natural enough to reckon the book, which contained the history of their own actions, last of all. Surely it is trifling to form an argument from that position in this canon. And Mr. Wetstein might have observed, that in many catalogues, undoubtedly ancient, the Acts immediately follow the gospels: and that, not only in those catalogues where St. Paul's epistles have the precedence before the catholic epistles, but in divers others likewise, where the catholic epistles precede.

III. Having made these general observations, I now propose to consider distinctly the order of these several parts of the New Testament: the gospels, the Acts, St. Paul's epistles, the catholic epistles, and the Revelation.

h

d

k

1. The order of the four gospels has generally been this, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. This is their order in Irenæus,Origen, Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, and in his ten Canons, as represented in his letter to Carpian, Athanasius, the council of Laodicea, ' Epiphanius, the 85th apostolical Canon, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, the Syrian catalogue, Jerom, Rufin, Augustine, the Alexandrian manuscript, the Stichometry of Nicephorus, * Cosmas of Alexandria, ' Junilius, an African bishop, 'Isidore of Seville, Leontius of Constantinople. And in like manner in all authors and catalogues in general, distinctly taken notice of in the several volumes of this work.

m

Nevertheless in considering the Testimony of Tertullian, we thought we saw reason to appre hend, that in his time, in the African churches at least, the gospels were disposed according to the quality of the writers: in the first place those two, which were written by apostles, then the other two, written by apostolical men. This was inferred from some expressions in his works. But perhaps the argument is not conclusive. However the four gospels are in the same order insome Latin manuscripts, still in being, and also in the Cambridge manuscript, which is Greek and Latin: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. But by Mr. Wetstein, we are assured, that " it is the only Greek manuscript in which the evangelists are so disposed. For certain the other order must have generally prevailed.

2. Concerning the Acts the question is, in which part of the New Testament it was generally placed by the ancients: whether in the evangelicon, or the apostolicon. And undoubtedly, by these who mention it after St. Paul's epistles, or after all the epistles of the apostles, it was placed in the latter part. But, as we have seen, it is often mentioned by ancient writers next after the four gospels. Was it then reckoned a part of the evangelicon, or of the apostolicon? From some passages of Tertullian it was formerly argued by us, that the book of the Acts was placed in the second part of the New Testament, and at the beginning of it. I would now add, that I think the same may be argued from Irenæus, who "having alleged passages from the four gospels, proceeds to the Acts, and considers what he allegeth thence as the doctrine, particularly of the apostles. And Mill supposeth, that dd in the most ancient times the Acts were placed with the epistles, but before them, as the first book of that part. However it is observable, that the Cambridge manuscript has the Acts of the apostles, though it has not the epistles. But then Mill says, that volume once had the epistles, as well as the gospels. And therefore, probably, the book of the Acts stood at the head of that part which contained the epistles. And for certain, I think it best that the historical books of the New Testament should appear together. Accordingly, as we have seen, the Acts do in many ancient catalogues immediately follow the gospels. And I wish that Mr. Wetstein had followed that order, which now prevails, and that

a Vol. i. p. 365.

ee

Vol. ii. p. 368, 369.

e P. 415.

* P. 440.

i P. 473.

1 Vol. ii. p. 548, 549, 550, 551.

n.P. 578.

P P. 48.

r.P. 58.

t P. 77.

m P. 573.

• This Vol. p. 45.

4 P. 51, 52.

$ P. 75.

"See Vol. i. p. 433.

Denique nobis fidem ex Apostolis Joannes et Matthæus insinuant; ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant, iisdem regulis exorsi. Adv. Marcion. 1. 4. cap. 2. p. 503. A. Vid. et ibid. cap. 5. p. 505. C. D.

y Vid. Joseph Blanchini Evangeliarium Quadruplex Latinæ Versionis Antiquæ. z Vid. Mill. Prolegom. num. 1269.

aa Vidit tamen, nisi admodum fallor, hunc ipsum Codicem Cantabrigiensem, qui unus et solus omnium Codicum Græce Scriptorum hunc ordinem servat. Wetsten. Prolegom. p. 28. Vol. i. p. 433.

Vid. Iren. contr. Hær. 1. 3. cap. xi. fin. et cap. xii. in. dd Primo loco posita sunt Acta Apostolorum.Subsecutæ, sunt Epistolæ indubitato Apostolicæ, quas corrogare undique liceret. Proleg. num. 195.

ee Marci Evangelio suffixa est etiam notula, significans, post illud proxime poni librum Actuum. Verum hæc est scribæ recentioris. Sequens enim folium, quod primâ facie duodecim postremos versus epistolæ tertiæ D. Joannis exhibet, alterâ primam partem capitis primi Actorum, clare indicat Exemplar hoc jam olim, præter Evangelia et Acta, complexum fuisse Catholicas saltem Epistolas. Mill. Proleg.

num. 1270.

he had not placed the Acts of the apostles, as he has done, at the head of the catholic epistles, and after the epistles of St. Paul.

3. In the catalogues lately alleged, we have seen St. Paul's epistles sometimes preceding the catholic epistles, at other times following them. Here the order, as seems to me, is of little consequence. But I rather prefer our present order, which places St. Paul's epistles first: because, excepting only the epistle to the Hebrews, all of them have been all along universally acknowledged: whereas among the seven catholic epistles, there are but two, which have not been at some times contradicted books. Moreover St. Paul's epistles immediately follow the historical books in Eusebius. . Whence I am willing to infer, that it is the most ancient order.

4. I must say something about the order of St. Paul's epistles severally. Our order is that of his thirteen epistles, which have been universally acknowledged, and then the epistle to the Hebrews, about which there had been doubts in the minds of many for a good while.

Among the ancients there is some variety. To the Romans, the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, the Thessalonians, Hebrews, Timothy, Titus, Philemon. So in the festal epistle of Athanasius, and in the Synopsis ascribed to him, and in the catalogue of the council of Laodicea, and in the Alexandrian manuscript. In others may be found our present order, as in the iambic poem of Amphilochius, the Syrian catalogue in Ebedjesu, Jerom in his article of St. Paul, "Augustine in his work of the Christian doctrine, 'Ecumenius, and many others.

Epiphanius, observing how Marcion had disturbed the order of St. Paul's epistles, says, that in some editions of the New Testament, the epistle to the Hebrews was the fourteenth, in others the tenth, being placed before the two epistles to Timothy, and the epistles to Titus and Philemon: and that in all good copies the epistle to the Romans was the first, not that to the Galatians, as Marcion had disposed them.

n

Theodoret and Chrysostom " have particularly taken notice, that the epistle to the Romans was placed first, though it was not the first in the order of time.

Concerning the reason of that disposition of the epistle to the Romans, Theodoret observes, that it had been placed first, as containing the most full and exact representation of the < Christian doctrine in all its branches. But some say, it had been so placed out of respect to the city, to which it had been sent, as presiding over the whole world.'

I have sometimes thought that first observation might be applied to all St. Paul's epistles, as the ground and reason of their situation. For the first five epistles, that to the Romans, the two to the Corinthians, and the epistles to the Galatians, and the Ephesians, are the largest of St. Paul's epistles. And all that follow are shorter, excepting the epistle to the Hebrews, which has been placed after those sent to churches, or last of all, after those likewise which were sent to particular persons, because its genuineness was not universally allowed of.

But the other, the dignity of the cities and people, to whom the epistles were sent, has been more generally supposed to be the ground and reason of the order in which they are placed. How this is represented by Mill, may appear in his own words, which I place below.

I also shall shew this as well as I can. Epistles to churches are placed first. Afterwards those to particular persons. The epistles to churches are placed very much according to the rank of the cities or places to which they were sent. The epistle to the Romans is placed first, because Rome was the chief city of the Roman empire. The two epistles to the Corinthians come next, because Corinth was a large, and polite, and renowned city. Galatia was a country in which were several churches, and therefore the epistle to them might be placed before others, written to one church only. Nevertheless the epistles to the Romans and the Corinthians have been preferred,

διδασκασαν. Τινες δε φασιν, ότι και την πολιν τιμωντες. κ. λ. Theod. Pr. in Ep. S. P. T. III. p. 6.

P In iis vero disponendis (exceptâ unâ ad Hebræos, de quâ mox,) spectata est omnino dignitas ecclesiarum et hominum, quibus missæ sunt. Epistola ad ecclesias Galatæ, quæ erat integra provincia, merito præcedebat illas, quæ ad unam data erant civitatem, Laodiceam, Philippos, Colossenses, Thessalonicam. His tamen præponere visum est epistolas ad Romanos et Corinthios, ob eminentem harum urbium dignitatem, quâ provinciam istam superare videbantur. Epistolas integris ecclesiis inscriptas sequuntur, quæ ad singulos homines datæ sunt. Proleg. num. 237.

3 N

as is supposed, upon account of the great eminence of those two cities. The epistle to the Ephesians follows next, because Ephesus was the chief city of Asia, strictly so called. Afterwards follow the epistles to the Philippians, the Colossians, and the Thessalonians. But how to account for this order, according to the method we here observe, I do not well know. Colosse indeed might be reckoned a city of inferior rank, and Philippi was a Roman colony. But Thessalonica was the chief city of Macedonia, in which Philippi stood. And if the epistles were disposed according to the dignity of places, it is not easy to conceive why the two epistles to the Thessalonians were placed after those to the Philippians, and the Colossians. So that in this method, as seems to me, the order of the epistles is made out in but a lame and imperfect manner. And there may be reason to apprehend that the brevity of the two epistles to the Thessalonians, especially of the second, procured them this situation, though they are the first written epistles of our apostle, and indeed the first written of all the sacred scriptures of the New Testament.

Among the epistles to particular persons, those to Timothy have the precedence, as he was a favourite disciple of St. Paul, and those epistles are the largest and fullest. The epistle to Titus comes next, as he was an evangelist. And that to Philemon is last, as he was supposed by many to be only a private Christian. Undoubtedly Titus was a person of greater eminence, and in a higher station than Philemon. Moreover, by many the design of that epistle was thought to be of no great importance.

The epistle to the Hebrews is fitly enough placed after the rest, because for a while it was doubted of, as before said. I likewise think it to be the last written of all St. Paul's epistles.

5. Some learned men, who have examined the chronology of St. Paul's epistles, have proposed, that they should be placed in our bibles, according to the order of time. Dr. Wall, at the end of the preface to his critical notes upon the New Testament, has an argument to this purpose.

But first, it will be difficult to alter the order which has been so long established in all editions of the original Greek, and in all versions. Secondly, The order of their times has not been yet settled. Many, I suppose, are of opinion, that Dr. Wall's order is not right. Must the order be altered again and again, to suit every one's fancy? That would create a very troublesome and disagreeable confusion.

I think that the knowledge of the order in which St. Paul's epistles were written, must be very entertaining and useful and I have done what is in my power to find it out. But I am far from desiring that they should be placed, and bound up together, according to my calculations. Before an attempt of that kind is made, the order of time should be settled, and determined to the general satisfaction of all learned and inquisitive men. And judicious Christians, who have studied the chronological order of the writings of the New Testament, may have an advantage by it, though the books are continued in their present order.

6. I say nothing here concerning the order of the seven catholic epistles, because I have spoken to it sufficiently in a preceding chapter.

a

7. Finally, the book of the Revelation is now placed the last of all, and has been generally so placed in former times, and very fitly, as Mill says in his observations upon the order of the books of the New Testament, it being prophetical of things to be hereafter fulfilled, and there❝fore of a different kind from the rest: and having also near the end that remarkable clause, ch. 'xxii. 18, 19, containing a caution against adding to, or taking from it: which may be applied 'to all the books of scripture.' To which might be added, that there are not wanting divers reasons to think it is the last written of all the books of the New Testament.

See this Vol. p. 367.

Agmen vero Novi Fœderis librorum claudit Apocalypsis ; quæ cum circa diversum plane a reliquis versetur argumentum, atque minus apte inter Evangelia et Epistolas media fuisset interposita, commodissime in fine omnium collocata fuit; quoniam tamquam liber propheticus futura respicit adhuc im

plenda; ac denique insignem illam habet in calce clausulam de non addendo quidpiam isti prophetiæ, vel ab eâ detrahendo: quâ etiam ad omnes N. T. libros accommodatâ, canonem universum veluti obsignare convenientissimum videbatur. Mill. Proleg. num. 239.

459

CHAP. XXIV.

That the Books of the New Testament, consisting of a Collection of sacred Writings, in two Parts, one called Gospel, or Evangelicon, the other Epistles, or Apostle, or Apostles, or Apostolicon, were early known, read, and made use of by Christians.

THAT the gospels, the Acts, and the epistles of the New Testament, or divers of those epistles, were soon well known, much read, and collected together, may be argued from internal marks and characters, and from testimony.

I. Internal marks and characters are such as these.

1. It is obvious from the nature of the thing. Who composes and publishes any works without desiring to have them perused? It is very likely, therefore, that the authors of the books of the New Testament, who were at the pains of writing histories, or epistles, would take care that they should be known. The same zeal that prompted any man to write, would induce him to provide for the publication. The importance of the subject would justify a concern to spread the work. All must allow, that there never were, and that there cannot be, any writings, containing more important facts and principles. To suppose that any of these writers were indifferent about the success and acceptance of what they had composed, is very absurd and unrea

sonable.

2. All the writings, of which the New Testament consists, were addressed to some, who would set a great value on them, and would willingly recommend them to others. All the epistles, and the Revelation, as is manifest, are sent to Christian societies, or particular persons. St. Luke's gospel, and the Acts, were sent to the most excellent, or most noble Theophilus. St. John intended his gospel for some whom he had in his eye. As appears from ch. xx. 30, 31, and from ch. xxi. 24, 25. And it is very likely, that St. Matthew and St. Mark also wrote for some, who would gladly receive, and highly value their books, and get them copied for the use and satisfaction of others.

3. In several of the books of the New Testament directions are given, which would tend to make them well known. St. Paul at the end of his first epistle to the Thessalonians, one of his first written epistles, enjoins, "that it should be read to all the holy brethren," 1 Thess. v. 27. The same method, undoubtedly, was observed with regard to the second epistle, sent to the same Thessalonians, and written not long after. Probably, the same practice obtained in all the Christian churches, to which St. Paul afterwards sent any epistle. And the Christian people of other churches, beside those who had letters sent to them, would be desirous to see the epistles of their great apostle, by whom they had been converted, and would therefore get them transcribed for their own use. At the end of the epistle to the Colossians, ch. iv. 16. he directs: "And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye read the epistle from Laodicea :" meaning, probably, the epistle to the Ephesians, which was to come round to Colosse from Ephesus, by the way of Laodicea. The apostle therefore was willing, and even desirous, that his epistles should be read by others, beside those to whom they were sent, for the sake of general edification. And can it be questioned, whether other Gentile churches in these parts, all which were of his own planting, would not thankfully embrace the encouragement hereby given them to look into his epistles, and to get them transcribed, and read in their assemblies also?

As

4. St. Peter writes to this purpose in his second epistle, which we may suppose to have been written in the year 64. "And account, that the long-suffering of the Lord is salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, has written unto you. also in all his epistles, speaking of these things, in which there are some things hard to be understood. Which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16.

Here are several things to be observed. First, Peter speaks of epistles of Paul sent to the

.

same Christians, to whom himself was writing. Secondly, he speaks of other epistles of Paul: as alsó in all his epistles. Thirdly, Peter therefore had a knowledge of several epistles of Paul, sent to the Christians of those countries, and likewise of divers others, which he intends in the phrase "all his epistles.' Fourthly, the Christians, to whom Peter writes, were well acquainted with the epistles, which Paul had written to them, and with the rest of his epistles, or divers.of them. Fifthly, it is supposed, and implied, that all, or at least many of Paul's epistles, were well known and much read. For Peter speaks of some, whom he calls, unlearned, and unstable, who wrested Paul's epistles, or some things in them, to their own destruction. And very probably there were other readers of the same epistles, who improved them to their edification, and salvation.

It seems to me, that what Peter says here, affords reason to think, that at the time of writing this epistle, Paul's epistles (most, or all of them) were well known among Christians, and that Peter had good evidence of it.

When Peter says, "as our beloved brother Paul has written unto you: some learned men, Mill in particular, have supposed, that thereby Peter intended the epistle to the Hebrews. But I think without reason, as Mr. Hallet has largely shewn. St. Peter's epistles are addressed to "the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." It is not unlikely, therefore, that St. Peter intends Paul's epistles to the Galatians, and the Ephesians, and the Colossians, all situated in those countries: and likewise the two epistles to Timothy, who resided much at Ephesus, and must have received the epistles written to him, when in that city, and the epistle to Philemon, who was of Colosse. And in the expression, "all his epistles," some others must be intended, and included: such as the epistles to the Thessalonians, the Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, Titus: so many, however, as the apostle Peter was then acquainted with. Mill has observed passages in the first epistle to the Thessalonians, and in the epistle to the Romans, and in that to the Philippians: in which are "some of those things hard to be understood," to which St. Peter may be supposed to have an eye.

с

These marks and characters there are in the books of the New Testament, which may induce us to believe, that they were soon dispersed among Christians, and well known to them. II. This is also manifest from testimony.

1. The accounts, which we find in the ancients, concerning the occasions of the several gospels, lead us to think, that they were soon spread abroad after they were written. Matthew is said to have written his gospel at the request of the believers in Judea: and Mark his, at the desire of the Christians at Rome, for the assistance of their memories. When therefore those gospels had been written, divers copies would be soon taken, that the ends, for which they had been written, might be answered. The several defective and imperfect accounts, which had been published of our Lord's words and works, induced St. Luke to write. And when his fuller and exacter account was published, it must have been attended to, and would be transcribed, and communicated to many. Before St. John wrote, he had seen the other three gospels. And the Christians in Asia, where he resided, were acquainted with them. Therefore they were well known, and joined together. And when his gospel was written, undoubtedly it was added to them, and they were all joined togetlrer in one volume, for general use.

The

That the first three gospels were well known in the world, before St. John wrote, is supposed by Eusebius of Cæsarea, who was well acquainted with the writings of Christians before his time. These are the words of that eminent man. Having spoken of St. Matthew's gospel, he goes on: And when Mark and Luke had published the gospels according to them, it is said that John, who all this while had preached by word of mouth, was induced to write for this reason. three first written gospels being now delivered to all men, and to John himself, it is said, that he approved them.' And what follows. Before this last evangelist wrote, the "other three gospels had been delivered unto all men, and to John." He therefore had seen them before, and they were in the hands of many people.

What has been now said of the gospels, is applicable, in a great measure, to the Acts, and the epistles of the New Testament: as may be perceived by all, without my enlarging any

farther.

2. Ignatius, who was honoured with the crown of martyrdom about the year 107, does, in Prolegom. num. 86.

See nis introduction to the epistle to the Hebrews, p. 21, &c.

• Proleg. num. 5.

d Ib. num. 28.

See Vol. ii. p. 368, 369.

• Ib. num. 70.