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
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
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 perpetual Continency S. Augustin adds Baronius farther who rehearseth these Words of Faustus and exactly answers his Objections doth not reject as Apocryphal these last Acts that are intituled the Martyrdom of Thecla But it is probable that these last Acts have been taken from the former and it is no wonder that the Fathers have made use of an Apocryphal Book that was composed by an Impostor because there were many true things in these Travels of Paul and Thecla However it be I think it is more convenient to reject them altogether than to approve of one part and to condemn the other because it would be very difficult to distinguish that which was true from the false If we may judge by the Fragments that remain this Work was filled with Fables for we find therein that Thecla being the Companion of S. Paul in his Travels had in some measure a share in his Apostleship it is declared in these Acts that she preached and baptized and S. Jerom who without doubt had read them Hieron ib. makes mention of the Baptism of a Lion which is the cause that he esteems them as false and Apocryphal Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pauli Theclae saith this Father totam baptizati leonis fabulam inter apocryphas scripturas computamus Whereas the Apostles and their Disciples have left us no relations of their Travels in Writing but that which we have concerning those of S. Paul and S. Barnabas this gave occasion to the counterfeiting of some under their Names Some false Acts have been published under these Titles The Travels of Peter the Travels of John the Travels of Thomas and many others of this sort there was one also called in general The Itinerary or Travels of the Apostles Thus have they endeavoured ever since the Primitive Ages of the Christian Religion by this means to supply that which seemed to be wanting in the History of the Apostles as if it were necessary that the Church should have all their Actions in Writing but these Books were rejected with the common consent of all the Catholick Churches as Supposititious and Apocryphal insomuch that of all the Acts of the Apostles that have been published none have been preserved but those that were composed by S. Luke Nevertheless there were some Sectaries from the very first beginning of Christianity who being Enemies to S. Paul absolutely condemned this History written by S. Luke his faithful Companion in his Travels The Ebionites who treated this Apostle as an Apostate seeing that the Acts that had been received in the Church contradicted their Doctrine (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 16. composed new ones which they filled with Impieties and Calumnies against S. Paul that no credit might be given to the History of S Luke they invented I know not what Fables to render this holy Apostle odious and they gave them out as the true Reasons that had obliged him (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. to write against the Circumcision the Sabbath and the Old Law. (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. They made use of these new Acts of the Apostles saith Epiphanius to invalidate the Truth The Encratites or Severians (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 29. who acknowledged with the Orthodox the Law the Prophets and the Gospels loaded S. Paul also with bitter Invectives and Reproaches and entirely rejected his Epistles with the Acts of the Apostles Lastly the Manicheans who esteemed their Patriarch Manichee not only as an Apostle but as the Paraclet or Comforter that was promised did not allow the Acts of the Apostles because the descent of the Holy Ghost is therein declared (k) Si illos Actus Apostolorum acciperent in quibus evidenter adventus Spiritûs Sancti praedicatur non invenirent quomodo id immissum esse dicerent Aug. de utilit cred cap. 3. If they should receive these Acts saith S. Augustin in which express mention is made of the coming of the Holy Ghost they could not say that he had been sent to them in the Person of Manichee But let us leave these Enthusiasts who had no other reason to refuse the Books that were approved by the whole Church than this because they did not suit with the Idea that they had formed of the Christian Religion This was the cause according to Tertullian that the Marcionites did not regard the Acts of the Apostle Tertul. lib. 5. adv Mare c. 2. I shall say nothing here concerning the Acts of Barnabas that have been published under the Name of John surnamed Mark (l) Quaedam Barnabae Acta ab aliquo ut apparet nebulone scripta circumferuntur ab imperitis magno applausu accipiuntur Baron Annal. Chap. 51. numer 51. which are very displeasing to Baronius and have been manifestly forged being also contrary in some things to the true Acts of the Apostles as this Cardinal hath observed CHAP. XV. Of the Epistles of St. Paul in general Of Marcion and of his Copy of these Epistles False Letters attributed to St. Paul. THE Name of S. Paul that is prefixed at the head of all his Epistles except that which is written to the Hebrews doth plainly discover the Author and since they are for the most part directed to particular Churches who read them publickly in their Assemblies they have been afterwards communicated to other neighbouring Churches and at last by the same means to all the Faithful I shall not here make it my business too critically to enquire into their order nor the time when they were written because in whatsoever manner they are placed as to their distribution or circumstances of time this will cause no alteration in the Text which will always remain the same nevertheless thus much may be observed with S. Chrysostom who hath diligently examined this matter that though the Epistle to the Romans stands in the first rank Joann Chrys Praef. Hom. in Epist ad Rom. yet it was not written first there are clear proofs that the two Epistles inscribed to the Corinthians were written before it this learned Bishop believes also that S. Paul had written to the Thessalonians before he wrote to those of Corinth this may be seen more at large in the Preface before his Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans wherein he gives an Example of the Prophets who have not been ranked according to the order of the time of their respective Prophecies Theodoret who hath treated on this Subject after S. Chrysostom whom he often epitomizeth alledgeth as an instance of the same order as that of S. Paul's Epistles the distribution of the Psalms of David (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor. Praef. in Epist Paul. As David saith he being inspired by God hath written the Psalms and others afterwards have put them into what method they thought fit without having regard to the time when they were composed so in
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
or translated these Arabick Gospels have added the rest therefore we read in the two other Arabick Editions The Gospel of Matthew or of St. Matthew It is no otherwise in the Syriack the Ethiopick and the Persian in a word it is only in the Latin Version where it is read The Gospel of Jesus Christ which is an apparent Imitation of the first Words of the Gospel of St. Mark. However it be the Opinion of St. John Chrysostom who believed that none of the Gospels were written with the Titles that are at present prefixed to them seems to me more probable than that of some Authors especially among the Protestants who attribute them to the Evangelists and will have them to be a part of the Gospels It is much more likely that the Primitive Christians have annexed them thereunto in those times wherein it was evident that these Gospels did truly belong to those Persons whose Names are put to them on this account it is that we find the Name of S. Luke added to the beginning of some MSS. Greek Copies of the Acts of the Apostles as I have observed in three MSS. of the King's Library We read in two of these Manuscripts (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MSS. Reg. n. 2869. 2248. The Acts of the Apostles by Luke the Evangelist and in the other (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MSS. Reg. n. 2872. The Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke an Apostle Furthermore the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gospel which signifieth literally Good News is taken here for Preaching insomuch that the Gospel of S. Matthew is nothing else but the Preaching of this Apostle who hath made a Collection of the Actions and Words of his Master therefore the Syrians have entituled this Gospel Nov. Test Syr. The Gospel the Preaching of Matthew The Arabick Versions that have been taken from the Syriack do also make use of an Arabick Word that signifies Preaching I do not think it necessary that I should insist on these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew according to Mark as some Commentators on the New Testament have done it seems to me to be too nicely explained They imagine that those that have put these Titles have made choice of this Expression on purpose to shew that neither Matthew Mark Luke nor John were the Authors of the Gospels but that they had only written them this seems to me to be a pure Subtilty for according to the Style of those times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew is the same thing with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Matthew It was said after the same manner the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Hebrews and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Egyptians that is to say of the Hebrews and of the Egyptians as it hath been also said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Heresie according to the Phrygians which is the same thing as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Heresie of the Phrygians Beza himself who was so excessively transported against Castalio about the Version of these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he had translated auctore Matthaeo confesseth that it is commonly said the Gospel of S. Matthew and of S. Mark as it is said the Epistles of S. Paul and of S. Peter but he was afraid lest this Title of Castalio should cause it to be believed that the Evangelists are strictly the Authors of the Gospels that they have published whereas they are only the simple Scribes or Writers of them as if in the very Elegancy of the Latin Tongue Auctor was not the same thing as Scriptor They that affirm that this Expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew seems to denote that St. Matthew and the other Evangelists had not written their Gospels themselves have a great deal more reason to fear lest they should be only Collections that their Disciples had made of the Preachings of their Masters But this Objection is answered at one stroke by making it appear that there is no difference as to the sense between these two Expressions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Matthew Castalio who professeth rather to render the Sense than the Letter hath not ill translated auctore Matthaeo and therefore Beza was in the wrong in taking an occasion from thence to accuse him for having denied the Inspiration of the Sacred Books I cannot but wonder that Grotius should insist on this nicity of Beza Grot. Annot in tit Matth. and that he hath remarked after him in his Notes on this Passage of St. Matthew that the ancient Title was not simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gospel but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gospel of Jesus Christ after the same manner as it is in the beginning of S. Mark. He judges this to be the reason why it was not put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gospel of Matthew but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew This Observation hath no foundation for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Matthew are the same thing as hath been proved above We see also that the Syriack Version the Arabick except the Copy of Rome that hath been apparently alter'd in this point from the Latin the Ethiopick and the Persian all read the Gospel of Matthew The great antiquity of this Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gospel is ordinarily proved by these words of St. Justin Martyr in his Apology for the Christians (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. in Apol. The Apostles in the Acts that they have committed to Writing that are called Gospels Instead of the word Acts it is in the Greek of this Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have at this day four Books of Xenophon extant wherein he relates the Words and Actions of Socrates that are entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Latin according to the Translation of Cardinal Bessarion Xenophontis de factis dictis Socratis memoratu dignis It is in this same sense that this holy Martyr cites the Gospels in his Dialogues against Tryphon Just Mar. in Dial. cont Tryph. under the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if the Apostles had had no other design in their Writings that have been called Gospels than to publish the Words and Actions of Jesus Christ Moreover it is worth the observing that although the Apostles were not the Authors of the Titles that are set at the head of their Gospels we ought nevertheless to receive them after the same manner as if they had put them there themselves because they are derived from the first beginnings of Christianity and are further authorized by a constant Tradition of all the Churches of the World. Erasmus who found a great difficulty in concluding concerning the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews that bears not the Name of St. Paul protests that if the Church
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
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
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
Gentile and an Idolater I am willing to grant that the Jews give the name of Chaldaick to the Versions which the Christians call Syriack But what can be concluded from thence since these same Jews do indifferently call that Tongue in which they are written Chaldaick or Syriack The Christians of the Syrian Nation do very often call their Syriack Tongue Chaldaick The Syriack Missal which hath been Printed at Rome for the use of the Maronites is intituled * Missale Chaldaic juxta ritum Eccl. nationis Maronitarum edit Romae ann 1594. A Chaldaick Missal This manifestly makes it appear that the Words Chaldaick and Syriack are oftentimes confounded together by the Jews and by the Christians that bear the Name of Syrians Lastly the Example of Josephus hath been opposed to Mr. Vossius Joseph Praef. lib. de Bell. Jud. who was a Jew of Jerusalem and who assures us that before he published his History of the Wars of the Jews in Greek he had written it in Chaldaick which he calls the Language of his Country Now forasmuch as he cannot deny the matter of Fact which this Historian hath so clearly delivered he answers after his usual way that Josephus had composed this History in Chaldaick only for the Jews on the other side of Euphrates But is there any probability that a Man that makes profession to publish an Account of the Wars of the People of his own Nation for their use and for this reason to write in their Language should not have written it for those of Jerusalem which was not only the Capital City but also his own Country He would have it design'd only for the perusal of the Jews that were far distant and since there is no appearance of truth in this he is obliged to have recourse to certain equivocal Terms used by Josephus This Historian saith that in publishing his History in the Chaldaick Tongue he hath had regard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say according to Mr. Vossius's opinion to those Barbarians or Jews that were beyond the Empire because this expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can only denote People afar off After this manner he eludes a most clear testimony under a pretence that these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Grammatical Sense may be extended equally to time and place But the design of Josephus makes it evident enough that he set forth his History in Chaldaick generally for all those of his Nation and even rather for those of Palestine than for the Jews that dwelt beyond Euphrates They all spake in the Chaldaick or Syriack Tongue Therefore this famous Writer makes no distinction of Language in his Preface when he speaks of those of his Nation he therein calls the Chaldaick the Tongue of his Country He declares moreover in another place (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph Antiq. Jud. lib. 20. cap. ult that he had attained to the knowledge of the Greek by study and that he could not pronounce it well because he was accustomed to the Accent of his Mother-Tongue Now it is certain that he was not of the number of these Parthian Babylonian and Arabian Jews but of those of Jerusalem who consequently had another vulgar Language different from the Greek He praiseth also in this same Passage those of his own Nation upon occasion of the Greek Tongue because they did not apply themselves to the knowledge of divers Languages but to the study of their Sacred Books CHAP. VII Of the Sect of the Nazarenes and of their Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy of the Gospel of S. Matthew BEsides all the Reasons that we have just now alledged to make it appear that S. Matthew at first composed his Gospel in Chaldaick for the Jews of Jerusalem who had embraced the Christian Religion we might also produce the Example of the Nazarene Sectaries who made use of this same Hebrew or Chaldaick Gospel in their Assemblies S. Epiphanius who hath written very accurately of this ancient Sect informs us (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 29. n. 7. that they received with the New Testament all the Books of the Old that were in the Canon of the Jews viz. the Law the Prophets and the other Parts of Holy Writ and that they differed in nothing from the Jews as to Doctrine and Ceremonies save only that they believed in Jesus Christ they made publick Profession to believe in one God and in his Son Jesus Christ they had moreover a perfect knowledge in the Hebrew Tongue He observes also that these ancient Nazarenes whose principal abode was in the City of Berea and who were dispersed throughout all the lower Syria were descended from the Primitive Christians of the same Name who retired from Jerusalem to Pella Epiph. Haer. 29. n. 7. From thence saith Epiphanius the Sect of the Nazarenes derive their original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This agrees very ' well with the Testimonies of the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors who affirm that S. Matthew preached the Gospel to the Jews of Jerusalem and all Palestin in their vulgar Tongue These Nazarene Sectaries who sprang from those primitive Christians of Jerusalem and who also spake their Language always preserved and read it in their Churches or Assemblies The same S. Epiphanius adds that the Jews mortally hated the Nazarenes and that (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 29. n. 9. in their Synagogues where they assemble thrice every day they solemnly cursed them saying Let God curse the Nazarenes This Imprecation of the Jews against the Christians under the name of Nazarenes is yet to be found even at this day in their Books S. Hierom also doth mention it in his Commentaries on the Prophet Isaiah Hieron lib. 2. Comm. in Es cap. 5. where he saith speaking of the Jews Ter per singulos dies in omnibus Synagogis sub nomine Nazarenorum anathematizant vocabulum Christianum This hatred came from hence (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. because the Nazarenes being Jews as well as they and embracing the whole Law of Moses preached besides this that Jesus was the Messiah We ought then to seek for the Original of the Gospel of S. Matthew amongst these Nazarenes who being desended from the primitive Christians of Jerusalem have preserved it in their Churches S. Epiphanius who seemed to be persuaded of this Truth saith freely (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. that they had for their use the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew most entire and that it was not to be doubted that they still kept it in his time written in Hebrew Letters he doubts only whether they had retrenched from this Gospel the Genealogy of Jesus Christ which was not in the Copy of the Ebionites who read it also But it is most probable that the Nazarenes had not taken away this Genealogy from their Copies For (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 14. Cerinthus
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
Clemens Alexandrinus hath placed it amongst the other Books of the Holy Scriptures but as it hath been already observed that this Father hath inserted in his Catalogue some Pieces that were not Canonical though they passed under the names of the Apostles it can only be inferred from thence that at least ever since the time of Clement this Epistle was attributed to the Apostle St. Jude When Eusebius makes mention of it in his Ecclesiastical History he doth not set it in the rank of counterfeit Acts but of those concerning which some Churches have doubted nevertheless there are none at this day that do not acknowledge it as Divine and Canonical It is intituled in the Syriack Copy which hath been Printed The Letter of Jude the Brother of James neither hath it any other Title in the Arabick Version published by Erpenius In the Arabick Printed in the Polyglott Bible of England is is Intituled The Catholick Epistle of the blessed Jude the Brother of the Lord. The End of the First Part. The Second Part will be Published in Five Days A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament WHEREIN Is firmly Establish'd the Truth of those Acts on which the Foundation of CHRISTIAN RELIGION is laid PART II. By Richard Simon Priest LONDON Printed for R. Taylor MDCLXXXIX A CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE New Testament PART II. CHAP. XVIII A Critical Observation on a Passage in S. John's First Epistle Chap. v. vers 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. Jerome 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 THE Reflections which many Learned Men have made on that Passage in the First Epistle of S. John Chap. v. vers 7. have not discouraged me from examining it afresh and consulting the most part of the Greek and Latin Manuscripts that I could find about the same The Greeks at this day in their Copy entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read as the Latin Church these words (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Joann c. 5. v. 7. For there are three that bear witness in Heaven 1 Joh. c. 5. v. 7. the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one Yet 't is hard to find among the Greeks any Manuscript Copies that have that Passage I speak not only of the Ancients but also of those of the latter times Erasmus alledged the Greeks had their Books more correct than the Latin Copies but he is mistaken as it shall appear by what follows in this Discourse 'T is much more probable that that Doctrinal Point was formerly written the Margin by way of Scolium or Note but afterward inserted in the Text by those who transcribed the Copies Such were my thoughts when I perused some of the Greek Editions and there is no less probability that it was supplied after the same manner in the antient Latin Copies which nevertheless happened not till after S. Jerom's time who is not the Author of that Addition which Socinus next to Erasmus had laid to his charge After the most diligent search in the King's Library and that of Mr. Colbert in which there are a great many good Manuscript Volumes I found no Copy that had that Passage in it tho I read seven of them in the Royal Library Codd MSS. Bibl. Reg. six whereof are marked 1885. 2247. 2248. 2870. 2871. 2872. Some of the Manuscripts have Notes but no Scholiast or Annotator does make mention of that Passage neither have I found it in five Manuscript Copies belonging to Mr. Colbert's Library Codd MSS. Bibl. Colb which are marked 871. 6123. 4785. 6584. 2844. Yet some of these Manuscripts are only in Paper and much later than the rest There is also one in 16 well written and I believe since the Impression Yet the Passage in question is not found therein any more than in the rest of the ancient Copies I could produce yet other Greek Manuscript Copies which I have seen whose various Readings I observed but that which most deserves our notice is that in the Margin of some of the King 's and Mr. Colbert's Copies there are small Notes set over against the said Passage which in all likelihood have slipped afterwards into the Body of the Text. Take an Example from the King's Copy marked 2247. over against these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is this Remark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By which we may perceive that the Author of the said Remark understood The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost to be signified by the Three Witnesses mentioned by S. John The Spirit the Water and the Blood And what was formerly written by way of Note passed afterwards into the Text as it often falls out In the same Copy over against these other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Note is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is One Deity One God. That Manuscript is about 500 Years old and there are but very few places therein that have Notes There is the like Remark in one of the Manuscripts belonging to Mr. Colbert's Library Numb 871. For besides these words that are set in the Margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One God One Deity the Scholiast has also added these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The testimony of God the Father and of the Holy Ghost This in my opinion is the original of the Passage in question which 't is very hard to find in the Greek Manuscript Copies tho at this day the read it in their Version This is much more likely than what Erasmus alledges that the Greek Copies he had occasion to inspect were much more correct than the Latin which obliged that judicious person to omit the forementioned Passage in his first Editions of the New Testament in which he was not altogether to be blamed not being obliged to insert in the Impression what he could not find in any of his Manuscripts He has nevertheless been charged with a design of favouring the Arrian Party by the omission James Lopes Stunica has mightily accused him for his unlucky rejecting the said Passage in his Edition (b) Sciendum est hoc loco Graecorum codices apertissimè esse corruptos nostros verò veritatem ipsam ut à primâ origine traducti sunt continere quod ex Prologo Beati Hieronymi super Epistolas Canonicas manifestè apparet Jac. Lop. Stun Annot. in Eras supposing that the Greek Copies had been corrupted in that place But this Spanish Critick We must in this place know that the Greek Copies are notoriously corrupted and that ours contain the very truth as they were translated from the Original who had read ancient Manuscripts does not quote any to justifie his own Sentiments He contents himself with an Appeal he makes to S. Jerome's Preface to 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
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
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
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
Scripture nor any order by ranging of words but what comes from God. This Opinion is very little agreeable to the Doctrin of the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers who seemed not to have stretched that Inspiration beyond the things themselves But Estius who taught Theology in the University of Douay was obliged to speak the Language of the Divines of that place who had made a Decree upon that matter against the Fathers the Jesuits of Louvain who had set out some propositions directly opposite thereunto Besides Estius was the Principal Author of the censure to which those propositions were exposed We shall give here a full account of the difference that happened between those Doctors of Louvain and Douay and the Jesuits of the Colledg of Louvain about the Point of Inspiration It is not of late that the Divines who make profession of following St. Augustine in their Schools and Books have opposed the Theology of the Fathers the Jesuits Those Fathers having an 1586. maintained in their Colledge of Louvain some Propositions upon the Subject of Grace Predestination and the Holy Scripture which appeared new to the Doctors of Louvain and Douay these Doctors did censure them and withal published the reasons of their censure Seeing we do not speak in this place of Grace and Predestination but only of the Holy Scripture I shall insist on such things only as concern the Scripture You may take a view of the Title of the Censure issued out by the Divines of Louvain as it was Printed at Paris at the end of a Book entitled Florentii Conrii Peregrinus Jerichuntinus Censura Facultatum Sacrae Theologiae Lovaniensis ac Duacensis super quibusdam Articulis de Sacrâ Scripturâ c. anno Domini 1586. Scripto traditis The Censure is directed to all the Body of the Jesuits of Louvain in these Terms Reverendis in Christo Patribus Patri Rectori ac Professoribus caeterisque Patribus Collegii Societatis nominis Jesu in Universitate Lovaniensi Decanus reliqui Facultatis in eâdem Vniversitate Magistri aeternam salutem pacemque precamur Those Wise Masters whilst they declared against the Jesuits a War that was never to have an end do not fail to wish them eternal Peace They call their Doctrin strange scandalous and dangerous peregrina offensiva periculosa dogmata Amongst the Propositions which they censured there are three which run thus (g) Vt aliquid sit Scriptura Sacra non est necessarium singula ejus verba inspirata esse à Spiritu Sancto II. Non est necessarium ut singulae veritates sententiae sint immediatè à Spiritu Sancto ipsi scriptori inspiratae III. Liber aliquis qualis fortasse est secundus Maccabaeorum humanâ industriâ sine assistentiâ Spiritûs Sancti scriptus si Spiritus Sanctus posteà testetur ibi nihil esse falsum efficitur Scriptura Sacra Jesuit Colleg. Lovan assert apud Flor. Conr. 1. That a thing should be Holy Scripture it is not necessary that all the words thereof should be inspired by God. 2. It is not necessary for all Truths and Sentences to be immediatly indited by Inspiration to the Writer 3. A Book as for example the second of the Maccabees which was written by Men only without the assistance of the Holy Ghost does afterwards become Holy Scripture if the Holy Spirit doth testifie that there is nothing that is false in that Book These three Propositions were extracted out of the Writings of the Fathers the Jesuits who taught Theology in the College of Louvain and they were so far from condemning them upon a remonstrance made to them that they were scandalous that they freely defended them adding thereunto new explications ab iisdem ibidem Professoribus pro suis agnitae comprobatae scholiisque illustratae They appeared to be really agreeable to good sense neither do they much vary from the Theology of the Ancient Fathers whom we are more bound to hear upon this Subject than the Sacred Faculty of Theology of Louvain who in condemning them as they did were guilty of a great act of injustice against the Society of the Jesuits The words of the Censure as to their purport are (h) Tres illae assertiones accedere videntur ad damnatam olim Anomaeorum opinionem qui Prophetas Apostolos in multis volebant ut homines fuisse locutos ut refert Epiphanius Haeresi 76. ad eorum sententiam quam praefatione in Epistolam ad Philemonem alibi Hieronymus reprehendit de quâ notatus Erasmus fuit Cens Fac. Theol. Lovan that those three Assertions did come near to the ancient Heresie of the Anomeans who were of Opinion that the Prophets and the Apostles had frequently spoken as other private Men and to the sentiments of those of whom St. Jerome makes mention in the Preface of his Commentaries upon the Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon which Opinion was censured in the Person of Erasmus They do further oppose to those Assertions the Council of Trent the words of St. Peter in his second Epistle of St. Paul in his second Epistle to Timothy and finally the Authority of the Ancient Fathers who assure us that the Tongue and Hand of the Holy Writers were made use of as a Pen by the Holy Ghost Before we enter upon a discussion of what concerns the Divines of Louvain we shall relate the Censure of the Faculty of Theology of Douay These Divines declare that they have examined the Propositions of the Jesuits by the Order of the Archbishops of Cambray and of Malines and of the Bishop of Gand They do not condemn them in gross as the Doctors of Louvain had done but they apply their Censure to each Proposition in particular To the two first they oppose St. Augustine who did according to their Opinion believe that the Sacred Writers received from God a partioular faculty and method of delivering and composing their discourse They do also quote Gabriel a Scholastick Divine who affirmed that the Apostles were Inspired with many natural Truths and that a Book might be inspired although there be pains and meditation used in its composure Those Divines do likewise give for an Example Jesus Christ (i) Si scribere voluisset laborem nonnunquam meditationem simulque industriam aliquam adhibere potuit humanam quamvis interim spiritus ejus humanus itemque os lingua manus digiti perpetua quaedam essent instrumenta Divini Spiritûs Cens Theol. Duac who say they if he had written any Book might as a Man have meditated and applyed himself to that Work although his Spirit his Mouth his Tongue his Hands and his Fingers would continually have been the Instruments of the Holy Ghost And thus the Doctors of Douay do endeavour to destroy the Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain which to them appeared to be scandalous And also under a pretence of shewing that they subvert all Religion in speaking to the second Proposition they add
that (k) Si non est necessarium ut singulae veritates sententiae quae sunt in Sacris Literis immediatè sint à Spiritu Sancto ipsi scriptori inspiratae non modò sequetur indeterminabilis altercatio super sententiis immediatè vel non immediatè inspiratis verùm etiam de integris Evangeliis quorum historia potuit humanitùs esse nota imò de omnibus Scripturis non Propheticis dubitabitur an immediate Spiritus Sanctus eas scriptoribus inspiraverit Theol. Duac ibid. if it be once granted that it is not necessary that every Truth and Sentence should be immediatly indited by the Spirit of God there will be endless disputes not only about that which is particularly delivered in Scripture by immediate Inspiration but also about entire Gospels the History of which may be known in a humane manner It will be also question'd in general if all the Books of the Scripture that are not Prophetical have been immediatly suggested by the Holy Ghost to those who were the Writers thereof The third Proposition appeared to those Divines to be the most dangerous of all and opposite to the words of St. Paul who does assure us that all the Scripture is given by the Inspiration of God and a Divine Doctrin which was indited by the Holy Spirit It is for this Reason say they that the Decrees of Popes and of Councils were never reckoned in the number of Divine Writings although the Holy Ghost does testifie by the Church that there is nothing that is false in those Decrees And finally they add that that third Proposition of the Jesuits of Louvain could not be maintained without acknowledging that the Histories of Thucydides and of Livie might for the same reason be reckoned amongst the Books of the Scripture if the Holy Ghost should testifie to us that there is nothing of falshood in those Histories They conclude their Censure with this Maxim (l) Non enim ideò inspiratum aliquid divinitùs est quòd posteà sit approbatum sed ideò est approbatum quia fuerat divinitùs inspiratum ibid. That a thing is not therefore given by Divine Inspiration because it so falls out that it is approved of afterwards but that on the contrary it is approved because it was Inspired Let us now see if the Doctors of the two Faculties of Theology had reason to condemn those three Propositions in terms that are injurious to the Society of the Jesuits 'T is observable that before all these things the Jesuits who published at Rome an 1586. a Directory for the Studies of their Society Entitled Ratio Studiorum have placed this Proposition concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings amongst those which their Divines ought to prefer to others (m) Probabilius est verba primorum exemplarium ac fontium incorruptorum fuisse omnia singula à Spiritu Sancto dictata secundùm substantiam multiformiter tamen pro variâ instrumentorum conditione Rat. stud edit Rom. tit de reliq opin del in Theol. fac It is more probable say they that the first and Original Copies which were not corrupted were all particularly indited by the Holy Ghost as to what concerns the substance but in a different manner according to the different condition of the Instruments By that we see that the Jesuits of Rome did not believe at that time that the same Inspiration is to be acknowledged in all the Books of the Scripture and when they say that every word was Inspired they add withal as to what concerns the Substance Besides they do not maintain this Inspiration of words as to what belongs to the substance but as a probable Opinion so that they believe that that may be also denied with probability It is true that the Opinion of those two Faculties of Theology belonging to Louvain and Douay was then most received in the Schools But the Jesuits who from that time have had Learned Men in their Society saw very well that it was contradictory to good sense and likewise opposite to the most Ancient Doctors of the Church Those of their College of Louvain did nothing that was contrary to the Rule or Constitution of their Foundation which (n) Fundator constitutionum 3. part c. 10. disertis verbis cavet ne novae opiniones admittantur Quod tamen ut suavius fieret additum est hâc formulâ nisi ex consensu praepositorum Rat. stud tit de del opin does expresly forbid the introducing of new Opinions for the same rule does proceed unless it be done with the consent of the Superiors There is nothing more judicious than the Liberty of Opinion which is granted by the Constitutions of that Society to its Professors in the manner as it is limited (o) Sequantur ait Ignatius in quavis facultate securiorem magis approbatam doctrinam eos auctores qui eam docent Et ne singulis liberum esset judicium de magis approbatâ securiore doctrinâ deligendâ statim subdit Cujus rei penès Rectorem qui quod statuetur in universâ Societate ad majorem Dei gloriam secuturus est cura sit ibid. Father Ignatius did ordain that in every Science whatsoever they should follow the most certain and the most received Doctrine But seeing it is not easie to distinguish what are the most certain and the most received Opinions he decreed that the choice should depend on the Rector who ought to embrace for the greater Glory of God that which was maintained in the whole Society And the truth is the Jesuits did no sooner appear in the World but there was a birth given to much more considerable assistances for the study of Theology than had ever been before that time And therefore they did wisely that they were not altogether devoted to the Opinions of St. Thomas and St. Augustin though they were zealously embraced in the most part of the Universities at that time They had reason in that case not to follow blindly the Opinions that were most received in the Schools in their time concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings This liberty of Prophesie which had been agreed upon in behalf of their Professors of Theology did afford them an occasion of making new discoveries in this Science and to this I impute the rigor with which the Jesuits of Louvain maintain their Opinions about Inspiration without troubling themselves about the Belief of the two Faculties of Theology of Louvain and Douay who had not carefully enough examined that matter Notwithstanding the Censures of those two Faculties they continued to teach in their College of Louvain the same Opinions concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings Father Cornelius à Lapide a few years after that time kept up in the same place publick Lectures on the Holy Scriptures which he continued for the space of sixteen years He likewise published those Lectures by the Order of the Archbishop of Malines and of his
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
maintain afterwards with that Father that they would not so much as amend the faults of that Nature after they had acknowledged them upon a Pretext that they were persuaded they had done every thing relating thereunto by the Spirit of God directing their thoughts Erasmus had also recourse in one of his Apologies to this Answer of St. Augustin seeing he could not deny that he had charged the Evangelists with a defect of Memory which was the occasion that they put the name of one Prophet for another he endeavours to get off by answering That (c) Vbi memoriam oblivionem gubernat Spiritus Sanctus ibi tam est utilis oblivio quà m memoria Erasm ibid. when Memory and Forgetfulness are equally governed by the Holy Ghost Forgetfulness is then as useful as Memory Maldonat who attributes this Opinion to St. Augustin and Beda had reason to reject it and indeed it is not to be maintained Nor can we find any thing in the Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain that has any affinity with it That which the Divines of Douay borrowed of Gabriel for shewing that many Natural Truths were discovered to the Apostles by Inspiration and that we may very well reconcile Inspiration to the Labour and Meditation of the Sacred Writers would be agreeable to good Sense if by that Inspiration we understand a single direction of the Spirit of God that kept the Apostles from falling into any error If it be meant on the contrary that the Holy Spirit did indite the matters of Fact of which they had been Witnesses that cannot be maintained as Cornelius à Lapide has observed Nor is their Opinion established by the example which they bring of Jesus Christ who could say they use such Meditation and Application that is ordinary amongst other Men if he had Composed any Books for this proves nothing because if it be supposed that he had written Books treating of such things as he had seen with his Eyes we will always maintain that it was not necessary that he should be the Instrument of the Holy Ghost for Writing things of that nature This example does moreover appear to be somwhat Metaphysical and can only be relished by those who are accustomed to the subtilties of the School To that which they object That all the Truths of the Scripture ought to be immediately Inspired that otherwise there will be eternal Disputes about what is and what is not immediately Inspired I answer that it is easie to distinguish these two sorts of Inspirations according to the Principles of the Jesuit à Lapide He does suppose with good Reason that in Histories of things which were seen and heard and in the Exhortations that concern Morality there is no need for any immediate Inspiration because there is nothing that is Prophetical therein But we may say they according to this Principle doubt of all those Writings that are not Prophetical as the Gospels for example if they were immediately Inspired I affirm on the contrary that there is no ground for any doubt here For the same Jesuit has clearly shewn by the words of St. John and of St. Luke that an immediate Inspiration was not necessary for Writing of Histories The Evangelists writ that which they had seen or that which they learned upon certain grounds And upon this account Maldonat explaining these words of Jesus Christ Matth. xxvi 28. This is my blood of the New Testament and comparing them with these words of St. Luke Luc. 〈◊〉 20. This cup is the New Testament in my blood does freely declare that the very words of Jesus Christ were those that were Recorded by St. Matthew and not those of St. Luke The Reason which that Learned Jesuit brings for this Opinion is that St. Matthew was present at the Action Matthaeus qui aderat Whence he does conclude that seeing Jesus Christ expressed himself only in one manner it is (d) Credendum igitur est verbis potiùs Matthaei Marci quà m Lueae Pauli Christum usum fuisse Mald. Comm. in Matth. c. xxvi v. 28. better to believe St. Matthew who was an Eye Witness and who was followed by St. Mark than St. Luke and St. Paul who were not present at the Action It is easie to judg that in that place Maldonat had not recourse to Inspiration since he affirms that St. Matthew had barely reported that which he had seen Yet for all this I do not believe that the Proof which that Jesuit does use against the Protestants is altogether Conclusive For it is to be supposed that the manner wherein the Evangelists express the same thing does wholly proceed from themselves It is sufficient that they all agree in the substance of the things whilst it is not necessary that they should joyn in the Expressions Every one of them might choose his own Words according to his pleasure And therefore it cannot be necessarily inferred from Maldonat's Reasoning that Jesus Christ did rather say that which was mentioned by St. Matthew than that which is Recorded by St. Luke and by St. Paul. The Divines of Douay do insist yet more vigorously on the third Proposition of the Jesuits of Louvain than upon the two others This last Proposition does contain as they think a manifest error manifesti erroris periculum continens for it does Authorise such Books for Divine and Canonical as have been written by Men without any assistance of the Holy Spirit humanâ industriâ sine assistentiâ Spiruûs Sancti It cannot be denied but that the Jesuits set out this Proposition which seems to be much like the Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa but they add withal that it is sufficient that the Holy Spirit does assure us that there is nothing but Truth in those Writings Si Spinitus Sanctus postea testetur ibi nihil esse falsum efficitur Scriptura We may by the same Reason say the Doctors of Douay call the Decrees of Popes and Councils Holy Scripture because we are also assured that there is no falshood in those Decrees We may also place Livy and Thucydides in the number of the Holy Writings if the Holy Ghost testifie that they contain nothing that is false But this Consequence does not at all follow from the third Proposition of the Jesuits of Louvain For they Suppose that the Holy Ghost does propose those Books to us as Canonical to be for a Rule in Religion The Decrees of Councils and of Popes have no such thing in them if it were so they would not be any longer considered as bare Decrees of the Church but as works that had been to the same Church to serve for a Rule as well in Faith as in Manners The Example of the Histories of Thucydides and of Livy which they bring is nothing to the purpose for those Authors have not written of things that concern our Salvation As to the Maxim of those Divines That a thing is not Inspired because it was afterwards approved but
that on the contrary it is approved because it was Inspired it does not contradict the Proposition of the Jesuits who continually suppose that the Books we chiefly treat of have the testimony of the Holy Ghost although they had not been immediatly Inspired which may suffice to render them approved The truth is many Learned Divines believed that it was not necessary that God should Inspire Moses with a knowledge of every thing that he has written in Genesis concerning the Creation of the World and the Genealogies of the Ancient Patriarchs He could be furnished as they judged with sufficient light about those things by what he learned of his Ancestors who had kept Memoirs of the same Doctus eruditus saith the Jesuit Pererius à Majoribus suis Perer. praef in Pentat ad quos ejusmodi rerum doctrina inde ab Adamo usque fidelissimâ posterorum traditione quasi per manus transmissa ad Mosem usque producta fuerat Was it necessary for Example that Moses should be inspired of God to set down in Writing all the Journeys and different Encampings of the Israelites in the Desert after their coming out of Egypt But I need not stay longer on a thing that has in my Opinion been sufficiently cleared And therefore I am so far from accusing the Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain as erroneous that I find nothing to be contained therein but what is agreeable to Truth and good Sense The Doctors who opposed them with so great heat had never exercised their thoughts sufficiently upon Questions of that nature They followed the old Opinion of their own Schools and seeing they only consulted their own prejudices they condemned that with a great deal of precipitation which they did not altogether understand A Learned Doctor of the Faculty of Theology of Paris maintained upon the same subject a Proposition very opposite to the opinion of the Divines of Louvain and Douay which possibly will not appear to be very Orthodox in the judgment of many His Book was nevertheless many times Printed with the approbation of several of his Brethren There was a new Edition thereof Published lately at Paris with the approbation of Mr. Cocquelin in 1685. a Doctor of that Faculty and Chancellor of the University who does assure us that he had read that Work once and again legi ac relegi Which by anticipation does shew that I intend to speak of the Analysis of Faith of Henry Holden who made it manifest through the whole Work that he had meditated much on the Principles of Theology Take therefore the Opinion of this Learned Person concerning the Inspiration of the Holy Scripture The special assistance which God afforded to every Author of those Books which the Church has received for the Word of God does extend it self to those things only that are mere matters of Doctrine or that have a near and necessary relation thereunto But in such things as are not the main business of the Author or have a relation to other things I reckon that God did assist them in no other manner than he used to assist other Writers that were Men of great Piety I shall content my self to explain the Opinion of this Doctor without presuming to offer Arguments against it since I know it is authorised by very sage Masters Yet I dare not maintain it in its full extent It would have done well if he had given us some examples of what he understands by things that are not mere matters of Doctrin or that have not an entire relation thereunto (e) Auxilium speciale divinitùs praestitum auctori cujuslibet scripti quod pro verbo Dei recipit Ecclesia ad ea solummodò se porrigit quae vel sint purè doctrinalia vel proximum aliquem aut necessarium habeant ad doctrinalia respectum In iis verò quae non sunt de instituto scriptoris vel ad alia referuntur eo tantùm subsidio Deum illi adfuisse judicamus quod piissimis caeteris auctoribus commune sit Henr. Hold. div fid Annal. lib. 1. c. 5. (f) Non omnia quae in Scripturis continentur esse simpliciter absolutè objectum nostrae fidei seu spectare ad articulos fidei sola enim revelata sunt objectum fidei ac non omnia quae Scriptura habet docet aut narrat sunt revelata De. Dom. lib. 7. c. 1. De Dominis of whom it would seem Holden had his Principles does much insist on this Subject which he explains with a great deal of subtilty He says that all that is in the Scripture is not simply and absolutely the Object of our Faith that is to say it does not belong to the Articles of our Creed because it is only the things that are revealed that can be the Object of our Faith. But saith that Author the things that are contained in Scripture are not all reveal'd From this Principle which he does illustrate by some Examples he draws this Consequence that we may in some manner excuse some very Learned Catholick Divines who imputed to the Evangelists a few faults which proceeded from a defect of their memory as in putting one name for another in disagreeing amongst themselves about the time or any other circumstances of the actions which they relate provided that it falls not upon the substance and upon the things themselves (g) Tales enim lapsus extra substantiam facti nihil fidei obsunt aut obesse possunt neque sunt circa aliquid fide divinâ credendum sed circa id quod solam humanam sensatam secum fert notitiam Humanam porrò notitiam subesse posse lapsui non videtur absurdum etiam in sacris Spiritûs Sancti scriptoribus quoties lapsus humanae notitiae in facti substantiam adjunctam revelationem non redundat Ibid. Errors of that kind he adds which touch not the substance of the things cannot in the least be any prejudice to our belief seeing they do not relate to that which we are obliged to believe of Divine Faith but only to that which is known by the senses which may be deceived even in the Sacred Writers when the substance does not come under debate Yet although de Dominis does explain this opinion at good length he declares that he dares not prosecute the same to the full He avows that there are many places in the Bible in which it seems that the Writers are mistaken that the solutions that are given for removing difficulties of that nature are very much constrained with which pious Souls ought nevertheless to be content although they do not satisfie those who severely examin every thing (h) Ego sanè quod in me est rigorem depono malo cum difficultate piam amplecti interpretationem quà m lapsum etiam istum levem circa solas circumstantias admittere Ibid. He does choose rather to take the part of those who are far from rigour than charge
is in effect a Subordination betwixt them two the one does not destroy the other Spinosa's Prophets are Enthusiasts who are more like Men push'd on by a Spirit of Fury than by a Spirit of Prophecy He does alledge (d) Prophetiae auctoritas ratiocinari non patitur Quisquis enim vult sua dogmata ratione consirmare eo ipso ea arbitrali uniuscujusque judicio submittit Spin. ibid. that the quality of a Prophet does not admit of the use of his Reason because he who confirms his Doctrines by Reasons does submit to the judgment of others But if one will carefully read the Books of Moses whom he reckons amongst the Prophets he will own that that Law-giver does Reason sometimes There is indeed a submission to the judgment of others where there is nothing but Reasonings But this cannot be said when such Reasonings are guided by the Spirit of God And this was the Case of Moses and the other Prophets Spinosa himself gives an Example here For there is none but thinks these Words of Moses Deut. Chap. 31. v. 27. While I am yet alive with you this day ye have been rebellious against the Lord and how much more after my Death to be very formal Reasoning And indeed the Prophets who directed their discourse to Men who made use of their Reason did not in the least destroy their Spirit of Prophecy when they proposed the Will of God to those Men by way of Reasoning But Spinosa who reasons in all this Discourse upon a false Idea which he had of Prophecy does alledge (e) Verba illa Mosis moralis locutio tantùm sunt quâ rhetericè prout futuram populi defectionem vividiùs imaginari potuerat praedicit Spin. ibid. that that expression of Moses was a Moral kind of speaking which he used as an Orator to foretel and represent to the life so far as he could imagin the future Rebellion of the Israelites But what does it signifie that Moses did express himself an Orator or in any other manner does that prove that he did not truly Reason in that and several other places where he explains himself as other Men It was not necessary that God should indite all his Reasonings and all his Exhortations It is enough that he guided him by his Spirit and that he prevented his falling into error This being supposed we will freely agree with Spinosa that Moses said many things that were not revealed to him and this we have proved elsewhere He is also obliged (f) Nolo tamen absolutè negare Prophetas ex revelatione argumentari potuisse Ib. to declare that the Prophets could Reason by Revelation and consequently Prophecy and Revelation are not incompatible The Apostles then could by way of reasoning propose to the People the truths they delivered and be at the same time Inspired with the Spirit of God. Spinosa does nevertheless add that the more that the Prophets do reason in form the Knowledg that they had of things revealed did come so much the more near to natural Knowledge and that that which does characterize the supernatural Knowledg of the Prophets is when they pronounce Sentences and Degrees without any Reasoning For this reason it is saith he Moses who was the greatest of the Prophets made no Argument in form that on the contrary St. Paul does reason every where and draws consequences from the Principles which he does establish as appears in his Epistle to the Romans Upon this account he believed that the Epistles of the Apostle were not written by supernatural Revelation That Man does always confound Prophecy with Enthusiasm Moses who was a Law-giver pronounced Sentences and Judgments by warrant from God which did not hinder him from Reasoning in some places If he did not so as frequently as St. Paul the occasion was he writ Histories which require no reasoning whereas St. Paul does write as a Doctor who instructs the People and draws consequences from Principles which he had laid down From thence it cannot be concluded that he followed nothing but his Reason because that very Reason of his might have been supernaturally enlightned and guided by the Spirit of God. And therefore all that Spinosa does object for shewing that the most part of that Apostle's Discourse does only consist in Advertisements and Moral Exhortations does not destroy the Inspiration of the Apostles in the manner as we have formerly supposed it with the Jesuits of Louvain For we made it plain that it was not necessary for that purpose that God should indite to St. Paul and the other Apostles all their Discourses of Morality It was permitted them to make use of their natural Lights and to use all the means with which their Reason could furnish them for persuading the People After the same manner all Spinosa's objections may be answered seeing he does continually reason upon a false Idea which he has formed of the Inspiration of the Pen-Men of the New Testament We may also give our assent to a great part of what he says in his Objections without giving advantage for drawing any Conclusions against that Inspiration according to the true Explication thereof Seeing I insisted long enough upon this Subject in my two Answers To the Opinions of some Divines of Holland it is needless for me to repeat here what I have said in those two Books The truth is those Divines by opposing the Inspiration of the Holy Scripture have only given a more advantageous light to Spinosa's reasons who squared this matter to the false prejudices with which he was prepossessed If he had read the Works of some Catholick Doctors who have treated judiciously of this Subject he would soon have acknowledged to what little purpose the most part of his Objections serve because they stumble upon those things in which we do agree with him And therefore we ought to be very cautious in refuting his Opinion that we do not contest with him in vain about the things that are true and from which he does nevertheless draw consequences that are directly false or too wide otherwise we shall rather strengthen than destroy his errors 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 IN this last Age there have been Works composed that treat of the Stile of the Evangelists and the Apostles Henry Stephen has handled this matter in the Preface to his Greek New Testament Henr. Steph. Nov. Test in 12. edit ann 1576. He had also promised to publish a Treatise on purpose upon this Subject to demonstrate that those Sacred Writers are much more Polite than some Authors have believed He likewise gives some examples thereof in his Preface by way of anticipation He does sometimes admire them for the elegancy of their Stile and does wish that they were not treated as rude and barbarous Persons in respect of their manner of
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
he would express what is upon his Spirit although he had from his Infancy Learned the Greek Language at Tarsus in Cilicia He does alledge after Origen that St. Paul (y) Multa sunt verba quibus juxta morem urbis provinciae suae familiariùs Apostolus utitur Nec hoc miremur in Apostolo si utatur ejus linguae consuetudine in quâ natus est nutritus cum Virgilius alter Homerus apud nos patriae suae sequens consuetudinem sceleratum frigus appellet Hieron ibid. used many forms of Speech which were peculiar to those of Cilicia where he was bred and likewise he gives some examples thereof which I do not here examin He adds that that is no surprising thing seeing Virgil who was a perfect Master of the Latin Tongue has nevertheless made use of some expressions that were peculiar to those of his Country That Father as to what he further alledges with so great freedom of St. Paul's Stile has given us nothing but what he had read in the Ancient Ecclesiastical Authors and what St. John Chrysostom who lived at the same time has shewn at large in his Eloquent Homilies which he Preached to the People Yet St. Augustine was of a belief contrary to the Opinion of St. Chrysostom and the most Learned of the Ancient time (z) Malè doctis hominibus respondendum fuit qui nostros auctores contemnendos putant non quia non babent sed quia non ostentant quà m nimis isti diligunt eloquentiam Aug. de Doct. Christ lib. 4. c. 7. that he ought to make an Apology for St. Paul by answering a sort of Men of his time who despised that Apostle because he made no shew of Eloquence in his discourse But Origen who was not ashamed to produce St. Paul's Solecismes did judiciously observe (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. Philoc. cap. 4. that that Apostle who was appointed by God to be the Minister of the New Testamment had in his Preaching and not in Mens Wisdom shewn the virtue and efficacy of the Gospel that the Conversion of Nations might not be attributed to that Worldly Wisdom And therefore St. Paul and the other Apostles have no need of Apologies which might afford him a Sanctuary against those reproaches which may be cast on them about the manner of their Writing seeing God was pleased not to make use of Orators for the Preaching of the Gospel but simple Fishermen who had no Learning Further it does not yet follow but that it is demonstrable that the most part of the words that St. Paul and the other Writers of the New Testament have used are good Greek only the Symetry of their Phrases and their modes of Speech are not always accommodated to the Greek which is not extraordinary For every Nation has a peculiar manner of expressing their own thoughts and though they deliver them in terms that are purely Greek or Latin we soon perceive that the Order is not altogether Greek or Latin. We need only for Example look on the Greek Version of the Psalms and upon the Ancient Latin Translation which was done out of the Greek we see there something that is singular and not agreeable either to the Greek or the Latin Genius when it is even supposed that the words are pure Greek and Latin. And for this reason those amongst the Greek Fathers who had a perfect knowledge of the Greek Language were sometimes at a loss as to their comprehending the Greek of the Septuagint We may further observe that if the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers had known the Hebrew as well as the Greek they would not have found the Stile of the Sacred Writings so barbarous as some of them believed I am astonished that St. Jerome who understood both Languages did not take this way to explain what seem'd to be most strange in their Stile rather than accuse them of Solecisms and Barbarisms I believe that in those places he followed the Opinion of Origen whom he frequently transcribes Indeed he does sometimes admire the greatness of St. Paul's thoughts He acknowledged that that Holy Apostle had applyed himself to the study of Profane Authors whom he sometimes quotes But after all he is of the mind that we ought not to look for Eloquent Discourses in the Writings of the Apostles because Jesus Christ did not intend to have his Church composed of Orators and Philosophers but of Men who were the Dregs of the People Ecclesia Christi non de Academia Lyceo sed de vili plebe congregata est 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 THere are some Passages in the Acts of the Apostles from which there are Proofs commonly drawn that the Jews when Christianity began were divided into two Parties The one were * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purely called Hebrews and the other Hellenists or Grecians Those who remained in the Territory of Babylon after they were first dispersed retained the name of Hebrews because they spake the very Language which was used beyond the River Euphrates and which for that reason ought to be called Hebrew although it was Chaldee And the Jews who dwelt in Palestine after their return from the Babylonish Captivity were also purely called Hebrews because they brought from Babylon the Chaldaick Language which they called Hebrew These Hebrews in their Synagogues read the Hebrew Text of the Law and the Prophets to which they joyned Glosses that were written in the Chaldee which was their Vulgar Tongue They called those Grecians who were Jews of Alexandria and many other places where they spake the Greek Language These read in their Assemblies the Greek Version of the Septuagint which they joyned to the Hebrew Text to be used as an Interpretation They were called Hellenists or Greeks because they spake Greek and read no other Books in their ordinary custom than what were written in Greek Yet they always maintained a particular respect for the Original Hebrew of the Bible And therefore in their Synagogues they continued to read it in Hebrew no less than the other Jews which is still practised by the Jews at this day in all places where they are through the whole World. The Jews for Example of the Spanish Nation and Rite the Dutch Jews who live in Holland and the Neighbouring Provinces and in a word all the Jews of what Nation soever read in their Synagogues the Holy Scripture in the Original Language They are called Spanish and Dutch because of their Vulgar Tongue There were at that time also Jews who spake Greek whom they likewise called Greeks or Hellenists and the Language in which the most part
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
〈◊〉 Joann Croj. Sacr. Obs in N. T. c. 34. That St. Paul and the other Writers of the New Testament are Hellenists and at the same time do Hebraize 'T is easie to reconcile the Two. For Heinsius and the rest of the Hellenisticaries do not take as it has been already observed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be an Hellenist in the sense that the Greeks ordinarily used it in they do not think that it does in that place signifie to speak pure Greek but that which has been mentioned before And therefore Crojus does no less than Salmasius dispute about words For the avoiding of which inconveniency we shall call that Language the Greek of the Synagogue But whence was it it may be said that those Jews-Hellenists whose Vulgar Language was the Greek spake that Greek of the Synagogue that is to say a Greek mixed with Hebraisms and Chaldaisms seeing the Hebrew and Chaldee was not then in use amongst them Philon for Example who was one of those Jews that were called Hellenists spake Greek very well He does not in the least make any thing appear in his Works that comes near the Greek of the Synagogue To this it may be answered that the Greek Hellenists did continually read the Hebrew Bible in their Synagogues as well as the other Jews who called themselves purely Hebrews Although those Hellenists writ some particular Works in pure Greek which had nothing of the Greek of the Synagogue it was not the same thing as their Greek Versions of the Bible and some other of their Books Seeing in these Works they confined themselves to the Hebrew Text they expressed the form of the Hebrew Phrase This may be justified by the Arabick Persian Spanish and the Vulgar Greek Versions of the Bible which were made by the Jews There are pure Hebraisms owned to be in all these although the Authors thereof were Jews who spake those Languages Which could proceed from nothing else but their scrupulous adhering in their Translations to the Words of the Original Hebrew It is true that the most part of those who defend the Hellenistick Language believe that the Jews-Hellenists did read no other Bible in their Synagogues but the Greek Version of the Septuagint but they are mistaken in that Even Salmasius who declared himself very much against the Hellenisticaries does assure us that the Jews in whatsoever place they were did continually read the Hebrew Text of the Bible in their Synagogues They who pretend to prove the contrary by the 146 Constitution of Justinian did not narrowly enough observe the words of that Constitution which shews it quite otherwise Yet Lewis Cappel and several other Learned Criticks (h) Quin inter Hellenistas ad septimi usque seculi initium liturgia Judaeorum Graecâ linguâ peragebatur non Hebraicâ Singulis enim Sabbatis lectio ex Mose Prophetis in Synagogis ex Graecâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Septuaginta Versione fiebat quod liquet ex novella Justiniani constitutione 146. Lud. Capp qu. de loc parall Vet. Nov. Test depend on that Emperor's Novel to demonstrate that the Greek Hellenists in their Liturgy or Office did use the Greek Language till the beginning of the Seventh Age and that they had read no other Scripture in their Synagogues until that time but the Greek Version of the Septuagint Grotius was also of this Opinion in his Note on the sixth Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles where there is mention made of the Hellenists (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judaeorum Religione sed qui cùm Alexandriae vicinis in locis vixissent anteà morem inde retinuerant sacra scripta legendi Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui mos mansit ad Justiniani tempora ut cognoscimus ex Novella 146. Grot. Annot in c. 6. Act. Apost Those Jews saith he were Religious Jews and having lived at Alexandria and the neighbouring places had retained the custom of reading the Scripture in Greek which custom continued till Justinian's time as appears by the 146 Novel But the words of that Novel which 't is fit to set down in this place do expresly make the contrary manifest The Jews in Justinian's time were divided into two Parties The one was for reading only the pure Hebrew Text in their Synagogues the other besides that Text read the Ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint instead of an Interpretation because they understood not the Hebrew Language The Emperor Justinian does declare (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Novel 146. ut de Ebr. that having understood their discord he thought it expedient to apply a remedy thereunto by a Judgment The account of their dispute is conceived in these terms (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Some amongst them who only retained the Hebrew Text of the Bible were for reading it alone at the publick Service in the Synagogues (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Others on the contrary alledged that besides the Original Hebrew the Greek Interpretation ought to have been used We ought chiefly to take notice of these last Words which give us to understand that the matter in agitation was not simply to have the Bible in Greek in the Synagogues of the Jews-Hellenists as is commonly believed but to joyn the Reading of the Greek Version to the Reading of the Hebrew Text. This will yet more clearly appear by the very words of Justinian's Decree (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. who pronounced Sentence in favour of those who besides the Original Hebrew read in their Assemblies a Version in Greek or in another Vulgar Language according to the places of their abode (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. He Ordained therefore that it should be permitted to the Jews who had a mind to it to read the Holy Writings in Greek in those places where the People understood the Greek and in every other Language for example in Latin according to the Language of the Country were they dwelt Cappel did not understand the Sense of this Ordinance of Justinian when he endeavoured to prove that the Jewish Doctors did at that time forbid under the pain of an Anathema the publick reading of any other Scripture but the Original Hebrew in their Synagogues Whence he concludes that the Custom which is at this day amongst the Jews of not having their Liturgy in the Vulgar Tongue but in Hebrew was not introduced amongst them but since the publication of the Talmud If he had diligently read Justinian's Constitution he would have been satisfied that they read in those days the Law and the Prophets in Hebrew in all the Synagogues of the World. But they added afterwards to the Hebrew a Version or Paraphrase in the Vulgar Language of every Country They of Jerusalem for example and all Palestine who called themselves purely Hebrews joyned an Interpretation in Chaldee to the reading of the Original There is also a probability that the Custom the Jews
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
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
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
Chrysostom's and several other Fathers of that Church had the Reading in their Copies in the same manner as these have it whom at this day we call Schismaticks This most unjust accusation is nevertheless very Ancient So soon as ever there is a difference perceived in Copies if this difference do favour the Opinions of some Party they will be sure to accuse that Party of corrupting the Sacred Writings although that difference does for the most part come from the Transcribers Hilary the Deacon has made a general Rule in that place formerly mentioned He assures us (m) Quod fecit studium contentionis Quia enim propriâ quis auctoritate uti non potest ad victoriam verba legis adulterat ut sensum suum quasi verba legis asserat ut non ratio sed auctoritas praescribere videatur Ambros ibid. that the Spirit of dispute that is betwixt different Parties is the cause of different Renditions Every one saith he seeing he cannot on such occasions justifie himself by his own Authority does corrupt the Words of the Law that he may make his own Opinions pass for the Words of the Law. Although that has happened sometimes especially to those ancient Hereticks of whom we spake in the beginning of this Work I am perswaded that they have frequently attributed to different Parties such various Renditions in the Copies of the New Testament as had no other cause Originally but what those have which are found in all other Books How many Divines are there for example who believe at this day that they have taken away from the Ancient Greek Copies the Testimony of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost of which mention is made in the first Epistle of St. John Chap. 5. v. 7. to favour the Arian Heresie Others on the contrary do alledge that it was the Arrians who added these Words expresly to the Greek Text to shew the Unity of the Persons of the Trinity is not an Unity of Essence but of Consent Grotius is of this latter Opinion He thinks (n) Neque verò Arianis ablatas esse voces quasdam sed potiùs additas unde colligerent Patrem Filium Spiritum Sanctum non esse unum nisi consensu quomodo spiritus aqua sanguis in unum testimonium consentiunt Quod cum viderent Catholici abstulisse quidem illud quod de Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto insertum fuerat sed reliquisse illud tres unum esse quia id ita positum nocere non poterat Grot. Annot. in 1. Epist Joann c. 5. v. 7. that the Arians for this reason were so far from retrenching some Words from the Text that they added some thereunto that on the contrary the Catholicks had taken away that which is said of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit leaving only these Words These three are the same which can do them no hurt and which as he thinks were likewise added by the Arians But all this is only founded on Conjectures and seeing every one does reason according to his Prejudices some will have the Arians to be the Authors of that Addition and others do attribute the same to the Catholicks This diversity of Opinions proceeds from nothing else but a neglect of examining with sufficient care the ancient Manuscript Copies and other Records which were necessary for the discovery of the Original of those Variations It would be to no purpose for me to repeat here the Critical Reflections which I have formerly made on that Passage of the first Epistle of St. John it having been made evident in what manner it came to pass that those Words that were neither in the Greek Copies nor in the Latin were inserted in the Text. No credit therefore is easily to be given to all those Accusations of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers against the Hereticks upon the point of the Alterations that have happened to the Sacred Writings We have already seen in the Critical History of the Old Testament that the most part of the Fathers did cast the same reproach on the Jews without any ground Seeing the most part of Heresies sprung up in the Greek Church those who maintain the preference of the Latin Copies of the New Testament do not fail to bring this Reason to shew that the Books of the Latins are more ancient than those of the Greeks But before this Accusation is brought it ought to be examined if these Objections have a good foundation for if the thing be considered in general the Original must needs be more perfect than the Versions unless it be in some places where it may be demonstrated that the Version is instead of the Original which has been altered The Sect of the Macedonians were at another time accused as being the Authors of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. vii of St. John v. 39. where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Ghost was not as yet whereas it is in the Vulgar For the Holy Ghost was not yet given The ancient Latin Interpreter did not read the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Greek Copy which is likewise wanting in some Greek Manuscripts and in others belonging to Mr. Colbert's most ancient Library Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb n. 5149. Neither is it extant in the Syriack Version which makes me believe that it was added and that it was not in the first Original Greek But it must not be inferred from hence that those who favoured the Party of Macedonius were the Authors of that Addition there being the like Examples in other places with which they cannot be charged It is much more probable that it was occasion'd by the Greek Scholiasts who placed the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Margin to shew that that place spake of the Holy Spirit and it passed into the Text afterwards There is also in the same Passage the Latin Word datus which is not read in the Greek unless it be in the ancient Copy of the Vatican where there is according to Lewis of Bruges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is very likely that this Word was added by the Latin Interpreter who had in his view the sense of that Passage where the Gifts of the Holy Ghost are spoken of It would be likewise added after the same manner in the Margin of some Greek Copy We also read in the Syriack Version was not yet given which does wholly agree with the Latin and in the three Arabick Versions which have been published it is in the same sense was not yet come Grotius believed that the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as it is in the Latin datus was added for the avoiding the reproach of the Followers of Macedonius In nonnullis datus ad vitandam calumniam Macedoniorum Grot. Annot in hunc loc But it is not at all necessary that they should have had any regard to those Sectaries to induce them to add
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
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
varietatem illam interpretationis ex librariorum aut interpretum diversâ sententiâ profectam esse non ex fraude ulla Pneumatomachorum vel aliorum haereticorum Petav. Theol. Dog. lib. 2. c. 6. n. 6. that that diversity of pointing those words of S. John ought not to be attributed to the ill design of those who denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost or to other Hereticks but only to the different Opinions of the Transcribers and Interpreters The truth is the Orthodox Authors do not always agree amongst themselves about it It happens sometimes that the same Writer does differently point the same Passage in different places of his Works And so there is nothing else but good Sense and the Rules of Criticism that can direct us in our choice in preferring one Punctation to another I know we ought to follow the plurality of good Manuscript Copies and the consent of Interpreters For example without taking notice of all that S. Augustine has observed upon the manner of pointing the third Verse of the first Chapter of the Gospel according to S. John we may read that Verse after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without him was not any thing made that was made This reading which is almost in all Manuscripts has been approved by the most Ancient Greek Fathers The other which does place a point after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is somewhat forced and according to this punctation it ought to be translated Without him nothing was made that which was made had life in him It is worth the while to observe that many Greek Manuscript Copies have a point after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that point answers to our comma in those Manuscripts which have two sorts of points the one truly answering to our point and the other to that we call a comma Yet St. Augustine does frequently maintain the distinction that places the point after the word nihil He further maintains that this Passage is pointed after this manner in the most correct Copies Quod factum est in illo vita erat that which was made in him was life so that there is not only a point to be placed after nihil but also a comma after these other words quod factum est Sic ergo saith this Father distinguendum est ut cum dixerimus quod factum est deinde inferamus in illo vita est non in se scilicet hoc est in suâ naturâ (d) Non ergo pronunciari oportet quod factum est in illo vita est ut subdistinguamus quod factum est in illo deinde inferamus vita est Quid enim non in illo factum est Aug. ibid. c. 13. He condemns those who placed a comma after the Pronoun illo and who favoured their own prejudices by this punctation But there appears commonly more subtilty than solidity in Reasonings of this sort For seeing every one does reason from certain Principles which he supposes to be true he points the Copies of the Scripture after his own fashion Those disputes had so divided the Minds of the Ancients of that time that there were four different ways of pointing this Passage of St. John whereas at this day there is no dispute about it This does inform us that although the most part of Transcribers did then neglect the points and the other marks of distinction yet they were put for all that in some Copies The Commentators on the Scripture observed them likewise in their Commentaries when they judged it fit But seeing they had not the first Original of the Evangelists and the Apostles where those marks of distinction were extant there is nothing certain in this matter We ought also to use precaution in reading the Writings of the Fathers especially when they dispute against the Hereticks of their time from whom they removed in their Opinions as far as it was possible for them Now it is not necessary to insist too nicely on this sort of distinctions and stops there commonly needs but a little of good sense to make a due estimate of them There is none for example but will condemn some of the Moderns for the innovations they have made in our Age who in favour of their own prejudicate Opinions read Chap. 23. of St. Luke v. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say unto thee to day thou shalt be with me in Paradise They palce a comma after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 day whereas according to the ordinary Reading of the Greek Copies whether Manuscript or Printed it ought to be placed after the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thee Which gives a very different sense viz. I say unto thee to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise Besides those marks of distinction of which we have been speaking there is another which is common to all the ancient Books and which is made by the means of Verses The Bulk of a Work did once appear if the number of Verses contained therein were summ'd up at the end A Verse was nothing else but a Line that the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that by numbering the Verses they discovered how many Lines were contained in any Volume Yet some Criticks could not comprehend how they could by those Lines or Verses reckon the just content of a Book because the Parchments upon which they writ having been unequal the Lines must needs have been so too and so the number of those Lines could not adjust the Bulk of a Work. This was that which Crojus brought against Causabon and withal he confirm'd his Opinion by the testimony of some Ancient Writers by whom he pretended to prove that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does signifie an entire Period or the several parts of Periods But this Objection does fall by it self if we make a just reflection on those Ancient Parchments which composed Volumes or Rolls Every Roll contained many Pages that were all equal and in every Page there was a certain number of Lines and lastly in every Line there was a fixed number of Letters And this is observed by the Jews at this day in their Rolls which must have a certain proportion as well in length as in breadth Moreover every Line ought to consist of thirty Letters and they called these Letters sitta which is the same thing with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks and the versus of the Latins We are not to imagine that the manner in which the Rabbins have divided the Bible is of their own invention They followed in that the practice of other Nations as I have proved elsewhere And seeing they have retained their ancient use of Rolls we must learn of them whatever belongs to the division of the Rolls or Ancient Volumes Further it is not hard to shew how the measure of the Lines or Verses might have been retained in the form of those ordinary Books in which the Parchments or Papers were
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
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
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
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
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
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