they rejected the Writings of the Apostles against the Authority of all the Churches of the World and at the same time received the Apocryphal Books that had no Authority If any one continues this Father should oppose you and should make use of your own words that that which you alledge on your behalf is false and on the contrary that which is against you is true (m) Quid ages Quò te convertes Quam libri à te prolati originem quam vetustatem quam seriem successionis testem citabis Aug. ibid. what would you do How could you defend the truth of those Acts that you produce How could you prove their Antiquity not having any Witnesses in Tradition by whose Testimony they might be confirmed From whence he concludes (n) Vides in hac re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat auctoritas quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorum usque ad hodiernum diem succedentium sibimet Episcoporum serie tot populorum consensione firmatur Aug. ibid. that it is absolutely necessary on this occasion to have recourse to the Authority of those Churches that were established ever since the primitive times of the Christian Religion and to the consent of Nations that have received the Books of the New Testament from the Apostles He observes further and more close to the purpose that if it were only disputed concerning the variety of Copies since they are but few in number it would be sufficient to consult the Copies of different Countries and if they did not agree in this point the greater number should be preferred before the lesser or the more ancient before the later Plures paucioribus aut vetustiores recentioribus praeferrentur But the Manicheans who judged not of the Truth of these Books but with relation to their own Ideas refused to submit to this Authority they consulted only their reason in matters of Fact wherein all Deference ought to be given to Authority therefore when any passage was urged to them that thwarted their Opinion they boldly affirmed that that part had been corrupted or that the Book wherein it was found had been composed by some Impostor under the name of the Apostles Faustus for example who avouched that after having diligently perused the Books of Moses he could not find therein any Prophecy that had any regard to Jesus Christ takes this method in answering the Texts of the New Testament Where express mention is made of these Prophecies Jesus Christ saith in speaking of himself Moses hath wrote of me Faustus answers to this Joann v. 46. that after a serious examination of this passage (o) Ratione cogebar in alterum è duobus ut aut falsum pronunciarem capitulum hoc aut mendacem Jesum sed id quidem alienum pietatis eraè Deum existimare mentitum Rectius ergo visum est scriptoribus adscribere falsitatem quam veritatis auctoritati mendacium Apud Aug. lib. 16. contra Faust c. 2. his reason obliged him to conclude either that it was false or that Jesus Christ had not spoken the truth and since it would be no less than impious Blasphemy to say that God could lie it would be more adviseable to attribute the falsification to the Writers themselves When it was demanded of this Heretick why he did not receive the Old Law and the Prophets whom Jesus Christ himself hath authorised in the New Testament by his words I am not come to destroy the Law or the Peophets Matth. v. 17. but to fulfil them he objected against the Testimony of S. Matthew because he is the only Evangelist that hath related this It is supposed saith he that this Discourse was delivered in the Sermon that Jesus Christ made on the Mountain In the mean time S. John (p) Testis idoneus tacet loquitur autem minùs idoneus Apud Aug. cont Faust lib. 17. c. 1. who was there present speaks not a word thereof and yet they would have S. Matthew who saw nothing to mention it He pretends that this hath been wrote by some other person and not by S. Matthew After this manner the Manicheans who sacrificed all to their Reason and almost nothing to Authority entirely destroyed the Books of the New Testament receiving them no farther than they were conformable to their Prejudices they had formed to themselves a certain Idea of Christianity after which they regulated the Writings of the Apostles They would have it that all that which could not be adjusted to this Idea had been inserted in their Books by later Writers who were half Jews Faustus saith Multa enim à majoribus vestris eloquiis Domini nostri inserta verba sunt Apud Aug. l. 33. cont Faust c. 3. quae nomine signata ipsius cum fide non congruant praesertim quia ut jam saepe probatum à nobis est nec ab ipso haec sunt nec ab ejus Apostolis scripta sed multa post eorum assumptionem à nescio quibus ipsis inter se non concordantibus Semi-Judaeis per famas opinionesque comperta sunt c. But S. Augustin represents to them in this very same passage that one must renounce common sense to argue after this manner on matters of Fact to which imaginary reasons ought not to be opposed (q) De quo libro certum erit cujus sit si literae quas Apostolorum dicit tenet Ecclesia ab ipsis Apostolis propagata per omnes gentes tantâ eminentiâ declarata utrùm Apostolorum sint incertum est hoc erit certum scripsisse Apostolos quod huic Ecclesiae contrarii haeretiot proferunt Auctorum suorum nominibus appellati longè post Apostolos existentium Aug. ibid. We cannot be certain saith he of any Book if once we call in question those Works that the Church that is extended throughout the whole World receives with a common consent and if on the contrary we authorise as Apostolical Books that dispute therewith and that carry the name of Writers who have lived a long time after the Apostles He charges them (r) Legunt Scripturas apocryphas Manichaei à nescio quibus fabularum sutoribus sub Apostolorum nomine scriptas quae suorum scriptorum temporibus in auctoritatem sanctae Ecclesiae recipi mererentur si sancti docti bomines qui tunc in hac vita erant examinare talia poterant eos vera locutos esse cognoscerent Aug. cont Faust lib. 22. c. 79. with making Fables and Apocryphal Works to pass for Apostolical Writings and he shews at the same time the falsity of these Acts because they have not any testimony of the Doctors of the Church that were then living He urgeth Faustus to prove what he hath alledged by Books that are Canonical and generally received in all the Churches Non ex quibuscunque literis sed Ecclesiasticis Canonicis Catholicis Aug. l. 23. adv Faus c. 9. This Holy Doctor calls this way
of arguing of the Manicheans folly insaniam dementiam who not being able to accommodate the Writings of the Apostles to the Idea that they had formed to themselves of the Christian Religion or under colour of certain contradictions in the Scriptures which they could not resolve (ſ) Non à Christi Apostolis sed longo pòst tempore à quibusdam incerti nominis viris qui ne sibi non haboretur fides scribentibus quae nescirent partim Apostolorum nomina partim eorum qui Apostolos secuti viderentur scriptorum suorum frontibus indiderunt asseverantes secundùm eos se scripsisse quae scripserint Apud Aug. lib. 32. cont Faust c. 2. would needs have it believed that these Books were composed after the Apostles themselves by uncertain Authors who had made bold to borrow the Names of these Apostles to gain Credit and Authority to their Works To convince them the more easily of their folly he sets before their eyes the Books (t) Platonis Aristotelis Ciceronis Varronis aliorumque ejusmodi autorum libros unde noverunt homines quôd ipsorum sint nisi temporum fibimet succedentium contestatione continuâ August cont Faust lib. 33. c. 6. of Hippocrates Plato Aristotle Varto and Cicero and of several other Writers that are believed to be the Authors of those Works that we have under their Names because they have been attributed to them in the time wherein they lived and they have been always so attributed successively from Age to Age. Now there is nothing more contrary to reason than not to grant the same privilege to the Church and not to acknowledge that she hath faithfully kept the Writings of the Apostles whose Doctrine she hath always preserved by the means of the Succession of Bishops We have enlarged a little on these Reflections of S. Augustin and of the other Fathers that preceded him because they have mightily evinced the Truth of the Books of the New Testament without having recourse to I know not what particular Spirit which is an invention of these later times We cannot imagine any thing more opposite to good reason than these Words of the Confession of Faith of those that formerly took the Name of the Reformed of the Churches of France Confess Art. 4. We acknowledge these Books in speaking of the whole Scriptures to be Canonical not so much by the common agreement and consent of the Church as by the testimony and inward persuasion of the Holy Ghost The Fathers nevertheless have always confuted the ancient Hereticks who refused to acknowledge these Books as Canonical by the common agreement and consent of the Church It would have been a pleasant way of reasoning if every one in these primitive times of Christianity would not have acknowledged for divine Books only those that his private Spirit should dictate to him to be such This hath appeared to be so great an extravagance to those of that Persuasion who in the Low Countries are called Remonstrants that they look upon the Calvinists that follow this Principle as People that have renounced common sense Simon Episcopius who hath been one of the Champions of this Party after having handled this question with a great deal of subtilty concludes that it is a very ill sort of argumentation to admit besides the testimony of the Church another inward testimony of the Holy Ghost to know whether certain Books have a divine Authority stampt upon them Hinc patet saith this Protestant ineptos esse eos qui vel praeter vel citra testimonium Ecclesiae requiri aiunt internum Spiritus Sancti testimonium ad hoc ut libros hos divinos esse authoritatem divinam habere intelligamus Remonst Confess c. 1. de scrip n. 8. It is sufficient according to the Remonstrants that we have there upon the testimony of (v) Ecclesia primitiva quae temporibus Apostolorum fuit certissimè resciscere potuit indubiè etiam rescivit libros istos ab Apostolis scriptos esse vel saltem approbatos nobisque istius rei scientiam quasi per manus tradidit ac veluti depositum quoddam reliquit Remonst Confess cap. 1. de Script n. 8. the primitive Church that certainly knew that these Books were written by the Apostles or approved by them and that this testimony is come down to us by a constant Tradition This Spirit that is diffused through the whole Church ought without doubt to be preferred to a private Spirit that can only serve to make a division therein Grot. Animad in Anim. Riv. This is what Grotius hath judiciously observed Spiritus ille privatus saith this Critick Spiritus Ecclesiae divisor It would be to no purpose for the Calvinists to object to the Remonstrants that their Opinion is taken out of the Writings of Socinus because an evident truth ought not to be rejected under pretence that it may be found in the Books of Socinus This Heretick hath proved in his Treatise Of the Authority of the Holy Scriptures and in another Work intituled Sacred Lectures the Truth of the Sacred Books and principally of those of the New Testament by the very same reasons and after the same manner that S. Irenaeus Tertullian and S. Augustin have done Socin lib. de Auctor Script sac (x) Legantur ea quae hac de re Eusebius scribit pluribus in locis Historiae Ecclesiasticae invenietur usque ad illius Eusebit aetatem hoc est per 250. circiter annorum perpetuum spatium postquam scripta illa conscripta atque edita fuerunt nunquam fuisse in Ecclesia qui dubitaret quin quatuor quae habemus Evangelia liber Actorum Apostolorum Epistolae omnes quae Pauli Apostoli esse dicuntur praeter eam quae ad Hebraeos est scripta prior Apostoli Petri prima Joannis Apostoli haec inquam omnia ab iis scripta fuissent quibus attribuuntur Socin lib. de Auctor Script Sac. Let them read saith Socinus that which Eusebius hath written on this matter in his Ecclesiastical History and they will find therein a perpetual consent of all the Churches of the World since these Books were written to the time of this Author He insists very much in these two Treatises on the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers Will any one say for this that this is a Socinian Method because Socinus hath made use of it after the most Learned Ecclesiastical Writers Would to God that this Enemy of the Traditions of the Catholick Church had always followed this Principle he would not have introduced so many Innovations into Religion Neither can he avoid an Objection that may be made even by those of his own Party that according to his Principles he ought necessarily to acknowledge a Tradition after the same manner as it is maintained in the Church of Rome We cannot might they say to him receive the Gospel of S. Matthew and reject that which hath been published under the Name
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
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 (Å¿) 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
who did oppose him propter contentiosos that St. Matthew in that place had cited the words of Chap. 23. of Numbers Num. 23.22 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i.e. God who brought him out of Egypt And this is in effect the Opinion of the most Learned Greek Commentators on the Scriptures who lived before St. Jerome (k) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Theod. Heracl in Cat. Gr. in Matth. It is written in the Book of Numbers says Theodore of Heraclea upon this place of St. Matthew God called him out of Egypt When 't is also supposed that St. Matthew had in his view that Passage of the Prophet Hosea which is more probable why does he deny that it was from the beginning in the Septuagint as St Matthew has cited it and that that difference does proceed from those who altered the ancient Greek Version by their Glosses They believed that by translating ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã his Children as if it had been in the Hebrew ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the sense would be the more clear because that which follows is put in the Plural Number There might other examples be given of alterations of that kind which must be imputed to those who changed the ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint by their false Glosses 'T is therefore very probable that the reading in that place of the Septuagint was formerly the same as it is in St. Matthew and likewise in Aquila who also translated that passage of the Prophet Hosea by these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I have called my Son out of Egypt St. Jerome does yet triumph over his Adversaries in his Commentary upon the words of the Prophet Zechary Zach. 12.10 They looked upon me whom they have pierced St. John who cited that passage in his Gospel does give it in the same manner according to the Hebrew Text whereas in the Septuagint it is They looked upon me because they have insulted (l) Joannes Evangelista qui de pectore Domini hausit sapientiam Hebraeus ex Hebraeis quem Salvator amabat plurimùm non magnoperè curavit quid Graecè literae continerent sed verbum interpretatus verbo est ut in Hebraeo legerat tempore dominicae passionis dixit esse completum Quod si quis non recipit det testimomum de quo sanctarum scripturarum loco Joannes ista protulerit Hieron Comm. in Zach. lib. 3. c. 12. St. John says that Father being an Hebrew born did not much regard its being read in the Greek Version of the Septuagint On the contrary he has rendred that place of Zechary word for word as it was in the Hebrew But if one will not believe him he must shew the place of Scripture from which St. John took the same He further adds that the likeness of the Letter R and D in the Hebrew was the cause of the false Translation of the Seventy Interpreters ob similitudinem literarum error est natus because they read as he thinks ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But in my opinion seeing St. John did follow the Septuagint more than the Hebrew in all the Passages of his Gospel there is no reason to maintain that in that place he consulted the Hebrew Copy of the Jews without any regard to the Greek Version of the Septuagint Which makes me believe that at the beginning it was read in the Septuagint as it was in the Hebrew and in St. John. The change of Letters of that nature gave occasion of altering the true and ancient Text in other places And this happened to that Passage of Zechary which ought to be amended in the Greek Version of the Septuagint according to the reading in the Gospel of St. John. That which does confirm this Opinion is that St. Cyprian did read it after that manner in the ancient Latin Version which was taken from the Septuagint The Rendition of that Father has more Authority in this case than that of some Greek Scholiasts who have also read it ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã they insulted as it is in St. John agreeable to the Hebrew Text. For these Scholiasts in their Expositions do frequently follow Aquila or some other Greek Interpreter without declaring that they do so And therefore 't is necessary that we be cautious herein that we do not confound the Version of the Septuagint with other ancient Greek Interpreters This should be the place for the examples of the alterations we spake of whereby the ancient Greek Rendition was very much changed but it would take up too much time It suffices that we have touched something of it in general to justifie the Citations of the Evangelists and of the Apostles Neither will I stay to examin particularly some other Passages of the Old Testament which St. Jerome pretends to have been cited by the Apostles in their Writings rather according to the Hebrew than according to the Septuagint For besides that it does require a long time to discuss them the rules that are confirmed already are sufficient to Answer all that Father's Objections who himself has acknowledged in many places of his Works that the Disciples of Jesus Christ who Preached the Gospel to a People that spake the Greek Tongue must have made use of the ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint which was in the hands of every one and not of the Hebrew Bible which was read by none but the Jews Besides there were but few amongst them who could have understood it We come now to the other Objection which is brought against the Books of the New Testament and which consists in a supposition that the Apostles and the Evangelists have not only changed the words of the Passages which they cite but that they have likewise wrested the same by giving them a sense altogether different from the meaning of the Authors CHAP. XXI A Discussion of some other Objections against the Books of the New Testament The Evangelists and Apostles in the manner of their explaining the Passages of the Old Testament and applying them to the Messiah followed the Custom which then obtained amongst the Jews There are many words in the New Testament which have a larger signification than they have in the Old And that can be attributed to nothing but to that usage and to a tradition received amongst the Jews THE Present Times gave not a beginning to the very great and difficult Objections that have been formed against the Testimonies of the Old Testament which the Evangelists and Apostles have made use of in their Writings for the Confirmation of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ Celsus Porphyrius Julian and the Jews have brought them against the Christians that they might thereby shew as they think the weakness of those Proofs upon which the Christian Religion is founded But they are deceived when they perswade themselves that Christianity has nothing else but such sort of Proofs for its Foundation The
charge Apud Cyril lib. 7. adv Jul. who accused the Christians for having abandoned the Law and the Prophets although they made a profession of following them He likewise reproached them for their boldness in calling themselves Israelites having as he alledged a Doctrin altogether opposite to that of Moses and the Ancient Prophets Apud Cyril lib. 8. adv Jul. But it is easie to convince him that the Christians are truly Israelites since they have neither renounced the Law nor the Prophets although sometimes they do expound them in a Mystical and Spiritual sense such an exposition as has been said is not contrary to the Doctrin of the Ancient Jews That Emperor seeing he owned no other sense of the Books of Moses but an Historical and Literal did object against the Christians that those words of Deuteronomy Chap. 18. v. 15. The Lord shall raise up a Prophet like unto me could not be understood of Jesus the Son of Mary seeing Moses does expresly speak (o) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Julian apud Cyr. ibid. of a Prophet who was to be a Man as he was and not the Son of God. It is true Act. c. 3. v. 22. c. 7. v. 37. that St. Peter and St. Stephen applyed to Jesus Christ that Passage of Deuteronomy which is literally understood of Joshua who was to succeed to Moses and also of other Judges and Prophets who have been in the Commonwealth of the Hebrews But if those Judges and Prophets were the Types of the Messiah why does he oppose the application of the same words to him according to a Sublime and Spiritual Sense of which we have already spoken seeing the Rabbins do frequently make the like applications By the Principles that we have established it will be very easie to resolve the most part of the other Objections which the Jews do raise against the Citations which are found throughout the Books of the New Testament The Apostles who did exactly follow the Expositions which were in use in their time have observed the same method almost through all their Writings The Jews could not oppose them without destroying their own Principles and favouring at the same time the Saddùcees According to this method St. Matthew applyed to St. John the words of the Prophet Esay The voice of one crying in the wilderness make straight the way of the Lord. It is manifest that the Evangelist did by a deras or Spiritual and Allegorical Sense Expound that which we ought to understand Literally and Historically of the returning of the Jews from their Captivity out of Babylon to Jerusalem Besides all those observations which serve as Principles for answering the Objections of the Jews and the Emperor Julian this is likewise remarkable that there are many words in the New Testament which have a larger Sense than in the Old which can be only attributed to the Custom of that time and to a Tradition received amongst the Jews There is nothing in the Books of Moses that does afford us any clear discovery of the state of a future Life which the Jews do call olam habba i.e. The World to come there is no manifest Record in the ancient Law of a Heaven or a Hell any more than there is of a Recompence to the Just and Punishment to the Wicked in that other Life Neither have they proper words to express those things they are obliged to make use of Metaphorical terms The word Gehenna for example which is taken from the Hebrew Gehennam has quite another Sense in the Books of the Old Testament than in the New where it does signifie the Fire of Hell. Which made St. Jerom say (p) Nomen gehennae in veteribus libris non invenitur sed primùm à Salvatore ponitur Hieron Comm. in Matth. that he does not find the word Gehenna in ancient Books that Jesus Christ is the first who used it Yet this does not prove that he was in effect the first that used it in that Sense as it is in the New Testament for it was before that time in use amongst the Jews in the same very Sense and especially amongst the Pharisees St. Jerom meant no more than this that he did not find it in the Old Testament under that signification although their Paraphrasts and their most ancient Rabbins used it in the same Sense as Jesus Christ did afterwards The Hebrew word Sceol will come under the same consideration for in the Hebrew of the Old Testament it does signifie a Sepulchre it is almost every where in the Septuagint rendred ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Hell as if they had frequently intended to signifie by that word a subterranean place where Souls are after their separation from the Body St. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles does Expound of the Messiah according to that Sense the words of Psalm xv Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption Which Passage is Literally understood of David who said to God that he would not suffer his Enemies to take away his Life and thus the Hebrew words Sceol and Scahat according to the former Sense do signifie Literally a Sepulchre and a Ditch But according to the Spiritual and Mystical Sense which St. Peter gives to this Psalm that he applies to the Messiah whose Type David was the Greek words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which he took from the ancient Version of the Septuagint do signifie in the Acts of the Apostles Hell and Corruption The Application that the Apostle made of the words of that Psalm to the Resurrection of the Messiah does contain nothing but what is agreeable to the belief of the Jews of that time who believed the Resurrection of the dead They further acknowledged a subterranean place to which Souls do go after their separation from the Body Without a due regard to all these considerations it is impossible to understand the New Testament Therefore it is to be supposed as a thing constantly agreed upon that the Jews in the time of our Saviour and the Apostles believed many things whereof they had no Literal proofs in all the Old Testament being only founded on their Traditions And the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles ought to be Expounded with a relation to this Idea of the Jewish Faith and not to that which may be conceived of their belief with a reference to the Books of the Old Testament only because those Books contain but one part of their Religion the other part being comprehended in their Traditions The Jews do own this Principle The Jews even the Caraites who do mightily oppose the Traditions of the Talmudists which had degenerated into Fables have preserved those which they believed to be founded on sufficient Records The ancient Hereticks who did not weigh all these considerations did rather choose to deny the truth of the Books of the New Testament and say that in after times there
were interpolations made therein than to attribute to the Apostles such things as they did not understand It is upon this supposed ground that the Manichees who found no express Passages in the Law of Moses that made mention of Jesus Christ rejected as false all those Places of the Pentateuch that were applied to him in the New Testament They did not consider that at the time of Christ and the Apostles there was a Mystical and Spiritual Sense approved of by all the Jews some Sadducees possibly excepted And with respect to this Sense the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles are to be Expounded And therefore they deceive themselves who pretend that there ought to be a Literal Sense in all the Citations of the Apostles especially in those which they bring in for Proofs It is true that a Passage of Scripture taken Allegorically cannot serve for a Proof but we speak here of such Allegorical Senses as were received and which were also founded on Traditions that were warranted by Authority They were therefore permitted to apply them to their Discourse and likewise to draw such Consequences from them as might promote their design in the same manner as the Pharisees made use of them in their Disputes against the Sadducees Those Allegorical Senses prove nothing for their own confirmation but suppose a belief already established upon which they were founded It is probable that Theodore de Mopsueste Expounded the Psalms and the Prophesies according to this Method and that he had regard to nothing when he was condemned as a favourer of the Jews but the Literal and Historical Sense which he gave to those ancient Prophesies They will not consider the Application he made thereof with the whole Church to the Messiah according to a Spiritual and Mystical Sense If we believe Facundus there is no justice done to that great Man who had a perfect knowledge of the Sacred Writings (q) Eum dicunt evacuasse omnes in Christum factas Prophetias quod Manichaeorum erroris est Fac. pro def tri cap. Conc. Calc lib. 9. c. 1. They accused him of destroying the Prophesies that related to Jesus Christ by an error like to that of the Manichees But he shews the falshood of this accusation by producing the very words of Theodore taken out of his Commentaries upon the Psalms Quod autem saith Facundus nec evacuet omnes in Christum prophetias palam est quia rursus in ejusdem Psalmi expositione dicit c. Whence he concludes (r) Non ergo Theodorus Judaicae impietatis arguendus est tanquam hominem putaverit Christum cùm potiùs Judaeos irrideat Fac. ibid. That it was hard to make Theodore pass for an impious person who believed with the Jews that Jesus Christ was a mere Man seeing he vigorously defended the contrary This is no place to inquire if Theodore was unjustly condemned as Facundus does assure us I have only made mention of the Passage that I might shew that great Men have of a long time acknowledged two Senses of Scripture as we have already made evident It is certain that the Christian Religion is founded on that of the Jews The Christians have this in common with them that they adore the same God and that they believe a Messiah promised in the Writings of the Old Testament which they receive equally And therefore the Christians who Expound those Writings in a Literal and Historical Sense cannot be blamed as if they favoured Judaism in exclusion of the Christian Religion seeing they acknowledged a second Sense called Spiritual and Mystical which they apply to the Messiah This latter Sense is the same that the Jews call deras In a word it is impossible to arrive at a perfect knowledge of the Christian Religion and the Principles upon which it is established so long as that of the Jews is not known to which the former does owe its Original Celsus Porphyrius Julian and the Jews have brought some other Objections against the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles The Principal is that which is drawn from the Genealogy of Jesus Christ Recorded in a different manner by St. Matthew and St. Luke They alledge that besides that these two Evangelists do not agree they have delivered manifest falsities But this aspersion has been so clearly wiped off by many Commentators upon the New Testament and also in the Volumes that purposely have been written for that end that it is needless to insist on it I shall only observe in general that it is easie to make answer to the Jews upon such objections as are drawn from Genealogies When they bring against the Christians the difference that is betwixt our Evangelists and the Books of the Old Testament their Mouths will be stopped if we shew them that there is no less in this matter betwixt the Chronicles which they attribute to Esdras and the rest of the Historical Writings of the Old Testament Their Rabbins who could not reconcile things that appeared so remote from one another are forced to own that the same Genealogies which are written in a different manner were taken out of Records that did likewise differ And may not we also affirm that the Evangelists Collected the Genealogy of Jesus Christ out of such Records as were amongst the Jews at that time but are not extant at this day And therefore it is better to leave the things as they are than to judg rashly of them or correct that Genealogy upon bare conjectures CHAP. XXIII Of the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testament A Refutation of the Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa The Cardinal of Perron has given a very bad Exposition of the Words of the second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy Chap. 3. v. 16. which makes mention of this Inspiration The Disputes betwixt the Jesuits of Louvain and the Divines of the same place upon this matter Three Propositions of the Jesuits Censured by the Doctors of Louvain and Douay A Defence of those Propositions against the Censure of those Divines I Have Treated elsewhere of the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings in general But seeing I only Treated of them occasionally and by way of Answer to some Objections which were brought against the Critical History of the Old Testament I shall here Handle it more particularly with respect to the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles It is the common Belief of the Jews that the Books of the Old Testament were written by Persons who were Inspired which Belief was transmitted from the Jews to the Christians Upon which occasion Origen affirmed (a) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Orig. lib. 5. cont Cels that both the one and the other did equally acknowledge that the Sacred Scripture was written by the Spirit of God. The Christians have also extended that Inspiration to the Books of the New Testament There are but very few Criticks who are of the Opinion that there is nothing of Inpiration in Scripture but only in that part of it that was Composed by the Prophets They say the Historical Books were
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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
have still at this day of reading privately every Saturday a Parasca or Section of the Chaldee Paraphrase did proceed from that ancient usage of the Synagogues who joyned the reading of the Paraphrase to the Hebrew Text. The Jewish Doctors did not therefore prohibit at that time the reading of the Greek Version and other Translations of Scripture as if they had read those Versions only in their Synagogues but they decreed that there should be no Version added to the reading of the Original Text which had been practised till that time They had used an Interpreter till that time who rendred the words of the Hebrew Text in the Language of the People Which appears by the Talmud and all other Books which Treat of the Jewish Laws and Customs That antient usage has altogether ceased amongst them They have indeed Translations of the Bible in their Vulgar Tongues but they read these only privately This they also observe as to their Service Books which they read in Hebrew in all their Synagogues although they have Translations of them in several Languages CHAP. XXVIII A more particular Discussion of the Reasons alledged by Salmasius against the Language that is called Hellenistick Several difficulties also relating to this matter are cleared THis should be the place to observe particularly the principal Hebraisms which are scattered through the whole New Testament but besides that my only design is to explain the Stile of those Books in general they may be found Collected in the Sacred Philology of John Vorstius who has enlarged sufficiently on this Subject The answer of Thomas Gatakerus to the Dissertation of Phochen vid. if he be the English Whittaker if this Authors Name was Thomas may likewise be consulted in this matter I shall speak of these two Books and some other the like in the third Part of this Critical History I shall only confine my self here to Salmasius his Reasons by which he pretends to shew that all that is said of the Hellenistick Language is without a Foundation This Learned Critick does absolutely deny that the Seventy Interpreters were Hellenists Salm. in Epist dedic Comm. de Hellen. because this Name can only be attributed to the Jews who were dispersed into several Countries out of the Land of Judah But it is Universally agreed upon that the Seventy belonged to Jerusalem and that consequently they were purely Hebrews In Jerusalem they did read the Bible in Hebrew and not in Greek If they joyned to it any Gloss it was written in the Language of the Jews of that Place that is to say in the Chaldee The same thing saith Salmasius may be alledged as to the Apostles who for the most part were Jews Originally and who lived in Judah even after the death of Jesus Christ How then is it possible that they could be Greeks or Hellenists There was only St. Paul amongst them who being of Tarsus in Cilicia where they spake the Greek Language could assume the quality of a Jew-Hellenist But having been bred at Jerusalem where he Studied under the Renowned Rabbin Gamaliel he denominates himself a mere Hebrew Hebraeus ex Hebraeis Indeed since he was of the Pharisees he cannot be reckoned in the number of the Jews-Hellenists who did read the Bible in Greek in their Synagogues It is easie to solve all these difficulties with the least trouble imaginable It may be observed that although the Appellation of Jews-Hellenists was given to those who were scattered out of Judaea into those several Countries where they spake the Greek Language this does not hinder but that there may be found true Hellenists even in the Land of Judah for every Jew who writ in that Greek which we have formerly called the Greek of the Synagogue may be called a Hellenist by reason of the Language he used in writing his Works Upon this ground when it shall be supposed that the Authors of the ancient Greek Version which is ascribed to the Seventy Interpreters were of Jerusalem they are truly Hellenists because they Composed their Version in a Greek that is full of Hebraisms and of Chaldaisms The Apostles who were of Galilee and consequently natural born Jews are also in this Sense Jews-Hellenists if they be considered as the Authors of such Books as they writ in the Greek of the Synagogue St. Paul was indeed born a Hellenist having learned the Greek Language from his Infancy but being afterwards Educated in the Schools at Jerusalem he became a pure Hebrew as to what concerned the Rites and Usages of those of his Nation Yet he ought to be reckoned among the Hellenists if we consider his Works which are written in a Greek Stile full of Hebraisms in which by common suffrage the Hellenistick Language does consist Salmasius does object against this that the modes of Speech in a Language do change according to the Times whilst the name of the Language does not change If so it cannot be said that an Hebrew or Syriack Phrase Salm. de Lang. Hellen. p. 131. which is delivered in pure Greek terms can constitute a particular Language or Dialect of a Nation It does only give a new Character of the Language The Stile of the Poets for example is very remote from the ordinary Greek Yet none ever affirmed that that was a particular Language So it cannot be said that the Hellenistick Language does make a particular Dialect common to a whole Nation as if it were a Language spoken by the Community They were content to confine it to their Synagogues and the Works of those who writ in the Language of the Synagogue Let it be only called if one please a new Character in the Greek Language But this is nothing to the Question seeing we Dispute not of the Word but of the Thing Salmasius does grant that the Greek Version of the Septuagint and of the Books of the New Testament are written in Greek full of Hebraisms we require no more for the Confirmation of the Hellenistick Language It is possible that the Hellenisticaries abuse the Word Language But it is sufficient that they do explain what they understand by this Word and that they own that they did not intend thereby the General Language of a Nation For it is certain that the Jews Greeks or Hellenists did every one speak the Greek Language of the places where they were St. Paul for example spake the Greek which was in his time used at Tarsus Philon spake the Greek of those of Alexandria and seeing he had Studied that Language with great Application he writ in a Stile that was exceedingly polished Nevertheless all the Jews who were Greeks or Hellenists did not write in the Language which is here called the Hellenistick because it was Consecrated chiefly to the use of the Synagogues and was framed according to the Language of the Holy Writings The Jews who were purely Hebrews and who writ in Greek were more Hellenisticaries than the Jews-Hellenists themselves because their Stile did
thence inferred with him that that Apostle did Write his Gospel in the Hebrew rather than in the Greek For having established his abode in the places where the Greek was spoken he instructed the several People whose Apostle he was in the Language which they spake And seeing his Gospel is only a Collection of his Sermons he writ it in the same Language And therefore I do not apprehend that Salmasius has established undoubted Principles for warranting this general Consequence (e) Scribebant igitur Apostoli idiomate suo linguâ sibi familiari vernaclâ quae protinùs à Syris ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 (Å¿) 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã we read in that Copy ãâã ãâã
Bez. Ann. in Matth. believed that they were taken out of St. John and inserted in this place of St. Matthew Nevertheless we read these words in our Vulgar and they are likewise put in the Text of St. Matthew which was Printed with St. Jerom's Commentary But if we examin the manner how he does express himself in that Commentary we shall easily judge that he has not added them in his Edition Indeed the Divines of Louvain have marked 15 Latin Manuscripts in the Margin of their Edition of the New Testament where they did not read them In the same Chapter v. 49. this verse is not in a Manuscript cited in the sixth Tome of the Polyglott of England At the end of the same verse after the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Rob. Stephen did in two of his Manuscripts read this Addition ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But another taking a Spear pierced his Side and there came forth blood and water Luke of Bruges does observe that these words are not St. Matthew's but that they were taken out of St. John Chap. 19. v. 34. In the 64 verse of the same Chapter we do not read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã by night in three of Colbert's in the Cambridge Copy in the Alexandrine in two of Rob. Stephen's Manuscripts nor in the Marquess of Veles's Neither has St. Jerom expressed these words in his new Edition Chap. 28. v. 2. we do not read these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã from the door in the Cambridge Copy nor in the Marquess of Veles's St. Jerom seeing he found them not in the Ancient Vulgar has not put them in his new Edition but they are extant in all the other Manuscripts We do likewise read after the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in two Colbert's and many other Manuscripts Cod. MS. Colb n. 2467. 4078. which are marked in the sixth Tome of the Polyglott of England ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Sepulcher ver 7. of the same Chap. we do not read in the Cambridge Copy nor in the Marquess of Veles these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã from the dead whence they were in all probability taken away as superfluous Neither has St. Jerome expressed them in his Edition But they are extant in all other Greek Copies It would be to no purpose to run through the other Books of the New Testament for marking the various readings thereof or at least the Principal amongst them Those we have already produced are sufficient to shew that they were not exempted from such changes as length of time and the errors of Transcribers do bring (y) Totum hoc membrum cum Prophetae testimonio in nullis vetustis codicibus reperimus neque legitur in Syrâ interpretatione Adjectum proculdubio ex Joann 19.24 Bez. ibid. v. 35. into Books I have in this Collection rather kept to the Manuscripts of Monsieur Colbert's Library than to the King 's because as I suppose there have been none of the former as yet published I shall handle more at large those different Readings of the Copies of the New Testament in the Second Part of this Work where I shall particularly examine our Latin Edition and the ancient Versions of the Oriental Churches by comparing them with the Greek Copies whence they were taken I have likewise beforehand spoken somewhat of the Method which S. Jerom took in reforming the Ancient Vulgar by the best Greek Copies of his time CHAP. XXXIII Of the Order of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament The Verses Chapters and other Marks of Distinction of those Copies The Canons which Eusebius added to the Gospels and the Use of those Canons THE most ancient Greek Copies of the New Testament are written without any distinction not only of Chapters and Verses but also of Words so that we may apply to those Copies that which was said elsewhere of the Books of the Old Testament that they only make one Pasuk or Verse from their several beginnings They did not then know what it was to mark with Points Comma's and other Distinctions which have been afterwards inserted in Books to make the reading more easie and distinct We shall further observe that even since Distinctions of this nature have been in use the most part of Transcribers did neglect them as well as the Accents in the ancient Greek Manuscripts And therefore it is very rare to find such Marks of Distinction in the Greek Copies for above these thousand years past The Copy of S. Paul's Epistles which is in the Royal Library and that of the Benedictins of the Abbey of S. Germain are also written without any distinction of Points and other Stops and altho the Words are accented there it seems that the Accents were added in the King's Copy seeing they are not of the same Hand with the Body of the Book This does not hinder but that Accents and Points or Marks of Distinction are much more ancient than these two Manuscripts But the Transcribers did commonly neglect them There were none but very curious and very exact persons who took care to add them to their Copies Georgius Syncellus (a) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Georg. Syncel Chronol p. 203. makes mention of a Greek Copy of the Bible that was written before this great Accuracy where the Accents and Points were placed He says that that Copy was brought to him from the Library of Cesarea in Cappadocia and that he perceived by the Inscription of the Book that it had been transcribed from an ancient Copy which had been corrected by the great S. Basil There are also Manuscript Hebrew Copies which have been copied by the Jews It is very rare to find the Points Vowels and the Accents to have been noted therein for sive or six hundred years past This only happens in the most exact Books yet there are some Works extant above four hundred years where there is mention made of those Points and Accents which were in use at that time in their Copies The most ancient Church Writers do likewise in their Works speak of all those Marks of Dictinction which are at present in the Greek Copies of the New Testament We read there of the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Section and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Chapter They sometimes observe the places where the Points ought to be marked to remove the ambiguity of a Discourse especially when the Hereticks do observe a different Punctation But after all it must be avowed that there has been nothing determined to the purpose upon this matter Every one did most commonly according to his prejudices mark that sort of Distinctions which depended on the Transcribers and the Expositors of the Scripture And therefore Petavius after having observed what S. Epiphanius and some other ancient Doctors of the Church have brought against some Hereticks about the manner of pointing the third Verse of the first Chapter of the Gospel according to S. John does add (b) Existimo
unequal For when the breadth of the paper could not contain a whole Line they placed the rest of the Letters or Words above the Line It seems they designed in this manner to write by way of Verses the Ancient Greek and Latin Copy of St. Paul's Epistles which is in the Royal Library and that of the Benedictine Monks of the Abbey of St. Germain Or rather they who copied these two Manuscripts by others that were more Ancient did not at all understand the nature of the ancient Lines or Verses and therefore they did not altogether imitate the same However it be it is certain that there is nothing more ordinary amongst the ancient Writers than to mark at the end of their Books the number of Verses which they contained I do not deny but that there is another sort of Verses which were regulated according to the sense or the sentences in the same manner as they are represented in our Books In this we have imitated the Jews who divided their Bible into this kind of Verses This latter sort has an original quite different from that of the former For seeing they did read the Scripture in their Synagogues and in their Schools they made this new division of Verses for the conveniency of their Lessons We also see something of the like nature in some Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament and in some Manuscript Church Bibles I have not only observed the beginning and the ending of the Lessons which they called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 2522 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 2560 to St. Mark ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 1675 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 1616 If the Greek word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and the ancient Verses which were measured according to the Lines or some other sort of Verses to be meant by the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã titles and the small ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã chapters He might have added that the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Chapter is also sometimes taken for the great Sections and that then it does not differ from that which the Greeks call ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Title There is nothing more ordinary amongst the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers than the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Chapter for the Greeks and that of Capitulum for the Latins when they quote the Sacred Books It would not be hard to re-establish that ancient division by the help of Manuscripts but
I shall content my self to mention here what belongs to the New Testament We read in one of the Manuscripts of the Royal Library that St. Matthew contains 68 Titles and 355 Chapters St. Mark 48 Titles and 234 Chapters St. Luke 83 Titles and 342 Chapters St. John 18 Titles and 231 Chapters Suidas Which agrees with the Observation of Suidas upon the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã unless we must in that Author instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 36. read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 236. as it is in some Manuscripts and in the Greek Edition in folio of Robert Stephen's New Testament (f) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Cod. MS. Biblioth Reg. n. 2861. Moreover we read at the beginning of the same Manuscript of the Royal Library that there is in St. Matthew ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 68 Chapters so as they call that a Chapter in that place which is called a Title in the end of the Book and there is the same thing observable in the other three Gospels By which we may know that the word Chapter is taken two ways and that it is applyed as well to the great as to the small Sections When they prefix the numbers of the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or Chapters to the Books this words does then signifie great Sections and in this manner they are marked at the beginning of the most part of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament in the first Editions of Erasmus in that of Robert Stephen in folio and in some others This is instead of a Table or Index of the Contents which at once does represent the Principal things in a Work. In this manner the most exact Greek Transcribers do mark the Summaries under the title of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Chapters at the beginning of their Copies And seeing they have likewise noted them in the Margin of their Copies or at the top or the bottom of the Pages in all the places where those Chapters begin they have for this reason given them the name of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã titles There is then no difference betwixt Title and Chapter according to this sense unless it be that the Chapters are marked at the beginning of the Books and the Titles in the Margin This I observed in comparing several Manuscript Greek Copies of the New Testament one with the other The word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã does on the contrary signifie the small Sections that are marked in the Margins of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament by Letters instead of Numbers Erasmus did also put them in his first Editions of the New Testament in which he was followed by Robert Stephen in his Edition in Folio who has likewise subjoyned them separately at the end of S. Mark where he reckons ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 236 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Chapters and at the end of S. Luke where he computes ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 342. whereas in the King's Manuscript which I quoted S. Mark does only contain ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 234 Chapters The truth is the Greek Copies do not agree amongst themselves about the thing especially in the Gospel of S. Mark. We have already shewn that several Greek Churches did not once read the twelve last Verses of this Gospel which begin with these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. and so they might have had fewer small Sections in their Copies than what are ordinarily reckoned Nevertheless there are some Manuscripts where the Section 234. is last marked over against these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. there being no other that answers to the rest of the Text. Moreover it is certain that the Churches where these Copies were in use did read those twelve Verses for they have inserted in that place the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã end and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã beginning to note that they began another Lesson there Yet we have no sure foundation here to build any certainty upon because the Observations of that sort have been taken from the Synaxarion or the Church Bibles of the Greeks And so they regulated these distinctions by the Lectionaries which were then read in the Churches to accommodate the Copies of the New Testament to the custom that obtained amongst them The Churches which did not read the twelve last Verses of S. Mark Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2861. do only reckon in that Gospel ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 233. small Sections as it appears by an ancient Manuscript of the Royal Library There is another Copy less ancient than that in the same Library Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2856. which does likewise only represent 233. and the last small Section answers to these Words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. to which Rob. Stephen in his Edition made the Section 233. to answer The Churches which did read those twelve Verses reckon more than 233. Sections but they agree not amongst themselves for some have comprehended all those Verses under one Section and in their Copies there are only 234 Sections extant others on the contrary Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2859. have divided them into many small Sections and therefore Rob. Stephen has mark'd after some Manuscripts ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 236. I have also seen a Manuscript Copy where there were ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 241. Further this division of the Sacred Books is very ancient Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 1879. for Justin Martyr makes mention of these small Sections under the name of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Eusebius in his Letter to Carpianus which was printed with the ten Canons which he so ingeniously invented for shewing at once that wherein the Evangelists did agree and that which is peculiar to each of them does use indifferently these Words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Section and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Chapter Denis of Alexandria speaking of certain Authors who rejected the Revelation of S. John says that they had examined all the Chapters Dionys Alex. apud Eus Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 25. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In a word There are few of the ancient Greek Writers where the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Chapter is not found in the sense that we have observed Eusebius is not then the Author of those small Sections but he made a very profitable use of them in the ten Canons that he invented and which St. Jerom applied to the Latin Copies of the four Gospels in the same manner as he had seen them applied to the Greek Copies Those who cannot consult the Manuscript Copies for this ought to read the first Greek Editions of the New Testament that were published by Erasmus or that were done by Rob. Stephen which is in folio Those ten Canons are rank'd before the Gospel under ten separte Titles and the Application thereof is marked in the Margin of every Gospel The small Sections are there noted by Letters instead of Numbers according to the custom of the Greeks
Languages as seems almost impossible for one Man. 'T is not to be wondered that he has committed Mistakes having had the Misfortune to be brought up in the Church of Rome which uses the Holy Scriptures chiefly in order to corrupt them equalling if not preferring Traditions to them founding its Infallibility on its self being supported by the intricate Juggles of the Canonists and the Gibberish of the Schoolmen However if his Alloy be disliked this Advantage may be expected That the Learned of our Church which pays a due respect to the Scriptures and uncorrupted Antiquity and is accomplished with all kinds of Learning requisite will be hereby excited to refine on the Subject CONTENTS Of the First Part. Chap. I. THE Verity of the New Testament defended in general against the ancient Hereticks Reflections upon the Principle made use of by the Fathers to establish the Authority of these Books Page 1. Chap. II. Concerning the Titles that are at the Head of the Gospels and other Books of the New Testament whether these Titles were made by the Authors of these Books or whether they were since added pag. 12. Chap. III. Concerning Books that have been published under the Name of Jesus Christ and the Apostles Of several other Acts forged by the ancient Hereticks Reflections on the whole matter pag. 19. Chap. IV. The ancient Fathers have not produced the Originals of the New Testament in their Disputes against the Hereticks An Examination of Proofs that are brought to shew that these Originals have been kept in some Churches pag. 30. Chap. V. Of the Books of the New Testament in particular and first of the Gospel of St. Matthew The Original of this Gospel hath been written in the Hebrew Tongue which the Jews of Jerusalem spake at that time An Answer to the Reasons that are contray to this Opinion pag. 39. Chap. VI. The Jews of the Territory of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles spake in the Chaldaick or Syriack Tongue An Answer to the Reasons that Mr. Vossius hath published against this Opinion At the same time several Difficulties are cleared appertaining to this matter pag. 46. Chap. VII Of the Sect of the Nazarenes and of their Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy of the Gospel of St. Matthew pag. 51. Chap. VIII Of the Ebionites Of their Copy of the Gospel of St. Matthew Of some other ancient Hereticks who have made use of this same Gospel pag. 72. Chap. IX Of the Greek Copy of St. Matthew and its Authority A Comparison of this Copy with the Hebrew or Chaldaick An Answer to the Objections of some Hereticks against this Gospel pag. 98. Chap. X. Of the Time and Order of every Gospel Some Greek Manuscript Copies are produced thereupon Of S. Mark and his Gospel which is commonly believed to be the second Of his Office of Interpreter to S. Peter pag. 83. Chap. XI In what Language S. Mark hath written his Gospel Of the twelve last Verses of this Gospel which are not found in several Greek Manuscript Copies pag. 91. Chap. XII Of the Gospel of S. Luke what hath obliged him to publish it since there were two others that had been written before his Of Marcion and his Copy of S. Luke's Gospel The Catholicks have also altered this Gospel in some places pag. 101. Chap. XIII Of the Gospel of S. John and of Hereticks that have rejected this Gospel Their Reasons with an Answer to them An Inquiry concerning the twelve Verses of this Gospel which are not found in some ancient Copies Several Greek Manuscript Copies are cited to clear this Difficulty Some Criticks have imagined without any grounds that the last Chapter of this Gospel did not belong to S. John. pag. 113. Chap. XIV Of the Acts of the Apostles that have been received in the Church Other Acts of the Apostles that have been forged pag. 126. Chap. XV. Of the Epistles of S. Paul in general Of Marcion and his Copy of these Epistles False Letters attributed to S. Paul. pag. 131. Chap. XVI Of the Epistle to the Hebrews in particular Whether it be S. Paul's and Canonical What Antiquity hath believed thereupon as well in the Eastern as in the Western Countries The Opinions of these later Ages concerning this Epistle pag. 142. Chap. XVII Of the Catholick or Canonical Epistles in general and in particular pag. 154. The Contents of the Second Part. Chap. XVIII A Critical Observation on a Passage in S. John's First Epistle Chap. v. ver 7. which is wanting in the most Greek Copies Eastern Editions and the most ancient Latin Copies The Preface to the Canonical Epistles in some Latin Bibles under the name of S. Jerom was not penn'd by that Father It cannot be proved that S. Cyprian had the Passage of S. John's Epistle in his Copy Page 1. Chap. XIX Of the Book of the Revelation What was the Belief of the Ancients concerning it The Hereticks that did reject it Their Reasons which are Examined There have been also Learned Catholicks of ancient time who have ascribed it to Cerinthus The Opinion of these latter times about the same Book pag. 14. Chap. XX. The Objections of the Jews and other Enemies of the Christian Religion against the Books of the New Testament Inquiry is made if the Evangelists and Apostles made use of the Greek Version of the Septuagint in the Passages which they quote out of the Old Testament St. Jerom's Opinion upon the matter That Father declared himself for the Hebrew Text of the Jews in opposition to that of the Septuagint pag. 25. Chap. XXI A Discussion of some other Objections against the Books of the New Testament The Evangelists and Apostles in the manner of their explaining the Passages of the Old Testament and applying them to the Messiah followed the Custom which then obtained amongst the Jews There are many Words in the New Testament which have a larger signification than they have in the Old and that can be attributed to nothing but to that usage and to a Tradition received amongst the Jews pag. 36. Chap. XXII A particular Examination of many Passages of the Old Testament cited by the Apostles in a sense that seems to be altogether foreign Some difficulties formed against their Writings are cleared some Principles are established which may answer the Objections of the Jews and the Emperor Julian pag. 46. Chap. XXIII Of the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testament A Refutation of the Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa The Cardinal of Perron has given a very bad Exposition of the Words of the second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy Chap. 3. v. 16. which makes mention of this Inspiration The Disputes betwixt the Jesuits of Louvain and the Divines of the same place upon this matter Three Propositions of the Jesuits censured by the Doctors of Louvain and Douay A Defence of those Propositions against the Censure of those Divines pag. 59. Chap. XXIV An Examination of the Reasons that the Doctors of Louvain and Douay made use of in their Censure of the Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain touching the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings A very free Opinion of a Learned Divine of Paris about the same thing pag. 71. Chap. XXV Spinosa's Objections against the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testam are examined pag. 80. Chap. XXVI Of the Stile of the Evangelists and the Apostles The Opinion of modern Writers and of the ancient Doctors of the Church upon this matter with many Critical Reflections pag. 84. Chap. XXVII Of the Language of the Hellenists or Grecians if that which bears that name be in effect a Language The Reasons of Salmasius against that Language do rather establish than destroy it The Greek of the New Testament may be called the Greek of the Synagogue the Jews Hellenists read in their Synagogues the Hebrew Text of the Bible as well as the Jews pag. 94. Chap. XXVIII A more particular Discussion of the Reasons alledged by Salmasius against the Language that is called Hellenistick Several Difficulties also relating to this matter are cleared pag. 103. Chap. XXIX Of the Manuscript Greek Copies in general and of those who have spoken of them Collections which have been made of divers Readings drawn from those Manuscripts Observations upon the whole matter The Hereticks have been accused sometimes but without any ground for corrupting the Books of the New Testament pag. 110. Chap. XXX Of the Greek Copies of the New Testament in particular The most ancient that we have at this day were written by the Latins and were used by them Those which were printed came from the Greek Churches The ancient Latin Version which was in the Churches of the West before St. Jerom were made by those first Copies which were not very correct Of the ancient Cambridge Copy why it does differ so much from other Greek Copies pag. 128. Chap. XXXI Of the second part of the Cambridge Copy which contains St. Paul's Epistles Examples of the various Readings that are in that second Part. Critical Reflections upon the whole matter pag. 144. Chap. XXXII Of other Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament Examples of the various Readings of those Manuscripts with Critical Reflections on those Differences pag. 156. Chap. XXXIII Of the Order of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament The Verses Chapters and other marks of distinction of those Copies The Canons which Eusebius added to the Gospels and the Use of those Canons pag. 175. FINIS
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
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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Doctrine of the Apostles to their own Inventions he represents to them that (e) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. Ã 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
Gentile and an Idolater I am willing to grant that the Jews give the name of Chaldaick to the Versions which the Christians call Syriack But what can be concluded from thence since these same Jews do indifferently call that Tongue in which they are written Chaldaick or Syriack The Christians of the Syrian Nation do very often call their Syriack Tongue Chaldaick The Syriack Missal which hath been Printed at Rome for the use of the Maronites is intituled * Missale Chaldaic juxta ritum Eccl. nationis Maronitarum edit Romae ann 1594. A Chaldaick Missal This manifestly makes it appear that the Words Chaldaick and Syriack are oftentimes confounded together by the Jews and by the Christians that bear the Name of Syrians Lastly the Example of Josephus hath been opposed to Mr. Vossius Joseph Praef. lib. de Bell. Jud. who was a Jew of Jerusalem and who assures us that before he published his History of the Wars of the Jews in Greek he had written it in Chaldaick which he calls the Language of his Country Now forasmuch as he cannot deny the matter of Fact which this Historian hath so clearly delivered he answers after his usual way that Josephus had composed this History in Chaldaick only for the Jews on the other side of Euphrates But is there any probability that a Man that makes profession to publish an Account of the Wars of the People of his own Nation for their use and for this reason to write in their Language should not have written it for those of Jerusalem which was not only the Capital City but also his own Country He would have it design'd only for the perusal of the Jews that were far distant and since there is no appearance of truth in this he is obliged to have recourse to certain equivocal Terms used by Josephus This Historian saith that in publishing his History in the Chaldaick Tongue he hath had regard ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is to say according to Mr. Vossius's opinion to those Barbarians or Jews that were beyond the Empire because this expression ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã can only denote People afar off After this manner he eludes a most clear testimony under a pretence that these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã according to the Grammatical Sense may be extended equally to time and place But the design of Josephus makes it evident enough that he set forth his History in Chaldaick generally for all those of his Nation and even rather for those of Palestine than for the Jews that dwelt beyond Euphrates They all spake in the Chaldaick or Syriack Tongue Therefore this famous Writer makes no distinction of Language in his Preface when he speaks of those of his Nation he therein calls the Chaldaick the Tongue of his Country He declares moreover in another place (z) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Joseph Antiq. Jud. lib. 20. cap. ult that he had attained to the knowledge of the Greek by study and that he could not pronounce it well because he was accustomed to the Accent of his Mother-Tongue Now it is certain that he was not of the number of these Parthian Babylonian and Arabian Jews but of those of Jerusalem who consequently had another vulgar Language different from the Greek He praiseth also in this same Passage those of his own Nation upon occasion of the Greek Tongue because they did not apply themselves to the knowledge of divers Languages but to the study of their Sacred Books CHAP. VII Of the Sect of the Nazarenes and of their Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy of the Gospel of S. Matthew BEsides all the Reasons that we have just now alledged to make it appear that S. Matthew at first composed his Gospel in Chaldaick for the Jews of Jerusalem who had embraced the Christian Religion we might also produce the Example of the Nazarene Sectaries who made use of this same Hebrew or Chaldaick Gospel in their Assemblies S. Epiphanius who hath written very accurately of this ancient Sect informs us (a) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Epiph. Haer. 29. n. 7. that they received with the New Testament all the Books of the Old that were in the Canon of the Jews viz. the Law the Prophets and the other Parts of Holy Writ and that they differed in nothing from the Jews as to Doctrine and Ceremonies save only that they believed in Jesus Christ they made publick Profession to believe in one God and in his Son Jesus Christ they had moreover a perfect knowledge in the Hebrew Tongue He observes also that these ancient Nazarenes whose principal abode was in the City of Berea and who were dispersed throughout all the lower Syria were descended from the Primitive Christians of the same Name who retired from Jerusalem to Pella Epiph. Haer. 29. n. 7. From thence saith Epiphanius the Sect of the Nazarenes derive their original ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã This agrees very ' well with the Testimonies of the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors who affirm that S. Matthew preached the Gospel to the Jews of Jerusalem and all Palestin in their vulgar Tongue These Nazarene Sectaries who sprang from those primitive Christians of Jerusalem and who also spake their Language always preserved and read it in their Churches or Assemblies The same S. Epiphanius adds that the Jews mortally hated the Nazarenes and that (b) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Epiph. Haer. 29. n. 9. in their Synagogues where they assemble thrice every day they solemnly cursed them saying Let God curse the Nazarenes This Imprecation of the Jews against the Christians under the name of Nazarenes is yet to be found even at this day in their Books S. Hierom also doth mention it in his Commentaries on the Prophet Isaiah Hieron lib. 2. Comm. in Es cap. 5. where he saith speaking of the Jews Ter per singulos dies in omnibus Synagogis sub nomine Nazarenorum anathematizant vocabulum Christianum This hatred came from hence (c) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Epiph. ibid. because the Nazarenes being Jews as well as they and embracing the whole Law of Moses preached besides this that Jesus was the Messiah We ought then to seek for the Original of the Gospel of S. Matthew amongst these Nazarenes who being desended from the primitive Christians of Jerusalem have preserved it in their Churches S. Epiphanius who seemed to be persuaded of this Truth saith freely (d) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Epiph. ibid. that they had for their use the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew most entire and that it was not to be doubted that they still kept it in his time written in Hebrew Letters he doubts only whether they had retrenched from this Gospel the Genealogy of Jesus Christ which was not in the Copy of the Ebionites who read it also But it is most probable that the Nazarenes had not taken away this Genealogy from their Copies For (e) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 14. Cerinthus
correspond in this that they do not make Jesus the Son of David for S. John calls him God and S. Mark the Son of God from whence he concludes that Jesus Christ was not born as S. Matthew and S. Luke have written S. Augustin answers Faustus that he is not the first that hath taken notice of this seeming Contradiction of the two Evangelists that an infinite number of learned Men especially in the Greek Church have spared no pains to reconcile them which he endeavours to do in this place and by this he condemns the rash Judgment of the Manicheans who rejected as false all that was contrary to their Prejudices Indeed those People were so obstinate in their Opinions that the same Faustus reviled the Orthodox who received the Genealogy that is at the beginning of S. Matthew as not being Catholicks but Followers of Matthew and he maintained also Apud Aug. l. 23. cont Faust c. 2. that it was contrary to their Creed Quod si tu credas saith this Heretick ita ut scriptum est eris jam quidem Matthaeanus sic enim mihi dicendum est Catholicus vero nequaquam (h) De duobus vos unum fateri oportet aut hunc non esse Matthaeum qui haec videtur asserere aut vos non tenere Apostolicam fidem Apud Aug. lib. 23. cont Faust c. 22. You must either acknowledge added he that St. Matthew hath not written this Genealogy which he called in derision Genesidium or that you do not hold the Apostolical Faith. But it were an easie matter without arguing at large on all the Difficulties that Faustus propounded to represent to him that this Genealogy had been always read in the Churches ever since the Apostles besides that (i) Fides Catholica eademque Apostolica est Dominum nostrum Salvatorem Jesum Christum filium Dei esse secundùm Divinitatem filium David secundùm carnem quod ita probamus ex Evangelicis Apostolicis literis ut nemo possit contradicere nisi qui ipsis literis contradicit Aug. lib. 23. cont Faust c. 5. it was the Belief of the Catholick and Apostolick Church as S. Augustin saith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God according to his Divinity and the Son of David according to the Flesh that this Truth was so clearly proved by the Writings of the Apostles that they could not contradict it at least if they did not reject them altogether By this same Principle the Arguments of certain Anabaptists of whom Sixtus Senensis and Baronius makes mention might be confuted but since their Objections are almost the same as those of the Manicheans it would be to no purpose to insist on them They have accounted as false that which S. Matthew hath related concerning the Wise Men that came to worship Jesus in the Cradle as also the History of the Children whom Herod caused to be put to death against the credit of these two Relations they have opposed the silence of the other Evangelists and of Josephus an Historian of that time Sixtus Senensis replies judiciously Sixt. Sen. Bibl. S.l. 7. that by the same reason they ought not to believe the Resurrection of Lazarus because none but S. John has spoken of it neither doth the silence of Josephus prove any thing for he hath not mentioned divers other Actions which nevertheless do not cease to be true They that make such Objections as these ought to alledge positive Proofs as for example from the diversity of ancient Copies some of which they should produce wherein these Histories are not to be found then they might infer with some probability that they had been added afterwards but on the contrary they are to be seen in all our most ancient Records and the greatest Enemies of the Christian Religion have cited them ever since the first Ages Apud Orig. l. 1. cont Cels Celsus hath read them in the Gospel after the same manner as we do at present Porphyrius and Julian have also made some Objections against the Gospel of S. Matthew or rather against all the Books of the New Testament but we shall have occasion to examine them in the sequel of this Work. CHAP. X. Of the Time and Order of every Gospel Some Greek Manuscript Copies are produced thereupon Of S. Mark and his Gospel which is commonly believed to be the second Of his Office of Interpreter to S. Peter ALthough some Ecclesiastical Writers have carefully set down the time in which they have believed that every Evangelist hath published his Gospel we cannot nevertheless determine any thing thereupon Because we have no ancient and certain Acts on which we might relye I shall only relate what I have read on this Subject at the end of some Manuscript Copies The most ancient of these Manuscripts that I have seen is at most but 700 Years old as may be judged by the Character it is written in great Letters with the Accents and Points and may be seen in Mr. Colbert's Library having been brought from Cyprus There are also many in the King's Library wherein the time in which every Evangelist hath written his Gospel is specified but as I have just now said these Manuscripts are not ancient Indeed there are no such Remarks as these in the most ancient the custom of those Primitive times being only to put at the end of every Book of the New Testament The End of such a Book the beginning of this other Book To return to the Manuscripts that contain the Dates of the Gospels see that which is found in the Copy of Cyprus which is in Mr. Colbert's Library (a) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã MS. Colb n. 5149. The Gospel according to Matthew hath been published by himself at Jerusalem eight years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ This Word at Jerusalem is of a later Writing than the rest (b) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Id MS. The Gospel according to Mark hath been published ten years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ (c) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Id. MS. The Gospel according to Luke hath been published fifteen years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ In another Copy that is in the King's Library and contains all the New Testament the Date of every Gospel is therein expressed after this manner in the beginning of them (d) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã MS. Reg. n 2871. The Holy Gospel according to Matthew written in the Hebrew Tongue hath been published at Jerusalem and interpreted by John eight years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ (e) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Id. MS. The Gospel according to Mark hath been published ten years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ and preached by Peter at Rome (f) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Id. MS. The Gospel according to Luke hath been published fifteen years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ and preached by Paul at Rome (g) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Id. MS. The Gospel according
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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Gospel and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Apostle nevertheless afterwards this last Book hath been named ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
acknowledged none but the Gospel of S. Luke which they had adjusted to their Notions and their Apostolick Adamantius presseth them very much thereupon and concludes against them that according to their Principle no Scriptures give a Testimony to S. Paul since he is not mentioned in the Gospel The Marcionite is obliged to have recourse to S. Paul who hath written of himself 2 Cor. 1.1 Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ But Adamantius opposeth to him those other words of S. Paul He that bears witness of himself is not approved He makes it appear from hence (p) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Ibid. that he is not to be believed that only gives his own Testimony of himself S. Epiphanius moreover reproves Marcion for having quoted a Passage out of S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians under the Title of an Epistle written by this Apostle to the Laodiceans Epiph. Haer. 42. n. 12. which saith he was never in the number of the Epistles of S. Paul ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But we can only infer from thence that Marcion was mistaken in the Title of this Epistle reading under the name of the Laodiceans that which is written to the Ephesians Nevertheless S. Epiphanius hath reason to say that there never was any Epistle to the Laodiceans The Fragment that Jacobus Faber Sixtus Senensis and some other Authors have published under this Title and hath been Printed even in some Bibles is a Piece of no Authority not but that in the Primitive Ages of the Church there hath been read an Epistle under this Title attributed to S. Paul but the most Learned Fathers have rejected it as an Apocryphal Act. Therefore S. Jerom (q) Legunt quidam ad Laodicenses sed ab omnibus exploditur Hieron de Script Eccles in Paulo affirms that in his time it was generally exploded by all the world insomuch that there is no other true Epistle to the Laodiceans but that which is written to the Ephesians the Title of which the Marcionites had only changed The Hereticks saith Tertullian in speaking of the Marcionites (r) Epistola quam nos ad Ephesios praescriptam habemus haeretici ad Laodicenos Tertull. lib. 5. adv Marc. c 11. have intituled to the Laodiceans that Epistle which we read directed to the Ephesians They that have forged an Epistle of S. Paul to the Laodiceans have taken occasion from these words of his Epistle to the Colossians chap. 4. vers 16. And when this Epistle is read amongst you cause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea Chrys Homil 12. in Epist ad Coloss S. Chrysostom hath observed on these last words (s) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Chrysost Hom. 12. in Epist ad Coloss that some Writers had taken notice before him that it was not a Letter that S. Paul had sent to the Laodiceans but one that they of Laodicea had written to S. Paul because it is not in the Text to the Laodiceans but from Laodicea This hath caused Theodoret who repeats the same thing in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians to conclude that the Letter to the Laodiceans that some produced in his time was a counterfeit ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Baronius hath had reason to prefer the Judgment of these two Greek Fathers before that of some Latin Writers who have thought that S. Paul hath written fifteen Epistles one of which as they say hath been lost P. Amilote seems to have favoured this Opinion when he translated this Passage of the Epistle to the Colossians Ye shall likewise read that which I have written to the Laodiceans But if there were an ambiguous expression in his Text he ought also to retain it in his Version and not to limit it by giving us an Epistle of S. Paul to the Laodiceans which never was according to the Sentiments of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers I shall take no notice of two other Epistles that have been heretofore published under the Name of S. Paul viz. a third to the Corinthians and a third to the Thessalonians because they have much less foundation than that which is supposed to have been written to the Laodiceans I shall only observe that some Impostors in his time dispersed abroad false Letters in his name that they might thereby authorise their false Doctrines which obliged him to write his Name at the bottom of his Epistles with a certain particular Mark 2 Thess 3.17 as he declares himself at the end of his second Epistle to the Thessalonians I shall not here insist on the Ebionites concerning whom I have already sufficiently discoursed Since these Hereticks had declared openly against S. Paul and had also composed false Acts to defame his Person and Doctrine they were very far from receiving his Epistles which contradicted their Opinions The Encratites Severians (t) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 4. c. 29. who had no less an aversion for this Holy Apostle absolutely rejected his Epistles Origen moreover makes mention of a certain Sect that took the name of Helcesaites (u) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Orig. apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. cap. 38. who acknowledged but a part of the Canon of the Holy Scriptures as well of the Old as the New Testament But they altogether disapproved of S. Paul and (x) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Orig. ibid. had forged I know not what Book which they feigned to have fallen down from Heaven It is no wonder that so many ancient Hereticks have publickly exploded the Writings of S. Paul because they pretended that not having seen Jesus Christ in the flesh he could not call himself his Apostle They accused him moreover of having taught things that were contrary to the Law of God. In a word they esteemed him as an Innovator who under pretence said they of introducing Christianity among the Gentiles had abolished the Sabbath the Circumcision and the other Ceremonies of the Old Law. Therefore this Holy Apostle speaks often in his Epistles concerning his Apostleship which his Enemies opposed in vain Tho he had not seen Jesus Christ yet he invincibly proveth that he hath not brought any Novelties into the Gospel since he hath avouched nothing before he had thereupon conferred with the other Apostles This hath caused Tertullian to say that S. Paul (y) Propterea Hierosolymam ascendit ad cognoscendos Apostolos consultandos ne forte in vacuum cucurrisset id est ne non secundùm illos evangelizaret Denique ut cum auctoribus contulit convenit de regulâ fidei dexteras miscuere exinde officia praedicandi distinxerunt Tertull. lib. 4. adv Marc. c. 2. went on purpose to Jerusalem to deliberate with the Apostles on all things that appertained to the preaching of the Gospel that he might do nothing that was opposite to their Doctrine He adds that after this Apostle had had a
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
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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Athan. in Syn. Scrip. S. that the second Epistle of S. Peter was written by this Apostle as well as the first and that he sent it to those that had then embraced Christianity Cajetan who hath started so many Difficulties against the Epistle to the Hebrews and against that of S. James is much more moderate with respect to this he insists that the Argument that is taken from the difference of the Stile of the two Epistles of S. Peter is not a sufficient proof
Abby of S. Germans only it is placed in the Margin of one of these Copies Cod. MSS. Bibl. Ben. S. Germ. Paris and the Addition is as old therein as the Text it self 'T is true that it is extant in a Copy written eight Hundred Years ago in the time of Lotharius II. But it is strangely disfigured in that place Cod. MSS. Bibl. Ben. S. Germ. in that Copy the Reading was formerly thus Sunt tres qui testimonium dant the words in terrâ being interlined spiritus aqua sanguis tres unum sunt tres sunt qui de coelo testificantur pater verbum spiritus tres unum sunt But some time afterwards the words de coelo testificantur i. e. bear witness of Heaven were defaced to make room for these testimonium dicunt in coelo i. e. bear witness in Heaven All which different Alterations are evident proofs that there was nothing of that Addition in the first Copies which were published of S. Jerome's Bible for which reason it is not to be found in a certain Version of the French Church which is at least a Thousand Years old and which was published by F. Mabillon a Benedictine Monk and the first who in effect seems to have inserted that Passage in his Works is Victor Bishop of Vite who lived a Hundred Years after S. Jerome Take his own words in his Second Book of the Persecution of the Vandals Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius Divinitatis esse cum Patre Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus Joannis Evangelistae testimonio comprobatur Victor Vitensis l. 2. persec Afric Provinc edit Basil ann 1539. Ait namque tres sunt qui testimonium prohibent in coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus Sanctus hi tres unum sunt i. e. And further to shew that 't is most evident that the Holy Ghost is the same God with the Father and the Son the testimony of S. John the Evangelist is sufficient for he says that there are three that bear witness in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one St. Fulgence a little after did also quote him But I refer that to a larger Discourse in the II. Book of this Work where I shall particularly treat of the Versions of the New Testament I know that a great many Men of Learning have alledged that St. Cyprian who lived a long time before St. Jerom had quoted that passage in his Books The Bishop of Oxford brought the testimony of St. Cyprian (h) Cui gravissimae calumniae de D. Hieronymo falsario S. Scripturarum interpolatore amoliendae sufficere poterit Cyprianum citasse non modò ante Hieronymi tempora sed Arii ipsius litem de dogmate illo quod adeò displicet Socino de trino uno Deo scriptorem Joann Episc Oxon. Not. in Cyp. de unit Eccles to justifie St. Jerom's Preface and at the same time to shew that that Father could not be accused of any unfair dealing because he only re-established the Ancient Latin Edition in its first purity Father Amelote who belongs to the Chappel freely declares that the same passage is wanting in St. Athanasius St. Cyril St. Gregory St. Nazianzen St. Chrysostom Didymus and as to the Fathers of the Latine Church in St. Augustin St. Leon Beda and in divers others and yet does assure us that it is extant in a Treatise of St. Cyprian concerning the Unity of the Church But can we imagine if St. Cyprian had had it in his Copy of the New Testament that St. Augustin would not have made use of it against the Arians of his time The truth is after I had strictly examined that passage of St. Cyprian which is the matter in Question I fully persuaded my self that that Pious Prelate had only made mention of these words hi tres unum sunt i.e. and these three are one about which there is no contest and that from thence he would prove the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost to be one and the same It is written says he of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost and these three are one He applies to the Father Son and Holy Ghost what we read in all the Greek and Latine Copies concerning the testimony of the Spirit the Water and the Blood of which it is said that they are one hi tres unum sunt which differs very much from an express quotation of those Words as if they were in the Text it self And that there may be no doubt left but that this is St. Cyprian's true sense of the words it is but consulting the Learned Facundus who was of the same African Church and gives their explication at large evincing the mystery of the Trinity from them Facund prodefens Tri. capit l. 1. c. 3. after his example He does suppose through his whole Discourse that in St. John's Epistle Chap. v. there are only these words extant Tres sunt qui testificantur in terrâ spiritus aqua sanguis i. e. There are three which bear witness on earth the Spirit the Water and the Blood. But he adds at the same time that they are to be understood of the Father Son and Holy Ghost De Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto dicit tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ spiritus aqua sanguis hi tres unum sunt in spiritu significans Patrem in aquâ Spiritum Sanctum in sanguine vero Filium significans His meaning is that the three Persons are signified by the three Witnesses of the Earth the Spirit the Water and the Blood. And the more to confirm his Opinion he adds that St. Cyprian was of the mind that this is proper sense of that passage in St. John. Quod Joannis Apostoli testimonium beatus Cyprianus Carthaginiensis Antistes Martyr in Epistolâ sive libro quem de * Vnitate Trinitate scripsit de Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto dictum intelligit If the Bishop of Oxford had compared the words of Facundus with those of St. Cyprian he had not brought such weak Arguments against Erasmus and Socinus in the defence of St. Jerome who stood in no need of that service seeing he was not the Author of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles nor of the Addition inserted in St. John's Epistle Chap. v. Victor the Bishop not having considered the matter so narrowly brings in the Witness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as if St. John had expresly made mention of them whereas St. Cyprian and Facundus bring it only as an explication of the Witness of the Spirit the Water and the Blood. The same thing hapned to those who caused to Print St. Athanasius's Works with a Table of the passages of Holy Scripture which are quoted therein They have set down at large there the seventh Verse of the fifth Chapter of the first Epistle of St.
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
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
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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã some errors in the Writing of the Apostles which were to be attributed to a defect of their Memory We shall find nothing like this in the three Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain for although they be very well satisfied that there was no need of any Inspiration for Writing those things that they knew they do not upon that account imagin that the Writers were at any time mistaken through a defect of Memory Erasmus also used his utmost endeavour in one of his Apologies to wipe off that accusation He does protest that he only reported that which St. Jerom had observed upon the matter and that there had been nothing said but what was agreeable to St. Augustine's Opinion Howsoever it is that Critick does assure us (b) Nunc testor me abhorrere ab ullâ oblivione tribuendâ Apostolis Erasm Apol. adv Monach. quosd Hisp that he never intended to charge the Apostles with any defect of Memory I do not inquire if Erasmus was wronged in this It is enough that I have shewn the Proposition that is supposed to have been condemned on his account and have withal made it appear that there is nothing of that nature contained in the three Propositions of the Jesuits that were Censured Those very Divines did also by way of Objection bring the Authority of the Council of Trent Sess IV. the words of St. Peter Epist II. ch 1. v. 21. and those of St. Paul Epist II. to Timothy ch 3. v. 16. But there is nothing in all those places to which the Jesuits of Louvain do not agree The strongest Passage is that of the Epistle to Timothy and yet it is the same upon which Cornelius à Lapide made Observations as I have shewn As to the Testimony of the ancient Fathers who said that the Tongue and the Hand of the Holy were the Holy Ghosts Pen the Jesuits do not deny it The same Cornelius à Lapide has explained it at large in his Commentary upon the second Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Timothy where he makes it appear that it is not contrary to his Opinion about the Inspiration of Scripture And the truth is we cannot imagin that the Holy Ghost deprived the Evangelists and the Apostles of the use of their Reason and Memory The Reasons of the Doctors of the Faculty of Theology of Douay are no more Conclusive than those of the Divines of Louvain They chiefly depend upon some Passages of St. Augustin But since there is nothing that is positive in all those Passages it will not be worth the while to insist on them They bring for example by way of Objection some places of his Books Concerning the consent of the Evangelists Yet there is no Work where that Father has more shewn than in that Treatise that the Sacred Writers made use of their Reason and Memory when they writ their Gospels That Work has also given occasion to Erasmus and some other Writers to affirm that the Memory of the Apostles was not always sure and that they put sometimes one word for another It is true that St. Augustin is withal of the Opinion that that defect in the Apostles was guided by the Holy Ghost But I think it had been much better not to make them fall into error than to
the Holy Writers with the least fault even in the things of small importance But after all he does not disapprove the Opinion of the Catholick Doctors who alledged mistakes of that kind which are not prejudicial to our Faith There is nothing that does more diminish the Authority of the Holy Scripture even in things Essential and Revealed than constrained Answers that provoke laughter in those who are not of the same belief with us By this we perceive that the Archbishop of Spalatro was in a strait whose part he was to take about a Question of this delicacy As for Doctor Holden of all he says upon that Subject this is most full of good sense (i) Veritates Philosophicae nec probandae nec improbandae sunt ex puris nudisque Sacrae Scripturae verbis sententiis Quamvis enim nullam complectatur Scriptura falsitatem attamen ipsius loquendi modus utplurimùm vulgaris est at que ad communem hominum captum potiùs quà m ad loquelae proprietatem sermonis rigorem adaptatus Hold. ibid. That we ought not to approve or condemn upon the bare words of Scripture all that belongs solely to Philosophy For as he observes in the same place though there is nothing false in Scripture the expressions therein are frequently accommodated to the Opinions commonly received amongst the People and they are not always very exact which is agreeable to St. John Chrysostome's Opinion who observed (k) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But he adds withal that he thinks he has the Spirit of God ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã does signifie that in the same manner as ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as it does signifie to speak pure Greek And therefore St. Gregory of Nazianzen calls him in derision ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a lover of the Greek Language and he tells him (b) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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-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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã because they did not speak good Greek but did Hebraize or Chaldaize ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ut in omnibus ferè observationibus contendit Heinsius quomodo profiteri potest eos ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã
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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
with Greek Manuscripts agreeable to the Latin he does judge that the former were corrected by the latter He thinks for example that the English Greek Copy where we read Epist I. of S. John chap. 5. vers 7. of the Testimony of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (b) Ad Latinorum codices fuisse castigatum Posteaquam enim Graeci concordiam interunt cum Ecclesià Romanâ studuerunt hac in parte cum Romanis consentire Erasm Apol. adv Jac. Lop. Stun was reformed by the Greeks themselves according to the Latin Edition since the Reconciliation of those two Churches But he will never be able to prove this Besides the places which he alledges to have been corrected have no relation to the Disputes that were betwixt the Greeks and the Latins To which we may add that the Greeks were never greater enemies to the Latins than since their Reconciliation in the Council of Florence The most part of those who had subscribed to that Council were hardly well returned home when they assembled at Constantinople where they protested against all that they had done at Florence The Record of that Protestation is yet extant with the Names of those who subscribed it We cannot enough admire In 1550. Robert Stephen's Fair Edition of the New Testament in Greek in Folio wherein he gives us proofs of his Learning and of his Judgment The Cardinal Ximenes In 1515. to whom we are obliged for his first Edition of the New Testament had made a search into good Manuscript Copies but he has not marked in the Margin of his Edition the various renditions of those Copies having only kept in the Text that which he judged to be the best Stephen has wisely redressed this fault For he has placed the various Readings of six Manuscript Copies in the Margin of his Edition and thus though he commonly follows the Edition of Ximenes in his Text he is not obliged to adhere to it unless he were persuaded that the renditions of the Cardinal's Copy are the best in those places It is no great matter for a Reading to be inserted in the Body of a Book or to be placed in the Margin provided that it be known that those which are in the Margin are taken from good Manuscript Copies as well as those which are in the Text. It were also much to be desired for observing a greater uniformity that those who have published new Editions of the New Testament in Greek had all of them exactly followed the Alcala or the Complutum Edition which is the first and that they had contented themselves to refer to the Margin the various Readings of their Manuscripts Yet Beza has produced a greater number of different Readings in several Copies of the N. T. than Robert Stephen has done But he has only observed them in his Notes which are full of things that serve to no purpose whereas he ought to have placed them after Stephen's example in the Margin of the Greek Text. Neither has he marked all of them that he might not give offence to those who were weak amongst his Party who would not have had so great a Veneration for the Word of God if they had observed so great a number of various Readings He declares that (c) Ad haec omnia accessit exemplar ex Stephani nostri Bibliothecâ cum viginti quinque plus minùs manuscriptis codicibus omnibus penè impressis ab Henrico Stephano ejus filio paternae sedulitatis haerede quam diligentissimè collatum Bez. in Epist de lic ad Elizab. Angl. Reg. he was indebted for the greatest part of those Manuscripts to Henry Stephen from whom he had a Copy that had been compared with twenty five Manuscripts and with the most part of those that were Printed He had besides that a very ancient Copy whereof he makes mention in his Notes the first part of which is yet extant containing the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles reserved in Cambridge and the second part in which the Epistles of St. Paul are comprehended in the King's Library We shall examin in the following Chapter that ancient Manuscript with which Beza was not well enough acquainted The English have inserted in the sixteenth Tome of their Polyglott Bible a larger Collection taken from the different Manuscript Copies of the New Testament than any had been before that time They likewise joyned thereto the observations of some Learned Criticks upon this matter and amongst others that of Luke of Bruges Which cleared the thing very much For a single Catalogue of divers renditions is not sufficient They are also all in a considerable error who have published the different Readings of the Manuscript Copies which they consulted They have not been at the pains to examin those Manuscripts particularly and to observe the good and the evil qualities thereof Which frequently happens because they who produce those Collections have not themselves read those Manuscripts Seeing they commonly depend upon the Credit of those whom they employed in that Work which is very troublesom their Collections are not always exact The New Testament Printed at Oxford in octavo In 1675. ought to be preferred to all other Editions because it contains a greater variety than any we have as yet seen upon it There is moreover this advantage that these various renditions are at once joyned to the Text. But seeing they have hardly done any thing else in that Collection but Compiled that which had been Printed before that time they have not Corrected the faults that were in other Collections with that care that was requisite but on the contrary have encreased them to a far greater number It would be to no purpose to give examples in this place of those errors because I am informed that they intend to publish a new Greek Edition of the New Testament which will be more ample than the former which must needs be very useful if it chance to be well done Stephen Courcel caused to Print the New Testament in Greek In 1658. with a considerable Collection of various Readings which had formerly been in the Possession of Elzevir He has only marked the Varieties without mentioning of the Manuscript Copies whence they are taken Which renders his Work the less perfect seeing he did content himself to point at them in his Preface He had an intention to put forth a larger Edition (d) In quâ si Deus dederit ut eam aliquando adornare vacet Vulgatam Versionem Latinam unà cum variantibus ejus lectionibus aliaque ejus generis plara adjungere meditamur Curc Praef. N. T. to which he promised to joyn the Latin Text of the Vulgar to the various Readings of the different Latin Copies but it did not appear that he was so good as his Word In 1675. For there was published a new Edition of that Greek New Testament which differed in nothing from the former unless it was that they writ under every particular Page some Varieties that had been separately Printed in the first Edition at the end of the Acts of the Apostles and of the Epistles of St. Paul. If Mr. Saubert had continued on the Books of the Old Testament that
which he did upon St. Matthew's Gospel that Work had been as considerable as any that has been done as yet For besides all the various Readings of the Greek Copies he has observed those which may be taken from several Versions or which confirm those various renditions He has also added some Critical Notes by way of illustration in which he appeared to be exact although he is mistaken in some Passages It is a matter of difficulty for one Man to perform a Work of that importance seeing it does require that he himself should read all the Manuscripts which is impossible So one must be obliged to depend upon the Authority of other Men. Nevertheless that Critick has observed some errors that are in Walton's Collections In 1672. and he prefixed a learned Preface to his Work that was Printed at Helmstat where he discourses judiciously of the various Greek Copies of the New Testament and of the different renditions I might produce several other Authors who have treated of this same Subject But seeing the most part have only done it occasionally I will refer it to another place where there will be occasion to speak somthing of their Works I will only here make mention of those who have spoken of various Greek Readings which establish the ancient Latin Version Beza who did not spare that ancient Version was obliged to acknowledg (e) Aliquot locis animadvertimus veteris interpretis lectionem quamvis cum nostris Graecis exemplaribus interdum ei non conveniat tamen ipsis rebus multò meliùs quadrare nempè quòd ille quisquis fuit emendatius aliquod exemplar nactus est Bez. Epist ad Regin Eliz. that there were sometimes Greek Copies more exact than those which we have at present (f) Quà m immeritò Erasmus multis veterem interpretem reprehendit tanquam à Graecis dissentientem Dissentiebat fateor ab iis exemplaribus quae ille nactus erat sed non uno loco comperimus aliorum codicum quidem vetustissimorum auctoritate eam intorpretationem niti quam ille reprehendit Bez. ibid. He does alledge that Erasmus did sometimes reject the ancient Latin Interpreter without any shew of Reason under a pretence that it did very little agree with the Greek Which is true saith Beza if we only consider the New Greek Copies But that Interpreter does agree with other more ancient Greek Copies Upon this ground it would seem that the Protestants do not always act with Reason when they forsake the ancient Latin Edition and adhere to the Greek at this day Beza himself who owned this fault in the Version of Erasmus is not yet free from the same himself Not but that he believes that those ancient Manuscripts ought always to be preferred to others for there is none but the Original of the Apostles alone which can admit of this perfection They pretend only to prove thereby that those who made New Translations of the New Testament from the Greek were not always exact in their Versions because they only consulted a very small number of Greek Editions whereas they ought to have likewise consulted several Manuscript Copies which afforded a great many Readings Peter Faxard a Noble Spanish Marquess of Veles was the first who was at the pains to make this sort of Collections of which we now treat Mariana does assure us that (g) Ad Novi Testamenti Graeci exteriorem marginem minio varias lectiones suâ manu suoque labore 16. codicum factâ collatione in quibus octo erant ex Regiâ Bibliothecâ D. Laurentii plerique vetustate insignes adjecerat Petrus Fagiardus Velesius Marchio Ingens thesaurus magnopere aestimandus si vir ille optimus Graecae linguae praestans quibus ex libris singulae lectiones essent depromptae notasset Mar. pro Edit Vulg. c. 17. that Marquess had compared sixteen Greek Manuscripts with our Vulgar Edition Eight of these Manuscripts were in the King of Spain's Library And he had carefully mark'd in the Margin of a Greek Copy of the New Testament the various Readings of those Manuscripts upon which the Ancient Latin Edition is Founded as to those places in which it does not agree with the Greek at this day But that which was wanting to so laudable a Work and which could not be sufficiently valued is that the Copies whence those various Readings had been taken were not pointed out Mariana who had not seen those Manuscripts does nevertheless say that they were for the most part Ancient This was in all probability the only Remark which the Marquess of Veles had made upon the Quality of his Manuscripts This Jesuit who had transcribed the Marquess's Copy in which those various Readings were recorded (h) Dono Reverendissimi Joannis Marianae è Societate nostrâ habco exemplar Novi Testamenti in quo variae lectiones sunt manu transcriptae exceptae ex exemplari quas item manu propriâ adnotarat illustrissimus Marchio Velesius Petrus Faxardus factâ collatione 16. exemplarium in quibus erant octo ex Bibliothecâ Regiâ D. Laurentii Lacerd Advers Sac. c. 91. made a present thereof to Lacerda of the same Society who published them in his Book Entitled Adversaria Sacra and they were afterwards inserted in many Collections of divers Readings of the New Testament Father Morin did likewise insert in his Exercitations upon the Bible the various Readings of some Greek Copies of the New Testament in the places that confirm our Latin Version He pretends that he had shewn the conformity of the vulgar to the ancient Greek Manuscripts in more than 440 places Conformitatem illam Vulgatae cum vetustissimis Exemplaribus in locis plusquam 440 Demonstramus He made it his business to mark especially those of the Cambridge Copy upon the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles and he followed upon the Epistles of St. Paul the Copy which Beza calls Claromontanum of Clermont Seeing his design was to prove to the Protestants that there was a great number of various Readings as well in the Old as in the New Testament he could not upon the New make choice of any Books in which there was more to be found than in those two Books He likewise does add some Notes for the illustration of this matter and after having produced a sufficient number of those various Readings which established the vulgar he concludes (i) Plurimis in locis testantur in omnibus antiquis codicibus aliter legi quà m in vulgato textu Graeco Ipsi tamen in versiombus suis contra omnium exemplarium fidem textum Graecè semel excusum amplectuntur ad illum invitis omnibus codicibus MSS. versiones
Origen's corrected Copy It may be also said upon good grounds that this Vulgar Greek was altered in sundry places and that therefore it is not justifiable that we should forsake the Vulgar whenever it does not agree with the Vulgar Greek Upon this ground Mariana the Jesuit observed that it is not likely that the Ancient Latin Interpreter is the Author of all the various Readings that make so great a difference betwixt the Greek and the Latin. Neque enim tam multis locis quibus à Graecis Latina discrepant de suo capite finxisse verisimile est (k) Suspicabar ex variis olim codicibus eam lectionem fuisse secutum eosque codices qui communi eruditorum sententiâ eâ aetate maximè probabantur ex alio quopiam uno aut paucis minoris fidei transfusos Graecos codices qui nostrà aetate formis expressi vulgò circumferuntur Mar. pro Edit Vulg. c. 17. He thinks that that Interpreter in making his Version followed the best Copies of his time and that those which have been Printed in this last Age were taken from a very few Copies which were not very correct According to this Observation the Greek of the New Testament may be called as it was Printed a Vulgar Greek if it be compared with the Ancient Manuscripts which the Latin Interpreter made use of and yet for all that those Manuscripts ought not to have the denomination of the Apostolical Greek and of the first Original F. Morin has also given it the name of the Vulgar Greek or that which has been published in our time Cogitent ergo saith he to the Protestants who are very apt to leave the Ancient Latin Edition quoties Vulgatam à Graeco Vulgato dissentientem deprehendunt sed cum vetustissimis codicibus esse consensum à quibus degeneres sunt neoterici Graeci It is moreover a long time since this difference has been observed in the Greek Copies of the New Testament which is founded upon the Rules of Criticism The appellation of Vulgar has been always given to the common Copies of the Bible to distinguish them from those that were corrected by Criticks and are therefore believed to be more exact The Jews for example reform their common and ordinary Copies by those of the Massoret Hilarius Deacon of Rome puts a great value on this Rule in his Commentary upon the fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans v. 14. He rejects the Vulgar Reading of the Greek Copies assuring us that they can never be used so as to prevail against the Latin Edition seeing they vary Sic praescribitur nobis saith he de Graecis codicibus quasi non ipsi ab invicem discrepent He has recourse to the most Ancient Greek Copies from which the Latin Version was taken And seeing (l) Constat autem hoc per quosdam Latinos de veteribus Graecis olim translatos codicibus quos incorruptos simplicitas temporum servavit servat Ambrosiast Comm. in Epist ad Rom. c. 5. v. 14. he is perswaded that the Latin Copies were not corrupted he believes that the Greek from which they were taken is ancient and true F. Amelote might according to this sense have distinguished the Greek at this day from the ancient and true Greek and have called the former the Vulgar Greek But it does not follow from thence that that Ancient Greek is free from all faults and that it must be always preferred to the Greek which is called New. For this latter Greek is no otherwise New but in respect of its being published in these latter times And it may happen that this New Greek may be found agreeable to the most Ancient Authors and that it is consequently very ancient And therefore Hilarius the Deacon gives us three Qualities the consideration of which ought to induce us to prefer one Copy to another Hoc verum arbitror saith he quando Ratio Historia Authoritas observatur Ambros ibid. He grounds the Reading which he believes to be the best in that place upon the Authority of Tertullian of Victorin and St. Cyprian Whence he does conclude that the Vulgar Greek of his time was not to be followed seeing there were more ancient and more true Copies in which the Reading was otherwise I do not inquire if that Deacon was justifiable in the matter of which he treated I content my self with proposing the Rule that he gives us by which we may distinguish the Copies that are called Vulgar or Common from others that are more Ancient and more Correct This being once supposed we shall avoid many unprofitable Questions which Mr. Arnauld does seriously handle upon the occasion of the Vulgar Greek which he alledges to be extant in notion only and which saith he we ought first to make before we speak of it This Learned Man does afterwards endeavour to prove that that name is neither to be given to Robert Stephen's Edition nor to that of the Cardinal Ximenes nor to any other because as he thinks it is Chimerical and of F. Amelote's invention who framed to himself a certain Vulgar Greek the most erroneous that could be imagined in opposition to the Vulgar that the faults of the one might ballance the perfections of the other I am apt to believe that that Father does entertain false Idea's of that which is called the Vulgar Greek But if he be understood in the manner we have already shewn it is no Chimera nor fancy If the Authors of the Translation of the New Testament Printed at Mons have sometimes followed the Vulgar Greek in their Version without making mention of any other Greek they are in that to be blamed For it cannot be absolutely affirmed that the Greek is read in some places otherwise than the Latin when there are Greek Copies where the Reading is the same with the Latin Neither must we always prefer the Greek Copies that agree with the Latin Edition to the Common and Ordinary We are to judge of those Readings according to the Rules of Criticism and examin with the Deacon Hilary which of those Copies are Founded on Reason on History and on Authority The Greek wherein these things do meet shall be the most ancient and the most correct whether it be found in the Old Manuscripts or in the Printed Books There is then nothing more false than the Idea that School Divines and some Canonists have formed of the Greek Copies of the New Testament For under the pretence of defending the Authority of the Ancient Latin Edition they alledge that when there is any difference betwixt the Greek Copies at this day and the Latin we ought always to prefer the Latin to the Greek because the Greeks say they being Schismaticks have corrupted their Books whereas the Truth has remained in the Roman Church there is nothing more unjust than this thought For it is easie to go back to the time before the Schism and to shew that the Origen's the
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Chap. vii of St. John v. 39. where we read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
present called new For the latter may be agreeable to those of S. Jerom seeing he assures us that he did not resolve to follow those Copies exactly that he might not be thought to introduce too many Innovations into the Latin Bible Stunica likewise adds (l) Quòd si alicubi praeter librariorum mendas Latini codices à Graecâ origine variare videntur in verbis id tantùm erit non in sensu Vbi enim idem sensus erat noluit D. Hieronymus quicquam immutare Stun ib. that if there be any difference betwixt the Latin and that ancient Greek it does consist only in some words and not at all in the sense because that Father did not intend to make any change in those places where the sense was the same It is not then true as some others have alledged that our Latin Edition does represent the first Edition of the Apostles in all those places where it agrees with those ancient Greek Copies formerly mentioned For besides that they had great Imperfections as I have proved S. Jerom who consulted the most correct Copies for making his new Edition has left on purpose some of those Imperfections therein I do not examine if that Learned Critick revised the Epistles of S. Paul and the rest of the New Testament as well as the Gospels This belongs to the Second Book of this Work where we shall treat of the Versions 'T is sufficient to suppose here as certain de facto that the Latin Version of S. Paul's Epistles was amended as well as the Gospels whether that Correction was performed by S. Jerom or another and that it was revised in such a manner that that ancient Edition is preserved as far as it was possible Beza whowas ignorant of the original of that great number of various Readings in his own ancient Copy which by it self contains more of those various Readings than all other Greek Copies put together does avow (m) In hac tamen non sententiarum sed vocum diversitate nihil profectò comperi unde suspicari potuerim à veteribus illis haereticis fuisse depravatum Imò multa mihi videor deprehendisse observatione digna quaedam etiam sic à receptâ Scripturâ discrepantia ut tamen cum veterum quorundam Graecorum Latinorum Patrum scriptis consentiant Non pauca denique quibus vetusta Latina editio corroboratur Bez. Epist ad Acad. Cantab. that he had observed nothing in all those Variations that might raise a suspicion that it was corrupted by the ancient Hereticks On the contrary saith he I have found many things worthy of Observation and tho in some places it was in some sort different from the ordinary Reading that yet in these places it agreed with the Greek and Latin Fathers He does also assure us that he observed some Readings therein that confirm the ancient Latin Edition Indeed those Diversities are owing principally to the Greeks who to render the Writings of the Gospels and of the Apostles more intelligible have illustrated one Gospel by another and they have likewise explained by more clear Terms that which appeared to them obscure and intricate This custom of making the Apostles speak better Greek than they did in their Writings is very ancient Eusebius gives us a considerable Example thereof in his Ecclesiastical History where he observed after some other Writers that Tatian the Disciple of Justin Martyr did not only compose a Body of Gospels of the four which he put in one but (n) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 29. that he had also taken the liberty to correct S. Paul's Diction to give him more proper and clearer Expressions There were some Greek Churches which made no scruple to read those Greek Copies that had been revised in that manner and which possibly did acknowledge no other There is nothing more surprising than that which Theodoret (o) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Theod. Haeret. Fabul lib. 1. tit de Tat. n. 20. writes of some Churches of his Diocess which read publickly the Collection of the Gospels which Tatian had abridged of his own Head. Seeing they were ignorant of the mischief the Author had done they used his Work because it was compendious That Learned Bishop does assure us that he found more than two hundred Copies of this Gospel of Tatian which were very much esteemed in those Churches from whom he took them and restoredt he four Gospels to them We do not observe the like in the Cambridge Copy which has been altered by some Orthodox Remarks according to the custom of those first Ages where they have taken the liberty to insert by way of supplement that which they believed to be wanting in one Gospel taking it from another Gospel Thus for example after the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã chap. 20. of S. Matthew vers 28. they have added these Words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It is found in the same sense in the ancient Latin Version which is joyned to that Greek Copy Vos autem quaeritis de minimo crescere de magno minui Introeuntes autem rogati coenare ne discubueritis in eminentioribus locis ne fortè dignior te superveniat accedens coenae invitator dicat tibi Adhuc deorsum accede confundaris Si autem discubueris in minimum locum superveniat minor te dicet tibi invitator coenae Collige adhuc superius erit tibi hoc utile That is But you seek to rise from a low condition and from being great to become servants When thou art bidden of any man to supper sit not down in the highest room lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him and he that bade thee and him come and say unto thee Give this man place and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room But if thou dost sit down in the lowest room and another poorer man than thou do come he will say unto thee Friend go up higher and this shall be profitable for thee Several Learned Criticks have observed this Addition after Beza I have mark'd it with the same faults as it is in the Greek Manuscript where it is written in Capital Letters without accents and without any distinction of words St. Jerome took this Addition from the Ancient Latin Edition when he revised it by the Order of Pope Damasus He was easily satisfied according to the Method which he had proposed in his correction that those words were taken from St. Luke's Gospel Chap. 14. v. 8. 9. but that there is some difference in the words Which is an ordinary thing to that Copy where the words are sometimes changed to others that are Synonymous That Father who consulted the Ancient Greek Copies especially those where the Canons of Eusebius were mark'd presently perceived in reading the Tenth Canon that that was only found in that 178 Section of St. Luke and that so he must take it away from the 204
ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
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 â 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 â 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 â¡ 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
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
or translated these Arabick Gospels have added the rest therefore we read in the two other Arabick Editions The Gospel of Matthew or of St. Matthew It is no otherwise in the Syriack the Ethiopick and the Persian in a word it is only in the Latin Version where it is read The Gospel of Jesus Christ which is an apparent Imitation of the first Words of the Gospel of St. Mark. However it be the Opinion of St. John Chrysostom who believed that none of the Gospels were written with the Titles that are at present prefixed to them seems to me more probable than that of some Authors especially among the Protestants who attribute them to the Evangelists and will have them to be a part of the Gospels It is much more likely that the Primitive Christians have annexed them thereunto in those times wherein it was evident that these Gospels did truly belong to those Persons whose Names are put to them on this account it is that we find the Name of S. Luke added to the beginning of some MSS. Greek Copies of the Acts of the Apostles as I have observed in three MSS. of the King's Library We read in two of these Manuscripts (i) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã MSS. Reg. n. 2869. 2248. The Acts of the Apostles by Luke the Evangelist and in the other (k) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã MSS. Reg. n. 2872. The Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke an Apostle Furthermore the Greek Word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Gospel which signifieth literally Good News is taken here for Preaching insomuch that the Gospel of S. Matthew is nothing else but the Preaching of this Apostle who hath made a Collection of the Actions and Words of his Master therefore the Syrians have entituled this Gospel Nov. Test Syr. The Gospel the Preaching of Matthew The Arabick Versions that have been taken from the Syriack do also make use of an Arabick Word that signifies Preaching I do not think it necessary that I should insist on these Words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã according to Matthew according to Mark as some Commentators on the New Testament have done it seems to me to be too nicely explained They imagine that those that have put these Titles have made choice of this Expression on purpose to shew that neither Matthew Mark Luke nor John were the Authors of the Gospels but that they had only written them this seems to me to be a pure Subtilty for according to the Style of those times ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã according to Matthew is the same thing with ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of Matthew It was said after the same manner the Gospel ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã according to the Hebrews and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã according to the Egyptians that is to say of the Hebrews and of the Egyptians as it hath been also said ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Heresie according to the Phrygians which is the same thing as ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Heresie of the Phrygians Beza himself who was so excessively transported against Castalio about the Version of these Words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which he had translated auctore Matthaeo confesseth that it is commonly said the Gospel of S. Matthew and of S. Mark as it is said the Epistles of S. Paul and of S. Peter but he was afraid lest this Title of Castalio should cause it to be believed that the Evangelists are strictly the Authors of the Gospels that they have published whereas they are only the simple Scribes or Writers of them as if in the very Elegancy of the Latin Tongue Auctor was not the same thing as Scriptor They that affirm that this Expression ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã according to Matthew seems to denote that St. Matthew and the other Evangelists had not written their Gospels themselves have a great deal more reason to fear lest they should be only Collections that their Disciples had made of the Preachings of their Masters But this Objection is answered at one stroke by making it appear that there is no difference as to the sense between these two Expressions ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã according to Matthew and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of Matthew Castalio who professeth rather to render the Sense than the Letter hath not ill translated auctore Matthaeo and therefore Beza was in the wrong in taking an occasion from thence to accuse him for having denied the Inspiration of the Sacred Books I cannot but wonder that Grotius should insist on this nicity of Beza Grot. Annot in tit Matth. and that he hath remarked after him in his Notes on this Passage of St. Matthew that the ancient Title was not simply ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Gospel but ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Gospel of Jesus Christ after the same manner as it is in the beginning of S. Mark. He judges this to be the reason why it was not put ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Gospel of Matthew but ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã according to Matthew This Observation hath no foundation for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã according to Matthew and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of Matthew are the same thing as hath been proved above We see also that the Syriack Version the Arabick except the Copy of Rome that hath been apparently alter'd in this point from the Latin the Ethiopick and the Persian all read the Gospel of Matthew The great antiquity of this Title ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Gospel is ordinarily proved by these words of St. Justin Martyr in his Apology for the Christians (l) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Just Mart. in Apol. The Apostles in the Acts that they have committed to Writing that are called Gospels Instead of the word Acts it is in the Greek of this Father ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã We have at this day four Books of Xenophon extant wherein he relates the Words and Actions of Socrates that are entituled ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and in Latin according to the Translation of Cardinal Bessarion Xenophontis de factis dictis Socratis memoratu dignis It is in this same sense that this holy Martyr cites the Gospels in his Dialogues against Tryphon Just Mar. in Dial. cont Tryph. under the Title of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as if the Apostles had had no other design in their Writings that have been called Gospels than to publish the Words and Actions of Jesus Christ Moreover it is worth the observing that although the Apostles were not the Authors of the Titles that are set at the head of their Gospels we ought nevertheless to receive them after the same manner as if they had put them there themselves because they are derived from the first beginnings of Christianity and are further authorized by a constant Tradition of all the Churches of the World. Erasmus who found a great difficulty in concluding concerning the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews that bears not the Name of St. Paul protests that if the Church
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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
Hist Eccles lib. 3. cap. 39. Papias who lived with the Disciples of the Apostles avoucheth this in express terms and S. Irenaeus Origen and many other Fathers have afterwards confirmed it S. Irenaeus saith (d) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Irea apud Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 8. that S. Matthew being among the Hebrews composed his Gospel in their proper Dialect Origen in the Canon that he hath given us of the Sacred Books names S. Matthew the first of the Evangelists (e) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Orig. apud Euseb lib. 6. Hist Eccl. cap. 25. who published it in Hebrew for the use of the Jews that had embraced the Christian Religion These primitive Christians were called Nazarenes by the Jews as appears from the Acts of the Apostles where they accuse S. Paul of being the Ringleader of the Sect of the Nazarenes Act. xxiv 5. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Ever since that time they have always given to the Christians the name of Nazarenes which is found in their Talmud and in their other Books There were afterwards certain Sectaries under this same name who adopted this Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew some Fragments of which are yet extant to this day whereof we shall discourse hereafter It is expedient before we proceed any further to examine the Reasons of those that affirm that S. Matthew hath not composed his Gospel in Hebrew Erasmus who had no knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue hath been one of the first that hath thereupon opposed the common sentiments of all Antiquity but the Reasons tha the produceth are so weak that he sometimes makes himself even ridiculous when he would talk like a Critick concerning a matter of which he was altogether ignorant He would refer in every thing that relates to the Hebrew Tongue to Oecolampadius who understood it no more than himself which caused him to fall into gross Errors and gave occasion to his Adversaries especially Stunica a Learned Spaniard to reprehend his Ignorance Jacob. Lop. Stun Annot. in Erasm Cardinal Cajetan who was skilled neither in Hebrew nor Greek hath blindly followed the mistakes of Erasmus in this point as not being capable of correcting them But the greatest part of the Catholicks have herein abandoned Cajetan that they might not without reason and judgment withstand a Tradition established on good Acts. Some Protestants on the contrary who feared lest they should not have the true Gospel of S. Matthew if it were evident that it had been written in Hebrew or Chaldaick and lest the Greek that remains to us should be only a Translation have readily embraced the Opinion of Erasmus and Cajetan Flacius Illyricus hath diligently enough collected the Reasons that may be alledged in desence thereof and hath put them at the Head of his Edition of the New Testament which he hath caused to be Printed in Greek and Latin. This we must now take into examination This famous Protestant objects in the first place with Cajetan Matthias Flac. Illyr Praef. in Evang. Matth. several Hebrew Words that are explained in another Language in the Gospel of S. Matthew as for example Eli Eli lama sabactani If S. Matthew saith this Cardinal had written his Gospel in Hebrew it would not have been necessary for him to expound these Words in a different Idiom But these Interpretations ought rather to be ascribed to the Translator than to the Author To which he replys that if this came from the Interpreter he ought to have translated all the Hebrew of this Gospel and not to have selected only some Words as he hath done To which it may be answered that it is the custom of the Interpreters of the Sacred Books to let certain Hebrew Words remain in their Versions which they think to have more energy or emphasie in them and that cannot be always exactly translated This is easie to be proved from the Septuagint and other ancient Greek Interpreters of the Bible Grotius who hath also made this Objection in his Notes on S. Matthew answers (f) Solenne est omnibus scriptoribus etiam interpretibus vocabula peregrina notabiliora servare integra sed addito interpretamento Quod aliquoties etiam factum videmus à Senibus Septuaginta Grot. Annot. in tit Matth. that it is an ordinary thing for Writers and also Interpreters to retain foreign Wards that are remarkable adding the Interpretation to them and that this hath been sometimes practised by the Septuagint Illyrious opposeth in the second place two Reasons of Erasmus the first is that none have avouched that they have seen this Hebrew Gospel because that of which S. Jerome speaks was the Gospel of the Nazarenes which was written in Syriack or Chaldaick The second consists in this that the style of the Gospel of S. Matthew is like to that of S. Mark. From whence he concludes that S. Matthew hath written in Greek as well as S. Mark. S. Jerom himself answers to the first Reason when he saith (g) Vocatur à plerisque Matthaei authenticum Hieron Comm. in Cap. 12. Matth. that the most part of the ancient Doctors of the Church have believed that this Hebrew Gospel was the Original of S. Matthew's Certainly it is the very same that this Apostle wrote for the primitive Christians of Judaea who then spake the Chaldaick Language Erasmus tells us that he never heard of this matter when he objects that the Gospel of the Nazarenes was not in Hebrew but in Chaldaick or Syriack not knowing that this Chaldaick or Syriack was then called Hebrew As for the Style this Reason is too general to be able to conclude any thing from thence Stunica hath very well answered (h) Non hoc mirum videri debet si loquendi idiomate omnes conveniant etiamsi diversis linguis Evangelia conscripserint erant enim ejusdem generis hoc est Hebraei ex Herbaeis qui Graecè ex illis scripserunt patriae linguae proprietatem in Craecâ scripturâ saepissimè referunt Jacob. Lop. Stun init Annotat. in Erasm that it is not to be admired that the style of the Gospel appears to be the same in all the Evangelists altho they had written in different Languages because that being Jews those among them that have written in Greek have very often kept the Genius and propriety of the Hebrew Tongue This he proves by the example of S. Luke who tho he hath composed his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles in more elegant Greek than that of the other Evangelists doth not forbear to make use of divers Expressions that are purely Hebrew The third Objection is taken from Calvin and is grounded on several Passages of the Old Testament cited by S. Matthew according to the Greek Version of the Septuagint Whence he infers that S. Matthew hath composed his Gospel in Greek otherwise writing for the use of the Hebrews who read the Bible in Hebrew he would have rehearsed these Passages after the same
who hath made no scruple to rank this Gospel amongst those that have been counterfeited under the Names of S. Thaddaeus and S. Thomas Grotius who discourseth thereof with more Moderation (x) Narrationes quaedam non praescriptae à Mattheo sed auditu perceptae videntur paulatim à Nazaraeis assutae iis quae penes ipsos erant exemplaribus Grot. Annot in tit Matth. believes that the Nazarenes have inserted that which they have in their Copies and which is not in ours relying upon certain Relations that they had heard It is for this reason that when he speaks of the History of the adulterous Woman of whom mention is made in S. John and which he judgeth to have been taken out of the Gospel of these Nazarenes that he forbears not to ascribe to it the same Authority as if the Apostles were the true Authors of it He acknowledgeth nevertheless that it was not originally neither in the Hebrew of S. Matthew nor in the Greek of S. John nec à Matthaeo scriptam in Hebraeo Evangelio nec à Joanne in Graeco He believes that (y) Quia Apostoli vivâ voce hanc historiam saepè narraverant attextam à Nazarenis quidem Palestinae Hebraeo Evangelio à Papiâ autem aliisque Joannis discipulis Graeco Joannis ab Ecclesia probatam ideo quòd satis certo testimonio constaret ab Apostolis traditam Grot. Annot. in c. 8. Joann the Nazarenes of Palestine had added it to their Hebrew Gospel because it came from the Apostles and that afterwards Papias and the other Disciples of S. John had put it into his Gospel written in Greek which said History hath been approved by the Church because it was grounded on an Apostolical Tradition Jansenius Bishop of Gand who had written the same thing before Grotius (z) Ex quibus satis patet hanc historiam non in primis fuisse ab Evangelistâ hoc loco descriptam sed vel ex apocrypho illo Evangelio additam quae tamen autoritatem obtinuerit non quòd in apocryphis scripta fuerit sed quòd eam Papias è suo doctore audierit quodque hanc Ecclesiae consensus ut Evangelio dignam comprobarit vel Joannem post semel descriptum à se Evangelium adjecisse hanc partem suo Evangelio ut ob id contigerit in quibusdam codicibus haberi in quibusdam non Jans Episc Gand. Comm. in Concor Eu. c. 76. would have this History considered as Canonical because Papias had received it from his Master and because it hath been allowed by the Church he saith nevertheless that it might happen that S. John hath added it himself to his Gospel after he had written it and that for this reason it was not found in some Copies But there seems to be but little Probability in this last Remark and there can be nothing determined thereupon with any certainty We only know that Papias reckons in the number of Histories which he had learned from the Disciples of the Apostles that which hath regard to the Woman accused of many Crimes in the Presence of our Saviour and that he adds at the same time that it was related in the Gospel which was called according to the Hebrews Now since it is not unlikely that this Woman accused of many Crimes is the same with the adulterous Woman of whom S. John makes mention it seems as if it might be inferred from thence that in the time of Papias this History was not to be found but in the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes This makes it appear that all the Additions which have been inserted into this Gospel ought not to be accounted as Fables since Papias hath produced one of them which came from an Apostolical Tradition this might be also said of the others with some Probability Hegesippus who was familiarly acquainted with the Disciples of the Apostles (â) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Euseb Hin Eccl. lib. 4. c. 22. hath also sometimes made use of the Hebrew or Syriack Gospel of the Nazarenes and he hath quoted it even in Hebrew from whence Eusebius concludes that he must needs be of the number of the Hebrews that had embraced the Christian Religion CHAP. VIII Of the Ebionites Of their Copy of the Gospel of S. Matthew Of some other ancient Hereticks who have made use of this same Gospel WE have already observed in discoursing of the Nazarenes that the Ebionites did also make use of the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew as well as they but that they had nevertheless altered and corrupted it in some places to make it agreeable to their false Notions and Prejudices Ebionaei saith S. Irenaeus eo Evangelio quod est secundùm Matthaeum Iren. l. 3. adv Haer. c. 4. solo utentes ex illo ipso convincuntur The ancient Ecclesiastical Writers according to Eusebius have called these Sectaries Ebionites from a Word that signifies in Hebrew Poor because they had poor Conceptions concerning Jesus Christ whom they believed to be a simple Man. (a) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 27. They made use of that Gospel only adds this Historian which was called according to the Hebrews little esteeming the rest Origen who hath been followed by Eusebius (b) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Orig. lib. 4. de princ apud Vales Annot. in lib. 3. Hist Eccles Euseb doth also derive the Etymology of the Name of these Hereticks from the Hebrew Word Ebion which signifies Poor because they were saith he poor in Judgment and wanted Understanding But all this seems to me to be ill grounded and to be but a simple Allusion to the Name of these Sectaries which indeed signifies Poor in the Hebrew Tongue It is more probable that the Jews called them so in derision and scorn because in these Primitive times of Christianity there were scarce any but poor People that had embraced it This gave occasion to Jesus Christ to say to his Disciples Luke vi 20. Blessed be ye poor for yours is the Kingdom of God. This Kingdom of God was the Gospel on which they believed therefore our Saviour saith in another place Luke vii 20. that the Gospel is preached to the Poor Origen himself seems to confirm this Opinion in his Books against Celsus Matth. xi 15. where he observes that (c) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Orig. lib. 2. contra Celsum the Word Ebion signifieth Poor in Hebrew and that they have given the name of Ebionites or poor to those among the Jews who have believed that Jesus was the Messiah Since then the Jews called those of their own Nation that turned Christians Nazarenes and Galileans by way of contempt it is also very probable that they have named them Ebionites or poor It may be further said that these Primitive Christians took this Name themselves conformably to their Profession This agrees very well with the Remark of S. Epiphanius who informs us that the Ebionites (d)
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã this Remark written as the rest of the Text and with the same Hand * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã it is read in some places as followeth ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã After these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is found that which followeth ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Chap. xvi 9. (l) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã (m) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. MS. Reg. n. 2868. The Evangelist ends here in some Copies but in
the Catholicks they endeavoured to support their Novelties with some Reasons They said amongst other things that (k) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Epiph ibid. n. 4. these Books attributed to S. John did not agree with the Writings of the other Apostles and that consequently they ought not to be acknowledged as Divine Whether tends said they the beginning of this Gospel In the beginning was the word and the word was with God. And these other words And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth To what purpose added these Hereticks is that which immediately follows John bare witness of him and cryed saying This was he of whom I spake And a little after Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world The Alogians produced several other Passages of S. John no part of which was found in the other Evangelists S. Epiphanius answers them very prudently that if they had no other Reasons to object against the Verity of S. John's Gospel they might also reject the Gospels of S. Matthew S. Mark and S. Luke who have all used the same manner of Writing and who have every one something that is singular He said (l) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Epiph. ibid that their Method depended not on them but that it came from the Holy Ghost as well as their Doctrine This he explains more particularly and at large This Father confutes them also by the Doctrine of S. John which he affirms to be altogether opposite to that of Cerinthus This Heretick believed that Jesus Christ was born a mere Man. S. John on the contrary testifyeth in his Gospel that the Word was from all eternity that he came down from Heaven and that he was made Man. It is certain that Cerinthus believed with some other Hereticks of those primitive times that Jesus was * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a mere Man. Which Opinion they grounded on the Genealogy that is in the beginning of S. Matthew Therefore one would think that if Cerinthus had designed to forge a New Gospel to authorise his Heresie he would not have omitted this Genealogy It may be observed nevertheless that this Heretick acknowledged in Jesus Christ somewhat more than mere Man. This Epiphanius himself explains after this manner (m) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Epiph. Haer. 28. n. 1. He pretends that the World was not created by the first and supreme Power but that Jesus who was begotten of the Seed of Joseph and Mary being become great had received from above of the Supreme God the Christ in himself that is to say the Holy Ghost in the form of a Dove when he was baptised in the River Jordan He attributed to this celestial Virtue that Jesus as he thought had received in his Baptism all the Miracles that he wrought afterwards He said moreover that this Virtue left him at the time of his Passion and that it returned to Heaven from whence it came Perhaps the Alogians took occasion from hence to ascribe the Gospel of S. John to Cerinthus because this Heretick distinguished two things in Jesus Christ for besides that they thought that he was born of Joseph and Mary after the same manner as other Men they acknowledged in him a Celestial Vertue that had been communicated to him by the Sovereign God of the Universe he called this Vertue Christ distinguishing Christ from Jesus S. Irenaeus hath also observed (n) Hi qui à Valentino sunt eo quod est secundùm Joannem plenissimè utentes ad ostensionem conjugationum suarum Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. c. 11. that the Gnosticks the Followers of Valentin altogether made use of the Gospel of S. John to establish their Opinions (o) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Theod. Haeret. Fabul lib. 2. Haer. 7. de Valent. They gave to Jesus saith Theodoret the Name of Saviour and of Christ the Word The Sethians who were a branch of the Gnosticks maintained also that Jesus differed from Christ (p) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Theod. ibid. lib. 2. Haer. 14. de Sethian that Jesus was born of the Virgin but that the Christ descended on him from Heaven That which might farther confirm the Alogians in their erroneous Conceits was this that there were some very learned Men and those too very Orthodox who had affirmed that the Apocalypse was made by Cerinthus who insolently boasted that he was the true Apostle of Jesus Christ Besides these Alogians who refused to receive with the whole Catholick Church the Writings of S. John as Divine and Canonical there was one Theodotus of Byzantium the Chief of a Sect that were called Theodotians who after their example rejected the Gospel and Revelation of S. John as not belonging to him Nevertheless Celsus Porphyrius and the Emperor Julian who opposed the Gospels with all their Might have not denied that they were certainly composed by them whose Names they bore they have been content only to decry them as if they had been filled with Falsities and Contradictions When Julian speaks of the Gospel of S. John he doth not disown it to be his but he accuseth this Apostle of having introduced Innovations into the Christian Religion he saith that neither (q) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Cyrill Alex. lib. 10. contra Julian Matthew nor Mark nor Luke nor even Paul durst make Jesus Christ to pass for a God that S. John was the first that hath published it after he had observed that a great party of simple People as well among the Grecians as Latins was of this Opinion thus this Emperor who was persuaded that S. John's Gospel could not be charged with falsity gives out his imaginary Reasons that were grounded on no Authority As we have above remarked that the twelve last Verses of S. Mark were not read in some Greek Manuscript Copies so there are also twelve that are not found in divers Greek Manuscript Copies of the Gospel of S. John nor in some Versions of the Oriental Church These Verses begin at the end of Chap. vii v. 53. and end at the 11 verse of the following Chapter insomuch that they comprehend the whole History of the Woman taken in Adultery S. Jerom's manner of Expression in speaking of this Relation makes it appear that it was not read in his time in some Greek and Latin Copies In Evangelio secundùm Joannem Hieron l. 2. adv Pelag. saith this Father in multis Graecis Latinis codicibus invenitur de adulterâ muliere quae accusata est apud Dominum Sixtus Senensis who hath observed that the Anabaptists made use of the Authority of S. Jerom and the Testimony of some other ancient Writers Sixt. Sen. l. 7. Bibl. S. to shew that the History of the adulterous Woman had been added to the Gospel of S. John hath not sufficiently answered their Objections Maldonat who had thereupon
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
this day receive it as such Calvin who hath been more moderate herein than Luther hath chose rather to reconcile the Doctrine of S. James touching Faith and Works with that of S. Paul than unadvisedly to reject this Epistle under colour that it appears to be contrary to the same S. Paul. To receive saith he this Epistle this seems to me to be sufficient Calv. arg de son Comm. sur l'Epist de St. Jaq. that it contains nothing unworthy of an Apostle of Christ The Lutherans themselves soon perceived that their Master sometimes gave out Opinions without a due consideration of what he affirmed Raithius who hath made an Apology for Luther confesseth that he had written in the first Edition of his German Bible to this effect that if this Epistle were compared with those of S. Peter and S. Paul it would appear only an Epistle of Straw Epistola straminea but (g) Post majorem illuminationem ut dies diem docet verba illa duriuscula postertoribus Saerorum Bibliorum editionibus sunt omissa nec post annum 1526. in ullâ amplius editione straminea vocatur Raith Vind. Vers Germ. Luth. th 21. after he had been more enlightned these Words were taken away in the following Editions and they are not to be found in those that have been made since the Year 1526. Nevertheless a certain Lutheran published a Book at Strasbourg in the Year 1527 wherein he speaks after a strange manner of the Epistle of S. James He affirms (h) Non possumus hîc defendere Jacobum citat enim Scripturas falsò solus Spiritui Saucto Legi Prophetis Christo Apostolisque omnibus contradicit Testimomum ipsius vanum est Vni ipsi testi credendum non esse supra annotavimus praesertim cum quo ipse Spiritus Sanctus tot testes veritatis dissentiant Ne igitur succenseas nobis lector si duriùs vehementiùs calamo quandoque in auctorem invecti sumus Meretur enim hoc odium hanc spiritûs vehementiam dum aliam perfectionem atque justitiam à nobis contendit quà m fidei Andr. Altham apud Grot. de discuss Rivet Apolog. p. 722. that he cannot defend it because the Author alledgeth false Quotations of the Scriptures and alone contradicts the Law the Prophets Jesus Christ and the Apostles he condemns the Testimony of this Writer as vain boldly affirming that we ought not to believe him being a single Witness especially since the Holy Ghost and a great number of the Witnesses of the Truth do dissent from him lastly this man after he hath taken so much liberty to declaim against the Author of this Epistle adds at the end of his Book that none ought to be offended that he hath treated him so severely for saith he he deserves this hatred because he hath proposed to us another Righteousness than that of Faith. Can there be any thing more insolent than the Words of this Sectary who durst oppose his false Conceptions against the Testimony of all the Churches of the World Socinus speaks with a great deal more moderation and judgment concerning the Authority of this Epistle This Champion of the Unitarians declares that it was doubted in the beginning touching the Authors of the Epistle of S. James of the second of S. Peter and of that of S. Jude because they were found after the Collection of the other Books of the New Testament had been made (i) Cùm postea tempore procedente ex judiciis huic rei aptis cognitum fuisset istas Epistolas illorum ipsorum Apostolorum esse exempta plerisque illa dubitatio fuit sic inter alias sunt numeratae ea quidem quae Jacobi est ante duas reliquas Soc. de auctor Script Sac. c. 1. n. 2. but forasmuch as it was acknowledged afterwards that they were certainly composed by the Apostles whose Names they bore the most part of the Churches did no longer doubt thereof and the Epistle of S. James was placed before the two others moreover with respect to that of S. James he proves the Antiquity of this Tradition by the ancient Syriack Copies Therefore he doth not only receive them as Canonical but believes also that they do certainly belong to them to whom they are attributed Although it be agreed that the first of these Catholick Epistles was written by S. James nevertheless it remains to be known who this James is The Title of this Epistle doth not resolve this difficulty because it is different according to the various Greek Copies and indeed we ought not to relye on this sort of Title that are later than the Authors of the Books It is read simply in some Manuscript Copies ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã God. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2872. The Catholick Epistle of S. James and in others ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Catholick Epistle of the Apostle S. James This is also the Title that hath been prefixed in the Vulgar Latin Epistola Catholica beati Jacobi Apostoli and which Beza hath retained in his Greek Edition of the New Testament where we read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Catholick Epistle of the Apostle James But Robert Stephen in his curious Greek Edition of the New Testament in folio hath simply put ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Catholick Epistle of James It is no otherwise in Crespin's Edition at Geneva in the Year 1565. It is read according to the same sense ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Epistle of S. James in that of Wolfius at Strasbourg in 1524. We read also after the same manner in the Edition of Melchior Sessa at Venice in 1538 and in that of Simon de Colines at Paris in 1534 and in many others This is most natural and most conformable to the Greek Text where S. James at the beginning of his Epistle takes upon him no other Quality than that of a Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ Therefore Grotius hath also preserved this same Title and he hath reason not to approve the Opinion of those that attribute it to James the Son of Zebedee because this James had been put to Death by Herod before the Gospel of Jesus Christ was much spread abroad beyond Judea neither doth he believe that James the Son of Alpheus was the Author of it because he would have taken at the beginning of his Epistle the Name of an Apostle which was a quality in those Primitive Times that gave a great Authority to their Words from whence he concludes that it ought to be ascribed to that James whom the Apostles constituted first Bishop of Jerusalem Hieron de Script Eccles in Jac. This is not very far from the Words of S. Jerom in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers James who is called the Brother of our Lord and sirnamed the Just as some think was the Son of Joseph by another Wife but according to my Opinion of Mary the Sister of our Lord of whom John makes mention
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
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 â ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and he refused to be comforted as it is in the Hebrew at this day whereas in the Septuagint it is rendred ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which in the Septuagint is rendred ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But seeing in other places they have translated the same Hebrew word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and that was noted in the Dictionaries some one or other would place in the Margin of his Copy ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã over against ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
ãâã Word by ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Decree and the other words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the breath of his mouth by ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã his Power so that according to the Literal Sense of that Passage the World was Created by the Will and by the Omnipotency of God. (q) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Theod. Heracl Cat. in Psalm 32. This saith Theodore is the Sense which does here present it self and he does afterwards add that according to the true Theological Sense we ought to understand the Word of God and the Holy Ghost We may also call that a Theological Sense which was given to many Passages of the Old Testament by Jesus Christ and his Apostles because it was agreeable to the Theology of the Jews of those times chiefly to that of the Pharisees who Composed the leading Sect and the most received amongst the People The Jews at this day do altogether follow their Opinions The first Christians who received the Sacred Writings from them have likewise imitated them in their manner of Expounding those Books Michael Servetus did also in many places of his Works acknowledge this Mystical and Spiritual Sense which he makes to go joyntly with the Literal He does alledge that by that way Jesus Christ may be clearly found in the Books of the Law. He thinks that there is nothing but what is Natural in the Application that St. Paul made of these words Psalm ci Thou hast created the earth from the beginning to Jesus Christ as the Creator of Heaven and Earth Which words saith he though in the opinion of some they have but a forced Sense when they are applyed to Christ yet that is the proper Sense as the Apostle does shew Hebr. i. He does insist somewhat long on this Subject Expounding in the same manner many other Psalms which he understands of Jesus Christ although it seems that according to the Natural Sense they ought to be understood in general of God. The like is to be judged of other Psalms though they by reason of their ignorance of Christ do otherwise expound them This is no place for to examin the Consequences which Servetus does draw from his Principle I brought his words only to shew that the greatest Enemies of Tradition are obliged in their Expositions of many Passages of Scripture to acknowledg a Theological Sense which can be founded on nothing but Tradition and common Belief seeing they do agree that they who are ignorant of Jesus Christ put others Senses on the Scriptures Faustus Socinus did not find a more short or effectual way than this to answer the objections that the Jews and other enemies of the Christian Religion make against the Books of the New Testament He does suppose it to have been constantly agreed upon (r) Saepè Spiritus Sanctus unâ praedictione aut affirmatione plura complecti voluit idque ut semper mos praecipuè vaticinationum fuit ad rem ipsam praedictam occultandam saltem aliquâ ex parte donec ipsa res existeret Soc. Lect. Sac. that the Passages of the Old Testament that are cited in the New have had several Senses it being true especially as to the Prophesies which according to his Opinion were so Composed that the things foretold might be concealed till their accomplishment should happen He further says that we ought not to think variety to be surprising seeing the Jews who opposed the Evangelists and Apostles do agree to it But I question if that Unitary can convince the Jews of this Truth if he build on no other Principles than those which he makes use of in his Disputing against the Catholicks Indeed to speak exactly there is but one Literal Sense of every particular Passage of Scripture That other Sense which admits of a greater latitude and which the Christians are obliged to own is founded on the received and warranted traditions of the Jews Seeing the Jews have as well as the Catholicks approved of Traditions of that kind they cannot accuse the Apostles of having wrested the true Sense of several Passages of Scripture by false Interpretations unless they themselves do renounce the Expositions of their own Doctors Let us now particularly examin some of those Passages which the Emperor Julian and the Jews have objected against the Christians The first that presents it self is taken from those Words of the Prophet Esay Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son Is vii 14. and thou shall call his name Emmanuel St. Matthew has applied them to the Messiah who was born of a Virgin and has rendred them after this manner Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son and they shall call his name Emmanuel The Jews do accuse this Evangelist of an unfaithful citation and also a false application of the words of the Prophet They say first that the Hebrew word Alma does not signifie a Virgin as St. Matthew has rendred it but simply a young Woman whether she be a Virgin or not which they endeavour to prove from other places of Scripture St. Jerom does assure us on the contrary that the Hebrew word (Å¿) Alma non solùm puella vel virgo sed cum ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã virgo abscondita dicitur secreta quae nunquam virorum patuerit aspectibus sed magnâ parentum diligentia custodita sit Linguâ quoque Punicâ quae de Hebraeorum fontibus emanare dicitur propriè virgo alma appellatur Hieron Comm. in Is lib. 3. c. 7. Alma does properly signifie a Virgin and also a Virgin hid or shut up and that it has likewise that signification in the Carthaginian Language which derives its Original from the Hebrew The learned observation of that Father is very pertinent not only to justifie St. Matthew but also to shew that in the Septuagint the Hebrew word Alma is very well Translated And therefore seeing it not necessary to prosecute this matter with a long train of critical observations nor run through all the places of the Old Testament in particular where this word Alma is found it will suffice to bring against the Jews their own ancient Greek Version which St. Matthew or rather his Interpreter has followed It cannot be said that those Jews who lived so long a time before Jesus Christ did by a false Translation on purpose corrupt the Sense of that place The accusations with which they charge St. Matthew fall on those of their own Nation They say in the second place that in the Hebrew it is not ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i.e. they shall call but ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã thou shall call which does regard the young Woman who was to call her Son Emmanuel St. Jerom declares that all the ancient Interpreters have rendred it according to the Hebrew thou shalt call But at the same time does add (t) In multis testimoniis quae Evangelistae vel Apostoli de libris veteribus assumpserunt curiosiùs attendendum est non
in any of the Prophets did believe (k) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
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
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
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 subobsâurâ 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
of Colbert's the 14. verse before the 13. Rob. Stephen has not in his Manuscripts observed upon it any difference of Reading Chap. 24. v. 2. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Rob. Stephen did not read the Negative Particle ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã not in six of his Manuscripts Cod. MS. Colb n. 4112. and there is one of Colbert's where it is not Neither is it extant in the Cambridge Copy nor has St. Jerom expressed it in his new Edition because it was not in the ancient Vulgar Verse 9. of the same Chapter Cod. MSS. Colb n. 4112. we do not read in one of Colbert's ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Nations Beza (Å¿) In uno codice non additur hoc vocabulum quo etiam sublato videtur planior esse sententia Bez. Annot. in Matth. c. 24. v. 9. who did not read it in one of his Manuscripts says that the Sense is more entire when it is left out In the same Chapter v. 36. after the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã there is added in the Cambridge Copy ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã nor the Son. Seeing this Addition is found in no other Copy it is very probable that it was taken out of St. Luke where those very words are extant without any variaation St. Jerom did not think it convenient to put them (t) In quibusdam Latinis codicibus additum est neque filius cum in Graecis maximè Adamantii Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeatur adscriptum Sed quia in nonnullis legi c. Hieron lib. 4. Comm. in Matth. c. 24. in his new Edition although they were in some Latin Copies of the Vulgar Edition at his time He further observed that Origen and Pierius did not read them in their Greek Copies there having been very few in which they were extant Chap. 25. v. 13. Cod. MSS. Colb n. 2467. These words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã wherein the Son of Man cometh are not in one of Colbert's nor in the Cambridge Copy the Alexandrine Rob. Stephen's three Manuscripts and the Marquess of Veles's Nor has S. Jerom expressed them in his new Edition Chap. 26. v. 3. We do not read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and the Scribes in the Cambridge Copy in the Alexandrine and in two of Robert Stephen's nor in some others that are marked in the VI. Tome of the Polyglott of England St. Jerom has not inserted those words in his Edition In the same Verse instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã we read in one of Colbert Cod. MS. Colb n. 4078. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which appears to be an error of the Transcribers In the same Chapter vers 11. we do not read in two Colberts ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for always Cod. MSS. Colb n. 4112. 4078. These same words are transposed in two other Colberts where we read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã vers 24. instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is betrayed the Marquess of Veles has ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã shall be betrayed which reading is agreeable to St. Jerom's Edition and to our Vulgar Cod. MSS. Colb n. 2467. 2259. Yet we read in the Ancient Cambridge Copy ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In the 26 verse of the same Chapter instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã having blessed it Cod. MSS. Colb n. 2259. 2467. 4078. 4149. we read in five Colberts ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã having giving thanks which reading is likewise in seven of Robert Stephen's Manuscripts in the Alexandrine and in some Editions of the New Testament Further these two words do not differ in that place as to the sense vers 28. instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which is shed we read only in the Marquess of Veles ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which shall be shed agreeable to St. Jerom's Edition Nevertheless Maldonat the Jesuit did rather choose to read it with the ordinary Greek effunditur is shed in the present than with the Vulgar effundetur shall be shed in the future Chap. 27. v. 9. We read in all the Greek Copies which have been known until this day ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Jeremy Yet the Passage which St. Matthew does quote in that place is not found in the Prophet Jeremy but in Zachary Which gave an occasion to some Commentators on the New Testament to believe that that Evangelist who had forgot the name of the Prophet whose testimony he brings had put the one for the other But others with more likelyhood have imputed this error to the Transcribers who having found this word contracted after this manner ZPIOY ' in some Copies did write IPIOY ' in its stead I did read in one Manuscript of Mr. Colbert's Library ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã at length Yet this error is very ancient Cod. MSS. Colb n. 2467. seeing it has been observed by Origen and by St. Jerom. The latter (v) Legi nuper in quodam Hebraico volumine quod Nazarenae sectae mihi Hebraeus obtulit Hieremiae apocryphum in quo haec ad verbum scripta reperi Hieron lib. 4. Comm. in Matth. c. 27. makes mention of an Apocryphal Book attributed to Jeremy that one of the Nazarene Sect had lent to him where the same Passage was extant word for word And therefore it is possible that the Ancient Nazarens had put the name of the Prophet Jeremy in their Hebrew Copy of St. Matthew The Cambridge Copy being torn in that place it cannot be known if the ordinary reading was there In the same Chap. ver 34. instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã vinegar we read in the Cambridge Copy in the Marquess of Veles's Cod. MSS. Colb n. 5149. in one of Robert Stephen's manuscripts and in one Colbert ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã wine which reading was kept in our Vulgar although acetum is extant in St. Jerom's Edition Beza (x) Hanc lectionem quamâis dissentiente Syro interprete verissimam arbitror auctore ipso Spiritu Sancto Marc. 15.23 Bez. Annot. in Matth. c. 27. v. 34. did also believe that we are to read in the Greek ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã wine as it is in St. Mark. It is not always the surest way to regulate one Evangelist by another It seems also that St. Jerome was of the Judgment that the Greek Copies which he believed to be the most correct ought in that place to be preferred to the reading of the Ancient Vulgar Ver. 35. of the same Chapter Cod. MSS. Colb n. 5149. 4078. 4112. we do not read in three of Mr. Colbert's Manuscripts these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet they parted my raiment and for my vesture they did cast lots Nor are they found in the Cambridge Copy in the Alexandrine in all Robert Stephen's in an Ancient Manuscript quoted by Salbert nor in some others that are marked in the sixth Tome of the Polyglott of England Beza who found them not in any Ancient Copy nor in the Syriack Version
cannot possibly conclude any thing against them For it will be easily demonstrated that those Writers in that matter followed the custom and Tradition of their Time. The Book where the most of that sort of citations are found is the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews where we find nothing else but Passages of the Old Testament explained in a manner that is altogether Allegorical and Foreign to the Letter which has also given an occasion to some Writers to suspect that St. Paul was not the Author But it seems on the contrary that if we reflect upon the Pharisees Method in their Expounding Scripture it cannot be attributed to any other than to that Holy Apostle who having Studied in Jerusalem under the Doctor Gamaliel did penetrate into all the most refined Points of their secret and mystical Interpretations of the Bible In effect after I had recommended the reading of this Epistle to a Jew who was well Read in his own ancient Authors he having perused it freely declared that it must needs have been written by some great * A Man of Tradition Mekubal of his own Nation And he was so far from telling me that St. Paul had wrested the true Sense of Scripture with his Allegories at pleasure that he extolled his profound skill in the sublime Sense of the Bible and always returned to his great Mekubal of whom he never spoke but with admiration Enjedine a subtil Unitary was so much persuaded of this Truth that after he had proposed the most part of those Reasons which are ordinarily objected against the Epistle to the Hebrews he adds (n) Praemonemus omnia penè testimonia exempla quae ex Veteri Testamento huc transferuntur non secundùm historiae veritatem sensum ut vocant literalem sed mysticè sensu spirituali intelligi allegorico ad Novuon Testamentum applicari explicari Quod ita manifestum est ut nisi quis hoc admittat in absurda manifestissima incidat Georg. Enjed. explic loc Vet. Nov. Test explic loc Epist ad Heb. that the most part of the Passages which are cited in this Epistle out of the Old Testament are not to be understood in a literal but in a mystical and spiritual Sense otherwise it were impossible to avoid several manifest absurdities He does likewise suppose in another place that this manner of Exposition of Scripture was then approved by the Jews and that Jesus Christ made use of it when he disputed with the Pharisees who received the same He brings for an example these Words of Psalm cix 1. The Lord said unto my Lord c. which Jesus Christ understood of the Messiah and not of David (o) Cuòd autem Christus hoc loco usus est mysticâ interpretandi Scripturas formâ observavit ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Cùm enim essent tres Judaeorum sectae Sadducaei solum literalem Scripturae sensum admitterent Pharisaei verò etiam mysticum approbarent cum Pharisaeis disputans arripuit hoc quod illi pro confesso concesso habebant licere nimirum Scripturas mysticè interpretari quia norat illum Psalmum qui literaliter de Salomone aut potiùs de ipso Davide est compositus spiritu aliter referri solere ad Messiam ideò tam confidenter hunc Psalmum de Davide de Messiâ conscriptum esse affirmat Quod illi negare nisi sectae suae renunciare vellent non poterant Enjed. explic loc Matth. when Christ saith Enjedine explained that Passage in a mystical Sense he did nothing but what was very pertinent for there were three Sects amongst the Jews at that time The Sadducees did only receive the Literal Sense of the Scripture The Pharisees on the contrary besides the Literal did also approve of the Mystical Sense And therefore in his Disputing with the Pharisees he followed a Custom in which they were agreed that is of giving Mystical Expositions to Scripture Seeing he knew that the Psalm which was understood of Solomon or rather of David according to the Literal Sense was ordinarily applied to the Messiah he freely declares that David had the Messiah in his view when he writ it Which the Pharisees could not deny unless they would have renounced their own Sect. This observation of Enjedine does agree with the Principle which was formerly established in this Discourse for answering the Jews who accused the Evangelists and the Apostles of giving false Interpretations to the Passages of the Old Testament I will further say that there were certain Traditions which were not only received by the Pharisees but also by the other Sects I reckon in the number of those Traditions the belief of a Messiah which it would have been hard to prove only by the Books of Moses Nevertheless the Samaritans who owned nothing but the Pentateuch to be Divine and Canonical Scripture did believe at that time and still believe the Messiah at this day and the ground that they have for it is taken from some Passages of the Law which appear to have another Sense if they be Interally Expounded Whence I conclude that this Spiritual and Mystical Sense was not only in use amongst the Pharisees but also amongst the other Sects Nevertheless the Pharisees had abused it by allowing it too great a latitude And therefore our Lord does sometimes reproach them for this bad use which they had made of Traditions yet without condemning the Traditions themselves The Jews Caraites also who very much despised the Fables that abound in the Talmud do not absolutely reject all the Traditions which are contained in that Book If the Unitaries would make a just reflection on the Principle which has established and which may serve as an answer to the most part of the objections of the Jews against the Books of the Old Testament they would not so much insist upon the Literal Exposition of certain Passages of Scripture which they oppose to the Theological Expositions of the ancient Fathers Seeing the Jews have Authorised by their Traditions some Interpretations of the Old Testament that are in no wise Literal the Doctors of the Church have also used the like in their Exposition of Scripture Interpretations of that kind are found in all the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers I shall content my self to produce in this place the Testimony of an Author who cannot be suspected by the Unitaries That is Theodore of Heraclea a favourer of the Arian Party and who writ learned Commentaries on the Bible but there remains nothing of them but some fragments in the Collections or Chains of the Greek Fathers That famous Divine does establish these two sorts of Senses viz. the Literal and the Theological and he does apply them to those words of the Psalmist (p) ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The heavens were established by the word of the Lord and all their host by the breath of his mouth he does Expound Literally the word de ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I say unto thee to day thou shalt be with me in Paradise They palce a comma after the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã day whereas according to the ordinary Reading of the Greek Copies whether Manuscript or Printed it ought to be placed after the Pronoun ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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