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
admiscuisse ea quae sunt legalia Salvatoris verbis Iren. lib. 3. adversus Haer. c. 2. There is no way saith St Irenaeus of convincing this sort of People neither by the Testimony of the Scriptures generally received in the Churches planted by the Apostles nor by authentick Traditions because they imagine themselves to be above all this They were persuaded that they alone were in possession of the truth of Religion that contained hidden Mysteries Se indubitatè incontaminatè sincerè absconditum scire mysterium Iren. ibid. And since they had joined Philosophy with Christianity they intended also to accommodate the one to the other They argued on matters of fact after a pure metaphysical manner and being filled with an infinite number of Prejudices and Notions taken from the Principles of their Philosophy they reformed the Doctrine of the Apostles and even that of Jesus Christ on this foundation under pretence of bringing Religion to a greater Perfection They pretended that the Apostles had preached the Gospel before they had a perfect knowledge of the Truth and that therefore they were at liberty to correct them Ante praedicaverunt quà m perfectam haberent cognitionem This was that which caused them to take the ambitious Title of Learned and Knowing Men or Gnosticks as if none but they were endued with the true knowledge of Religion They vainly boasted also that they had reformed the Apostles Iren. ibid. Gloriantes emendatores se esse Apostolorum S. Irenaeus sharply reproves their rashness in bragging that they had made perfect that which was gross and obscure in the Gospel published by the Apostles It hath been necessary to make all these Reflections on the ancient Sect of the Gnosticks because they have applyed themselves more than any others in those primitive times of the Christian Religion to the obtruding of false Acts under the Names of the Apostles or other specious Titles These are a sort of Philosophers that ought not to pass but for half Christians who have altered the Traditions that the Disciples of Jesus Christ had left to the Churches And therefore no regard ought to be had to all the Books that they have produced under what Name soever since they have professed that they understand Religion better than the Apostles themselves and (h) Existentes extra omnem timorem suas conscriptiones praeferentes plura habere gloriantur quà m sint ipsa Evangelia Si quidem in tantum processerunt audaciae uti quod ab his Apostolis non olim conscriptum est veritatis Evangelium titulent in nihilo conveniens Apostolorum Evangelits ut nec Evangelium quidem sit apud eos sine blasphemia Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. c. 11. have been so bold as to publish new Gospels to which they have given the Title of The Gospel of Truth altho these Gospels do not agree with those of the Apostles This alone is sufficient to make it appear that the Gospels of the Gnosticks were false Acts that cannot be opposed to the Apostolical Writings that have been acknowledged by the primitive Churches It were an easie matter to answer Celsus by this same Principle who heretofore objected to the Christians that they changed their Gospel every day adding thereto and diminishing what they thought fit that they might be able by this means to retract that which they had formerly alledged Origen judiciously answers this Philosopher who was a great Enemy to the Christian Religion that he unhappily confounded the ancient Sectaries with the true Faithful He protests that he knows not in the least that the Gospel hath been corrupted by others than the Gnosticks or Marcion (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 2 contra Cell This is not a Crime saith he that ought to be imputed to the Gospel but to them that have dared to corrupt in He brings an Example of the Sophisters whose false Doctrine cannot be attributed to true Philosophy (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. It is the same thing saith this great Man with respect to the Sects that have introduced Novelties into the Doctrine of Jesus Christ which cannot be charged on true Christianity It is certain that in all times and in all places there hath been a perfect Conformity between the different Copies of these Books the Diversities that are found therein and shall be remarked in the Sequel of this Work are not of so great moment as that we may say with Celsus that the Christians have changed their Gospels to the end that they might suit them to their own opinions This cannot be understood but of the ancient Hereticks who having no certain Rules for their Belief reformed them according to their capricious humor This is that for which the Orthodox Christians heretofore censured the Theodosians Euseb l. 5. Hist Eccl. c. 28. who corrupted the Sacred Books under a pretence of correcting them and whereas several among them had taken this liberty all their Copies differed one from another there were of them under the Names of Asclepiades Theodosius Hermophilus and Apollonius that did not in the least agree together I will say nothing here concerning the Gospel of the Marcionites whereof Origen makes mention because I design to treat of it in another place I shall only add that if we compare the Gospels and the other Books of the New Testament with the Liturgies that we have under the Names of several Apostles to whom the most part of the Eastern Christians do attribute them we shall be convinced that the Gospels are truly of the Apostles For all the Churches have preserved them in their ancient Purity whereas every particular Nation hath added to their Liturgies and hath taken the liberty often to revise them The respect that hath been always had to the Writings of the New Testament without inserting any considerable Additions therein is an evident proof that all People have looked upon them as Divine Books which it is not lawful for any to alter On the contrary they have been persuaded that the Liturgies altho they bear the Names of the Apostles or of some Disciples of Jesus Christ were not originally written by them to whom they were attributed And therefore it hath been left free to the Churches to add to them or to diminish from them according as occasion requires The Principles that have been maintained above in discoursing of the Gnosticks may serve to confute the Manicheans who likewise acknowledge nothing Divine in the Scriptures but that which pleased them or rather was agreeable to their Fancies This caused S. Austin to say addressing himself to Faustus who was one of the chief of this Party (l) Tu es ergo regula veritatis Quidquid contra te fuerit non est verum Aug. lib. 11. cont Faust c. 2. You are then the Rule of Truth whatsoever is against you is not true He clearly demonstrates to them that they were only upheld with false prejudices when
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
had lived before therefore he adds at the same time that (d) Si sub ipsius Pauli nomine Evangelium Marcion intulisset non sufficeret ad fidem singularitas instrumenti destituta patrocinio antecessorum Tertull. ibid. altho Marcion should have published his Gospel even under the name of S. Paul this Title would have availed nothing at least if it had not been accompanied with these Testimonies He goes yet farther in declaring that he did not take advantage of the Title that is at the beginning of S. Luke in the Copies of the Church Ibid. De titulo quoque funis ducendus est contentionis pari hinc inde nisu fluctuante For as to the Title alone Marcion might say as well as the Orthodox That the Gospel which he produced was the true one (e) Ego meum dico verum Marcion suum Ego Marcionis affirmo adulterat um Marcion meum Quis inter nos determinabit nisi temporis ratio ei praescribens auctoritatem quod antiquius reperietur ei praejudicans vitiationem quod posterius revincetur Tertull. ibid. cap. 4. To which then shall we adhere saith Tertullian by what Rule may we determine which is the true Gospel whether that of Marcion that hath been corrupted or that of the Church which is supposed to be entire at least if regard be had to Antiquity insomuch that the most ancient should be the true because the verity of an Act always preceeds the corruption of the same In quantum enim falsum corruptio est veri in tantum praecedat necesse est veritas falsum On this uncontroulable Principle he makes it appear that the true Copy of S. Luke was that which the Orthodox made use of since Marcion himself had not acknowledged any other before he had separated from the Church which he accused of Judaizing and he chiefly defended himself with this pretended Judaism from the Charge of not receiving this Gospel entire which he said had been interpolated by those that authorized Judaism Interpolatum à protectoribus Judaismi Lastly Tertullian concludes That there was no other true Copy of S. Luke but his because it was before that which Marcion had corrected and the Reason that he alledgeth is this That he could not amend any but that which was in the Church and was consequently antecedent to his Id emendans quod invenit id posterius quod de nostro emendatione constituens suum novum fecit But since it might be objected to him that it is not always true that the most ancient Books are the most correct because they also may have been corrupted at least if they be not the true Originals he answers that it is necessary to look back to the time of the Apostles to be certain that we have their genuine Writings (f) In summa si constat id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio ab initio quod ab Apostolis pariter utique constabit id esse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum Tertull. ibid. cap. 5. Now we are assured according to his Opinion that a thing belongs to the times of the Apostles when we see that it hath been inviolably preserved in the Apostolical Churches All these Arguments of Tertullian prove that the constant Tradition of the Church is the mark by which we distinguish the Divine and Canonical Books from those that are not so and that it is this same Church that hath added or at least approved of the Titles of the four Gospels to denote to us that these Gospels were written by Apostles or by their Disciples which does not in the least agree with this private Spirit of some Protestants In seems that Beza believed that the Titles of the Gospels were no less dictated by the Holy Ghost than the Text it self Th. Bezae Resp ad defens reprehens Seb. Castal this he insinuates in his Answer to the Defense of Castalio whom he reprehends for having translated in his Latin Version of the New Testament these Greek Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by these auctore Matthaeo Maldonat hath observed with much more Judgment (g) Non est Sacrorum Scriptorum consuetudo ut ante initium librorum ritulos ponant sed ut vel omittant vel prima libri verba titulum faciant Maldon Comm. in cap. I. Matth. That it is not the custom of the sacred Writers to put Titles at the beginning of their Works but that they either omit them altogether or they include them within the first Words of their Books which he demonstrates by Examples taken out of the Old Testament whence he infers that it is probable that the Evangelists are not the Authors of the Titles of their Gospels He proves it also by the Example of S. Mark who would have put two Titles to his Book if he were the Author of the first that runs thus The Gospel according to Mark because he begins his History with these other Words The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ He adds farther That if the Evangelists had been the Authors of these Titles there would not have been found so great an uniformity amongst them as appears they would have made use of different Expressions as they do in the other parts where they relate the same things but in different terms instead of writing all The Gospel according to N. Again he confirms his Opinion by the diversity that is found among the Greek and Latin Copies Maldon ibid. for these last read The holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to N. which proceeds from this saith Maldonat that the Greek Church hath put the Greek Title and the Latin Church the Latin quod Graecum Titulum Graeca Latinum Latina It seems that Beza in this case chose rather to prefer the Title of the Latin Copy before that of the Greek when he accuseth Castalio of having falsly translated auctore Matthaeo as if S. Matthew had been the Author of his Gospel for to confute his Adversary with more force he saith (h) Neque enim legimus Evangelium Matthaei Marci Lucae vel Joannis sed Evangelium Jesu Christi ut habent omnes Latini codices secundùm Matthaeum Marcum Lucam Joannem Bez. Resp ad Castal p. 12. That we read not the Gospel of Matthew Mark Luke or John but the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew Mark Luke and John as it is in all the Latin Copies Nevertheless this Reading is not found but in the Latin Version and not in all the Latin Copies neither If Maldonat may be believed there is only the Arabick Version printed at Rome Nov. Test Arab. edit Romae an 1591. where it is read The Gospel of Jesus Christ according as it hath been written by S. Matthew one of his twelve Disciples But it is easie to judge that this Arabick Title hath been taken in part from the Latin and those who have copied
hath pronounced any thing thereupon he would readily submit to her Decision which he prefers before all the Reasons that may be proposed to him Erasm declar ad Theol. Paris Plus apud me valet saith this Critick Ecclesiae judicium quam ullae rationes humanae 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 IT hath been observed above that Jesus Christ never published any Work to make known his Doctrine and that he did not so much as give order to his Disciples to write that which he had taught them but only to preach it to all the Nations of the Earth nevertheless there have been found Impostors who have set forth Books under his Name and have attributed to him certain Acts written in form of Letters the forgery whereof discovers it self in regard they are directed to Peter and Paul. They have not minded when they composed these Letters that Paul was not the Disciple of Jesus Christ till after the Death of the same Jesus Christ (a) Quomodo potuit libros quos antequam moreretur eum scripsisse putari volunt ad discipulos tanquam familiarissimos Petrum Paulum scribere cùm Paulus nondum fuerit discipulus ejus August de Consen Evan. lib. 1. c. 10. How then could it be saith St. Augustin that he should write to Peter and Paul as to his dear Disciples with whom he conversed familiarly since this latter was not then in the number of his Disciples Besides these Books were full of Secrets or rather Superstitions of the Art that is called Magick which in no wise agrees with Jesus Christ who hath always professed and the Christians after him to condemn this kind of Superstition It is probable that whereas his extraordinary Actions were famous throughout the World and his Miracles surprizing they took occasion from thence to feign this Work to disperse abroad I know not what magical Secrets which they pretended he had put in practice indeed the Jews who were his Enemies not being able to deny the truth of his Miracles gave it out every where that he was a Magician They have not been ashamed also to set down these Fables in their Talmud and to say that Jesus had learned in Egypt the most subtil Mysteries of Magick Apud Origen lib. 1. cont Cels Celsus reproaches the ancient Christians almost after the same manner under the Person of a Jew whom he introduces to speak This Epicurean Philosopher attributes the miraculous Actions of Jesus to Magick or rather to a certain Art that was learned as he saith in Egypt The Letter of Jesus Christ to Agbar King of Edessa seems not to be so far from Truth because Eusebius that produceth it with the Letter of this Prince to Jesus assures us that he hath taken these two pieces from the Archives of Edessa that contained the Records of what hath passed under the Reign of Agbar and that they were still kept in his time written in Syriack which was the Language of the Country from whence they were translated into Greek Nevertheless Pope Gelasius had reason to reject this Letter of our Saviour to Agbar as Apocryphal Gelas decr 1. par dist 15. c. 3. Epistola Jesu ad Agbarum apocrypha I am apt to believe that these Letters were really found in the Archives of the City of Edessa but we ought not too easily to give credit to the first Originals of Churches every one strives to advance their Antiquity as much as is possible and they make no scruple on such occasions to counterfeit Acts when they have none that are true Eusebius appeared much more judicious when he rejected as Tales made at pleasure certain Parables and Preachments that Papias attributed to Jesus Christ and avouched that he heard them reported by those very Persons that had learnt them of the Apostles We ought then to take it for a certain Maxim that Jesus Christ hath written nothing and that we have nothing of his but what we have received from his Apostles This gave occasion to some Pagans who had a Veneration for him to say (c) Nolunt Evangelio credere quia non ab ipso Jesu illa conscripta sunt sed ab ejus Discipulis quos existimant ei divinitatem qua crederetur Deus errore tribuisse Aug. lib. 2. Retract c. 16. That they could not believe the Gospel because he had not written it himself and that his Disciples who were the Authors thereof had took upon them too much in making him God. Aug. lib. 1. de cons c. 7. S. Augustin confutes these People in his first Book of the Consent of the Gospels They attribute saith he in speaking of these Pagans a most excellent Wisdom to Jesus Christ but they always consider him as a Man (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 1. c. 13. and they pretend that his Disciples have bestowed Qualifications upon him that he had not they declare that they have a disposition to believe his Word in case he had himself committed it to Writing but refuse notwithstanding to give credit to the preaching of the Apostles S. Augustin propounds to them the example of Pythagoras and Socrates two of the greatest Men of the Pagan Antiquity who have written nothing of their own Actions no more than Jesus Christ and yet they do not for this reason decline referring themselves to their Disciples herein He demands of them (d) Quid igitur causae est cur de istis hoc credant quod de illis discipuli eorum literis commendarunt de Christo nolunt credere quod ejus de illo Discipuli conscripserunt Aug. ibid. why they rather believe the Disciples of these two Philosophers in that which they have written concerning them This arguing of S. Augustin manifestly supposeth that we have no Writings of Jesus Christ and this is what he affirms in express terms in another place where he answers Faustus who pretended that we ought to seek for that which Jesus had said of himself Quaerendum esse quid de se Jesus ipse praedicavaerit Can this be known otherwise saith this Father than by the Writings of his Disciples Numquid hoc sciri potest nisi discipulis ejus narrantibus (e) Vnde sieri poterat ut si verè ipsius essent non legerentur non acciperentur non praecipuo culmine auctoritatis eminerent in ipsius Ecclesiâ quae ab ipso per. Apostolos succedentibus sibimet Episcopis usque ad haec tempora propagata diditatur Aug. cont Faust lib. 28. c. 4. If there were adds he any Writings that had been truly of Jesus Christ how comes it to pass that they were not read nor received in his Church and that they were not set in the highest rank therein This also is the Opinion of Origen in his first Book against Celsus
accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque autoritatis Ecclesiae tenent Aug. lib. 2. de Doctr. Christ cap. 8. to have regard to the plurality of Churches and to prefer those that are in a greater number and of more eminent note before the others that are in a lesser number and less considerable There is another sort of Acts attributed to the Apostles or their Disciples that have been rejected as Apocryphal in process of time though in the beginning they did really belong to those to whom they were ascribed or at least to their Disciples who had published them under the name of their Masters But these Acts having been interpolated and mangled by the Hereticks or else by others we have been obliged not to allow them any longer as authentick St. Epiphanius seems to have put in this rank the Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Constitution of the Apostles which he often quotes as if it were indeed theirs He draws from thence Proofs to confirm the judgment of the Church when he examines the opinion of the Audians concerning the Passover who produced one of these Constitutions attributing it to the Apostles This Father being very far from condemning or even doubting of it received it with them as Apostolical reproving them only for taking it in a wrong sense And whereas these Constitutions were from that time suspected by some he adds that they ought not to be rejected for this because they contained the whole Ecclesiastical Discipline which makes me judge that he had another Copy different from that which we read at present He appeared to be so well persuaded that these Constitutions were made by the Apostles (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 80. n. 7. that he calls them the Word of God. Nevertheless it is more probable that the Apostles who had received Orders from Jesus Christ to preach his Gospel and not to compose Books are not the Authors of these Constitutions that bear their Name But as S. Mark calls his Gospel the Gospel of Jesus Christ so in like manner Apostolical Men who succeeded the Apostles have collected their Doctrine and Constitutions and published them under the Name of the Apostles It is in this sense that the Apostles Creed is so called being that ancient Confession of Faith that all the Churches undoubtedly received from the Apostles though they had not committed it to Writing CHAP. IV. The ancient Fathers have not produced the Originals of the New Testament in their Disputes against the Hereticks An Examination of Proofs that are brought to shew that these Originals have been kept in some Churches WE may conclude from all that hath been above related that the most ancient Fathers of the Church when they designed to establish the truth of the Books of the New Testament have not had recourse to any Originals that had been kept in the Apostolical Churches but only to true and exact Copies of them which being found the same in all these Churches were in the place of the Originals themselves On this depends all the Dispute of Tertullian against Marcion and that of S. Augustin against Faustus a Manichean Sectary These two Hereticks refused to acknowledge the Copies that were approved in the Catholick Church Tertullian and S. Augustin did not oppose to them the Authority of any Original Pieces but only the constant Tradition of the Churches Vides saith S. Augustin speaking to Faustus in hac re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat auctoritas Aug. lib. 11. cont Faust c. 2. Is it possible may some say that God hath given to his Church Books to serve her for a Rule and that he hath at the same time permitted that the first Originals of these Books should be lost ever since the beginning of the Christian Religion There have been from the very first planting of the Church Hereticks who have disputed against the Writings of the Apostles and therefore it seems to behove the Divine Providence to preserve these Originals at least for some time from whence these Hereticks might be solidly confuted But it hath been already made appear elsewhere Rep. à la Defense des Sent. de quelq Theol. de Holl. ch 6. pag. 179. that it is no wonder that the Primitive Christians who had not a regular Body of a State in which they lived and whose Assemblies were on the contrary furiously disturbed by the Jews and Pagans had lost the Originals of their Books Besides the Apostles had no order from Jesus Christ to write their Books as hath been above observed and although they should not have been written Religion would be equally preserved by the means of Tradition after the same manner as it had been established before the Apostles had committed any thing to Writing Iren. l. 3. adv Haer. c. 4. Quid si saith St. Irenaeus neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias Upon the whole matter Jesus Christ had sent his Apostles to all the Nations of the Earth only to preach his Doctrine to them That which the ancient Christians have called Gospel is only a Collection of the Preachings of these same Apostles or of their Disciples As for what relates to the Primitive Hereticks they would not have been more solidly confuted by opposing to them the Originals of the Writings of the Apostles since they took the liberty to reform their Doctrine and to set up in opposition to their Books I know not what Traditions of which they themselves were the Authors as may be seen more at large in the Books of S. Irenaeus who understood perfectly well the Opinions of these ancient Sectaries of which he hath left us some Records He declares for example in speaking of the Gnosticks Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. cap. 2. that he had to do with Persons that did not acknowledge the Scriptures nor the Tradition of the Church but that squared both the one and the other according to the measure of their own Prejudices therefore he forgets nothing that may serve to establish the true Traditions by which Religion ought to be regulated Although the Scriptures are a sure Rule on which our Faith is founded yet this Rule is not altogether sufficient of it self it is necessary to know besides this what are the Apostolical Traditions and we cannot learn them but from the Apostolical Churches who have preserved the true Sense of Scriptures S. Irenaeus adviseth (a) Omnis sermo ei constabit si Scripturam diligenter legerit apud eos qui in Ecclesia sunt Presbyteri apud quos est Apostolica doctrina Iren. lib. 4. adv Haer. cap. 51. that the sacred Books should be read to be informed from thence of Religion but at the same time he adviseth that they should be read wich those who being the Successors of the Apostles have been as it were the Depositaries or Stewards of their
Doctrine There was no talk in those days of reading the Holy Scriptures in the Originals any Copy whatsoever provided it were used in the Orthodox Churches might be relied on as if it had been the first Original written with the hand of the Apostles We ought to give the same credit to Copies that have been made of the Apostolical Writings as to the very Originals because these Copies have been taken from thence even from the times of the Apostles and have been afterwards dispersed almost throughout the whole Earth they have been preserved in all the Churches of the World having been translated into divers Languages insomuch that there is no Book the Copies whereof are more authentick than those of the New Testament and in this we ought chiefly to acknowledge the peculiar Providence of God in the preservation of these Books that he hath given to his Church by the Ministry of the Apostles or of their Disciples Some pretend nevertheless to make it appear by actual Proofs taken out of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that the original Writings of the Apostles have been preserved in the Church during several Ages and this must be examined in particular though I have already discoursed thereof elsewhere In the first place they produce a Passage of Tertullian in his Book of Prescription against Heresies where he saith in speaking of the Churches that had been founded by the Apostles (b) Apud quos ipsae Authenticae Literae eorum recitantur Tertull. de Praescr cap. 36. that they yet kept in his time their Authentick Writings Pamel Annot. in lib. Tertul. de Praescr c. 36. Pamelius in his Notes on this Passage affirms after another Author that the Word Authentick cannot be taken but for the Originals that had been written with the very hand of the Apostles themselves after the same manner as Lawyers call a Testament Authentick that hath been written with the hand of the Testator to distinguish it from a Copy This is also the Sense that Grotius Grot. de Verit. Relig Christ lib. 3. Walton Huetius and many others have given of these Words of Tertullian Tertullianus saith Grotius aliquot librorum ipsa Archetypa suo adhuc tempore ait extitisse He avoucheth from this place of Tertullian (c) Archetypa nonnulla ad annum usque ducentesimum servata sunt Grot. de Verit. Relig. Christ lib. 3. that some Originals of the New Testament have been preserved till the beginning of the third Century But if we carefully examine the different Passages wherein Tertullian makes use of the Word Authentick in his Works we shall find that he hath meant nothing else by this Expression than Books written in their Original Languages This is what Rigaltius hath very well observed on this Sentence of Tertullian where explaining the Word Authenticae he saith Rigalt Annot. in lib. Tertul. de Praescr c. 36. Lingua scilicet eadem qua fuerant ab Apostolis conscriptae sonantes vocem uniuscujusque Sic ipse lib. de Monogamia ad Graecum authenticum Pauli provocat Whereas the Latin Version of the New Testament was only read in the Churches of Africa he gives the Name of Authentick to the Greek Text and in this Sense it is that quoting this Text in his Book of Monogamy he saith Sciamus planè non esse sic in Graeco authentico St. Jerom also useth the like Expression with respect to the Old Testament when he opposeth the Hebrew Text to the Greek and Latin Versions for he calls the former Veritatem Hebraicam the Hebrew Verity designing thereby to denote the Originals of the Scriptures which he likewise denominates as Tertullian doth Authenticos libros Tertul. lib. de Monog c. 11. in his Commentary on chap. 64. of the Prophet Isaiah nevertheless he did not believe that these were the first Originals written with the hand of the Prophets We express our selves also at this day after the same manner when we say that a Version of the Scriptures is not conformable to the Original Tertullian therefore doth not speak of any other Originals in his Book of Prescription than those that we have just now remarked As to the Authority of Lawyers that Pamelius opposeth it is easie to remonstrate by the Testimony even of the most learned Lawyers that the Word Authentick is often taken in a less strict sense Every Act that proves and procures credit of it self whether it be an Original or not is accounted Authentick An Author that publisheth some Manuscript Piece assures us that it is taken ex codice authentico from an authentick Copy Doth he mean by this that he hath the Original of the Book that he sets forth in his own hands In the second place they offer an actual Proof taken from Eusebius Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 10. This Historian speaking of the Zeal and of the Charity of the ancient Christians who went to preach the Gospel to the most remote Nations after the Example of the Apostles saith that Pantenus quitted the City of Alexandria where he was the Principal of a School or Colledge of Christians to promulge the Religion of Jesus Christ to the Indians This faithful Evangelist being among the Indians or Ethiopians found there a Copy of S. Matthew's Gospel written in Hebrew that S. Bartholomew the Apostle of these People had left and was believed to be preserved there to that time But besides that Eusebius doth not confirm this History by any Ecclesiastical Writer being content only to say that it was a common Report 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not see that it can be unquestionably proved from these Words that the Hebrew Copy that Pantenus found at his Arrival in that Country was the Original that St. Bartholomew had left there He only intended to say That the Ethiopians who had been converted to the Faith of Jesus Christ by this Apostle did not make use of the Greek Gospel of S. Matthew but of the Hebrew or Chaldaick that had been written for the first Christians of Jerusalem If this History were true the Primitive Christians of Ethiopia were descended from the Jews and spake the same Language as those that inhabited Judea This is all that can be concluded from the Discourse of Eusebius which hath been amplified in process of time St. Hierom doth not seem to have understood the sense of this Historian when he saith in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers that Pantenus (d) Quod Hebraicis literis scriptum revertens Alexandriam secum detulit Hier. de Scriptor Eccles in Panteno returning to Alexandria carried back with him the Gospel of St. Matthew written in Hebrew Characters Eusebius saith only that the Christians of Ethiopia had preserved this Hebrew Gospel until the Arrival of Pantenus The third material proof that is brought is taken from the Chronicle of Alexandria wherein it is observed that a correct Book of the Gospel of St. John that had been written with that Evangelist's own hand
be attributed to the Holy Ghost whose Instruments they have been But can that be called a Demonstration which is only grounded on uncertain Conjectures Would it not be more prudent to refer our selves herein to the testimony of Papias who hath lived with the Disciples of the Apostles If there had been in his time a Greek Version of the Gospel of S. Matthew which had been made by some Apostle he would not have failed to have told us of it He declares on the contrary that every one translated it as he was able There is nothing therefore but the constant Tradition of the Church alone that gives authority to this Version and that can oblige us to prefer it before the Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy of the Nazarenes Whereas the Protestants make the Holy Ghost to descend on the Apostles to translate the Gospel of S. Matthew out of Greek into Hebrew some Catholick Divines on the other side pretend also that the ancient Latin Version of the New Testament hath been inspired But it is much more reasonable only to admit this Inspiration for the Originals of the Holy Scriptures which have been translated into different Languages according to the necessities and occasions of the Churches If we hearken in the mean time to Casaubon and some other Protestants the Greek only of S. Matthew would be accounted Canonical (e) Constat sanè Ecclesiam Dei hunc ipsum textum inter libros Canonis Sacri relatum pari cum caeteris libris veneratione esse persecutam quod neque in Syriacâ Versione neque in ullâ aliâ reperitur esse factum Casaub ibid. because the Church hath put this Text into the Canon that she hath made of the Sacred Books and she hath not put therein the Syriack Version which is most ancient nor any other Translation but where is it to be found that the Church in placing the Gospel of S. Matthew in the rank of Canonical Books hath spoken of the sole Greek Version and hath excluded all others She only speaks in general of the Gospel of S. Matthew which is Divine and Canonical in whatsoever Language it be written It may be said nevertheless that there are some Nations that have exacter Translations of them than others this hinders not but that it may be averred that they all have a Canonical Copy of the Gospel of S. Matthew The Grecians and the Latins have this advantage over the other Christians that their Versions are the most ancient and the most exact and the Syrians after them However there is no Christian Nation that doth not believe but that they have in possession the true Gospel of S. Matthew tho they all have only Copies of it It doth not appear that Casaubon who is usually moderate in his Opinions hath sufficiently considered this matter when he hath unadvisedly taken the part of some Protestants against Baronius I do not pretend to defend all that Baronius hath alledged in this point but it seems to me that those of the Roman Church cannot with Justice be reproached (f) Error est in fide periculosissimus ne dicam Haeresis obtentu Hebraici contextûs qui sam ìnde à principio reperiri desiit in orbis nostri notis Ecclesiis Graeci auctoritatem velle elevare quod omnes hodie Hildebrandinorum sacrorum mystae in hac quaestione faciunt Casaub ibid. as Hereticks when they defend the Hebrew Text of S. Matthew to detract say they from the Authority of the Greek Copy The Defence that they undertake of the Hebrew Text of S. Matthew doth not in the least diminish the Authority of the Greek Version They only insist that the Greek is not the original but the Hebrew and if this Original were come to our hands it might with reason be preferred before the Greek which is but a Translation In the mean time since this Hebrew Text hath not been preserved in its purity in the Orthodox Churches but on the contrary hath been adopted by the Ebionite Hereticks who have corrupted it the Fragments thereof that are now extant are looked upon as Apocryphal Pieces By the word Apocryphal we ought only to understand that those Acts are doubtful and not false nor supposititious This hinders not but that good use may be made of them in those parts that are acknowledged not to have been altered an instance whereof hath been above propounded taken from S. Jerom's Commentaries on S. Matthew It were to be wished that we had at this day this Hebrew or Chaldaick Gospel entire even after the manner as it hath been interpolated by the Nazarenes and altered by the Ebionites we should not reckon it in the number of those Gospels that have been forged by Impostors as Casaubon hath indiscreetly done we should esteem it on the contrary as the most ancient Act of the Christian Religion Is there not reason to conjecture that he that hath translated the Original of S. Matthew out of Hebrew into Greek hath epitomized it in some places and sometimes taken the liberty rather to give us the Sense than the Words at least he seems to have used this liberty in the Quotations of the Old Testament that are therein produced which are more conformable to the Greek Version of the Seventy than to the Hebrew Text in the mean while there is very little appearance that S. Matthew writing his Gospel for the use of the Hebrews who read the Bible in Hebrew in their Synagogues should have quoted the Passages of the Old Testament otherwise than they were read in their Copies It is sufficient to authorize this Greek Version that it hath been read in the Churches that were constituted by the Apostles and that it hath been delivered down to us from Age to Age by a constant Tradition it is on this uninterrupted Tradition of the Churches that we ought to relye in shewing that the Greek Copy of S. Matthew is authentick and not on the imaginary Reasons of some Protestants This same Tradition of all the Churches in the World ought to be opposed to some Hereticks who have believed that the Gospel of S. Matthew hath been mangled and corrupted in several places Faustus a famous Manichean who could not adjust the Genealogy of Jesus Christ that is at the beginning of S. Matthew to the Opinions of his Party hath sought for Reasons to make it appear that it was false whereas he ought to have considered that having been received continually in the Church as well as the rest of this Gospel it bore the same stamp of Authority he compares S. Matthew with S. Luke who have related this Genealogy in a different manner and because (g) Offensus duorum maximè Evangelistarum dissensione qui genealogiam ejus scribunt Lucae Matthaei haesi incertus quemnam potissimum sequerer Apud Aug. lib. 3. cont Faust c. 1. he could not make them agree he abandons them to follow S. Mark and S. John who have made no mention thereof and who
down at the end of many Greek Manuscript Copies Baron an c. 58. n. 32. This cannot be saith Baronius because it is certain that neither S. Luke nor S. Paul have been in Achaia at that time nor even a great while after In the mean time we have no certain Acts from whence we may exactly gather the time of the Publication of this Gospel by S. Luke we only know in general that the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers do all agree that it was not written till after those of S. Matthew and S. Mark. This being granted it may be demanded what reason he had who was only a Disciple of the Apostles to publish a third Gospel knowing that S. Matthew who was an Apostle and a Witness of the most part of the Actions of Jesus Christ had already published one which had been epitomized by S. Mark These two Gospels were then in the hands of all the Christians What necessity was there that S. Luke should make a new one and that he should give notice in his Preface that they who had written before him on this same Subject were not very accurate This hath given occasion to some Authors to believe that the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Mark had not been yet published when S. Luke composed his but since this Opinion is contrary to all Antiquity Baronius insists that these two Gospels one of which was in Hebrew and the other in Greek were not then known to the Grecians and that consequently S. Luke and S. Paul could not make use of them in their Instructions Grotius also thinks that (g) Credibile est ad id tempus Matthaei librum nonnisi sermone Hebraeo extitisse Marcus autem Graecè compendium magis historiae quà m historiam scripserat Grot. Annot. in Praef. Luc. S. Matthew had not been as yet translated out of Hebrew into Greek and as for S. Mark he confesseth that his Gospel was in Greek but since it was only an Epitome this could not hinder S. Luke from writing his History But it is not probable that the Gospel of S. Matthew should have been unknown till then to the Christians that spake the Greek Language especially if we follow the Judgment of these two Writers who give it out that S. Luke had not composed his History till after S. Paul had left Rome It is much more credible that this Evangelist published his History upon occasion of some false Apostles who were set up in opposition to S. Paul whose faithful Companion he was It is a part of Prudence to obviate as much as is possible present Evils therefore S. Luke seeing that false Gospels had been dispersed in those Places where he preached with S. Paul thought himself obliged to compose a true one and to leave it in Writing to those whom he had instructed whereas the business in hand was only to suppress and stop the course of false Gospels that had been scattered abroad this had no regard to S. Matthew and S. Mark. It might also happen that he had compiled this Gospel at the desire of those whom he had converted and more especially of Theophilus to whom he dedicates it It is certain that the other Evangelists as hath been already observed have written their Histories only at the suit of those People to whom they had preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ Marcion and his Followers who in the time of Epiphanius were dispersed through Italy Egypt Palestine Syria Arabia Persia and many other Countries acknowledged none but the Gospel of S. Luke they had nevertheless retrenched divers Passages of it Besides the Name of this Evangelist was not at the head of their Copy whether it were that they received it in this manner or that they did not believe it to be made by S. Luke S. Irenaeus (h) Marcion qui ab eo sunt ad intercidendas conversi sunt scripturas Quasdam quidem in totum non cognoscentes secundùm Lucam autem Evangelium Epistolas Pauli decurtantes haec sola legitima esse dicunt quae ipse minoraverunt Iren. adv Haer. l. 3. c. 12. reproves these Hereticks for having altered according to their humor the Scriptures which the Church had authorized as being founded on a constant Tradition and for accounting no part of S. Luke's Gospel and of the Epistles of S. Paul as legitimate but that which they had reserved after they had taken away from these Books whatsoever they pleased And since they contradicted in this all the Tradition of the Churches (i) Hi qui à Marcione sunt non babent Evangelium hoc enim quod est secundùm Lucam decurtantes gloriantur se habere Evangelium Iren. ibid. he affirms that these Sectaries who boasted that they had a Gospel have none Tertullian hath written a Work on purpose against Marcion (k) Aiunt Marcionem non tam innovasse regulam separatione Legis Evangelii quà m retrò adulteratam recurasse Apud Tertul. l. 4. adv Marc. c. 3. whose Disciples gave it out that their Master had not brought any Innovation into Religion in separating the Law from the Gospel but that he had only rectified the Rule of Faith which was corrupted This Arch-Heretick who followed the Opinions of Cerdon (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 42. n. 4. rejected the Law and all the Prophets and to authorize their Novelties they supported themselves with the Words of S. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians Epist ad Gal. c 2. where this Apostle saith that he had withstood Peter and some other Apostles to the face because they did not walk uprightly according to the Truth of the Gospel Marcion (m) Connititur ad destruendum statum eorum Evangeliorum quae propria sub Apostolorum nomine eduntur vel etiam Apostolicorum ut scilicet fidem quam illis adimit suo conferat Tertull. lib. 4. adv Marc. c. 3. had taken occasion from thence to reform and even to destroy the true Gospels to give more Authority to his own Tertullian answers him that he could not charge the Apostles with corrupting the Gospels without accusing Jesus Christ at the same time who had chosen them he adds (n) Si verò Apostoli quidem integrum Evangelium contulerunt Pseudapostoli autem veritatem eorum interpolaverunt inde sunt nostra digesta quod erit germanum-illud Apostolorum quod adulteros passum est aut si tam funditùs deletum est ut cataclysmo quodam ita inundatione falsariorum obliteratum jam ergo nec Marcion habet verum Tertull. ibid. That if Marcion acknowledged that their Gospel had been entire but that it was interpolated by false Apostles and that this imperfect Copy was now in use he ought at least to shew which was the true and original Gospel that had been corrupted lastly he demands of Marcion how it could happen that he should have the true Gospel if it had been so falsified by Impostors that there was
had also taken away these words of the seventeenth Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is this then that is written the stone which the builders rejected c. He had in like manner retrenched the thirty seventh Verse and a part of the thirty eighth in which the Resurrection of the dead is declared Chap. 21. Vers 18. These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There shall not an hair of your head perish were not in his Copy nor these other words of the twenty first Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then let them which are in Judea flee to the Mountains nor the rest of this History which he had expunged because of these words of the thirty second verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till all be fulfilled Chap. 22. He had not in his Copy the sixteenth Verse of this Chapter nor the thirty fifth and thirty sixth Verses because of these words of the thirty seventh Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This that is written must yet be accomplished nor these other words that are in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he was reckoned among the transgressors He had also retrenched that which is said of S. Peter in the fiftieth Verse when he cut off the ear of one of the Servants of the High Priest Chap. 23. Verse 2. To these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We found this fellow perverting the Nation he had added these other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And destroying the law and the prophets In the same Passage after these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Forbidding to give tribute he had also added these other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and perverting the women and the children In the same Chapter Vers 43. he did not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To day shalt thou be with me in paradise Lastly Marcion had taken away from his Copy the twenty fifth Verse of the twenty fourth Chapter and these words of the twenty sixth Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ought he not to have suffered And instead of these words in vers 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the prophets have spoken he had put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That I have spoken to you Thus we have seen what was the Gospel of Marcion who was not far from the Apostolical Times when the Verity of the Gospels might have been more easily justified from the Copies that the Apostle had left to the Churches which were founded by them S. Justin Martyr had written a Book to convince this Heretick Justin apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 4. c. 11. who was then living at that time when he wrote against him S. Epiphanius who hath transmitted to us this Gospel of Marcion confutes him by his own Copy which was not so much altered but that there remained some Passages that were sufficient to overthrow his Novelties S. Irenaeus who hath also disputed against the Opinions of this Arch-Heretick had observed this long before (t) Marcion autem id quod est secundùm Lucam circumcidens ex his quae adhuc servantur penes eum blasphemus in solum existentem Deum ostenditur Irenadv Haer. lib. 3. c. 11. It may be proved saith this Father by the rest of the Gospel that Marcion hath left that he hath blasphemed against the only God that exists Altho some Diversities of Marcion's Copy might be attributed to the Transcribers especially in those Passages that are of no moment nevertheless it ought to be done with a great deal of Precaution because it is certain that this Heretick hath not followed in his Alterations any ancient Copies he hath taken care only to adjust the Gospel of S. Luke to the prejudices of his Sect as appears by what hath been above related Therefore Tertullian after he had objected to him all that S. Luke hath specified in the two first Chapters of his Gospel touching the Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ and many other Circumstances that clearly shew that he had a real Body adds (u) His opinor consiliis tot originalia instrumenta Christi delere ausus est ne caro ejus probaretur Tertull. lib. de carne Chr. c. 2. that Marcion had retrenched all this from his Gospel on purpose lest it should be proved from thence that Jesus Christ had flesh as well as we Besides these Amendments that Marcion had inserted into the Gospel of S. Luke there have been also some Catholicks who have altered it in some places who would not have that read in the Gospels which did not suit with their prejudices Therefore they have expunged the Passage wherein it is said Chap. xix 41. That Jesus Christ wept over the City of Jerusalem because this Lamentatation seemed to them to be a weakness unworthy of our Saviour S. Epiphanius who quotes these Words observes (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. in Ancor n. 31. that they were found in the Copies that had not been * For so the Greek word in this Passage of Epiphanius ought to be translated corrected and by this he informs us that the Grecians have sometimes taken the liberty to correct their Copies and to take away from them that which did not please them (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. The Orthodox saith this Father have retrenched these words being moved thereto by fear and not considering the end nor the force of them But they are found at this day in the Copies of all the Christians of what Nation soever and S. Epiphanius shews that they certainly belong to S. Luke by (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Iren. apud Epiph ibid. the testimony of S. Irenaeus who made use of them against some Hereticks If we may give credit to the Testimony of S. Hilary (a) Nec sanè ignorandum nobis est in Graecis in Latinis codicibus complurimis vel dè adveniente Angelo vel de sudore sanguineo nihil scriptum reperiri Hilar. lib. 10. de Trin. the forty third and forty fourth Verses of the twenty second Chapter were not read in many Greek and even Latin Copies of S. Luke's Gospel Mention is made in this place of the Angel that came to comfort Jesus Christ and of the bloody Sweat that fell from his Body This S. Jerom seems also to confirm Hieron lib. 2. adv Pelag. But it is easie to judge that the Grecians had taken the liberty to rase these two Verses out of their Copies for the same reason as they had taken away the Passage wherein it is said that our Saviour wept This Alteration afterwards crept into the Latin Copies (b) Haec erasa videntur à quibusdam qui verebantur Christo tribuere tam insignia humanae infirmitatis argumenta Jansen Gand. Concord Evang. c. 137. These words saith Jansenius seem to have been retrenched by some that were afraid to attribute to Jesus Christ such notable marks of human infirmity There are no Copies at this day nor for a long time since
was the Gospel of S. John from the time of Tatian the Disciple of S. Justin Martyr Selden nevertheless who hath been cited by Walaeus on this place of S. John insists very much upon these two ancient Writers to shew that this History was ever since the Primitive Ages in the Copies of the Eastern Church this he confirms by the Canons that Eusebius hath added to the Harmony of Ammonius and he concludes from thence that Eusebius also read it in his Copy of the New Testament because it is marked in these Canons but it doth not appear that Selden hath very carefully examined the Canons of Eusebius for there is no number or mark of a Section that answers in particular to the History of the adulterous Woman the twelve Verses of which it is composed are comained in the preceding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 86. Section as may be seen in these Sections or Numbers that are printed in the Greek New Testament of Robert Stephen and in some other Editions the Greek Manuscript Copies do agree in this Point with the printed and that which clearly proves that there is no number or Section of the Canons of Eusebius that refers in particular to the aforesaid twelve Verses is that this same number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 86. is also marked in the Manuscript Copies wherein they are not found therefore it cannot be inferred from the distribution or order of the Canons that Eusebius hath read the History of the Adultress in that Book to which he hath annexed them however it is not to be denied that Selden and Walaeus have had reason (c) Mirum non est in seculis primitivis exemplaria fuisse hodiéque manere quibus hae aliaeve periochae sacrae deessent cùm scilicet audacium nimis exscriptorum complurium mos tum esset aliter atque aliter pro multiplici judiciorum discrimine Evangelia variatim emendare augere minuere Quod monet Hieronymus c. Seld. apud Wal. Comm. in Joann to accuse the Grecians in general of assuming to themselves too much liberty in correcting their Copies Seld. apud Wal. Com. in Joan. adding to or diminishing from them sometimes according to their own humour and perhaps they have exercised this critical Faculty too liberally on this place of S. John as well as on many others This same History of the adulterous Woman is not found neither in the Syriack Version that Widmanstadius hath published from good Manuscript Copies of which there hath been since several other Editions nevertheless it is in some Syriack Copies from whence it hath been taken and inserted into the Polyglott Bible of England it is read also in the Arabick Translations that have been printed at Rome and in Holland from whence we may conclude that it is read at present as well in all the Eastern as in the Western Churches However Beza after he hath affirmed (d) Ex vetustis nostris codicibus 17. unus duntaxat illam non habebat In reliquis scripta quidem est sed ita ut mira sit lectionis varietas Bez Annot. in Joan. c. 7. v. 53. that of seventeen ancient Manuscripts which he had read this History was wanting but in one of them doth not forbear to suspect it because the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers as he saith have either unanimously rejected it or have been silent therein he saith moreover that it is not probable that Jesus Christ should have remained alone in the Temple with a Woman that this Relation doth not cohere with what follows and that that which is said of Jesus Christ that he wrote with his finger on the ground is a very extraordinary thing and difficult to be explained Lastly the great diversity of Readings that is found in the Greek Copies in that place causeth him to doubt of the Verity of this History Calvin discourseth with a great deal more moderation and seems also to be more reasonable than his Disciple in his Commentary on this Passage Calv. Com. sur S. Jean c. 8. v. 1. It is well known saith he that the ancient Grecians knew nothing of this present History and therefore some have conjectured that it hath been taken from some other place and added here but forasmuch as it hath been always received in the Latin Churches and is found in many Copies and ancient Books of the Grecians and contains nothing that is unworthy of an Apostolical Spirit there is no cause why we should refuse to make a good use of it Besides that which we have just now observed concerning the History of the Woman taken in Adultery which is not found in many Greek Copies some Criticks have also believed that the last Chapter of the Gospel of S. John was not written by this Evangelist Indeed it seems as if he designed to finish his History with these words Chap. 20.30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his Disciples which are not written in this Book c. Grotius who is of this Opinion (e) Sicut caput ultimum Pentateuchi caput ultimum Josuae post Mosis Josuae mortem additum est à Synedrio Hebraeorum ita caput quod sequitur post mortem Joannis additum ab Ecclesiâ Ephesinà Grot. Annot. ad cap. 20. Joan. vers 30. affirms that the rest of this Gospel hath been added after the Death of S. John by the Church of Ephesus after the same manner as the last Chapter of the Pentateuch and the last Chapter of the History of Joshua have been annexed to these Books of the Sanhedrim of the Jews but he alledgeth no solid proof of what he so freely avoucheth something indeed might have been added to the History of Moses and Joshua after their decease because as I have elsewhere observed they whose Office it was amongst the Hebrews to write the Annals of this Republick have continued their Histories and therefore these two Chapters cannot be properly called Additions but rather a Continuation of the Chronicle of this Commonwealth This case is not the same as that of the Gospel of S. John for the Church of Ephesus was not charged to continue it It may be said that the last Chapter of this Gospel hath not been put in its proper place and that there hath happened some change with respect to the order and sequence of the Words but if we reflect on the Still of S. John and the little regard to a Method or Coherence that appears throughout his whole Book we shall rather impute to himself these small Defects which alter not the Verity of this History CHAP. XIV Of the Acts of the Apostles that have been received in the Church Other Acts of the Apostles that have been forged ALthough there have been several different Acts that bear the Name of the Apostles yet the Church hath received none as true but those that we now read at this day under this Title and which all Antiquity attributes to S. Luke
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
Paris Erasm Declar. ad Theol. Paris is content to say that all these Councils do not speak of the Author of this Epistle but only of its Authority that this Title hath been added to it to denote the Epistle and that it is not denied that many have cited it under the name of S. Paul. Whereas this Answer is is too general and doth not fully satisfie the Authority of these Councils that attribute the Epistle to the Hebrews to S. Paul Guill Est praef Com. in Epist ad Hebr. I shall produce what Estius a Learned Doctor of the Faculty of Doway hath judiciously remarked on all these difficulties This Divine after he hath treated of the Question concerning the Author of this Epistle adds this other viz. whether it be a point of Faith to believe that S. Paul is the Author insomuch that the contrary opinion is to be accounted Heretical as Catharinus Sixtus Senensis Alfonsus and some other modern Writers have averred being supported by the authority of some Councils and by the practice of the whole Church that reads it in her Offices under the name of S. Paul Estius nothwithstanding all these Authorities doth not judge it to be a matter of Faith. This he proves by the positive words of divers Fathers and among others of S. Jerom and S. Augustin We have already seen what the first hath thought thereupon And as for S. Augustin he saith expresly in discoursing of this Epistle (t) Epistola quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos quamplures Apostoli Pauli esse dicunt qudam verò negant c. Aug. lib. 16. de Civ Dei 2.22 that many believe it to be S. Paul's and that others deny it to be his Now it is certain that this Father speaks in this place of Orthodox Authors As for what concerns the Councils the same Estius answers that some of those have been holden before the time of these two Fathers and that consequently nothing can be concluded from them He insists further that nothing can be inferred from the others (v) Neque enim Patribus horum Conciliorum propositum erat definire cujus ea Epistela sit auctoris sed quòd unà cum caeteris Pauli Epistolis quibus receptissimo Ecclesiae more eam annumerant inter Divinas Scripturas sit habenda Est praef Comment in Epist ad Hebr. because the design of the Bishops that were there assembled was not to determine who hath been the Author of this Epistle but only to put it in the number of the Canonical Scriputures with the other Letters of S. Paul. Then he justifies by these same Councils and he proves it also by these words of the Council of Carthage Pauli Epistolae tredecim ad Hebraeos una This Council hath as he thought separately mentioned this that is directed to the Hebrews because they were not so well assured as of the others that it was S. Paul's he adds (x) Verùm sciebat Augustinus non omnia quae quoquo modo dicuntur in Conciliis definitivè dici Est ibid. that S. Augustin who had a Veneration for this Council would not have doubted of the Author of this Epistle if he were persuaded that this had been therein defined This Father saith he knew well that all things that are said or disputed in Councils are not Articles of Faith and he proves it by some Examples But after all Estius (y) Censeo quidem cum Theologicâ Facultate Parisiensi cum Melchiore Cano temerarium esse si quis Epistolam ad Hebraeos negaret esse Pauli Apostoli sed haereticum ob id solum pronunciare non ausim Est ibid. concludes with the Divines of Paris and Melchior Canus that it would be a piece of rashness to maintain that S. Paul is not the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews Nevertheless he durst not pronounce the opinion of those to be Heretical who deny that it was written by this Apostle and in this he appears very judicious for indeed there is no matter of Heresie in it Furthermore I have inlarged a little on this Remark of Estius because it clears every thing that hath respect to the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and teacheth the Divines at the same time not to run too fast in point of Heresie The Divines of Paris do not only condemn Erasmus as being too rash but they add also in their Censure touching the Authors of every Book of the New Testament (z) Jam non est fas Christiano de illis dubitare Cens Fac. Theol. Paris that it is no longer lawful for any Christian to doubt of them On this account every man that is not fully satisfied that S. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews is a bad Christian according to the determination of the Faculty of Divinity at Paris nevertheless he is not an Heretick Erasmus instead of replying punctually to these Learned Doctors elndes their Decrees by general Answers He saith that he doth not believe (a) Quidquid receptum est usu Ecclesiastico non protinùs obligat noi ad credendum tanquam articulum fidei Erasm Declar. ad Theol. Paris that every thing that is received by an Ecclesiastical Custom becomes immediately an Article of Faith. However he shews his submission to the Decrees of the Church when he adds in this same place that if he follows his Reason (b) Juxta sensum humanum nec credo Epistolam ad Hebraeos esse Pauli aut Lucae nec secundam Petri esse Petri nec Apocalypsin esse Joannis Apostoli qui scripsit Evangelium-solus ille scrupulus habet animum meum an Ecclesia receperit titulos ut non solùm velit haberi pro indubitatis quae in his libris scripta sunt verùm pariter exigat ut pro indubitato habeamus ab his auctoribus esse profecta quorum titulos gerunt Id si est damno ac rejicio dubitationem meam-plus apud me valet expressum Ecclesiae judicium quà m ullae rationes humanae Erasm Declar. ad Theol. Paris he cannot judge that the Epistle to the Hebrews is S. Paul's nor S. Luke's neither that the second under the name of S. Peter was written by this Apostle nor that the Revelation doth belong to the Apostle S. John that all his scruple is to know whether the Church hath so authorised the Titles of holy Writ that she hath decreed not only that that which is contained in these Books is most true but also that those persons to whom they are attributed are certainly the Authors of them If this be so saith Erasmus I condemn my Reasons of doubting for I prefer the express Judgment of the Church before any human Reasons whatsoever Upon the whole matter all this Difficulty may be reduced to this to know whether the Church in pronouncing the Books of the Old and New Testament to be Canonical and Divine hath declared at the same time that they were written by the Authors whose
Names they bear This is necessary to be observed here that it may be applied to the other Books of the New Testament of which we shall treat in the Sequel of this Work. It hath been often objected to the Lutherans that their Patriarch hath rejected this Epistle who believed not that it was written by any Apostle But besides their reading it in their German Bibles with the other Epistles of S. Paul they answer that it might be permitted to their Master to raise this Doubt after so many ancient Authors and that he hath nevertheless acknowledged (c) Esse tamen pulcherrimam insignem Epistolam à discipulo quodam Apostolorum scriptam Raith Vind. Vers Germ. Luth. th 22. that it was most excellent Calv. argum de ses Comm. sur l' Epist aux Hebr. and composed by some Disciple of the Apostles Calvin hath presixed to his Commentaries on this Epistle a Discourse where he saith For my part I cannot believe that S. Paul is the Author of it One would think that the Socinians should expunge this Epistle to the Hebrews out of the Catalogue of the Canonical Books in imitation of the Arians In the mean time tho they are persuaded that there is no certainty as to the Author of it yet they do not forbear to receive it with the other Epistles of S. Paul. Therefore Socinus himself after he hath produced some Arguments (d) Videtur mihi ipsa in universum scribendi ratio auctoris illius Epistolae admodum diversa ab eâ quâ quam secutus est Paulus quamvis aeque divina Soc. de Auctor Script Sac. n. 2. that give occasion to a scruple whether it appertains to this Apostle adds that however it is no less Divine he confesseth that it is not without reason that it is doubted whether the person to whom it is commonly attributed be certainly the Author but he saith at the same time that tho the name of an Author of a Book be not known it doth not follow that this Book is of no authority or even of less than if it were known Enjedinus a subtil Unitarian insists also at large on this Subject when he examins some Passages of the Epistle to the Hebrews Georg. Enjed. locor Epist ad Hebr. he relates all that he hath read thereupon in the Writings of Erasmus and Beza and of some other Commentators on the holy Scriptures But after he hath too nicely alledged such Reasons as not only take away this Epistle from S. Paul but also render it suspected he doth not fail to reckon it in the number of the Canonical Books It is well worth the observing that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not so favourable to the Orthodox against the Arians but that they have likewise made use of it against the Catholicks to authorize their Novelties This may be seen in the Works of S. Epiphanius who takes notice that altho these Hereticks did not acknowledge it as an Apostolical Writing yet they did not forbear to oppose the Faith of the Church with these words of this same Epistle chap. 3. v. 1 2. (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist ad Hebr. cap. 3. v. 2. Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession Jesus Christ who was faithful to him that appointed him (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 69. n. 37. From these words who was faithful to him that appointed or made him they concluded that Jesus Christ was a Creature As for the Language in which the Epistle to the Hebrews was composed the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers have all judged that the Greek Text which we now have is too pure and elegant to be S. Paul's but it cannot be necessarily concluded from thence that it was at first written in Hebrew or Chaldaick by this holy Apostle I am rather inclined to believe with Origen that it hath been compiled by one of the Amanuenses or Interpreters of S. Paul to whom all Antiquity hath ascribed it by reason of the Grandeur of the Conceptions in which there is a certain Art that could proceed only from a Learned Jew of the Sect of the Pharisees The Jews themselves at this day who have any knowledge of their ancient Authors do freely confess that there is something in it that is great and sublime If we knew precisely to what sort of Jews it was directed we might more easily judge of the Language in which it was written But since this question is but of little moment and we can have nothing but Conjectures thereupon I shall not insist any longer on it CHAP. XVII Of the Catholick or Canonical Epistles in general and in particular THE Grecians have called Catholick or universal the seven Epistles which we read under this Name because for the most part they were not written to particular Churches as those of S. Paul. The Title of Canonical seems to have been affected especially in the Western Churches because it hath been doubted whether some of them ought to be put in the number of the Canonical Books Cardinal Cajetan hath thought that the Epistle of S. James which is directed to the twelve Tribes of the Jews in general (a) Magis libri quà m epistolae titulum merebatur scripta est enim non ut deferretur duodecim Tribubus dispersis cùm hoc esset impossibile sed ad instruendum eos Cajet Comm. in c. 1. Epist Jac. deserves rather the Name of a Book than of an Epistle because it was not written to be carried to the Jews that were dispersed amongst divers Nations but he is mistaken in this for we write as well to Communities even those that are separated in different Countries as to particular Assemblies And these Letters are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catholick or Circulary The Author of the Preface at the beginning of the Canonical Epistles which is attributed to S. Jerom and is found in the most part of Manuscript Copies and in the first Latin Editions of the Bible hath observed (b) Non ita est ordo apud Graecos qui integrè sapiunt fidemque rectam sectantur Epistolarum septem quae Canonicae nuncupantur sicut in Latinis codicibus invenitur ut quòd Petrus primus in ordine Apostolorum prinae sint etiam ejus Epistolae in ordine caeterarum Hieron Prolog in VII Epist Can. that the Order of these Epistles in his time was not the same in the Latin as in the Greek Copies of the Orthodox The Epistle of S. James was the first in the Greek whereas the Latins had placed that of S. Peter at the head of all the rest having had regard to the Primacy of his Apostleship This Author declares that he hath re-established their ancient Order putting that of St. James at the beginning and afterwards the two of St. Peter the three of St. John and at last that of St. Jude this indeed is the Order that is found in the Greek Manuscript Copies and even
seen in his time at Ephesus two Tombs of John. S. Jerom Hieron de Script Eccl. in Joann who often translates the words of Eusebius out of Greek into Latin hath also made this same Remark Reliquae autem duae saith he speaking of these two Epistles of S. John Joannis Presbyteri asseruntur cujus hodie alterum sepulchrum apud Ephesum ostenditur He adds nevertheless that some thought that these two Monuments were of S. John the Evangelist Nonnulli putant duas memorias ejusdem Joannis Evangelistae esse He repeats this same History when he makes mention of Papias and saith (ſ) Hoc autem diximus propter superiorem opinionem quam à plerisque retulimus traditam duas posteriores Epistolas Joannis non Apostoli esse sed Presbyteri Hieron de Script Eccles in Papiâ that he relates it for the sake of a a great number of persons that believed that this second John to whom the simple name of Priest is given was the Author of these two Epistles and not the Apostle However Athan. in Synops the Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures attributes these two last Epistles no less to the Apostle S. John than the first And it seems that the Latin Church that reads it in her Offices under the same Name hath authorised this Opinion which is likewise conformable to the Testimony of the most ancient Writers of this Church Therefore the Name of this Apostle Beati Joannis Apostoli is retained in the Latin Title of these three Epistles in the vulgar Edition In the Syriack Copy of these two last Epistles that have been Printed in the Polyglott Bible of England the simple Name of John is put whereas in the first it is read of John the Apostle This seems to have been done on purpose to distinguish the Authors of these Epistles In the Arabick Copy published by Erpenius these three Epistles are ascribed to the Apostle S. John who is named in the Title of the two first John the son of Zebedee and in the Title of the third John the Apostle Lastly Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 25. there have been raised no lest doubts in the Primitive Ages of the Church concerning the Epistle of S. Jude than of the preceding Letters for this reason Eusebius hath reckoned it in the number of those Books of the New Testament that were not generally received by all the Churches S. Jerom who hath made the same observation (t) Judas frater Jacobi parvam quae de septem Catholicis est epistolam reliquit quia de libro Enoch qui apocryphus est in ea assumit testimonium à plerisque rejicitur Tamen auctoritatem vetustate jam usu meruit inter Scripturas Sacras computatur Hieron de Script Eccles in Judâ adds that that which gave occasion to reject it was the Apocryphal Book of Enoch which is cited therein And that this nevertheless hath not hindered it from being placed in the rank of the Sacred Books its Antiquity and Use having given it this Authority In like manner it hath been generally received by all the Churches as well Eastern as Western The Unitarians and Protestants also have put it amongst the other Canonical Books of the New Testament Luther hath nevertheless doubted of it as well as of the Epistle of St. James but they that follow his Opinion are so far from rejecting it at present that they use their utmost endeavours to put a fair Construction on their Masters words Calvin after he hath acknowledged that the Ancients have differed very much amongst themselves touching this Epistle Calv. argum de ses Comm. sur l'ep de Sainte Jude expresseth himself thus However because the reading of it is very profitable and it contains nothing but what is agreeable to the purity of the Apostolical Doctrine and in regard also that it hath been accounted Authentick for a long time amongst all good People for my part I willingly place it in the number of the other Epistles Cajetan hath inserred from the above cited words of St. Jerom (u) Ex quibus apparet minoris esse aucloritatis hanc Epistolam iis quae sunt certae Scripturae Sacrae Cajet Comm. in Epist Jud. that this Epistle is of less Authority than these Writings of the Apostles of the verity of which we have been certainly assured but this might have been properly said in those ancient times when it was not approved by all the Churches whereas when this Cardinal wrote there were none that did not receive it as Divine and Canonical and therefore it hath no less Authority than the other Sacred Books that are comprehended in the Canon of the Church Grot. Annot in Epist Jud. Grotius did not believe that this Epistle was written by St. Jude the Apostle because the Author hath taken upon him only the quality of a Servant of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith moreover that (x) Si Apostolica fuisset habita haec Epistola versa fuisset in linguas omnes recepta per omnes Ecclesias Grot. Annot. in Epist Jud. if it were certainly esteemed Apostolical it would have been Translated into all Languages and received by all the Churches therefore he judgeth that it belongs to Jude Bishop of Jerusalem who lived under the Emperor Adrian But the first words of this Epistle do declare to us that it can come from no other hand than that of the Apostle St. Jude since he calls himself Jude the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James For to say with Grotius that these words Brother of James have been afterwards added by the Transcribers that it might be believed that this Jude was certainly an Apostle is to beg the question they that would prove that this hath been inserted by the Transcribers ought to produce good Copies of this Epistle or certain ancient Acts on which we might rely Any Man that should have a mind absolutely to reject the Epistle of St. Jude might easily say with as much reason as Grotius that he that hath forged it hath put therein the name of Jude the Brother of James Therefore Arguments that are purely Critical ought never to be opposed against Acts that are ancient and generally received by all the World. It is true that the Epistle of St. Jude is less quoted by the ancient Doctors of the Church than the most part of the other Books of the New Testament and that it is not found in the ancient Copies of the Syriack Version But it can be only concluded from thence that it was not at first received in all the Churches it might however have been published ever since the Primitive times of the Christian Religion under the name of St. Jude the Brother of James and yet not be Translated into all the Languages of the Churches because it was then doubted in the most part of these Churches whether it was his whose name it bore
loco nihilominùs firmissimis documentis aliis stabiliri intelligeret Raith Vind. Vers Germ. Luth. says that Luther did think fit to put that only in his Version which was constantly and by all agreed on and that consequently he might omit a Verse about which some doubts had arisen and which was not in Aldus's Edition which he made use of as it is believed Besides he was persuaded that there were other passages which afforded a lasting Foundation for the belief of the Trinity This is a plausible Reason because Luther took upon him the Translating a Greek Copy into his own Language But if the Master was to be justified in this respect I see no reason why his Disciples should alter his Version in that place and that they should commend to the people for the true word of God a thing they believed to be doubtful It might possibly have been more to the purpose according to their principle to preserve their ancient Dutch Version and content themselves with placing that Verse in the Margin by way of remark On the contrary they bring it at this day against the Antitrinitarians as a strong proof of the Mystery of the Trinity little thinking that they give them by that means the fairest occasion imaginable of Triumphing over them It is the bare Authority of the Church that does at present oblige us to receive that passage as Authentick The Greeks though otherwise disaffected to the Latin Church fully agree with them in this matter There is a greater Uniformity amongst the Calvinists in their Versions of the New Testament than amongst the Lutherans For though they pretend as well as they to Translate the Original Greek yet they have retained that Verse in all their Translations Beza who openly declares that it is not to be found in the most part of the Ancients yet says withal (l) Hic versiculus omninò mihi retinendus videtur Beza Not. in 1 Joann c. 5. v. 7. that it ought to be kept in the Text whereof it is a part Diodati who has likewise retained it in his Italian Version is of Opinion (m) Cosi in essenza come in unione è consentimento di questa testimonianza Diod. Not. in 1 Joann c. 5. that the Unity mentioned in that place is as well an Unity of Nature as an Unity or Consent of Testimony But Calvin is much more reserved on this occasion according to his wonted precaution never to make us weak Arguments against the Antitrinitarians That Expression says he Three are One does not denote the Essence but the Consent Calv. Comm. in Epist 1. Joann c. 5. v. 7. He perceived no less than Luther that that passage was not in the most Copies and was very sensible that it would be a matter of no small difficulty to reconcile the words of St. Jerome in that Preface which is alledged to be his to the ancient Greek Books He durst not deal freely in the matter lest he should have offended his weak Brethren I shall here set down his own words that the World may see how this Man carried himself when upon any occasion he was obliged to Critisize on such places of Scripture as appeared to him doubtful Calv. ibid. All this has been omitted by some Which St. Jerome thought did proceed rather from malice than ignorance or inadvertency and which was not done but by those of the Latin Church But forasmuch as the Greek Books do not agree amongst themselves it is not easie for me to be positive about the matter Nevertheless because the Text runs very well with that Addition and as I observe it is extant in the best and most Correct Copies for my part I am very willing to admit of it CHAP. XIX Of the Book of the Revelation What was the Belief of the Ancients concerning it The Hereticks that did reject it Their Reasons which are Examined There have been also Learned Catholicks of ancient time who have ascribed it to Cerinthus The Opinion of these latter times about the same Book WHat remains of the Books of the New Testament to be examined is the Apocalyps which St. Jerom makes mention of Hierom. Epist ad Dard. in one of his Epistles as being a Book that was not commonly received in the Greek Churches of his time But if Tertullian's Maxim have any weight with us illud verum quod prius i. e. That is most likely to be true that was first We will prefer the Universal Opinion of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers to that of some Greek Churches of later times It is upon this ground that Grotius gives his Judgment of this Book when he says that (a) Apostoli Joannis esse hunc librum credidere illi quibus meritò creditur Justinus contra Tryphonem Irenaeus Tertullianus adversus Marcionem aliis multis in locis quibus consentiunt Clemens Alexandrinus Origenes Cyprianus post eos alii multi Grot. Annot. in tit Apoc. St. Justin St. Irenaeus Tertullian Clement of Alexandria Origen St. Cyprian who may be believed in this matter have by one common consent avouched St. John as the Author of that Book Flaccus Illyricus had affirmed the same thing before assuring us (b) Si iis habeatur fides Patribus qui propiùs ad hoc accesserunt seculum uti certè aequissimum est quales sunt Justinus Tertullianus Irenaeus Apollonius Theophylus Antiochenus affirmari poterit eam ut Joannis Apostoli illo primo seculo habitam Cur enim tam certoò Joannis Apostoli esse confirmarent si dubias de eâ extitisse sententias antecessorum cognovissent Flac. Illyr arg in Apoc. that it is very reasonable we should refer this to the Fathers who lived near the time of the Author And therefore Baronius has judiciously observed that what St. Jerom does alledge concerning the Opinion of the Greek Churches about the Apocalyps cannot be altogether true seeing that St. Epiphanius who lived at that time Baron ann Ch. 97. n. 6. and who was not much older than he defended the Authority of that Book against the Alogian and Theodotian Hereticks That Cardinal does nevertheless declare that he cannot in this respect blame St. Jerom for having unhappily traduced the Greek Churches in his time He believed that he meant St. Basil Amphilochius the two Gregories of Nazianzen and Nysse and the Council of Laodicea Baron ibid. n. 7. who did not reckon the Apocalyps amongst the Canonical Books of Scripture He distinguishes betwixt those Fathers and the Alogians and Theodotians upon this account that the former had not impeached the Authority of that Book with an avowed obstinacy as the latter had done And even St. Epiphanius is not so much against St. Jerom but that he insinuates that the Alogians who rejected in general all that is extant of St. John's Writings would have been in some respect excusable if they had rejected nothing but the Revelation which is an obscure and unintelligible Book The
Alogians pretended that the Apocalips and the rest of St. John's Writings were composed by the Heretick Cerinthus Which they endeavoured to shew by the agreement that the Doctrine which Cerinthus professed had to that contained in the Books of that Apostle and especially in his Revelation They likewise drew up particular objections against this latter Work. (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alog. apud Epiph. Haer. 51. n. 32. Of what use say they can the Revelation of St. John be to us when he tells us of seven Angels and of seven Trumpets St. Epiphanius gives them this answer Epiph. ibid. that God was pleased to reveal to his servant John what was most mysterious in the Law and the Prophets to the end that he might treat of them in a spiritual and intelligible manner And seeing those Hereticks were so bold as to ridicule what is said of the seven Trumpets he charges them upon that account either of malice or ignorance from the words of St. Paul who has also made mention of those Trumpets in his first Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. xv 52. where he says The trumpet shall sound and at the sound of this trumpet the dead shall rise Some of the Alogians to disparage the Authority of the Apocalyps another argument make use of these words for in Chap. ii ver 18. of the Book To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira write (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alog. apud Epiph. ibid. n. 33. There was not at that time say they any Christian Church in Thyatira How could St. John write to a Church which had no being St. Epiphanius being of the same opinion with the Alogians that there was no Church in that place at that time that he may answer their objection is forced to have recourse to the Spirit of Prophecy He thinks that St. John who was inspired by God foresaw what should happen in process of time And therefore he gives us the most exact account that he can of the City of Thyatira about the time when the Phrygian Hereticks did bear sway there He shews how it afterwards became an Orthodox and most famous Church (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. The design of the Holy Ghost says he was to reveal in that place of the Apocalyps that that Church should fall from the Truth after the time of St. John and the other Apostles Which happened as Epiphanius himself does tell us ninety three years after the Ascension of our Lord and Saviour Seeing this answer of St. Epiphanius does agree with the Opinion of the Alogians that there was no Christian Church in effect in the City of Thyatira at that time Socinus (f) Mihi quidem ut verum fatear responsio ista non admodum probatur cùm propter alia tum propter id quod nimis apertè ex ipsâ historiâ Apacalypsis constare videtur jam istam Ecclesiam Thyatirensem reverà extitisse Soc. Lect. Sacr. p. 306. could by no means admit of it being persuaded that the Text of the Apocalyps does evidently shew that there was a Church therein He believed that there were several Cities of that name But for all that he does not prove against the Alogians that there was a Church in Thyatira When he brings the plain words of the Apocalyps against them he gets the thing in Question for an Answer seeing those Sectaries endeavoured by that means to lessen the Authority of that Book It is probable that at that time when St. Epiphanius lived there was no Catalogue of the Bishops of that Church nor of other publick Records that might make it manifest that there had beed a Church founded in that City from the times of the Apostles And therefore Grotius does give a more judicious answer That the truth is Grot. Annot. ad c. 2. Apoc. v. 18. there was not any Church of the Gentiles in Thyatira when St. John writ the Revelation but there was a Church of the Jews as also there was the like at Thessalonica before St. Paul Preached there The Alogians do also cavil about that which is mentioned in the same Book Chap. ix ver 14. Of the four Angels which were bound on the River Euphrates Epiph. ibid. But St. Epiphanius does in this charge them with ignorance because those Angels who were placed on the River Euphrates do signifie according to his Opinion so many Nations that were situated on that River viz. the Assyrians Babylonians Medes and Persians And adds that seeing Nations are subject to Angels those words of the Apocalyps Loose the four Angels which are upon Euphrates make very good sense St. John intending to shew thereby that those Nations being loosed should make War against another People I shall not here examin whether or no the Exposition given by St. Epiphanius be agreeable to the Text but content my self to observe in general that seeing that Book is a Prophesie and no History the Author was to write as Prophets were wont to do in a Figurative Stile And so the Alogians were inexcusable for their prejudice against this Book upon the account of the expressions which to them appeared very strange unless they imagined that there was no such thing as a Prophesie in the New Testament Cajus an Orthodox Writer who lived at Rome under Pope Zephyrin and of whom we have spoken before did also believe that Cerinthus was the Author of the Revelation of St. John. He treated that Heretick with derision (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caj apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 28. who As if he had been a great Apostle writ Revelations which he pretended to have received from Angels and in which he assured us that after the Resurrection Jesus Christ shall reign upon the Earth He allowed the space of a thousand years to this Carnal Kingdom which was to be accompanied with all sorts of pleasures For this cause he calls Cerinthus an Enemy to the Holy Scriptures and spoke in this manner of the Apocalyps which he thought was written by him and not by St. John. Denis Dion Alex. apud Eus bid Bishop of Alexandria who vigorously defended the Authority of this Book did likewise observe that some Authors did ascribe the Apocalyps to Cerinthus who according to their Opinion had prefixed St. John's Name to the Book to give Authority to his Babling about the Carnal Reign of Jesus Christ on the Earth Seeing this Opinion that maintained a Chimerical Dominion of a thousand years was spread in the Church this Learned Bishop writ two Treatises against it Entituled * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the Promises Wherein he takes to task (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 7. Hist Eccl. c. 24. Nepos a certain Bishop of Egypt who Expounded the Promises which God in Scripture has made to Mankind in a sense that speaks the Expositor to have been more Jew than Christian dreaming of a Carnal Kingdom upon the
Earth that should continue for the space of a thousand years during which time all manner of Pleasures should be enjoyed Upon this subject Nepos did publish a Book Entituled †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Refutation of Allegorists laughing at such Catholicks as Expounded Allegorically that place in the Apocalyps that makes mention of the Reign of a thousand years Which Work made a great impression on the minds of those who read it because the Author who had carefully applied himself to the study of the Holy Scriptures had acquired a very great Reputation Besides his Reasons appeared to be the more probable because they were founded on the Literal Sense of Scripture whereas the contrary Opinion was grounded upon Allegories only from which nothing can be concluded Denis does likewise (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb ibid. declare the honorable esteem he had for the Memory of his then deceased Adversary whose Faith and Parts he commends But withal he adds that the love which he bore to the Truth above all other things was a sufficient motive that engaged him to write against that Work that was so much admired in Egypt that many preferred the Doctrine therein contained to the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles they were so much puffed up with the Idea of the thousand years Reign on the Earth The matter was brought to that pass that Nepos his Followers chused rather to make a Schism than to abdicate their Opinion But Denis afterwards in a publick Dispute having discovered the falsity thereof brought them to renounce their error It is a very judicious course that that Learned Bishop takes as to his manner of defending the Authority of the Apocalyps against those who rejected it as a supposititious Book and done by Cerinthus He appeared to be in no wise byassed by any preoccupation as to his own Opinion nor guilty of concealing the Reasons of his Adversaries And therefore he freely declares that (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dion Alex. apud Euseb ibid. cap. 25. some Ecclesiastical Writers who lived in his time had opposed that Book with all their might refuting it with a nice and resolute eagerness alledging that it was written without Sense and without Reason They further assured us that the Title of that Work was forged by Cerinthus and that the Title Apocalyps or Revelation could not be attributed to a Book which in their Opinion was stuffed with things that manifest a profound ignorance Notwithstanding all those Objections Denis avows that he cannot reject it as perceiving that it was approved by the most part of his Brethren and to the Reasons on the other side he replies that there is a sublime and hidden Sense in the Expressions of that Author for which he is resolved to have an high veneration though he does not comprehend it being persuaded that Faith and not his own knowledge ought to be the Rule in that case (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. I do not saith he condemn that which I cannot understand on the contrary I admire it because I cannot comprehend it Which nevertheless does not hinder him from examining all the parts of the Books particularly and he shews (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. That it is impossible to Expound it according to the Letter or Sense which the words at first view seem to warrant He further declares that it was composed by a Man called John who was inspired by God. But he does not think that that John was an Apostle and grounds his Opinion on this that the Apostle St. John did put his Name to none of his Works and that he never speaks of himself On the contrary the Author of the Revelation does name himself at the beginning and frequently in the Body of his Work for example in the Letter he writes to the seven Churches of Asia he begins with these words John to the seven Churches which are in Asia But St. John does not so much as put his name to his Catholick Epistle in his entrance upon the matter Neither is it seen at the beginning of his two other Epistles that are very short and pass under his name This difference of Stile makes Denis the Bishop of Alexandria to conclude that the Revelation was not written by St. John and he affirms at the same time that it is uncertain who that John was He proves nevertheless that it is in no wise likely that he was John Sirnamed Mark made mention of in the Acts of the Apostles and who was Companion to Paul and Barnabas in their Travels because he did not follow them into Asia And therefore he judges that he was one of those who lived at Ephesus where there were two Sepulchres with that name Once he has recourse to the difference of Stile from which he pretends to prove that the Apostle St. John who writ the Gospel and one Epistle cannot be the Author of the Apocalyps According to his Opinion the same things and the same expressions are found in the former Books The Revelation on the contrary is quite different from both Thus I have considered at large the judgment of Denis the Bishop of Alexandria upon the Apocalyps upon which Eusebius has more fully Paraphrased because it contains in a few words all that can be said upon this subject He informs us at the same time that the ancient Doctors of the Church made a great account of Tradition upon such an emergent occasion as required their Judgment whether a Book was Canonical or no. We also see that in such junctures they observed the Rules that are commonly received amongst Criticks For the Bishop according to the rigorous Laws of Criticism does examine the Diction or Stile of the Apocalyps (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionis apud Euseb ibid. Which says he is in no wise good Greek being full of Barbarisms and Solecisms The distinction he uses concerning two Johns who lived in Ephesus is grounded upon the Testimony of Papias who was Contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles Eusebius who inserted that Testimony in his History does add that he is positive in it For (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb if the Apostle St. John is not the true Author of the Apocalyps which bears the name of John it is probable that it was written by that second John. Nevertheless the most ancient Fathers viz. Justin and Irenaeus made no account of this distinction nor difference of Stile on which Denis so much insists upon Nor can there be any thing concluded from the Title of the Apocalyps that in the most of Greek Copies whether Manuscript or Printed there is the name of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John the Divine and not of the Apostle St. John set therein Those who annexed that Title meant only to describe St. John the Evangelist whom the Greek Fathers do call the Divine by way of Excellency to distinguish him from other Evangelists
All the Eastern Churches at this day read that Book under the name of the Apostle St. John. It is true that it is not so in the ancient Syriack Copies because it was not in the Greek one from which those were taken It is ascribed to St. John in the Syriack Edition of the English Polyglott Bible and also in the Arabick Printed in the same Polyglott it bears the name of John the Apostle Evangelist and lastly in the Arabick published by Erpenius that of John the Evangelist Not that I believe such Titles which are but late to be of any great Authority I produce them only to shew the Universal consent of the Churches as well that of the East as that of the West concerning the Author of the Revelation As to what concerns such singular expressions as are no where to be found but in this Book chiefly that where there is mention made of the Reign of Jesus Christ upon the Earth with the Saints which shall continue for the space of a thousand years Illyricus has very well observed that since that Book (p) Phrases illas mysticè ut in sermone prophetico intelligendas Illyr argum in Apoc. is written in a Prophetical Stile the expressions used therein ought to be taken in a Mystical sense In which he had apparently as to his Judgment the advantage of Luther who could not avoid the reproach that was put upon him by Bellarmin and some other Opponents for not considering the Apocalyps as a Prophetical and Apostolical Work yet his Disciples who acknowledged all that Book to be Divine and Canonical have endeavoured to justifie him They alledged (q) Lutherum quod attinet quidquid olim seripserit in veteri praefatione in eâ sane quae hodie in codicibus legitur nihil de Apocalypsi asserit aliud quà m in dubio se relinquere utrum sit Joannis Apostoli quod nonnulli ex vetustioribus Patribus id inficiati sint nihil tamen hoc ipso se prejudicare velle aliis Christ Korthol de Canon Script S. c. 18. without any regard to his ancient Preface that he said nothing else in that which is found in his Works but what has been observed by some of the ancient Fathers viz. that it was not generally agreed upon that St. John was the Author of the Apocalyps And Erasmus had likewise enough to do upon the like account with the Divines of Paris who censure one of his propositions wherein he affirmed (r) De Apocalypsi diu dubitatum est non dico ab haereticis sed ab orthodoxis viris qui scriptum tamen ut à Spiritu Sancto profectum amplectebantur de scriptoris nomine incerti Erasm decl ad Theol. Paris that there had been for a long time some doubting about that Book not only amongst the Hereticks but also the Orthodox who though they received it as Canonical did profess they were not certain who was the Author What Erasmus does affirm in this case is not to be charged with falshood since it is grounded upon a matter of Fact that may be easily proved from the Writings of the ancient Doctors of the Church Yet the Parisian Divines were so forward to censure him since they persuaded themselves that he manifestly knew by the usage of the Church and the definitions of Councils that the Apocalyps was published by St. John. Cons Facul Theol. Paris The Councils on which they stood were the three of Carthage that of Rome under Pope Gelasius and that of Toledo in which Isidore of Sevile was an Assistant To this they joyned the Authority of St. Denis called the Areopagite St. Irenaeus St. Justin Pope Innocent I. St. Augustin and St. John of Damascus Erasmus as it should seem ought to have answered that notwithstanding all those Authorities his supposition might be true seeing he had also Orthodox Authors on his side He might also have said that none of those Councils stood much on the Author of the Apocalyps but barely complyed with the opinion that commonly obtained in their time which ascribed that Book to St. John. But in stead of that he only returned such answers as were extravagant and impertinent He affirms that the World was at that time filled with Apocryphal Books bearing forged Titles and that the most part of honest Men were then persuaded that such sort of falsities might be debated He afterwards inveighs against (ſ) Isidorus Hispalensis scripsit rudi seculo habuisse videtur locupletem bibliothecam quâ potuisset rectiùs uti si fuisset exactè doctus Certè rhapsodus fuit quemadmodum Beda Quanquam Beda meo judicio fuit illo tum eruditior tum cloquentior Erasm declar ad cens Fac. Theol. Paris Isidore as being a Man of mean capacity and judgment who had not the sense to make use of a very good Library which he had in his possession He was saith he as unskilful in making Collections as Beda but the latter was the more Judicious and Eloquent of the two This is an instance of Learning whereof there is an ill use made If Isidore and Bede were justly charged by him on that account he ought to have proved that they were much in the wrong here in preferring the opinion of St. Justin St. Irenaeus and the most ancient Fathers to that of some other Writers who were not so near the first Age. The answer he made to the Divines of Paris was more likely to provoke them than his first Proposition was For he thereby plainly reproached those sage Masters that they were conversant in no good Authors but only Rhapsodists and unskilful Compilers of History It is true that he might not offend them he adds at the same time that (t) Profiteor me de titulis quoque credere quod credit universalis Ecclesia cujus auctoritati facilè sensum meum submitto non hîc tantùm sed in omnibus quoque caeteris modò ne protinùs Ecclesiae sit quidquid quocunque modo in usum Christianorum irrepsit aut cuivis Episcopo placuit Erasm ibid. as to what concerns the Titles of the Books of Scripture he does refer himself to the Judgment of the Universal Church to which he does entirely submit provided that the name of the Church Universal be not ascribed to all that is so called according to the custom and use which has been introduced and does obtain amongst Christians nor to the particular Opinions of every Bishop If we measure the Opinion of the Unitaries by that of Socinus who is one of their Heroes they have affirmed nothing concerning the Apocalyps but what is agreeable to good sense This Unitary does assure us that that Book was always by common consent attributed to St. John Soc. de Auctor Scrip. Sac. c. 1. n. 2. Quod Scriptum semper communi consensu tributum fuit Joauni Apostolo Evangelistae To that objection that many Authors have doubted thereof he makes answer that the Judgment
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
thence inferred with him that that Apostle did Write his Gospel in the Hebrew rather than in the Greek For having established his abode in the places where the Greek was spoken he instructed the several People whose Apostle he was in the Language which they spake And seeing his Gospel is only a Collection of his Sermons he writ it in the same Language And therefore I do not apprehend that Salmasius has established undoubted Principles for warranting this general Consequence (e) Scribebant igitur Apostoli idiomate suo linguâ sibi familiari vernaclâ quae protinùs à Syris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel Graecis ipsis ad fidem conversis quos secum habebant Evangelii praedicandi adjutores administros in Graecum transferebantur Salmas ibid. p. 258. That the Apostles writ their Books in their Mother-Tongue which was the Syriack Language and that afterwards they were Translated into Greek by the Syrians who understood the Greek or yet by the Converted Greeks whom they used as Coadjutors and Interpreters for the Preaching of the Gospel But besides that we have formerly spoken of these Interpreters and Fellow helpers though they should be acknowledged to have been in the same manner as Salmasius does suppose it might be always said that the Books of the New Testament are written in the Greek of the Synagogue It is much more probable that the Apostles who were Galileans are the Authors thereof For if they had made use of Persons Learned in the Greek Language there would not be found so many Hebraisms in them The Stile of St. John's Gospel does shew that it was written by a Galilean rather than a Grecian However it be Salmasius is obliged to declare that the Writings of the New Testament are full of modes of Speech that are altogether Syriack and herein the Hellenistick Language is made to consist He only differs from those whom he calls Hellenisticaries (f) Illi Syriasmi quibus totus conspersus est Novi Testamenti Graeci textus ex charactere nimirum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quo de verbo ad verbum expressa peragitur transtatio Salm. ibid. in this that he attributes the form of the Syriack Phrases to the Interpreters of the Apostles whereas the Hellenisticaries do ascribe them to the Apostles themselves But whether it be that the Apostles themselves or their Interpreters were the Authors thereof the thing it self will be always granted And thus he does rather establish than destroy the Hellenistick Language As for St. Paul and St. Luke who understood the Greek Language Salmasius does also acknowledge that their Writings are full of Chaldaisms and the Reason that he brings is (g) Quod de Paulo Lucâ licet asserere qui utriusque linguae periti in eam quâ scripserunt ex alterâ phrases genera lequendi transfuderunt Salm. ibid. that seeing they understood the Greek and the Chaldee they made a mixture of these two Languages In what manner soever it happened he cannot deny but that the Language of the Synagogue does appear in the Works of St. Paul and of St. Luke as well as in the Writings of the other Apostles He only thinks that St. Paul and St. Luke let Hebraisms drop more seldom than the Interpreters who as he believes Translated the Books of the other Apostles out of the Hebrew and the Chaldee into the Greek Yet Vorstius as I have already observed has marked more Hebraisms in St. Luke than in the other Writers of the New Testament And therefore it is better to attribute them to the Apostles themselves if St. Matthew be excepted than to their Fellow Helpers or Interpreters For what remains we agree with Salmasius or rather with the Greek Fathers whom he follows in this matter that the Apostles being rude and destitute of Literature writ their Books in a very mean Stile and in a Language that was used by the Dregs of the People Which in some manner renders their Discourse more intelligible because that Language does commonly contain nothing that is Figurative as to what concerns the Expressions We shall observe nevertheless that altho the Apostles do ordinarily make use of Words that are mean and received amongst the People and consequently easie to be understood they have a certain form of Phrase and certain Expressions which were proper to those of their Nation which appear sometimes obscure to us because we know not the usage of that time Altho their Stile is oftentimes simple and very plain if we look only to the Grammatical Sense it is hard enough to be understood when we intend to reach the true Sense of their Thoughts The Jews had then ways of Expressing themselves very different from those that are in use amongst us And in this the obscurity of the Books of the N. Testament doth chiefly consist They who Translate those Books into another Language ought especially to take care to keep as close as possible to the Words of the Original For when they endeavour to render the bare Sense without adhering to the Words they run a risque of deceiving themselves and making their Author speak those things which he never thought of Beza and Castalio had great Disputes about this The former alledged that in Translating the New Testament several Hebraisms ought to be retained because it is impossible to render them exactly in another Language Further (h) Cùm saepè multiplex sit ratio Hebraismes explicandi quis non videt rectiùs religiosiùs eos facere qui intactos illos integros sinunt quà m qui suam opinionem secuti nullum conjecturae aut privati judicii locum lectoribus relinquunt Bez. Resp ad Def. Cast seeing those Hebraisms are capable of various renditions it is more to the purpose to keep them than to Interpret them in a Sence which may possibly be false and withal deprive others of their liberty of judgment concerning them Castalio on the contrary was of Opinion that an Interpreter ought to content himself to mark the Hebraisms by Notes on the Margin We shall have occasion to speak more fully of those Hebraisms in the second Book of this History when we examin the several Versions of the New Testament CHAP. XXIX Of the Manscript Greek Copies in general and of those who have spoken of them Collections which have been made of divers Readings drawn from those Manuscripts Observations upon the whole Matter The Hereticks have been accused sometimes but without any ground for corrupting the Books of the New Testament ALtho there have been many Learned Criticks in the Greek Church who applied themselves to correct the Books of the New Testament we do not see that any one Greek Copy has been altogether preferred to others that it might be followed by all the Greek Churches Which was the occasion that there was a great difference observed in the various Copies that were in several Churches Origen who was a very knowing person in this
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is to say On the same day seeing a Man travel on the Sabbath day he said unto him my friend if thou knowest what thou art doing thou art happy but if thou doest not know it thou art cursed and a transgressour of the Law. This History might possibly have been taken from some Ancient Apocryphal Book where it was common in the first Ages of Christianity and it may be it was then believed that it came from the Apostles or their Disciples And therefore those who presumed to reform the first Copies of the New Testament in so many places upon the bare prospect of rendring them intelligible to all the World would not scruple to add thereto Histories of that sort which they believed to be true We have formerly taken notice of examples of the like nature in the Gospel of the Nazarens If we had at this day a sufficient number of Copies of this nature that were before St. Jerome's time especially in the Western Churches we might discover some other Additions in them which are not known to us at present because we have little or nothing remaining of the Books of those first Ages Although it does not appear to us that the Christians have had Massorets or Criticks like to those of the Jews who have given to the Books of the New Testament that uniformity which is found to have been from many Ages in the Greek Copies and also in the Latin since St. Jerom it is probable that the Greeks followed certain Copies which they judged to be more exact than others and that they were Corrected by learned Criticks These Copies were used afterwards as a Massore or Rule By these St. Jerom Corrected the ancient Latin Edition by the Order of Pope Damasus Let us now examin the second Part of the ancient Cambridge Copy which does contain the Epistles of St. Paul. CHAP. XXXI Of the second part of the Cambridge Copy which contains St. Paul's Epistles Examples of the various Readings that are in that second Part. Critical Reflections upon the whole matter THere is nothing can more contribute to the knowledge of the state of the Greek Copies of the New Testament in the most ancient times of the Church than those Books that were so common before St. Jerom and which are not extant but in very few places at this day It will be in vain to look for them in the Churches of the East because they having been written in Greek and in Latin and with the same Hand it is easie to judge that they could be only extant in the West We are indebted to the Monks for having preserved some of those Copies for us That of Cambridge as has been said was found in a Monastery of Lyons The Benedictine Monks of the Abbey of St. Germain have in their Library the second part of the like Copy in which the Epistles of St. Paul are contained Peter Pithou (a) Vidimus nos aliquando vetustissimum exemplar Evangeliorum literis illis majoribus exaratum adjectis è regione Graecis quòd olim fuisse dicebatur Ecclesiae Lugdunensis Vidimus aliud Epistolarum exemplar ejusdem formae aetatis ex Corbejae majoris Galliae Monasterio quae tanquam sanctioris antiquitatis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non sine religione suspicimus veneramur Petr. Pith. de SS Bibl. Interpr had seen those two ancient Copies which he esteemed for their great antiquity He does testifie that it was believed that the former was brought from the Church of Lyons and the latter from the famous Abbey of Corby in France Christian Druthmar an ancient Benedictine Monk who had been for some time in that Abbey has pointed to us the first part of this latter Copy when he makes mention of a Greek Copy which he believed to have belonged to St. Hilary where the Gospel of St. John did immediately follow that of St. Matthew Christ Druthm Expos in Matth. c. 1. Vidi saith that Monk Librum Evangelii Graecè scriptum qui dicebatur Sancti Hilarii fuisse in quo primi erant Matthaeus Joannes In the Royal Library there is another Greek and Latin Copy of St. Paul's Epistles which differs almost in nothing from that of the Benedictines unless it be that the Letters are not so great nor so majestick although they be the same as to their figure and duration The King's Copy is also more disfigured by reason of innumerable corrections than that of the Abbey of St. Germain For although this latter has likewise been amended in many places the corrections thereof are not so gross Further we may call those two Copies the second part of that of Cambridge because they contain that ancient Greek and that ancient Latin Version which was used in the Churches of the West before St. Jerom had reformed it It is true that that Father in his Letter to Damasus does only make mention of four Gospels which he had revised and we are not clearly informed by another Hand that he had corrected the rest of the N. T. after the same manner But however it be the thing is it is certain that the whole ancient Latin Version was amended and that the same method was observed in that Reformation which St. Jerom does testifie to have been followed in his own practice when in complyance to the Order of Pope Damasus he reformed the ancient Latin Translation Beza in his Notes upon St. Paul does frequently cite that ancient Copy of the King's Library under the name of * Codex Claromontanus The Copy of Clermont He also believed that it was the second Part of that which belongs to Cambridge In which he is not mistaken For it is the Greek and the Latin of those ancient Greek and Latin Copies that were commonly read before St. Jerom's time It is not necessary for all that that both of them should have been written with the same Hand It is sufficient that they are of the same Age. And so it may be said that that of the Benedictines as well as the King 's is the second Part of the Cambridge Copy because both the one and the other do represent the ancient Vulgar to us to which they have added the Greek with which it did agree F. Morin who had borrowed that ancient Manuscript of the Du Puis that he might extract the various Readings that confirmed our Vulgar does in his Exercitations insist at some length on the Bible (b) Existimo versionem vetustissimi illius codicis Graeco textui adversam eam esse quâ Ecclesia Latina ut plurimùm ante Sanctum Hieronymum utebatur quam sanctus ille vir jubente Damaso Pontifice ad fidem Graecorum exemplarium postmodùm recensuit emendavit Jo. Mor. Exercit. Bibl. Exerc. 2. c. 4. He is persuaded that the Latin Version that is joyned to the Greek is the ancient Translation which was read in the West before St. Jerom had reformed it by the Command
of Pope Damasus according to the ancient Greek Copies He (c) Consideratis figurâ magnitudine splendore characteris tam Graeci quà m Latini illius ob vetustatem per seipsum multis in locis dimidiatâ obliteratione passimque subobsâ—urâ delineatione versionis insuper cum Vulgatâ textuque Patrum comparatione S. Hieronymi aetatem istius codicis scripto videtur omninò praecedere Mor. ibid. does also judge by the figure and bulk of the Greek and Latin Characters which are almost worn out in some places by reason of their antiquity and by the Latin Version which he compared with our Vulgar and with the Citations of the ancient Fathers that that Copy was written before St. Jerom. He further adds to prove the antiquity of the same Manuscript a Catalogue of the Books of the Scripture which had been inserted at the end in which the twelve small Prophets are noted with the four great Prophets and the Gospel of St. John before that of St. Mark and St. Luke Moreover the Book of the Pastor the Epistle of Barnabas and some others are there placed in the number of the Books of Scripture It is hard saith F. Morin that all this should be since St. Jerom. Quae omnia Sancti Hieronymi aevum vix subsequi possunt multa minus ipsa codicis scriptio It is true that the Greek and Latin Copies of that kind are more ancient than St. Jerom if we consider the ancient Latin Version which was used in the West before it was Revised by that Father But F. Morin's Reasons do not prove that they were written from that time For it is possible that the Monks who Copied the ancient Books writ out those Copies by those that were more ancient and I believe that this did happen on that occasion As for the Character it cannot be denied but that it is most ancient but those who have skill to judg of them do not allow them to be above a thousand years standing at least it is certain that there are Books of the same Character which do not exceed that time Neither do I seé what can be concluded from Letters that are almost defaced for the antiquity of a Manuscript This only does prove that the Ink is not good The truth is the Copy of the Benedictines which is of the same antiquity and has likewise a greater Letter is still so fair that one would believe by looking upon some of its Pages if judgment were to be given by the Ink and Parchment that it had been but just now written Those who have a desire to preserve those ancient Manuscripts ought to put leaves of Paper betwixt the leaves of the Parchment upon which the Writing is to the end that the Ink may not wear off They might at last have added to the end of those Copies a very ancient Catalogue of the Books of the Bible The strongest proof in my Opinion for evincing the great antiquity of that Copy is that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not reckoned with the rest in the number of St. Paul's Epistles as I have formerly observed but by it self and out of the Body of those Letters that were read in the Church F. Morin did not sufficiently consider that Manuscript when he says speaking of the Catalogue which is put at the end (d) Catalogus ille insertus est codici ante Epistolam ad Hebraeos in paginis quibusdam fortuito vacuis Mor. ibid. that they placed it before the Epistle to the Hebrews in some Pages where there was nothing written as it happened For that was done on purpose the Epistle to Philemon being the last of the Copies of that sort which the Latins had writ out for their use Seeing they did not believe that the Epistle to the Hebrews had been written by that Apostle nor that it was Canonical they did not joyn it to the other Epistles And therefore they inserted that Catalogue of the Books of Scripture immediately after the Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon If Beza had considered the corrections that had been made in that Copy which he named of Clermont he would easily have acknowledged that Books of that sort were never in use amongst the Greeks and that so it was not brought out of Greece as he alledged There are so many faults therein especially in the Greek that it is manifestly seen that it could not have been written but by a person who was altogether ignorant of that Language A good part of those faults were amended and these were not only faults of the Orthography but sometimes of Words They further reformed that ancient Version in many places by other Greek Copies which came nearer to these at this day Which without doubt was done by some Latins who corrected at the same time the ancient Vulgar by St. Jerom's new Edition We will not then with Beza charge the Observations that are placed in the Margins of that sort of Copies on the Greek Priests but on those of the Western Church who had some knowledg of the Greek Language As those Books passed through several Hands so they have received amendments some of which are more ancient than others But after all we still see the ancient Readings as well in the Greek as in the Latin especially in the Copy of the Library of St. Germain which has been revised in so curious a manner that the amendment does often consist in nothing else but in small stroaks of the Pen in the Letters Seeing those two Copies do differ in very few things I shall in the following part of my Discourse make use rather of the latter than that of the King's Library which is more disfigured F. Morin has observed in general (e) Variarum istarum lectionum nulla adeò enormis est atque ut ita dicam varia ut cum iis quas ex priori volumine observavimus comparari possit Paulinarum Epistolarum codex ille vulgato textui priore longè conformior est licet illi antiquitate non cedat Mor. ibid. that the Clermont Copy upon St. Paul's Epistles does not so much vary from the ordinary Copies of the New Testament as that of Cambridge does and that it is also more agreeable to our Vulgar though it is no less ancient than the other The same thing is to be said of that of the Benedictines of the Abbey of St. Germain because they are so much alike that one would believe that the one had been copied from the other The reason of this great conformity of St. Paul's Epistles in the Clermont Copy with the ordinary Greek and the Latin of the Vulgar is evident because he had no occasion to amend those Epistles by one another as the Gospels and they were not so much neglected in the first Ages of the Church as the Acts of the Apostles which had been revised with a great deal of liberty in many places Yet if we carefully examin the places where those ancient Copies of
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
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 By Richard Simon Priest LONDON Printed for R. Taylor MDCLXXXIX THE PREFACE THe Church from the first and most early Ages of Christianity has been constantly furnished with some Learned Men by whose diligent care the Sacred Writings have been purged from those Faults which by the tract of Time have insensibly crept into them This kind of Labour which requires an exact knowledg of Books joyned with a strict enquiring into the Manuscripts is termed Critical in as much as it Judges and Determines the most Authentick Readings which ought to be inserted into the Text. By this means Origen acquired his Reputation not only in Greece but universally over the Eastern part of the World where the Bibles of his Correction are by the general consent preferred to all others St Jerom who may justly be stiled the Latin Origen has done very great Service to the Western Church by his Critical Correction of the Latin Bibles in Vse in those Churches Pope Damasus very sensible of his profound Learning obliged him to review the ancient Latin Version of the Gospels which was then in a very miserable Condition This look'd like too bold an Attempt and seemed above the force of any private Person who could never hope to escape the Hatred of a multitude of Persons in the free exercising his Censure of Books which had long stood in the peaceable Possession of an universal Reputation In short though it might perhaps be for the benefit of the Church it was yet a dangerous matter to attempt a Reformation of those ancient Errors which derive their Authority from their Age. Pius Labor Hieron Praef. in Evang. ad Dam. sed periculosa praesumptio judicare de caeteris ipsum ab omnibus judicandum senis mutare linguam caneseentem jam mundum ad initia retranere parvulorum 'T is a pious Work says that ancient Father but very hazardous that he exposes himself to the universal Censure who teaches old Men to change their Language and reduce the decaying World to a State of Infancy But considering on the one Hand the powerful Protection and Patronage of so great a Pope and being on the other abundantly convinc'd of the manifest defect of that Translation which had prevailed universally in the West he resolved rather to expose himself to the Malice of an infinite number of ignorant Persons than fail in the discharge of his (a) Quis enim doctus pariter vel indoctus cùm in manus volumen assumpserit à salivâ quam semel imbibit viderit discrepare quod latitat non statim erumpat in vocem me falfarium me clamitans elle sacrilegum qui audeam aliquid in veteribus libris addere mutare corrigere Hieron Praef. in Evang. ad Dam. Duty He knew very well the charge of Innovation and Forgery that would be drawn up against him for endeavouring to alter those ancient Books which till his time had remained perfectly inviolable But here he encouraged himself by the Precedents of Origen Pierius and some other able Criticks who had performed the very same thing in the Greek Original which he then attempted in the Latin Copies of the Gospel For which reason he stoutly deposed all those which after his Reformation remained Bigots to the ancient Latine Version Revertimur ad nostros bipedes asellos Hieron Epist ad Marcell illorum in aure buccinâ magis quà m citharâ concrepamus Illi legant spe gaudentes tempori servientes nos legamus spe gaudentes Domino servientes But time did Justice to that Father And 't is a very difficult matter at present to find any Copies of that Latine Version which was then in Vse in the Western Church Yet enough there are extant to be read as a Memorial to convince those who defend Errors meerly out of Veneration for their Antiquity that St. Jerome has done the Church no small Service in Correcting and Reviewing the ancient Latine Copies according to the strictest Rules of Criticism This we endeavour to demonstrate in this work and that the most ancient Greek Exemplars of the New Testament are not the best since they are suited to those Latine Copies which St. Jerome found so degenerous as to need an Alteration Father Morin and after him Father Amelot who take such pride in those Noble and Venerable Manuscripts on account of their great Antiquity never mind that a thousand or twelve hundred years can never warrant them correct since there is evident proof of their Corruption before that time It was necessary that I should examine to the bottom the Circumstances of these Greek Texts which have been produced to this Time. It is not sufficient to consult those Manuscripts with design only to mark their Antiquity and quote the different Readings There is required a great deal of Discretion and Judgment otherwise we shall mistake those Books which are altered for Primitive and Apostolical Exemplars which is the Case of the two Authors we are about to name Erasmus who was well enough furnished with those sorts of Manuscripts is nevertheless guilty of very gross Errors He accuses the Greeks without reason for correcting in some places their Copies by those of the Latin after their Re-union with the Roman Church This groundless Accusation can proceed from nothing but the want of knowledge of the Criticisms of those Copies which he consulted Beza who was Master of a greater Collection of Manuscripts of the New Testament than Erasmus though assisted too by both Robert and Henry Stephens has not well distinguished the worth of his Manuscript Copies whence I found my self in some places obliged to correct his Errors This Man was so prejudiced by his Religion as to accuse the Italians of Corrupting the old Text and forcing it to a Compliance with their Opinions This Critical History contains divers other Remarks of the like Nature upon the Manuscript Copies of the New Testament both in Greek and Latine My principal aim is to write a Supplement to the Defects of those who compile the different Readings out of the Manuscripts without distinguishing the Good from the Bad. To which intent it is necessary to read a great quantity and nearly examine them in a Critical manner This Art whose difficulty appears formidable to some Divines in this Age made part of their Occupation of some Ladies in St. Jerome's time Who not content to read the Scripture in the Vulgar Tongue dispersed among the People they diligently enquired after the correctest Copies learning those very Tongues in which they were writ I assert nothing which cannot be maintained by the Letters of those Pious Ladies and the answers of that Learned Father who has had oftentimes a difficult Task to satisfie those Questions they propose on matters purely Critical St. Jerome had advanced that the Apostles had never
cited any Passage in the Old Testament which did not perfectly agree with the Hebrew Text. Eustochium Hieron Prooem in lib. 16. Comm. in Isai who perfectly understood the Greek and Hebrew Languages opposed him with such powerful Arguments that he was forced to own himself almost overcome with the strength of her Objections Quod cùm audissem quasi à fortissimo pugile percussus essem coepi tacitus aestuare It is no strange thing to find those Ages when Barbarism reigned over all Europe neglect Critical Studies Then they wanted abundance of those helps which they now enjoy to pursue those Studies which are absolutely necessary to a perfect Knowledg of Divinity But that which amazes me is that in this very Age this Art should still remain in contempt and those Men be thought no more than Grammarians who apply themselves to it Besides we cannot but see the manifest Errors of some Divines in this Age who know not the true Laws of Criticism It is worth observing that the ancient Hereticks have been perpetually accused of having corrupted the Books of the New Testament and perverted them to their own sence That has often been thought a wilful and designed Corruption which proceeded only from the fault of the Transcribers or difference of Copies The Ecclesiastical Writers of the first Ages have not done that strict Justice to the Hereticks of their times in relation to the New Testament that they have given the Jews in the Disputes about the different manners of explaining the Old Testament Those pretended Corruptions presently vanish upon Examination of the ancient Manuscripts and the Original of the various Readings Wherefore in this Piece I have justified the Arrians Nestorians and the rest of the Sectaries from that Imputation of having falsified the Originals of the Evangelists and Apostles to maintain their Innovations We have also plainly evinc'd by some considerable Examples that the most Learned Criticks of our Age are not exempted from those Prejudices in their declaring too freely those Hereticks falsifiers of the Text. The case of some other Sectaries is not the same who declared themselves openly against the Writings of Christ's Disciples which they have corrected and altered according to their own Idea's of the Christian Religion Some daring to forge Supposititious Gospels and Acts the better to give authority to their Fopperies It would be very pertinent for the better Distinction of all the Genuine Pieces of the New Testament to make a Collection of those ancient Acts and diligently examine them Wherefore we have not concealed any of those Arguments which those Hereticks or the other Enemies of Christianity have brought to destroy the Truth of those Books which were received by all the Catholick Churches But as it would be a pernicious thing to expose these ill things without administring Remedies too proper for the cure we have also produced the strongest Reasons which the Ecclesiastical Writers have brought against them We intreat the Protestants to make Reflection on these matters and observe those methods of the first Ages of the Church for establishing the Authority of the Sacred Writings They will find nothing impertinent in the Conduct Irenaeus Tertullian and the rest of the Defenders of those Writings did not object to the Enemies of the Christian Religion their private Spirit which perswaded them of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture but very substantial Reasons void of all such Fanaticism Tho they were sufficiently perswaded of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture they never objected to the Adversaries that it had imprest upon it such lively Characters of its Original that it was a very difficult matter not to acknowledg it when read with a Spirit of Submission and Humility Their Adversaries being Philosophers who consulted their natural Reason they opposed them from sure and indisputable Principles Again I thought in a Work of this nature not convenient to suppress the principal Objections of the Jews against the Books of the New Testament For although this miserable Nation is an Object of the contempt of the whole World yet has there appeared among them Men of great Address and Subtilty in the Disputes against the Christians which I have often found true in my own Experience when I have endeavoured to convince them by their own Principles Since their Plea for Prescription is better and their Pretensions are that the Disciples of Jesus the Son of Mary had no reason to change their Religion which was delivered them by the Fathers It is but necessary to examin what they object against the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles In this Critical History I have treated divers other important Questions And where I deviate from the Methods of the Divines of the School it is because I have found a more secure way I have employed all my strength to avoid the advancing any thing that is not grounded on authentic Records instead of which the School-Divinity teaches us to doubt of the most certain Our Religion consisting principally in Matters of Fact the Subtilties of Divines who are not acquainted with Antiquity can never discover certainty of such matters of Fact They rather serve to confound the Vnderstanding and form pernicious Difficulties against the Mysteries of our Religion Let it not seem strange to any Person that I recede from the Opinions which are generally received in the Schools and prefer to the Sentiments of whole Vniversities the new Opinions of some modern Divines which can hardly be taxed as novel when they are found conformable to the Ancient Doctors of the Church This I speak in reference to that Passage where I handle the Dispute which was formerly between the Divines of Louvain and Doway and the Jesuits of that Country concerning the inspiration of the sacred Books The Doctors of both Faculties censured the Propositions of the Jesuites of Louvain in a manner very injurious to the whole Society But after a due examination of the Reasons on which their grave Gentlemen founded their Censure I could hardly believe their Authority alone a sufficient Rule to oblige me to assent I propose Truth alone to my self in this Work without any Deference to any Master in particular A true Christian who professes to believe the Catholick Faith ought not to stile himself a Disciple of S. Austin S. Jerome or any other particular Father since his Faith is founded on the word of Jesus Christ contained in the Writings of the Apostles and constant Tradition of the Catholick Churches I wish to God the Divines of the Age were all of that opinion we then should not have seen so many useless Disputes which only prove the causes of Disorders in Church and State. I have no private Interest which obliges me to any Party the very name of Party is odious to me I solemnly protest I have no other intentions in composing this Work than the benefit of the Church and the establishing the most sacred and divine thing in the World. It is useless
to repeat here what we said in another place concerning the word Critick which is a term of Art which in some sense is bestowed on all Works whose designs are to examin the various readings and establish the true The aim of those which practise that Art it not to destroy but establish As the Holy Books are not exempt from faults which either by the tract of Time or negligence of the Transcribers have slipt into 'em some Learned Persons in all Ages have taken care to render them correct The most barbarous Ages have produced Books which they call Correctoria Bibliae or Corrections of the Bible The Emperor Constantine spared nothing to procure for the Oriental Churches correct Copies of all the Bibles Charlemagne and his Successors have done the same for the Latine Bibles of the VVestern Churches Besides those which were formerly imployed in the Monasteries about Transcribing of Books There were some Criticks who reviewed and corrected them This is the Reason why in some Manuscript ancient Bibles there are some Corrections found of equal Antiquity with the Books themselves But without ascending so far to have a Precedent for the Vse of Critical Reflections on the Sacred Books we need only consider the Transactions of the Latter Age relating to the Latine Editions of our Bibles VVhat prodigious pains was Robert Stephens at according to the Relation of Hentenius a Divine of Louvain to give us an exact and correct Edition of the Bible This Divine which laboured after Stephens in the same matter admires the diligence and excessive expence of that Printer to whom he ingeniously acknowledges himself indebted ‖ Joann Henten Praef. in Bibl. Lovan ann 1547. Nemo est qui nesciat ut unum pro multis in medium adferam quantam diligentiam quantasque impensas tulerit Robertus Stephanus Regius apud Lutetiam Typographus quem honoris causâ nomino ut accuratissima castigatissima nobis Biblia traderet propter quod plurimum etiam illi debent quotquot Sacrarum Literarum lectioni sunt addicti quem ob id etiam in multis secuti sumus The Doctors of the Faculty of Divinity of Louvain perfected afterwards the Edition of their Brother with a greater Collection of Manuscripts and re-altered some places according to the Rules of Criticism which they thought not corrected with exactness enough Nicolas Zegers a Religious Man of the Order of St. Francis apply'd himself entirely to the Correction of the Books of the New Testament He dedicated his Critique to Julian III. under the Title of * Castigationes in Novum Testamentum in quibus depravata restituuntur adjecta resecantur sublata adjiciuntur Autore Tac. Nicolao Zeger Colon. ann 1555. Corrections on the New Testament wherein it re-established what was corrupted expunged what was added and added what was before expunged He assures that Pope in his Epistle Dedicatory (b) Haec est genuina germana emendata veteris nostri Interpretis versio seu translatio quâ hactenùs semper à tempore ferè Apostolorum aut non ita diù pòst usa cognoscitur Romana Ecclesia quam ab innumeris tum mendis tum adulterinis adjectiunculis non sine magnis multis molestiis repurgavimus Zeger Epist ad Jul. III. That he had freed from an infinite number of Faults and false Glosses the ancient Latine Version which bad been in Vse among the VVestern Churches from the very Times of the Apostles There is nothing more exactly †Notaticnes in Sacra Biblia quibus variantia discrepantibus exemplaribus loca summo studio discutiuntur Antverp ann 1580. performed than the Critical Remarks of Lucas Brugensis in his Edition of the Latine Bible of the Divines of Louvain Among the multitude of his Copies he mentions one which was corrected by some Dominicans on the Bibles of Charlemagne He sets some marks of Esteem on another Manuscript entitled The Correction of the Bible Praeter alia id quod maximi facimus Manuscriptum Bibliorum correctorium ab incerto auctore magnâ diligentiâ ac fide contextum ‡ Luc. Brug Notat in Gen. c. 8. v. 7. And he assures us (c) Quae à nostri seculi scriptoribus ex manuscriptis codicibus collectae sunt variae lectiones omnes propemodùm in eo comperimus ad fontes fideliter examinatos deprehendimus Luc. Brug Notat in Gen. c. 8. v. 7. that the different Readings which have been observed by the Criticks of the latter Times are all found in this Book where they are examined according to the Hebrew Text. I have elsewhere mentioned another Manuscript of like nature which is in the ancient Library of the Colledge of Sorbon I have likewise given Extracts out of it which manifestly prove that the Latins have not neglected the Critical Study of the Sacred Books in those very Ages when Barbarism reigned in Europe It is a Vanity in the admirers of the Hebrew Text of the Jews to bestow such great praises on the Massoreth a good part of which consists in Trifles or superstitious Observations The Christians of both the Eastern and Western Churches with more Judgment have taken care in the Correction of the Bibles as manifestly will appear by this Work. We ought to prefer to the Massoreth those learned * Romani Correctores Criticks of Rome which by the order of Pope Sixtus V. and Clement VIII corrected the Latine Bibles which Correction serves instead of an exact Massoreth to the Western Church There are none but Protestants of ill minds such as Thomas James Author of the Bellum Papale who cavil at the differences of the Editions of the Bible published by those two Popes There may indeed be a more perfect work but that ought to be reserved for particular Notes which no ways diminish the Authority of those Books received into publick Vse I must only add two words concerning those Acts which are made use of in this Work. For the Manuscripts I mark the Libraries where they are found I have cited none without reading them the Extracts being all done by my self except that of Cambridge which contains the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles I had procured out of England a faithful Copy of this last Manuscript in what relates to the Greek which I have exactly followed As for the Printed Books of which there are numerous Quotations for the most part I have contented my self to relate the Passages in short following the sense only in the Body of the work For long Citations of Passages where there are but five or six words perhaps pertinent to the Occasion must needs prove very tiresom This is the very same Method which I have followed in the Critical History of the Old Testament But some Persons desiring such Passages at length to avoid searching them in the Books to comply with their Desires and keep to our Method we judged it convenient to put them at large at the bottom of the Page
in the proper Languages of the respective Authors A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament Wherein is establish'd The Truth of those ACTS on which CHRISTIANITY is founded PART I. CHAPTER I. The Verity of the New Testament defended in general against the ancient Hereticks Reflections upon the Principle made use of by the Fathers to establish the Authority of these Books JEsus Christ having profess'd that he came not into the World to destroy the Old Law but rather to accomplish it Matt. v. 17. it seemed not to him necessary to publish his Doctrine in Writing He was content to prove his Mission by his Miracles and to support his Reformation upon the Books of the Old Testament which were received by all the Jews to whom the Messias had been promised So that we do not find him to have given order to his Disciples to putany thing into Writing He only commands them to Preach his Gospel to all the Nations of the Earth Go ye says he to them Mar. xvi 15. into all the world and preach the Gospel The Books of the New Testament took their Original from this preaching This it was that caused Tertullian to say (a) Constituimus in primis Evangelicum instrumentum Apostolos autores habere quibus hoc munus Evangelii promulgandi ab ipso Domino sit impositum Tertul. l. 4. adv Marcion c. 2. That the Apostles to whom Jesus Christ had given this Command to promulge the Gospel were the Authors thereof Upon the whole matter the Gospels had not been put in Writing but at the request of those People who were willing to preserve the memory of that which the Apostles had preached to them S. Paul composed the greater part of his Epistles for the Instruction of Churches which were already erected That History which we call the Acts of the Apostles was published to no other end but to shew to the Faithful the Progress of the Christian Religion upon its first advance into the World and the Christians not having at that time any State separate from that of the Jews and being present and assisting at all their Ceremonies in the Temple and in the Synagogues they had no Persons appointed to record any thing of importance which pass'd among them And this is the reason that we find not here as in the Old Testament any publick Writers who had the Charge of collecting the Acts of their State. This during the Primitive times of Christianity gave a pretence to several Hereticks to doubt of the truth of those Apostolical Books which to them seem'd to want some publick Attestation S. Ignatius in one of his Epistles complains (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignut Ep. ad Philad That he understood there were some men who said they could not believe the Gospel except they could find it written in the * There are some who read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ancients Archives The holy Martyr answers them That it was written that the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and a Faith in him were instead of the most authentick Archives It was then difficult to distinguish the Books which had been composed by the Apostles or by their Disciples from those which had been forged by false Apostles or by some Sectaries Every one bore in its front either the Name of the Apostles in general or of some single one of their number and since there were no publick Archives to which recourse might be had for the deciding and clearing of matters of this nature the Hereticks took occasion from thence to publish a great number of false Acts of which hardly any thing is left to Posterity except the Titles of them and a few Fragments These Sectaries boasted that they taught the Doctrine of the Apostles or at least of their Disciples Basilides who was one of the most ancient Hereticks avouched that he had for his Master (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Clem. Alex. lib. 7. Strom. Glaucias one of St. Peter's Interpreters Và lentin affirmed with the same boldness that he had been instructed in Religion by Theodad (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Clem. Alex. ibid. who was one of St. Paul 's familiar Acquaintance But whereas they did not agree amongst themselves and on the contrary the Doctrine of the Apostles was perfectly uniform in the Churches that they had planted the Fathers made use of this Uniformity of Doctrine to confirm and establish the truth of the Apostolical Writings Clemens Alexandrinus answers Basilides and Valentin that there was but one true ancient Church that was before all Heresies From thence he brings an unquestionable proof of the falsity of the Doctrine of these Sectaries who durst be so bold as to give the Name of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of the Apostles to their own Inventions he represents to them that (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. ibid. the Doctrine of the Apostles were one as well as their Tradition The Primitive Christians argued against the Hereticks of those times from Tradition and from the Conformity of that Belief that was manifest in all the Churches founded by the Apostles as may be seen at large in the Works of St. Irenaeus Tertullian Epiphanius and St. Augustin and in a word of all the Fathers that have defended the Writings of the Apostles against the Hereticks Whensoever any Sectary opposed the declared Gospel they immediately convinced him of the forgery of those Acts that he produced by the true ones that were kept in the Apostolical Churches and were instead of Archives (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 42. If any one saith St. Epiphanius should go about to counterfeit the Edicts or Ordinances of Emperors the Cheat would be soon laid open by producing the true Copies taken from the Archives of the Court In like manner adds he false Gospels composed by Hereticks may be detected their spuriousness may be easily discovered by producing the true Gospels that are kept in the Churches as it were in Archives This manner of defending the Truth of the Apostolical Writings against the ancient Sectaries hath proved so effectually convincing that the Gnosticks were obliged to support their Novelties to fly to I know not what secret Tradition that was known to none but themselves They were so insolent as to prefer themselves before the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ accusing them as not having preached the Purity of the Gospel with sincerity because say they they have retained many Ceremonies of the old Law. They thought by this means that they might be able with Authority to reform the Writings of the Apostles (g) Cùm autem ad eam iterum traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per successiones Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos adversantur traditioni dicentes se non solùm Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes superiores sinceram invenisse veritatem Apostolos autem
Orig. l. 1. cont Cels where he acknowledgeth that Jesus hath published nothing of his Actions that we know them only by the Relations of his Disciples in their Gospels As for what concerns false Gospels false Acts false Apocalypses or Revelations and other pieces of the like nature that have been composed under the Names of the Apostles there hath been so great a number of them that it would be very difficult to describe them all exactly Pope Gelasius hath furnished a Catalogue of them long enough which hath been inserted into the Decretal of Gratian Decr. 1. part dist 15. c. 3. and altho these false Books have been almost all lost yet there are some Fragments of them remaining in the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers S. Luke seems to have written his Gospel only because some who had undertaken the same thing before him had not acquitted themselves faithfully therein This is the Sense that the Fathers generally give to the first words of this Evangelist when they explain the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. i. 1. which is translated in the vulgar Latin conati sunt Many saith Theophylact have written Gospels and (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl Comm. in c. 1. Luc. vers 1. we have Examples of them in that which is called The Gospel of the Egyptians and in another intituled The Gospel of the Twelve These People adds he have only made an attempt but they have not finished The common Opinion of the ancient Interpreters of the Scriptures whether Greek or Latin is that S. Luke designed to mark out in this place those Writers that durst publish false Gospels Pseudopostolos saith Baronius Pseudoscriptores his suggillatos verbis à Luca firma est Patrum sententia Baron an Christ 58 n. 31. Nevertheless many of them have been deceived when they have produced as Examples of these false Gospels Writings that have not been published till after the time of S. Luke This hath given occasion to some Learned Commentators on the New Testament to doubt of the Explication that the Fathers have brought of this Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who take it in a bad sense in this passage Maldonat after he hath rehearsed in few words what several Fathers have thought thereupon adds (g) A quâ sententiâ non quòd certà mihi ratione probari posse videatur sed quòd omnibus vulgò probari videam nolo discedere Maldon Comm. in c. 1. Luc. vers 1. that he will not recede from the common Opinion altho it be not grounded on any convincing Reason because the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may also be explained in a good sense But whether there were any false Gospels or not before S. Luke published his we cannot doubt but a great number of them have been forged since that time of which the Hereticks have been the Authors I will not here speak of that of the Nazareans which was called also the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Hebrews because I am persuaded that this Gospel was the Original of S. Matthew into which they afterwards inserted some Additions as I shall shew hereafter The Ebionites who read this same Gospel of S. Matthew according to the Hebrews (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 23. had others also which they had substituted under the Names of the Apostles especially of James and John that they might the more easily impose on those of their own Sect by those false Gospels that went under the Names of the Disciples of Jesus Christ They had the impudence even to counterfeit new Acts of the Apostles which they filled with Impieties and Defamations against S. Paul whom they called by way of raillery The man of Tarsus being desirous to prove from thence that he was not a Jew by Nation but a Proselyte and one born of Parents that had been converted from Gentilism to the Religion of the Jews Nevertheless Eusebius assures us that these Hereticks did not receive any but the Gospel called According to the Hebrews and that they had but little esteem for the others In regard that they had preserved Judaism with the Christian Religion Eusebius Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 27. they absolutely rejected the Epistles of S. Paul whom they treated as an Apostate because he had said they abandoned the old Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Gnosticks who fancied themselves to have a more perfect knowledge of Religion than all the other Christians and looked upon the Apostles as Men that were but rude and stupid even when they published their Gospels composed a Work in Verse Epiph. Haer. 26. n. 22. which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gospel of Perfection (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. n. 13. They made use of a Gospel also that they attributed to S. Philip a Disciple of Jesus Christ some words whereof Epiphanius relates Some of this same Sect that was divided into several Branches had invented a Gospel intituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gospel of Eve wherein they scattered their wild conceits under the Name of this Woman whom they considered as a perfect Gnostick who had received great illuminations in the Conference that she held with the Serpent The Sethians who were another sort of Gnosticks who boasted that they took their original from Seth whom they believed to be Jesus Christ had forged (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph Haer. 39. n. 4. an Apocalypse under the Name of the Patriarch Abraham S. Epiphanius observes judiciously that the design of these Gnosticks in publishing so many false Books under such great Names was to delude the simple and to cause them to believe that they were ignorant of nothing concerning the Life of Jesus Christ Those amongst them who were called Marcosians Epiph. Haer. 34. n. 18. had composed certain false Histories of his Infancy wherein they observed after what manner he had learned to read The Encratites who acknowledged for the Author of their Sect the famous Tatian a Disciple of S. Justin Martyr (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 47. n. 1. adhered to the Acts of S. Andrew S. John S. Thomas and some other Apocryphal Books as it were to the Authentical Scriptures Those that took the Name (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph Haer. 61. n. 1. of Apostolical and were a Branch of the Encratites relyed after their example on the false Acts of S. Andrew and S. Thomas (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 63. n. 2. the Origenians whose Opinions came near to those of Epiphanius who was of the Sect of the Gnosticks made use also of the Acts attributed to S. Andrew and of some other Books of the same nature The (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Hierosol Catech. 4. Manicheans had composed a Gospel under the name of Thomas and they made choice of this name of a Gospel to impose on the
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
this History of the Birth of Jesus Christ and of the Virgin passeth for an authentick Book in the Oriental Churches Biblian in Epist nunenp Authenticus habetur in Orientalibus Ecclesias The Greek of this little Work hath also been printed afterwards at Basil with the Latin Version in a Collection of several Pieces intituled Monumenta Orthodoxa The Title that answers to that of the Latin Translation is thus expressed An. 1569. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Commentary on the six days of the Creation that Leo Allatius hath published under the Name of Eustathius Bishop of Antioch who lived at the beginning of the fourth Century did certainly belong to that Bishop the Protevangelium would be of sufficient Antiquity there is found in this Book a considerable fragment of it that is delivered in such manner that the most fabulous part thereof is omitted The Expression that Eustathius useth in citing it makes it appear that he did not believe it to be of St. James under whose name they had published it but of another James for observe how he speaks (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eustath Comm. in Hex It is convenient here to peruse the History that one James relates of the Virgin Mary However it be we find in the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors a part of the things that are contained in this little History and that apparently come from the Gnosticks who had written many Fables relating to the Birth of Jesus Christ and the Virgin. I admire that the Protestants who have caused this Protevangelium of James to be printed have thought it worthy to be published with some other pieces of the like nature under the Title of * Orthodoxogr edit Basil Lat. ann 1555. ibid. Lat. Gr. an 1569. Biblian ibid. Orthodoxographa Bibliander seriously divulgeth the Impostures of William Postel who had averred that this Protevangelium was the beginning of the Gospel of S. Mark and even the foundation of Evangelical History this he repeats also in a little Discourse wherein he gives his Judgment of this Book Ipse Postellus saith he aestimat Protevangelium ut gemmam inter Libros Theologicos Basim atque fundamentum totius Historiae Evangelicae caput Evangelii secundùm Marcum Biblian in censu judic Protevan In a word he forgets nothing that might set a value on this wicked Piece which he thinks to be recommendable because it hath not been reckoned in the number of the Apocryphal Books with the Gospels of Nicodemus Thomas and many others that are recited at large in the Catalogue of Pope Gelasius But this proves only that the Protevangelium had not been as yet published in that time or that not being translated into Latin this Pope had took no cognisance thereof Indeed he hath placed among the Apocryphal Works a Book that treated on the same Subject as may be judged by the Title Liber de Nativitate Salvatoris saith Gelasius de Sancta Maria Gelas apud Grat. decr 1. part dist 15. c. 3. de obstetrice Salvatoris apocryphus It were to be wished that Father Jerom Xavier a Missionary Jesuit had not inserted so many very improbable things taken out of this sort of Books in his History of Jesus Christ written in the Persian Tongue It would be to no purpose for me to enlarge any farther on the false Acts that have been published under the names of the Apostles it is enough to observe in general that they have been for the most part invented by Hereticks that have been willing to support their Novelties by attributing them to some Disciples of Jesus Christ Hegisippus who lived immediately after the Disciples of the Apostles speaking of Apocryphal Books testifies (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 4. cap. 22. that a part of these Books have been composed by the Hereticks of his time therefore when the Primitive Fathers designed to judge whether a Book were Canonical or not they have examined its Doctrine to see if it were conformable to that which was taught in the Catholick Church they have moreover consulted the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors who have lived since the Apostles to their times that they might by this means know the Tradition Serapion applied these two Rules to the Gospel that passed under the name of S. Peter which was read by those of the Church of Rhossus thinking that it did certainly belong to him whose name it bore (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Serap apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. cap. 12. We have found saith this holy Bishop in this Gospel Serap apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. c. 12. many things that agree with the true Religion of Jesus Christ but there are also some things that are far from it He judgeth in the same place that the Act that had been produced to him was false because it was not grounded on Tradition Not but that the Fathers have sometimes made use of Apocryphal Books and have quoted even false Gospels as for example the Gospel that is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Egyptians is not to be allowed as authentick for this very reason that it is thought to be most ancient and that mention is made thereof in Clement of Alexandria it ought not to be rejected neither under this pretence alone that the Gnosticks and Sabellians have maintained their Errors by this Book The Primitive Fathers who have written against the Pagans and Jews do sometimes follow in their Disputes and even in their other Works the method of Rhetoricians who often employ Reasons purely probable and doubtful Acts after which we must not always regulate our selves This is to be seen principally in the Works of Clement of Alexandria and Origen Clement hath on this account related some Words of Jesus Christ (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. lib. 3. Strom. that are not to be found in the four Evangelists authorized by the Tradition of the Church and he saith that they are in the Gospel of the Egyptians He only quotes them after the Heretick Cassian Clem. Al. l. 2. Strom. and in arguing with the Followers of Basilides he refers to certain Writings attributed to St. Barnabas On the other side the Hereticks making Profession of Christianity as well as the Orthodox have not always recourse to apocryphal and supposititious Pieces to defend their Innovations Therefore to judge rightly of an Act whether it be valuable or not in point of Religion and whether it carrieth with it a Divine Authority it is absolutely necessary to apply to it the two Rules that have been above mentioned S. Augustin's Advice is when any such Difficulties arise (c) Tenebit hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis ut eas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis Catholicis praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt In eis verò quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus praeponat eas quas plures gravioresque
S. Matthaei Evangelium quod ipse descripserat ei indigitat atque Apostolum fidei auctorem se in patria habere ut adversariis repenat praecipit This is in a few words the discovery of this Vision of Bishop Anthimius who very opportunely caused St. Barnabas to appear tanquam Deum è Machina to oppose Petrus Fullo Patriarch of Antioch and that there might not remain any doubt of his Revelation he put into the hands of St. Barnabas the Gospel of St. Matthew Mr. le Mome a learned Protestant Mr. le Moine Prol. in var. opusc Gr. and well versed in the Oriental Languages assures us that it was written in Hebrew because St. Barnabas who had transcribed it for his own use was born a Jew and preached to those of his Nation But it is more likely that Anthimius who was not a Jew should forge a Greek one neither is it credible that it should have been publickly read in the Church of Constantinople if it had been written in Hebrew As for the deference that Baronius gives to the Testimony of the Monk Alexander Author of the Life of St. Barnabas this Cardinal is not very favourable to the said Monk in another part of his Annals where (i) Alexander Graecus auctor qui res Barnabae prosecutus est encomiasticè potiùs quam historicè c. Baron ann ch 51. n. 53. he speaks of him as an Inventor of Tales that hath not written the Life of this Holy Apostle as an Historian I could bring other Examples of the like Revelations that have as many Circumstances as that of Bishop Anthimius and yet for all this are never the more true Under the Reign of the Emperor Theodosius a Revelation was feigned to authorize the false Apocalypse that was attributed to S. Paul. It was also found under ground at Tarsus in Cicilia in the House of this Holy Apostle There were also a great number of Alexanders or Monks in Palestine that every where extolled this false Piece as if it had truly belonged to him whose Title it bore Soz. Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 19. But Sozomon who relates this History informs us at the same time that a Priest of the City of Tarsus who was a very old man had assured him that this was false Furthermore we do not find that the two greatest men of the Church I mean Origen and St. Hierom who have searched the ancient Copies of the Scriptures with so much care and diligence and have visited so many Churches in the East have ever spoken of Originals of the New Testament written with the hand of the Apostles which they would not have failed to do if there had been any in their times especially St. Hierom who consulted a very great number of Greek and Latin Copies when by order of Pope Damasus he revised the ancient Latin Version of the Gospels Where were then these pretended Originals It is true there was no talk as yet of the Revelation of Anthimius nor of the History of Monk Alexander This Father hath said well that the Latin Copies were all different one from another Tot enim sunt exemplaria penè quot codices Therefore (k) Hoc certe cum in nostro sermone discordat in diversos rivulorum tramites uno de fonte quaerendum est Hieron Praef. in Evang. ad Damas he judges it necessary in this great diversity of Copies to have recourse to the Original Greek from whence the Latin hath been taken but he makes no mention of these first Originals that Mr. Huet supposeth (l) Ex fide primigeniorum illorum exemplarium quae servabantur in Ecclesiarum tabulariis dirimebantur controversiae haesitantium dubitatio tollebatur D. Huet in Demonst Evang. pag. 642. primae edit to have been kept in the Archives of the Churches since the time of St. Ignatius by which saith this learned man they were regulated in their Controversies and Disputes The Jesuit Maldonat on the contrary proves by the same Passage of St. Ignatius (m) Illis primis temporibus ut ait Ignatius nonnulli erant qui adeò suspecta haberent omnia ut negarent se Evangelio nisi in Ecclesiae archivis invenirent credituros Maldon Praef. in Evang. cap. 2. that in these Primitive Apostolical times there were People who doubted of the truth of the Gospels at least if they could not find them in the Archives of the Church To conclude Tertullian and St. Augustin who have so vigorously disputed with the ancient Hereticks that destroyed the Verity of the Writings of the Apostles have never objected these Originals to them so that this is by no means necessary for the establishing of the Christian Religion as hath been above shewed CHAP. V. Of the Books of the New Testament in particular and first of the Gospel of S. Matthew The Original of this Gospel hath been written in the Hebrew Tongue which the Jews of Jerusalem spake at that time An Answer to the Reasons that are contrary to this Opinion IT is a constant Tradition founded on the general consent of all the Churches in the World that there are but four Gospels the first of which is that of S. Matthew Iren. l. 3. adv Haer. l. 11. Neque autem plura numero quà m haec sunt saith S. Irenaeus neque rursus pauciora capit esse Nevertheless there are found in these later times some Authors who have believed that S. Matthew is not the first that hath committed the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Writing They ground their Opinion on this Luc. i. 1. that S. Luke seems to accuse those of little care and exactness that had published Gospels before him and since this Accusation cannot fall on any of the three other Evangelists they conclude from thence that none of them had written before But we ought not to oppose an Inference that at most carries with it but a probability to the Testimony of all Antiquity Therefore Grotius (a) Refragatur vetustissimus librorum ordo apud omnes nationes refragatur traditio vetus Irenaeo Tertulliano testibus suffulta Grot. Annot. in c. 1. Luc. v. 1. rejects this Opinion as being contrary to the order of the four Gospels established at all times among all Nations and authorised by the most ancient Fathers Maldonat who attributes this Argument to Beza refutes it also with no other Reasons than that of Tradition and adds at the same time that (b) Si haereticis crederemus nihil in ipsa etiam Religione certum stabileque haberemus Maldon Praef. in Evang. c. 4. if we should refer our selves herein to Hereticks we should have no certainty in point of Religion It cannot be denied also at least without contradicting all Antiquity but that S. Matthew hath written his Gospel in Hebrew that is to say in the Language that the Jews of Jerusalem then spake that was called Hebrew and was either Chaldaick or Syriack (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pap. apud Euseb
manner as they are in the Hebrew Text. But this reason is destructive of it self because he that hath translated the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew into Greek performing it for persons that spake Greek and read the Bible in this Language ought to quote the Authorities of the Old Testament rather according to the Greek Version of the Septuagint than according to the Hebrew Text which they understood not Illyricus adds to all these Reasons that there is no likelyhood that S. Matthew should design to write his Gospel in a Language that was no longer in use because at that time all People and even the Jews themselves spake Greek or Chaldaick Besides that the Holy Ghost who was the Author of these Books knew that the Destruction of Jerusalem was not far off Therefore there is no appearance saith he that he should intend to publish the Gospel in any other Language but the Greek which was the Language of the Empire This Protestant is grosly mistaken when he believes after Erasmus that it is supposed that the Gospel of S. Matthew hath been written in the ancient Hebrew whereas the Hebrew of the Jews at that time was the Chaldaick Language which they had brought with them from Babylon and had only a little altered it It hath indeed been more convenient that the Books of the New Testament should be written rather in Greek than in another Language But here it is only argued concerning the Jews of Palestine to whom S. Matthew first preached the Gospel And since those People spake Chaldaick it was necessary for him to preach to them in this same Language On these grounds all Antiquity hath relied when they have believed that S. Matthew had composed his Gospel in Hebrew He opposeth moreover that S. Macthew saw that the Jews did daily harden their Hearts and that they had an Abhorrence of the Religion of Jesus Christ And therefore it is not credible saith Illyricus that this holy Apostle hath written his Gospel for their sake and in their Language But to what purpose are reasons drawn from expediency against matters of fact that are evident We cannot doubt but many Jews of Palestine have received the Gospel of Jesus Christ by the Ministry of S. Matthew and whereas they spake Chaldaick or Syriack he could not leave this Gospel with them in Writing but in the Language that was spoken by them On this account we may judge of other the like reasons alledged by Illyricus to the same purpose He pretends for example that Divine Providence would never have permitted the loss of so great a Treasure if it were certain that the Gospel of S. Matthew had been written in Hebrew He adds farther that if S. Hierom had been truly persuaded that the Hebrew was the Original of this Gospel he would rather have translated it than the Greek now it cannot be said that he hath translated it from the Hebrew into Greek It is in vain that this Protestant calls the Providence of God to his assistance in opposition to a fact that cannot be reasonably doubted of The Fathers and the Jews themselves make no difficulty to acknowledge that some Sacred Books have been lost which nevertheless cannot be said of the Gospel of S. Matthew since we have it in Greek in a state sufficiently perfect The reason why the Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy is not preserved is because the Churches of Judaea for whose use it was primarily written have not long subsisted On the contrary the Churches wherein the Greek Tongue flourished have always endured and it is through the means of these last Churches that we have yet to this day the Greek Copy of S. Matthew This may serve also for an Answer to the Objection of Chamierus Chamier Panstrat lib. 11 c. 8. n. 8. who could not imagine how it could come to pass that there should have been so great a negligence in the Church in general and in particular in that of Jerusalem that the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew hath been lost from the first Ages of Christianity Nevertheless it is very easie to be apprehended if we consider that the Writings of the Apostles that were read in the Churches were preserved by the means of the same it is not therefore an extraordinary thing to see that the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew hath been lost in the loss of the Churches of the Nazarenes It is in the mean time worth the observing that it perished not entirely from the primitive times of Christianity for the Sect of the Nazarenes who took their original from the first Nazarenes or Christians of Judaea continued for a long time to read it in their Assemblies It passed also to the Ebionites who altered it in some places notwithstanding these Alterations it might always be said that this was the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew especially if respect were had to the Copy of the Nazarenes which was more pure than that of the Ebionites and was still extant in the time of S. Hierom who translated it into Greek and Latin. The other Christians neglected it because besides their not understanding the Language in which it was written they considered the Nazarenes as a sort of half Christians that still kept the Ceremonies of the Law and they rejected the Ebionites as Hereticks Illyricus adds farther to all these Objections that S. Matthew being a Publican was either half a Grecian or a Roman and that for this reason he ought rather to apply himself to write his Gospel in Greek for those of his Nation than in Hebrew for the Jews If this way of reasoning concluded any thing it might be inferred from thence at the same time that S. John who was an Hebrew and whose Mother-Tongue was Syriack or Chaldaick should have composed his Gospel in this Language for those of his own Nations It availeth nothing to oppose simple reasons of conveniency to manifest and clear matters of Fact. Neither is there any weight in a proof that he brings in the same place from certain Latin Words that are found in the Gospel of S. Matthew which are more agreeable as he thinks to a Greek Author than to a Man that writes in Hebrew because the Grecians had more Intercourse with the Latins than the Hebrews But may it not be said that these Latin Words do rather belong to the Greek Translation than to the original Hebrew Besides the Jews of those times who were under subjection to the Romans might have adopted divers Latin Words into their Language This same Principle may serve to resolve another Objection that he raiseth from the word Petrus which is in S. Matthew If this Apostle saith Illyricus had written in Hebrew or Syriack he would have made use of the Word Cephas and not of that of Petrus as if it might not be said that it is the Greeks Interpreter that hath inserted the Word Petrus Lastly he objects that S. Matthew epitomizeth with too much liberty in Chap. xii of his
Jerusalem Voss ibid. which was consequently Chaldaick or Syriack since this Word is Chaldaick Who knows not saith he that the Jews do yet at this day give Hebrew Names to their Fields Burying-places and divers other things I confess it but it is said expressy in the Acts (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 1.19 that this Field was called Haceldama in the Language that was spoken at Jerusalem It hath been also objected to him that there can be no reason alledged why the Title of the Cross hath been written in Greek Latin and Hebrew unless it were that these three Languages were then spoken in Jerusalem Now the Hebrew or Chaldaick was the Language of that place Although it should be granted that there were also then at Jerusalem some Jews that came from beyond Euphrates yet he will never persuade People endued with common Sense that respect was had only to this last sort of Jews when this Title was written It ought to have been written for the same reason in the Languages of the other Jews that were also present at that time at Jerusalem It hath been represented to Mr. Vossius that the Jews of Palestine did understand even in the time of St. Jerom the Chaldaick Tongue which their Ancestors had brought from Babylon He demands what Proofs there are of this and in what place of St. Jerom this is to be found Nevertheless he accounts as nothing the Testimony of this Father in his Preface to Tobit wherein he saith (p) Quia vicina est Chaldaeorum lingua sermoni Hebraico utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem reperiens unius diei laborem arripui quidquid ille mihi Hebraicis verbis expressit hoc ego accito notario sermonibus Latinis exposui Hieron Praef. in Tob. that in translating this Book from Chaldaick into Latin he was assisted by a Jew who spake Hebrew and Chaldaick very well and that he had put into Latin whatsoever he had expressed to him in Hebrew terms This Jew spake Hebrew because he was a Man of great Learning and he spake Chaldaick also because it was the Language that the Jews of those Places yet spake amongst themselves and in which they wrote their Books For this reason the Talmud of Jerusalem hath been written in this Tongue as well as that of Babylon The same hath happened to the Massora which hath been composed in Chaldaick by the Jews of Tiberias The Chaldaick Tongue hath not been truly spoken in those Countries for many Ages since but we must not confound the other people with the Jews who had always continued to speak amongst themselves in the Language that they had received from their Fathers We shall not need then to have recourse to the Parthians with Mr. Vossius to introduce into those Places the Chaldaick or Babylonian Tongue in the time of St. Jerom no more than in the time of the Apostles but according to the custom that the Jews have to preserve their ancient Languages though they are not spoken in the Countries where they have their abode as we have proved by the Example of the Spanish Jews who are in the Levant and of those that are at present at Amsterdam These last write Books in Spanish and Portugaise although they be in a Country where the Flemish Tongue is spoken they have also translated for the use of the People out of Hebrew into Spanish their Book of Peayers called Seder tephiloth under the Title of Orden de Oraciones Furthermore not to enter into a fruitless Dispute purely about Words Mr. Vossius shall be left to his liberty to call the Language that is stiled Hebrew in the Books of the New Testament Chaldaick rather than Syriack It is in vain then that he enlargeth so much on this Controversie of Words and that he is so angry with several learned Men for having called it Syriack or Syra Chaldaick (q) Quae tamen lingua nisi in scriptis forsan neotericorum qui quando se expedire non possunt istiusmodi fingunt voces quas ipsa non capit rerum natura nec accuratè se loqui existimarunt nisi barbaris monstrosis utantur appellationibus Voss Resp ad tert P. Sim. Obj. This Language saith he is not to be found but in the Writings of modern Authors who have forged these monstrous Words to wave the matter But it seems to me that it hath been always permitted to any that would express something new especially in point of Criticism to invent new Words that may give a clear and distinct Idea of the thing that is to be explained Now it is certain that the Tongue which is named Hebrew in the New Testament is properly neither Hebrew nor Syriack nor even Chaldaick for it is composed of a certain mixture of the Hebrew and of the Chaldaick or Babylonian They that have used these Words which are supposed to be barbarous have been Persons very skilful in these Languages and have discoursed of them with a perfect knowledge When S. Hierom makes mention of the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew that was in use amongst the Nazarenes he authorizeth the barbarous Word of Syro-Chaldaick quod Chaldaico saith he Syroque sermone sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est Hieron lib. 3. adv Pelag. Hence it may be observed that this learned Father made no difficulty to call indifferently Chaldaick and Syriack the Language that the Jews of Jerusalem spake in the time of the Apostles The greatest part of the Fathers as well Greek as Latin do also call Syriack that which bears the name of Hebrew in the New Testament The most judicious Criticks of our Age speak no otherwise Mr. Vossius alone is singular herein who hath thought fit of late to reject this Syriack Tongue which he had already approved in his other Works Voss ibid. He demands in what time and after what manner the Hebrew Tongue became Syriack But as we have before said he may if he please call it Chaldaick if he remains so obstinate as not to be willing to receive the Name of Syriack with all Antiquity and with the Suffrage of all People that are expert in these Languages which he seems not to understand If he rightly apprehended this matter he would not insist on a Question that is only concerning a Name To avoid all the trifling and insignificant Circumstances to which Mr. Vossius hath purposely had recourse that he might make a shew of offering at least something in answer to the Objections that have been made to him it is convenient that I should relate the Judgment as to this point of George Amira a learned Maronite who hath published at Rome an excellent Grammar of the Syriack Tongue he hath intituled his Book A Syriack or Chaldaick Grammar Georgii Amirae Gramm Syr. sive Chald. and thus he makes it appear from the Title of his Work that these two Words may be indifferently used this he confirms at the
had retrenched from it the Genealogy of Jesus Christ which he saith not of the Nazarenes who had it if you will believe him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most entire It is true that in the very Copy of the Nazarenes there were some Additions that seemed to have been inserted therein but we must not reject an Act that is altogether entire under colour that something hath been annexed to it afterwards especially when these Augmentations come not from suspected Persons that have a design to corrupt it otherwise we must lay aside the greatest part of Books there being very few of them wherein some Additions may not be found There would not be at this day any Copy even of the New Testament either Greek Latin Syriack or Arabick that might be truly called authentick because there is not one in whatsoever Language it be written that is absolutely exempt from Additions I might also avouch that the Greek Transcribers have taken a very great liberty in writing their Copies as shall be proved in another place Not that I would go about here to defend the vicious Additions and the Corruptions of the Hebrew Copy of the Ebionites Baronius himself hath never thought of this he is content to say (n) Nazaraei Evangelium Matthaei quod semel acceperant aliquandiu illibatum incorruptumque servarunt Baron Ann. Ch. 41. n. 18. that the Nazarenes during some time preserved the true Gospel of S. Matthew entire and without any Additions he confutes the Opinion of Bede who hath believed that this Hebrew Gospel ought not to be reckoned in the number of Apocryphal Books he judgeth that it ought to be placed in the rank of Apocryphal Pieces because S. Jerom hath quoted in his Works several Passages out of it which are not to be found in the Copies that have been received and approved of by the Church (o) Periculosum esse putamus id in aliam quà m in apocryphorum classem referre cum non nisi una possit esse veritas Bar. ibid. It is dangerous saith this Cardinal to put it in any other Class than that of Apocryphal Books because there can be but one Truth If we understand in the mean time by Apocryphal a false Book it is not true in that sense that the Gospel of the Nazarenes is Apocryphal it may be only said that if there are considerable Additions therein that alter the sense it is no more Authentick and this is that which is to be proved I speak only of the Copy of the Nazarenes and not of that of the Ebionites who had corrupted it on purpose to adjust it to their Prejudices We ought not notwithstanding to compare the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes Casaub Exercit. 16. ad Annal. Bar. n. 126. as Casaubon hath done with the Gospel intituled according to the Egyptians the Acts of Barnabas the Prophecy of Cham and other Books that have been forged by Impostors It is not to be doubted on the contrary that the Gospel of the Nazarenes hath been certainly composed by the Apostle whose Name it bears as for what concerns the Additions which the Nazarenes might have inserted in the first Original of S. Matthew it may happen that they are not false we ought rather to attribute them to their Simplicity and to their good Faith than to their malice It was the custom in these Primitive times of Christianity to take a great deal of pains to inform themselves of that which the Disciples of the Apostles had learned of their Masters as appears by the Example of Papias who lived in those times of S. Irenaeus who was not long after and of some others of the Ancient It is probable that the Nazarenes have annexed to their Gospel of S. Matthew the like Histories which they had learned and which they believed to be founded on good Testimonies therefore they are not all to be rejected as false though they are not to be found in any of the Copies that are used and allowed by the Church It may be observed that all the Churches of the World have taken their Versions from the Greek Copy wherein these Additions are not expressed because the Gospel of S. Matthew had been apparently translated out of Hebrew into Greek before the Nazarenes had inserted them Furthermore these Differences of the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes from our Copy seem to have been numerous enough if we may judge of them by those that S. Jerom hath left us in divers Passages of his Works a part of which hath been collected by some Commentators on the New Testament Nevertheless there is a diversity of Opinions as to some of these Histories or Additions of the Nazarenes all men for example are not agreed that the History of the adulterous Woman of whom mention is made Chap. viii of S. John hath been in their Hebrew Gospel That which hath given occasion to believe it is the Testimony of Papias who had lived with the Disciples of the Apostles he saith (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pap. apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 3. cap. 39. that the History of the Woman who was accused of many Sins before our Saviour is to be read in the Gospel that was called according to the Hebrews which seems not to be meant of any other than that adulterous Woman whom S. John hath mentioned Nevertheless Baron Ann. c. 99. n. 6. Baronius hath thought and some others after him that the History related in Eusebius by Papias is different from that whereof S. John speaks because (q) Cùm Papias multorum criminum dicat illam fominam accusatam Joannes verò habeat unius tantùm facinoris nempê quòd deprehensa esset in adulterio insimulatam planè diversam ab illa fuisse cujus nulla esset mentio apud Evangelistas significare videtur Baron ann Christ 99. n. 6. Papias discourseth of a Woman accused of many Crimes in general whereas S. John simply takes notice of an adulterous Woman but there is but little likelihood that Papias should have designed to describe in this Passage any other than the adulterous Woman though his Expression runs in general terms This hath caused several learned men to believe that the History of the adulterous Woman hath been taken from the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes and that it hath been afterwards inserted into that of S. John indeed it is not found in a great number of Copies of this Gospel as we shall shew hereafter I shall only observe here that if this be true we ought not to cast away as false Histories all the Additions that the Nazarenes had inserted into their Hebrew Copy of S. Matthew because they might have received them from good hands It is for this reason that Cardinal Baronius authorizeth an Apparition of our Saviour to S. James Baron Ann. c 34. n. 182. which was found only in the Copy of the Nazarenes and is related after this manner by S. Jerom Evangelium
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
they have been made from the Syriack That which hath misled the Syrians is their believing as Cardinal Baronius hath done after the Writer of the Lives of the Popes that S. Mark could not have written his Gospel at Rome otherwise than in the Language of the Country having composed it at the request of the Faithful of that City who spake Latin. (b) Neminem puto existimaturum Apostolos cùm gentibus praedicarent Evangelium aliis usos fuisse linguis ab his quibus gentes illae uterentur quibus Dei verbum annuntiarent Baron ann c. 45. n. 37. It cannot be imagined saith he that the Apostles should have preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Nations in any other Languages but those that were in use amongst them He hath not taken notice that S. Peter came to Rome to preach the Gospel to his own Country-men and that therefore S. Mark ought to have published it in a Language that was most known to them Now it is certain that the Jews who were dispersed throughout the whole Roman Empire and even the greatest part of those that were then at Rome understood the Greek and that there were very few on the contrary that had any knowledge of the Latin Tongue This hath been very judiciously observed by Grotius in the beginning of his Notes on S. Mark Judaei saith this learned Critick qui Romae agebant plerique Latini sermonis ignari Grot. Annot in tit Marci longâ per Asiam Graeciam habitatione Graecam linguam didicerant Romanorum vix quisquam erat non Graece intelligens This may be sufficient to answer all the Reasons alledged by Baronius who could not apprehend how S. Mark who exercised the Function of an Interpreter at Rome should speak and write in any other Language but the Latin. It is certain saith this Cardinal that S. Peter spake at Rome in the Language of the Romans how then could it come to pass that S. Mark the Interpreter should have translated the Preachings of this holy Apostle out of Latin into Greek If it be said adds he that S. Peter spake Greek or Hebrew S. Mark could not have interpreted his words but in Latin. All this arguing proves nothing if we consider that S. Peter spake to the Jews at Rome in a Language which they understood and that S. Mark hath collected the Preachings of this Apostle in the same at the desire of those Jews that were lately converted Baronius adds to all these Reasons another proof which is taken from the style of S. Mark he affirms that they that have any knowledge of the Greek Tongue may easily judge that he hath written his Gospel in Latin because several improper Words are found therein which are not in the least Greek but Latin Grecised He thereupon quotes Cardinal Sirlet who hath made an exact Collection of them from whence at last he concludes (c) His igitur propè necessariis rationibus non solùm suademur sed obstricti fermè devincimur atque planè cogimur affirmare Evangelium Marci ab eo Latinè potiùs quà m Graecè esse conscriptum Baron ann Ch. 45. n. 41. that the Reasons which he hath produced to make it appear that S. Mark hath written in Latin are so strong and cogent that they seem to be Demonstrations These Reasons on the contrary cannot but appear very weak to those who are versed in the Criticism of the Sacred Books If this last proof concluded any thing it would conclude at the same time that the other Evangelists have also written in Latin because the like Expressions are found in their Gospels that is to say Latin words Grecised It might be proved moreover after this manner that the Syriack and Arabick Versions of the Bible had been first composed in Greek and afterwards translated into Syriack and Arabick because there are in these Translations many Greek words that have been Syriacised and Arabised It is no wonder that S. Mark who is supposed to have written in Greek at Rome should have made use of Latin words Grecised Since it is the custom of all Nations that speak a foreign Language to mingle with it some of their own words and so S. Mark would have spoken Greek as it was spoken at Rome and even in many other Cities of the Empire where the Grecians had adopted divers Roman words If it were true that the very Original of S. Mark is at this day kept at Venice as they of this Country do avouch all this Dispute would be quickly ended but Baronius had no mind rashly to give credit to a popular Tradition that had no Foundation in Antiquity Ciaconius who hath written the Lives of the Popes speaks but doubtfully concerning this question he durst not pronounce magisterially as Baronius hath done that S. Mark hath written in Latin tho he cites the Archives of the Venetians who pretend to have the true Original in their possession He chiefly relies on the testimony of the Syrians and on this that it is improbable that a Gospel should have been written in any other but the Latin Tongue that was made for the use of the Latins Notwithstanding this he leaves the matter undetermined Alfons Ciacon Vit. Sum. Pontif. edit Rom. ann 1601. in Petro. Marcus saith this Historian Petri discipulus sectator in baptismo filius Evangelium quod ipse Apostolorum princeps praedicaverat Romanorum hortatu precibus Graecè itidem conscripsit seu ut alii volunt Latinè cujus eâ linguâ archetypum adservari putant Venetiis in Marcianis thesauris Syri omnes huic rei fidem faciunt ratio suadet ut non alia quà m Latinâ Linguâ Evangelium in usum Latinis futurum conscriberetur Alterutrum horum sit c. One would think to hear this Author speak that S. Mark had only composed his Gospel for the Latins On this account I do not wonder that the Original thereof is kept at Venice in the Treasury of S. Mark. It remains for us to examine the twelve last Verses of this Chapter which are not found in several Greek Manuscript Copies S. Jerom who had seen a great number of these Manuscripts Hieron Epist ad Hedib qu. 3. declares in his Letter to Hedibia that there were in his time very few Greek Copies wherein they were read Omnibus Graeciae libris penè hoc capitulum non habentibus We must not understand as the most part of Commentators on the New Testament have done by this word Capitulum that is in S. Jerom the last Chapter of S. Mark entire but only from these words of the ninth Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to the end as it appears by the Manuscript Copies which I have above consulted and it shall be shewn in the Sequel of this Work that the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers have denoted quite another thing by the word Capitulum Chapter than what we now mean at this day by the Chapters of the
adv Pelag. declarat Sixt. Sen. Biblioth S. lib. 7. who urgeth that S. Jerom's words can only be understood of certain Apocryphal Periods which had been adjoyned to some Greek Copies by uncertain Authors is very far from truth It is sufficient only to read the words of this Reverend Doctor as well in his Epistle to Hedibia as in his Work against the Pelagians to judge that he speaks apparently in those two places of two different Additions And that there may remain no doubt thereof I shall here produce what I could observe on this Subject in reading the ancient Greek Copies It is to be supposed as hath been above said that the question is not concerning the whole last Chapter of S. Mark but only the twelve last Verses This is that part which S. Jerom hath called Capitulum Chapter wherein is described the History of the Resurrection The most ancient Greek Copy of the Gospels of those that are in the King of France his Library contains after these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Remark written as the rest of the Text and with the same Hand * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is read in some places as followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They declared in a few words to those that were with Peter all things that had been commanded them Ex cod MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2861. and afterwards Jesus himself published by their Ministry this holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal Salvation There follows afterwards in this Manuscript this Observation written in the Body of the Book and with the same Hand as the Text * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found that which followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to the end of the Gospel We may easily judge by this that they that have written this Greek Copy which is ancient have believed that the Gospel of S. Mark ended at these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have nevertheless added the rest written with the same hand but only in form of a Remark because it was not read in their Church which is altogether conformable to the Testimony of S. Jerom in his Letter to Hedibia Since this diversity is considerable it is necessary for me to make some Reflections thereon grounded on this ancient Manuscript of the King's Library It seems that Beza hath seen this Manuscript or at least one like it Bez. Annot in c. 16. Marci v. 9. for he saith in his Notes on Mark xvi that he hath found in one Copy these words added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the rest as hath been above related But he ought to have explained himself more distinctly thereupon and to have observed that this Addition was written in the Manuscript only in form of a Schotion or Note and not as belonging to the Text of S. Mark 's Gospel This appears manifestly in the Manuscript of the King's Library We ought to judge after the same manner of this other Addition which S. Jerom declares that he hath read in some Greek Copies and which he publisheth in these terms In quibusdam exemplaribus maxime in Graecis codicibus juxta Marcum in fine ejus Evangelii sic scribitur Postea cùm accubuissent undecim apparuit eis Jesus exprobravit incredulitatem duritiem cordis eorum quia iis qui viderant eum resurgentem non crediderunt Et illi satisfaciebant dicentes Seculum istud iniquitatis incredulitatis substantia est quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veri Dei apprehendi virtutem Idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam This hath been apparently taken out of some Apocryphal Gospels as we have above seen a like Addition taken from that of the Nazarenes The Greek Transcribers thinking thereby to make their diligence and exactness more apparent have inserted them into their Copies But they have done it by way of Remark and there have been others afterwards who have left these Additions in the Text without annexing any thing that denoted that they were only as it were Observations because these Additions were not read in their Churches they did not think these little Notes necessary By this same method we may justifie the Observation of S. Jerom in his Letter to Hedibia wherein he declares that the last Chapter of S. Mark that is to say the twelve last Verses were not read in the greatest part of the Greek Copies Beza on the contrary (k) Testor in omnibus vetustis codicibus quos nobis videre contigit hoc caput inveniri Bez. Annot. in cap. 16. Marci v. 9. protests that this Chapter is found in all the old Manuscripts that he hath read but he hath not regarded that altho it be found in the ancient Greek Manuscripts yet there are many of them in which it is written only as it were an Addition that doth not appertain to the Text. This evidently appears in the King 's ancient Manuscript above cited For tho these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the rest to the end of the Gospel be written therein with the same Hand as the whole Body of the Book nevertheless the Remark that is adjoyned makes it plainly appear that they that have written this Copy have not considered them as part of the Text. It is to be observed moreover that the Sections are marked in the Margin of the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament by the Letters of the Alphabet which serve instead of Numbers of Figures These Marks are in the first Editions of the Greek New Testament of Erasmus in Robert Stephen's Edition in Folio and in some others Now there are none of these found in the King's Manuscript over against these twelve Verses which is a proof that they were not read in their Church that have transcribed this Copy This will appear yet more clearly in the Sequel of this Discourse wherein I shall explain the use of these Marks or Sections in the Greek Copies of the New Testament Euthymius who hath made Learned and Judicious Annotations on the New Testament confirms all this that we have just now alledged and justifieth at the same time S. Jerom's Observation in his Letter to Hedibia See what he saith on these words of S. Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. xvi 9. (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euthym. in cap. 16. Marci ex cod MS. Biblioth Reg. n. 2401. Some Interpreters say that the Gospel of S. Mark is ended here and that that which follows is a later Addition We must nevertheless explain this also because it containeth nothing contrary to the truth There is also another Manuscript Copy of the Gospels in the King's Library ancient enough and written very exactly wherein is also read this Observation on the same Passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. MS. Reg. n. 2868. The Evangelist ends here in some Copies but in
this is the reason that in some Manuscript Greek Copies we find the name of this Evangelist at the beginning of this Work he declares himself in his Preface that he is the Author of it presenting it to his Friend Theophilus to whom he had already dedicated his Gospel S. Jerom affirmeth (a) Cujus historia usque ad biennium Romae commorantis Pauli pervenit id est usque ad quartum Neronis annum Ex quo intelligimus in eadem urbe librum esse compositum Hieron de Script Eccl. in Lucâ that this History was written at Rome and that it extends to the fourth Year of Nero which was according to his Opinion the second of S. Paul's abode in that great City The Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures thought (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. in Synops that the Acts of the Apostles had been preached by S. Peter and that S. Luke had afterwards committed them to Writing but S. Luke hath recorded almost nothing else but matters of fact of which he himself had been a witness Hieron ibid. And this is the difference that S. Jerom makes between the Gospel of this Disciple of the Apostles and the Acts in regard that not having seen Jesus Christ he could not write his Gospel but on that which he had learned from others sicut audierat scripsit whereas having followed S. Paul in the most part of his Travels he was an eye-witness of his Actions and therefore he hath published nothing but what he had seen himself sicut viderat ipse composuit Although the Title indeed of this History bears the name of all the Apostles in general nevertheless it informs us of very few things concerning them only conducting them to the time when they dispersed themselves into divers Provinces to preach the Gospel S. Luke comes after this to S. Paul's Travels who was accompanied with S. Barnabas without describing the Itineraries of the other Apostles neither doth he finish even those of S. Paul. If it be demanded why S. Luke hath not perfected his History and why he hath not left us in Writing the rest of those Actions of which he was a Witness I have no other Answer to make but that which S. John Chrysostom hath already made to those that in his time asked the same Question This learned Bishop saith Joann Chrys Hom. 1. in Act. Apos That what S. Luke hath written in this matter is sufficient for those that will apply themselves to it that the Apostles moreover and their Disciples who preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joann Chrysost Hom. 1. in Act. Apost have always insisted on that which was most necessary that they did not study to write Histories because they have left many things to the Churches by Tradition only And this ought to be considered for it is certain that the principal business and care of the Apostles was to preach the Gospel and that they would have written nothing of their Preachings if they had not been earnestly sollicited by the People whom they had instructed The Christian Religion might be preserved without any Writings by Tradition alone S. Chrysostom complains in the same place Chrys ib. that that little we have of the History of the Apostles was so neglected in his time that many were not only ignorant of the Author but they did not know whether it had been written It seems that the Gospels and the Epistles of S. Paul were then only accounted to belong to the New Testament perhaps none but these two Works were read in the Churches in these Primitive Ages We see also that the Books that are consecrated for the use of the Greek Churches do only bear these two Titles viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gospel and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle nevertheless afterwards this last Book hath been named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it contains besides the Epistles of S. Paul the best part of the Acts of the Apostles and even the other Books of the New Testament Whereas this History that comprehends the principal Actions of S. Paul is short a certain Priest of Asia since the Primitive times of Christianity thought fit to add to it in form of a Supplement another Book intituled The Travels of Paul and Thecla We are informed by Tertullian (d) Quòd si quae Pauli perperà m scripta legunt exemplum Theclae ad licentiam mulierum docendi tingendique defendunt sciant in Asiâ presbyterum qui eam scripturam construxit quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse loco decessisse Tertull. lib. de Bapt. c. 17. that some Women made use of these Acts to prove by the Authority of this Holy Apostle that it was lawful for them to preach in the Churches and to baptize This Father answers those that alledged the Testimony of S. Paul taken from these Acts that the Priest of Asia the Author of them had been convicted that he had forged them and that he himself had avouched that he was induced to compose them by the love that he had for this Apostle He solidly confutes them by making it appear that these Acts contained a Doctrine altogether contrary to that of S. Paul. (e) Quà m enim fidei proximum videretur ut is docendi tingendi daret feminae potestatem qui ne discere quidem constanter mulieri permisit Tertull. ibid. What probability is there saith he that S. Paul should grant to Women a power to teach and to baptize who hath not so much as permitted them to learn in the Church forbidding them absolutely to speak therein S. Jerom who hath made mention of these Acts published under the Title of the Travels of Paul and Thecla Hieron de script Eccles in Luca. adds that it was S. John that caused the Priest that composed them to be convicted of Forgery Tertullian nevertheless whom he cites in this Passage doth not speak of S. John he saith only that this Priest was of Asia Pope Gelasius hath put this Book in the number of Apocryphal Works Baronius distinguisheth these false Acts of Thecla from others that give an account of the Life and Martyrdom of this Saint Gelas Decr. 1. part dist 15. c. 3. he supports the Authority of these last by the Testimony of several Fathers who have quoted them Baron an c. 47. n. 3 4 5. Epiph. Haer. 78. n. 16. and among others by that of S. Epiphanius who relying on the credit of these Acts relates that Thecla having espoused a very rich and noble man broke off her Marriage after she had heard S. Paul This Cardinal adds that Faustus a famous Manichean hath produced this same History of Thecla and that he hath taken occasion from thence to condemn the Doctrine of S. Paul as abominable because he had compelled by his Discourses a married Woman to continue
before the time of Cajus of the Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews Tertullian nevertheless hath attributed it to S. Barnabas but without shewing any Reasons The same Baronius is very much perplexed when he would explain the Sense of S. Jerom who avoucheth that although this Epistle hath been always received as S. Paul's in the Eastern Churches (i) Eam Latinorum consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas Canonicas Hier. Epist ad Dardan yet the Latins do not put it in the number of the Canonical Epistles this he repeats in several other Passages of his Works But whereas most part of the Latin Fathers before him and even in his time have acknowledged this Epistle not only to be Canonical but also to be written by S. Paul this Cardinal thinks that S. Jerom was deceived in relying altogether on the Testimony of Cajus and Eusebius without consulting the custom of the Latin Churches I confess that this Father in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers according to his usual method hath only copied the Words of Eusebius when he speaks of Cajus but the same thing cannot be said of the other Passages where he affirms distinctly from Eusebius that this Epistle is not generally received amongst the Latins Paulus Apostolus saith he in his Commentary on Isaiah in Epistola ad Hebraeos quam Latina consuetudo non recipit He adds a little after (k) Pauli quoque idcirco ad Hebraeos Epistolae contradicitur quòd ad Hebraeos scribens utatur testimoniis quae in Hebraeis voluminibus non habentur Hier. Comm. in Is l 2. c. 6. that this Epistle of S. Paul was rejected because that in writing to the Hebrews he made use of such Testimonies of the Holy Scriptures as were not found in their Copies This evidently proves that there were some Churches in those times in which the Epistle to the Hebrews was not acknowledged as Canonical Hier. ib. this can only be understood of the Western Churches since he grants that it was universally approved in all those of the East He declares moreover in his Letter to Dardanus (l) Quòd si Epistolam ad Hebraeos Latinorum consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas Canonicas nec Graecorum quidem Ecclesiae Apocalypsim Joannis eâdem libertate suscipiunt tamen nos utramque suscipimus nequaquam hujus temporis consuetudinem sed veterum scriptorum auctoritatem sequentes qui plerumque utriusque abutuntur testimoniis non ut interdùm de apocryphis facere solent sed quasi canonicis ecclesiasticis Hier. Epist ad Dard. that without having regard to the Custom of his Time he received the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse as Canonical Books though the Latins did not allow the first nor the Grecians the second He prefers in this place the Authority of the Ancients who had cited these two Works as Canonical before the practice of his time It cannot be said then with Cardinal Baronius that S. Jerom when he affirms that in his time the Epistle to the Hebrews was not commonly received amongst the Latins had only respect to the Testimony of Cajus and that he hath done nothing but transcribed the Words of Eusebius for he speaks plainly of the Custom of his time But it may be objected that S. Hilary Optatus S. Ambrose S. Augustin and some other Fathers who lived before S. Jerom or were contemporary with him have not doubted that this Epistle was not only Canonical and Divine but they have likewise believed that it was S. Paul's how then could it come to pass that this Father should avouch that it was not acknowledged in his time amongst the Latins It is true that these Fathers who were Latins and some of whom lived at the same time with S. Jerom have all ascribed the Epistle directed to the Hebrews to S. Paul which he doth also himself in divers Passages of his Works however I will not conclude from thence with Baronius that this learned Man hath not sufficiently considered the Practice of his Church (m) Haec igitur oùm ex Eusebio Hieronymus exsoripserit majorem illi quà m par erat sidem tribuit dùm putavit Latinos dictam Epistolam non recipere Baron ann ch 60. n. 52. and that he hath too easily given credit to the Testimony of Eusebius but I will say that a difference ought to be put between the Custom of Churches and the Attestation of particular Writers When S. Jerom hath written that in his time the Epistle to the Hebrews was not allowed among the Latins he hath declared the Practice of many Churches of the West who did not read it in their publick Assemblies this doth not hinder but that the Fathers of those times might esteem it as Canonical and also as S. Paul's It would be an easie matter by this means to reconcile S. Jerom with some other Latin Fathers That which confirms the distinction that I have now made between the Custom of Churches and that of private Writers is this that we find some very ancient Greek Manuscripts of the Epistles of S. Paul with the old Latin Version annexed to them in which the Epistle to the Hebrews hath been separated on purpose from the body of the Epistles It seems to me that there can be no other reason given of this Separation but this that the Latins who have transcribed these Copies as I shall prove hereafter did not read this Epistle in their Churches furthermore it may be observed that all the ancient Latin Authors have not attributed the Epistle to the Hebrews to S. Paul for besides that Tertullian doth not refer to it but under the name of S. Barnabas there is no probability that it was received as Canonical in the Church of S. Cyprian since he never makes use of its Authority in all his Works If we should say with Baronius that this holy Bishop hath followed Tertullian in this whom he read always and called his Master this would not resolve the difficulty I doubt not but if the Epistle to the Hebrews had been publickly read at that time in his Church as being S. Paul's he would have quoted it as well as the others As for the Reasons that are alledged against this Epistle they are not of that weight as to make void the Testimonies of so great a number of Authors who have attributed it to S. Paul. First Hieron Comm. in Is l. 2. c. 6. The Objection proposed by S. Jerom in his Commentaries on Isaiah that is taken from the Passages of the old Testament which the Author of this Epistle hath not cited from the Hebrew Text but from the Greek Version of the Seventy is of no force at all he should have first made it appear that it was originally written in Hebrew which cannot be easily proved and though it were true yet might it be always said as of the Gospel of S. Matthew that the Greek Translator hath inserted into his Version the Passages
of the Old Testament according to the Septuagint which was read at that time by the most part of the Jews If we follow the Opinion of Origen who was well versed in the Criticism of the Sacred Books this Epistle hath been composed in Greek by one of the Scribes or Disciples of S. Paul who hath only committed to Writing that which he learned from his Master This may serve to answer another Objection that is ordinarily offered against this Epistle by reason of the diversity of Stile which is pretended to be very different from that of the other Epistles of S. Paul. Theophylact who hath taken notice of this declares (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. Comm. in c. 1. Epist ad Hebr. that S. Paul hath written it in Hebrew and that it was afterwars translated into Greek by S. Luke as some think or by S. Clement which he judgeth most probable because of the resemblance of the Stile It is objected in the third place that if this Epistle were S. Paul's he would have set his Name at the head of it as he hath done in his other Epistles Theodor. Praef. Com. in Epist ad Hebr. Theodoret who hath related this Objection from the Arians answers that there is a great deal of difference between this Letter and the others that bear the Name of this Apostle he hath prefixed his Name according to his Opinion at the beginning of those that were written to the Gentiles because he was their Apostle whereas in writing to the Jews whose Apostle he was not it was not requisite for him to do the like The Arians might have seen this Answer in the Works of Clemens Alexandrinus who lived before the appearing of their Heresie as also another that he gives in the same place but it is grounded as the former only on a Conjecture he saith (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. in Hypotyp apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 14. that it was a piece of Wisdom in S. Paul not to set his Name at the head of an Epistle that he wrote to a sort of People that were possessed with a prejudice against him and that he did very prudently in concealing his Name that he might not hinder them from reading it There is a fourth Reason that appears to be much stronger than the preceding against the ascribing the Epistle to the Hebrews to S. Paul. Epist ad Heb. c. 6. v. 4 5 6. It seems as if the Author designed absolutely to condemn all Repentance after Baptism for he saith Chap. 6. that it is impossible that those that have been once enlightened that is to say baptized and have fallen away after this should be renewed by Repentance this is manifestly contrary to the Doctrine of the New Testament and to the Practice of the Church There is a great deal of probability that this was that which obliged some Latin Churches not to read this Epistle publickly in their Assemblies especially since the Novatians had made use of it to support their Schism (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Comm. in c. 6. Epist ad Hebr. The Novatians saith Theodoret used these Words to oppose the Truth I have found an Answer to this Objection in an ancient Latin Translation that hath been made before the time of S. Jerom for whereas in the present vulgar the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated impossibile it is in this ancient Version difficile and that which deserves further to be observed is that it ordinarily follows the words of the Greek Text but in this place it is rather according to the Sense than the strictness of the Letter This makes it evident that in those times the Latins found this expression somewhat harsh and contrary to the Judgment of the Church and this partly induced Luther to deny that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by S. Paul or any other of the Apostles Erasmus hath affirmed in his Notes on this Epistle that S. Ambrose Erasm Not. in Epist ad Hebr. who hath written Commentaries on the Epistles of S. Paul hath made none upon this because it was received but very lately in the Roman Church He adds that the Grecians have already embraced it because it was contrary to the Arians who rejected it But he is mistaken in attributing Commentaries to S. Ambrose that are not his and which the most judicious Criticks believe to be made by S. Hilary Deacon of Rome neither is it true that it hath been more approved by the Grecians since it was exploded by the Arians for Clemens Alexandrinus who lived before Arius hath avouched that it was S. Paul's Besides they that have disputed against the Arians have thereupon opposed to them the universal Consent of the Ecclesiastical Writers before the appearing of their Heresie The same Erasmus offended the greatest part of the Divines especially those of the Faculty of Paris by these two Propositions (q) De Epistolae ad Hebraeos auctore semper est dubitatum ut ipse ingenuè fatear adhuc dubito Erasm Propos It hath been always doubted of the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and to say the truth I do still doubt thereof This so exasperated the Reverend Doctors of Paris that they censured the aforesaid Propositions after this manner (r) He duae propositiones arroganter schismaticè asseruntur contra usum determinationem Ecclesiae in multis conciliis Nicaeno Laodicensi Carthaginensi tertio cui adfuit Augustinus in Concilio 70. Episcoporum praeside Gelasio Cens Facult Theol. Paris tit de Auctor libr Novi Test These two Propositions are insolent and schismatical against the Practice and Decrees of the Church in the Councils of Nice Laodicea the third of Carthage in which S. Augustin assisted and in a Council of seventy Bishops wherein Pope Gelasius presided These Divines added to this the Testimonies of S. Denis whom they called the Disciple of S. Paul of S. Clement Innocent I. S Gregory Nazianzen and of some other Fathers From whence they conclude (ſ) Nec verum est semper dubitatum esse de auctore hujus Epistolae ad Hebraeos cùm scribat Origenes quòd ante tempora suaomnes antiqui majores eam ut Pauli Apostoli suscipiebant Cens Facult Theol. Paris ibid. that it is not true that it hath been always doubted of the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews since Origen avoucheth that all the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that have lived before him have received it as S. Paul's Moreover these same Divines opposed to Erasmus the words of S. Peter 2 Pet. 3.15 that are at the end of his second Canonical Epistle directed to the Hebrews wherein he saith expresly that his beloved Brother Paul had also written unto them they do not doubt but S. Peter designed in this place to hint at the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews Erasmus in his answer to these Doctors of
in the ancient Latin Bibles written about seven or eight hundred years ago St. Jerom also hath followed this method in his great Prologue called Galeatus The Syrians have preserved this same Order in their Version as appears from the Edition of Widmanstadius nevertheless they have not in their ancient Copies according to which this Edition of Widmanstadius was regulated the second Epistle of St. Peter nor the second and third of St. John nor that of St. Jude These Epistles were not apparently in the Greek Copies which the Syrians have Translated into their Language However it seems as if there were nothing very certain concerning the Order of these Epistles for in the last of the Canons that bear the name of the Apostles those of St. Peter are set down first and afterwards those of St. John and that of St. James stands in the third rank the Bishops assembled at Trent have also named them after this same manner conformably to the Council of Florence Calvin himself hath set the Epistle of St. Peter at the head of all in his Commentaries on the Canonical Epistles But we ought to prefer the Order that is observed in the Greek and Latin Copies and also in the Oriental Versions As for what concerns the Authority of these Epistles very great difficulties arise from thence for as we have already seen the Syrians have not inserted some of them in their Version of the New Testament which they would have done if they had been read in the Eastern Churches when they Interpreted them out of the Greek into Syriack nevertheless they have since Translated them and they have been likewise Printed therefore they are also found in the Arabick Versions of the New Testament I shall have occasion to examin this matter more exactly in the second Book of this Work wherein I shall Treat of Versions in particular but since my design at present is only to speak of the Text let us see what the Ancients have thought thereupon Eusebius who avoucheth (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 23. that the Epistle of St. James the Brother of our Saviour with the other Canonical Epistles was publickly read in his time in the most part of the Churches observes nevertheless that not many of the ancient Writers have made mention of it as neither of that of St. Jude he would say without doubt that there are few of the ancient Doctors of the Church that have cited it as Canonical therefore in another part of his History where he produceth a Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 25. he reckons the same Epistle of St. James that of St. Jude the second of St. Peter and the second and third of St. John among the Scriptures that were not generally received as Canonical by all the Churches though several ancient Fathers had spoken of them St. Jerom who usually transcribes Eusebius in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers expresseth himself almost after the same manner as this Historian doth on the Epistle of St. James for after he hath said (e) Jacobus qui appellatur frater Domini-unam tantùm scripsit Epistolam quae de septem Catholicis est quae ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur licet paulatim tempore procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem Hieron de Script Eccl. in Jac. that St. James the first Bishop of Jerusalem hath written but one Letter which is in the number of the seven Canonical Epistles he adds to shew that all People were not agreed that it was certainly his that it was said that it hath been written by another in his name though it hath obtained Authority in process of time Cardinal Cajetan makes use of this same Passage of S. Jerom Cajet Comm. in c. 1. Epist Jac. to prove that it is not absolutely certain that this Epistle was composed by S. James the Brother of our Lord Non usquequaque certum an Epistola haec sit Jacobi fratris Domini He hath also entituled his Annotations on this Epistle Commentaries on the Epistle that bears the Name of S. James In eam quae Divo Jacobo inscribitur Commentarii in which point he is more scrupulous than S. Jerom who hath made no difficulty to quote it under this Title Indeed this Father simply relates in this place the various Opinions of several Persons concerning the Author of this Epistle but forasmuch as it was read in the Churches under the Name of S. James and it hath been read therein ever since that time this Cardinal discovers too nice a curiosity as well as when he adds in this very place that the manner of saluting that is at the beginning of this (f) Salutatio hîc posita tam pura est ut nulli salutationi cujuscunque alterius Apostolicae Epistolae conformis sit nam nihil Dei nihil Jesu Christi nihil gratiae nihilve pacis sonat sed profano more salutem nec ipse seipsum nominat Apostolum sed tantùm servum Jesu Christi Cajet Comm. in c. 1. Epist Jac. Epistle contains nothing Apostolical on the contrary that it is altogether profane no mention being therein made of Jesus Christ nor of Grace nor Peace and he doth not call himself saith he an Apostle but a Servant of Jesus Christ Sixtus Senensis hath rehearsed these Words amongst the Objections that Luther hath made against this Epistle and perhaps Cajetan hath taken the best part of these Expressions from him but this Objection is so weak and even so irrational that the Lutherans have had no regard to it no more than to divers other Reasons that their Master hath alledged against the Epistle of S. James for they receive it at this day after the same manner as the Catholicks nevertheless they are not to be excused in this respect because they still retain in some Editions of their German Bible the Prefaces of Luther that are at the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of that of S. James after they have admitted them as Canonical for they disown by these Prefaces what they authorize in the body of their Bible I could have wished that Melchior Canus Melch. Can. de loc Theol. l. 2. c. 11. and some other learned Divines had not made use of the Authority of certain Decretal Epistles falsly attributed to the first Popes to shew that ever since the Primitive Times of Christianity it hath been believed that this Epistle did certainly belong to S. James there is no need of this sort of Proofs for though the Ancients have been divided as to this Point it is enough that the succeeding Ages after a due reflection on this matter have found in Antiquity certain Acts sufficient to justifie the placing this Epistle of S. James in the rank of the Canonical Books of the New Testament and that all the Churches of the World do at
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
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
being the Author of it The Preface in controversie is not in a certain Manuscript Copy of the whole Bible Cod. MSS. Bibl. Reg. that is in the Royal Library marked 3564. and has been extant these seven Hundred Years neither is it in two other Manuscript Copies of the like antiquity belonging to the Library of the Benedictine Monks of the Abby of S. Germain Cod. MSS. Bibl. Benedict S. Germ. Paris It is found I confess in Charles le Chauve's fair Bible that is in the King's Library but S. Jerome's Name is not there any more than it is in some other ancient Copies Whoever will take the pains to compare the most of the ancient Latin Bibles together shall easily discover that he who gathered all the Books of the Latin Bible into one Body the better part of which was translated or revised by S. Jerome is really the Author of that Preface Since he was not furnished with that Father's Preface to all those Books he supplied in his Collection what was wanting with an addition of some of his own composure and others which he gathered from S. Jerome's Works Hence for example in Charles le Chauve's Copy there is before the Acts of the Apostles a Preface with this Title Praefatio Hieronymi Yet 't is certain that S. Jerome was not the Author of that Preface to the Acts as it is there in express words but the Author of the Collection of the Books of the Latin Bible took the same out of that Father's large Preface entituled Prologus Galeatus and it is expressed in these words Actus Apostolorum nudam quidem resanare historiam videntur nascentis Ecclesiae historiam texere Sed si noverimus scriptorem eorum Lucam esse Medicum cujus laus in Evangelio animadvertemus pariter omnia verba illius animae languentis esse Medicinam that is The Acts of the Apostles seem to be a bare History affording us a prospect of the Church in its Birth But if we consider that the Writer was Luke the Physician who is famous in the Gospel we shall also perceive that all his words are the Medicine of a languishing Soul. 'T is also probable that the Compiler of the Books of the Latin Version which we call the Vulgar not finding in S. Jerome a particular Preface to the Canonical Epistles made one according to that Father's Stile some of whose Expressions he has made use of and amongst others has inserted that word Eustochium 'T is likewise probable that the Addition of the Witness of three Persons was extant before that time in some Copies of S. John's Epistles or at least in some Latin Writers at the time when that Preface was made Upon this account the Author who possibly had not the occasion of consulting the Creek Copies supposed that if that Passage was not extant in any Latin Copy the Translators were to be blamed 'T is observable that the Addition is not in most of the old Copies of S. Jerome's Bible to which nevertheless the Preface is prefixt as I have observed in two Copies one whereof is in the Royal Library and the other in that belonging to Mr. Colbert How incongruous is it to see a Preface at the beginning of the Canonical Epistles where S. Jerome complains of the unfaithfulness of the ancient Latin Translators who have omitted in the First Epistle of S. John Chap. 1. a whole Verse which he restores to the Greek and yet if one turn to the place of S. John's Epistle in the very same Copy the passage is not to be found there There can be no other reason given in my opinion of this incoherency but this that the Transcribers who writ out the Preface made use of such Latin Copies in which that Verse was not extant because neither S. Jerome nor the antient Latin Version had any thing of it If that Father had been the Author of the Preface and of the Addition inserted in S. John's Epistle that Addition would have been extant in all S. Jerome's Latin Bibles This diversity of Copies is in my judgment an evident proof that he did not compose that Preface to prefix it to the Canonical Epistles And that which makes it further manifest that S. Jerome was not the true Author either of the Preface or Addition is that that Addition is placed in the Margin of mose of the antient Copies in the Body of which it is not extant It was no less than surprising (g) Quantum à nostrâ aliorum distet editio lectoris judicio relinquo Hier. Prol. in VII Epist Can. that the pretended S. Jerome should in his Preface commend his new Edition of the Canonical Epistles upon the account of the change he had made especially in the First of S. John whilst there was nothing of such change or amendment to be seen therein Upon which account the Transcribers or they to whom the Copies did belong thought fit to regulate the Text according to the Preface by supplying in the Margin the Verse concerning the Witness of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost which before that time was extant in some Ecclesiastical Authors But since it was a matter of difficulty for those who placed that Addition in the Margin of their Copies to observe a general and perfect uniformity of words it so fell out that the Expressions in the various Copies did likewise vary This diversity does evidently prove that S. Jerome could not be the Author of the Addition in controversie but that it was done by those who had a mind to adjust the Text in S. James to the Preface I shall here give some Examples of that Regulation of the manner how it was added to most of the old Latin Copies of S. Jerome's Bible In that Copy of the Royal Library that is marked 3584. in the Margin over against these words Cod. MSS. Bibl. Reg. Tres sunt qui testimonium dant i. e. There are three which bear witness there are these other words added In coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ hi tres unum sunt i. e. In Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and there are three which bear witness on earth and these three are one The writing of the Addition appears to be no less ancient than that of the Text. The like Addition is to be seen in a Copy that is in Mr. Colbert's Library Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb that is marked 158. where in the Margin over against these words Tres sunt qui testimonium dant these are added In coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ sanguis aqua caro And to make the Text and Addition agree the better there are some of the words of the Text amended or put out There is nothing of this Addition to be read in the three ancient Copies of the Library belonging to the Benedictines of the
St. Matthew saith he does neither report that passage according to the Hebrew nor according to the Greek nec juxta Hebraicum nec juxta Septuaginta sumpsit testimonium (g) Ex quo perspicuum est Evangelistas Apostolos nequaquam ex Hebraeo interpretationem alicujus secutos sed quasi Hebraeos ex Hebraeis quod legebant Hebraicè suis sermonibus expressisse Hieron Comm. in Is lib. 6. c. 31. Whence he does conclude that the Evangelists and Apostles did not tye themselves to the Version of any Interpreter but that being Hebrews they used their own words in expressing that which they read in the Hebrew Text this general answer is what he gives almost every where But it may be said and more truly that the Apostles and Evangelists when they instructed the People who read the Bible in Greek used in their quotations the expressions of the Bible yet did not scrupulously adhere to the words because they had the sense only in their view To convince St. Jerome of this there needs no other Passage of Scripture than that which was mentioned by himself For which 't is only needful to look into the Hebrew Text and the Greek of the Septuagint for whereas it is in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which that Father together with some Jews in his Version translated in excelso i. e. on high the Septuagint who have made it a proper Name have rendred it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Rama and St. Matthew followed them in his citation of the same passage It is true that in the other words St. Matthew does rather agree with the Hebrew than the Septuagint as St. Jerome has mentioned them agreeable to the Edition of Rome for it is in St. Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he refused to be comforted as it is in the Hebrew at this day whereas in the Septuagint it is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he refused rest But it is probable that the ancient reading of the Septuagint was agreeable to St. Matthew and at this day it is extant in the Copy of Alexandria in the Editions of Alde and Complutum or Alcala and likewise in the Arabian Version which was taken from the Septuagint And here 't is observable that although that of Rome is the best of all the Editions of the Septuagint because it is the most ancient and pure of any of them yet it is not free from errors 'T is to be supposed that long before Origen the Greek of the Septuagint was altered in some places by some half-learned Men whether Jews or Christians who were far from a through knowledg of the Hebrew Language but rather consulted their Dictionaries about the Hebrew words of the Bible I believe that that place of Jeremy is of the number of those which were altered in the Septuagint Amendments of that nature were then only placed in the Margin of the Greek Copies by way of Notes to shew that the Hebrew words might have been interpreted in another manner and it happened afterwards that the Marginal Note or reading passed into the Text Seeing it was the custom at that time to have Dictionaries of the words of every famous Author I make no Question but that there was also composed a Dictionary containing the words of the Bible and also of every Book thereof in particular The Jewish Greeks who read in their Synagogues the Hebrew Text of the Law and the Prophets and who joyned thereunto the Greek Version of the Septuagint had their Dictionaries of that kind written in Greek in which they marked the different significations of the Hebrew words There is for example in that Passage of Jeremy we now treat of the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the Septuagint is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But seeing in other places they have translated the same Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that was noted in the Dictionaries some one or other would place in the Margin of his Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this first reading which was then in the Margin by way of note only was afterwards put in the Text and it has remained alone in the Edition of Rome This observation is absolutely necessary for the diserning of many false Glosses that are in the Septuagint from the true reading some examples of which I would set down but that I fear it will take up too much room St. Jerome who had not considered this judged of the Version of the Septuagint by the Copy which he had and took no notice that that Version was altered by false Glosses in the most ancient Copies and even a long time before Origen whose critical observations afforded no remedy for that imperfection This principle being once established may serve as a rule to justifie the citations of the Evangelists and the Apostles which differ not so much from the ancient Greek Version as St. Jerome believed Nevertheless that Learned Father found four or five Passages which he pretends to be cited in the New Testament as they are in the Hebrew whereas they are otherwise in the Septuagint He does frequently object the same to his Adversaries to shew them that the Evangelists and Apostles being Hebrews had consulted the Hebrew more than the Greek Version Therein he takes Sanctuary to avoid the reproaches which from all sides are cast upon him about his new Translation of the Bible And thus as he thinks St. Matthew has rendred the words of Hosea I have called my Son out of Egypt (h) Pro eo quod nos diximus ex Aegypto vocavi filium meum Septuaginta transtulerunt ex Aegypto vocavi filios ejus quod in Hebraico non habetur nullique dubium est Matthaeum de hoc loco sumpsisse testimonium juxta Hebraicom veritatem Ergo qui detrahunt nostrae translationi videant Scripturam de quâ Evangelista hoc testimomum sumpserit Hieron Comm. in Os lib. 3. cap. 11. There is no doubt saith he but that St. Matthew did make use of the Hebrew here because the Septuagint has it thus I have called my Children out of Egypt Let those he adds who traduce my Version consult the Scripture from whence the Evangelists took this Passage he repeats the same thing in his Commentary on St. Matthew (i) Respondeant qui Hebraicorum voluminum denegant veritatem ubi hoc in Septuaginta legatur Interpretibus quod cùm non invenerint nos eis dicemus in Osée Prophetâ scriptum sicut exemplaria probare possunt quae nuper edidimus Hieron Comm. in Matth. lib. 1. cap. 2. where he does ask those who reject the Hebrew Copy of the Jews in what place of the Septuagint they shall find that which is cited there And seeing he believed that they could not possibly find the passage he does refer them to his new Translation of the Prophet Hosea But he himself resolves the doubt by adding in favour of those
Miracles of Jesus Christ are evident Proofs of his Mission And therefore if it should be supposed with them that the Passages we speak of are not always justly applyed it cannot be concluded from thence that the Christian Religion is built on a false Foundation That we may make a right judgment of the Reasonings of Jesus Christ and his Disciples in the Books of the New Testament we must have recourse to the practice of the Jews at that time and if it be proved that their manner of reasoning and applying to the Messias certain Passages of Scripture is agreeable to the usage of that time they cannot without great injustice be blamed They will be sufficiently acquitted of that which is charged upon them if we consult the ancient Books of the Jews especially the Chaldaick Paraphrases and the Medraschim or ancient Allegorical Commentaries They have in those Works attributed to the Messiah many Places of Scripture which seem to have a quite different sense if the Letter be only considered The Rabbins likewise give two senses to many Passages one of which is merely Historical and another that is more large which in some sort may be called Mystical or Allegorical although in effect it is as much literal in its own nature as the former Thus they expound the same Passage of David and of the Messias All their old Medraschim or Allegorical Commentaries which are the most ancient Expositions that they have of the Bible follow this Method Their Doctors never began to insist on the literal sense till they had occasion to dispute with the Christians and it was easie to make Answer to them according to no other Principles than those which they themselves had established Why then do they think it strange that the Evangelists and Apostles who came from amongst them should make use of the same Principles to oppose them Why do they perswade us that in the matter of the Messiah there ought to be no such Proofs used as are Founded on the Mystical Allegorical sense of Scriptures since they themselves have always observed that Method The truth is if the Jews be much press'd about those Passages of the Old Testament which they make use of to confirm the belief of a Messiah which they have placed amongst the Fundamental Articles of their Religion it will be hard enough for them to Answer those Objections that may be brought against them upon the point unless they have recourse to those Mystical and Allegorical senses which being Founded upon the Tradition of their Fathers ought to pass for real Proofs There has been a certain Rabbin amongst their ancient Doctors who absolutely denied that the Messiah should come because he did not believe that it was Founded upon the literal and evident Proofs of Scripture They did not for all that exclude him from their Communion by which it does appear that the Article was not yet at that time in the number of those they call Fundamental The Jews do renounce their Principle when they object against the Disciples of Jesus Christ that their Expositions are not purely literal but Allegorical and that there can nothing be concluded from an Allegory 'T is true that that which is meerly Allegorical cannot suffice as a positive Proof for the Confirmation of a Religion But when those Allegories are Founded on Tradition they may be used and applyed to Matters of Fact which are already agreed upon by that Tradition In this manner all the Objections of the Jews may be Answered without a particular enumeration of those Passages which they pretend to have been falsly applied to our Messiah in the New Testament for they cannot abdicate that Principle which is taken from their own Doctors and their Custom lest they themselves should renounce the belief of a Messiah to come Moses Bar-cepha a Syrian Author having considered this Truth (m) Sicut inter haereticos qui contendun minimè convenire ut Veteris Testamenti scripta mysticè atque aliter quà m de ipsis rebus interpretentur graviterque accusant eos qui contrà faciunt At qui si ita statuas multa ut consequantur absurda necesse est obfirmabitur Manetis Marcionis sententia qui dicebant Vetus Testamentum nequaquam ab auctore Deo Christi Patre esse Praetereà nisi in illo recondita fuerint arcana sensa unde potuere prisci Patres Prophetae aliique sancti viri intelligere Christum olim venturum Denique si ita cum illis haereticis sentimus profectò in Judaismum incidimus Mos Barcepha Comm. de Parad. part 1. c. 3. does put those in the number of Hereticks who alledge that the Old Testament ought not to be Mystically Explained but only Literally and according to the Historical Sense If that be so says that Author the Heresies of the Manichees and the Marcionites are thereby set up It cannot henceforth be shewn whence the ancient Fathers and the Prophets had the account which they gave us of the coming of the Messiah In a word he does assure us that that Opinion is mere Judaism To which it may be added that it is mere Sadduceism for the true Jews are all agreed that a Sense that is merely Literal and Historical separated from Tradition cannot in any wise confirm the Articles of their Religion This Principle is so true that the Antitrinitarians who refuse to receive the Traditions of the Catholicks in the Disputes betwixt them and who do only admit the Literal Expositions of Scripture without any dependance on Tradition do plainly see themselves obliged to acknowledge some other Sense than what is Literal when they are to enter into the Lists with the Jews This does plainly appear in the Works of Socinus Enjedine and of some other Unitaries In which they give evident proofs of the inconstancy of their Principle They did not foresee that whilst they framed certain Maxims against the Catholicks they did at the same time give Authority to Sadduceism and Manicheism Faustus one of the Heroes of the Manichean Party not finding in the Books of Moses any Passage which he could literally understand of Jesus Christ and otherwise perceiving that it was in plain terms asserted in the New Testament that Moses had written concerning Jesus Christ chose rather to say that the Writings of the Evangelists had been corrupted than to renounce his own Principle There was a greater Harmony manifest in his Reasonings and Maxims than in those of the Antitrinitarians who received Tradition in some things and in others did reject it They argue against the Jews in the matters of Religion after another manner than against the Catholicks seeing those things do consist in matters of Fact they cannot be proved merely by the light of Reason Tradition is likewise to be consulted And therefore so long as the Jews shall with bare Reasons oppose the Exposition of the Passages of the Old Testament which the Evangelists and the Apostles have cited in the New they
in any of the Prophets did believe (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys Hom. 9. in Matth. that we ought not to involve our selves in the trouble of an endless search because there have been several Books of the Prophets lost which may be proved as he says by the History of the Chronicles The Author of the Imperfect Work on St. Matthew does observe that the Evangelist does not say (l) Dum dicit per Prophetas non per Prophetam manifestat quòd non certam auctoritatem Prophetae protulerit sed sensum Prophetarum colligens dixit aut fortè legerunt alios Prophetas ita dicentes qui non sunt nobis canonizati Auct Op. imp in c. 2. Matth. per Prophetam by a Prophet but per Prophetas by the Prophets to signifie that he did not mean the testimony of any Prophet in particular but only that it might be gathered from the Prophets in general He adds afterwards that there were probably at that time other Prophetical Books which were not placed in the Canon of the Sacred Writings The ground of this Answer seems to be that St. Jerome has in his Works made mention of some other Prophetical Books than those we have at this day and which were read by the Nazarene Sectaries who came from the first Christians of Jerusalem who were also called Nazarenes for whom St. Matthew writ his Gospel Nevertheless that Father had no recourse to this solution in his Commentaries upon this place where he plainly affirms the same thing with the Author of the Imperfect Work viz. That St. Matthew (m) Pluraliter Prophetas vocans ostendit se non verba de Scripturis sumpsisse sed sensum Nazaraeus sanctus interpretatur Sanctum autem Dominum futurum omnis Scriptura commemorat Hieron lib. 1. Comm. in Matth. c. 2. having cited the Prophets in general intended to shew that he made no mention of the words of any one in particular but only of the sense But seeing the word Nazarene does signifie Holy the Scripture does declare throughout that the Lord should be Holy. He does yet subjoyn another more particular explication and which appeared to be more probable as being founded on a Passage of the Prophet Esay Chap. 11. v. 1. (n) Possumus aliter dicere quod etiam eisdem verbis juxta Hebraicam veritatem in Esaiâ scriptum sit Exiet virga de radice Jesse Nazaraeus de radice ejus ascendet Hieron ibid. And there shall come forth a Rod out of the Stem of Jesse and a Nazarene vulg Branch shall grow out of his Roots I make no Question but that the Jews will condemn this Translation of the words of Esay as well as St. Matthew's citation because it is not in the Hebrew Nazaraeus Nazarene as St. Jerome has rendred it but netser which does signifie a flower as he himself had expounded it in the Version of that Prophet He likewise observed in his Commentary upon this place of Esay that the Hebrew word which does signifie Nazarene is written with the letter zain and that in this place it is written with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tsade where it does signifie a flower This critical Observation of St. Jerome upon the 11. Chap. of the Prophet Esay seems to destroy what he had observed in his Commentary upon the 2. Chap. of St. Matthew The truth is 't was the custom of that Learned Father in his Commentaries upon the Scripture rather to report that which he had read in other Commentators than to establish an opinion of his own And therefore 't is not surprising if we sometimes do find opposite opinions therein Nevertheless his Learning does afford us great help for finding out the sense of the most difficult Passages of the Sacred Writings The Opinion of those who believed that St. Matthew in that place had cited the Passage of Chap. 11. of the Prophet Esay seems in my opinion to be the most probable 'T is very likely that St. Jerome did apply it to the Nazarenes when he says in his Commentary upon that Prophet that the Learned amongst the Jews took it from that place Eruditi Hebraeorum de hoc loco assumptum putant Those Hebrews are the Sect of the Nazarenes who were called Hebrews and who were so in effect Seeing they read the Gospel of St. Matthew in the Chaldee or Syriack the allusion to the Hebrew word netser that is in Esay is better known in their Copy than in the Greek and it was also better perceived by those who had the Hebrew and Chaldaick Languages That we make a right judgment hereof that Passage of St. Matthew ought to be read in the Syriack Version which in that place should not differ from the Original Chaldee of St. Matthew But the Syrians do read these two words Nazareth and Nazarene alike with the letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tsade And after this manner they ought in effect to be read in St. Matthew who intended not to signifie the Nazarites of the Old Testament whose name is written with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 zain He made a bare allusion according to the method of that time to the Hebrew word netser of Esay which does signifie a flower and which is written with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tsade as well as that of the City Nazareth 'T is of importance carefully to observe that the Jews do agree with the Christians that that Passage of Esay which speaks of that flower called in Hebrew netser is understood of the Messiah Which being known at that time to all the World St. Matthew who wrote in the Chaldee for the Jews of Jerusalem then newly converted who were accustomed to expositions of that nature made an allusion to this Hebrew word netser or flower 'T is but consulting the Jewish Talmud their Book entitled Zohar and their Ancient Medraschim or Allegorical Commentaries for we may there find the like Interpretations of Scripture to be extant founded on bare allusions and similitudes not only of words but even of letters If the Jews could but seriously reflect on all these considerations they would not brand with the title of either false or ridiculous the citation of St. Matthew who has say they perverted the words of the Prophet Esay to apply them to their Messiah For seeing that Evangelist writing for Jews who were enclining to embrace the Religion of Jesus Christ did follow the custom and usage that obtained at that time amongst them Unless we go back to that ancient custom we shall meet with great difficulties in the most part of the Passages of the Old Testament which the Evangelists and Apostles have cited in their Writings for the confirmation of their own Sentiments We ought to pursue this Method for answering the Jews solidly we are to represent to them the course their Fathers took which unless they renounce their Religion they cannot reject This Principle also may serve for the refutation of Julian's impious
were interpolations made therein than to attribute to the Apostles such things as they did not understand It is upon this supposed ground that the Manichees who found no express Passages in the Law of Moses that made mention of Jesus Christ rejected as false all those Places of the Pentateuch that were applied to him in the New Testament They did not consider that at the time of Christ and the Apostles there was a Mystical and Spiritual Sense approved of by all the Jews some Sadducees possibly excepted And with respect to this Sense the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles are to be Expounded And therefore they deceive themselves who pretend that there ought to be a Literal Sense in all the Citations of the Apostles especially in those which they bring in for Proofs It is true that a Passage of Scripture taken Allegorically cannot serve for a Proof but we speak here of such Allegorical Senses as were received and which were also founded on Traditions that were warranted by Authority They were therefore permitted to apply them to their Discourse and likewise to draw such Consequences from them as might promote their design in the same manner as the Pharisees made use of them in their Disputes against the Sadducees Those Allegorical Senses prove nothing for their own confirmation but suppose a belief already established upon which they were founded It is probable that Theodore de Mopsueste Expounded the Psalms and the Prophesies according to this Method and that he had regard to nothing when he was condemned as a favourer of the Jews but the Literal and Historical Sense which he gave to those ancient Prophesies They will not consider the Application he made thereof with the whole Church to the Messiah according to a Spiritual and Mystical Sense If we believe Facundus there is no justice done to that great Man who had a perfect knowledge of the Sacred Writings (q) Eum dicunt evacuasse omnes in Christum factas Prophetias quod Manichaeorum erroris est Fac. pro def tri cap. Conc. Calc lib. 9. c. 1. They accused him of destroying the Prophesies that related to Jesus Christ by an error like to that of the Manichees But he shews the falshood of this accusation by producing the very words of Theodore taken out of his Commentaries upon the Psalms Quod autem saith Facundus nec evacuet omnes in Christum prophetias palam est quia rursus in ejusdem Psalmi expositione dicit c. Whence he concludes (r) Non ergo Theodorus Judaicae impietatis arguendus est tanquam hominem putaverit Christum cùm potiùs Judaeos irrideat Fac. ibid. That it was hard to make Theodore pass for an impious person who believed with the Jews that Jesus Christ was a mere Man seeing he vigorously defended the contrary This is no place to inquire if Theodore was unjustly condemned as Facundus does assure us I have only made mention of the Passage that I might shew that great Men have of a long time acknowledged two Senses of Scripture as we have already made evident It is certain that the Christian Religion is founded on that of the Jews The Christians have this in common with them that they adore the same God and that they believe a Messiah promised in the Writings of the Old Testament which they receive equally And therefore the Christians who Expound those Writings in a Literal and Historical Sense cannot be blamed as if they favoured Judaism in exclusion of the Christian Religion seeing they acknowledged a second Sense called Spiritual and Mystical which they apply to the Messiah This latter Sense is the same that the Jews call deras In a word it is impossible to arrive at a perfect knowledge of the Christian Religion and the Principles upon which it is established so long as that of the Jews is not known to which the former does owe its Original Celsus Porphyrius Julian and the Jews have brought some other Objections against the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles The Principal is that which is drawn from the Genealogy of Jesus Christ Recorded in a different manner by St. Matthew and St. Luke They alledge that besides that these two Evangelists do not agree they have delivered manifest falsities But this aspersion has been so clearly wiped off by many Commentators upon the New Testament and also in the Volumes that purposely have been written for that end that it is needless to insist on it I shall only observe in general that it is easie to make answer to the Jews upon such objections as are drawn from Genealogies When they bring against the Christians the difference that is betwixt our Evangelists and the Books of the Old Testament their Mouths will be stopped if we shew them that there is no less in this matter betwixt the Chronicles which they attribute to Esdras and the rest of the Historical Writings of the Old Testament Their Rabbins who could not reconcile things that appeared so remote from one another are forced to own that the same Genealogies which are written in a different manner were taken out of Records that did likewise differ And may not we also affirm that the Evangelists Collected the Genealogy of Jesus Christ out of such Records as were amongst the Jews at that time but are not extant at this day And therefore it is better to leave the things as they are than to judg rashly of them or correct that Genealogy upon bare conjectures CHAP. XXIII Of the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testament A Refutation of the Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa The Cardinal of Perron has given a very bad Exposition of the Words of the second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy Chap. 3. v. 16. which makes mention of this Inspiration The Disputes betwixt the Jesuits of Louvain and the Divines of the same place upon this matter Three Propositions of the Jesuits Censured by the Doctors of Louvain and Douay A Defence of those Propositions against the Censure of those Divines I Have Treated elsewhere of the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings in general But seeing I only Treated of them occasionally and by way of Answer to some Objections which were brought against the Critical History of the Old Testament I shall here Handle it more particularly with respect to the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles It is the common Belief of the Jews that the Books of the Old Testament were written by Persons who were Inspired which Belief was transmitted from the Jews to the Christians Upon which occasion Origen affirmed (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 5. cont Cels that both the one and the other did equally acknowledge that the Sacred Scripture was written by the Spirit of God. The Christians have also extended that Inspiration to the Books of the New Testament There are but very few Criticks who are of the Opinion that there is nothing of Inpiration in Scripture but only in
that (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
the Holy Writers with the least fault even in the things of small importance But after all he does not disapprove the Opinion of the Catholick Doctors who alledged mistakes of that kind which are not prejudicial to our Faith There is nothing that does more diminish the Authority of the Holy Scripture even in things Essential and Revealed than constrained Answers that provoke laughter in those who are not of the same belief with us By this we perceive that the Archbishop of Spalatro was in a strait whose part he was to take about a Question of this delicacy As for Doctor Holden of all he says upon that Subject this is most full of good sense (i) Veritates Philosophicae nec probandae nec improbandae sunt ex puris nudisque Sacrae Scripturae verbis sententiis Quamvis enim nullam complectatur Scriptura falsitatem attamen ipsius loquendi modus utplurimùm vulgaris est at que ad communem hominum captum potiùs quà m ad loquelae proprietatem sermonis rigorem adaptatus Hold. ibid. That we ought not to approve or condemn upon the bare words of Scripture all that belongs solely to Philosophy For as he observes in the same place though there is nothing false in Scripture the expressions therein are frequently accommodated to the Opinions commonly received amongst the People and they are not always very exact which is agreeable to St. John Chrysostome's Opinion who observed (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys Hom. 9. in Epist ad Philipp c. 2. that St Paul does often speak according to the Sentiments of the Populace that he may accommodate himself to his Auditors CHAP. XXV Spinosa's Objections against the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testament are Examined ALthough Spinosa had very little or no knowledge of the Books of the New Testament yet he would by all means insert in his Treatise Entitled Theologico-politicus a whole Chapter against the Inspiration of those Books where he only gives a greater light to that which Grotius had formerly written upon this matter in many places of his Works His great Principle is (a) Apostoli non tanquà m Prophetae sed tanquam Doctores scripserunt viam ad docendum elegerunt quam faciliorem judicaverunt fore discipulis quos tum docere volebant Spin. Tract Theol. polit cap. 12. that the Apostles did not write as Prophets but as single Doctors and that therefore it was not necessary that they should be Inspired But this distinction betwixt Prophets and Doctors does not at all destroy that Inspiration which is attributed to the Apostles which does only consist in a bare direction of the Spirit of God as has been shewn before God say they did not command them to write as he commanded the Prophets to publish their Prophecies We have also observed from the beginning of this Work that when the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers speak of the Gospels they declare that they were composed only occasionally and at the request of the first Believers It does not indeed so evidently appear to us that the Evangelists and Apostles had an express Commandment of God or even of Jesus Christ to publish Books for the Instruction of the first Christians as it does appear that the Prophets did speak to the People of Israel by Gods Order But we see that Jesus Christ commanded his Disciples to go and Preach the Gospel to all Nations of the Earth But their Histories which we call Gospels are nothing else but Collections of their Sermons which were animated by the Spirit of God whom their Master had promised to them The Prophets Spinosa continues do not only observe in their Prophecies but also in their Letters that it was God who spake by their Mouth which he proves by the Letter that the Prophet Elias writ to King Joram and is mentioned 2 Chron. Ch. 21. v. 12. Which begins with these words Thus saith the Lord (b) In Epistolis Apostolorum nihil simile legimus sed contra in I. ad Cor. 7.40 Paulus secundùm suam sententiam loquitur Spin. ibid. cap. 11. we read no such thing saith he in the Letters of the Apostles St. Paul on the contrary speaks as from himself in his first Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 7. v. 40. If the Stile of the Apostles be not altogether the same as that of the Prophets it cannot from thence be concluded that the former were not guided by the Spirit of God in all the actions of their Ministery It was in no wise necessary that they should repeat in every discourse that it was the Lord who spake It was sufficient for them to declare in general that Jesus Christ had sent them to Preach the Truths of the Gospel and that he who had given them that Mission in his Father's Name had told them expresly It is not you that speak but the Spirit of your Heavenly Father who speaks in you It is true that St. Paul does speak as from himself in the first Epistle to the Corinth Chap. 7. where he makes use of this Expression I give my judgment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But he adds withal that he thinks he has the Spirit of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The ground of Spinosa's error was that a Man could not use his Reason and be also guided by the Spirit of God at the same time as if by becoming God's Interpreter he must cease to be a Man and be only a Passive Instrument if I may use the Term To proceed it is not true that the Apostles never observed at the beginning of their Letters that it was God who spake by their Mouth For they begin their Letter which they write to their Brethren of Antioch by these words It seem'd good to the Holy Ghost and to us Acts xv 28. to let them know that what they laid upon them came from God whose Inrerpreters they only were The other expressions of St. Paul which Spinosa in the same place makes use of to shew that that Apostle writ to gratifie his own inclination without being encouraged thereunto by the Spirit of God may be easily explained by the Principle which we have established That Man does always suppose that Inspiration does wholly deprive one of the use of his Reason which is most false (c) Apostoli ubique ratiocinantur it a ut non prophetare sed disputare videantur Spin. ibid. The Apostles saith he are every where upon Reasoning so that they are more like Disputants than Prophets But besides that he has formed to himself a false Idea of the Inspiration of the Prophets 't is sufficient if we object against him the example formerly given where the Apostles after they had deliberated and reasoned in an Assembly did nevertheless use this expression it seem'd to the Holy Ghost and to us Which does evidently shew that the Spirit of God who had guided them in that Assembly did not deprive them of the use of their Reason There
Writing as they have been by some He does particularly undertake the defence of St. Paul whom he believed to have been very conversant with the Greek Authors and amongst the rest with the Poets whom he did imitate as he believes for his Expression in sundry places (a) Haec cùm ita sint cùm aliundè pateat Paulum Apostolum Graecos scriptores evolvisse quî credibile sit illum Graecae linguae non satis peritum fuisse Henr. Steph. ibid. Whence he does conclude that to affirm that that Holy Apostle was not Master enough of the Greek Language is a supposition that is altogether incredible We have moreover a Differtation published by Phochen which is Entituled * Diatribe de linguae Graecae Novi Testamenti puritate Of the purity of the Greek Language of the New Testament where the Author forgot nothing which might make it manifest that the Text of that Book is true Greek and that it does not differ very much from the Stile of Profane Authors Textum Novi Testamenti saith Phochen verè Graecum nec alienum planè à Stilo Graeco profano esse asserimus He does refute all those Hebraisms which as some alledge are contained in the Writings of the Apostles and to make it the more evidently appear that they object those Hebraisms in vain he does justifie those Expressions on which they are charged by the like Expressions of Profane Authors There are on the contrary some Learned Criticks who very far from allowing the Apostles a Pure and Elegant Stile have not scrupled to make them pass for Barbarous Writers whose Books are stuffed with Hebraisms Castalio who understood Hebrew and Greek sufficiently to be judge of this Question says in speaking of the Apostles (b) Erant Apostoli natu Hebraei peregrinâ hoc est Graecâ linguâ scribentes hebraizabant non qui juberet Spiritus neque enim pluris facit Spiritus hebraismos quà m graecismos ... res enim dictat Spiritus verba quidem linguam scribendi liberam permittit Sebast Castal defens Translat Bibl. that being born Hebrews they did Hebraize when they writ in Greek whilst the Holy Ghost had no part in that because the Spirit of God does not love Hebraism any more than Graecisms He only Indited the thing to them saith that Author and not the Words leaving them at liberty to express themselves after their own fashion Which is agreeable enough to the Opinion of the Jesuits of Louvain Castalio does further shew why the Apostles did no more improve themselves in the Greek so as to speak it well seeing that Language is Copious in Words full of Sense and easie to be understood whereas the Hebrew Phrases render their Discourses intricate and obscure He says (c) Cur igitur hebraizarunt Primùm quia erant Saeris Literis assueti deinde quia cùm essent Graecae linguae non usque adeò periti id quod eorum scripea ostendùnt facilè in patriam consuetudinem deflectebant Castal ibid. that they were accustomed to the reading of the Sacred Writings and that since they did not sufficiently understand the Greek Language as it is easie to prove by their Works those expressions that were proper to their Mother Tongue did first present themselves to them on all occasions Which he confirms by the example of the French and the Dutch who cannot write in Latin without intermingling somthing of their own Language therewith Dum Latinè scribunt Gallizant Germanizant This latter Opinion which has been followed by very able Criticks is more agreeable than the former to the Opinion of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers I think we ought to acquiesce in the Judgment of the Greek Fathers who are faithful Witnesses of the Greek Stile of the Evangelists and the Apostles Origen was the only Man of all the Greek Fathers who applied himself most to the Study of the Scripture in a manner that was most exact and Critical And therefore his Judgment upon the Question ought of all others to have the most weight with us When that Learned Person Disputes against the Enemies of our Religion who despised the Prophets and the Apostles because of their Stile and because the same things say they were much better expressed in the Writings of the Ancient Philosophers He makes answer to them that we ought not upon that account to despise the Books of the Jews and the Christians because it has been always agreed that the Jews had written before the Greeks As to the Stile he does own that the Greeks have the advantage but he does withal alledge that it cannot be inferred from thence that their Works are better than those of the Jews and of the Christians He does likewise observe that the Books of the Old Testament are not destitute of their ornament in the Hebrew Language Which he does affirm of the Writings of the Apostles because the truth is they had no Politeness in their Expressions having applied themselves more to the Eloquence of Things than of Words (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig adv Cels lib. 7. The Prophets of the Jews saith Origen and the Disciples of Jesus renounced all Ornaments of Discourse and every thing which the Scripture does call human Wisdom and according to the Flesh If any Greek that Learned Father continues should have a design to teach a Doctrin that were profitable to the Egyptians and the Syrians he would rather choose to learn the Barbarous Languages of those Nations than to be useless by speaking Greek to them (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. The thing is the same according to him in the Providence of God who did not only consider those amongst the Greeks who were Men of Learning but rather the ignorant Community And therefore it was suitable to the exigency at that time that they should accommodate themselves to the Stile of the meaner sort that they might gain them in speaking their Language Upon this Principle we ought to form an Idea of the Apostolical and Evangelical Stile and not upon the prejudices of some Protestants who believe that they stand for the Authority of the Scripture by allowing nothing that is very mean to have proceeded out of the Mouth of the Apostles But St. Paul himself declared to the Corinthians who despised him because of his Language that he came not to Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ with excellency of Speech or of Wisdom 1 Cor. ii 1. 1 Cor. i. 17. For Christ saith that Apostle sent me to Preach the Gospel not with wisdom of Words St. John Chrysostom has observed upon this Passage of St. Paul that if the Apostles in their Sermons did not use the Stile of the wise Men of the Earth (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Hom. 3. in Epist 1. ad Cor. cap. 1. that ought not to be attributed to the weakness of the Gift of Tongues which they had received seeing they took that
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
etiam vim ipsam vocularum repraesent are satagit Salm. Epist dedic Comm. de Hellenist could have made a Version of better Greek and free from all the Hebraisms and Barbarisms with which it abounds He is of the Opinion that these Hebraisms were occasioned by the too great care they took to render the Hebrew words literally and to express the force they have in the Original According to this supposition the Greek of the Septuagint is not pure but Greek mixed with Hebraisms and they have likewise given new significations to Greek words the better to express the sense of the Original This is that which is called the Hellenistick Language Thus you see how Salmasius is become a great Hellenisticary whilst he never dream'd any such thing (d) Cùm Hebraicos loquendi modos inseruere non ex Graecâ copiâ quâ abundabant eos hauserunt sed ex textu Hebraico cui nimis se in vertendo adstringebant sumpserunt Salm. ibid. When they inserted saith he speaking of the Septuagint the Hebrew modes of Speech they did not draw them from the copiousness of the Greek Language but from the Hebrew Text to which they adhered very closely Salmasius does use his utmost endeavour to confirm by those words the Greek Language of the Synagogue otherwise called the Hellenistick Language 'T is no great matter how it is called provided the thing be plain He declares that he always allow'd that the words of that Version are Greek but that the Phrase is Hebrew De re semper inter omnes constitit verba esse Graeca Phrasim Hebraicam If it be so why did he write two pretty large Books in which he disputes on nothing else but the name that is to be given to that Language The only thing that he is careful for is to shew that there never was a Dialect amongst the Greeks that was called the Hellenistick De re totâ saith he disputatur quaeritur an omnino fuerit hoc est an Hellenistica aliqua dialectus fuerit We freely grant that there never was any Dialect of this name amongst the Greeks And therefore I have elsewhere called this Language of the Jews-Hellenists a Greek of the Synagogue And in the same manner we may at this day distinguish the pure Spanish amongst the Jews from the Spanish of the Synagogue into which they have translated the Bible of that Language They have also framed on the same Model an Arabick of the Synagogue a Persian Language of the Synagogue in which they have written their Translations of the Bible and their prayer-Prayer-Books If we have not this Idea in reading the Greek of the Septuagint and the New Testament we cannot have an exact knowledg of the Stile of those Books which are not written in a Language that is purely Greek as Salmasius himself does suppose with those whom he calls Hellenisticaries Seeing it is so I do not see to what purpose the most part of that Critick's Questions do serve which he has proposed in his Commentary concerning the Hellenistick Language To what end for example does he so exactly inquire (e) An dialectus peculiaris constituenda sit ea eloquutio quâ Septuaginta Interpretes in Bibliis transferendis usi sunt An plures quà m quinque dialectos Graeci noverint an Hellenisticae inter eas dialectos meminerint An Hellenisticae nomen conveniat ei phrasi quae verbis Graecis Hebraeos concipit intellectus Salm. init Comm. de Hellen. if the Language which the Seventy Interpreters use in their Version does constitute a particular Dialect and if they reckoned amongst those Dialects that which was called Hellenistick If the appellation of the Hellenistick Language does agree to that sort of Phrase whereof the words are Greek and the conceptions Hebrew it was an easie matter for him to compile large Treatises by that Method because he does seldom or never treat of the matter in Question After he had enumerated all the Dialects of the Greeks he concludes (f) Ex his quae proposuimus sole manifestius liquet ejusmodi eloquutionem Graecam quae nec ullius certae gentis unquam propria fuit nec certas habuit notas verbis inhaerentes quibus discerneretur ab aliis dialectis non posse videri dialectum nec teneri definitione dialecti Salm. Comm. de Hellen. p. 84. that it is more clear than the day that that Greek Language that belonged to no Nation and that had no mark to characterise or distinguish it from other Dialects is not a true Dialect But that was not the thing he was to prove because we are of the same Opinion with him that that which some able Criticks have called the Hellenistick Language is none of the Greek Dialects They only think that that Language is not pure Greek by reason of the Hebraisms with which it abounds The Hellenistick Language according to those Criticks is a Language that contains Greek words and Hebrew Phrases Lingua Hellenistica est quae verbis Graecis utitur phrasibus Hebraicis All the Question then is to know if the Version of the Septuagint and the Books of the Old Testament be written in this manner Since he himself does grant this it may be concluded from hence that those Writers have no particular and proper Language It is not to be look'd for in any Dialect of the Greeks nor in any Nation in particular but in the Synagogues of the Jews-Greeks or Hellenists As if at this day I would know what is the Language of the Bibles Printed in Spanish at Ferrara and at Constantinople I would not look for a particular Nation that speaks that Language but would consult the usage of their Synagogues The Apostles who frequented the Synagogues of the Jews-Hellenists and who read with them the Greek Version of the Septuagint borrowed the expressions thereof besides being Jews by Birth and the Chaldee being their Mother Tongue it was very hard for them not to mix some Hebraisms and Chaldaisms with the Greek in which they writ Crojus who is of the same Opinion with Salmasius upon this Subject did likewise establish the Hellenistick Language in the same manner as Salmasius had done though he had at the same time an intention to destroy it That Author after he had recounted many things which were no way for the purpose he designed them does conclude against Heinsius a Hero of the Hellenisticary Party that the Evangelists and the Apostles are not Hellenists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they did not speak good Greek but did Hebraize or Chaldaize 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Phrases being Hebrew Chaldee and Syriack Whereby he does establish that Hellenistick Language whereof the words are Greek and the Phrases Hebrew He asks Heinsius how he can reconcile these two things viz. (g) Si Apostolus ejusque collegae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut in omnibus ferè observationibus contendit Heinsius quomodo profiteri potest eos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
have still at this day of reading privately every Saturday a Parasca or Section of the Chaldee Paraphrase did proceed from that ancient usage of the Synagogues who joyned the reading of the Paraphrase to the Hebrew Text. The Jewish Doctors did not therefore prohibit at that time the reading of the Greek Version and other Translations of Scripture as if they had read those Versions only in their Synagogues but they decreed that there should be no Version added to the reading of the Original Text which had been practised till that time They had used an Interpreter till that time who rendred the words of the Hebrew Text in the Language of the People Which appears by the Talmud and all other Books which Treat of the Jewish Laws and Customs That antient usage has altogether ceased amongst them They have indeed Translations of the Bible in their Vulgar Tongues but they read these only privately This they also observe as to their Service Books which they read in Hebrew in all their Synagogues although they have Translations of them in several Languages CHAP. XXVIII A more particular Discussion of the Reasons alledged by Salmasius against the Language that is called Hellenistick Several difficulties also relating to this matter are cleared THis should be the place to observe particularly the principal Hebraisms which are scattered through the whole New Testament but besides that my only design is to explain the Stile of those Books in general they may be found Collected in the Sacred Philology of John Vorstius who has enlarged sufficiently on this Subject The answer of Thomas Gatakerus to the Dissertation of Phochen vid. if he be the English Whittaker if this Authors Name was Thomas may likewise be consulted in this matter I shall speak of these two Books and some other the like in the third Part of this Critical History I shall only confine my self here to Salmasius his Reasons by which he pretends to shew that all that is said of the Hellenistick Language is without a Foundation This Learned Critick does absolutely deny that the Seventy Interpreters were Hellenists Salm. in Epist dedic Comm. de Hellen. because this Name can only be attributed to the Jews who were dispersed into several Countries out of the Land of Judah But it is Universally agreed upon that the Seventy belonged to Jerusalem and that consequently they were purely Hebrews In Jerusalem they did read the Bible in Hebrew and not in Greek If they joyned to it any Gloss it was written in the Language of the Jews of that Place that is to say in the Chaldee The same thing saith Salmasius may be alledged as to the Apostles who for the most part were Jews Originally and who lived in Judah even after the death of Jesus Christ How then is it possible that they could be Greeks or Hellenists There was only St. Paul amongst them who being of Tarsus in Cilicia where they spake the Greek Language could assume the quality of a Jew-Hellenist But having been bred at Jerusalem where he Studied under the Renowned Rabbin Gamaliel he denominates himself a mere Hebrew Hebraeus ex Hebraeis Indeed since he was of the Pharisees he cannot be reckoned in the number of the Jews-Hellenists who did read the Bible in Greek in their Synagogues It is easie to solve all these difficulties with the least trouble imaginable It may be observed that although the Appellation of Jews-Hellenists was given to those who were scattered out of Judaea into those several Countries where they spake the Greek Language this does not hinder but that there may be found true Hellenists even in the Land of Judah for every Jew who writ in that Greek which we have formerly called the Greek of the Synagogue may be called a Hellenist by reason of the Language he used in writing his Works Upon this ground when it shall be supposed that the Authors of the ancient Greek Version which is ascribed to the Seventy Interpreters were of Jerusalem they are truly Hellenists because they Composed their Version in a Greek that is full of Hebraisms and of Chaldaisms The Apostles who were of Galilee and consequently natural born Jews are also in this Sense Jews-Hellenists if they be considered as the Authors of such Books as they writ in the Greek of the Synagogue St. Paul was indeed born a Hellenist having learned the Greek Language from his Infancy but being afterwards Educated in the Schools at Jerusalem he became a pure Hebrew as to what concerned the Rites and Usages of those of his Nation Yet he ought to be reckoned among the Hellenists if we consider his Works which are written in a Greek Stile full of Hebraisms in which by common suffrage the Hellenistick Language does consist Salmasius does object against this that the modes of Speech in a Language do change according to the Times whilst the name of the Language does not change If so it cannot be said that an Hebrew or Syriack Phrase Salm. de Lang. Hellen. p. 131. which is delivered in pure Greek terms can constitute a particular Language or Dialect of a Nation It does only give a new Character of the Language The Stile of the Poets for example is very remote from the ordinary Greek Yet none ever affirmed that that was a particular Language So it cannot be said that the Hellenistick Language does make a particular Dialect common to a whole Nation as if it were a Language spoken by the Community They were content to confine it to their Synagogues and the Works of those who writ in the Language of the Synagogue Let it be only called if one please a new Character in the Greek Language But this is nothing to the Question seeing we Dispute not of the Word but of the Thing Salmasius does grant that the Greek Version of the Septuagint and of the Books of the New Testament are written in Greek full of Hebraisms we require no more for the Confirmation of the Hellenistick Language It is possible that the Hellenisticaries abuse the Word Language But it is sufficient that they do explain what they understand by this Word and that they own that they did not intend thereby the General Language of a Nation For it is certain that the Jews Greeks or Hellenists did every one speak the Greek Language of the places where they were St. Paul for example spake the Greek which was in his time used at Tarsus Philon spake the Greek of those of Alexandria and seeing he had Studied that Language with great Application he writ in a Stile that was exceedingly polished Nevertheless all the Jews who were Greeks or Hellenists did not write in the Language which is here called the Hellenistick because it was Consecrated chiefly to the use of the Synagogues and was framed according to the Language of the Holy Writings The Jews who were purely Hebrews and who writ in Greek were more Hellenisticaries than the Jews-Hellenists themselves because their Stile did
more abound with Hebraisms and Chaldaisms than that of the Hellenists who had the Greek for their Vulgar Language And though we should suppose with Salmasius that the most part of the Disciples of Jesus Christ being Galileans and of the Dregs of the People spake no other Language but the Syriack it could not from thence be proved that the Books of the Old Testament that are in Greek are not written in the Hellenistick Language All that can be proved from that supposition is that the Apostles did then compose their Works in their Mother Tongue which was the Syriack and that they were afterwards Translated into Greek by Interpreters who accompanied them in their Travels and who understood the Greek Language This is truly the Opinion of that Critick who believed that the most part of the Apostles were but very slow in learning the Greek at that time when they were commanded to Preach the Gospel to the Gentiles (a) Sed plures ex iis verisimile est per interpretem Graecis Romanis Evangelium adnuntiasse exceptis si qui Graecè noverant ut potè inter Graecos nati quod de Paulo certum est Salm. de Hellen. p. 254. It is likewise probable saith he that several of them Preached the Gospel to the Greeks and Romans by Interpreters there being only those of them who were Greeks by Birth for example St. Paul who Preached in Greek But that supposition is so far from destroying the Hellenistick Language of the Books of the New Testament that it does establish it the more For Salmasius assures us in the same place that the Greek Books that were Translated out of the Hebrew and the Syriack do more abound with Hebraisms and Chaldaisms than those which had been written in Greek before that time And therefore he alledges that there are much fewer Hebraisms in St. Luke and in St. Paul who understood the Greek Language than in St. Matthew who had been Translated out of the Hebrew or Chaldee (b) Hanc differentiam stili in Graecè translatis merè Graecis notavit aliquot locis Hieronymus Salm. ibid. p. 258. He confirms his Observation by the Authority of St. Jerom who acknowledged as he thinks this difference of Stile betwixt the Books that were written in Greek and those which were Translated into that Language All that can be concluded from his Supposition is that the Books which were written by the Disciples of Jesus Christ who were Galileans were not composed by Jews-Hellenists but by mere Hebrews in the Language of their Country which was the Chaldaick Language He cannot conclude from thence that the Greek of the Books which we have at this day is not a Greek of the Synagogues On the contrary the Distinction that he makes betwixt the Works which were then written in Greek and those which were Translated out of the Hebrew and the Chaldee does manifestly suppose it Nevertheless we ought not to oppose in this matter all the Ancients who believed that of the four Evangelists St. Matthew did only write his Gospel in Hebrew As for the Hebraisms which he thinks abound more in the Books that were Translated out of Hebrew into Greek than in others Vorstius is not altogether of the same mind For he believes that there are more Hebraisms in St. Luke's Gospel than in the other Gospels He likewise adds (c) Ego contenderim S. Lucam plus Hebraismorum usurpasse quà m ullum caeterorum Novi Testamenti Scriptorum in uno capite primo Evangelii Lucae vel quinquaginta in uno verò ejusdem capitis versiculo vel quatuor aut plures Hebraismos demonstrare possim Joann Vorst Philolog Sac. part alt Epist dedic that he could easily shew fifty Hebraisms in the first Chapter of that Evangelist and four and more even in one Verse indeed it may very well be that St. Luke may make use of more pure Greek Terms than the other Evangelists do and yet for all this have a Phrase that is altogether Hebrew or Syriack Salmasius does further assure us against the Opinion of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers (d) Graecè nescisse Apostolos vel uno vincitur argumento quod ex Septuaginta Interpretum Versione testimonia non citarint sed ex Hebraico textu Salm. de Hellen. pag. 255. that amongst all the Apostles it was only St. Paul who understood the Greek Which he proves by their citing the Old Testament according to the Hebrew Text and not according to the Greek of the Septuagint But we have already shewn the contrary and although St. Jerom is somtimes of that Opinion he frequently takes the opposite side upon very good Reasons The Reason Salmasius adds why the Passages of the Old Testament which are cited in the New do not agree with the Greek of the Septuagint is because the Evangelists and the Apostles took them from the Hebrew and the Interpreters Translating them into Greek do not always agree with the Septuagint But if it were so those Translators would at least have expressed the Hebrew by other Greek Words and would have been conformable to that Hebrew which yet is not true for they agree more often with the Septuagint than with the Hebrew Text. This difference as it has been elsewhere observed proceeds from this that the Apostles according to the usage of their time did not trouble themselves in their citations to relate the express Words of Scripture because they adhered chiefly to the Sense But was it necessary Salmasius continues that St. Peter who was an Apostle of the Jews should understand the Greek Language seeing the Jews of that time understood the Syriack and the Hebrew It is not true that all the Jews of that time understood the Hebrew and the Syriack For in all the Roman Empire only those of Palestine knew the Syriack or the Chaldee and yet those of that Country who were above the Common Rank did likewise understand the Greek Language As for the Hebrew there were only a very few Learned Men amongst them who understood it whereas the Greek Language was spread through a considerable part of the Empire and the Jews of Rome where St. Peter was accompanied with St. Mark spake Greek more than any other Language To that which is objected that St. Mark according to the testimony of all Antiquity was St. Peter's Interpreter I answer that it cannot be proved from thence that S. Peter was altogether ignorant of the Greek Language seeing all those ancient Doctors of the Church who make St. Mark to be St. Peter's Interpreter do not deny but that this Holy Apostle understood the Greek St. Paul had likewise Titus for his Interpreter and yet Salmasius thinks that that Apostle knew the Greek better than the Hebrew We will freely grant to this Critick that St. John who was a Galilean had a more exact knowledge of the Hebrew or rather of the Chaldaick Language than of the Greek But it cannot be from
matter (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. tom 15. Comm. in Matth. has observed this great diversity of the Greek Copies which he attributed partly to the negligence of the Transcribers and partly to the liberty that Criticks assumed in correcting the Books of the New Testament adding to and taking away from it according as they judged it convenient Indeed if it be remembred what was briefly said of it upon the occasion of the last Chapter of S. Mark and of the History of the adulterous Woman Chap. 8. of S. John we shall find evident proofs there of this observation of Origen which would further appear if we had several Copies of that time which we might compare with those that remain whereas we have very few that are above a thousand years continuance and which as we shall shew in the next Chapter do very much differ from those others we have at this day They have likewise all those Errors that we have observed That Father does add in the same place that he had in some sort remedied the diversity of the Greek Copies of the Septuagint Version which he had revised and corrected according to the ordinary Rules of Criticism He likewise declares in what manner he had gone through that great Work that had all the success that he could hope for But he did not the like as to the Books of the New Testament unless it be that he carefully searched for the most correct Copies and made many Critical Reflections on sundry places according as occasions did present themselves for that purpose Neither do we find that the Ecclesiastical Writers who lived after Origen made a distinction of two sorts of Editions of the New Testament as they have of two Editions of the Version of the Septuagint They made a difference betwixt that which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vulgar which was publickly used and that which was corrected according to the Rules of Criticism They considered this latter as the true Edition of the Septuagint altho it was as yet very imperfect and the most part of the Oriental Churches made use of it for correcting their Copies Yet for all this Origen as well as several other Criticks did correct some Greek Copies of the New Testament and S. Jerom does sometimes cite them But it does not appear that his Critical Observations were in the place of a Law as to those Books as they were as to an ancient Greek Version of the Old Testament If it had been so we should have had a Massore of the Greek Text of the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles in the same manner as the Jews had of the Hebrew Text of the Bible We should not find so many different Readings as there are at this day For every one would have exactly followed Origen's Copy as the Jews followed the Copy that was corrected by their Doctors whom they commonly called Massorets And from hence it is that we find not at this day any ancient Hebrew Copies of the Scripture amongst them For they reformed them all by the Massore and seeing they hold it for infallible they wholly neglected their ancient Books They are so much persuaded that the Books of the Law which they now read are perfectly conformable to the Original of Moses that they do keep in their Synagogues any old Roll or Volume The Jews of the Portuguese Synagogue of Amsterdam have at least fifty Rolls of their Sepher tora or Book of the Law which for the most part are very well written but they are all new If any ask for ancient ones they take no notice because they are prepossessed with a Belief that there can be no difference betwixt the ancient and the modern It is not so amongst the Christians who have had no Massorets whom they altogether follow in copying their Greek Copies of the New Testament And therefore we ought not to be surprised to find therein a much greater number of various Renditions than in the Hebrew Copies of the Jews I dare also be bold to say that this manifold variety ought to gain a greater authority to them than if there had been no such difference For it is impossible that a Book which has passed through so many hands should always continue the same unless they have corrected it and afterwards follow exactly that Correction as it happened to the Jews in respect of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament It is the advantage of a Book that there have been several different Copies thereof to the end that a better Judgment may be given of the true Rendition And upon this account the Books of the New Testament are to be preferred to the most part of the others because the Christian Religion having spread into so many different Countries every Nation has Copies and Versions thereof These are the different Copies by which we are to be guided at this day because we have not now the first Original We shall with all possible exactness examine the Greek Manuscript Copies and also the most ancient Versions which have been taken from the Greek We are not to depend upon one Greek Edition more than upon another if it be not founded on better Manuscripts We shall prefer the Editions which together with the Text do contain divers Renditions of sundry Copies It is a rare thing to find Greek Manuscripts where such variations are noted in the Margin for seeing those Books are read in the Churches they observe commonly no other Reading than what is authorised by custom They did content themselves to mark them in distinct Works especially in the Notes which they joyned to the Greek Text of the New Testament And therefore besides the various Manuscript Copies we ought to consult the Notes which it is easie enough to find in good Libraries Many Learned Criticks of the latter Days when the Study of the Greek Language was re-established applied themselves carefully to this Labor Valla was the first who made search for the Greek Copies of the New Testament and also for the Latin. Laur. Vall. Annot in Nov. Test Edit Basil in 8. an 1526. He cites many of them in his Remarks which Erasmus took care to Print at Basle and altho he does much insist upon the little Niceties of the Latin Grammar yet we are obliged to him for the new Discoveries which he has made to us in a time when Barbarity did still reign in Europe It was by the force of his Example that Erasmus was induced to write Notes on the New Testament where he cites a much greater number of Greek and Latin Manuscripts which he had read There is also annexed to some Editions of his New Testament a Collection of divers Readings taken from the Greek Copies He seemed to be better versed than Valla in this sort of Reasoning especially as to his knowledge of Manuscripts Nevertheless his Critical Reflections do speak the Author's liberty more than their own evidence When he meets
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
be Socrates had no reason to reject the ancient and the true Reading of the Greek Text of S. John under a Pretext that the Nestorians did believe that it favoured their Opinion It can only be said that they are two different Readings of the same Passage which are very ancient It cannot be discovered which is the true one or at least which is to be preferred unless for that end we observe with Hilary the Deacon the Rules of Criticism which have been already taken notice of CHAP. XXX Of the Greek Copies of the New Testament in particular The most ancient that we have at this day were written by the Latins and were used by them Those which were printed came from the Greek Churches The ancient Latin Version which was in the Churches of the West before St. Jerom were made by those first Copies which were not very correct Of the ancient Cambridge Copy why it does differ so much from other Greek Copies THose who have published the divers Readings of different Greek Copies of the New Testament ought in the same time to have observed what sort of Copies they were Seeing they have not done this I shall endeavour to supply this defect that we may be the more able to judge what are the best Renditions among so many various Readings In the former Chapter it was shewn from a Passage of Origen that the Greek Amanuenses who writ out the Books of the New Testament and likewise the Criticks who corrected them had assumed a very great liberty and that that was the occasion of a mighty confusion St. Jerom does confirm the same thing especially with respect to the ancient Latin Copies in his Letter to Pope Damasus who had commanded him to revise the ancient Latin Version That Father believed (a) Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda respondeant quibus tot enim sunt exemplaria penè quot codices Sin autem veritas est quaerenda de pluribus cur non ad Graecam originem revertentes ea quae vel à vitiosis interpretibus malè reddita vel à praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversiùs vel à librariis dormitantibus aut addita sunt aut mutata corrigimus Hieron Praef. in IV. Evang. ad Dam. that it was absolutely necessary to have recourse to the Original Greek to correct the great number of faults that were in that Version because there were so many different Latin Copies as there were different Books and that every one did presume to change this ancient Latin Edition according to the Greek taken in his own sense besides the Errors of the Transcribers which were also very numerous That labour was by so much the more difficult as the Greek Copies were not more correct than the Latin and so it seems that the Rule to be followed was very uncertain for the undertaking was to amend the Faults of the Latin by the Greek which likewise had Faults St. Jerom observes in speaking of the Copies of that Time (b) Magnus siquidem hic in nostris codicibus error inolevit dum quod in eadem re alius Evangelista plus dixit in alio quia minùs putaverint addiderunt vel dum eumdem sensum alius aliter expressit ille qui unum è quatuor primum legerat ad ejus exemplum caeteros quoque existimaverit emendandos Vnde accidit ut apud nos mixta sint omnia in Marco plura Lucae atque Matthaei rursus in Matthaeo plura Joannis Marci in caeteris reliquorum quae aliis propria inveniantur Hier. ibid. that the Amanuenses had altered them in a strange manner by the mixture they had made of several Gospels together taking from one that which seemed to be wanting in another If it also happened that one Gospel had expressed a thing in a different manner from another the Transcribers reformed the rest according to what they had first read so that there was nothing but confusion in those ancient Copies We see many things in St. Mark which belonged to St. Luke and St. Matthew and in St. Matthew which was St. John's and St. Mark 's and in short every Gospel had something borrowed from the rest It is true that this Observation seems to reach the Latin Copies only but in the sequel of this Discourse I shall make it appear that it does likewise agree to several Greek Copies of that Time. If we had still at this day any of those ancient Books of which St. Jerom speaks it would be easily believed that he exaggerates the Faults thereof the better to shew the necessity that was incumbent on him to amend the Latin Version that was agreeable to some Greek Copies which were no less defective than the Latin. Beza's Greek and Latin Copy which is now kept at Cambridge is of this number having been writ out by Latin Amanuenses by such like Copies as were extant before St. Jerom reformed them That Calvinist never knew the nature of that Book (c) Quatuor Evangeliorum Actorum Apostolicorum Graeco-Latinum exemplar ex S. Irenaei Caenobio Lugdunensi ante aliquos annos nactus mutilum quidem illud neque satis emendatè ab initio ubique descriptum neque ita ut oportuit habitum sicut ex paginis quibusdam diverso charactere insertis indocti cujuspiam Graeci Calogeri barbaris adscriptis alicubi notis apparet Bez. Epist ad Acad. Cantab. which was found in the Monastery of Lyons he believed that it had been corrected in some places by an ignorant Scholiast who had added some Notes or Amendments to it But those Corrections or Notes were not made by a Greek Caloiz seeing Books of that sort that were written in Greek with the ancient Latin Version were never in use amongst the Greeks but the Latins only as shall be made manifest in the following part of this Discourse He is in a notorious mistake when he assures us (d) Est hoc exemplar venerandae vetustatis ex Graeciâ ut apparet ex barbaris quibusdam notis ad mà rginem adscriptis adportatum Bez. ibid. that that Manuscript was brought from Greece because he observed Remarks to be written in Greek therein He knew not that the Latins who had some skill in the Greek Tongue joined the Greek to the Latin Version in their Copies of the New Testament and also of the Psalms They were not so zealous at that time for the Latin Tongue but that they believed that the Original Greek was sometimes necessary not only to regulate but also to understand it Upon this ground St. Jerom and St. Augustin judged that it was fit to correct the Latin in many places by the Greek when the former happens to be defective That the Original might be the more easily consulted those who were curious did joyn it in the same Copy to the ancient Latin Edition Neither did Beza observe that the Greek and the Latin of Manuscripts of that sort are written with the
same hand and that the Greek has a greater resemblance of the ancient Capital Letters of the Latins than of those of the Greeks The former are more square the great Letters of the Greeks are longer and finer This I observed in reading the second part of that Cambridge Copy which is in the King's Library and another the like Copy which is in the Library of the Religious Benedictines of St. Germain These two Copies which contain the Epistles of St. Paul do so little differ from one another as well in the Greek as in the Latin that it would seem the one had been copied from the other but that the Characters of that of the Benedictines are greater and more majestical and that it is less disfigured by Corrections It may be easily known by the fashion of the Characters of those two Copies and by the ancient Latin Version which is joined to the Greek Text that they were copied by the Latins for the use of that Church The Greek and the Latin are written with the same Hand and with a Letter altogether alike so that there are Letters that are purely Greek in the Latin. Moreover there is one thing that is very singular in those two Manuscripts and that can only agree to the Latins It is certain that the Greeks did reckon amongst the number of the Epistles of S. Paul that which is directed to the Hebrews whereas many Latin Churches did not receive it And this Epistle is not put with the others in those two Copies It is placed separately at the end of the Book Which cannot be accounted a Transposition or any other thing of the like nature chargeable on those who joyned the Leaves of those two Copies together For the end and the beginning of every one of the Apostle Paul's Epistles are there very exactly marked and in the same order as we read them at this day Yet there is no mention made of the Epistle to the Hebrews because the Churches of those who made use of the Copies did not believe that it belonged to S. Paul nor that it was so much as Canonical And for this reason they added immediately after the Epistle to Philemon a Catalogue of all the Books which were read in those Churches and this Epistle is not marked with others in the Catalogue It is only found at the end of those Books as foreign to the Work and as a Piece that does not carry the same Authority with the others All this does evidently prove that those two Manuscript Copies of S. Paul's Epistles which are of the same nature with that of Cambridge which contains the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were not written by the Greeks seeing all the Churches of the Greeks that of the Arians only excepted did always acknowledg the Epistle to the Hebrews for Divine and Canonical and which they never separated from the rest of that Apostle's Epistles Nor can we believe that the Greeks would joyn to their Greek Copies a Latin Version which they did not understand and which was altogether unprofitable to them In short the numerous Faults that are in the Greek of those Copies is a new proof that they were written by Latin Amanuenses who had no knowledge of the Greek Language I speak not of the small Orthographical Faults which are observed in the ancient Books that were copied by the Greeks as well as in those that were copied by the Latins but of certain Faults in the Words which can only be applied to the latter and of which I would produce several Examples if I did not believe that it has been evidently proved that the Manuscripts of that nature which were used in the Western Churches before S. Jerom amended his ancient Latin Version were written by Latin Transcribers If Beza had made all these Observations and if he had compared with those Manuscripts that which S. Jerom hinted in his Letter to Pope Damasus he would have perceived the reasons of that great difference that is betwixt those Copies and others from which were taken such as have been Printed in these latter times That Father observed that the former were altered by the mixture of several Gospels together and that one Gospel had been corrected by another We need only apply this Observation to the Cambridge Copy which contains the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles and the same Faults will be acknowledged to be therein We shall find in S. Matthew for example some Additions which are taken out of other Gospels and the Genealogy in S. Luke amended by that which is in S. Matthew The Critical Reflections that he made in that Letter on the Copies of his Time has so great a relation to the Cambridge Copy that they would seem to have been made for no other purpose but to give us an exact knowledge of that Copy (e) Vos admonendos duxi tantùm à me in Lucae praesertim Evangelio repertam esse dissonantiam ut vitandae quorundam offensioni asservandam potiùs quà m publicandam existimem Bez. ibid. which differs so much from others that Beza does testifie that he durst not furnish us with all the variations thereof lest he should give offence to some sort of Men. But S. Jerom who informs us that the Copies of the ancient Latin Version that was agreeable to the Greek Copies of this kind were very defective he does also acquaint us with other Greek Copies that were more exact by which he had amended it And by that he does entirely remove that pretended scandal This Learned Critick to effect his Amendments had recourse * Codicum Graecorum emendatâ collatione sed veterum to the ancient and the most exact Greek Copies by the means of which he removed that Confusion which was in the Latin Edition of that time and in some Greek Copies which were in nothing different from that Edition (f) Canones quoque quos Eusebius Caesariensis Episcopus Alexandrinum secutus Ammonium in decem numeros ordinavit sicut in Graeco habentur expressimus Hieron praef in IV. Evang. ad Dam. He made use of the Greek Copy of the Gospels to which Eusebius had added certain Canons which we find at this day at the beginning of the Manuscript Copies as well Greek as Latin and also before some Editions We know by the means of these Canons what the Evangelists have that is common or alike and what they have peculiar to each of them By this Method he applied a remedy in some sort for removing the Disorder that was in the vulgar Copies He does nevertheless add that to the end he might not leave the ancient Latin Copy too much which was then in use (g) Quae ne multùm à lectionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent ita calamo temperavimus ut his tantùm quae sensum videbantur mutare correctis reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant Hier. ibid. he had observed this moderation to amend nothing but what changed the
had slipp'd Yet he dares not be positive because he knows not the reasons of that great diversity And therefore he adds (r) Fieri potuit ut antiquitùs in quaedam exemplaria Lucae nonnulla ex iis Evangeliis quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 existimata sunt irrepserint quae postea Sanctorum Patrum diligentiâ resecta fuerint Mor. ibid. that possibly they might have inserted in some Copies of St. Luke that which was found in other supposed Gospels and that the Fathers had afterwards been at the pains to retrench those Additions If that Critick had narrowly weighed St. Jerome's Preface dedicated to Pope Damasus he would there have found all his doubts cleared Seeing the Cambridge Copy observes the same Order with all the other Greek Copies of the New Testament as to the thread of the History it does manifestly prove that it has not been on purpose altered by the Hereticks Moreover seeing the alterations that are therein do not introduce any Paradox Opinion but consist for the most part in some words which have been placed instead of others and in some Additions that have been taken from other Evangelists or in bare Illustrations we may infer from thence that all the change proceeded from the liberty that was taken by some at that time for rendring the Books of the New Testament the more intelligible without putting themselves to the trouble of adhering to the words of the Original so long as nothing of the sense was altered The Criticks especially St. Jerome in reforming the ancient Vulgar did at the same time amend those ancient Greek Copies with which he agreed entirely He used for that purpose other Greek Copies which were more exact and especially those to which he had added the Ten Canons of Eusebius These latter Copies which were amongst the Greeks before St. Jerome's time always remained with them which is easily proved by the same Canons of Eusebius One of the most surprising varieties of that Copy is that which is found in the Genealogy of Jesus Christ Chap. 3. of St. Luke for this Genealogy is the same with that in St. Matthew unless it be that it goes up to Solomon in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is manifest that this Genealogy has been designedly amended by that of St. Matthew yet with an Addition of those Persons which he had omitted Beza who has also made mention of this diversity in his Notes upon this Chapter of St. Luke declares (ſ) Quînam autem id sit factum nescio cùm recepta lectio tum Syri ipsius interpretis auctoritate tum Scriptorum omnium Sacrorum proptereà de Matthaeo cum Lucâ conciliando laborantium consensu planè confirmetur cui sanè praejudicium ullum afferre nec velim nec ausim Tantùm dico fieri potuisse ut ipsis Evangelistarum temporibus Judaei genealogiam istam quantum in ipsis fuit depravarint quasi fidem caeteris de Christo narrationibus abrogaturi quae fraus à plerisque non animadversa facilè obtinuerit Bez. Annot. in c. 3. Luc. v. 23. that he cannot imagine how that can be because the Syriack Interpreter and all the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers are altogether against that Copy from whom he neither intends nay nor dares to recede That might as he conjectures have happened from the very time of the Evangelists the Jews having corrupted that Genealogy that they might not believe the other Histories which are recorded in the Gospels There is nothing more ridiculous than this conjecture of Beza who does charge the Jews with a crime which they never thought of besides that it was of no advantage to them because they could not corrupt all the Copies which they kept by them There are none to be blamed for that alteration of the Ancient Copies of the New Testament but the Christians and even the Orthodox as it has been frequently observed after St. Jerome who in his Letter to Pope Damasus has taken notice of the change of which we now speak He says that in those days they took the liberty to amend the Gospels by that Gospel which they had read first Ille qui unum è quatuor primum legerat ad ejus exemplum caeteros quoque existimaverat emendandos It is evident that the Genealogy in St. Luke was reformed in the Cambridge Copy according to this Method and that what was supposed to be wanting therein was supplied from the Old Testament And the accusation supposed to have been brought against the Jews was so far from admitting a sufficient ground of reason that there was nothing at that time so common as Copies as well Greek as Latin of that kind especially in the Churches of the West before St. Jerome had revised the Ancient Latin Edition It would be easie to prove that the Gospel of St. Mark has been likewise amended in some places by that of St. Matthew and further that there have been some words changed for others that were synonymous which appeared to be more intelligible but that labour would be to no purpose because every one may consult the divers Readings of that ancient Copy in the sixth Tome of the Polyglott Bible of England and in the Greek Edition of the New Testament Printed at Oxford It is enough that I have observed the true reason of those numerous variations concerning which the Criticks have given us very wide and even false conjectures Those who revised those ancient Copies intending nothing but to make them clear without being at the pains to confine themselves to the true Reading of the Evangelists and the Apostles have given Paraphrases on them whensoever they believed that they were not sufficiently understood They have also abridged them in those places that they thought intricate by reason of superfluous words which they have also transposed in innumerable places for the same reason Which is enough to be observed once for all in general without a particular rehearsal of the Passages which have been altered in the Cambridge Copy as well in the Gospels as in the Acts of the Apostles This does appear yet more in the Acts because there was a very great liberty taken of reforming that History in the first Ages of the Church Nevertheless whatever change those Books have undergone in the ancient time and that the very words of the Evangelists and the Apostles were not observed yet it will not be found that the sense has suffered any alteration They only endeavoured to make them the more intelligible to the People and for that end it was necessary to refine them seeing they were full of Hebraisms and very concise Phrases which they were obliged to illustrate according to that Method Nevertheless in the Cambridge Copy there are certain Additions whereof the same thing cannot be said because they are plain Matters of Fact that have been added For example Chapter 6. of St. Luke verse 5. after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read in that Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
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
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