Chrysostom's and several other Fathers of that Church had the Reading in their Copies in the same manner as these have it whom at this day we call Schismaticks This most unjust accusation is nevertheless very Ancient So soon as ever there is a difference perceived in Copies if this difference do favour the Opinions of some Party they will be sure to accuse that Party of corrupting the Sacred Writings although that difference does for the most part come from the Transcribers Hilary the Deacon has made a general Rule in that place formerly mentioned He assures us (m) Quod fecit studium contentionis Quia enim propriâ quis auctoritate uti non potest ad victoriam verba legis adulterat ut sensum suum quasi verba legis asserat ut non ratio sed auctoritas praescribere videatur Ambros ibid. that the Spirit of dispute that is betwixt different Parties is the cause of different Renditions Every one saith he seeing he cannot on such occasions justifie himself by his own Authority does corrupt the Words of the Law that he may make his own Opinions pass for the Words of the Law. Although that has happened sometimes especially to those ancient Hereticks of whom we spake in the beginning of this Work I am perswaded that they have frequently attributed to different Parties such various Renditions in the Copies of the New Testament as had no other cause Originally but what those have which are found in all other Books How many Divines are there for example who believe at this day that they have taken away from the Ancient Greek Copies the Testimony of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost of which mention is made in the first Epistle of St. John Chap. 5. v. 7. to favour the Arian Heresie Others on the contrary do alledge that it was the Arrians who added these Words expresly to the Greek Text to shew the Unity of the Persons of the Trinity is not an Unity of Essence but of Consent Grotius is of this latter Opinion He thinks (n) Neque verò Arianis ablatas esse voces quasdam sed potiùs additas unde colligerent Patrem Filium Spiritum Sanctum non esse unum nisi consensu quomodo spiritus aqua sanguis in unum testimonium consentiunt Quod cum viderent Catholici abstulisse quidem illud quod de Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto insertum fuerat sed reliquisse illud tres unum esse quia id ita positum nocere non poterat Grot. Annot. in 1. Epist Joann c. 5. v. 7. that the Arians for this reason were so far from retrenching some Words from the Text that they added some thereunto that on the contrary the Catholicks had taken away that which is said of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit leaving only these Words These three are the same which can do them no hurt and which as he thinks were likewise added by the Arians But all this is only founded on Conjectures and seeing every one does reason according to his Prejudices some will have the Arians to be the Authors of that Addition and others do attribute the same to the Catholicks This diversity of Opinions proceeds from nothing else but a neglect of examining with sufficient care the ancient Manuscript Copies and other Records which were necessary for the discovery of the Original of those Variations It would be to no purpose for me to repeat here the Critical Reflections which I have formerly made on that Passage of the first Epistle of St. John it having been made evident in what manner it came to pass that those Words that were neither in the Greek Copies nor in the Latin were inserted in the Text. No credit therefore is easily to be given to all those Accusations of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers against the Hereticks upon the point of the Alterations that have happened to the Sacred Writings We have already seen in the Critical History of the Old Testament that the most part of the Fathers did cast the same reproach on the Jews without any ground Seeing the most part of Heresies sprung up in the Greek Church those who maintain the preference of the Latin Copies of the New Testament do not fail to bring this Reason to shew that the Books of the Latins are more ancient than those of the Greeks But before this Accusation is brought it ought to be examined if these Objections have a good foundation for if the thing be considered in general the Original must needs be more perfect than the Versions unless it be in some places where it may be demonstrated that the Version is instead of the Original which has been altered The Sect of the Macedonians were at another time accused as being the Authors of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. vii of St. John v. 39. where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Ghost was not as yet whereas it is in the Vulgar For the Holy Ghost was not yet given The ancient Latin Interpreter did not read the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Greek Copy which is likewise wanting in some Greek Manuscripts and in others belonging to Mr. Colbert's most ancient Library Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb n. 5149. Neither is it extant in the Syriack Version which makes me believe that it was added and that it was not in the first Original Greek But it must not be inferred from hence that those who favoured the Party of Macedonius were the Authors of that Addition there being the like Examples in other places with which they cannot be charged It is much more probable that it was occasion'd by the Greek Scholiasts who placed the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Margin to shew that that place spake of the Holy Spirit and it passed into the Text afterwards There is also in the same Passage the Latin Word datus which is not read in the Greek unless it be in the ancient Copy of the Vatican where there is according to Lewis of Bruges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is very likely that this Word was added by the Latin Interpreter who had in his view the sense of that Passage where the Gifts of the Holy Ghost are spoken of It would be likewise added after the same manner in the Margin of some Greek Copy We also read in the Syriack Version was not yet given which does wholly agree with the Latin and in the three Arabick Versions which have been published it is in the same sense was not yet come Grotius believed that the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as it is in the Latin datus was added for the avoiding the reproach of the Followers of Macedonius In nonnullis datus ad vitandam calumniam Macedoniorum Grot. Annot in hunc loc But it is not at all necessary that they should have had any regard to those Sectaries to induce them to add
same time by three Dissertations that are annexed at the beginning of this Grammar for in the first he treats (r) De linguae Chaldaicae sive Syriacae nominibus discrimine Georg. Amir Praelud Gramm of the Names of the Chaldaick and Syriack Tongue and of the difference between them in the second (s) De linguae Chaldaicae sive Syriacae antiquitate Ibid. of the Antiquity of the Chaldaick or Syriack Tongue and lastly in the third (t) De linguae Chaldaicae sive Syriacae dignitate ac praestantiâ Ibid. of the Excellency of the Chaldaick or Syriack Tongue Since this ingenious Maronite hath had a very clear notion of this matter I shall produce the sum of what he saith concerning these two Languages in his preliminary Discourses This Tongue whereof we now treat saith Amira hath been called Chaldaick from Chaldaea where it hath been first in use when the Confusion of Languages happened therefore it hath been also named Babylonian from Babylon the Capital City of Chaldaea it was afterwards called Aramean or Syriack from Aram or Syria and even Assyrian from Assyria because it hath also obtained in those places Divers other Names have been given to it which have been borrowed from famous Nations and renowned Men as that of Hebrew because it hath been during some time spoken by the Hebrews Although there is some difference between the Chaldaick and the Syriack nevertheless it cannot be said that it is essential for they agree almost in every thing and this is the cause that in the Holy Scriptures the Words of Chaldaick and Syriack are promiscuously used to signifie the very same Language it is said for example Dan. 1.4 that Daniel and some other young Hebrews were instructed in the Chaldaick Tongue and it is added in the mean time a little after that the Chaldeans spake to the King in Syriack Dan. 2.4 which was the Tongue of that Prince from whence it is evident that the Syriack and the Chaldaick are the same Language The same George Amira produceth other Passages of the Scriptures to shew that this Tongue was also called Assyrian This he confirnis in like manner from profane Authors who have confounded the Names of Chaldeans Syrians and Assyrians From whence he conoludes (u) Quare mirum esse non debet si lingua Chaldaica Syriaca Assyriaca una eademque sit quandequidem nomina quae ei indita sunt pro eodem usurpantur Georg. Amir Praelud Gramm Syr. sive Chald. that it is no wonder that they have also confounded these three Languages Lastly he avoucheth that if the Chaldaick Tongue which hath been in use amongst the Jews had not been dressed by them after the Hebrew Fashion it would have differed much less than it doth from the Chaldaick or Syriack of the natural Syrians Ludovicus de Dieu who had throughly inquired into this matter is also of this Opinion (x) A Syriaca Chaldaicam distinguo quia sic ab aliis fieri solet non rarò phrasi flexione ab eâ differt Alioqui eamdem esse linguam fateor Chaldaicam Syriacam Lud. de Dieu Praef. Gramm Chald. Syr. He distinguisheth as is ordinarily done the Chaldaick Tongue of Daniel and Esdras from the Syriack Paraphrases but he acknowledgeth at the same time that these two Languages ought not truly to be distinguished He believes after Amira (y) Dialectus Chaldaica minus à Syriacâ linguâ differret si punctatoribus visum fuisset Lud. de Dieu ibid. that they would be less different if the Jews had not Printed the Chaldaick of their Books after their manner this he proves by some Examples It would be easie to produce many others and even to make it appear that the great resemblance between these two Tongues hath given occasion to the Jews to take from the Syrians whole Books of the Scriptures which they have attributed to their Paraphrasts but this would lead us too far and we must now return to Mr. Vossius who is so curious in this point that he will not admit that the Chaldaick Tongue which is named Hebrew in the New Testament should be called Syriack This dextrous Man calls the Jews to his assistance Voss Resp ad tert P. Sim. Obj. who have stiled the Aramean or Syriack the Tongue of the Gentiles and to make it more manifest to what degree the Jews hated the Syrians and their Language he makes use of the authority of the Talmud wherein it is read that if any one prays in the Syrian Tongue his Prayers are not heard Voss ibid. because the Angels who are the Ministers of God do not understand this Language He adds farther that the Jews who read in Syria the Version which the Christians and the Arabians call Syriack do term it Chaldaick Lastly he demands who are those People of Syria that have introduced into Jerusalem this Syriack Tongue which is pretended to have been in use in the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles But if he had consulted the Talmud or had but an indifferent knowledge in the Chaldaick Tongue he would not have made such weak Objections It is evident that there is nothing more usual in the Books of the Talmud than to call the Chaldaick or Babylonian Tongue Arami or Syriack The Rabbins who have epitomized the Talmud and have collected its Decisions do also give the name of Arami or Syriack to the Chaldaick Tongue To convince Mr. Vossius even by the example that he hath produced of the Prayer that ought not to be made in the Syriack Tongue the Talmudists give out this fantastick Story upon occasion of the Prayer called Kadis which is in the Chaldaick Tongue and which nevertheless they call in this place Arami or Syriack This Prayer not being so ancient as the others that have been composed in Hebrew is written in the Chaldaick Language which was then understood by the People The Rabbins who are so nicely subtil on all occasions and often tell Tales instead of giving solid Reasons have invented this Fable which Mr. Vossius relates very seriously However it be it is certain that this Prayer Kadis which is supposed according to the Rabbins to be written in Syriack that is not understood by the Angels is written in Chaldaick and in the same Language as the Paraphrases which we have upon the Bible As for the Objection that in the Syriack Version of the New Testament the word Aram hath been put to signifie a Greek a Gentile and an Idolater I do not see that it can be proved from thence that the Jews have not confounded the Words of Syriack and Chaldaick For besides that experience shews us the contrary this only proves that the Jews have looked upon Syria as the Country of Idolatry they have made use of the word Arami in the same sense as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek in the New Testament is applyed to signifie a Greek a
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
that some had taken them away from their Copies because there were some Hereticks who Baptized with fire But this conjecture has no colour for we read the same words Chap. 3. v. 16. of St. Luke in all the Greek Copies Luke of Bruges does think that they were possibly taken from this Evangelist and that the Transcribers did insert them in St. Matthew Maldonat has very well observed that the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not a conjunctive particle but explicative and that the explication of the preceding words was added to shew that in that place there was no mention made of the Spirit in general but of the descent of the same Spirit in the form of Fire the day of the Pentecost And that which may give us cause to suspect that these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have been added as well in S. Luke as in S. Matthew by way of Explication is that we only read in S. Mark Chap. 1. vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nevertheless there are two Manuscripts quoted in the sixth Tome of the Polyglott of England where there is also found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Evangelist But in what manner soever the Reading be in this Evangelist the reading of the Gospel according to S. Matthew cannot be regulated by it seeing the latter is oftentimes only abridged by the former Chap. 5. v. 22. We read in all the Greek Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a cause and it was also in the ancient Vulgar agreeable to the Greek Cambridge Copy Yet S. Augustin Aug. lib. 1. Retr c. 19. who had read it in the Latin Copies of his time retracted his Opinion concerning it because he found it not in the Greek Copies Codices enim Graeci saith that Father non habent sine causâ sicut hic positum est It is apparent that he passed by the ancient Vulgar to embrace the Opinion of S. Jerom who in his new Edition has left out the words without cause and who has also observed in his Commentary upon that place (l) In quibusdam codicibus additur sine causâ Caeterùm in veris definita sententia est ita penitùs tollitur ... Radendum est ergo sine causâ Hieron Comm. in cap. 5. Matth. that they are truly in some Copies but that they are not in the true Copies And therefore he is of the mind that they ought to be left out of all the Greek Copies that have been cited hitherto there is only that of the Vatican mentioned by Luke of Bruges where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found The ancient Author of the Syriack Version did also read it in the Greek Copy which he made use of for making his Translation For he has kept the Greek word which he has only written in Syriack Characters The most ancient Fathers as well Greek as Latin did also read the same word in their Copies There were only some Latins since S. Jerom's Correction who believed that it did not belong to the Text. It would possibly be more proper to re-establish it in the Vulgar which in that Passage is contrary to Antiquity and to many Copies In the same Chapter v. 27. Robert Stephen did not read in seven of his Manuscripts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Ancients Neither is it found in some other Copies that are marked in the Polyglott Bible of England I also observed that it is not in three Manuscripts of Monsieur Colbert's Library Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb n. 2467. 4112. Nevertheless S. Jerom has put it in his new Edition The thirtieth Verse of the same Chapter is not in the ancient Cambridge Copy nor in another quoted in the sixth Tome of the Polyglott of England Cod. MSS. ex Bibl. Colb n. 2259. Neither did I read it in one of M. Colbert's Manuscripts 'T is probable that it is a mere omission of the Transcribers in those Copies which was occasioned by this that the twenty nine and thirty Verses do both end with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Omissions of that sort are very ordinary In one of M. Colbert's Manuscripts we do not read in the forty fourth Verse of the same Chapter Cod. MSS. Colb n. 2467. these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bless them who curse you do good to them who hate you Neither do we read in the same Copy these other words which are in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For them that despitefully use you and as if they did signifie the same with those words that immediately follow Nevertheless all this is found in the ancient Cambridge Copy But S. Jerom has not expressed in his new Edition these first words Nic. Zeg Epanorth in cap. 5. Matth. v. 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zegerus believes that they were taken out of the sixth Chapter of S. Luke and inserted in S. Matthew A studioso quopiam ex Lucae cap. 6. huc translata sunt Chap. 6. v. 4. These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which S. Jerom has not expressed in his Edition are not in the ancient Cambridge Copy And Luke of Bruges has informed us that he does not find them in the Vatican Copy Besides I have not read them in two of M. Colbert's Manuscripts nevertheless S. Augustin does assure us (m) Multa Latina exemplaria sic habent Et pater tuus qui videt in abscondo reddet tibi palà m Sed quia in Graecis quae priora sunt non invenimus palà m non putamus hinc aliquid disserendum esse Aug. de Serm. Dom. in mont lib. 2. cap. 2. that they did read the word palà m in several Copies of his time but that it was not expressed in the original Greek which he prefers to all the Latin Copies Maldonat (n) Tempore Augustini Latini codices legebant Graeci non legebant ut ille scribit Itaque suspicio mihi est primos illos codices Graecos ex quibus translatio Latina quâ Ecclesia ante Hieroaymum utebatur facta fuerat haec verba legisse post scripterum vitio in Graecis abolita in Latinis conservata Hieronymus verò cùm jam ipsius tempore in Graecis non legerentur quia ad Graecorum ut ipse ait codicum veritatem Latinam editionem corrigebat expunxisse de Latinâ quod non invenit in Graecâ Nam legenda quidem esse ipsa indicat antithesis in abscondito in propatulo Mald. Comm. in c. 6. Matth. v. 4. on the contrary does make use of those words of S. Augustin as being of sufficient authority for re-establishing that word in our Vulgar alledging that they did read it in the ancient Vulgar before S. Jerom reformed it by the Copies of his time from which these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were taken away as that Jesuit does think He adds that the opposition that is betwixt these two in secret and openly does prove that we ought to read in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉