pauls, Mathews, Marks & Lukes writings which were read by the Xtians under those names. Grotius De Verit. B. 3. Sect. 2.

______________________________________________________________

¶ Concerning the authority of the second Epistle of Peter, see Sherlocks Use & Intent of Prophecy Dissertation I. p. 175 &c--[finis] [The Grotius ref. prob. made not much later; same ink; that of Sherlock ref. is slightly different]

_____________________

¶ [Pinned at bottom of p. 21 w. one of JE's pins, is a little rectangular piece of paper 2 3/8 x 3 3/8 inches. One corner was torn off when JE used it. The text of the two sides:]

¶ <One side:> Besides an agreemt now in all Xtians of all countreys denominations & sects through the world now could come from nothing else but a general agreemt in the first ages

_____________________

¶ There is less apparent difference of sects & opinions in this than any thing. Which there would not be if they were not far from having any foundation.

________________

¶ The agreement in so many antient copies & versions is another proof.

________________________________________________________________

¶ <Other side:> Concerning the antiquity of Clemens Epistle & Shepherd of Hermas Part 1. p. 84.85. [rest is upside down.]

_____________

¶ 1742. 31 [in corner; date may not be E's; "31" in heavier ink.] Tis a great argument that St Marks Gosp. was written honestly & that it was no knavish forgery that tis so much like Matthews Gosp. For what could induce a knave to go about to forge a Gosp. very little diff. having scarce any thing remarkeable in it that was not in one before.

_______

if he was an knave impostour he must a cheat he must [sic; finis]

¶ [This number shows E's interest in apologetics, but also his genuine interest in kn. on this subject. Cp. with Jones; this number probably shows up JE well as a writer of precise & summary. Also, the effect (or lack of effect) models had on his spelling and punct. (Jr's tinkering is unfortunate here.) Also he reaction to the material he read, and the a priori character of the arguments he adduces.

 

¶ It also illustrates his preparation of materials; the excerpts from the Bp. of London may have been done, probably were done seperately, then incorp. here. Also the little piece at the end is important as confirming my theories of the pinholes and other evidence that JE worked up ideas on little scraps & then wrote them up later in the Misc. Both sides of this slip concern the prob. of canon; one side is marked out vertically and is written up in the number. But the other side advances a more general argument that JE had not yet written up; so space is left, and this piece is left pinned in place until he gets around to it or has a better place for it. These volumes must have had several such pieces pinned here & there at various times.]

<TAS Notes: The piece of paper was prob. orig. part of a letter. The date may not be in JE's hand. It had been crumpled up at one time. The "31" may indicate its use as a page of a notebook, or more likely that JE numbered these little slips to keep order -The number however, is rather high.