to repeat here what we said in another place concerning the word Critick which is a term of Art which in some sense is bestowed on all Works whose designs are to examin the various readings and establish the true The aim of those which practise that Art it not to destroy but establish As the Holy Books are not exempt from faults which either by the tract of Time or negligence of the Transcribers have slipt into 'em some Learned Persons in all Ages have taken care to render them correct The most barbarous Ages have produced Books which they call Correctoria Bibliae or Corrections of the Bible The Emperor Constantine spared nothing to procure for the Oriental Churches correct Copies of all the Bibles Charlemagne and his Successors have done the same for the Latine Bibles of the VVestern Churches Besides those which were formerly imployed in the Monasteries about Transcribing of Books There were some Criticks who reviewed and corrected them This is the Reason why in some Manuscript ancient Bibles there are some Corrections found of equal Antiquity with the Books themselves But without ascending so far to have a Precedent for the Vse of Critical Reflections on the Sacred Books we need only consider the Transactions of the Latter Age relating to the Latine Editions of our Bibles VVhat prodigious pains was Robert Stephens at according to the Relation of Hentenius a Divine of Louvain to give us an exact and correct Edition of the Bible This Divine which laboured after Stephens in the same matter admires the diligence and excessive expence of that Printer to whom he ingeniously acknowledges himself indebted ‖ Joann Henten Praef. in Bibl. Lovan ann 1547. Nemo est qui nesciat ut unum pro multis in medium adferam quantam diligentiam quantasque impensas tulerit Robertus Stephanus Regius apud Lutetiam Typographus quem honoris causâ nomino ut accuratissima castigatissima nobis Biblia traderet propter quod plurimum etiam illi debent quotquot Sacrarum Literarum lectioni sunt addicti quem ob id etiam in multis secuti sumus The Doctors of the Faculty of Divinity of Louvain perfected afterwards the Edition of their Brother with a greater Collection of Manuscripts and re-altered some places according to the Rules of Criticism which they thought not corrected with exactness enough Nicolas Zegers a Religious Man of the Order of St. Francis apply'd himself entirely to the Correction of the Books of the New Testament He dedicated his Critique to Julian III. under the Title of * Castigationes in Novum Testamentum in quibus depravata restituuntur adjecta resecantur sublata adjiciuntur Autore Tac. Nicolao Zeger Colon. ann 1555. Corrections on the New Testament wherein it re-established what was corrupted expunged what was added and added what was before expunged He assures that Pope in his Epistle Dedicatory (b) Haec est genuina germana emendata veteris nostri Interpretis versio seu translatio quâ hactenùs semper à tempore ferè Apostolorum aut non ita diù pòst usa cognoscitur Romana Ecclesia quam ab innumeris tum mendis tum adulterinis adjectiunculis non sine magnis multis molestiis repurgavimus Zeger Epist ad Jul. III. That he had freed from an infinite number of Faults and false Glosses the ancient Latine Version which bad been in Vse among the VVestern Churches from the very Times of the Apostles There is nothing more exactly †Notaticnes in Sacra Biblia quibus variantia discrepantibus exemplaribus loca summo studio discutiuntur Antverp ann 1580. performed than the Critical Remarks of Lucas Brugensis in his Edition of the Latine Bible of the Divines of Louvain Among the multitude of his Copies he mentions one which was corrected by some Dominicans on the Bibles of Charlemagne He sets some marks of Esteem on another Manuscript entitled The Correction of the Bible Praeter alia id quod maximi facimus Manuscriptum Bibliorum correctorium ab incerto auctore magnâ diligentiâ ac fide contextum ‡ Luc. Brug Notat in Gen. c. 8. v. 7. And he assures us (c) Quae à nostri seculi scriptoribus ex manuscriptis codicibus collectae sunt variae lectiones omnes propemodùm in eo comperimus ad fontes fideliter examinatos deprehendimus Luc. Brug Notat in Gen. c. 8. v. 7. that the different Readings which have been observed by the Criticks of the latter Times are all found in this Book where they are examined according to the Hebrew Text. I have elsewhere mentioned another Manuscript of like nature which is in the ancient Library of the Colledge of Sorbon I have likewise given Extracts out of it which manifestly prove that the Latins have not neglected the Critical Study of the Sacred Books in those very Ages when Barbarism reigned in Europe It is a Vanity in the admirers of the Hebrew Text of the Jews to bestow such great praises on the Massoreth a good part of which consists in Trifles or superstitious Observations The Christians of both the Eastern and Western Churches with more Judgment have taken care in the Correction of the Bibles as manifestly will appear by this Work. We ought to prefer to the Massoreth those learned * Romani Correctores Criticks of Rome which by the order of Pope Sixtus V. and Clement VIII corrected the Latine Bibles which Correction serves instead of an exact Massoreth to the Western Church There are none but Protestants of ill minds such as Thomas James Author of the Bellum Papale who cavil at the differences of the Editions of the Bible published by those two Popes There may indeed be a more perfect work but that ought to be reserved for particular Notes which no ways diminish the Authority of those Books received into publick Vse I must only add two words concerning those Acts which are made use of in this Work. For the Manuscripts I mark the Libraries where they are found I have cited none without reading them the Extracts being all done by my self except that of Cambridge which contains the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles I had procured out of England a faithful Copy of this last Manuscript in what relates to the Greek which I have exactly followed As for the Printed Books of which there are numerous Quotations for the most part I have contented my self to relate the Passages in short following the sense only in the Body of the work For long Citations of Passages where there are but five or six words perhaps pertinent to the Occasion must needs prove very tiresom This is the very same Method which I have followed in the Critical History of the Old Testament But some Persons desiring such Passages at length to avoid searching them in the Books to comply with their Desires and keep to our Method we judged it convenient to put them at large at the bottom of the Page
in the proper Languages of the respective Authors A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament Wherein is establish'd The Truth of those ACTS on which CHRISTIANITY is founded PART I. CHAPTER I. The Verity of the New Testament defended in general against the ancient Hereticks Reflections upon the Principle made use of by the Fathers to establish the Authority of these Books JEsus Christ having profess'd that he came not into the World to destroy the Old Law but rather to accomplish it Matt. v. 17. it seemed not to him necessary to publish his Doctrine in Writing He was content to prove his Mission by his Miracles and to support his Reformation upon the Books of the Old Testament which were received by all the Jews to whom the Messias had been promised So that we do not find him to have given order to his Disciples to putany thing into Writing He only commands them to Preach his Gospel to all the Nations of the Earth Go ye says he to them Mar. xvi 15. into all the world and preach the Gospel The Books of the New Testament took their Original from this preaching This it was that caused Tertullian to say (a) Constituimus in primis Evangelicum instrumentum Apostolos autores habere quibus hoc munus Evangelii promulgandi ab ipso Domino sit impositum Tertul. l. 4. adv Marcion c. 2. That the Apostles to whom Jesus Christ had given this Command to promulge the Gospel were the Authors thereof Upon the whole matter the Gospels had not been put in Writing but at the request of those People who were willing to preserve the memory of that which the Apostles had preached to them S. Paul composed the greater part of his Epistles for the Instruction of Churches which were already erected That History which we call the Acts of the Apostles was published to no other end but to shew to the Faithful the Progress of the Christian Religion upon its first advance into the World and the Christians not having at that time any State separate from that of the Jews and being present and assisting at all their Ceremonies in the Temple and in the Synagogues they had no Persons appointed to record any thing of importance which pass'd among them And this is the reason that we find not here as in the Old Testament any publick Writers who had the Charge of collecting the Acts of their State. This during the Primitive times of Christianity gave a pretence to several Hereticks to doubt of the truth of those Apostolical Books which to them seem'd to want some publick Attestation S. Ignatius in one of his Epistles complains (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignut Ep. ad Philad That he understood there were some men who said they could not believe the Gospel except they could find it written in the * There are some who read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ancients Archives The holy Martyr answers them That it was written that the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and a Faith in him were instead of the most authentick Archives It was then difficult to distinguish the Books which had been composed by the Apostles or by their Disciples from those which had been forged by false Apostles or by some Sectaries Every one bore in its front either the Name of the Apostles in general or of some single one of their number and since there were no publick Archives to which recourse might be had for the deciding and clearing of matters of this nature the Hereticks took occasion from thence to publish a great number of false Acts of which hardly any thing is left to Posterity except the Titles of them and a few Fragments These Sectaries boasted that they taught the Doctrine of the Apostles or at least of their Disciples Basilides who was one of the most ancient Hereticks avouched that he had for his Master (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Clem. Alex. lib. 7. Strom. Glaucias one of St. Peter's Interpreters Và lentin affirmed with the same boldness that he had been instructed in Religion by Theodad (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Clem. Alex. ibid. who was one of St. Paul 's familiar Acquaintance But whereas they did not agree amongst themselves and on the contrary the Doctrine of the Apostles was perfectly uniform in the Churches that they had planted the Fathers made use of this Uniformity of Doctrine to confirm and establish the truth of the Apostolical Writings Clemens Alexandrinus answers Basilides and Valentin that there was but one true ancient Church that was before all Heresies From thence he brings an unquestionable proof of the falsity of the Doctrine of these Sectaries who durst be so bold as to give the Name of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of the Apostles to their own Inventions he represents to them that (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. ibid. the Doctrine of the Apostles were one as well as their Tradition The Primitive Christians argued against the Hereticks of those times from Tradition and from the Conformity of that Belief that was manifest in all the Churches founded by the Apostles as may be seen at large in the Works of St. Irenaeus Tertullian Epiphanius and St. Augustin and in a word of all the Fathers that have defended the Writings of the Apostles against the Hereticks Whensoever any Sectary opposed the declared Gospel they immediately convinced him of the forgery of those Acts that he produced by the true ones that were kept in the Apostolical Churches and were instead of Archives (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 42. If any one saith St. Epiphanius should go about to counterfeit the Edicts or Ordinances of Emperors the Cheat would be soon laid open by producing the true Copies taken from the Archives of the Court In like manner adds he false Gospels composed by Hereticks may be detected their spuriousness may be easily discovered by producing the true Gospels that are kept in the Churches as it were in Archives This manner of defending the Truth of the Apostolical Writings against the ancient Sectaries hath proved so effectually convincing that the Gnosticks were obliged to support their Novelties to fly to I know not what secret Tradition that was known to none but themselves They were so insolent as to prefer themselves before the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ accusing them as not having preached the Purity of the Gospel with sincerity because say they they have retained many Ceremonies of the old Law. They thought by this means that they might be able with Authority to reform the Writings of the Apostles (g) Cùm autem ad eam iterum traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per successiones Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos adversantur traditioni dicentes se non solùm Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes superiores sinceram invenisse veritatem Apostolos autem
they rejected the Writings of the Apostles against the Authority of all the Churches of the World and at the same time received the Apocryphal Books that had no Authority If any one continues this Father should oppose you and should make use of your own words that that which you alledge on your behalf is false and on the contrary that which is against you is true (m) Quid ages Quò te convertes Quam libri à te prolati originem quam vetustatem quam seriem successionis testem citabis Aug. ibid. what would you do How could you defend the truth of those Acts that you produce How could you prove their Antiquity not having any Witnesses in Tradition by whose Testimony they might be confirmed From whence he concludes (n) Vides in hac re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat auctoritas quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorum usque ad hodiernum diem succedentium sibimet Episcoporum serie tot populorum consensione firmatur Aug. ibid. that it is absolutely necessary on this occasion to have recourse to the Authority of those Churches that were established ever since the primitive times of the Christian Religion and to the consent of Nations that have received the Books of the New Testament from the Apostles He observes further and more close to the purpose that if it were only disputed concerning the variety of Copies since they are but few in number it would be sufficient to consult the Copies of different Countries and if they did not agree in this point the greater number should be preferred before the lesser or the more ancient before the later Plures paucioribus aut vetustiores recentioribus praeferrentur But the Manicheans who judged not of the Truth of these Books but with relation to their own Ideas refused to submit to this Authority they consulted only their reason in matters of Fact wherein all Deference ought to be given to Authority therefore when any passage was urged to them that thwarted their Opinion they boldly affirmed that that part had been corrupted or that the Book wherein it was found had been composed by some Impostor under the name of the Apostles Faustus for example who avouched that after having diligently perused the Books of Moses he could not find therein any Prophecy that had any regard to Jesus Christ takes this method in answering the Texts of the New Testament Where express mention is made of these Prophecies Jesus Christ saith in speaking of himself Moses hath wrote of me Faustus answers to this Joann v. 46. that after a serious examination of this passage (o) Ratione cogebar in alterum è duobus ut aut falsum pronunciarem capitulum hoc aut mendacem Jesum sed id quidem alienum pietatis eraè Deum existimare mentitum Rectius ergo visum est scriptoribus adscribere falsitatem quam veritatis auctoritati mendacium Apud Aug. lib. 16. contra Faust c. 2. his reason obliged him to conclude either that it was false or that Jesus Christ had not spoken the truth and since it would be no less than impious Blasphemy to say that God could lie it would be more adviseable to attribute the falsification to the Writers themselves When it was demanded of this Heretick why he did not receive the Old Law and the Prophets whom Jesus Christ himself hath authorised in the New Testament by his words I am not come to destroy the Law or the Peophets Matth. v. 17. but to fulfil them he objected against the Testimony of S. Matthew because he is the only Evangelist that hath related this It is supposed saith he that this Discourse was delivered in the Sermon that Jesus Christ made on the Mountain In the mean time S. John (p) Testis idoneus tacet loquitur autem minùs idoneus Apud Aug. cont Faust lib. 17. c. 1. who was there present speaks not a word thereof and yet they would have S. Matthew who saw nothing to mention it He pretends that this hath been wrote by some other person and not by S. Matthew After this manner the Manicheans who sacrificed all to their Reason and almost nothing to Authority entirely destroyed the Books of the New Testament receiving them no farther than they were conformable to their Prejudices they had formed to themselves a certain Idea of Christianity after which they regulated the Writings of the Apostles They would have it that all that which could not be adjusted to this Idea had been inserted in their Books by later Writers who were half Jews Faustus saith Multa enim à majoribus vestris eloquiis Domini nostri inserta verba sunt Apud Aug. l. 33. cont Faust c. 3. quae nomine signata ipsius cum fide non congruant praesertim quia ut jam saepe probatum à nobis est nec ab ipso haec sunt nec ab ejus Apostolis scripta sed multa post eorum assumptionem à nescio quibus ipsis inter se non concordantibus Semi-Judaeis per famas opinionesque comperta sunt c. But S. Augustin represents to them in this very same passage that one must renounce common sense to argue after this manner on matters of Fact to which imaginary reasons ought not to be opposed (q) De quo libro certum erit cujus sit si literae quas Apostolorum dicit tenet Ecclesia ab ipsis Apostolis propagata per omnes gentes tantâ eminentiâ declarata utrùm Apostolorum sint incertum est hoc erit certum scripsisse Apostolos quod huic Ecclesiae contrarii haeretiot proferunt Auctorum suorum nominibus appellati longè post Apostolos existentium Aug. ibid. We cannot be certain saith he of any Book if once we call in question those Works that the Church that is extended throughout the whole World receives with a common consent and if on the contrary we authorise as Apostolical Books that dispute therewith and that carry the name of Writers who have lived a long time after the Apostles He charges them (r) Legunt Scripturas apocryphas Manichaei à nescio quibus fabularum sutoribus sub Apostolorum nomine scriptas quae suorum scriptorum temporibus in auctoritatem sanctae Ecclesiae recipi mererentur si sancti docti bomines qui tunc in hac vita erant examinare talia poterant eos vera locutos esse cognoscerent Aug. cont Faust lib. 22. c. 79. with making Fables and Apocryphal Works to pass for Apostolical Writings and he shews at the same time the falsity of these Acts because they have not any testimony of the Doctors of the Church that were then living He urgeth Faustus to prove what he hath alledged by Books that are Canonical and generally received in all the Churches Non ex quibuscunque literis sed Ecclesiasticis Canonicis Catholicis Aug. l. 23. adv Faus c. 9. This Holy Doctor calls this way
of arguing of the Manicheans folly insaniam dementiam who not being able to accommodate the Writings of the Apostles to the Idea that they had formed to themselves of the Christian Religion or under colour of certain contradictions in the Scriptures which they could not resolve (ſ) Non à Christi Apostolis sed longo pòst tempore à quibusdam incerti nominis viris qui ne sibi non haboretur fides scribentibus quae nescirent partim Apostolorum nomina partim eorum qui Apostolos secuti viderentur scriptorum suorum frontibus indiderunt asseverantes secundùm eos se scripsisse quae scripserint Apud Aug. lib. 32. cont Faust c. 2. would needs have it believed that these Books were composed after the Apostles themselves by uncertain Authors who had made bold to borrow the Names of these Apostles to gain Credit and Authority to their Works To convince them the more easily of their folly he sets before their eyes the Books (t) Platonis Aristotelis Ciceronis Varronis aliorumque ejusmodi autorum libros unde noverunt homines quôd ipsorum sint nisi temporum fibimet succedentium contestatione continuâ August cont Faust lib. 33. c. 6. of Hippocrates Plato Aristotle Varto and Cicero and of several other Writers that are believed to be the Authors of those Works that we have under their Names because they have been attributed to them in the time wherein they lived and they have been always so attributed successively from Age to Age. Now there is nothing more contrary to reason than not to grant the same privilege to the Church and not to acknowledge that she hath faithfully kept the Writings of the Apostles whose Doctrine she hath always preserved by the means of the Succession of Bishops We have enlarged a little on these Reflections of S. Augustin and of the other Fathers that preceded him because they have mightily evinced the Truth of the Books of the New Testament without having recourse to I know not what particular Spirit which is an invention of these later times We cannot imagine any thing more opposite to good reason than these Words of the Confession of Faith of those that formerly took the Name of the Reformed of the Churches of France Confess Art. 4. We acknowledge these Books in speaking of the whole Scriptures to be Canonical not so much by the common agreement and consent of the Church as by the testimony and inward persuasion of the Holy Ghost The Fathers nevertheless have always confuted the ancient Hereticks who refused to acknowledge these Books as Canonical by the common agreement and consent of the Church It would have been a pleasant way of reasoning if every one in these primitive times of Christianity would not have acknowledged for divine Books only those that his private Spirit should dictate to him to be such This hath appeared to be so great an extravagance to those of that Persuasion who in the Low Countries are called Remonstrants that they look upon the Calvinists that follow this Principle as People that have renounced common sense Simon Episcopius who hath been one of the Champions of this Party after having handled this question with a great deal of subtilty concludes that it is a very ill sort of argumentation to admit besides the testimony of the Church another inward testimony of the Holy Ghost to know whether certain Books have a divine Authority stampt upon them Hinc patet saith this Protestant ineptos esse eos qui vel praeter vel citra testimonium Ecclesiae requiri aiunt internum Spiritus Sancti testimonium ad hoc ut libros hos divinos esse authoritatem divinam habere intelligamus Remonst Confess c. 1. de scrip n. 8. It is sufficient according to the Remonstrants that we have there upon the testimony of (v) Ecclesia primitiva quae temporibus Apostolorum fuit certissimè resciscere potuit indubiè etiam rescivit libros istos ab Apostolis scriptos esse vel saltem approbatos nobisque istius rei scientiam quasi per manus tradidit ac veluti depositum quoddam reliquit Remonst Confess cap. 1. de Script n. 8. the primitive Church that certainly knew that these Books were written by the Apostles or approved by them and that this testimony is come down to us by a constant Tradition This Spirit that is diffused through the whole Church ought without doubt to be preferred to a private Spirit that can only serve to make a division therein Grot. Animad in Anim. Riv. This is what Grotius hath judiciously observed Spiritus ille privatus saith this Critick Spiritus Ecclesiae divisor It would be to no purpose for the Calvinists to object to the Remonstrants that their Opinion is taken out of the Writings of Socinus because an evident truth ought not to be rejected under pretence that it may be found in the Books of Socinus This Heretick hath proved in his Treatise Of the Authority of the Holy Scriptures and in another Work intituled Sacred Lectures the Truth of the Sacred Books and principally of those of the New Testament by the very same reasons and after the same manner that S. Irenaeus Tertullian and S. Augustin have done Socin lib. de Auctor Script sac (x) Legantur ea quae hac de re Eusebius scribit pluribus in locis Historiae Ecclesiasticae invenietur usque ad illius Eusebit aetatem hoc est per 250. circiter annorum perpetuum spatium postquam scripta illa conscripta atque edita fuerunt nunquam fuisse in Ecclesia qui dubitaret quin quatuor quae habemus Evangelia liber Actorum Apostolorum Epistolae omnes quae Pauli Apostoli esse dicuntur praeter eam quae ad Hebraeos est scripta prior Apostoli Petri prima Joannis Apostoli haec inquam omnia ab iis scripta fuissent quibus attribuuntur Socin lib. de Auctor Script Sac. Let them read saith Socinus that which Eusebius hath written on this matter in his Ecclesiastical History and they will find therein a perpetual consent of all the Churches of the World since these Books were written to the time of this Author He insists very much in these two Treatises on the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers Will any one say for this that this is a Socinian Method because Socinus hath made use of it after the most Learned Ecclesiastical Writers Would to God that this Enemy of the Traditions of the Catholick Church had always followed this Principle he would not have introduced so many Innovations into Religion Neither can he avoid an Objection that may be made even by those of his own Party that according to his Principles he ought necessarily to acknowledge a Tradition after the same manner as it is maintained in the Church of Rome We cannot might they say to him receive the Gospel of S. Matthew and reject that which hath been published under the Name
of S. Thomas without establishing Tradition at the same time because it is impossible to prove this by any Testimony of the Scriptures Socinus To answer this Objection without departing from his Principle lays down (y) Est quiddam medium inter Scripturas traditionem Immò non quiddam modò sed multiplex quiddam soriptae nimirum historiae aliaque testimonia rationes ex quibus factum est fit ut cordati homines Matthaei Evangelium pro vera de Jesu Christo historin habeant Thoma non habeant nullâ hîc intercedente autoritate Ecclesiae Spiritiis quo ipsa porpetuò gubernetur Soc. Epist 4. ad Christoph Ostorod a certain Medium between the Scriptures and Tradition which Medium consists according to his opinion in written Histories in other Testimonies and in Ratiocinations from whence it is proved without making application to any Authority of the Church that the Gospel of S. Matthew contains the true History of Jesus Christ and that on the contrary that which carries the name of S. Thomas is a suppositious Book Episcopius and the other Remonstrants do also make use of this Answer that they may not be obliged to acknowledge the Traditions of the Church But this Medium which they suppose to be between the Scriptures and Tradition is a true Tradition which differs in nothing from that which S. Irenaeus Tertullian Epiphanius S. Augustin and several other Fathers have established when they intended to convince the ancient Hereticks of the Truth of the Apostolical Books These Histories and these other Acts whereof Socinus makes mention are taken from the Churches or from Ecclesiastical Writers and this is that which composeth Tradition He ought to agree to it himself since he avoucheth in his Treatise of the Authority of the Holy Scriptures that since the times of the Apostles to those of Eusebius none have doubted in the Church that the Books of the New Testament were not composed by those whose Names they bear For it is certain that many Hereticks that were out of the Church have not only doubted thereof but have absolutely rejected them That which hath deceived Socinus and the other Sectaries is a false notion that they have conceived of the Authority of the Church they imagine that she Judges by her own Authority only and not upon good Acts and Records that the Books that compose the Old and New Testament are Divine and Canonical CHAP. II. Concerning the Titles that are at the Head of the Gospels and other Books of the New Testament Whether these Titles were made by the Authors of these Books or whether they were since added WE have no solid proof in Antiquity to make it appear to us that the Names that are set at the Head of every Gospel were thereunto prefixed by those who are the Authors of them S. John Chrysostom assures us expresly of the contrary in one of his Homelies (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joann Chrys Hom. 1. in Epist ad Rom. Moses saith this Learned Bishop hath not put his Name to the five Books of the Law that he hath wrote those also that have collected the Acts after him have not set their Names at the beginning of their Histories The same may be said of the Evangelists Matthew Mark Luke and John. As for S. Paul he hath always set his Name at the beginning of his Epistles except that which is directed to the Hebrews and the Reason that S. John Chrysostom produceth is because the former wrote for the use of Persons that were present whereas S. Paul wrote Letters to persons that were at a distance If we should refer our selves herein to the Testimony of this Father we cannot prove precisely from the Titles only that are at the Head of every Gospel that these Gospels have been composed by those whose Names they bear at least if we do not joyn to this the Authority of the Primitive Church that hath added these Titles On this Principle it is that Tannerus and other Jesuits supported themselves in a Conference that they had at Ratisbonne with some Protestants to shew that they could not clearly prove the Title of S. Matthew and without the Testimony of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that this Gospel was made by him whose name it bore they insisted that they could not bring other Proofs of this Truth than those that were taken from humane Authority and not from the Scriptures themselves since they had been added to them Ex solo testimonio hominum eorumque non omnium sed eorum tantum qui Ecclesiae corpus constituunt * David Schramus Theologus Ecclesiastes in aula ad austrum Neoburgica edit Giessae Hassorum ann 1617. A Protestant Divine who had assisted at this Conference hath composed a Book on purpose on this Subject to prove the contrary to that which the Jesuits maintained But to say the truth there is more of Subtilty in these sorts of Disputes than of solid Arguments for although it were true that S. Matthew is the Author of the Title of his Gospel recourse must always be had to the Authority of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers to shew that this Title is of him and that this Gospel certainly belongs to him whose Name it bears at least if we decline flying to a private Spirit which hath been above discoursed and cannot be approved by any judicious Persons These Titles are so ancient in the Church that Tertullian reproves Marcion who acknowledged the Gospel of St. Luke from which he had only took away some Passages (b) Marcion Evangelio scilicet suo nullum adscribit auctorem quasi non licuerit illi titulum quoque adfingere cui nefas non fuit ipsum corpus evertere Tertull. lib. 4. adv Marc. cap. 2. for having no Title at the head of his Copy as if it were not lawful for him saith this Father to annex a Title to a Work the Text whereof he had ventured to corrupt He adds further in this same place That he could not proceed in the Dispute that he held with this Heretick since he had a right to reject a Book as suspected the Title whereof did not appear that he was willing nevertheless thus far to condescend to him because it is easie (c) Ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet Tertull. ibid. to judge by the Copy of S. Luke that was read in the Church whether that of Marcion were the same excepting that which he had cut off from it It is not to be inferred that Tertullian was of Opinion that it might be proved by the Titles only that the Gospels belonged to those whose Names they bore otherwise he ought to have acknowledged as the true Gospels an infinite number of false Books that carried the Names of the Apostles It was necessary according to his mind to have besides this a constant Tradition founded on the Testimonies of those who
in the ancient Latin Bibles written about seven or eight hundred years ago St. Jerom also hath followed this method in his great Prologue called Galeatus The Syrians have preserved this same Order in their Version as appears from the Edition of Widmanstadius nevertheless they have not in their ancient Copies according to which this Edition of Widmanstadius was regulated the second Epistle of St. Peter nor the second and third of St. John nor that of St. Jude These Epistles were not apparently in the Greek Copies which the Syrians have Translated into their Language However it seems as if there were nothing very certain concerning the Order of these Epistles for in the last of the Canons that bear the name of the Apostles those of St. Peter are set down first and afterwards those of St. John and that of St. James stands in the third rank the Bishops assembled at Trent have also named them after this same manner conformably to the Council of Florence Calvin himself hath set the Epistle of St. Peter at the head of all in his Commentaries on the Canonical Epistles But we ought to prefer the Order that is observed in the Greek and Latin Copies and also in the Oriental Versions As for what concerns the Authority of these Epistles very great difficulties arise from thence for as we have already seen the Syrians have not inserted some of them in their Version of the New Testament which they would have done if they had been read in the Eastern Churches when they Interpreted them out of the Greek into Syriack nevertheless they have since Translated them and they have been likewise Printed therefore they are also found in the Arabick Versions of the New Testament I shall have occasion to examin this matter more exactly in the second Book of this Work wherein I shall Treat of Versions in particular but since my design at present is only to speak of the Text let us see what the Ancients have thought thereupon Eusebius who avoucheth (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 23. that the Epistle of St. James the Brother of our Saviour with the other Canonical Epistles was publickly read in his time in the most part of the Churches observes nevertheless that not many of the ancient Writers have made mention of it as neither of that of St. Jude he would say without doubt that there are few of the ancient Doctors of the Church that have cited it as Canonical therefore in another part of his History where he produceth a Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 25. he reckons the same Epistle of St. James that of St. Jude the second of St. Peter and the second and third of St. John among the Scriptures that were not generally received as Canonical by all the Churches though several ancient Fathers had spoken of them St. Jerom who usually transcribes Eusebius in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers expresseth himself almost after the same manner as this Historian doth on the Epistle of St. James for after he hath said (e) Jacobus qui appellatur frater Domini-unam tantùm scripsit Epistolam quae de septem Catholicis est quae ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur licet paulatim tempore procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem Hieron de Script Eccl. in Jac. that St. James the first Bishop of Jerusalem hath written but one Letter which is in the number of the seven Canonical Epistles he adds to shew that all People were not agreed that it was certainly his that it was said that it hath been written by another in his name though it hath obtained Authority in process of time Cardinal Cajetan makes use of this same Passage of S. Jerom Cajet Comm. in c. 1. Epist Jac. to prove that it is not absolutely certain that this Epistle was composed by S. James the Brother of our Lord Non usquequaque certum an Epistola haec sit Jacobi fratris Domini He hath also entituled his Annotations on this Epistle Commentaries on the Epistle that bears the Name of S. James In eam quae Divo Jacobo inscribitur Commentarii in which point he is more scrupulous than S. Jerom who hath made no difficulty to quote it under this Title Indeed this Father simply relates in this place the various Opinions of several Persons concerning the Author of this Epistle but forasmuch as it was read in the Churches under the Name of S. James and it hath been read therein ever since that time this Cardinal discovers too nice a curiosity as well as when he adds in this very place that the manner of saluting that is at the beginning of this (f) Salutatio hîc posita tam pura est ut nulli salutationi cujuscunque alterius Apostolicae Epistolae conformis sit nam nihil Dei nihil Jesu Christi nihil gratiae nihilve pacis sonat sed profano more salutem nec ipse seipsum nominat Apostolum sed tantùm servum Jesu Christi Cajet Comm. in c. 1. Epist Jac. Epistle contains nothing Apostolical on the contrary that it is altogether profane no mention being therein made of Jesus Christ nor of Grace nor Peace and he doth not call himself saith he an Apostle but a Servant of Jesus Christ Sixtus Senensis hath rehearsed these Words amongst the Objections that Luther hath made against this Epistle and perhaps Cajetan hath taken the best part of these Expressions from him but this Objection is so weak and even so irrational that the Lutherans have had no regard to it no more than to divers other Reasons that their Master hath alledged against the Epistle of S. James for they receive it at this day after the same manner as the Catholicks nevertheless they are not to be excused in this respect because they still retain in some Editions of their German Bible the Prefaces of Luther that are at the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of that of S. James after they have admitted them as Canonical for they disown by these Prefaces what they authorize in the body of their Bible I could have wished that Melchior Canus Melch. Can. de loc Theol. l. 2. c. 11. and some other learned Divines had not made use of the Authority of certain Decretal Epistles falsly attributed to the first Popes to shew that ever since the Primitive Times of Christianity it hath been believed that this Epistle did certainly belong to S. James there is no need of this sort of Proofs for though the Ancients have been divided as to this Point it is enough that the succeeding Ages after a due reflection on this matter have found in Antiquity certain Acts sufficient to justifie the placing this Epistle of S. James in the rank of the Canonical Books of the New Testament and that all the Churches of the World do at
this day receive it as such Calvin who hath been more moderate herein than Luther hath chose rather to reconcile the Doctrine of S. James touching Faith and Works with that of S. Paul than unadvisedly to reject this Epistle under colour that it appears to be contrary to the same S. Paul. To receive saith he this Epistle this seems to me to be sufficient Calv. arg de son Comm. sur l'Epist de St. Jaq. that it contains nothing unworthy of an Apostle of Christ The Lutherans themselves soon perceived that their Master sometimes gave out Opinions without a due consideration of what he affirmed Raithius who hath made an Apology for Luther confesseth that he had written in the first Edition of his German Bible to this effect that if this Epistle were compared with those of S. Peter and S. Paul it would appear only an Epistle of Straw Epistola straminea but (g) Post majorem illuminationem ut dies diem docet verba illa duriuscula postertoribus Saerorum Bibliorum editionibus sunt omissa nec post annum 1526. in ullâ amplius editione straminea vocatur Raith Vind. Vers Germ. Luth. th 21. after he had been more enlightned these Words were taken away in the following Editions and they are not to be found in those that have been made since the Year 1526. Nevertheless a certain Lutheran published a Book at Strasbourg in the Year 1527 wherein he speaks after a strange manner of the Epistle of S. James He affirms (h) Non possumus hîc defendere Jacobum citat enim Scripturas falsò solus Spiritui Saucto Legi Prophetis Christo Apostolisque omnibus contradicit Testimomum ipsius vanum est Vni ipsi testi credendum non esse supra annotavimus praesertim cum quo ipse Spiritus Sanctus tot testes veritatis dissentiant Ne igitur succenseas nobis lector si duriùs vehementiùs calamo quandoque in auctorem invecti sumus Meretur enim hoc odium hanc spiritûs vehementiam dum aliam perfectionem atque justitiam à nobis contendit quà m fidei Andr. Altham apud Grot. de discuss Rivet Apolog. p. 722. that he cannot defend it because the Author alledgeth false Quotations of the Scriptures and alone contradicts the Law the Prophets Jesus Christ and the Apostles he condemns the Testimony of this Writer as vain boldly affirming that we ought not to believe him being a single Witness especially since the Holy Ghost and a great number of the Witnesses of the Truth do dissent from him lastly this man after he hath taken so much liberty to declaim against the Author of this Epistle adds at the end of his Book that none ought to be offended that he hath treated him so severely for saith he he deserves this hatred because he hath proposed to us another Righteousness than that of Faith. Can there be any thing more insolent than the Words of this Sectary who durst oppose his false Conceptions against the Testimony of all the Churches of the World Socinus speaks with a great deal more moderation and judgment concerning the Authority of this Epistle This Champion of the Unitarians declares that it was doubted in the beginning touching the Authors of the Epistle of S. James of the second of S. Peter and of that of S. Jude because they were found after the Collection of the other Books of the New Testament had been made (i) Cùm postea tempore procedente ex judiciis huic rei aptis cognitum fuisset istas Epistolas illorum ipsorum Apostolorum esse exempta plerisque illa dubitatio fuit sic inter alias sunt numeratae ea quidem quae Jacobi est ante duas reliquas Soc. de auctor Script Sac. c. 1. n. 2. but forasmuch as it was acknowledged afterwards that they were certainly composed by the Apostles whose Names they bore the most part of the Churches did no longer doubt thereof and the Epistle of S. James was placed before the two others moreover with respect to that of S. James he proves the Antiquity of this Tradition by the ancient Syriack Copies Therefore he doth not only receive them as Canonical but believes also that they do certainly belong to them to whom they are attributed Although it be agreed that the first of these Catholick Epistles was written by S. James nevertheless it remains to be known who this James is The Title of this Epistle doth not resolve this difficulty because it is different according to the various Greek Copies and indeed we ought not to relye on this sort of Title that are later than the Authors of the Books It is read simply in some Manuscript Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2872. The Catholick Epistle of S. James and in others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of the Apostle S. James This is also the Title that hath been prefixed in the Vulgar Latin Epistola Catholica beati Jacobi Apostoli and which Beza hath retained in his Greek Edition of the New Testament where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of the Apostle James But Robert Stephen in his curious Greek Edition of the New Testament in folio hath simply put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of James It is no otherwise in Crespin's Edition at Geneva in the Year 1565. It is read according to the same sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Epistle of S. James in that of Wolfius at Strasbourg in 1524. We read also after the same manner in the Edition of Melchior Sessa at Venice in 1538 and in that of Simon de Colines at Paris in 1534 and in many others This is most natural and most conformable to the Greek Text where S. James at the beginning of his Epistle takes upon him no other Quality than that of a Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ Therefore Grotius hath also preserved this same Title and he hath reason not to approve the Opinion of those that attribute it to James the Son of Zebedee because this James had been put to Death by Herod before the Gospel of Jesus Christ was much spread abroad beyond Judea neither doth he believe that James the Son of Alpheus was the Author of it because he would have taken at the beginning of his Epistle the Name of an Apostle which was a quality in those Primitive Times that gave a great Authority to their Words from whence he concludes that it ought to be ascribed to that James whom the Apostles constituted first Bishop of Jerusalem Hieron de Script Eccles in Jac. This is not very far from the Words of S. Jerom in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers James who is called the Brother of our Lord and sirnamed the Just as some think was the Son of Joseph by another Wife but according to my Opinion of Mary the Sister of our Lord of whom John makes mention
seen in his time at Ephesus two Tombs of John. S. Jerom Hieron de Script Eccl. in Joann who often translates the words of Eusebius out of Greek into Latin hath also made this same Remark Reliquae autem duae saith he speaking of these two Epistles of S. John Joannis Presbyteri asseruntur cujus hodie alterum sepulchrum apud Ephesum ostenditur He adds nevertheless that some thought that these two Monuments were of S. John the Evangelist Nonnulli putant duas memorias ejusdem Joannis Evangelistae esse He repeats this same History when he makes mention of Papias and saith (ſ) Hoc autem diximus propter superiorem opinionem quam à plerisque retulimus traditam duas posteriores Epistolas Joannis non Apostoli esse sed Presbyteri Hieron de Script Eccles in Papiâ that he relates it for the sake of a a great number of persons that believed that this second John to whom the simple name of Priest is given was the Author of these two Epistles and not the Apostle However Athan. in Synops the Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures attributes these two last Epistles no less to the Apostle S. John than the first And it seems that the Latin Church that reads it in her Offices under the same Name hath authorised this Opinion which is likewise conformable to the Testimony of the most ancient Writers of this Church Therefore the Name of this Apostle Beati Joannis Apostoli is retained in the Latin Title of these three Epistles in the vulgar Edition In the Syriack Copy of these two last Epistles that have been Printed in the Polyglott Bible of England the simple Name of John is put whereas in the first it is read of John the Apostle This seems to have been done on purpose to distinguish the Authors of these Epistles In the Arabick Copy published by Erpenius these three Epistles are ascribed to the Apostle S. John who is named in the Title of the two first John the son of Zebedee and in the Title of the third John the Apostle Lastly Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 25. there have been raised no lest doubts in the Primitive Ages of the Church concerning the Epistle of S. Jude than of the preceding Letters for this reason Eusebius hath reckoned it in the number of those Books of the New Testament that were not generally received by all the Churches S. Jerom who hath made the same observation (t) Judas frater Jacobi parvam quae de septem Catholicis est epistolam reliquit quia de libro Enoch qui apocryphus est in ea assumit testimonium à plerisque rejicitur Tamen auctoritatem vetustate jam usu meruit inter Scripturas Sacras computatur Hieron de Script Eccles in Judâ adds that that which gave occasion to reject it was the Apocryphal Book of Enoch which is cited therein And that this nevertheless hath not hindered it from being placed in the rank of the Sacred Books its Antiquity and Use having given it this Authority In like manner it hath been generally received by all the Churches as well Eastern as Western The Unitarians and Protestants also have put it amongst the other Canonical Books of the New Testament Luther hath nevertheless doubted of it as well as of the Epistle of St. James but they that follow his Opinion are so far from rejecting it at present that they use their utmost endeavours to put a fair Construction on their Masters words Calvin after he hath acknowledged that the Ancients have differed very much amongst themselves touching this Epistle Calv. argum de ses Comm. sur l'ep de Sainte Jude expresseth himself thus However because the reading of it is very profitable and it contains nothing but what is agreeable to the purity of the Apostolical Doctrine and in regard also that it hath been accounted Authentick for a long time amongst all good People for my part I willingly place it in the number of the other Epistles Cajetan hath inserred from the above cited words of St. Jerom (u) Ex quibus apparet minoris esse aucloritatis hanc Epistolam iis quae sunt certae Scripturae Sacrae Cajet Comm. in Epist Jud. that this Epistle is of less Authority than these Writings of the Apostles of the verity of which we have been certainly assured but this might have been properly said in those ancient times when it was not approved by all the Churches whereas when this Cardinal wrote there were none that did not receive it as Divine and Canonical and therefore it hath no less Authority than the other Sacred Books that are comprehended in the Canon of the Church Grot. Annot in Epist Jud. Grotius did not believe that this Epistle was written by St. Jude the Apostle because the Author hath taken upon him only the quality of a Servant of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith moreover that (x) Si Apostolica fuisset habita haec Epistola versa fuisset in linguas omnes recepta per omnes Ecclesias Grot. Annot. in Epist Jud. if it were certainly esteemed Apostolical it would have been Translated into all Languages and received by all the Churches therefore he judgeth that it belongs to Jude Bishop of Jerusalem who lived under the Emperor Adrian But the first words of this Epistle do declare to us that it can come from no other hand than that of the Apostle St. Jude since he calls himself Jude the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James For to say with Grotius that these words Brother of James have been afterwards added by the Transcribers that it might be believed that this Jude was certainly an Apostle is to beg the question they that would prove that this hath been inserted by the Transcribers ought to produce good Copies of this Epistle or certain ancient Acts on which we might rely Any Man that should have a mind absolutely to reject the Epistle of St. Jude might easily say with as much reason as Grotius that he that hath forged it hath put therein the name of Jude the Brother of James Therefore Arguments that are purely Critical ought never to be opposed against Acts that are ancient and generally received by all the World. It is true that the Epistle of St. Jude is less quoted by the ancient Doctors of the Church than the most part of the other Books of the New Testament and that it is not found in the ancient Copies of the Syriack Version But it can be only concluded from thence that it was not at first received in all the Churches it might however have been published ever since the Primitive times of the Christian Religion under the name of St. Jude the Brother of James and yet not be Translated into all the Languages of the Churches because it was then doubted in the most part of these Churches whether it was his whose name it bore
loco nihilominùs firmissimis documentis aliis stabiliri intelligeret Raith Vind. Vers Germ. Luth. says that Luther did think fit to put that only in his Version which was constantly and by all agreed on and that consequently he might omit a Verse about which some doubts had arisen and which was not in Aldus's Edition which he made use of as it is believed Besides he was persuaded that there were other passages which afforded a lasting Foundation for the belief of the Trinity This is a plausible Reason because Luther took upon him the Translating a Greek Copy into his own Language But if the Master was to be justified in this respect I see no reason why his Disciples should alter his Version in that place and that they should commend to the people for the true word of God a thing they believed to be doubtful It might possibly have been more to the purpose according to their principle to preserve their ancient Dutch Version and content themselves with placing that Verse in the Margin by way of remark On the contrary they bring it at this day against the Antitrinitarians as a strong proof of the Mystery of the Trinity little thinking that they give them by that means the fairest occasion imaginable of Triumphing over them It is the bare Authority of the Church that does at present oblige us to receive that passage as Authentick The Greeks though otherwise disaffected to the Latin Church fully agree with them in this matter There is a greater Uniformity amongst the Calvinists in their Versions of the New Testament than amongst the Lutherans For though they pretend as well as they to Translate the Original Greek yet they have retained that Verse in all their Translations Beza who openly declares that it is not to be found in the most part of the Ancients yet says withal (l) Hic versiculus omninò mihi retinendus videtur Beza Not. in 1 Joann c. 5. v. 7. that it ought to be kept in the Text whereof it is a part Diodati who has likewise retained it in his Italian Version is of Opinion (m) Cosi in essenza come in unione è consentimento di questa testimonianza Diod. Not. in 1 Joann c. 5. that the Unity mentioned in that place is as well an Unity of Nature as an Unity or Consent of Testimony But Calvin is much more reserved on this occasion according to his wonted precaution never to make us weak Arguments against the Antitrinitarians That Expression says he Three are One does not denote the Essence but the Consent Calv. Comm. in Epist 1. Joann c. 5. v. 7. He perceived no less than Luther that that passage was not in the most Copies and was very sensible that it would be a matter of no small difficulty to reconcile the words of St. Jerome in that Preface which is alledged to be his to the ancient Greek Books He durst not deal freely in the matter lest he should have offended his weak Brethren I shall here set down his own words that the World may see how this Man carried himself when upon any occasion he was obliged to Critisize on such places of Scripture as appeared to him doubtful Calv. ibid. All this has been omitted by some Which St. Jerome thought did proceed rather from malice than ignorance or inadvertency and which was not done but by those of the Latin Church But forasmuch as the Greek Books do not agree amongst themselves it is not easie for me to be positive about the matter Nevertheless because the Text runs very well with that Addition and as I observe it is extant in the best and most Correct Copies for my part I am very willing to admit of it CHAP. XIX Of the Book of the Revelation What was the Belief of the Ancients concerning it The Hereticks that did reject it Their Reasons which are Examined There have been also Learned Catholicks of ancient time who have ascribed it to Cerinthus The Opinion of these latter times about the same Book WHat remains of the Books of the New Testament to be examined is the Apocalyps which St. Jerom makes mention of Hierom. Epist ad Dard. in one of his Epistles as being a Book that was not commonly received in the Greek Churches of his time But if Tertullian's Maxim have any weight with us illud verum quod prius i. e. That is most likely to be true that was first We will prefer the Universal Opinion of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers to that of some Greek Churches of later times It is upon this ground that Grotius gives his Judgment of this Book when he says that (a) Apostoli Joannis esse hunc librum credidere illi quibus meritò creditur Justinus contra Tryphonem Irenaeus Tertullianus adversus Marcionem aliis multis in locis quibus consentiunt Clemens Alexandrinus Origenes Cyprianus post eos alii multi Grot. Annot. in tit Apoc. St. Justin St. Irenaeus Tertullian Clement of Alexandria Origen St. Cyprian who may be believed in this matter have by one common consent avouched St. John as the Author of that Book Flaccus Illyricus had affirmed the same thing before assuring us (b) Si iis habeatur fides Patribus qui propiùs ad hoc accesserunt seculum uti certè aequissimum est quales sunt Justinus Tertullianus Irenaeus Apollonius Theophylus Antiochenus affirmari poterit eam ut Joannis Apostoli illo primo seculo habitam Cur enim tam certoò Joannis Apostoli esse confirmarent si dubias de eâ extitisse sententias antecessorum cognovissent Flac. Illyr arg in Apoc. that it is very reasonable we should refer this to the Fathers who lived near the time of the Author And therefore Baronius has judiciously observed that what St. Jerom does alledge concerning the Opinion of the Greek Churches about the Apocalyps cannot be altogether true seeing that St. Epiphanius who lived at that time Baron ann Ch. 97. n. 6. and who was not much older than he defended the Authority of that Book against the Alogian and Theodotian Hereticks That Cardinal does nevertheless declare that he cannot in this respect blame St. Jerom for having unhappily traduced the Greek Churches in his time He believed that he meant St. Basil Amphilochius the two Gregories of Nazianzen and Nysse and the Council of Laodicea Baron ibid. n. 7. who did not reckon the Apocalyps amongst the Canonical Books of Scripture He distinguishes betwixt those Fathers and the Alogians and Theodotians upon this account that the former had not impeached the Authority of that Book with an avowed obstinacy as the latter had done And even St. Epiphanius is not so much against St. Jerom but that he insinuates that the Alogians who rejected in general all that is extant of St. John's Writings would have been in some respect excusable if they had rejected nothing but the Revelation which is an obscure and unintelligible Book The
Alogians pretended that the Apocalips and the rest of St. John's Writings were composed by the Heretick Cerinthus Which they endeavoured to shew by the agreement that the Doctrine which Cerinthus professed had to that contained in the Books of that Apostle and especially in his Revelation They likewise drew up particular objections against this latter Work. (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alog. apud Epiph. Haer. 51. n. 32. Of what use say they can the Revelation of St. John be to us when he tells us of seven Angels and of seven Trumpets St. Epiphanius gives them this answer Epiph. ibid. that God was pleased to reveal to his servant John what was most mysterious in the Law and the Prophets to the end that he might treat of them in a spiritual and intelligible manner And seeing those Hereticks were so bold as to ridicule what is said of the seven Trumpets he charges them upon that account either of malice or ignorance from the words of St. Paul who has also made mention of those Trumpets in his first Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. xv 52. where he says The trumpet shall sound and at the sound of this trumpet the dead shall rise Some of the Alogians to disparage the Authority of the Apocalyps another argument make use of these words for in Chap. ii ver 18. of the Book To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira write (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alog. apud Epiph. ibid. n. 33. There was not at that time say they any Christian Church in Thyatira How could St. John write to a Church which had no being St. Epiphanius being of the same opinion with the Alogians that there was no Church in that place at that time that he may answer their objection is forced to have recourse to the Spirit of Prophecy He thinks that St. John who was inspired by God foresaw what should happen in process of time And therefore he gives us the most exact account that he can of the City of Thyatira about the time when the Phrygian Hereticks did bear sway there He shews how it afterwards became an Orthodox and most famous Church (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. The design of the Holy Ghost says he was to reveal in that place of the Apocalyps that that Church should fall from the Truth after the time of St. John and the other Apostles Which happened as Epiphanius himself does tell us ninety three years after the Ascension of our Lord and Saviour Seeing this answer of St. Epiphanius does agree with the Opinion of the Alogians that there was no Christian Church in effect in the City of Thyatira at that time Socinus (f) Mihi quidem ut verum fatear responsio ista non admodum probatur cùm propter alia tum propter id quod nimis apertè ex ipsâ historiâ Apacalypsis constare videtur jam istam Ecclesiam Thyatirensem reverà extitisse Soc. Lect. Sacr. p. 306. could by no means admit of it being persuaded that the Text of the Apocalyps does evidently shew that there was a Church therein He believed that there were several Cities of that name But for all that he does not prove against the Alogians that there was a Church in Thyatira When he brings the plain words of the Apocalyps against them he gets the thing in Question for an Answer seeing those Sectaries endeavoured by that means to lessen the Authority of that Book It is probable that at that time when St. Epiphanius lived there was no Catalogue of the Bishops of that Church nor of other publick Records that might make it manifest that there had beed a Church founded in that City from the times of the Apostles And therefore Grotius does give a more judicious answer That the truth is Grot. Annot. ad c. 2. Apoc. v. 18. there was not any Church of the Gentiles in Thyatira when St. John writ the Revelation but there was a Church of the Jews as also there was the like at Thessalonica before St. Paul Preached there The Alogians do also cavil about that which is mentioned in the same Book Chap. ix ver 14. Of the four Angels which were bound on the River Euphrates Epiph. ibid. But St. Epiphanius does in this charge them with ignorance because those Angels who were placed on the River Euphrates do signifie according to his Opinion so many Nations that were situated on that River viz. the Assyrians Babylonians Medes and Persians And adds that seeing Nations are subject to Angels those words of the Apocalyps Loose the four Angels which are upon Euphrates make very good sense St. John intending to shew thereby that those Nations being loosed should make War against another People I shall not here examin whether or no the Exposition given by St. Epiphanius be agreeable to the Text but content my self to observe in general that seeing that Book is a Prophesie and no History the Author was to write as Prophets were wont to do in a Figurative Stile And so the Alogians were inexcusable for their prejudice against this Book upon the account of the expressions which to them appeared very strange unless they imagined that there was no such thing as a Prophesie in the New Testament Cajus an Orthodox Writer who lived at Rome under Pope Zephyrin and of whom we have spoken before did also believe that Cerinthus was the Author of the Revelation of St. John. He treated that Heretick with derision (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caj apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 28. who As if he had been a great Apostle writ Revelations which he pretended to have received from Angels and in which he assured us that after the Resurrection Jesus Christ shall reign upon the Earth He allowed the space of a thousand years to this Carnal Kingdom which was to be accompanied with all sorts of pleasures For this cause he calls Cerinthus an Enemy to the Holy Scriptures and spoke in this manner of the Apocalyps which he thought was written by him and not by St. John. Denis Dion Alex. apud Eus bid Bishop of Alexandria who vigorously defended the Authority of this Book did likewise observe that some Authors did ascribe the Apocalyps to Cerinthus who according to their Opinion had prefixed St. John's Name to the Book to give Authority to his Babling about the Carnal Reign of Jesus Christ on the Earth Seeing this Opinion that maintained a Chimerical Dominion of a thousand years was spread in the Church this Learned Bishop writ two Treatises against it Entituled * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the Promises Wherein he takes to task (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 7. Hist Eccl. c. 24. Nepos a certain Bishop of Egypt who Expounded the Promises which God in Scripture has made to Mankind in a sense that speaks the Expositor to have been more Jew than Christian dreaming of a Carnal Kingdom upon the
of Justin and Irenaeus who lived some little time after that Book was Composed ought to be preferred to the Opinion of those Authors He further affirms (u) Non videtur propter parvam aliquam aut etiam magnam dissimilitudinem rationis scribendi in universum ac styli ab aliis ejusdem Joannis scriptis longè diversi generis debere aut posse dubitari quin ejus sit opus maximè cùm simul adsint tot alia testimonia conjecturae ut illi ipsi qui prorsus negarent ejus esse illudque rejecerunt coacti fuerint fateri à quopiam conscriptum fuisse qui persuadere voluerit istum ipsum Joannem illud conscripsisse Soc. ibid. that as to the difference of Stile betwixt that Work and those others which were written by St. John this Objection does not oblige him to give those Reasons which prove it to be St. John's since they appeared so convincing to those very persons who rejected the Book that they were forced to acknowledge that it was written by a Man who endeavoured to persuade others that St. John was the Author thereof This last Observation seems to be more subtil than solid a crime that is pardonable in the Unitaries who never applyed themselves to the study of the Ancient Ecclesiastical Authors In the last place the Commentaries on the Apocalyps made by the Calvinists are undeniable proofs that they do receive it into the number of Divine and Prophetical Books Besides they would be very sorry to be without that Prophecy Beza made a Discourse Treating expresly on that Subject by way of Preface to his Notes on that Work where he answers the Objections which Erasmus had published to diminish the Authority thereof That which he had not observed as to any other Books of the New Testament Calvin fearing that he should make himself ridiculous by his false Expositions of a Book that is so very obscure has taken the best side by not publishing any Commentary on the Apocalyps His example had no influence on his Followers for many amongst them did with a Prophetical tone lowdly recommend to the World their own Visions upon that Book Besides the Books of the New Testament which we have hitherto spoken of and that are generally received in all the Churches as Divine and Canonical some others have been read in many Churches which yet never had the same Authority Nevertheless it has so fallen out that those who have made Catalogues of the Sacred Books have not always observed this distinction For they have placed all of them in an equal rank for Books of the Holy Scripture There have been also some Fathers who quoted some Books of this sort as if they had been truely given by Divine Inspiration But it is easie to find even by the Writings of the Fathers that those Works were approved by none but particular persons whose Opinion cannot reasonably be looked upon as a Law. If I had not resolved to confine my Discourse to the Books of the New Testament which are generally approved of in all Churches I would have insisted at large on those other Books but I am obliged to keep within the limits of my first purpose I shall only observe that in a certain Catalogue of the Books of the Bible which is at the end of two very ancient Copies of St. Paul's Epistles there follows immediately after the Epistle of St. Jude (x) Judae Epistola Barnabae Epistola Joannis Revelatio Actus Apostolorum Pastor Actus Pauli Revelatio Petri. Catal. libror. Script S. ex Codd MSS. Bibl. Reg. S. Germ. the Epistle of Barnabas the Revelation or the Apocalyps of John the Acts of the Apostles the Book of the Pastor the Acts of Paul and the Revelation of Peter The number also of the Verses contained in each Book of the Bible is set down in the Catalogue And what is most of all observable is that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not comprehended therein It is nevertheless in those two Greek and Latin Manuscripts that are written with the same Hand as the rest of St. Paul's Epistles but it is placed by it self and after the Catalogue as if it did not belong to that Apostle In this matter they followed the Custom of some of the Western Churches CHAP. XX. The Objections of the Jews and other Enemies of the Christian Religion against the Books of the New Testament Inquiry is made if the Evangelists and Apostles made use of the Greek Version of the Septuagint in the Passages which they quote out of the Old Testament St. Jerom's Opinion upon the Matter That Father declared himself for the Hebrew Text of the Jews in opposition to that of the Septuagint THE Books of the New Testament having been maintained as well in general as in particular it is worth the while to examin the principal Objections that are made against those Books and at the same time against the Apostles who published them The Mahometans endeavour to evince the necessity of the coming of their Prophet from this that seeing the Canonical Books of the Jews and Christians are according to their Opinion wholly corrupted it was necessary that God should send a new Prophet upon the Earth to teach Men the True Religion But because they bring no solid reasons for the confirmation of what they alledge it is to no purpose to refute them The Jews and some Philosophers who are Enemies to the Christians have more particularly attacked the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles They have had the impudence to charge them with Forgery or at least with ignorance seeing as they object they have quoted the Books of the Old Testament otherwise than they are in themselves They further accuse them of annexing to the Passages they produce a sense that was very far from the mind of the Authors Hereupon they draw up the strongest objections they can against the Authority of the New Testament which of necessity must be answered As to the first Objections the Jews do suppose that when a publick Record is produced for confirmation of a Matter of Fact it is necessary that the very words of the Record be delivered in the same manner as they are in the Original or in faithful Copies but say they the Disciples of Jesus Christ have not done that For if the passages of the Old Testament which they have quoted in their Writings be compared with the Original Hebrew Text it will be found that in many places they bear a quite different meaning Whence they conclude that they are either chargeable with falshood or that their Writings have been altered and therefore that there is no credit to be given to them I answer this Objection that it was not necessary for the Apostles when they Preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to make use of the Hebrew Bible On the contrary it was more for their purpose that they should make mention of the passages of the Old Testament so as they
Miracles of Jesus Christ are evident Proofs of his Mission And therefore if it should be supposed with them that the Passages we speak of are not always justly applyed it cannot be concluded from thence that the Christian Religion is built on a false Foundation That we may make a right judgment of the Reasonings of Jesus Christ and his Disciples in the Books of the New Testament we must have recourse to the practice of the Jews at that time and if it be proved that their manner of reasoning and applying to the Messias certain Passages of Scripture is agreeable to the usage of that time they cannot without great injustice be blamed They will be sufficiently acquitted of that which is charged upon them if we consult the ancient Books of the Jews especially the Chaldaick Paraphrases and the Medraschim or ancient Allegorical Commentaries They have in those Works attributed to the Messiah many Places of Scripture which seem to have a quite different sense if the Letter be only considered The Rabbins likewise give two senses to many Passages one of which is merely Historical and another that is more large which in some sort may be called Mystical or Allegorical although in effect it is as much literal in its own nature as the former Thus they expound the same Passage of David and of the Messias All their old Medraschim or Allegorical Commentaries which are the most ancient Expositions that they have of the Bible follow this Method Their Doctors never began to insist on the literal sense till they had occasion to dispute with the Christians and it was easie to make Answer to them according to no other Principles than those which they themselves had established Why then do they think it strange that the Evangelists and Apostles who came from amongst them should make use of the same Principles to oppose them Why do they perswade us that in the matter of the Messiah there ought to be no such Proofs used as are Founded on the Mystical Allegorical sense of Scriptures since they themselves have always observed that Method The truth is if the Jews be much press'd about those Passages of the Old Testament which they make use of to confirm the belief of a Messiah which they have placed amongst the Fundamental Articles of their Religion it will be hard enough for them to Answer those Objections that may be brought against them upon the point unless they have recourse to those Mystical and Allegorical senses which being Founded upon the Tradition of their Fathers ought to pass for real Proofs There has been a certain Rabbin amongst their ancient Doctors who absolutely denied that the Messiah should come because he did not believe that it was Founded upon the literal and evident Proofs of Scripture They did not for all that exclude him from their Communion by which it does appear that the Article was not yet at that time in the number of those they call Fundamental The Jews do renounce their Principle when they object against the Disciples of Jesus Christ that their Expositions are not purely literal but Allegorical and that there can nothing be concluded from an Allegory 'T is true that that which is meerly Allegorical cannot suffice as a positive Proof for the Confirmation of a Religion But when those Allegories are Founded on Tradition they may be used and applyed to Matters of Fact which are already agreed upon by that Tradition In this manner all the Objections of the Jews may be Answered without a particular enumeration of those Passages which they pretend to have been falsly applied to our Messiah in the New Testament for they cannot abdicate that Principle which is taken from their own Doctors and their Custom lest they themselves should renounce the belief of a Messiah to come Moses Bar-cepha a Syrian Author having considered this Truth (m) Sicut inter haereticos qui contendun minimè convenire ut Veteris Testamenti scripta mysticè atque aliter quà m de ipsis rebus interpretentur graviterque accusant eos qui contrà faciunt At qui si ita statuas multa ut consequantur absurda necesse est obfirmabitur Manetis Marcionis sententia qui dicebant Vetus Testamentum nequaquam ab auctore Deo Christi Patre esse Praetereà nisi in illo recondita fuerint arcana sensa unde potuere prisci Patres Prophetae aliique sancti viri intelligere Christum olim venturum Denique si ita cum illis haereticis sentimus profectò in Judaismum incidimus Mos Barcepha Comm. de Parad. part 1. c. 3. does put those in the number of Hereticks who alledge that the Old Testament ought not to be Mystically Explained but only Literally and according to the Historical Sense If that be so says that Author the Heresies of the Manichees and the Marcionites are thereby set up It cannot henceforth be shewn whence the ancient Fathers and the Prophets had the account which they gave us of the coming of the Messiah In a word he does assure us that that Opinion is mere Judaism To which it may be added that it is mere Sadduceism for the true Jews are all agreed that a Sense that is merely Literal and Historical separated from Tradition cannot in any wise confirm the Articles of their Religion This Principle is so true that the Antitrinitarians who refuse to receive the Traditions of the Catholicks in the Disputes betwixt them and who do only admit the Literal Expositions of Scripture without any dependance on Tradition do plainly see themselves obliged to acknowledge some other Sense than what is Literal when they are to enter into the Lists with the Jews This does plainly appear in the Works of Socinus Enjedine and of some other Unitaries In which they give evident proofs of the inconstancy of their Principle They did not foresee that whilst they framed certain Maxims against the Catholicks they did at the same time give Authority to Sadduceism and Manicheism Faustus one of the Heroes of the Manichean Party not finding in the Books of Moses any Passage which he could literally understand of Jesus Christ and otherwise perceiving that it was in plain terms asserted in the New Testament that Moses had written concerning Jesus Christ chose rather to say that the Writings of the Evangelists had been corrupted than to renounce his own Principle There was a greater Harmony manifest in his Reasonings and Maxims than in those of the Antitrinitarians who received Tradition in some things and in others did reject it They argue against the Jews in the matters of Religion after another manner than against the Catholicks seeing those things do consist in matters of Fact they cannot be proved merely by the light of Reason Tradition is likewise to be consulted And therefore so long as the Jews shall with bare Reasons oppose the Exposition of the Passages of the Old Testament which the Evangelists and the Apostles have cited in the New they
eos verborum ordinem secutos esse sed sensum Hieron that the Evangelists and the Apostles did not scrupulously limit themselves to the very words of the Passages of the Old Testament contenting themselves to give their Sense This is sufficient though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou shalt call is likewise found in some Greek Copies As for the Sense of this Passage the Jews pretend that it cannot be applied to the Messiah as St. Matthew has done it seeing that place does make mention of a thing that should happen very soon afterwards St. Jerom observes that they understood it of Hezekiah the Son of Achaz because Samaria was invaded under his Reign But he does solidly refute them by making it appear to them that Achaz was already far advanced in years before he came to the Kingdom He brings in the same place another Exposition of a (u) Quidam de nostris judaizans Esaiam Prophetam duos filios habuisse contendit Jesub Emmanuel Emmanuel de Prophetissâ uxore ejus esse generatum in typum Domini Salvatoris Hieron ibid. Christian who in his Opinion did Judaize That Author believed that in that place it was spoken of the Prophet Esay's Wife who had two Children Jesub and Emmanuel that the latter was the Type of Jesus Christ But whatever St. Jerom does say of it I do not perceive that there is any thing affirmed therein but what is altogether consonant to the Principles of the Christian Religion and also to those which he does elsewhere maintain That Prophesie as the most part of the rest has a double Sense the one which is here spoken of has relation to the Prophet Esay's Wife the other which is of a greater latitude and may be called Spiritual or Mystical does point at the times of the Messiah and it is also in some manner Literal because it is founded on the Theology and Traditions of the Jews It will be easie to answer their objections by supposing these two Senses whereas if the Exposition of that Prophesie be rigorously restrained to the Messiah it will be more difficult to satisfie them Seeing this Principle is of great importance and may be useful for the resolution of many difficulties of this nature it is fit to confirm it by the Authority of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers and chiefly St. Jerom who has mentioned it in his Commentaries upon the Prophet Daniel Porphyrius did pretend that there is nothing in that Book but what is Historical He applyed to Antiochus that which the Christians Expound of Antichrist aand the end of the World. The Christians nevertheless did not wholly reject the Interpretation of Porphyrius but they affirmed that Antiochus was a Type of Antichrist Typum eum volunt says St. Jerom in speaking of the ancient Doctors of the Church Antichristi habere quae in illo ex parte praecesserint in Antichristo ex toto esse implenda And to make their Opinion the more clear he further adds this excellent Maxim (x) Hunc esse morem Scripturae Sanctae ut futurorum veritatem praemittat in typis juxta illud quod de Domino Salvatore in 71. Psalm dicitur qui praenotatur Salomonis omnia quae de eo dicuntur Salomoni non valent convenire Apud Hieron Comm. in Dan. c. 11. that it is usual for the Holy Scripture to describe the Truth of future things by Types Which he confirmed by Psalm lxxi which is understood of Jesus Christ and which is nevertheless applyed to Solomon though every thing spoken in that Psalm cannot agree to him Those ancient Ecclesiastical Writers did conclude from thence that (y) Sicut igitur Salvator habet Salomonem caeteros sanctos in typum adventûs sui sic Antichristus pessimum Regem Antiochum qui sanctos persecutus est templumque violavit rectè typum sui habuisse credendus est Hieron ibid. seeing Jesus Christ had Solomon and other Saints of the Old Testament for Types we ought likewise to believe that Antichrist had Antiochus for a Type he having been a very wicked King who persecuted the Saints and violated the Temple St. Jerom does explain the Prophesie of Daniel according to those two Senses and seeing in that he cannot be charged with having favoured the impieties of Porphyrius who alledged that the Book of Daniel was not so ancient as the Jews and Christians did pretend those cancot be accused of Judaism who received a part of the Expositions that the Jews have given of the Prophesies and who do withal with the Evangelists and Apostles apply them to the Messiah in a larger Sense CHAP. XXII A particular Examination of many Passages of the Old Testament cited by the Apostles in a sense that seems to be altogether Foreign Some difficulties formed against their Writings are cleared some Principles are established which may Answer the Objections of the Jews and the Emperor Julian AS it would require much time so it is of no use to explain here all the Passages of the Old Testament which the Evangelists and the Apostles have cited in their Writings because Commentators may be consulted thereupon especially Maldonat and Grotius who commonly follow the Principle that we have already established That Principle did appear so much the more reasonable as being equally founded on a joint suffrage of the Jews and Christians Seeing I design to give general Rules for answering the Objections of the Jews against the Books of the New Testament 't is sufficient if I only take notice of some of those citations by which means these Rules may be the more manifest One of the places that are most difficult to be reconciled is the Passage of the Prophet Micah which is cited in the eleventh Chap. of St. Matthew v. 6. (a) Quod testimonium nec Hebraico nec Septuaginta Interpretibus convenire me quoque tacente perspicuum est Hieron lib. 2. in Mic. c. 5. St. Jerome does assure us that it is as clear as the day that it does neither agree with the Hebrew Text nor with the Greek of the Septuagint He brings at the same time the Opinion of some Authors who believed (b) Sunt autem qui asserant in omnibus penè testimoniis quae de Veteri Testamento sumuntur istiusmodi esse errorem ut aut ordo mutetur aut verba interdùm sensus quoque ipse diversus sit vel Apostolis vel Evangelistis non ex libro carpentibus testimonia sed memoriae credentibus quae nonnunquam fallitur Hieron ibid. that the Evangelists and Apostles were not at all exact in their citations because they trusted to their memory But seeing this Answer does rather destroy than establish the truth of the Gospels he has recourse to another solution He says that they are the Jewish Doctors who speak in that place so that St. Matthew intending to shew that those Doctors neglected the study of the Scripture has cited that Passage in the same manner
more abound with Hebraisms and Chaldaisms than that of the Hellenists who had the Greek for their Vulgar Language And though we should suppose with Salmasius that the most part of the Disciples of Jesus Christ being Galileans and of the Dregs of the People spake no other Language but the Syriack it could not from thence be proved that the Books of the Old Testament that are in Greek are not written in the Hellenistick Language All that can be proved from that supposition is that the Apostles did then compose their Works in their Mother Tongue which was the Syriack and that they were afterwards Translated into Greek by Interpreters who accompanied them in their Travels and who understood the Greek Language This is truly the Opinion of that Critick who believed that the most part of the Apostles were but very slow in learning the Greek at that time when they were commanded to Preach the Gospel to the Gentiles (a) Sed plures ex iis verisimile est per interpretem Graecis Romanis Evangelium adnuntiasse exceptis si qui Graecè noverant ut potè inter Graecos nati quod de Paulo certum est Salm. de Hellen. p. 254. It is likewise probable saith he that several of them Preached the Gospel to the Greeks and Romans by Interpreters there being only those of them who were Greeks by Birth for example St. Paul who Preached in Greek But that supposition is so far from destroying the Hellenistick Language of the Books of the New Testament that it does establish it the more For Salmasius assures us in the same place that the Greek Books that were Translated out of the Hebrew and the Syriack do more abound with Hebraisms and Chaldaisms than those which had been written in Greek before that time And therefore he alledges that there are much fewer Hebraisms in St. Luke and in St. Paul who understood the Greek Language than in St. Matthew who had been Translated out of the Hebrew or Chaldee (b) Hanc differentiam stili in Graecè translatis merè Graecis notavit aliquot locis Hieronymus Salm. ibid. p. 258. He confirms his Observation by the Authority of St. Jerom who acknowledged as he thinks this difference of Stile betwixt the Books that were written in Greek and those which were Translated into that Language All that can be concluded from his Supposition is that the Books which were written by the Disciples of Jesus Christ who were Galileans were not composed by Jews-Hellenists but by mere Hebrews in the Language of their Country which was the Chaldaick Language He cannot conclude from thence that the Greek of the Books which we have at this day is not a Greek of the Synagogues On the contrary the Distinction that he makes betwixt the Works which were then written in Greek and those which were Translated out of the Hebrew and the Chaldee does manifestly suppose it Nevertheless we ought not to oppose in this matter all the Ancients who believed that of the four Evangelists St. Matthew did only write his Gospel in Hebrew As for the Hebraisms which he thinks abound more in the Books that were Translated out of Hebrew into Greek than in others Vorstius is not altogether of the same mind For he believes that there are more Hebraisms in St. Luke's Gospel than in the other Gospels He likewise adds (c) Ego contenderim S. Lucam plus Hebraismorum usurpasse quà m ullum caeterorum Novi Testamenti Scriptorum in uno capite primo Evangelii Lucae vel quinquaginta in uno verò ejusdem capitis versiculo vel quatuor aut plures Hebraismos demonstrare possim Joann Vorst Philolog Sac. part alt Epist dedic that he could easily shew fifty Hebraisms in the first Chapter of that Evangelist and four and more even in one Verse indeed it may very well be that St. Luke may make use of more pure Greek Terms than the other Evangelists do and yet for all this have a Phrase that is altogether Hebrew or Syriack Salmasius does further assure us against the Opinion of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers (d) Graecè nescisse Apostolos vel uno vincitur argumento quod ex Septuaginta Interpretum Versione testimonia non citarint sed ex Hebraico textu Salm. de Hellen. pag. 255. that amongst all the Apostles it was only St. Paul who understood the Greek Which he proves by their citing the Old Testament according to the Hebrew Text and not according to the Greek of the Septuagint But we have already shewn the contrary and although St. Jerom is somtimes of that Opinion he frequently takes the opposite side upon very good Reasons The Reason Salmasius adds why the Passages of the Old Testament which are cited in the New do not agree with the Greek of the Septuagint is because the Evangelists and the Apostles took them from the Hebrew and the Interpreters Translating them into Greek do not always agree with the Septuagint But if it were so those Translators would at least have expressed the Hebrew by other Greek Words and would have been conformable to that Hebrew which yet is not true for they agree more often with the Septuagint than with the Hebrew Text. This difference as it has been elsewhere observed proceeds from this that the Apostles according to the usage of their time did not trouble themselves in their citations to relate the express Words of Scripture because they adhered chiefly to the Sense But was it necessary Salmasius continues that St. Peter who was an Apostle of the Jews should understand the Greek Language seeing the Jews of that time understood the Syriack and the Hebrew It is not true that all the Jews of that time understood the Hebrew and the Syriack For in all the Roman Empire only those of Palestine knew the Syriack or the Chaldee and yet those of that Country who were above the Common Rank did likewise understand the Greek Language As for the Hebrew there were only a very few Learned Men amongst them who understood it whereas the Greek Language was spread through a considerable part of the Empire and the Jews of Rome where St. Peter was accompanied with St. Mark spake Greek more than any other Language To that which is objected that St. Mark according to the testimony of all Antiquity was St. Peter's Interpreter I answer that it cannot be proved from thence that S. Peter was altogether ignorant of the Greek Language seeing all those ancient Doctors of the Church who make St. Mark to be St. Peter's Interpreter do not deny but that this Holy Apostle understood the Greek St. Paul had likewise Titus for his Interpreter and yet Salmasius thinks that that Apostle knew the Greek better than the Hebrew We will freely grant to this Critick that St. John who was a Galilean had a more exact knowledge of the Hebrew or rather of the Chaldaick Language than of the Greek But it cannot be from
matter (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. tom 15. Comm. in Matth. has observed this great diversity of the Greek Copies which he attributed partly to the negligence of the Transcribers and partly to the liberty that Criticks assumed in correcting the Books of the New Testament adding to and taking away from it according as they judged it convenient Indeed if it be remembred what was briefly said of it upon the occasion of the last Chapter of S. Mark and of the History of the adulterous Woman Chap. 8. of S. John we shall find evident proofs there of this observation of Origen which would further appear if we had several Copies of that time which we might compare with those that remain whereas we have very few that are above a thousand years continuance and which as we shall shew in the next Chapter do very much differ from those others we have at this day They have likewise all those Errors that we have observed That Father does add in the same place that he had in some sort remedied the diversity of the Greek Copies of the Septuagint Version which he had revised and corrected according to the ordinary Rules of Criticism He likewise declares in what manner he had gone through that great Work that had all the success that he could hope for But he did not the like as to the Books of the New Testament unless it be that he carefully searched for the most correct Copies and made many Critical Reflections on sundry places according as occasions did present themselves for that purpose Neither do we find that the Ecclesiastical Writers who lived after Origen made a distinction of two sorts of Editions of the New Testament as they have of two Editions of the Version of the Septuagint They made a difference betwixt that which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vulgar which was publickly used and that which was corrected according to the Rules of Criticism They considered this latter as the true Edition of the Septuagint altho it was as yet very imperfect and the most part of the Oriental Churches made use of it for correcting their Copies Yet for all this Origen as well as several other Criticks did correct some Greek Copies of the New Testament and S. Jerom does sometimes cite them But it does not appear that his Critical Observations were in the place of a Law as to those Books as they were as to an ancient Greek Version of the Old Testament If it had been so we should have had a Massore of the Greek Text of the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles in the same manner as the Jews had of the Hebrew Text of the Bible We should not find so many different Readings as there are at this day For every one would have exactly followed Origen's Copy as the Jews followed the Copy that was corrected by their Doctors whom they commonly called Massorets And from hence it is that we find not at this day any ancient Hebrew Copies of the Scripture amongst them For they reformed them all by the Massore and seeing they hold it for infallible they wholly neglected their ancient Books They are so much persuaded that the Books of the Law which they now read are perfectly conformable to the Original of Moses that they do keep in their Synagogues any old Roll or Volume The Jews of the Portuguese Synagogue of Amsterdam have at least fifty Rolls of their Sepher tora or Book of the Law which for the most part are very well written but they are all new If any ask for ancient ones they take no notice because they are prepossessed with a Belief that there can be no difference betwixt the ancient and the modern It is not so amongst the Christians who have had no Massorets whom they altogether follow in copying their Greek Copies of the New Testament And therefore we ought not to be surprised to find therein a much greater number of various Renditions than in the Hebrew Copies of the Jews I dare also be bold to say that this manifold variety ought to gain a greater authority to them than if there had been no such difference For it is impossible that a Book which has passed through so many hands should always continue the same unless they have corrected it and afterwards follow exactly that Correction as it happened to the Jews in respect of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament It is the advantage of a Book that there have been several different Copies thereof to the end that a better Judgment may be given of the true Rendition And upon this account the Books of the New Testament are to be preferred to the most part of the others because the Christian Religion having spread into so many different Countries every Nation has Copies and Versions thereof These are the different Copies by which we are to be guided at this day because we have not now the first Original We shall with all possible exactness examine the Greek Manuscript Copies and also the most ancient Versions which have been taken from the Greek We are not to depend upon one Greek Edition more than upon another if it be not founded on better Manuscripts We shall prefer the Editions which together with the Text do contain divers Renditions of sundry Copies It is a rare thing to find Greek Manuscripts where such variations are noted in the Margin for seeing those Books are read in the Churches they observe commonly no other Reading than what is authorised by custom They did content themselves to mark them in distinct Works especially in the Notes which they joyned to the Greek Text of the New Testament And therefore besides the various Manuscript Copies we ought to consult the Notes which it is easie enough to find in good Libraries Many Learned Criticks of the latter Days when the Study of the Greek Language was re-established applied themselves carefully to this Labor Valla was the first who made search for the Greek Copies of the New Testament and also for the Latin. Laur. Vall. Annot in Nov. Test Edit Basil in 8. an 1526. He cites many of them in his Remarks which Erasmus took care to Print at Basle and altho he does much insist upon the little Niceties of the Latin Grammar yet we are obliged to him for the new Discoveries which he has made to us in a time when Barbarity did still reign in Europe It was by the force of his Example that Erasmus was induced to write Notes on the New Testament where he cites a much greater number of Greek and Latin Manuscripts which he had read There is also annexed to some Editions of his New Testament a Collection of divers Readings taken from the Greek Copies He seemed to be better versed than Valla in this sort of Reasoning especially as to his knowledge of Manuscripts Nevertheless his Critical Reflections do speak the Author's liberty more than their own evidence When he meets
Origen's corrected Copy It may be also said upon good grounds that this Vulgar Greek was altered in sundry places and that therefore it is not justifiable that we should forsake the Vulgar whenever it does not agree with the Vulgar Greek Upon this ground Mariana the Jesuit observed that it is not likely that the Ancient Latin Interpreter is the Author of all the various Readings that make so great a difference betwixt the Greek and the Latin. Neque enim tam multis locis quibus à Graecis Latina discrepant de suo capite finxisse verisimile est (k) Suspicabar ex variis olim codicibus eam lectionem fuisse secutum eosque codices qui communi eruditorum sententiâ eâ aetate maximè probabantur ex alio quopiam uno aut paucis minoris fidei transfusos Graecos codices qui nostrà aetate formis expressi vulgò circumferuntur Mar. pro Edit Vulg. c. 17. He thinks that that Interpreter in making his Version followed the best Copies of his time and that those which have been Printed in this last Age were taken from a very few Copies which were not very correct According to this Observation the Greek of the New Testament may be called as it was Printed a Vulgar Greek if it be compared with the Ancient Manuscripts which the Latin Interpreter made use of and yet for all that those Manuscripts ought not to have the denomination of the Apostolical Greek and of the first Original F. Morin has also given it the name of the Vulgar Greek or that which has been published in our time Cogitent ergo saith he to the Protestants who are very apt to leave the Ancient Latin Edition quoties Vulgatam à Graeco Vulgato dissentientem deprehendunt sed cum vetustissimis codicibus esse consensum à quibus degeneres sunt neoterici Graeci It is moreover a long time since this difference has been observed in the Greek Copies of the New Testament which is founded upon the Rules of Criticism The appellation of Vulgar has been always given to the common Copies of the Bible to distinguish them from those that were corrected by Criticks and are therefore believed to be more exact The Jews for example reform their common and ordinary Copies by those of the Massoret Hilarius Deacon of Rome puts a great value on this Rule in his Commentary upon the fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans v. 14. He rejects the Vulgar Reading of the Greek Copies assuring us that they can never be used so as to prevail against the Latin Edition seeing they vary Sic praescribitur nobis saith he de Graecis codicibus quasi non ipsi ab invicem discrepent He has recourse to the most Ancient Greek Copies from which the Latin Version was taken And seeing (l) Constat autem hoc per quosdam Latinos de veteribus Graecis olim translatos codicibus quos incorruptos simplicitas temporum servavit servat Ambrosiast Comm. in Epist ad Rom. c. 5. v. 14. he is perswaded that the Latin Copies were not corrupted he believes that the Greek from which they were taken is ancient and true F. Amelote might according to this sense have distinguished the Greek at this day from the ancient and true Greek and have called the former the Vulgar Greek But it does not follow from thence that that Ancient Greek is free from all faults and that it must be always preferred to the Greek which is called New. For this latter Greek is no otherwise New but in respect of its being published in these latter times And it may happen that this New Greek may be found agreeable to the most Ancient Authors and that it is consequently very ancient And therefore Hilarius the Deacon gives us three Qualities the consideration of which ought to induce us to prefer one Copy to another Hoc verum arbitror saith he quando Ratio Historia Authoritas observatur Ambros ibid. He grounds the Reading which he believes to be the best in that place upon the Authority of Tertullian of Victorin and St. Cyprian Whence he does conclude that the Vulgar Greek of his time was not to be followed seeing there were more ancient and more true Copies in which the Reading was otherwise I do not inquire if that Deacon was justifiable in the matter of which he treated I content my self with proposing the Rule that he gives us by which we may distinguish the Copies that are called Vulgar or Common from others that are more Ancient and more Correct This being once supposed we shall avoid many unprofitable Questions which Mr. Arnauld does seriously handle upon the occasion of the Vulgar Greek which he alledges to be extant in notion only and which saith he we ought first to make before we speak of it This Learned Man does afterwards endeavour to prove that that name is neither to be given to Robert Stephen's Edition nor to that of the Cardinal Ximenes nor to any other because as he thinks it is Chimerical and of F. Amelote's invention who framed to himself a certain Vulgar Greek the most erroneous that could be imagined in opposition to the Vulgar that the faults of the one might ballance the perfections of the other I am apt to believe that that Father does entertain false Idea's of that which is called the Vulgar Greek But if he be understood in the manner we have already shewn it is no Chimera nor fancy If the Authors of the Translation of the New Testament Printed at Mons have sometimes followed the Vulgar Greek in their Version without making mention of any other Greek they are in that to be blamed For it cannot be absolutely affirmed that the Greek is read in some places otherwise than the Latin when there are Greek Copies where the Reading is the same with the Latin Neither must we always prefer the Greek Copies that agree with the Latin Edition to the Common and Ordinary We are to judge of those Readings according to the Rules of Criticism and examin with the Deacon Hilary which of those Copies are Founded on Reason on History and on Authority The Greek wherein these things do meet shall be the most ancient and the most correct whether it be found in the Old Manuscripts or in the Printed Books There is then nothing more false than the Idea that School Divines and some Canonists have formed of the Greek Copies of the New Testament For under the pretence of defending the Authority of the Ancient Latin Edition they alledge that when there is any difference betwixt the Greek Copies at this day and the Latin we ought always to prefer the Latin to the Greek because the Greeks say they being Schismaticks have corrupted their Books whereas the Truth has remained in the Roman Church there is nothing more unjust than this thought For it is easie to go back to the time before the Schism and to shew that the Origen's the
Languages as seems almost impossible for one Man. 'T is not to be wondered that he has committed Mistakes having had the Misfortune to be brought up in the Church of Rome which uses the Holy Scriptures chiefly in order to corrupt them equalling if not preferring Traditions to them founding its Infallibility on its self being supported by the intricate Juggles of the Canonists and the Gibberish of the Schoolmen However if his Alloy be disliked this Advantage may be expected That the Learned of our Church which pays a due respect to the Scriptures and uncorrupted Antiquity and is accomplished with all kinds of Learning requisite will be hereby excited to refine on the Subject CONTENTS Of the First Part. Chap. I. THE Verity of the New Testament defended in general against the ancient Hereticks Reflections upon the Principle made use of by the Fathers to establish the Authority of these Books Page 1. Chap. II. Concerning the Titles that are at the Head of the Gospels and other Books of the New Testament whether these Titles were made by the Authors of these Books or whether they were since added pag. 12. Chap. III. Concerning Books that have been published under the Name of Jesus Christ and the Apostles Of several other Acts forged by the ancient Hereticks Reflections on the whole matter pag. 19. Chap. IV. The ancient Fathers have not produced the Originals of the New Testament in their Disputes against the Hereticks An Examination of Proofs that are brought to shew that these Originals have been kept in some Churches pag. 30. Chap. V. Of the Books of the New Testament in particular and first of the Gospel of St. Matthew The Original of this Gospel hath been written in the Hebrew Tongue which the Jews of Jerusalem spake at that time An Answer to the Reasons that are contray to this Opinion pag. 39. Chap. VI. The Jews of the Territory of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles spake in the Chaldaick or Syriack Tongue An Answer to the Reasons that Mr. Vossius hath published against this Opinion At the same time several Difficulties are cleared appertaining to this matter pag. 46. Chap. VII Of the Sect of the Nazarenes and of their Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy of the Gospel of St. Matthew pag. 51. Chap. VIII Of the Ebionites Of their Copy of the Gospel of St. Matthew Of some other ancient Hereticks who have made use of this same Gospel pag. 72. Chap. IX Of the Greek Copy of St. Matthew and its Authority A Comparison of this Copy with the Hebrew or Chaldaick An Answer to the Objections of some Hereticks against this Gospel pag. 98. Chap. X. Of the Time and Order of every Gospel Some Greek Manuscript Copies are produced thereupon Of S. Mark and his Gospel which is commonly believed to be the second Of his Office of Interpreter to S. Peter pag. 83. Chap. XI In what Language S. Mark hath written his Gospel Of the twelve last Verses of this Gospel which are not found in several Greek Manuscript Copies pag. 91. Chap. XII Of the Gospel of S. Luke what hath obliged him to publish it since there were two others that had been written before his Of Marcion and his Copy of S. Luke's Gospel The Catholicks have also altered this Gospel in some places pag. 101. Chap. XIII Of the Gospel of S. John and of Hereticks that have rejected this Gospel Their Reasons with an Answer to them An Inquiry concerning the twelve Verses of this Gospel which are not found in some ancient Copies Several Greek Manuscript Copies are cited to clear this Difficulty Some Criticks have imagined without any grounds that the last Chapter of this Gospel did not belong to S. John. pag. 113. Chap. XIV Of the Acts of the Apostles that have been received in the Church Other Acts of the Apostles that have been forged pag. 126. Chap. XV. Of the Epistles of S. Paul in general Of Marcion and his Copy of these Epistles False Letters attributed to S. Paul. pag. 131. Chap. XVI Of the Epistle to the Hebrews in particular Whether it be S. Paul's and Canonical What Antiquity hath believed thereupon as well in the Eastern as in the Western Countries The Opinions of these later Ages concerning this Epistle pag. 142. Chap. XVII Of the Catholick or Canonical Epistles in general and in particular pag. 154. The Contents of the Second Part. Chap. XVIII A Critical Observation on a Passage in S. John's First Epistle Chap. v. ver 7. which is wanting in the most Greek Copies Eastern Editions and the most ancient Latin Copies The Preface to the Canonical Epistles in some Latin Bibles under the name of S. Jerom was not penn'd by that Father It cannot be proved that S. Cyprian had the Passage of S. John's Epistle in his Copy Page 1. Chap. XIX Of the Book of the Revelation What was the Belief of the Ancients concerning it The Hereticks that did reject it Their Reasons which are Examined There have been also Learned Catholicks of ancient time who have ascribed it to Cerinthus The Opinion of these latter times about the same Book pag. 14. Chap. XX. The Objections of the Jews and other Enemies of the Christian Religion against the Books of the New Testament Inquiry is made if the Evangelists and Apostles made use of the Greek Version of the Septuagint in the Passages which they quote out of the Old Testament St. Jerom's Opinion upon the matter That Father declared himself for the Hebrew Text of the Jews in opposition to that of the Septuagint pag. 25. Chap. XXI A Discussion of some other Objections against the Books of the New Testament The Evangelists and Apostles in the manner of their explaining the Passages of the Old Testament and applying them to the Messiah followed the Custom which then obtained amongst the Jews There are many Words in the New Testament which have a larger signification than they have in the Old and that can be attributed to nothing but to that usage and to a Tradition received amongst the Jews pag. 36. Chap. XXII A particular Examination of many Passages of the Old Testament cited by the Apostles in a sense that seems to be altogether foreign Some difficulties formed against their Writings are cleared some Principles are established which may answer the Objections of the Jews and the Emperor Julian pag. 46. Chap. XXIII Of the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testament A Refutation of the Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa The Cardinal of Perron has given a very bad Exposition of the Words of the second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy Chap. 3. v. 16. which makes mention of this Inspiration The Disputes betwixt the Jesuits of Louvain and the Divines of the same place upon this matter Three Propositions of the Jesuits censured by the Doctors of Louvain and Douay A Defence of those Propositions against the Censure of those Divines pag. 59. Chap. XXIV An Examination of the Reasons that the Doctors of Louvain and Douay made use of in their Censure of the Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain touching the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings A very free Opinion of a Learned Divine of Paris about the same thing pag. 71. Chap. XXV Spinosa's Objections against the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testam are examined pag. 80. Chap. XXVI Of the Stile of the Evangelists and the Apostles The Opinion of modern Writers and of the ancient Doctors of the Church upon this matter with many Critical Reflections pag. 84. Chap. XXVII Of the Language of the Hellenists or Grecians if that which bears that name be in effect a Language The Reasons of Salmasius against that Language do rather establish than destroy it The Greek of the New Testament may be called the Greek of the Synagogue the Jews Hellenists read in their Synagogues the Hebrew Text of the Bible as well as the Jews pag. 94. Chap. XXVIII A more particular Discussion of the Reasons alledged by Salmasius against the Language that is called Hellenistick Several Difficulties also relating to this matter are cleared pag. 103. Chap. XXIX Of the Manuscript Greek Copies in general and of those who have spoken of them Collections which have been made of divers Readings drawn from those Manuscripts Observations upon the whole matter The Hereticks have been accused sometimes but without any ground for corrupting the Books of the New Testament pag. 110. Chap. XXX Of the Greek Copies of the New Testament in particular The most ancient that we have at this day were written by the Latins and were used by them Those which were printed came from the Greek Churches The ancient Latin Version which was in the Churches of the West before St. Jerom were made by those first Copies which were not very correct Of the ancient Cambridge Copy why it does differ so much from other Greek Copies pag. 128. Chap. XXXI Of the second part of the Cambridge Copy which contains St. Paul's Epistles Examples of the various Readings that are in that second Part. Critical Reflections upon the whole matter pag. 144. Chap. XXXII Of other Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament Examples of the various Readings of those Manuscripts with Critical Reflections on those Differences pag. 156. Chap. XXXIII Of the Order of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament The Verses Chapters and other marks of distinction of those Copies The Canons which Eusebius added to the Gospels and the Use of those Canons pag. 175. FINIS
cited any Passage in the Old Testament which did not perfectly agree with the Hebrew Text. Eustochium Hieron Prooem in lib. 16. Comm. in Isai who perfectly understood the Greek and Hebrew Languages opposed him with such powerful Arguments that he was forced to own himself almost overcome with the strength of her Objections Quod cùm audissem quasi à fortissimo pugile percussus essem coepi tacitus aestuare It is no strange thing to find those Ages when Barbarism reigned over all Europe neglect Critical Studies Then they wanted abundance of those helps which they now enjoy to pursue those Studies which are absolutely necessary to a perfect Knowledg of Divinity But that which amazes me is that in this very Age this Art should still remain in contempt and those Men be thought no more than Grammarians who apply themselves to it Besides we cannot but see the manifest Errors of some Divines in this Age who know not the true Laws of Criticism It is worth observing that the ancient Hereticks have been perpetually accused of having corrupted the Books of the New Testament and perverted them to their own sence That has often been thought a wilful and designed Corruption which proceeded only from the fault of the Transcribers or difference of Copies The Ecclesiastical Writers of the first Ages have not done that strict Justice to the Hereticks of their times in relation to the New Testament that they have given the Jews in the Disputes about the different manners of explaining the Old Testament Those pretended Corruptions presently vanish upon Examination of the ancient Manuscripts and the Original of the various Readings Wherefore in this Piece I have justified the Arrians Nestorians and the rest of the Sectaries from that Imputation of having falsified the Originals of the Evangelists and Apostles to maintain their Innovations We have also plainly evinc'd by some considerable Examples that the most Learned Criticks of our Age are not exempted from those Prejudices in their declaring too freely those Hereticks falsifiers of the Text. The case of some other Sectaries is not the same who declared themselves openly against the Writings of Christ's Disciples which they have corrected and altered according to their own Idea's of the Christian Religion Some daring to forge Supposititious Gospels and Acts the better to give authority to their Fopperies It would be very pertinent for the better Distinction of all the Genuine Pieces of the New Testament to make a Collection of those ancient Acts and diligently examine them Wherefore we have not concealed any of those Arguments which those Hereticks or the other Enemies of Christianity have brought to destroy the Truth of those Books which were received by all the Catholick Churches But as it would be a pernicious thing to expose these ill things without administring Remedies too proper for the cure we have also produced the strongest Reasons which the Ecclesiastical Writers have brought against them We intreat the Protestants to make Reflection on these matters and observe those methods of the first Ages of the Church for establishing the Authority of the Sacred Writings They will find nothing impertinent in the Conduct Irenaeus Tertullian and the rest of the Defenders of those Writings did not object to the Enemies of the Christian Religion their private Spirit which perswaded them of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture but very substantial Reasons void of all such Fanaticism Tho they were sufficiently perswaded of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture they never objected to the Adversaries that it had imprest upon it such lively Characters of its Original that it was a very difficult matter not to acknowledg it when read with a Spirit of Submission and Humility Their Adversaries being Philosophers who consulted their natural Reason they opposed them from sure and indisputable Principles Again I thought in a Work of this nature not convenient to suppress the principal Objections of the Jews against the Books of the New Testament For although this miserable Nation is an Object of the contempt of the whole World yet has there appeared among them Men of great Address and Subtilty in the Disputes against the Christians which I have often found true in my own Experience when I have endeavoured to convince them by their own Principles Since their Plea for Prescription is better and their Pretensions are that the Disciples of Jesus the Son of Mary had no reason to change their Religion which was delivered them by the Fathers It is but necessary to examin what they object against the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles In this Critical History I have treated divers other important Questions And where I deviate from the Methods of the Divines of the School it is because I have found a more secure way I have employed all my strength to avoid the advancing any thing that is not grounded on authentic Records instead of which the School-Divinity teaches us to doubt of the most certain Our Religion consisting principally in Matters of Fact the Subtilties of Divines who are not acquainted with Antiquity can never discover certainty of such matters of Fact They rather serve to confound the Vnderstanding and form pernicious Difficulties against the Mysteries of our Religion Let it not seem strange to any Person that I recede from the Opinions which are generally received in the Schools and prefer to the Sentiments of whole Vniversities the new Opinions of some modern Divines which can hardly be taxed as novel when they are found conformable to the Ancient Doctors of the Church This I speak in reference to that Passage where I handle the Dispute which was formerly between the Divines of Louvain and Doway and the Jesuits of that Country concerning the inspiration of the sacred Books The Doctors of both Faculties censured the Propositions of the Jesuites of Louvain in a manner very injurious to the whole Society But after a due examination of the Reasons on which their grave Gentlemen founded their Censure I could hardly believe their Authority alone a sufficient Rule to oblige me to assent I propose Truth alone to my self in this Work without any Deference to any Master in particular A true Christian who professes to believe the Catholick Faith ought not to stile himself a Disciple of S. Austin S. Jerome or any other particular Father since his Faith is founded on the word of Jesus Christ contained in the Writings of the Apostles and constant Tradition of the Catholick Churches I wish to God the Divines of the Age were all of that opinion we then should not have seen so many useless Disputes which only prove the causes of Disorders in Church and State. I have no private Interest which obliges me to any Party the very name of Party is odious to me I solemnly protest I have no other intentions in composing this Work than the benefit of the Church and the establishing the most sacred and divine thing in the World. It is useless
admiscuisse ea quae sunt legalia Salvatoris verbis Iren. lib. 3. adversus Haer. c. 2. There is no way saith St Irenaeus of convincing this sort of People neither by the Testimony of the Scriptures generally received in the Churches planted by the Apostles nor by authentick Traditions because they imagine themselves to be above all this They were persuaded that they alone were in possession of the truth of Religion that contained hidden Mysteries Se indubitatè incontaminatè sincerè absconditum scire mysterium Iren. ibid. And since they had joined Philosophy with Christianity they intended also to accommodate the one to the other They argued on matters of fact after a pure metaphysical manner and being filled with an infinite number of Prejudices and Notions taken from the Principles of their Philosophy they reformed the Doctrine of the Apostles and even that of Jesus Christ on this foundation under pretence of bringing Religion to a greater Perfection They pretended that the Apostles had preached the Gospel before they had a perfect knowledge of the Truth and that therefore they were at liberty to correct them Ante praedicaverunt quà m perfectam haberent cognitionem This was that which caused them to take the ambitious Title of Learned and Knowing Men or Gnosticks as if none but they were endued with the true knowledge of Religion They vainly boasted also that they had reformed the Apostles Iren. ibid. Gloriantes emendatores se esse Apostolorum S. Irenaeus sharply reproves their rashness in bragging that they had made perfect that which was gross and obscure in the Gospel published by the Apostles It hath been necessary to make all these Reflections on the ancient Sect of the Gnosticks because they have applyed themselves more than any others in those primitive times of the Christian Religion to the obtruding of false Acts under the Names of the Apostles or other specious Titles These are a sort of Philosophers that ought not to pass but for half Christians who have altered the Traditions that the Disciples of Jesus Christ had left to the Churches And therefore no regard ought to be had to all the Books that they have produced under what Name soever since they have professed that they understand Religion better than the Apostles themselves and (h) Existentes extra omnem timorem suas conscriptiones praeferentes plura habere gloriantur quà m sint ipsa Evangelia Si quidem in tantum processerunt audaciae uti quod ab his Apostolis non olim conscriptum est veritatis Evangelium titulent in nihilo conveniens Apostolorum Evangelits ut nec Evangelium quidem sit apud eos sine blasphemia Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. c. 11. have been so bold as to publish new Gospels to which they have given the Title of The Gospel of Truth altho these Gospels do not agree with those of the Apostles This alone is sufficient to make it appear that the Gospels of the Gnosticks were false Acts that cannot be opposed to the Apostolical Writings that have been acknowledged by the primitive Churches It were an easie matter to answer Celsus by this same Principle who heretofore objected to the Christians that they changed their Gospel every day adding thereto and diminishing what they thought fit that they might be able by this means to retract that which they had formerly alledged Origen judiciously answers this Philosopher who was a great Enemy to the Christian Religion that he unhappily confounded the ancient Sectaries with the true Faithful He protests that he knows not in the least that the Gospel hath been corrupted by others than the Gnosticks or Marcion (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 2 contra Cell This is not a Crime saith he that ought to be imputed to the Gospel but to them that have dared to corrupt in He brings an Example of the Sophisters whose false Doctrine cannot be attributed to true Philosophy (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. It is the same thing saith this great Man with respect to the Sects that have introduced Novelties into the Doctrine of Jesus Christ which cannot be charged on true Christianity It is certain that in all times and in all places there hath been a perfect Conformity between the different Copies of these Books the Diversities that are found therein and shall be remarked in the Sequel of this Work are not of so great moment as that we may say with Celsus that the Christians have changed their Gospels to the end that they might suit them to their own opinions This cannot be understood but of the ancient Hereticks who having no certain Rules for their Belief reformed them according to their capricious humor This is that for which the Orthodox Christians heretofore censured the Theodosians Euseb l. 5. Hist Eccl. c. 28. who corrupted the Sacred Books under a pretence of correcting them and whereas several among them had taken this liberty all their Copies differed one from another there were of them under the Names of Asclepiades Theodosius Hermophilus and Apollonius that did not in the least agree together I will say nothing here concerning the Gospel of the Marcionites whereof Origen makes mention because I design to treat of it in another place I shall only add that if we compare the Gospels and the other Books of the New Testament with the Liturgies that we have under the Names of several Apostles to whom the most part of the Eastern Christians do attribute them we shall be convinced that the Gospels are truly of the Apostles For all the Churches have preserved them in their ancient Purity whereas every particular Nation hath added to their Liturgies and hath taken the liberty often to revise them The respect that hath been always had to the Writings of the New Testament without inserting any considerable Additions therein is an evident proof that all People have looked upon them as Divine Books which it is not lawful for any to alter On the contrary they have been persuaded that the Liturgies altho they bear the Names of the Apostles or of some Disciples of Jesus Christ were not originally written by them to whom they were attributed And therefore it hath been left free to the Churches to add to them or to diminish from them according as occasion requires The Principles that have been maintained above in discoursing of the Gnosticks may serve to confute the Manicheans who likewise acknowledge nothing Divine in the Scriptures but that which pleased them or rather was agreeable to their Fancies This caused S. Austin to say addressing himself to Faustus who was one of the chief of this Party (l) Tu es ergo regula veritatis Quidquid contra te fuerit non est verum Aug. lib. 11. cont Faust c. 2. You are then the Rule of Truth whatsoever is against you is not true He clearly demonstrates to them that they were only upheld with false prejudices when
accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque autoritatis Ecclesiae tenent Aug. lib. 2. de Doctr. Christ cap. 8. to have regard to the plurality of Churches and to prefer those that are in a greater number and of more eminent note before the others that are in a lesser number and less considerable There is another sort of Acts attributed to the Apostles or their Disciples that have been rejected as Apocryphal in process of time though in the beginning they did really belong to those to whom they were ascribed or at least to their Disciples who had published them under the name of their Masters But these Acts having been interpolated and mangled by the Hereticks or else by others we have been obliged not to allow them any longer as authentick St. Epiphanius seems to have put in this rank the Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Constitution of the Apostles which he often quotes as if it were indeed theirs He draws from thence Proofs to confirm the judgment of the Church when he examines the opinion of the Audians concerning the Passover who produced one of these Constitutions attributing it to the Apostles This Father being very far from condemning or even doubting of it received it with them as Apostolical reproving them only for taking it in a wrong sense And whereas these Constitutions were from that time suspected by some he adds that they ought not to be rejected for this because they contained the whole Ecclesiastical Discipline which makes me judge that he had another Copy different from that which we read at present He appeared to be so well persuaded that these Constitutions were made by the Apostles (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 80. n. 7. that he calls them the Word of God. Nevertheless it is more probable that the Apostles who had received Orders from Jesus Christ to preach his Gospel and not to compose Books are not the Authors of these Constitutions that bear their Name But as S. Mark calls his Gospel the Gospel of Jesus Christ so in like manner Apostolical Men who succeeded the Apostles have collected their Doctrine and Constitutions and published them under the Name of the Apostles It is in this sense that the Apostles Creed is so called being that ancient Confession of Faith that all the Churches undoubtedly received from the Apostles though they had not committed it to Writing CHAP. IV. The ancient Fathers have not produced the Originals of the New Testament in their Disputes against the Hereticks An Examination of Proofs that are brought to shew that these Originals have been kept in some Churches WE may conclude from all that hath been above related that the most ancient Fathers of the Church when they designed to establish the truth of the Books of the New Testament have not had recourse to any Originals that had been kept in the Apostolical Churches but only to true and exact Copies of them which being found the same in all these Churches were in the place of the Originals themselves On this depends all the Dispute of Tertullian against Marcion and that of S. Augustin against Faustus a Manichean Sectary These two Hereticks refused to acknowledge the Copies that were approved in the Catholick Church Tertullian and S. Augustin did not oppose to them the Authority of any Original Pieces but only the constant Tradition of the Churches Vides saith S. Augustin speaking to Faustus in hac re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat auctoritas Aug. lib. 11. cont Faust c. 2. Is it possible may some say that God hath given to his Church Books to serve her for a Rule and that he hath at the same time permitted that the first Originals of these Books should be lost ever since the beginning of the Christian Religion There have been from the very first planting of the Church Hereticks who have disputed against the Writings of the Apostles and therefore it seems to behove the Divine Providence to preserve these Originals at least for some time from whence these Hereticks might be solidly confuted But it hath been already made appear elsewhere Rep. à la Defense des Sent. de quelq Theol. de Holl. ch 6. pag. 179. that it is no wonder that the Primitive Christians who had not a regular Body of a State in which they lived and whose Assemblies were on the contrary furiously disturbed by the Jews and Pagans had lost the Originals of their Books Besides the Apostles had no order from Jesus Christ to write their Books as hath been above observed and although they should not have been written Religion would be equally preserved by the means of Tradition after the same manner as it had been established before the Apostles had committed any thing to Writing Iren. l. 3. adv Haer. c. 4. Quid si saith St. Irenaeus neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias Upon the whole matter Jesus Christ had sent his Apostles to all the Nations of the Earth only to preach his Doctrine to them That which the ancient Christians have called Gospel is only a Collection of the Preachings of these same Apostles or of their Disciples As for what relates to the Primitive Hereticks they would not have been more solidly confuted by opposing to them the Originals of the Writings of the Apostles since they took the liberty to reform their Doctrine and to set up in opposition to their Books I know not what Traditions of which they themselves were the Authors as may be seen more at large in the Books of S. Irenaeus who understood perfectly well the Opinions of these ancient Sectaries of which he hath left us some Records He declares for example in speaking of the Gnosticks Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. cap. 2. that he had to do with Persons that did not acknowledge the Scriptures nor the Tradition of the Church but that squared both the one and the other according to the measure of their own Prejudices therefore he forgets nothing that may serve to establish the true Traditions by which Religion ought to be regulated Although the Scriptures are a sure Rule on which our Faith is founded yet this Rule is not altogether sufficient of it self it is necessary to know besides this what are the Apostolical Traditions and we cannot learn them but from the Apostolical Churches who have preserved the true Sense of Scriptures S. Irenaeus adviseth (a) Omnis sermo ei constabit si Scripturam diligenter legerit apud eos qui in Ecclesia sunt Presbyteri apud quos est Apostolica doctrina Iren. lib. 4. adv Haer. cap. 51. that the sacred Books should be read to be informed from thence of Religion but at the same time he adviseth that they should be read wich those who being the Successors of the Apostles have been as it were the Depositaries or Stewards of their
Doctrine There was no talk in those days of reading the Holy Scriptures in the Originals any Copy whatsoever provided it were used in the Orthodox Churches might be relied on as if it had been the first Original written with the hand of the Apostles We ought to give the same credit to Copies that have been made of the Apostolical Writings as to the very Originals because these Copies have been taken from thence even from the times of the Apostles and have been afterwards dispersed almost throughout the whole Earth they have been preserved in all the Churches of the World having been translated into divers Languages insomuch that there is no Book the Copies whereof are more authentick than those of the New Testament and in this we ought chiefly to acknowledge the peculiar Providence of God in the preservation of these Books that he hath given to his Church by the Ministry of the Apostles or of their Disciples Some pretend nevertheless to make it appear by actual Proofs taken out of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that the original Writings of the Apostles have been preserved in the Church during several Ages and this must be examined in particular though I have already discoursed thereof elsewhere In the first place they produce a Passage of Tertullian in his Book of Prescription against Heresies where he saith in speaking of the Churches that had been founded by the Apostles (b) Apud quos ipsae Authenticae Literae eorum recitantur Tertull. de Praescr cap. 36. that they yet kept in his time their Authentick Writings Pamel Annot. in lib. Tertul. de Praescr c. 36. Pamelius in his Notes on this Passage affirms after another Author that the Word Authentick cannot be taken but for the Originals that had been written with the very hand of the Apostles themselves after the same manner as Lawyers call a Testament Authentick that hath been written with the hand of the Testator to distinguish it from a Copy This is also the Sense that Grotius Grot. de Verit. Relig Christ lib. 3. Walton Huetius and many others have given of these Words of Tertullian Tertullianus saith Grotius aliquot librorum ipsa Archetypa suo adhuc tempore ait extitisse He avoucheth from this place of Tertullian (c) Archetypa nonnulla ad annum usque ducentesimum servata sunt Grot. de Verit. Relig. Christ lib. 3. that some Originals of the New Testament have been preserved till the beginning of the third Century But if we carefully examine the different Passages wherein Tertullian makes use of the Word Authentick in his Works we shall find that he hath meant nothing else by this Expression than Books written in their Original Languages This is what Rigaltius hath very well observed on this Sentence of Tertullian where explaining the Word Authenticae he saith Rigalt Annot. in lib. Tertul. de Praescr c. 36. Lingua scilicet eadem qua fuerant ab Apostolis conscriptae sonantes vocem uniuscujusque Sic ipse lib. de Monogamia ad Graecum authenticum Pauli provocat Whereas the Latin Version of the New Testament was only read in the Churches of Africa he gives the Name of Authentick to the Greek Text and in this Sense it is that quoting this Text in his Book of Monogamy he saith Sciamus planè non esse sic in Graeco authentico St. Jerom also useth the like Expression with respect to the Old Testament when he opposeth the Hebrew Text to the Greek and Latin Versions for he calls the former Veritatem Hebraicam the Hebrew Verity designing thereby to denote the Originals of the Scriptures which he likewise denominates as Tertullian doth Authenticos libros Tertul. lib. de Monog c. 11. in his Commentary on chap. 64. of the Prophet Isaiah nevertheless he did not believe that these were the first Originals written with the hand of the Prophets We express our selves also at this day after the same manner when we say that a Version of the Scriptures is not conformable to the Original Tertullian therefore doth not speak of any other Originals in his Book of Prescription than those that we have just now remarked As to the Authority of Lawyers that Pamelius opposeth it is easie to remonstrate by the Testimony even of the most learned Lawyers that the Word Authentick is often taken in a less strict sense Every Act that proves and procures credit of it self whether it be an Original or not is accounted Authentick An Author that publisheth some Manuscript Piece assures us that it is taken ex codice authentico from an authentick Copy Doth he mean by this that he hath the Original of the Book that he sets forth in his own hands In the second place they offer an actual Proof taken from Eusebius Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 10. This Historian speaking of the Zeal and of the Charity of the ancient Christians who went to preach the Gospel to the most remote Nations after the Example of the Apostles saith that Pantenus quitted the City of Alexandria where he was the Principal of a School or Colledge of Christians to promulge the Religion of Jesus Christ to the Indians This faithful Evangelist being among the Indians or Ethiopians found there a Copy of S. Matthew's Gospel written in Hebrew that S. Bartholomew the Apostle of these People had left and was believed to be preserved there to that time But besides that Eusebius doth not confirm this History by any Ecclesiastical Writer being content only to say that it was a common Report 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not see that it can be unquestionably proved from these Words that the Hebrew Copy that Pantenus found at his Arrival in that Country was the Original that St. Bartholomew had left there He only intended to say That the Ethiopians who had been converted to the Faith of Jesus Christ by this Apostle did not make use of the Greek Gospel of S. Matthew but of the Hebrew or Chaldaick that had been written for the first Christians of Jerusalem If this History were true the Primitive Christians of Ethiopia were descended from the Jews and spake the same Language as those that inhabited Judea This is all that can be concluded from the Discourse of Eusebius which hath been amplified in process of time St. Hierom doth not seem to have understood the sense of this Historian when he saith in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers that Pantenus (d) Quod Hebraicis literis scriptum revertens Alexandriam secum detulit Hier. de Scriptor Eccles in Panteno returning to Alexandria carried back with him the Gospel of St. Matthew written in Hebrew Characters Eusebius saith only that the Christians of Ethiopia had preserved this Hebrew Gospel until the Arrival of Pantenus The third material proof that is brought is taken from the Chronicle of Alexandria wherein it is observed that a correct Book of the Gospel of St. John that had been written with that Evangelist's own hand
S. Matthaei Evangelium quod ipse descripserat ei indigitat atque Apostolum fidei auctorem se in patria habere ut adversariis repenat praecipit This is in a few words the discovery of this Vision of Bishop Anthimius who very opportunely caused St. Barnabas to appear tanquam Deum è Machina to oppose Petrus Fullo Patriarch of Antioch and that there might not remain any doubt of his Revelation he put into the hands of St. Barnabas the Gospel of St. Matthew Mr. le Mome a learned Protestant Mr. le Moine Prol. in var. opusc Gr. and well versed in the Oriental Languages assures us that it was written in Hebrew because St. Barnabas who had transcribed it for his own use was born a Jew and preached to those of his Nation But it is more likely that Anthimius who was not a Jew should forge a Greek one neither is it credible that it should have been publickly read in the Church of Constantinople if it had been written in Hebrew As for the deference that Baronius gives to the Testimony of the Monk Alexander Author of the Life of St. Barnabas this Cardinal is not very favourable to the said Monk in another part of his Annals where (i) Alexander Graecus auctor qui res Barnabae prosecutus est encomiasticè potiùs quam historicè c. Baron ann ch 51. n. 53. he speaks of him as an Inventor of Tales that hath not written the Life of this Holy Apostle as an Historian I could bring other Examples of the like Revelations that have as many Circumstances as that of Bishop Anthimius and yet for all this are never the more true Under the Reign of the Emperor Theodosius a Revelation was feigned to authorize the false Apocalypse that was attributed to S. Paul. It was also found under ground at Tarsus in Cicilia in the House of this Holy Apostle There were also a great number of Alexanders or Monks in Palestine that every where extolled this false Piece as if it had truly belonged to him whose Title it bore Soz. Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 19. But Sozomon who relates this History informs us at the same time that a Priest of the City of Tarsus who was a very old man had assured him that this was false Furthermore we do not find that the two greatest men of the Church I mean Origen and St. Hierom who have searched the ancient Copies of the Scriptures with so much care and diligence and have visited so many Churches in the East have ever spoken of Originals of the New Testament written with the hand of the Apostles which they would not have failed to do if there had been any in their times especially St. Hierom who consulted a very great number of Greek and Latin Copies when by order of Pope Damasus he revised the ancient Latin Version of the Gospels Where were then these pretended Originals It is true there was no talk as yet of the Revelation of Anthimius nor of the History of Monk Alexander This Father hath said well that the Latin Copies were all different one from another Tot enim sunt exemplaria penè quot codices Therefore (k) Hoc certe cum in nostro sermone discordat in diversos rivulorum tramites uno de fonte quaerendum est Hieron Praef. in Evang. ad Damas he judges it necessary in this great diversity of Copies to have recourse to the Original Greek from whence the Latin hath been taken but he makes no mention of these first Originals that Mr. Huet supposeth (l) Ex fide primigeniorum illorum exemplarium quae servabantur in Ecclesiarum tabulariis dirimebantur controversiae haesitantium dubitatio tollebatur D. Huet in Demonst Evang. pag. 642. primae edit to have been kept in the Archives of the Churches since the time of St. Ignatius by which saith this learned man they were regulated in their Controversies and Disputes The Jesuit Maldonat on the contrary proves by the same Passage of St. Ignatius (m) Illis primis temporibus ut ait Ignatius nonnulli erant qui adeò suspecta haberent omnia ut negarent se Evangelio nisi in Ecclesiae archivis invenirent credituros Maldon Praef. in Evang. cap. 2. that in these Primitive Apostolical times there were People who doubted of the truth of the Gospels at least if they could not find them in the Archives of the Church To conclude Tertullian and St. Augustin who have so vigorously disputed with the ancient Hereticks that destroyed the Verity of the Writings of the Apostles have never objected these Originals to them so that this is by no means necessary for the establishing of the Christian Religion as hath been above shewed CHAP. V. Of the Books of the New Testament in particular and first of the Gospel of S. Matthew The Original of this Gospel hath been written in the Hebrew Tongue which the Jews of Jerusalem spake at that time An Answer to the Reasons that are contrary to this Opinion IT is a constant Tradition founded on the general consent of all the Churches in the World that there are but four Gospels the first of which is that of S. Matthew Iren. l. 3. adv Haer. l. 11. Neque autem plura numero quà m haec sunt saith S. Irenaeus neque rursus pauciora capit esse Nevertheless there are found in these later times some Authors who have believed that S. Matthew is not the first that hath committed the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Writing They ground their Opinion on this Luc. i. 1. that S. Luke seems to accuse those of little care and exactness that had published Gospels before him and since this Accusation cannot fall on any of the three other Evangelists they conclude from thence that none of them had written before But we ought not to oppose an Inference that at most carries with it but a probability to the Testimony of all Antiquity Therefore Grotius (a) Refragatur vetustissimus librorum ordo apud omnes nationes refragatur traditio vetus Irenaeo Tertulliano testibus suffulta Grot. Annot. in c. 1. Luc. v. 1. rejects this Opinion as being contrary to the order of the four Gospels established at all times among all Nations and authorised by the most ancient Fathers Maldonat who attributes this Argument to Beza refutes it also with no other Reasons than that of Tradition and adds at the same time that (b) Si haereticis crederemus nihil in ipsa etiam Religione certum stabileque haberemus Maldon Praef. in Evang. c. 4. if we should refer our selves herein to Hereticks we should have no certainty in point of Religion It cannot be denied also at least without contradicting all Antiquity but that S. Matthew hath written his Gospel in Hebrew that is to say in the Language that the Jews of Jerusalem then spake that was called Hebrew and was either Chaldaick or Syriack (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pap. apud Euseb
manner as they are in the Hebrew Text. But this reason is destructive of it self because he that hath translated the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew into Greek performing it for persons that spake Greek and read the Bible in this Language ought to quote the Authorities of the Old Testament rather according to the Greek Version of the Septuagint than according to the Hebrew Text which they understood not Illyricus adds to all these Reasons that there is no likelyhood that S. Matthew should design to write his Gospel in a Language that was no longer in use because at that time all People and even the Jews themselves spake Greek or Chaldaick Besides that the Holy Ghost who was the Author of these Books knew that the Destruction of Jerusalem was not far off Therefore there is no appearance saith he that he should intend to publish the Gospel in any other Language but the Greek which was the Language of the Empire This Protestant is grosly mistaken when he believes after Erasmus that it is supposed that the Gospel of S. Matthew hath been written in the ancient Hebrew whereas the Hebrew of the Jews at that time was the Chaldaick Language which they had brought with them from Babylon and had only a little altered it It hath indeed been more convenient that the Books of the New Testament should be written rather in Greek than in another Language But here it is only argued concerning the Jews of Palestine to whom S. Matthew first preached the Gospel And since those People spake Chaldaick it was necessary for him to preach to them in this same Language On these grounds all Antiquity hath relied when they have believed that S. Matthew had composed his Gospel in Hebrew He opposeth moreover that S. Macthew saw that the Jews did daily harden their Hearts and that they had an Abhorrence of the Religion of Jesus Christ And therefore it is not credible saith Illyricus that this holy Apostle hath written his Gospel for their sake and in their Language But to what purpose are reasons drawn from expediency against matters of fact that are evident We cannot doubt but many Jews of Palestine have received the Gospel of Jesus Christ by the Ministry of S. Matthew and whereas they spake Chaldaick or Syriack he could not leave this Gospel with them in Writing but in the Language that was spoken by them On this account we may judge of other the like reasons alledged by Illyricus to the same purpose He pretends for example that Divine Providence would never have permitted the loss of so great a Treasure if it were certain that the Gospel of S. Matthew had been written in Hebrew He adds farther that if S. Hierom had been truly persuaded that the Hebrew was the Original of this Gospel he would rather have translated it than the Greek now it cannot be said that he hath translated it from the Hebrew into Greek It is in vain that this Protestant calls the Providence of God to his assistance in opposition to a fact that cannot be reasonably doubted of The Fathers and the Jews themselves make no difficulty to acknowledge that some Sacred Books have been lost which nevertheless cannot be said of the Gospel of S. Matthew since we have it in Greek in a state sufficiently perfect The reason why the Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy is not preserved is because the Churches of Judaea for whose use it was primarily written have not long subsisted On the contrary the Churches wherein the Greek Tongue flourished have always endured and it is through the means of these last Churches that we have yet to this day the Greek Copy of S. Matthew This may serve also for an Answer to the Objection of Chamierus Chamier Panstrat lib. 11 c. 8. n. 8. who could not imagine how it could come to pass that there should have been so great a negligence in the Church in general and in particular in that of Jerusalem that the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew hath been lost from the first Ages of Christianity Nevertheless it is very easie to be apprehended if we consider that the Writings of the Apostles that were read in the Churches were preserved by the means of the same it is not therefore an extraordinary thing to see that the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew hath been lost in the loss of the Churches of the Nazarenes It is in the mean time worth the observing that it perished not entirely from the primitive times of Christianity for the Sect of the Nazarenes who took their original from the first Nazarenes or Christians of Judaea continued for a long time to read it in their Assemblies It passed also to the Ebionites who altered it in some places notwithstanding these Alterations it might always be said that this was the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew especially if respect were had to the Copy of the Nazarenes which was more pure than that of the Ebionites and was still extant in the time of S. Hierom who translated it into Greek and Latin. The other Christians neglected it because besides their not understanding the Language in which it was written they considered the Nazarenes as a sort of half Christians that still kept the Ceremonies of the Law and they rejected the Ebionites as Hereticks Illyricus adds farther to all these Objections that S. Matthew being a Publican was either half a Grecian or a Roman and that for this reason he ought rather to apply himself to write his Gospel in Greek for those of his Nation than in Hebrew for the Jews If this way of reasoning concluded any thing it might be inferred from thence at the same time that S. John who was an Hebrew and whose Mother-Tongue was Syriack or Chaldaick should have composed his Gospel in this Language for those of his own Nations It availeth nothing to oppose simple reasons of conveniency to manifest and clear matters of Fact. Neither is there any weight in a proof that he brings in the same place from certain Latin Words that are found in the Gospel of S. Matthew which are more agreeable as he thinks to a Greek Author than to a Man that writes in Hebrew because the Grecians had more Intercourse with the Latins than the Hebrews But may it not be said that these Latin Words do rather belong to the Greek Translation than to the original Hebrew Besides the Jews of those times who were under subjection to the Romans might have adopted divers Latin Words into their Language This same Principle may serve to resolve another Objection that he raiseth from the word Petrus which is in S. Matthew If this Apostle saith Illyricus had written in Hebrew or Syriack he would have made use of the Word Cephas and not of that of Petrus as if it might not be said that it is the Greeks Interpreter that hath inserted the Word Petrus Lastly he objects that S. Matthew epitomizeth with too much liberty in Chap. xii of his
Jerusalem Voss ibid. which was consequently Chaldaick or Syriack since this Word is Chaldaick Who knows not saith he that the Jews do yet at this day give Hebrew Names to their Fields Burying-places and divers other things I confess it but it is said expressy in the Acts (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 1.19 that this Field was called Haceldama in the Language that was spoken at Jerusalem It hath been also objected to him that there can be no reason alledged why the Title of the Cross hath been written in Greek Latin and Hebrew unless it were that these three Languages were then spoken in Jerusalem Now the Hebrew or Chaldaick was the Language of that place Although it should be granted that there were also then at Jerusalem some Jews that came from beyond Euphrates yet he will never persuade People endued with common Sense that respect was had only to this last sort of Jews when this Title was written It ought to have been written for the same reason in the Languages of the other Jews that were also present at that time at Jerusalem It hath been represented to Mr. Vossius that the Jews of Palestine did understand even in the time of St. Jerom the Chaldaick Tongue which their Ancestors had brought from Babylon He demands what Proofs there are of this and in what place of St. Jerom this is to be found Nevertheless he accounts as nothing the Testimony of this Father in his Preface to Tobit wherein he saith (p) Quia vicina est Chaldaeorum lingua sermoni Hebraico utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem reperiens unius diei laborem arripui quidquid ille mihi Hebraicis verbis expressit hoc ego accito notario sermonibus Latinis exposui Hieron Praef. in Tob. that in translating this Book from Chaldaick into Latin he was assisted by a Jew who spake Hebrew and Chaldaick very well and that he had put into Latin whatsoever he had expressed to him in Hebrew terms This Jew spake Hebrew because he was a Man of great Learning and he spake Chaldaick also because it was the Language that the Jews of those Places yet spake amongst themselves and in which they wrote their Books For this reason the Talmud of Jerusalem hath been written in this Tongue as well as that of Babylon The same hath happened to the Massora which hath been composed in Chaldaick by the Jews of Tiberias The Chaldaick Tongue hath not been truly spoken in those Countries for many Ages since but we must not confound the other people with the Jews who had always continued to speak amongst themselves in the Language that they had received from their Fathers We shall not need then to have recourse to the Parthians with Mr. Vossius to introduce into those Places the Chaldaick or Babylonian Tongue in the time of St. Jerom no more than in the time of the Apostles but according to the custom that the Jews have to preserve their ancient Languages though they are not spoken in the Countries where they have their abode as we have proved by the Example of the Spanish Jews who are in the Levant and of those that are at present at Amsterdam These last write Books in Spanish and Portugaise although they be in a Country where the Flemish Tongue is spoken they have also translated for the use of the People out of Hebrew into Spanish their Book of Peayers called Seder tephiloth under the Title of Orden de Oraciones Furthermore not to enter into a fruitless Dispute purely about Words Mr. Vossius shall be left to his liberty to call the Language that is stiled Hebrew in the Books of the New Testament Chaldaick rather than Syriack It is in vain then that he enlargeth so much on this Controversie of Words and that he is so angry with several learned Men for having called it Syriack or Syra Chaldaick (q) Quae tamen lingua nisi in scriptis forsan neotericorum qui quando se expedire non possunt istiusmodi fingunt voces quas ipsa non capit rerum natura nec accuratè se loqui existimarunt nisi barbaris monstrosis utantur appellationibus Voss Resp ad tert P. Sim. Obj. This Language saith he is not to be found but in the Writings of modern Authors who have forged these monstrous Words to wave the matter But it seems to me that it hath been always permitted to any that would express something new especially in point of Criticism to invent new Words that may give a clear and distinct Idea of the thing that is to be explained Now it is certain that the Tongue which is named Hebrew in the New Testament is properly neither Hebrew nor Syriack nor even Chaldaick for it is composed of a certain mixture of the Hebrew and of the Chaldaick or Babylonian They that have used these Words which are supposed to be barbarous have been Persons very skilful in these Languages and have discoursed of them with a perfect knowledge When S. Hierom makes mention of the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew that was in use amongst the Nazarenes he authorizeth the barbarous Word of Syro-Chaldaick quod Chaldaico saith he Syroque sermone sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est Hieron lib. 3. adv Pelag. Hence it may be observed that this learned Father made no difficulty to call indifferently Chaldaick and Syriack the Language that the Jews of Jerusalem spake in the time of the Apostles The greatest part of the Fathers as well Greek as Latin do also call Syriack that which bears the name of Hebrew in the New Testament The most judicious Criticks of our Age speak no otherwise Mr. Vossius alone is singular herein who hath thought fit of late to reject this Syriack Tongue which he had already approved in his other Works Voss ibid. He demands in what time and after what manner the Hebrew Tongue became Syriack But as we have before said he may if he please call it Chaldaick if he remains so obstinate as not to be willing to receive the Name of Syriack with all Antiquity and with the Suffrage of all People that are expert in these Languages which he seems not to understand If he rightly apprehended this matter he would not insist on a Question that is only concerning a Name To avoid all the trifling and insignificant Circumstances to which Mr. Vossius hath purposely had recourse that he might make a shew of offering at least something in answer to the Objections that have been made to him it is convenient that I should relate the Judgment as to this point of George Amira a learned Maronite who hath published at Rome an excellent Grammar of the Syriack Tongue he hath intituled his Book A Syriack or Chaldaick Grammar Georgii Amirae Gramm Syr. sive Chald. and thus he makes it appear from the Title of his Work that these two Words may be indifferently used this he confirms at the
same time by three Dissertations that are annexed at the beginning of this Grammar for in the first he treats (r) De linguae Chaldaicae sive Syriacae nominibus discrimine Georg. Amir Praelud Gramm of the Names of the Chaldaick and Syriack Tongue and of the difference between them in the second (s) De linguae Chaldaicae sive Syriacae antiquitate Ibid. of the Antiquity of the Chaldaick or Syriack Tongue and lastly in the third (t) De linguae Chaldaicae sive Syriacae dignitate ac praestantiâ Ibid. of the Excellency of the Chaldaick or Syriack Tongue Since this ingenious Maronite hath had a very clear notion of this matter I shall produce the sum of what he saith concerning these two Languages in his preliminary Discourses This Tongue whereof we now treat saith Amira hath been called Chaldaick from Chaldaea where it hath been first in use when the Confusion of Languages happened therefore it hath been also named Babylonian from Babylon the Capital City of Chaldaea it was afterwards called Aramean or Syriack from Aram or Syria and even Assyrian from Assyria because it hath also obtained in those places Divers other Names have been given to it which have been borrowed from famous Nations and renowned Men as that of Hebrew because it hath been during some time spoken by the Hebrews Although there is some difference between the Chaldaick and the Syriack nevertheless it cannot be said that it is essential for they agree almost in every thing and this is the cause that in the Holy Scriptures the Words of Chaldaick and Syriack are promiscuously used to signifie the very same Language it is said for example Dan. 1.4 that Daniel and some other young Hebrews were instructed in the Chaldaick Tongue and it is added in the mean time a little after that the Chaldeans spake to the King in Syriack Dan. 2.4 which was the Tongue of that Prince from whence it is evident that the Syriack and the Chaldaick are the same Language The same George Amira produceth other Passages of the Scriptures to shew that this Tongue was also called Assyrian This he confirnis in like manner from profane Authors who have confounded the Names of Chaldeans Syrians and Assyrians From whence he conoludes (u) Quare mirum esse non debet si lingua Chaldaica Syriaca Assyriaca una eademque sit quandequidem nomina quae ei indita sunt pro eodem usurpantur Georg. Amir Praelud Gramm Syr. sive Chald. that it is no wonder that they have also confounded these three Languages Lastly he avoucheth that if the Chaldaick Tongue which hath been in use amongst the Jews had not been dressed by them after the Hebrew Fashion it would have differed much less than it doth from the Chaldaick or Syriack of the natural Syrians Ludovicus de Dieu who had throughly inquired into this matter is also of this Opinion (x) A Syriaca Chaldaicam distinguo quia sic ab aliis fieri solet non rarò phrasi flexione ab eâ differt Alioqui eamdem esse linguam fateor Chaldaicam Syriacam Lud. de Dieu Praef. Gramm Chald. Syr. He distinguisheth as is ordinarily done the Chaldaick Tongue of Daniel and Esdras from the Syriack Paraphrases but he acknowledgeth at the same time that these two Languages ought not truly to be distinguished He believes after Amira (y) Dialectus Chaldaica minus à Syriacâ linguâ differret si punctatoribus visum fuisset Lud. de Dieu ibid. that they would be less different if the Jews had not Printed the Chaldaick of their Books after their manner this he proves by some Examples It would be easie to produce many others and even to make it appear that the great resemblance between these two Tongues hath given occasion to the Jews to take from the Syrians whole Books of the Scriptures which they have attributed to their Paraphrasts but this would lead us too far and we must now return to Mr. Vossius who is so curious in this point that he will not admit that the Chaldaick Tongue which is named Hebrew in the New Testament should be called Syriack This dextrous Man calls the Jews to his assistance Voss Resp ad tert P. Sim. Obj. who have stiled the Aramean or Syriack the Tongue of the Gentiles and to make it more manifest to what degree the Jews hated the Syrians and their Language he makes use of the authority of the Talmud wherein it is read that if any one prays in the Syrian Tongue his Prayers are not heard Voss ibid. because the Angels who are the Ministers of God do not understand this Language He adds farther that the Jews who read in Syria the Version which the Christians and the Arabians call Syriack do term it Chaldaick Lastly he demands who are those People of Syria that have introduced into Jerusalem this Syriack Tongue which is pretended to have been in use in the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles But if he had consulted the Talmud or had but an indifferent knowledge in the Chaldaick Tongue he would not have made such weak Objections It is evident that there is nothing more usual in the Books of the Talmud than to call the Chaldaick or Babylonian Tongue Arami or Syriack The Rabbins who have epitomized the Talmud and have collected its Decisions do also give the name of Arami or Syriack to the Chaldaick Tongue To convince Mr. Vossius even by the example that he hath produced of the Prayer that ought not to be made in the Syriack Tongue the Talmudists give out this fantastick Story upon occasion of the Prayer called Kadis which is in the Chaldaick Tongue and which nevertheless they call in this place Arami or Syriack This Prayer not being so ancient as the others that have been composed in Hebrew is written in the Chaldaick Language which was then understood by the People The Rabbins who are so nicely subtil on all occasions and often tell Tales instead of giving solid Reasons have invented this Fable which Mr. Vossius relates very seriously However it be it is certain that this Prayer Kadis which is supposed according to the Rabbins to be written in Syriack that is not understood by the Angels is written in Chaldaick and in the same Language as the Paraphrases which we have upon the Bible As for the Objection that in the Syriack Version of the New Testament the word Aram hath been put to signifie a Greek a Gentile and an Idolater I do not see that it can be proved from thence that the Jews have not confounded the Words of Syriack and Chaldaick For besides that experience shews us the contrary this only proves that the Jews have looked upon Syria as the Country of Idolatry they have made use of the word Arami in the same sense as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek in the New Testament is applyed to signifie a Greek a
had retrenched from it the Genealogy of Jesus Christ which he saith not of the Nazarenes who had it if you will believe him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most entire It is true that in the very Copy of the Nazarenes there were some Additions that seemed to have been inserted therein but we must not reject an Act that is altogether entire under colour that something hath been annexed to it afterwards especially when these Augmentations come not from suspected Persons that have a design to corrupt it otherwise we must lay aside the greatest part of Books there being very few of them wherein some Additions may not be found There would not be at this day any Copy even of the New Testament either Greek Latin Syriack or Arabick that might be truly called authentick because there is not one in whatsoever Language it be written that is absolutely exempt from Additions I might also avouch that the Greek Transcribers have taken a very great liberty in writing their Copies as shall be proved in another place Not that I would go about here to defend the vicious Additions and the Corruptions of the Hebrew Copy of the Ebionites Baronius himself hath never thought of this he is content to say (n) Nazaraei Evangelium Matthaei quod semel acceperant aliquandiu illibatum incorruptumque servarunt Baron Ann. Ch. 41. n. 18. that the Nazarenes during some time preserved the true Gospel of S. Matthew entire and without any Additions he confutes the Opinion of Bede who hath believed that this Hebrew Gospel ought not to be reckoned in the number of Apocryphal Books he judgeth that it ought to be placed in the rank of Apocryphal Pieces because S. Jerom hath quoted in his Works several Passages out of it which are not to be found in the Copies that have been received and approved of by the Church (o) Periculosum esse putamus id in aliam quà m in apocryphorum classem referre cum non nisi una possit esse veritas Bar. ibid. It is dangerous saith this Cardinal to put it in any other Class than that of Apocryphal Books because there can be but one Truth If we understand in the mean time by Apocryphal a false Book it is not true in that sense that the Gospel of the Nazarenes is Apocryphal it may be only said that if there are considerable Additions therein that alter the sense it is no more Authentick and this is that which is to be proved I speak only of the Copy of the Nazarenes and not of that of the Ebionites who had corrupted it on purpose to adjust it to their Prejudices We ought not notwithstanding to compare the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes Casaub Exercit. 16. ad Annal. Bar. n. 126. as Casaubon hath done with the Gospel intituled according to the Egyptians the Acts of Barnabas the Prophecy of Cham and other Books that have been forged by Impostors It is not to be doubted on the contrary that the Gospel of the Nazarenes hath been certainly composed by the Apostle whose Name it bears as for what concerns the Additions which the Nazarenes might have inserted in the first Original of S. Matthew it may happen that they are not false we ought rather to attribute them to their Simplicity and to their good Faith than to their malice It was the custom in these Primitive times of Christianity to take a great deal of pains to inform themselves of that which the Disciples of the Apostles had learned of their Masters as appears by the Example of Papias who lived in those times of S. Irenaeus who was not long after and of some others of the Ancient It is probable that the Nazarenes have annexed to their Gospel of S. Matthew the like Histories which they had learned and which they believed to be founded on good Testimonies therefore they are not all to be rejected as false though they are not to be found in any of the Copies that are used and allowed by the Church It may be observed that all the Churches of the World have taken their Versions from the Greek Copy wherein these Additions are not expressed because the Gospel of S. Matthew had been apparently translated out of Hebrew into Greek before the Nazarenes had inserted them Furthermore these Differences of the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes from our Copy seem to have been numerous enough if we may judge of them by those that S. Jerom hath left us in divers Passages of his Works a part of which hath been collected by some Commentators on the New Testament Nevertheless there is a diversity of Opinions as to some of these Histories or Additions of the Nazarenes all men for example are not agreed that the History of the adulterous Woman of whom mention is made Chap. viii of S. John hath been in their Hebrew Gospel That which hath given occasion to believe it is the Testimony of Papias who had lived with the Disciples of the Apostles he saith (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pap. apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 3. cap. 39. that the History of the Woman who was accused of many Sins before our Saviour is to be read in the Gospel that was called according to the Hebrews which seems not to be meant of any other than that adulterous Woman whom S. John hath mentioned Nevertheless Baron Ann. c. 99. n. 6. Baronius hath thought and some others after him that the History related in Eusebius by Papias is different from that whereof S. John speaks because (q) Cùm Papias multorum criminum dicat illam fominam accusatam Joannes verò habeat unius tantùm facinoris nempê quòd deprehensa esset in adulterio insimulatam planè diversam ab illa fuisse cujus nulla esset mentio apud Evangelistas significare videtur Baron ann Christ 99. n. 6. Papias discourseth of a Woman accused of many Crimes in general whereas S. John simply takes notice of an adulterous Woman but there is but little likelihood that Papias should have designed to describe in this Passage any other than the adulterous Woman though his Expression runs in general terms This hath caused several learned men to believe that the History of the adulterous Woman hath been taken from the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes and that it hath been afterwards inserted into that of S. John indeed it is not found in a great number of Copies of this Gospel as we shall shew hereafter I shall only observe here that if this be true we ought not to cast away as false Histories all the Additions that the Nazarenes had inserted into their Hebrew Copy of S. Matthew because they might have received them from good hands It is for this reason that Cardinal Baronius authorizeth an Apparition of our Saviour to S. James Baron Ann. c 34. n. 182. which was found only in the Copy of the Nazarenes and is related after this manner by S. Jerom Evangelium
correspond in this that they do not make Jesus the Son of David for S. John calls him God and S. Mark the Son of God from whence he concludes that Jesus Christ was not born as S. Matthew and S. Luke have written S. Augustin answers Faustus that he is not the first that hath taken notice of this seeming Contradiction of the two Evangelists that an infinite number of learned Men especially in the Greek Church have spared no pains to reconcile them which he endeavours to do in this place and by this he condemns the rash Judgment of the Manicheans who rejected as false all that was contrary to their Prejudices Indeed those People were so obstinate in their Opinions that the same Faustus reviled the Orthodox who received the Genealogy that is at the beginning of S. Matthew as not being Catholicks but Followers of Matthew and he maintained also Apud Aug. l. 23. cont Faust c. 2. that it was contrary to their Creed Quod si tu credas saith this Heretick ita ut scriptum est eris jam quidem Matthaeanus sic enim mihi dicendum est Catholicus vero nequaquam (h) De duobus vos unum fateri oportet aut hunc non esse Matthaeum qui haec videtur asserere aut vos non tenere Apostolicam fidem Apud Aug. lib. 23. cont Faust c. 22. You must either acknowledge added he that St. Matthew hath not written this Genealogy which he called in derision Genesidium or that you do not hold the Apostolical Faith. But it were an easie matter without arguing at large on all the Difficulties that Faustus propounded to represent to him that this Genealogy had been always read in the Churches ever since the Apostles besides that (i) Fides Catholica eademque Apostolica est Dominum nostrum Salvatorem Jesum Christum filium Dei esse secundùm Divinitatem filium David secundùm carnem quod ita probamus ex Evangelicis Apostolicis literis ut nemo possit contradicere nisi qui ipsis literis contradicit Aug. lib. 23. cont Faust c. 5. it was the Belief of the Catholick and Apostolick Church as S. Augustin saith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God according to his Divinity and the Son of David according to the Flesh that this Truth was so clearly proved by the Writings of the Apostles that they could not contradict it at least if they did not reject them altogether By this same Principle the Arguments of certain Anabaptists of whom Sixtus Senensis and Baronius makes mention might be confuted but since their Objections are almost the same as those of the Manicheans it would be to no purpose to insist on them They have accounted as false that which S. Matthew hath related concerning the Wise Men that came to worship Jesus in the Cradle as also the History of the Children whom Herod caused to be put to death against the credit of these two Relations they have opposed the silence of the other Evangelists and of Josephus an Historian of that time Sixtus Senensis replies judiciously Sixt. Sen. Bibl. S.l. 7. that by the same reason they ought not to believe the Resurrection of Lazarus because none but S. John has spoken of it neither doth the silence of Josephus prove any thing for he hath not mentioned divers other Actions which nevertheless do not cease to be true They that make such Objections as these ought to alledge positive Proofs as for example from the diversity of ancient Copies some of which they should produce wherein these Histories are not to be found then they might infer with some probability that they had been added afterwards but on the contrary they are to be seen in all our most ancient Records and the greatest Enemies of the Christian Religion have cited them ever since the first Ages Apud Orig. l. 1. cont Cels Celsus hath read them in the Gospel after the same manner as we do at present Porphyrius and Julian have also made some Objections against the Gospel of S. Matthew or rather against all the Books of the New Testament but we shall have occasion to examine them in the sequel of this Work. CHAP. X. Of the Time and Order of every Gospel Some Greek Manuscript Copies are produced thereupon Of S. Mark and his Gospel which is commonly believed to be the second Of his Office of Interpreter to S. Peter ALthough some Ecclesiastical Writers have carefully set down the time in which they have believed that every Evangelist hath published his Gospel we cannot nevertheless determine any thing thereupon Because we have no ancient and certain Acts on which we might relye I shall only relate what I have read on this Subject at the end of some Manuscript Copies The most ancient of these Manuscripts that I have seen is at most but 700 Years old as may be judged by the Character it is written in great Letters with the Accents and Points and may be seen in Mr. Colbert's Library having been brought from Cyprus There are also many in the King's Library wherein the time in which every Evangelist hath written his Gospel is specified but as I have just now said these Manuscripts are not ancient Indeed there are no such Remarks as these in the most ancient the custom of those Primitive times being only to put at the end of every Book of the New Testament The End of such a Book the beginning of this other Book To return to the Manuscripts that contain the Dates of the Gospels see that which is found in the Copy of Cyprus which is in Mr. Colbert's Library (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MS. Colb n. 5149. The Gospel according to Matthew hath been published by himself at Jerusalem eight years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ This Word at Jerusalem is of a later Writing than the rest (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id MS. The Gospel according to Mark hath been published ten years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. MS. The Gospel according to Luke hath been published fifteen years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ In another Copy that is in the King's Library and contains all the New Testament the Date of every Gospel is therein expressed after this manner in the beginning of them (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MS. Reg. n 2871. The Holy Gospel according to Matthew written in the Hebrew Tongue hath been published at Jerusalem and interpreted by John eight years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. MS. The Gospel according to Mark hath been published ten years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ and preached by Peter at Rome (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. MS. The Gospel according to Luke hath been published fifteen years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ and preached by Paul at Rome (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. MS. The Gospel according
to John hath been preached by himself in the Isle of Patmos thirty years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ By this it may be seen what is the belief of the Greek Church touching the time wherein every Gospel hath been written and though we cannot conclude any thing as from certain Acts nevertheless we may infer from thence that S. Mark obtains the second place amongst the Evangelists if respect be had to the time in which they wrote they are also placed in this order in a great number of Manuscript Copies which I have read they are notwithstanding disposed otherwise in the Greek and Latin Copy of Cambridge which is one of the most ancient that we have at this day and contains the four Evangelists with the Acts of the Apostles S. John in this Copy follows immediately after S. Matthew S. Luke after S. John and S. Mark is the last of the four This Order cannot be attributed to him that hath bound the Leafs of this Manuscript together for the ranking of them is expressed at the end of every Gospel See what is read at the end of S. Matthew Cod. MSS. Cantabr (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MS. Cantabrig The Gospel according to Matthew is ended the Gospel according to John beginneth afterwards it is read at the end of S. John (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. MS. The Gospel according to John is ended the Gospel according to Luke beginneth and at the end of S. Luke it is read (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. MS. The Gospel according to Luke is ended the Gospel according to Mark beginneth and lastly these Words are to be read at the end of S. Mark (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. MS. The Gospel according to Mark is ended the Acts of the Apostles begin This way of specifying the end of one Book and the beginning of that which follows is natural and the most ancient there is no other to be found in the most ancient Manuscripts of the New Testament The Manuscript Copy of the Epistles of S. Paul which is in the Library of the Benedictin Monks of the Abby of S. Germain and is not inferior in Antiquity nor in the Beauty of its Characters to that of Cambridge ranketh the Epistles of S. Paul in order after the same manner whereas in the Manuscripts that are of a later date and in the printed Books some other Circumstances have been added that shew the place from whence these Epistles have been written and the Persons by whom they have been sent Moreover the order of the Gospels which the Cambridge Manuscript follows is not peculiar to it for it may be seen also in an ancient Catalogue of the Books of the Holy Scriptures which is at the end of the before mentioned MS. Copy of the Benedictines It is probable that this Alteration hath been made by the Latins who have transcribed the Greek Copies for their use Druthmar an ancient Benedictin Monk Christ Druthm Expos in Matth. cap. 1. declares that he had seen a Copy like to that of Cambridge wherein the Gospel of S. John immediately followed after that of S. Matthew and it was believed that this Copy heretofore belonged to S. Hilary But this different Disposition in point of order of the Copies of the Gospels doth not interfere with the general Opinion of the Ecclesiastical Writers who all give the second place among the Evangelists to S. Mark. It is also commonly believed that he was only the Disciple of the Apostles and that therefore he could not be an Eye-witness of the Actions which he relates he hath only published that which he had learn'd from them more especially from S. Peter whose Interpreter it is affirmed that he hath been Marcus saith S. Irenaeus interpres sectator Petri as if S. Peter had only preached this Gospel and that it had been afterwards written by S. Mark. This Opinion is very ancient for Papias who had received it from one of the Disciples of the Apostles declares it after him in these Words (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 3. cap. 39. Mark who was Peter 's Interpreter hath written exactly all that he had retained in his memory without observing the order of the Words and Actions of Jesus Christ for he had not himself heard Jesus Christ not having followed him but he had followed Peter who preached to the People according as their necessities required without taking care to put the Words of our Saviour in order Therefore Mark cannot be accused of any fault who hath recorded some Actions as they came into his mind He hath applied himself solely not to forget any thing that he had heard and to say nothing but what was true This Testimony of Papias confirms that which hath been abovesaid that the Gospels are only Collections of the Preachings of the Apostles that have been committed to Writing without having too scrupulous a regard to the times when those Actions happened which are related therein Indeed these sacred Writers have made it their business rather to exhibit a true History than exactly to describe the circumstances and order of Time. Clemens Alexandrinus informs us moreover that S. Peter publickly preached the Gospel at Rome and that S. Mark who for a long time followed this Apostle put it in Writing at the request of the Faithful of that place he adds also that (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. c. 14. S. Peter having known it did neither dissuade him from it nor exhort him to it Eus Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 15. Eusebius nevertheless relying on the Authority of the same Clement will have it that S. Peter after he had been informed of the great Zeal that the Faithful of Rome testified to have his Preachings in Writing approved of the Collection that S. Mark had made of them to the end that being authorized by himself it should be read in the Churches S. Jerom hath only copied and epitomized after his manner the Words of Eusebius in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers Hier. de Script Eccles in Marco where he saith in speaking of S. Mark Marcus Discipulus Interpres Petri juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat rogatus Romae à fratribus breve scripsit Evangelium quod cùm Petrus audisset probavit Ecclesiae legendum sua autoritate dedit The Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures hath also believed that S. Mark hath only published the Preachings of S. Peter (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas in Synops S. Script The Gospel according to Mark saith he hath been preached at Rome by the Apostle Peter and hath been published by the blessed Apostle Mark who hath also preached it at Alexandria in Egypt in Pentapolis and in Lybia In a word it hath been the Judgment of all Antiquity after Papias who was contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles
adv Pelag. declarat Sixt. Sen. Biblioth S. lib. 7. who urgeth that S. Jerom's words can only be understood of certain Apocryphal Periods which had been adjoyned to some Greek Copies by uncertain Authors is very far from truth It is sufficient only to read the words of this Reverend Doctor as well in his Epistle to Hedibia as in his Work against the Pelagians to judge that he speaks apparently in those two places of two different Additions And that there may remain no doubt thereof I shall here produce what I could observe on this Subject in reading the ancient Greek Copies It is to be supposed as hath been above said that the question is not concerning the whole last Chapter of S. Mark but only the twelve last Verses This is that part which S. Jerom hath called Capitulum Chapter wherein is described the History of the Resurrection The most ancient Greek Copy of the Gospels of those that are in the King of France his Library contains after these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Remark written as the rest of the Text and with the same Hand * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is read in some places as followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They declared in a few words to those that were with Peter all things that had been commanded them Ex cod MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2861. and afterwards Jesus himself published by their Ministry this holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal Salvation There follows afterwards in this Manuscript this Observation written in the Body of the Book and with the same Hand as the Text * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found that which followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to the end of the Gospel We may easily judge by this that they that have written this Greek Copy which is ancient have believed that the Gospel of S. Mark ended at these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have nevertheless added the rest written with the same hand but only in form of a Remark because it was not read in their Church which is altogether conformable to the Testimony of S. Jerom in his Letter to Hedibia Since this diversity is considerable it is necessary for me to make some Reflections thereon grounded on this ancient Manuscript of the King's Library It seems that Beza hath seen this Manuscript or at least one like it Bez. Annot in c. 16. Marci v. 9. for he saith in his Notes on Mark xvi that he hath found in one Copy these words added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the rest as hath been above related But he ought to have explained himself more distinctly thereupon and to have observed that this Addition was written in the Manuscript only in form of a Schotion or Note and not as belonging to the Text of S. Mark 's Gospel This appears manifestly in the Manuscript of the King's Library We ought to judge after the same manner of this other Addition which S. Jerom declares that he hath read in some Greek Copies and which he publisheth in these terms In quibusdam exemplaribus maxime in Graecis codicibus juxta Marcum in fine ejus Evangelii sic scribitur Postea cùm accubuissent undecim apparuit eis Jesus exprobravit incredulitatem duritiem cordis eorum quia iis qui viderant eum resurgentem non crediderunt Et illi satisfaciebant dicentes Seculum istud iniquitatis incredulitatis substantia est quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veri Dei apprehendi virtutem Idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam This hath been apparently taken out of some Apocryphal Gospels as we have above seen a like Addition taken from that of the Nazarenes The Greek Transcribers thinking thereby to make their diligence and exactness more apparent have inserted them into their Copies But they have done it by way of Remark and there have been others afterwards who have left these Additions in the Text without annexing any thing that denoted that they were only as it were Observations because these Additions were not read in their Churches they did not think these little Notes necessary By this same method we may justifie the Observation of S. Jerom in his Letter to Hedibia wherein he declares that the last Chapter of S. Mark that is to say the twelve last Verses were not read in the greatest part of the Greek Copies Beza on the contrary (k) Testor in omnibus vetustis codicibus quos nobis videre contigit hoc caput inveniri Bez. Annot. in cap. 16. Marci v. 9. protests that this Chapter is found in all the old Manuscripts that he hath read but he hath not regarded that altho it be found in the ancient Greek Manuscripts yet there are many of them in which it is written only as it were an Addition that doth not appertain to the Text. This evidently appears in the King 's ancient Manuscript above cited For tho these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the rest to the end of the Gospel be written therein with the same Hand as the whole Body of the Book nevertheless the Remark that is adjoyned makes it plainly appear that they that have written this Copy have not considered them as part of the Text. It is to be observed moreover that the Sections are marked in the Margin of the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament by the Letters of the Alphabet which serve instead of Numbers of Figures These Marks are in the first Editions of the Greek New Testament of Erasmus in Robert Stephen's Edition in Folio and in some others Now there are none of these found in the King's Manuscript over against these twelve Verses which is a proof that they were not read in their Church that have transcribed this Copy This will appear yet more clearly in the Sequel of this Discourse wherein I shall explain the use of these Marks or Sections in the Greek Copies of the New Testament Euthymius who hath made Learned and Judicious Annotations on the New Testament confirms all this that we have just now alledged and justifieth at the same time S. Jerom's Observation in his Letter to Hedibia See what he saith on these words of S. Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. xvi 9. (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euthym. in cap. 16. Marci ex cod MS. Biblioth Reg. n. 2401. Some Interpreters say that the Gospel of S. Mark is ended here and that that which follows is a later Addition We must nevertheless explain this also because it containeth nothing contrary to the truth There is also another Manuscript Copy of the Gospels in the King's Library ancient enough and written very exactly wherein is also read this Observation on the same Passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. MS. Reg. n. 2868. The Evangelist ends here in some Copies but in
this is the reason that in some Manuscript Greek Copies we find the name of this Evangelist at the beginning of this Work he declares himself in his Preface that he is the Author of it presenting it to his Friend Theophilus to whom he had already dedicated his Gospel S. Jerom affirmeth (a) Cujus historia usque ad biennium Romae commorantis Pauli pervenit id est usque ad quartum Neronis annum Ex quo intelligimus in eadem urbe librum esse compositum Hieron de Script Eccl. in Lucâ that this History was written at Rome and that it extends to the fourth Year of Nero which was according to his Opinion the second of S. Paul's abode in that great City The Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures thought (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. in Synops that the Acts of the Apostles had been preached by S. Peter and that S. Luke had afterwards committed them to Writing but S. Luke hath recorded almost nothing else but matters of fact of which he himself had been a witness Hieron ibid. And this is the difference that S. Jerom makes between the Gospel of this Disciple of the Apostles and the Acts in regard that not having seen Jesus Christ he could not write his Gospel but on that which he had learned from others sicut audierat scripsit whereas having followed S. Paul in the most part of his Travels he was an eye-witness of his Actions and therefore he hath published nothing but what he had seen himself sicut viderat ipse composuit Although the Title indeed of this History bears the name of all the Apostles in general nevertheless it informs us of very few things concerning them only conducting them to the time when they dispersed themselves into divers Provinces to preach the Gospel S. Luke comes after this to S. Paul's Travels who was accompanied with S. Barnabas without describing the Itineraries of the other Apostles neither doth he finish even those of S. Paul. If it be demanded why S. Luke hath not perfected his History and why he hath not left us in Writing the rest of those Actions of which he was a Witness I have no other Answer to make but that which S. John Chrysostom hath already made to those that in his time asked the same Question This learned Bishop saith Joann Chrys Hom. 1. in Act. Apos That what S. Luke hath written in this matter is sufficient for those that will apply themselves to it that the Apostles moreover and their Disciples who preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joann Chrysost Hom. 1. in Act. Apost have always insisted on that which was most necessary that they did not study to write Histories because they have left many things to the Churches by Tradition only And this ought to be considered for it is certain that the principal business and care of the Apostles was to preach the Gospel and that they would have written nothing of their Preachings if they had not been earnestly sollicited by the People whom they had instructed The Christian Religion might be preserved without any Writings by Tradition alone S. Chrysostom complains in the same place Chrys ib. that that little we have of the History of the Apostles was so neglected in his time that many were not only ignorant of the Author but they did not know whether it had been written It seems that the Gospels and the Epistles of S. Paul were then only accounted to belong to the New Testament perhaps none but these two Works were read in the Churches in these Primitive Ages We see also that the Books that are consecrated for the use of the Greek Churches do only bear these two Titles viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gospel and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle nevertheless afterwards this last Book hath been named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it contains besides the Epistles of S. Paul the best part of the Acts of the Apostles and even the other Books of the New Testament Whereas this History that comprehends the principal Actions of S. Paul is short a certain Priest of Asia since the Primitive times of Christianity thought fit to add to it in form of a Supplement another Book intituled The Travels of Paul and Thecla We are informed by Tertullian (d) Quòd si quae Pauli perperà m scripta legunt exemplum Theclae ad licentiam mulierum docendi tingendique defendunt sciant in Asiâ presbyterum qui eam scripturam construxit quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse loco decessisse Tertull. lib. de Bapt. c. 17. that some Women made use of these Acts to prove by the Authority of this Holy Apostle that it was lawful for them to preach in the Churches and to baptize This Father answers those that alledged the Testimony of S. Paul taken from these Acts that the Priest of Asia the Author of them had been convicted that he had forged them and that he himself had avouched that he was induced to compose them by the love that he had for this Apostle He solidly confutes them by making it appear that these Acts contained a Doctrine altogether contrary to that of S. Paul. (e) Quà m enim fidei proximum videretur ut is docendi tingendi daret feminae potestatem qui ne discere quidem constanter mulieri permisit Tertull. ibid. What probability is there saith he that S. Paul should grant to Women a power to teach and to baptize who hath not so much as permitted them to learn in the Church forbidding them absolutely to speak therein S. Jerom who hath made mention of these Acts published under the Title of the Travels of Paul and Thecla Hieron de script Eccles in Luca. adds that it was S. John that caused the Priest that composed them to be convicted of Forgery Tertullian nevertheless whom he cites in this Passage doth not speak of S. John he saith only that this Priest was of Asia Pope Gelasius hath put this Book in the number of Apocryphal Works Baronius distinguisheth these false Acts of Thecla from others that give an account of the Life and Martyrdom of this Saint Gelas Decr. 1. part dist 15. c. 3. he supports the Authority of these last by the Testimony of several Fathers who have quoted them Baron an c. 47. n. 3 4 5. Epiph. Haer. 78. n. 16. and among others by that of S. Epiphanius who relying on the credit of these Acts relates that Thecla having espoused a very rich and noble man broke off her Marriage after she had heard S. Paul This Cardinal adds that Faustus a famous Manichean hath produced this same History of Thecla and that he hath taken occasion from thence to condemn the Doctrine of S. Paul as abominable because he had compelled by his Discourses a married Woman to continue
Paris Erasm Declar. ad Theol. Paris is content to say that all these Councils do not speak of the Author of this Epistle but only of its Authority that this Title hath been added to it to denote the Epistle and that it is not denied that many have cited it under the name of S. Paul. Whereas this Answer is is too general and doth not fully satisfie the Authority of these Councils that attribute the Epistle to the Hebrews to S. Paul Guill Est praef Com. in Epist ad Hebr. I shall produce what Estius a Learned Doctor of the Faculty of Doway hath judiciously remarked on all these difficulties This Divine after he hath treated of the Question concerning the Author of this Epistle adds this other viz. whether it be a point of Faith to believe that S. Paul is the Author insomuch that the contrary opinion is to be accounted Heretical as Catharinus Sixtus Senensis Alfonsus and some other modern Writers have averred being supported by the authority of some Councils and by the practice of the whole Church that reads it in her Offices under the name of S. Paul Estius nothwithstanding all these Authorities doth not judge it to be a matter of Faith. This he proves by the positive words of divers Fathers and among others of S. Jerom and S. Augustin We have already seen what the first hath thought thereupon And as for S. Augustin he saith expresly in discoursing of this Epistle (t) Epistola quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos quamplures Apostoli Pauli esse dicunt qudam verò negant c. Aug. lib. 16. de Civ Dei 2.22 that many believe it to be S. Paul's and that others deny it to be his Now it is certain that this Father speaks in this place of Orthodox Authors As for what concerns the Councils the same Estius answers that some of those have been holden before the time of these two Fathers and that consequently nothing can be concluded from them He insists further that nothing can be inferred from the others (v) Neque enim Patribus horum Conciliorum propositum erat definire cujus ea Epistela sit auctoris sed quòd unà cum caeteris Pauli Epistolis quibus receptissimo Ecclesiae more eam annumerant inter Divinas Scripturas sit habenda Est praef Comment in Epist ad Hebr. because the design of the Bishops that were there assembled was not to determine who hath been the Author of this Epistle but only to put it in the number of the Canonical Scriputures with the other Letters of S. Paul. Then he justifies by these same Councils and he proves it also by these words of the Council of Carthage Pauli Epistolae tredecim ad Hebraeos una This Council hath as he thought separately mentioned this that is directed to the Hebrews because they were not so well assured as of the others that it was S. Paul's he adds (x) Verùm sciebat Augustinus non omnia quae quoquo modo dicuntur in Conciliis definitivè dici Est ibid. that S. Augustin who had a Veneration for this Council would not have doubted of the Author of this Epistle if he were persuaded that this had been therein defined This Father saith he knew well that all things that are said or disputed in Councils are not Articles of Faith and he proves it by some Examples But after all Estius (y) Censeo quidem cum Theologicâ Facultate Parisiensi cum Melchiore Cano temerarium esse si quis Epistolam ad Hebraeos negaret esse Pauli Apostoli sed haereticum ob id solum pronunciare non ausim Est ibid. concludes with the Divines of Paris and Melchior Canus that it would be a piece of rashness to maintain that S. Paul is not the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews Nevertheless he durst not pronounce the opinion of those to be Heretical who deny that it was written by this Apostle and in this he appears very judicious for indeed there is no matter of Heresie in it Furthermore I have inlarged a little on this Remark of Estius because it clears every thing that hath respect to the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and teacheth the Divines at the same time not to run too fast in point of Heresie The Divines of Paris do not only condemn Erasmus as being too rash but they add also in their Censure touching the Authors of every Book of the New Testament (z) Jam non est fas Christiano de illis dubitare Cens Fac. Theol. Paris that it is no longer lawful for any Christian to doubt of them On this account every man that is not fully satisfied that S. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews is a bad Christian according to the determination of the Faculty of Divinity at Paris nevertheless he is not an Heretick Erasmus instead of replying punctually to these Learned Doctors elndes their Decrees by general Answers He saith that he doth not believe (a) Quidquid receptum est usu Ecclesiastico non protinùs obligat noi ad credendum tanquam articulum fidei Erasm Declar. ad Theol. Paris that every thing that is received by an Ecclesiastical Custom becomes immediately an Article of Faith. However he shews his submission to the Decrees of the Church when he adds in this same place that if he follows his Reason (b) Juxta sensum humanum nec credo Epistolam ad Hebraeos esse Pauli aut Lucae nec secundam Petri esse Petri nec Apocalypsin esse Joannis Apostoli qui scripsit Evangelium-solus ille scrupulus habet animum meum an Ecclesia receperit titulos ut non solùm velit haberi pro indubitatis quae in his libris scripta sunt verùm pariter exigat ut pro indubitato habeamus ab his auctoribus esse profecta quorum titulos gerunt Id si est damno ac rejicio dubitationem meam-plus apud me valet expressum Ecclesiae judicium quà m ullae rationes humanae Erasm Declar. ad Theol. Paris he cannot judge that the Epistle to the Hebrews is S. Paul's nor S. Luke's neither that the second under the name of S. Peter was written by this Apostle nor that the Revelation doth belong to the Apostle S. John that all his scruple is to know whether the Church hath so authorised the Titles of holy Writ that she hath decreed not only that that which is contained in these Books is most true but also that those persons to whom they are attributed are certainly the Authors of them If this be so saith Erasmus I condemn my Reasons of doubting for I prefer the express Judgment of the Church before any human Reasons whatsoever Upon the whole matter all this Difficulty may be reduced to this to know whether the Church in pronouncing the Books of the Old and New Testament to be Canonical and Divine hath declared at the same time that they were written by the Authors whose
Names they bear This is necessary to be observed here that it may be applied to the other Books of the New Testament of which we shall treat in the Sequel of this Work. It hath been often objected to the Lutherans that their Patriarch hath rejected this Epistle who believed not that it was written by any Apostle But besides their reading it in their German Bibles with the other Epistles of S. Paul they answer that it might be permitted to their Master to raise this Doubt after so many ancient Authors and that he hath nevertheless acknowledged (c) Esse tamen pulcherrimam insignem Epistolam à discipulo quodam Apostolorum scriptam Raith Vind. Vers Germ. Luth. th 22. that it was most excellent Calv. argum de ses Comm. sur l' Epist aux Hebr. and composed by some Disciple of the Apostles Calvin hath presixed to his Commentaries on this Epistle a Discourse where he saith For my part I cannot believe that S. Paul is the Author of it One would think that the Socinians should expunge this Epistle to the Hebrews out of the Catalogue of the Canonical Books in imitation of the Arians In the mean time tho they are persuaded that there is no certainty as to the Author of it yet they do not forbear to receive it with the other Epistles of S. Paul. Therefore Socinus himself after he hath produced some Arguments (d) Videtur mihi ipsa in universum scribendi ratio auctoris illius Epistolae admodum diversa ab eâ quâ quam secutus est Paulus quamvis aeque divina Soc. de Auctor Script Sac. n. 2. that give occasion to a scruple whether it appertains to this Apostle adds that however it is no less Divine he confesseth that it is not without reason that it is doubted whether the person to whom it is commonly attributed be certainly the Author but he saith at the same time that tho the name of an Author of a Book be not known it doth not follow that this Book is of no authority or even of less than if it were known Enjedinus a subtil Unitarian insists also at large on this Subject when he examins some Passages of the Epistle to the Hebrews Georg. Enjed. locor Epist ad Hebr. he relates all that he hath read thereupon in the Writings of Erasmus and Beza and of some other Commentators on the holy Scriptures But after he hath too nicely alledged such Reasons as not only take away this Epistle from S. Paul but also render it suspected he doth not fail to reckon it in the number of the Canonical Books It is well worth the observing that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not so favourable to the Orthodox against the Arians but that they have likewise made use of it against the Catholicks to authorize their Novelties This may be seen in the Works of S. Epiphanius who takes notice that altho these Hereticks did not acknowledge it as an Apostolical Writing yet they did not forbear to oppose the Faith of the Church with these words of this same Epistle chap. 3. v. 1 2. (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist ad Hebr. cap. 3. v. 2. Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession Jesus Christ who was faithful to him that appointed him (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 69. n. 37. From these words who was faithful to him that appointed or made him they concluded that Jesus Christ was a Creature As for the Language in which the Epistle to the Hebrews was composed the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers have all judged that the Greek Text which we now have is too pure and elegant to be S. Paul's but it cannot be necessarily concluded from thence that it was at first written in Hebrew or Chaldaick by this holy Apostle I am rather inclined to believe with Origen that it hath been compiled by one of the Amanuenses or Interpreters of S. Paul to whom all Antiquity hath ascribed it by reason of the Grandeur of the Conceptions in which there is a certain Art that could proceed only from a Learned Jew of the Sect of the Pharisees The Jews themselves at this day who have any knowledge of their ancient Authors do freely confess that there is something in it that is great and sublime If we knew precisely to what sort of Jews it was directed we might more easily judge of the Language in which it was written But since this question is but of little moment and we can have nothing but Conjectures thereupon I shall not insist any longer on it CHAP. XVII Of the Catholick or Canonical Epistles in general and in particular THE Grecians have called Catholick or universal the seven Epistles which we read under this Name because for the most part they were not written to particular Churches as those of S. Paul. The Title of Canonical seems to have been affected especially in the Western Churches because it hath been doubted whether some of them ought to be put in the number of the Canonical Books Cardinal Cajetan hath thought that the Epistle of S. James which is directed to the twelve Tribes of the Jews in general (a) Magis libri quà m epistolae titulum merebatur scripta est enim non ut deferretur duodecim Tribubus dispersis cùm hoc esset impossibile sed ad instruendum eos Cajet Comm. in c. 1. Epist Jac. deserves rather the Name of a Book than of an Epistle because it was not written to be carried to the Jews that were dispersed amongst divers Nations but he is mistaken in this for we write as well to Communities even those that are separated in different Countries as to particular Assemblies And these Letters are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catholick or Circulary The Author of the Preface at the beginning of the Canonical Epistles which is attributed to S. Jerom and is found in the most part of Manuscript Copies and in the first Latin Editions of the Bible hath observed (b) Non ita est ordo apud Graecos qui integrè sapiunt fidemque rectam sectantur Epistolarum septem quae Canonicae nuncupantur sicut in Latinis codicibus invenitur ut quòd Petrus primus in ordine Apostolorum prinae sint etiam ejus Epistolae in ordine caeterarum Hieron Prolog in VII Epist Can. that the Order of these Epistles in his time was not the same in the Latin as in the Greek Copies of the Orthodox The Epistle of S. James was the first in the Greek whereas the Latins had placed that of S. Peter at the head of all the rest having had regard to the Primacy of his Apostleship This Author declares that he hath re-established their ancient Order putting that of St. James at the beginning and afterwards the two of St. Peter the three of St. John and at last that of St. Jude this indeed is the Order that is found in the Greek Manuscript Copies and even
in his Book he was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles immediately after the Passion of our Lord and hath written one Letter only which is in the number of the seven Catholick Epistles He doth not nominate this James as an Apostle but only as the Brother of our Lord which is the sole Qualification that is given him by the Arabick Interpreter published by Erpenius in the Title of this Epistle S. Jerom hath said nothing in this place but what is agreeable to the judgment of Hegisippus a grave Author who lived not long after the times of the Apostles This great man hath observed that divers Persons at that time bore the Name of James and saith of this James of whom we now discourse (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hegesipp apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 2. c. 23. that being the Brother of our Lord he took the Government of the Church of Jerusalem jointly with the Apostles that the Name of Just was also given to him with one common Consent which was continued ever since the time of our Saviour Jesus Christ Hegisippus then did not believe that he was an Apostle forasmuch as he saith that he took upon him the care of the Church of Jerusalem with the Apostles and he distinguisheth him from others that went under the Name of James only by the Sirname of Just In the mean time Baronius and after him Estius declare that this third James distinguished from the two others who was simply Bishop of Jerusalem without being an Apostle is a chimerical James that never was But since this Cardinal grounds his Opinion on very weak Reasons and contradicts Antiquity in this point no regard ought to be had to what he affirms against the Judgment of Hegisippus and S. Jerom and even against the Testimony of the Author of this Epistle who would not have failed to have stiled himself an Apostle of Jesus Christ in the beginning of his Letter if he had been really so This may serve at the same time for a sufficient Answer to Cardinal Cajetan Cajet Comm. in c. 1. Epist Jac. who hath objected to derogate from the Authority of this Epistle that this James hath not taken upon him the Name of an Apostle but only that of a Servant nec ipse seipsum nominat Apostolum sed tantùm servum As to what this Cardinal saith in the same place that this Writer hath made no mention of God nor of Jesus Christ the contrary is apparent from the first Words of this Epistle in which he attributes to himself no other Quality than that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jac. 1. v. 1. James a Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ He could not have chosen a Title that might better express his Qualifications especially writing to the Jews who were already accustomed by the reading of the Old Testament to the Phrase of the Servant of God and when he adds these other Words and of the Lord Jesus Christ he lets them know that he is one of the Ministers of the new Law that had been promulged by the Messiah Lastly we may observe that in the Title of the Syriack Version these Words are read The Epistle of James an Apostle it is no otherwise in the Ethiopick Version but in the general Title of the three Catholick Epistles which the Syrians have in their ancient Copies we read that these three Epistles were written by James Peter and John who were the Witnesses of the Transfiguration of our Lord. This would prove that this James was the Son of Zebedee but it is a manifest error of the Syrians who have inserted this Inscription into their Copy As for what relates to the Epistles of S. Peter and S. John Euseb Hist Ecel l. 3. c. 25. Eusebius puts the first Epistles of these two Apostles in the number of the Canonical Books of the New Testament that have been received with the common Consent of all the Churches but he observes at the same time that there hath been some doubt concerning the Second of S. Peter as well as of the Second and Third of S. John. S. Jerom adds (l) Simon Petrus scripsit duas Epistolas quae Catholicae nominantur quarum secunda à plerisque negatur propter stili cum priore dissonantiam Hier. de Script Eccl. in Sim. Pet. that that which hath caused the Ancients to doubt of the second Epistle of S. Peter is the difference of the Stile of these two Epistles We cannot rely on the Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus who reckons in the number of the Canonical Writings of the New Testament all the Epistles that we call Catholick for he placeth amongst them at the same time the Epistle of Barnabas Clem. Al. apud Euseb Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 14. and the Book entituled The Revelation of Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Father who was an extraordinary learned man hath not been very exact in distinguishing the Books of the Holy Scriptures that were generally received by all the Churches from the others that are either dubious or Apocryphal he makes use of all equally on several occasions following in this the method of the ancient Rhetoricians who took no care to be very punctual in their Argumentations Origen his Disciple durst not altogether venture to rank the above said Epistles amongst the Canonical Scriptures and whereas they had not obtained in his time the general Approbation of all the Christian World he explains himself thereupon with a great deal of Precaution (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. apud Eus Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 25. Peter saith he on whom the Church of Jesus Christ is built hath left an Epistle which is generally received and a second if you please for it is doubted (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. John hath likewise left a very short Epistle and a second and third if you please but all people are not agreed that these two last are genuine This proves that the Church hath never doubted of the Authority of the first Epistles of these two Apostles and that they were certainly composed by them whose Names they bear moreover that although some have doubted of the others yet this Scruple was not universal since Origen agrees that they were received as really belonging to these Apostles to whom they were attributed The Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures makes no question thereof he avoucheth (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. in Syn. Scrip. S. that the second Epistle of S. Peter was written by this Apostle as well as the first and that he sent it to those that had then embraced Christianity Cajetan who hath started so many Difficulties against the Epistle to the Hebrews and against that of S. James is much more moderate with respect to this he insists that the Argument that is taken from the difference of the Stile of the two Epistles of S. Peter is not a sufficient proof
Abby of S. Germans only it is placed in the Margin of one of these Copies Cod. MSS. Bibl. Ben. S. Germ. Paris and the Addition is as old therein as the Text it self 'T is true that it is extant in a Copy written eight Hundred Years ago in the time of Lotharius II. But it is strangely disfigured in that place Cod. MSS. Bibl. Ben. S. Germ. in that Copy the Reading was formerly thus Sunt tres qui testimonium dant the words in terrâ being interlined spiritus aqua sanguis tres unum sunt tres sunt qui de coelo testificantur pater verbum spiritus tres unum sunt But some time afterwards the words de coelo testificantur i. e. bear witness of Heaven were defaced to make room for these testimonium dicunt in coelo i. e. bear witness in Heaven All which different Alterations are evident proofs that there was nothing of that Addition in the first Copies which were published of S. Jerome's Bible for which reason it is not to be found in a certain Version of the French Church which is at least a Thousand Years old and which was published by F. Mabillon a Benedictine Monk and the first who in effect seems to have inserted that Passage in his Works is Victor Bishop of Vite who lived a Hundred Years after S. Jerome Take his own words in his Second Book of the Persecution of the Vandals Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius Divinitatis esse cum Patre Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus Joannis Evangelistae testimonio comprobatur Victor Vitensis l. 2. persec Afric Provinc edit Basil ann 1539. Ait namque tres sunt qui testimonium prohibent in coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus Sanctus hi tres unum sunt i. e. And further to shew that 't is most evident that the Holy Ghost is the same God with the Father and the Son the testimony of S. John the Evangelist is sufficient for he says that there are three that bear witness in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one St. Fulgence a little after did also quote him But I refer that to a larger Discourse in the II. Book of this Work where I shall particularly treat of the Versions of the New Testament I know that a great many Men of Learning have alledged that St. Cyprian who lived a long time before St. Jerom had quoted that passage in his Books The Bishop of Oxford brought the testimony of St. Cyprian (h) Cui gravissimae calumniae de D. Hieronymo falsario S. Scripturarum interpolatore amoliendae sufficere poterit Cyprianum citasse non modò ante Hieronymi tempora sed Arii ipsius litem de dogmate illo quod adeò displicet Socino de trino uno Deo scriptorem Joann Episc Oxon. Not. in Cyp. de unit Eccles to justifie St. Jerom's Preface and at the same time to shew that that Father could not be accused of any unfair dealing because he only re-established the Ancient Latin Edition in its first purity Father Amelote who belongs to the Chappel freely declares that the same passage is wanting in St. Athanasius St. Cyril St. Gregory St. Nazianzen St. Chrysostom Didymus and as to the Fathers of the Latine Church in St. Augustin St. Leon Beda and in divers others and yet does assure us that it is extant in a Treatise of St. Cyprian concerning the Unity of the Church But can we imagine if St. Cyprian had had it in his Copy of the New Testament that St. Augustin would not have made use of it against the Arians of his time The truth is after I had strictly examined that passage of St. Cyprian which is the matter in Question I fully persuaded my self that that Pious Prelate had only made mention of these words hi tres unum sunt i.e. and these three are one about which there is no contest and that from thence he would prove the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost to be one and the same It is written says he of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost and these three are one He applies to the Father Son and Holy Ghost what we read in all the Greek and Latine Copies concerning the testimony of the Spirit the Water and the Blood of which it is said that they are one hi tres unum sunt which differs very much from an express quotation of those Words as if they were in the Text it self And that there may be no doubt left but that this is St. Cyprian's true sense of the words it is but consulting the Learned Facundus who was of the same African Church and gives their explication at large evincing the mystery of the Trinity from them Facund prodefens Tri. capit l. 1. c. 3. after his example He does suppose through his whole Discourse that in St. John's Epistle Chap. v. there are only these words extant Tres sunt qui testificantur in terrâ spiritus aqua sanguis i. e. There are three which bear witness on earth the Spirit the Water and the Blood. But he adds at the same time that they are to be understood of the Father Son and Holy Ghost De Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto dicit tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ spiritus aqua sanguis hi tres unum sunt in spiritu significans Patrem in aquâ Spiritum Sanctum in sanguine vero Filium significans His meaning is that the three Persons are signified by the three Witnesses of the Earth the Spirit the Water and the Blood. And the more to confirm his Opinion he adds that St. Cyprian was of the mind that this is proper sense of that passage in St. John. Quod Joannis Apostoli testimonium beatus Cyprianus Carthaginiensis Antistes Martyr in Epistolâ sive libro quem de * Vnitate Trinitate scripsit de Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto dictum intelligit If the Bishop of Oxford had compared the words of Facundus with those of St. Cyprian he had not brought such weak Arguments against Erasmus and Socinus in the defence of St. Jerome who stood in no need of that service seeing he was not the Author of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles nor of the Addition inserted in St. John's Epistle Chap. v. Victor the Bishop not having considered the matter so narrowly brings in the Witness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as if St. John had expresly made mention of them whereas St. Cyprian and Facundus bring it only as an explication of the Witness of the Spirit the Water and the Blood. The same thing hapned to those who caused to Print St. Athanasius's Works with a Table of the passages of Holy Scripture which are quoted therein They have set down at large there the seventh Verse of the fifth Chapter of the first Epistle of St.
John as if that Holy Man had quoted that place after that manner Yet in his dispute against the Arians he only made use of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and these Three are One and applied the same to the Trinity I make no question but that this Explication of St. Athanasius was the occasion that some Greek Scoliastes placed in the Margin of their Copies the formentioned Note which afterwards was put in the Text. And that is more probable than what Erasmus thought concerning this matter who was of opinion that the Greek Copies which make mention of the Witness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost were more Correct than the Latin Copies If he had only spoken of such Greek Copies as were written by those of the Latin Church and which served for their use what he alledged would be the more credible But that the Greeks after their reunion with the Latin Church made their Copies of the New Testament more Correct than the Latin is against all appearance of Truth On the contrary 't is manifest that the Copies that have been since that time make no mention of that Testimony The Observation that Fromondus a Divine of Louvain made on that place of St. John after some other Commentators is without any ground He acknowledged that St. Augustin and many other Latin Fathers had not that passage of St. John extant in their Copies but at the same time he adds (i) Videneur Graeci Ariani ex multis codicibus Graecis primùm erasisse deinde translationem Latinam quâ S. Augustinus multi Patres usi sunt ex codice Graeco mutilato factam fuisse From Comm. in Epist 1. Joann c. 5. that the Arians had taken away the same out of many Copies and that the Latin Version which St. Augustin and those other Fathers made use of was compiled out of those Books that were corrupted by the Arians This opinion is most absurd and can have no other ground but the Preface that is fathered on St. Jerome With what reason could they accuse the Arians of changing the Greek Copies of the New Testament in that place seeing St Cyprian who lived before Arius's name was known in the World had no such Verse in his Copy Besides the same alteration must of necessity have reached all other Churches for neither the Syrians of any Sect whatsoever nor any other Eastern Church have it in their Editions of the New Testament And I cannot imagin what advantage the Antitrinitarians can get against the Catholicks upon this ground that that passage is not found in the most part of the Greek Manuscripts nor those others of the Eastern Church nor yet in the old Latin Copies For the most learned Interpreters of the New Testament do not Expound it with reference to the Trinity Such ancient Ecclesiastical Writers as have applyed it to that Mystery followed the Custom of that time which was to give the Scripture such a Theological sense as was accommodated to the Faith then received in the Church Now whether that Verse be Read in the I. Epistle of St. John as all those of the Greek and Latin Churches do at this day or it be not Read yet the Doctrine of the Trinity may always be very well proved from that place against those who deny that Mystery because the Fathers from the first Ages of the Church have applyed the Witness of the Spirit of the Water and of the Blood to the Father Son and Holy Ghost They have proved by the Unity of those Witnesses that the three Persons of the Trinity are one It is therefore to no purpose to dispute about the Addition or Omission of a passage which by it self does not clearly establish but only suppose a Trinity of Persons according to the opinion of the most Ancient Divines of the Church I do not believe that the most of the Modern Divines had any intention of favouring Arianism when they observed that that place shews that the Witnesses are One. Those three says Father Amelote are one in their Testimony the Father gave a Testimony to Jesus Christ in Jordan The Word by his Words and Actions the Holy Ghost in the form of a Dove and by his miraculous Gifts I cannot after all in any wise conceive for what use or purpose Sandius has quoted Herman Cingal Script S. Trinit Revelat. p. 105. upon the credit of others so many different Editions of the New Testament in which the Verse in question is not to be found Seeing the most part of those Greek Editions were taken from one another and but very few of them from Manuscript Copies their great number signifies nothing I do not think for example that that of Strasburg An. 1524. or that of Simon de Colines at Paris An. 1534. were compiled by the help of Manuscripts Wolfius who published that of Strasburg makes no mention of it in his Preface On the contrary he declares that he only Reprinted in a new Letter and another Volume what had been Printed before that time Simon de Colines made no Preface to his Greek Edition which makes me think he compiled it according ro the best of his skill by Editions that were extant before Erasmus is one of the first who gave occasion for the omission of that Verse in those Greek Editions of the New Testament that came after his own which was An. 1516. And he published another An. 1519. where that Verse is also wanting Those Editions on the contrary which came out after the Complute or Alcala An. 1515. have all that Verse Hence it is that it is extant in Robert Stephen's Fair Edition and in the most part of the other Editions The Manuscript and not the Printed Copies are to be heeded unless these be taken from the Manuscripts such as the Edition of Alcala and that of Erasmus Nor is there any account to be made of the great number of Editions of Luther's Dutch Version that Sandius brings against the Lutherans For they are only repetitions of the first in which Luther had followed the Edition of Erasmus or some other there being at that time many even in Holland which had been published without that Verse I do not think that that Patriarch of the North was well Read in the Greek Manuscript Copies though the most part of his followers do justifie him in this manner when it is objected to them that their Master has corrupted the Scripture by leaving out a passage of the New Testament that asserts the Mystery of the Trinity He might say they very well omit that Verse with the Greek Edition of the Haguenau An. 1521. Raithius in answer to this objection (k) Quid mirum si Lutherus qui indubitata tantùm scribere decreverat haec non extra aleam dubitationis posita praetermisit aut quod in Aldi Manutiè Venetâ editione quâ usus creditur non occurrit etiam non vertit cùm praesertim Trinitatem etiam sublato hoc
Greek Version which was publickly received it being indifferent to them to quote the Hebrew or the Greek in those Passages Although the Apostles did prefer the Greek of the Septuagint to the Hebrew Text it cannot be inferred from thence that the Greek Version is better than the Hebrew of the Jews as some Authors especially amongst the Catholicks have too easily believed We ought to consider by what motives the Apostles were led to give this preference to the Greek Seeing they did it for no other end but to accommodate themselves to the capacity of the People whom they instructed and who read the Bible in Greek there can be no consequence drawn from thence to give more Authority to the Version of the Septuagint than to the Hebrew Text which they did not meddle with In the Hebrew or Chaldaick Gospel of St. Matthew the Passages of the Old Testament were quoted according to the Hebrew Text because the Jews of Palestine for whose sake it was written read the Bible in that Language The People who at that time understood not the Hebrew Language had Glosses on the Hebrew Text written in the Chaldee so that if that Evangelist had quoted the Bible in the vulgar Language he had quoted the same according to the Chaldaick Glosses and not according to the Greek of the Septuagint which was not in use amongst the Jews of Palestine It will further appear that the Evangelists and the Apostles did not confine themselves in their quotations to the rigor of the Letter because that was in no wise needful for carrying on their Work. They did content themselves sometimes with delivering the sense of the Words which they adapted to their Discourse A thing commonly practised and they cannot be branded with Falshood or Imposture who set down after this manner such Records in their Works as serve for proofs A Copy of Record cannot be alledged to be false unless the sense be changed But this can never be found in the quotations of the Apostles who followed a received custom and which could be blamed by none The same thing happened to most of the Fathers when they quoted in the Works the Passages of Scripture for they made no scruple to change the Words so long as that change was of no importance to the Sense Which ought to be the Standard of our Judgment about the Passages of the Old Testament which are quoted in the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles for though they were taken from the Greek Version they do not always express the very Words I know it may be objected that this Version has very much degenerated from its ancient purity and that therefore it can no more serve as a Rule by which we may judge of the Truth of the Apostolical quotations But what ever change has happened to this Translation it is sufficient as it remains to decide the matter of Fact we are now about It is agreed by all the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors that the Evangelists and Apostles in the Passages they quote out of the Old Testament were more ready to express the Sense than the Words which is the meaning of these Words of St. Jerom Hieron Comm. in Is l. 3. c. 7. In multis testimoniis saith he quae Evangelistae vel Apostoli de libris veteribus assumpserunt curiosius attendendum est non eos verborum ordinem secutos esse sed sensum Which he often repeats in his works (e) Notare debemus illud quod plerumque admonuimus Evangelistas Apostolos non verbum interpretatos esse de verbo nec Septuaginta Interpretum auctoritatem secutos quorum editio illo jam tempore legebatur sed quasi Hebraeos instructos in Lege absque damno sensuum suis usos esse sermonibus Hieron Comm. in Isai lib. 9. cap. 29. We ought to observe well saith he in another place what I have often said before viz. That the Evangelists and Apostles did not make a Translation word for word and that they followed not the Version of the Septuagint that was read in their days but being Hebrews and skilful in the Law they made use of their Terms That Learned Man does agree with the other Fathers in assuring us that the Apostles did not in their Writings report the passages of the Old Testament word for word But since he was prepossessed with an opinion in favour of the Hebrew Text when he composed his Commentaries on the most part of the Prophets he affirms that the same Apostles made use of their own Expressions and not those of the Septuagint Yet 't is easie to prove the contrary and in this the most part of the Protestants are very much to be blamed for neglecting this Ancient Greek Version For it is impossible for him to understand the Books of the New Testament well who is not first much employed in the reading of the Septuagint It was upon those Seventy Ancient Interpreters that the Apostles formed their Stile and not upon the Hebrew Text of the Jews I do not in the least comprehend upon what ground St. Jerome could alledge that (f) Paraphr asim hujus testimonii quasi Hebraeus ex Hebraeis assumit Apostolus Paulus de authenticis libris in Epistolâ quam scribit ad Corinthios non verbum ex verbo reddens quod facere ommnò contemnit sed sensuum exprimens veritatem quibus utitur ad id quod voluerit roborandum Hieron Comm. in Is lib. 17. cap. 64. St. Paul being an Hebrew born did in his first Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 2. give a paraphrase on the words of the Prophet Isaiah Chap. 64. v. 4. as they are in the Hebrew and had regard to nothing but the sense according to his Custom Yet there is nothing in that place that can oblige us to have recourse to the Hebrew rather than the Greek for understanding the Apostles meaning St. Jerome dream'd then of nothing else but settling his New Translation of the Scriptures upon the Hebrew thereby to give satisfaction to a great number of People who spake evil of him upon that occasion This Spirit reigns in his Commentaries on the Old Testament in those chiefly which are on the great Prophets He endeavours to prevent with an assiduous Persecution that which might be objected against from all sides that the Church ought not to receive any other Scripture of the Old Testament than that which was Authorised by the Apostles Indeed this Objection which was a terrible one must needs have made a great impression on his Spirit and if he dare not say that the Apostles always follow'd the Hebrew Text he endeavours at least to shelter himself by assuring us that sometimes they did not adhere either to the one or the other because ordinarily that which was considered by them was the sense and not the Words And this he does affirm of the words of the Prophet Jeremy Jerem. cap. 31. v. 15. a Voice was heard in Rama c.
who did oppose him propter contentiosos that St. Matthew in that place had cited the words of Chap. 23. of Numbers Num. 23.22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. God who brought him out of Egypt And this is in effect the Opinion of the most Learned Greek Commentators on the Scriptures who lived before St. Jerome (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Heracl in Cat. Gr. in Matth. It is written in the Book of Numbers says Theodore of Heraclea upon this place of St. Matthew God called him out of Egypt When 't is also supposed that St. Matthew had in his view that Passage of the Prophet Hosea which is more probable why does he deny that it was from the beginning in the Septuagint as St Matthew has cited it and that that difference does proceed from those who altered the ancient Greek Version by their Glosses They believed that by translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Children as if it had been in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sense would be the more clear because that which follows is put in the Plural Number There might other examples be given of alterations of that kind which must be imputed to those who changed the ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint by their false Glosses 'T is therefore very probable that the reading in that place of the Septuagint was formerly the same as it is in St. Matthew and likewise in Aquila who also translated that passage of the Prophet Hosea by these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have called my Son out of Egypt St. Jerome does yet triumph over his Adversaries in his Commentary upon the words of the Prophet Zechary Zach. 12.10 They looked upon me whom they have pierced St. John who cited that passage in his Gospel does give it in the same manner according to the Hebrew Text whereas in the Septuagint it is They looked upon me because they have insulted (l) Joannes Evangelista qui de pectore Domini hausit sapientiam Hebraeus ex Hebraeis quem Salvator amabat plurimùm non magnoperè curavit quid Graecè literae continerent sed verbum interpretatus verbo est ut in Hebraeo legerat tempore dominicae passionis dixit esse completum Quod si quis non recipit det testimomum de quo sanctarum scripturarum loco Joannes ista protulerit Hieron Comm. in Zach. lib. 3. c. 12. St. John says that Father being an Hebrew born did not much regard its being read in the Greek Version of the Septuagint On the contrary he has rendred that place of Zechary word for word as it was in the Hebrew But if one will not believe him he must shew the place of Scripture from which St. John took the same He further adds that the likeness of the Letter R and D in the Hebrew was the cause of the false Translation of the Seventy Interpreters ob similitudinem literarum error est natus because they read as he thinks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But in my opinion seeing St. John did follow the Septuagint more than the Hebrew in all the Passages of his Gospel there is no reason to maintain that in that place he consulted the Hebrew Copy of the Jews without any regard to the Greek Version of the Septuagint Which makes me believe that at the beginning it was read in the Septuagint as it was in the Hebrew and in St. John. The change of Letters of that nature gave occasion of altering the true and ancient Text in other places And this happened to that Passage of Zechary which ought to be amended in the Greek Version of the Septuagint according to the reading in the Gospel of St. John. That which does confirm this Opinion is that St. Cyprian did read it after that manner in the ancient Latin Version which was taken from the Septuagint The Rendition of that Father has more Authority in this case than that of some Greek Scholiasts who have also read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they insulted as it is in St. John agreeable to the Hebrew Text. For these Scholiasts in their Expositions do frequently follow Aquila or some other Greek Interpreter without declaring that they do so And therefore 't is necessary that we be cautious herein that we do not confound the Version of the Septuagint with other ancient Greek Interpreters This should be the place for the examples of the alterations we spake of whereby the ancient Greek Rendition was very much changed but it would take up too much time It suffices that we have touched something of it in general to justifie the Citations of the Evangelists and of the Apostles Neither will I stay to examin particularly some other Passages of the Old Testament which St. Jerome pretends to have been cited by the Apostles in their Writings rather according to the Hebrew than according to the Septuagint For besides that it does require a long time to discuss them the rules that are confirmed already are sufficient to Answer all that Father's Objections who himself has acknowledged in many places of his Works that the Disciples of Jesus Christ who Preached the Gospel to a People that spake the Greek Tongue must have made use of the ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint which was in the hands of every one and not of the Hebrew Bible which was read by none but the Jews Besides there were but few amongst them who could have understood it We come now to the other Objection which is brought against the Books of the New Testament and which consists in a supposition that the Apostles and the Evangelists have not only changed the words of the Passages which they cite but that they have likewise wrested the same by giving them a sense altogether different from the meaning of the Authors CHAP. XXI A Discussion of some other Objections against the Books of the New Testament The Evangelists and Apostles in the manner of their explaining the Passages of the Old Testament and applying them to the Messiah followed the Custom which then obtained amongst the Jews There are many words in the New Testament which have a larger signification than they have in the Old And that can be attributed to nothing but to that usage and to a tradition received amongst the Jews THE Present Times gave not a beginning to the very great and difficult Objections that have been formed against the Testimonies of the Old Testament which the Evangelists and Apostles have made use of in their Writings for the Confirmation of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ Celsus Porphyrius Julian and the Jews have brought them against the Christians that they might thereby shew as they think the weakness of those Proofs upon which the Christian Religion is founded But they are deceived when they perswade themselves that Christianity has nothing else but such sort of Proofs for its Foundation The
〈◊〉 Word by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Decree and the other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the breath of his mouth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Power so that according to the Literal Sense of that Passage the World was Created by the Will and by the Omnipotency of God. (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Heracl Cat. in Psalm 32. This saith Theodore is the Sense which does here present it self and he does afterwards add that according to the true Theological Sense we ought to understand the Word of God and the Holy Ghost We may also call that a Theological Sense which was given to many Passages of the Old Testament by Jesus Christ and his Apostles because it was agreeable to the Theology of the Jews of those times chiefly to that of the Pharisees who Composed the leading Sect and the most received amongst the People The Jews at this day do altogether follow their Opinions The first Christians who received the Sacred Writings from them have likewise imitated them in their manner of Expounding those Books Michael Servetus did also in many places of his Works acknowledge this Mystical and Spiritual Sense which he makes to go joyntly with the Literal He does alledge that by that way Jesus Christ may be clearly found in the Books of the Law. He thinks that there is nothing but what is Natural in the Application that St. Paul made of these words Psalm ci Thou hast created the earth from the beginning to Jesus Christ as the Creator of Heaven and Earth Which words saith he though in the opinion of some they have but a forced Sense when they are applyed to Christ yet that is the proper Sense as the Apostle does shew Hebr. i. He does insist somewhat long on this Subject Expounding in the same manner many other Psalms which he understands of Jesus Christ although it seems that according to the Natural Sense they ought to be understood in general of God. The like is to be judged of other Psalms though they by reason of their ignorance of Christ do otherwise expound them This is no place for to examin the Consequences which Servetus does draw from his Principle I brought his words only to shew that the greatest Enemies of Tradition are obliged in their Expositions of many Passages of Scripture to acknowledg a Theological Sense which can be founded on nothing but Tradition and common Belief seeing they do agree that they who are ignorant of Jesus Christ put others Senses on the Scriptures Faustus Socinus did not find a more short or effectual way than this to answer the objections that the Jews and other enemies of the Christian Religion make against the Books of the New Testament He does suppose it to have been constantly agreed upon (r) Saepè Spiritus Sanctus unâ praedictione aut affirmatione plura complecti voluit idque ut semper mos praecipuè vaticinationum fuit ad rem ipsam praedictam occultandam saltem aliquâ ex parte donec ipsa res existeret Soc. Lect. Sac. that the Passages of the Old Testament that are cited in the New have had several Senses it being true especially as to the Prophesies which according to his Opinion were so Composed that the things foretold might be concealed till their accomplishment should happen He further says that we ought not to think variety to be surprising seeing the Jews who opposed the Evangelists and Apostles do agree to it But I question if that Unitary can convince the Jews of this Truth if he build on no other Principles than those which he makes use of in his Disputing against the Catholicks Indeed to speak exactly there is but one Literal Sense of every particular Passage of Scripture That other Sense which admits of a greater latitude and which the Christians are obliged to own is founded on the received and warranted traditions of the Jews Seeing the Jews have as well as the Catholicks approved of Traditions of that kind they cannot accuse the Apostles of having wrested the true Sense of several Passages of Scripture by false Interpretations unless they themselves do renounce the Expositions of their own Doctors Let us now particularly examin some of those Passages which the Emperor Julian and the Jews have objected against the Christians The first that presents it self is taken from those Words of the Prophet Esay Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son Is vii 14. and thou shall call his name Emmanuel St. Matthew has applied them to the Messiah who was born of a Virgin and has rendred them after this manner Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son and they shall call his name Emmanuel The Jews do accuse this Evangelist of an unfaithful citation and also a false application of the words of the Prophet They say first that the Hebrew word Alma does not signifie a Virgin as St. Matthew has rendred it but simply a young Woman whether she be a Virgin or not which they endeavour to prove from other places of Scripture St. Jerom does assure us on the contrary that the Hebrew word (ſ) Alma non solùm puella vel virgo sed cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 virgo abscondita dicitur secreta quae nunquam virorum patuerit aspectibus sed magnâ parentum diligentia custodita sit Linguâ quoque Punicâ quae de Hebraeorum fontibus emanare dicitur propriè virgo alma appellatur Hieron Comm. in Is lib. 3. c. 7. Alma does properly signifie a Virgin and also a Virgin hid or shut up and that it has likewise that signification in the Carthaginian Language which derives its Original from the Hebrew The learned observation of that Father is very pertinent not only to justifie St. Matthew but also to shew that in the Septuagint the Hebrew word Alma is very well Translated And therefore seeing it not necessary to prosecute this matter with a long train of critical observations nor run through all the places of the Old Testament in particular where this word Alma is found it will suffice to bring against the Jews their own ancient Greek Version which St. Matthew or rather his Interpreter has followed It cannot be said that those Jews who lived so long a time before Jesus Christ did by a false Translation on purpose corrupt the Sense of that place The accusations with which they charge St. Matthew fall on those of their own Nation They say in the second place that in the Hebrew it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. they shall call but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou shall call which does regard the young Woman who was to call her Son Emmanuel St. Jerom declares that all the ancient Interpreters have rendred it according to the Hebrew thou shalt call But at the same time does add (t) In multis testimoniis quae Evangelistae vel Apostoli de libris veteribus assumpserunt curiosiùs attendendum est non
charge Apud Cyril lib. 7. adv Jul. who accused the Christians for having abandoned the Law and the Prophets although they made a profession of following them He likewise reproached them for their boldness in calling themselves Israelites having as he alledged a Doctrin altogether opposite to that of Moses and the Ancient Prophets Apud Cyril lib. 8. adv Jul. But it is easie to convince him that the Christians are truly Israelites since they have neither renounced the Law nor the Prophets although sometimes they do expound them in a Mystical and Spiritual sense such an exposition as has been said is not contrary to the Doctrin of the Ancient Jews That Emperor seeing he owned no other sense of the Books of Moses but an Historical and Literal did object against the Christians that those words of Deuteronomy Chap. 18. v. 15. The Lord shall raise up a Prophet like unto me could not be understood of Jesus the Son of Mary seeing Moses does expresly speak (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Julian apud Cyr. ibid. of a Prophet who was to be a Man as he was and not the Son of God. It is true Act. c. 3. v. 22. c. 7. v. 37. that St. Peter and St. Stephen applyed to Jesus Christ that Passage of Deuteronomy which is literally understood of Joshua who was to succeed to Moses and also of other Judges and Prophets who have been in the Commonwealth of the Hebrews But if those Judges and Prophets were the Types of the Messiah why does he oppose the application of the same words to him according to a Sublime and Spiritual Sense of which we have already spoken seeing the Rabbins do frequently make the like applications By the Principles that we have established it will be very easie to resolve the most part of the other Objections which the Jews do raise against the Citations which are found throughout the Books of the New Testament The Apostles who did exactly follow the Expositions which were in use in their time have observed the same method almost through all their Writings The Jews could not oppose them without destroying their own Principles and favouring at the same time the Saddùcees According to this method St. Matthew applyed to St. John the words of the Prophet Esay The voice of one crying in the wilderness make straight the way of the Lord. It is manifest that the Evangelist did by a deras or Spiritual and Allegorical Sense Expound that which we ought to understand Literally and Historically of the returning of the Jews from their Captivity out of Babylon to Jerusalem Besides all those observations which serve as Principles for answering the Objections of the Jews and the Emperor Julian this is likewise remarkable that there are many words in the New Testament which have a larger Sense than in the Old which can be only attributed to the Custom of that time and to a Tradition received amongst the Jews There is nothing in the Books of Moses that does afford us any clear discovery of the state of a future Life which the Jews do call olam habba i.e. The World to come there is no manifest Record in the ancient Law of a Heaven or a Hell any more than there is of a Recompence to the Just and Punishment to the Wicked in that other Life Neither have they proper words to express those things they are obliged to make use of Metaphorical terms The word Gehenna for example which is taken from the Hebrew Gehennam has quite another Sense in the Books of the Old Testament than in the New where it does signifie the Fire of Hell. Which made St. Jerom say (p) Nomen gehennae in veteribus libris non invenitur sed primùm à Salvatore ponitur Hieron Comm. in Matth. that he does not find the word Gehenna in ancient Books that Jesus Christ is the first who used it Yet this does not prove that he was in effect the first that used it in that Sense as it is in the New Testament for it was before that time in use amongst the Jews in the same very Sense and especially amongst the Pharisees St. Jerom meant no more than this that he did not find it in the Old Testament under that signification although their Paraphrasts and their most ancient Rabbins used it in the same Sense as Jesus Christ did afterwards The Hebrew word Sceol will come under the same consideration for in the Hebrew of the Old Testament it does signifie a Sepulchre it is almost every where in the Septuagint rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hell as if they had frequently intended to signifie by that word a subterranean place where Souls are after their separation from the Body St. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles does Expound of the Messiah according to that Sense the words of Psalm xv Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption Which Passage is Literally understood of David who said to God that he would not suffer his Enemies to take away his Life and thus the Hebrew words Sceol and Scahat according to the former Sense do signifie Literally a Sepulchre and a Ditch But according to the Spiritual and Mystical Sense which St. Peter gives to this Psalm that he applies to the Messiah whose Type David was the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he took from the ancient Version of the Septuagint do signifie in the Acts of the Apostles Hell and Corruption The Application that the Apostle made of the words of that Psalm to the Resurrection of the Messiah does contain nothing but what is agreeable to the belief of the Jews of that time who believed the Resurrection of the dead They further acknowledged a subterranean place to which Souls do go after their separation from the Body Without a due regard to all these considerations it is impossible to understand the New Testament Therefore it is to be supposed as a thing constantly agreed upon that the Jews in the time of our Saviour and the Apostles believed many things whereof they had no Literal proofs in all the Old Testament being only founded on their Traditions And the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles ought to be Expounded with a relation to this Idea of the Jewish Faith and not to that which may be conceived of their belief with a reference to the Books of the Old Testament only because those Books contain but one part of their Religion the other part being comprehended in their Traditions The Jews do own this Principle The Jews even the Caraites who do mightily oppose the Traditions of the Talmudists which had degenerated into Fables have preserved those which they believed to be founded on sufficient Records The ancient Hereticks who did not weigh all these considerations did rather choose to deny the truth of the Books of the New Testament and say that in after times there
were interpolations made therein than to attribute to the Apostles such things as they did not understand It is upon this supposed ground that the Manichees who found no express Passages in the Law of Moses that made mention of Jesus Christ rejected as false all those Places of the Pentateuch that were applied to him in the New Testament They did not consider that at the time of Christ and the Apostles there was a Mystical and Spiritual Sense approved of by all the Jews some Sadducees possibly excepted And with respect to this Sense the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles are to be Expounded And therefore they deceive themselves who pretend that there ought to be a Literal Sense in all the Citations of the Apostles especially in those which they bring in for Proofs It is true that a Passage of Scripture taken Allegorically cannot serve for a Proof but we speak here of such Allegorical Senses as were received and which were also founded on Traditions that were warranted by Authority They were therefore permitted to apply them to their Discourse and likewise to draw such Consequences from them as might promote their design in the same manner as the Pharisees made use of them in their Disputes against the Sadducees Those Allegorical Senses prove nothing for their own confirmation but suppose a belief already established upon which they were founded It is probable that Theodore de Mopsueste Expounded the Psalms and the Prophesies according to this Method and that he had regard to nothing when he was condemned as a favourer of the Jews but the Literal and Historical Sense which he gave to those ancient Prophesies They will not consider the Application he made thereof with the whole Church to the Messiah according to a Spiritual and Mystical Sense If we believe Facundus there is no justice done to that great Man who had a perfect knowledge of the Sacred Writings (q) Eum dicunt evacuasse omnes in Christum factas Prophetias quod Manichaeorum erroris est Fac. pro def tri cap. Conc. Calc lib. 9. c. 1. They accused him of destroying the Prophesies that related to Jesus Christ by an error like to that of the Manichees But he shews the falshood of this accusation by producing the very words of Theodore taken out of his Commentaries upon the Psalms Quod autem saith Facundus nec evacuet omnes in Christum prophetias palam est quia rursus in ejusdem Psalmi expositione dicit c. Whence he concludes (r) Non ergo Theodorus Judaicae impietatis arguendus est tanquam hominem putaverit Christum cùm potiùs Judaeos irrideat Fac. ibid. That it was hard to make Theodore pass for an impious person who believed with the Jews that Jesus Christ was a mere Man seeing he vigorously defended the contrary This is no place to inquire if Theodore was unjustly condemned as Facundus does assure us I have only made mention of the Passage that I might shew that great Men have of a long time acknowledged two Senses of Scripture as we have already made evident It is certain that the Christian Religion is founded on that of the Jews The Christians have this in common with them that they adore the same God and that they believe a Messiah promised in the Writings of the Old Testament which they receive equally And therefore the Christians who Expound those Writings in a Literal and Historical Sense cannot be blamed as if they favoured Judaism in exclusion of the Christian Religion seeing they acknowledged a second Sense called Spiritual and Mystical which they apply to the Messiah This latter Sense is the same that the Jews call deras In a word it is impossible to arrive at a perfect knowledge of the Christian Religion and the Principles upon which it is established so long as that of the Jews is not known to which the former does owe its Original Celsus Porphyrius Julian and the Jews have brought some other Objections against the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles The Principal is that which is drawn from the Genealogy of Jesus Christ Recorded in a different manner by St. Matthew and St. Luke They alledge that besides that these two Evangelists do not agree they have delivered manifest falsities But this aspersion has been so clearly wiped off by many Commentators upon the New Testament and also in the Volumes that purposely have been written for that end that it is needless to insist on it I shall only observe in general that it is easie to make answer to the Jews upon such objections as are drawn from Genealogies When they bring against the Christians the difference that is betwixt our Evangelists and the Books of the Old Testament their Mouths will be stopped if we shew them that there is no less in this matter betwixt the Chronicles which they attribute to Esdras and the rest of the Historical Writings of the Old Testament Their Rabbins who could not reconcile things that appeared so remote from one another are forced to own that the same Genealogies which are written in a different manner were taken out of Records that did likewise differ And may not we also affirm that the Evangelists Collected the Genealogy of Jesus Christ out of such Records as were amongst the Jews at that time but are not extant at this day And therefore it is better to leave the things as they are than to judg rashly of them or correct that Genealogy upon bare conjectures CHAP. XXIII Of the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testament A Refutation of the Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa The Cardinal of Perron has given a very bad Exposition of the Words of the second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy Chap. 3. v. 16. which makes mention of this Inspiration The Disputes betwixt the Jesuits of Louvain and the Divines of the same place upon this matter Three Propositions of the Jesuits Censured by the Doctors of Louvain and Douay A Defence of those Propositions against the Censure of those Divines I Have Treated elsewhere of the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings in general But seeing I only Treated of them occasionally and by way of Answer to some Objections which were brought against the Critical History of the Old Testament I shall here Handle it more particularly with respect to the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles It is the common Belief of the Jews that the Books of the Old Testament were written by Persons who were Inspired which Belief was transmitted from the Jews to the Christians Upon which occasion Origen affirmed (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 5. cont Cels that both the one and the other did equally acknowledge that the Sacred Scripture was written by the Spirit of God. The Christians have also extended that Inspiration to the Books of the New Testament There are but very few Criticks who are of the Opinion that there is nothing of Inpiration in Scripture but only in
that part of it that was Composed by the Prophets They say the Historical Books were not inspired because as they alledge it is not necessary for him that writes History to be a Prophet Grotius is of that Opinion in his Book Entituled Votum pro pace Ecclesiasticâ (b) Si Lucas divino afflatu dictante sua scripsisset inde potiùs sibi sumpsisset auctoritatem ut Prophetae faciunt quà m à testibus quorum fidem est secutus Sic in iis quae Paulum agentem vidit scribendis nullo ipsi dictante afflatu opus Quid ergo est cur Lucae libri sint canonici Quia piè fideliter soriptos de rebus momenti ad salutem maximi Ecclesia primorum temporum judicavit Grot. Vot pro Pac. Eccl. tit de Can. Script If St. Luke saith that Critick had been Inspired by God when he writ his History he would rather have made use of that Inspiration by the example of the Prophets than the Authority of those whom he takes for Witnesses of his faithfulness He had no need he further says of any Inspiration for writing the Actions of St. Paul of which he himself was a Witness Whence he does conclude that the Writings of St. Luke are Canonical not because they were Inspired but because the Primitive Church did Judge that they were written by godly Men with great faithfulness and Treat of things that are of very great importance to our Salvation He does repeat the same thing elsewhere in his Works against Rivetus who opposed that Opinion as being impious He does there affirm (c) Neque Esdras neque Lucas Prophetae fuere sed viri graves prudentes qui nec fallere vellent nec falli se sinerent Dixitne Lucas Factum est ad Lucam verbum Domini dixit ei Dominus Scribe Grot. Riv. Apolog. discuss pag. 723. that Esdras and St. Luke were not Prophets but Grave and Prudent Men who would neither deceive others nor be deceived themselves He does further affirm That St. Luke does not say in the Prophetical Stile The word of the Lord came unto Luke that the Lord did not say to him Write Spinosa did exactly follow the Opinion of Grotius which he has explained more at large in his Book Entituled Tractatus Theologico-Politicus where he does not indeed deny but that the Apostles were Prophets but he affirms (d) Dubitare possumus num Apostoli tanquam Prophetae ex revelatione expresso mandato ut Moses Jeremias alii an verò ut privati vel Doctores Epistolas scripserint Spin. Tract Theol. polit c. 11. that it may be doubted if they writ their Books in the quality of Prophets by the express command of God inspiring them as Moses Jeremy and others had done He does alledge that (e) Si ad eorum stilum attendere volumus eum à stilo Prophetiae alienissimum inveniemus Nam Prophetis usitatissimum erat ubique testari se èx Dei edicto loqui nempe Sic dicit Deus Ait Deus exercituum Edictum Dei c. Atque hoc non tantùm videtur locum habuisse in publicis Prophetarum concionibus sed etiam in Epistolis quae revelationes continebant Spin. ibid. if we judge of the Works of the Apostles by their Stile we shall find that they writ as particular Doctors and not as Prophets because they have nothing that is Prophetical Which he does prove by the same way of reasoning as Grotius It is saith he the custom of the Prophets to declare through all their Writings that they spake by God's order and they have observed that not only in their Prophecies but in their Letters which contain revelations This Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa has been lately renewed in two Letters Published in a Treatise Entitled The Opinions of some Divines of Holland upon the Critical History of the Old Testament Seeing I have given a sufficient Answer to those two Letters and also to the new Explications thereof which have been since published 't is to no purpose to repeat here what has been said elsewhere We shall only observe in general that those Men do deceive themselves whilst they will not own any Inspiration but that of the Prophecies It is true that the manner of writing a History and Letters is not the same as writing Prophecies And therefore these words The word of God that came to Luke do not begin the History of St. Luke or any other Evangelist The Books of Moses Joshua and in a word all the Historical Books of the Old Testament are not written in that Stile which Grotius does call Prophetical Yet Josephus and all the Ancient Jews call them Prophetical believing that they were given by Divine Inspiration 'T is not necessary for a Book 's being inspired that it should be indited by God word for word The false Idea that those Authors have conceived of the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings made them embrace an opinion which is contrary to all Antiquity as well Judaical as Christian Jesus Christ who promised to his Apostles that the Spirit of God should guide them in all the functions of their Ministry did not therefore deprive them of their Reason and Memory Although they were inspired they continued to be Men still and managed their Affairs as other Men. I freely own that there was no need of Inspiration to put in record such matters of Fact whereof they themselves were Witnesses But this does not hinder but that they were directed by the Spirit of God in all that they put in Writing so as not to fall into error It is certain that all the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers did acknowledge this Inspiration of the Evangelists and Apostles Nevertheless they speak of their care and exactness in penning their Works in the same manner as they speak of other Writers who are not inspired Can Grotius conclude from thence that those Ancient Doctors of the Church did not believe that the Books of the New Testament were given by Divine Inspirations This he cannot do seeing those very Doctors have clearly maintained it We need but call to mind what has been said in the 10th Chap. concerning the Opinion of Papias who was contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles He does assure us that if that Evangelist did not observe in his History the order of things as to their Event that he was not in the least to be blamed for that because he made mention of the things according as he remembred them not being so careful to relate them in their order as he was to say nothing but what was Truth Papias or rather one of the Disciples of the Apostles whose words Papias does produce in that place did not thereby pretend to reject the Inspiration of the Gospel of St. Mark. We need but consult the other Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers who expressed themselves in such a manner as might oblige Grotius and Spinosa to believe that they owned no
Inspiration in the Books of the New Testament if they had not expresly maintained it in other places of their Works That which II. Epist ad Tim. c. 3. v. 16. amongst Christians does most of all confirm the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings is the strong Foundation that the Apostle Paul has in one of his Epistles to Timothy all Scripture is given by Divine Inspiration We have elsewhere refuted all the subtil allegations that were brought by Grotius who endeavoured to the utmost of his power to put quite another sense on that Passage But I made it most manifest that that able Critick was to be blamed on many accounts in attempting to wrest the interpretation of those words of St. Paul that he might accommodate them to his own Idea's It is surprising that the Cardinal of Perron who was perswaded of the Inspiration of the Holy Scripture should nevertheless have made his strongest efforts Answ to the Def. of some Holl. Div. c. 10. for depriving Christians of this proof of Inspiration It is customary amongst those who write Books of Controversie to think of nothing but answering the Objections of their Adversaries without examining the proper and natural sense of the Passages of Scripture for the confirmation of their own Opinions He followed this Method of Polemical Authors in his Answer to the King of Great Britain Seeing the Protestants forget nothing that may recommend the Authority of the Scripture alone without the aid of Traditions II. Epist ad Tim. c. 3. v. 16. du Perron likewise for his part forgot nothing that might enhance the Authority of Traditions The Protestants did object to him those words of the Apostle Paul All Scripture is given by Divine Inspiration and it profitable for Doctriue Thus in effect that place of St. Paul to Timothy ought to be rendred nevertheless he does loudly oppose this Translation Du Perr lib. 3. de Trad. Apost c. 4. under a pretence that there is not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tota all or the whole in the Greek but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnis all or every and that we do not read with the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Scripture but without the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Scripture To what purpose are all those niceties of Grammar and Dialect which the Cardinal does use in that place It is true that he does alledge the Authority of St. John Chrysostome Theodoret and some other Fathers for the confirmation of his Opinion But I desire no other testimony but theirs to bring it under condemnation And to avoid being tedious in a thing so easie to be justified seeing the Works of those Fathers are every where to be had it will suffice if we inform our selves of St. Jerome's thoughts in the case he is of a quite different Opinion from that which the Cardinal has Father'd on him That Learned Bishop does not say with the Cardinal that that Passage ought to be understood distributively by translating it all Scripture and not collectively by translating it all the Scripture He does on the contrary assure us in his Homily Chrysost Hom. 9. in Ep. II. ad Tim. upon those words of St. Paul that that Holy Apostle does speak of all the Holy Scripture which Timothy had studied from his Infancy and he concludes that all that Scripture is profitable and given by the Inspiration of God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But by the Scripture that is spoken of in that place it is evident that we must understand all the Old Testament It is in no wise likely that du Perron himself had read St. John Chrysostome's Homily or any other of the Greek Fathers whom he cites That which deceived those who read them for him and gave him an abstract of their pretended sentiments is that they consulted only the Latin Version of that Homily where it is according to the vulgar Translation Omnis Scriptura divinitùs inspirata est utilis i. e. All Scripture that is given by the Inspiration of God is profitable But it was shewn elsewhere that in the ancient vulgar it was Inspirata utilis i. e. is inspired and profitable as it is in the Greek and that we are to expound that Passage collectively and not distributively We may nevertheless very well give that sense also to the vulgar as the rendition is at this day according to that reading the Translation will be All the Scripture which was given by Inspiration is profitable and not with Amelote and with the Authors of the Mons Translation All Scripture that has been given by Divine Inspiration is profitable The Syriack Arabick and Ethiopick Versions which that Cardinal pretends to be favourable to him have quite another sense than what he does attribute to them as I have shewn in the Answer to the Defence of the Opinions of some Holland Divines Answ to the Def. of the Op. Ch. 10. concerning the Critical History of the Old Testament But to proceed I do not comprehend why the Cardinal du Perron does dispute with so much vigour about the manner of Translating that Passage of St. Paul and that from thence he does infer that if it prove any thing it must be that every Canonical Writing was sufficient by it self for universal instruction in all the Christian Religion The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he without an Article does denote every piece of the Holy Scripture distributively But the Greek Fathers did not wire-draw St. Paul's words after that manner but did expound them as if in effect they had read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Scripture with the Article The Catholicks ought also to agree with the Protestants that all the Scripture is profitable for instruction which does not at all exclude Traditions which being joyned to Scripture does compose the Principle upon which the Christian Religion is Founded And therefore there is nothing but subtilty in all the Cardinal's dispute who would pass his refined impertinencies for a Comment on those words of the Apostle and who bids defiance in that adventure to all Antiquity Estius on the contrary has allowed too large a sense to the same Passage He has indeed interpreted the Vulgar very well according to the Greek Text from which the Latin was taken But he went beyond the sense (f) Rectè igitur verissimè ex hoc loco statuitur omnem Scripturam Sacram Canonicam Spiritu Sancto dictante esse conscriptam ita nimirùm ut non solùm sententiae sed verba singula verborum ordo ac tota dispositio sit à Deo tanquam per semetipsum loqùente Est Comm. in Epist II. ad Timot. c. 3. v. 16. when he did conclude from thence that all the Holy Scripture was indited by the Spirit of God not only as to the matter or things therein contained but also in respect of the words and all their circumstances so as there is no word in
most part of the Schools when those Opinions have no good Foundation which happened to them in the matter which we now handle The Divines of Louvain bring for one of the principal motives of their Censure the conformity that the three Propositions of the Jesuits have to an old Opinion that was condemned in the Anomeans whereof St. Epiphanius all through makes mention But to shew the falshood of this objection it will be sufficient to bring the Testimony of Epiphanius That Father does say that the Anomeans (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 76. n. 6. traduced the Prophets and the Evangelists that when they were much urged they avoided the difficulty by answering that the Apostle spake as a Man. Is there any thing in those three Propositions above mentioned that comes near this Did the Jesuits of the College of Louvain alledge that there might possibly be somthing that is false in the Writings of the Apostles under the pretext that they were Men that spake it Yet that is the Opinion of the Anomeans who being unable to satisfie the Reasons that were brought against them out of the Books of the New Testament said that the Authors of those Books had spoken as Men in those places We shall apply the same Answer to another Objection which those Doctors did take from the Preface of St. Jerom's Commentaries upon the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Philemon That Father does in that place make mention of certain Hereticks who rejected that Epistle because they alledged that that Holy Apostle was not guided by the Spirit of God in writing it Hieron prooem Comm. in Epist ad Philem. Those who will not saith he receive the Epistle written to Philemon as one of the Epistles of Paul do say that the Apostle did not speak always nor all things by the immediate assistance of Christ speaking in him because human frailty could not suffer one constant tenor of the Holy Ghost But if it should be granted to those Hereticks that St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles were not Inspired in all that they writ it does not therefore follow that we ought to reject a part of their Writings It is sufficient that we own with the Jesuits that there is nothing but Truth in those very places which were not Inspired and that the Holy Ghost had committed them to us as such Those Sectaries asked the Orthodox Apud Hieron ibid. Epist II. ad Tim. c. 4. v. 13. if St. Paul stood in need of any Inspiration to say When thou doest come bring my Cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus and especially the parchments and many other things of that nature I do declare that it was in no ways necessary that God should Indite such kind of things to St. Paul and other Holy Writers This is the Opinion of the Jesuits of Louvain which was afterwards confirmed in the same place by Cornelius à Lapide whose words I have already mentioned But they did not conclude from thence that we are not obliged to receive the Books of Scripture in any parts or places thereof but those only that were Indited by the Holy Ghost It is sufficient that they were persuaded that the Holy Writers were guided by the Spirit of God in every part of their Writings so as not to fall into any error The Divines of Louvain further objected against the Jesuits that they had renewed an Opinion which had been condemned in the Person of Erasmus But it is easie to make it appear that those Fathers maintained nothing that had affinity to the Proposition which Erasmus owned That Critick was accused for believing that there were * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some errors in the Writing of the Apostles which were to be attributed to a defect of their Memory We shall find nothing like this in the three Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain for although they be very well satisfied that there was no need of any Inspiration for Writing those things that they knew they do not upon that account imagin that the Writers were at any time mistaken through a defect of Memory Erasmus also used his utmost endeavour in one of his Apologies to wipe off that accusation He does protest that he only reported that which St. Jerom had observed upon the matter and that there had been nothing said but what was agreeable to St. Augustine's Opinion Howsoever it is that Critick does assure us (b) Nunc testor me abhorrere ab ullâ oblivione tribuendâ Apostolis Erasm Apol. adv Monach. quosd Hisp that he never intended to charge the Apostles with any defect of Memory I do not inquire if Erasmus was wronged in this It is enough that I have shewn the Proposition that is supposed to have been condemned on his account and have withal made it appear that there is nothing of that nature contained in the three Propositions of the Jesuits that were Censured Those very Divines did also by way of Objection bring the Authority of the Council of Trent Sess IV. the words of St. Peter Epist II. ch 1. v. 21. and those of St. Paul Epist II. to Timothy ch 3. v. 16. But there is nothing in all those places to which the Jesuits of Louvain do not agree The strongest Passage is that of the Epistle to Timothy and yet it is the same upon which Cornelius à Lapide made Observations as I have shewn As to the Testimony of the ancient Fathers who said that the Tongue and the Hand of the Holy were the Holy Ghosts Pen the Jesuits do not deny it The same Cornelius à Lapide has explained it at large in his Commentary upon the second Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Timothy where he makes it appear that it is not contrary to his Opinion about the Inspiration of Scripture And the truth is we cannot imagin that the Holy Ghost deprived the Evangelists and the Apostles of the use of their Reason and Memory The Reasons of the Doctors of the Faculty of Theology of Douay are no more Conclusive than those of the Divines of Louvain They chiefly depend upon some Passages of St. Augustin But since there is nothing that is positive in all those Passages it will not be worth the while to insist on them They bring for example by way of Objection some places of his Books Concerning the consent of the Evangelists Yet there is no Work where that Father has more shewn than in that Treatise that the Sacred Writers made use of their Reason and Memory when they writ their Gospels That Work has also given occasion to Erasmus and some other Writers to affirm that the Memory of the Apostles was not always sure and that they put sometimes one word for another It is true that St. Augustin is withal of the Opinion that that defect in the Apostles was guided by the Holy Ghost But I think it had been much better not to make them fall into error than to
the Holy Writers with the least fault even in the things of small importance But after all he does not disapprove the Opinion of the Catholick Doctors who alledged mistakes of that kind which are not prejudicial to our Faith There is nothing that does more diminish the Authority of the Holy Scripture even in things Essential and Revealed than constrained Answers that provoke laughter in those who are not of the same belief with us By this we perceive that the Archbishop of Spalatro was in a strait whose part he was to take about a Question of this delicacy As for Doctor Holden of all he says upon that Subject this is most full of good sense (i) Veritates Philosophicae nec probandae nec improbandae sunt ex puris nudisque Sacrae Scripturae verbis sententiis Quamvis enim nullam complectatur Scriptura falsitatem attamen ipsius loquendi modus utplurimùm vulgaris est at que ad communem hominum captum potiùs quà m ad loquelae proprietatem sermonis rigorem adaptatus Hold. ibid. That we ought not to approve or condemn upon the bare words of Scripture all that belongs solely to Philosophy For as he observes in the same place though there is nothing false in Scripture the expressions therein are frequently accommodated to the Opinions commonly received amongst the People and they are not always very exact which is agreeable to St. John Chrysostome's Opinion who observed (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys Hom. 9. in Epist ad Philipp c. 2. that St Paul does often speak according to the Sentiments of the Populace that he may accommodate himself to his Auditors CHAP. XXV Spinosa's Objections against the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testament are Examined ALthough Spinosa had very little or no knowledge of the Books of the New Testament yet he would by all means insert in his Treatise Entitled Theologico-politicus a whole Chapter against the Inspiration of those Books where he only gives a greater light to that which Grotius had formerly written upon this matter in many places of his Works His great Principle is (a) Apostoli non tanquà m Prophetae sed tanquam Doctores scripserunt viam ad docendum elegerunt quam faciliorem judicaverunt fore discipulis quos tum docere volebant Spin. Tract Theol. polit cap. 12. that the Apostles did not write as Prophets but as single Doctors and that therefore it was not necessary that they should be Inspired But this distinction betwixt Prophets and Doctors does not at all destroy that Inspiration which is attributed to the Apostles which does only consist in a bare direction of the Spirit of God as has been shewn before God say they did not command them to write as he commanded the Prophets to publish their Prophecies We have also observed from the beginning of this Work that when the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers speak of the Gospels they declare that they were composed only occasionally and at the request of the first Believers It does not indeed so evidently appear to us that the Evangelists and Apostles had an express Commandment of God or even of Jesus Christ to publish Books for the Instruction of the first Christians as it does appear that the Prophets did speak to the People of Israel by Gods Order But we see that Jesus Christ commanded his Disciples to go and Preach the Gospel to all Nations of the Earth But their Histories which we call Gospels are nothing else but Collections of their Sermons which were animated by the Spirit of God whom their Master had promised to them The Prophets Spinosa continues do not only observe in their Prophecies but also in their Letters that it was God who spake by their Mouth which he proves by the Letter that the Prophet Elias writ to King Joram and is mentioned 2 Chron. Ch. 21. v. 12. Which begins with these words Thus saith the Lord (b) In Epistolis Apostolorum nihil simile legimus sed contra in I. ad Cor. 7.40 Paulus secundùm suam sententiam loquitur Spin. ibid. cap. 11. we read no such thing saith he in the Letters of the Apostles St. Paul on the contrary speaks as from himself in his first Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 7. v. 40. If the Stile of the Apostles be not altogether the same as that of the Prophets it cannot from thence be concluded that the former were not guided by the Spirit of God in all the actions of their Ministery It was in no wise necessary that they should repeat in every discourse that it was the Lord who spake It was sufficient for them to declare in general that Jesus Christ had sent them to Preach the Truths of the Gospel and that he who had given them that Mission in his Father's Name had told them expresly It is not you that speak but the Spirit of your Heavenly Father who speaks in you It is true that St. Paul does speak as from himself in the first Epistle to the Corinth Chap. 7. where he makes use of this Expression I give my judgment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But he adds withal that he thinks he has the Spirit of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The ground of Spinosa's error was that a Man could not use his Reason and be also guided by the Spirit of God at the same time as if by becoming God's Interpreter he must cease to be a Man and be only a Passive Instrument if I may use the Term To proceed it is not true that the Apostles never observed at the beginning of their Letters that it was God who spake by their Mouth For they begin their Letter which they write to their Brethren of Antioch by these words It seem'd good to the Holy Ghost and to us Acts xv 28. to let them know that what they laid upon them came from God whose Inrerpreters they only were The other expressions of St. Paul which Spinosa in the same place makes use of to shew that that Apostle writ to gratifie his own inclination without being encouraged thereunto by the Spirit of God may be easily explained by the Principle which we have established That Man does always suppose that Inspiration does wholly deprive one of the use of his Reason which is most false (c) Apostoli ubique ratiocinantur it a ut non prophetare sed disputare videantur Spin. ibid. The Apostles saith he are every where upon Reasoning so that they are more like Disputants than Prophets But besides that he has formed to himself a false Idea of the Inspiration of the Prophets 't is sufficient if we object against him the example formerly given where the Apostles after they had deliberated and reasoned in an Assembly did nevertheless use this expression it seem'd to the Holy Ghost and to us Which does evidently shew that the Spirit of God who had guided them in that Assembly did not deprive them of the use of their Reason There
insist (ſ) Principium Evangelii Joannis est obscurissimum quod figuratae voces inusitatae loquendi formulae praecipuè autem diversitas opinionum in verbis Joannis explicandis varietas contrarietas ostendit Nulla enim ferè vocula est certè nulla clausula quae multiplices inter se dissidentes interpretationes non habeat Enjed. ibid. on the obscurity of the beginning of that Gospel where as he thinks we can find nothing but figurative words and uncouth forms of Speech There is not a Word or Diction therein as that Unitary does add but what may be Expounded several different nay even opposite ways This being so I admire the headstrong prejudice of the Protestants and Unitaries who dare oppose the common Belief of all the Churches of the World having no other Foundation but that of Records which they acknowledg to be so obscure and difficult to be understood It is true that the Protestants do not altogether agree about the obscurity of Scripture especially in the most important places but the Unitaries in this matter shew more Candor not denying a thing which is obvious They only desire that the number of the Fundamental Points of our Faith be limited It is not sufficient to study the Greek Language in Profane Authors seeing the Writers of the New Testament have a particular Stile that is abstruse and requires an extraordinary Application Hentenius has very patly observed in his Preface which he prefixed to his Version of the Commentaries of Euthymius upon the Gospels (t) Animadvertendum est Evangelistas Apostolos cùm genere Hebraei essent hac in re sicut in aliis multis Hebraicum secutos idioma quo illi frequentissimè pro praesenti quod proprium non habent aut pro futuro efferunt praeteritum Vtque in universum dicam tempus unum pro alio Hebraei saepenumerò collocant Quod etiam Evangelistae non rarò fecerunt nec solus Matthaeus qui patriâ scripsit linguâ hoc est Hebraeâ sed caeteri qui Graecè scripserunt c. Joann Hent praef Vers Comm. Euthym. in Evang. That the Apostles and the Evangelists being born Hebrews did follow in their Writings the Genius of the Hebrew Language which frequently puts one time for another and has many other things pecuhar to it He adds it is not only St. Matthew who does imitate this Stile of the Hebrew but the other Evangelists do it also That one may be acquainted with this Stile it is fit to read the Greek Version of the Septuagint which the Apostles have imitated It is further necessary to study particularly the Stile of every Book of the New Testament For although they are written in a certain Language which I elsewhere called the Language of the Synagogue every Writer has somthing peculiar to himself Of all the Holy Writers St. Paul is most hard to be understood who sometimes comes to a full stop before he has done which has given occasion to so great a number of Hyperbates or Transpositions in his Epistles Gagnejus who writ very judicious Notes upon those Epistles calls the Reading or Stile of St. Paul Lectionem turbulentam salebrosam i.e. an obscure and rugged Stile (u) Salebrosas illas Pauli Epistolas plerumque lectitanti mihi tam longis byperbatis hiulcas tot anapodotis inabsolutas tantâ sensuum profunditate inaccessas invias visum est non hîc divinatore Apollinis Pythone sed divino Pauli spiritu opus esse Vnde non possum illorum non admirari impudentiam qui cùm non Pauli id est pacis ac quietis sed schismatum ac dissensionis spiritum habeant confestim nullo interprete absque sanctorum doctorum hominum Commentariis quae cavillari solent unos se Pauli mentem tenere impudenter arrogant Gagn. Epist dedic Schol. in Epist Pauli He is persuaded of their obscurity because of their abstruse Stile wherein they were written which he thinks almost impossible to be explained without the same Spirit that St. Paul had He does withal admire the impudence of the Protestants who having quite another sort of Spirit than what the Apostle had do insolently boast that they understand them without any other assistance than that of their own Spirit I should have some cause to glory saith that Divine if I could give some light to St. Paul's obscure Stile which as many think that Apostle did expresly affect Non parum gloriabor si quid lucis Pauli tenebris adjecisse inveniar ut multi putant de industriâ affectlatis But that Apostle in that did the rather follow his Spirit which represented to him many things at once And therefore sometimes he only begins a Discourse and leaves it incompleat nay he raises some objections to which he makes no answer I know that St. Augustin in his Books concerning the Christian Religion Aug. l. 4. de Doct. Christ c. 7. composed a Chapter expresly to shew that there was true Eloquence in the Holy Scripture especially in St. Paul's Writings where he finds perfection of Wisdom accompanied with the greatness of Eloquence But seeing that Father did not understand the Greek Language we ought in this case to prefer the Opinion of the Greek Fathers to his He seems nevertheless in that place to speak only of a kind of Eloquence that he calls Wisdom and which he makes to consist rather in Things than in Expressions If St. Paul was Eloquent because of some Figures which St. Augustin observed in his Stile there is almost no Author but may pass for Eloquent upon that score There is indeed a force in that Apostle's discourse There are very high thoughts and a perfect knowledg of Religion But all this is not called Eloquence according to the common notion which we have of the Word He himself declares writing to the Corinthians who charged him with rudeness of Speech that his discourse was mean and that he had not the art of speaking or did not use enticing words of Man's wisdom St. Jerome does plainly assure us (x) Illud quod crebrò diximus etsi imperitus sermone non tamen scientiâ nequaquà m Paulum de humilitate sed de consciontiae veritate dixisse etiam nunc approbamus Profundos enim reonditos sensus lingua non explicat cùm ipse sentiat quid loquatur in alienas aures puro non potest transferre sermone quem cùm in vernaculâ linguâ habeat disertissimum quippe Hebraeus ex Hebraeis eruditus ad pedes Gamalielis viri in lege doctissimi scriptum interpretari cupiens involvitur Hier. Epist ad Alg. qu. 10. that that acknowledgment of St. Paul did not so much proceed from the deep humility that was in him as from the Truth which he owned because his Tongue could not well express his profound and hidden thoughts That Apostle saith he being an Hebrew and having studied under Gamaliel a Doctor of the Law is put hard to it when
of their Books were written has been called in this Age the Hellenistick Language This Language is Greek in respect of the words but the order of the Phrase is Hebrew or Chaldee as we still see at this day that the Spanish Jews have composed the Translations of the Bible in a kind of Spanish Language which is hard to be understood by any one who does not understand the Hebrew It is the same thing in their other Versions of the Bible in whatsoever Language they are written They do not only continually mix therewith some Hebrew or half Hebrew words but their manner of expression in all the Vulgar Languages has also a great affinity with the Hebrew The Ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint was written in this sort of Greek as well as the Books of the New Testament and they called this Language Hellenistick because it was in use among the Jews who spake the Greek Language and who are called Hellenists or Greeks in the Acts of the Apostles Vossius who frequently frames Maxims which he does not confirm by any solid Proofs does alledge that those were called Hellenists who favoured the Greeks and that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does signifie that in the same manner as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signifie to favour the Romans and the Persians And thus that incomparable Person does often judge of things merely by Grammatical Notions without being in any measure concerned whether those notions do or do not agree to the things to which he applies them But if we should confine our selves only to the Grammatical sense of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is certain that it does signifie as well in Profane as Ecclesiastical Authors to speak Greek and likewise to speak that Language in its purity He thinks that those among the Jews were called Hebrews who by reason of the great zeal they had for their Law were unwilling to submit to the Greeks and the Romans and would by no means allow that their Nation should pay tribute to Strangers The rest on the contrary were called Hellenists who paid tribute with good will. But all this is a mere imagination that has not the least shadow of Reason and which signifies nothing as to that Passage of the Acts of the Apostles Chap. 6. where there is mention made of the Hebrews and Hellenists or Greeks St. Chrysostom Theodoret Oecumenius and many other Fathers did not by those Grecians understand any other Jews but those who had the Greek for their Vulgar Language whereas the rest spake the Chaldee or Babylonish Tongue St. Luke saith Oecumenius speaking of the former (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oecum in c. 6. Act. Apost calls them Greeks or Hellenists not upon the account of their Religion but because they spake the Greek Language Although they were Jews as well as others they are not commonly called Hebrews because they spake not the Hebrew or rather the Chaldee Language That Hebrew Language had continued among the Jews of Palestine since their return from Babylon and they look'd upon themselves to be more considerable than the rest of the Jews who were dispersed through the several Provinces of the Roman Empire where they spake Greek The most able Criticks of our Age have owned the Hellenistick Language to which they have had frequent recourse for explaining many Passages of the New Testament Yet Salmasius and after him Crojus have used their utmost endeavour to cry down this new Language which as they imagin was unknown to all the Ancients and which is as they alledge chymerical seeing it cannot be reduced to any of the Ancient Greek Dialects The former has expresly written two Books upon this Subject one whereof is entitled De Hellenisticâ Commentarius and another Funus Linguae Hellenisticae He does really in these two Works shew himself to be a Man of great Learning But he is so far from destroying that Language as he pretends that he does confirm it in several places The Patrons of the Hellenistick Language never believed that there was a Greek Dialect of that name and so all Salmasius's long Discourse upon the several Greek Dialects is nothing to the purpose Further seeing we intend not to dispute with him on words it shall be granted that the word Hellenist does signifie Greek and that those who speak not that Language properly ought rather to be called Non Hellenists than Hellenists The truth is in the Prohibition that Julian laid on the Christians not to apply themselves to the Study of the Greek Language he uses this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it does signifie to speak pure Greek And therefore St. Gregory of Nazianzen calls him in derision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lover of the Greek Language and he tells him (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naz. Orat. 1. adv Jul. he who made this Law has forbidden us to speak in the Attick Dialect but he has not restrained us from speaking the Truth In this sense there are no true Hellenists but those who have a perfect Knowledge of the Greek Language which does differ from the Hellenistick Language and this I would rather call the Greek of the Synagogue because it owes its Original to the Synagogues of the Jews But those who first call'd this Language the Hellenistick did it only in conformity to that place of the Acts where the Jews are called Hellenists and not according to the ordinary notion of the word Hellenist Salmasius does grant that there are many Hebraisms in the Version of the Septuagint and in the Writings of the Apostles He only denies that we ought upon that account to call that the Hellenistick Language in which those Books were written Otherwise saith he we ought to give the same name to the Ancient Latin Version of the Bible because there is also a great many Hebraisms in that Version But it was necessary that it should have been written in Greek before it could be called an Hellenistick Version We do not call the Language of the Septuagint and of the New Testament Hellenistick merely because it contains many Hebraisms but because it is Greek mixed with Hebraisms There may be any name chosen and applyed in this case provided that there be an agreement in the thing it self It is vain to dispute on words when the matter is past dispute Now Salmasius does in his two Books suppose certain Principles which manifestly establish the Language which some Criticks in this last Age have called the Hellenistick He assures us for example that the Seventy Interpreters who understood the Greek very well (c) Nisi verbum verbo in pluribus reddere curassent longè ut ita dicam Graecatiorem omnibus Hebraismis totidemque barbarismis repurgatam potuissent edere translationem Hebraismi non aliunde exorti sunt quà m ex vertendi modo qui se verbis alligat qui sensa non exprimere contentus
etiam vim ipsam vocularum repraesent are satagit Salm. Epist dedic Comm. de Hellenist could have made a Version of better Greek and free from all the Hebraisms and Barbarisms with which it abounds He is of the Opinion that these Hebraisms were occasioned by the too great care they took to render the Hebrew words literally and to express the force they have in the Original According to this supposition the Greek of the Septuagint is not pure but Greek mixed with Hebraisms and they have likewise given new significations to Greek words the better to express the sense of the Original This is that which is called the Hellenistick Language Thus you see how Salmasius is become a great Hellenisticary whilst he never dream'd any such thing (d) Cùm Hebraicos loquendi modos inseruere non ex Graecâ copiâ quâ abundabant eos hauserunt sed ex textu Hebraico cui nimis se in vertendo adstringebant sumpserunt Salm. ibid. When they inserted saith he speaking of the Septuagint the Hebrew modes of Speech they did not draw them from the copiousness of the Greek Language but from the Hebrew Text to which they adhered very closely Salmasius does use his utmost endeavour to confirm by those words the Greek Language of the Synagogue otherwise called the Hellenistick Language 'T is no great matter how it is called provided the thing be plain He declares that he always allow'd that the words of that Version are Greek but that the Phrase is Hebrew De re semper inter omnes constitit verba esse Graeca Phrasim Hebraicam If it be so why did he write two pretty large Books in which he disputes on nothing else but the name that is to be given to that Language The only thing that he is careful for is to shew that there never was a Dialect amongst the Greeks that was called the Hellenistick De re totâ saith he disputatur quaeritur an omnino fuerit hoc est an Hellenistica aliqua dialectus fuerit We freely grant that there never was any Dialect of this name amongst the Greeks And therefore I have elsewhere called this Language of the Jews-Hellenists a Greek of the Synagogue And in the same manner we may at this day distinguish the pure Spanish amongst the Jews from the Spanish of the Synagogue into which they have translated the Bible of that Language They have also framed on the same Model an Arabick of the Synagogue a Persian Language of the Synagogue in which they have written their Translations of the Bible and their prayer-Prayer-Books If we have not this Idea in reading the Greek of the Septuagint and the New Testament we cannot have an exact knowledg of the Stile of those Books which are not written in a Language that is purely Greek as Salmasius himself does suppose with those whom he calls Hellenisticaries Seeing it is so I do not see to what purpose the most part of that Critick's Questions do serve which he has proposed in his Commentary concerning the Hellenistick Language To what end for example does he so exactly inquire (e) An dialectus peculiaris constituenda sit ea eloquutio quâ Septuaginta Interpretes in Bibliis transferendis usi sunt An plures quà m quinque dialectos Graeci noverint an Hellenisticae inter eas dialectos meminerint An Hellenisticae nomen conveniat ei phrasi quae verbis Graecis Hebraeos concipit intellectus Salm. init Comm. de Hellen. if the Language which the Seventy Interpreters use in their Version does constitute a particular Dialect and if they reckoned amongst those Dialects that which was called Hellenistick If the appellation of the Hellenistick Language does agree to that sort of Phrase whereof the words are Greek and the conceptions Hebrew it was an easie matter for him to compile large Treatises by that Method because he does seldom or never treat of the matter in Question After he had enumerated all the Dialects of the Greeks he concludes (f) Ex his quae proposuimus sole manifestius liquet ejusmodi eloquutionem Graecam quae nec ullius certae gentis unquam propria fuit nec certas habuit notas verbis inhaerentes quibus discerneretur ab aliis dialectis non posse videri dialectum nec teneri definitione dialecti Salm. Comm. de Hellen. p. 84. that it is more clear than the day that that Greek Language that belonged to no Nation and that had no mark to characterise or distinguish it from other Dialects is not a true Dialect But that was not the thing he was to prove because we are of the same Opinion with him that that which some able Criticks have called the Hellenistick Language is none of the Greek Dialects They only think that that Language is not pure Greek by reason of the Hebraisms with which it abounds The Hellenistick Language according to those Criticks is a Language that contains Greek words and Hebrew Phrases Lingua Hellenistica est quae verbis Graecis utitur phrasibus Hebraicis All the Question then is to know if the Version of the Septuagint and the Books of the Old Testament be written in this manner Since he himself does grant this it may be concluded from hence that those Writers have no particular and proper Language It is not to be look'd for in any Dialect of the Greeks nor in any Nation in particular but in the Synagogues of the Jews-Greeks or Hellenists As if at this day I would know what is the Language of the Bibles Printed in Spanish at Ferrara and at Constantinople I would not look for a particular Nation that speaks that Language but would consult the usage of their Synagogues The Apostles who frequented the Synagogues of the Jews-Hellenists and who read with them the Greek Version of the Septuagint borrowed the expressions thereof besides being Jews by Birth and the Chaldee being their Mother Tongue it was very hard for them not to mix some Hebraisms and Chaldaisms with the Greek in which they writ Crojus who is of the same Opinion with Salmasius upon this Subject did likewise establish the Hellenistick Language in the same manner as Salmasius had done though he had at the same time an intention to destroy it That Author after he had recounted many things which were no way for the purpose he designed them does conclude against Heinsius a Hero of the Hellenisticary Party that the Evangelists and the Apostles are not Hellenists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they did not speak good Greek but did Hebraize or Chaldaize 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Phrases being Hebrew Chaldee and Syriack Whereby he does establish that Hellenistick Language whereof the words are Greek and the Phrases Hebrew He asks Heinsius how he can reconcile these two things viz. (g) Si Apostolus ejusque collegae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut in omnibus ferè observationibus contendit Heinsius quomodo profiteri potest eos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
have still at this day of reading privately every Saturday a Parasca or Section of the Chaldee Paraphrase did proceed from that ancient usage of the Synagogues who joyned the reading of the Paraphrase to the Hebrew Text. The Jewish Doctors did not therefore prohibit at that time the reading of the Greek Version and other Translations of Scripture as if they had read those Versions only in their Synagogues but they decreed that there should be no Version added to the reading of the Original Text which had been practised till that time They had used an Interpreter till that time who rendred the words of the Hebrew Text in the Language of the People Which appears by the Talmud and all other Books which Treat of the Jewish Laws and Customs That antient usage has altogether ceased amongst them They have indeed Translations of the Bible in their Vulgar Tongues but they read these only privately This they also observe as to their Service Books which they read in Hebrew in all their Synagogues although they have Translations of them in several Languages CHAP. XXVIII A more particular Discussion of the Reasons alledged by Salmasius against the Language that is called Hellenistick Several difficulties also relating to this matter are cleared THis should be the place to observe particularly the principal Hebraisms which are scattered through the whole New Testament but besides that my only design is to explain the Stile of those Books in general they may be found Collected in the Sacred Philology of John Vorstius who has enlarged sufficiently on this Subject The answer of Thomas Gatakerus to the Dissertation of Phochen vid. if he be the English Whittaker if this Authors Name was Thomas may likewise be consulted in this matter I shall speak of these two Books and some other the like in the third Part of this Critical History I shall only confine my self here to Salmasius his Reasons by which he pretends to shew that all that is said of the Hellenistick Language is without a Foundation This Learned Critick does absolutely deny that the Seventy Interpreters were Hellenists Salm. in Epist dedic Comm. de Hellen. because this Name can only be attributed to the Jews who were dispersed into several Countries out of the Land of Judah But it is Universally agreed upon that the Seventy belonged to Jerusalem and that consequently they were purely Hebrews In Jerusalem they did read the Bible in Hebrew and not in Greek If they joyned to it any Gloss it was written in the Language of the Jews of that Place that is to say in the Chaldee The same thing saith Salmasius may be alledged as to the Apostles who for the most part were Jews Originally and who lived in Judah even after the death of Jesus Christ How then is it possible that they could be Greeks or Hellenists There was only St. Paul amongst them who being of Tarsus in Cilicia where they spake the Greek Language could assume the quality of a Jew-Hellenist But having been bred at Jerusalem where he Studied under the Renowned Rabbin Gamaliel he denominates himself a mere Hebrew Hebraeus ex Hebraeis Indeed since he was of the Pharisees he cannot be reckoned in the number of the Jews-Hellenists who did read the Bible in Greek in their Synagogues It is easie to solve all these difficulties with the least trouble imaginable It may be observed that although the Appellation of Jews-Hellenists was given to those who were scattered out of Judaea into those several Countries where they spake the Greek Language this does not hinder but that there may be found true Hellenists even in the Land of Judah for every Jew who writ in that Greek which we have formerly called the Greek of the Synagogue may be called a Hellenist by reason of the Language he used in writing his Works Upon this ground when it shall be supposed that the Authors of the ancient Greek Version which is ascribed to the Seventy Interpreters were of Jerusalem they are truly Hellenists because they Composed their Version in a Greek that is full of Hebraisms and of Chaldaisms The Apostles who were of Galilee and consequently natural born Jews are also in this Sense Jews-Hellenists if they be considered as the Authors of such Books as they writ in the Greek of the Synagogue St. Paul was indeed born a Hellenist having learned the Greek Language from his Infancy but being afterwards Educated in the Schools at Jerusalem he became a pure Hebrew as to what concerned the Rites and Usages of those of his Nation Yet he ought to be reckoned among the Hellenists if we consider his Works which are written in a Greek Stile full of Hebraisms in which by common suffrage the Hellenistick Language does consist Salmasius does object against this that the modes of Speech in a Language do change according to the Times whilst the name of the Language does not change If so it cannot be said that an Hebrew or Syriack Phrase Salm. de Lang. Hellen. p. 131. which is delivered in pure Greek terms can constitute a particular Language or Dialect of a Nation It does only give a new Character of the Language The Stile of the Poets for example is very remote from the ordinary Greek Yet none ever affirmed that that was a particular Language So it cannot be said that the Hellenistick Language does make a particular Dialect common to a whole Nation as if it were a Language spoken by the Community They were content to confine it to their Synagogues and the Works of those who writ in the Language of the Synagogue Let it be only called if one please a new Character in the Greek Language But this is nothing to the Question seeing we Dispute not of the Word but of the Thing Salmasius does grant that the Greek Version of the Septuagint and of the Books of the New Testament are written in Greek full of Hebraisms we require no more for the Confirmation of the Hellenistick Language It is possible that the Hellenisticaries abuse the Word Language But it is sufficient that they do explain what they understand by this Word and that they own that they did not intend thereby the General Language of a Nation For it is certain that the Jews Greeks or Hellenists did every one speak the Greek Language of the places where they were St. Paul for example spake the Greek which was in his time used at Tarsus Philon spake the Greek of those of Alexandria and seeing he had Studied that Language with great Application he writ in a Stile that was exceedingly polished Nevertheless all the Jews who were Greeks or Hellenists did not write in the Language which is here called the Hellenistick because it was Consecrated chiefly to the use of the Synagogues and was framed according to the Language of the Holy Writings The Jews who were purely Hebrews and who writ in Greek were more Hellenisticaries than the Jews-Hellenists themselves because their Stile did
thence inferred with him that that Apostle did Write his Gospel in the Hebrew rather than in the Greek For having established his abode in the places where the Greek was spoken he instructed the several People whose Apostle he was in the Language which they spake And seeing his Gospel is only a Collection of his Sermons he writ it in the same Language And therefore I do not apprehend that Salmasius has established undoubted Principles for warranting this general Consequence (e) Scribebant igitur Apostoli idiomate suo linguâ sibi familiari vernaclâ quae protinùs à Syris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel Graecis ipsis ad fidem conversis quos secum habebant Evangelii praedicandi adjutores administros in Graecum transferebantur Salmas ibid. p. 258. That the Apostles writ their Books in their Mother-Tongue which was the Syriack Language and that afterwards they were Translated into Greek by the Syrians who understood the Greek or yet by the Converted Greeks whom they used as Coadjutors and Interpreters for the Preaching of the Gospel But besides that we have formerly spoken of these Interpreters and Fellow helpers though they should be acknowledged to have been in the same manner as Salmasius does suppose it might be always said that the Books of the New Testament are written in the Greek of the Synagogue It is much more probable that the Apostles who were Galileans are the Authors thereof For if they had made use of Persons Learned in the Greek Language there would not be found so many Hebraisms in them The Stile of St. John's Gospel does shew that it was written by a Galilean rather than a Grecian However it be Salmasius is obliged to declare that the Writings of the New Testament are full of modes of Speech that are altogether Syriack and herein the Hellenistick Language is made to consist He only differs from those whom he calls Hellenisticaries (f) Illi Syriasmi quibus totus conspersus est Novi Testamenti Graeci textus ex charactere nimirum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quo de verbo ad verbum expressa peragitur transtatio Salm. ibid. in this that he attributes the form of the Syriack Phrases to the Interpreters of the Apostles whereas the Hellenisticaries do ascribe them to the Apostles themselves But whether it be that the Apostles themselves or their Interpreters were the Authors thereof the thing it self will be always granted And thus he does rather establish than destroy the Hellenistick Language As for St. Paul and St. Luke who understood the Greek Language Salmasius does also acknowledge that their Writings are full of Chaldaisms and the Reason that he brings is (g) Quod de Paulo Lucâ licet asserere qui utriusque linguae periti in eam quâ scripserunt ex alterâ phrases genera lequendi transfuderunt Salm. ibid. that seeing they understood the Greek and the Chaldee they made a mixture of these two Languages In what manner soever it happened he cannot deny but that the Language of the Synagogue does appear in the Works of St. Paul and of St. Luke as well as in the Writings of the other Apostles He only thinks that St. Paul and St. Luke let Hebraisms drop more seldom than the Interpreters who as he believes Translated the Books of the other Apostles out of the Hebrew and the Chaldee into the Greek Yet Vorstius as I have already observed has marked more Hebraisms in St. Luke than in the other Writers of the New Testament And therefore it is better to attribute them to the Apostles themselves if St. Matthew be excepted than to their Fellow Helpers or Interpreters For what remains we agree with Salmasius or rather with the Greek Fathers whom he follows in this matter that the Apostles being rude and destitute of Literature writ their Books in a very mean Stile and in a Language that was used by the Dregs of the People Which in some manner renders their Discourse more intelligible because that Language does commonly contain nothing that is Figurative as to what concerns the Expressions We shall observe nevertheless that altho the Apostles do ordinarily make use of Words that are mean and received amongst the People and consequently easie to be understood they have a certain form of Phrase and certain Expressions which were proper to those of their Nation which appear sometimes obscure to us because we know not the usage of that time Altho their Stile is oftentimes simple and very plain if we look only to the Grammatical Sense it is hard enough to be understood when we intend to reach the true Sense of their Thoughts The Jews had then ways of Expressing themselves very different from those that are in use amongst us And in this the obscurity of the Books of the N. Testament doth chiefly consist They who Translate those Books into another Language ought especially to take care to keep as close as possible to the Words of the Original For when they endeavour to render the bare Sense without adhering to the Words they run a risque of deceiving themselves and making their Author speak those things which he never thought of Beza and Castalio had great Disputes about this The former alledged that in Translating the New Testament several Hebraisms ought to be retained because it is impossible to render them exactly in another Language Further (h) Cùm saepè multiplex sit ratio Hebraismes explicandi quis non videt rectiùs religiosiùs eos facere qui intactos illos integros sinunt quà m qui suam opinionem secuti nullum conjecturae aut privati judicii locum lectoribus relinquunt Bez. Resp ad Def. Cast seeing those Hebraisms are capable of various renditions it is more to the purpose to keep them than to Interpret them in a Sence which may possibly be false and withal deprive others of their liberty of judgment concerning them Castalio on the contrary was of Opinion that an Interpreter ought to content himself to mark the Hebraisms by Notes on the Margin We shall have occasion to speak more fully of those Hebraisms in the second Book of this History when we examin the several Versions of the New Testament CHAP. XXIX Of the Manscript Greek Copies in general and of those who have spoken of them Collections which have been made of divers Readings drawn from those Manuscripts Observations upon the whole Matter The Hereticks have been accused sometimes but without any ground for corrupting the Books of the New Testament ALtho there have been many Learned Criticks in the Greek Church who applied themselves to correct the Books of the New Testament we do not see that any one Greek Copy has been altogether preferred to others that it might be followed by all the Greek Churches Which was the occasion that there was a great difference observed in the various Copies that were in several Churches Origen who was a very knowing person in this
it was that they writ under every particular Page some Varieties that had been separately Printed in the first Edition at the end of the Acts of the Apostles and of the Epistles of St. Paul. If Mr. Saubert had continued on the Books of the Old Testament that which he did upon St. Matthew's Gospel that Work had been as considerable as any that has been done as yet For besides all the various Readings of the Greek Copies he has observed those which may be taken from several Versions or which confirm those various renditions He has also added some Critical Notes by way of illustration in which he appeared to be exact although he is mistaken in some Passages It is a matter of difficulty for one Man to perform a Work of that importance seeing it does require that he himself should read all the Manuscripts which is impossible So one must be obliged to depend upon the Authority of other Men. Nevertheless that Critick has observed some errors that are in Walton's Collections In 1672. and he prefixed a learned Preface to his Work that was Printed at Helmstat where he discourses judiciously of the various Greek Copies of the New Testament and of the different renditions I might produce several other Authors who have treated of this same Subject But seeing the most part have only done it occasionally I will refer it to another place where there will be occasion to speak somthing of their Works I will only here make mention of those who have spoken of various Greek Readings which establish the ancient Latin Version Beza who did not spare that ancient Version was obliged to acknowledg (e) Aliquot locis animadvertimus veteris interpretis lectionem quamvis cum nostris Graecis exemplaribus interdum ei non conveniat tamen ipsis rebus multò meliùs quadrare nempè quòd ille quisquis fuit emendatius aliquod exemplar nactus est Bez. Epist ad Regin Eliz. that there were sometimes Greek Copies more exact than those which we have at present (f) Quà m immeritò Erasmus multis veterem interpretem reprehendit tanquam à Graecis dissentientem Dissentiebat fateor ab iis exemplaribus quae ille nactus erat sed non uno loco comperimus aliorum codicum quidem vetustissimorum auctoritate eam intorpretationem niti quam ille reprehendit Bez. ibid. He does alledge that Erasmus did sometimes reject the ancient Latin Interpreter without any shew of Reason under a pretence that it did very little agree with the Greek Which is true saith Beza if we only consider the New Greek Copies But that Interpreter does agree with other more ancient Greek Copies Upon this ground it would seem that the Protestants do not always act with Reason when they forsake the ancient Latin Edition and adhere to the Greek at this day Beza himself who owned this fault in the Version of Erasmus is not yet free from the same himself Not but that he believes that those ancient Manuscripts ought always to be preferred to others for there is none but the Original of the Apostles alone which can admit of this perfection They pretend only to prove thereby that those who made New Translations of the New Testament from the Greek were not always exact in their Versions because they only consulted a very small number of Greek Editions whereas they ought to have likewise consulted several Manuscript Copies which afforded a great many Readings Peter Faxard a Noble Spanish Marquess of Veles was the first who was at the pains to make this sort of Collections of which we now treat Mariana does assure us that (g) Ad Novi Testamenti Graeci exteriorem marginem minio varias lectiones suâ manu suoque labore 16. codicum factâ collatione in quibus octo erant ex Regiâ Bibliothecâ D. Laurentii plerique vetustate insignes adjecerat Petrus Fagiardus Velesius Marchio Ingens thesaurus magnopere aestimandus si vir ille optimus Graecae linguae praestans quibus ex libris singulae lectiones essent depromptae notasset Mar. pro Edit Vulg. c. 17. that Marquess had compared sixteen Greek Manuscripts with our Vulgar Edition Eight of these Manuscripts were in the King of Spain's Library And he had carefully mark'd in the Margin of a Greek Copy of the New Testament the various Readings of those Manuscripts upon which the Ancient Latin Edition is Founded as to those places in which it does not agree with the Greek at this day But that which was wanting to so laudable a Work and which could not be sufficiently valued is that the Copies whence those various Readings had been taken were not pointed out Mariana who had not seen those Manuscripts does nevertheless say that they were for the most part Ancient This was in all probability the only Remark which the Marquess of Veles had made upon the Quality of his Manuscripts This Jesuit who had transcribed the Marquess's Copy in which those various Readings were recorded (h) Dono Reverendissimi Joannis Marianae è Societate nostrâ habco exemplar Novi Testamenti in quo variae lectiones sunt manu transcriptae exceptae ex exemplari quas item manu propriâ adnotarat illustrissimus Marchio Velesius Petrus Faxardus factâ collatione 16. exemplarium in quibus erant octo ex Bibliothecâ Regiâ D. Laurentii Lacerd Advers Sac. c. 91. made a present thereof to Lacerda of the same Society who published them in his Book Entitled Adversaria Sacra and they were afterwards inserted in many Collections of divers Readings of the New Testament Father Morin did likewise insert in his Exercitations upon the Bible the various Readings of some Greek Copies of the New Testament in the places that confirm our Latin Version He pretends that he had shewn the conformity of the vulgar to the ancient Greek Manuscripts in more than 440 places Conformitatem illam Vulgatae cum vetustissimis Exemplaribus in locis plusquam 440 Demonstramus He made it his business to mark especially those of the Cambridge Copy upon the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles and he followed upon the Epistles of St. Paul the Copy which Beza calls Claromontanum of Clermont Seeing his design was to prove to the Protestants that there was a great number of various Readings as well in the Old as in the New Testament he could not upon the New make choice of any Books in which there was more to be found than in those two Books He likewise does add some Notes for the illustration of this matter and after having produced a sufficient number of those various Readings which established the vulgar he concludes (i) Plurimis in locis testantur in omnibus antiquis codicibus aliter legi quà m in vulgato textu Graeco Ipsi tamen in versiombus suis contra omnium exemplarium fidem textum Graecè semel excusum amplectuntur ad illum invitis omnibus codicibus MSS. versiones
exigunt Jo. Mor. Exercit. lib. 1. Exerc. 2. cap. 4. that the Protestants are to blame for that they frequently follow in their Versions the vulgar Edition of the Hebrew Text against the Authority of the Manuscript Copies although they themselves do cite these Manuscripts He brings for an Example Beza's Translation who in several places has preferred this vulgar Edition of the Greek Text to his Ancient Manuscript Copies He does observe withal that Robert Stephen has also left out of his Greek Edition of the New Testament many Readings which are not agreeable to any of the Manuscripts which he does produce And yet the Protestants in their Translations of the New Testament choosed rather to follow Robert Stephen than the various Readings of the Manuscripts which he had mark'd in the Margin of his Edition There would have been nothing which deserved reprehension in that if the Protestants in their Versions had imitated Stephen's Method in his Greek New Testament For if they had placed the Translation of all those various Renditions in the Margin of their Works they could not have been accused for preferring the Greek Vulgar Edition to the Ancient Manuscripts They would have only placed in the body of their Translations that Edition which they believed to be the most exact to the end that they might observe some uniformity amongst themselves without any prejudice done to other Examples upon that account The care that Father Amelote took to insert in his French Version of the New Testament the various Readings of the Manuscript Copies which are agreeable to the ancient Latin Interpreters deserves to be praised But he offends against Modesty and even against Truth when he speaks of those Venerable and August Manuscripts which he pretends to have examined with such exactness as the like was never seen before P. Amel. Pref. Franc. de sa Vers du Nouv. Test I have saith he used such diligence that there has not been the like heard of before to shew the conformity of the Latin with the Ancient Greek and the first Original I have narrowly examined all the Manuscripts extant for above these thousand years which are kept through all the Christian World and I have obtained extracts of them all I have had more than twenty of that sort from France all those of the Vatican and the famous Italian Libraries sixteen from Spain not to reckon others with which Cardinal Ximenes used to perfect his Bible of Alcala those of England and the Northern Countries and many from the innermost Parts of Greece with those that belonged to the several Fathers There is none who reads those Words but would believe that that Father had in his hands all those Copies whereof he makes mention at least the Extracts of the Manuscripts But all that long Discourse is only a Rhetorical flourish which he uses that the Subject of which he treats of may be embellished with a noble expression according to the lofty Idea which he had of it And this he avowed to one of his Fraternity to whom he shewed his Preface in Writing and who advised him to amend it especially in that place where he makes mention of his Manuscripts He made no other Answer about it to his Brother who at the same time shew'd him those various Readings in Print but that the subject matter required that he should express himself in a noble manner to make the greater impression in the minds of those who read his Works So that all those Venerable and August Manuscripts which F. Amelote consulted are nothing else but a Figure of Rhetorick Indeed if he had made such an exact scrutiny into those Manuscripts he ought to have told us another story than what is found in the Catalogues that have been Printed of them It is true that he writ into Spain to know what had become of those that belonged to the Marquess of Veles * Mr. d' Aubusseau The Archbishop of Ambrun the French Ambassador then at that Court who was one of his Friends made him Answer that he had no account at Madrid of the Manuscripts of that Marquess He continued the same Rhetorical Figure when he would persuade us that he obtained Copies of many various readings by the means of his Friends For he shew'd nothing of that nature but what was contained in the Sixth Volume of the Polyglott of England or in Lacerda the Jesuit or in F. Morin It was by the assistance of the latter that he framed a design of collecting the various Readings that establish the ancient Latin Edition It were easie to let him see by his own words that he did not very well understand that sort of Criticism He was so far from having all the Extracts of the Manuscript mentioned by him that it seems that he had not the skill to read the Catalogues of those Manuscripts perfectly For I would fain know what he meant by the two Manuscripts of Magdebourg College in Oxford which he mentions in the two Prefaces to his French New Testament He had read in the Catalogue of Manuscripts Printed in the Sixth Volume of the Polyglott of England Magd. 1. Novum Testamentum integrum exceptâ Apocalypsi in Collegio Magd. Oxon. Further Magd. 2. Epistolae ad Rom. Corinth cum aecum Colleg. Oxon. All the World knows that this abbreviation Coll. Magd. Oxon. does denote Magdalen College in Oxford But F. Amelote who used such diligence that we have not heard of the like before does give us two Manuscripts of the New Testament which are extant in Magdeburg College in Oxford and if we believe him he had the Copies thereof extracted You may see in what manner he marks them in his Latin Preface Magd. 1. Magdeburgensis Collegii apud Oxonium Novum Testamentum integrum exceptâ Apocalypsi Magd. 2. Magdeburgensis Collegii Codex Epistolarum ad Romanos ad Corinthios which he repeats in his French Preface Seeing we shall have occasion in the Second Part of this Book to speak of the French Version of this Father I shall there treat of his Collection of the various Readings It was easie for Mr. Arnauld to refute him upon this Subject in his New defence of the Translation of the New Testament Printed at Mons. I could only have wished that he had not reckon'd as Chimerical that which F. Amelote and after him Mr. Mallet call the Vulgar Greek that is to say for the explaining of the Vulgar Edition of the Greek Text of the New Testament It is true that these two Authors had a false notion of this Vulgar Greek but that does not hinder but that they might very well have used that expression when they compared the ordinary Editions of the Greek New Testament with the various Readings of many Ancient Manuscripts And in this sense they gave the appellation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Vulgar to the Ancient Greek Edition of the Septuagint which was in every ones hands to distinguish it from
be Socrates had no reason to reject the ancient and the true Reading of the Greek Text of S. John under a Pretext that the Nestorians did believe that it favoured their Opinion It can only be said that they are two different Readings of the same Passage which are very ancient It cannot be discovered which is the true one or at least which is to be preferred unless for that end we observe with Hilary the Deacon the Rules of Criticism which have been already taken notice of CHAP. XXX Of the Greek Copies of the New Testament in particular The most ancient that we have at this day were written by the Latins and were used by them Those which were printed came from the Greek Churches The ancient Latin Version which was in the Churches of the West before St. Jerom were made by those first Copies which were not very correct Of the ancient Cambridge Copy why it does differ so much from other Greek Copies THose who have published the divers Readings of different Greek Copies of the New Testament ought in the same time to have observed what sort of Copies they were Seeing they have not done this I shall endeavour to supply this defect that we may be the more able to judge what are the best Renditions among so many various Readings In the former Chapter it was shewn from a Passage of Origen that the Greek Amanuenses who writ out the Books of the New Testament and likewise the Criticks who corrected them had assumed a very great liberty and that that was the occasion of a mighty confusion St. Jerom does confirm the same thing especially with respect to the ancient Latin Copies in his Letter to Pope Damasus who had commanded him to revise the ancient Latin Version That Father believed (a) Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda respondeant quibus tot enim sunt exemplaria penè quot codices Sin autem veritas est quaerenda de pluribus cur non ad Graecam originem revertentes ea quae vel à vitiosis interpretibus malè reddita vel à praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversiùs vel à librariis dormitantibus aut addita sunt aut mutata corrigimus Hieron Praef. in IV. Evang. ad Dam. that it was absolutely necessary to have recourse to the Original Greek to correct the great number of faults that were in that Version because there were so many different Latin Copies as there were different Books and that every one did presume to change this ancient Latin Edition according to the Greek taken in his own sense besides the Errors of the Transcribers which were also very numerous That labour was by so much the more difficult as the Greek Copies were not more correct than the Latin and so it seems that the Rule to be followed was very uncertain for the undertaking was to amend the Faults of the Latin by the Greek which likewise had Faults St. Jerom observes in speaking of the Copies of that Time (b) Magnus siquidem hic in nostris codicibus error inolevit dum quod in eadem re alius Evangelista plus dixit in alio quia minùs putaverint addiderunt vel dum eumdem sensum alius aliter expressit ille qui unum è quatuor primum legerat ad ejus exemplum caeteros quoque existimaverit emendandos Vnde accidit ut apud nos mixta sint omnia in Marco plura Lucae atque Matthaei rursus in Matthaeo plura Joannis Marci in caeteris reliquorum quae aliis propria inveniantur Hier. ibid. that the Amanuenses had altered them in a strange manner by the mixture they had made of several Gospels together taking from one that which seemed to be wanting in another If it also happened that one Gospel had expressed a thing in a different manner from another the Transcribers reformed the rest according to what they had first read so that there was nothing but confusion in those ancient Copies We see many things in St. Mark which belonged to St. Luke and St. Matthew and in St. Matthew which was St. John's and St. Mark 's and in short every Gospel had something borrowed from the rest It is true that this Observation seems to reach the Latin Copies only but in the sequel of this Discourse I shall make it appear that it does likewise agree to several Greek Copies of that Time. If we had still at this day any of those ancient Books of which St. Jerom speaks it would be easily believed that he exaggerates the Faults thereof the better to shew the necessity that was incumbent on him to amend the Latin Version that was agreeable to some Greek Copies which were no less defective than the Latin. Beza's Greek and Latin Copy which is now kept at Cambridge is of this number having been writ out by Latin Amanuenses by such like Copies as were extant before St. Jerom reformed them That Calvinist never knew the nature of that Book (c) Quatuor Evangeliorum Actorum Apostolicorum Graeco-Latinum exemplar ex S. Irenaei Caenobio Lugdunensi ante aliquos annos nactus mutilum quidem illud neque satis emendatè ab initio ubique descriptum neque ita ut oportuit habitum sicut ex paginis quibusdam diverso charactere insertis indocti cujuspiam Graeci Calogeri barbaris adscriptis alicubi notis apparet Bez. Epist ad Acad. Cantab. which was found in the Monastery of Lyons he believed that it had been corrected in some places by an ignorant Scholiast who had added some Notes or Amendments to it But those Corrections or Notes were not made by a Greek Caloiz seeing Books of that sort that were written in Greek with the ancient Latin Version were never in use amongst the Greeks but the Latins only as shall be made manifest in the following part of this Discourse He is in a notorious mistake when he assures us (d) Est hoc exemplar venerandae vetustatis ex Graeciâ ut apparet ex barbaris quibusdam notis ad mà rginem adscriptis adportatum Bez. ibid. that that Manuscript was brought from Greece because he observed Remarks to be written in Greek therein He knew not that the Latins who had some skill in the Greek Tongue joined the Greek to the Latin Version in their Copies of the New Testament and also of the Psalms They were not so zealous at that time for the Latin Tongue but that they believed that the Original Greek was sometimes necessary not only to regulate but also to understand it Upon this ground St. Jerom and St. Augustin judged that it was fit to correct the Latin in many places by the Greek when the former happens to be defective That the Original might be the more easily consulted those who were curious did joyn it in the same Copy to the ancient Latin Edition Neither did Beza observe that the Greek and the Latin of Manuscripts of that sort are written with the
Section of St. Matthew where it had been inserted in the Ancient Greek And therefore he adds the same Canons of Eusebius to the Latin Edition which he had amended by good Greek Copies that he might remove that mixture and confusion that was in the Latin Copies By this way there is a distinction observed betwixt what was common to the several Gospels and what was peculiar to every one of them Cum itaque saith St. Jerome canones legeris qui subjecti sunt confusionis errore sublato similia omnia scies singulis sua quaeque restitues There are several other the like Editions in that Cambridge Copy Hieron praef in IV. Evan. ad Dam. which it is needless to mention because they may be seen in Beza's Notes upon the New Testament in the Sixteenth Volume of the Polyglott Bible of England and in the Greek Edition of the New Testament Printed at Oxford We will only observe that Beza and likewise some other Criticks who knew not the original cause of those changes delivered nothing concerning them but what was only Founded on wide conjectures whereas if they had compared that Ancient Copy with St. Jerome's Observations in his Letter to Pope Damasus they would have acknowledged that a Part of the Greek and Latin Copies were at that time agreeable to that of Cambridge That Learned Father amended them by the best Greek Copies If we had any other Greek Copies of that time besides that of Cambridge that contained the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles we should find the same Additions in them The Copy of the Benedictines of the Abbey of St. Germain which has St. Paul's Epistles does perfectly agree as well in the Greek as in the Latin with that of the Royal Library which is the Second Part of that of Cambridge It is only for example in the latter Copy that we read Chap. 6. of St. John v. 56. these Words added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As my Father is in me I am also in my Father Verily verily I say unto you if ye receive not the body of the Son of Man as the Bread of life you have no life in you Beza is surprised with this Addition in uno codice vetusto saith he mirum hic quiddam deprehendimus It seems that he meant another Copy than that of Cambridge and he likewise does place this Addition immediatly after the 53 verse whereas in that of Cambridge it is in the 68. after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say after the 56 verse where it is also read in one of Robert Stephen's Copies whence that Calvinist might have taken it without speaking of his Ancient Cambridge Copy If he had consulted it he would not have said in his Note upon that place that (p) Haec ego sicut temerè non expunxerim ac prasertim priorem partem quae totidem verbis alibi reperitur ita non facilè admiserim cùm in uno illo exemplari sint à nobis reperta Certè alteram partem suppositam esse suspicor quia simile nihil alibi invenio neque enim usquam fit mentio sumendi corporis praeterito sanguine exemplar illud unde haec desumpsimus fuerat in Italiâ collatum ubi facile fuit aliquid in Bohemorum id est Evangelii odium addere Bez. Annot. in c. 6. Joann v. 53. he durst not wholly reject that Addition especially the first Part which is found in another place but that he durst not also admit it because he read it only in one Copy He does add afterwards agreeably to his own prejudices rather than to the truth I suspect that the other Part is supposititious because I find nothing like it elsewhere For he makes no mention in any other place of taking the Body without the Blood and the Copy whence that reading was taken was compared in Italy where it was easie to add something in hatred of the Bohemians that is to say of the Gospel That Man was so extremely zealous for his Calvinism that he took no notice that the same Addition is in the Cambridge Copy which he often calls vetustissimum admirandae Vetustatis codicem The Bohemians had not come on the Stage in those Ancient times Stephen's Greek Copy which was compared with many others in Italy is very sincere in that place That Addition was in all probability taken from a Copy like to that of Cambridge and there was no talk then of taking away the Cup nor of those who are called Evangelical or Protestants But as it has been already observed there were always several Glosses added to those ancient Manuscripts which were for the most part taken from some other places of those same Books besides some Illustrations that were inserted therein This is not the place for bringing other Proofs of Beza's disingenuity in his Notes upon the New Testament it will be more proper to do that elsewhere I designed only in this place to make use of some Examples in which I might give some account of that Ancient Cambridge Manuscript which to this day has been admired for the manifold diversity of its Readings whilst true reasons thereof have not been observed F. Morin to whom was given the Collection that Junius the Library Keeper of Cambridge had made of all the places where that Ancient Greek Copy differed from others did content himself with publishing those which agreed with our vulgar Nevertheless he could not but admire (q) Evangelium Lucae in isto antiquissimo manuscripto à vulgato Graeco textu atque etiam à Vulgatâ Latinâ Versione adeò distat tam multae periodi vel truncatae sunt vel superadditae vel mutilatae vel aliis verbis enunciatae ut legenti non sine causâ sint admirationi Si transpositiones excipias quae sensum non laedunt nullibi Septuaginta Interpretes à Masorethico textu tam saepè enormiter variant quà m hic Lucae codex à trito vulgato textu sive Graeco sive Latino Sequitur tamen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 textûs Lucae ordinem historiam ita ut appareat ex alio Lucae manuscripto haec olim exscripta fuisse hancque varietatem lapsu temporis irrepsisse Jo. Mor. Exerc. Bibl. lib. 1. Exerc. 2. c. 3. that enormous difference which appeared chiefly in the Gospel of St. Luke where he is very far from not only the ordinary Greek but from the vulgar Those varieties saith that Father consist in entire Periods which were retrenched or added strained or explained in other terms He is confident that the Version of the Septuagint does not so much differ from the Hebrew Masoretick Text the transpositions excepted which alter not the Text as the Cambridge Copy does differ from all others But because it does agree with them in every thing that relates to the scope of the Text he thinks that it was taken from another Copy of St. Luke into which those variations in process of time
had slipp'd Yet he dares not be positive because he knows not the reasons of that great diversity And therefore he adds (r) Fieri potuit ut antiquitùs in quaedam exemplaria Lucae nonnulla ex iis Evangeliis quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 existimata sunt irrepserint quae postea Sanctorum Patrum diligentiâ resecta fuerint Mor. ibid. that possibly they might have inserted in some Copies of St. Luke that which was found in other supposed Gospels and that the Fathers had afterwards been at the pains to retrench those Additions If that Critick had narrowly weighed St. Jerome's Preface dedicated to Pope Damasus he would there have found all his doubts cleared Seeing the Cambridge Copy observes the same Order with all the other Greek Copies of the New Testament as to the thread of the History it does manifestly prove that it has not been on purpose altered by the Hereticks Moreover seeing the alterations that are therein do not introduce any Paradox Opinion but consist for the most part in some words which have been placed instead of others and in some Additions that have been taken from other Evangelists or in bare Illustrations we may infer from thence that all the change proceeded from the liberty that was taken by some at that time for rendring the Books of the New Testament the more intelligible without putting themselves to the trouble of adhering to the words of the Original so long as nothing of the sense was altered The Criticks especially St. Jerome in reforming the ancient Vulgar did at the same time amend those ancient Greek Copies with which he agreed entirely He used for that purpose other Greek Copies which were more exact and especially those to which he had added the Ten Canons of Eusebius These latter Copies which were amongst the Greeks before St. Jerome's time always remained with them which is easily proved by the same Canons of Eusebius One of the most surprising varieties of that Copy is that which is found in the Genealogy of Jesus Christ Chap. 3. of St. Luke for this Genealogy is the same with that in St. Matthew unless it be that it goes up to Solomon in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is manifest that this Genealogy has been designedly amended by that of St. Matthew yet with an Addition of those Persons which he had omitted Beza who has also made mention of this diversity in his Notes upon this Chapter of St. Luke declares (ſ) Quînam autem id sit factum nescio cùm recepta lectio tum Syri ipsius interpretis auctoritate tum Scriptorum omnium Sacrorum proptereà de Matthaeo cum Lucâ conciliando laborantium consensu planè confirmetur cui sanè praejudicium ullum afferre nec velim nec ausim Tantùm dico fieri potuisse ut ipsis Evangelistarum temporibus Judaei genealogiam istam quantum in ipsis fuit depravarint quasi fidem caeteris de Christo narrationibus abrogaturi quae fraus à plerisque non animadversa facilè obtinuerit Bez. Annot. in c. 3. Luc. v. 23. that he cannot imagine how that can be because the Syriack Interpreter and all the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers are altogether against that Copy from whom he neither intends nay nor dares to recede That might as he conjectures have happened from the very time of the Evangelists the Jews having corrupted that Genealogy that they might not believe the other Histories which are recorded in the Gospels There is nothing more ridiculous than this conjecture of Beza who does charge the Jews with a crime which they never thought of besides that it was of no advantage to them because they could not corrupt all the Copies which they kept by them There are none to be blamed for that alteration of the Ancient Copies of the New Testament but the Christians and even the Orthodox as it has been frequently observed after St. Jerome who in his Letter to Pope Damasus has taken notice of the change of which we now speak He says that in those days they took the liberty to amend the Gospels by that Gospel which they had read first Ille qui unum è quatuor primum legerat ad ejus exemplum caeteros quoque existimaverat emendandos It is evident that the Genealogy in St. Luke was reformed in the Cambridge Copy according to this Method and that what was supposed to be wanting therein was supplied from the Old Testament And the accusation supposed to have been brought against the Jews was so far from admitting a sufficient ground of reason that there was nothing at that time so common as Copies as well Greek as Latin of that kind especially in the Churches of the West before St. Jerome had revised the Ancient Latin Edition It would be easie to prove that the Gospel of St. Mark has been likewise amended in some places by that of St. Matthew and further that there have been some words changed for others that were synonymous which appeared to be more intelligible but that labour would be to no purpose because every one may consult the divers Readings of that ancient Copy in the sixth Tome of the Polyglott Bible of England and in the Greek Edition of the New Testament Printed at Oxford It is enough that I have observed the true reason of those numerous variations concerning which the Criticks have given us very wide and even false conjectures Those who revised those ancient Copies intending nothing but to make them clear without being at the pains to confine themselves to the true Reading of the Evangelists and the Apostles have given Paraphrases on them whensoever they believed that they were not sufficiently understood They have also abridged them in those places that they thought intricate by reason of superfluous words which they have also transposed in innumerable places for the same reason Which is enough to be observed once for all in general without a particular rehearsal of the Passages which have been altered in the Cambridge Copy as well in the Gospels as in the Acts of the Apostles This does appear yet more in the Acts because there was a very great liberty taken of reforming that History in the first Ages of the Church Nevertheless whatever change those Books have undergone in the ancient time and that the very words of the Evangelists and the Apostles were not observed yet it will not be found that the sense has suffered any alteration They only endeavoured to make them the more intelligible to the People and for that end it was necessary to refine them seeing they were full of Hebraisms and very concise Phrases which they were obliged to illustrate according to that Method Nevertheless in the Cambridge Copy there are certain Additions whereof the same thing cannot be said because they are plain Matters of Fact that have been added For example Chapter 6. of St. Luke verse 5. after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read in that Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is to say On the same day seeing a Man travel on the Sabbath day he said unto him my friend if thou knowest what thou art doing thou art happy but if thou doest not know it thou art cursed and a transgressour of the Law. This History might possibly have been taken from some Ancient Apocryphal Book where it was common in the first Ages of Christianity and it may be it was then believed that it came from the Apostles or their Disciples And therefore those who presumed to reform the first Copies of the New Testament in so many places upon the bare prospect of rendring them intelligible to all the World would not scruple to add thereto Histories of that sort which they believed to be true We have formerly taken notice of examples of the like nature in the Gospel of the Nazarens If we had at this day a sufficient number of Copies of this nature that were before St. Jerome's time especially in the Western Churches we might discover some other Additions in them which are not known to us at present because we have little or nothing remaining of the Books of those first Ages Although it does not appear to us that the Christians have had Massorets or Criticks like to those of the Jews who have given to the Books of the New Testament that uniformity which is found to have been from many Ages in the Greek Copies and also in the Latin since St. Jerom it is probable that the Greeks followed certain Copies which they judged to be more exact than others and that they were Corrected by learned Criticks These Copies were used afterwards as a Massore or Rule By these St. Jerom Corrected the ancient Latin Edition by the Order of Pope Damasus Let us now examin the second Part of the ancient Cambridge Copy which does contain the Epistles of St. Paul. CHAP. XXXI Of the second part of the Cambridge Copy which contains St. Paul's Epistles Examples of the various Readings that are in that second Part. Critical Reflections upon the whole matter THere is nothing can more contribute to the knowledge of the state of the Greek Copies of the New Testament in the most ancient times of the Church than those Books that were so common before St. Jerom and which are not extant but in very few places at this day It will be in vain to look for them in the Churches of the East because they having been written in Greek and in Latin and with the same Hand it is easie to judge that they could be only extant in the West We are indebted to the Monks for having preserved some of those Copies for us That of Cambridge as has been said was found in a Monastery of Lyons The Benedictine Monks of the Abbey of St. Germain have in their Library the second part of the like Copy in which the Epistles of St. Paul are contained Peter Pithou (a) Vidimus nos aliquando vetustissimum exemplar Evangeliorum literis illis majoribus exaratum adjectis è regione Graecis quòd olim fuisse dicebatur Ecclesiae Lugdunensis Vidimus aliud Epistolarum exemplar ejusdem formae aetatis ex Corbejae majoris Galliae Monasterio quae tanquam sanctioris antiquitatis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non sine religione suspicimus veneramur Petr. Pith. de SS Bibl. Interpr had seen those two ancient Copies which he esteemed for their great antiquity He does testifie that it was believed that the former was brought from the Church of Lyons and the latter from the famous Abbey of Corby in France Christian Druthmar an ancient Benedictine Monk who had been for some time in that Abbey has pointed to us the first part of this latter Copy when he makes mention of a Greek Copy which he believed to have belonged to St. Hilary where the Gospel of St. John did immediately follow that of St. Matthew Christ Druthm Expos in Matth. c. 1. Vidi saith that Monk Librum Evangelii Graecè scriptum qui dicebatur Sancti Hilarii fuisse in quo primi erant Matthaeus Joannes In the Royal Library there is another Greek and Latin Copy of St. Paul's Epistles which differs almost in nothing from that of the Benedictines unless it be that the Letters are not so great nor so majestick although they be the same as to their figure and duration The King's Copy is also more disfigured by reason of innumerable corrections than that of the Abbey of St. Germain For although this latter has likewise been amended in many places the corrections thereof are not so gross Further we may call those two Copies the second part of that of Cambridge because they contain that ancient Greek and that ancient Latin Version which was used in the Churches of the West before St. Jerom had reformed it It is true that that Father in his Letter to Damasus does only make mention of four Gospels which he had revised and we are not clearly informed by another Hand that he had corrected the rest of the N. T. after the same manner But however it be the thing is it is certain that the whole ancient Latin Version was amended and that the same method was observed in that Reformation which St. Jerom does testifie to have been followed in his own practice when in complyance to the Order of Pope Damasus he reformed the ancient Latin Translation Beza in his Notes upon St. Paul does frequently cite that ancient Copy of the King's Library under the name of * Codex Claromontanus The Copy of Clermont He also believed that it was the second Part of that which belongs to Cambridge In which he is not mistaken For it is the Greek and the Latin of those ancient Greek and Latin Copies that were commonly read before St. Jerom's time It is not necessary for all that that both of them should have been written with the same Hand It is sufficient that they are of the same Age. And so it may be said that that of the Benedictines as well as the King 's is the second Part of the Cambridge Copy because both the one and the other do represent the ancient Vulgar to us to which they have added the Greek with which it did agree F. Morin who had borrowed that ancient Manuscript of the Du Puis that he might extract the various Readings that confirmed our Vulgar does in his Exercitations insist at some length on the Bible (b) Existimo versionem vetustissimi illius codicis Graeco textui adversam eam esse quâ Ecclesia Latina ut plurimùm ante Sanctum Hieronymum utebatur quam sanctus ille vir jubente Damaso Pontifice ad fidem Graecorum exemplarium postmodùm recensuit emendavit Jo. Mor. Exercit. Bibl. Exerc. 2. c. 4. He is persuaded that the Latin Version that is joyned to the Greek is the ancient Translation which was read in the West before St. Jerom had reformed it by the Command
the Copies as of the Sense whether we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in the following Verse instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the two Vulgars in vobis there being a double difference in these words and it does also happen often enough that the Transcribers do put these two Pronouns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one for the other Vers 15. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is in the ancient Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the two Vulgars Olympiadem Vers 16. we do not read these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor these in the ancient Latin Version salutant vos omnes Ecclesiae Christi Vers 17. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the two Vulgar rogo In the same place after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is an Addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the ancient Vulgar of diligenter moreover after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the ancient Latin Version dicentes vel facientes Vers 18. we do not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor in the ancient Vulgar benedictiones Vers 21. after the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the ancient Vulgar Ecclesiae universae Christi In the last place Vers 24. after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read in the ancient Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the two Vulgar seculorum It may appear by the different Readings which we have now mentioned in the two preceding Chapters how we are to judge of the ancient Greek Copies that were before St. Jerom especially in the Western Churches and to which the ancient Latin Version which was used in those Churches was agreeable It is true that the Vulgar at this day does frequently agree with those ancient Greek Copies but it does also differ from them very often and therefore it cannot be thought according to the Opinion of F. Morin and F. Amelote that we must always prefer the reading of the Vulgar in those places where it does agree with those ancient Copies seeing there are so many other places where it differs from them If that Greek be the true Original of the Apostles as those two Authors seem to have insinuated it ought to be the Original throughout and we must consequently entirely adhere to the ancient Vulgar which is exactly agreeable to it Yet St. Jerom believed that it was absolutely necessary to correct it seeing it was very defective If I were not afraid of being too tedious I would here produce the various Readings of that ancient Greek Copy upon St. Paul's Epistles but I shall observe them more conveniently in the second part of this Critical History when we shall examine the Version of the ancient Latin Interpreter and shall take particular notice of such Places as agree with the ancient Greek Copies that were extant before St. Jerom. CHAP. XXXII Of other Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament Examples of the various Readings of those Manuscripts with Critical Reflections on those Differences WE find in our Libraries several Greek Copies of the New Testament which were written out by the Greeks and were in use amongst them Although they differ in sundry places from one another the most of those differences are but of small importance They agree together in this that they are very little like those which we have last observed that were copied by the Latins This I observed in reading many of those Copies which are in the King 's and in Mr. Colbert's Library It is true that I found none in those two Libraries that were so ancient as those other Greek Copies to which they joyned the ancient Latin Version which was before St. Jerom yet this does not hinder but that there were some of the like Antiquity but they are very rare I believe that we ought to reckon the Copy of the Vatican in the number of which some Criticks have made mention and whereof they have also observed some different Readings in their Works The Copy which is commonly called the Alexandrine because it came from Alexandria in Egypt is likewise very ancient Some of the English Nation after Cyrillus Lucar have observed that that Book which contains the Old and the New Testament in Greek was written more than thirteen hundred Years ago by an Egyptian Lady called Thecle But they produce no certain proofs of this Antiquity It was the Interest of the Patriarch Cyrillus who made a Present of that Bible to the King of England to make it as ancient as he could There have been many Thecle's and they also gave that Name to some Roman Ladies who retired into solitude in the East where their great Piety was admired by the whole World These Ladies understood the Greek Language and were curious to read the Holy Scripture in that Tongue There were also Monasteries consecrated to St. Thecle and it might very well be that that Copy belonged to some Monastery of that name However it be it cannot be denied but that it is very ancient Yet it differs from those other Greek Copies which were writ out by the Latins as it is easie to judge by the various Readings which the English have Printed in their Polyglott Bible Grotius has also made mention of a good part of those various Readings upon the New Testament We shall nevertheless observe that this Critick is not always exact in his citations In short I cannot give full assurance that that Manuscript called the Alexandrine and that of the Vatican cannot be reckoned in the number of those which were writ out by Latin Amanuenses in those Ancient times I make no question but that Cardinal Ximenes consulted the most Ancient Copies of the New Testament when he published his Edition But it is to be feared that some of the readings of those Ancient Copies were inserted therein under a pretext that he found them more agreeable to our Vulgar It is also possible that Stephen's Copy which was compared in Italy with many Greek Manuscripts does likewise contain some readings of those same Copies which were revised and to which they annexed the Ancient Latin Version The same judgment ought to be made of the Sixteen Copies which the Marquess of Veles had consulted and whereof some do in many places agree with our Vulgar It is fit to make all these Observations in general to supply in some sort the negligence of those Learned Men who were not at the pains to give us particular marks of distinction to know what were good and what were bad amongst their Manuscripts Erasmus and Beza who had perused several of those Greek Copies and who signalized their diligence in this matter were frequently mistaken when they spoke of their Manuscripts They were ignorant of the distinction that we formerly mentioned betwixt
Bez. Ann. in Matth. believed that they were taken out of St. John and inserted in this place of St. Matthew Nevertheless we read these words in our Vulgar and they are likewise put in the Text of St. Matthew which was Printed with St. Jerom's Commentary But if we examin the manner how he does express himself in that Commentary we shall easily judge that he has not added them in his Edition Indeed the Divines of Louvain have marked 15 Latin Manuscripts in the Margin of their Edition of the New Testament where they did not read them In the same Chapter v. 49. this verse is not in a Manuscript cited in the sixth Tome of the Polyglott of England At the end of the same verse after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rob. Stephen did in two of his Manuscripts read this Addition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But another taking a Spear pierced his Side and there came forth blood and water Luke of Bruges does observe that these words are not St. Matthew's but that they were taken out of St. John Chap. 19. v. 34. In the 64 verse of the same Chapter we do not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by night in three of Colbert's in the Cambridge Copy in the Alexandrine in two of Rob. Stephen's Manuscripts nor in the Marquess of Veles's Neither has St. Jerom expressed these words in his new Edition Chap. 28. v. 2. we do not read these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the door in the Cambridge Copy nor in the Marquess of Veles's St. Jerom seeing he found them not in the Ancient Vulgar has not put them in his new Edition but they are extant in all the other Manuscripts We do likewise read after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in two Colbert's and many other Manuscripts Cod. MS. Colb n. 2467. 4078. which are marked in the sixth Tome of the Polyglott of England 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sepulcher ver 7. of the same Chap. we do not read in the Cambridge Copy nor in the Marquess of Veles these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the dead whence they were in all probability taken away as superfluous Neither has St. Jerome expressed them in his Edition But they are extant in all other Greek Copies It would be to no purpose to run through the other Books of the New Testament for marking the various readings thereof or at least the Principal amongst them Those we have already produced are sufficient to shew that they were not exempted from such changes as length of time and the errors of Transcribers do bring (y) Totum hoc membrum cum Prophetae testimonio in nullis vetustis codicibus reperimus neque legitur in Syrâ interpretatione Adjectum proculdubio ex Joann 19.24 Bez. ibid. v. 35. into Books I have in this Collection rather kept to the Manuscripts of Monsieur Colbert's Library than to the King 's because as I suppose there have been none of the former as yet published I shall handle more at large those different Readings of the Copies of the New Testament in the Second Part of this Work where I shall particularly examine our Latin Edition and the ancient Versions of the Oriental Churches by comparing them with the Greek Copies whence they were taken I have likewise beforehand spoken somewhat of the Method which S. Jerom took in reforming the Ancient Vulgar by the best Greek Copies of his time CHAP. XXXIII Of the Order of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament The Verses Chapters and other Marks of Distinction of those Copies The Canons which Eusebius added to the Gospels and the Use of those Canons THE most ancient Greek Copies of the New Testament are written without any distinction not only of Chapters and Verses but also of Words so that we may apply to those Copies that which was said elsewhere of the Books of the Old Testament that they only make one Pasuk or Verse from their several beginnings They did not then know what it was to mark with Points Comma's and other Distinctions which have been afterwards inserted in Books to make the reading more easie and distinct We shall further observe that even since Distinctions of this nature have been in use the most part of Transcribers did neglect them as well as the Accents in the ancient Greek Manuscripts And therefore it is very rare to find such Marks of Distinction in the Greek Copies for above these thousand years past The Copy of S. Paul's Epistles which is in the Royal Library and that of the Benedictins of the Abbey of S. Germain are also written without any distinction of Points and other Stops and altho the Words are accented there it seems that the Accents were added in the King's Copy seeing they are not of the same Hand with the Body of the Book This does not hinder but that Accents and Points or Marks of Distinction are much more ancient than these two Manuscripts But the Transcribers did commonly neglect them There were none but very curious and very exact persons who took care to add them to their Copies Georgius Syncellus (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Georg. Syncel Chronol p. 203. makes mention of a Greek Copy of the Bible that was written before this great Accuracy where the Accents and Points were placed He says that that Copy was brought to him from the Library of Cesarea in Cappadocia and that he perceived by the Inscription of the Book that it had been transcribed from an ancient Copy which had been corrected by the great S. Basil There are also Manuscript Hebrew Copies which have been copied by the Jews It is very rare to find the Points Vowels and the Accents to have been noted therein for sive or six hundred years past This only happens in the most exact Books yet there are some Works extant above four hundred years where there is mention made of those Points and Accents which were in use at that time in their Copies The most ancient Church Writers do likewise in their Works speak of all those Marks of Dictinction which are at present in the Greek Copies of the New Testament We read there of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Section and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter They sometimes observe the places where the Points ought to be marked to remove the ambiguity of a Discourse especially when the Hereticks do observe a different Punctation But after all it must be avowed that there has been nothing determined to the purpose upon this matter Every one did most commonly according to his prejudices mark that sort of Distinctions which depended on the Transcribers and the Expositors of the Scripture And therefore Petavius after having observed what S. Epiphanius and some other ancient Doctors of the Church have brought against some Hereticks about the manner of pointing the third Verse of the first Chapter of the Gospel according to S. John does add (b) Existimo
unequal For when the breadth of the paper could not contain a whole Line they placed the rest of the Letters or Words above the Line It seems they designed in this manner to write by way of Verses the Ancient Greek and Latin Copy of St. Paul's Epistles which is in the Royal Library and that of the Benedictine Monks of the Abbey of St. Germain Or rather they who copied these two Manuscripts by others that were more Ancient did not at all understand the nature of the ancient Lines or Verses and therefore they did not altogether imitate the same However it be it is certain that there is nothing more ordinary amongst the ancient Writers than to mark at the end of their Books the number of Verses which they contained I do not deny but that there is another sort of Verses which were regulated according to the sense or the sentences in the same manner as they are represented in our Books In this we have imitated the Jews who divided their Bible into this kind of Verses This latter sort has an original quite different from that of the former For seeing they did read the Scripture in their Synagogues and in their Schools they made this new division of Verses for the conveniency of their Lessons We also see something of the like nature in some Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament and in some Manuscript Church Bibles I have not only observed the beginning and the ending of the Lessons which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are as so many different Chapters but also certain marks in form of a cross in all the places where the sentences do end and where the Reader makes a little stop according to the custom of the Greek Churches This we may call a Verse or Sentence and which the Greeks do signifie by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Crojus is mistaken Jo. Croj. ibid. when he would perswade us that the Greeks did at the end of their Gospels mark the number of the words as well as that of the Verses that were contained therein For the examples which he does produce after Salmasius ought to be understood of Sentences and not of Words as may be proved by those very words which he brings as taken out of a Manuscript Copy that assigns to St. Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2522 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2560 to St. Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1675 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1616 If the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in this place for the words as Crojus expounds it what proportion can there be betwixt the Words and the Verses seeing they reckoned almost the same number of Words as Verses in those two Gospels viz. in St. Matthew 2522 words and 2560 Verses in St. Mark 1675 words and 1616 Verses We must therefore understand the number of Sentences to be signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the ancient Verses which were measured according to the Lines or some other sort of Verses to be meant by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We find the Number of the Verses of each Book at the end of several Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament Robert Stephen does sometimes mark them in his fair Greek Edition and it would be easie to note them all But this in my Opinion would be of little use besides that the Manuscripts wherein I have observed them are not very ancient and they do not agree amongst themselves about the matter Scaliger caused to be Printed at the end of the Chronology of the Patriarch Nicephorus a Stichometrie or the number of the Verses of all the Books of the Bible under that Patriarch's Name Mr. Pithou before him had published that Stichometrie under the same Name But it is more ancient and we find that it is inserted in the Works of some other Greek Historians They were also placed as has been already observed at the end of two Greek and Latin Copies of St. Paul's Epistles of which we have already spoken I shall here take notice of what belongs to the Verses of the New Testament and seeing that there is somewhat singular in that Catalogue I shall change nothing either as to the order of the Books or the manner (e) Matthaeus ver IIDC. Joannes ver II. Marcus ver IDC Lucas IIDCCCC Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos ver IXL. ad Corinthios 1. ver ILX. ad Corinthios 2. LXX ad Galatas ver CCCL ad Ephesios ver CCCLXXV ad Timotheum 1. ver CCVIII ad Timotheum 2. ver CCLXXXVIII ad Titum ver CXL ad Colossenses ver CCLI ad Filemonem ver L. ad Petrum 1. ver CC. ad Petrum 2. ver CXL Jacobi ver CCXX prima Joannis Epistola ver CCXX Joannis Epistola 2. ver XX. Joannis Epistola 3. ver XX. Judae Epistola ver LX. Barnabae Epistola ver DCCCL Joannis Revelatio ver ICC. Actus Apostolorum ver IIDC. Pastoris ver IIII. Actus Pauli IIIIDLX Revelatio Petri CCLXX. Codd MSS. Bibl. Reg. Bened. S. Germ. St. Matthew according to that Ancient Catalogue that is written in Latin does contain 2600 Verses St. John 2000. St. Mark 1600. St. Luke 2900. The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans 1040. The first to the Corinthians 1060. the second to the Corinthians 70. there is an error in this place The Epistle to the Galatians 350. the Epistle to the Ephesians 375. the first to Timothy 208. the second to Timothy 288. the Epistle to Titus 140. to the Colossians 251. to Philemon 50. the first of St. Peter 200. the second of the same Apostle 140. that of St. James 220. the first of St. John 220. the second 20. and also the third 20. the Epistle of St. Jude 60. that of St. Barnabas 850. the Revelation of St. John 1200. the Acts of the Apostles 2600. the Book of the pastor 4000. the Acts of St. Paul 4560. the Revelation of Peter 270. Casaubon who was well versed in Greek Authors Casaub Not. in Nov. Test preferred the ancient division that is found in the Manuscripts to that which has been invented in these latter times and which appears in our Printed Bibles He does also wish that some able Critick would restore it He speaks of that which is made by way of Titles and Chapters They called as he affirms the great Sections 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 titles and the small 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chapters He might have added that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter is also sometimes taken for the great Sections and that then it does not differ from that which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Title There is nothing more ordinary amongst the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers than the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter for the Greeks and that of Capitulum for the Latins when they quote the Sacred Books It would not be hard to re-establish that ancient division by the help of Manuscripts but
I shall content my self to mention here what belongs to the New Testament We read in one of the Manuscripts of the Royal Library that St. Matthew contains 68 Titles and 355 Chapters St. Mark 48 Titles and 234 Chapters St. Luke 83 Titles and 342 Chapters St. John 18 Titles and 231 Chapters Suidas Which agrees with the Observation of Suidas upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless we must in that Author instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 36. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 236. as it is in some Manuscripts and in the Greek Edition in folio of Robert Stephen's New Testament (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod. MS. Biblioth Reg. n. 2861. Moreover we read at the beginning of the same Manuscript of the Royal Library that there is in St. Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 68 Chapters so as they call that a Chapter in that place which is called a Title in the end of the Book and there is the same thing observable in the other three Gospels By which we may know that the word Chapter is taken two ways and that it is applyed as well to the great as to the small Sections When they prefix the numbers of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Chapters to the Books this words does then signifie great Sections and in this manner they are marked at the beginning of the most part of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament in the first Editions of Erasmus in that of Robert Stephen in folio and in some others This is instead of a Table or Index of the Contents which at once does represent the Principal things in a Work. In this manner the most exact Greek Transcribers do mark the Summaries under the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapters at the beginning of their Copies And seeing they have likewise noted them in the Margin of their Copies or at the top or the bottom of the Pages in all the places where those Chapters begin they have for this reason given them the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 titles There is then no difference betwixt Title and Chapter according to this sense unless it be that the Chapters are marked at the beginning of the Books and the Titles in the Margin This I observed in comparing several Manuscript Greek Copies of the New Testament one with the other The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does on the contrary signifie the small Sections that are marked in the Margins of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament by Letters instead of Numbers Erasmus did also put them in his first Editions of the New Testament in which he was followed by Robert Stephen in his Edition in Folio who has likewise subjoyned them separately at the end of S. Mark where he reckons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 236 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapters and at the end of S. Luke where he computes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 342. whereas in the King's Manuscript which I quoted S. Mark does only contain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 234 Chapters The truth is the Greek Copies do not agree amongst themselves about the thing especially in the Gospel of S. Mark. We have already shewn that several Greek Churches did not once read the twelve last Verses of this Gospel which begin with these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and so they might have had fewer small Sections in their Copies than what are ordinarily reckoned Nevertheless there are some Manuscripts where the Section 234. is last marked over against these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. there being no other that answers to the rest of the Text. Moreover it is certain that the Churches where these Copies were in use did read those twelve Verses for they have inserted in that place the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 end and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beginning to note that they began another Lesson there Yet we have no sure foundation here to build any certainty upon because the Observations of that sort have been taken from the Synaxarion or the Church Bibles of the Greeks And so they regulated these distinctions by the Lectionaries which were then read in the Churches to accommodate the Copies of the New Testament to the custom that obtained amongst them The Churches which did not read the twelve last Verses of S. Mark Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2861. do only reckon in that Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 233. small Sections as it appears by an ancient Manuscript of the Royal Library There is another Copy less ancient than that in the same Library Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2856. which does likewise only represent 233. and the last small Section answers to these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to which Rob. Stephen in his Edition made the Section 233. to answer The Churches which did read those twelve Verses reckon more than 233. Sections but they agree not amongst themselves for some have comprehended all those Verses under one Section and in their Copies there are only 234 Sections extant others on the contrary Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2859. have divided them into many small Sections and therefore Rob. Stephen has mark'd after some Manuscripts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 236. I have also seen a Manuscript Copy where there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 241. Further this division of the Sacred Books is very ancient Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 1879. for Justin Martyr makes mention of these small Sections under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius in his Letter to Carpianus which was printed with the ten Canons which he so ingeniously invented for shewing at once that wherein the Evangelists did agree and that which is peculiar to each of them does use indifferently these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Section and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter Denis of Alexandria speaking of certain Authors who rejected the Revelation of S. John says that they had examined all the Chapters Dionys Alex. apud Eus Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In a word There are few of the ancient Greek Writers where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter is not found in the sense that we have observed Eusebius is not then the Author of those small Sections but he made a very profitable use of them in the ten Canons that he invented and which St. Jerom applied to the Latin Copies of the four Gospels in the same manner as he had seen them applied to the Greek Copies Those who cannot consult the Manuscript Copies for this ought to read the first Greek Editions of the New Testament that were published by Erasmus or that were done by Rob. Stephen which is in folio Those ten Canons are rank'd before the Gospel under ten separte Titles and the Application thereof is marked in the Margin of every Gospel The small Sections are there noted by Letters instead of Numbers according to the custom of the Greeks
The Canons to which those Sections do answer are marked by other Letters which do not exceed the number of Ten which is the number of those Canons The Letters last mentioned ought to be read according to the method used by Eusebius for distinguishing them the more easily from the others but Rob. Stephen has distinguished them by a small Stroke which is set over those which mark the small Sections All this was also observed in the Latin Editions of the New Testament with great exactness It is not necessary that I should here produce Manuscript Copies it is enough to consult the first Impressions of our Latin Bibles Those ten Canons of Eusebius with the small Sections are found as well at the beginning of the Gospels as in the Margins of every Gospel in particular in the same manner as in the Greek Copies The Sections are marked by our common Figures 1 2 3 c. and the Canons by the Roman Figures I. II. III. c. It was hard for the Greek Transcribers who writ the Canons of Eusebius to commit no fault by putting some Letters for others Indeed in comparing several Manuscript Copies of those Canons I found some difference amongst them which nevertheless is easily helped unless it be in the places where the Copies do not agree about the number of Sections If we consult for Example the ten Canons as they are in Rob. Stephen's Edition and the most part of the Manuscripts 't is manifest that the twelve last Verses of St. Mark were in the Greek Copies in the time of Eusebius For he marks in the tenth Canon the Section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 234. of that Evangelist and in the eighth the Section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 235. which are included in those twelve Verses Nevertheless it might have been so that those two Sections were afterwards added to the Canons of Eusebius by those who read those twelve Verses of St. Mark in their Churches and so those Canons could not be a certain Rule in that place if it were not known upon some other ground that those Verses were extant in S. Mark before Eusebius Marianus Victorius who caus'd to be printed with St. Jerom's Works those ten Canons of Eusebius at the beginning of that Father's Commentaries upon St. Matthew does in the English Canon mark the 234 Section of St. Mark and in the tenth the 235 Section yet he does only mark 233 Sections in the Margin of that Evangelist and it is worth the Observation that the 233 Section which is the last does answer to these words at illae exeuntes c. chap. 16. v. 8. as if all the rest that followed of that Gospel did not truly belong to St. Mark. This was insinuated by S. Jerom in his Letter to Hedibia where he says that the most part of the Greek Copies had not this last Chapter Hieron Epist ad Hedib qu. 3. Omnibus Graeciae libris penè hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus By this Word Capitulum he understood the twelve last verses whether it be that that Chapter does only contain a small Section as in truth there is but one marked in some Manuscripts or that according to other Manuscripts it does include many However it be it does not appear that Marianus did observe an Uniformity in this matter for he does produce a greater number of Sections of St. Mark in the eighth and in the ninth Canon of Eusebius than he has noted in the Margin of that Apostle Basle's Edition of St. Jerom's Works is more exact upon this matter for there is an equal number of Sections Apud Frob. ann 1526. viz. 235. marked in both those places therein It would be to no purpose to speak of the Chapters and Sections of the Acts of the Apostles and of the Epistles of St. Paul because they may be seen in the Commentaries that have been printed under the Name of Oecumenius I will only in this place add another sort of Division called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lessons This distinction of the whole New Testament into several Lessons is very ancient and they are also mark'd in the Cambridge Copy Although these Lessons are not much different from Chapters if the Word Chapter be taken for Title or a great Section yet we are not to confound these two as some Authors have done There are fewer Lessons than Titles or great Sections as I observed in the reading some Copies where these Lessons are mark'd exactly and there are also some in which the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the end and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the beginning are inserted to denote the end of one Lesson and the beginning of another which was taken from the Greek Church Bibles and therefore we find in the Margins of those Manuscript Copies not only the Summaries of Sections called Titles or Chapters but also the days on which those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lessons were to be read in the Churches The Greek Amanuenses have drawn Observations of this nature from their Church Bibles and of them they composed a Table called Synaxarion which they placed at the Beginning or the End of their Books Seeing this does rather belong to the usage of the Greek Churches than to the cognisance of a Critick who treats of the Greek Copies of the New Testament I shall insist on it no longer nevertheless it is worthy of our Observation that that distinction of different Lessons relating to the reading in the Church has occasioned some small Alterations in some Greek Copies They have taken away for example in certain places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore and some other the like Particles whenever they happened to be at the beginning of a Lesson They have also changed some Relative Pronouns into proper Names It was also sometimes necessary not to leave the Sense imperfect to put proper Names at the beginning of their Lessons and the Transcribers have inserted them in their Copies And therefore caution is necessary otherwise we shall multiply various Readings of the New Testament without any necessity When that happens we need only consult the Greek Church Bibles that are used in the Greek Churches to observe in what places they begin their new Lessons FINIS The TRANSLATOR'S POSTSCRIPT TO THE READER THE former Works of the Learned Author have been well accepted by the public and 't is hoped this may be no less The Art of Critic tho by common mistake subjected to the slavish Drudgery of words under the tyranny of the Pedants is notwithstanding of great use throu the universal course of good Learning and an excellent Assistant to the Arts and Sciences even those of the highest Rank as Theology Laws and Medicine This Art the admirable Industry of our Author hath so applied to Theology as to render the most hard dry and unpleasant Subjects no less delightful than profitable he having conversed with so many Books and
had lived before therefore he adds at the same time that (d) Si sub ipsius Pauli nomine Evangelium Marcion intulisset non sufficeret ad fidem singularitas instrumenti destituta patrocinio antecessorum Tertull. ibid. altho Marcion should have published his Gospel even under the name of S. Paul this Title would have availed nothing at least if it had not been accompanied with these Testimonies He goes yet farther in declaring that he did not take advantage of the Title that is at the beginning of S. Luke in the Copies of the Church Ibid. De titulo quoque funis ducendus est contentionis pari hinc inde nisu fluctuante For as to the Title alone Marcion might say as well as the Orthodox That the Gospel which he produced was the true one (e) Ego meum dico verum Marcion suum Ego Marcionis affirmo adulterat um Marcion meum Quis inter nos determinabit nisi temporis ratio ei praescribens auctoritatem quod antiquius reperietur ei praejudicans vitiationem quod posterius revincetur Tertull. ibid. cap. 4. To which then shall we adhere saith Tertullian by what Rule may we determine which is the true Gospel whether that of Marcion that hath been corrupted or that of the Church which is supposed to be entire at least if regard be had to Antiquity insomuch that the most ancient should be the true because the verity of an Act always preceeds the corruption of the same In quantum enim falsum corruptio est veri in tantum praecedat necesse est veritas falsum On this uncontroulable Principle he makes it appear that the true Copy of S. Luke was that which the Orthodox made use of since Marcion himself had not acknowledged any other before he had separated from the Church which he accused of Judaizing and he chiefly defended himself with this pretended Judaism from the Charge of not receiving this Gospel entire which he said had been interpolated by those that authorized Judaism Interpolatum à protectoribus Judaismi Lastly Tertullian concludes That there was no other true Copy of S. Luke but his because it was before that which Marcion had corrected and the Reason that he alledgeth is this That he could not amend any but that which was in the Church and was consequently antecedent to his Id emendans quod invenit id posterius quod de nostro emendatione constituens suum novum fecit But since it might be objected to him that it is not always true that the most ancient Books are the most correct because they also may have been corrupted at least if they be not the true Originals he answers that it is necessary to look back to the time of the Apostles to be certain that we have their genuine Writings (f) In summa si constat id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio ab initio quod ab Apostolis pariter utique constabit id esse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum Tertull. ibid. cap. 5. Now we are assured according to his Opinion that a thing belongs to the times of the Apostles when we see that it hath been inviolably preserved in the Apostolical Churches All these Arguments of Tertullian prove that the constant Tradition of the Church is the mark by which we distinguish the Divine and Canonical Books from those that are not so and that it is this same Church that hath added or at least approved of the Titles of the four Gospels to denote to us that these Gospels were written by Apostles or by their Disciples which does not in the least agree with this private Spirit of some Protestants In seems that Beza believed that the Titles of the Gospels were no less dictated by the Holy Ghost than the Text it self Th. Bezae Resp ad defens reprehens Seb. Castal this he insinuates in his Answer to the Defense of Castalio whom he reprehends for having translated in his Latin Version of the New Testament these Greek Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by these auctore Matthaeo Maldonat hath observed with much more Judgment (g) Non est Sacrorum Scriptorum consuetudo ut ante initium librorum ritulos ponant sed ut vel omittant vel prima libri verba titulum faciant Maldon Comm. in cap. I. Matth. That it is not the custom of the sacred Writers to put Titles at the beginning of their Works but that they either omit them altogether or they include them within the first Words of their Books which he demonstrates by Examples taken out of the Old Testament whence he infers that it is probable that the Evangelists are not the Authors of the Titles of their Gospels He proves it also by the Example of S. Mark who would have put two Titles to his Book if he were the Author of the first that runs thus The Gospel according to Mark because he begins his History with these other Words The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ He adds farther That if the Evangelists had been the Authors of these Titles there would not have been found so great an uniformity amongst them as appears they would have made use of different Expressions as they do in the other parts where they relate the same things but in different terms instead of writing all The Gospel according to N. Again he confirms his Opinion by the diversity that is found among the Greek and Latin Copies Maldon ibid. for these last read The holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to N. which proceeds from this saith Maldonat that the Greek Church hath put the Greek Title and the Latin Church the Latin quod Graecum Titulum Graeca Latinum Latina It seems that Beza in this case chose rather to prefer the Title of the Latin Copy before that of the Greek when he accuseth Castalio of having falsly translated auctore Matthaeo as if S. Matthew had been the Author of his Gospel for to confute his Adversary with more force he saith (h) Neque enim legimus Evangelium Matthaei Marci Lucae vel Joannis sed Evangelium Jesu Christi ut habent omnes Latini codices secundùm Matthaeum Marcum Lucam Joannem Bez. Resp ad Castal p. 12. That we read not the Gospel of Matthew Mark Luke or John but the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew Mark Luke and John as it is in all the Latin Copies Nevertheless this Reading is not found but in the Latin Version and not in all the Latin Copies neither If Maldonat may be believed there is only the Arabick Version printed at Rome Nov. Test Arab. edit Romae an 1591. where it is read The Gospel of Jesus Christ according as it hath been written by S. Matthew one of his twelve Disciples But it is easie to judge that this Arabick Title hath been taken in part from the Latin and those who have copied
simple Cyril of Jerusalem who lived a little after the first appearance of this Sect attributes this Gospel to one of the Disciples of Manes named Thomas (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Cyr. Catech. 6. Let none saith this Holy Bishop read the Gospel of Thomas for he is not one of the twelve Apostles but one of the three wicked Disciples of Manes The Names of these three Disciples according to the testimony of the same Cyril were Thomas Baddas and Hermas Nevertheless Pope Gelasius condemns it Gelasius decr 1. par dist 15. c. 3. as belonging as they said to the Apostle S. Thomas Evangelium nomine Thomae Apostoli quo utuntur Manichaei apocryphum S. Augustin writing against Faustus hath made mention of certain Apocryphal Books which the Manicheans made use of Aug. cont Faust lib. 22. c. 79. wherein were related several Actions of S. Thomas of which he hath produced some Examples But not to be tedious I shall pass by many other Gospels that have been published under the Names of the Apostles the Titles of them may be seen in the Catalogne of Pope Gelasius who hath ranked them in the number of Apocryphal Books Altho the Church doth acknowledge as Canonical only two Epistles of S. Peter that are also but short yet if we believe the ancient Hereticks he hath composed several other Works that are mentioned by S. Jerome viz. certain Acts a Gospel an Apocalypse and two other Books (q) Vnus Actorum ejus inscribitur alius Evangelit tertius Praedicationis quartus Apocalypseos quintus Judicii Hieron de Scriptor Eccl. in Petr. one of which was intituled The Preaching of Peter and the other The Judgment Eusebius who hath also taken notice of these Books attributed to S. Peter adds that they were generally rejected by all the Catholicks (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccles lib 3. c. 3. because it did not appear that any Ecclesiastical Writer had ever subscribed to their Authority which is not true for he avouches himself in another place that Clement of Alexandria hath cited the Apocalypse of S. Peter the same Clement hath also cited the Book that bears the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Preaching of Peter he hath also produced some Fragments of these two Works which Origen hath likewise done after him It is probable that Eusebius only intended to say that no Ecclesiastical Author had quoted these Books as Divine and Canonical After the same manner may be explained another Passage of his History where after he had rejected as Apocryphal the Gospels that had been published by the Hereticks under the Names of Peter Thomas Matthias and some other Apostles he adds Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 25. that no Ecclesiastical Writer since the Apostles to his time had made mention of these Gospels Serapion Bishop of Antioch hath written a Letter on purpose against the Gospel that bears the name of Peter Seraph apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. cap. 12. on occasion of certain Christians of Rhossus in Cilicia who having read this Gospel were fallen into the Error He saith in this Letter that he embraced as well as they the Writings of S. Peter and the other Apostles as the Word of Jesus Christ but that he rejected this false Gospel that had been forged under the Name of S. Peter and was not grounded on any Tradition The Hereticks that were called Docites made use thereof and Serapion himself before he had examined it had permitted those of Rhossus to read it but afterwards having found some Passages therein contrary to the Orthodox Faith he absolutely forbad them the reading it Sozomen affirms (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sozom. Hist Eccles lib. 7. cap. 19. that the Apocalypse attributed to S. Peter was read even in his time every year on Good Friday in some Churches of Palestine altho this Piece had been exploded by all Antiquity The ancient Ecclesiastical Authors do moreover make mention of certain Acts attributed to S. Paul which Eusebius hath rejected as Apocryphal (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb lib. 3. Hist Eccles cap. 3. We receive not saith this Historian among the Books that are not suspected that which is called the Acts of Paul and he speaks of these Acts in another place (v) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb ib. c. 24. as a false and supposititious Writing Many other Books have been compiled under the Name of this Apostle and among others an Apocalypse or Revelation which Pope Gelasius hath inserted in the List of Apocryphal Pieces Gelasius decr 1. part dist 15. c. 3. Revelatio quae appellatur Pauli Apostoli apocrypha Sozomen hath observed (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sozom. Hist Eccles lib. 7. c. 19. that in his time the greatest part of the Monks very much esteemed this Apocalypse tho it had no testimony of Antiquity To gain more authority to it they feigned that it had been found at Tarsus in Cilicia buried under ground in S. Paul's House The Cainites who acknowledged Cain for their Father from whom they took their Name had forged another Work under the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 38. n. 2. that contains the History of that which happened to S. Paul when he ascended into Heaven where he learn'd things which he was not permitted to reveal The Gnosticks adopted this Book for their use I shall not insist on some Epistles that have been also published under the Name of S. Paul because I shall have occasion to speak of them in another place Besides all these Acts counterfeited under the Names of the Apostles of which scarce any thing is left but the Titles we have others more entire that have been Printed but they are so full of Fables and absurd Tales that we cannot read them without being at the same time convinced of their falsity Is there any thing for example more ridiculous than the Gospel attributed to Nicodemus There is nothing also that comes nearer to Fable than the little Book intituled Protevangelium Jacobi The first Gospel of James wherein it is treated among other things concerning the Birth and Infancy of the blessed Virgin Mary William Postel who first brought this false Gospel from the Levant would persuade all the World to believe that it was read publickly in the Eastern Churches and that they did not there doubt of the Author thereof He translated it out of Greek into Latin and having sent his Translation to Oporinus a Printer at Basil Bibliander caused it to be Printed with this specious Title Protevangelion sive de Natalibus Jesu Christi ipsius matris Virginis Mariae Sermo Historicus D. Jacobi Minoris consobrini fratris Domini Jesu Protev Jac. edit Basil in 3. ann 1552. Apostoli primarii Episcopi Christianorum primi Hierosolymis He added also some Notes thereto after his way with a Discourse wherein he avoucheth after Postel that
satisfaction in this Point without departing from the Jews of whom the Question is The History of the Martyrdom of the seven Brethren related in the second Book of Maccabees informs us that the Jews of that time spake Greek and Hebrew the Mother and the Children answered in Greek to Antiochus (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 II Maccab. 7.22 whereas amongst themselves they spake the Language of the Country which was Chaldaick Antiochus having urged the Mother to exhort one of her Children to yield to that which he required (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. v. 27. she laughing the Tyrant to scorn spake to her Sons in Hebrew or Chaldaick which was her proper Tongue This is a manifest Proof that the Greek was the vulgar Tongue of the Country and that the Jews besides the Greek had preserved the Chaldaick which they had brought from Babylon and which they called the Language of the Nation The Jews of Jerusalem have also retained it always tho the Greek was the vulgar Tongue of Palestine This is yet more apparently seen in another Example that hath been already opposed to Mr. Vossius I mean the Jews of the Spanish Rite who dwell at Constantinople and in some other Cities of the Levant these Jews do still keep their ancient Spanish with the Language of the Countries which they inhabit and they have also Translations of the Bible in Spanish for their use Mr. Vossius answers this Objection that this might be in some manner true in the time of Mariana because when this Jesuit wrote his History it was not an Age since the Jews had been driven out of Spain He adds farther that the other Historians who have written at that very time speak quite otherwise because the Jews (m) Profugi ex Hispaniâ Lusitaniâque Judaei si qui in fuga non periere illi fere omnes per Maurorum dissipati fuere terras ut nesciam omninò quosnam hic intelligat P. Simonius Hispanici generis Judaeos qui per Orientem fuere dispersi Voss Resp ad tert P. Sim. Obj. that were driven out of Spain and Portugal were all dispersed among the Moors and finally that he knows not what is meant by the Spanish Jews that were scatter'd in the Levant But it is in vain to argue against evident matters of fact that may be known by all the World. We have not made use of the Authority of Mariana to prove them nor of any other Historian but of the Books themselves of these Spanish Jews that have been printed at Constantinople in the Spanish Tongue and in Hebrew Characters We have their Pentateuch printed at that place not only in Spanish but also in Vulgar Greek In 1547. with the Hebrew Text and the Chaldaick Paraphrase It is to be seen by the first leaf of this Work that there are two sorts of Jews in those Parts some of which speak Spanish and the others the vulgar Greek and that these two Versions have been published for their use that they might more easily understand the Scriptures The Hebrew Bible of Lombroso which hath been printed at Venice with Grammatical Notes In 1639. wherein the difficult Words are explained in Spanish is also very common in the Levant among these Spanish Jews It is a matter of little moment to know whether the Jews that departed from Spain and Portugal retired amongst the Moors or elsewhere since it is without doubt that there are at this day Jews of the Spanish Rite in the Levant who beside that of the Places where they reside have still preserved their ancient Spanish Tongue This is the ground of the present Dispute and by this it is made appear that it is not impossible that the Jews should retain their ancient Language where there is another that is vulgarly spoken We see moreover that the Portugal Jews of the Spanish Rite who are settled at Amsterdam do keep the Portugal with the Language of the Country and that their Rabbins do also preach in Portugaise in their Synagogue Furthermore it is not true that all the Jews that were driven out of Spain and Portugal took refuge among the Moors there were many that withdrew themselves into Italy from whence some passed afterwards into the Levant However it were it is certain that there is at this day in the Turkish Territories a considerable number of Jews who follow the Spanish Rite and besides that of the Places where they remain do speak their ancient Spanish Language I believe also that a Party of these Jews was in those Countries before those of their Nation were expelled out of Spain and Portugal Mr. Vossius who cannot maintain his Paradoxes but with other Paradoxes corrects the Passage of the xxi Chap. of the Acts Act. xxi v. 37. where the Tribune demands of St. Paul whether he could speak Greek He pretends that it must not be read with the Point of Interrogation Graecè scis as all People read it but that it ought to be read and translated after this manner Graecè scis Voss ibid. Non ergo es iste Aegyptius qui ante hos dies tumultum concitavit Thou canst speak Greek Therefore thou art not that Egyptian which before these days made an Uproar c. But I see no reason to change the ordinary reading of the Greek Text and ancient Versions in this place neither would he have ever thought of it were it not that this Passage manifestly destroys his Opinion It is true that according to the most exact Rules of Criticism no regard ought to be had to Accents Points and Comma's but it seems to me not to be permitted without good Reasons to alter the ordinary Readings of the Text especially when it is supported by ancient Interpreters It would be might it be said a strange sort of sottish Stupidity that the Tribune who heard St. Paul talking in Greek should have demanded of him whether he could speak that Language nevertheless there is nothing extraordinary in all this Discourse St. Paul finding himself oppressed by the People demanded to speak with the Tribune who asked him in his turn Whether he could speak Greek This implies a Supposition that all the Jews of Jerusalem did not speak in that Tongue Mr. Vossius who is rich in Fictions is obliged to make good his fancy to suppose that the Egyptian of whom mention is made Arabick was spoken But to whatsoever side he turns he will not be able to avoid that which is related in the same Chapter to wit that (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 21.40 St. Paul spake in Hebrew that is to say in Chaldaick to all this multitude that thronged about him and attentively hearkened to his Speech because he spake to them in their own Language There is yet less of solid Reason in the Answer that he makes to that which hath been objected to him that the Field of Judas was called Haceldama according to the vulgar Language of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 17. boasted of this Name giving it out that they were poor in imitation of the Apostles the custom being in those times to sell their Goods and to lay them at their Feet This Name degenerated afterwards into that of a Sect which was a Branch of the Nazarenes and held certain particular Opinions but in the rest they agreed with them in the same Foundation of Religion as to every thing that concerned the Old Law which they kept equally with Christianity S. Epiphanius in the mean time will have it that there hath certainly been a Man called Ebion from whom the Ebionites took their original who lived at the same time with the Nazarenes and Cerinthians It may well be that this Father and all the others who have thought that there was indeed a Man named Ebion Author of the Sect of the Ebionites have had no better grounds whereon to establish this Ebion than a certain Spanish Historian who hath written the History of the Popes in his Language hath had in like manner to invent a Man called Hugo a Sacramentarian Arch-Heretick Hugo Haeresiarcha Sacramentarius (e) Hugo de quien se llaman los herejes de Francia Hugonotes Illescas lib. 6. de la Hist Pontif. fol. 453. from whom the Hereticks of France have been named Hugonots The same S. Epiphanius more exactly describes the original of these Sectaries whose beginning and first appearance he dates after the destruction of Jerusalem and at that time when the Primitive Christians that were called Nazarenes and were lately departed from this City came to dwell at Pella in the Province of Decapolis It appears from thence that the Ebionites are only an Off-spring of the ancient Nazarenes having nevertheless corrupted the purity and simplicity of the Faith of these primitive Christians Therefore they revised the original Hebrew of S. Matthew to make it more conformable to their Opinions It will not be amiss here to produce some Fragments of their Gospel which Epiphanius hath transmitted to us In the first place he saith in general (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 13. that the Gospel of the Ebionites was not entire but corrupted and mutilated They had taken out of it the Genealogy of Jesus Christ and all that follows to Chapter 3. of S. Matthew (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. beginning their Gospel with these words It came to pass in the days of Herod the King of Judaea that John came baptizing the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan who was said to be of the race of Aaron the priest the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth and all people came unto him The Baptism of our Saviour by S. John was related after this manner in the Gospel of the Ebionites (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Evang. Ebion apud Epiph. ibid. After the people had been baptised Jesus came also and was baptised by John and as he ascended out of the water the Heavens were opened and he saw the Holy Spirit of God in the form of a Dove which descended and came towards him and a voice was heard from heaven saying thou art my beloved son in thee have I been well pleased And continuing (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Evang. Ebion ibid. This day have I begotten thee and immediately a great light shone about the place and John having seen it saith unto him who art thou Lord And again a voice from heaven said unto him this is my beloved son in whom I have been well pleased and then John falling down before him said I pray thee Lord baptise thou me but he forbad him saying suffer it to be so for thus it becometh all things to be fulfilled We may judge by that which we have now produced of the Gospel of the Ebionites that the order of the words was not altogether the same as in our Copies and that there were besides some Alterations and Additions There is another Passage at the beginning of the Gospel from whence we may be able to take a better estimate thereof (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Evang Ebion apud Epiph. ibid. There was a certain man Jesus by name of about thirty years of age who hath chosen us and being come to Caphernaum he entred into the house of Simon sirnamed Peter and opening his mouth he said When I passed along the lake of Tiberias I chose John and James the sons of Zebedee and Simon and Andrew and Thaddeus and Simon Zelotes and Judas Iscariot and I called thee Matthew sitting at the receit of custom and thou hast followed me I will then that you be twelve Apostles for a testimony unto Israel And John was baptising and the Pharisees came unto him and were baptised and all Jerusalem and John had his raiment os camels hair and a leathern girdle about his loins and his food was wild honey that had the taste of Manna as a cake dipt in oil S. Epiphanius here reproves the Ebionites for having corrupted the Gospel of S. Matthew in reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this alteration could have happened only in the Greek and not in their Hebrew or Syriack Copy wherein there is no such resemblance of words They must either have a particular Greek Translation which they had made for their own use or they must have adjusted ours to their Text. Furthermore these Sectaries were different from the Nazarenes with respect to the Holy Scriptures for whereas these received as hath been already observed all the Old Testament as it was in the Canon of the Jews the Ebionites on the contrary rejected all the Prophets They abhorred the Names of David Solomon Isaiah Jeremiah Daniel and Ezechiel they only adhered to the Pentateuch and they did not much regard that neither (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ebion apud Epiph. ibid. n. 18. What use said they can there be made of the Law after the coming of the Gospel And when they were asked why they had a veneration for Moses Abraham and the other ancient Patriarchs they answered That they therein followed the example of Jesus Christ It is probable that the Ebionites who received no other but the five Books of Moses and only considered Joshua in quality of his Successor were descended from some Samaritans who embraced Christianity in imitation of the Nazarenes Epiph. ib. n. 1. Thus Epiphanius hath observed that Ebion was infected with the Superstitions of the Samaritans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereas they both retain the Old Law with the Gospel the Ebionites do only keep the Books of Moses because the Samaritans have never received any but these five Books as Canonical But the Nazarenes who passed from Judaism to the Christian Religion continued to read the whole Old Testament as they read it before in their Synagogues S. Epiphanius hath further remarked that these Ebionites
not have taken away the entire Genealogy of Jesus Christ which makes one of the most principal parts of it it is not the custom of those that epitomize the Works of others to retrench the most considerable parts of them And we must take heed of this lest we unadvisedly authorize the Opinion of the Ebionites and Manicheans who would have the Genealogy which is at the beginning of S. Matthew and S. Luke to be added afterwards by some later Writers who had as they said revised and interpolated these two Gospels The Office of Interpreter to S. Peter which the ancient Doctors of the Church have unanimously attributed to S. Mark admits of some difficulties for how could it be may it be objected that this Apostle who had received of the Holy Ghost the gift of Tongues should have need of an Interpreter either in Writing or in speaking in publick But there is nothing very surprizing in this S. Paul who was very well skill'd in the Greek Tongue because he had learned it from his Youth at Tarsus where it was spoken did not forbear to take Titus for his Interpreter Therefore S. Jerom expounding these Words of this Apostle God that comforteth those that are cast down Epist 2. ad Cor. c. 7. v. 6. comforted us by the coming of Titus declareth (r) Ergo Paulus contristatur quia praedicationis suae in praesentiarum fistulam organumque per quod Christo caneret non invenerat Hier. Epist ad Hedib qu. 11. that the Joy that S. Paul had in the Presence of Titus sprang from this that in his Absence he was not able to preach the Gospel as he desired because Titus who was his Interpreter and spake Greek more fluently than he served him as an Organ to promulge the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the People (s) Cúmque Paulus haberet scientiam sanctarum scripturarum sermonis diversarumque linguarum gratiam possideret unde ipse gloriatur in domino divinorum sensuum majestatem digno non poterat Graeci eloquii explicare sermone habebat ergo Titum interpretem sicut B. Petrus Marcum Hieron ibid. He ascribes to S. Paul all possible knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and of divers Languages but he could not saith he express the Majesty of the Divine Oracles after so noble and eloquent a manner as he wished which obliged him to take Titus for his Interpreter as S. Peter also made choice of S. Mark for the same Function Joseph Antiq. l. 20. c. ult We know that Josephus who understood the Greek Tongue perfectly and had diligently studied it saith of himself that it was impossible for him to pronounce it well by reason of his Mother Tongue Bar. Ann. c. 45 n. 34. Baronius who hath considered this Example of Josephus could not nevertheless absolutely give his Suffrage to S. Jerom. (t) Quòd pertinet ad Apostolos cùm unà cum caeteris Linguis Graecam fuerint divinitùs assecuti Deique dona perfecta sint eos nihilominus Graecam linguam eâ facilitate quâ Hebraeam pronuntiasse mihi facilè persuadéo Baron ann c. 45. n. 34. He is persuaded that the Apostles who have received from God the gift of Tongues have not received them imperfect and that therefore they knew as well how to pronounce the Greek as the Hebrew insomuch that he is obliged to have recourse to another sort of Interpreters of whom mention is made in the first Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians Epist 1. ad Cor. cap. 14. Whereas there were sometimes Persons of different Nations and Languages in the Primitive Assemblies of Christians it was necessary that there should be Interpreters who might explain to them in their own what the Apostles delivered in the vulgar Tongue of the Country It is certain that the Church of Corinth mentioned by S. Paul was composed of divers Jews who spake Chaldaick or Syriack and this seems to have given occasion to all this Discourse of S. Paul touching the gift of Prophecy and that of Tongues This holy Apostle excludes none from the Assembly he permits those that had no knowledge of the Language of the Place to speak in their own proper Dialect though it were not understood by the others he only requires them in this case to make use of an Interpreter according to the Custom of the Synagogues at that time Epist 1. ad Cor. c. 14. v. 5. Greater is he that prophesieth saith he than he that speaketh with Tongues except he interpret that the Church may receive edifying But it is evident that Papias and the other ancient Ecclesiastical Authors did not intend to describe this sort of Interpreters when they said that S. Mark had been the Interpreter of S. Peter Baron an c. 45. n. 29. Baronius himself hath believed that S. Peter had written his Epistles in Hebrew or Syriack and that they had been afterwards put into Greek he insinuates that S. Mark who was his Interpreter translated the first However it be I see no reason that can hinder us from affording to S. Peter and the other Apostles who did not perfectly understand the Greek Tongue the use of true Interpreters either in speaking or writing It is in this sense that all Antiquity hath given to S. Mark the Title of Interpreter to S. Peter CHAP. XI In what Language St. Mark hath written his Gospel Of the twelve last Verses of this Gospel which are not found in several Greek Manuscript Copies CArdinal Baronius hath forgot nothing in his Annals that might serve to prove that S. Mark who was the Interpreter of S. Peter at Rome hath written his Gospel in Latin he confesseth nevertheless that S. Jerom and S. Augustin are of a different Opinion But he might have said that all Antiquity hath believed with one accord that S. Mark hath composed his Gospel in Greek and that the Author of the Lives of the Popes is the first that hath written the contrary As for S. Gregory Nazianzen whose Testimony this Cardinal produceth as if it were favourable to his Opinion he only saith that S. Mark hath published his Gospel for the Latins and not in Latin. Therefore the Jesuit Maldonat (a) Constantissima autem apud omnes veteres auctores fuit opinio caeteros quidem Graecè Matthaeum verò Hebraico scripsisse sermone Mald. Praef. in 4 Evang. c. 5. frankly declares that if we except S. Matthew who hath written in Hebrew the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors do all agree that the other Evangelists have written in Greek It is true that we read at the end of S. Mark in the Syriack Version that he hath preached his Gospel in Latin in the City of Rome But it is sufficiently known of what Authority these Inscriptions can be which are at the beginning and at the end of the Sacred Books especially in the Oriental Versions I account as nothing the Arabick and Persian Translations wherein the same is read because
New Testament and also of the whole Bible Grotius hath believed with many other Authors that it is not possible that S. Mark should have omitted in his Gospel the entire History of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ Grot. Annot in c. 16. Marci He cannot also imagine that it hath been written and lost afterwards insomuch that that which we read at present is only a Supplement made by a later Writer It is not credible saith he that this should have happened to a Book of which so many Copies have been made as soon as it was published Besides he that is supposed to have added this Supplement would have followed S. Matthew He adds farther that the Latin Syriack and Arabick Copies as also S. Irenaeus who is a most ancient Witness do all confirm this Chapter He confesseth nevertheless that it was not found in some Greek Copies from the time of S. Gregory Nyssen Lastly he judgeth for the Reasons that we have now related that this defect in the Greek Copies ought to be attributed to the Transcribers who not being able to make that which this Evangelist saith touching the Resurrection of Jesus Christ conformable to S. Matthew have taken away from S. Mark all this History Indeed the Emperor Julian hath opposed to the Christians the contradiction of their Gospels in this place and there have been Learned Writers among the Grecians who have composed Works on purpose on this Subject to reconcile them Maldonat (d) Quòd nonnulli repugnantiam quae inter Marcum hoc loco Matthaeum videtur esse causam putant ejusmodi suspicioni tribuisse absurda prorsùs est ratio Mald. Comm. in c. 16. Marci on the contrary could not admit the Opinion of those that ascribe this defect in the Greek Copies to the Transcribers who could not make this Place of S. Mark agree with S. Matthew because if this reason were good they ought to have done the same thing with respect to the last Chapter of S. Luke and the last Chapter but one of S. John which differ yet more from S. Matthew in this point than S. Matthew doth from S. Mark. Major enim saith this Learned Jesuit inter illos Matthaeum quà m inter Matthaeum Marcum apparet repugnantia (e) Magis etiam miror non majore Hieronymum studio ejus auctoritatem asseruisse quòd nulla prorsùs conjectura sit ullâ ex parte probabilis fuisse ad Marci Evangelium adjectum Mald. ibid. Moreover he admires that S. Jerom who hath took so much pains in observing the diversity of the Copies hath applyed himself so little to establish the Authority of this Chapter which cannot be affirmed not to belong to the Gospel of S. Mark. The harsh manner of expression that the same S. Jerom hath used in discoursing of these twelve last Verses of S. Mark hath yet more offended Baronius Baron an Ch. 34. n. 134. who could hardly believe that he should let fall such words as seemed to destroy the Authority of this last Chapter This Learned Father in answering Hedibia who had desired him to reconcile the Evangelists in the matter of the Resurrection of our Saviour saith (f) Hujus quaestionis duplex est solutio aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium quod in raris fertur Evangeliis omnibus Graeciae libris penè hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus c. Hieron Epist ad Hedib qu. 3. that this difficulty might be resolved two several ways the first of which is Hieron Epist ad Hedib qu. 3. that this Testimony of S. Mark might be rejected as being found but in a very few Greek Copies Baronius useth his utmost endeavours to shew even by the authority of S. Jerom himself that there is no reason to suspect that this last Chapter hath been added afterwards to the Gospel of S. Mark. He opposeth to this Father his own words in his second Book against the Pelagians wherein he observes that in some Greek Copies there was a long addition at the end of the Gospel of S. Mark which he also produceth From whence this Cardinal concludes that even according to the Report of S. Jerom this Chapter now in dispute was not only in the Greek Copies but that there were also some found wherein an Addition had been inserted and takes an occasion thereupon to correct the words of this Father in his Letter to Hedibia (g) Pro eo quod dicere debuisset in Graecis codicibus Marci ultimum caput quibusdam auctum reperiri illud ipsum in iis desiderari dixisse Baron ann Chr. 34. n. 185. where he ought not to have said if we may believe Baronius that this last Chapter was wanting in some Greek Copies but only that a considerable Addition had been annexed to them which said Addition according to his opinion might come from the Manicheans who had altered some Copies of the Scriptures Lastly he infers from the Premises that the Church hath amended these Greek Copies from the Latin. Baron ib. Quamobrem Dei Ecclesiam adinstar Latinorum correxisse Graecorum exemplaria certum est And after all these Reasons (h) Haec quidem omnia si comperta satisque explorata habuisset quidam ex recentioribus nequaquam adeò temerè in re tantâ Catholico homine indignam tulisset sententiam dicens ultimum Marci capitulum non esse solidae auctoritatis ad firmandam fidem Baron ibid. he sharply reproves Cardinal Cajetan because he doubted being induced thereto by the Testimony of S. Jerom of the verity of the last Chapter of S. Mark. But after all I think that Cajetan might have been treated more mildly who hath entertained a doubt on the sole authority of S. Jerom concerning the verity of this last Chapter before the Council of Trent had determined any thing thereupon because this Father hath grounded his Judgment on divers Copies that he had read I find moreover that Baronius hath only copied Sixtus Senensis without throughly examining this matter If he had consulted the ancient Greek Copies he would not have took so much liberty to correct S. Jerom's Remark on the twelve last Verses of this Chapter for this Father hath very well distinguished these Verses which he mentions in his Letter to Hedibia from this other Addition of which he discourseth in his second Book against the Pelagians And therefore the Observation of Sixtus Senensis (i) Quod autem subtexuit Hieronymus olim caput istud in Graecis exemplaribus non fuisse ob id ab aliquibus rejectum eò quòd aliis Evangelistis videretur contraria continere non de totâ hujus capituli scripturâ intellexit sed de quibusdam apocryphis capituli hujus periodis ab incertis auctoribus in quibusdam codicibus immissis quae quia vel dubiae vel aliis Evangelistis contrariae viderentur idcirco à Patribus de Graecis codicibus subductae sunt Quod ipse D. Hieronymus lib. 2.
either in Greek or Latin in which this Imperfection is to be found The Syrians and the other People of the Levant do all read these two Verses in their Copies This Defect then must take its rise from some superstitious persons who thought that Jesus Christ could never be obnoxious to so great a Weakness There is no probability that these two Histories should have been added to the Text of S. Luke (c) Potiùs credendum est à nonnullis id fuisse deletum quà m à quoquam adjunctum Mald. Comm. in Matth. c. 26. It is much more credible saith Maldonat that they had been blotted out of it CHAP. XIII Of the Gospel of S. John and of Hereticks that have rejected this Gospel Their Reasons with an Answer to them An Inquiry concerning the twelve Verses of this Gospel which are not found in some ancient Copies Several Greek Manuscript Copies are cited to clear this Difficulty Some Criticks have imagined without any grounds that the last Chapter of this Gospel did not belong to S. John. WE cannot precisely determine in what time S. John published his Gospel It is only known that he hath written it the last of all Neither have we any very certain Acts that might inform us of the Motives that induced this holy Apostle to undertake this Work after he had seen the Gospels of S. Matthew S. Mark and S. Luke Clemens Alexandrinus reports what was generally believed in his time viz. that John having read these three Gospels and having approved them as true found (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. apud Euseb lib. 3. c. 24. that there was yet wanting the History of those things that had been done by Jesus Christ at the beginning of his Preaching This was the reason according to the Judgment of this Learned Father that caused him to write his Gospel especially being intreated to do it And by this he supplied that which seemed to be deficient in the History of the other Evangelists He did not think it necessary (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. ibid. to repeat what S. Matthew and S. Luke had already written and this is the principal cause that obliged him to say nothing concerning the Genealogy of our Saviour He judged it more requisite to promulge that which appertained to his Divinity (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. apud Eus Hist Eccles lib. 6. c. 14. John who is the last of the Evangelists saith the same Clement having observed that those things that related to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ had been made manifest in the three other Gospels being inspired by God and at the request of his Friends composed a spiritual Gospel S. Epiphanius saith also (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 51. n. 12. that it would have been to no purpose for S. John to insist any farther on that which belonged to Jesus Christ according to the Flesh because that had been already done Therefore he applied himself to the declaring of those Acts of which the other Evangelists had made no mention S. Irenaeus only saith (e) Joannes discipulus Domini ipse edidit Evangelium Ephesi Asiae commorans Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. cap. 1. that S. John set forth his Gospel at Ephesus where he abode without taking any notice of the time when or of the Reasons that induced him to it The Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures will have it that this Apostle (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. in Synops Script S. preached it when he was banished in the Isle of Patmos and that he afterwards published it at Ephesus S. Jerom discourseth more particularly than the other Fathers of the Considerations that engaged S. John to write his Gospel He affirmeth (g) Joannes cùm esset in Asià jam tunc haereticorum semina pullularent Cerinthi Ebionis caeterorum qui negant Christum in carne venisse quos ipse in Epistolâ suâ Antichristos vocat Apostolus Paulus frequenter peroutit coactus est ab omnibus penè tunc Asie Episcopis multarum Ecclesiarum legationibus de Divinitate Salvatoris altiùs scribere unde Ecclesiastica narrat bistoria cùm à fratribus cogeretur ut scriberet ita facturum se respondisse si indicto jejunio in communo omnes Deum deprecarentur Quo expleto revelatione saturatus illud prooemium è coelo veniens eructavit In principio erat Verbum c. Hier. prooem Comm. in Matth. that S. John being in Asia where the Heresie of Cerinthus and Ebion obtained who denyed that Jesus Christ had been really in the Flesh was forced to write concerning the Divinity of our Saviour at the solicitation of almost all the Bishops of Asia and of many Churches that desired him to do it He adds moreover that it was related in the Ecclesiastical History that this Apostle seeing himself so vehemently urged by his Brethren granted that which they demanded upon condition that a day should be set apart for a publick Fast on this occasion And that the Fast being ended S. John who was filled with the Holy Ghost began his Gospel with these words which came from Heaven In the beginning was the word c. Whereas this History might pass in the Opinion of some for Apocryphal and for one of those Fictions that are ordinarily made use of by the Jews when they would give authority to a Work of great value Baron ann Ch. 99. n. 4. Baronius hath judiciously observed that S. Jerom hath not grounded this Relation on Apocryphal Books Non ex apocrypho aliquo but on an ancient and true History that had been already explained more at large by other Writers Sed ex antiqud verâque historiâ ab aliis jam fusiùs explicatâ There are found on the contrary since the first Ages of Christianity certain Hereticks who maintained an Opinion altogether opposite to that of S. Jerom for being very far from believing with him that S. John wrote his Gospel to confute the Errors of Cerinthus they ascribed it to Cerinthus himself avouching that he was the Author thereof S. Epiphanius who knew not the Name of these Hereticks hath given them that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alogians because they denied the Word called in Greek Logos (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 51. n. 3. Because they do not receive saith this Father the Word that hath been preached by S. John they shall be called Alogians These Alogians rejected the Gospel of S. John as also his Epistles and Revelation pretending (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. that all these Works had been invented in Asia by Cerinthus who lived at the same time with him and they accounted them even unworthy to be read in the Church To the end that it might not be imagined that they called in question the Authority of S. John whom they believed to be an Apostle as well as
Earth that should continue for the space of a thousand years during which time all manner of Pleasures should be enjoyed Upon this subject Nepos did publish a Book Entituled †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Refutation of Allegorists laughing at such Catholicks as Expounded Allegorically that place in the Apocalyps that makes mention of the Reign of a thousand years Which Work made a great impression on the minds of those who read it because the Author who had carefully applied himself to the study of the Holy Scriptures had acquired a very great Reputation Besides his Reasons appeared to be the more probable because they were founded on the Literal Sense of Scripture whereas the contrary Opinion was grounded upon Allegories only from which nothing can be concluded Denis does likewise (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb ibid. declare the honorable esteem he had for the Memory of his then deceased Adversary whose Faith and Parts he commends But withal he adds that the love which he bore to the Truth above all other things was a sufficient motive that engaged him to write against that Work that was so much admired in Egypt that many preferred the Doctrine therein contained to the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles they were so much puffed up with the Idea of the thousand years Reign on the Earth The matter was brought to that pass that Nepos his Followers chused rather to make a Schism than to abdicate their Opinion But Denis afterwards in a publick Dispute having discovered the falsity thereof brought them to renounce their error It is a very judicious course that that Learned Bishop takes as to his manner of defending the Authority of the Apocalyps against those who rejected it as a supposititious Book and done by Cerinthus He appeared to be in no wise byassed by any preoccupation as to his own Opinion nor guilty of concealing the Reasons of his Adversaries And therefore he freely declares that (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dion Alex. apud Euseb ibid. cap. 25. some Ecclesiastical Writers who lived in his time had opposed that Book with all their might refuting it with a nice and resolute eagerness alledging that it was written without Sense and without Reason They further assured us that the Title of that Work was forged by Cerinthus and that the Title Apocalyps or Revelation could not be attributed to a Book which in their Opinion was stuffed with things that manifest a profound ignorance Notwithstanding all those Objections Denis avows that he cannot reject it as perceiving that it was approved by the most part of his Brethren and to the Reasons on the other side he replies that there is a sublime and hidden Sense in the Expressions of that Author for which he is resolved to have an high veneration though he does not comprehend it being persuaded that Faith and not his own knowledge ought to be the Rule in that case (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. I do not saith he condemn that which I cannot understand on the contrary I admire it because I cannot comprehend it Which nevertheless does not hinder him from examining all the parts of the Books particularly and he shews (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. That it is impossible to Expound it according to the Letter or Sense which the words at first view seem to warrant He further declares that it was composed by a Man called John who was inspired by God. But he does not think that that John was an Apostle and grounds his Opinion on this that the Apostle St. John did put his Name to none of his Works and that he never speaks of himself On the contrary the Author of the Revelation does name himself at the beginning and frequently in the Body of his Work for example in the Letter he writes to the seven Churches of Asia he begins with these words John to the seven Churches which are in Asia But St. John does not so much as put his name to his Catholick Epistle in his entrance upon the matter Neither is it seen at the beginning of his two other Epistles that are very short and pass under his name This difference of Stile makes Denis the Bishop of Alexandria to conclude that the Revelation was not written by St. John and he affirms at the same time that it is uncertain who that John was He proves nevertheless that it is in no wise likely that he was John Sirnamed Mark made mention of in the Acts of the Apostles and who was Companion to Paul and Barnabas in their Travels because he did not follow them into Asia And therefore he judges that he was one of those who lived at Ephesus where there were two Sepulchres with that name Once he has recourse to the difference of Stile from which he pretends to prove that the Apostle St. John who writ the Gospel and one Epistle cannot be the Author of the Apocalyps According to his Opinion the same things and the same expressions are found in the former Books The Revelation on the contrary is quite different from both Thus I have considered at large the judgment of Denis the Bishop of Alexandria upon the Apocalyps upon which Eusebius has more fully Paraphrased because it contains in a few words all that can be said upon this subject He informs us at the same time that the ancient Doctors of the Church made a great account of Tradition upon such an emergent occasion as required their Judgment whether a Book was Canonical or no. We also see that in such junctures they observed the Rules that are commonly received amongst Criticks For the Bishop according to the rigorous Laws of Criticism does examine the Diction or Stile of the Apocalyps (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionis apud Euseb ibid. Which says he is in no wise good Greek being full of Barbarisms and Solecisms The distinction he uses concerning two Johns who lived in Ephesus is grounded upon the Testimony of Papias who was Contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles Eusebius who inserted that Testimony in his History does add that he is positive in it For (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb if the Apostle St. John is not the true Author of the Apocalyps which bears the name of John it is probable that it was written by that second John. Nevertheless the most ancient Fathers viz. Justin and Irenaeus made no account of this distinction nor difference of Stile on which Denis so much insists upon Nor can there be any thing concluded from the Title of the Apocalyps that in the most of Greek Copies whether Manuscript or Printed there is the name of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John the Divine and not of the Apostle St. John set therein Those who annexed that Title meant only to describe St. John the Evangelist whom the Greek Fathers do call the Divine by way of Excellency to distinguish him from other Evangelists
All the Eastern Churches at this day read that Book under the name of the Apostle St. John. It is true that it is not so in the ancient Syriack Copies because it was not in the Greek one from which those were taken It is ascribed to St. John in the Syriack Edition of the English Polyglott Bible and also in the Arabick Printed in the same Polyglott it bears the name of John the Apostle Evangelist and lastly in the Arabick published by Erpenius that of John the Evangelist Not that I believe such Titles which are but late to be of any great Authority I produce them only to shew the Universal consent of the Churches as well that of the East as that of the West concerning the Author of the Revelation As to what concerns such singular expressions as are no where to be found but in this Book chiefly that where there is mention made of the Reign of Jesus Christ upon the Earth with the Saints which shall continue for the space of a thousand years Illyricus has very well observed that since that Book (p) Phrases illas mysticè ut in sermone prophetico intelligendas Illyr argum in Apoc. is written in a Prophetical Stile the expressions used therein ought to be taken in a Mystical sense In which he had apparently as to his Judgment the advantage of Luther who could not avoid the reproach that was put upon him by Bellarmin and some other Opponents for not considering the Apocalyps as a Prophetical and Apostolical Work yet his Disciples who acknowledged all that Book to be Divine and Canonical have endeavoured to justifie him They alledged (q) Lutherum quod attinet quidquid olim seripserit in veteri praefatione in eâ sane quae hodie in codicibus legitur nihil de Apocalypsi asserit aliud quà m in dubio se relinquere utrum sit Joannis Apostoli quod nonnulli ex vetustioribus Patribus id inficiati sint nihil tamen hoc ipso se prejudicare velle aliis Christ Korthol de Canon Script S. c. 18. without any regard to his ancient Preface that he said nothing else in that which is found in his Works but what has been observed by some of the ancient Fathers viz. that it was not generally agreed upon that St. John was the Author of the Apocalyps And Erasmus had likewise enough to do upon the like account with the Divines of Paris who censure one of his propositions wherein he affirmed (r) De Apocalypsi diu dubitatum est non dico ab haereticis sed ab orthodoxis viris qui scriptum tamen ut à Spiritu Sancto profectum amplectebantur de scriptoris nomine incerti Erasm decl ad Theol. Paris that there had been for a long time some doubting about that Book not only amongst the Hereticks but also the Orthodox who though they received it as Canonical did profess they were not certain who was the Author What Erasmus does affirm in this case is not to be charged with falshood since it is grounded upon a matter of Fact that may be easily proved from the Writings of the ancient Doctors of the Church Yet the Parisian Divines were so forward to censure him since they persuaded themselves that he manifestly knew by the usage of the Church and the definitions of Councils that the Apocalyps was published by St. John. Cons Facul Theol. Paris The Councils on which they stood were the three of Carthage that of Rome under Pope Gelasius and that of Toledo in which Isidore of Sevile was an Assistant To this they joyned the Authority of St. Denis called the Areopagite St. Irenaeus St. Justin Pope Innocent I. St. Augustin and St. John of Damascus Erasmus as it should seem ought to have answered that notwithstanding all those Authorities his supposition might be true seeing he had also Orthodox Authors on his side He might also have said that none of those Councils stood much on the Author of the Apocalyps but barely complyed with the opinion that commonly obtained in their time which ascribed that Book to St. John. But in stead of that he only returned such answers as were extravagant and impertinent He affirms that the World was at that time filled with Apocryphal Books bearing forged Titles and that the most part of honest Men were then persuaded that such sort of falsities might be debated He afterwards inveighs against (ſ) Isidorus Hispalensis scripsit rudi seculo habuisse videtur locupletem bibliothecam quâ potuisset rectiùs uti si fuisset exactè doctus Certè rhapsodus fuit quemadmodum Beda Quanquam Beda meo judicio fuit illo tum eruditior tum cloquentior Erasm declar ad cens Fac. Theol. Paris Isidore as being a Man of mean capacity and judgment who had not the sense to make use of a very good Library which he had in his possession He was saith he as unskilful in making Collections as Beda but the latter was the more Judicious and Eloquent of the two This is an instance of Learning whereof there is an ill use made If Isidore and Bede were justly charged by him on that account he ought to have proved that they were much in the wrong here in preferring the opinion of St. Justin St. Irenaeus and the most ancient Fathers to that of some other Writers who were not so near the first Age. The answer he made to the Divines of Paris was more likely to provoke them than his first Proposition was For he thereby plainly reproached those sage Masters that they were conversant in no good Authors but only Rhapsodists and unskilful Compilers of History It is true that he might not offend them he adds at the same time that (t) Profiteor me de titulis quoque credere quod credit universalis Ecclesia cujus auctoritati facilè sensum meum submitto non hîc tantùm sed in omnibus quoque caeteris modò ne protinùs Ecclesiae sit quidquid quocunque modo in usum Christianorum irrepsit aut cuivis Episcopo placuit Erasm ibid. as to what concerns the Titles of the Books of Scripture he does refer himself to the Judgment of the Universal Church to which he does entirely submit provided that the name of the Church Universal be not ascribed to all that is so called according to the custom and use which has been introduced and does obtain amongst Christians nor to the particular Opinions of every Bishop If we measure the Opinion of the Unitaries by that of Socinus who is one of their Heroes they have affirmed nothing concerning the Apocalyps but what is agreeable to good sense This Unitary does assure us that that Book was always by common consent attributed to St. John Soc. de Auctor Scrip. Sac. c. 1. n. 2. Quod Scriptum semper communi consensu tributum fuit Joauni Apostolo Evangelistae To that objection that many Authors have doubted thereof he makes answer that the Judgment
were read in the Greek Copies that were in the Hands of the most part of the World. Very few of the Jews at that time understood the Hebrew Language whereas the Greek Language was spread through the whole Empire Since therefore Jesus Christ did not send his Disciples to Preach the Gospel to a handful of Learned Jews who understood the Hebrew but to all the Nations of the Earth the most part whereof spake Greek they ought not only to speak in that Language but also to report the passages of the Old Testament after the same manner as had been written for a long time in the same Language There was at that time a Greek Version of the whole Bible that had been made by Jews many Ages before and therefore could not be suspected And so the Evangelists and the Apostles could not justly be charged with falshood for quoting passages otherwise than they were in the Original since they made use of such Writings as were approved by the Jews and were in use amongst them It is true that if they to whom the Gospel was Preached had understood the Hebrew Language it had been better to quote the Original Hebrew than the Greek Version of the LXX because the Original ought always to be preferred to Translations But as things were then the Apostles acted most wisely in preferring the Greek Copy of the Bible to the Hebrew which was understood almost by none And therefore the Church from its first beginning had no other Scripture but the Ancient Greek Version and the whole Eastern Church the Syrians being excepted have no other at this day I do not think it necessary to prove that the Apostles in their Writings quoted the passages of the Old Testament according to the Greek of the Septuagint and not according to the Hebrew Text. It requires no extraordinary skill in both the Languages to make one capable of judging aright in this matter It is certain that (a) Crebrò dixisse me novi Apostolos Evangelistas ubicunque de Veteri Instrumento ponunt testimonia si inter Hebraicum Septuaginta nulla diversitas sit vel suis vel Septuaginta Interpretum verbis uti solitos Sin autem aliter in Hebraico aliter in Veteri Editione sensus est Hebraicum magis quà m Septuaginta Interpretes sequi Hieron prooem lib. 15. Comm. in Is St. Jerom once endeavoured to persuade the World to the contrary and to confirm his Opinion gave instances of some places of the Old Testament that were quoted in the New which yet are not as he alledged in the Original Hebrew But it is easie to judge by that Learned Father 's own words that he maintained that Opinion only to give the more Authority to a new Translation which he had made out of the Hebrew because the most knowing Men of his time did strongly oppose him as if he had designed to introduce the Jewish Religion into the Church It will appear therefore that St. Jerom in that place does give an answer to his Adversaries and endeavours as much as in him lies to make an honorable retreat Hieron ibid. Aemuli nostri doceant saith he assumpta aliquot testimonia quae non sint in Hebraeorum libris finita contentio est i. e. Let our Adversaries shew what testimonies are made use of that are not in the Hebrew Books and the Dispute is at an end I desire no other Witness of what I alledge but himself seeing he does establish for a general Maxim for all the citations out of the Old Testament that are not only made use of by the Apostles but also by their Disciples (b) Hoc autem generaliter observandum quòd ubicunque sancti Apostoli aut Apostolici viri loquuntur ad populos his plerunque abuti testimoniis quae jam fuerant in gentibus divulgata Hieron Qu. Heb. in Gen. That when the Apostles or Apostolical Men speak to the people they commonly make use of such testimonies as had been published before that time amongst the Nations That is to say of the Version of the Septuagint which being written in Greek was published amongst all those Nations which spoke the Language whereas the Hebrew Text was only read in the Jews Synagogues He proves by the same Principle that St. Luke when he wrote the Acts of the Apostles to declare to the Nations the first beginnings of the Christian Religion was to quote the Passages of the Old Testament in the same manner as they were in the Version of the Scripture which was before that time spread amongst the People There is therefore nothing so absurd as the Opinion of some Protestants who notwithstanding the agreement that is found betwixt the quotations of the Apostles and the Greek Version of the LXX maintain with no small Zeal that the Apostles reported the Passages of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew Text. They attribute that agreement to some Writers whom they suppose to have lived after the times of the Apostles and who according to their Opinion corrected the Version of the Septuagint in all such Passages as are quoted in the New Testament The Evangelists and the Apostles say they regarded the sense only and not the Words of Scripture If any one ask these Men the Reason why they maintain so strange a Paradox their answer will be but this (c) Quis credat spiritum Apostolorum spiritui Graeculi interpretis se subjecisse aut limpidos fontes coenosis Hellenistarum rivulis praetulisse ubi passim de capite aliquo Religionis adversus Judeos agebatur Apostolos relicto Canone Hebraeo Lesbiam Graecorum regulam usurpasse Auctor Diss apud Capp in qu. de loc parall that it cannot be imagined that the spirit of the Apostles should be subject to the spirit of a little Greek Interpreter and that they preferred the Streams to the Fountain by leaving the Hebrew Canon to follow an uncertain Rule especially when there was an occasion for defending the Fundamental Points of Religion against the Jews Thus some Protestants extreamly addicted to the Hebrew do argue agreeable to the Ideas they have framed about matters of Fact that are as clear as the day instead of examining the things in themselves Seeing Lewis Cappel has solidly refuted this Opinion which has not the least appearance of truth it will be to no purpose to spend time about it That Learned Protestant judiciously observed that the spirit of the Apostles is not subject to the spirit of an Interpreter (d) Piâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quadam sanctâ charitatisque plenâ prudentiâ Christianâ versionem tum receptam secuti sunt iis in locis in quibus parùm aut nihil omninò ad rem ipsam interest utrum textum Hebraicum an verò Graecam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Septuaginta versionem sequaris Lud. Capp qu. de loc parall pag. 450. but through a Pious condescendency and by a true Christian Prudence they followed the
cannot possibly conclude any thing against them For it will be easily demonstrated that those Writers in that matter followed the custom and Tradition of their Time. The Book where the most of that sort of citations are found is the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews where we find nothing else but Passages of the Old Testament explained in a manner that is altogether Allegorical and Foreign to the Letter which has also given an occasion to some Writers to suspect that St. Paul was not the Author But it seems on the contrary that if we reflect upon the Pharisees Method in their Expounding Scripture it cannot be attributed to any other than to that Holy Apostle who having Studied in Jerusalem under the Doctor Gamaliel did penetrate into all the most refined Points of their secret and mystical Interpretations of the Bible In effect after I had recommended the reading of this Epistle to a Jew who was well Read in his own ancient Authors he having perused it freely declared that it must needs have been written by some great * A Man of Tradition Mekubal of his own Nation And he was so far from telling me that St. Paul had wrested the true Sense of Scripture with his Allegories at pleasure that he extolled his profound skill in the sublime Sense of the Bible and always returned to his great Mekubal of whom he never spoke but with admiration Enjedine a subtil Unitary was so much persuaded of this Truth that after he had proposed the most part of those Reasons which are ordinarily objected against the Epistle to the Hebrews he adds (n) Praemonemus omnia penè testimonia exempla quae ex Veteri Testamento huc transferuntur non secundùm historiae veritatem sensum ut vocant literalem sed mysticè sensu spirituali intelligi allegorico ad Novuon Testamentum applicari explicari Quod ita manifestum est ut nisi quis hoc admittat in absurda manifestissima incidat Georg. Enjed. explic loc Vet. Nov. Test explic loc Epist ad Heb. that the most part of the Passages which are cited in this Epistle out of the Old Testament are not to be understood in a literal but in a mystical and spiritual Sense otherwise it were impossible to avoid several manifest absurdities He does likewise suppose in another place that this manner of Exposition of Scripture was then approved by the Jews and that Jesus Christ made use of it when he disputed with the Pharisees who received the same He brings for an example these Words of Psalm cix 1. The Lord said unto my Lord c. which Jesus Christ understood of the Messiah and not of David (o) Cuòd autem Christus hoc loco usus est mysticâ interpretandi Scripturas formâ observavit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cùm enim essent tres Judaeorum sectae Sadducaei solum literalem Scripturae sensum admitterent Pharisaei verò etiam mysticum approbarent cum Pharisaeis disputans arripuit hoc quod illi pro confesso concesso habebant licere nimirum Scripturas mysticè interpretari quia norat illum Psalmum qui literaliter de Salomone aut potiùs de ipso Davide est compositus spiritu aliter referri solere ad Messiam ideò tam confidenter hunc Psalmum de Davide de Messiâ conscriptum esse affirmat Quod illi negare nisi sectae suae renunciare vellent non poterant Enjed. explic loc Matth. when Christ saith Enjedine explained that Passage in a mystical Sense he did nothing but what was very pertinent for there were three Sects amongst the Jews at that time The Sadducees did only receive the Literal Sense of the Scripture The Pharisees on the contrary besides the Literal did also approve of the Mystical Sense And therefore in his Disputing with the Pharisees he followed a Custom in which they were agreed that is of giving Mystical Expositions to Scripture Seeing he knew that the Psalm which was understood of Solomon or rather of David according to the Literal Sense was ordinarily applied to the Messiah he freely declares that David had the Messiah in his view when he writ it Which the Pharisees could not deny unless they would have renounced their own Sect. This observation of Enjedine does agree with the Principle which was formerly established in this Discourse for answering the Jews who accused the Evangelists and the Apostles of giving false Interpretations to the Passages of the Old Testament I will further say that there were certain Traditions which were not only received by the Pharisees but also by the other Sects I reckon in the number of those Traditions the belief of a Messiah which it would have been hard to prove only by the Books of Moses Nevertheless the Samaritans who owned nothing but the Pentateuch to be Divine and Canonical Scripture did believe at that time and still believe the Messiah at this day and the ground that they have for it is taken from some Passages of the Law which appear to have another Sense if they be Interally Expounded Whence I conclude that this Spiritual and Mystical Sense was not only in use amongst the Pharisees but also amongst the other Sects Nevertheless the Pharisees had abused it by allowing it too great a latitude And therefore our Lord does sometimes reproach them for this bad use which they had made of Traditions yet without condemning the Traditions themselves The Jews Caraites also who very much despised the Fables that abound in the Talmud do not absolutely reject all the Traditions which are contained in that Book If the Unitaries would make a just reflection on the Principle which has established and which may serve as an answer to the most part of the objections of the Jews against the Books of the Old Testament they would not so much insist upon the Literal Exposition of certain Passages of Scripture which they oppose to the Theological Expositions of the ancient Fathers Seeing the Jews have Authorised by their Traditions some Interpretations of the Old Testament that are in no wise Literal the Doctors of the Church have also used the like in their Exposition of Scripture Interpretations of that kind are found in all the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers I shall content my self to produce in this place the Testimony of an Author who cannot be suspected by the Unitaries That is Theodore of Heraclea a favourer of the Arian Party and who writ learned Commentaries on the Bible but there remains nothing of them but some fragments in the Collections or Chains of the Greek Fathers That famous Divine does establish these two sorts of Senses viz. the Literal and the Theological and he does apply them to those words of the Psalmist (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The heavens were established by the word of the Lord and all their host by the breath of his mouth he does Expound Literally the word de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Writing as they have been by some He does particularly undertake the defence of St. Paul whom he believed to have been very conversant with the Greek Authors and amongst the rest with the Poets whom he did imitate as he believes for his Expression in sundry places (a) Haec cùm ita sint cùm aliundè pateat Paulum Apostolum Graecos scriptores evolvisse quî credibile sit illum Graecae linguae non satis peritum fuisse Henr. Steph. ibid. Whence he does conclude that to affirm that that Holy Apostle was not Master enough of the Greek Language is a supposition that is altogether incredible We have moreover a Differtation published by Phochen which is Entituled * Diatribe de linguae Graecae Novi Testamenti puritate Of the purity of the Greek Language of the New Testament where the Author forgot nothing which might make it manifest that the Text of that Book is true Greek and that it does not differ very much from the Stile of Profane Authors Textum Novi Testamenti saith Phochen verè Graecum nec alienum planè à Stilo Graeco profano esse asserimus He does refute all those Hebraisms which as some alledge are contained in the Writings of the Apostles and to make it the more evidently appear that they object those Hebraisms in vain he does justifie those Expressions on which they are charged by the like Expressions of Profane Authors There are on the contrary some Learned Criticks who very far from allowing the Apostles a Pure and Elegant Stile have not scrupled to make them pass for Barbarous Writers whose Books are stuffed with Hebraisms Castalio who understood Hebrew and Greek sufficiently to be judge of this Question says in speaking of the Apostles (b) Erant Apostoli natu Hebraei peregrinâ hoc est Graecâ linguâ scribentes hebraizabant non qui juberet Spiritus neque enim pluris facit Spiritus hebraismos quà m graecismos ... res enim dictat Spiritus verba quidem linguam scribendi liberam permittit Sebast Castal defens Translat Bibl. that being born Hebrews they did Hebraize when they writ in Greek whilst the Holy Ghost had no part in that because the Spirit of God does not love Hebraism any more than Graecisms He only Indited the thing to them saith that Author and not the Words leaving them at liberty to express themselves after their own fashion Which is agreeable enough to the Opinion of the Jesuits of Louvain Castalio does further shew why the Apostles did no more improve themselves in the Greek so as to speak it well seeing that Language is Copious in Words full of Sense and easie to be understood whereas the Hebrew Phrases render their Discourses intricate and obscure He says (c) Cur igitur hebraizarunt Primùm quia erant Saeris Literis assueti deinde quia cùm essent Graecae linguae non usque adeò periti id quod eorum scripea ostendùnt facilè in patriam consuetudinem deflectebant Castal ibid. that they were accustomed to the reading of the Sacred Writings and that since they did not sufficiently understand the Greek Language as it is easie to prove by their Works those expressions that were proper to their Mother Tongue did first present themselves to them on all occasions Which he confirms by the example of the French and the Dutch who cannot write in Latin without intermingling somthing of their own Language therewith Dum Latinè scribunt Gallizant Germanizant This latter Opinion which has been followed by very able Criticks is more agreeable than the former to the Opinion of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers I think we ought to acquiesce in the Judgment of the Greek Fathers who are faithful Witnesses of the Greek Stile of the Evangelists and the Apostles Origen was the only Man of all the Greek Fathers who applied himself most to the Study of the Scripture in a manner that was most exact and Critical And therefore his Judgment upon the Question ought of all others to have the most weight with us When that Learned Person Disputes against the Enemies of our Religion who despised the Prophets and the Apostles because of their Stile and because the same things say they were much better expressed in the Writings of the Ancient Philosophers He makes answer to them that we ought not upon that account to despise the Books of the Jews and the Christians because it has been always agreed that the Jews had written before the Greeks As to the Stile he does own that the Greeks have the advantage but he does withal alledge that it cannot be inferred from thence that their Works are better than those of the Jews and of the Christians He does likewise observe that the Books of the Old Testament are not destitute of their ornament in the Hebrew Language Which he does affirm of the Writings of the Apostles because the truth is they had no Politeness in their Expressions having applied themselves more to the Eloquence of Things than of Words (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig adv Cels lib. 7. The Prophets of the Jews saith Origen and the Disciples of Jesus renounced all Ornaments of Discourse and every thing which the Scripture does call human Wisdom and according to the Flesh If any Greek that Learned Father continues should have a design to teach a Doctrin that were profitable to the Egyptians and the Syrians he would rather choose to learn the Barbarous Languages of those Nations than to be useless by speaking Greek to them (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. The thing is the same according to him in the Providence of God who did not only consider those amongst the Greeks who were Men of Learning but rather the ignorant Community And therefore it was suitable to the exigency at that time that they should accommodate themselves to the Stile of the meaner sort that they might gain them in speaking their Language Upon this Principle we ought to form an Idea of the Apostolical and Evangelical Stile and not upon the prejudices of some Protestants who believe that they stand for the Authority of the Scripture by allowing nothing that is very mean to have proceeded out of the Mouth of the Apostles But St. Paul himself declared to the Corinthians who despised him because of his Language that he came not to Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ with excellency of Speech or of Wisdom 1 Cor. ii 1. 1 Cor. i. 17. For Christ saith that Apostle sent me to Preach the Gospel not with wisdom of Words St. John Chrysostom has observed upon this Passage of St. Paul that if the Apostles in their Sermons did not use the Stile of the wise Men of the Earth (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Hom. 3. in Epist 1. ad Cor. cap. 1. that ought not to be attributed to the weakness of the Gift of Tongues which they had received seeing they took that
the Catholicks they endeavoured to support their Novelties with some Reasons They said amongst other things that (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph ibid. n. 4. these Books attributed to S. John did not agree with the Writings of the other Apostles and that consequently they ought not to be acknowledged as Divine Whether tends said they the beginning of this Gospel In the beginning was the word and the word was with God. And these other words And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth To what purpose added these Hereticks is that which immediately follows John bare witness of him and cryed saying This was he of whom I spake And a little after Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world The Alogians produced several other Passages of S. John no part of which was found in the other Evangelists S. Epiphanius answers them very prudently that if they had no other Reasons to object against the Verity of S. John's Gospel they might also reject the Gospels of S. Matthew S. Mark and S. Luke who have all used the same manner of Writing and who have every one something that is singular He said (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid that their Method depended not on them but that it came from the Holy Ghost as well as their Doctrine This he explains more particularly and at large This Father confutes them also by the Doctrine of S. John which he affirms to be altogether opposite to that of Cerinthus This Heretick believed that Jesus Christ was born a mere Man. S. John on the contrary testifyeth in his Gospel that the Word was from all eternity that he came down from Heaven and that he was made Man. It is certain that Cerinthus believed with some other Hereticks of those primitive times that Jesus was * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a mere Man. Which Opinion they grounded on the Genealogy that is in the beginning of S. Matthew Therefore one would think that if Cerinthus had designed to forge a New Gospel to authorise his Heresie he would not have omitted this Genealogy It may be observed nevertheless that this Heretick acknowledged in Jesus Christ somewhat more than mere Man. This Epiphanius himself explains after this manner (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 28. n. 1. He pretends that the World was not created by the first and supreme Power but that Jesus who was begotten of the Seed of Joseph and Mary being become great had received from above of the Supreme God the Christ in himself that is to say the Holy Ghost in the form of a Dove when he was baptised in the River Jordan He attributed to this celestial Virtue that Jesus as he thought had received in his Baptism all the Miracles that he wrought afterwards He said moreover that this Virtue left him at the time of his Passion and that it returned to Heaven from whence it came Perhaps the Alogians took occasion from hence to ascribe the Gospel of S. John to Cerinthus because this Heretick distinguished two things in Jesus Christ for besides that they thought that he was born of Joseph and Mary after the same manner as other Men they acknowledged in him a Celestial Vertue that had been communicated to him by the Sovereign God of the Universe he called this Vertue Christ distinguishing Christ from Jesus S. Irenaeus hath also observed (n) Hi qui à Valentino sunt eo quod est secundùm Joannem plenissimè utentes ad ostensionem conjugationum suarum Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. c. 11. that the Gnosticks the Followers of Valentin altogether made use of the Gospel of S. John to establish their Opinions (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Haeret. Fabul lib. 2. Haer. 7. de Valent. They gave to Jesus saith Theodoret the Name of Saviour and of Christ the Word The Sethians who were a branch of the Gnosticks maintained also that Jesus differed from Christ (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. ibid. lib. 2. Haer. 14. de Sethian that Jesus was born of the Virgin but that the Christ descended on him from Heaven That which might farther confirm the Alogians in their erroneous Conceits was this that there were some very learned Men and those too very Orthodox who had affirmed that the Apocalypse was made by Cerinthus who insolently boasted that he was the true Apostle of Jesus Christ Besides these Alogians who refused to receive with the whole Catholick Church the Writings of S. John as Divine and Canonical there was one Theodotus of Byzantium the Chief of a Sect that were called Theodotians who after their example rejected the Gospel and Revelation of S. John as not belonging to him Nevertheless Celsus Porphyrius and the Emperor Julian who opposed the Gospels with all their Might have not denied that they were certainly composed by them whose Names they bore they have been content only to decry them as if they had been filled with Falsities and Contradictions When Julian speaks of the Gospel of S. John he doth not disown it to be his but he accuseth this Apostle of having introduced Innovations into the Christian Religion he saith that neither (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyrill Alex. lib. 10. contra Julian Matthew nor Mark nor Luke nor even Paul durst make Jesus Christ to pass for a God that S. John was the first that hath published it after he had observed that a great party of simple People as well among the Grecians as Latins was of this Opinion thus this Emperor who was persuaded that S. John's Gospel could not be charged with falsity gives out his imaginary Reasons that were grounded on no Authority As we have above remarked that the twelve last Verses of S. Mark were not read in some Greek Manuscript Copies so there are also twelve that are not found in divers Greek Manuscript Copies of the Gospel of S. John nor in some Versions of the Oriental Church These Verses begin at the end of Chap. vii v. 53. and end at the 11 verse of the following Chapter insomuch that they comprehend the whole History of the Woman taken in Adultery S. Jerom's manner of Expression in speaking of this Relation makes it appear that it was not read in his time in some Greek and Latin Copies In Evangelio secundùm Joannem Hieron l. 2. adv Pelag. saith this Father in multis Graecis Latinis codicibus invenitur de adulterâ muliere quae accusata est apud Dominum Sixtus Senensis who hath observed that the Anabaptists made use of the Authority of S. Jerom and the Testimony of some other ancient Writers Sixt. Sen. l. 7. Bibl. S. to shew that the History of the adulterous Woman had been added to the Gospel of S. John hath not sufficiently answered their Objections Maldonat who had thereupon