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
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
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
this is the reason that in some Manuscript Greek Copies we find the name of this Evangelist at the beginning of this Work he declares himself in his Preface that he is the Author of it presenting it to his Friend Theophilus to whom he had already dedicated his Gospel S. Jerom affirmeth (a) Cujus historia usque ad biennium Romae commorantis Pauli pervenit id est usque ad quartum Neronis annum Ex quo intelligimus in eadem urbe librum esse compositum Hieron de Script Eccl. in Lucâ that this History was written at Rome and that it extends to the fourth Year of Nero which was according to his Opinion the second of S. Paul's abode in that great City The Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures thought (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. in Synops that the Acts of the Apostles had been preached by S. Peter and that S. Luke had afterwards committed them to Writing but S. Luke hath recorded almost nothing else but matters of fact of which he himself had been a witness Hieron ibid. And this is the difference that S. Jerom makes between the Gospel of this Disciple of the Apostles and the Acts in regard that not having seen Jesus Christ he could not write his Gospel but on that which he had learned from others sicut audierat scripsit whereas having followed S. Paul in the most part of his Travels he was an eye-witness of his Actions and therefore he hath published nothing but what he had seen himself sicut viderat ipse composuit Although the Title indeed of this History bears the name of all the Apostles in general nevertheless it informs us of very few things concerning them only conducting them to the time when they dispersed themselves into divers Provinces to preach the Gospel S. Luke comes after this to S. Paul's Travels who was accompanied with S. Barnabas without describing the Itineraries of the other Apostles neither doth he finish even those of S. Paul. If it be demanded why S. Luke hath not perfected his History and why he hath not left us in Writing the rest of those Actions of which he was a Witness I have no other Answer to make but that which S. John Chrysostom hath already made to those that in his time asked the same Question This learned Bishop saith Joann Chrys Hom. 1. in Act. Apos That what S. Luke hath written in this matter is sufficient for those that will apply themselves to it that the Apostles moreover and their Disciples who preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joann Chrysost Hom. 1. in Act. Apost have always insisted on that which was most necessary that they did not study to write Histories because they have left many things to the Churches by Tradition only And this ought to be considered for it is certain that the principal business and care of the Apostles was to preach the Gospel and that they would have written nothing of their Preachings if they had not been earnestly sollicited by the People whom they had instructed The Christian Religion might be preserved without any Writings by Tradition alone S. Chrysostom complains in the same place Chrys ib. that that little we have of the History of the Apostles was so neglected in his time that many were not only ignorant of the Author but they did not know whether it had been written It seems that the Gospels and the Epistles of S. Paul were then only accounted to belong to the New Testament perhaps none but these two Works were read in the Churches in these Primitive Ages We see also that the Books that are consecrated for the use of the Greek Churches do only bear these two Titles viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gospel and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle nevertheless afterwards this last Book hath been named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it contains besides the Epistles of S. Paul the best part of the Acts of the Apostles and even the other Books of the New Testament Whereas this History that comprehends the principal Actions of S. Paul is short a certain Priest of Asia since the Primitive times of Christianity thought fit to add to it in form of a Supplement another Book intituled The Travels of Paul and Thecla We are informed by Tertullian (d) Quòd si quae Pauli perperà m scripta legunt exemplum Theclae ad licentiam mulierum docendi tingendique defendunt sciant in Asiâ presbyterum qui eam scripturam construxit quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse loco decessisse Tertull. lib. de Bapt. c. 17. that some Women made use of these Acts to prove by the Authority of this Holy Apostle that it was lawful for them to preach in the Churches and to baptize This Father answers those that alledged the Testimony of S. Paul taken from these Acts that the Priest of Asia the Author of them had been convicted that he had forged them and that he himself had avouched that he was induced to compose them by the love that he had for this Apostle He solidly confutes them by making it appear that these Acts contained a Doctrine altogether contrary to that of S. Paul. (e) Quà m enim fidei proximum videretur ut is docendi tingendi daret feminae potestatem qui ne discere quidem constanter mulieri permisit Tertull. ibid. What probability is there saith he that S. Paul should grant to Women a power to teach and to baptize who hath not so much as permitted them to learn in the Church forbidding them absolutely to speak therein S. Jerom who hath made mention of these Acts published under the Title of the Travels of Paul and Thecla Hieron de script Eccles in Luca. adds that it was S. John that caused the Priest that composed them to be convicted of Forgery Tertullian nevertheless whom he cites in this Passage doth not speak of S. John he saith only that this Priest was of Asia Pope Gelasius hath put this Book in the number of Apocryphal Works Baronius distinguisheth these false Acts of Thecla from others that give an account of the Life and Martyrdom of this Saint Gelas Decr. 1. part dist 15. c. 3. he supports the Authority of these last by the Testimony of several Fathers who have quoted them Baron an c. 47. n. 3 4 5. Epiph. Haer. 78. n. 16. and among others by that of S. Epiphanius who relying on the credit of these Acts relates that Thecla having espoused a very rich and noble man broke off her Marriage after she had heard S. Paul This Cardinal adds that Faustus a famous Manichean hath produced this same History of Thecla and that he hath taken occasion from thence to condemn the Doctrine of S. Paul as abominable because he had compelled by his Discourses a married Woman to continue
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
of Justin and Irenaeus who lived some little time after that Book was Composed ought to be preferred to the Opinion of those Authors He further affirms (u) Non videtur propter parvam aliquam aut etiam magnam dissimilitudinem rationis scribendi in universum ac styli ab aliis ejusdem Joannis scriptis longè diversi generis debere aut posse dubitari quin ejus sit opus maximè cùm simul adsint tot alia testimonia conjecturae ut illi ipsi qui prorsus negarent ejus esse illudque rejecerunt coacti fuerint fateri à quopiam conscriptum fuisse qui persuadere voluerit istum ipsum Joannem illud conscripsisse Soc. ibid. that as to the difference of Stile betwixt that Work and those others which were written by St. John this Objection does not oblige him to give those Reasons which prove it to be St. John's since they appeared so convincing to those very persons who rejected the Book that they were forced to acknowledge that it was written by a Man who endeavoured to persuade others that St. John was the Author thereof This last Observation seems to be more subtil than solid a crime that is pardonable in the Unitaries who never applyed themselves to the study of the Ancient Ecclesiastical Authors In the last place the Commentaries on the Apocalyps made by the Calvinists are undeniable proofs that they do receive it into the number of Divine and Prophetical Books Besides they would be very sorry to be without that Prophecy Beza made a Discourse Treating expresly on that Subject by way of Preface to his Notes on that Work where he answers the Objections which Erasmus had published to diminish the Authority thereof That which he had not observed as to any other Books of the New Testament Calvin fearing that he should make himself ridiculous by his false Expositions of a Book that is so very obscure has taken the best side by not publishing any Commentary on the Apocalyps His example had no influence on his Followers for many amongst them did with a Prophetical tone lowdly recommend to the World their own Visions upon that Book Besides the Books of the New Testament which we have hitherto spoken of and that are generally received in all the Churches as Divine and Canonical some others have been read in many Churches which yet never had the same Authority Nevertheless it has so fallen out that those who have made Catalogues of the Sacred Books have not always observed this distinction For they have placed all of them in an equal rank for Books of the Holy Scripture There have been also some Fathers who quoted some Books of this sort as if they had been truely given by Divine Inspiration But it is easie to find even by the Writings of the Fathers that those Works were approved by none but particular persons whose Opinion cannot reasonably be looked upon as a Law. If I had not resolved to confine my Discourse to the Books of the New Testament which are generally approved of in all Churches I would have insisted at large on those other Books but I am obliged to keep within the limits of my first purpose I shall only observe that in a certain Catalogue of the Books of the Bible which is at the end of two very ancient Copies of St. Paul's Epistles there follows immediately after the Epistle of St. Jude (x) Judae Epistola Barnabae Epistola Joannis Revelatio Actus Apostolorum Pastor Actus Pauli Revelatio Petri. Catal. libror. Script S. ex Codd MSS. Bibl. Reg. S. Germ. the Epistle of Barnabas the Revelation or the Apocalyps of John the Acts of the Apostles the Book of the Pastor the Acts of Paul and the Revelation of Peter The number also of the Verses contained in each Book of the Bible is set down in the Catalogue And what is most of all observable is that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not comprehended therein It is nevertheless in those two Greek and Latin Manuscripts that are written with the same Hand as the rest of St. Paul's Epistles but it is placed by it self and after the Catalogue as if it did not belong to that Apostle In this matter they followed the Custom of some of the Western Churches CHAP. XX. The Objections of the Jews and other Enemies of the Christian Religion against the Books of the New Testament Inquiry is made if the Evangelists and Apostles made use of the Greek Version of the Septuagint in the Passages which they quote out of the Old Testament St. Jerom's Opinion upon the Matter That Father declared himself for the Hebrew Text of the Jews in opposition to that of the Septuagint THE Books of the New Testament having been maintained as well in general as in particular it is worth the while to examin the principal Objections that are made against those Books and at the same time against the Apostles who published them The Mahometans endeavour to evince the necessity of the coming of their Prophet from this that seeing the Canonical Books of the Jews and Christians are according to their Opinion wholly corrupted it was necessary that God should send a new Prophet upon the Earth to teach Men the True Religion But because they bring no solid reasons for the confirmation of what they alledge it is to no purpose to refute them The Jews and some Philosophers who are Enemies to the Christians have more particularly attacked the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles They have had the impudence to charge them with Forgery or at least with ignorance seeing as they object they have quoted the Books of the Old Testament otherwise than they are in themselves They further accuse them of annexing to the Passages they produce a sense that was very far from the mind of the Authors Hereupon they draw up the strongest objections they can against the Authority of the New Testament which of necessity must be answered As to the first Objections the Jews do suppose that when a publick Record is produced for confirmation of a Matter of Fact it is necessary that the very words of the Record be delivered in the same manner as they are in the Original or in faithful Copies but say they the Disciples of Jesus Christ have not done that For if the passages of the Old Testament which they have quoted in their Writings be compared with the Original Hebrew Text it will be found that in many places they bear a quite different meaning Whence they conclude that they are either chargeable with falshood or that their Writings have been altered and therefore that there is no credit to be given to them I answer this Objection that it was not necessary for the Apostles when they Preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to make use of the Hebrew Bible On the contrary it was more for their purpose that they should make mention of the passages of the Old Testament so as they
is in effect a Subordination betwixt them two the one does not destroy the other Spinosa's Prophets are Enthusiasts who are more like Men push'd on by a Spirit of Fury than by a Spirit of Prophecy He does alledge (d) Prophetiae auctoritas ratiocinari non patitur Quisquis enim vult sua dogmata ratione consirmare eo ipso ea arbitrali uniuscujusque judicio submittit Spin. ibid. that the quality of a Prophet does not admit of the use of his Reason because he who confirms his Doctrines by Reasons does submit to the judgment of others But if one will carefully read the Books of Moses whom he reckons amongst the Prophets he will own that that Law-giver does Reason sometimes There is indeed a submission to the judgment of others where there is nothing but Reasonings But this cannot be said when such Reasonings are guided by the Spirit of God And this was the Case of Moses and the other Prophets Spinosa himself gives an Example here For there is none but thinks these Words of Moses Deut. Chap. 31. v. 27. While I am yet alive with you this day ye have been rebellious against the Lord and how much more after my Death to be very formal Reasoning And indeed the Prophets who directed their discourse to Men who made use of their Reason did not in the least destroy their Spirit of Prophecy when they proposed the Will of God to those Men by way of Reasoning But Spinosa who reasons in all this Discourse upon a false Idea which he had of Prophecy does alledge (e) Verba illa Mosis moralis locutio tantùm sunt quâ rhetericè prout futuram populi defectionem vividiùs imaginari potuerat praedicit Spin. ibid. that that expression of Moses was a Moral kind of speaking which he used as an Orator to foretel and represent to the life so far as he could imagin the future Rebellion of the Israelites But what does it signifie that Moses did express himself an Orator or in any other manner does that prove that he did not truly Reason in that and several other places where he explains himself as other Men It was not necessary that God should indite all his Reasonings and all his Exhortations It is enough that he guided him by his Spirit and that he prevented his falling into error This being supposed we will freely agree with Spinosa that Moses said many things that were not revealed to him and this we have proved elsewhere He is also obliged (f) Nolo tamen absolutè negare Prophetas ex revelatione argumentari potuisse Ib. to declare that the Prophets could Reason by Revelation and consequently Prophecy and Revelation are not incompatible The Apostles then could by way of reasoning propose to the People the truths they delivered and be at the same time Inspired with the Spirit of God. Spinosa does nevertheless add that the more that the Prophets do reason in form the Knowledg that they had of things revealed did come so much the more near to natural Knowledge and that that which does characterize the supernatural Knowledg of the Prophets is when they pronounce Sentences and Degrees without any Reasoning For this reason it is saith he Moses who was the greatest of the Prophets made no Argument in form that on the contrary St. Paul does reason every where and draws consequences from the Principles which he does establish as appears in his Epistle to the Romans Upon this account he believed that the Epistles of the Apostle were not written by supernatural Revelation That Man does always confound Prophecy with Enthusiasm Moses who was a Law-giver pronounced Sentences and Judgments by warrant from God which did not hinder him from Reasoning in some places If he did not so as frequently as St. Paul the occasion was he writ Histories which require no reasoning whereas St. Paul does write as a Doctor who instructs the People and draws consequences from Principles which he had laid down From thence it cannot be concluded that he followed nothing but his Reason because that very Reason of his might have been supernaturally enlightned and guided by the Spirit of God. And therefore all that Spinosa does object for shewing that the most part of that Apostle's Discourse does only consist in Advertisements and Moral Exhortations does not destroy the Inspiration of the Apostles in the manner as we have formerly supposed it with the Jesuits of Louvain For we made it plain that it was not necessary for that purpose that God should indite to St. Paul and the other Apostles all their Discourses of Morality It was permitted them to make use of their natural Lights and to use all the means with which their Reason could furnish them for persuading the People After the same manner all Spinosa's objections may be answered seeing he does continually reason upon a false Idea which he has formed of the Inspiration of the Pen-Men of the New Testament We may also give our assent to a great part of what he says in his Objections without giving advantage for drawing any Conclusions against that Inspiration according to the true Explication thereof Seeing I insisted long enough upon this Subject in my two Answers To the Opinions of some Divines of Holland it is needless for me to repeat here what I have said in those two Books The truth is those Divines by opposing the Inspiration of the Holy Scripture have only given a more advantageous light to Spinosa's reasons who squared this matter to the false prejudices with which he was prepossessed If he had read the Works of some Catholick Doctors who have treated judiciously of this Subject he would soon have acknowledged to what little purpose the most part of his Objections serve because they stumble upon those things in which we do agree with him And therefore we ought to be very cautious in refuting his Opinion that we do not contest with him in vain about the things that are true and from which he does nevertheless draw consequences that are directly false or too wide otherwise we shall rather strengthen than destroy his errors CHAP. XXVI Of the Stile of the Evangelists and the Apostles The Opinion of Modern Writers and of the Ancient Doctors of the Church upon this matter with many Critical Reflections IN this last Age there have been Works composed that treat of the Stile of the Evangelists and the Apostles Henry Stephen has handled this matter in the Preface to his Greek New Testament Henr. Steph. Nov. Test in 12. edit ann 1576. He had also promised to publish a Treatise on purpose upon this Subject to demonstrate that those Sacred Writers are much more Polite than some Authors have believed He likewise gives some examples thereof in his Preface by way of anticipation He does sometimes admire them for the elegancy of their Stile and does wish that they were not treated as rude and barbarous Persons in respect of their manner of
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
cited any Passage in the Old Testament which did not perfectly agree with the Hebrew Text. Eustochium Hieron Prooem in lib. 16. Comm. in Isai who perfectly understood the Greek and Hebrew Languages opposed him with such powerful Arguments that he was forced to own himself almost overcome with the strength of her Objections Quod cùm audissem quasi à fortissimo pugile percussus essem coepi tacitus aestuare It is no strange thing to find those Ages when Barbarism reigned over all Europe neglect Critical Studies Then they wanted abundance of those helps which they now enjoy to pursue those Studies which are absolutely necessary to a perfect Knowledg of Divinity But that which amazes me is that in this very Age this Art should still remain in contempt and those Men be thought no more than Grammarians who apply themselves to it Besides we cannot but see the manifest Errors of some Divines in this Age who know not the true Laws of Criticism It is worth observing that the ancient Hereticks have been perpetually accused of having corrupted the Books of the New Testament and perverted them to their own sence That has often been thought a wilful and designed Corruption which proceeded only from the fault of the Transcribers or difference of Copies The Ecclesiastical Writers of the first Ages have not done that strict Justice to the Hereticks of their times in relation to the New Testament that they have given the Jews in the Disputes about the different manners of explaining the Old Testament Those pretended Corruptions presently vanish upon Examination of the ancient Manuscripts and the Original of the various Readings Wherefore in this Piece I have justified the Arrians Nestorians and the rest of the Sectaries from that Imputation of having falsified the Originals of the Evangelists and Apostles to maintain their Innovations We have also plainly evinc'd by some considerable Examples that the most Learned Criticks of our Age are not exempted from those Prejudices in their declaring too freely those Hereticks falsifiers of the Text. The case of some other Sectaries is not the same who declared themselves openly against the Writings of Christ's Disciples which they have corrected and altered according to their own Idea's of the Christian Religion Some daring to forge Supposititious Gospels and Acts the better to give authority to their Fopperies It would be very pertinent for the better Distinction of all the Genuine Pieces of the New Testament to make a Collection of those ancient Acts and diligently examine them Wherefore we have not concealed any of those Arguments which those Hereticks or the other Enemies of Christianity have brought to destroy the Truth of those Books which were received by all the Catholick Churches But as it would be a pernicious thing to expose these ill things without administring Remedies too proper for the cure we have also produced the strongest Reasons which the Ecclesiastical Writers have brought against them We intreat the Protestants to make Reflection on these matters and observe those methods of the first Ages of the Church for establishing the Authority of the Sacred Writings They will find nothing impertinent in the Conduct Irenaeus Tertullian and the rest of the Defenders of those Writings did not object to the Enemies of the Christian Religion their private Spirit which perswaded them of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture but very substantial Reasons void of all such Fanaticism Tho they were sufficiently perswaded of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture they never objected to the Adversaries that it had imprest upon it such lively Characters of its Original that it was a very difficult matter not to acknowledg it when read with a Spirit of Submission and Humility Their Adversaries being Philosophers who consulted their natural Reason they opposed them from sure and indisputable Principles Again I thought in a Work of this nature not convenient to suppress the principal Objections of the Jews against the Books of the New Testament For although this miserable Nation is an Object of the contempt of the whole World yet has there appeared among them Men of great Address and Subtilty in the Disputes against the Christians which I have often found true in my own Experience when I have endeavoured to convince them by their own Principles Since their Plea for Prescription is better and their Pretensions are that the Disciples of Jesus the Son of Mary had no reason to change their Religion which was delivered them by the Fathers It is but necessary to examin what they object against the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles In this Critical History I have treated divers other important Questions And where I deviate from the Methods of the Divines of the School it is because I have found a more secure way I have employed all my strength to avoid the advancing any thing that is not grounded on authentic Records instead of which the School-Divinity teaches us to doubt of the most certain Our Religion consisting principally in Matters of Fact the Subtilties of Divines who are not acquainted with Antiquity can never discover certainty of such matters of Fact They rather serve to confound the Vnderstanding and form pernicious Difficulties against the Mysteries of our Religion Let it not seem strange to any Person that I recede from the Opinions which are generally received in the Schools and prefer to the Sentiments of whole Vniversities the new Opinions of some modern Divines which can hardly be taxed as novel when they are found conformable to the Ancient Doctors of the Church This I speak in reference to that Passage where I handle the Dispute which was formerly between the Divines of Louvain and Doway and the Jesuits of that Country concerning the inspiration of the sacred Books The Doctors of both Faculties censured the Propositions of the Jesuites of Louvain in a manner very injurious to the whole Society But after a due examination of the Reasons on which their grave Gentlemen founded their Censure I could hardly believe their Authority alone a sufficient Rule to oblige me to assent I propose Truth alone to my self in this Work without any Deference to any Master in particular A true Christian who professes to believe the Catholick Faith ought not to stile himself a Disciple of S. Austin S. Jerome or any other particular Father since his Faith is founded on the word of Jesus Christ contained in the Writings of the Apostles and constant Tradition of the Catholick Churches I wish to God the Divines of the Age were all of that opinion we then should not have seen so many useless Disputes which only prove the causes of Disorders in Church and State. I have no private Interest which obliges me to any Party the very name of Party is odious to me I solemnly protest I have no other intentions in composing this Work than the benefit of the Church and the establishing the most sacred and divine thing in the World. It is useless
in the proper Languages of the respective Authors A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament Wherein is establish'd The Truth of those ACTS on which CHRISTIANITY is founded PART I. CHAPTER I. The Verity of the New Testament defended in general against the ancient Hereticks Reflections upon the Principle made use of by the Fathers to establish the Authority of these Books JEsus Christ having profess'd that he came not into the World to destroy the Old Law but rather to accomplish it Matt. v. 17. it seemed not to him necessary to publish his Doctrine in Writing He was content to prove his Mission by his Miracles and to support his Reformation upon the Books of the Old Testament which were received by all the Jews to whom the Messias had been promised So that we do not find him to have given order to his Disciples to putany thing into Writing He only commands them to Preach his Gospel to all the Nations of the Earth Go ye says he to them Mar. xvi 15. into all the world and preach the Gospel The Books of the New Testament took their Original from this preaching This it was that caused Tertullian to say (a) Constituimus in primis Evangelicum instrumentum Apostolos autores habere quibus hoc munus Evangelii promulgandi ab ipso Domino sit impositum Tertul. l. 4. adv Marcion c. 2. That the Apostles to whom Jesus Christ had given this Command to promulge the Gospel were the Authors thereof Upon the whole matter the Gospels had not been put in Writing but at the request of those People who were willing to preserve the memory of that which the Apostles had preached to them S. Paul composed the greater part of his Epistles for the Instruction of Churches which were already erected That History which we call the Acts of the Apostles was published to no other end but to shew to the Faithful the Progress of the Christian Religion upon its first advance into the World and the Christians not having at that time any State separate from that of the Jews and being present and assisting at all their Ceremonies in the Temple and in the Synagogues they had no Persons appointed to record any thing of importance which pass'd among them And this is the reason that we find not here as in the Old Testament any publick Writers who had the Charge of collecting the Acts of their State. This during the Primitive times of Christianity gave a pretence to several Hereticks to doubt of the truth of those Apostolical Books which to them seem'd to want some publick Attestation S. Ignatius in one of his Epistles complains (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignut Ep. ad Philad That he understood there were some men who said they could not believe the Gospel except they could find it written in the * There are some who read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ancients Archives The holy Martyr answers them That it was written that the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and a Faith in him were instead of the most authentick Archives It was then difficult to distinguish the Books which had been composed by the Apostles or by their Disciples from those which had been forged by false Apostles or by some Sectaries Every one bore in its front either the Name of the Apostles in general or of some single one of their number and since there were no publick Archives to which recourse might be had for the deciding and clearing of matters of this nature the Hereticks took occasion from thence to publish a great number of false Acts of which hardly any thing is left to Posterity except the Titles of them and a few Fragments These Sectaries boasted that they taught the Doctrine of the Apostles or at least of their Disciples Basilides who was one of the most ancient Hereticks avouched that he had for his Master (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Clem. Alex. lib. 7. Strom. Glaucias one of St. Peter's Interpreters Và lentin affirmed with the same boldness that he had been instructed in Religion by Theodad (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Clem. Alex. ibid. who was one of St. Paul 's familiar Acquaintance But whereas they did not agree amongst themselves and on the contrary the Doctrine of the Apostles was perfectly uniform in the Churches that they had planted the Fathers made use of this Uniformity of Doctrine to confirm and establish the truth of the Apostolical Writings Clemens Alexandrinus answers Basilides and Valentin that there was but one true ancient Church that was before all Heresies From thence he brings an unquestionable proof of the falsity of the Doctrine of these Sectaries who durst be so bold as to give the Name of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of the Apostles to their own Inventions he represents to them that (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. ibid. the Doctrine of the Apostles were one as well as their Tradition The Primitive Christians argued against the Hereticks of those times from Tradition and from the Conformity of that Belief that was manifest in all the Churches founded by the Apostles as may be seen at large in the Works of St. Irenaeus Tertullian Epiphanius and St. Augustin and in a word of all the Fathers that have defended the Writings of the Apostles against the Hereticks Whensoever any Sectary opposed the declared Gospel they immediately convinced him of the forgery of those Acts that he produced by the true ones that were kept in the Apostolical Churches and were instead of Archives (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 42. If any one saith St. Epiphanius should go about to counterfeit the Edicts or Ordinances of Emperors the Cheat would be soon laid open by producing the true Copies taken from the Archives of the Court In like manner adds he false Gospels composed by Hereticks may be detected their spuriousness may be easily discovered by producing the true Gospels that are kept in the Churches as it were in Archives This manner of defending the Truth of the Apostolical Writings against the ancient Sectaries hath proved so effectually convincing that the Gnosticks were obliged to support their Novelties to fly to I know not what secret Tradition that was known to none but themselves They were so insolent as to prefer themselves before the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ accusing them as not having preached the Purity of the Gospel with sincerity because say they they have retained many Ceremonies of the old Law. They thought by this means that they might be able with Authority to reform the Writings of the Apostles (g) Cùm autem ad eam iterum traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per successiones Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos adversantur traditioni dicentes se non solùm Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes superiores sinceram invenisse veritatem Apostolos autem
admiscuisse ea quae sunt legalia Salvatoris verbis Iren. lib. 3. adversus Haer. c. 2. There is no way saith St Irenaeus of convincing this sort of People neither by the Testimony of the Scriptures generally received in the Churches planted by the Apostles nor by authentick Traditions because they imagine themselves to be above all this They were persuaded that they alone were in possession of the truth of Religion that contained hidden Mysteries Se indubitatè incontaminatè sincerè absconditum scire mysterium Iren. ibid. And since they had joined Philosophy with Christianity they intended also to accommodate the one to the other They argued on matters of fact after a pure metaphysical manner and being filled with an infinite number of Prejudices and Notions taken from the Principles of their Philosophy they reformed the Doctrine of the Apostles and even that of Jesus Christ on this foundation under pretence of bringing Religion to a greater Perfection They pretended that the Apostles had preached the Gospel before they had a perfect knowledge of the Truth and that therefore they were at liberty to correct them Ante praedicaverunt quà m perfectam haberent cognitionem This was that which caused them to take the ambitious Title of Learned and Knowing Men or Gnosticks as if none but they were endued with the true knowledge of Religion They vainly boasted also that they had reformed the Apostles Iren. ibid. Gloriantes emendatores se esse Apostolorum S. Irenaeus sharply reproves their rashness in bragging that they had made perfect that which was gross and obscure in the Gospel published by the Apostles It hath been necessary to make all these Reflections on the ancient Sect of the Gnosticks because they have applyed themselves more than any others in those primitive times of the Christian Religion to the obtruding of false Acts under the Names of the Apostles or other specious Titles These are a sort of Philosophers that ought not to pass but for half Christians who have altered the Traditions that the Disciples of Jesus Christ had left to the Churches And therefore no regard ought to be had to all the Books that they have produced under what Name soever since they have professed that they understand Religion better than the Apostles themselves and (h) Existentes extra omnem timorem suas conscriptiones praeferentes plura habere gloriantur quà m sint ipsa Evangelia Si quidem in tantum processerunt audaciae uti quod ab his Apostolis non olim conscriptum est veritatis Evangelium titulent in nihilo conveniens Apostolorum Evangelits ut nec Evangelium quidem sit apud eos sine blasphemia Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. c. 11. have been so bold as to publish new Gospels to which they have given the Title of The Gospel of Truth altho these Gospels do not agree with those of the Apostles This alone is sufficient to make it appear that the Gospels of the Gnosticks were false Acts that cannot be opposed to the Apostolical Writings that have been acknowledged by the primitive Churches It were an easie matter to answer Celsus by this same Principle who heretofore objected to the Christians that they changed their Gospel every day adding thereto and diminishing what they thought fit that they might be able by this means to retract that which they had formerly alledged Origen judiciously answers this Philosopher who was a great Enemy to the Christian Religion that he unhappily confounded the ancient Sectaries with the true Faithful He protests that he knows not in the least that the Gospel hath been corrupted by others than the Gnosticks or Marcion (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 2 contra Cell This is not a Crime saith he that ought to be imputed to the Gospel but to them that have dared to corrupt in He brings an Example of the Sophisters whose false Doctrine cannot be attributed to true Philosophy (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. It is the same thing saith this great Man with respect to the Sects that have introduced Novelties into the Doctrine of Jesus Christ which cannot be charged on true Christianity It is certain that in all times and in all places there hath been a perfect Conformity between the different Copies of these Books the Diversities that are found therein and shall be remarked in the Sequel of this Work are not of so great moment as that we may say with Celsus that the Christians have changed their Gospels to the end that they might suit them to their own opinions This cannot be understood but of the ancient Hereticks who having no certain Rules for their Belief reformed them according to their capricious humor This is that for which the Orthodox Christians heretofore censured the Theodosians Euseb l. 5. Hist Eccl. c. 28. who corrupted the Sacred Books under a pretence of correcting them and whereas several among them had taken this liberty all their Copies differed one from another there were of them under the Names of Asclepiades Theodosius Hermophilus and Apollonius that did not in the least agree together I will say nothing here concerning the Gospel of the Marcionites whereof Origen makes mention because I design to treat of it in another place I shall only add that if we compare the Gospels and the other Books of the New Testament with the Liturgies that we have under the Names of several Apostles to whom the most part of the Eastern Christians do attribute them we shall be convinced that the Gospels are truly of the Apostles For all the Churches have preserved them in their ancient Purity whereas every particular Nation hath added to their Liturgies and hath taken the liberty often to revise them The respect that hath been always had to the Writings of the New Testament without inserting any considerable Additions therein is an evident proof that all People have looked upon them as Divine Books which it is not lawful for any to alter On the contrary they have been persuaded that the Liturgies altho they bear the Names of the Apostles or of some Disciples of Jesus Christ were not originally written by them to whom they were attributed And therefore it hath been left free to the Churches to add to them or to diminish from them according as occasion requires The Principles that have been maintained above in discoursing of the Gnosticks may serve to confute the Manicheans who likewise acknowledge nothing Divine in the Scriptures but that which pleased them or rather was agreeable to their Fancies This caused S. Austin to say addressing himself to Faustus who was one of the chief of this Party (l) Tu es ergo regula veritatis Quidquid contra te fuerit non est verum Aug. lib. 11. cont Faust c. 2. You are then the Rule of Truth whatsoever is against you is not true He clearly demonstrates to them that they were only upheld with false prejudices when
they rejected the Writings of the Apostles against the Authority of all the Churches of the World and at the same time received the Apocryphal Books that had no Authority If any one continues this Father should oppose you and should make use of your own words that that which you alledge on your behalf is false and on the contrary that which is against you is true (m) Quid ages Quò te convertes Quam libri à te prolati originem quam vetustatem quam seriem successionis testem citabis Aug. ibid. what would you do How could you defend the truth of those Acts that you produce How could you prove their Antiquity not having any Witnesses in Tradition by whose Testimony they might be confirmed From whence he concludes (n) Vides in hac re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat auctoritas quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorum usque ad hodiernum diem succedentium sibimet Episcoporum serie tot populorum consensione firmatur Aug. ibid. that it is absolutely necessary on this occasion to have recourse to the Authority of those Churches that were established ever since the primitive times of the Christian Religion and to the consent of Nations that have received the Books of the New Testament from the Apostles He observes further and more close to the purpose that if it were only disputed concerning the variety of Copies since they are but few in number it would be sufficient to consult the Copies of different Countries and if they did not agree in this point the greater number should be preferred before the lesser or the more ancient before the later Plures paucioribus aut vetustiores recentioribus praeferrentur But the Manicheans who judged not of the Truth of these Books but with relation to their own Ideas refused to submit to this Authority they consulted only their reason in matters of Fact wherein all Deference ought to be given to Authority therefore when any passage was urged to them that thwarted their Opinion they boldly affirmed that that part had been corrupted or that the Book wherein it was found had been composed by some Impostor under the name of the Apostles Faustus for example who avouched that after having diligently perused the Books of Moses he could not find therein any Prophecy that had any regard to Jesus Christ takes this method in answering the Texts of the New Testament Where express mention is made of these Prophecies Jesus Christ saith in speaking of himself Moses hath wrote of me Faustus answers to this Joann v. 46. that after a serious examination of this passage (o) Ratione cogebar in alterum è duobus ut aut falsum pronunciarem capitulum hoc aut mendacem Jesum sed id quidem alienum pietatis eraè Deum existimare mentitum Rectius ergo visum est scriptoribus adscribere falsitatem quam veritatis auctoritati mendacium Apud Aug. lib. 16. contra Faust c. 2. his reason obliged him to conclude either that it was false or that Jesus Christ had not spoken the truth and since it would be no less than impious Blasphemy to say that God could lie it would be more adviseable to attribute the falsification to the Writers themselves When it was demanded of this Heretick why he did not receive the Old Law and the Prophets whom Jesus Christ himself hath authorised in the New Testament by his words I am not come to destroy the Law or the Peophets Matth. v. 17. but to fulfil them he objected against the Testimony of S. Matthew because he is the only Evangelist that hath related this It is supposed saith he that this Discourse was delivered in the Sermon that Jesus Christ made on the Mountain In the mean time S. John (p) Testis idoneus tacet loquitur autem minùs idoneus Apud Aug. cont Faust lib. 17. c. 1. who was there present speaks not a word thereof and yet they would have S. Matthew who saw nothing to mention it He pretends that this hath been wrote by some other person and not by S. Matthew After this manner the Manicheans who sacrificed all to their Reason and almost nothing to Authority entirely destroyed the Books of the New Testament receiving them no farther than they were conformable to their Prejudices they had formed to themselves a certain Idea of Christianity after which they regulated the Writings of the Apostles They would have it that all that which could not be adjusted to this Idea had been inserted in their Books by later Writers who were half Jews Faustus saith Multa enim à majoribus vestris eloquiis Domini nostri inserta verba sunt Apud Aug. l. 33. cont Faust c. 3. quae nomine signata ipsius cum fide non congruant praesertim quia ut jam saepe probatum à nobis est nec ab ipso haec sunt nec ab ejus Apostolis scripta sed multa post eorum assumptionem à nescio quibus ipsis inter se non concordantibus Semi-Judaeis per famas opinionesque comperta sunt c. But S. Augustin represents to them in this very same passage that one must renounce common sense to argue after this manner on matters of Fact to which imaginary reasons ought not to be opposed (q) De quo libro certum erit cujus sit si literae quas Apostolorum dicit tenet Ecclesia ab ipsis Apostolis propagata per omnes gentes tantâ eminentiâ declarata utrùm Apostolorum sint incertum est hoc erit certum scripsisse Apostolos quod huic Ecclesiae contrarii haeretiot proferunt Auctorum suorum nominibus appellati longè post Apostolos existentium Aug. ibid. We cannot be certain saith he of any Book if once we call in question those Works that the Church that is extended throughout the whole World receives with a common consent and if on the contrary we authorise as Apostolical Books that dispute therewith and that carry the name of Writers who have lived a long time after the Apostles He charges them (r) Legunt Scripturas apocryphas Manichaei à nescio quibus fabularum sutoribus sub Apostolorum nomine scriptas quae suorum scriptorum temporibus in auctoritatem sanctae Ecclesiae recipi mererentur si sancti docti bomines qui tunc in hac vita erant examinare talia poterant eos vera locutos esse cognoscerent Aug. cont Faust lib. 22. c. 79. with making Fables and Apocryphal Works to pass for Apostolical Writings and he shews at the same time the falsity of these Acts because they have not any testimony of the Doctors of the Church that were then living He urgeth Faustus to prove what he hath alledged by Books that are Canonical and generally received in all the Churches Non ex quibuscunque literis sed Ecclesiasticis Canonicis Catholicis Aug. l. 23. adv Faus c. 9. This Holy Doctor calls this way
of arguing of the Manicheans folly insaniam dementiam who not being able to accommodate the Writings of the Apostles to the Idea that they had formed to themselves of the Christian Religion or under colour of certain contradictions in the Scriptures which they could not resolve (ſ) Non à Christi Apostolis sed longo pòst tempore à quibusdam incerti nominis viris qui ne sibi non haboretur fides scribentibus quae nescirent partim Apostolorum nomina partim eorum qui Apostolos secuti viderentur scriptorum suorum frontibus indiderunt asseverantes secundùm eos se scripsisse quae scripserint Apud Aug. lib. 32. cont Faust c. 2. would needs have it believed that these Books were composed after the Apostles themselves by uncertain Authors who had made bold to borrow the Names of these Apostles to gain Credit and Authority to their Works To convince them the more easily of their folly he sets before their eyes the Books (t) Platonis Aristotelis Ciceronis Varronis aliorumque ejusmodi autorum libros unde noverunt homines quôd ipsorum sint nisi temporum fibimet succedentium contestatione continuâ August cont Faust lib. 33. c. 6. of Hippocrates Plato Aristotle Varto and Cicero and of several other Writers that are believed to be the Authors of those Works that we have under their Names because they have been attributed to them in the time wherein they lived and they have been always so attributed successively from Age to Age. Now there is nothing more contrary to reason than not to grant the same privilege to the Church and not to acknowledge that she hath faithfully kept the Writings of the Apostles whose Doctrine she hath always preserved by the means of the Succession of Bishops We have enlarged a little on these Reflections of S. Augustin and of the other Fathers that preceded him because they have mightily evinced the Truth of the Books of the New Testament without having recourse to I know not what particular Spirit which is an invention of these later times We cannot imagine any thing more opposite to good reason than these Words of the Confession of Faith of those that formerly took the Name of the Reformed of the Churches of France Confess Art. 4. We acknowledge these Books in speaking of the whole Scriptures to be Canonical not so much by the common agreement and consent of the Church as by the testimony and inward persuasion of the Holy Ghost The Fathers nevertheless have always confuted the ancient Hereticks who refused to acknowledge these Books as Canonical by the common agreement and consent of the Church It would have been a pleasant way of reasoning if every one in these primitive times of Christianity would not have acknowledged for divine Books only those that his private Spirit should dictate to him to be such This hath appeared to be so great an extravagance to those of that Persuasion who in the Low Countries are called Remonstrants that they look upon the Calvinists that follow this Principle as People that have renounced common sense Simon Episcopius who hath been one of the Champions of this Party after having handled this question with a great deal of subtilty concludes that it is a very ill sort of argumentation to admit besides the testimony of the Church another inward testimony of the Holy Ghost to know whether certain Books have a divine Authority stampt upon them Hinc patet saith this Protestant ineptos esse eos qui vel praeter vel citra testimonium Ecclesiae requiri aiunt internum Spiritus Sancti testimonium ad hoc ut libros hos divinos esse authoritatem divinam habere intelligamus Remonst Confess c. 1. de scrip n. 8. It is sufficient according to the Remonstrants that we have there upon the testimony of (v) Ecclesia primitiva quae temporibus Apostolorum fuit certissimè resciscere potuit indubiè etiam rescivit libros istos ab Apostolis scriptos esse vel saltem approbatos nobisque istius rei scientiam quasi per manus tradidit ac veluti depositum quoddam reliquit Remonst Confess cap. 1. de Script n. 8. the primitive Church that certainly knew that these Books were written by the Apostles or approved by them and that this testimony is come down to us by a constant Tradition This Spirit that is diffused through the whole Church ought without doubt to be preferred to a private Spirit that can only serve to make a division therein Grot. Animad in Anim. Riv. This is what Grotius hath judiciously observed Spiritus ille privatus saith this Critick Spiritus Ecclesiae divisor It would be to no purpose for the Calvinists to object to the Remonstrants that their Opinion is taken out of the Writings of Socinus because an evident truth ought not to be rejected under pretence that it may be found in the Books of Socinus This Heretick hath proved in his Treatise Of the Authority of the Holy Scriptures and in another Work intituled Sacred Lectures the Truth of the Sacred Books and principally of those of the New Testament by the very same reasons and after the same manner that S. Irenaeus Tertullian and S. Augustin have done Socin lib. de Auctor Script sac (x) Legantur ea quae hac de re Eusebius scribit pluribus in locis Historiae Ecclesiasticae invenietur usque ad illius Eusebit aetatem hoc est per 250. circiter annorum perpetuum spatium postquam scripta illa conscripta atque edita fuerunt nunquam fuisse in Ecclesia qui dubitaret quin quatuor quae habemus Evangelia liber Actorum Apostolorum Epistolae omnes quae Pauli Apostoli esse dicuntur praeter eam quae ad Hebraeos est scripta prior Apostoli Petri prima Joannis Apostoli haec inquam omnia ab iis scripta fuissent quibus attribuuntur Socin lib. de Auctor Script Sac. Let them read saith Socinus that which Eusebius hath written on this matter in his Ecclesiastical History and they will find therein a perpetual consent of all the Churches of the World since these Books were written to the time of this Author He insists very much in these two Treatises on the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers Will any one say for this that this is a Socinian Method because Socinus hath made use of it after the most Learned Ecclesiastical Writers Would to God that this Enemy of the Traditions of the Catholick Church had always followed this Principle he would not have introduced so many Innovations into Religion Neither can he avoid an Objection that may be made even by those of his own Party that according to his Principles he ought necessarily to acknowledge a Tradition after the same manner as it is maintained in the Church of Rome We cannot might they say to him receive the Gospel of S. Matthew and reject that which hath been published under the Name
of S. Thomas without establishing Tradition at the same time because it is impossible to prove this by any Testimony of the Scriptures Socinus To answer this Objection without departing from his Principle lays down (y) Est quiddam medium inter Scripturas traditionem Immò non quiddam modò sed multiplex quiddam soriptae nimirum historiae aliaque testimonia rationes ex quibus factum est fit ut cordati homines Matthaei Evangelium pro vera de Jesu Christo historin habeant Thoma non habeant nullâ hîc intercedente autoritate Ecclesiae Spiritiis quo ipsa porpetuò gubernetur Soc. Epist 4. ad Christoph Ostorod a certain Medium between the Scriptures and Tradition which Medium consists according to his opinion in written Histories in other Testimonies and in Ratiocinations from whence it is proved without making application to any Authority of the Church that the Gospel of S. Matthew contains the true History of Jesus Christ and that on the contrary that which carries the name of S. Thomas is a suppositious Book Episcopius and the other Remonstrants do also make use of this Answer that they may not be obliged to acknowledge the Traditions of the Church But this Medium which they suppose to be between the Scriptures and Tradition is a true Tradition which differs in nothing from that which S. Irenaeus Tertullian Epiphanius S. Augustin and several other Fathers have established when they intended to convince the ancient Hereticks of the Truth of the Apostolical Books These Histories and these other Acts whereof Socinus makes mention are taken from the Churches or from Ecclesiastical Writers and this is that which composeth Tradition He ought to agree to it himself since he avoucheth in his Treatise of the Authority of the Holy Scriptures that since the times of the Apostles to those of Eusebius none have doubted in the Church that the Books of the New Testament were not composed by those whose Names they bear For it is certain that many Hereticks that were out of the Church have not only doubted thereof but have absolutely rejected them That which hath deceived Socinus and the other Sectaries is a false notion that they have conceived of the Authority of the Church they imagine that she Judges by her own Authority only and not upon good Acts and Records that the Books that compose the Old and New Testament are Divine and Canonical CHAP. II. Concerning the Titles that are at the Head of the Gospels and other Books of the New Testament Whether these Titles were made by the Authors of these Books or whether they were since added WE have no solid proof in Antiquity to make it appear to us that the Names that are set at the Head of every Gospel were thereunto prefixed by those who are the Authors of them S. John Chrysostom assures us expresly of the contrary in one of his Homelies (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joann Chrys Hom. 1. in Epist ad Rom. Moses saith this Learned Bishop hath not put his Name to the five Books of the Law that he hath wrote those also that have collected the Acts after him have not set their Names at the beginning of their Histories The same may be said of the Evangelists Matthew Mark Luke and John. As for S. Paul he hath always set his Name at the beginning of his Epistles except that which is directed to the Hebrews and the Reason that S. John Chrysostom produceth is because the former wrote for the use of Persons that were present whereas S. Paul wrote Letters to persons that were at a distance If we should refer our selves herein to the Testimony of this Father we cannot prove precisely from the Titles only that are at the Head of every Gospel that these Gospels have been composed by those whose Names they bear at least if we do not joyn to this the Authority of the Primitive Church that hath added these Titles On this Principle it is that Tannerus and other Jesuits supported themselves in a Conference that they had at Ratisbonne with some Protestants to shew that they could not clearly prove the Title of S. Matthew and without the Testimony of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that this Gospel was made by him whose name it bore they insisted that they could not bring other Proofs of this Truth than those that were taken from humane Authority and not from the Scriptures themselves since they had been added to them Ex solo testimonio hominum eorumque non omnium sed eorum tantum qui Ecclesiae corpus constituunt * David Schramus Theologus Ecclesiastes in aula ad austrum Neoburgica edit Giessae Hassorum ann 1617. A Protestant Divine who had assisted at this Conference hath composed a Book on purpose on this Subject to prove the contrary to that which the Jesuits maintained But to say the truth there is more of Subtilty in these sorts of Disputes than of solid Arguments for although it were true that S. Matthew is the Author of the Title of his Gospel recourse must always be had to the Authority of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers to shew that this Title is of him and that this Gospel certainly belongs to him whose Name it bears at least if we decline flying to a private Spirit which hath been above discoursed and cannot be approved by any judicious Persons These Titles are so ancient in the Church that Tertullian reproves Marcion who acknowledged the Gospel of St. Luke from which he had only took away some Passages (b) Marcion Evangelio scilicet suo nullum adscribit auctorem quasi non licuerit illi titulum quoque adfingere cui nefas non fuit ipsum corpus evertere Tertull. lib. 4. adv Marc. cap. 2. for having no Title at the head of his Copy as if it were not lawful for him saith this Father to annex a Title to a Work the Text whereof he had ventured to corrupt He adds further in this same place That he could not proceed in the Dispute that he held with this Heretick since he had a right to reject a Book as suspected the Title whereof did not appear that he was willing nevertheless thus far to condescend to him because it is easie (c) Ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet Tertull. ibid. to judge by the Copy of S. Luke that was read in the Church whether that of Marcion were the same excepting that which he had cut off from it It is not to be inferred that Tertullian was of Opinion that it might be proved by the Titles only that the Gospels belonged to those whose Names they bore otherwise he ought to have acknowledged as the true Gospels an infinite number of false Books that carried the Names of the Apostles It was necessary according to his mind to have besides this a constant Tradition founded on the Testimonies of those who
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
simple Cyril of Jerusalem who lived a little after the first appearance of this Sect attributes this Gospel to one of the Disciples of Manes named Thomas (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Cyr. Catech. 6. Let none saith this Holy Bishop read the Gospel of Thomas for he is not one of the twelve Apostles but one of the three wicked Disciples of Manes The Names of these three Disciples according to the testimony of the same Cyril were Thomas Baddas and Hermas Nevertheless Pope Gelasius condemns it Gelasius decr 1. par dist 15. c. 3. as belonging as they said to the Apostle S. Thomas Evangelium nomine Thomae Apostoli quo utuntur Manichaei apocryphum S. Augustin writing against Faustus hath made mention of certain Apocryphal Books which the Manicheans made use of Aug. cont Faust lib. 22. c. 79. wherein were related several Actions of S. Thomas of which he hath produced some Examples But not to be tedious I shall pass by many other Gospels that have been published under the Names of the Apostles the Titles of them may be seen in the Catalogne of Pope Gelasius who hath ranked them in the number of Apocryphal Books Altho the Church doth acknowledge as Canonical only two Epistles of S. Peter that are also but short yet if we believe the ancient Hereticks he hath composed several other Works that are mentioned by S. Jerome viz. certain Acts a Gospel an Apocalypse and two other Books (q) Vnus Actorum ejus inscribitur alius Evangelit tertius Praedicationis quartus Apocalypseos quintus Judicii Hieron de Scriptor Eccl. in Petr. one of which was intituled The Preaching of Peter and the other The Judgment Eusebius who hath also taken notice of these Books attributed to S. Peter adds that they were generally rejected by all the Catholicks (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccles lib 3. c. 3. because it did not appear that any Ecclesiastical Writer had ever subscribed to their Authority which is not true for he avouches himself in another place that Clement of Alexandria hath cited the Apocalypse of S. Peter the same Clement hath also cited the Book that bears the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Preaching of Peter he hath also produced some Fragments of these two Works which Origen hath likewise done after him It is probable that Eusebius only intended to say that no Ecclesiastical Author had quoted these Books as Divine and Canonical After the same manner may be explained another Passage of his History where after he had rejected as Apocryphal the Gospels that had been published by the Hereticks under the Names of Peter Thomas Matthias and some other Apostles he adds Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 25. that no Ecclesiastical Writer since the Apostles to his time had made mention of these Gospels Serapion Bishop of Antioch hath written a Letter on purpose against the Gospel that bears the name of Peter Seraph apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. cap. 12. on occasion of certain Christians of Rhossus in Cilicia who having read this Gospel were fallen into the Error He saith in this Letter that he embraced as well as they the Writings of S. Peter and the other Apostles as the Word of Jesus Christ but that he rejected this false Gospel that had been forged under the Name of S. Peter and was not grounded on any Tradition The Hereticks that were called Docites made use thereof and Serapion himself before he had examined it had permitted those of Rhossus to read it but afterwards having found some Passages therein contrary to the Orthodox Faith he absolutely forbad them the reading it Sozomen affirms (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sozom. Hist Eccles lib. 7. cap. 19. that the Apocalypse attributed to S. Peter was read even in his time every year on Good Friday in some Churches of Palestine altho this Piece had been exploded by all Antiquity The ancient Ecclesiastical Authors do moreover make mention of certain Acts attributed to S. Paul which Eusebius hath rejected as Apocryphal (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb lib. 3. Hist Eccles cap. 3. We receive not saith this Historian among the Books that are not suspected that which is called the Acts of Paul and he speaks of these Acts in another place (v) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb ib. c. 24. as a false and supposititious Writing Many other Books have been compiled under the Name of this Apostle and among others an Apocalypse or Revelation which Pope Gelasius hath inserted in the List of Apocryphal Pieces Gelasius decr 1. part dist 15. c. 3. Revelatio quae appellatur Pauli Apostoli apocrypha Sozomen hath observed (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sozom. Hist Eccles lib. 7. c. 19. that in his time the greatest part of the Monks very much esteemed this Apocalypse tho it had no testimony of Antiquity To gain more authority to it they feigned that it had been found at Tarsus in Cilicia buried under ground in S. Paul's House The Cainites who acknowledged Cain for their Father from whom they took their Name had forged another Work under the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 38. n. 2. that contains the History of that which happened to S. Paul when he ascended into Heaven where he learn'd things which he was not permitted to reveal The Gnosticks adopted this Book for their use I shall not insist on some Epistles that have been also published under the Name of S. Paul because I shall have occasion to speak of them in another place Besides all these Acts counterfeited under the Names of the Apostles of which scarce any thing is left but the Titles we have others more entire that have been Printed but they are so full of Fables and absurd Tales that we cannot read them without being at the same time convinced of their falsity Is there any thing for example more ridiculous than the Gospel attributed to Nicodemus There is nothing also that comes nearer to Fable than the little Book intituled Protevangelium Jacobi The first Gospel of James wherein it is treated among other things concerning the Birth and Infancy of the blessed Virgin Mary William Postel who first brought this false Gospel from the Levant would persuade all the World to believe that it was read publickly in the Eastern Churches and that they did not there doubt of the Author thereof He translated it out of Greek into Latin and having sent his Translation to Oporinus a Printer at Basil Bibliander caused it to be Printed with this specious Title Protevangelion sive de Natalibus Jesu Christi ipsius matris Virginis Mariae Sermo Historicus D. Jacobi Minoris consobrini fratris Domini Jesu Protev Jac. edit Basil in 3. ann 1552. Apostoli primarii Episcopi Christianorum primi Hierosolymis He added also some Notes thereto after his way with a Discourse wherein he avoucheth after Postel that
this History of the Birth of Jesus Christ and of the Virgin passeth for an authentick Book in the Oriental Churches Biblian in Epist nunenp Authenticus habetur in Orientalibus Ecclesias The Greek of this little Work hath also been printed afterwards at Basil with the Latin Version in a Collection of several Pieces intituled Monumenta Orthodoxa The Title that answers to that of the Latin Translation is thus expressed An. 1569. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Commentary on the six days of the Creation that Leo Allatius hath published under the Name of Eustathius Bishop of Antioch who lived at the beginning of the fourth Century did certainly belong to that Bishop the Protevangelium would be of sufficient Antiquity there is found in this Book a considerable fragment of it that is delivered in such manner that the most fabulous part thereof is omitted The Expression that Eustathius useth in citing it makes it appear that he did not believe it to be of St. James under whose name they had published it but of another James for observe how he speaks (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eustath Comm. in Hex It is convenient here to peruse the History that one James relates of the Virgin Mary However it be we find in the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors a part of the things that are contained in this little History and that apparently come from the Gnosticks who had written many Fables relating to the Birth of Jesus Christ and the Virgin. I admire that the Protestants who have caused this Protevangelium of James to be printed have thought it worthy to be published with some other pieces of the like nature under the Title of * Orthodoxogr edit Basil Lat. ann 1555. ibid. Lat. Gr. an 1569. Biblian ibid. Orthodoxographa Bibliander seriously divulgeth the Impostures of William Postel who had averred that this Protevangelium was the beginning of the Gospel of S. Mark and even the foundation of Evangelical History this he repeats also in a little Discourse wherein he gives his Judgment of this Book Ipse Postellus saith he aestimat Protevangelium ut gemmam inter Libros Theologicos Basim atque fundamentum totius Historiae Evangelicae caput Evangelii secundùm Marcum Biblian in censu judic Protevan In a word he forgets nothing that might set a value on this wicked Piece which he thinks to be recommendable because it hath not been reckoned in the number of the Apocryphal Books with the Gospels of Nicodemus Thomas and many others that are recited at large in the Catalogue of Pope Gelasius But this proves only that the Protevangelium had not been as yet published in that time or that not being translated into Latin this Pope had took no cognisance thereof Indeed he hath placed among the Apocryphal Works a Book that treated on the same Subject as may be judged by the Title Liber de Nativitate Salvatoris saith Gelasius de Sancta Maria Gelas apud Grat. decr 1. part dist 15. c. 3. de obstetrice Salvatoris apocryphus It were to be wished that Father Jerom Xavier a Missionary Jesuit had not inserted so many very improbable things taken out of this sort of Books in his History of Jesus Christ written in the Persian Tongue It would be to no purpose for me to enlarge any farther on the false Acts that have been published under the names of the Apostles it is enough to observe in general that they have been for the most part invented by Hereticks that have been willing to support their Novelties by attributing them to some Disciples of Jesus Christ Hegisippus who lived immediately after the Disciples of the Apostles speaking of Apocryphal Books testifies (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 4. cap. 22. that a part of these Books have been composed by the Hereticks of his time therefore when the Primitive Fathers designed to judge whether a Book were Canonical or not they have examined its Doctrine to see if it were conformable to that which was taught in the Catholick Church they have moreover consulted the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors who have lived since the Apostles to their times that they might by this means know the Tradition Serapion applied these two Rules to the Gospel that passed under the name of S. Peter which was read by those of the Church of Rhossus thinking that it did certainly belong to him whose name it bore (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Serap apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. cap. 12. We have found saith this holy Bishop in this Gospel Serap apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. c. 12. many things that agree with the true Religion of Jesus Christ but there are also some things that are far from it He judgeth in the same place that the Act that had been produced to him was false because it was not grounded on Tradition Not but that the Fathers have sometimes made use of Apocryphal Books and have quoted even false Gospels as for example the Gospel that is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Egyptians is not to be allowed as authentick for this very reason that it is thought to be most ancient and that mention is made thereof in Clement of Alexandria it ought not to be rejected neither under this pretence alone that the Gnosticks and Sabellians have maintained their Errors by this Book The Primitive Fathers who have written against the Pagans and Jews do sometimes follow in their Disputes and even in their other Works the method of Rhetoricians who often employ Reasons purely probable and doubtful Acts after which we must not always regulate our selves This is to be seen principally in the Works of Clement of Alexandria and Origen Clement hath on this account related some Words of Jesus Christ (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. lib. 3. Strom. that are not to be found in the four Evangelists authorized by the Tradition of the Church and he saith that they are in the Gospel of the Egyptians He only quotes them after the Heretick Cassian Clem. Al. l. 2. Strom. and in arguing with the Followers of Basilides he refers to certain Writings attributed to St. Barnabas On the other side the Hereticks making Profession of Christianity as well as the Orthodox have not always recourse to apocryphal and supposititious Pieces to defend their Innovations Therefore to judge rightly of an Act whether it be valuable or not in point of Religion and whether it carrieth with it a Divine Authority it is absolutely necessary to apply to it the two Rules that have been above mentioned S. Augustin's Advice is when any such Difficulties arise (c) Tenebit hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis ut eas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis Catholicis praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt In eis verò quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus praeponat eas quas plures gravioresque
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
manner as they are in the Hebrew Text. But this reason is destructive of it self because he that hath translated the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew into Greek performing it for persons that spake Greek and read the Bible in this Language ought to quote the Authorities of the Old Testament rather according to the Greek Version of the Septuagint than according to the Hebrew Text which they understood not Illyricus adds to all these Reasons that there is no likelyhood that S. Matthew should design to write his Gospel in a Language that was no longer in use because at that time all People and even the Jews themselves spake Greek or Chaldaick Besides that the Holy Ghost who was the Author of these Books knew that the Destruction of Jerusalem was not far off Therefore there is no appearance saith he that he should intend to publish the Gospel in any other Language but the Greek which was the Language of the Empire This Protestant is grosly mistaken when he believes after Erasmus that it is supposed that the Gospel of S. Matthew hath been written in the ancient Hebrew whereas the Hebrew of the Jews at that time was the Chaldaick Language which they had brought with them from Babylon and had only a little altered it It hath indeed been more convenient that the Books of the New Testament should be written rather in Greek than in another Language But here it is only argued concerning the Jews of Palestine to whom S. Matthew first preached the Gospel And since those People spake Chaldaick it was necessary for him to preach to them in this same Language On these grounds all Antiquity hath relied when they have believed that S. Matthew had composed his Gospel in Hebrew He opposeth moreover that S. Macthew saw that the Jews did daily harden their Hearts and that they had an Abhorrence of the Religion of Jesus Christ And therefore it is not credible saith Illyricus that this holy Apostle hath written his Gospel for their sake and in their Language But to what purpose are reasons drawn from expediency against matters of fact that are evident We cannot doubt but many Jews of Palestine have received the Gospel of Jesus Christ by the Ministry of S. Matthew and whereas they spake Chaldaick or Syriack he could not leave this Gospel with them in Writing but in the Language that was spoken by them On this account we may judge of other the like reasons alledged by Illyricus to the same purpose He pretends for example that Divine Providence would never have permitted the loss of so great a Treasure if it were certain that the Gospel of S. Matthew had been written in Hebrew He adds farther that if S. Hierom had been truly persuaded that the Hebrew was the Original of this Gospel he would rather have translated it than the Greek now it cannot be said that he hath translated it from the Hebrew into Greek It is in vain that this Protestant calls the Providence of God to his assistance in opposition to a fact that cannot be reasonably doubted of The Fathers and the Jews themselves make no difficulty to acknowledge that some Sacred Books have been lost which nevertheless cannot be said of the Gospel of S. Matthew since we have it in Greek in a state sufficiently perfect The reason why the Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy is not preserved is because the Churches of Judaea for whose use it was primarily written have not long subsisted On the contrary the Churches wherein the Greek Tongue flourished have always endured and it is through the means of these last Churches that we have yet to this day the Greek Copy of S. Matthew This may serve also for an Answer to the Objection of Chamierus Chamier Panstrat lib. 11 c. 8. n. 8. who could not imagine how it could come to pass that there should have been so great a negligence in the Church in general and in particular in that of Jerusalem that the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew hath been lost from the first Ages of Christianity Nevertheless it is very easie to be apprehended if we consider that the Writings of the Apostles that were read in the Churches were preserved by the means of the same it is not therefore an extraordinary thing to see that the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew hath been lost in the loss of the Churches of the Nazarenes It is in the mean time worth the observing that it perished not entirely from the primitive times of Christianity for the Sect of the Nazarenes who took their original from the first Nazarenes or Christians of Judaea continued for a long time to read it in their Assemblies It passed also to the Ebionites who altered it in some places notwithstanding these Alterations it might always be said that this was the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew especially if respect were had to the Copy of the Nazarenes which was more pure than that of the Ebionites and was still extant in the time of S. Hierom who translated it into Greek and Latin. The other Christians neglected it because besides their not understanding the Language in which it was written they considered the Nazarenes as a sort of half Christians that still kept the Ceremonies of the Law and they rejected the Ebionites as Hereticks Illyricus adds farther to all these Objections that S. Matthew being a Publican was either half a Grecian or a Roman and that for this reason he ought rather to apply himself to write his Gospel in Greek for those of his Nation than in Hebrew for the Jews If this way of reasoning concluded any thing it might be inferred from thence at the same time that S. John who was an Hebrew and whose Mother-Tongue was Syriack or Chaldaick should have composed his Gospel in this Language for those of his own Nations It availeth nothing to oppose simple reasons of conveniency to manifest and clear matters of Fact. Neither is there any weight in a proof that he brings in the same place from certain Latin Words that are found in the Gospel of S. Matthew which are more agreeable as he thinks to a Greek Author than to a Man that writes in Hebrew because the Grecians had more Intercourse with the Latins than the Hebrews But may it not be said that these Latin Words do rather belong to the Greek Translation than to the original Hebrew Besides the Jews of those times who were under subjection to the Romans might have adopted divers Latin Words into their Language This same Principle may serve to resolve another Objection that he raiseth from the word Petrus which is in S. Matthew If this Apostle saith Illyricus had written in Hebrew or Syriack he would have made use of the Word Cephas and not of that of Petrus as if it might not be said that it is the Greeks Interpreter that hath inserted the Word Petrus Lastly he objects that S. Matthew epitomizeth with too much liberty in Chap. xii of his
who hath made no scruple to rank this Gospel amongst those that have been counterfeited under the Names of S. Thaddaeus and S. Thomas Grotius who discourseth thereof with more Moderation (x) Narrationes quaedam non praescriptae à Mattheo sed auditu perceptae videntur paulatim à Nazaraeis assutae iis quae penes ipsos erant exemplaribus Grot. Annot in tit Matth. believes that the Nazarenes have inserted that which they have in their Copies and which is not in ours relying upon certain Relations that they had heard It is for this reason that when he speaks of the History of the adulterous Woman of whom mention is made in S. John and which he judgeth to have been taken out of the Gospel of these Nazarenes that he forbears not to ascribe to it the same Authority as if the Apostles were the true Authors of it He acknowledgeth nevertheless that it was not originally neither in the Hebrew of S. Matthew nor in the Greek of S. John nec à Matthaeo scriptam in Hebraeo Evangelio nec à Joanne in Graeco He believes that (y) Quia Apostoli vivâ voce hanc historiam saepè narraverant attextam à Nazarenis quidem Palestinae Hebraeo Evangelio à Papiâ autem aliisque Joannis discipulis Graeco Joannis ab Ecclesia probatam ideo quòd satis certo testimonio constaret ab Apostolis traditam Grot. Annot. in c. 8. Joann the Nazarenes of Palestine had added it to their Hebrew Gospel because it came from the Apostles and that afterwards Papias and the other Disciples of S. John had put it into his Gospel written in Greek which said History hath been approved by the Church because it was grounded on an Apostolical Tradition Jansenius Bishop of Gand who had written the same thing before Grotius (z) Ex quibus satis patet hanc historiam non in primis fuisse ab Evangelistâ hoc loco descriptam sed vel ex apocrypho illo Evangelio additam quae tamen autoritatem obtinuerit non quòd in apocryphis scripta fuerit sed quòd eam Papias è suo doctore audierit quodque hanc Ecclesiae consensus ut Evangelio dignam comprobarit vel Joannem post semel descriptum à se Evangelium adjecisse hanc partem suo Evangelio ut ob id contigerit in quibusdam codicibus haberi in quibusdam non Jans Episc Gand. Comm. in Concor Eu. c. 76. would have this History considered as Canonical because Papias had received it from his Master and because it hath been allowed by the Church he saith nevertheless that it might happen that S. John hath added it himself to his Gospel after he had written it and that for this reason it was not found in some Copies But there seems to be but little Probability in this last Remark and there can be nothing determined thereupon with any certainty We only know that Papias reckons in the number of Histories which he had learned from the Disciples of the Apostles that which hath regard to the Woman accused of many Crimes in the Presence of our Saviour and that he adds at the same time that it was related in the Gospel which was called according to the Hebrews Now since it is not unlikely that this Woman accused of many Crimes is the same with the adulterous Woman of whom S. John makes mention it seems as if it might be inferred from thence that in the time of Papias this History was not to be found but in the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes This makes it appear that all the Additions which have been inserted into this Gospel ought not to be accounted as Fables since Papias hath produced one of them which came from an Apostolical Tradition this might be also said of the others with some Probability Hegesippus who was familiarly acquainted with the Disciples of the Apostles (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hin Eccl. lib. 4. c. 22. hath also sometimes made use of the Hebrew or Syriack Gospel of the Nazarenes and he hath quoted it even in Hebrew from whence Eusebius concludes that he must needs be of the number of the Hebrews that had embraced the Christian Religion CHAP. VIII Of the Ebionites Of their Copy of the Gospel of S. Matthew Of some other ancient Hereticks who have made use of this same Gospel WE have already observed in discoursing of the Nazarenes that the Ebionites did also make use of the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew as well as they but that they had nevertheless altered and corrupted it in some places to make it agreeable to their false Notions and Prejudices Ebionaei saith S. Irenaeus eo Evangelio quod est secundùm Matthaeum Iren. l. 3. adv Haer. c. 4. solo utentes ex illo ipso convincuntur The ancient Ecclesiastical Writers according to Eusebius have called these Sectaries Ebionites from a Word that signifies in Hebrew Poor because they had poor Conceptions concerning Jesus Christ whom they believed to be a simple Man. (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 27. They made use of that Gospel only adds this Historian which was called according to the Hebrews little esteeming the rest Origen who hath been followed by Eusebius (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 4. de princ apud Vales Annot. in lib. 3. Hist Eccles Euseb doth also derive the Etymology of the Name of these Hereticks from the Hebrew Word Ebion which signifies Poor because they were saith he poor in Judgment and wanted Understanding But all this seems to me to be ill grounded and to be but a simple Allusion to the Name of these Sectaries which indeed signifies Poor in the Hebrew Tongue It is more probable that the Jews called them so in derision and scorn because in these Primitive times of Christianity there were scarce any but poor People that had embraced it This gave occasion to Jesus Christ to say to his Disciples Luke vi 20. Blessed be ye poor for yours is the Kingdom of God. This Kingdom of God was the Gospel on which they believed therefore our Saviour saith in another place Luke vii 20. that the Gospel is preached to the Poor Origen himself seems to confirm this Opinion in his Books against Celsus Matth. xi 15. where he observes that (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 2. contra Celsum the Word Ebion signifieth Poor in Hebrew and that they have given the name of Ebionites or poor to those among the Jews who have believed that Jesus was the Messiah Since then the Jews called those of their own Nation that turned Christians Nazarenes and Galileans by way of contempt it is also very probable that they have named them Ebionites or poor It may be further said that these Primitive Christians took this Name themselves conformably to their Profession This agrees very well with the Remark of S. Epiphanius who informs us that the Ebionites (d)
(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
be attributed to the Holy Ghost whose Instruments they have been But can that be called a Demonstration which is only grounded on uncertain Conjectures Would it not be more prudent to refer our selves herein to the testimony of Papias who hath lived with the Disciples of the Apostles If there had been in his time a Greek Version of the Gospel of S. Matthew which had been made by some Apostle he would not have failed to have told us of it He declares on the contrary that every one translated it as he was able There is nothing therefore but the constant Tradition of the Church alone that gives authority to this Version and that can oblige us to prefer it before the Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy of the Nazarenes Whereas the Protestants make the Holy Ghost to descend on the Apostles to translate the Gospel of S. Matthew out of Greek into Hebrew some Catholick Divines on the other side pretend also that the ancient Latin Version of the New Testament hath been inspired But it is much more reasonable only to admit this Inspiration for the Originals of the Holy Scriptures which have been translated into different Languages according to the necessities and occasions of the Churches If we hearken in the mean time to Casaubon and some other Protestants the Greek only of S. Matthew would be accounted Canonical (e) Constat sanè Ecclesiam Dei hunc ipsum textum inter libros Canonis Sacri relatum pari cum caeteris libris veneratione esse persecutam quod neque in Syriacâ Versione neque in ullâ aliâ reperitur esse factum Casaub ibid. because the Church hath put this Text into the Canon that she hath made of the Sacred Books and she hath not put therein the Syriack Version which is most ancient nor any other Translation but where is it to be found that the Church in placing the Gospel of S. Matthew in the rank of Canonical Books hath spoken of the sole Greek Version and hath excluded all others She only speaks in general of the Gospel of S. Matthew which is Divine and Canonical in whatsoever Language it be written It may be said nevertheless that there are some Nations that have exacter Translations of them than others this hinders not but that it may be averred that they all have a Canonical Copy of the Gospel of S. Matthew The Grecians and the Latins have this advantage over the other Christians that their Versions are the most ancient and the most exact and the Syrians after them However there is no Christian Nation that doth not believe but that they have in possession the true Gospel of S. Matthew tho they all have only Copies of it It doth not appear that Casaubon who is usually moderate in his Opinions hath sufficiently considered this matter when he hath unadvisedly taken the part of some Protestants against Baronius I do not pretend to defend all that Baronius hath alledged in this point but it seems to me that those of the Roman Church cannot with Justice be reproached (f) Error est in fide periculosissimus ne dicam Haeresis obtentu Hebraici contextûs qui sam ìnde à principio reperiri desiit in orbis nostri notis Ecclesiis Graeci auctoritatem velle elevare quod omnes hodie Hildebrandinorum sacrorum mystae in hac quaestione faciunt Casaub ibid. as Hereticks when they defend the Hebrew Text of S. Matthew to detract say they from the Authority of the Greek Copy The Defence that they undertake of the Hebrew Text of S. Matthew doth not in the least diminish the Authority of the Greek Version They only insist that the Greek is not the original but the Hebrew and if this Original were come to our hands it might with reason be preferred before the Greek which is but a Translation In the mean time since this Hebrew Text hath not been preserved in its purity in the Orthodox Churches but on the contrary hath been adopted by the Ebionite Hereticks who have corrupted it the Fragments thereof that are now extant are looked upon as Apocryphal Pieces By the word Apocryphal we ought only to understand that those Acts are doubtful and not false nor supposititious This hinders not but that good use may be made of them in those parts that are acknowledged not to have been altered an instance whereof hath been above propounded taken from S. Jerom's Commentaries on S. Matthew It were to be wished that we had at this day this Hebrew or Chaldaick Gospel entire even after the manner as it hath been interpolated by the Nazarenes and altered by the Ebionites we should not reckon it in the number of those Gospels that have been forged by Impostors as Casaubon hath indiscreetly done we should esteem it on the contrary as the most ancient Act of the Christian Religion Is there not reason to conjecture that he that hath translated the Original of S. Matthew out of Hebrew into Greek hath epitomized it in some places and sometimes taken the liberty rather to give us the Sense than the Words at least he seems to have used this liberty in the Quotations of the Old Testament that are therein produced which are more conformable to the Greek Version of the Seventy than to the Hebrew Text in the mean while there is very little appearance that S. Matthew writing his Gospel for the use of the Hebrews who read the Bible in Hebrew in their Synagogues should have quoted the Passages of the Old Testament otherwise than they were read in their Copies It is sufficient to authorize this Greek Version that it hath been read in the Churches that were constituted by the Apostles and that it hath been delivered down to us from Age to Age by a constant Tradition it is on this uninterrupted Tradition of the Churches that we ought to relye in shewing that the Greek Copy of S. Matthew is authentick and not on the imaginary Reasons of some Protestants This same Tradition of all the Churches in the World ought to be opposed to some Hereticks who have believed that the Gospel of S. Matthew hath been mangled and corrupted in several places Faustus a famous Manichean who could not adjust the Genealogy of Jesus Christ that is at the beginning of S. Matthew to the Opinions of his Party hath sought for Reasons to make it appear that it was false whereas he ought to have considered that having been received continually in the Church as well as the rest of this Gospel it bore the same stamp of Authority he compares S. Matthew with S. Luke who have related this Genealogy in a different manner and because (g) Offensus duorum maximè Evangelistarum dissensione qui genealogiam ejus scribunt Lucae Matthaei haesi incertus quemnam potissimum sequerer Apud Aug. lib. 3. cont Faust c. 1. he could not make them agree he abandons them to follow S. Mark and S. John who have made no mention thereof and who
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
not have taken away the entire Genealogy of Jesus Christ which makes one of the most principal parts of it it is not the custom of those that epitomize the Works of others to retrench the most considerable parts of them And we must take heed of this lest we unadvisedly authorize the Opinion of the Ebionites and Manicheans who would have the Genealogy which is at the beginning of S. Matthew and S. Luke to be added afterwards by some later Writers who had as they said revised and interpolated these two Gospels The Office of Interpreter to S. Peter which the ancient Doctors of the Church have unanimously attributed to S. Mark admits of some difficulties for how could it be may it be objected that this Apostle who had received of the Holy Ghost the gift of Tongues should have need of an Interpreter either in Writing or in speaking in publick But there is nothing very surprizing in this S. Paul who was very well skill'd in the Greek Tongue because he had learned it from his Youth at Tarsus where it was spoken did not forbear to take Titus for his Interpreter Therefore S. Jerom expounding these Words of this Apostle God that comforteth those that are cast down Epist 2. ad Cor. c. 7. v. 6. comforted us by the coming of Titus declareth (r) Ergo Paulus contristatur quia praedicationis suae in praesentiarum fistulam organumque per quod Christo caneret non invenerat Hier. Epist ad Hedib qu. 11. that the Joy that S. Paul had in the Presence of Titus sprang from this that in his Absence he was not able to preach the Gospel as he desired because Titus who was his Interpreter and spake Greek more fluently than he served him as an Organ to promulge the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the People (s) Cúmque Paulus haberet scientiam sanctarum scripturarum sermonis diversarumque linguarum gratiam possideret unde ipse gloriatur in domino divinorum sensuum majestatem digno non poterat Graeci eloquii explicare sermone habebat ergo Titum interpretem sicut B. Petrus Marcum Hieron ibid. He ascribes to S. Paul all possible knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and of divers Languages but he could not saith he express the Majesty of the Divine Oracles after so noble and eloquent a manner as he wished which obliged him to take Titus for his Interpreter as S. Peter also made choice of S. Mark for the same Function Joseph Antiq. l. 20. c. ult We know that Josephus who understood the Greek Tongue perfectly and had diligently studied it saith of himself that it was impossible for him to pronounce it well by reason of his Mother Tongue Bar. Ann. c. 45 n. 34. Baronius who hath considered this Example of Josephus could not nevertheless absolutely give his Suffrage to S. Jerom. (t) Quòd pertinet ad Apostolos cùm unà cum caeteris Linguis Graecam fuerint divinitùs assecuti Deique dona perfecta sint eos nihilominus Graecam linguam eâ facilitate quâ Hebraeam pronuntiasse mihi facilè persuadéo Baron ann c. 45. n. 34. He is persuaded that the Apostles who have received from God the gift of Tongues have not received them imperfect and that therefore they knew as well how to pronounce the Greek as the Hebrew insomuch that he is obliged to have recourse to another sort of Interpreters of whom mention is made in the first Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians Epist 1. ad Cor. cap. 14. Whereas there were sometimes Persons of different Nations and Languages in the Primitive Assemblies of Christians it was necessary that there should be Interpreters who might explain to them in their own what the Apostles delivered in the vulgar Tongue of the Country It is certain that the Church of Corinth mentioned by S. Paul was composed of divers Jews who spake Chaldaick or Syriack and this seems to have given occasion to all this Discourse of S. Paul touching the gift of Prophecy and that of Tongues This holy Apostle excludes none from the Assembly he permits those that had no knowledge of the Language of the Place to speak in their own proper Dialect though it were not understood by the others he only requires them in this case to make use of an Interpreter according to the Custom of the Synagogues at that time Epist 1. ad Cor. c. 14. v. 5. Greater is he that prophesieth saith he than he that speaketh with Tongues except he interpret that the Church may receive edifying But it is evident that Papias and the other ancient Ecclesiastical Authors did not intend to describe this sort of Interpreters when they said that S. Mark had been the Interpreter of S. Peter Baron an c. 45. n. 29. Baronius himself hath believed that S. Peter had written his Epistles in Hebrew or Syriack and that they had been afterwards put into Greek he insinuates that S. Mark who was his Interpreter translated the first However it be I see no reason that can hinder us from affording to S. Peter and the other Apostles who did not perfectly understand the Greek Tongue the use of true Interpreters either in speaking or writing It is in this sense that all Antiquity hath given to S. Mark the Title of Interpreter to S. Peter CHAP. XI In what Language St. Mark hath written his Gospel Of the twelve last Verses of this Gospel which are not found in several Greek Manuscript Copies CArdinal Baronius hath forgot nothing in his Annals that might serve to prove that S. Mark who was the Interpreter of S. Peter at Rome hath written his Gospel in Latin he confesseth nevertheless that S. Jerom and S. Augustin are of a different Opinion But he might have said that all Antiquity hath believed with one accord that S. Mark hath composed his Gospel in Greek and that the Author of the Lives of the Popes is the first that hath written the contrary As for S. Gregory Nazianzen whose Testimony this Cardinal produceth as if it were favourable to his Opinion he only saith that S. Mark hath published his Gospel for the Latins and not in Latin. Therefore the Jesuit Maldonat (a) Constantissima autem apud omnes veteres auctores fuit opinio caeteros quidem Graecè Matthaeum verò Hebraico scripsisse sermone Mald. Praef. in 4 Evang. c. 5. frankly declares that if we except S. Matthew who hath written in Hebrew the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors do all agree that the other Evangelists have written in Greek It is true that we read at the end of S. Mark in the Syriack Version that he hath preached his Gospel in Latin in the City of Rome But it is sufficiently known of what Authority these Inscriptions can be which are at the beginning and at the end of the Sacred Books especially in the Oriental Versions I account as nothing the Arabick and Persian Translations wherein the same is read because
nothing of it left Tertullian moreover establisheth the true Gospel of S. Luke on the universal Consent of the Churches that were planted by the Apostles Tertul. ib. c. 5. and of other Churches that derived their Original from them all these Churches preserved the Copy of S. Luke in the same condition as it had been published from the beginning whereas that of Marcion on the contrary was hardly known or if it were known it was at the same time condemned he relieth also on this same Tradition of the Churches in representing to Marcion (o) Et de his Marcion flagitandus quòd omissis eis Lucae potiùs institerit quasi non haec apud Ecclesias à primordio fuerint quemadmodum Luc. Tertull. ib. cap. 5. that he had no reason out of all the Gospels to select that of S. Luke and to neglect the others as if they were not to be esteemed and as if they had not been as generally received in all the Churches ever since their first Foundation He comes afterwards to some particular Passages that Marcion had taken away from his Gospel He charges him with having retrenched that place where Jesus Christ saith that he was not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets but rather to fulfil them but this Objection appears to be ill grounded for these Words are to be found only in S. Matthew's Gospel which was not owned by Marcion Tertullian seems here to have confounded S. Luke with S. Matthew when he read in S. Luke's Gospel that which is not therein at present He objects to him in the second place that he had taken away from the Gospel these other Words I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel This Passage is also found in S. Matthew only and not in S. Luke which may induce us to believe that these two Objections of Tertullian have respect to the Gospel in general as if he had supposed that Marcion had no reason to receive one Gospel more than another but then he would have proved nothing directly against his Adversary It might be that Tertullian's Copy was not exact and that the Lessons of several Gospels had been blended together Since S. Epiphanius hath much more accurately treated on this matter and hath carefully examined the Passages that Marcion had altered in his Copy of S. Luke we shall here produce the particular Remarks of this Father that we may have a better knowledge of the Gospel of the Marcionites Marcion had not in his Gospel all the beginning of S. Luke to these Words in the fifteenth year of the Reign of Tiberius Caesar that is to say he had cut off the two first Chapters of our Edition neither did he read as we do at this day the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies now and hath some relation to that which proceeds S. Epiphanius adds (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 42. n. 11. that besides the Passages which this Heretick had taken away from his Gospel he observed no Order nor Coherence and that he had also inserted some Additions which he describes in particular See the Alterations that he hath remarked on which I shall make some Reflections In the fifth Chapter of S. Luke and the fourteenth Verse where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a testimony unto them Marcion read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this may be a testimony unto you making that to fall on them that were healed by Jesus Christ which relates to the Priests in our Copies Moreover S. Epiphanius reads in this same place after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Offering which was not in Marcion's Copy no more than in the greatest part of ours but this diversity is of no importance the sense being always the same after whatsoever manner we read it and it could not happen but from the Transcribers who have omitted or added it Chap. 16. v. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Epiphanius read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being come down with them Marcion read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he came down in them This may be also a various reading that doth not alter the sense it may be an Hebraism commonly used in the Sacred Books the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie in this place the same thing as the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew to which the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers now the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth indifferently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Therefore it ought not to be translated here as Father Petau would have it he came down in them but according to the Hebraism he came down with them this sort of Hebraisms is found in S. Luke as well as in the other Evangelists Chap. 8. v. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Mother and his Brethren Marcion did not read these Words in his Copy but only in the beginning Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy Mother and thy Brethren This doth not appear nevertheless to be a vicious Alteration since these Words being repeated the sense will remain always the same though they be read but once it is possible then that Marcion might read it so in his Copy without altering it Chap. 9. v. 40. and 41. Marcion did not read in his Copy these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They could not cast it out and he said unto them O faithless Generation how long shall I suffer you S. Epiphanius reads it thus but Marcion's way of reading it is more concise however the sense is preserved It may be that he thought the other Words superfluous and would not put into the mouth of Jesus Christ speaking to his Disciples this expression that seemed harsh to him O faithless Generation He ought not in the mean time to have corrected this Passage according to his own Conceptions and without being supported by good Copies Chap. 10. v. 21. where we read I thank thee O Father Marcion had not in his Copy the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Father S. Epiphanius affirmeth that it ought to be read because it is repeated in the following Verse he saith moreover that Marcion had retrenched it only (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph ibid. that it might not be proved from this Passage that Jesus Christ had called his Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Creator But this Repetition seems rather to shew that this Heretick had not maliciously taken away from his Copy the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Father for whether we read it or not the sense is not changed Marcion had not also in his Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of Earth but only Lord of Heaven Chap. 11. v. 29 and 30. Marcion had taken away from his Gospel all that is said in this place concerning Jonas reading only these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
had also taken away these words of the seventeenth Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is this then that is written the stone which the builders rejected c. He had in like manner retrenched the thirty seventh Verse and a part of the thirty eighth in which the Resurrection of the dead is declared Chap. 21. Vers 18. These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There shall not an hair of your head perish were not in his Copy nor these other words of the twenty first Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then let them which are in Judea flee to the Mountains nor the rest of this History which he had expunged because of these words of the thirty second verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till all be fulfilled Chap. 22. He had not in his Copy the sixteenth Verse of this Chapter nor the thirty fifth and thirty sixth Verses because of these words of the thirty seventh Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This that is written must yet be accomplished nor these other words that are in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he was reckoned among the transgressors He had also retrenched that which is said of S. Peter in the fiftieth Verse when he cut off the ear of one of the Servants of the High Priest Chap. 23. Verse 2. To these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We found this fellow perverting the Nation he had added these other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And destroying the law and the prophets In the same Passage after these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Forbidding to give tribute he had also added these other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and perverting the women and the children In the same Chapter Vers 43. he did not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To day shalt thou be with me in paradise Lastly Marcion had taken away from his Copy the twenty fifth Verse of the twenty fourth Chapter and these words of the twenty sixth Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ought he not to have suffered And instead of these words in vers 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the prophets have spoken he had put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That I have spoken to you Thus we have seen what was the Gospel of Marcion who was not far from the Apostolical Times when the Verity of the Gospels might have been more easily justified from the Copies that the Apostle had left to the Churches which were founded by them S. Justin Martyr had written a Book to convince this Heretick Justin apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 4. c. 11. who was then living at that time when he wrote against him S. Epiphanius who hath transmitted to us this Gospel of Marcion confutes him by his own Copy which was not so much altered but that there remained some Passages that were sufficient to overthrow his Novelties S. Irenaeus who hath also disputed against the Opinions of this Arch-Heretick had observed this long before (t) Marcion autem id quod est secundùm Lucam circumcidens ex his quae adhuc servantur penes eum blasphemus in solum existentem Deum ostenditur Irenadv Haer. lib. 3. c. 11. It may be proved saith this Father by the rest of the Gospel that Marcion hath left that he hath blasphemed against the only God that exists Altho some Diversities of Marcion's Copy might be attributed to the Transcribers especially in those Passages that are of no moment nevertheless it ought to be done with a great deal of Precaution because it is certain that this Heretick hath not followed in his Alterations any ancient Copies he hath taken care only to adjust the Gospel of S. Luke to the prejudices of his Sect as appears by what hath been above related Therefore Tertullian after he had objected to him all that S. Luke hath specified in the two first Chapters of his Gospel touching the Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ and many other Circumstances that clearly shew that he had a real Body adds (u) His opinor consiliis tot originalia instrumenta Christi delere ausus est ne caro ejus probaretur Tertull. lib. de carne Chr. c. 2. that Marcion had retrenched all this from his Gospel on purpose lest it should be proved from thence that Jesus Christ had flesh as well as we Besides these Amendments that Marcion had inserted into the Gospel of S. Luke there have been also some Catholicks who have altered it in some places who would not have that read in the Gospels which did not suit with their prejudices Therefore they have expunged the Passage wherein it is said Chap. xix 41. That Jesus Christ wept over the City of Jerusalem because this Lamentatation seemed to them to be a weakness unworthy of our Saviour S. Epiphanius who quotes these Words observes (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. in Ancor n. 31. that they were found in the Copies that had not been * For so the Greek word in this Passage of Epiphanius ought to be translated corrected and by this he informs us that the Grecians have sometimes taken the liberty to correct their Copies and to take away from them that which did not please them (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. The Orthodox saith this Father have retrenched these words being moved thereto by fear and not considering the end nor the force of them But they are found at this day in the Copies of all the Christians of what Nation soever and S. Epiphanius shews that they certainly belong to S. Luke by (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Iren. apud Epiph ibid. the testimony of S. Irenaeus who made use of them against some Hereticks If we may give credit to the Testimony of S. Hilary (a) Nec sanè ignorandum nobis est in Graecis in Latinis codicibus complurimis vel dè adveniente Angelo vel de sudore sanguineo nihil scriptum reperiri Hilar. lib. 10. de Trin. the forty third and forty fourth Verses of the twenty second Chapter were not read in many Greek and even Latin Copies of S. Luke's Gospel Mention is made in this place of the Angel that came to comfort Jesus Christ and of the bloody Sweat that fell from his Body This S. Jerom seems also to confirm Hieron lib. 2. adv Pelag. But it is easie to judge that the Grecians had taken the liberty to rase these two Verses out of their Copies for the same reason as they had taken away the Passage wherein it is said that our Saviour wept This Alteration afterwards crept into the Latin Copies (b) Haec erasa videntur à quibusdam qui verebantur Christo tribuere tam insignia humanae infirmitatis argumenta Jansen Gand. Concord Evang. c. 137. These words saith Jansenius seem to have been retrenched by some that were afraid to attribute to Jesus Christ such notable marks of human infirmity There are no Copies at this day nor for a long time since
the Catholicks they endeavoured to support their Novelties with some Reasons They said amongst other things that (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph ibid. n. 4. these Books attributed to S. John did not agree with the Writings of the other Apostles and that consequently they ought not to be acknowledged as Divine Whether tends said they the beginning of this Gospel In the beginning was the word and the word was with God. And these other words And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth To what purpose added these Hereticks is that which immediately follows John bare witness of him and cryed saying This was he of whom I spake And a little after Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world The Alogians produced several other Passages of S. John no part of which was found in the other Evangelists S. Epiphanius answers them very prudently that if they had no other Reasons to object against the Verity of S. John's Gospel they might also reject the Gospels of S. Matthew S. Mark and S. Luke who have all used the same manner of Writing and who have every one something that is singular He said (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid that their Method depended not on them but that it came from the Holy Ghost as well as their Doctrine This he explains more particularly and at large This Father confutes them also by the Doctrine of S. John which he affirms to be altogether opposite to that of Cerinthus This Heretick believed that Jesus Christ was born a mere Man. S. John on the contrary testifyeth in his Gospel that the Word was from all eternity that he came down from Heaven and that he was made Man. It is certain that Cerinthus believed with some other Hereticks of those primitive times that Jesus was * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a mere Man. Which Opinion they grounded on the Genealogy that is in the beginning of S. Matthew Therefore one would think that if Cerinthus had designed to forge a New Gospel to authorise his Heresie he would not have omitted this Genealogy It may be observed nevertheless that this Heretick acknowledged in Jesus Christ somewhat more than mere Man. This Epiphanius himself explains after this manner (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 28. n. 1. He pretends that the World was not created by the first and supreme Power but that Jesus who was begotten of the Seed of Joseph and Mary being become great had received from above of the Supreme God the Christ in himself that is to say the Holy Ghost in the form of a Dove when he was baptised in the River Jordan He attributed to this celestial Virtue that Jesus as he thought had received in his Baptism all the Miracles that he wrought afterwards He said moreover that this Virtue left him at the time of his Passion and that it returned to Heaven from whence it came Perhaps the Alogians took occasion from hence to ascribe the Gospel of S. John to Cerinthus because this Heretick distinguished two things in Jesus Christ for besides that they thought that he was born of Joseph and Mary after the same manner as other Men they acknowledged in him a Celestial Vertue that had been communicated to him by the Sovereign God of the Universe he called this Vertue Christ distinguishing Christ from Jesus S. Irenaeus hath also observed (n) Hi qui à Valentino sunt eo quod est secundùm Joannem plenissimè utentes ad ostensionem conjugationum suarum Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. c. 11. that the Gnosticks the Followers of Valentin altogether made use of the Gospel of S. John to establish their Opinions (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Haeret. Fabul lib. 2. Haer. 7. de Valent. They gave to Jesus saith Theodoret the Name of Saviour and of Christ the Word The Sethians who were a branch of the Gnosticks maintained also that Jesus differed from Christ (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. ibid. lib. 2. Haer. 14. de Sethian that Jesus was born of the Virgin but that the Christ descended on him from Heaven That which might farther confirm the Alogians in their erroneous Conceits was this that there were some very learned Men and those too very Orthodox who had affirmed that the Apocalypse was made by Cerinthus who insolently boasted that he was the true Apostle of Jesus Christ Besides these Alogians who refused to receive with the whole Catholick Church the Writings of S. John as Divine and Canonical there was one Theodotus of Byzantium the Chief of a Sect that were called Theodotians who after their example rejected the Gospel and Revelation of S. John as not belonging to him Nevertheless Celsus Porphyrius and the Emperor Julian who opposed the Gospels with all their Might have not denied that they were certainly composed by them whose Names they bore they have been content only to decry them as if they had been filled with Falsities and Contradictions When Julian speaks of the Gospel of S. John he doth not disown it to be his but he accuseth this Apostle of having introduced Innovations into the Christian Religion he saith that neither (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyrill Alex. lib. 10. contra Julian Matthew nor Mark nor Luke nor even Paul durst make Jesus Christ to pass for a God that S. John was the first that hath published it after he had observed that a great party of simple People as well among the Grecians as Latins was of this Opinion thus this Emperor who was persuaded that S. John's Gospel could not be charged with falsity gives out his imaginary Reasons that were grounded on no Authority As we have above remarked that the twelve last Verses of S. Mark were not read in some Greek Manuscript Copies so there are also twelve that are not found in divers Greek Manuscript Copies of the Gospel of S. John nor in some Versions of the Oriental Church These Verses begin at the end of Chap. vii v. 53. and end at the 11 verse of the following Chapter insomuch that they comprehend the whole History of the Woman taken in Adultery S. Jerom's manner of Expression in speaking of this Relation makes it appear that it was not read in his time in some Greek and Latin Copies In Evangelio secundùm Joannem Hieron l. 2. adv Pelag. saith this Father in multis Graecis Latinis codicibus invenitur de adulterâ muliere quae accusata est apud Dominum Sixtus Senensis who hath observed that the Anabaptists made use of the Authority of S. Jerom and the Testimony of some other ancient Writers Sixt. Sen. l. 7. Bibl. S. to shew that the History of the adulterous Woman had been added to the Gospel of S. John hath not sufficiently answered their Objections Maldonat who had thereupon
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
like manner the same thing hath been done with respect to the Epistles of S. Paul. Marcion who received the greatest part of the Epistles of S. Paul from which nevertheless he had retrenched some Passages had placed them after this manner Marc. apud Epiph Haeret 42. The Epistle to the Galatians was the first of all and afterwards the two to the Corinthians the Epistle to the Romans was the fourth afterwards followed the two to the Thessalonians and after these the Epistles to the Ephesians Colossians to Philemon and to the Philippians He acknowledged none but these ten Epistles in the aforesaid order for as to the Epistle directed to those of Laodicea some Portions of which he received according to Epiphanius it is the same as that which is written to the Ephesians as it is easie to prove from the Passages that this Heretick hath cited and are also related by S. Epiphanius Marcion had intituled his Collection of the Epistles of S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostolick The Marcionite that is introduced in the Dialogue against those of this Sect attributed to Origen did often refuse to acknowledge some Quotations out of S. Paul's Epistles and saith in speaking to Adamantius who objected to him some words of this Apostle (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. Dial. adv Marc. sect 1. I do not believe your false Apostolick And in another place he answers Adamantius who asked him whether he believed the Apostle that is to say S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I believe my own Apostolick Ib. Sect. 2. Therefore Adamantius doth not oppose to him the Epistles of S. Paul after the same manner as they were read in the Church but that which the Marcionites called their Apostolick which was a Collection that they had made of these Epistles I have saith Adamantius your Apostolick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This caused S. Jerom to say speaking of this Collection of the Marcionites (c) Cùm Apostolorum Epistolas non Apostolorum Christi fecerunt esse sed proprias miror quomodo sibi Christianorum nomen audeant vendicare Hieron prooem in Epist ad Tit. that they had forged Epistles of the Apostles of their own invention and that he admired how those people durst take upon them the name of Christians S. Epiphanius hath observed some Passages that Marcion had altered in the Epistles of S. Paul which I shall here produce according to their order In chap. 5. v. 31. of the Epistle to the Ephesians where we read these words A man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined unto his wife this Heretick had taken away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to his wife In the Epistle to the Galatians chap. 5. verse 9. instead of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaveneth he had put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupteth which doth not interrupt the sense in this place and therefore it seems rather to be a various reading than an alteration made on purpose Indeed in the ancient Copy of Clermont that is kept in the King's Library it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Latin Version that is annexed to it which is the ancient vulgar there is according to this reading corrumpit as in the vulgar used at this day In the first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 9. vers 8. where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or saith not the law the same also He had in his Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho the law of Moses doth not say the same Chap. 14. ver 19. of this same Epistle Marcion had altered the sense of these words Yet in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding He read in his Copy instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In my understanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the law But it is probable that this reading of Marcion came from a fault of the Transcriber who hath read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in the present Greek Copies which reading approacheth nearer to that of Marcion than that of S. Epiphanius which agrees nevertheless with the two most ancient Greek Copies that we have viz. the Alexandrian and that of Clermont in the King's Library It is read in these two Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the ancient Latin Version which is joined to the Copy of Clermont there is sensu meo It is also read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the ancient Copy of the Epistles of S. Paul which is in the Library of the Benedictin Fathers of the Abbey of S. Germain but there is in the Latin Version that is added to it per sensum meum This causeth me to believe that the Author of this ancient Translation hath read in his Greek Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is read at present Nevertheless S. Epiphanius accuseth Marcion of making this alteration on purpose to wrest the words of S. Paul to his own Conceptions In the second Epistle to the Corinthians chap. iv 13. where we read Having the same spirit of faith according as it is written Marcion had retrenched from his Copy these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According as it is written S. Epiphanius reproves him in this place Because saith he whether he reads these words or not the scope of the Discourse is plainly evident Indeed it might happen that he did not read them in his Copy And if this Heretick had made no other alterations in S. Paul's Epistles than those that we have above marked there would be no cause to charge him with corrupting them for there are found in our Greek Copies greater diversities than those and very many more in number Neither do I see that Marcion hath committed a great fault in placing the Epistle to the Romans the fourth in his Copy Nevertheless if we believe Epiphanius this Heretick (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Her. 42. hath only set it in this order because he would have nothing right But S. Paul himself hath not ranked his Epistles after the same manner as we have done at present as this Father always supposeth in his Dispute against Marcion He confesseth himself that the Greek Copies do not all agree in this point For when he accuseth him of having placed the Epistle to Philemon the ninth which S. Paul according to his opinion had set the last he saith that in some Copies it was found immediately before that which was written to the Hebrews and which was the fourteenth in these Copies He adds (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. that there are others wherein the Epistle to the Hebrews is the tenth immediately before the two that are written to Timothy and those that are directed to Titus and Philemon S. Epiphanius declares in the same place (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. that he hath remarked nothing in the Epistle to Philemon because Marcion had entirely corrupted it
Tertullian (g) Soli huic Epistolae brevitas sua profuit ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet Tertull. lib. 5. adv Marc. c. 21. on the contrary affirms that this Epistle hath not been vitiated by Marcion because it was too short He admires only (h) Miror tamen cùm ad unum hominem literas factas receperit quid ad Timotheum duas unam ad Titum de Ecclesiastico statù compositas recusaverit Affectavit etiam numerum Epistolarum interpolare Tertull. ibid. that this Heretick having received a Letter directed to a single person would not acknowledge the two that are written to Timothy and that to Titus which treat of Ecclesiastical Affairs I believe saith he that he hath affected to diminish the number of these Epistles S. Jerom speaks also of this Epistle to Philemon after the same manner as Tertullian (i) Pauli esse Epistolam ad Philemonem saltem Marcione auctore doceantur qui cùm caeteras Epistolas ejusdem vel non susceperit vel quaedam in his mutaverit atque corroserit in hanc solam manus non est ausus mittere quia sua illam brevitas defendebat Hieron prooem Comm. in Epist ad Philem. and he proves also by the authority of Marcion that it is one of S. Paul's Epistles since this Heretick who hath rejected a part of them and hath altered those which he approved hath received this entire and hath not so much as touched it because it was too short If we may give credit to Epiphanius Marcion had inserted into his Book which he had intituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostolick an Epistle of S. Paul to the Laodiceans But he confesseth at the same time that that which this Heretick cites out of the Epistle to those of Laodicea is found in that which is inscribed to the Ephesians therefore it ought not to be put in Marcion's Collection under the name of Laodiceans but under that of Ephesians otherwise he would have received eleven Epistles of S. Paul whereas he never acknowledged but ten Tertullian indeed rebukes him (k) Ecclesiae quidem veritate Epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam non ad Laodicenos sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit quasi in isto diligentissimus explorator Tertull. lib. 5. adv Marc. c. 17. for changing the Title of the Epistle to the Ephesians nevertheless he judiciously observeth that this alteration of the Title is of no importance because S. Paul writing to a particular Church wrote at the same time to all the others Nihil autem de titulis interest cùm ad omnes Apostolus scripserit dum ad quosdam He accuseth him with more reason of taking away from his Copy of this Epistle to the Ephesians chap. 2. v. 20. the word Prophets for where we read it as the Church doth And are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Marcion read only Are built upon the foundation of the Apostles It seems also that Tertullian hath reproved Marcion for taking away these words from the same Epistle chap. 6. v. 2. Which is the first commandment with promise Nam etsi Marcion saith he abstulit Hoc est enim primum in promissione praeceptum Lex loquitur Honora patrem matrem S. Jerom moreover (l) Sciendum quoque in Marcionis Apostolo non esse scriptum per Deum patrem volentis exponere Christum non à Deo patre sed per sometipsum suscitatum Hieron lib. 1. Comm. in Epist ad Gal. c. 1. v. 1. hath charged Marcion with expunging out of his Copy of the Epistle to the Galatians chap. 1. v. 1. these words And God the Father to make it appear that Jesus Christ was himself the Author of his Resurrection and not his Father Besides these various Readings of the Apostolick of the Marcionites above remarked the Marcionite in the Dialogue attributed to Origen Orig. Dial. cont Marc. Sect. 5. saith that it was not read in this Apostolick 2 Cor. xv 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God giveth it a spirit as it hath pleased him And after those words immediately follow these in the Apostolick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is sown a natural body it is raised a spiritual body it is sown in corruption it is raised in incorrruption These last words are also found in our Copies but in another order Tertullian solidly confutes these Sectaries who would receive nothing of S. Paul but what was agreeable to their notions in representing to them that they might as well reject his Works all together as a part of them He demands of Marcion what proofs he hath of his Apostolick which he ascribed to S. Paul Pauli quoque originem à Marcione desidero He requires him (m) Edas velim nobis quo Symbolo susceperis Apostolum Paulum quis illum tituli charactere percusserit quis transmiserit tibi quis imposuerit ut possis eum constanter exponere Tertull. lib. 5. adv Marc. c. 1. to produce some certain marks that this Book did really belong to that Apostle and to declare who hath given it this Title and by what Tradition it came to his hands The same Objections might be made at this day to some Protestants who receive the Works of the Apostles and refuse at the same time to submit to the true Traditions of the Church to which they are beholden for these Apostolical Writings For who hath told them that that which they read under the name of S. Paul is certainly his Is it saith Tertullian speaking to Marcion because this Apostle hath said so himself Ipse se Apostolum est professus (n) Profiteri potest semetipsum quivis verùm professio ejus alterius auctoritate conficitur Alius scribit alius subscribit Alius obsignat alius actis refert Nemo sibi professor testis est Tertull. ibid. Every one adds he might give a testimony of himself but it is not believed at least if it be not attested by others because no Man can be a Witness of his own Actions This is a very strong proof against the Marcionites because they not allow the Acts of the Apostles which afford a great Testimony to the Doctrine contained in the Epistles of S. Paul. The Author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites makes use of this same argument to convince his Marcionite (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Orig. Dial. contr Marc. sect 2. We do not receive said this Marcionite neither the Prophets nor the Law because they are not of our God but we receive the Gospel and the Apostle What Apostle do you mean answers Adamantius for there are many Paul saith the Marcionite To whom Adamantius replies How can you be assured that Paul hath written the Epistles that you read under his name since there is no mention thereof made in the Gospel And whereas these Hereticks
as Divine and Canonical Wherefore it is convenient to examine the Acts that we have relating to this matter If we follow this Rule of Tertullian that is grounded on good reason That that is true which is most ancient Illud verum quod prius there will be no occasion to enquire whether the Epistle to the Hebrews was certainly written by S. Paul for all the Eastern Churches seem not to have doubted thereof the Arians have been the first amongst them that have obstinately rejected it seeing that it was not favourable to their Innovations this caused Theodoret speaking of these Hereticks to say (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Praef. Comm. in Epist ad Hebr. that they ought at least to have respect to the length of time and to consider that this Epistle had been read in the Churches ever since they had received the Writings of the Apostles (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. ibid. He opposeth to them moreover the Testimony of Eusebius Caesariensis who could not be suspected by them because they esteemed him as their Chief Now this Eusebius hath acknowledged that the Epistle directed to the Hebrews was S. Paul's and that all the Ancients had believed it so to be As for the Testimony of the Ancients this cannot be true but of those of the Eastern Church for Eusebius himself hath observed that some in the Western Church did not receive this Epistle but the Authority of these Western Writers ought not to be regarded since S. Clement Bishop of Rome who lived before them hath cited it in the Letter that he wrote in the name of his Church to those of Corinth as the same Eusebius assures us He proves by the Authority of this Disciple of the Apostles that the Epistle to the Hebrews hath been reckoned with good reason in the number of the Apostolical Writings and doth not in the least doubt of the Authors because the most part of the ancient Doctors of the Church especially in the East have believed that it did truly belong to S. Paul but since they supposed that he wrote it in Hebrew they do not agree as to the Interpreter (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hi. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 38. some saith Eusebius affirm that it hath been translated by S. Luke and others by S. Clement He confirms this last Opinion by the Stile of this Epistle which is very like to that of S. Clement nevertheless Clemens Alexandrinus proves on the contrary Cl. Alex. in Hypot apud Eus Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 14. by this resemblance of Stile that the Epistle to the Hebrews which he avoucheth to be St. Paul's hath been interpreted by St. Luke Origen who hath written Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews was of opinion (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. Homil. in Epist ad Hebr. apud Euseb 〈◊〉 Eccl. lib. 6. cap. 25. that the matter indeed was S. Paul's but that the Expressions were too lofty and too elegant to be his who wrote in a very simple and plain Stile This learned Critick doth not attribute this diversity of Stile to the Translator but to the Amanuensis that committed the Doctrine of S. Paul to Writing (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. I believe saith Origen that the Sense and Conceptions are of this Apostle but that the Phrase and Composition is another's who hath collected the Sayings of his Master and set them down in writing nevertheless what he adds in the same place makes it appear that in his time there were some Churches that did not ascribe this Epistle to the Hebrews to S. Paul and he judgeth also that it cannot be certainly determined who hath written it (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. If any Churches saith he reads this Epistle as S. Paul's they are to be commended in this for it is not without reason that the Ancients have thought that it was his but God alone knows the truth thereof The Greek Fathers who have lived before and after Origen and even the greatest part of the Hereticks have quoted it under no other name than that of this Holy Apostle Melchis ap Epiph. Haer. 55. The Melchisedecians who preferred Melchisedec before Jesus Christ grounded their Opinion on the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews The Catharians who were a branch of the Novatians relied also on these Words of this Epistle Cath. ap Epiph. Haer. 59. Chap. vi v. 4 5 6. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly Gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost and have tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the World to come if they shall fall away to renew them again unto Repentance Hierac ap Epiph. Haer. 67. c. Hieracqs an Egyptian who was the Chief of the Sect of the Hieracites which was embraced by divers Monks of Egypt pretended to prove by this same Epistle to the Hebrews that Melchisedec was the Holy Ghost Lastly many other Hereticks who separated themselves from the Church attributed it to no other but S. Paul which induceth me to believe that this Opinion was founded on an ancient Tradition of the Churches Cajus in the mean time a famous Writer who lived at the beginning of the third Century under Pope Zephyrinus in a Dispute that he had at Rome with the Cataphryges and which was published acknowledgeth only thirteen Epistles of S. Paul not mentioning that which is directed to the Hebrews Eusebius who hath taken notice of this Dispute observes (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. that some Romans in his time had not as yet received the Epistle to the Hebrews as S. Paul's and in another place where he speaks of the Epistles of the Apostles after he had said that the fourteen Epistles of S. Paul were known to all the World he adds (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 3. that some have rejected this which is written to the Hebrews under pretence that the Roman Church did not believe it to belong to S. Paul. Baronius hath not done justice to this Historian when he accuseth him of favouring in these Words the Party of the Arians his good Friends and of insinuating that the Church of Rome had doubted of the Verity of this Epistle for besides that Eusebius doth only relate a simple matter of fact that was evident and which S. Jerom hath afterwards explained more at large he openly declares in this very place in favour of those that believed that the Epistle to the Hebrews was certainly written by S. Paul when he adds that he will give an account in the sequel of his History what hath been the belief of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers as to this point and he acquits himself after such a manner as makes it manifest that none of these Ancients nor even the Roman Church have ever doubted
of the Old Testament according to the Septuagint which was read at that time by the most part of the Jews If we follow the Opinion of Origen who was well versed in the Criticism of the Sacred Books this Epistle hath been composed in Greek by one of the Scribes or Disciples of S. Paul who hath only committed to Writing that which he learned from his Master This may serve to answer another Objection that is ordinarily offered against this Epistle by reason of the diversity of Stile which is pretended to be very different from that of the other Epistles of S. Paul. Theophylact who hath taken notice of this declares (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. Comm. in c. 1. Epist ad Hebr. that S. Paul hath written it in Hebrew and that it was afterwars translated into Greek by S. Luke as some think or by S. Clement which he judgeth most probable because of the resemblance of the Stile It is objected in the third place that if this Epistle were S. Paul's he would have set his Name at the head of it as he hath done in his other Epistles Theodor. Praef. Com. in Epist ad Hebr. Theodoret who hath related this Objection from the Arians answers that there is a great deal of difference between this Letter and the others that bear the Name of this Apostle he hath prefixed his Name according to his Opinion at the beginning of those that were written to the Gentiles because he was their Apostle whereas in writing to the Jews whose Apostle he was not it was not requisite for him to do the like The Arians might have seen this Answer in the Works of Clemens Alexandrinus who lived before the appearing of their Heresie as also another that he gives in the same place but it is grounded as the former only on a Conjecture he saith (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. in Hypotyp apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 14. that it was a piece of Wisdom in S. Paul not to set his Name at the head of an Epistle that he wrote to a sort of People that were possessed with a prejudice against him and that he did very prudently in concealing his Name that he might not hinder them from reading it There is a fourth Reason that appears to be much stronger than the preceding against the ascribing the Epistle to the Hebrews to S. Paul. Epist ad Heb. c. 6. v. 4 5 6. It seems as if the Author designed absolutely to condemn all Repentance after Baptism for he saith Chap. 6. that it is impossible that those that have been once enlightened that is to say baptized and have fallen away after this should be renewed by Repentance this is manifestly contrary to the Doctrine of the New Testament and to the Practice of the Church There is a great deal of probability that this was that which obliged some Latin Churches not to read this Epistle publickly in their Assemblies especially since the Novatians had made use of it to support their Schism (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Comm. in c. 6. Epist ad Hebr. The Novatians saith Theodoret used these Words to oppose the Truth I have found an Answer to this Objection in an ancient Latin Translation that hath been made before the time of S. Jerom for whereas in the present vulgar the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated impossibile it is in this ancient Version difficile and that which deserves further to be observed is that it ordinarily follows the words of the Greek Text but in this place it is rather according to the Sense than the strictness of the Letter This makes it evident that in those times the Latins found this expression somewhat harsh and contrary to the Judgment of the Church and this partly induced Luther to deny that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by S. Paul or any other of the Apostles Erasmus hath affirmed in his Notes on this Epistle that S. Ambrose Erasm Not. in Epist ad Hebr. who hath written Commentaries on the Epistles of S. Paul hath made none upon this because it was received but very lately in the Roman Church He adds that the Grecians have already embraced it because it was contrary to the Arians who rejected it But he is mistaken in attributing Commentaries to S. Ambrose that are not his and which the most judicious Criticks believe to be made by S. Hilary Deacon of Rome neither is it true that it hath been more approved by the Grecians since it was exploded by the Arians for Clemens Alexandrinus who lived before Arius hath avouched that it was S. Paul's Besides they that have disputed against the Arians have thereupon opposed to them the universal Consent of the Ecclesiastical Writers before the appearing of their Heresie The same Erasmus offended the greatest part of the Divines especially those of the Faculty of Paris by these two Propositions (q) De Epistolae ad Hebraeos auctore semper est dubitatum ut ipse ingenuè fatear adhuc dubito Erasm Propos It hath been always doubted of the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and to say the truth I do still doubt thereof This so exasperated the Reverend Doctors of Paris that they censured the aforesaid Propositions after this manner (r) He duae propositiones arroganter schismaticè asseruntur contra usum determinationem Ecclesiae in multis conciliis Nicaeno Laodicensi Carthaginensi tertio cui adfuit Augustinus in Concilio 70. Episcoporum praeside Gelasio Cens Facult Theol. Paris tit de Auctor libr Novi Test These two Propositions are insolent and schismatical against the Practice and Decrees of the Church in the Councils of Nice Laodicea the third of Carthage in which S. Augustin assisted and in a Council of seventy Bishops wherein Pope Gelasius presided These Divines added to this the Testimonies of S. Denis whom they called the Disciple of S. Paul of S. Clement Innocent I. S Gregory Nazianzen and of some other Fathers From whence they conclude (ſ) Nec verum est semper dubitatum esse de auctore hujus Epistolae ad Hebraeos cùm scribat Origenes quòd ante tempora suaomnes antiqui majores eam ut Pauli Apostoli suscipiebant Cens Facult Theol. Paris ibid. that it is not true that it hath been always doubted of the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews since Origen avoucheth that all the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that have lived before him have received it as S. Paul's Moreover these same Divines opposed to Erasmus the words of S. Peter 2 Pet. 3.15 that are at the end of his second Canonical Epistle directed to the Hebrews wherein he saith expresly that his beloved Brother Paul had also written unto them they do not doubt but S. Peter designed in this place to hint at the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews Erasmus in his answer to these Doctors of
Paris Erasm Declar. ad Theol. Paris is content to say that all these Councils do not speak of the Author of this Epistle but only of its Authority that this Title hath been added to it to denote the Epistle and that it is not denied that many have cited it under the name of S. Paul. Whereas this Answer is is too general and doth not fully satisfie the Authority of these Councils that attribute the Epistle to the Hebrews to S. Paul Guill Est praef Com. in Epist ad Hebr. I shall produce what Estius a Learned Doctor of the Faculty of Doway hath judiciously remarked on all these difficulties This Divine after he hath treated of the Question concerning the Author of this Epistle adds this other viz. whether it be a point of Faith to believe that S. Paul is the Author insomuch that the contrary opinion is to be accounted Heretical as Catharinus Sixtus Senensis Alfonsus and some other modern Writers have averred being supported by the authority of some Councils and by the practice of the whole Church that reads it in her Offices under the name of S. Paul Estius nothwithstanding all these Authorities doth not judge it to be a matter of Faith. This he proves by the positive words of divers Fathers and among others of S. Jerom and S. Augustin We have already seen what the first hath thought thereupon And as for S. Augustin he saith expresly in discoursing of this Epistle (t) Epistola quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos quamplures Apostoli Pauli esse dicunt qudam verò negant c. Aug. lib. 16. de Civ Dei 2.22 that many believe it to be S. Paul's and that others deny it to be his Now it is certain that this Father speaks in this place of Orthodox Authors As for what concerns the Councils the same Estius answers that some of those have been holden before the time of these two Fathers and that consequently nothing can be concluded from them He insists further that nothing can be inferred from the others (v) Neque enim Patribus horum Conciliorum propositum erat definire cujus ea Epistela sit auctoris sed quòd unà cum caeteris Pauli Epistolis quibus receptissimo Ecclesiae more eam annumerant inter Divinas Scripturas sit habenda Est praef Comment in Epist ad Hebr. because the design of the Bishops that were there assembled was not to determine who hath been the Author of this Epistle but only to put it in the number of the Canonical Scriputures with the other Letters of S. Paul. Then he justifies by these same Councils and he proves it also by these words of the Council of Carthage Pauli Epistolae tredecim ad Hebraeos una This Council hath as he thought separately mentioned this that is directed to the Hebrews because they were not so well assured as of the others that it was S. Paul's he adds (x) Verùm sciebat Augustinus non omnia quae quoquo modo dicuntur in Conciliis definitivè dici Est ibid. that S. Augustin who had a Veneration for this Council would not have doubted of the Author of this Epistle if he were persuaded that this had been therein defined This Father saith he knew well that all things that are said or disputed in Councils are not Articles of Faith and he proves it by some Examples But after all Estius (y) Censeo quidem cum Theologicâ Facultate Parisiensi cum Melchiore Cano temerarium esse si quis Epistolam ad Hebraeos negaret esse Pauli Apostoli sed haereticum ob id solum pronunciare non ausim Est ibid. concludes with the Divines of Paris and Melchior Canus that it would be a piece of rashness to maintain that S. Paul is not the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews Nevertheless he durst not pronounce the opinion of those to be Heretical who deny that it was written by this Apostle and in this he appears very judicious for indeed there is no matter of Heresie in it Furthermore I have inlarged a little on this Remark of Estius because it clears every thing that hath respect to the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and teacheth the Divines at the same time not to run too fast in point of Heresie The Divines of Paris do not only condemn Erasmus as being too rash but they add also in their Censure touching the Authors of every Book of the New Testament (z) Jam non est fas Christiano de illis dubitare Cens Fac. Theol. Paris that it is no longer lawful for any Christian to doubt of them On this account every man that is not fully satisfied that S. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews is a bad Christian according to the determination of the Faculty of Divinity at Paris nevertheless he is not an Heretick Erasmus instead of replying punctually to these Learned Doctors elndes their Decrees by general Answers He saith that he doth not believe (a) Quidquid receptum est usu Ecclesiastico non protinùs obligat noi ad credendum tanquam articulum fidei Erasm Declar. ad Theol. Paris that every thing that is received by an Ecclesiastical Custom becomes immediately an Article of Faith. However he shews his submission to the Decrees of the Church when he adds in this same place that if he follows his Reason (b) Juxta sensum humanum nec credo Epistolam ad Hebraeos esse Pauli aut Lucae nec secundam Petri esse Petri nec Apocalypsin esse Joannis Apostoli qui scripsit Evangelium-solus ille scrupulus habet animum meum an Ecclesia receperit titulos ut non solùm velit haberi pro indubitatis quae in his libris scripta sunt verùm pariter exigat ut pro indubitato habeamus ab his auctoribus esse profecta quorum titulos gerunt Id si est damno ac rejicio dubitationem meam-plus apud me valet expressum Ecclesiae judicium quà m ullae rationes humanae Erasm Declar. ad Theol. Paris he cannot judge that the Epistle to the Hebrews is S. Paul's nor S. Luke's neither that the second under the name of S. Peter was written by this Apostle nor that the Revelation doth belong to the Apostle S. John that all his scruple is to know whether the Church hath so authorised the Titles of holy Writ that she hath decreed not only that that which is contained in these Books is most true but also that those persons to whom they are attributed are certainly the Authors of them If this be so saith Erasmus I condemn my Reasons of doubting for I prefer the express Judgment of the Church before any human Reasons whatsoever Upon the whole matter all this Difficulty may be reduced to this to know whether the Church in pronouncing the Books of the Old and New Testament to be Canonical and Divine hath declared at the same time that they were written by the Authors whose
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
in his Book he was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles immediately after the Passion of our Lord and hath written one Letter only which is in the number of the seven Catholick Epistles He doth not nominate this James as an Apostle but only as the Brother of our Lord which is the sole Qualification that is given him by the Arabick Interpreter published by Erpenius in the Title of this Epistle S. Jerom hath said nothing in this place but what is agreeable to the judgment of Hegisippus a grave Author who lived not long after the times of the Apostles This great man hath observed that divers Persons at that time bore the Name of James and saith of this James of whom we now discourse (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hegesipp apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 2. c. 23. that being the Brother of our Lord he took the Government of the Church of Jerusalem jointly with the Apostles that the Name of Just was also given to him with one common Consent which was continued ever since the time of our Saviour Jesus Christ Hegisippus then did not believe that he was an Apostle forasmuch as he saith that he took upon him the care of the Church of Jerusalem with the Apostles and he distinguisheth him from others that went under the Name of James only by the Sirname of Just In the mean time Baronius and after him Estius declare that this third James distinguished from the two others who was simply Bishop of Jerusalem without being an Apostle is a chimerical James that never was But since this Cardinal grounds his Opinion on very weak Reasons and contradicts Antiquity in this point no regard ought to be had to what he affirms against the Judgment of Hegisippus and S. Jerom and even against the Testimony of the Author of this Epistle who would not have failed to have stiled himself an Apostle of Jesus Christ in the beginning of his Letter if he had been really so This may serve at the same time for a sufficient Answer to Cardinal Cajetan Cajet Comm. in c. 1. Epist Jac. who hath objected to derogate from the Authority of this Epistle that this James hath not taken upon him the Name of an Apostle but only that of a Servant nec ipse seipsum nominat Apostolum sed tantùm servum As to what this Cardinal saith in the same place that this Writer hath made no mention of God nor of Jesus Christ the contrary is apparent from the first Words of this Epistle in which he attributes to himself no other Quality than that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jac. 1. v. 1. James a Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ He could not have chosen a Title that might better express his Qualifications especially writing to the Jews who were already accustomed by the reading of the Old Testament to the Phrase of the Servant of God and when he adds these other Words and of the Lord Jesus Christ he lets them know that he is one of the Ministers of the new Law that had been promulged by the Messiah Lastly we may observe that in the Title of the Syriack Version these Words are read The Epistle of James an Apostle it is no otherwise in the Ethiopick Version but in the general Title of the three Catholick Epistles which the Syrians have in their ancient Copies we read that these three Epistles were written by James Peter and John who were the Witnesses of the Transfiguration of our Lord. This would prove that this James was the Son of Zebedee but it is a manifest error of the Syrians who have inserted this Inscription into their Copy As for what relates to the Epistles of S. Peter and S. John Euseb Hist Ecel l. 3. c. 25. Eusebius puts the first Epistles of these two Apostles in the number of the Canonical Books of the New Testament that have been received with the common Consent of all the Churches but he observes at the same time that there hath been some doubt concerning the Second of S. Peter as well as of the Second and Third of S. John. S. Jerom adds (l) Simon Petrus scripsit duas Epistolas quae Catholicae nominantur quarum secunda à plerisque negatur propter stili cum priore dissonantiam Hier. de Script Eccl. in Sim. Pet. that that which hath caused the Ancients to doubt of the second Epistle of S. Peter is the difference of the Stile of these two Epistles We cannot rely on the Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus who reckons in the number of the Canonical Writings of the New Testament all the Epistles that we call Catholick for he placeth amongst them at the same time the Epistle of Barnabas Clem. Al. apud Euseb Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 14. and the Book entituled The Revelation of Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Father who was an extraordinary learned man hath not been very exact in distinguishing the Books of the Holy Scriptures that were generally received by all the Churches from the others that are either dubious or Apocryphal he makes use of all equally on several occasions following in this the method of the ancient Rhetoricians who took no care to be very punctual in their Argumentations Origen his Disciple durst not altogether venture to rank the above said Epistles amongst the Canonical Scriptures and whereas they had not obtained in his time the general Approbation of all the Christian World he explains himself thereupon with a great deal of Precaution (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. apud Eus Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 25. Peter saith he on whom the Church of Jesus Christ is built hath left an Epistle which is generally received and a second if you please for it is doubted (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. John hath likewise left a very short Epistle and a second and third if you please but all people are not agreed that these two last are genuine This proves that the Church hath never doubted of the Authority of the first Epistles of these two Apostles and that they were certainly composed by them whose Names they bear moreover that although some have doubted of the others yet this Scruple was not universal since Origen agrees that they were received as really belonging to these Apostles to whom they were attributed The Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures makes no question thereof he avoucheth (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. in Syn. Scrip. S. that the second Epistle of S. Peter was written by this Apostle as well as the first and that he sent it to those that had then embraced Christianity Cajetan who hath started so many Difficulties against the Epistle to the Hebrews and against that of S. James is much more moderate with respect to this he insists that the Argument that is taken from the difference of the Stile of the two Epistles of S. Peter is not a sufficient proof
seen in his time at Ephesus two Tombs of John. S. Jerom Hieron de Script Eccl. in Joann who often translates the words of Eusebius out of Greek into Latin hath also made this same Remark Reliquae autem duae saith he speaking of these two Epistles of S. John Joannis Presbyteri asseruntur cujus hodie alterum sepulchrum apud Ephesum ostenditur He adds nevertheless that some thought that these two Monuments were of S. John the Evangelist Nonnulli putant duas memorias ejusdem Joannis Evangelistae esse He repeats this same History when he makes mention of Papias and saith (ſ) Hoc autem diximus propter superiorem opinionem quam à plerisque retulimus traditam duas posteriores Epistolas Joannis non Apostoli esse sed Presbyteri Hieron de Script Eccles in Papiâ that he relates it for the sake of a a great number of persons that believed that this second John to whom the simple name of Priest is given was the Author of these two Epistles and not the Apostle However Athan. in Synops the Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures attributes these two last Epistles no less to the Apostle S. John than the first And it seems that the Latin Church that reads it in her Offices under the same Name hath authorised this Opinion which is likewise conformable to the Testimony of the most ancient Writers of this Church Therefore the Name of this Apostle Beati Joannis Apostoli is retained in the Latin Title of these three Epistles in the vulgar Edition In the Syriack Copy of these two last Epistles that have been Printed in the Polyglott Bible of England the simple Name of John is put whereas in the first it is read of John the Apostle This seems to have been done on purpose to distinguish the Authors of these Epistles In the Arabick Copy published by Erpenius these three Epistles are ascribed to the Apostle S. John who is named in the Title of the two first John the son of Zebedee and in the Title of the third John the Apostle Lastly Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 25. there have been raised no lest doubts in the Primitive Ages of the Church concerning the Epistle of S. Jude than of the preceding Letters for this reason Eusebius hath reckoned it in the number of those Books of the New Testament that were not generally received by all the Churches S. Jerom who hath made the same observation (t) Judas frater Jacobi parvam quae de septem Catholicis est epistolam reliquit quia de libro Enoch qui apocryphus est in ea assumit testimonium à plerisque rejicitur Tamen auctoritatem vetustate jam usu meruit inter Scripturas Sacras computatur Hieron de Script Eccles in Judâ adds that that which gave occasion to reject it was the Apocryphal Book of Enoch which is cited therein And that this nevertheless hath not hindered it from being placed in the rank of the Sacred Books its Antiquity and Use having given it this Authority In like manner it hath been generally received by all the Churches as well Eastern as Western The Unitarians and Protestants also have put it amongst the other Canonical Books of the New Testament Luther hath nevertheless doubted of it as well as of the Epistle of St. James but they that follow his Opinion are so far from rejecting it at present that they use their utmost endeavours to put a fair Construction on their Masters words Calvin after he hath acknowledged that the Ancients have differed very much amongst themselves touching this Epistle Calv. argum de ses Comm. sur l'ep de Sainte Jude expresseth himself thus However because the reading of it is very profitable and it contains nothing but what is agreeable to the purity of the Apostolical Doctrine and in regard also that it hath been accounted Authentick for a long time amongst all good People for my part I willingly place it in the number of the other Epistles Cajetan hath inserred from the above cited words of St. Jerom (u) Ex quibus apparet minoris esse aucloritatis hanc Epistolam iis quae sunt certae Scripturae Sacrae Cajet Comm. in Epist Jud. that this Epistle is of less Authority than these Writings of the Apostles of the verity of which we have been certainly assured but this might have been properly said in those ancient times when it was not approved by all the Churches whereas when this Cardinal wrote there were none that did not receive it as Divine and Canonical and therefore it hath no less Authority than the other Sacred Books that are comprehended in the Canon of the Church Grot. Annot in Epist Jud. Grotius did not believe that this Epistle was written by St. Jude the Apostle because the Author hath taken upon him only the quality of a Servant of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith moreover that (x) Si Apostolica fuisset habita haec Epistola versa fuisset in linguas omnes recepta per omnes Ecclesias Grot. Annot. in Epist Jud. if it were certainly esteemed Apostolical it would have been Translated into all Languages and received by all the Churches therefore he judgeth that it belongs to Jude Bishop of Jerusalem who lived under the Emperor Adrian But the first words of this Epistle do declare to us that it can come from no other hand than that of the Apostle St. Jude since he calls himself Jude the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James For to say with Grotius that these words Brother of James have been afterwards added by the Transcribers that it might be believed that this Jude was certainly an Apostle is to beg the question they that would prove that this hath been inserted by the Transcribers ought to produce good Copies of this Epistle or certain ancient Acts on which we might rely Any Man that should have a mind absolutely to reject the Epistle of St. Jude might easily say with as much reason as Grotius that he that hath forged it hath put therein the name of Jude the Brother of James Therefore Arguments that are purely Critical ought never to be opposed against Acts that are ancient and generally received by all the World. It is true that the Epistle of St. Jude is less quoted by the ancient Doctors of the Church than the most part of the other Books of the New Testament and that it is not found in the ancient Copies of the Syriack Version But it can be only concluded from thence that it was not at first received in all the Churches it might however have been published ever since the Primitive times of the Christian Religion under the name of St. Jude the Brother of James and yet not be Translated into all the Languages of the Churches because it was then doubted in the most part of these Churches whether it was his whose name it bore
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
Alogians pretended that the Apocalips and the rest of St. John's Writings were composed by the Heretick Cerinthus Which they endeavoured to shew by the agreement that the Doctrine which Cerinthus professed had to that contained in the Books of that Apostle and especially in his Revelation They likewise drew up particular objections against this latter Work. (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alog. apud Epiph. Haer. 51. n. 32. Of what use say they can the Revelation of St. John be to us when he tells us of seven Angels and of seven Trumpets St. Epiphanius gives them this answer Epiph. ibid. that God was pleased to reveal to his servant John what was most mysterious in the Law and the Prophets to the end that he might treat of them in a spiritual and intelligible manner And seeing those Hereticks were so bold as to ridicule what is said of the seven Trumpets he charges them upon that account either of malice or ignorance from the words of St. Paul who has also made mention of those Trumpets in his first Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. xv 52. where he says The trumpet shall sound and at the sound of this trumpet the dead shall rise Some of the Alogians to disparage the Authority of the Apocalyps another argument make use of these words for in Chap. ii ver 18. of the Book To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira write (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alog. apud Epiph. ibid. n. 33. There was not at that time say they any Christian Church in Thyatira How could St. John write to a Church which had no being St. Epiphanius being of the same opinion with the Alogians that there was no Church in that place at that time that he may answer their objection is forced to have recourse to the Spirit of Prophecy He thinks that St. John who was inspired by God foresaw what should happen in process of time And therefore he gives us the most exact account that he can of the City of Thyatira about the time when the Phrygian Hereticks did bear sway there He shews how it afterwards became an Orthodox and most famous Church (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. The design of the Holy Ghost says he was to reveal in that place of the Apocalyps that that Church should fall from the Truth after the time of St. John and the other Apostles Which happened as Epiphanius himself does tell us ninety three years after the Ascension of our Lord and Saviour Seeing this answer of St. Epiphanius does agree with the Opinion of the Alogians that there was no Christian Church in effect in the City of Thyatira at that time Socinus (f) Mihi quidem ut verum fatear responsio ista non admodum probatur cùm propter alia tum propter id quod nimis apertè ex ipsâ historiâ Apacalypsis constare videtur jam istam Ecclesiam Thyatirensem reverà extitisse Soc. Lect. Sacr. p. 306. could by no means admit of it being persuaded that the Text of the Apocalyps does evidently shew that there was a Church therein He believed that there were several Cities of that name But for all that he does not prove against the Alogians that there was a Church in Thyatira When he brings the plain words of the Apocalyps against them he gets the thing in Question for an Answer seeing those Sectaries endeavoured by that means to lessen the Authority of that Book It is probable that at that time when St. Epiphanius lived there was no Catalogue of the Bishops of that Church nor of other publick Records that might make it manifest that there had beed a Church founded in that City from the times of the Apostles And therefore Grotius does give a more judicious answer That the truth is Grot. Annot. ad c. 2. Apoc. v. 18. there was not any Church of the Gentiles in Thyatira when St. John writ the Revelation but there was a Church of the Jews as also there was the like at Thessalonica before St. Paul Preached there The Alogians do also cavil about that which is mentioned in the same Book Chap. ix ver 14. Of the four Angels which were bound on the River Euphrates Epiph. ibid. But St. Epiphanius does in this charge them with ignorance because those Angels who were placed on the River Euphrates do signifie according to his Opinion so many Nations that were situated on that River viz. the Assyrians Babylonians Medes and Persians And adds that seeing Nations are subject to Angels those words of the Apocalyps Loose the four Angels which are upon Euphrates make very good sense St. John intending to shew thereby that those Nations being loosed should make War against another People I shall not here examin whether or no the Exposition given by St. Epiphanius be agreeable to the Text but content my self to observe in general that seeing that Book is a Prophesie and no History the Author was to write as Prophets were wont to do in a Figurative Stile And so the Alogians were inexcusable for their prejudice against this Book upon the account of the expressions which to them appeared very strange unless they imagined that there was no such thing as a Prophesie in the New Testament Cajus an Orthodox Writer who lived at Rome under Pope Zephyrin and of whom we have spoken before did also believe that Cerinthus was the Author of the Revelation of St. John. He treated that Heretick with derision (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caj apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 28. who As if he had been a great Apostle writ Revelations which he pretended to have received from Angels and in which he assured us that after the Resurrection Jesus Christ shall reign upon the Earth He allowed the space of a thousand years to this Carnal Kingdom which was to be accompanied with all sorts of pleasures For this cause he calls Cerinthus an Enemy to the Holy Scriptures and spoke in this manner of the Apocalyps which he thought was written by him and not by St. John. Denis Dion Alex. apud Eus bid Bishop of Alexandria who vigorously defended the Authority of this Book did likewise observe that some Authors did ascribe the Apocalyps to Cerinthus who according to their Opinion had prefixed St. John's Name to the Book to give Authority to his Babling about the Carnal Reign of Jesus Christ on the Earth Seeing this Opinion that maintained a Chimerical Dominion of a thousand years was spread in the Church this Learned Bishop writ two Treatises against it Entituled * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the Promises Wherein he takes to task (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 7. Hist Eccl. c. 24. Nepos a certain Bishop of Egypt who Expounded the Promises which God in Scripture has made to Mankind in a sense that speaks the Expositor to have been more Jew than Christian dreaming of a Carnal Kingdom upon the
All the Eastern Churches at this day read that Book under the name of the Apostle St. John. It is true that it is not so in the ancient Syriack Copies because it was not in the Greek one from which those were taken It is ascribed to St. John in the Syriack Edition of the English Polyglott Bible and also in the Arabick Printed in the same Polyglott it bears the name of John the Apostle Evangelist and lastly in the Arabick published by Erpenius that of John the Evangelist Not that I believe such Titles which are but late to be of any great Authority I produce them only to shew the Universal consent of the Churches as well that of the East as that of the West concerning the Author of the Revelation As to what concerns such singular expressions as are no where to be found but in this Book chiefly that where there is mention made of the Reign of Jesus Christ upon the Earth with the Saints which shall continue for the space of a thousand years Illyricus has very well observed that since that Book (p) Phrases illas mysticè ut in sermone prophetico intelligendas Illyr argum in Apoc. is written in a Prophetical Stile the expressions used therein ought to be taken in a Mystical sense In which he had apparently as to his Judgment the advantage of Luther who could not avoid the reproach that was put upon him by Bellarmin and some other Opponents for not considering the Apocalyps as a Prophetical and Apostolical Work yet his Disciples who acknowledged all that Book to be Divine and Canonical have endeavoured to justifie him They alledged (q) Lutherum quod attinet quidquid olim seripserit in veteri praefatione in eâ sane quae hodie in codicibus legitur nihil de Apocalypsi asserit aliud quà m in dubio se relinquere utrum sit Joannis Apostoli quod nonnulli ex vetustioribus Patribus id inficiati sint nihil tamen hoc ipso se prejudicare velle aliis Christ Korthol de Canon Script S. c. 18. without any regard to his ancient Preface that he said nothing else in that which is found in his Works but what has been observed by some of the ancient Fathers viz. that it was not generally agreed upon that St. John was the Author of the Apocalyps And Erasmus had likewise enough to do upon the like account with the Divines of Paris who censure one of his propositions wherein he affirmed (r) De Apocalypsi diu dubitatum est non dico ab haereticis sed ab orthodoxis viris qui scriptum tamen ut à Spiritu Sancto profectum amplectebantur de scriptoris nomine incerti Erasm decl ad Theol. Paris that there had been for a long time some doubting about that Book not only amongst the Hereticks but also the Orthodox who though they received it as Canonical did profess they were not certain who was the Author What Erasmus does affirm in this case is not to be charged with falshood since it is grounded upon a matter of Fact that may be easily proved from the Writings of the ancient Doctors of the Church Yet the Parisian Divines were so forward to censure him since they persuaded themselves that he manifestly knew by the usage of the Church and the definitions of Councils that the Apocalyps was published by St. John. Cons Facul Theol. Paris The Councils on which they stood were the three of Carthage that of Rome under Pope Gelasius and that of Toledo in which Isidore of Sevile was an Assistant To this they joyned the Authority of St. Denis called the Areopagite St. Irenaeus St. Justin Pope Innocent I. St. Augustin and St. John of Damascus Erasmus as it should seem ought to have answered that notwithstanding all those Authorities his supposition might be true seeing he had also Orthodox Authors on his side He might also have said that none of those Councils stood much on the Author of the Apocalyps but barely complyed with the opinion that commonly obtained in their time which ascribed that Book to St. John. But in stead of that he only returned such answers as were extravagant and impertinent He affirms that the World was at that time filled with Apocryphal Books bearing forged Titles and that the most part of honest Men were then persuaded that such sort of falsities might be debated He afterwards inveighs against (ſ) Isidorus Hispalensis scripsit rudi seculo habuisse videtur locupletem bibliothecam quâ potuisset rectiùs uti si fuisset exactè doctus Certè rhapsodus fuit quemadmodum Beda Quanquam Beda meo judicio fuit illo tum eruditior tum cloquentior Erasm declar ad cens Fac. Theol. Paris Isidore as being a Man of mean capacity and judgment who had not the sense to make use of a very good Library which he had in his possession He was saith he as unskilful in making Collections as Beda but the latter was the more Judicious and Eloquent of the two This is an instance of Learning whereof there is an ill use made If Isidore and Bede were justly charged by him on that account he ought to have proved that they were much in the wrong here in preferring the opinion of St. Justin St. Irenaeus and the most ancient Fathers to that of some other Writers who were not so near the first Age. The answer he made to the Divines of Paris was more likely to provoke them than his first Proposition was For he thereby plainly reproached those sage Masters that they were conversant in no good Authors but only Rhapsodists and unskilful Compilers of History It is true that he might not offend them he adds at the same time that (t) Profiteor me de titulis quoque credere quod credit universalis Ecclesia cujus auctoritati facilè sensum meum submitto non hîc tantùm sed in omnibus quoque caeteris modò ne protinùs Ecclesiae sit quidquid quocunque modo in usum Christianorum irrepsit aut cuivis Episcopo placuit Erasm ibid. as to what concerns the Titles of the Books of Scripture he does refer himself to the Judgment of the Universal Church to which he does entirely submit provided that the name of the Church Universal be not ascribed to all that is so called according to the custom and use which has been introduced and does obtain amongst Christians nor to the particular Opinions of every Bishop If we measure the Opinion of the Unitaries by that of Socinus who is one of their Heroes they have affirmed nothing concerning the Apocalyps but what is agreeable to good sense This Unitary does assure us that that Book was always by common consent attributed to St. John Soc. de Auctor Scrip. Sac. c. 1. n. 2. Quod Scriptum semper communi consensu tributum fuit Joauni Apostolo Evangelistae To that objection that many Authors have doubted thereof he makes answer that the Judgment
were read in the Greek Copies that were in the Hands of the most part of the World. Very few of the Jews at that time understood the Hebrew Language whereas the Greek Language was spread through the whole Empire Since therefore Jesus Christ did not send his Disciples to Preach the Gospel to a handful of Learned Jews who understood the Hebrew but to all the Nations of the Earth the most part whereof spake Greek they ought not only to speak in that Language but also to report the passages of the Old Testament after the same manner as had been written for a long time in the same Language There was at that time a Greek Version of the whole Bible that had been made by Jews many Ages before and therefore could not be suspected And so the Evangelists and the Apostles could not justly be charged with falshood for quoting passages otherwise than they were in the Original since they made use of such Writings as were approved by the Jews and were in use amongst them It is true that if they to whom the Gospel was Preached had understood the Hebrew Language it had been better to quote the Original Hebrew than the Greek Version of the LXX because the Original ought always to be preferred to Translations But as things were then the Apostles acted most wisely in preferring the Greek Copy of the Bible to the Hebrew which was understood almost by none And therefore the Church from its first beginning had no other Scripture but the Ancient Greek Version and the whole Eastern Church the Syrians being excepted have no other at this day I do not think it necessary to prove that the Apostles in their Writings quoted the passages of the Old Testament according to the Greek of the Septuagint and not according to the Hebrew Text. It requires no extraordinary skill in both the Languages to make one capable of judging aright in this matter It is certain that (a) Crebrò dixisse me novi Apostolos Evangelistas ubicunque de Veteri Instrumento ponunt testimonia si inter Hebraicum Septuaginta nulla diversitas sit vel suis vel Septuaginta Interpretum verbis uti solitos Sin autem aliter in Hebraico aliter in Veteri Editione sensus est Hebraicum magis quà m Septuaginta Interpretes sequi Hieron prooem lib. 15. Comm. in Is St. Jerom once endeavoured to persuade the World to the contrary and to confirm his Opinion gave instances of some places of the Old Testament that were quoted in the New which yet are not as he alledged in the Original Hebrew But it is easie to judge by that Learned Father 's own words that he maintained that Opinion only to give the more Authority to a new Translation which he had made out of the Hebrew because the most knowing Men of his time did strongly oppose him as if he had designed to introduce the Jewish Religion into the Church It will appear therefore that St. Jerom in that place does give an answer to his Adversaries and endeavours as much as in him lies to make an honorable retreat Hieron ibid. Aemuli nostri doceant saith he assumpta aliquot testimonia quae non sint in Hebraeorum libris finita contentio est i. e. Let our Adversaries shew what testimonies are made use of that are not in the Hebrew Books and the Dispute is at an end I desire no other Witness of what I alledge but himself seeing he does establish for a general Maxim for all the citations out of the Old Testament that are not only made use of by the Apostles but also by their Disciples (b) Hoc autem generaliter observandum quòd ubicunque sancti Apostoli aut Apostolici viri loquuntur ad populos his plerunque abuti testimoniis quae jam fuerant in gentibus divulgata Hieron Qu. Heb. in Gen. That when the Apostles or Apostolical Men speak to the people they commonly make use of such testimonies as had been published before that time amongst the Nations That is to say of the Version of the Septuagint which being written in Greek was published amongst all those Nations which spoke the Language whereas the Hebrew Text was only read in the Jews Synagogues He proves by the same Principle that St. Luke when he wrote the Acts of the Apostles to declare to the Nations the first beginnings of the Christian Religion was to quote the Passages of the Old Testament in the same manner as they were in the Version of the Scripture which was before that time spread amongst the People There is therefore nothing so absurd as the Opinion of some Protestants who notwithstanding the agreement that is found betwixt the quotations of the Apostles and the Greek Version of the LXX maintain with no small Zeal that the Apostles reported the Passages of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew Text. They attribute that agreement to some Writers whom they suppose to have lived after the times of the Apostles and who according to their Opinion corrected the Version of the Septuagint in all such Passages as are quoted in the New Testament The Evangelists and the Apostles say they regarded the sense only and not the Words of Scripture If any one ask these Men the Reason why they maintain so strange a Paradox their answer will be but this (c) Quis credat spiritum Apostolorum spiritui Graeculi interpretis se subjecisse aut limpidos fontes coenosis Hellenistarum rivulis praetulisse ubi passim de capite aliquo Religionis adversus Judeos agebatur Apostolos relicto Canone Hebraeo Lesbiam Graecorum regulam usurpasse Auctor Diss apud Capp in qu. de loc parall that it cannot be imagined that the spirit of the Apostles should be subject to the spirit of a little Greek Interpreter and that they preferred the Streams to the Fountain by leaving the Hebrew Canon to follow an uncertain Rule especially when there was an occasion for defending the Fundamental Points of Religion against the Jews Thus some Protestants extreamly addicted to the Hebrew do argue agreeable to the Ideas they have framed about matters of Fact that are as clear as the day instead of examining the things in themselves Seeing Lewis Cappel has solidly refuted this Opinion which has not the least appearance of truth it will be to no purpose to spend time about it That Learned Protestant judiciously observed that the spirit of the Apostles is not subject to the spirit of an Interpreter (d) Piâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quadam sanctâ charitatisque plenâ prudentiâ Christianâ versionem tum receptam secuti sunt iis in locis in quibus parùm aut nihil omninò ad rem ipsam interest utrum textum Hebraicum an verò Graecam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Septuaginta versionem sequaris Lud. Capp qu. de loc parall pag. 450. but through a Pious condescendency and by a true Christian Prudence they followed the
he would express what is upon his Spirit although he had from his Infancy Learned the Greek Language at Tarsus in Cilicia He does alledge after Origen that St. Paul (y) Multa sunt verba quibus juxta morem urbis provinciae suae familiariùs Apostolus utitur Nec hoc miremur in Apostolo si utatur ejus linguae consuetudine in quâ natus est nutritus cum Virgilius alter Homerus apud nos patriae suae sequens consuetudinem sceleratum frigus appellet Hieron ibid. used many forms of Speech which were peculiar to those of Cilicia where he was bred and likewise he gives some examples thereof which I do not here examin He adds that that is no surprising thing seeing Virgil who was a perfect Master of the Latin Tongue has nevertheless made use of some expressions that were peculiar to those of his Country That Father as to what he further alledges with so great freedom of St. Paul's Stile has given us nothing but what he had read in the Ancient Ecclesiastical Authors and what St. John Chrysostom who lived at the same time has shewn at large in his Eloquent Homilies which he Preached to the People Yet St. Augustine was of a belief contrary to the Opinion of St. Chrysostom and the most Learned of the Ancient time (z) Malè doctis hominibus respondendum fuit qui nostros auctores contemnendos putant non quia non babent sed quia non ostentant quà m nimis isti diligunt eloquentiam Aug. de Doct. Christ lib. 4. c. 7. that he ought to make an Apology for St. Paul by answering a sort of Men of his time who despised that Apostle because he made no shew of Eloquence in his discourse But Origen who was not ashamed to produce St. Paul's Solecismes did judiciously observe (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. Philoc. cap. 4. that that Apostle who was appointed by God to be the Minister of the New Testamment had in his Preaching and not in Mens Wisdom shewn the virtue and efficacy of the Gospel that the Conversion of Nations might not be attributed to that Worldly Wisdom And therefore St. Paul and the other Apostles have no need of Apologies which might afford him a Sanctuary against those reproaches which may be cast on them about the manner of their Writing seeing God was pleased not to make use of Orators for the Preaching of the Gospel but simple Fishermen who had no Learning Further it does not yet follow but that it is demonstrable that the most part of the words that St. Paul and the other Writers of the New Testament have used are good Greek only the Symetry of their Phrases and their modes of Speech are not always accommodated to the Greek which is not extraordinary For every Nation has a peculiar manner of expressing their own thoughts and though they deliver them in terms that are purely Greek or Latin we soon perceive that the Order is not altogether Greek or Latin. We need only for Example look on the Greek Version of the Psalms and upon the Ancient Latin Translation which was done out of the Greek we see there something that is singular and not agreeable either to the Greek or the Latin Genius when it is even supposed that the words are pure Greek and Latin. And for this reason those amongst the Greek Fathers who had a perfect knowledge of the Greek Language were sometimes at a loss as to their comprehending the Greek of the Septuagint We may further observe that if the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers had known the Hebrew as well as the Greek they would not have found the Stile of the Sacred Writings so barbarous as some of them believed I am astonished that St. Jerome who understood both Languages did not take this way to explain what seem'd to be most strange in their Stile rather than accuse them of Solecisms and Barbarisms I believe that in those places he followed the Opinion of Origen whom he frequently transcribes Indeed he does sometimes admire the greatness of St. Paul's thoughts He acknowledged that that Holy Apostle had applyed himself to the study of Profane Authors whom he sometimes quotes But after all he is of the mind that we ought not to look for Eloquent Discourses in the Writings of the Apostles because Jesus Christ did not intend to have his Church composed of Orators and Philosophers but of Men who were the Dregs of the People Ecclesia Christi non de Academia Lyceo sed de vili plebe congregata est CHAP. XXVII Of the Language of the Hellenists or Grecians if that which bears that name be in effect a Language The Reasons of Salmasius against that Language do rather establish than destroy it The Greek of the New Testament may be called the Greek of the Synagogue the Jews Hellenists read in their Synagogues the Hebrew Text of the Bible as well as the Jews THere are some Passages in the Acts of the Apostles from which there are Proofs commonly drawn that the Jews when Christianity began were divided into two Parties The one were * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purely called Hebrews and the other Hellenists or Grecians Those who remained in the Territory of Babylon after they were first dispersed retained the name of Hebrews because they spake the very Language which was used beyond the River Euphrates and which for that reason ought to be called Hebrew although it was Chaldee And the Jews who dwelt in Palestine after their return from the Babylonish Captivity were also purely called Hebrews because they brought from Babylon the Chaldaick Language which they called Hebrew These Hebrews in their Synagogues read the Hebrew Text of the Law and the Prophets to which they joyned Glosses that were written in the Chaldee which was their Vulgar Tongue They called those Grecians who were Jews of Alexandria and many other places where they spake the Greek Language These read in their Assemblies the Greek Version of the Septuagint which they joyned to the Hebrew Text to be used as an Interpretation They were called Hellenists or Greeks because they spake Greek and read no other Books in their ordinary custom than what were written in Greek Yet they always maintained a particular respect for the Original Hebrew of the Bible And therefore in their Synagogues they continued to read it in Hebrew no less than the other Jews which is still practised by the Jews at this day in all places where they are through the whole World. The Jews for Example of the Spanish Nation and Rite the Dutch Jews who live in Holland and the Neighbouring Provinces and in a word all the Jews of what Nation soever read in their Synagogues the Holy Scripture in the Original Language They are called Spanish and Dutch because of their Vulgar Tongue There were at that time also Jews who spake Greek whom they likewise called Greeks or Hellenists and the Language in which the most part
same hand and that the Greek has a greater resemblance of the ancient Capital Letters of the Latins than of those of the Greeks The former are more square the great Letters of the Greeks are longer and finer This I observed in reading the second part of that Cambridge Copy which is in the King's Library and another the like Copy which is in the Library of the Religious Benedictines of St. Germain These two Copies which contain the Epistles of St. Paul do so little differ from one another as well in the Greek as in the Latin that it would seem the one had been copied from the other but that the Characters of that of the Benedictines are greater and more majestical and that it is less disfigured by Corrections It may be easily known by the fashion of the Characters of those two Copies and by the ancient Latin Version which is joined to the Greek Text that they were copied by the Latins for the use of that Church The Greek and the Latin are written with the same Hand and with a Letter altogether alike so that there are Letters that are purely Greek in the Latin. Moreover there is one thing that is very singular in those two Manuscripts and that can only agree to the Latins It is certain that the Greeks did reckon amongst the number of the Epistles of S. Paul that which is directed to the Hebrews whereas many Latin Churches did not receive it And this Epistle is not put with the others in those two Copies It is placed separately at the end of the Book Which cannot be accounted a Transposition or any other thing of the like nature chargeable on those who joyned the Leaves of those two Copies together For the end and the beginning of every one of the Apostle Paul's Epistles are there very exactly marked and in the same order as we read them at this day Yet there is no mention made of the Epistle to the Hebrews because the Churches of those who made use of the Copies did not believe that it belonged to S. Paul nor that it was so much as Canonical And for this reason they added immediately after the Epistle to Philemon a Catalogue of all the Books which were read in those Churches and this Epistle is not marked with others in the Catalogue It is only found at the end of those Books as foreign to the Work and as a Piece that does not carry the same Authority with the others All this does evidently prove that those two Manuscript Copies of S. Paul's Epistles which are of the same nature with that of Cambridge which contains the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were not written by the Greeks seeing all the Churches of the Greeks that of the Arians only excepted did always acknowledg the Epistle to the Hebrews for Divine and Canonical and which they never separated from the rest of that Apostle's Epistles Nor can we believe that the Greeks would joyn to their Greek Copies a Latin Version which they did not understand and which was altogether unprofitable to them In short the numerous Faults that are in the Greek of those Copies is a new proof that they were written by Latin Amanuenses who had no knowledge of the Greek Language I speak not of the small Orthographical Faults which are observed in the ancient Books that were copied by the Greeks as well as in those that were copied by the Latins but of certain Faults in the Words which can only be applied to the latter and of which I would produce several Examples if I did not believe that it has been evidently proved that the Manuscripts of that nature which were used in the Western Churches before S. Jerom amended his ancient Latin Version were written by Latin Transcribers If Beza had made all these Observations and if he had compared with those Manuscripts that which S. Jerom hinted in his Letter to Pope Damasus he would have perceived the reasons of that great difference that is betwixt those Copies and others from which were taken such as have been Printed in these latter times That Father observed that the former were altered by the mixture of several Gospels together and that one Gospel had been corrected by another We need only apply this Observation to the Cambridge Copy which contains the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles and the same Faults will be acknowledged to be therein We shall find in S. Matthew for example some Additions which are taken out of other Gospels and the Genealogy in S. Luke amended by that which is in S. Matthew The Critical Reflections that he made in that Letter on the Copies of his Time has so great a relation to the Cambridge Copy that they would seem to have been made for no other purpose but to give us an exact knowledge of that Copy (e) Vos admonendos duxi tantùm à me in Lucae praesertim Evangelio repertam esse dissonantiam ut vitandae quorundam offensioni asservandam potiùs quà m publicandam existimem Bez. ibid. which differs so much from others that Beza does testifie that he durst not furnish us with all the variations thereof lest he should give offence to some sort of Men. But S. Jerom who informs us that the Copies of the ancient Latin Version that was agreeable to the Greek Copies of this kind were very defective he does also acquaint us with other Greek Copies that were more exact by which he had amended it And by that he does entirely remove that pretended scandal This Learned Critick to effect his Amendments had recourse * Codicum Graecorum emendatâ collatione sed veterum to the ancient and the most exact Greek Copies by the means of which he removed that Confusion which was in the Latin Edition of that time and in some Greek Copies which were in nothing different from that Edition (f) Canones quoque quos Eusebius Caesariensis Episcopus Alexandrinum secutus Ammonium in decem numeros ordinavit sicut in Graeco habentur expressimus Hieron praef in IV. Evang. ad Dam. He made use of the Greek Copy of the Gospels to which Eusebius had added certain Canons which we find at this day at the beginning of the Manuscript Copies as well Greek as Latin and also before some Editions We know by the means of these Canons what the Evangelists have that is common or alike and what they have peculiar to each of them By this Method he applied a remedy in some sort for removing the Disorder that was in the vulgar Copies He does nevertheless add that to the end he might not leave the ancient Latin Copy too much which was then in use (g) Quae ne multùm à lectionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent ita calamo temperavimus ut his tantùm quae sensum videbantur mutare correctis reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant Hier. ibid. he had observed this moderation to amend nothing but what changed the
Languages as seems almost impossible for one Man. 'T is not to be wondered that he has committed Mistakes having had the Misfortune to be brought up in the Church of Rome which uses the Holy Scriptures chiefly in order to corrupt them equalling if not preferring Traditions to them founding its Infallibility on its self being supported by the intricate Juggles of the Canonists and the Gibberish of the Schoolmen However if his Alloy be disliked this Advantage may be expected That the Learned of our Church which pays a due respect to the Scriptures and uncorrupted Antiquity and is accomplished with all kinds of Learning requisite will be hereby excited to refine on the Subject CONTENTS Of the First Part. Chap. I. THE Verity of the New Testament defended in general against the ancient Hereticks Reflections upon the Principle made use of by the Fathers to establish the Authority of these Books Page 1. Chap. II. Concerning the Titles that are at the Head of the Gospels and other Books of the New Testament whether these Titles were made by the Authors of these Books or whether they were since added pag. 12. Chap. III. Concerning Books that have been published under the Name of Jesus Christ and the Apostles Of several other Acts forged by the ancient Hereticks Reflections on the whole matter pag. 19. Chap. IV. The ancient Fathers have not produced the Originals of the New Testament in their Disputes against the Hereticks An Examination of Proofs that are brought to shew that these Originals have been kept in some Churches pag. 30. Chap. V. Of the Books of the New Testament in particular and first of the Gospel of St. Matthew The Original of this Gospel hath been written in the Hebrew Tongue which the Jews of Jerusalem spake at that time An Answer to the Reasons that are contray to this Opinion pag. 39. Chap. VI. The Jews of the Territory of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles spake in the Chaldaick or Syriack Tongue An Answer to the Reasons that Mr. Vossius hath published against this Opinion At the same time several Difficulties are cleared appertaining to this matter pag. 46. Chap. VII Of the Sect of the Nazarenes and of their Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy of the Gospel of St. Matthew pag. 51. Chap. VIII Of the Ebionites Of their Copy of the Gospel of St. Matthew Of some other ancient Hereticks who have made use of this same Gospel pag. 72. Chap. IX Of the Greek Copy of St. Matthew and its Authority A Comparison of this Copy with the Hebrew or Chaldaick An Answer to the Objections of some Hereticks against this Gospel pag. 98. Chap. X. Of the Time and Order of every Gospel Some Greek Manuscript Copies are produced thereupon Of S. Mark and his Gospel which is commonly believed to be the second Of his Office of Interpreter to S. Peter pag. 83. Chap. XI In what Language S. Mark hath written his Gospel Of the twelve last Verses of this Gospel which are not found in several Greek Manuscript Copies pag. 91. Chap. XII Of the Gospel of S. Luke what hath obliged him to publish it since there were two others that had been written before his Of Marcion and his Copy of S. Luke's Gospel The Catholicks have also altered this Gospel in some places pag. 101. Chap. XIII Of the Gospel of S. John and of Hereticks that have rejected this Gospel Their Reasons with an Answer to them An Inquiry concerning the twelve Verses of this Gospel which are not found in some ancient Copies Several Greek Manuscript Copies are cited to clear this Difficulty Some Criticks have imagined without any grounds that the last Chapter of this Gospel did not belong to S. John. pag. 113. Chap. XIV Of the Acts of the Apostles that have been received in the Church Other Acts of the Apostles that have been forged pag. 126. Chap. XV. Of the Epistles of S. Paul in general Of Marcion and his Copy of these Epistles False Letters attributed to S. Paul. pag. 131. Chap. XVI Of the Epistle to the Hebrews in particular Whether it be S. Paul's and Canonical What Antiquity hath believed thereupon as well in the Eastern as in the Western Countries The Opinions of these later Ages concerning this Epistle pag. 142. Chap. XVII Of the Catholick or Canonical Epistles in general and in particular pag. 154. The Contents of the Second Part. Chap. XVIII A Critical Observation on a Passage in S. John's First Epistle Chap. v. ver 7. which is wanting in the most Greek Copies Eastern Editions and the most ancient Latin Copies The Preface to the Canonical Epistles in some Latin Bibles under the name of S. Jerom was not penn'd by that Father It cannot be proved that S. Cyprian had the Passage of S. John's Epistle in his Copy Page 1. Chap. XIX Of the Book of the Revelation What was the Belief of the Ancients concerning it The Hereticks that did reject it Their Reasons which are Examined There have been also Learned Catholicks of ancient time who have ascribed it to Cerinthus The Opinion of these latter times about the same Book pag. 14. Chap. XX. The Objections of the Jews and other Enemies of the Christian Religion against the Books of the New Testament Inquiry is made if the Evangelists and Apostles made use of the Greek Version of the Septuagint in the Passages which they quote out of the Old Testament St. Jerom's Opinion upon the matter That Father declared himself for the Hebrew Text of the Jews in opposition to that of the Septuagint pag. 25. Chap. XXI A Discussion of some other Objections against the Books of the New Testament The Evangelists and Apostles in the manner of their explaining the Passages of the Old Testament and applying them to the Messiah followed the Custom which then obtained amongst the Jews There are many Words in the New Testament which have a larger signification than they have in the Old and that can be attributed to nothing but to that usage and to a Tradition received amongst the Jews pag. 36. Chap. XXII A particular Examination of many Passages of the Old Testament cited by the Apostles in a sense that seems to be altogether foreign Some difficulties formed against their Writings are cleared some Principles are established which may answer the Objections of the Jews and the Emperor Julian pag. 46. Chap. XXIII Of the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testament A Refutation of the Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa The Cardinal of Perron has given a very bad Exposition of the Words of the second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy Chap. 3. v. 16. which makes mention of this Inspiration The Disputes betwixt the Jesuits of Louvain and the Divines of the same place upon this matter Three Propositions of the Jesuits censured by the Doctors of Louvain and Douay A Defence of those Propositions against the Censure of those Divines pag. 59. Chap. XXIV An Examination of the Reasons that the Doctors of Louvain and Douay made use of in their Censure of the Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain touching the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings A very free Opinion of a Learned Divine of Paris about the same thing pag. 71. Chap. XXV Spinosa's Objections against the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testam are examined pag. 80. Chap. XXVI Of the Stile of the Evangelists and the Apostles The Opinion of modern Writers and of the ancient Doctors of the Church upon this matter with many Critical Reflections pag. 84. Chap. XXVII Of the Language of the Hellenists or Grecians if that which bears that name be in effect a Language The Reasons of Salmasius against that Language do rather establish than destroy it The Greek of the New Testament may be called the Greek of the Synagogue the Jews Hellenists read in their Synagogues the Hebrew Text of the Bible as well as the Jews pag. 94. Chap. XXVIII A more particular Discussion of the Reasons alledged by Salmasius against the Language that is called Hellenistick Several Difficulties also relating to this matter are cleared pag. 103. Chap. XXIX Of the Manuscript Greek Copies in general and of those who have spoken of them Collections which have been made of divers Readings drawn from those Manuscripts Observations upon the whole matter The Hereticks have been accused sometimes but without any ground for corrupting the Books of the New Testament pag. 110. Chap. XXX Of the Greek Copies of the New Testament in particular The most ancient that we have at this day were written by the Latins and were used by them Those which were printed came from the Greek Churches The ancient Latin Version which was in the Churches of the West before St. Jerom were made by those first Copies which were not very correct Of the ancient Cambridge Copy why it does differ so much from other Greek Copies pag. 128. Chap. XXXI Of the second part of the Cambridge Copy which contains St. Paul's Epistles Examples of the various Readings that are in that second Part. Critical Reflections upon the whole matter pag. 144. Chap. XXXII Of other Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament Examples of the various Readings of those Manuscripts with Critical Reflections on those Differences pag. 156. Chap. XXXIII Of the Order of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament The Verses Chapters and other marks of distinction of those Copies The Canons which Eusebius added to the Gospels and the Use of those Canons pag. 175. FINIS