A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

SECT. VI.

Of the Canon of the Books of the New Testament, and particularly of those Books that were formerly doubted of.

THE first Canon of the Holy Books of the New Testament was not composed by any As∣sembly, or by any one Person in particular, but by the Unanimous Consent of all the Churches, that were agreed upon the Authority of certain Books, and considered them as Sacred and Divine. 'Twas this Consent of all the Churches, that in the Primitive Times served for a Rule to distinguish the Canonical Books from those that were Doubtful and Suppositi∣tious. 'Tis in pursuance of this Rule that Eusebius, who is the first Man that made an exact En∣quiry into these Matters, distinguishes three sorts of Books that belong in some manner to the New Testament. The first Class comprehends those, that have been always received by the Una∣nimous Agreement of all Churches, such as the four Gospels, the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, if we except that of the Hebrews, (which some Authors did not number amongst the rest, because they supposed it was not St. Paul's,) and the first Epistles of St. Peter and St. John. The second Class comprehends those, that having not been received by the whole Catholick Church, yet nevertheless were looked upon by some as Canonical Books, and cited as Books of Scripture by Ecclesiastical Authors. But this Class does yet branch it self into two Divisions, for some of these Books have been since received by all the Churches, and acknowledged for Genuine, such as the Epistle of St. James, the Epistle of St. Jude, the second Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third Epistle of St. John: The other on the contrary have been universally rejected, either as Spurious, or unworthy to be placed in the number of Canonical Books, though they might otherwise be useful enough, such as the Book of the Pastor, the Epistle of St. Barnabas, the Gospel according to the Aegypti∣ans, another according to the Hebrews, the Acts of St. Paul, the Revelation of St. Peter. In short, the last Class contains those Books that were devised by the Hereticks, and were always disowned by the Church, such as the Gospels of St. Thomas and of St. Peter, &c. As for what concerns the Apo∣calypse, of which we have not as yet discoursed, Eusebius observes, that some Persons place it in the first Class, that is to say, in the number of those Books that are unquestionably Canonical, and that others reckon it amongst the Books of the second Class.

This observation of Eusebius, which is confirmed by the Testimonies of the Ancients, whom he cites in several places of his History, shews, that the Canon of the Books of the New Testament was almost the very same in all Times: For although there were some of the Epistles of the Apo∣stles, that at first were not received by an Unanimous Consent of all Churches, yet they were always considered as Books of great Authority, and soon after they received the same Authority with the rest. This is confirmed by the ancient Catalogues of the Holy Books of the New Testament, where the Books, which we receive at present, are comprised: You will find all of them, except the Re∣velation, in the Canon of the Council of Laodicea, which St. Cyril of Jerusalem follows. They are all received by St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, St. Gregory Nazianzen, by Amphilochius, the Council of Carthage, the Council at Rome, by Pope Innocent, and all the other Greek and Latin Authors since Eusebius. They are all cited as Holy Books by those Authors that lived nearest the time of the Apostles. In short, 'tis beyond Controversie, as we have already demonstrated above, that these Books were written by those Persons, whose Names they bear: The Epistles themselves that were formerly questioned, contain nothing disagreeable to the Faith and Doctrine contained in the other Books, that have been received and acknowledged by all the Churches from the beginning.

The Epistle to the Hebrews has been received as Canonical, with the Consent of almost all Churches. They were only a few Latines that question'd its Authority, because they did not believe it to be written by St. Paul: But although it was not composed by him, which is not probable, as we have already shewn, yet it ought nevertheless to pass for Canonical, it being a constantly re∣ceived Tradition, that it was written by one of his Disciples, and that it was owned by almost all the Chuches of the World, as soon as it appeared in publick. It is cited by Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians, by Clemens Alexandrinus, by Tertullian and Origen, by St. Cyprian, and all those that came after, as a Writing undoubtedly Canonical. We cannot find out the particular Author, that questioned the Epistle of St. James as doubtful; it is cited by all the Ancients, and placed in the number of Canonical Books in all the Catalogues that we have. The same Observa∣tion may be made upon the second Epistle of St. Peter, which was certainly written by that Author,

as we have elsewhere shewn. It is cited by St. Austin, by Origen, and by many other ancient Wri∣ters. The Epistle of St. Jude was rejected by some, not because they had any lawful Grounds to doubt that St. Jude was the Author of it, but only because there is a Citation out of the Book of Enoch to be found there: And yet notwithstanding that, it was set down in the ancient Cata∣logues of the Books of the New Testament, and it has been cited by Tertullian, by Clemens Alexan∣drinus, by Origen, by St. Cyprian, by St. Gregory Nazianzen, and by several other Authors. St. Je∣rome tells us, that although several rejected it, by reason of the Citation out of the Book of Enoch; yet it was received in his time, because it was ancient, and approved by the usage of the Church, Autoritatem, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 meruit. The two last Epistles of St. John being very short, and containing nothing that is disagreeable to what we find in the first, cannot occasion any difficulty. They are written without question by the Author of the first, as may plainly be proved by the likeness of Style: The second is cited by St. Ire•…•… in his first Book, ch. 12. and in the third Book, chap. 18. by Tertullian, by Origen, by St. Dianysius of Alexandria, and by many others. In a word, they are both of them reckoned in the number of Canonical Books in all the ancient Catalogues of the Volumns of the New Testament.

Nothing more remains for me to discourse of but the Apocalypse, which some of the Ancients, ac∣cording to the Testimony of Eusebius, placed in the rank of indubitable Books, others in the num∣ber of doubtful Books, or rather spurious. It was rejected by Caius an ancient Priest of Rome, who attributed it to the Heretick Cerinthus, as Eusebius testifies in the third Book of his History, chap. 28. On the contrary, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Origen, St. Cyprian, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian, cite it in abundance of places, and attribute it to St. John the Evangelist. St. Dionysius of Alexandria observes, that several Persons before him disowned and confuted the Apocalypse as a Book full of Fi∣ctions and Falsities, but that many others approved of it; that as for himself he durst not presume to reject it, that he believed it had a hidden meaning, but that he was fully persuaded it was not written by St. John, as he endeavours to prove by several Reasons. St. Jerome tells us in his 129th Epistle, that in his time the greater part of the Greek Churches did not receive this Book, no more than the Latins did the Epistle to the Hebrews, but that he received both the one and the other, not minding the Custom of his own Time, but the Authority of the Ancients. Amphilochius also ob∣serves, that in his time some received it, but that there were great numbers that rejected it, and in∣deed it is not to be found, as we have already taken notice in the Catalogue of the Council of Lao∣dicea, nor in that of St. Cyril. But it has been since acknowledged by the Greek and Latin Churches, and cited by St. Epiphanius, by St. Chrysostom, by St. Ambrose, by St. Hilary, by St. Jerome, by St. Au∣stin, and by all those that have written since. It was reckoned amongst the Canonical Books by the Council of Carthage, by the Roman Council under Gelasius, and by Pope Innocent. The fourth Council of Toledo held in the year 633, in the sixteenth Canon has determined, That it was written by St. John, and that it ought to be placed in the number of the Holy Books. And the Council of Trent, by whose Decisions we ought to be determined, reckons it amongst the Canonical Books of the New Testament.

We ought here to discourse a little concerning the Apocryphal Books of the New Testament, that were forged either by the Catholicks or Hereticks. But these not being of the number of Canoni∣cal Books, ought to be ranged amongst the Books of the Ecclesiastical Writers: Wherefore we will now begin our Library of Ecclesiastical Authors with them.