or translated these Arabick Gospels have added the rest therefore we read in the two other Arabick Editions The Gospel of Matthew or of St. Matthew It is no otherwise in the Syriack the Ethiopick and the Persian in a word it is only in the Latin Version where it is read The Gospel of Jesus Christ which is an apparent Imitation of the first Words of the Gospel of St. Mark. However it be the Opinion of St. John Chrysostom who believed that none of the Gospels were written with the Titles that are at present prefixed to them seems to me more probable than that of some Authors especially among the Protestants who attribute them to the Evangelists and will have them to be a part of the Gospels It is much more likely that the Primitive Christians have annexed them thereunto in those times wherein it was evident that these Gospels did truly belong to those Persons whose Names are put to them on this account it is that we find the Name of S. Luke added to the beginning of some MSS. Greek Copies of the Acts of the Apostles as I have observed in three MSS. of the King's Library We read in two of these Manuscripts (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MSS. Reg. n. 2869. 2248. The Acts of the Apostles by Luke the Evangelist and in the other (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MSS. Reg. n. 2872. The Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke an Apostle Furthermore the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gospel which signifieth literally Good News is taken here for Preaching insomuch that the Gospel of S. Matthew is nothing else but the Preaching of this Apostle who hath made a Collection of the Actions and Words of his Master therefore the Syrians have entituled this Gospel Nov. Test Syr. The Gospel the Preaching of Matthew The Arabick Versions that have been taken from the Syriack do also make use of an Arabick Word that signifies Preaching I do not think it necessary that I should insist on these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew according to Mark as some Commentators on the New Testament have done it seems to me to be too nicely explained They imagine that those that have put these Titles have made choice of this Expression on purpose to shew that neither Matthew Mark Luke nor John were the Authors of the Gospels but that they had only written them this seems to me to be a pure Subtilty for according to the Style of those times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew is the same thing with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Matthew It was said after the same manner the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Hebrews and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Egyptians that is to say of the Hebrews and of the Egyptians as it hath been also said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Heresie according to the Phrygians which is the same thing as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Heresie of the Phrygians Beza himself who was so excessively transported against Castalio about the Version of these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he had translated auctore Matthaeo confesseth that it is commonly said the Gospel of S. Matthew and of S. Mark as it is said the Epistles of S. Paul and of S. Peter but he was afraid lest this Title of Castalio should cause it to be believed that the Evangelists are strictly the Authors of the Gospels that they have published whereas they are only the simple Scribes or Writers of them as if in the very Elegancy of the Latin Tongue Auctor was not the same thing as Scriptor They that affirm that this Expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew seems to denote that St. Matthew and the other Evangelists had not written their Gospels themselves have a great deal more reason to fear lest they should be only Collections that their Disciples had made of the Preachings of their Masters But this Objection is answered at one stroke by making it appear that there is no difference as to the sense between these two Expressions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Matthew Castalio who professeth rather to render the Sense than the Letter hath not ill translated auctore Matthaeo and therefore Beza was in the wrong in taking an occasion from thence to accuse him for having denied the Inspiration of the Sacred Books I cannot but wonder that Grotius should insist on this nicity of Beza Grot. Annot in tit Matth. and that he hath remarked after him in his Notes on this Passage of St. Matthew that the ancient Title was not simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gospel but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gospel of Jesus Christ after the same manner as it is in the beginning of S. Mark. He judges this to be the reason why it was not put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gospel of Matthew but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew This Observation hath no foundation for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Matthew are the same thing as hath been proved above We see also that the Syriack Version the Arabick except the Copy of Rome that hath been apparently alter'd in this point from the Latin the Ethiopick and the Persian all read the Gospel of Matthew The great antiquity of this Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gospel is ordinarily proved by these words of St. Justin Martyr in his Apology for the Christians (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. in Apol. The Apostles in the Acts that they have committed to Writing that are called Gospels Instead of the word Acts it is in the Greek of this Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have at this day four Books of Xenophon extant wherein he relates the Words and Actions of Socrates that are entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Latin according to the Translation of Cardinal Bessarion Xenophontis de factis dictis Socratis memoratu dignis It is in this same sense that this holy Martyr cites the Gospels in his Dialogues against Tryphon Just Mar. in Dial. cont Tryph. under the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if the Apostles had had no other design in their Writings that have been called Gospels than to publish the Words and Actions of Jesus Christ Moreover it is worth the observing that although the Apostles were not the Authors of the Titles that are set at the head of their Gospels we ought nevertheless to receive them after the same manner as if they had put them there themselves because they are derived from the first beginnings of Christianity and are further authorized by a constant Tradition of all the Churches of the World. Erasmus who found a great difficulty in concluding concerning the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews that bears not the Name of St. Paul protests that if the Church
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
adv Pelag. declarat Sixt. Sen. Biblioth S. lib. 7. who urgeth that S. Jerom's words can only be understood of certain Apocryphal Periods which had been adjoyned to some Greek Copies by uncertain Authors is very far from truth It is sufficient only to read the words of this Reverend Doctor as well in his Epistle to Hedibia as in his Work against the Pelagians to judge that he speaks apparently in those two places of two different Additions And that there may remain no doubt thereof I shall here produce what I could observe on this Subject in reading the ancient Greek Copies It is to be supposed as hath been above said that the question is not concerning the whole last Chapter of S. Mark but only the twelve last Verses This is that part which S. Jerom hath called Capitulum Chapter wherein is described the History of the Resurrection The most ancient Greek Copy of the Gospels of those that are in the King of France his Library contains after these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Remark written as the rest of the Text and with the same Hand * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is read in some places as followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They declared in a few words to those that were with Peter all things that had been commanded them Ex cod MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2861. and afterwards Jesus himself published by their Ministry this holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal Salvation There follows afterwards in this Manuscript this Observation written in the Body of the Book and with the same Hand as the Text * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found that which followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to the end of the Gospel We may easily judge by this that they that have written this Greek Copy which is ancient have believed that the Gospel of S. Mark ended at these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have nevertheless added the rest written with the same hand but only in form of a Remark because it was not read in their Church which is altogether conformable to the Testimony of S. Jerom in his Letter to Hedibia Since this diversity is considerable it is necessary for me to make some Reflections thereon grounded on this ancient Manuscript of the King's Library It seems that Beza hath seen this Manuscript or at least one like it Bez. Annot in c. 16. Marci v. 9. for he saith in his Notes on Mark xvi that he hath found in one Copy these words added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the rest as hath been above related But he ought to have explained himself more distinctly thereupon and to have observed that this Addition was written in the Manuscript only in form of a Schotion or Note and not as belonging to the Text of S. Mark 's Gospel This appears manifestly in the Manuscript of the King's Library We ought to judge after the same manner of this other Addition which S. Jerom declares that he hath read in some Greek Copies and which he publisheth in these terms In quibusdam exemplaribus maxime in Graecis codicibus juxta Marcum in fine ejus Evangelii sic scribitur Postea cùm accubuissent undecim apparuit eis Jesus exprobravit incredulitatem duritiem cordis eorum quia iis qui viderant eum resurgentem non crediderunt Et illi satisfaciebant dicentes Seculum istud iniquitatis incredulitatis substantia est quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veri Dei apprehendi virtutem Idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam This hath been apparently taken out of some Apocryphal Gospels as we have above seen a like Addition taken from that of the Nazarenes The Greek Transcribers thinking thereby to make their diligence and exactness more apparent have inserted them into their Copies But they have done it by way of Remark and there have been others afterwards who have left these Additions in the Text without annexing any thing that denoted that they were only as it were Observations because these Additions were not read in their Churches they did not think these little Notes necessary By this same method we may justifie the Observation of S. Jerom in his Letter to Hedibia wherein he declares that the last Chapter of S. Mark that is to say the twelve last Verses were not read in the greatest part of the Greek Copies Beza on the contrary (k) Testor in omnibus vetustis codicibus quos nobis videre contigit hoc caput inveniri Bez. Annot. in cap. 16. Marci v. 9. protests that this Chapter is found in all the old Manuscripts that he hath read but he hath not regarded that altho it be found in the ancient Greek Manuscripts yet there are many of them in which it is written only as it were an Addition that doth not appertain to the Text. This evidently appears in the King 's ancient Manuscript above cited For tho these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the rest to the end of the Gospel be written therein with the same Hand as the whole Body of the Book nevertheless the Remark that is adjoyned makes it plainly appear that they that have written this Copy have not considered them as part of the Text. It is to be observed moreover that the Sections are marked in the Margin of the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament by the Letters of the Alphabet which serve instead of Numbers of Figures These Marks are in the first Editions of the Greek New Testament of Erasmus in Robert Stephen's Edition in Folio and in some others Now there are none of these found in the King's Manuscript over against these twelve Verses which is a proof that they were not read in their Church that have transcribed this Copy This will appear yet more clearly in the Sequel of this Discourse wherein I shall explain the use of these Marks or Sections in the Greek Copies of the New Testament Euthymius who hath made Learned and Judicious Annotations on the New Testament confirms all this that we have just now alledged and justifieth at the same time S. Jerom's Observation in his Letter to Hedibia See what he saith on these words of S. Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. xvi 9. (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euthym. in cap. 16. Marci ex cod MS. Biblioth Reg. n. 2401. Some Interpreters say that the Gospel of S. Mark is ended here and that that which follows is a later Addition We must nevertheless explain this also because it containeth nothing contrary to the truth There is also another Manuscript Copy of the Gospels in the King's Library ancient enough and written very exactly wherein is also read this Observation on the same Passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. MS. Reg. n. 2868. The Evangelist ends here in some Copies but in
was the Gospel of S. John from the time of Tatian the Disciple of S. Justin Martyr Selden nevertheless who hath been cited by Walaeus on this place of S. John insists very much upon these two ancient Writers to shew that this History was ever since the Primitive Ages in the Copies of the Eastern Church this he confirms by the Canons that Eusebius hath added to the Harmony of Ammonius and he concludes from thence that Eusebius also read it in his Copy of the New Testament because it is marked in these Canons but it doth not appear that Selden hath very carefully examined the Canons of Eusebius for there is no number or mark of a Section that answers in particular to the History of the adulterous Woman the twelve Verses of which it is composed are comained in the preceding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 86. Section as may be seen in these Sections or Numbers that are printed in the Greek New Testament of Robert Stephen and in some other Editions the Greek Manuscript Copies do agree in this Point with the printed and that which clearly proves that there is no number or Section of the Canons of Eusebius that refers in particular to the aforesaid twelve Verses is that this same number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 86. is also marked in the Manuscript Copies wherein they are not found therefore it cannot be inferred from the distribution or order of the Canons that Eusebius hath read the History of the Adultress in that Book to which he hath annexed them however it is not to be denied that Selden and Walaeus have had reason (c) Mirum non est in seculis primitivis exemplaria fuisse hodiéque manere quibus hae aliaeve periochae sacrae deessent cùm scilicet audacium nimis exscriptorum complurium mos tum esset aliter atque aliter pro multiplici judiciorum discrimine Evangelia variatim emendare augere minuere Quod monet Hieronymus c. Seld. apud Wal. Comm. in Joann to accuse the Grecians in general of assuming to themselves too much liberty in correcting their Copies Seld. apud Wal. Com. in Joan. adding to or diminishing from them sometimes according to their own humour and perhaps they have exercised this critical Faculty too liberally on this place of S. John as well as on many others This same History of the adulterous Woman is not found neither in the Syriack Version that Widmanstadius hath published from good Manuscript Copies of which there hath been since several other Editions nevertheless it is in some Syriack Copies from whence it hath been taken and inserted into the Polyglott Bible of England it is read also in the Arabick Translations that have been printed at Rome and in Holland from whence we may conclude that it is read at present as well in all the Eastern as in the Western Churches However Beza after he hath affirmed (d) Ex vetustis nostris codicibus 17. unus duntaxat illam non habebat In reliquis scripta quidem est sed ita ut mira sit lectionis varietas Bez Annot. in Joan. c. 7. v. 53. that of seventeen ancient Manuscripts which he had read this History was wanting but in one of them doth not forbear to suspect it because the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers as he saith have either unanimously rejected it or have been silent therein he saith moreover that it is not probable that Jesus Christ should have remained alone in the Temple with a Woman that this Relation doth not cohere with what follows and that that which is said of Jesus Christ that he wrote with his finger on the ground is a very extraordinary thing and difficult to be explained Lastly the great diversity of Readings that is found in the Greek Copies in that place causeth him to doubt of the Verity of this History Calvin discourseth with a great deal more moderation and seems also to be more reasonable than his Disciple in his Commentary on this Passage Calv. Com. sur S. Jean c. 8. v. 1. It is well known saith he that the ancient Grecians knew nothing of this present History and therefore some have conjectured that it hath been taken from some other place and added here but forasmuch as it hath been always received in the Latin Churches and is found in many Copies and ancient Books of the Grecians and contains nothing that is unworthy of an Apostolical Spirit there is no cause why we should refuse to make a good use of it Besides that which we have just now observed concerning the History of the Woman taken in Adultery which is not found in many Greek Copies some Criticks have also believed that the last Chapter of the Gospel of S. John was not written by this Evangelist Indeed it seems as if he designed to finish his History with these words Chap. 20.30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his Disciples which are not written in this Book c. Grotius who is of this Opinion (e) Sicut caput ultimum Pentateuchi caput ultimum Josuae post Mosis Josuae mortem additum est à Synedrio Hebraeorum ita caput quod sequitur post mortem Joannis additum ab Ecclesiâ Ephesinà Grot. Annot. ad cap. 20. Joan. vers 30. affirms that the rest of this Gospel hath been added after the Death of S. John by the Church of Ephesus after the same manner as the last Chapter of the Pentateuch and the last Chapter of the History of Joshua have been annexed to these Books of the Sanhedrim of the Jews but he alledgeth no solid proof of what he so freely avoucheth something indeed might have been added to the History of Moses and Joshua after their decease because as I have elsewhere observed they whose Office it was amongst the Hebrews to write the Annals of this Republick have continued their Histories and therefore these two Chapters cannot be properly called Additions but rather a Continuation of the Chronicle of this Commonwealth This case is not the same as that of the Gospel of S. John for the Church of Ephesus was not charged to continue it It may be said that the last Chapter of this Gospel hath not been put in its proper place and that there hath happened some change with respect to the order and sequence of the Words but if we reflect on the Still of S. John and the little regard to a Method or Coherence that appears throughout his whole Book we shall rather impute to himself these small Defects which alter not the Verity of this History CHAP. XIV Of the Acts of the Apostles that have been received in the Church Other Acts of the Apostles that have been forged ALthough there have been several different Acts that bear the Name of the Apostles yet the Church hath received none as true but those that we now read at this day under this Title and which all Antiquity attributes to S. Luke
in any of the Prophets did believe (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys Hom. 9. in Matth. that we ought not to involve our selves in the trouble of an endless search because there have been several Books of the Prophets lost which may be proved as he says by the History of the Chronicles The Author of the Imperfect Work on St. Matthew does observe that the Evangelist does not say (l) Dum dicit per Prophetas non per Prophetam manifestat quòd non certam auctoritatem Prophetae protulerit sed sensum Prophetarum colligens dixit aut fortè legerunt alios Prophetas ita dicentes qui non sunt nobis canonizati Auct Op. imp in c. 2. Matth. per Prophetam by a Prophet but per Prophetas by the Prophets to signifie that he did not mean the testimony of any Prophet in particular but only that it might be gathered from the Prophets in general He adds afterwards that there were probably at that time other Prophetical Books which were not placed in the Canon of the Sacred Writings The ground of this Answer seems to be that St. Jerome has in his Works made mention of some other Prophetical Books than those we have at this day and which were read by the Nazarene Sectaries who came from the first Christians of Jerusalem who were also called Nazarenes for whom St. Matthew writ his Gospel Nevertheless that Father had no recourse to this solution in his Commentaries upon this place where he plainly affirms the same thing with the Author of the Imperfect Work viz. That St. Matthew (m) Pluraliter Prophetas vocans ostendit se non verba de Scripturis sumpsisse sed sensum Nazaraeus sanctus interpretatur Sanctum autem Dominum futurum omnis Scriptura commemorat Hieron lib. 1. Comm. in Matth. c. 2. having cited the Prophets in general intended to shew that he made no mention of the words of any one in particular but only of the sense But seeing the word Nazarene does signifie Holy the Scripture does declare throughout that the Lord should be Holy. He does yet subjoyn another more particular explication and which appeared to be more probable as being founded on a Passage of the Prophet Esay Chap. 11. v. 1. (n) Possumus aliter dicere quod etiam eisdem verbis juxta Hebraicam veritatem in Esaiâ scriptum sit Exiet virga de radice Jesse Nazaraeus de radice ejus ascendet Hieron ibid. And there shall come forth a Rod out of the Stem of Jesse and a Nazarene vulg Branch shall grow out of his Roots I make no Question but that the Jews will condemn this Translation of the words of Esay as well as St. Matthew's citation because it is not in the Hebrew Nazaraeus Nazarene as St. Jerome has rendred it but netser which does signifie a flower as he himself had expounded it in the Version of that Prophet He likewise observed in his Commentary upon this place of Esay that the Hebrew word which does signifie Nazarene is written with the letter zain and that in this place it is written with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tsade where it does signifie a flower This critical Observation of St. Jerome upon the 11. Chap. of the Prophet Esay seems to destroy what he had observed in his Commentary upon the 2. Chap. of St. Matthew The truth is 't was the custom of that Learned Father in his Commentaries upon the Scripture rather to report that which he had read in other Commentators than to establish an opinion of his own And therefore 't is not surprising if we sometimes do find opposite opinions therein Nevertheless his Learning does afford us great help for finding out the sense of the most difficult Passages of the Sacred Writings The Opinion of those who believed that St. Matthew in that place had cited the Passage of Chap. 11. of the Prophet Esay seems in my opinion to be the most probable 'T is very likely that St. Jerome did apply it to the Nazarenes when he says in his Commentary upon that Prophet that the Learned amongst the Jews took it from that place Eruditi Hebraeorum de hoc loco assumptum putant Those Hebrews are the Sect of the Nazarenes who were called Hebrews and who were so in effect Seeing they read the Gospel of St. Matthew in the Chaldee or Syriack the allusion to the Hebrew word netser that is in Esay is better known in their Copy than in the Greek and it was also better perceived by those who had the Hebrew and Chaldaick Languages That we make a right judgment hereof that Passage of St. Matthew ought to be read in the Syriack Version which in that place should not differ from the Original Chaldee of St. Matthew But the Syrians do read these two words Nazareth and Nazarene alike with the letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tsade And after this manner they ought in effect to be read in St. Matthew who intended not to signifie the Nazarites of the Old Testament whose name is written with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 zain He made a bare allusion according to the method of that time to the Hebrew word netser of Esay which does signifie a flower and which is written with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tsade as well as that of the City Nazareth 'T is of importance carefully to observe that the Jews do agree with the Christians that that Passage of Esay which speaks of that flower called in Hebrew netser is understood of the Messiah Which being known at that time to all the World St. Matthew who wrote in the Chaldee for the Jews of Jerusalem then newly converted who were accustomed to expositions of that nature made an allusion to this Hebrew word netser or flower 'T is but consulting the Jewish Talmud their Book entitled Zohar and their Ancient Medraschim or Allegorical Commentaries for we may there find the like Interpretations of Scripture to be extant founded on bare allusions and similitudes not only of words but even of letters If the Jews could but seriously reflect on all these considerations they would not brand with the title of either false or ridiculous the citation of St. Matthew who has say they perverted the words of the Prophet Esay to apply them to their Messiah For seeing that Evangelist writing for Jews who were enclining to embrace the Religion of Jesus Christ did follow the custom and usage that obtained at that time amongst them Unless we go back to that ancient custom we shall meet with great difficulties in the most part of the Passages of the Old Testament which the Evangelists and Apostles have cited in their Writings for the confirmation of their own Sentiments We ought to pursue this Method for answering the Jews solidly we are to represent to them the course their Fathers took which unless they renounce their Religion they cannot reject This Principle also may serve for the refutation of Julian's impious
that part of it that was Composed by the Prophets They say the Historical Books were not inspired because as they alledge it is not necessary for him that writes History to be a Prophet Grotius is of that Opinion in his Book Entituled Votum pro pace Ecclesiasticâ (b) Si Lucas divino afflatu dictante sua scripsisset inde potiùs sibi sumpsisset auctoritatem ut Prophetae faciunt quà m à testibus quorum fidem est secutus Sic in iis quae Paulum agentem vidit scribendis nullo ipsi dictante afflatu opus Quid ergo est cur Lucae libri sint canonici Quia piè fideliter soriptos de rebus momenti ad salutem maximi Ecclesia primorum temporum judicavit Grot. Vot pro Pac. Eccl. tit de Can. Script If St. Luke saith that Critick had been Inspired by God when he writ his History he would rather have made use of that Inspiration by the example of the Prophets than the Authority of those whom he takes for Witnesses of his faithfulness He had no need he further says of any Inspiration for writing the Actions of St. Paul of which he himself was a Witness Whence he does conclude that the Writings of St. Luke are Canonical not because they were Inspired but because the Primitive Church did Judge that they were written by godly Men with great faithfulness and Treat of things that are of very great importance to our Salvation He does repeat the same thing elsewhere in his Works against Rivetus who opposed that Opinion as being impious He does there affirm (c) Neque Esdras neque Lucas Prophetae fuere sed viri graves prudentes qui nec fallere vellent nec falli se sinerent Dixitne Lucas Factum est ad Lucam verbum Domini dixit ei Dominus Scribe Grot. Riv. Apolog. discuss pag. 723. that Esdras and St. Luke were not Prophets but Grave and Prudent Men who would neither deceive others nor be deceived themselves He does further affirm That St. Luke does not say in the Prophetical Stile The word of the Lord came unto Luke that the Lord did not say to him Write Spinosa did exactly follow the Opinion of Grotius which he has explained more at large in his Book Entituled Tractatus Theologico-Politicus where he does not indeed deny but that the Apostles were Prophets but he affirms (d) Dubitare possumus num Apostoli tanquam Prophetae ex revelatione expresso mandato ut Moses Jeremias alii an verò ut privati vel Doctores Epistolas scripserint Spin. Tract Theol. polit c. 11. that it may be doubted if they writ their Books in the quality of Prophets by the express command of God inspiring them as Moses Jeremy and others had done He does alledge that (e) Si ad eorum stilum attendere volumus eum à stilo Prophetiae alienissimum inveniemus Nam Prophetis usitatissimum erat ubique testari se èx Dei edicto loqui nempe Sic dicit Deus Ait Deus exercituum Edictum Dei c. Atque hoc non tantùm videtur locum habuisse in publicis Prophetarum concionibus sed etiam in Epistolis quae revelationes continebant Spin. ibid. if we judge of the Works of the Apostles by their Stile we shall find that they writ as particular Doctors and not as Prophets because they have nothing that is Prophetical Which he does prove by the same way of reasoning as Grotius It is saith he the custom of the Prophets to declare through all their Writings that they spake by God's order and they have observed that not only in their Prophecies but in their Letters which contain revelations This Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa has been lately renewed in two Letters Published in a Treatise Entitled The Opinions of some Divines of Holland upon the Critical History of the Old Testament Seeing I have given a sufficient Answer to those two Letters and also to the new Explications thereof which have been since published 't is to no purpose to repeat here what has been said elsewhere We shall only observe in general that those Men do deceive themselves whilst they will not own any Inspiration but that of the Prophecies It is true that the manner of writing a History and Letters is not the same as writing Prophecies And therefore these words The word of God that came to Luke do not begin the History of St. Luke or any other Evangelist The Books of Moses Joshua and in a word all the Historical Books of the Old Testament are not written in that Stile which Grotius does call Prophetical Yet Josephus and all the Ancient Jews call them Prophetical believing that they were given by Divine Inspiration 'T is not necessary for a Book 's being inspired that it should be indited by God word for word The false Idea that those Authors have conceived of the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings made them embrace an opinion which is contrary to all Antiquity as well Judaical as Christian Jesus Christ who promised to his Apostles that the Spirit of God should guide them in all the functions of their Ministry did not therefore deprive them of their Reason and Memory Although they were inspired they continued to be Men still and managed their Affairs as other Men. I freely own that there was no need of Inspiration to put in record such matters of Fact whereof they themselves were Witnesses But this does not hinder but that they were directed by the Spirit of God in all that they put in Writing so as not to fall into error It is certain that all the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers did acknowledge this Inspiration of the Evangelists and Apostles Nevertheless they speak of their care and exactness in penning their Works in the same manner as they speak of other Writers who are not inspired Can Grotius conclude from thence that those Ancient Doctors of the Church did not believe that the Books of the New Testament were given by Divine Inspirations This he cannot do seeing those very Doctors have clearly maintained it We need but call to mind what has been said in the 10th Chap. concerning the Opinion of Papias who was contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles He does assure us that if that Evangelist did not observe in his History the order of things as to their Event that he was not in the least to be blamed for that because he made mention of the things according as he remembred them not being so careful to relate them in their order as he was to say nothing but what was Truth Papias or rather one of the Disciples of the Apostles whose words Papias does produce in that place did not thereby pretend to reject the Inspiration of the Gospel of St. Mark. We need but consult the other Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers who expressed themselves in such a manner as might oblige Grotius and Spinosa to believe that they owned no
of their Books were written has been called in this Age the Hellenistick Language This Language is Greek in respect of the words but the order of the Phrase is Hebrew or Chaldee as we still see at this day that the Spanish Jews have composed the Translations of the Bible in a kind of Spanish Language which is hard to be understood by any one who does not understand the Hebrew It is the same thing in their other Versions of the Bible in whatsoever Language they are written They do not only continually mix therewith some Hebrew or half Hebrew words but their manner of expression in all the Vulgar Languages has also a great affinity with the Hebrew The Ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint was written in this sort of Greek as well as the Books of the New Testament and they called this Language Hellenistick because it was in use among the Jews who spake the Greek Language and who are called Hellenists or Greeks in the Acts of the Apostles Vossius who frequently frames Maxims which he does not confirm by any solid Proofs does alledge that those were called Hellenists who favoured the Greeks and that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does signifie that in the same manner as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signifie to favour the Romans and the Persians And thus that incomparable Person does often judge of things merely by Grammatical Notions without being in any measure concerned whether those notions do or do not agree to the things to which he applies them But if we should confine our selves only to the Grammatical sense of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is certain that it does signifie as well in Profane as Ecclesiastical Authors to speak Greek and likewise to speak that Language in its purity He thinks that those among the Jews were called Hebrews who by reason of the great zeal they had for their Law were unwilling to submit to the Greeks and the Romans and would by no means allow that their Nation should pay tribute to Strangers The rest on the contrary were called Hellenists who paid tribute with good will. But all this is a mere imagination that has not the least shadow of Reason and which signifies nothing as to that Passage of the Acts of the Apostles Chap. 6. where there is mention made of the Hebrews and Hellenists or Greeks St. Chrysostom Theodoret Oecumenius and many other Fathers did not by those Grecians understand any other Jews but those who had the Greek for their Vulgar Language whereas the rest spake the Chaldee or Babylonish Tongue St. Luke saith Oecumenius speaking of the former (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oecum in c. 6. Act. Apost calls them Greeks or Hellenists not upon the account of their Religion but because they spake the Greek Language Although they were Jews as well as others they are not commonly called Hebrews because they spake not the Hebrew or rather the Chaldee Language That Hebrew Language had continued among the Jews of Palestine since their return from Babylon and they look'd upon themselves to be more considerable than the rest of the Jews who were dispersed through the several Provinces of the Roman Empire where they spake Greek The most able Criticks of our Age have owned the Hellenistick Language to which they have had frequent recourse for explaining many Passages of the New Testament Yet Salmasius and after him Crojus have used their utmost endeavour to cry down this new Language which as they imagin was unknown to all the Ancients and which is as they alledge chymerical seeing it cannot be reduced to any of the Ancient Greek Dialects The former has expresly written two Books upon this Subject one whereof is entitled De Hellenisticâ Commentarius and another Funus Linguae Hellenisticae He does really in these two Works shew himself to be a Man of great Learning But he is so far from destroying that Language as he pretends that he does confirm it in several places The Patrons of the Hellenistick Language never believed that there was a Greek Dialect of that name and so all Salmasius's long Discourse upon the several Greek Dialects is nothing to the purpose Further seeing we intend not to dispute with him on words it shall be granted that the word Hellenist does signifie Greek and that those who speak not that Language properly ought rather to be called Non Hellenists than Hellenists The truth is in the Prohibition that Julian laid on the Christians not to apply themselves to the Study of the Greek Language he uses this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it does signifie to speak pure Greek And therefore St. Gregory of Nazianzen calls him in derision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lover of the Greek Language and he tells him (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naz. Orat. 1. adv Jul. he who made this Law has forbidden us to speak in the Attick Dialect but he has not restrained us from speaking the Truth In this sense there are no true Hellenists but those who have a perfect Knowledge of the Greek Language which does differ from the Hellenistick Language and this I would rather call the Greek of the Synagogue because it owes its Original to the Synagogues of the Jews But those who first call'd this Language the Hellenistick did it only in conformity to that place of the Acts where the Jews are called Hellenists and not according to the ordinary notion of the word Hellenist Salmasius does grant that there are many Hebraisms in the Version of the Septuagint and in the Writings of the Apostles He only denies that we ought upon that account to call that the Hellenistick Language in which those Books were written Otherwise saith he we ought to give the same name to the Ancient Latin Version of the Bible because there is also a great many Hebraisms in that Version But it was necessary that it should have been written in Greek before it could be called an Hellenistick Version We do not call the Language of the Septuagint and of the New Testament Hellenistick merely because it contains many Hebraisms but because it is Greek mixed with Hebraisms There may be any name chosen and applyed in this case provided that there be an agreement in the thing it self It is vain to dispute on words when the matter is past dispute Now Salmasius does in his two Books suppose certain Principles which manifestly establish the Language which some Criticks in this last Age have called the Hellenistick He assures us for example that the Seventy Interpreters who understood the Greek very well (c) Nisi verbum verbo in pluribus reddere curassent longè ut ita dicam Graecatiorem omnibus Hebraismis totidemque barbarismis repurgatam potuissent edere translationem Hebraismi non aliunde exorti sunt quà m ex vertendi modo qui se verbis alligat qui sensa non exprimere contentus
etiam vim ipsam vocularum repraesent are satagit Salm. Epist dedic Comm. de Hellenist could have made a Version of better Greek and free from all the Hebraisms and Barbarisms with which it abounds He is of the Opinion that these Hebraisms were occasioned by the too great care they took to render the Hebrew words literally and to express the force they have in the Original According to this supposition the Greek of the Septuagint is not pure but Greek mixed with Hebraisms and they have likewise given new significations to Greek words the better to express the sense of the Original This is that which is called the Hellenistick Language Thus you see how Salmasius is become a great Hellenisticary whilst he never dream'd any such thing (d) Cùm Hebraicos loquendi modos inseruere non ex Graecâ copiâ quâ abundabant eos hauserunt sed ex textu Hebraico cui nimis se in vertendo adstringebant sumpserunt Salm. ibid. When they inserted saith he speaking of the Septuagint the Hebrew modes of Speech they did not draw them from the copiousness of the Greek Language but from the Hebrew Text to which they adhered very closely Salmasius does use his utmost endeavour to confirm by those words the Greek Language of the Synagogue otherwise called the Hellenistick Language 'T is no great matter how it is called provided the thing be plain He declares that he always allow'd that the words of that Version are Greek but that the Phrase is Hebrew De re semper inter omnes constitit verba esse Graeca Phrasim Hebraicam If it be so why did he write two pretty large Books in which he disputes on nothing else but the name that is to be given to that Language The only thing that he is careful for is to shew that there never was a Dialect amongst the Greeks that was called the Hellenistick De re totâ saith he disputatur quaeritur an omnino fuerit hoc est an Hellenistica aliqua dialectus fuerit We freely grant that there never was any Dialect of this name amongst the Greeks And therefore I have elsewhere called this Language of the Jews-Hellenists a Greek of the Synagogue And in the same manner we may at this day distinguish the pure Spanish amongst the Jews from the Spanish of the Synagogue into which they have translated the Bible of that Language They have also framed on the same Model an Arabick of the Synagogue a Persian Language of the Synagogue in which they have written their Translations of the Bible and their Prayer-Books If we have not this Idea in reading the Greek of the Septuagint and the New Testament we cannot have an exact knowledg of the Stile of those Books which are not written in a Language that is purely Greek as Salmasius himself does suppose with those whom he calls Hellenisticaries Seeing it is so I do not see to what purpose the most part of that Critick's Questions do serve which he has proposed in his Commentary concerning the Hellenistick Language To what end for example does he so exactly inquire (e) An dialectus peculiaris constituenda sit ea eloquutio quâ Septuaginta Interpretes in Bibliis transferendis usi sunt An plures quà m quinque dialectos Graeci noverint an Hellenisticae inter eas dialectos meminerint An Hellenisticae nomen conveniat ei phrasi quae verbis Graecis Hebraeos concipit intellectus Salm. init Comm. de Hellen. if the Language which the Seventy Interpreters use in their Version does constitute a particular Dialect and if they reckoned amongst those Dialects that which was called Hellenistick If the appellation of the Hellenistick Language does agree to that sort of Phrase whereof the words are Greek and the conceptions Hebrew it was an easie matter for him to compile large Treatises by that Method because he does seldom or never treat of the matter in Question After he had enumerated all the Dialects of the Greeks he concludes (f) Ex his quae proposuimus sole manifestius liquet ejusmodi eloquutionem Graecam quae nec ullius certae gentis unquam propria fuit nec certas habuit notas verbis inhaerentes quibus discerneretur ab aliis dialectis non posse videri dialectum nec teneri definitione dialecti Salm. Comm. de Hellen. p. 84. that it is more clear than the day that that Greek Language that belonged to no Nation and that had no mark to characterise or distinguish it from other Dialects is not a true Dialect But that was not the thing he was to prove because we are of the same Opinion with him that that which some able Criticks have called the Hellenistick Language is none of the Greek Dialects They only think that that Language is not pure Greek by reason of the Hebraisms with which it abounds The Hellenistick Language according to those Criticks is a Language that contains Greek words and Hebrew Phrases Lingua Hellenistica est quae verbis Graecis utitur phrasibus Hebraicis All the Question then is to know if the Version of the Septuagint and the Books of the Old Testament be written in this manner Since he himself does grant this it may be concluded from hence that those Writers have no particular and proper Language It is not to be look'd for in any Dialect of the Greeks nor in any Nation in particular but in the Synagogues of the Jews-Greeks or Hellenists As if at this day I would know what is the Language of the Bibles Printed in Spanish at Ferrara and at Constantinople I would not look for a particular Nation that speaks that Language but would consult the usage of their Synagogues The Apostles who frequented the Synagogues of the Jews-Hellenists and who read with them the Greek Version of the Septuagint borrowed the expressions thereof besides being Jews by Birth and the Chaldee being their Mother Tongue it was very hard for them not to mix some Hebraisms and Chaldaisms with the Greek in which they writ Crojus who is of the same Opinion with Salmasius upon this Subject did likewise establish the Hellenistick Language in the same manner as Salmasius had done though he had at the same time an intention to destroy it That Author after he had recounted many things which were no way for the purpose he designed them does conclude against Heinsius a Hero of the Hellenisticary Party that the Evangelists and the Apostles are not Hellenists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they did not speak good Greek but did Hebraize or Chaldaize 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Phrases being Hebrew Chaldee and Syriack Whereby he does establish that Hellenistick Language whereof the words are Greek and the Phrases Hebrew He asks Heinsius how he can reconcile these two things viz. (g) Si Apostolus ejusque collegae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut in omnibus ferè observationibus contendit Heinsius quomodo profiteri potest eos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
have still at this day of reading privately every Saturday a Parasca or Section of the Chaldee Paraphrase did proceed from that ancient usage of the Synagogues who joyned the reading of the Paraphrase to the Hebrew Text. The Jewish Doctors did not therefore prohibit at that time the reading of the Greek Version and other Translations of Scripture as if they had read those Versions only in their Synagogues but they decreed that there should be no Version added to the reading of the Original Text which had been practised till that time They had used an Interpreter till that time who rendred the words of the Hebrew Text in the Language of the People Which appears by the Talmud and all other Books which Treat of the Jewish Laws and Customs That antient usage has altogether ceased amongst them They have indeed Translations of the Bible in their Vulgar Tongues but they read these only privately This they also observe as to their Service Books which they read in Hebrew in all their Synagogues although they have Translations of them in several Languages CHAP. XXVIII A more particular Discussion of the Reasons alledged by Salmasius against the Language that is called Hellenistick Several difficulties also relating to this matter are cleared THis should be the place to observe particularly the principal Hebraisms which are scattered through the whole New Testament but besides that my only design is to explain the Stile of those Books in general they may be found Collected in the Sacred Philology of John Vorstius who has enlarged sufficiently on this Subject The answer of Thomas Gatakerus to the Dissertation of Phochen vid. if he be the English Whittaker if this Authors Name was Thomas may likewise be consulted in this matter I shall speak of these two Books and some other the like in the third Part of this Critical History I shall only confine my self here to Salmasius his Reasons by which he pretends to shew that all that is said of the Hellenistick Language is without a Foundation This Learned Critick does absolutely deny that the Seventy Interpreters were Hellenists Salm. in Epist dedic Comm. de Hellen. because this Name can only be attributed to the Jews who were dispersed into several Countries out of the Land of Judah But it is Universally agreed upon that the Seventy belonged to Jerusalem and that consequently they were purely Hebrews In Jerusalem they did read the Bible in Hebrew and not in Greek If they joyned to it any Gloss it was written in the Language of the Jews of that Place that is to say in the Chaldee The same thing saith Salmasius may be alledged as to the Apostles who for the most part were Jews Originally and who lived in Judah even after the death of Jesus Christ How then is it possible that they could be Greeks or Hellenists There was only St. Paul amongst them who being of Tarsus in Cilicia where they spake the Greek Language could assume the quality of a Jew-Hellenist But having been bred at Jerusalem where he Studied under the Renowned Rabbin Gamaliel he denominates himself a mere Hebrew Hebraeus ex Hebraeis Indeed since he was of the Pharisees he cannot be reckoned in the number of the Jews-Hellenists who did read the Bible in Greek in their Synagogues It is easie to solve all these difficulties with the least trouble imaginable It may be observed that although the Appellation of Jews-Hellenists was given to those who were scattered out of Judaea into those several Countries where they spake the Greek Language this does not hinder but that there may be found true Hellenists even in the Land of Judah for every Jew who writ in that Greek which we have formerly called the Greek of the Synagogue may be called a Hellenist by reason of the Language he used in writing his Works Upon this ground when it shall be supposed that the Authors of the ancient Greek Version which is ascribed to the Seventy Interpreters were of Jerusalem they are truly Hellenists because they Composed their Version in a Greek that is full of Hebraisms and of Chaldaisms The Apostles who were of Galilee and consequently natural born Jews are also in this Sense Jews-Hellenists if they be considered as the Authors of such Books as they writ in the Greek of the Synagogue St. Paul was indeed born a Hellenist having learned the Greek Language from his Infancy but being afterwards Educated in the Schools at Jerusalem he became a pure Hebrew as to what concerned the Rites and Usages of those of his Nation Yet he ought to be reckoned among the Hellenists if we consider his Works which are written in a Greek Stile full of Hebraisms in which by common suffrage the Hellenistick Language does consist Salmasius does object against this that the modes of Speech in a Language do change according to the Times whilst the name of the Language does not change If so it cannot be said that an Hebrew or Syriack Phrase Salm. de Lang. Hellen. p. 131. which is delivered in pure Greek terms can constitute a particular Language or Dialect of a Nation It does only give a new Character of the Language The Stile of the Poets for example is very remote from the ordinary Greek Yet none ever affirmed that that was a particular Language So it cannot be said that the Hellenistick Language does make a particular Dialect common to a whole Nation as if it were a Language spoken by the Community They were content to confine it to their Synagogues and the Works of those who writ in the Language of the Synagogue Let it be only called if one please a new Character in the Greek Language But this is nothing to the Question seeing we Dispute not of the Word but of the Thing Salmasius does grant that the Greek Version of the Septuagint and of the Books of the New Testament are written in Greek full of Hebraisms we require no more for the Confirmation of the Hellenistick Language It is possible that the Hellenisticaries abuse the Word Language But it is sufficient that they do explain what they understand by this Word and that they own that they did not intend thereby the General Language of a Nation For it is certain that the Jews Greeks or Hellenists did every one speak the Greek Language of the places where they were St. Paul for example spake the Greek which was in his time used at Tarsus Philon spake the Greek of those of Alexandria and seeing he had Studied that Language with great Application he writ in a Stile that was exceedingly polished Nevertheless all the Jews who were Greeks or Hellenists did not write in the Language which is here called the Hellenistick because it was Consecrated chiefly to the use of the Synagogues and was framed according to the Language of the Holy Writings The Jews who were purely Hebrews and who writ in Greek were more Hellenisticaries than the Jews-Hellenists themselves because their Stile did
Bez. Ann. in Matth. believed that they were taken out of St. John and inserted in this place of St. Matthew Nevertheless we read these words in our Vulgar and they are likewise put in the Text of St. Matthew which was Printed with St. Jerom's Commentary But if we examin the manner how he does express himself in that Commentary we shall easily judge that he has not added them in his Edition Indeed the Divines of Louvain have marked 15 Latin Manuscripts in the Margin of their Edition of the New Testament where they did not read them In the same Chapter v. 49. this verse is not in a Manuscript cited in the sixth Tome of the Polyglott of England At the end of the same verse after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rob. Stephen did in two of his Manuscripts read this Addition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But another taking a Spear pierced his Side and there came forth blood and water Luke of Bruges does observe that these words are not St. Matthew's but that they were taken out of St. John Chap. 19. v. 34. In the 64 verse of the same Chapter we do not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by night in three of Colbert's in the Cambridge Copy in the Alexandrine in two of Rob. Stephen's Manuscripts nor in the Marquess of Veles's Neither has St. Jerom expressed these words in his new Edition Chap. 28. v. 2. we do not read these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the door in the Cambridge Copy nor in the Marquess of Veles's St. Jerom seeing he found them not in the Ancient Vulgar has not put them in his new Edition but they are extant in all the other Manuscripts We do likewise read after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in two Colbert's and many other Manuscripts Cod. MS. Colb n. 2467. 4078. which are marked in the sixth Tome of the Polyglott of England 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sepulcher ver 7. of the same Chap. we do not read in the Cambridge Copy nor in the Marquess of Veles these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the dead whence they were in all probability taken away as superfluous Neither has St. Jerome expressed them in his Edition But they are extant in all other Greek Copies It would be to no purpose to run through the other Books of the New Testament for marking the various readings thereof or at least the Principal amongst them Those we have already produced are sufficient to shew that they were not exempted from such changes as length of time and the errors of Transcribers do bring (y) Totum hoc membrum cum Prophetae testimonio in nullis vetustis codicibus reperimus neque legitur in Syrâ interpretatione Adjectum proculdubio ex Joann 19.24 Bez. ibid. v. 35. into Books I have in this Collection rather kept to the Manuscripts of Monsieur Colbert's Library than to the King 's because as I suppose there have been none of the former as yet published I shall handle more at large those different Readings of the Copies of the New Testament in the Second Part of this Work where I shall particularly examine our Latin Edition and the ancient Versions of the Oriental Churches by comparing them with the Greek Copies whence they were taken I have likewise beforehand spoken somewhat of the Method which S. Jerom took in reforming the Ancient Vulgar by the best Greek Copies of his time CHAP. XXXIII Of the Order of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament The Verses Chapters and other Marks of Distinction of those Copies The Canons which Eusebius added to the Gospels and the Use of those Canons THE most ancient Greek Copies of the New Testament are written without any distinction not only of Chapters and Verses but also of Words so that we may apply to those Copies that which was said elsewhere of the Books of the Old Testament that they only make one Pasuk or Verse from their several beginnings They did not then know what it was to mark with Points Comma's and other Distinctions which have been afterwards inserted in Books to make the reading more easie and distinct We shall further observe that even since Distinctions of this nature have been in use the most part of Transcribers did neglect them as well as the Accents in the ancient Greek Manuscripts And therefore it is very rare to find such Marks of Distinction in the Greek Copies for above these thousand years past The Copy of S. Paul's Epistles which is in the Royal Library and that of the Benedictins of the Abbey of S. Germain are also written without any distinction of Points and other Stops and altho the Words are accented there it seems that the Accents were added in the King's Copy seeing they are not of the same Hand with the Body of the Book This does not hinder but that Accents and Points or Marks of Distinction are much more ancient than these two Manuscripts But the Transcribers did commonly neglect them There were none but very curious and very exact persons who took care to add them to their Copies Georgius Syncellus (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Georg. Syncel Chronol p. 203. makes mention of a Greek Copy of the Bible that was written before this great Accuracy where the Accents and Points were placed He says that that Copy was brought to him from the Library of Cesarea in Cappadocia and that he perceived by the Inscription of the Book that it had been transcribed from an ancient Copy which had been corrected by the great S. Basil There are also Manuscript Hebrew Copies which have been copied by the Jews It is very rare to find the Points Vowels and the Accents to have been noted therein for sive or six hundred years past This only happens in the most exact Books yet there are some Works extant above four hundred years where there is mention made of those Points and Accents which were in use at that time in their Copies The most ancient Church Writers do likewise in their Works speak of all those Marks of Dictinction which are at present in the Greek Copies of the New Testament We read there of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Section and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter They sometimes observe the places where the Points ought to be marked to remove the ambiguity of a Discourse especially when the Hereticks do observe a different Punctation But after all it must be avowed that there has been nothing determined to the purpose upon this matter Every one did most commonly according to his prejudices mark that sort of Distinctions which depended on the Transcribers and the Expositors of the Scripture And therefore Petavius after having observed what S. Epiphanius and some other ancient Doctors of the Church have brought against some Hereticks about the manner of pointing the third Verse of the first Chapter of the Gospel according to S. John does add (b) Existimo
to repeat here what we said in another place concerning the word Critick which is a term of Art which in some sense is bestowed on all Works whose designs are to examin the various readings and establish the true The aim of those which practise that Art it not to destroy but establish As the Holy Books are not exempt from faults which either by the tract of Time or negligence of the Transcribers have slipt into 'em some Learned Persons in all Ages have taken care to render them correct The most barbarous Ages have produced Books which they call Correctoria Bibliae or Corrections of the Bible The Emperor Constantine spared nothing to procure for the Oriental Churches correct Copies of all the Bibles Charlemagne and his Successors have done the same for the Latine Bibles of the VVestern Churches Besides those which were formerly imployed in the Monasteries about Transcribing of Books There were some Criticks who reviewed and corrected them This is the Reason why in some Manuscript ancient Bibles there are some Corrections found of equal Antiquity with the Books themselves But without ascending so far to have a Precedent for the Vse of Critical Reflections on the Sacred Books we need only consider the Transactions of the Latter Age relating to the Latine Editions of our Bibles VVhat prodigious pains was Robert Stephens at according to the Relation of Hentenius a Divine of Louvain to give us an exact and correct Edition of the Bible This Divine which laboured after Stephens in the same matter admires the diligence and excessive expence of that Printer to whom he ingeniously acknowledges himself indebted ‖ Joann Henten Praef. in Bibl. Lovan ann 1547. Nemo est qui nesciat ut unum pro multis in medium adferam quantam diligentiam quantasque impensas tulerit Robertus Stephanus Regius apud Lutetiam Typographus quem honoris causâ nomino ut accuratissima castigatissima nobis Biblia traderet propter quod plurimum etiam illi debent quotquot Sacrarum Literarum lectioni sunt addicti quem ob id etiam in multis secuti sumus The Doctors of the Faculty of Divinity of Louvain perfected afterwards the Edition of their Brother with a greater Collection of Manuscripts and re-altered some places according to the Rules of Criticism which they thought not corrected with exactness enough Nicolas Zegers a Religious Man of the Order of St. Francis apply'd himself entirely to the Correction of the Books of the New Testament He dedicated his Critique to Julian III. under the Title of * Castigationes in Novum Testamentum in quibus depravata restituuntur adjecta resecantur sublata adjiciuntur Autore Tac. Nicolao Zeger Colon. ann 1555. Corrections on the New Testament wherein it re-established what was corrupted expunged what was added and added what was before expunged He assures that Pope in his Epistle Dedicatory (b) Haec est genuina germana emendata veteris nostri Interpretis versio seu translatio quâ hactenùs semper à tempore ferè Apostolorum aut non ita diù pòst usa cognoscitur Romana Ecclesia quam ab innumeris tum mendis tum adulterinis adjectiunculis non sine magnis multis molestiis repurgavimus Zeger Epist ad Jul. III. That he had freed from an infinite number of Faults and false Glosses the ancient Latine Version which bad been in Vse among the VVestern Churches from the very Times of the Apostles There is nothing more exactly †Notaticnes in Sacra Biblia quibus variantia discrepantibus exemplaribus loca summo studio discutiuntur Antverp ann 1580. performed than the Critical Remarks of Lucas Brugensis in his Edition of the Latine Bible of the Divines of Louvain Among the multitude of his Copies he mentions one which was corrected by some Dominicans on the Bibles of Charlemagne He sets some marks of Esteem on another Manuscript entitled The Correction of the Bible Praeter alia id quod maximi facimus Manuscriptum Bibliorum correctorium ab incerto auctore magnâ diligentiâ ac fide contextum ‡ Luc. Brug Notat in Gen. c. 8. v. 7. And he assures us (c) Quae à nostri seculi scriptoribus ex manuscriptis codicibus collectae sunt variae lectiones omnes propemodùm in eo comperimus ad fontes fideliter examinatos deprehendimus Luc. Brug Notat in Gen. c. 8. v. 7. that the different Readings which have been observed by the Criticks of the latter Times are all found in this Book where they are examined according to the Hebrew Text. I have elsewhere mentioned another Manuscript of like nature which is in the ancient Library of the Colledge of Sorbon I have likewise given Extracts out of it which manifestly prove that the Latins have not neglected the Critical Study of the Sacred Books in those very Ages when Barbarism reigned in Europe It is a Vanity in the admirers of the Hebrew Text of the Jews to bestow such great praises on the Massoreth a good part of which consists in Trifles or superstitious Observations The Christians of both the Eastern and Western Churches with more Judgment have taken care in the Correction of the Bibles as manifestly will appear by this Work. We ought to prefer to the Massoreth those learned * Romani Correctores Criticks of Rome which by the order of Pope Sixtus V. and Clement VIII corrected the Latine Bibles which Correction serves instead of an exact Massoreth to the Western Church There are none but Protestants of ill minds such as Thomas James Author of the Bellum Papale who cavil at the differences of the Editions of the Bible published by those two Popes There may indeed be a more perfect work but that ought to be reserved for particular Notes which no ways diminish the Authority of those Books received into publick Vse I must only add two words concerning those Acts which are made use of in this Work. For the Manuscripts I mark the Libraries where they are found I have cited none without reading them the Extracts being all done by my self except that of Cambridge which contains the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles I had procured out of England a faithful Copy of this last Manuscript in what relates to the Greek which I have exactly followed As for the Printed Books of which there are numerous Quotations for the most part I have contented my self to relate the Passages in short following the sense only in the Body of the work For long Citations of Passages where there are but five or six words perhaps pertinent to the Occasion must needs prove very tiresom This is the very same Method which I have followed in the Critical History of the Old Testament But some Persons desiring such Passages at length to avoid searching them in the Books to comply with their Desires and keep to our Method we judged it convenient to put them at large at the bottom of the Page
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
had lived before therefore he adds at the same time that (d) Si sub ipsius Pauli nomine Evangelium Marcion intulisset non sufficeret ad fidem singularitas instrumenti destituta patrocinio antecessorum Tertull. ibid. altho Marcion should have published his Gospel even under the name of S. Paul this Title would have availed nothing at least if it had not been accompanied with these Testimonies He goes yet farther in declaring that he did not take advantage of the Title that is at the beginning of S. Luke in the Copies of the Church Ibid. De titulo quoque funis ducendus est contentionis pari hinc inde nisu fluctuante For as to the Title alone Marcion might say as well as the Orthodox That the Gospel which he produced was the true one (e) Ego meum dico verum Marcion suum Ego Marcionis affirmo adulterat um Marcion meum Quis inter nos determinabit nisi temporis ratio ei praescribens auctoritatem quod antiquius reperietur ei praejudicans vitiationem quod posterius revincetur Tertull. ibid. cap. 4. To which then shall we adhere saith Tertullian by what Rule may we determine which is the true Gospel whether that of Marcion that hath been corrupted or that of the Church which is supposed to be entire at least if regard be had to Antiquity insomuch that the most ancient should be the true because the verity of an Act always preceeds the corruption of the same In quantum enim falsum corruptio est veri in tantum praecedat necesse est veritas falsum On this uncontroulable Principle he makes it appear that the true Copy of S. Luke was that which the Orthodox made use of since Marcion himself had not acknowledged any other before he had separated from the Church which he accused of Judaizing and he chiefly defended himself with this pretended Judaism from the Charge of not receiving this Gospel entire which he said had been interpolated by those that authorized Judaism Interpolatum à protectoribus Judaismi Lastly Tertullian concludes That there was no other true Copy of S. Luke but his because it was before that which Marcion had corrected and the Reason that he alledgeth is this That he could not amend any but that which was in the Church and was consequently antecedent to his Id emendans quod invenit id posterius quod de nostro emendatione constituens suum novum fecit But since it might be objected to him that it is not always true that the most ancient Books are the most correct because they also may have been corrupted at least if they be not the true Originals he answers that it is necessary to look back to the time of the Apostles to be certain that we have their genuine Writings (f) In summa si constat id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio ab initio quod ab Apostolis pariter utique constabit id esse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum Tertull. ibid. cap. 5. Now we are assured according to his Opinion that a thing belongs to the times of the Apostles when we see that it hath been inviolably preserved in the Apostolical Churches All these Arguments of Tertullian prove that the constant Tradition of the Church is the mark by which we distinguish the Divine and Canonical Books from those that are not so and that it is this same Church that hath added or at least approved of the Titles of the four Gospels to denote to us that these Gospels were written by Apostles or by their Disciples which does not in the least agree with this private Spirit of some Protestants In seems that Beza believed that the Titles of the Gospels were no less dictated by the Holy Ghost than the Text it self Th. Bezae Resp ad defens reprehens Seb. Castal this he insinuates in his Answer to the Defense of Castalio whom he reprehends for having translated in his Latin Version of the New Testament these Greek Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by these auctore Matthaeo Maldonat hath observed with much more Judgment (g) Non est Sacrorum Scriptorum consuetudo ut ante initium librorum ritulos ponant sed ut vel omittant vel prima libri verba titulum faciant Maldon Comm. in cap. I. Matth. That it is not the custom of the sacred Writers to put Titles at the beginning of their Works but that they either omit them altogether or they include them within the first Words of their Books which he demonstrates by Examples taken out of the Old Testament whence he infers that it is probable that the Evangelists are not the Authors of the Titles of their Gospels He proves it also by the Example of S. Mark who would have put two Titles to his Book if he were the Author of the first that runs thus The Gospel according to Mark because he begins his History with these other Words The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ He adds farther That if the Evangelists had been the Authors of these Titles there would not have been found so great an uniformity amongst them as appears they would have made use of different Expressions as they do in the other parts where they relate the same things but in different terms instead of writing all The Gospel according to N. Again he confirms his Opinion by the diversity that is found among the Greek and Latin Copies Maldon ibid. for these last read The holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to N. which proceeds from this saith Maldonat that the Greek Church hath put the Greek Title and the Latin Church the Latin quod Graecum Titulum Graeca Latinum Latina It seems that Beza in this case chose rather to prefer the Title of the Latin Copy before that of the Greek when he accuseth Castalio of having falsly translated auctore Matthaeo as if S. Matthew had been the Author of his Gospel for to confute his Adversary with more force he saith (h) Neque enim legimus Evangelium Matthaei Marci Lucae vel Joannis sed Evangelium Jesu Christi ut habent omnes Latini codices secundùm Matthaeum Marcum Lucam Joannem Bez. Resp ad Castal p. 12. That we read not the Gospel of Matthew Mark Luke or John but the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew Mark Luke and John as it is in all the Latin Copies Nevertheless this Reading is not found but in the Latin Version and not in all the Latin Copies neither If Maldonat may be believed there is only the Arabick Version printed at Rome Nov. Test Arab. edit Romae an 1591. where it is read The Gospel of Jesus Christ according as it hath been written by S. Matthew one of his twelve Disciples But it is easie to judge that this Arabick Title hath been taken in part from the Latin and those who have copied
this History of the Birth of Jesus Christ and of the Virgin passeth for an authentick Book in the Oriental Churches Biblian in Epist nunenp Authenticus habetur in Orientalibus Ecclesias The Greek of this little Work hath also been printed afterwards at Basil with the Latin Version in a Collection of several Pieces intituled Monumenta Orthodoxa The Title that answers to that of the Latin Translation is thus expressed An. 1569. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Commentary on the six days of the Creation that Leo Allatius hath published under the Name of Eustathius Bishop of Antioch who lived at the beginning of the fourth Century did certainly belong to that Bishop the Protevangelium would be of sufficient Antiquity there is found in this Book a considerable fragment of it that is delivered in such manner that the most fabulous part thereof is omitted The Expression that Eustathius useth in citing it makes it appear that he did not believe it to be of St. James under whose name they had published it but of another James for observe how he speaks (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eustath Comm. in Hex It is convenient here to peruse the History that one James relates of the Virgin Mary However it be we find in the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors a part of the things that are contained in this little History and that apparently come from the Gnosticks who had written many Fables relating to the Birth of Jesus Christ and the Virgin. I admire that the Protestants who have caused this Protevangelium of James to be printed have thought it worthy to be published with some other pieces of the like nature under the Title of * Orthodoxogr edit Basil Lat. ann 1555. ibid. Lat. Gr. an 1569. Biblian ibid. Orthodoxographa Bibliander seriously divulgeth the Impostures of William Postel who had averred that this Protevangelium was the beginning of the Gospel of S. Mark and even the foundation of Evangelical History this he repeats also in a little Discourse wherein he gives his Judgment of this Book Ipse Postellus saith he aestimat Protevangelium ut gemmam inter Libros Theologicos Basim atque fundamentum totius Historiae Evangelicae caput Evangelii secundùm Marcum Biblian in censu judic Protevan In a word he forgets nothing that might set a value on this wicked Piece which he thinks to be recommendable because it hath not been reckoned in the number of the Apocryphal Books with the Gospels of Nicodemus Thomas and many others that are recited at large in the Catalogue of Pope Gelasius But this proves only that the Protevangelium had not been as yet published in that time or that not being translated into Latin this Pope had took no cognisance thereof Indeed he hath placed among the Apocryphal Works a Book that treated on the same Subject as may be judged by the Title Liber de Nativitate Salvatoris saith Gelasius de Sancta Maria Gelas apud Grat. decr 1. part dist 15. c. 3. de obstetrice Salvatoris apocryphus It were to be wished that Father Jerom Xavier a Missionary Jesuit had not inserted so many very improbable things taken out of this sort of Books in his History of Jesus Christ written in the Persian Tongue It would be to no purpose for me to enlarge any farther on the false Acts that have been published under the names of the Apostles it is enough to observe in general that they have been for the most part invented by Hereticks that have been willing to support their Novelties by attributing them to some Disciples of Jesus Christ Hegisippus who lived immediately after the Disciples of the Apostles speaking of Apocryphal Books testifies (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 4. cap. 22. that a part of these Books have been composed by the Hereticks of his time therefore when the Primitive Fathers designed to judge whether a Book were Canonical or not they have examined its Doctrine to see if it were conformable to that which was taught in the Catholick Church they have moreover consulted the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors who have lived since the Apostles to their times that they might by this means know the Tradition Serapion applied these two Rules to the Gospel that passed under the name of S. Peter which was read by those of the Church of Rhossus thinking that it did certainly belong to him whose name it bore (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Serap apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. cap. 12. We have found saith this holy Bishop in this Gospel Serap apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. c. 12. many things that agree with the true Religion of Jesus Christ but there are also some things that are far from it He judgeth in the same place that the Act that had been produced to him was false because it was not grounded on Tradition Not but that the Fathers have sometimes made use of Apocryphal Books and have quoted even false Gospels as for example the Gospel that is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Egyptians is not to be allowed as authentick for this very reason that it is thought to be most ancient and that mention is made thereof in Clement of Alexandria it ought not to be rejected neither under this pretence alone that the Gnosticks and Sabellians have maintained their Errors by this Book The Primitive Fathers who have written against the Pagans and Jews do sometimes follow in their Disputes and even in their other Works the method of Rhetoricians who often employ Reasons purely probable and doubtful Acts after which we must not always regulate our selves This is to be seen principally in the Works of Clement of Alexandria and Origen Clement hath on this account related some Words of Jesus Christ (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. lib. 3. Strom. that are not to be found in the four Evangelists authorized by the Tradition of the Church and he saith that they are in the Gospel of the Egyptians He only quotes them after the Heretick Cassian Clem. Al. l. 2. Strom. and in arguing with the Followers of Basilides he refers to certain Writings attributed to St. Barnabas On the other side the Hereticks making Profession of Christianity as well as the Orthodox have not always recourse to apocryphal and supposititious Pieces to defend their Innovations Therefore to judge rightly of an Act whether it be valuable or not in point of Religion and whether it carrieth with it a Divine Authority it is absolutely necessary to apply to it the two Rules that have been above mentioned S. Augustin's Advice is when any such Difficulties arise (c) Tenebit hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis ut eas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis Catholicis praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt In eis verò quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus praeponat eas quas plures gravioresque
accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque autoritatis Ecclesiae tenent Aug. lib. 2. de Doctr. Christ cap. 8. to have regard to the plurality of Churches and to prefer those that are in a greater number and of more eminent note before the others that are in a lesser number and less considerable There is another sort of Acts attributed to the Apostles or their Disciples that have been rejected as Apocryphal in process of time though in the beginning they did really belong to those to whom they were ascribed or at least to their Disciples who had published them under the name of their Masters But these Acts having been interpolated and mangled by the Hereticks or else by others we have been obliged not to allow them any longer as authentick St. Epiphanius seems to have put in this rank the Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Constitution of the Apostles which he often quotes as if it were indeed theirs He draws from thence Proofs to confirm the judgment of the Church when he examines the opinion of the Audians concerning the Passover who produced one of these Constitutions attributing it to the Apostles This Father being very far from condemning or even doubting of it received it with them as Apostolical reproving them only for taking it in a wrong sense And whereas these Constitutions were from that time suspected by some he adds that they ought not to be rejected for this because they contained the whole Ecclesiastical Discipline which makes me judge that he had another Copy different from that which we read at present He appeared to be so well persuaded that these Constitutions were made by the Apostles (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 80. n. 7. that he calls them the Word of God. Nevertheless it is more probable that the Apostles who had received Orders from Jesus Christ to preach his Gospel and not to compose Books are not the Authors of these Constitutions that bear their Name But as S. Mark calls his Gospel the Gospel of Jesus Christ so in like manner Apostolical Men who succeeded the Apostles have collected their Doctrine and Constitutions and published them under the Name of the Apostles It is in this sense that the Apostles Creed is so called being that ancient Confession of Faith that all the Churches undoubtedly received from the Apostles though they had not committed it to Writing CHAP. IV. The ancient Fathers have not produced the Originals of the New Testament in their Disputes against the Hereticks An Examination of Proofs that are brought to shew that these Originals have been kept in some Churches WE may conclude from all that hath been above related that the most ancient Fathers of the Church when they designed to establish the truth of the Books of the New Testament have not had recourse to any Originals that had been kept in the Apostolical Churches but only to true and exact Copies of them which being found the same in all these Churches were in the place of the Originals themselves On this depends all the Dispute of Tertullian against Marcion and that of S. Augustin against Faustus a Manichean Sectary These two Hereticks refused to acknowledge the Copies that were approved in the Catholick Church Tertullian and S. Augustin did not oppose to them the Authority of any Original Pieces but only the constant Tradition of the Churches Vides saith S. Augustin speaking to Faustus in hac re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat auctoritas Aug. lib. 11. cont Faust c. 2. Is it possible may some say that God hath given to his Church Books to serve her for a Rule and that he hath at the same time permitted that the first Originals of these Books should be lost ever since the beginning of the Christian Religion There have been from the very first planting of the Church Hereticks who have disputed against the Writings of the Apostles and therefore it seems to behove the Divine Providence to preserve these Originals at least for some time from whence these Hereticks might be solidly confuted But it hath been already made appear elsewhere Rep. à la Defense des Sent. de quelq Theol. de Holl. ch 6. pag. 179. that it is no wonder that the Primitive Christians who had not a regular Body of a State in which they lived and whose Assemblies were on the contrary furiously disturbed by the Jews and Pagans had lost the Originals of their Books Besides the Apostles had no order from Jesus Christ to write their Books as hath been above observed and although they should not have been written Religion would be equally preserved by the means of Tradition after the same manner as it had been established before the Apostles had committed any thing to Writing Iren. l. 3. adv Haer. c. 4. Quid si saith St. Irenaeus neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias Upon the whole matter Jesus Christ had sent his Apostles to all the Nations of the Earth only to preach his Doctrine to them That which the ancient Christians have called Gospel is only a Collection of the Preachings of these same Apostles or of their Disciples As for what relates to the Primitive Hereticks they would not have been more solidly confuted by opposing to them the Originals of the Writings of the Apostles since they took the liberty to reform their Doctrine and to set up in opposition to their Books I know not what Traditions of which they themselves were the Authors as may be seen more at large in the Books of S. Irenaeus who understood perfectly well the Opinions of these ancient Sectaries of which he hath left us some Records He declares for example in speaking of the Gnosticks Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. cap. 2. that he had to do with Persons that did not acknowledge the Scriptures nor the Tradition of the Church but that squared both the one and the other according to the measure of their own Prejudices therefore he forgets nothing that may serve to establish the true Traditions by which Religion ought to be regulated Although the Scriptures are a sure Rule on which our Faith is founded yet this Rule is not altogether sufficient of it self it is necessary to know besides this what are the Apostolical Traditions and we cannot learn them but from the Apostolical Churches who have preserved the true Sense of Scriptures S. Irenaeus adviseth (a) Omnis sermo ei constabit si Scripturam diligenter legerit apud eos qui in Ecclesia sunt Presbyteri apud quos est Apostolica doctrina Iren. lib. 4. adv Haer. cap. 51. that the sacred Books should be read to be informed from thence of Religion but at the same time he adviseth that they should be read wich those who being the Successors of the Apostles have been as it were the Depositaries or Stewards of their
Doctrine There was no talk in those days of reading the Holy Scriptures in the Originals any Copy whatsoever provided it were used in the Orthodox Churches might be relied on as if it had been the first Original written with the hand of the Apostles We ought to give the same credit to Copies that have been made of the Apostolical Writings as to the very Originals because these Copies have been taken from thence even from the times of the Apostles and have been afterwards dispersed almost throughout the whole Earth they have been preserved in all the Churches of the World having been translated into divers Languages insomuch that there is no Book the Copies whereof are more authentick than those of the New Testament and in this we ought chiefly to acknowledge the peculiar Providence of God in the preservation of these Books that he hath given to his Church by the Ministry of the Apostles or of their Disciples Some pretend nevertheless to make it appear by actual Proofs taken out of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that the original Writings of the Apostles have been preserved in the Church during several Ages and this must be examined in particular though I have already discoursed thereof elsewhere In the first place they produce a Passage of Tertullian in his Book of Prescription against Heresies where he saith in speaking of the Churches that had been founded by the Apostles (b) Apud quos ipsae Authenticae Literae eorum recitantur Tertull. de Praescr cap. 36. that they yet kept in his time their Authentick Writings Pamel Annot. in lib. Tertul. de Praescr c. 36. Pamelius in his Notes on this Passage affirms after another Author that the Word Authentick cannot be taken but for the Originals that had been written with the very hand of the Apostles themselves after the same manner as Lawyers call a Testament Authentick that hath been written with the hand of the Testator to distinguish it from a Copy This is also the Sense that Grotius Grot. de Verit. Relig Christ lib. 3. Walton Huetius and many others have given of these Words of Tertullian Tertullianus saith Grotius aliquot librorum ipsa Archetypa suo adhuc tempore ait extitisse He avoucheth from this place of Tertullian (c) Archetypa nonnulla ad annum usque ducentesimum servata sunt Grot. de Verit. Relig. Christ lib. 3. that some Originals of the New Testament have been preserved till the beginning of the third Century But if we carefully examine the different Passages wherein Tertullian makes use of the Word Authentick in his Works we shall find that he hath meant nothing else by this Expression than Books written in their Original Languages This is what Rigaltius hath very well observed on this Sentence of Tertullian where explaining the Word Authenticae he saith Rigalt Annot. in lib. Tertul. de Praescr c. 36. Lingua scilicet eadem qua fuerant ab Apostolis conscriptae sonantes vocem uniuscujusque Sic ipse lib. de Monogamia ad Graecum authenticum Pauli provocat Whereas the Latin Version of the New Testament was only read in the Churches of Africa he gives the Name of Authentick to the Greek Text and in this Sense it is that quoting this Text in his Book of Monogamy he saith Sciamus planè non esse sic in Graeco authentico St. Jerom also useth the like Expression with respect to the Old Testament when he opposeth the Hebrew Text to the Greek and Latin Versions for he calls the former Veritatem Hebraicam the Hebrew Verity designing thereby to denote the Originals of the Scriptures which he likewise denominates as Tertullian doth Authenticos libros Tertul. lib. de Monog c. 11. in his Commentary on chap. 64. of the Prophet Isaiah nevertheless he did not believe that these were the first Originals written with the hand of the Prophets We express our selves also at this day after the same manner when we say that a Version of the Scriptures is not conformable to the Original Tertullian therefore doth not speak of any other Originals in his Book of Prescription than those that we have just now remarked As to the Authority of Lawyers that Pamelius opposeth it is easie to remonstrate by the Testimony even of the most learned Lawyers that the Word Authentick is often taken in a less strict sense Every Act that proves and procures credit of it self whether it be an Original or not is accounted Authentick An Author that publisheth some Manuscript Piece assures us that it is taken ex codice authentico from an authentick Copy Doth he mean by this that he hath the Original of the Book that he sets forth in his own hands In the second place they offer an actual Proof taken from Eusebius Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 10. This Historian speaking of the Zeal and of the Charity of the ancient Christians who went to preach the Gospel to the most remote Nations after the Example of the Apostles saith that Pantenus quitted the City of Alexandria where he was the Principal of a School or Colledge of Christians to promulge the Religion of Jesus Christ to the Indians This faithful Evangelist being among the Indians or Ethiopians found there a Copy of S. Matthew's Gospel written in Hebrew that S. Bartholomew the Apostle of these People had left and was believed to be preserved there to that time But besides that Eusebius doth not confirm this History by any Ecclesiastical Writer being content only to say that it was a common Report 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not see that it can be unquestionably proved from these Words that the Hebrew Copy that Pantenus found at his Arrival in that Country was the Original that St. Bartholomew had left there He only intended to say That the Ethiopians who had been converted to the Faith of Jesus Christ by this Apostle did not make use of the Greek Gospel of S. Matthew but of the Hebrew or Chaldaick that had been written for the first Christians of Jerusalem If this History were true the Primitive Christians of Ethiopia were descended from the Jews and spake the same Language as those that inhabited Judea This is all that can be concluded from the Discourse of Eusebius which hath been amplified in process of time St. Hierom doth not seem to have understood the sense of this Historian when he saith in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers that Pantenus (d) Quod Hebraicis literis scriptum revertens Alexandriam secum detulit Hier. de Scriptor Eccles in Panteno returning to Alexandria carried back with him the Gospel of St. Matthew written in Hebrew Characters Eusebius saith only that the Christians of Ethiopia had preserved this Hebrew Gospel until the Arrival of Pantenus The third material proof that is brought is taken from the Chronicle of Alexandria wherein it is observed that a correct Book of the Gospel of St. John that had been written with that Evangelist's own hand
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) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
Jerusalem Voss ibid. which was consequently Chaldaick or Syriack since this Word is Chaldaick Who knows not saith he that the Jews do yet at this day give Hebrew Names to their Fields Burying-places and divers other things I confess it but it is said expressy in the Acts (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 1.19 that this Field was called Haceldama in the Language that was spoken at Jerusalem It hath been also objected to him that there can be no reason alledged why the Title of the Cross hath been written in Greek Latin and Hebrew unless it were that these three Languages were then spoken in Jerusalem Now the Hebrew or Chaldaick was the Language of that place Although it should be granted that there were also then at Jerusalem some Jews that came from beyond Euphrates yet he will never persuade People endued with common Sense that respect was had only to this last sort of Jews when this Title was written It ought to have been written for the same reason in the Languages of the other Jews that were also present at that time at Jerusalem It hath been represented to Mr. Vossius that the Jews of Palestine did understand even in the time of St. Jerom the Chaldaick Tongue which their Ancestors had brought from Babylon He demands what Proofs there are of this and in what place of St. Jerom this is to be found Nevertheless he accounts as nothing the Testimony of this Father in his Preface to Tobit wherein he saith (p) Quia vicina est Chaldaeorum lingua sermoni Hebraico utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem reperiens unius diei laborem arripui quidquid ille mihi Hebraicis verbis expressit hoc ego accito notario sermonibus Latinis exposui Hieron Praef. in Tob. that in translating this Book from Chaldaick into Latin he was assisted by a Jew who spake Hebrew and Chaldaick very well and that he had put into Latin whatsoever he had expressed to him in Hebrew terms This Jew spake Hebrew because he was a Man of great Learning and he spake Chaldaick also because it was the Language that the Jews of those Places yet spake amongst themselves and in which they wrote their Books For this reason the Talmud of Jerusalem hath been written in this Tongue as well as that of Babylon The same hath happened to the Massora which hath been composed in Chaldaick by the Jews of Tiberias The Chaldaick Tongue hath not been truly spoken in those Countries for many Ages since but we must not confound the other people with the Jews who had always continued to speak amongst themselves in the Language that they had received from their Fathers We shall not need then to have recourse to the Parthians with Mr. Vossius to introduce into those Places the Chaldaick or Babylonian Tongue in the time of St. Jerom no more than in the time of the Apostles but according to the custom that the Jews have to preserve their ancient Languages though they are not spoken in the Countries where they have their abode as we have proved by the Example of the Spanish Jews who are in the Levant and of those that are at present at Amsterdam These last write Books in Spanish and Portugaise although they be in a Country where the Flemish Tongue is spoken they have also translated for the use of the People out of Hebrew into Spanish their Book of Peayers called Seder tephiloth under the Title of Orden de Oraciones Furthermore not to enter into a fruitless Dispute purely about Words Mr. Vossius shall be left to his liberty to call the Language that is stiled Hebrew in the Books of the New Testament Chaldaick rather than Syriack It is in vain then that he enlargeth so much on this Controversie of Words and that he is so angry with several learned Men for having called it Syriack or Syra Chaldaick (q) Quae tamen lingua nisi in scriptis forsan neotericorum qui quando se expedire non possunt istiusmodi fingunt voces quas ipsa non capit rerum natura nec accuratè se loqui existimarunt nisi barbaris monstrosis utantur appellationibus Voss Resp ad tert P. Sim. Obj. This Language saith he is not to be found but in the Writings of modern Authors who have forged these monstrous Words to wave the matter But it seems to me that it hath been always permitted to any that would express something new especially in point of Criticism to invent new Words that may give a clear and distinct Idea of the thing that is to be explained Now it is certain that the Tongue which is named Hebrew in the New Testament is properly neither Hebrew nor Syriack nor even Chaldaick for it is composed of a certain mixture of the Hebrew and of the Chaldaick or Babylonian They that have used these Words which are supposed to be barbarous have been Persons very skilful in these Languages and have discoursed of them with a perfect knowledge When S. Hierom makes mention of the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew that was in use amongst the Nazarenes he authorizeth the barbarous Word of Syro-Chaldaick quod Chaldaico saith he Syroque sermone sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est Hieron lib. 3. adv Pelag. Hence it may be observed that this learned Father made no difficulty to call indifferently Chaldaick and Syriack the Language that the Jews of Jerusalem spake in the time of the Apostles The greatest part of the Fathers as well Greek as Latin do also call Syriack that which bears the name of Hebrew in the New Testament The most judicious Criticks of our Age speak no otherwise Mr. Vossius alone is singular herein who hath thought fit of late to reject this Syriack Tongue which he had already approved in his other Works Voss ibid. He demands in what time and after what manner the Hebrew Tongue became Syriack But as we have before said he may if he please call it Chaldaick if he remains so obstinate as not to be willing to receive the Name of Syriack with all Antiquity and with the Suffrage of all People that are expert in these Languages which he seems not to understand If he rightly apprehended this matter he would not insist on a Question that is only concerning a Name To avoid all the trifling and insignificant Circumstances to which Mr. Vossius hath purposely had recourse that he might make a shew of offering at least something in answer to the Objections that have been made to him it is convenient that I should relate the Judgment as to this point of George Amira a learned Maronite who hath published at Rome an excellent Grammar of the Syriack Tongue he hath intituled his Book A Syriack or Chaldaick Grammar Georgii Amirae Gramm Syr. sive Chald. and thus he makes it appear from the Title of his Work that these two Words may be indifferently used this he confirms at the
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. had their Priests or Elders and their Chiefs of the Synagogue For they call not saith he their Assembly a Church but a Synagogue He speaks apparently of the Ebionites that understood the Greek Tongue and even read a Greek Translation of their Hebrew or Syriack Gospel For this distinction between the Words Synagogue and Church is not to be found in the Hebrew or Syriack and the sense of these two words is the same in the Greek as it is easie to prove from the Greek Version of the Septuagint The Ebionites were not content only to have corrupted the Gospel of S. Matthew but they forged also divers Books according to Epiphanius (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. n. 22. under the Names of James Matthew and other Disciples of Jesus Christ They read one in like manner under the Name of S. John abusing by this means the Names of the Apostles that they might the more easily impose on those of their party (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. n. 15. Besides they made use of the Voyages of S. Peter written by S. Clement but they had so altered and mangled them that there hardly remained any thing of Truth they modelled them after a new manner and suited them to their humors to cause S. Peter to utter abundance of Falsities that authorized that which was practised among them These Hereticks may be easily convinced of having retrenched from their Copy of S. Matthew the Genealogy of Jesus Christ for the Cerinthians and the Carpocratians who read it and who held the same Opinions as they do touching the Birth of our Saviour had this Genealogy in their Copy they refer to this to prove that Jesus Christ was a mere Man. Now these Cerinthians had established their Sect before that of the Ebionites appeared S. Epiphanius believes (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. n. 3. that these last had chosen for their use the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew only in imitation of the Cerinthians Cerinthus was a zealous Defender of the Circumcision as well as the Nazarenes and Ebionites I know not from whence the same S. Epiphanius hath taken that which he reports concerning him to wit that he was the Ringleader of a Faction that rose up at Jerusalem against S. Peter on occasion that he was found among the uncircumcised and had eaten with them It is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles that the Faithful that were circumcised disputed on this Subject against this holy Apostle Cerinthus if we may believe S. Epiphanius was the chief in this Dispute when he was yet in the number of the Faithful and took this pretence to separate himself from them The Church was divided from that time into different Opinions Some of them that were circumcised would not submit to the Revelation that had been made to S. Peter in the City of Joppa they insisted that none ought to be received into the Church but those that were circumcised and they that were of this Sect retained the Hebrew Gospel of S. Mattew because they were come from Judaism Therefore the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers have called this Gospel according to the Hebrews The others on the contrary who were for the most part converted from Gentilism made use of the Greek Copy of this same Gospel and this last alone is preserved in the Church that of the Hebrews remained only among some Sectaries and hath been lost at the same time when these Sects have been extinct CHAP. IX Of the Greek Copy of S. 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 ALL Antiquity is agreed that the Original of the Gospel of S. Matthew hath been written in the Language that the Jews of Jerusalem spake at that time and that it hath been since translated into Greek But we have nothing certain concerning the Author of this Greek Version (a) Matthaeus qui Levi ex publicano Apostolus primus in Judaeâ propter eos qui ex circumcisione crediderunt Evangelium Christi Hebraicis literis verbisque composuit Quod quis postea in Graecum transtulerit non satis certum est Hieron de Script Eccl. in Matth. Matthew saith S. Jerom is the first that hath written the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Hebrew for the use of the Jews that had embraced Christianity but it is not known who hath translated it out of Hebrew into Greek The Author of the Synopsis attributed to S. Athanasius affirmeth nevertheless (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan in Synops S Script that it hath been first composed in Hebrew by S. Matthew who published it in Jerusalem in this same Tongue and that S. James who hath been the first Bishop of this City translated it into Greek He produceth no Act of the ancient Writers of the Church to justifie this Opinion Papias on the contrary who was not far distant from the time of the Apostles declares (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pap. apud Euseb lib. 3. Hist Eccl. c. 39. that the Original of S. Matthew was in Hebrew and that afterwards every one interpreted it as he was able This makes me think that in these primitive times of the Christian Religion divers private persons had translated this Gospel for their own use and almost after the same manner as there have been several Latin Versions from the Greek tho there was one that was more generally received in the Churches than the others It is probable also that the Cerinthians the Carpocratians the Ebionites and in one word all the ancient Sectaries who preferred the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew before the others made Greek Versions of it for their use as well as the Orthodox Casaubon Casaub Exercit. 15. ad Annal. Baron n. 12. who hath used his utmost endeavours to decry the Hebrew Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites had kept that he might give the greater authority to the Greek avoucheth freely that the Fathers are very much divided in their Opinions on this Subject some ascribing this Version to S. James others to S. John others to S. Barnabas and lastly some few to S. Paul and S. Luke (d) Quae diversitas sententiarum ut de vero autore certò pronuntiare nos vetat ita illud certissimè demonstrat ipsis Apostolorum temporibus ab uno illorum aut illorum auspiciis vel potiùs Spiritûs Sancti cujus ipsi erant organa Graecum Textum ex Hebraico esse confectum Casaubon Exercit. 15. ad Annal. Baron n. 12. This diversity of Opinions adds he plainly shews that it cannot be certainly affirmed who hath been the Author of this Greek Version but it serves saith he for a demonstration to make it appear that it is derived from the very times of the Apostles who are the Authors or Promoters of it or rather it ought to
to John hath been preached by himself in the Isle of Patmos thirty years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ By this it may be seen what is the belief of the Greek Church touching the time wherein every Gospel hath been written and though we cannot conclude any thing as from certain Acts nevertheless we may infer from thence that S. Mark obtains the second place amongst the Evangelists if respect be had to the time in which they wrote they are also placed in this order in a great number of Manuscript Copies which I have read they are notwithstanding disposed otherwise in the Greek and Latin Copy of Cambridge which is one of the most ancient that we have at this day and contains the four Evangelists with the Acts of the Apostles S. John in this Copy follows immediately after S. Matthew S. Luke after S. John and S. Mark is the last of the four This Order cannot be attributed to him that hath bound the Leafs of this Manuscript together for the ranking of them is expressed at the end of every Gospel See what is read at the end of S. Matthew Cod. MSS. Cantabr (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MS. Cantabrig The Gospel according to Matthew is ended the Gospel according to John beginneth afterwards it is read at the end of S. John (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. MS. The Gospel according to John is ended the Gospel according to Luke beginneth and at the end of S. Luke it is read (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. MS. The Gospel according to Luke is ended the Gospel according to Mark beginneth and lastly these Words are to be read at the end of S. Mark (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. MS. The Gospel according to Mark is ended the Acts of the Apostles begin This way of specifying the end of one Book and the beginning of that which follows is natural and the most ancient there is no other to be found in the most ancient Manuscripts of the New Testament The Manuscript Copy of the Epistles of S. Paul which is in the Library of the Benedictin Monks of the Abby of S. Germain and is not inferior in Antiquity nor in the Beauty of its Characters to that of Cambridge ranketh the Epistles of S. Paul in order after the same manner whereas in the Manuscripts that are of a later date and in the printed Books some other Circumstances have been added that shew the place from whence these Epistles have been written and the Persons by whom they have been sent Moreover the order of the Gospels which the Cambridge Manuscript follows is not peculiar to it for it may be seen also in an ancient Catalogue of the Books of the Holy Scriptures which is at the end of the before mentioned MS. Copy of the Benedictines It is probable that this Alteration hath been made by the Latins who have transcribed the Greek Copies for their use Druthmar an ancient Benedictin Monk Christ Druthm Expos in Matth. cap. 1. declares that he had seen a Copy like to that of Cambridge wherein the Gospel of S. John immediately followed after that of S. Matthew and it was believed that this Copy heretofore belonged to S. Hilary But this different Disposition in point of order of the Copies of the Gospels doth not interfere with the general Opinion of the Ecclesiastical Writers who all give the second place among the Evangelists to S. Mark. It is also commonly believed that he was only the Disciple of the Apostles and that therefore he could not be an Eye-witness of the Actions which he relates he hath only published that which he had learn'd from them more especially from S. Peter whose Interpreter it is affirmed that he hath been Marcus saith S. Irenaeus interpres sectator Petri as if S. Peter had only preached this Gospel and that it had been afterwards written by S. Mark. This Opinion is very ancient for Papias who had received it from one of the Disciples of the Apostles declares it after him in these Words (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 3. cap. 39. Mark who was Peter 's Interpreter hath written exactly all that he had retained in his memory without observing the order of the Words and Actions of Jesus Christ for he had not himself heard Jesus Christ not having followed him but he had followed Peter who preached to the People according as their necessities required without taking care to put the Words of our Saviour in order Therefore Mark cannot be accused of any fault who hath recorded some Actions as they came into his mind He hath applied himself solely not to forget any thing that he had heard and to say nothing but what was true This Testimony of Papias confirms that which hath been abovesaid that the Gospels are only Collections of the Preachings of the Apostles that have been committed to Writing without having too scrupulous a regard to the times when those Actions happened which are related therein Indeed these sacred Writers have made it their business rather to exhibit a true History than exactly to describe the circumstances and order of Time. Clemens Alexandrinus informs us moreover that S. Peter publickly preached the Gospel at Rome and that S. Mark who for a long time followed this Apostle put it in Writing at the request of the Faithful of that place he adds also that (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. c. 14. S. Peter having known it did neither dissuade him from it nor exhort him to it Eus Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 15. Eusebius nevertheless relying on the Authority of the same Clement will have it that S. Peter after he had been informed of the great Zeal that the Faithful of Rome testified to have his Preachings in Writing approved of the Collection that S. Mark had made of them to the end that being authorized by himself it should be read in the Churches S. Jerom hath only copied and epitomized after his manner the Words of Eusebius in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers Hier. de Script Eccles in Marco where he saith in speaking of S. Mark Marcus Discipulus Interpres Petri juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat rogatus Romae à fratribus breve scripsit Evangelium quod cùm Petrus audisset probavit Ecclesiae legendum sua autoritate dedit The Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures hath also believed that S. Mark hath only published the Preachings of S. Peter (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas in Synops S. Script The Gospel according to Mark saith he hath been preached at Rome by the Apostle Peter and hath been published by the blessed Apostle Mark who hath also preached it at Alexandria in Egypt in Pentapolis and in Lybia In a word it hath been the Judgment of all Antiquity after Papias who was contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles
New Testament and also of the whole Bible Grotius hath believed with many other Authors that it is not possible that S. Mark should have omitted in his Gospel the entire History of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ Grot. Annot in c. 16. Marci He cannot also imagine that it hath been written and lost afterwards insomuch that that which we read at present is only a Supplement made by a later Writer It is not credible saith he that this should have happened to a Book of which so many Copies have been made as soon as it was published Besides he that is supposed to have added this Supplement would have followed S. Matthew He adds farther that the Latin Syriack and Arabick Copies as also S. Irenaeus who is a most ancient Witness do all confirm this Chapter He confesseth nevertheless that it was not found in some Greek Copies from the time of S. Gregory Nyssen Lastly he judgeth for the Reasons that we have now related that this defect in the Greek Copies ought to be attributed to the Transcribers who not being able to make that which this Evangelist saith touching the Resurrection of Jesus Christ conformable to S. Matthew have taken away from S. Mark all this History Indeed the Emperor Julian hath opposed to the Christians the contradiction of their Gospels in this place and there have been Learned Writers among the Grecians who have composed Works on purpose on this Subject to reconcile them Maldonat (d) Quòd nonnulli repugnantiam quae inter Marcum hoc loco Matthaeum videtur esse causam putant ejusmodi suspicioni tribuisse absurda prorsùs est ratio Mald. Comm. in c. 16. Marci on the contrary could not admit the Opinion of those that ascribe this defect in the Greek Copies to the Transcribers who could not make this Place of S. Mark agree with S. Matthew because if this reason were good they ought to have done the same thing with respect to the last Chapter of S. Luke and the last Chapter but one of S. John which differ yet more from S. Matthew in this point than S. Matthew doth from S. Mark. Major enim saith this Learned Jesuit inter illos Matthaeum quà m inter Matthaeum Marcum apparet repugnantia (e) Magis etiam miror non majore Hieronymum studio ejus auctoritatem asseruisse quòd nulla prorsùs conjectura sit ullâ ex parte probabilis fuisse ad Marci Evangelium adjectum Mald. ibid. Moreover he admires that S. Jerom who hath took so much pains in observing the diversity of the Copies hath applyed himself so little to establish the Authority of this Chapter which cannot be affirmed not to belong to the Gospel of S. Mark. The harsh manner of expression that the same S. Jerom hath used in discoursing of these twelve last Verses of S. Mark hath yet more offended Baronius Baron an Ch. 34. n. 134. who could hardly believe that he should let fall such words as seemed to destroy the Authority of this last Chapter This Learned Father in answering Hedibia who had desired him to reconcile the Evangelists in the matter of the Resurrection of our Saviour saith (f) Hujus quaestionis duplex est solutio aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium quod in raris fertur Evangeliis omnibus Graeciae libris penè hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus c. Hieron Epist ad Hedib qu. 3. that this difficulty might be resolved two several ways the first of which is Hieron Epist ad Hedib qu. 3. that this Testimony of S. Mark might be rejected as being found but in a very few Greek Copies Baronius useth his utmost endeavours to shew even by the authority of S. Jerom himself that there is no reason to suspect that this last Chapter hath been added afterwards to the Gospel of S. Mark. He opposeth to this Father his own words in his second Book against the Pelagians wherein he observes that in some Greek Copies there was a long addition at the end of the Gospel of S. Mark which he also produceth From whence this Cardinal concludes that even according to the Report of S. Jerom this Chapter now in dispute was not only in the Greek Copies but that there were also some found wherein an Addition had been inserted and takes an occasion thereupon to correct the words of this Father in his Letter to Hedibia (g) Pro eo quod dicere debuisset in Graecis codicibus Marci ultimum caput quibusdam auctum reperiri illud ipsum in iis desiderari dixisse Baron ann Chr. 34. n. 185. where he ought not to have said if we may believe Baronius that this last Chapter was wanting in some Greek Copies but only that a considerable Addition had been annexed to them which said Addition according to his opinion might come from the Manicheans who had altered some Copies of the Scriptures Lastly he infers from the Premises that the Church hath amended these Greek Copies from the Latin. Baron ib. Quamobrem Dei Ecclesiam adinstar Latinorum correxisse Graecorum exemplaria certum est And after all these Reasons (h) Haec quidem omnia si comperta satisque explorata habuisset quidam ex recentioribus nequaquam adeò temerè in re tantâ Catholico homine indignam tulisset sententiam dicens ultimum Marci capitulum non esse solidae auctoritatis ad firmandam fidem Baron ibid. he sharply reproves Cardinal Cajetan because he doubted being induced thereto by the Testimony of S. Jerom of the verity of the last Chapter of S. Mark. But after all I think that Cajetan might have been treated more mildly who hath entertained a doubt on the sole authority of S. Jerom concerning the verity of this last Chapter before the Council of Trent had determined any thing thereupon because this Father hath grounded his Judgment on divers Copies that he had read I find moreover that Baronius hath only copied Sixtus Senensis without throughly examining this matter If he had consulted the ancient Greek Copies he would not have took so much liberty to correct S. Jerom's Remark on the twelve last Verses of this Chapter for this Father hath very well distinguished these Verses which he mentions in his Letter to Hedibia from this other Addition of which he discourseth in his second Book against the Pelagians And therefore the Observation of Sixtus Senensis (i) Quod autem subtexuit Hieronymus olim caput istud in Graecis exemplaribus non fuisse ob id ab aliquibus rejectum eò quòd aliis Evangelistis videretur contraria continere non de totâ hujus capituli scripturâ intellexit sed de quibusdam apocryphis capituli hujus periodis ab incertis auctoribus in quibusdam codicibus immissis quae quia vel dubiae vel aliis Evangelistis contrariae viderentur idcirco à Patribus de Graecis codicibus subductae sunt Quod ipse D. Hieronymus lib. 2.
in perpetual Continency S. Augustin adds Baronius farther who rehearseth these Words of Faustus and exactly answers his Objections doth not reject as Apocryphal these last Acts that are intituled the Martyrdom of Thecla But it is probable that these last Acts have been taken from the former and it is no wonder that the Fathers have made use of an Apocryphal Book that was composed by an Impostor because there were many true things in these Travels of Paul and Thecla However it be I think it is more convenient to reject them altogether than to approve of one part and to condemn the other because it would be very difficult to distinguish that which was true from the false If we may judge by the Fragments that remain this Work was filled with Fables for we find therein that Thecla being the Companion of S. Paul in his Travels had in some measure a share in his Apostleship it is declared in these Acts that she preached and baptized and S. Jerom who without doubt had read them Hieron ib. makes mention of the Baptism of a Lion which is the cause that he esteems them as false and Apocryphal Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pauli Theclae saith this Father totam baptizati leonis fabulam inter apocryphas scripturas computamus Whereas the Apostles and their Disciples have left us no relations of their Travels in Writing but that which we have concerning those of S. Paul and S. Barnabas this gave occasion to the counterfeiting of some under their Names Some false Acts have been published under these Titles The Travels of Peter the Travels of John the Travels of Thomas and many others of this sort there was one also called in general The Itinerary or Travels of the Apostles Thus have they endeavoured ever since the Primitive Ages of the Christian Religion by this means to supply that which seemed to be wanting in the History of the Apostles as if it were necessary that the Church should have all their Actions in Writing but these Books were rejected with the common consent of all the Catholick Churches as Supposititious and Apocryphal insomuch that of all the Acts of the Apostles that have been published none have been preserved but those that were composed by S. Luke Nevertheless there were some Sectaries from the very first beginning of Christianity who being Enemies to S. Paul absolutely condemned this History written by S. Luke his faithful Companion in his Travels The Ebionites who treated this Apostle as an Apostate seeing that the Acts that had been received in the Church contradicted their Doctrine (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 16. composed new ones which they filled with Impieties and Calumnies against S. Paul that no credit might be given to the History of S Luke they invented I know not what Fables to render this holy Apostle odious and they gave them out as the true Reasons that had obliged him (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. to write against the Circumcision the Sabbath and the Old Law. (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. They made use of these new Acts of the Apostles saith Epiphanius to invalidate the Truth The Encratites or Severians (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 29. who acknowledged with the Orthodox the Law the Prophets and the Gospels loaded S. Paul also with bitter Invectives and Reproaches and entirely rejected his Epistles with the Acts of the Apostles Lastly the Manicheans who esteemed their Patriarch Manichee not only as an Apostle but as the Paraclet or Comforter that was promised did not allow the Acts of the Apostles because the descent of the Holy Ghost is therein declared (k) Si illos Actus Apostolorum acciperent in quibus evidenter adventus Spiritûs Sancti praedicatur non invenirent quomodo id immissum esse dicerent Aug. de utilit cred cap. 3. If they should receive these Acts saith S. Augustin in which express mention is made of the coming of the Holy Ghost they could not say that he had been sent to them in the Person of Manichee But let us leave these Enthusiasts who had no other reason to refuse the Books that were approved by the whole Church than this because they did not suit with the Idea that they had formed of the Christian Religion This was the cause according to Tertullian that the Marcionites did not regard the Acts of the Apostle Tertul. lib. 5. adv Mare c. 2. I shall say nothing here concerning the Acts of Barnabas that have been published under the Name of John surnamed Mark (l) Quaedam Barnabae Acta ab aliquo ut apparet nebulone scripta circumferuntur ab imperitis magno applausu accipiuntur Baron Annal. Chap. 51. numer 51. which are very displeasing to Baronius and have been manifestly forged being also contrary in some things to the true Acts of the Apostles as this Cardinal hath observed CHAP. XV. Of the Epistles of St. Paul in general Of Marcion and of his Copy of these Epistles False Letters attributed to St. Paul. THE Name of S. Paul that is prefixed at the head of all his Epistles except that which is written to the Hebrews doth plainly discover the Author and since they are for the most part directed to particular Churches who read them publickly in their Assemblies they have been afterwards communicated to other neighbouring Churches and at last by the same means to all the Faithful I shall not here make it my business too critically to enquire into their order nor the time when they were written because in whatsoever manner they are placed as to their distribution or circumstances of time this will cause no alteration in the Text which will always remain the same nevertheless thus much may be observed with S. Chrysostom who hath diligently examined this matter that though the Epistle to the Romans stands in the first rank Joann Chrys Praef. Hom. in Epist ad Rom. yet it was not written first there are clear proofs that the two Epistles inscribed to the Corinthians were written before it this learned Bishop believes also that S. Paul had written to the Thessalonians before he wrote to those of Corinth this may be seen more at large in the Preface before his Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans wherein he gives an Example of the Prophets who have not been ranked according to the order of the time of their respective Prophecies Theodoret who hath treated on this Subject after S. Chrysostom whom he often epitomizeth alledgeth as an instance of the same order as that of S. Paul's Epistles the distribution of the Psalms of David (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor. Praef. in Epist Paul. As David saith he being inspired by God hath written the Psalms and others afterwards have put them into what method they thought fit without having regard to the time when they were composed so in
this day receive it as such Calvin who hath been more moderate herein than Luther hath chose rather to reconcile the Doctrine of S. James touching Faith and Works with that of S. Paul than unadvisedly to reject this Epistle under colour that it appears to be contrary to the same S. Paul. To receive saith he this Epistle this seems to me to be sufficient Calv. arg de son Comm. sur l'Epist de St. Jaq. that it contains nothing unworthy of an Apostle of Christ The Lutherans themselves soon perceived that their Master sometimes gave out Opinions without a due consideration of what he affirmed Raithius who hath made an Apology for Luther confesseth that he had written in the first Edition of his German Bible to this effect that if this Epistle were compared with those of S. Peter and S. Paul it would appear only an Epistle of Straw Epistola straminea but (g) Post majorem illuminationem ut dies diem docet verba illa duriuscula postertoribus Saerorum Bibliorum editionibus sunt omissa nec post annum 1526. in ullâ amplius editione straminea vocatur Raith Vind. Vers Germ. Luth. th 21. after he had been more enlightned these Words were taken away in the following Editions and they are not to be found in those that have been made since the Year 1526. Nevertheless a certain Lutheran published a Book at Strasbourg in the Year 1527 wherein he speaks after a strange manner of the Epistle of S. James He affirms (h) Non possumus hîc defendere Jacobum citat enim Scripturas falsò solus Spiritui Saucto Legi Prophetis Christo Apostolisque omnibus contradicit Testimomum ipsius vanum est Vni ipsi testi credendum non esse supra annotavimus praesertim cum quo ipse Spiritus Sanctus tot testes veritatis dissentiant Ne igitur succenseas nobis lector si duriùs vehementiùs calamo quandoque in auctorem invecti sumus Meretur enim hoc odium hanc spiritûs vehementiam dum aliam perfectionem atque justitiam à nobis contendit quà m fidei Andr. Altham apud Grot. de discuss Rivet Apolog. p. 722. that he cannot defend it because the Author alledgeth false Quotations of the Scriptures and alone contradicts the Law the Prophets Jesus Christ and the Apostles he condemns the Testimony of this Writer as vain boldly affirming that we ought not to believe him being a single Witness especially since the Holy Ghost and a great number of the Witnesses of the Truth do dissent from him lastly this man after he hath taken so much liberty to declaim against the Author of this Epistle adds at the end of his Book that none ought to be offended that he hath treated him so severely for saith he he deserves this hatred because he hath proposed to us another Righteousness than that of Faith. Can there be any thing more insolent than the Words of this Sectary who durst oppose his false Conceptions against the Testimony of all the Churches of the World Socinus speaks with a great deal more moderation and judgment concerning the Authority of this Epistle This Champion of the Unitarians declares that it was doubted in the beginning touching the Authors of the Epistle of S. James of the second of S. Peter and of that of S. Jude because they were found after the Collection of the other Books of the New Testament had been made (i) Cùm postea tempore procedente ex judiciis huic rei aptis cognitum fuisset istas Epistolas illorum ipsorum Apostolorum esse exempta plerisque illa dubitatio fuit sic inter alias sunt numeratae ea quidem quae Jacobi est ante duas reliquas Soc. de auctor Script Sac. c. 1. n. 2. but forasmuch as it was acknowledged afterwards that they were certainly composed by the Apostles whose Names they bore the most part of the Churches did no longer doubt thereof and the Epistle of S. James was placed before the two others moreover with respect to that of S. James he proves the Antiquity of this Tradition by the ancient Syriack Copies Therefore he doth not only receive them as Canonical but believes also that they do certainly belong to them to whom they are attributed Although it be agreed that the first of these Catholick Epistles was written by S. James nevertheless it remains to be known who this James is The Title of this Epistle doth not resolve this difficulty because it is different according to the various Greek Copies and indeed we ought not to relye on this sort of Title that are later than the Authors of the Books It is read simply in some Manuscript Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2872. The Catholick Epistle of S. James and in others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of the Apostle S. James This is also the Title that hath been prefixed in the Vulgar Latin Epistola Catholica beati Jacobi Apostoli and which Beza hath retained in his Greek Edition of the New Testament where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of the Apostle James But Robert Stephen in his curious Greek Edition of the New Testament in folio hath simply put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of James It is no otherwise in Crespin's Edition at Geneva in the Year 1565. It is read according to the same sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Epistle of S. James in that of Wolfius at Strasbourg in 1524. We read also after the same manner in the Edition of Melchior Sessa at Venice in 1538 and in that of Simon de Colines at Paris in 1534 and in many others This is most natural and most conformable to the Greek Text where S. James at the beginning of his Epistle takes upon him no other Quality than that of a Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ Therefore Grotius hath also preserved this same Title and he hath reason not to approve the Opinion of those that attribute it to James the Son of Zebedee because this James had been put to Death by Herod before the Gospel of Jesus Christ was much spread abroad beyond Judea neither doth he believe that James the Son of Alpheus was the Author of it because he would have taken at the beginning of his Epistle the Name of an Apostle which was a quality in those Primitive Times that gave a great Authority to their Words from whence he concludes that it ought to be ascribed to that James whom the Apostles constituted first Bishop of Jerusalem Hieron de Script Eccles in Jac. This is not very far from the Words of S. Jerom in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers James who is called the Brother of our Lord and sirnamed the Just as some think was the Son of Joseph by another Wife but according to my Opinion of Mary the Sister of our Lord of whom John makes mention
Clemens Alexandrinus hath placed it amongst the other Books of the Holy Scriptures but as it hath been already observed that this Father hath inserted in his Catalogue some Pieces that were not Canonical though they passed under the names of the Apostles it can only be inferred from thence that at least ever since the time of Clement this Epistle was attributed to the Apostle St. Jude When Eusebius makes mention of it in his Ecclesiastical History he doth not set it in the rank of counterfeit Acts but of those concerning which some Churches have doubted nevertheless there are none at this day that do not acknowledge it as Divine and Canonical It is intituled in the Syriack Copy which hath been Printed The Letter of Jude the Brother of James neither hath it any other Title in the Arabick Version published by Erpenius In the Arabick Printed in the Polyglott Bible of England is is Intituled The Catholick Epistle of the blessed Jude the Brother of the Lord. The End of the First Part. The Second Part will be Published in Five Days A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament WHEREIN Is firmly Establish'd the Truth of those Acts on which the Foundation of CHRISTIAN RELIGION is laid PART II. By Richard Simon Priest LONDON Printed for R. Taylor MDCLXXXIX A CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE New Testament PART II. CHAP. XVIII A Critical Observation on a Passage in S. John's First Epistle Chap. v. vers 7. which is wanting in the most Greek Copies Eastern Editions and the most ancient Latin Copies The Preface to the Canonical Epistles in some Latin Bibles under the name of S. Jerome was not penn'd by that Father It cannot be proved that S. Cyprian had the Passage of S. John's Epistle in his Copy THE Reflections which many Learned Men have made on that Passage in the First Epistle of S. John Chap. v. vers 7. have not discouraged me from examining it afresh and consulting the most part of the Greek and Latin Manuscripts that I could find about the same The Greeks at this day in their Copy entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read as the Latin Church these words (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Joann c. 5. v. 7. For there are three that bear witness in Heaven 1 Joh. c. 5. v. 7. the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one Yet 't is hard to find among the Greeks any Manuscript Copies that have that Passage I speak not only of the Ancients but also of those of the latter times Erasmus alledged the Greeks had their Books more correct than the Latin Copies but he is mistaken as it shall appear by what follows in this Discourse 'T is much more probable that that Doctrinal Point was formerly written the Margin by way of Scolium or Note but afterward inserted in the Text by those who transcribed the Copies Such were my thoughts when I perused some of the Greek Editions and there is no less probability that it was supplied after the same manner in the antient Latin Copies which nevertheless happened not till after S. Jerom's time who is not the Author of that Addition which Socinus next to Erasmus had laid to his charge After the most diligent search in the King's Library and that of Mr. Colbert in which there are a great many good Manuscript Volumes I found no Copy that had that Passage in it tho I read seven of them in the Royal Library Codd MSS. Bibl. Reg. six whereof are marked 1885. 2247. 2248. 2870. 2871. 2872. Some of the Manuscripts have Notes but no Scholiast or Annotator does make mention of that Passage neither have I found it in five Manuscript Copies belonging to Mr. Colbert's Library Codd MSS. Bibl. Colb which are marked 871. 6123. 4785. 6584. 2844. Yet some of these Manuscripts are only in Paper and much later than the rest There is also one in 16 well written and I believe since the Impression Yet the Passage in question is not found therein any more than in the rest of the ancient Copies I could produce yet other Greek Manuscript Copies which I have seen whose various Readings I observed but that which most deserves our notice is that in the Margin of some of the King 's and Mr. Colbert's Copies there are small Notes set over against the said Passage which in all likelihood have slipped afterwards into the Body of the Text. Take an Example from the King's Copy marked 2247. over against these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is this Remark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By which we may perceive that the Author of the said Remark understood The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost to be signified by the Three Witnesses mentioned by S. John The Spirit the Water and the Blood And what was formerly written by way of Note passed afterwards into the Text as it often falls out In the same Copy over against these other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Note is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is One Deity One God. That Manuscript is about 500 Years old and there are but very few places therein that have Notes There is the like Remark in one of the Manuscripts belonging to Mr. Colbert's Library Numb 871. For besides these words that are set in the Margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One God One Deity the Scholiast has also added these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The testimony of God the Father and of the Holy Ghost This in my opinion is the original of the Passage in question which 't is very hard to find in the Greek Manuscript Copies tho at this day the read it in their Version This is much more likely than what Erasmus alledges that the Greek Copies he had occasion to inspect were much more correct than the Latin which obliged that judicious person to omit the forementioned Passage in his first Editions of the New Testament in which he was not altogether to be blamed not being obliged to insert in the Impression what he could not find in any of his Manuscripts He has nevertheless been charged with a design of favouring the Arrian Party by the omission James Lopes Stunica has mightily accused him for his unlucky rejecting the said Passage in his Edition (b) Sciendum est hoc loco Graecorum codices apertissimè esse corruptos nostros verò veritatem ipsam ut à primâ origine traducti sunt continere quod ex Prologo Beati Hieronymi super Epistolas Canonicas manifestè apparet Jac. Lop. Stun Annot. in Eras supposing that the Greek Copies had been corrupted in that place But this Spanish Critick We must in this place know that the Greek Copies are notoriously corrupted and that ours contain the very truth as they were translated from the Original who had read ancient Manuscripts does not quote any to justifie his own Sentiments He contents himself with an Appeal he makes to S. Jerome's Preface to the
being the Author of it The Preface in controversie is not in a certain Manuscript Copy of the whole Bible Cod. MSS. Bibl. Reg. that is in the Royal Library marked 3564. and has been extant these seven Hundred Years neither is it in two other Manuscript Copies of the like antiquity belonging to the Library of the Benedictine Monks of the Abby of S. Germain Cod. MSS. Bibl. Benedict S. Germ. Paris It is found I confess in Charles le Chauve's fair Bible that is in the King's Library but S. Jerome's Name is not there any more than it is in some other ancient Copies Whoever will take the pains to compare the most of the ancient Latin Bibles together shall easily discover that he who gathered all the Books of the Latin Bible into one Body the better part of which was translated or revised by S. Jerome is really the Author of that Preface Since he was not furnished with that Father's Preface to all those Books he supplied in his Collection what was wanting with an addition of some of his own composure and others which he gathered from S. Jerome's Works Hence for example in Charles le Chauve's Copy there is before the Acts of the Apostles a Preface with this Title Praefatio Hieronymi Yet 't is certain that S. Jerome was not the Author of that Preface to the Acts as it is there in express words but the Author of the Collection of the Books of the Latin Bible took the same out of that Father's large Preface entituled Prologus Galeatus and it is expressed in these words Actus Apostolorum nudam quidem resanare historiam videntur nascentis Ecclesiae historiam texere Sed si noverimus scriptorem eorum Lucam esse Medicum cujus laus in Evangelio animadvertemus pariter omnia verba illius animae languentis esse Medicinam that is The Acts of the Apostles seem to be a bare History affording us a prospect of the Church in its Birth But if we consider that the Writer was Luke the Physician who is famous in the Gospel we shall also perceive that all his words are the Medicine of a languishing Soul. 'T is also probable that the Compiler of the Books of the Latin Version which we call the Vulgar not finding in S. Jerome a particular Preface to the Canonical Epistles made one according to that Father's Stile some of whose Expressions he has made use of and amongst others has inserted that word Eustochium 'T is likewise probable that the Addition of the Witness of three Persons was extant before that time in some Copies of S. John's Epistles or at least in some Latin Writers at the time when that Preface was made Upon this account the Author who possibly had not the occasion of consulting the Creek Copies supposed that if that Passage was not extant in any Latin Copy the Translators were to be blamed 'T is observable that the Addition is not in most of the old Copies of S. Jerome's Bible to which nevertheless the Preface is prefixt as I have observed in two Copies one whereof is in the Royal Library and the other in that belonging to Mr. Colbert How incongruous is it to see a Preface at the beginning of the Canonical Epistles where S. Jerome complains of the unfaithfulness of the ancient Latin Translators who have omitted in the First Epistle of S. John Chap. 1. a whole Verse which he restores to the Greek and yet if one turn to the place of S. John's Epistle in the very same Copy the passage is not to be found there There can be no other reason given in my opinion of this incoherency but this that the Transcribers who writ out the Preface made use of such Latin Copies in which that Verse was not extant because neither S. Jerome nor the antient Latin Version had any thing of it If that Father had been the Author of the Preface and of the Addition inserted in S. John's Epistle that Addition would have been extant in all S. Jerome's Latin Bibles This diversity of Copies is in my judgment an evident proof that he did not compose that Preface to prefix it to the Canonical Epistles And that which makes it further manifest that S. Jerome was not the true Author either of the Preface or Addition is that that Addition is placed in the Margin of mose of the antient Copies in the Body of which it is not extant It was no less than surprising (g) Quantum à nostrâ aliorum distet editio lectoris judicio relinquo Hier. Prol. in VII Epist Can. that the pretended S. Jerome should in his Preface commend his new Edition of the Canonical Epistles upon the account of the change he had made especially in the First of S. John whilst there was nothing of such change or amendment to be seen therein Upon which account the Transcribers or they to whom the Copies did belong thought fit to regulate the Text according to the Preface by supplying in the Margin the Verse concerning the Witness of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost which before that time was extant in some Ecclesiastical Authors But since it was a matter of difficulty for those who placed that Addition in the Margin of their Copies to observe a general and perfect uniformity of words it so fell out that the Expressions in the various Copies did likewise vary This diversity does evidently prove that S. Jerome could not be the Author of the Addition in controversie but that it was done by those who had a mind to adjust the Text in S. James to the Preface I shall here give some Examples of that Regulation of the manner how it was added to most of the old Latin Copies of S. Jerome's Bible In that Copy of the Royal Library that is marked 3584. in the Margin over against these words Cod. MSS. Bibl. Reg. Tres sunt qui testimonium dant i. e. There are three which bear witness there are these other words added In coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ hi tres unum sunt i. e. In Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and there are three which bear witness on earth and these three are one The writing of the Addition appears to be no less ancient than that of the Text. The like Addition is to be seen in a Copy that is in Mr. Colbert's Library Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb that is marked 158. where in the Margin over against these words Tres sunt qui testimonium dant these are added In coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ sanguis aqua caro And to make the Text and Addition agree the better there are some of the words of the Text amended or put out There is nothing of this Addition to be read in the three ancient Copies of the Library belonging to the Benedictines of the
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.
loco nihilominùs firmissimis documentis aliis stabiliri intelligeret Raith Vind. Vers Germ. Luth. says that Luther did think fit to put that only in his Version which was constantly and by all agreed on and that consequently he might omit a Verse about which some doubts had arisen and which was not in Aldus's Edition which he made use of as it is believed Besides he was persuaded that there were other passages which afforded a lasting Foundation for the belief of the Trinity This is a plausible Reason because Luther took upon him the Translating a Greek Copy into his own Language But if the Master was to be justified in this respect I see no reason why his Disciples should alter his Version in that place and that they should commend to the people for the true word of God a thing they believed to be doubtful It might possibly have been more to the purpose according to their principle to preserve their ancient Dutch Version and content themselves with placing that Verse in the Margin by way of remark On the contrary they bring it at this day against the Antitrinitarians as a strong proof of the Mystery of the Trinity little thinking that they give them by that means the fairest occasion imaginable of Triumphing over them It is the bare Authority of the Church that does at present oblige us to receive that passage as Authentick The Greeks though otherwise disaffected to the Latin Church fully agree with them in this matter There is a greater Uniformity amongst the Calvinists in their Versions of the New Testament than amongst the Lutherans For though they pretend as well as they to Translate the Original Greek yet they have retained that Verse in all their Translations Beza who openly declares that it is not to be found in the most part of the Ancients yet says withal (l) Hic versiculus omninò mihi retinendus videtur Beza Not. in 1 Joann c. 5. v. 7. that it ought to be kept in the Text whereof it is a part Diodati who has likewise retained it in his Italian Version is of Opinion (m) Cosi in essenza come in unione è consentimento di questa testimonianza Diod. Not. in 1 Joann c. 5. that the Unity mentioned in that place is as well an Unity of Nature as an Unity or Consent of Testimony But Calvin is much more reserved on this occasion according to his wonted precaution never to make us weak Arguments against the Antitrinitarians That Expression says he Three are One does not denote the Essence but the Consent Calv. Comm. in Epist 1. Joann c. 5. v. 7. He perceived no less than Luther that that passage was not in the most Copies and was very sensible that it would be a matter of no small difficulty to reconcile the words of St. Jerome in that Preface which is alledged to be his to the ancient Greek Books He durst not deal freely in the matter lest he should have offended his weak Brethren I shall here set down his own words that the World may see how this Man carried himself when upon any occasion he was obliged to Critisize on such places of Scripture as appeared to him doubtful Calv. ibid. All this has been omitted by some Which St. Jerome thought did proceed rather from malice than ignorance or inadvertency and which was not done but by those of the Latin Church But forasmuch as the Greek Books do not agree amongst themselves it is not easie for me to be positive about the matter Nevertheless because the Text runs very well with that Addition and as I observe it is extant in the best and most Correct Copies for my part I am very willing to admit of it CHAP. XIX Of the Book of the Revelation What was the Belief of the Ancients concerning it The Hereticks that did reject it Their Reasons which are Examined There have been also Learned Catholicks of ancient time who have ascribed it to Cerinthus The Opinion of these latter times about the same Book WHat remains of the Books of the New Testament to be examined is the Apocalyps which St. Jerom makes mention of Hierom. Epist ad Dard. in one of his Epistles as being a Book that was not commonly received in the Greek Churches of his time But if Tertullian's Maxim have any weight with us illud verum quod prius i. e. That is most likely to be true that was first We will prefer the Universal Opinion of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers to that of some Greek Churches of later times It is upon this ground that Grotius gives his Judgment of this Book when he says that (a) Apostoli Joannis esse hunc librum credidere illi quibus meritò creditur Justinus contra Tryphonem Irenaeus Tertullianus adversus Marcionem aliis multis in locis quibus consentiunt Clemens Alexandrinus Origenes Cyprianus post eos alii multi Grot. Annot. in tit Apoc. St. Justin St. Irenaeus Tertullian Clement of Alexandria Origen St. Cyprian who may be believed in this matter have by one common consent avouched St. John as the Author of that Book Flaccus Illyricus had affirmed the same thing before assuring us (b) Si iis habeatur fides Patribus qui propiùs ad hoc accesserunt seculum uti certè aequissimum est quales sunt Justinus Tertullianus Irenaeus Apollonius Theophylus Antiochenus affirmari poterit eam ut Joannis Apostoli illo primo seculo habitam Cur enim tam certoò Joannis Apostoli esse confirmarent si dubias de eâ extitisse sententias antecessorum cognovissent Flac. Illyr arg in Apoc. that it is very reasonable we should refer this to the Fathers who lived near the time of the Author And therefore Baronius has judiciously observed that what St. Jerom does alledge concerning the Opinion of the Greek Churches about the Apocalyps cannot be altogether true seeing that St. Epiphanius who lived at that time Baron ann Ch. 97. n. 6. and who was not much older than he defended the Authority of that Book against the Alogian and Theodotian Hereticks That Cardinal does nevertheless declare that he cannot in this respect blame St. Jerom for having unhappily traduced the Greek Churches in his time He believed that he meant St. Basil Amphilochius the two Gregories of Nazianzen and Nysse and the Council of Laodicea Baron ibid. n. 7. who did not reckon the Apocalyps amongst the Canonical Books of Scripture He distinguishes betwixt those Fathers and the Alogians and Theodotians upon this account that the former had not impeached the Authority of that Book with an avowed obstinacy as the latter had done And even St. Epiphanius is not so much against St. Jerom but that he insinuates that the Alogians who rejected in general all that is extant of St. John's Writings would have been in some respect excusable if they had rejected nothing but the Revelation which is an obscure and unintelligible Book The
Alogians pretended that the Apocalips and the rest of St. John's Writings were composed by the Heretick Cerinthus Which they endeavoured to shew by the agreement that the Doctrine which Cerinthus professed had to that contained in the Books of that Apostle and especially in his Revelation They likewise drew up particular objections against this latter Work. (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alog. apud Epiph. Haer. 51. n. 32. Of what use say they can the Revelation of St. John be to us when he tells us of seven Angels and of seven Trumpets St. Epiphanius gives them this answer Epiph. ibid. that God was pleased to reveal to his servant John what was most mysterious in the Law and the Prophets to the end that he might treat of them in a spiritual and intelligible manner And seeing those Hereticks were so bold as to ridicule what is said of the seven Trumpets he charges them upon that account either of malice or ignorance from the words of St. Paul who has also made mention of those Trumpets in his first Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. xv 52. where he says The trumpet shall sound and at the sound of this trumpet the dead shall rise Some of the Alogians to disparage the Authority of the Apocalyps another argument make use of these words for in Chap. ii ver 18. of the Book To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira write (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alog. apud Epiph. ibid. n. 33. There was not at that time say they any Christian Church in Thyatira How could St. John write to a Church which had no being St. Epiphanius being of the same opinion with the Alogians that there was no Church in that place at that time that he may answer their objection is forced to have recourse to the Spirit of Prophecy He thinks that St. John who was inspired by God foresaw what should happen in process of time And therefore he gives us the most exact account that he can of the City of Thyatira about the time when the Phrygian Hereticks did bear sway there He shews how it afterwards became an Orthodox and most famous Church (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. The design of the Holy Ghost says he was to reveal in that place of the Apocalyps that that Church should fall from the Truth after the time of St. John and the other Apostles Which happened as Epiphanius himself does tell us ninety three years after the Ascension of our Lord and Saviour Seeing this answer of St. Epiphanius does agree with the Opinion of the Alogians that there was no Christian Church in effect in the City of Thyatira at that time Socinus (f) Mihi quidem ut verum fatear responsio ista non admodum probatur cùm propter alia tum propter id quod nimis apertè ex ipsâ historiâ Apacalypsis constare videtur jam istam Ecclesiam Thyatirensem reverà extitisse Soc. Lect. Sacr. p. 306. could by no means admit of it being persuaded that the Text of the Apocalyps does evidently shew that there was a Church therein He believed that there were several Cities of that name But for all that he does not prove against the Alogians that there was a Church in Thyatira When he brings the plain words of the Apocalyps against them he gets the thing in Question for an Answer seeing those Sectaries endeavoured by that means to lessen the Authority of that Book It is probable that at that time when St. Epiphanius lived there was no Catalogue of the Bishops of that Church nor of other publick Records that might make it manifest that there had beed a Church founded in that City from the times of the Apostles And therefore Grotius does give a more judicious answer That the truth is Grot. Annot. ad c. 2. Apoc. v. 18. there was not any Church of the Gentiles in Thyatira when St. John writ the Revelation but there was a Church of the Jews as also there was the like at Thessalonica before St. Paul Preached there The Alogians do also cavil about that which is mentioned in the same Book Chap. ix ver 14. Of the four Angels which were bound on the River Euphrates Epiph. ibid. But St. Epiphanius does in this charge them with ignorance because those Angels who were placed on the River Euphrates do signifie according to his Opinion so many Nations that were situated on that River viz. the Assyrians Babylonians Medes and Persians And adds that seeing Nations are subject to Angels those words of the Apocalyps Loose the four Angels which are upon Euphrates make very good sense St. John intending to shew thereby that those Nations being loosed should make War against another People I shall not here examin whether or no the Exposition given by St. Epiphanius be agreeable to the Text but content my self to observe in general that seeing that Book is a Prophesie and no History the Author was to write as Prophets were wont to do in a Figurative Stile And so the Alogians were inexcusable for their prejudice against this Book upon the account of the expressions which to them appeared very strange unless they imagined that there was no such thing as a Prophesie in the New Testament Cajus an Orthodox Writer who lived at Rome under Pope Zephyrin and of whom we have spoken before did also believe that Cerinthus was the Author of the Revelation of St. John. He treated that Heretick with derision (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caj apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 28. who As if he had been a great Apostle writ Revelations which he pretended to have received from Angels and in which he assured us that after the Resurrection Jesus Christ shall reign upon the Earth He allowed the space of a thousand years to this Carnal Kingdom which was to be accompanied with all sorts of pleasures For this cause he calls Cerinthus an Enemy to the Holy Scriptures and spoke in this manner of the Apocalyps which he thought was written by him and not by St. John. Denis Dion Alex. apud Eus bid Bishop of Alexandria who vigorously defended the Authority of this Book did likewise observe that some Authors did ascribe the Apocalyps to Cerinthus who according to their Opinion had prefixed St. John's Name to the Book to give Authority to his Babling about the Carnal Reign of Jesus Christ on the Earth Seeing this Opinion that maintained a Chimerical Dominion of a thousand years was spread in the Church this Learned Bishop writ two Treatises against it Entituled * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the Promises Wherein he takes to task (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 7. Hist Eccl. c. 24. Nepos a certain Bishop of Egypt who Expounded the Promises which God in Scripture has made to Mankind in a sense that speaks the Expositor to have been more Jew than Christian dreaming of a Carnal Kingdom upon the
Earth that should continue for the space of a thousand years during which time all manner of Pleasures should be enjoyed Upon this subject Nepos did publish a Book Entituled †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Refutation of Allegorists laughing at such Catholicks as Expounded Allegorically that place in the Apocalyps that makes mention of the Reign of a thousand years Which Work made a great impression on the minds of those who read it because the Author who had carefully applied himself to the study of the Holy Scriptures had acquired a very great Reputation Besides his Reasons appeared to be the more probable because they were founded on the Literal Sense of Scripture whereas the contrary Opinion was grounded upon Allegories only from which nothing can be concluded Denis does likewise (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb ibid. declare the honorable esteem he had for the Memory of his then deceased Adversary whose Faith and Parts he commends But withal he adds that the love which he bore to the Truth above all other things was a sufficient motive that engaged him to write against that Work that was so much admired in Egypt that many preferred the Doctrine therein contained to the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles they were so much puffed up with the Idea of the thousand years Reign on the Earth The matter was brought to that pass that Nepos his Followers chused rather to make a Schism than to abdicate their Opinion But Denis afterwards in a publick Dispute having discovered the falsity thereof brought them to renounce their error It is a very judicious course that that Learned Bishop takes as to his manner of defending the Authority of the Apocalyps against those who rejected it as a supposititious Book and done by Cerinthus He appeared to be in no wise byassed by any preoccupation as to his own Opinion nor guilty of concealing the Reasons of his Adversaries And therefore he freely declares that (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dion Alex. apud Euseb ibid. cap. 25. some Ecclesiastical Writers who lived in his time had opposed that Book with all their might refuting it with a nice and resolute eagerness alledging that it was written without Sense and without Reason They further assured us that the Title of that Work was forged by Cerinthus and that the Title Apocalyps or Revelation could not be attributed to a Book which in their Opinion was stuffed with things that manifest a profound ignorance Notwithstanding all those Objections Denis avows that he cannot reject it as perceiving that it was approved by the most part of his Brethren and to the Reasons on the other side he replies that there is a sublime and hidden Sense in the Expressions of that Author for which he is resolved to have an high veneration though he does not comprehend it being persuaded that Faith and not his own knowledge ought to be the Rule in that case (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. I do not saith he condemn that which I cannot understand on the contrary I admire it because I cannot comprehend it Which nevertheless does not hinder him from examining all the parts of the Books particularly and he shews (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. That it is impossible to Expound it according to the Letter or Sense which the words at first view seem to warrant He further declares that it was composed by a Man called John who was inspired by God. But he does not think that that John was an Apostle and grounds his Opinion on this that the Apostle St. John did put his Name to none of his Works and that he never speaks of himself On the contrary the Author of the Revelation does name himself at the beginning and frequently in the Body of his Work for example in the Letter he writes to the seven Churches of Asia he begins with these words John to the seven Churches which are in Asia But St. John does not so much as put his name to his Catholick Epistle in his entrance upon the matter Neither is it seen at the beginning of his two other Epistles that are very short and pass under his name This difference of Stile makes Denis the Bishop of Alexandria to conclude that the Revelation was not written by St. John and he affirms at the same time that it is uncertain who that John was He proves nevertheless that it is in no wise likely that he was John Sirnamed Mark made mention of in the Acts of the Apostles and who was Companion to Paul and Barnabas in their Travels because he did not follow them into Asia And therefore he judges that he was one of those who lived at Ephesus where there were two Sepulchres with that name Once he has recourse to the difference of Stile from which he pretends to prove that the Apostle St. John who writ the Gospel and one Epistle cannot be the Author of the Apocalyps According to his Opinion the same things and the same expressions are found in the former Books The Revelation on the contrary is quite different from both Thus I have considered at large the judgment of Denis the Bishop of Alexandria upon the Apocalyps upon which Eusebius has more fully Paraphrased because it contains in a few words all that can be said upon this subject He informs us at the same time that the ancient Doctors of the Church made a great account of Tradition upon such an emergent occasion as required their Judgment whether a Book was Canonical or no. We also see that in such junctures they observed the Rules that are commonly received amongst Criticks For the Bishop according to the rigorous Laws of Criticism does examine the Diction or Stile of the Apocalyps (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionis apud Euseb ibid. Which says he is in no wise good Greek being full of Barbarisms and Solecisms The distinction he uses concerning two Johns who lived in Ephesus is grounded upon the Testimony of Papias who was Contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles Eusebius who inserted that Testimony in his History does add that he is positive in it For (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb if the Apostle St. John is not the true Author of the Apocalyps which bears the name of John it is probable that it was written by that second John. Nevertheless the most ancient Fathers viz. Justin and Irenaeus made no account of this distinction nor difference of Stile on which Denis so much insists upon Nor can there be any thing concluded from the Title of the Apocalyps that in the most of Greek Copies whether Manuscript or Printed there is the name of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John the Divine and not of the Apostle St. John set therein Those who annexed that Title meant only to describe St. John the Evangelist whom the Greek Fathers do call the Divine by way of Excellency to distinguish him from other Evangelists
St. Matthew saith he does neither report that passage according to the Hebrew nor according to the Greek nec juxta Hebraicum nec juxta Septuaginta sumpsit testimonium (g) Ex quo perspicuum est Evangelistas Apostolos nequaquam ex Hebraeo interpretationem alicujus secutos sed quasi Hebraeos ex Hebraeis quod legebant Hebraicè suis sermonibus expressisse Hieron Comm. in Is lib. 6. c. 31. Whence he does conclude that the Evangelists and Apostles did not tye themselves to the Version of any Interpreter but that being Hebrews they used their own words in expressing that which they read in the Hebrew Text this general answer is what he gives almost every where But it may be said and more truly that the Apostles and Evangelists when they instructed the People who read the Bible in Greek used in their quotations the expressions of the Bible yet did not scrupulously adhere to the words because they had the sense only in their view To convince St. Jerome of this there needs no other Passage of Scripture than that which was mentioned by himself For which 't is only needful to look into the Hebrew Text and the Greek of the Septuagint for whereas it is in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which that Father together with some Jews in his Version translated in excelso i. e. on high the Septuagint who have made it a proper Name have rendred it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Rama and St. Matthew followed them in his citation of the same passage It is true that in the other words St. Matthew does rather agree with the Hebrew than the Septuagint as St. Jerome has mentioned them agreeable to the Edition of Rome for it is in St. Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he refused to be comforted as it is in the Hebrew at this day whereas in the Septuagint it is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he refused rest But it is probable that the ancient reading of the Septuagint was agreeable to St. Matthew and at this day it is extant in the Copy of Alexandria in the Editions of Alde and Complutum or Alcala and likewise in the Arabian Version which was taken from the Septuagint And here 't is observable that although that of Rome is the best of all the Editions of the Septuagint because it is the most ancient and pure of any of them yet it is not free from errors 'T is to be supposed that long before Origen the Greek of the Septuagint was altered in some places by some half-learned Men whether Jews or Christians who were far from a through knowledg of the Hebrew Language but rather consulted their Dictionaries about the Hebrew words of the Bible I believe that that place of Jeremy is of the number of those which were altered in the Septuagint Amendments of that nature were then only placed in the Margin of the Greek Copies by way of Notes to shew that the Hebrew words might have been interpreted in another manner and it happened afterwards that the Marginal Note or reading passed into the Text Seeing it was the custom at that time to have Dictionaries of the words of every famous Author I make no Question but that there was also composed a Dictionary containing the words of the Bible and also of every Book thereof in particular The Jewish Greeks who read in their Synagogues the Hebrew Text of the Law and the Prophets and who joyned thereunto the Greek Version of the Septuagint had their Dictionaries of that kind written in Greek in which they marked the different significations of the Hebrew words There is for example in that Passage of Jeremy we now treat of the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the Septuagint is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But seeing in other places they have translated the same Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that was noted in the Dictionaries some one or other would place in the Margin of his Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this first reading which was then in the Margin by way of note only was afterwards put in the Text and it has remained alone in the Edition of Rome This observation is absolutely necessary for the diserning of many false Glosses that are in the Septuagint from the true reading some examples of which I would set down but that I fear it will take up too much room St. Jerome who had not considered this judged of the Version of the Septuagint by the Copy which he had and took no notice that that Version was altered by false Glosses in the most ancient Copies and even a long time before Origen whose critical observations afforded no remedy for that imperfection This principle being once established may serve as a rule to justifie the citations of the Evangelists and the Apostles which differ not so much from the ancient Greek Version as St. Jerome believed Nevertheless that Learned Father found four or five Passages which he pretends to be cited in the New Testament as they are in the Hebrew whereas they are otherwise in the Septuagint He does frequently object the same to his Adversaries to shew them that the Evangelists and Apostles being Hebrews had consulted the Hebrew more than the Greek Version Therein he takes Sanctuary to avoid the reproaches which from all sides are cast upon him about his new Translation of the Bible And thus as he thinks St. Matthew has rendred the words of Hosea I have called my Son out of Egypt (h) Pro eo quod nos diximus ex Aegypto vocavi filium meum Septuaginta transtulerunt ex Aegypto vocavi filios ejus quod in Hebraico non habetur nullique dubium est Matthaeum de hoc loco sumpsisse testimonium juxta Hebraicom veritatem Ergo qui detrahunt nostrae translationi videant Scripturam de quâ Evangelista hoc testimomum sumpserit Hieron Comm. in Os lib. 3. cap. 11. There is no doubt saith he but that St. Matthew did make use of the Hebrew here because the Septuagint has it thus I have called my Children out of Egypt Let those he adds who traduce my Version consult the Scripture from whence the Evangelists took this Passage he repeats the same thing in his Commentary on St. Matthew (i) Respondeant qui Hebraicorum voluminum denegant veritatem ubi hoc in Septuaginta legatur Interpretibus quod cùm non invenerint nos eis dicemus in Osée Prophetâ scriptum sicut exemplaria probare possunt quae nuper edidimus Hieron Comm. in Matth. lib. 1. cap. 2. where he does ask those who reject the Hebrew Copy of the Jews in what place of the Septuagint they shall find that which is cited there And seeing he believed that they could not possibly find the passage he does refer them to his new Translation of the Prophet Hosea But he himself resolves the doubt by adding in favour of those
who did oppose him propter contentiosos that St. Matthew in that place had cited the words of Chap. 23. of Numbers Num. 23.22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. God who brought him out of Egypt And this is in effect the Opinion of the most Learned Greek Commentators on the Scriptures who lived before St. Jerome (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Heracl in Cat. Gr. in Matth. It is written in the Book of Numbers says Theodore of Heraclea upon this place of St. Matthew God called him out of Egypt When 't is also supposed that St. Matthew had in his view that Passage of the Prophet Hosea which is more probable why does he deny that it was from the beginning in the Septuagint as St Matthew has cited it and that that difference does proceed from those who altered the ancient Greek Version by their Glosses They believed that by translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Children as if it had been in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sense would be the more clear because that which follows is put in the Plural Number There might other examples be given of alterations of that kind which must be imputed to those who changed the ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint by their false Glosses 'T is therefore very probable that the reading in that place of the Septuagint was formerly the same as it is in St. Matthew and likewise in Aquila who also translated that passage of the Prophet Hosea by these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have called my Son out of Egypt St. Jerome does yet triumph over his Adversaries in his Commentary upon the words of the Prophet Zechary Zach. 12.10 They looked upon me whom they have pierced St. John who cited that passage in his Gospel does give it in the same manner according to the Hebrew Text whereas in the Septuagint it is They looked upon me because they have insulted (l) Joannes Evangelista qui de pectore Domini hausit sapientiam Hebraeus ex Hebraeis quem Salvator amabat plurimùm non magnoperè curavit quid Graecè literae continerent sed verbum interpretatus verbo est ut in Hebraeo legerat tempore dominicae passionis dixit esse completum Quod si quis non recipit det testimomum de quo sanctarum scripturarum loco Joannes ista protulerit Hieron Comm. in Zach. lib. 3. c. 12. St. John says that Father being an Hebrew born did not much regard its being read in the Greek Version of the Septuagint On the contrary he has rendred that place of Zechary word for word as it was in the Hebrew But if one will not believe him he must shew the place of Scripture from which St. John took the same He further adds that the likeness of the Letter R and D in the Hebrew was the cause of the false Translation of the Seventy Interpreters ob similitudinem literarum error est natus because they read as he thinks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But in my opinion seeing St. John did follow the Septuagint more than the Hebrew in all the Passages of his Gospel there is no reason to maintain that in that place he consulted the Hebrew Copy of the Jews without any regard to the Greek Version of the Septuagint Which makes me believe that at the beginning it was read in the Septuagint as it was in the Hebrew and in St. John. The change of Letters of that nature gave occasion of altering the true and ancient Text in other places And this happened to that Passage of Zechary which ought to be amended in the Greek Version of the Septuagint according to the reading in the Gospel of St. John. That which does confirm this Opinion is that St. Cyprian did read it after that manner in the ancient Latin Version which was taken from the Septuagint The Rendition of that Father has more Authority in this case than that of some Greek Scholiasts who have also read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they insulted as it is in St. John agreeable to the Hebrew Text. For these Scholiasts in their Expositions do frequently follow Aquila or some other Greek Interpreter without declaring that they do so And therefore 't is necessary that we be cautious herein that we do not confound the Version of the Septuagint with other ancient Greek Interpreters This should be the place for the examples of the alterations we spake of whereby the ancient Greek Rendition was very much changed but it would take up too much time It suffices that we have touched something of it in general to justifie the Citations of the Evangelists and of the Apostles Neither will I stay to examin particularly some other Passages of the Old Testament which St. Jerome pretends to have been cited by the Apostles in their Writings rather according to the Hebrew than according to the Septuagint For besides that it does require a long time to discuss them the rules that are confirmed already are sufficient to Answer all that Father's Objections who himself has acknowledged in many places of his Works that the Disciples of Jesus Christ who Preached the Gospel to a People that spake the Greek Tongue must have made use of the ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint which was in the hands of every one and not of the Hebrew Bible which was read by none but the Jews Besides there were but few amongst them who could have understood it We come now to the other Objection which is brought against the Books of the New Testament and which consists in a supposition that the Apostles and the Evangelists have not only changed the words of the Passages which they cite but that they have likewise wrested the same by giving them a sense altogether different from the meaning of the Authors CHAP. XXI A Discussion of some other Objections against the Books of the New Testament The Evangelists and Apostles in the manner of their explaining the Passages of the Old Testament and applying them to the Messiah followed the Custom which then obtained amongst the Jews There are many words in the New Testament which have a larger signification than they have in the Old And that can be attributed to nothing but to that usage and to a tradition received amongst the Jews THE Present Times gave not a beginning to the very great and difficult Objections that have been formed against the Testimonies of the Old Testament which the Evangelists and Apostles have made use of in their Writings for the Confirmation of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ Celsus Porphyrius Julian and the Jews have brought them against the Christians that they might thereby shew as they think the weakness of those Proofs upon which the Christian Religion is founded But they are deceived when they perswade themselves that Christianity has nothing else but such sort of Proofs for its Foundation The
as they had delivered it But it does not at all appear that the Evangelist meant to accuse them of ignorance Yet it cannot be denied but that they were Jews who spake to Herod to whom we ought consequently to impute the citation of that Passage of Micah St. Matthew as an Historian does only report that which passed betwixt Herod and the Principal Doctors of the Jews That Prince did ask them where their Messiah should be Born they made Answer that he should be Born in Bethlehem of the Tribe of Juda and they proved it by that Passage of the Prophet Micah and thou Bethlehem in the Land of Judah art not the least amongst the Princes of Judah for out of thee a Governor shall come who shall rule my People Israel If this is not a faithful citation the error ought not to be imputed to St. Matthew but to the Jewish Doctors who spake it Was it possible they may say that all the Learned Men who were in Jerusalem at that time should be deceived in citing a Passage that was so well known to them Ought they not to have reported it as it is in the Hebrew Text where we read that Bethlehem is a little City On the contrary the Doctors affirmed in St. Matthew that it was not a little one Some Commentators have endeavour'd to reconcile this contradiction by supposing the Jews to have read that place with an Interrogation And the truth is seeing there are no marks in the Hebrew for such Interrogations it may be expounded in that sense without changing the Prophetical Text which it were easie to confirm by many Examples from the Writings of the Jews Gabriel Sionita has also translated the Syriack in that place with an Interrogation though it be wholly agreeable to the Hebrew Tertullian and St. Cyprian did likewise read non in the ancient Latin Version as if it were to be read in the Greek of the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 1. cont Cels which Reading is confirm'd by Origen Nevertheless it might have so been that St. Matthew's rendition instead of the reading of the Prophet was put in those Writers or that they themselves did cite the words of Micah as they are in St. Matthew St. Jerome in his ancient Version read modica es thou art little without a negation agreeable to the Hebrew Text. Mr. Pocock found another way of reconciling those two places without having recourse to an interrogation He does alledge that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in the Prophet Micah and which is ordinarily interpreted small does in that place signifie great because it does equally signifie both And this he does likewise prove by the testimony of some Rabbins and it may be further proved by the ancient Greek Interpreters 'T is probable that the Jewish Doctors reported that Passage to King Herod according to the exposition it received in the Glosses of that time which were read to the People without keeping to the words of their Text which was only understood by the Learned That which confirms me in this Opinion is that instead of these words and thou Bethlehem Ephrata or as it is in the Septuagint Bethlehem the House of Ephrata they put these words which were more known at that time and thou Bethlehem in the Land of Judah There is likewise read in the Hebrew and in the Septuagint amongst the Thousands of Judah and in St. Matthew amongst the Princes of Judah This different Interpretation does proceed from this that the same Hebrew word that is in the Prophet may be interpreted both ways according to the different vowels or rather according to the caprice of the Transcribers who did add or take away at their pleasure the letter vau in which the difference of interpretation does consist The Scribes did read it with the letter vau 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aluphe whereas the Septuagint read it as it is at this day amongst the Jews in the Hebrew of the Masorets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alphe There is nothing more ordinary in the Hebrew Manuscript Copies of the Bible than this kind of alteration And therefore when it does occur the sense is rather to be regarded than the manner wherein the Hebrew words are written The Jews of that time expounded that Passage of Micah as if it had been in the Hebrew Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aluphe with the letter vau St. Jerome endeavouring to justifie the liberty he took in giving more heed to the sense than words did produce this Passage of the Prophet Micah to shew that it is quite otherwise in the Hebrew and in the Septuagint than in St. Matthew He adds withal (c) Haec replico non ut Evangelistas arguam falsitatis hoc quippe impiorum est Celsi Porphyrii Juliani sed ut reprehensores meos arguam imperitiae impetrem ab eis veniam ut concedant mihi in simplici epistolâ quod in Scripturis Sanctis velint nolint Apostolis concessuri sunt Hieron de opt gen interp ad Pammach that he did not by that answer charge the Evangelists with falshood as Celsus Porphyrius and the Emperor Julian had done but to convince his Adversaries of ignorance and to shew them that he might in one single Letter take the same liberty that the Apostles had taken in Translating the Sacred Writings It seems that that Learned Father does here attribute to St. Matthew what he attributed to the Jewish Doctors in his Commentaries upon the Prophet Micah However 't is more to the purpose that we reconcile those two different Interpretations by having recourse to the Fountain then by encreasing the difficulty St. Matthew applyed to the Messiah in the same Chapter of his Gospel the words of the Prophet Hosea Out of Egypt I have called my Son It is evident that the Prophet speaks of the People of Israel whom God calls his Son. Answer may be made to this Objection of the Jews that that People was a Type of the Messiah to whom that which was spoken of Israel in a literal sense might according to the custom of that time be applyed in a Mystical and Spiritual sense See Maldonat in his Commentary on this place of St. Matthew where that Learned Jesuit does at the same time establish solid Principles for the exposition of the most part of the Prophetical Texts that have been cited by the Evangelists and the Apostles He does judiciously observe that a Prophecy is reckoned to be accomplished not only when 't is truly and in the Letter fulfilled but also when the thing which is figuratively signified by the words is accomplished He brings St. Paul for an example who in his Epistle to the Hebrews Chap. 1. has applyed to the Messiah that which is spoken of Solomon in the second Book of Samuel Chap. 7. v. 14. I will be his Father and he shall be my Son. And the same may be said of the Prophecy of Hosea
charge Apud Cyril lib. 7. adv Jul. who accused the Christians for having abandoned the Law and the Prophets although they made a profession of following them He likewise reproached them for their boldness in calling themselves Israelites having as he alledged a Doctrin altogether opposite to that of Moses and the Ancient Prophets Apud Cyril lib. 8. adv Jul. But it is easie to convince him that the Christians are truly Israelites since they have neither renounced the Law nor the Prophets although sometimes they do expound them in a Mystical and Spiritual sense such an exposition as has been said is not contrary to the Doctrin of the Ancient Jews That Emperor seeing he owned no other sense of the Books of Moses but an Historical and Literal did object against the Christians that those words of Deuteronomy Chap. 18. v. 15. The Lord shall raise up a Prophet like unto me could not be understood of Jesus the Son of Mary seeing Moses does expresly speak (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Julian apud Cyr. ibid. of a Prophet who was to be a Man as he was and not the Son of God. It is true Act. c. 3. v. 22. c. 7. v. 37. that St. Peter and St. Stephen applyed to Jesus Christ that Passage of Deuteronomy which is literally understood of Joshua who was to succeed to Moses and also of other Judges and Prophets who have been in the Commonwealth of the Hebrews But if those Judges and Prophets were the Types of the Messiah why does he oppose the application of the same words to him according to a Sublime and Spiritual Sense of which we have already spoken seeing the Rabbins do frequently make the like applications By the Principles that we have established it will be very easie to resolve the most part of the other Objections which the Jews do raise against the Citations which are found throughout the Books of the New Testament The Apostles who did exactly follow the Expositions which were in use in their time have observed the same method almost through all their Writings The Jews could not oppose them without destroying their own Principles and favouring at the same time the Saddùcees According to this method St. Matthew applyed to St. John the words of the Prophet Esay The voice of one crying in the wilderness make straight the way of the Lord. It is manifest that the Evangelist did by a deras or Spiritual and Allegorical Sense Expound that which we ought to understand Literally and Historically of the returning of the Jews from their Captivity out of Babylon to Jerusalem Besides all those observations which serve as Principles for answering the Objections of the Jews and the Emperor Julian this is likewise remarkable that there are many words in the New Testament which have a larger Sense than in the Old which can be only attributed to the Custom of that time and to a Tradition received amongst the Jews There is nothing in the Books of Moses that does afford us any clear discovery of the state of a future Life which the Jews do call olam habba i.e. The World to come there is no manifest Record in the ancient Law of a Heaven or a Hell any more than there is of a Recompence to the Just and Punishment to the Wicked in that other Life Neither have they proper words to express those things they are obliged to make use of Metaphorical terms The word Gehenna for example which is taken from the Hebrew Gehennam has quite another Sense in the Books of the Old Testament than in the New where it does signifie the Fire of Hell. Which made St. Jerom say (p) Nomen gehennae in veteribus libris non invenitur sed primùm à Salvatore ponitur Hieron Comm. in Matth. that he does not find the word Gehenna in ancient Books that Jesus Christ is the first who used it Yet this does not prove that he was in effect the first that used it in that Sense as it is in the New Testament for it was before that time in use amongst the Jews in the same very Sense and especially amongst the Pharisees St. Jerom meant no more than this that he did not find it in the Old Testament under that signification although their Paraphrasts and their most ancient Rabbins used it in the same Sense as Jesus Christ did afterwards The Hebrew word Sceol will come under the same consideration for in the Hebrew of the Old Testament it does signifie a Sepulchre it is almost every where in the Septuagint rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hell as if they had frequently intended to signifie by that word a subterranean place where Souls are after their separation from the Body St. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles does Expound of the Messiah according to that Sense the words of Psalm xv Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption Which Passage is Literally understood of David who said to God that he would not suffer his Enemies to take away his Life and thus the Hebrew words Sceol and Scahat according to the former Sense do signifie Literally a Sepulchre and a Ditch But according to the Spiritual and Mystical Sense which St. Peter gives to this Psalm that he applies to the Messiah whose Type David was the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he took from the ancient Version of the Septuagint do signifie in the Acts of the Apostles Hell and Corruption The Application that the Apostle made of the words of that Psalm to the Resurrection of the Messiah does contain nothing but what is agreeable to the belief of the Jews of that time who believed the Resurrection of the dead They further acknowledged a subterranean place to which Souls do go after their separation from the Body Without a due regard to all these considerations it is impossible to understand the New Testament Therefore it is to be supposed as a thing constantly agreed upon that the Jews in the time of our Saviour and the Apostles believed many things whereof they had no Literal proofs in all the Old Testament being only founded on their Traditions And the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles ought to be Expounded with a relation to this Idea of the Jewish Faith and not to that which may be conceived of their belief with a reference to the Books of the Old Testament only because those Books contain but one part of their Religion the other part being comprehended in their Traditions The Jews do own this Principle The Jews even the Caraites who do mightily oppose the Traditions of the Talmudists which had degenerated into Fables have preserved those which they believed to be founded on sufficient Records The ancient Hereticks who did not weigh all these considerations did rather choose to deny the truth of the Books of the New Testament and say that in after times there
Scripture nor any order by ranging of words but what comes from God. This Opinion is very little agreeable to the Doctrin of the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers who seemed not to have stretched that Inspiration beyond the things themselves But Estius who taught Theology in the University of Douay was obliged to speak the Language of the Divines of that place who had made a Decree upon that matter against the Fathers the Jesuits of Louvain who had set out some propositions directly opposite thereunto Besides Estius was the Principal Author of the censure to which those propositions were exposed We shall give here a full account of the difference that happened between those Doctors of Louvain and Douay and the Jesuits of the Colledg of Louvain about the Point of Inspiration It is not of late that the Divines who make profession of following St. Augustine in their Schools and Books have opposed the Theology of the Fathers the Jesuits Those Fathers having an 1586. maintained in their Colledge of Louvain some Propositions upon the Subject of Grace Predestination and the Holy Scripture which appeared new to the Doctors of Louvain and Douay these Doctors did censure them and withal published the reasons of their censure Seeing we do not speak in this place of Grace and Predestination but only of the Holy Scripture I shall insist on such things only as concern the Scripture You may take a view of the Title of the Censure issued out by the Divines of Louvain as it was Printed at Paris at the end of a Book entitled Florentii Conrii Peregrinus Jerichuntinus Censura Facultatum Sacrae Theologiae Lovaniensis ac Duacensis super quibusdam Articulis de Sacrâ Scripturâ c. anno Domini 1586. Scripto traditis The Censure is directed to all the Body of the Jesuits of Louvain in these Terms Reverendis in Christo Patribus Patri Rectori ac Professoribus caeterisque Patribus Collegii Societatis nominis Jesu in Universitate Lovaniensi Decanus reliqui Facultatis in eâdem Vniversitate Magistri aeternam salutem pacemque precamur Those Wise Masters whilst they declared against the Jesuits a War that was never to have an end do not fail to wish them eternal Peace They call their Doctrin strange scandalous and dangerous peregrina offensiva periculosa dogmata Amongst the Propositions which they censured there are three which run thus (g) Vt aliquid sit Scriptura Sacra non est necessarium singula ejus verba inspirata esse à Spiritu Sancto II. Non est necessarium ut singulae veritates sententiae sint immediatè à Spiritu Sancto ipsi scriptori inspiratae III. Liber aliquis qualis fortasse est secundus Maccabaeorum humanâ industriâ sine assistentiâ Spiritûs Sancti scriptus si Spiritus Sanctus posteà testetur ibi nihil esse falsum efficitur Scriptura Sacra Jesuit Colleg. Lovan assert apud Flor. Conr. 1. That a thing should be Holy Scripture it is not necessary that all the words thereof should be inspired by God. 2. It is not necessary for all Truths and Sentences to be immediatly indited by Inspiration to the Writer 3. A Book as for example the second of the Maccabees which was written by Men only without the assistance of the Holy Ghost does afterwards become Holy Scripture if the Holy Spirit doth testifie that there is nothing that is false in that Book These three Propositions were extracted out of the Writings of the Fathers the Jesuits who taught Theology in the College of Louvain and they were so far from condemning them upon a remonstrance made to them that they were scandalous that they freely defended them adding thereunto new explications ab iisdem ibidem Professoribus pro suis agnitae comprobatae scholiisque illustratae They appeared to be really agreeable to good sense neither do they much vary from the Theology of the Ancient Fathers whom we are more bound to hear upon this Subject than the Sacred Faculty of Theology of Louvain who in condemning them as they did were guilty of a great act of injustice against the Society of the Jesuits The words of the Censure as to their purport are (h) Tres illae assertiones accedere videntur ad damnatam olim Anomaeorum opinionem qui Prophetas Apostolos in multis volebant ut homines fuisse locutos ut refert Epiphanius Haeresi 76. ad eorum sententiam quam praefatione in Epistolam ad Philemonem alibi Hieronymus reprehendit de quâ notatus Erasmus fuit Cens Fac. Theol. Lovan that those three Assertions did come near to the ancient Heresie of the Anomeans who were of Opinion that the Prophets and the Apostles had frequently spoken as other private Men and to the sentiments of those of whom St. Jerome makes mention in the Preface of his Commentaries upon the Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon which Opinion was censured in the Person of Erasmus They do further oppose to those Assertions the Council of Trent the words of St. Peter in his second Epistle of St. Paul in his second Epistle to Timothy and finally the Authority of the Ancient Fathers who assure us that the Tongue and Hand of the Holy Writers were made use of as a Pen by the Holy Ghost Before we enter upon a discussion of what concerns the Divines of Louvain we shall relate the Censure of the Faculty of Theology of Douay These Divines declare that they have examined the Propositions of the Jesuits by the Order of the Archbishops of Cambray and of Malines and of the Bishop of Gand They do not condemn them in gross as the Doctors of Louvain had done but they apply their Censure to each Proposition in particular To the two first they oppose St. Augustine who did according to their Opinion believe that the Sacred Writers received from God a partioular faculty and method of delivering and composing their discourse They do also quote Gabriel a Scholastick Divine who affirmed that the Apostles were Inspired with many natural Truths and that a Book might be inspired although there be pains and meditation used in its composure Those Divines do likewise give for an Example Jesus Christ (i) Si scribere voluisset laborem nonnunquam meditationem simulque industriam aliquam adhibere potuit humanam quamvis interim spiritus ejus humanus itemque os lingua manus digiti perpetua quaedam essent instrumenta Divini Spiritûs Cens Theol. Duac who say they if he had written any Book might as a Man have meditated and applyed himself to that Work although his Spirit his Mouth his Tongue his Hands and his Fingers would continually have been the Instruments of the Holy Ghost And thus the Doctors of Douay do endeavour to destroy the Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain which to them appeared to be scandalous And also under a pretence of shewing that they subvert all Religion in speaking to the second Proposition they add
most part of the Schools when those Opinions have no good Foundation which happened to them in the matter which we now handle The Divines of Louvain bring for one of the principal motives of their Censure the conformity that the three Propositions of the Jesuits have to an old Opinion that was condemned in the Anomeans whereof St. Epiphanius all through makes mention But to shew the falshood of this objection it will be sufficient to bring the Testimony of Epiphanius That Father does say that the Anomeans (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 76. n. 6. traduced the Prophets and the Evangelists that when they were much urged they avoided the difficulty by answering that the Apostle spake as a Man. Is there any thing in those three Propositions above mentioned that comes near this Did the Jesuits of the College of Louvain alledge that there might possibly be somthing that is false in the Writings of the Apostles under the pretext that they were Men that spake it Yet that is the Opinion of the Anomeans who being unable to satisfie the Reasons that were brought against them out of the Books of the New Testament said that the Authors of those Books had spoken as Men in those places We shall apply the same Answer to another Objection which those Doctors did take from the Preface of St. Jerom's Commentaries upon the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Philemon That Father does in that place make mention of certain Hereticks who rejected that Epistle because they alledged that that Holy Apostle was not guided by the Spirit of God in writing it Hieron prooem Comm. in Epist ad Philem. Those who will not saith he receive the Epistle written to Philemon as one of the Epistles of Paul do say that the Apostle did not speak always nor all things by the immediate assistance of Christ speaking in him because human frailty could not suffer one constant tenor of the Holy Ghost But if it should be granted to those Hereticks that St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles were not Inspired in all that they writ it does not therefore follow that we ought to reject a part of their Writings It is sufficient that we own with the Jesuits that there is nothing but Truth in those very places which were not Inspired and that the Holy Ghost had committed them to us as such Those Sectaries asked the Orthodox Apud Hieron ibid. Epist II. ad Tim. c. 4. v. 13. if St. Paul stood in need of any Inspiration to say When thou doest come bring my Cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus and especially the parchments and many other things of that nature I do declare that it was in no ways necessary that God should Indite such kind of things to St. Paul and other Holy Writers This is the Opinion of the Jesuits of Louvain which was afterwards confirmed in the same place by Cornelius à Lapide whose words I have already mentioned But they did not conclude from thence that we are not obliged to receive the Books of Scripture in any parts or places thereof but those only that were Indited by the Holy Ghost It is sufficient that they were persuaded that the Holy Writers were guided by the Spirit of God in every part of their Writings so as not to fall into any error The Divines of Louvain further objected against the Jesuits that they had renewed an Opinion which had been condemned in the Person of Erasmus But it is easie to make it appear that those Fathers maintained nothing that had affinity to the Proposition which Erasmus owned That Critick was accused for believing that there were * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some errors in the Writing of the Apostles which were to be attributed to a defect of their Memory We shall find nothing like this in the three Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain for although they be very well satisfied that there was no need of any Inspiration for Writing those things that they knew they do not upon that account imagin that the Writers were at any time mistaken through a defect of Memory Erasmus also used his utmost endeavour in one of his Apologies to wipe off that accusation He does protest that he only reported that which St. Jerom had observed upon the matter and that there had been nothing said but what was agreeable to St. Augustine's Opinion Howsoever it is that Critick does assure us (b) Nunc testor me abhorrere ab ullâ oblivione tribuendâ Apostolis Erasm Apol. adv Monach. quosd Hisp that he never intended to charge the Apostles with any defect of Memory I do not inquire if Erasmus was wronged in this It is enough that I have shewn the Proposition that is supposed to have been condemned on his account and have withal made it appear that there is nothing of that nature contained in the three Propositions of the Jesuits that were Censured Those very Divines did also by way of Objection bring the Authority of the Council of Trent Sess IV. the words of St. Peter Epist II. ch 1. v. 21. and those of St. Paul Epist II. to Timothy ch 3. v. 16. But there is nothing in all those places to which the Jesuits of Louvain do not agree The strongest Passage is that of the Epistle to Timothy and yet it is the same upon which Cornelius à Lapide made Observations as I have shewn As to the Testimony of the ancient Fathers who said that the Tongue and the Hand of the Holy were the Holy Ghosts Pen the Jesuits do not deny it The same Cornelius à Lapide has explained it at large in his Commentary upon the second Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Timothy where he makes it appear that it is not contrary to his Opinion about the Inspiration of Scripture And the truth is we cannot imagin that the Holy Ghost deprived the Evangelists and the Apostles of the use of their Reason and Memory The Reasons of the Doctors of the Faculty of Theology of Douay are no more Conclusive than those of the Divines of Louvain They chiefly depend upon some Passages of St. Augustin But since there is nothing that is positive in all those Passages it will not be worth the while to insist on them They bring for example by way of Objection some places of his Books Concerning the consent of the Evangelists Yet there is no Work where that Father has more shewn than in that Treatise that the Sacred Writers made use of their Reason and Memory when they writ their Gospels That Work has also given occasion to Erasmus and some other Writers to affirm that the Memory of the Apostles was not always sure and that they put sometimes one word for another It is true that St. Augustin is withal of the Opinion that that defect in the Apostles was guided by the Holy Ghost But I think it had been much better not to make them fall into error than to
had slipp'd Yet he dares not be positive because he knows not the reasons of that great diversity And therefore he adds (r) Fieri potuit ut antiquitùs in quaedam exemplaria Lucae nonnulla ex iis Evangeliis quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 existimata sunt irrepserint quae postea Sanctorum Patrum diligentiâ resecta fuerint Mor. ibid. that possibly they might have inserted in some Copies of St. Luke that which was found in other supposed Gospels and that the Fathers had afterwards been at the pains to retrench those Additions If that Critick had narrowly weighed St. Jerome's Preface dedicated to Pope Damasus he would there have found all his doubts cleared Seeing the Cambridge Copy observes the same Order with all the other Greek Copies of the New Testament as to the thread of the History it does manifestly prove that it has not been on purpose altered by the Hereticks Moreover seeing the alterations that are therein do not introduce any Paradox Opinion but consist for the most part in some words which have been placed instead of others and in some Additions that have been taken from other Evangelists or in bare Illustrations we may infer from thence that all the change proceeded from the liberty that was taken by some at that time for rendring the Books of the New Testament the more intelligible without putting themselves to the trouble of adhering to the words of the Original so long as nothing of the sense was altered The Criticks especially St. Jerome in reforming the ancient Vulgar did at the same time amend those ancient Greek Copies with which he agreed entirely He used for that purpose other Greek Copies which were more exact and especially those to which he had added the Ten Canons of Eusebius These latter Copies which were amongst the Greeks before St. Jerome's time always remained with them which is easily proved by the same Canons of Eusebius One of the most surprising varieties of that Copy is that which is found in the Genealogy of Jesus Christ Chap. 3. of St. Luke for this Genealogy is the same with that in St. Matthew unless it be that it goes up to Solomon in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is manifest that this Genealogy has been designedly amended by that of St. Matthew yet with an Addition of those Persons which he had omitted Beza who has also made mention of this diversity in his Notes upon this Chapter of St. Luke declares (ſ) Quînam autem id sit factum nescio cùm recepta lectio tum Syri ipsius interpretis auctoritate tum Scriptorum omnium Sacrorum proptereà de Matthaeo cum Lucâ conciliando laborantium consensu planè confirmetur cui sanè praejudicium ullum afferre nec velim nec ausim Tantùm dico fieri potuisse ut ipsis Evangelistarum temporibus Judaei genealogiam istam quantum in ipsis fuit depravarint quasi fidem caeteris de Christo narrationibus abrogaturi quae fraus à plerisque non animadversa facilè obtinuerit Bez. Annot. in c. 3. Luc. v. 23. that he cannot imagine how that can be because the Syriack Interpreter and all the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers are altogether against that Copy from whom he neither intends nay nor dares to recede That might as he conjectures have happened from the very time of the Evangelists the Jews having corrupted that Genealogy that they might not believe the other Histories which are recorded in the Gospels There is nothing more ridiculous than this conjecture of Beza who does charge the Jews with a crime which they never thought of besides that it was of no advantage to them because they could not corrupt all the Copies which they kept by them There are none to be blamed for that alteration of the Ancient Copies of the New Testament but the Christians and even the Orthodox as it has been frequently observed after St. Jerome who in his Letter to Pope Damasus has taken notice of the change of which we now speak He says that in those days they took the liberty to amend the Gospels by that Gospel which they had read first Ille qui unum è quatuor primum legerat ad ejus exemplum caeteros quoque existimaverat emendandos It is evident that the Genealogy in St. Luke was reformed in the Cambridge Copy according to this Method and that what was supposed to be wanting therein was supplied from the Old Testament And the accusation supposed to have been brought against the Jews was so far from admitting a sufficient ground of reason that there was nothing at that time so common as Copies as well Greek as Latin of that kind especially in the Churches of the West before St. Jerome had revised the Ancient Latin Edition It would be easie to prove that the Gospel of St. Mark has been likewise amended in some places by that of St. Matthew and further that there have been some words changed for others that were synonymous which appeared to be more intelligible but that labour would be to no purpose because every one may consult the divers Readings of that ancient Copy in the sixth Tome of the Polyglott Bible of England and in the Greek Edition of the New Testament Printed at Oxford It is enough that I have observed the true reason of those numerous variations concerning which the Criticks have given us very wide and even false conjectures Those who revised those ancient Copies intending nothing but to make them clear without being at the pains to confine themselves to the true Reading of the Evangelists and the Apostles have given Paraphrases on them whensoever they believed that they were not sufficiently understood They have also abridged them in those places that they thought intricate by reason of superfluous words which they have also transposed in innumerable places for the same reason Which is enough to be observed once for all in general without a particular rehearsal of the Passages which have been altered in the Cambridge Copy as well in the Gospels as in the Acts of the Apostles This does appear yet more in the Acts because there was a very great liberty taken of reforming that History in the first Ages of the Church Nevertheless whatever change those Books have undergone in the ancient time and that the very words of the Evangelists and the Apostles were not observed yet it will not be found that the sense has suffered any alteration They only endeavoured to make them the more intelligible to the People and for that end it was necessary to refine them seeing they were full of Hebraisms and very concise Phrases which they were obliged to illustrate according to that Method Nevertheless in the Cambridge Copy there are certain Additions whereof the same thing cannot be said because they are plain Matters of Fact that have been added For example Chapter 6. of St. Luke verse 5. after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read in that Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
perfectly agree with the ordinary Greek at this day They might very well illustrate that Passage of St. Matthew by some Note but it is not at all allowable to insert that Note in the Text. And therefore St. Jerome has not inserted it in his Latin Edition when he corrected it by good Manuscripts according to the order he had received from Pope Damasus Which is a new Proof that we ought to keep to the reading of the ordinary Greek which is the most ancient That Father did content himself to make in his Commentaries upon St. Matthew such an observation as we have already mentioned without changing the Text of that Evangelist in any Thing Si voluerimus saith he Jechoniam in fine primae tessaredecadis ponere in sequente non erunt quatuordecim sed tredecim Sciamus igitur Jechoniam priorem ipsum esse quem Joakim secundum autem filium non patrem quorum prior per k. m. sequens per ch n. scribitur quod scriptorum vitio longitudine temporum apud Graecos Latinosque confusum est He does suppose in this observation that some did read with Epiphanius two several Jechonias whom he does distinguish by writing them differently according to the reading of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament But this amendment is Founded upon no Copy of St. Matthew unless it be such as has been reformed For what remains I do not know how the reading was in those Greek and Latin Copies of the New Testament that were before St. Jerome For the nineteen first Verses of St. Matthew are wanting in the Cambridge Copy which does only begin at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 20. of the first Chapter The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew who likewise did read as we do in the ordinary Greek has observed that it is otherwise in the Book of the Kings (f) Ergo talis est ordo Josias genuit Eliachim posteà vocatum Joachim Joachim autem genuit Jechoniam Auct Oper. imperf in Matth. cap. 1. v. 11. and the order of the Genealogy ought to be expressed thus Josias begat Eliachim who was afterwards called Joachim and Joachim begat Jechonias He only takes notice of the order that that Genealogy ought to have according to the History of the New Testament He does not for all that reform the ordinary Text of St. Matthew For he adds (g) Nec obest quòd filius Josiae dictus est cùm sit nepos quoniam nepotes rectè filii dicuntur Id. ibid. that that does not hinder but that Jechonias who was the Grandson of Josias might have been called his Son because it was very ordinary to give the name of Sons to Grandsons Chap. 2. of St. Matthew v. 17. where we read in the ordinary Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Robert Stephen did read in one of his Manuscripts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which reading is confirmed by another ancient Manuscript cited by Mr. Salbert and in the Cambridge Copy Although Beza (h) Probatur haec lectio quam secutus sum manuscripti exemplaris auctoritate ita solere loqui Matthaeum superiora ostendunt Certè magna vis est horum verborum ex quibus intelligimus non ipsos Prophetas sed Dominum ore Prophetarum loqui Bez. ad cap. 2. Matth. v. 17. found that reading only in one Manuscript yet he does prefer it to the other because it appeared to him to be St. Matthew's Stile and he believed that there is a great force in that expression which declares to us that the Lord does speak by the mouth of his Prophets But it is much more probable that these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were added in the Cambridge Copy there being very few other Copies where it is extant It cannot be therefore any longer thought with any assurance that they are of St. Matthew's Stile seeing that Evangelist does not express them in many places where that same manner of speech does occur In short he would disparage his own judgment who would leave the ordinary reading of the Greek Copies and embrace one reading which is only founded on a very small number of Copies under a pretext that they contain an expression which seems to have more force For according to the Laws of Criticks the reading which is most plain and is withal confirmed by the plurality of Copies ought to be accounted the best And therefore St. Jerome did rather choose to follow those Greek Copies than the ancient Vulgar In the same Chapter 2. v. 18. although we read in all the Greek Copies of the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ramâ as the proper name of a Place Origen has observed (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. Cat. Gr. in Matth. 2. 18. that that Word does signifie an high place and that it is in some Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. on high But this reading is only extant in the ancient Alexandrine Copy of the Septuagint Version where the signification of the Hebrew word Rama is put St. Jerome also who has in excelso in his new Translation from the Hebrew has left the word in Rama in his ancient Latin Edition which he had taken from the Septuagint and he has kept the same reading in his Edition of the Gospels He only observed in his Commentary (k) Quod autem dicitur in Rama non putemus loci nomen esse juxta Gabaa sed rama excelsum interpretatur ut sit sensus Vox in excelso audita est id est long è lateque dispersa Hieron Comm. in c. 2. Matth. v. 18. that Rama is not the proper name of a place which was near to Gabaa but that this word does signifie high so that the sense of the Passage according to his mind will run thus A voice was heard on high that is to say that that voice was spread far and wide Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb n. 2467. Further in the same verse we do not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a Manuscript of Mr. Colbert's Library nor in Justin Martyr who made mention of that Passage in his Dialogue against Tryphon the Jew Neither is it found in the Vulgar although it is in the Ancient Vulgar and in the Greek of the Cambridge Copy Chap. 3. v. 11. These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not found in a great number of Greek Manuscript Copies Robert Stephen did not read them in seven of his and there are also seven others marked in the Polyglott of England which have them not Besides I have not found them in two Copies that belong to Mr. Colbert But they are in the Cambridge Copy and the two Vulgars St. Jerome having kept them in his new Edition He has likewise explained them in his Commentary without observing that there was any variety of reading upon that Passage The truth is the most Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers had no other reading which made Erasmus conjecture
unequal For when the breadth of the paper could not contain a whole Line they placed the rest of the Letters or Words above the Line It seems they designed in this manner to write by way of Verses the Ancient Greek and Latin Copy of St. Paul's Epistles which is in the Royal Library and that of the Benedictine Monks of the Abbey of St. Germain Or rather they who copied these two Manuscripts by others that were more Ancient did not at all understand the nature of the ancient Lines or Verses and therefore they did not altogether imitate the same However it be it is certain that there is nothing more ordinary amongst the ancient Writers than to mark at the end of their Books the number of Verses which they contained I do not deny but that there is another sort of Verses which were regulated according to the sense or the sentences in the same manner as they are represented in our Books In this we have imitated the Jews who divided their Bible into this kind of Verses This latter sort has an original quite different from that of the former For seeing they did read the Scripture in their Synagogues and in their Schools they made this new division of Verses for the conveniency of their Lessons We also see something of the like nature in some Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament and in some Manuscript Church Bibles I have not only observed the beginning and the ending of the Lessons which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are as so many different Chapters but also certain marks in form of a cross in all the places where the sentences do end and where the Reader makes a little stop according to the custom of the Greek Churches This we may call a Verse or Sentence and which the Greeks do signifie by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Crojus is mistaken Jo. Croj. ibid. when he would perswade us that the Greeks did at the end of their Gospels mark the number of the words as well as that of the Verses that were contained therein For the examples which he does produce after Salmasius ought to be understood of Sentences and not of Words as may be proved by those very words which he brings as taken out of a Manuscript Copy that assigns to St. Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2522 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2560 to St. Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1675 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1616 If the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in this place for the words as Crojus expounds it what proportion can there be betwixt the Words and the Verses seeing they reckoned almost the same number of Words as Verses in those two Gospels viz. in St. Matthew 2522 words and 2560 Verses in St. Mark 1675 words and 1616 Verses We must therefore understand the number of Sentences to be signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the ancient Verses which were measured according to the Lines or some other sort of Verses to be meant by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We find the Number of the Verses of each Book at the end of several Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament Robert Stephen does sometimes mark them in his fair Greek Edition and it would be easie to note them all But this in my Opinion would be of little use besides that the Manuscripts wherein I have observed them are not very ancient and they do not agree amongst themselves about the matter Scaliger caused to be Printed at the end of the Chronology of the Patriarch Nicephorus a Stichometrie or the number of the Verses of all the Books of the Bible under that Patriarch's Name Mr. Pithou before him had published that Stichometrie under the same Name But it is more ancient and we find that it is inserted in the Works of some other Greek Historians They were also placed as has been already observed at the end of two Greek and Latin Copies of St. Paul's Epistles of which we have already spoken I shall here take notice of what belongs to the Verses of the New Testament and seeing that there is somewhat singular in that Catalogue I shall change nothing either as to the order of the Books or the manner (e) Matthaeus ver IIDC. Joannes ver II. Marcus ver IDC Lucas IIDCCCC Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos ver IXL. ad Corinthios 1. ver ILX. ad Corinthios 2. LXX ad Galatas ver CCCL ad Ephesios ver CCCLXXV ad Timotheum 1. ver CCVIII ad Timotheum 2. ver CCLXXXVIII ad Titum ver CXL ad Colossenses ver CCLI ad Filemonem ver L. ad Petrum 1. ver CC. ad Petrum 2. ver CXL Jacobi ver CCXX prima Joannis Epistola ver CCXX Joannis Epistola 2. ver XX. Joannis Epistola 3. ver XX. Judae Epistola ver LX. Barnabae Epistola ver DCCCL Joannis Revelatio ver ICC. Actus Apostolorum ver IIDC. Pastoris ver IIII. Actus Pauli IIIIDLX Revelatio Petri CCLXX. Codd MSS. Bibl. Reg. Bened. S. Germ. St. Matthew according to that Ancient Catalogue that is written in Latin does contain 2600 Verses St. John 2000. St. Mark 1600. St. Luke 2900. The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans 1040. The first to the Corinthians 1060. the second to the Corinthians 70. there is an error in this place The Epistle to the Galatians 350. the Epistle to the Ephesians 375. the first to Timothy 208. the second to Timothy 288. the Epistle to Titus 140. to the Colossians 251. to Philemon 50. the first of St. Peter 200. the second of the same Apostle 140. that of St. James 220. the first of St. John 220. the second 20. and also the third 20. the Epistle of St. Jude 60. that of St. Barnabas 850. the Revelation of St. John 1200. the Acts of the Apostles 2600. the Book of the pastor 4000. the Acts of St. Paul 4560. the Revelation of Peter 270. Casaubon who was well versed in Greek Authors Casaub Not. in Nov. Test preferred the ancient division that is found in the Manuscripts to that which has been invented in these latter times and which appears in our Printed Bibles He does also wish that some able Critick would restore it He speaks of that which is made by way of Titles and Chapters They called as he affirms the great Sections 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 titles and the small 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chapters He might have added that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter is also sometimes taken for the great Sections and that then it does not differ from that which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Title There is nothing more ordinary amongst the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers than the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter for the Greeks and that of Capitulum for the Latins when they quote the Sacred Books It would not be hard to re-establish that ancient division by the help of Manuscripts but
I shall content my self to mention here what belongs to the New Testament We read in one of the Manuscripts of the Royal Library that St. Matthew contains 68 Titles and 355 Chapters St. Mark 48 Titles and 234 Chapters St. Luke 83 Titles and 342 Chapters St. John 18 Titles and 231 Chapters Suidas Which agrees with the Observation of Suidas upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless we must in that Author instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 36. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 236. as it is in some Manuscripts and in the Greek Edition in folio of Robert Stephen's New Testament (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod. MS. Biblioth Reg. n. 2861. Moreover we read at the beginning of the same Manuscript of the Royal Library that there is in St. Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 68 Chapters so as they call that a Chapter in that place which is called a Title in the end of the Book and there is the same thing observable in the other three Gospels By which we may know that the word Chapter is taken two ways and that it is applyed as well to the great as to the small Sections When they prefix the numbers of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Chapters to the Books this words does then signifie great Sections and in this manner they are marked at the beginning of the most part of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament in the first Editions of Erasmus in that of Robert Stephen in folio and in some others This is instead of a Table or Index of the Contents which at once does represent the Principal things in a Work. In this manner the most exact Greek Transcribers do mark the Summaries under the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapters at the beginning of their Copies And seeing they have likewise noted them in the Margin of their Copies or at the top or the bottom of the Pages in all the places where those Chapters begin they have for this reason given them the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 titles There is then no difference betwixt Title and Chapter according to this sense unless it be that the Chapters are marked at the beginning of the Books and the Titles in the Margin This I observed in comparing several Manuscript Greek Copies of the New Testament one with the other The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does on the contrary signifie the small Sections that are marked in the Margins of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament by Letters instead of Numbers Erasmus did also put them in his first Editions of the New Testament in which he was followed by Robert Stephen in his Edition in Folio who has likewise subjoyned them separately at the end of S. Mark where he reckons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 236 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapters and at the end of S. Luke where he computes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 342. whereas in the King's Manuscript which I quoted S. Mark does only contain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 234 Chapters The truth is the Greek Copies do not agree amongst themselves about the thing especially in the Gospel of S. Mark. We have already shewn that several Greek Churches did not once read the twelve last Verses of this Gospel which begin with these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and so they might have had fewer small Sections in their Copies than what are ordinarily reckoned Nevertheless there are some Manuscripts where the Section 234. is last marked over against these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. there being no other that answers to the rest of the Text. Moreover it is certain that the Churches where these Copies were in use did read those twelve Verses for they have inserted in that place the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 end and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beginning to note that they began another Lesson there Yet we have no sure foundation here to build any certainty upon because the Observations of that sort have been taken from the Synaxarion or the Church Bibles of the Greeks And so they regulated these distinctions by the Lectionaries which were then read in the Churches to accommodate the Copies of the New Testament to the custom that obtained amongst them The Churches which did not read the twelve last Verses of S. Mark Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2861. do only reckon in that Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 233. small Sections as it appears by an ancient Manuscript of the Royal Library There is another Copy less ancient than that in the same Library Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2856. which does likewise only represent 233. and the last small Section answers to these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to which Rob. Stephen in his Edition made the Section 233. to answer The Churches which did read those twelve Verses reckon more than 233. Sections but they agree not amongst themselves for some have comprehended all those Verses under one Section and in their Copies there are only 234 Sections extant others on the contrary Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2859. have divided them into many small Sections and therefore Rob. Stephen has mark'd after some Manuscripts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 236. I have also seen a Manuscript Copy where there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 241. Further this division of the Sacred Books is very ancient Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 1879. for Justin Martyr makes mention of these small Sections under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius in his Letter to Carpianus which was printed with the ten Canons which he so ingeniously invented for shewing at once that wherein the Evangelists did agree and that which is peculiar to each of them does use indifferently these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Section and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter Denis of Alexandria speaking of certain Authors who rejected the Revelation of S. John says that they had examined all the Chapters Dionys Alex. apud Eus Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In a word There are few of the ancient Greek Writers where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter is not found in the sense that we have observed Eusebius is not then the Author of those small Sections but he made a very profitable use of them in the ten Canons that he invented and which St. Jerom applied to the Latin Copies of the four Gospels in the same manner as he had seen them applied to the Greek Copies Those who cannot consult the Manuscript Copies for this ought to read the first Greek Editions of the New Testament that were published by Erasmus or that were done by Rob. Stephen which is in folio Those ten Canons are rank'd before the Gospel under ten separte Titles and the Application thereof is marked in the Margin of every Gospel The small Sections are there noted by Letters instead of Numbers according to the custom of the Greeks
(d) Populus ille in Aegypto exulans Christi ibidem exulaturi figura dici potest sicut nunc corpus mystieum Ecclesiae corporis naturalis Christi figura est Christus populo in eo similis est quod uterque Dei filius appelletur Mald. Comm. in c. 2. Matth. v. 15. The People of Israel saith Maldonat in the time of their exile in Egypt may be said to be a figure of Jesus Christ who was also to be there in Exile as at this day the Mystical Body of the Church is a Figure of the natural Body of the same Jesus Christ who is like to Israel in this that both the one and the other is called the Son of God. The Jews could not deny this Mystical and Spiritual sense which is founded on Theology and their Ancient Doctors and whereof there are Examples in the most part of their Writings And therefore all that they object against the Authors of the New Testament does fall on their own heads seeing the Evangelists and Apostles have only imitated them In their application of the Prophecies to the Messiah they followed a Method which was approved by the Jews especially by the Pharisees All that does remain of the Jews in the World if we except the Jews Caraites who are in a very small number derive their original from the Pharisees who besides the Literal and Historical sense of Scripture do acknowledg a Sublime and Mystical sense Whence it is that those senses are frequently to be found in the Commentaries of their Rabbins Origen in his Writings against Celsus maintained with all his might that sublime sense of the Prophecies He calls that sense a Mystical Theory of the Prophets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He says (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Orig. lib. 2. cont Cels that the Prophets did not confine their thoughts to the Historical sense which came first in view nor to the Words and bare Letter of the Law. He does moreover establish this general Rule (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 2. cont Cels that the predictions of the Prophets concerning the Messiah are different some being Enigmatical and others Allegorical or of some other sort there being also some of them that are Literal It will suffice as an Answer to the Jews who in their disputes against the Christians do very much insist on the Literal and Historical sense of the Prophecies to bring that which Origen upon the like occasion answered Celsus who brought in a Jew speaking in his Writings He does reproach him (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. that he does not make the Jew speak pertinently and according to the Character he had given him because he put such words in his mouth as did agree rather to a Samanitane or Sadducee than to a true Jew I always followed this Method when at any time I met with such Jews as impugned the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles in the manner as I have already shewn For perceiving that they were pressed by the very Principles of their own Doctors they never returned me any Answer but this that the Mystical and Allegorical Interpretations of their Ancient Masters gave a great advantage to the Christian Religion When I ask'd them if they would renounce the Principles of their Rabbins to embrace those of the Sadducees or even of the Caraites they declared to me that they had a very great aversion to Men of that stamp This way is to be taken in our disputes with the Jews about Religion They are mightily puzzled when ever this Method is employed against them because we fight against them with the same Arms that they themselves make use of against the Sectaries whom we have already mentioned To return to the testimonies of the Prophets that are cited in the New Testament St. Matthew has in the same second Chapter of his Gospel applyed to the Messiah that which is written in Jeremiah Chap. 31. which seems to have no such meaning if it be expounded literally A voice was heard in Rama a voice of lamentation and great weeping Rachel weeping for her Children and would not be comforted because they are not (h) Hebraei de abductione duarum tribuum Judae Benjamin interpretantur nec dubium est ex circumstantiis Jeremiae quin de illis intelligatur per Rachelem tota regio duarum tribuum significetur Mald. Comm. in c. 2. Matth. v. 18. The Jews Jerem. 31.15 as Maldonat affirms in their exposition of this Passage of Jeremy apply it to the carrying away of the two Tribes and there is no doubt but that is the true sense and that by Rachel all the Cities of those two Tribes are to be understood If it be so the Jews may say why has your Evangelist expounded it of the murder of the Children that happened upon the occasion of your Messiah 'T is easie to make Answer that as to that there is nothing that is extraordinary and which is not agreeable to the expositions of their own Authors Aderas to use their own terms or an Allegorical sense does very well agree to the murder of those Infants The similitude that was between those two Events gave an occasion to St. Matthew to apply that which had been already accomplished in the time of the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin This was observed by Crellius after Maldonat referuntur à Matthaeo saith that Unitary ad caedem Infantium Bethlehemiticorum propter rei similitudinem quia id quod olim quidem impletum fuit in aliis in illis infantibus impletum fuit Faustus Socinus who also believed that the Jews stood upon the literal sense of that Passage of Jeremy observed that Tremellius and Junius alledged that it could not be understood literally any other way than according to St. Matthew's Interpretation (i) Verùm nulla hîc est absurditas si duplici sensu intelligantur praedictiones Veteris Testamenti esse prolatae Imò hoc videtur proprium consentaneum praedictionibus esse Soc. Lect. Sac. But in that saith he there is no absurdity if two senses be admitted in the Prophecies of the Old Testament It does also appear that it is proper and agreeable to those Prophecies The truth is if those two senses be not owned we shall give an occasion to the Jews to accuse the Evangelists and the Apostles for having falsly applyed the Ancient Prophecies We find in the same Chapter of St. Matthew another citation out of the Prophets in general which seems to be more Foreign than any that has been yet taken notice of That Evangelist saith that Jesus came and dwelt in a City called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet he shall be called a Nazarene Seeing he named no Prophet in particular the difficulty is to know what Prophet it was who foretold that the Messiah should be called a Nazarene St. John Chrysostome who had not observed those words