ground of a charge of having used apocryphal books to discredit those that were genuine. Toland replied in his 'Amyntor,' denying the accusation, especially as it applied to the New Testament. Notwithstanding his denial, the charge was repeated, as will be seen by the quotation below,[1] and it has continued to be repeated down to our own day. Certainly he does not state the case in such a manner as to favour the common belief, but he says, "Several of these books (apocryphal and spurious) whereof I now treat, are quoted to prove important points of the Christian religion, by the most celebrated Fathers, as of equal authority with those we now receive; and the testimony of those Fathers was the principal reason of establishing these in our present canon, and is still alleged to that purpose, by all that write in defence of the Scriptures."[2] I regard this as a most inaccurate statement, but I cannot here occupy space with its refutation. Perhaps, however, it may be as
- ↑ Toland affirms in his "Amyntor" (p. 52) that several spurious pieces have been quoted by the Fathers as of equal authority with those which we receive; even by those Fathers upon whose testimony the present canon is established. From thence it is evident, he would infer that those spurious and our canonical books ought to go together, and either be equally admitted or equally rejected, since they are founded upon the same testimonies. Richardson on the Canon. London, 1700. p. 2.
- ↑ Amyntor, p. 52.
