Miracles of Jesus Christ are evident Proofs of his Mission And therefore if it should be supposed with them that the Passages we speak of are not always justly applyed it cannot be concluded from thence that the Christian Religion is built on a false Foundation That we may make a right judgment of the Reasonings of Jesus Christ and his Disciples in the Books of the New Testament we must have recourse to the practice of the Jews at that time and if it be proved that their manner of reasoning and applying to the Messias certain Passages of Scripture is agreeable to the usage of that time they cannot without great injustice be blamed They will be sufficiently acquitted of that which is charged upon them if we consult the ancient Books of the Jews especially the Chaldaick Paraphrases and the Medraschim or ancient Allegorical Commentaries They have in those Works attributed to the Messiah many Places of Scripture which seem to have a quite different sense if the Letter be only considered The Rabbins likewise give two senses to many Passages one of which is merely Historical and another that is more large which in some sort may be called Mystical or Allegorical although in effect it is as much literal in its own nature as the former Thus they expound the same Passage of David and of the Messias All their old Medraschim or Allegorical Commentaries which are the most ancient Expositions that they have of the Bible follow this Method Their Doctors never began to insist on the literal sense till they had occasion to dispute with the Christians and it was easie to make Answer to them according to no other Principles than those which they themselves had established Why then do they think it strange that the Evangelists and Apostles who came from amongst them should make use of the same Principles to oppose them Why do they perswade us that in the matter of the Messiah there ought to be no such Proofs used as are Founded on the Mystical Allegorical sense of Scriptures since they themselves have always observed that Method The truth is if the Jews be much press'd about those Passages of the Old Testament which they make use of to confirm the belief of a Messiah which they have placed amongst the Fundamental Articles of their Religion it will be hard enough for them to Answer those Objections that may be brought against them upon the point unless they have recourse to those Mystical and Allegorical senses which being Founded upon the Tradition of their Fathers ought to pass for real Proofs There has been a certain Rabbin amongst their ancient Doctors who absolutely denied that the Messiah should come because he did not believe that it was Founded upon the literal and evident Proofs of Scripture They did not for all that exclude him from their Communion by which it does appear that the Article was not yet at that time in the number of those they call Fundamental The Jews do renounce their Principle when they object against the Disciples of Jesus Christ that their Expositions are not purely literal but Allegorical and that there can nothing be concluded from an Allegory 'T is true that that which is meerly Allegorical cannot suffice as a positive Proof for the Confirmation of a Religion But when those Allegories are Founded on Tradition they may be used and applyed to Matters of Fact which are already agreed upon by that Tradition In this manner all the Objections of the Jews may be Answered without a particular enumeration of those Passages which they pretend to have been falsly applied to our Messiah in the New Testament for they cannot abdicate that Principle which is taken from their own Doctors and their Custom lest they themselves should renounce the belief of a Messiah to come Moses Bar-cepha a Syrian Author having considered this Truth (m) Sicut inter haereticos qui contendun minimè convenire ut Veteris Testamenti scripta mysticè atque aliter quà m de ipsis rebus interpretentur graviterque accusant eos qui contrà faciunt At qui si ita statuas multa ut consequantur absurda necesse est obfirmabitur Manetis Marcionis sententia qui dicebant Vetus Testamentum nequaquam ab auctore Deo Christi Patre esse Praetereà nisi in illo recondita fuerint arcana sensa unde potuere prisci Patres Prophetae aliique sancti viri intelligere Christum olim venturum Denique si ita cum illis haereticis sentimus profectò in Judaismum incidimus Mos Barcepha Comm. de Parad. part 1. c. 3. does put those in the number of Hereticks who alledge that the Old Testament ought not to be Mystically Explained but only Literally and according to the Historical Sense If that be so says that Author the Heresies of the Manichees and the Marcionites are thereby set up It cannot henceforth be shewn whence the ancient Fathers and the Prophets had the account which they gave us of the coming of the Messiah In a word he does assure us that that Opinion is mere Judaism To which it may be added that it is mere Sadduceism for the true Jews are all agreed that a Sense that is merely Literal and Historical separated from Tradition cannot in any wise confirm the Articles of their Religion This Principle is so true that the Antitrinitarians who refuse to receive the Traditions of the Catholicks in the Disputes betwixt them and who do only admit the Literal Expositions of Scripture without any dependance on Tradition do plainly see themselves obliged to acknowledge some other Sense than what is Literal when they are to enter into the Lists with the Jews This does plainly appear in the Works of Socinus Enjedine and of some other Unitaries In which they give evident proofs of the inconstancy of their Principle They did not foresee that whilst they framed certain Maxims against the Catholicks they did at the same time give Authority to Sadduceism and Manicheism Faustus one of the Heroes of the Manichean Party not finding in the Books of Moses any Passage which he could literally understand of Jesus Christ and otherwise perceiving that it was in plain terms asserted in the New Testament that Moses had written concerning Jesus Christ chose rather to say that the Writings of the Evangelists had been corrupted than to renounce his own Principle There was a greater Harmony manifest in his Reasonings and Maxims than in those of the Antitrinitarians who received Tradition in some things and in others did reject it They argue against the Jews in the matters of Religion after another manner than against the Catholicks seeing those things do consist in matters of Fact they cannot be proved merely by the light of Reason Tradition is likewise to be consulted And therefore so long as the Jews shall with bare Reasons oppose the Exposition of the Passages of the Old Testament which the Evangelists and the Apostles have cited in the New they
Greek Version which was publickly received it being indifferent to them to quote the Hebrew or the Greek in those Passages Although the Apostles did prefer the Greek of the Septuagint to the Hebrew Text it cannot be inferred from thence that the Greek Version is better than the Hebrew of the Jews as some Authors especially amongst the Catholicks have too easily believed We ought to consider by what motives the Apostles were led to give this preference to the Greek Seeing they did it for no other end but to accommodate themselves to the capacity of the People whom they instructed and who read the Bible in Greek there can be no consequence drawn from thence to give more Authority to the Version of the Septuagint than to the Hebrew Text which they did not meddle with In the Hebrew or Chaldaick Gospel of St. Matthew the Passages of the Old Testament were quoted according to the Hebrew Text because the Jews of Palestine for whose sake it was written read the Bible in that Language The People who at that time understood not the Hebrew Language had Glosses on the Hebrew Text written in the Chaldee so that if that Evangelist had quoted the Bible in the vulgar Language he had quoted the same according to the Chaldaick Glosses and not according to the Greek of the Septuagint which was not in use amongst the Jews of Palestine It will further appear that the Evangelists and the Apostles did not confine themselves in their quotations to the rigor of the Letter because that was in no wise needful for carrying on their Work. They did content themselves sometimes with delivering the sense of the Words which they adapted to their Discourse A thing commonly practised and they cannot be branded with Falshood or Imposture who set down after this manner such Records in their Works as serve for proofs A Copy of Record cannot be alledged to be false unless the sense be changed But this can never be found in the quotations of the Apostles who followed a received custom and which could be blamed by none The same thing happened to most of the Fathers when they quoted in the Works the Passages of Scripture for they made no scruple to change the Words so long as that change was of no importance to the Sense Which ought to be the Standard of our Judgment about the Passages of the Old Testament which are quoted in the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles for though they were taken from the Greek Version they do not always express the very Words I know it may be objected that this Version has very much degenerated from its ancient purity and that therefore it can no more serve as a Rule by which we may judge of the Truth of the Apostolical quotations But what ever change has happened to this Translation it is sufficient as it remains to decide the matter of Fact we are now about It is agreed by all the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors that the Evangelists and Apostles in the Passages they quote out of the Old Testament were more ready to express the Sense than the Words which is the meaning of these Words of St. Jerom Hieron Comm. in Is l. 3. c. 7. In multis testimoniis saith he quae Evangelistae vel Apostoli de libris veteribus assumpserunt curiosius attendendum est non eos verborum ordinem secutos esse sed sensum Which he often repeats in his works (e) Notare debemus illud quod plerumque admonuimus Evangelistas Apostolos non verbum interpretatos esse de verbo nec Septuaginta Interpretum auctoritatem secutos quorum editio illo jam tempore legebatur sed quasi Hebraeos instructos in Lege absque damno sensuum suis usos esse sermonibus Hieron Comm. in Isai lib. 9. cap. 29. We ought to observe well saith he in another place what I have often said before viz. That the Evangelists and Apostles did not make a Translation word for word and that they followed not the Version of the Septuagint that was read in their days but being Hebrews and skilful in the Law they made use of their Terms That Learned Man does agree with the other Fathers in assuring us that the Apostles did not in their Writings report the passages of the Old Testament word for word But since he was prepossessed with an opinion in favour of the Hebrew Text when he composed his Commentaries on the most part of the Prophets he affirms that the same Apostles made use of their own Expressions and not those of the Septuagint Yet 't is easie to prove the contrary and in this the most part of the Protestants are very much to be blamed for neglecting this Ancient Greek Version For it is impossible for him to understand the Books of the New Testament well who is not first much employed in the reading of the Septuagint It was upon those Seventy Ancient Interpreters that the Apostles formed their Stile and not upon the Hebrew Text of the Jews I do not in the least comprehend upon what ground St. Jerome could alledge that (f) Paraphr asim hujus testimonii quasi Hebraeus ex Hebraeis assumit Apostolus Paulus de authenticis libris in Epistolâ quam scribit ad Corinthios non verbum ex verbo reddens quod facere ommnò contemnit sed sensuum exprimens veritatem quibus utitur ad id quod voluerit roborandum Hieron Comm. in Is lib. 17. cap. 64. St. Paul being an Hebrew born did in his first Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 2. give a paraphrase on the words of the Prophet Isaiah Chap. 64. v. 4. as they are in the Hebrew and had regard to nothing but the sense according to his Custom Yet there is nothing in that place that can oblige us to have recourse to the Hebrew rather than the Greek for understanding the Apostles meaning St. Jerome dream'd then of nothing else but settling his New Translation of the Scriptures upon the Hebrew thereby to give satisfaction to a great number of People who spake evil of him upon that occasion This Spirit reigns in his Commentaries on the Old Testament in those chiefly which are on the great Prophets He endeavours to prevent with an assiduous Persecution that which might be objected against from all sides that the Church ought not to receive any other Scripture of the Old Testament than that which was Authorised by the Apostles Indeed this Objection which was a terrible one must needs have made a great impression on his Spirit and if he dare not say that the Apostles always follow'd the Hebrew Text he endeavours at least to shelter himself by assuring us that sometimes they did not adhere either to the one or the other because ordinarily that which was considered by them was the sense and not the Words And this he does affirm of the words of the Prophet Jeremy Jerem. cap. 31. v. 15. a Voice was heard in Rama c.
cannot possibly conclude any thing against them For it will be easily demonstrated that those Writers in that matter followed the custom and Tradition of their Time. The Book where the most of that sort of citations are found is the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews where we find nothing else but Passages of the Old Testament explained in a manner that is altogether Allegorical and Foreign to the Letter which has also given an occasion to some Writers to suspect that St. Paul was not the Author But it seems on the contrary that if we reflect upon the Pharisees Method in their Expounding Scripture it cannot be attributed to any other than to that Holy Apostle who having Studied in Jerusalem under the Doctor Gamaliel did penetrate into all the most refined Points of their secret and mystical Interpretations of the Bible In effect after I had recommended the reading of this Epistle to a Jew who was well Read in his own ancient Authors he having perused it freely declared that it must needs have been written by some great * A Man of Tradition Mekubal of his own Nation And he was so far from telling me that St. Paul had wrested the true Sense of Scripture with his Allegories at pleasure that he extolled his profound skill in the sublime Sense of the Bible and always returned to his great Mekubal of whom he never spoke but with admiration Enjedine a subtil Unitary was so much persuaded of this Truth that after he had proposed the most part of those Reasons which are ordinarily objected against the Epistle to the Hebrews he adds (n) Praemonemus omnia penè testimonia exempla quae ex Veteri Testamento huc transferuntur non secundùm historiae veritatem sensum ut vocant literalem sed mysticè sensu spirituali intelligi allegorico ad Novuon Testamentum applicari explicari Quod ita manifestum est ut nisi quis hoc admittat in absurda manifestissima incidat Georg. Enjed. explic loc Vet. Nov. Test explic loc Epist ad Heb. that the most part of the Passages which are cited in this Epistle out of the Old Testament are not to be understood in a literal but in a mystical and spiritual Sense otherwise it were impossible to avoid several manifest absurdities He does likewise suppose in another place that this manner of Exposition of Scripture was then approved by the Jews and that Jesus Christ made use of it when he disputed with the Pharisees who received the same He brings for an example these Words of Psalm cix 1. The Lord said unto my Lord c. which Jesus Christ understood of the Messiah and not of David (o) Cuòd autem Christus hoc loco usus est mysticâ interpretandi Scripturas formâ observavit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cùm enim essent tres Judaeorum sectae Sadducaei solum literalem Scripturae sensum admitterent Pharisaei verò etiam mysticum approbarent cum Pharisaeis disputans arripuit hoc quod illi pro confesso concesso habebant licere nimirum Scripturas mysticè interpretari quia norat illum Psalmum qui literaliter de Salomone aut potiùs de ipso Davide est compositus spiritu aliter referri solere ad Messiam ideò tam confidenter hunc Psalmum de Davide de Messiâ conscriptum esse affirmat Quod illi negare nisi sectae suae renunciare vellent non poterant Enjed. explic loc Matth. when Christ saith Enjedine explained that Passage in a mystical Sense he did nothing but what was very pertinent for there were three Sects amongst the Jews at that time The Sadducees did only receive the Literal Sense of the Scripture The Pharisees on the contrary besides the Literal did also approve of the Mystical Sense And therefore in his Disputing with the Pharisees he followed a Custom in which they were agreed that is of giving Mystical Expositions to Scripture Seeing he knew that the Psalm which was understood of Solomon or rather of David according to the Literal Sense was ordinarily applied to the Messiah he freely declares that David had the Messiah in his view when he writ it Which the Pharisees could not deny unless they would have renounced their own Sect. This observation of Enjedine does agree with the Principle which was formerly established in this Discourse for answering the Jews who accused the Evangelists and the Apostles of giving false Interpretations to the Passages of the Old Testament I will further say that there were certain Traditions which were not only received by the Pharisees but also by the other Sects I reckon in the number of those Traditions the belief of a Messiah which it would have been hard to prove only by the Books of Moses Nevertheless the Samaritans who owned nothing but the Pentateuch to be Divine and Canonical Scripture did believe at that time and still believe the Messiah at this day and the ground that they have for it is taken from some Passages of the Law which appear to have another Sense if they be Interally Expounded Whence I conclude that this Spiritual and Mystical Sense was not only in use amongst the Pharisees but also amongst the other Sects Nevertheless the Pharisees had abused it by allowing it too great a latitude And therefore our Lord does sometimes reproach them for this bad use which they had made of Traditions yet without condemning the Traditions themselves The Jews Caraites also who very much despised the Fables that abound in the Talmud do not absolutely reject all the Traditions which are contained in that Book If the Unitaries would make a just reflection on the Principle which has established and which may serve as an answer to the most part of the objections of the Jews against the Books of the Old Testament they would not so much insist upon the Literal Exposition of certain Passages of Scripture which they oppose to the Theological Expositions of the ancient Fathers Seeing the Jews have Authorised by their Traditions some Interpretations of the Old Testament that are in no wise Literal the Doctors of the Church have also used the like in their Exposition of Scripture Interpretations of that kind are found in all the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers I shall content my self to produce in this place the Testimony of an Author who cannot be suspected by the Unitaries That is Theodore of Heraclea a favourer of the Arian Party and who writ learned Commentaries on the Bible but there remains nothing of them but some fragments in the Collections or Chains of the Greek Fathers That famous Divine does establish these two sorts of Senses viz. the Literal and the Theological and he does apply them to those words of the Psalmist (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The heavens were established by the word of the Lord and all their host by the breath of his mouth he does Expound Literally the word de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 Word by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Decree and the other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the breath of his mouth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Power so that according to the Literal Sense of that Passage the World was Created by the Will and by the Omnipotency of God. (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Heracl Cat. in Psalm 32. This saith Theodore is the Sense which does here present it self and he does afterwards add that according to the true Theological Sense we ought to understand the Word of God and the Holy Ghost We may also call that a Theological Sense which was given to many Passages of the Old Testament by Jesus Christ and his Apostles because it was agreeable to the Theology of the Jews of those times chiefly to that of the Pharisees who Composed the leading Sect and the most received amongst the People The Jews at this day do altogether follow their Opinions The first Christians who received the Sacred Writings from them have likewise imitated them in their manner of Expounding those Books Michael Servetus did also in many places of his Works acknowledge this Mystical and Spiritual Sense which he makes to go joyntly with the Literal He does alledge that by that way Jesus Christ may be clearly found in the Books of the Law. He thinks that there is nothing but what is Natural in the Application that St. Paul made of these words Psalm ci Thou hast created the earth from the beginning to Jesus Christ as the Creator of Heaven and Earth Which words saith he though in the opinion of some they have but a forced Sense when they are applyed to Christ yet that is the proper Sense as the Apostle does shew Hebr. i. He does insist somewhat long on this Subject Expounding in the same manner many other Psalms which he understands of Jesus Christ although it seems that according to the Natural Sense they ought to be understood in general of God. The like is to be judged of other Psalms though they by reason of their ignorance of Christ do otherwise expound them This is no place for to examin the Consequences which Servetus does draw from his Principle I brought his words only to shew that the greatest Enemies of Tradition are obliged in their Expositions of many Passages of Scripture to acknowledg a Theological Sense which can be founded on nothing but Tradition and common Belief seeing they do agree that they who are ignorant of Jesus Christ put others Senses on the Scriptures Faustus Socinus did not find a more short or effectual way than this to answer the objections that the Jews and other enemies of the Christian Religion make against the Books of the New Testament He does suppose it to have been constantly agreed upon (r) Saepè Spiritus Sanctus unâ praedictione aut affirmatione plura complecti voluit idque ut semper mos praecipuè vaticinationum fuit ad rem ipsam praedictam occultandam saltem aliquâ ex parte donec ipsa res existeret Soc. Lect. Sac. that the Passages of the Old Testament that are cited in the New have had several Senses it being true especially as to the Prophesies which according to his Opinion were so Composed that the things foretold might be concealed till their accomplishment should happen He further says that we ought not to think variety to be surprising seeing the Jews who opposed the Evangelists and Apostles do agree to it But I question if that Unitary can convince the Jews of this Truth if he build on no other Principles than those which he makes use of in his Disputing against the Catholicks Indeed to speak exactly there is but one Literal Sense of every particular Passage of Scripture That other Sense which admits of a greater latitude and which the Christians are obliged to own is founded on the received and warranted traditions of the Jews Seeing the Jews have as well as the Catholicks approved of Traditions of that kind they cannot accuse the Apostles of having wrested the true Sense of several Passages of Scripture by false Interpretations unless they themselves do renounce the Expositions of their own Doctors Let us now particularly examin some of those Passages which the Emperor Julian and the Jews have objected against the Christians The first that presents it self is taken from those Words of the Prophet Esay Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son Is vii 14. and thou shall call his name Emmanuel St. Matthew has applied them to the Messiah who was born of a Virgin and has rendred them after this manner Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son and they shall call his name Emmanuel The Jews do accuse this Evangelist of an unfaithful citation and also a false application of the words of the Prophet They say first that the Hebrew word Alma does not signifie a Virgin as St. Matthew has rendred it but simply a young Woman whether she be a Virgin or not which they endeavour to prove from other places of Scripture St. Jerom does assure us on the contrary that the Hebrew word (ſ) Alma non solùm puella vel virgo sed cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 virgo abscondita dicitur secreta quae nunquam virorum patuerit aspectibus sed magnâ parentum diligentia custodita sit Linguâ quoque Punicâ quae de Hebraeorum fontibus emanare dicitur propriè virgo alma appellatur Hieron Comm. in Is lib. 3. c. 7. Alma does properly signifie a Virgin and also a Virgin hid or shut up and that it has likewise that signification in the Carthaginian Language which derives its Original from the Hebrew The learned observation of that Father is very pertinent not only to justifie St. Matthew but also to shew that in the Septuagint the Hebrew word Alma is very well Translated And therefore seeing it not necessary to prosecute this matter with a long train of critical observations nor run through all the places of the Old Testament in particular where this word Alma is found it will suffice to bring against the Jews their own ancient Greek Version which St. Matthew or rather his Interpreter has followed It cannot be said that those Jews who lived so long a time before Jesus Christ did by a false Translation on purpose corrupt the Sense of that place The accusations with which they charge St. Matthew fall on those of their own Nation They say in the second place that in the Hebrew it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. they shall call but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou shall call which does regard the young Woman who was to call her Son Emmanuel St. Jerom declares that all the ancient Interpreters have rendred it according to the Hebrew thou shalt call But at the same time does add (t) In multis testimoniis quae Evangelistae vel Apostoli de libris veteribus assumpserunt curiosiùs attendendum est non
in any of the Prophets did believe (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys Hom. 9. in Matth. that we ought not to involve our selves in the trouble of an endless search because there have been several Books of the Prophets lost which may be proved as he says by the History of the Chronicles The Author of the Imperfect Work on St. Matthew does observe that the Evangelist does not say (l) Dum dicit per Prophetas non per Prophetam manifestat quòd non certam auctoritatem Prophetae protulerit sed sensum Prophetarum colligens dixit aut fortè legerunt alios Prophetas ita dicentes qui non sunt nobis canonizati Auct Op. imp in c. 2. Matth. per Prophetam by a Prophet but per Prophetas by the Prophets to signifie that he did not mean the testimony of any Prophet in particular but only that it might be gathered from the Prophets in general He adds afterwards that there were probably at that time other Prophetical Books which were not placed in the Canon of the Sacred Writings The ground of this Answer seems to be that St. Jerome has in his Works made mention of some other Prophetical Books than those we have at this day and which were read by the Nazarene Sectaries who came from the first Christians of Jerusalem who were also called Nazarenes for whom St. Matthew writ his Gospel Nevertheless that Father had no recourse to this solution in his Commentaries upon this place where he plainly affirms the same thing with the Author of the Imperfect Work viz. That St. Matthew (m) Pluraliter Prophetas vocans ostendit se non verba de Scripturis sumpsisse sed sensum Nazaraeus sanctus interpretatur Sanctum autem Dominum futurum omnis Scriptura commemorat Hieron lib. 1. Comm. in Matth. c. 2. having cited the Prophets in general intended to shew that he made no mention of the words of any one in particular but only of the sense But seeing the word Nazarene does signifie Holy the Scripture does declare throughout that the Lord should be Holy. He does yet subjoyn another more particular explication and which appeared to be more probable as being founded on a Passage of the Prophet Esay Chap. 11. v. 1. (n) Possumus aliter dicere quod etiam eisdem verbis juxta Hebraicam veritatem in Esaiâ scriptum sit Exiet virga de radice Jesse Nazaraeus de radice ejus ascendet Hieron ibid. And there shall come forth a Rod out of the Stem of Jesse and a Nazarene vulg Branch shall grow out of his Roots I make no Question but that the Jews will condemn this Translation of the words of Esay as well as St. Matthew's citation because it is not in the Hebrew Nazaraeus Nazarene as St. Jerome has rendred it but netser which does signifie a flower as he himself had expounded it in the Version of that Prophet He likewise observed in his Commentary upon this place of Esay that the Hebrew word which does signifie Nazarene is written with the letter zain and that in this place it is written with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tsade where it does signifie a flower This critical Observation of St. Jerome upon the 11. Chap. of the Prophet Esay seems to destroy what he had observed in his Commentary upon the 2. Chap. of St. Matthew The truth is 't was the custom of that Learned Father in his Commentaries upon the Scripture rather to report that which he had read in other Commentators than to establish an opinion of his own And therefore 't is not surprising if we sometimes do find opposite opinions therein Nevertheless his Learning does afford us great help for finding out the sense of the most difficult Passages of the Sacred Writings The Opinion of those who believed that St. Matthew in that place had cited the Passage of Chap. 11. of the Prophet Esay seems in my opinion to be the most probable 'T is very likely that St. Jerome did apply it to the Nazarenes when he says in his Commentary upon that Prophet that the Learned amongst the Jews took it from that place Eruditi Hebraeorum de hoc loco assumptum putant Those Hebrews are the Sect of the Nazarenes who were called Hebrews and who were so in effect Seeing they read the Gospel of St. Matthew in the Chaldee or Syriack the allusion to the Hebrew word netser that is in Esay is better known in their Copy than in the Greek and it was also better perceived by those who had the Hebrew and Chaldaick Languages That we make a right judgment hereof that Passage of St. Matthew ought to be read in the Syriack Version which in that place should not differ from the Original Chaldee of St. Matthew But the Syrians do read these two words Nazareth and Nazarene alike with the letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tsade And after this manner they ought in effect to be read in St. Matthew who intended not to signifie the Nazarites of the Old Testament whose name is written with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 zain He made a bare allusion according to the method of that time to the Hebrew word netser of Esay which does signifie a flower and which is written with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tsade as well as that of the City Nazareth 'T is of importance carefully to observe that the Jews do agree with the Christians that that Passage of Esay which speaks of that flower called in Hebrew netser is understood of the Messiah Which being known at that time to all the World St. Matthew who wrote in the Chaldee for the Jews of Jerusalem then newly converted who were accustomed to expositions of that nature made an allusion to this Hebrew word netser or flower 'T is but consulting the Jewish Talmud their Book entitled Zohar and their Ancient Medraschim or Allegorical Commentaries for we may there find the like Interpretations of Scripture to be extant founded on bare allusions and similitudes not only of words but even of letters If the Jews could but seriously reflect on all these considerations they would not brand with the title of either false or ridiculous the citation of St. Matthew who has say they perverted the words of the Prophet Esay to apply them to their Messiah For seeing that Evangelist writing for Jews who were enclining to embrace the Religion of Jesus Christ did follow the custom and usage that obtained at that time amongst them Unless we go back to that ancient custom we shall meet with great difficulties in the most part of the Passages of the Old Testament which the Evangelists and Apostles have cited in their Writings for the confirmation of their own Sentiments We ought to pursue this Method for answering the Jews solidly we are to represent to them the course their Fathers took which unless they renounce their Religion they cannot reject This Principle also may serve for the refutation of Julian's impious
were interpolations made therein than to attribute to the Apostles such things as they did not understand It is upon this supposed ground that the Manichees who found no express Passages in the Law of Moses that made mention of Jesus Christ rejected as false all those Places of the Pentateuch that were applied to him in the New Testament They did not consider that at the time of Christ and the Apostles there was a Mystical and Spiritual Sense approved of by all the Jews some Sadducees possibly excepted And with respect to this Sense the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles are to be Expounded And therefore they deceive themselves who pretend that there ought to be a Literal Sense in all the Citations of the Apostles especially in those which they bring in for Proofs It is true that a Passage of Scripture taken Allegorically cannot serve for a Proof but we speak here of such Allegorical Senses as were received and which were also founded on Traditions that were warranted by Authority They were therefore permitted to apply them to their Discourse and likewise to draw such Consequences from them as might promote their design in the same manner as the Pharisees made use of them in their Disputes against the Sadducees Those Allegorical Senses prove nothing for their own confirmation but suppose a belief already established upon which they were founded It is probable that Theodore de Mopsueste Expounded the Psalms and the Prophesies according to this Method and that he had regard to nothing when he was condemned as a favourer of the Jews but the Literal and Historical Sense which he gave to those ancient Prophesies They will not consider the Application he made thereof with the whole Church to the Messiah according to a Spiritual and Mystical Sense If we believe Facundus there is no justice done to that great Man who had a perfect knowledge of the Sacred Writings (q) Eum dicunt evacuasse omnes in Christum factas Prophetias quod Manichaeorum erroris est Fac. pro def tri cap. Conc. Calc lib. 9. c. 1. They accused him of destroying the Prophesies that related to Jesus Christ by an error like to that of the Manichees But he shews the falshood of this accusation by producing the very words of Theodore taken out of his Commentaries upon the Psalms Quod autem saith Facundus nec evacuet omnes in Christum prophetias palam est quia rursus in ejusdem Psalmi expositione dicit c. Whence he concludes (r) Non ergo Theodorus Judaicae impietatis arguendus est tanquam hominem putaverit Christum cùm potiùs Judaeos irrideat Fac. ibid. That it was hard to make Theodore pass for an impious person who believed with the Jews that Jesus Christ was a mere Man seeing he vigorously defended the contrary This is no place to inquire if Theodore was unjustly condemned as Facundus does assure us I have only made mention of the Passage that I might shew that great Men have of a long time acknowledged two Senses of Scripture as we have already made evident It is certain that the Christian Religion is founded on that of the Jews The Christians have this in common with them that they adore the same God and that they believe a Messiah promised in the Writings of the Old Testament which they receive equally And therefore the Christians who Expound those Writings in a Literal and Historical Sense cannot be blamed as if they favoured Judaism in exclusion of the Christian Religion seeing they acknowledged a second Sense called Spiritual and Mystical which they apply to the Messiah This latter Sense is the same that the Jews call deras In a word it is impossible to arrive at a perfect knowledge of the Christian Religion and the Principles upon which it is established so long as that of the Jews is not known to which the former does owe its Original Celsus Porphyrius Julian and the Jews have brought some other Objections against the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles The Principal is that which is drawn from the Genealogy of Jesus Christ Recorded in a different manner by St. Matthew and St. Luke They alledge that besides that these two Evangelists do not agree they have delivered manifest falsities But this aspersion has been so clearly wiped off by many Commentators upon the New Testament and also in the Volumes that purposely have been written for that end that it is needless to insist on it I shall only observe in general that it is easie to make answer to the Jews upon such objections as are drawn from Genealogies When they bring against the Christians the difference that is betwixt our Evangelists and the Books of the Old Testament their Mouths will be stopped if we shew them that there is no less in this matter betwixt the Chronicles which they attribute to Esdras and the rest of the Historical Writings of the Old Testament Their Rabbins who could not reconcile things that appeared so remote from one another are forced to own that the same Genealogies which are written in a different manner were taken out of Records that did likewise differ And may not we also affirm that the Evangelists Collected the Genealogy of Jesus Christ out of such Records as were amongst the Jews at that time but are not extant at this day And therefore it is better to leave the things as they are than to judg rashly of them or correct that Genealogy upon bare conjectures CHAP. XXIII Of the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testament A Refutation of the Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa The Cardinal of Perron has given a very bad Exposition of the Words of the second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy Chap. 3. v. 16. which makes mention of this Inspiration The Disputes betwixt the Jesuits of Louvain and the Divines of the same place upon this matter Three Propositions of the Jesuits Censured by the Doctors of Louvain and Douay A Defence of those Propositions against the Censure of those Divines I Have Treated elsewhere of the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings in general But seeing I only Treated of them occasionally and by way of Answer to some Objections which were brought against the Critical History of the Old Testament I shall here Handle it more particularly with respect to the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles It is the common Belief of the Jews that the Books of the Old Testament were written by Persons who were Inspired which Belief was transmitted from the Jews to the Christians Upon which occasion Origen affirmed (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 5. cont Cels that both the one and the other did equally acknowledge that the Sacred Scripture was written by the Spirit of God. The Christians have also extended that Inspiration to the Books of the New Testament There are but very few Criticks who are of the Opinion that there is nothing of Inpiration in Scripture but only in
Inspiration in the Books of the New Testament if they had not expresly maintained it in other places of their Works That which II. Epist ad Tim. c. 3. v. 16. amongst Christians does most of all confirm the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings is the strong Foundation that the Apostle Paul has in one of his Epistles to Timothy all Scripture is given by Divine Inspiration We have elsewhere refuted all the subtil allegations that were brought by Grotius who endeavoured to the utmost of his power to put quite another sense on that Passage But I made it most manifest that that able Critick was to be blamed on many accounts in attempting to wrest the interpretation of those words of St. Paul that he might accommodate them to his own Idea's It is surprising that the Cardinal of Perron who was perswaded of the Inspiration of the Holy Scripture should nevertheless have made his strongest efforts Answ to the Def. of some Holl. Div. c. 10. for depriving Christians of this proof of Inspiration It is customary amongst those who write Books of Controversie to think of nothing but answering the Objections of their Adversaries without examining the proper and natural sense of the Passages of Scripture for the confirmation of their own Opinions He followed this Method of Polemical Authors in his Answer to the King of Great Britain Seeing the Protestants forget nothing that may recommend the Authority of the Scripture alone without the aid of Traditions II. Epist ad Tim. c. 3. v. 16. du Perron likewise for his part forgot nothing that might enhance the Authority of Traditions The Protestants did object to him those words of the Apostle Paul All Scripture is given by Divine Inspiration and it profitable for Doctriue Thus in effect that place of St. Paul to Timothy ought to be rendred nevertheless he does loudly oppose this Translation Du Perr lib. 3. de Trad. Apost c. 4. under a pretence that there is not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tota all or the whole in the Greek but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnis all or every and that we do not read with the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Scripture but without the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Scripture To what purpose are all those niceties of Grammar and Dialect which the Cardinal does use in that place It is true that he does alledge the Authority of St. John Chrysostome Theodoret and some other Fathers for the confirmation of his Opinion But I desire no other testimony but theirs to bring it under condemnation And to avoid being tedious in a thing so easie to be justified seeing the Works of those Fathers are every where to be had it will suffice if we inform our selves of St. Jerome's thoughts in the case he is of a quite different Opinion from that which the Cardinal has Father'd on him That Learned Bishop does not say with the Cardinal that that Passage ought to be understood distributively by translating it all Scripture and not collectively by translating it all the Scripture He does on the contrary assure us in his Homily Chrysost Hom. 9. in Ep. II. ad Tim. upon those words of St. Paul that that Holy Apostle does speak of all the Holy Scripture which Timothy had studied from his Infancy and he concludes that all that Scripture is profitable and given by the Inspiration of God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But by the Scripture that is spoken of in that place it is evident that we must understand all the Old Testament It is in no wise likely that du Perron himself had read St. John Chrysostome's Homily or any other of the Greek Fathers whom he cites That which deceived those who read them for him and gave him an abstract of their pretended sentiments is that they consulted only the Latin Version of that Homily where it is according to the vulgar Translation Omnis Scriptura divinitùs inspirata est utilis i. e. All Scripture that is given by the Inspiration of God is profitable But it was shewn elsewhere that in the ancient vulgar it was Inspirata utilis i. e. is inspired and profitable as it is in the Greek and that we are to expound that Passage collectively and not distributively We may nevertheless very well give that sense also to the vulgar as the rendition is at this day according to that reading the Translation will be All the Scripture which was given by Inspiration is profitable and not with Amelote and with the Authors of the Mons Translation All Scripture that has been given by Divine Inspiration is profitable The Syriack Arabick and Ethiopick Versions which that Cardinal pretends to be favourable to him have quite another sense than what he does attribute to them as I have shewn in the Answer to the Defence of the Opinions of some Holland Divines Answ to the Def. of the Op. Ch. 10. concerning the Critical History of the Old Testament But to proceed I do not comprehend why the Cardinal du Perron does dispute with so much vigour about the manner of Translating that Passage of St. Paul and that from thence he does infer that if it prove any thing it must be that every Canonical Writing was sufficient by it self for universal instruction in all the Christian Religion The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he without an Article does denote every piece of the Holy Scripture distributively But the Greek Fathers did not wire-draw St. Paul's words after that manner but did expound them as if in effect they had read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Scripture with the Article The Catholicks ought also to agree with the Protestants that all the Scripture is profitable for instruction which does not at all exclude Traditions which being joyned to Scripture does compose the Principle upon which the Christian Religion is Founded And therefore there is nothing but subtilty in all the Cardinal's dispute who would pass his refined impertinencies for a Comment on those words of the Apostle and who bids defiance in that adventure to all Antiquity Estius on the contrary has allowed too large a sense to the same Passage He has indeed interpreted the Vulgar very well according to the Greek Text from which the Latin was taken But he went beyond the sense (f) Rectè igitur verissimè ex hoc loco statuitur omnem Scripturam Sacram Canonicam Spiritu Sancto dictante esse conscriptam ita nimirùm ut non solùm sententiae sed verba singula verborum ordo ac tota dispositio sit à Deo tanquam per semetipsum loqùente Est Comm. in Epist II. ad Timot. c. 3. v. 16. when he did conclude from thence that all the Holy Scripture was indited by the Spirit of God not only as to the matter or things therein contained but also in respect of the words and all their circumstances so as there is no word in
Orig. l. 1. cont Cels where he acknowledgeth that Jesus hath published nothing of his Actions that we know them only by the Relations of his Disciples in their Gospels As for what concerns false Gospels false Acts false Apocalypses or Revelations and other pieces of the like nature that have been composed under the Names of the Apostles there hath been so great a number of them that it would be very difficult to describe them all exactly Pope Gelasius hath furnished a Catalogue of them long enough which hath been inserted into the Decretal of Gratian Decr. 1. part dist 15. c. 3. and altho these false Books have been almost all lost yet there are some Fragments of them remaining in the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers S. Luke seems to have written his Gospel only because some who had undertaken the same thing before him had not acquitted themselves faithfully therein This is the Sense that the Fathers generally give to the first words of this Evangelist when they explain the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. i. 1. which is translated in the vulgar Latin conati sunt Many saith Theophylact have written Gospels and (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl Comm. in c. 1. Luc. vers 1. we have Examples of them in that which is called The Gospel of the Egyptians and in another intituled The Gospel of the Twelve These People adds he have only made an attempt but they have not finished The common Opinion of the ancient Interpreters of the Scriptures whether Greek or Latin is that S. Luke designed to mark out in this place those Writers that durst publish false Gospels Pseudopostolos saith Baronius Pseudoscriptores his suggillatos verbis à Luca firma est Patrum sententia Baron an Christ 58 n. 31. Nevertheless many of them have been deceived when they have produced as Examples of these false Gospels Writings that have not been published till after the time of S. Luke This hath given occasion to some Learned Commentators on the New Testament to doubt of the Explication that the Fathers have brought of this Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who take it in a bad sense in this passage Maldonat after he hath rehearsed in few words what several Fathers have thought thereupon adds (g) A quâ sententiâ non quòd certà mihi ratione probari posse videatur sed quòd omnibus vulgò probari videam nolo discedere Maldon Comm. in c. 1. Luc. vers 1. that he will not recede from the common Opinion altho it be not grounded on any convincing Reason because the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may also be explained in a good sense But whether there were any false Gospels or not before S. Luke published his we cannot doubt but a great number of them have been forged since that time of which the Hereticks have been the Authors I will not here speak of that of the Nazareans which was called also the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Hebrews because I am persuaded that this Gospel was the Original of S. Matthew into which they afterwards inserted some Additions as I shall shew hereafter The Ebionites who read this same Gospel of S. Matthew according to the Hebrews (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 23. had others also which they had substituted under the Names of the Apostles especially of James and John that they might the more easily impose on those of their own Sect by those false Gospels that went under the Names of the Disciples of Jesus Christ They had the impudence even to counterfeit new Acts of the Apostles which they filled with Impieties and Defamations against S. Paul whom they called by way of raillery The man of Tarsus being desirous to prove from thence that he was not a Jew by Nation but a Proselyte and one born of Parents that had been converted from Gentilism to the Religion of the Jews Nevertheless Eusebius assures us that these Hereticks did not receive any but the Gospel called According to the Hebrews and that they had but little esteem for the others In regard that they had preserved Judaism with the Christian Religion Eusebius Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 27. they absolutely rejected the Epistles of S. Paul whom they treated as an Apostate because he had said they abandoned the old Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Gnosticks who fancied themselves to have a more perfect knowledge of Religion than all the other Christians and looked upon the Apostles as Men that were but rude and stupid even when they published their Gospels composed a Work in Verse Epiph. Haer. 26. n. 22. which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gospel of Perfection (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. n. 13. They made use of a Gospel also that they attributed to S. Philip a Disciple of Jesus Christ some words whereof Epiphanius relates Some of this same Sect that was divided into several Branches had invented a Gospel intituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gospel of Eve wherein they scattered their wild conceits under the Name of this Woman whom they considered as a perfect Gnostick who had received great illuminations in the Conference that she held with the Serpent The Sethians who were another sort of Gnosticks who boasted that they took their original from Seth whom they believed to be Jesus Christ had forged (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph Haer. 39. n. 4. an Apocalypse under the Name of the Patriarch Abraham S. Epiphanius observes judiciously that the design of these Gnosticks in publishing so many false Books under such great Names was to delude the simple and to cause them to believe that they were ignorant of nothing concerning the Life of Jesus Christ Those amongst them who were called Marcosians Epiph. Haer. 34. n. 18. had composed certain false Histories of his Infancy wherein they observed after what manner he had learned to read The Encratites who acknowledged for the Author of their Sect the famous Tatian a Disciple of S. Justin Martyr (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 47. n. 1. adhered to the Acts of S. Andrew S. John S. Thomas and some other Apocryphal Books as it were to the Authentical Scriptures Those that took the Name (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph Haer. 61. n. 1. of Apostolical and were a Branch of the Encratites relyed after their example on the false Acts of S. Andrew and S. Thomas (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 63. n. 2. the Origenians whose Opinions came near to those of Epiphanius who was of the Sect of the Gnosticks made use also of the Acts attributed to S. Andrew and of some other Books of the same nature The (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Hierosol Catech. 4. Manicheans had composed a Gospel under the name of Thomas and they made choice of this name of a Gospel to impose on the
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
that the Gospel of S. Mark is only a Collection of the Preachings of S. Peter whose Interpreter he was and the most part of the Fathers have avouched at the same time that it was made at Rome at the entreaty of the Primitive Christians of that City Papias nevertheless saith nothing of the place in the Passage that we have above cited and S. Irenaeus speaks of it a little otherwise than the other Fathers he declares that S. Mark wrote not his Gospel till after the Death of S. Peter and S. Paul at least this is the most natural sense that can be given to his Words according as they are set down in the ancient Latin Edition of the Works of this Father observe what he saith Matthaeus in Hebraeis ipsorum lingua Scripturam edidit Evangelii cùm Petrus Paulus Romae Evangelizarent Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. cap. 1. fundarent Ecclesiam Post verò horum excessum Marcus Discipulus Interpres Petri ipsa quae à Petro annuntiata erant per scripta nobis tradidit Eusebius hath rehearsed in Greek these very Words of Irenaeus Feuardent Eus Hist Eccles l. 5. c. 8. in his Edition of the Works of this Father hath observed that these words post horum excessum are not found in Eusebius but he may be convinced of the contrary by the Greek of Eusebius where there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the ancient Interpreter of S. Irenaeus hath translated post horum excessum and Ruffinus post quorum exitum That whichg hath deceived Feuardent is the Error of Christopherson who hath left them out in his Latin Version having thought that it should be read in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quo edito If this reading were grounded on any Manuscript Copies without doubt it ought to be preferred before the other but Christopherson seems to have corrected this place on purpose in his Translation to reconcile S. Irenaeus with the other Greek Fathers which ought never to be done for if it were permitted to alter the Text of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers in those places where they do not agree especially where they treat of Chronology and the Designation of Times we must of necessity cast them into a new model therefore Jacobus Grynaeus hath judiciously re-established this Passage in the Edition which he hath set forth with his Amendments of Christopherson's Version he hath put in the body of the Translation post obitum autem illorum and in the Margin these Greek Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to shew that it must be read so and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Valesius hath also followed this same reading in his History of Eusebius and he hath put in his Latin Version post horum interitum He reprehends also in his Notes on this place the Translation of Christopherson as being contrary to all the Greek Copies and to Ruffinus We may observe in the mean time that the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latin Excessus or Exitus which the ancient Interpreter of S. Irenaeus and Ruffinus have used is equivocal for it signifieth Departure as well as Death According to the first sense S. Irenaeus would have only said that S. Mark published his Gospel after S. Peter and S. Paul were departed from Rome St. John Chrysostom hath believed contrary to the Judgment of most part of the Fathers that S. Mark hath written his Gospel in Egypt and not at Rome nevertheless he doth not ground his Opinion on any ancient Acts but only on this That it was commonly said so viz. (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joann Chrysost Homil. 1. in Matth. that as S. Matthew had composed his Gospel at the Suit of the Jews whom he had converted to the Faith of Jesus Christ and that desired to have his Preachings in Writing in like manner S. Mark had written his Gospel at the Request of his Disciples in Egypt This seems so much the more probable in regard that the Apostles and their Disciples were wholly employed in preaching the Gospel and that they never would have thought of committing their Preachings to Writing if they had not been pressed to do it by the People whom they instructed I doubt not that S. John Chrysostom hath had respect to this general Maxim of the Apostles and their Disciples and that he hath considered that S. Mark hath been the first Apostle of Egypt not but that the Opinion of this learned Bishop might be easily reconciled with that of the other Fathers in saying that S. Mark hath delivered his Gospel to the Faithful of Rome in quality of Interpreter of S. Peter who preached the Religion of Jesus Christ in that great City and that he hath also given it afterwards to the Primitive Christians of Egypt in quality of Apostle or Bishop We cannot however determine any thing hereupon but in general because we have no certain Acts whereon we may confide Therefore it is no wonder that the Fathers do not agree amongst themselves when they speak in particular of such Transactions as these having oftentimes nothing to relye on but Conjectures S. Augustin seems to have considered S. Mark only as it were an Abbreviator of the Gospel of S. Matthew Marcus saith this Father Matthaeum subsecutus tanquam pedissequus breviator ejus videtur Aug. l. 1. de Cons Eccl. c. 2. Indeed if we compare these two Gospels together we shall find not only the same things but also the very same expressions which S. Mark sometimes epitomizeth as if he had designed only to make an Abstract of the Gospel of S. Matthew This would seem to prove that this last had been written in Greek and not in Hebrew or Chaldaick at least it might be said that the Greek Version of S. Matthew's Gospel was already published when S. Mark composed his Grotius is of a different Persuasion viz. that (q) Sicut autem Marcus usus est Matthaei hebraeo ni fallor codice ita Marcilibro Graeco usus mihi videtur quisquis is fuit Matthaei Graecus interpres Nam quae Marcus ex Matthaeo desumpserat idem hic iisdem propè verbis posuit nisi quod quaedam à Marco Hebraico aut Chaldaico loquendi genere expressa propiùs ad Graeci sermonis normam emollivit Grot. Annot. in tit Matth. S. Mark hath made use of the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew and that afterwards he that translated the latter out of Hebrew into Greek hath followed the Greek Copy of S. Mark whose dialect or way of speaking he hath only mollified as being somewhat harsh and too near the Hebrew suiting it to the Genius of the Greek Tongue But we can expect nothing but Conjectures herein It is worth the observing that S. Mark cannot pass for a simple Abbreviator of S. Matthew because he insists more at large than he doth in some places besides if he had only a design to publish an Epitome of S. Matthew's Gospel he would
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
charge Apud Cyril lib. 7. adv Jul. who accused the Christians for having abandoned the Law and the Prophets although they made a profession of following them He likewise reproached them for their boldness in calling themselves Israelites having as he alledged a Doctrin altogether opposite to that of Moses and the Ancient Prophets Apud Cyril lib. 8. adv Jul. But it is easie to convince him that the Christians are truly Israelites since they have neither renounced the Law nor the Prophets although sometimes they do expound them in a Mystical and Spiritual sense such an exposition as has been said is not contrary to the Doctrin of the Ancient Jews That Emperor seeing he owned no other sense of the Books of Moses but an Historical and Literal did object against the Christians that those words of Deuteronomy Chap. 18. v. 15. The Lord shall raise up a Prophet like unto me could not be understood of Jesus the Son of Mary seeing Moses does expresly speak (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Julian apud Cyr. ibid. of a Prophet who was to be a Man as he was and not the Son of God. It is true Act. c. 3. v. 22. c. 7. v. 37. that St. Peter and St. Stephen applyed to Jesus Christ that Passage of Deuteronomy which is literally understood of Joshua who was to succeed to Moses and also of other Judges and Prophets who have been in the Commonwealth of the Hebrews But if those Judges and Prophets were the Types of the Messiah why does he oppose the application of the same words to him according to a Sublime and Spiritual Sense of which we have already spoken seeing the Rabbins do frequently make the like applications By the Principles that we have established it will be very easie to resolve the most part of the other Objections which the Jews do raise against the Citations which are found throughout the Books of the New Testament The Apostles who did exactly follow the Expositions which were in use in their time have observed the same method almost through all their Writings The Jews could not oppose them without destroying their own Principles and favouring at the same time the Saddùcees According to this method St. Matthew applyed to St. John the words of the Prophet Esay The voice of one crying in the wilderness make straight the way of the Lord. It is manifest that the Evangelist did by a deras or Spiritual and Allegorical Sense Expound that which we ought to understand Literally and Historically of the returning of the Jews from their Captivity out of Babylon to Jerusalem Besides all those observations which serve as Principles for answering the Objections of the Jews and the Emperor Julian this is likewise remarkable that there are many words in the New Testament which have a larger Sense than in the Old which can be only attributed to the Custom of that time and to a Tradition received amongst the Jews There is nothing in the Books of Moses that does afford us any clear discovery of the state of a future Life which the Jews do call olam habba i.e. The World to come there is no manifest Record in the ancient Law of a Heaven or a Hell any more than there is of a Recompence to the Just and Punishment to the Wicked in that other Life Neither have they proper words to express those things they are obliged to make use of Metaphorical terms The word Gehenna for example which is taken from the Hebrew Gehennam has quite another Sense in the Books of the Old Testament than in the New where it does signifie the Fire of Hell. Which made St. Jerom say (p) Nomen gehennae in veteribus libris non invenitur sed primùm à Salvatore ponitur Hieron Comm. in Matth. that he does not find the word Gehenna in ancient Books that Jesus Christ is the first who used it Yet this does not prove that he was in effect the first that used it in that Sense as it is in the New Testament for it was before that time in use amongst the Jews in the same very Sense and especially amongst the Pharisees St. Jerom meant no more than this that he did not find it in the Old Testament under that signification although their Paraphrasts and their most ancient Rabbins used it in the same Sense as Jesus Christ did afterwards The Hebrew word Sceol will come under the same consideration for in the Hebrew of the Old Testament it does signifie a Sepulchre it is almost every where in the Septuagint rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hell as if they had frequently intended to signifie by that word a subterranean place where Souls are after their separation from the Body St. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles does Expound of the Messiah according to that Sense the words of Psalm xv Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption Which Passage is Literally understood of David who said to God that he would not suffer his Enemies to take away his Life and thus the Hebrew words Sceol and Scahat according to the former Sense do signifie Literally a Sepulchre and a Ditch But according to the Spiritual and Mystical Sense which St. Peter gives to this Psalm that he applies to the Messiah whose Type David was the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he took from the ancient Version of the Septuagint do signifie in the Acts of the Apostles Hell and Corruption The Application that the Apostle made of the words of that Psalm to the Resurrection of the Messiah does contain nothing but what is agreeable to the belief of the Jews of that time who believed the Resurrection of the dead They further acknowledged a subterranean place to which Souls do go after their separation from the Body Without a due regard to all these considerations it is impossible to understand the New Testament Therefore it is to be supposed as a thing constantly agreed upon that the Jews in the time of our Saviour and the Apostles believed many things whereof they had no Literal proofs in all the Old Testament being only founded on their Traditions And the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles ought to be Expounded with a relation to this Idea of the Jewish Faith and not to that which may be conceived of their belief with a reference to the Books of the Old Testament only because those Books contain but one part of their Religion the other part being comprehended in their Traditions The Jews do own this Principle The Jews even the Caraites who do mightily oppose the Traditions of the Talmudists which had degenerated into Fables have preserved those which they believed to be founded on sufficient Records The ancient Hereticks who did not weigh all these considerations did rather choose to deny the truth of the Books of the New Testament and say that in after times there
present called new For the latter may be agreeable to those of S. Jerom seeing he assures us that he did not resolve to follow those Copies exactly that he might not be thought to introduce too many Innovations into the Latin Bible Stunica likewise adds (l) Quòd si alicubi praeter librariorum mendas Latini codices à Graecâ origine variare videntur in verbis id tantùm erit non in sensu Vbi enim idem sensus erat noluit D. Hieronymus quicquam immutare Stun ib. that if there be any difference betwixt the Latin and that ancient Greek it does consist only in some words and not at all in the sense because that Father did not intend to make any change in those places where the sense was the same It is not then true as some others have alledged that our Latin Edition does represent the first Edition of the Apostles in all those places where it agrees with those ancient Greek Copies formerly mentioned For besides that they had great Imperfections as I have proved S. Jerom who consulted the most correct Copies for making his new Edition has left on purpose some of those Imperfections therein I do not examine if that Learned Critick revised the Epistles of S. Paul and the rest of the New Testament as well as the Gospels This belongs to the Second Book of this Work where we shall treat of the Versions 'T is sufficient to suppose here as certain de facto that the Latin Version of S. Paul's Epistles was amended as well as the Gospels whether that Correction was performed by S. Jerom or another and that it was revised in such a manner that that ancient Edition is preserved as far as it was possible Beza whowas ignorant of the original of that great number of various Readings in his own ancient Copy which by it self contains more of those various Readings than all other Greek Copies put together does avow (m) In hac tamen non sententiarum sed vocum diversitate nihil profectò comperi unde suspicari potuerim à veteribus illis haereticis fuisse depravatum Imò multa mihi videor deprehendisse observatione digna quaedam etiam sic à receptâ Scripturâ discrepantia ut tamen cum veterum quorundam Graecorum Latinorum Patrum scriptis consentiant Non pauca denique quibus vetusta Latina editio corroboratur Bez. Epist ad Acad. Cantab. that he had observed nothing in all those Variations that might raise a suspicion that it was corrupted by the ancient Hereticks On the contrary saith he I have found many things worthy of Observation and tho in some places it was in some sort different from the ordinary Reading that yet in these places it agreed with the Greek and Latin Fathers He does also assure us that he observed some Readings therein that confirm the ancient Latin Edition Indeed those Diversities are owing principally to the Greeks who to render the Writings of the Gospels and of the Apostles more intelligible have illustrated one Gospel by another and they have likewise explained by more clear Terms that which appeared to them obscure and intricate This custom of making the Apostles speak better Greek than they did in their Writings is very ancient Eusebius gives us a considerable Example thereof in his Ecclesiastical History where he observed after some other Writers that Tatian the Disciple of Justin Martyr did not only compose a Body of Gospels of the four which he put in one but (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 29. that he had also taken the liberty to correct S. Paul's Diction to give him more proper and clearer Expressions There were some Greek Churches which made no scruple to read those Greek Copies that had been revised in that manner and which possibly did acknowledge no other There is nothing more surprising than that which Theodoret (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Haeret. Fabul lib. 1. tit de Tat. n. 20. writes of some Churches of his Diocess which read publickly the Collection of the Gospels which Tatian had abridged of his own Head. Seeing they were ignorant of the mischief the Author had done they used his Work because it was compendious That Learned Bishop does assure us that he found more than two hundred Copies of this Gospel of Tatian which were very much esteemed in those Churches from whom he took them and restoredt he four Gospels to them We do not observe the like in the Cambridge Copy which has been altered by some Orthodox Remarks according to the custom of those first Ages where they have taken the liberty to insert by way of supplement that which they believed to be wanting in one Gospel taking it from another Gospel Thus for example after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chap. 20. of S. Matthew vers 28. they have added these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is found in the same sense in the ancient Latin Version which is joyned to that Greek Copy Vos autem quaeritis de minimo crescere de magno minui Introeuntes autem rogati coenare ne discubueritis in eminentioribus locis ne fortè dignior te superveniat accedens coenae invitator dicat tibi Adhuc deorsum accede confundaris Si autem discubueris in minimum locum superveniat minor te dicet tibi invitator coenae Collige adhuc superius erit tibi hoc utile That is But you seek to rise from a low condition and from being great to become servants When thou art bidden of any man to supper sit not down in the highest room lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him and he that bade thee and him come and say unto thee Give this man place and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room But if thou dost sit down in the lowest room and another poorer man than thou do come he will say unto thee Friend go up higher and this shall be profitable for thee Several Learned Criticks have observed this Addition after Beza I have mark'd it with the same faults as it is in the Greek Manuscript where it is written in Capital Letters without accents and without any distinction of words St. Jerome took this Addition from the Ancient Latin Edition when he revised it by the Order of Pope Damasus He was easily satisfied according to the Method which he had proposed in his correction that those words were taken from St. Luke's Gospel Chap. 14. v. 8. 9. but that there is some difference in the words Which is an ordinary thing to that Copy where the words are sometimes changed to others that are Synonymous That Father who consulted the Ancient Greek Copies especially those where the Canons of Eusebius were mark'd presently perceived in reading the Tenth Canon that that was only found in that 178 Section of St. Luke and that so he must take it away from the 204
varietatem illam interpretationis ex librariorum aut interpretum diversâ sententiâ profectam esse non ex fraude ulla Pneumatomachorum vel aliorum haereticorum Petav. Theol. Dog. lib. 2. c. 6. n. 6. that that diversity of pointing those words of S. John ought not to be attributed to the ill design of those who denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost or to other Hereticks but only to the different Opinions of the Transcribers and Interpreters The truth is the Orthodox Authors do not always agree amongst themselves about it It happens sometimes that the same Writer does differently point the same Passage in different places of his Works And so there is nothing else but good Sense and the Rules of Criticism that can direct us in our choice in preferring one Punctation to another I know we ought to follow the plurality of good Manuscript Copies and the consent of Interpreters For example without taking notice of all that S. Augustine has observed upon the manner of pointing the third Verse of the first Chapter of the Gospel according to S. John we may read that Verse after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without him was not any thing made that was made This reading which is almost in all Manuscripts has been approved by the most Ancient Greek Fathers The other which does place a point after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is somewhat forced and according to this punctation it ought to be translated Without him nothing was made that which was made had life in him It is worth the while to observe that many Greek Manuscript Copies have a point after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that point answers to our comma in those Manuscripts which have two sorts of points the one truly answering to our point and the other to that we call a comma Yet St. Augustine does frequently maintain the distinction that places the point after the word nihil He further maintains that this Passage is pointed after this manner in the most correct Copies Quod factum est in illo vita erat that which was made in him was life so that there is not only a point to be placed after nihil but also a comma after these other words quod factum est Sic ergo saith this Father distinguendum est ut cum dixerimus quod factum est deinde inferamus in illo vita est non in se scilicet hoc est in suâ naturâ (d) Non ergo pronunciari oportet quod factum est in illo vita est ut subdistinguamus quod factum est in illo deinde inferamus vita est Quid enim non in illo factum est Aug. ibid. c. 13. He condemns those who placed a comma after the Pronoun illo and who favoured their own prejudices by this punctation But there appears commonly more subtilty than solidity in Reasonings of this sort For seeing every one does reason from certain Principles which he supposes to be true he points the Copies of the Scripture after his own fashion Those disputes had so divided the Minds of the Ancients of that time that there were four different ways of pointing this Passage of St. John whereas at this day there is no dispute about it This does inform us that although the most part of Transcribers did then neglect the points and the other marks of distinction yet they were put for all that in some Copies The Commentators on the Scripture observed them likewise in their Commentaries when they judged it fit But seeing they had not the first Original of the Evangelists and the Apostles where those marks of distinction were extant there is nothing certain in this matter We ought also to use precaution in reading the Writings of the Fathers especially when they dispute against the Hereticks of their time from whom they removed in their Opinions as far as it was possible for them Now it is not necessary to insist too nicely on this sort of distinctions and stops there commonly needs but a little of good sense to make a due estimate of them There is none for example but will condemn some of the Moderns for the innovations they have made in our Age who in favour of their own prejudicate Opinions read Chap. 23. of St. Luke v. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say unto thee to day thou shalt be with me in Paradise They palce a comma after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 day whereas according to the ordinary Reading of the Greek Copies whether Manuscript or Printed it ought to be placed after the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thee Which gives a very different sense viz. I say unto thee to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise Besides those marks of distinction of which we have been speaking there is another which is common to all the ancient Books and which is made by the means of Verses The Bulk of a Work did once appear if the number of Verses contained therein were summ'd up at the end A Verse was nothing else but a Line that the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that by numbering the Verses they discovered how many Lines were contained in any Volume Yet some Criticks could not comprehend how they could by those Lines or Verses reckon the just content of a Book because the Parchments upon which they writ having been unequal the Lines must needs have been so too and so the number of those Lines could not adjust the Bulk of a Work. This was that which Crojus brought against Causabon and withal he confirm'd his Opinion by the testimony of some Ancient Writers by whom he pretended to prove that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does signifie an entire Period or the several parts of Periods But this Objection does fall by it self if we make a just reflection on those Ancient Parchments which composed Volumes or Rolls Every Roll contained many Pages that were all equal and in every Page there was a certain number of Lines and lastly in every Line there was a fixed number of Letters And this is observed by the Jews at this day in their Rolls which must have a certain proportion as well in length as in breadth Moreover every Line ought to consist of thirty Letters and they called these Letters sitta which is the same thing with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks and the versus of the Latins We are not to imagine that the manner in which the Rabbins have divided the Bible is of their own invention They followed in that the practice of other Nations as I have proved elsewhere And seeing they have retained their ancient use of Rolls we must learn of them whatever belongs to the division of the Rolls or Ancient Volumes Further it is not hard to shew how the measure of the Lines or Verses might have been retained in the form of those ordinary Books in which the Parchments or Papers were