or had the apoftolic illumination; fo we are informed, that, when the three former gofpels [viz. thofe of Matthew, Mark, and Luke] were become very public, St. John, another "infpired apoftle, faw, "and approved them, and confirmed the truth of them by his own "teftimony." [Eufeb. H. E. 1. III. c. 24.] And Jerome [de vir. Illuftr. p. 102.] faith, to the fame purpose, "Quod cum legiffet "(fcil. Johannes) Matthæi, Marci, & Lucæ volumina, probaverit cr quidem textum hiftoriæ, & vera eos dixiffe firmaverit."-" When he [John] had read the volumes of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, "he approved of the hiftory, and confirmed the truth of what they "had faid." Two, therefore, of the gofpels were written by apoft les themfelves; and the other two, by their companions; but revised by two or three apoftles; and recommended to the churches, by their authority; or, as Tertullian [L. IV. c. 2, & 5. contra Marcion.] faith of Mark and Luke, that they writ, or publifhed, their gofpels, "non foli, fed cum apoftolis," "not alone, but with the apostles."

But it may be inquired, "How, then, muft we account for the "infpiration of the Acts of the Apoftles? For that book was writ"ten by St. Luke, as well as the gospel that goeth under his name; "and he was not an apoftle, but an evangelift only ?"

To which I anfwer, that, allowing the quotation from Origen to be nothing to our purpofe (though it will be allowed me, that by the gofpel, is fometimes meant the whole New Testament), the other teftimonies, produced from the ancients, may be very juftly thought to include the Acts of the Apoftles, as well as the Gospel. And, indeed, it appeareth probable that St. Luke wrote them both in one book, and only divided it into two parts; as we commonly do, with hiftories and other fingle volumes. [Vid. Millii prolegom. 112. 121.]

The tranfition, Acts i. 1. agreeth with this account. For the Acts are durig óy, "the fecond part of his book, or treatife;" of which he calleth his gofpel, rèv püter néyor," the firft part," Acts i. 1. The latter is infcribed to Theophilus, as well as the former. And (which is very remarkable) there is not the author's name prefixed to the Acts of the Apoftles, as there is to St. Luke's gofpel (and yet the author, of the Acts is not difputed, as the author of the epiftle to the Hebrews hath been; because he hath not prefixed his name): for, when they were one continued book, and St. Luke's name prefixed at the beginning, there was no occasion to repeat it before the fecond part of his book.

We have, indeed, feparated St. Luke's Gospel, and the Acts, by putting St. John's gofpel between them. But the reafon of that is, that we may have the four gofpels placed together. And St. John's is put the laft, as having been written long after the other three.

To this account do alfo agree the teftimonies, cited above, from Irenæus, Tertullian, and Jerome. For they do not call it his gofpel: but "those things, which he [Luke] had learned from the apoffles, "-and particularly from Paul, he hath fet down in a book:" [it is not faid, in his gopel]. And Tertullian calleth that book,

"his digeit." All which expreffions may include the Acts of the apoftles, as well as St. Luke's gofpel. Nay; they must include the Acts; if the expreffions are taken in their full latitude. For he learned feveral things, fet down in the Acts, from the apoftles; fuch as our Lord's afcenfion, the pouring down of the Holy Spirit, &c. and, particularly, the doctrine, which St. Paul preached to the idolatrous Gentiles, he learned from that apoftle himself; whofe convert (as well as companion) I apprehend St. Luke to have been. And,

Which is an argument of ftill greater weight, the time of the publishing the Gospel and the Acts rendereth it highly probable, "that St. Luke published them both in one book." For the Acts could not be finished till about the year of our Lord 63, of Nero 9, because the hiftory reacheth down as low as that. And that is about the time, when the Gospel according to St. Luke is reckoned to have been published, as well as the Acts of the apofties. [See Millii prolegom. 112. 121. Mr. Jones's Canon, &c. vol. III. p. 114, 115, and 158.]

It has, indeed, been thought that they were written after St. Paul's and St. Luke's departure from Rome: but there is no reafon to fuppofe that. No; from the books themselves, the contrary is more probable. For the hiftory of the Acts concludeth with St. Paul's preaching at Rome, two years, in his own hired house; but faith nothing of his departure from thence. The apoftle, therefore, might, after that, tarry at Rome, long enough to revife what of St Luke's hiftory he had not revited before. And, perhaps, all, but the two laft verfes in the Acts, was written and revifed, long before he left his own hired house there. For the preceding verfes bring the hiftory down only to St. Paul's first coming to Rome.

And, if St. Luke's hiftory was finished before St Paul left Rome, it is eafy and reafonable to fuppofe, that there the apoftle faw it, and approved of it; that, thereupon, the churches received it, as authentic and canonical fcripture; and that the Fathers ufed, and quoted, it as fuch, whether they mentioned it as one book, or two; that, hence, they fometimes afcribed it to St. Paul himfelf, as it was what he had taught, and approved of. Nay; and, if St. Luke publifhed his Gofpel and the Acts both in one volume (which feems not altogether improbable), then we may reasonably conclude, that St. John revifed the Acts alfo, and confirmed that hiftory by his authority, when he revifed and confirmed the three gofpels. I lay no great ftrefs upon Jerome's calling what St. John revifed [Lucæ volumen, Luke's volume), and not his gofpel; but upon the reasonablencis and probability of the thing itself.

And, as St. Luke's writings refted upon the authority of one or two of the apoftles, Eufebius fpeaketh very juftly; when he (alluding to St. Luke's being a phyfician) faith [H. E. 1. III. c. 4.], "That Luke was intimately acquainted with the apoftles, and

hath

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

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

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

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

For,

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

Philem

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

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

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

Corollary I. As the apofties had the whole fcheme of the Chriftian doctrine, by revelation, from cur Lord Jefus Chrift; and completed that scheme, which was begun by the ancient prophets :-how very justly are we faid to have been "built upon the foundation of the "apoftles and prophets, Jefus Chrift himself being the chief corner

ftone?" [Eph, ii. 20.] And how beautiful and juft was the vifion, that was feen by St. John, one of the apoftles of the circumcifion, [Rev. xxi. 14.] which reprefented the foundations of the wall of the new Jerufalem as twelve; on which were infcribed the names of the twelve apostles of the lamb ?

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

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

When

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

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

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

Corol. IV. By this account of infpiration, we take away the very ground and foundation of one of the strongest objections of the antirevelationists; who allege," that Chriftians have afcribed that to "infpiration which any man might fay, or do, as well without "it; and that we reflect upon the divine wisdom, when we have "recourse to fupernatural power, where there is no occafion for "it. It is the beauty of providence, that it doth not interpofe but in extraordinay cafes. And why, then, fhould recourfe be had "to infpiration, where infpiration is unneceffary?

"Nec Deus interfit, nifi, &c."

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

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

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

written,