Apostles, different from what was seen in the Apostolical writings. And to this purpose Irenæus* and Tertullian, make very good use of the tradition of the Apostolical Churches, against the pretenders to such a tradition, which those Churches were not acquainted with.

But they agree, that the Apostles committed the same doctrine to writing which they preached, and that it might be a foundation and pillar of faith; that this doctrine was contained in the four Gospels; and that the Apostolical Churches did receive them from those who first wrote them, and that within the compass of the Apostolical age.

It was therefore most agreeable in the infinite wisdom of God, in providing for a constant establishment of the faith of his Church in all ages, neither to permit the Gospels to be written till the Churches were planted, nor to be put off to another generation. For, then it would have been plausibly objected: "if these things are true, why were they not recorded, when there were persons living, who were best able to have either proved or confuted them? Then we might have been satisfied one way or other; but now the Jews are dead, and the Apostles are dead; and although there are many left who believe their doctrine, yet this can never reach to the testimony of those who saw and heard the things themselves, or whose doctrine was attested by those who did so." And this is now the mighty advantage of the Church, ever since that the things concerning Christ were written by such persons. With what another kind of authority do those words command our assent,↑ "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life: for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us; that which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you;" than if all the testimony concerning Christ were to be resolved into those who heard some say that others told them, they had it from such who saw those who conversed with them who saw Christ in the flesh? At such a distance the authority of a testimony is extremely lessened; which is not like a river which grows greater by running; but like a mineral water,

* Iren. 1. 3. c. 3, 4. [ut supra, p. 175, &c.] Tertul. de Præscript. Hær. † 1 John i. 1, 2, 3.

[p. 213. Par. 1695.]

which loses its strength by being carried too far. We find in the time of Papias, who lived but in the second century, the authority of bare tradition was mightily sunk; for Eusebius saith, * "he conversed with the disciples of our Lord and his Apostles." He saith of himself, "that he went up and down to them, to get what he could from them, having a greater esteem of what he could learn from them, than of what was written." And what advantage did this bring to the Church? "It brought some idle opinions into reputation," saith Eusebius, for afterwards they thought it enough to fix them upon Papias. But how was it possible for him to mistake? Eusebius saith, "that being a man of mean capacity, he might easily misunderstand the meaning of what was spoken." But if tradition might fail after such a manner, so near the Apostles' times, then we must be assured of the capacity as well as integrity of those of every age, through whom a tradition passed, or else they might deceive, or be deceived about it.

But God was pleased to provide better for the security of our faith, by causing the Gospels to be written, either by the Apostles themselves, as St. Matthew and St. John, or by the disciples of the chief Apostles, while the others were surviving, as St. Mark and St. Luke; and the latter gives this account of his undertaking to write it, viz. "that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed."† His instruction was by an oral tradition; but that, it seems, wanted something to strengthen and confirm it; and that was by St. Luke's writing his Gospel. How could they add any assurance to him, if all the ground of his certainty were to be taken from tradition? St. Luke thought it necessary then, that those things which concerned the life and doctrine of Christ should be put into writing, that they might be more certainly conveyed; and that while they had the testimony of those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word.

2. And so I come to the second rule of discerning the primitive doctrine of Christ, viz. the writings of the Apostles, when matters of doctrine came to be contested, were the infallible rule, whereby they were to judge, which was the true and genuine doctrine of Christ.

There are some who pretend, that the Apostles' writings were merely accidental and occasional things, but that the main design was to lodge the great assurance of the doctrine of Christ, in tradition from one to another; and what they wrote was not to make any rule of faith, but only to give some good advice to those Churches they wrote to.

But I shall now prove, that the writings of the Apostles were intended by the Holy Ghost to be a standing rule, whereby the Church was to judge which was the true and genuine doctrine of Christ.

1. From the reasons and occasions of writing the books of the New Testament.

1. As to the Gospels, we must distinguish the general reason of writing them, from the particular occasions as to the several Gospels. The general reason is to be drawn from the Divine wisdom which inspired and guided them; the particular occasions relate to the circumstances of writing them.

The general reason is that which Irenæus* gives, viz. "That the Gospel which they had first preached, was by the will of God put into writing, that it might be a foundation and pillar of our faith." Not merely to keep up the remembrance of it, which Feuardentius yields, and thereby overthrows the infallibility of oral tradition; but that so it may be a certain rule of faith to all ages. "The Evangelists," saith St. Augustin,† "were but Christ's hands, which himself, as the head, directed in writing the Gospels, and therefore we are to look on the Gospels as his own handwriting. The Holy Ghost," saith he, "directed the minds of the Evangelists, as to the order and manner of their writings." Which varied according to the particular occasions, but yet were all subservient to the general reason.

"St. Matthew wrote the first Gospel," saith Eusebius,‡ "to the Jews, to whom he had preached, because going into other parts, he would supply the want of his presence among them by his writing." What need this, if tradition were a certain and infallible way of conveying the doctrine of Christ? St. Chrysostoms saith, "the Jewish Christians desired him to put into writing, what they had heard him preach." Did not they understand the force of tradition better? Or why should St. Matthew put them out of an infallible way? The author of

* Iren. 1. 3. c. 1. [ut supra, p. 173.]

† Aug. de Consens. Evang. 1. 1. c. 54. [vol. 3. par. 2. p. 26. Par.

1680.] 1. 2. c. 53. [Ibid. p. 54.]

‡ Euseb. Hist. 1. 3. c. 24. [ut supra, p. 95.]

§ Chrys. Hom. 1. in Matth. [vol. 7. p. 7. Par. 1727.]

the imperfect work on St. Matthew, saith,* "they desired him to write his Gospel, that wherever they went, they might carry an account of their faith with them." Clemens Alexandrinus saith, "The occasion of writing St. Mark's Gospel was, that the people were not satisfied with an unwritten delivery of the holy doctrine, and therefore importuned Mark, who was the disciple of St. Peter, that he would leave a monument of his doctrine in writing; which St. Peter understanding by revelation, approved and confirmed his Gospel for the use of the Churches." Origen saith,† "he wrote it according to St. Peter's directions." Epiphanius saith, "by his authority." Athanasius saith, "it was dictated by him at Rome."

It seems, that Peter himself did not think fit to leave the doctrine of Christ to an oral tradition, even at Rome, but Irenæus thinks it was written after St. Peter's decease, who therein differs from the rest, and shews how uncertain mere tradition is. Tertulliant saith, "St. Mark's Gospel was attributed to St. Peter, and St. Luke's to St. Paul." St. Jerome mentions the opinion of some, that when St. Paul saith, "according to my Gospel," he means that of St. Luke.

But St. Luke himself plainly gives an account of the occasion of his writing. St. Ambroses thinks, by those who had taken in hand to write of those things which were firmly believed among us, he means the authors of the counterfeit Gospels, as that of the Twelve Apostles and St. Matthias. But we have no evidence that these were older than St. Luke; his meaning is, that in those parts where he was, there were some who did undertake to give an account of the life and actions of Christ, who wanted the advantages which he had; having had great opportunities of knowing circumstances from the eye-witnesses, and therefore he set himself to give an exact relation of them, || that not only Theophilus, but every one that answers his name, "might know the certainty of the things wherein they had been instructed." But, did not they

* Opus Imperfect. in Mat. in Prologo. Euseb. 1. 2. c. 15. [Ibid. p. 53.] † Euseb. 1. 6. c. 25. [Ibid. p. 226.] Epiphan. Hær. 51. [vol. 1. p. 428. Colon. 1682.] Athanas. in Synopsi. p. 155.

‡ Tertul. c. Marc. 1. 4. c. 5. [ut supra, p. 416.] Hieron, de Script.

Eccles. [vol. 7. p. 827. Veron. 1725.]

§ Ambros. in Luc. i. 1. [vol. 1. p. 1265. Par. 1686.]

|| Epiph. Hær. 51. [ut supra, p. 429.]

know the certainty of these things by the Apostles' preaching? Yes, but the things they heard might slip out of their memories; "and to prevent this," saith Theophylact, * "St. Luke wrote his Gospel, that they might retain these things with greater certainty." And words that are only spoken are more easily misunderstood; which Maldonat assigns, is one great reason of the Evangelists writing their several Gospels.

St. John likewise gives an account himself of the reason of his writing; and that the greatest imaginable. "But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, ye might have life through his name." Why "written that ye might believe?" Did the Apostle, in his old age, mistrust the understandings, or the memories of Christians? Was not the Apostle's teaching sufficient to keep up the principles of the Christian faith in the hearts of the people; no, not while St. John himself was yet living? He had certainly a very mean opinion of tradition, that thought it necessary for him to write, that they might believe that "Jesus is the Son of God." For there was no point of faith more necessary than this, which was required of all persons to be owned before baptism.

Yet for all this, and whatever else can be said, St. John thought it necessary "that these things be written, that they might believe."

He lived the longest of any of the Apostles, and therefore saw how little tradition was to be trusted; for it was already corrupted in so weighty a point as the Divinity of Christ.

Cerinthus and his followers allowed the general tradition of the Church, that "Jesus was the Son of God;" but then they gave their own sense of it, by extraordinary favour and adoption. And from hence the Fathersş agree, that St. John took occasion to write his divine Gospel, to clear this fundamental point of the Christian faith.

And withal, observing that the other Evangelists insisted chiefly on the actions of Christ for one year, viz. after John's imprisonment; he resumes the whole matter, and adds those things which were omitted by the rest; that so the Church

* Theophyl. in Luc. [vol. 1. p. 270. Ven. 1754.]

† Maldonat. Com. in Evang. prol.

‡ John xx. 31.

§ Hieron. Proœm. in Matth. [Ibid. vol. 7. p. 3.] De Script. Eccles. [Ibid. vol. 7. p. 830.] Epiph. Hær. 51. [ut supra, p. 441.] Chrysost.

Hom. I. in Matth. [Ibid. p. 6.] Euseb. 1. 3. c. 24. [Ibid. p. 95.]