like manner the same thing hath been done with respect to the Epistles of S. Paul. Marcion who received the greatest part of the Epistles of S. Paul from which nevertheless he had retrenched some Passages had placed them after this manner Marc. apud Epiph Haeret 42. The Epistle to the Galatians was the first of all and afterwards the two to the Corinthians the Epistle to the Romans was the fourth afterwards followed the two to the Thessalonians and after these the Epistles to the Ephesians Colossians to Philemon and to the Philippians He acknowledged none but these ten Epistles in the aforesaid order for as to the Epistle directed to those of Laodicea some Portions of which he received according to Epiphanius it is the same as that which is written to the Ephesians as it is easie to prove from the Passages that this Heretick hath cited and are also related by S. Epiphanius Marcion had intituled his Collection of the Epistles of S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostolick The Marcionite that is introduced in the Dialogue against those of this Sect attributed to Origen did often refuse to acknowledge some Quotations out of S. Paul's Epistles and saith in speaking to Adamantius who objected to him some words of this Apostle (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. Dial. adv Marc. sect 1. I do not believe your false Apostolick And in another place he answers Adamantius who asked him whether he believed the Apostle that is to say S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I believe my own Apostolick Ib. Sect. 2. Therefore Adamantius doth not oppose to him the Epistles of S. Paul after the same manner as they were read in the Church but that which the Marcionites called their Apostolick which was a Collection that they had made of these Epistles I have saith Adamantius your Apostolick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This caused S. Jerom to say speaking of this Collection of the Marcionites (c) Cùm Apostolorum Epistolas non Apostolorum Christi fecerunt esse sed proprias miror quomodo sibi Christianorum nomen audeant vendicare Hieron prooem in Epist ad Tit. that they had forged Epistles of the Apostles of their own invention and that he admired how those people durst take upon them the name of Christians S. Epiphanius hath observed some Passages that Marcion had altered in the Epistles of S. Paul which I shall here produce according to their order In chap. 5. v. 31. of the Epistle to the Ephesians where we read these words A man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined unto his wife this Heretick had taken away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to his wife In the Epistle to the Galatians chap. 5. verse 9. instead of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaveneth he had put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupteth which doth not interrupt the sense in this place and therefore it seems rather to be a various reading than an alteration made on purpose Indeed in the ancient Copy of Clermont that is kept in the King's Library it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Latin Version that is annexed to it which is the ancient vulgar there is according to this reading corrumpit as in the vulgar used at this day In the first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 9. vers 8. where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or saith not the law the same also He had in his Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho the law of Moses doth not say the same Chap. 14. ver 19. of this same Epistle Marcion had altered the sense of these words Yet in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding He read in his Copy instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In my understanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the law But it is probable that this reading of Marcion came from a fault of the Transcriber who hath read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in the present Greek Copies which reading approacheth nearer to that of Marcion than that of S. Epiphanius which agrees nevertheless with the two most ancient Greek Copies that we have viz. the Alexandrian and that of Clermont in the King's Library It is read in these two Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the ancient Latin Version which is joined to the Copy of Clermont there is sensu meo It is also read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the ancient Copy of the Epistles of S. Paul which is in the Library of the Benedictin Fathers of the Abbey of S. Germain but there is in the Latin Version that is added to it per sensum meum This causeth me to believe that the Author of this ancient Translation hath read in his Greek Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is read at present Nevertheless S. Epiphanius accuseth Marcion of making this alteration on purpose to wrest the words of S. Paul to his own Conceptions In the second Epistle to the Corinthians chap. iv 13. where we read Having the same spirit of faith according as it is written Marcion had retrenched from his Copy these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According as it is written S. Epiphanius reproves him in this place Because saith he whether he reads these words or not the scope of the Discourse is plainly evident Indeed it might happen that he did not read them in his Copy And if this Heretick had made no other alterations in S. Paul's Epistles than those that we have above marked there would be no cause to charge him with corrupting them for there are found in our Greek Copies greater diversities than those and very many more in number Neither do I see that Marcion hath committed a great fault in placing the Epistle to the Romans the fourth in his Copy Nevertheless if we believe Epiphanius this Heretick (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Her. 42. hath only set it in this order because he would have nothing right But S. Paul himself hath not ranked his Epistles after the same manner as we have done at present as this Father always supposeth in his Dispute against Marcion He confesseth himself that the Greek Copies do not all agree in this point For when he accuseth him of having placed the Epistle to Philemon the ninth which S. Paul according to his opinion had set the last he saith that in some Copies it was found immediately before that which was written to the Hebrews and which was the fourteenth in these Copies He adds (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. that there are others wherein the Epistle to the Hebrews is the tenth immediately before the two that are written to Timothy and those that are directed to Titus and Philemon S. Epiphanius declares in the same place (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. that he hath remarked nothing in the Epistle to Philemon because Marcion had entirely corrupted it
Clemens Alexandrinus hath placed it amongst the other Books of the Holy Scriptures but as it hath been already observed that this Father hath inserted in his Catalogue some Pieces that were not Canonical though they passed under the names of the Apostles it can only be inferred from thence that at least ever since the time of Clement this Epistle was attributed to the Apostle St. Jude When Eusebius makes mention of it in his Ecclesiastical History he doth not set it in the rank of counterfeit Acts but of those concerning which some Churches have doubted nevertheless there are none at this day that do not acknowledge it as Divine and Canonical It is intituled in the Syriack Copy which hath been Printed The Letter of Jude the Brother of James neither hath it any other Title in the Arabick Version published by Erpenius In the Arabick Printed in the Polyglott Bible of England is is Intituled The Catholick Epistle of the blessed Jude the Brother of the Lord. The End of the First Part. The Second Part will be Published in Five Days A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament WHEREIN Is firmly Establish'd the Truth of those Acts on which the Foundation of CHRISTIAN RELIGION is laid PART II. By Richard Simon Priest LONDON Printed for R. Taylor MDCLXXXIX A CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE New Testament PART II. CHAP. XVIII A Critical Observation on a Passage in S. John's First Epistle Chap. v. vers 7. which is wanting in the most Greek Copies Eastern Editions and the most ancient Latin Copies The Preface to the Canonical Epistles in some Latin Bibles under the name of S. Jerome was not penn'd by that Father It cannot be proved that S. Cyprian had the Passage of S. John's Epistle in his Copy THE Reflections which many Learned Men have made on that Passage in the First Epistle of S. John Chap. v. vers 7. have not discouraged me from examining it afresh and consulting the most part of the Greek and Latin Manuscripts that I could find about the same The Greeks at this day in their Copy entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read as the Latin Church these words (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Joann c. 5. v. 7. For there are three that bear witness in Heaven 1 Joh. c. 5. v. 7. the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one Yet 't is hard to find among the Greeks any Manuscript Copies that have that Passage I speak not only of the Ancients but also of those of the latter times Erasmus alledged the Greeks had their Books more correct than the Latin Copies but he is mistaken as it shall appear by what follows in this Discourse 'T is much more probable that that Doctrinal Point was formerly written the Margin by way of Scolium or Note but afterward inserted in the Text by those who transcribed the Copies Such were my thoughts when I perused some of the Greek Editions and there is no less probability that it was supplied after the same manner in the antient Latin Copies which nevertheless happened not till after S. Jerom's time who is not the Author of that Addition which Socinus next to Erasmus had laid to his charge After the most diligent search in the King's Library and that of Mr. Colbert in which there are a great many good Manuscript Volumes I found no Copy that had that Passage in it tho I read seven of them in the Royal Library Codd MSS. Bibl. Reg. six whereof are marked 1885. 2247. 2248. 2870. 2871. 2872. Some of the Manuscripts have Notes but no Scholiast or Annotator does make mention of that Passage neither have I found it in five Manuscript Copies belonging to Mr. Colbert's Library Codd MSS. Bibl. Colb which are marked 871. 6123. 4785. 6584. 2844. Yet some of these Manuscripts are only in Paper and much later than the rest There is also one in 16 well written and I believe since the Impression Yet the Passage in question is not found therein any more than in the rest of the ancient Copies I could produce yet other Greek Manuscript Copies which I have seen whose various Readings I observed but that which most deserves our notice is that in the Margin of some of the King 's and Mr. Colbert's Copies there are small Notes set over against the said Passage which in all likelihood have slipped afterwards into the Body of the Text. Take an Example from the King's Copy marked 2247. over against these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is this Remark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By which we may perceive that the Author of the said Remark understood The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost to be signified by the Three Witnesses mentioned by S. John The Spirit the Water and the Blood And what was formerly written by way of Note passed afterwards into the Text as it often falls out In the same Copy over against these other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Note is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is One Deity One God. That Manuscript is about 500 Years old and there are but very few places therein that have Notes There is the like Remark in one of the Manuscripts belonging to Mr. Colbert's Library Numb 871. For besides these words that are set in the Margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One God One Deity the Scholiast has also added these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The testimony of God the Father and of the Holy Ghost This in my opinion is the original of the Passage in question which 't is very hard to find in the Greek Manuscript Copies tho at this day the read it in their Version This is much more likely than what Erasmus alledges that the Greek Copies he had occasion to inspect were much more correct than the Latin which obliged that judicious person to omit the forementioned Passage in his first Editions of the New Testament in which he was not altogether to be blamed not being obliged to insert in the Impression what he could not find in any of his Manuscripts He has nevertheless been charged with a design of favouring the Arrian Party by the omission James Lopes Stunica has mightily accused him for his unlucky rejecting the said Passage in his Edition (b) Sciendum est hoc loco Graecorum codices apertissimè esse corruptos nostros verò veritatem ipsam ut à primâ origine traducti sunt continere quod ex Prologo Beati Hieronymi super Epistolas Canonicas manifestè apparet Jac. Lop. Stun Annot. in Eras supposing that the Greek Copies had been corrupted in that place But this Spanish Critick We must in this place know that the Greek Copies are notoriously corrupted and that ours contain the very truth as they were translated from the Original who had read ancient Manuscripts does not quote any to justifie his own Sentiments He contents himself with an Appeal he makes to S. Jerome's Preface to the
that part of it that was Composed by the Prophets They say the Historical Books were not inspired because as they alledge it is not necessary for him that writes History to be a Prophet Grotius is of that Opinion in his Book Entituled Votum pro pace Ecclesiasticâ (b) Si Lucas divino afflatu dictante sua scripsisset inde potiùs sibi sumpsisset auctoritatem ut Prophetae faciunt quà m à testibus quorum fidem est secutus Sic in iis quae Paulum agentem vidit scribendis nullo ipsi dictante afflatu opus Quid ergo est cur Lucae libri sint canonici Quia piè fideliter soriptos de rebus momenti ad salutem maximi Ecclesia primorum temporum judicavit Grot. Vot pro Pac. Eccl. tit de Can. Script If St. Luke saith that Critick had been Inspired by God when he writ his History he would rather have made use of that Inspiration by the example of the Prophets than the Authority of those whom he takes for Witnesses of his faithfulness He had no need he further says of any Inspiration for writing the Actions of St. Paul of which he himself was a Witness Whence he does conclude that the Writings of St. Luke are Canonical not because they were Inspired but because the Primitive Church did Judge that they were written by godly Men with great faithfulness and Treat of things that are of very great importance to our Salvation He does repeat the same thing elsewhere in his Works against Rivetus who opposed that Opinion as being impious He does there affirm (c) Neque Esdras neque Lucas Prophetae fuere sed viri graves prudentes qui nec fallere vellent nec falli se sinerent Dixitne Lucas Factum est ad Lucam verbum Domini dixit ei Dominus Scribe Grot. Riv. Apolog. discuss pag. 723. that Esdras and St. Luke were not Prophets but Grave and Prudent Men who would neither deceive others nor be deceived themselves He does further affirm That St. Luke does not say in the Prophetical Stile The word of the Lord came unto Luke that the Lord did not say to him Write Spinosa did exactly follow the Opinion of Grotius which he has explained more at large in his Book Entituled Tractatus Theologico-Politicus where he does not indeed deny but that the Apostles were Prophets but he affirms (d) Dubitare possumus num Apostoli tanquam Prophetae ex revelatione expresso mandato ut Moses Jeremias alii an verò ut privati vel Doctores Epistolas scripserint Spin. Tract Theol. polit c. 11. that it may be doubted if they writ their Books in the quality of Prophets by the express command of God inspiring them as Moses Jeremy and others had done He does alledge that (e) Si ad eorum stilum attendere volumus eum à stilo Prophetiae alienissimum inveniemus Nam Prophetis usitatissimum erat ubique testari se èx Dei edicto loqui nempe Sic dicit Deus Ait Deus exercituum Edictum Dei c. Atque hoc non tantùm videtur locum habuisse in publicis Prophetarum concionibus sed etiam in Epistolis quae revelationes continebant Spin. ibid. if we judge of the Works of the Apostles by their Stile we shall find that they writ as particular Doctors and not as Prophets because they have nothing that is Prophetical Which he does prove by the same way of reasoning as Grotius It is saith he the custom of the Prophets to declare through all their Writings that they spake by God's order and they have observed that not only in their Prophecies but in their Letters which contain revelations This Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa has been lately renewed in two Letters Published in a Treatise Entitled The Opinions of some Divines of Holland upon the Critical History of the Old Testament Seeing I have given a sufficient Answer to those two Letters and also to the new Explications thereof which have been since published 't is to no purpose to repeat here what has been said elsewhere We shall only observe in general that those Men do deceive themselves whilst they will not own any Inspiration but that of the Prophecies It is true that the manner of writing a History and Letters is not the same as writing Prophecies And therefore these words The word of God that came to Luke do not begin the History of St. Luke or any other Evangelist The Books of Moses Joshua and in a word all the Historical Books of the Old Testament are not written in that Stile which Grotius does call Prophetical Yet Josephus and all the Ancient Jews call them Prophetical believing that they were given by Divine Inspiration 'T is not necessary for a Book 's being inspired that it should be indited by God word for word The false Idea that those Authors have conceived of the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings made them embrace an opinion which is contrary to all Antiquity as well Judaical as Christian Jesus Christ who promised to his Apostles that the Spirit of God should guide them in all the functions of their Ministry did not therefore deprive them of their Reason and Memory Although they were inspired they continued to be Men still and managed their Affairs as other Men. I freely own that there was no need of Inspiration to put in record such matters of Fact whereof they themselves were Witnesses But this does not hinder but that they were directed by the Spirit of God in all that they put in Writing so as not to fall into error It is certain that all the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers did acknowledge this Inspiration of the Evangelists and Apostles Nevertheless they speak of their care and exactness in penning their Works in the same manner as they speak of other Writers who are not inspired Can Grotius conclude from thence that those Ancient Doctors of the Church did not believe that the Books of the New Testament were given by Divine Inspirations This he cannot do seeing those very Doctors have clearly maintained it We need but call to mind what has been said in the 10th Chap. concerning the Opinion of Papias who was contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles He does assure us that if that Evangelist did not observe in his History the order of things as to their Event that he was not in the least to be blamed for that because he made mention of the things according as he remembred them not being so careful to relate them in their order as he was to say nothing but what was Truth Papias or rather one of the Disciples of the Apostles whose words Papias does produce in that place did not thereby pretend to reject the Inspiration of the Gospel of St. Mark. We need but consult the other Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers who expressed themselves in such a manner as might oblige Grotius and Spinosa to believe that they owned no
Superiors beginning in his Commentaries with the Epistles of St. Paul which he did Dedicate to the Archbishop But in the Exposition which he gives of the Passage of that Apostle where he speaks of the Scriptures being given by the Inspiration of God he is altogether against Estius who was at the same time Professor in the University of Douay It is manifest that that Jesuit did insist on that difficulty on purpose and that he then had an Eye to the Censures of the Divines of Louvain and Douay He maintained in his Commentaries upon that place of St. Paul the Propositions which his Doctors had condemned Although the Commentaries of Cornelius à Lapide may be had every where it is convenient to set down his own words in this place by which we may perceive that the Jesuits of Louvain did not regard the Censures of the Divines there (p) Nota Spiritum Sanctum non eodem modo dictasse omnes Sacras Literas Nam Legem Prophetas ad verbum revelavit dictavit Mosi Prophetis Historias verò morales exhortationes quas anteà vel visu vel auditu vel lectione vel meditatione didicerant ipsi scriptores hagiographi non fuit necesse inspirari aut dictari à Spiritu Sancto utpotè cùm eas scirent aut callerent ipsi scriptores Sic S. Joannes c. 19. v. 35. dicit se scribere quae vidit S. Lueas verò c. 1. v. 2. dicit se scribere Evangelium quod audivit traditione accepit ab Apostolis Cornel. à Lap. Comm. in Epist II. ad Tim. c. 3. v. 16. Observe saith that Jesuit that the Holy Ghost did not indite all the Sacred Writings after the same manner For he indited the Words of the Law and the Prophets to Moses and the Prophets But as to the Histories and the Exhortations to Piety which the Holy Pen-Men had learned by seeing hearing reading or meditation it was not at all necessary that they should be Inspired or Indited by the Spirit of God because those Writers knew such things very well And thus St. John Chap. xix 25. does say that he writ that which he had seen St. Luke does also declare Chap. i. 2. That he writ his Gospel according to what he had learned of the Apostles All this is manifestly contrary to the Censures of the Doctors of Louvain and Douay That Jesuit does deliver himself in a clear and distinct manner He very exquisitely confirms the Opinion of those of his Society who had taught Theology before him in the College of Louvain But seeing it may be objected that this Opinion is the same with that of Grotius and Spinosa who acknowledged no other Inspiration but that of the Prophetical Writings it is worth the while to subjoyn that which Cornelius à Lapide observed in the same place concerning the manner of Inspiration that concerns Historical and Moral part of the Holy Scripture (q) Dicitur tamen Spiritus Sanctus ea quoque illis dictasse primò quia scribentibus adstitit ne vel in puncto à veritate aberrarent secundò quia eos excitavit suggessit ut haec potiùs scriberent quà m illa Conceptum ergo memoriam eorum quae sciebant non eis ingessit Spiritus Sanctus sed inspiravit ut hunc potiùs conceptum quà m illum scriberent Corn. à Lapid ibid. Nevertheless they affirm saith he that these latter Works were also Indited by the Holy Ghost first because he did assist the Writers that they could never be deceived and again because he suggested to them that one thing should be rather written than another So that the Holy Spirit did not suggest to them either their conceptions or the remembrance of those things which they knew but did Inspire them in this respect only that they might put one conception in writing rather than another In this the Inspiration of the Historical and Moral Writings of the Holy Scripture did consist according to the Opinion of that learned Jesuit wherein nothing appears but what is good Sense whereas in the Opinion of the Doctors of Louvain and Douay which is the same with that of the Calvinists there is something unintelligible that does violence both to Reason and Experience It cannot be said that this Opinion is a Novelty that was unadvisedly asserted by that Jesuit For he maintained it in the same Schools where that Dispute had made so great a noise upon the occasion of some Propositions that were put out upon that Subject by some Divines of his Society He was very much desirous to clear that Question in his Commentaries upon St. Paul to make it appear to all the World that the Censures of the two Faculties of Theology of Louvain and Douay had no Foundation and that they were against Reason Further the Provincial of the Jesuits of the Low-Countries who gave his approbation to that Book does declare that he himself had read it and had committed it to the Examination of four Divines of his Society There is also at the beginning of those Commentaries and Approbation of the Censor of the Books of that place who is a Canon of Anvers But that the World may be intirely satisfied that there is nothing either scandalous or dangerous in the Opinion of the Jesuits of the Low-Countries touching the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings we shall proceed to examin the Reasons upon which the Divines of Louvain and of Douay did found their Censures CHAP. XXIV An Examination of the Reasons that the Doctors of Louvain and Douay made use of in their Censure of the Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain touching the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings A very free Opinion of a Learned Divine of Paris about the same thing SEeing I have no other publick Records of the Fathers the Jesuits of Louvain to justifie their Propositions concerning the Inspiration of Scripture than what I have already mentioned I shall endeavour to supply that defect by examining the Reasons of the Censure of the two Faculties of Theology of Louvain and of Douay I am willing to believe that those Divines had no other design therein but what was for the Defence of the Truth or rather their own old Opinions and that Passion had no part in all that Dispute As to what concerns the Jesuits it is probable that they had not introduced that Opinion into the Colledges of Flanders but in conformity to the Liberty which had been granted to their Professors not to ingage themselves easily in the maintainance of any Opinions how old soever when they did not appear to be warrantable In a word the Jesuits make no profession of submitting to the decisions of a Master as a Rule from which there is no Appeal non jurant in verba Magistri And seeing there is nothing in that conduct but what does become wise Men they are much to be blamed who accuse them for opposing the Opinions that are received and authorised in the
and Carpocras Hereticks of those primitive times who also used the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew read the Genealogy entire and even proved from thence that Jesus Christ was sprung from the Seed of Joseph and Mary S. Hierom who had translated this same Gospel of the Nazarenes into Greek and Latin assures us (f) In Evangelio juxta Hebraeos quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni Hieron lib. 3. adv Pelag. that these Sectaries still read it in his time in their Assemblies he had seen two Copies of them one (g) Ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodie in Caesareensi bibliothecâ quam Pamphilus martyr studiosissimè confecit Mihi quoque à Nazarenis qui in Beraea urbe Syriae hoc volumine utuntur describendi facultas fuit Hieron de Script Eccles in Matth. of which was kept in the Library of Caesarea and he had borrowed the other from the Nazarenes themselves of Berea to copy it out This was the Copy from which he made his Translation He saith moreover that (h) In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni Ebionitae quod nuper in Graecum sermonem transtulimus quod vocatur à plerisque Matthaei authenticum c. Idem Comm. lib. 2. in Matth. c. 12. many People believed that this Hebrew Gospel whereof the Nazarenes and the Ebionites made use was the original of S. Matthew However it be it seems that the most ancient Ecclesiastical Writers have cited it as the true Gospel of S. Matthew several have believed that S. Ignatius Martyr had taken from thence these words of our Saviour to S. Peter which he quotes in hir Epistle to those of Smyrna (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Epist ad Smyrn Touch me and see that I am not a spirit Eusebius and S. Hierom cite these same words of S. Ignatius which are still to be found at this day in this Epistle And this last observes that they are taken from the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes which he had lately translated Hieron de script Eccles in Ign. De Evangelio quod nuper à me translatum est It is probable that S. Ignatius being Bishop of Antioch had read this Gospel of the Hebrews that was spread abroad through Syria which the Nazarenes inhabited This induceth me to believe that Tatian who abode also in Syria had made use of the same Gospel when after his manner he composed one out of four which some according to Epiphanius calls the Gospel according to the Hebrews Epiph. Haer. 46. n. 1. This ought not to be understood as if this Collection of Tatian had not been different from the Gospel of the Hebrews for this would make no sense Valestus hath not made a sufficient Reflection on this Gospel of Tatian Vales Annot in l. 4. Hist Eccl. Eus c. 29. Grot. Annot in tit Matth. when he hath discoursed thereof on this account in his Notes on Eusebius Grotius hath made a much better Remark on occasion of this Passage of S. Epiphanius that Tatian in the Work which he composed from the four Gospels had related the words of S. Matthew not only according to the Greek Copies but also according to those which were in Hebrew and that for this reason this Gospel which was commonly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was made out of four had been named by some Authors according to the Hebrews He believes moreover that it is also for this reason that some others have given it the Name of * Some nevertheless believe that it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of five as having been collected from five Gospels All this seems to be most probable were it not that the Gospel of Tatian which hath been published doth not contain that which was singular in the Hebrew Copy of the Nazarenes Altho Baronius is mistaken in several places of his Annals wherein he treats concerning the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew nevertheless he hath had reason to consider it as an Original He hath been so bold as to say according to this Principle that if there were a necessity of correcting the Latin Version of S. Matthew Baron an Christ 34. n. 72. it ought to be done rather after the Hebrew Text than the Greek but he is deceived when he attributes this Opinion to S. Hierom and grounds it on the Epistle of this Father to Pope Damasus For S. Hierom speaks in this Epistle of the whole New Testament in general and he would have the faults that were in the Latin to be amended from the Greek Text from whence the Latin hath been taken Casaubon Casaub Exercit. 15. ad Annal Baron Sect. 4. n. 18. who hath acknowledged with all antiquity that S. Matthew hath certainly written his Gospel in Hebrew could not allow the opinion of this Cardinal which he accuseth of Impiety Haec sententia saith he fidem Catholicae Ecclesiae facit pendere nefas dictu ab Haereticorum fide He could not comprehend how it could be said that the authority of the Greek Text of S. Mattthew depends on the Hebrew Text which is lost He affirms also that tho we should still have at this day the Hebrew Copy yet we could not consider it as an original Piece from which we ought to correct the Greek Version (k) In antiquis temporibus quando Hebraea extabant Nazareni Ebionitae haeretici Hebraicum textum sibi vindicarunt ut testes sunt Hieronymus Epiphanius Catholici Graecum semper à principio sunt amplexi Casaub Exercit. 16. ad Annal. Bar. sect 115. because none but the Nazarene Hereticks and the Ebionites have made use of it as may be proved as he thinks by the testimony of Epiphanius and S. Jerom. He calls those among the Catholicks that have given the name of Authentick to the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew simple People They have too easily saith he given credit to these Hereticks who boasted that they had the original of this Gospel (l) Sine injuriâ veteris Ecclesiae dici non potest passuram illam fuisse ut impii haeretici vindicarent sibi ceu proprium eum textum quem constaret esse Ecclesiae authenticum Ibid. This would be according to his Judgment to offer an injury to the Primitive Church to say that she had suffered wicked Hereticks to ascribe to themselves a Gospel which had been the true original Lastly he adds that the Hebrew Gospel which hath been in use among the Ebionites and some other Hereticks was filled with Fables and that it hath been corrupted in divers places from whence he concludes that it cannot pass for an original Piece according to which the Greek Version received by the whole Church might be amended He calls this last proof an invincible Argument Argumentum invictum Casaub ib But it is an easie matter to shew the weakness of all
to shew that the second is not his (p) Haec ratio non minus infert primam quà m secundam non esse Petri nam tuntum dissonas prima à secundâ quantum secunda à primâ Gajet praef Comm. in post Epist Pet because this Reason might as well be applied to the first as to the second but this Cardinal hath not considered that it was never doubted in any Church whether the first Epistle of S. Peter was certainly written by him and therefore from this Act which is unquestionable we should judge of the other that hath not the same certainty If the diversity of Stile only be a sure Touch-stone whereby the verity of a Piece may be tryed the reason of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers taken from the difference of the Stile and related by S. Jerom is a good proof to shew that the second Epistle ascribed to S. Peter is not this Apostle's That which Cajetan adds in the same place that a diversity of Stile doth not necessarily infer a diversity of Authors is on much better grounds It is certain that St. Jerom who acknowledged this diversity of Stile hath attributed it to the different Interpreters of St. Peter he supposeth that St. Peter did not write his Epistles in Greek himself but that he had Interpreters with him who understood that Language mention is also made in the New Testament of those that exercised the Function of Interpreters in those Primitive and Apostolical Times According to this Opinion which is maintained by the ancient Doctors of the Church St. Jerom saith (q) Ex quò intelligimus pro necessitate rerum diversis eum usum interpretibus Hioron Epist ad Hedib qu. 11. that St. Peter hath made use of divers Interpreters as different Occasions required Baronius hath concluded from thence Bar. ann c 45. n. 28. that this Father believed that Saint Mark had translated the first Epistle of Saint Peter out of Hebrew into Greek but Saint Jerom only declares in this place that the Apostles who did not very well express themselves in the Greek Tongue emploved Scribes or Interpreters Calvin after he hath a little enlarged on this diversity of Stile which seems to denote a difference between the Authors of these two Epistles doth not forbear to acknowledge the second as Divine and Canonical Calv. arg de ses Com. sur la 2. Epist de S. Pier. However it be saith he since in all the parts of the Epistle the Majesty of the Spirit of Christ is clearly manifest I cannot in conscience reject it altogether though I do not find therein the true and natural Phrose of Saint Peter Flaccius Illyricus hath written Notes on this Epistle without doubting in the least whether it was made by him whose Name it bears Grotius hath chosen rather to attribute it to another Simeon or Simon the Successor of St. James in the Bishoprick of Jerusalem than to Simon Peter He believes that the ancient Title of this Epistle hath been changed and that it was not Simon Peter a Servant and an Apostle of Jesus Christ as it is read at this day but simply Simeon a Servant of Jesus Christ there would be some likelihood of this if it were grounded on any Manuscript Copies or ancient Acts but he only confirms his Opinion by a Critical Argument that is not concluding he urgeth that this Epistle at least the third Chapter of it could not have been written till after the Destruction of Jerusalem because mention is therein made of the entire ruin of the World which was impatiently expected by the Christians of those times Now S. Peter died under Nero. No Christian saith Grotius could look for this last Destruction of the World till after that of the State of the Jews But it doth not follow from thence that Jerusalem ought to have been then destroyed for this Persuasion was generally received amongst the Disciples of Jesus Christ whilst he was yet living ever since that time they waited with Impatience for his happy Reign which could not be established as they thought but on the ruin of the State of the Jews therefore when Jesus Christ speaks to them Chap. xxiv of S. Matthew of the ruin of the Temple he mixeth some things concerning his coming (r) Existimabant Apostoli haec esse conjuncta finem templi finem mundi Noluit Christus hunc illis errorem eripere ne post templi eversionem in longum expectationem porrigentes securi essent Mald. Comm. in c. 24. Matth. v. 25. The Apostles saith Maldonat thought that the end of the Temple and the end of the World were necessarily joined together Jesus Christ would not undeceive them lest after the destruction of the Temple seeing their Expectations deferred they might grow negligent and secure S. Peter then might have written this Epistle before the Destruction of Jerusalem and might have declared to the Faithful in the third Chapter thereof that Jesus Christ had not delayed the accomplishment of his word as some amongst them imagined The Primitive Christians expected with impatience the ruin of the Temple and thought that the general destruction of the whole World would follow soon after S. Peter exhorts them in this place to wait patiently because One day is with the Lord as a thousand years 2 Pet. 3. v. 8. and a thousand years as one day Therefore the Conjecture of Grotius seems to have no better Foundation than that of Didymus Didym Comm. in Epist 2. Pet. who lived at the beginning of the fourth Century and hath rejected this Epistle as suppositious because mention is made as he thinks in this same Chap. 3. of I know not what renovation of the world conformably to the Opinion of the Platonick Philosophers But there is nothing in this whole Chapter that doth not perfectly agree with the Doctrine of the Primitive Christians touching the end of the World. It is not necessary to spend much time in insisting on the second and third Epistles of S. John of which it hath been also doubted in the Primitive Ages of the Church Papias Pap. apud Eus Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 29. who lived with the Disciples of the Apostles distinguisheth two Johns who have dwelt in Asia the first of which is our Apostle and the other was a Priest and Disciple of the Apostles Papias who was the Disciple of this last John ascribes to him no other quality than that of a Priest and this hath caused divers Ecclesiastical Writers to believe that he was the Author of the second and third Epistles attributed to the Apostle S. John. Indeed he doth not take the name of Apostle but simply that of Priest or Elder 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius relying on the Testimony of Papias Euseb ib. approves the Opinion of those that believed that there were two persons in Asia that were called by the name of John this Persuasion was further confirmed in regard that there was yet
Canonical Epistles from which he proves that the Passage was extant in the ancient Greek Copies out of which that Father compiled his ancient Latin Edition Erasmus in his answer to Stunica does vindicate himself well enough by the authority of those Greek Copies he had yet he was wrought upon by some other consideration contrary to the Authority of all his Manuscripts to insert the Passage of S. John in a new Edition of his New Testament He declares that what obliged him to make that Change was his seeing a Greek Copy in England which he believed was more perfect than any Latin Edition I shall afterwards shew that he is mistaken in believing that the Greeks reformed their Copies of the New Testament to a degree of perfection above those of the Latins after their Reunion with the Roman Church If that were so as that judicious Person does suppose with what warrant and freedom could he correct his Greek Edition by one single Copy which as he himself believed had suffered some alteration He does disparage his own judgment by inveighing against S. Jerome as if that Father had been the Author of the Addition that is found in the Latin Copies in which there are these words Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus Sanctus hi tres unum sunt i. e. Because there are three who bear witness in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one (c) Ille saepenumerò violentus est parumque sibi pudens saepè varius parumque sibi constans Erasm Apol. adv Stun He on this occasion brings a heavy Charge against him as being more forward than wise that is to say if the matter be referred to Erasmus's judgment S. Jerome must stand chargeable with Forgery a bold and presumptuous undertaking to correct the ancient Latin Edition according to his own fancy without the Authority of good Copies Faustus Socinus knew very well what advantage to make of this Answer of Erasmus but withal adds that (d) Hieronymus ut is qui ut rectè de eo Erasmus alicubi scribit non satis prudenter saepe ad victoriam ad causae suae defensionem favorem multa trahebat nactus fortè exemplar aliquod aut etiam plura exemplaria in quibus particula ista adjecta fuerat ut fraus animadverti non posset adversus fidem aliorum omnium exemplarium tam Latinorum quà m Graecorum lectionem particulae istius tanquam germanam defendere promovere coepit conquerens publicè eam culpâ fraude hereticorum abrasam à vulgatis codicibus fuisse Soc. Comm. in 1 Joann c. 5. v. 7. S. Jerome might have had one or more Copies in which this Addition might be so managed as to make it a hard matter to discover the Fraud and that this is the reason obliged him to maintain that additional Passage against the Authority of so many Copies In this manner that Unitary argues according to his custom with more subtilty than solidity But Reason alone is not sufficient to judg of such maters for besides that 't is necessary to be well acquainted with and to examin strictly such Writings as are on publick record and may give light in this affair If Erasmus who had read many Greek and Latin Copies of the New Testament and frequently consulted S. Jerome's Manuscripts had applyed himself to a strict examination of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles which he thinks was written by that Father he would rather have been inclined to reject that Preface as supposititious than to charge S. Jerome with Forgery 'T is not amiss to set down in this place some part of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles Hieron Prolog in VII E. pist Can. ex edit Paris ann 1523. that is thought to be S. Jerome's which is only found in the first Latin Editions of the Bible with this Title Incipit prologus beati Hieronymi presbyteri in septem Epistolas Canonicas i. e. The beginning of the Preface of S. Jerome the Presbyter to the seven Canonical Epistles The Author complains that Interpreters have not faithfully translated those Epistles (e) Illo praecipuè loco ubi de unitate Trinitatis in primâ Joannis Epistolâ positum legimus In quâ etiam ab infidelibus translatoribus multum erratum esse à fidei veritate comperimus trium tantummodò vocabula hoc est aquae sanguinis spiritûs in ipsâ suâ editione ponentibus Patris ubique ac Spiritûs testimonium omittentibus in quo maximè fides Catholica roboratur Patris Filii Spiritûs Sancti una Divinitatis substantia comprobatur Hieron Prol. in VII Epist Can. especially that place of S. John's First Epistle Chap. v. vers 7. where there is mention made of the Unity of Persons in the Blessed Trinity He accuses those unfaithful Translators of falling into great Errors whilst they retained in their Version these words only The Water the Blood and the Spirit and left out the words The Father and the Spirit which are an authentick Testimony of the Catholick Faith about the Mystery of the Trinity The Bishop of Oxford who has lately published a new Edition of S. Cyprian's Works with Observations makes mention of a great number of Latin Bibles where S. Jerome's supposed Preface is found In the mean time he complains that it is left out of the Latin Bibles that are printed in our Age. (f) Vtrum hoc ex casit an maleficio contigerit dispiciant eruditi Joann Oxon. Episc Not. in Cypr. de unit Eccl. Let those says that learned Bishop who are men of Judgment determin if that omission happened by chance or was the effect of some bad Design He could not imagin for what reasons it was taken from the last Editions of the Latin Bible since he found it in the Manuscript Copies and almost in all the ancient Impressions Libris manuscriptis passim fere omnibus codicibus impressis antiquioribus But 't is not just to accuse upon this account those who were concerned in the Translation of the Latin Bibles without that Preface This is true that it is found with other Prefaces of S. Jerome to the Bible in such Latin Copies as have been made not above six Hundred Years ago and in all probability the first Latin Bibles were printed according to such Manuscripts But 't is not altogether so in those that were written about seven or eight Hundred Years ago but in some few only of such Copies And 't is very likely that as to the rest there was a Regulation made according to the later Manuscripts in such Editions of the Bible as have not that Preface 'T is further observable that neither the Name of S. Jerome nor of any other Writer is prefixt to the Preface in some of the ancient Copies where it is found which sufficiently shews that we may on good grounds question S. Jerome's
being the Author of it The Preface in controversie is not in a certain Manuscript Copy of the whole Bible Cod. MSS. Bibl. Reg. that is in the Royal Library marked 3564. and has been extant these seven Hundred Years neither is it in two other Manuscript Copies of the like antiquity belonging to the Library of the Benedictine Monks of the Abby of S. Germain Cod. MSS. Bibl. Benedict S. Germ. Paris It is found I confess in Charles le Chauve's fair Bible that is in the King's Library but S. Jerome's Name is not there any more than it is in some other ancient Copies Whoever will take the pains to compare the most of the ancient Latin Bibles together shall easily discover that he who gathered all the Books of the Latin Bible into one Body the better part of which was translated or revised by S. Jerome is really the Author of that Preface Since he was not furnished with that Father's Preface to all those Books he supplied in his Collection what was wanting with an addition of some of his own composure and others which he gathered from S. Jerome's Works Hence for example in Charles le Chauve's Copy there is before the Acts of the Apostles a Preface with this Title Praefatio Hieronymi Yet 't is certain that S. Jerome was not the Author of that Preface to the Acts as it is there in express words but the Author of the Collection of the Books of the Latin Bible took the same out of that Father's large Preface entituled Prologus Galeatus and it is expressed in these words Actus Apostolorum nudam quidem resanare historiam videntur nascentis Ecclesiae historiam texere Sed si noverimus scriptorem eorum Lucam esse Medicum cujus laus in Evangelio animadvertemus pariter omnia verba illius animae languentis esse Medicinam that is The Acts of the Apostles seem to be a bare History affording us a prospect of the Church in its Birth But if we consider that the Writer was Luke the Physician who is famous in the Gospel we shall also perceive that all his words are the Medicine of a languishing Soul. 'T is also probable that the Compiler of the Books of the Latin Version which we call the Vulgar not finding in S. Jerome a particular Preface to the Canonical Epistles made one according to that Father's Stile some of whose Expressions he has made use of and amongst others has inserted that word Eustochium 'T is likewise probable that the Addition of the Witness of three Persons was extant before that time in some Copies of S. John's Epistles or at least in some Latin Writers at the time when that Preface was made Upon this account the Author who possibly had not the occasion of consulting the Creek Copies supposed that if that Passage was not extant in any Latin Copy the Translators were to be blamed 'T is observable that the Addition is not in most of the old Copies of S. Jerome's Bible to which nevertheless the Preface is prefixt as I have observed in two Copies one whereof is in the Royal Library and the other in that belonging to Mr. Colbert How incongruous is it to see a Preface at the beginning of the Canonical Epistles where S. Jerome complains of the unfaithfulness of the ancient Latin Translators who have omitted in the First Epistle of S. John Chap. 1. a whole Verse which he restores to the Greek and yet if one turn to the place of S. John's Epistle in the very same Copy the passage is not to be found there There can be no other reason given in my opinion of this incoherency but this that the Transcribers who writ out the Preface made use of such Latin Copies in which that Verse was not extant because neither S. Jerome nor the antient Latin Version had any thing of it If that Father had been the Author of the Preface and of the Addition inserted in S. John's Epistle that Addition would have been extant in all S. Jerome's Latin Bibles This diversity of Copies is in my judgment an evident proof that he did not compose that Preface to prefix it to the Canonical Epistles And that which makes it further manifest that S. Jerome was not the true Author either of the Preface or Addition is that that Addition is placed in the Margin of mose of the antient Copies in the Body of which it is not extant It was no less than surprising (g) Quantum à nostrâ aliorum distet editio lectoris judicio relinquo Hier. Prol. in VII Epist Can. that the pretended S. Jerome should in his Preface commend his new Edition of the Canonical Epistles upon the account of the change he had made especially in the First of S. John whilst there was nothing of such change or amendment to be seen therein Upon which account the Transcribers or they to whom the Copies did belong thought fit to regulate the Text according to the Preface by supplying in the Margin the Verse concerning the Witness of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost which before that time was extant in some Ecclesiastical Authors But since it was a matter of difficulty for those who placed that Addition in the Margin of their Copies to observe a general and perfect uniformity of words it so fell out that the Expressions in the various Copies did likewise vary This diversity does evidently prove that S. Jerome could not be the Author of the Addition in controversie but that it was done by those who had a mind to adjust the Text in S. James to the Preface I shall here give some Examples of that Regulation of the manner how it was added to most of the old Latin Copies of S. Jerome's Bible In that Copy of the Royal Library that is marked 3584. in the Margin over against these words Cod. MSS. Bibl. Reg. Tres sunt qui testimonium dant i. e. There are three which bear witness there are these other words added In coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ hi tres unum sunt i. e. In Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and there are three which bear witness on earth and these three are one The writing of the Addition appears to be no less ancient than that of the Text. The like Addition is to be seen in a Copy that is in Mr. Colbert's Library Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb that is marked 158. where in the Margin over against these words Tres sunt qui testimonium dant these are added In coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ sanguis aqua caro And to make the Text and Addition agree the better there are some of the words of the Text amended or put out There is nothing of this Addition to be read in the three ancient Copies of the Library belonging to the Benedictines of the
Abby of S. Germans only it is placed in the Margin of one of these Copies Cod. MSS. Bibl. Ben. S. Germ. Paris and the Addition is as old therein as the Text it self 'T is true that it is extant in a Copy written eight Hundred Years ago in the time of Lotharius II. But it is strangely disfigured in that place Cod. MSS. Bibl. Ben. S. Germ. in that Copy the Reading was formerly thus Sunt tres qui testimonium dant the words in terrâ being interlined spiritus aqua sanguis tres unum sunt tres sunt qui de coelo testificantur pater verbum spiritus tres unum sunt But some time afterwards the words de coelo testificantur i. e. bear witness of Heaven were defaced to make room for these testimonium dicunt in coelo i. e. bear witness in Heaven All which different Alterations are evident proofs that there was nothing of that Addition in the first Copies which were published of S. Jerome's Bible for which reason it is not to be found in a certain Version of the French Church which is at least a Thousand Years old and which was published by F. Mabillon a Benedictine Monk and the first who in effect seems to have inserted that Passage in his Works is Victor Bishop of Vite who lived a Hundred Years after S. Jerome Take his own words in his Second Book of the Persecution of the Vandals Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius Divinitatis esse cum Patre Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus Joannis Evangelistae testimonio comprobatur Victor Vitensis l. 2. persec Afric Provinc edit Basil ann 1539. Ait namque tres sunt qui testimonium prohibent in coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus Sanctus hi tres unum sunt i. e. And further to shew that 't is most evident that the Holy Ghost is the same God with the Father and the Son the testimony of S. John the Evangelist is sufficient for he says that there are three that bear witness in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one St. Fulgence a little after did also quote him But I refer that to a larger Discourse in the II. Book of this Work where I shall particularly treat of the Versions of the New Testament I know that a great many Men of Learning have alledged that St. Cyprian who lived a long time before St. Jerom had quoted that passage in his Books The Bishop of Oxford brought the testimony of St. Cyprian (h) Cui gravissimae calumniae de D. Hieronymo falsario S. Scripturarum interpolatore amoliendae sufficere poterit Cyprianum citasse non modò ante Hieronymi tempora sed Arii ipsius litem de dogmate illo quod adeò displicet Socino de trino uno Deo scriptorem Joann Episc Oxon. Not. in Cyp. de unit Eccles to justifie St. Jerom's Preface and at the same time to shew that that Father could not be accused of any unfair dealing because he only re-established the Ancient Latin Edition in its first purity Father Amelote who belongs to the Chappel freely declares that the same passage is wanting in St. Athanasius St. Cyril St. Gregory St. Nazianzen St. Chrysostom Didymus and as to the Fathers of the Latine Church in St. Augustin St. Leon Beda and in divers others and yet does assure us that it is extant in a Treatise of St. Cyprian concerning the Unity of the Church But can we imagine if St. Cyprian had had it in his Copy of the New Testament that St. Augustin would not have made use of it against the Arians of his time The truth is after I had strictly examined that passage of St. Cyprian which is the matter in Question I fully persuaded my self that that Pious Prelate had only made mention of these words hi tres unum sunt i.e. and these three are one about which there is no contest and that from thence he would prove the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost to be one and the same It is written says he of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost and these three are one He applies to the Father Son and Holy Ghost what we read in all the Greek and Latine Copies concerning the testimony of the Spirit the Water and the Blood of which it is said that they are one hi tres unum sunt which differs very much from an express quotation of those Words as if they were in the Text it self And that there may be no doubt left but that this is St. Cyprian's true sense of the words it is but consulting the Learned Facundus who was of the same African Church and gives their explication at large evincing the mystery of the Trinity from them Facund prodefens Tri. capit l. 1. c. 3. after his example He does suppose through his whole Discourse that in St. John's Epistle Chap. v. there are only these words extant Tres sunt qui testificantur in terrâ spiritus aqua sanguis i. e. There are three which bear witness on earth the Spirit the Water and the Blood. But he adds at the same time that they are to be understood of the Father Son and Holy Ghost De Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto dicit tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ spiritus aqua sanguis hi tres unum sunt in spiritu significans Patrem in aquâ Spiritum Sanctum in sanguine vero Filium significans His meaning is that the three Persons are signified by the three Witnesses of the Earth the Spirit the Water and the Blood. And the more to confirm his Opinion he adds that St. Cyprian was of the mind that this is proper sense of that passage in St. John. Quod Joannis Apostoli testimonium beatus Cyprianus Carthaginiensis Antistes Martyr in Epistolâ sive libro quem de * Vnitate Trinitate scripsit de Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto dictum intelligit If the Bishop of Oxford had compared the words of Facundus with those of St. Cyprian he had not brought such weak Arguments against Erasmus and Socinus in the defence of St. Jerome who stood in no need of that service seeing he was not the Author of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles nor of the Addition inserted in St. John's Epistle Chap. v. Victor the Bishop not having considered the matter so narrowly brings in the Witness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as if St. John had expresly made mention of them whereas St. Cyprian and Facundus bring it only as an explication of the Witness of the Spirit the Water and the Blood. The same thing hapned to those who caused to Print St. Athanasius's Works with a Table of the passages of Holy Scripture which are quoted therein They have set down at large there the seventh Verse of the fifth Chapter of the first Epistle of St.
that (k) Si non est necessarium ut singulae veritates sententiae quae sunt in Sacris Literis immediatè sint à Spiritu Sancto ipsi scriptori inspiratae non modò sequetur indeterminabilis altercatio super sententiis immediatè vel non immediatè inspiratis verùm etiam de integris Evangeliis quorum historia potuit humanitùs esse nota imò de omnibus Scripturis non Propheticis dubitabitur an immediate Spiritus Sanctus eas scriptoribus inspiraverit Theol. Duac ibid. if it be once granted that it is not necessary that every Truth and Sentence should be immediatly indited by the Spirit of God there will be endless disputes not only about that which is particularly delivered in Scripture by immediate Inspiration but also about entire Gospels the History of which may be known in a humane manner It will be also question'd in general if all the Books of the Scripture that are not Prophetical have been immediatly suggested by the Holy Ghost to those who were the Writers thereof The third Proposition appeared to those Divines to be the most dangerous of all and opposite to the words of St. Paul who does assure us that all the Scripture is given by the Inspiration of God and a Divine Doctrin which was indited by the Holy Spirit It is for this Reason say they that the Decrees of Popes and of Councils were never reckoned in the number of Divine Writings although the Holy Ghost does testifie by the Church that there is nothing that is false in those Decrees And finally they add that that third Proposition of the Jesuits of Louvain could not be maintained without acknowledging that the Histories of Thucydides and of Livie might for the same reason be reckoned amongst the Books of the Scripture if the Holy Ghost should testifie to us that there is nothing of falshood in those Histories They conclude their Censure with this Maxim (l) Non enim ideò inspiratum aliquid divinitùs est quòd posteà sit approbatum sed ideò est approbatum quia fuerat divinitùs inspiratum ibid. That a thing is not therefore given by Divine Inspiration because it so falls out that it is approved of afterwards but that on the contrary it is approved because it was Inspired Let us now see if the Doctors of the two Faculties of Theology had reason to condemn those three Propositions in terms that are injurious to the Society of the Jesuits 'T is observable that before all these things the Jesuits who published at Rome an 1586. a Directory for the Studies of their Society Entitled Ratio Studiorum have placed this Proposition concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings amongst those which their Divines ought to prefer to others (m) Probabilius est verba primorum exemplarium ac fontium incorruptorum fuisse omnia singula à Spiritu Sancto dictata secundùm substantiam multiformiter tamen pro variâ instrumentorum conditione Rat. stud edit Rom. tit de reliq opin del in Theol. fac It is more probable say they that the first and Original Copies which were not corrupted were all particularly indited by the Holy Ghost as to what concerns the substance but in a different manner according to the different condition of the Instruments By that we see that the Jesuits of Rome did not believe at that time that the same Inspiration is to be acknowledged in all the Books of the Scripture and when they say that every word was Inspired they add withal as to what concerns the Substance Besides they do not maintain this Inspiration of words as to what belongs to the substance but as a probable Opinion so that they believe that that may be also denied with probability It is true that the Opinion of those two Faculties of Theology belonging to Louvain and Douay was then most received in the Schools But the Jesuits who from that time have had Learned Men in their Society saw very well that it was contradictory to good sense and likewise opposite to the most Ancient Doctors of the Church Those of their College of Louvain did nothing that was contrary to the Rule or Constitution of their Foundation which (n) Fundator constitutionum 3. part c. 10. disertis verbis cavet ne novae opiniones admittantur Quod tamen ut suavius fieret additum est hâc formulâ nisi ex consensu praepositorum Rat. stud tit de del opin does expresly forbid the introducing of new Opinions for the same rule does proceed unless it be done with the consent of the Superiors There is nothing more judicious than the Liberty of Opinion which is granted by the Constitutions of that Society to its Professors in the manner as it is limited (o) Sequantur ait Ignatius in quavis facultate securiorem magis approbatam doctrinam eos auctores qui eam docent Et ne singulis liberum esset judicium de magis approbatâ securiore doctrinâ deligendâ statim subdit Cujus rei penès Rectorem qui quod statuetur in universâ Societate ad majorem Dei gloriam secuturus est cura sit ibid. Father Ignatius did ordain that in every Science whatsoever they should follow the most certain and the most received Doctrine But seeing it is not easie to distinguish what are the most certain and the most received Opinions he decreed that the choice should depend on the Rector who ought to embrace for the greater Glory of God that which was maintained in the whole Society And the truth is the Jesuits did no sooner appear in the World but there was a birth given to much more considerable assistances for the study of Theology than had ever been before that time And therefore they did wisely that they were not altogether devoted to the Opinions of St. Thomas and St. Augustin though they were zealously embraced in the most part of the Universities at that time They had reason in that case not to follow blindly the Opinions that were most received in the Schools in their time concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings This liberty of Prophesie which had been agreed upon in behalf of their Professors of Theology did afford them an occasion of making new discoveries in this Science and to this I impute the rigor with which the Jesuits of Louvain maintain their Opinions about Inspiration without troubling themselves about the Belief of the two Faculties of Theology of Louvain and Douay who had not carefully enough examined that matter Notwithstanding the Censures of those two Faculties they continued to teach in their College of Louvain the same Opinions concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings Father Cornelius à Lapide a few years after that time kept up in the same place publick Lectures on the Holy Scriptures which he continued for the space of sixteen years He likewise published those Lectures by the Order of the Archbishop of Malines and of his
most part of the Schools when those Opinions have no good Foundation which happened to them in the matter which we now handle The Divines of Louvain bring for one of the principal motives of their Censure the conformity that the three Propositions of the Jesuits have to an old Opinion that was condemned in the Anomeans whereof St. Epiphanius all through makes mention But to shew the falshood of this objection it will be sufficient to bring the Testimony of Epiphanius That Father does say that the Anomeans (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 76. n. 6. traduced the Prophets and the Evangelists that when they were much urged they avoided the difficulty by answering that the Apostle spake as a Man. Is there any thing in those three Propositions above mentioned that comes near this Did the Jesuits of the College of Louvain alledge that there might possibly be somthing that is false in the Writings of the Apostles under the pretext that they were Men that spake it Yet that is the Opinion of the Anomeans who being unable to satisfie the Reasons that were brought against them out of the Books of the New Testament said that the Authors of those Books had spoken as Men in those places We shall apply the same Answer to another Objection which those Doctors did take from the Preface of St. Jerom's Commentaries upon the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Philemon That Father does in that place make mention of certain Hereticks who rejected that Epistle because they alledged that that Holy Apostle was not guided by the Spirit of God in writing it Hieron prooem Comm. in Epist ad Philem. Those who will not saith he receive the Epistle written to Philemon as one of the Epistles of Paul do say that the Apostle did not speak always nor all things by the immediate assistance of Christ speaking in him because human frailty could not suffer one constant tenor of the Holy Ghost But if it should be granted to those Hereticks that St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles were not Inspired in all that they writ it does not therefore follow that we ought to reject a part of their Writings It is sufficient that we own with the Jesuits that there is nothing but Truth in those very places which were not Inspired and that the Holy Ghost had committed them to us as such Those Sectaries asked the Orthodox Apud Hieron ibid. Epist II. ad Tim. c. 4. v. 13. if St. Paul stood in need of any Inspiration to say When thou doest come bring my Cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus and especially the parchments and many other things of that nature I do declare that it was in no ways necessary that God should Indite such kind of things to St. Paul and other Holy Writers This is the Opinion of the Jesuits of Louvain which was afterwards confirmed in the same place by Cornelius à Lapide whose words I have already mentioned But they did not conclude from thence that we are not obliged to receive the Books of Scripture in any parts or places thereof but those only that were Indited by the Holy Ghost It is sufficient that they were persuaded that the Holy Writers were guided by the Spirit of God in every part of their Writings so as not to fall into any error The Divines of Louvain further objected against the Jesuits that they had renewed an Opinion which had been condemned in the Person of Erasmus But it is easie to make it appear that those Fathers maintained nothing that had affinity to the Proposition which Erasmus owned That Critick was accused for believing that there were * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some errors in the Writing of the Apostles which were to be attributed to a defect of their Memory We shall find nothing like this in the three Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain for although they be very well satisfied that there was no need of any Inspiration for Writing those things that they knew they do not upon that account imagin that the Writers were at any time mistaken through a defect of Memory Erasmus also used his utmost endeavour in one of his Apologies to wipe off that accusation He does protest that he only reported that which St. Jerom had observed upon the matter and that there had been nothing said but what was agreeable to St. Augustine's Opinion Howsoever it is that Critick does assure us (b) Nunc testor me abhorrere ab ullâ oblivione tribuendâ Apostolis Erasm Apol. adv Monach. quosd Hisp that he never intended to charge the Apostles with any defect of Memory I do not inquire if Erasmus was wronged in this It is enough that I have shewn the Proposition that is supposed to have been condemned on his account and have withal made it appear that there is nothing of that nature contained in the three Propositions of the Jesuits that were Censured Those very Divines did also by way of Objection bring the Authority of the Council of Trent Sess IV. the words of St. Peter Epist II. ch 1. v. 21. and those of St. Paul Epist II. to Timothy ch 3. v. 16. But there is nothing in all those places to which the Jesuits of Louvain do not agree The strongest Passage is that of the Epistle to Timothy and yet it is the same upon which Cornelius à Lapide made Observations as I have shewn As to the Testimony of the ancient Fathers who said that the Tongue and the Hand of the Holy were the Holy Ghosts Pen the Jesuits do not deny it The same Cornelius à Lapide has explained it at large in his Commentary upon the second Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Timothy where he makes it appear that it is not contrary to his Opinion about the Inspiration of Scripture And the truth is we cannot imagin that the Holy Ghost deprived the Evangelists and the Apostles of the use of their Reason and Memory The Reasons of the Doctors of the Faculty of Theology of Douay are no more Conclusive than those of the Divines of Louvain They chiefly depend upon some Passages of St. Augustin But since there is nothing that is positive in all those Passages it will not be worth the while to insist on them They bring for example by way of Objection some places of his Books Concerning the consent of the Evangelists Yet there is no Work where that Father has more shewn than in that Treatise that the Sacred Writers made use of their Reason and Memory when they writ their Gospels That Work has also given occasion to Erasmus and some other Writers to affirm that the Memory of the Apostles was not always sure and that they put sometimes one word for another It is true that St. Augustin is withal of the Opinion that that defect in the Apostles was guided by the Holy Ghost But I think it had been much better not to make them fall into error than to
the Holy Writers with the least fault even in the things of small importance But after all he does not disapprove the Opinion of the Catholick Doctors who alledged mistakes of that kind which are not prejudicial to our Faith There is nothing that does more diminish the Authority of the Holy Scripture even in things Essential and Revealed than constrained Answers that provoke laughter in those who are not of the same belief with us By this we perceive that the Archbishop of Spalatro was in a strait whose part he was to take about a Question of this delicacy As for Doctor Holden of all he says upon that Subject this is most full of good sense (i) Veritates Philosophicae nec probandae nec improbandae sunt ex puris nudisque Sacrae Scripturae verbis sententiis Quamvis enim nullam complectatur Scriptura falsitatem attamen ipsius loquendi modus utplurimùm vulgaris est at que ad communem hominum captum potiùs quà m ad loquelae proprietatem sermonis rigorem adaptatus Hold. ibid. That we ought not to approve or condemn upon the bare words of Scripture all that belongs solely to Philosophy For as he observes in the same place though there is nothing false in Scripture the expressions therein are frequently accommodated to the Opinions commonly received amongst the People and they are not always very exact which is agreeable to St. John Chrysostome's Opinion who observed (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys Hom. 9. in Epist ad Philipp c. 2. that St Paul does often speak according to the Sentiments of the Populace that he may accommodate himself to his Auditors CHAP. XXV Spinosa's Objections against the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testament are Examined ALthough Spinosa had very little or no knowledge of the Books of the New Testament yet he would by all means insert in his Treatise Entitled Theologico-politicus a whole Chapter against the Inspiration of those Books where he only gives a greater light to that which Grotius had formerly written upon this matter in many places of his Works His great Principle is (a) Apostoli non tanquà m Prophetae sed tanquam Doctores scripserunt viam ad docendum elegerunt quam faciliorem judicaverunt fore discipulis quos tum docere volebant Spin. Tract Theol. polit cap. 12. that the Apostles did not write as Prophets but as single Doctors and that therefore it was not necessary that they should be Inspired But this distinction betwixt Prophets and Doctors does not at all destroy that Inspiration which is attributed to the Apostles which does only consist in a bare direction of the Spirit of God as has been shewn before God say they did not command them to write as he commanded the Prophets to publish their Prophecies We have also observed from the beginning of this Work that when the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers speak of the Gospels they declare that they were composed only occasionally and at the request of the first Believers It does not indeed so evidently appear to us that the Evangelists and Apostles had an express Commandment of God or even of Jesus Christ to publish Books for the Instruction of the first Christians as it does appear that the Prophets did speak to the People of Israel by Gods Order But we see that Jesus Christ commanded his Disciples to go and Preach the Gospel to all Nations of the Earth But their Histories which we call Gospels are nothing else but Collections of their Sermons which were animated by the Spirit of God whom their Master had promised to them The Prophets Spinosa continues do not only observe in their Prophecies but also in their Letters that it was God who spake by their Mouth which he proves by the Letter that the Prophet Elias writ to King Joram and is mentioned 2 Chron. Ch. 21. v. 12. Which begins with these words Thus saith the Lord (b) In Epistolis Apostolorum nihil simile legimus sed contra in I. ad Cor. 7.40 Paulus secundùm suam sententiam loquitur Spin. ibid. cap. 11. we read no such thing saith he in the Letters of the Apostles St. Paul on the contrary speaks as from himself in his first Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 7. v. 40. If the Stile of the Apostles be not altogether the same as that of the Prophets it cannot from thence be concluded that the former were not guided by the Spirit of God in all the actions of their Ministery It was in no wise necessary that they should repeat in every discourse that it was the Lord who spake It was sufficient for them to declare in general that Jesus Christ had sent them to Preach the Truths of the Gospel and that he who had given them that Mission in his Father's Name had told them expresly It is not you that speak but the Spirit of your Heavenly Father who speaks in you It is true that St. Paul does speak as from himself in the first Epistle to the Corinth Chap. 7. where he makes use of this Expression I give my judgment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But he adds withal that he thinks he has the Spirit of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The ground of Spinosa's error was that a Man could not use his Reason and be also guided by the Spirit of God at the same time as if by becoming God's Interpreter he must cease to be a Man and be only a Passive Instrument if I may use the Term To proceed it is not true that the Apostles never observed at the beginning of their Letters that it was God who spake by their Mouth For they begin their Letter which they write to their Brethren of Antioch by these words It seem'd good to the Holy Ghost and to us Acts xv 28. to let them know that what they laid upon them came from God whose Inrerpreters they only were The other expressions of St. Paul which Spinosa in the same place makes use of to shew that that Apostle writ to gratifie his own inclination without being encouraged thereunto by the Spirit of God may be easily explained by the Principle which we have established That Man does always suppose that Inspiration does wholly deprive one of the use of his Reason which is most false (c) Apostoli ubique ratiocinantur it a ut non prophetare sed disputare videantur Spin. ibid. The Apostles saith he are every where upon Reasoning so that they are more like Disputants than Prophets But besides that he has formed to himself a false Idea of the Inspiration of the Prophets 't is sufficient if we object against him the example formerly given where the Apostles after they had deliberated and reasoned in an Assembly did nevertheless use this expression it seem'd to the Holy Ghost and to us Which does evidently shew that the Spirit of God who had guided them in that Assembly did not deprive them of the use of their Reason There
Chrysostom's and several other Fathers of that Church had the Reading in their Copies in the same manner as these have it whom at this day we call Schismaticks This most unjust accusation is nevertheless very Ancient So soon as ever there is a difference perceived in Copies if this difference do favour the Opinions of some Party they will be sure to accuse that Party of corrupting the Sacred Writings although that difference does for the most part come from the Transcribers Hilary the Deacon has made a general Rule in that place formerly mentioned He assures us (m) Quod fecit studium contentionis Quia enim propriâ quis auctoritate uti non potest ad victoriam verba legis adulterat ut sensum suum quasi verba legis asserat ut non ratio sed auctoritas praescribere videatur Ambros ibid. that the Spirit of dispute that is betwixt different Parties is the cause of different Renditions Every one saith he seeing he cannot on such occasions justifie himself by his own Authority does corrupt the Words of the Law that he may make his own Opinions pass for the Words of the Law. Although that has happened sometimes especially to those ancient Hereticks of whom we spake in the beginning of this Work I am perswaded that they have frequently attributed to different Parties such various Renditions in the Copies of the New Testament as had no other cause Originally but what those have which are found in all other Books How many Divines are there for example who believe at this day that they have taken away from the Ancient Greek Copies the Testimony of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost of which mention is made in the first Epistle of St. John Chap. 5. v. 7. to favour the Arian Heresie Others on the contrary do alledge that it was the Arrians who added these Words expresly to the Greek Text to shew the Unity of the Persons of the Trinity is not an Unity of Essence but of Consent Grotius is of this latter Opinion He thinks (n) Neque verò Arianis ablatas esse voces quasdam sed potiùs additas unde colligerent Patrem Filium Spiritum Sanctum non esse unum nisi consensu quomodo spiritus aqua sanguis in unum testimonium consentiunt Quod cum viderent Catholici abstulisse quidem illud quod de Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto insertum fuerat sed reliquisse illud tres unum esse quia id ita positum nocere non poterat Grot. Annot. in 1. Epist Joann c. 5. v. 7. that the Arians for this reason were so far from retrenching some Words from the Text that they added some thereunto that on the contrary the Catholicks had taken away that which is said of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit leaving only these Words These three are the same which can do them no hurt and which as he thinks were likewise added by the Arians But all this is only founded on Conjectures and seeing every one does reason according to his Prejudices some will have the Arians to be the Authors of that Addition and others do attribute the same to the Catholicks This diversity of Opinions proceeds from nothing else but a neglect of examining with sufficient care the ancient Manuscript Copies and other Records which were necessary for the discovery of the Original of those Variations It would be to no purpose for me to repeat here the Critical Reflections which I have formerly made on that Passage of the first Epistle of St. John it having been made evident in what manner it came to pass that those Words that were neither in the Greek Copies nor in the Latin were inserted in the Text. No credit therefore is easily to be given to all those Accusations of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers against the Hereticks upon the point of the Alterations that have happened to the Sacred Writings We have already seen in the Critical History of the Old Testament that the most part of the Fathers did cast the same reproach on the Jews without any ground Seeing the most part of Heresies sprung up in the Greek Church those who maintain the preference of the Latin Copies of the New Testament do not fail to bring this Reason to shew that the Books of the Latins are more ancient than those of the Greeks But before this Accusation is brought it ought to be examined if these Objections have a good foundation for if the thing be considered in general the Original must needs be more perfect than the Versions unless it be in some places where it may be demonstrated that the Version is instead of the Original which has been altered The Sect of the Macedonians were at another time accused as being the Authors of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. vii of St. John v. 39. where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Ghost was not as yet whereas it is in the Vulgar For the Holy Ghost was not yet given The ancient Latin Interpreter did not read the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Greek Copy which is likewise wanting in some Greek Manuscripts and in others belonging to Mr. Colbert's most ancient Library Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb n. 5149. Neither is it extant in the Syriack Version which makes me believe that it was added and that it was not in the first Original Greek But it must not be inferred from hence that those who favoured the Party of Macedonius were the Authors of that Addition there being the like Examples in other places with which they cannot be charged It is much more probable that it was occasion'd by the Greek Scholiasts who placed the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Margin to shew that that place spake of the Holy Spirit and it passed into the Text afterwards There is also in the same Passage the Latin Word datus which is not read in the Greek unless it be in the ancient Copy of the Vatican where there is according to Lewis of Bruges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is very likely that this Word was added by the Latin Interpreter who had in his view the sense of that Passage where the Gifts of the Holy Ghost are spoken of It would be likewise added after the same manner in the Margin of some Greek Copy We also read in the Syriack Version was not yet given which does wholly agree with the Latin and in the three Arabick Versions which have been published it is in the same sense was not yet come Grotius believed that the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as it is in the Latin datus was added for the avoiding the reproach of the Followers of Macedonius In nonnullis datus ad vitandam calumniam Macedoniorum Grot. Annot in hunc loc But it is not at all necessary that they should have had any regard to those Sectaries to induce them to add
that Word seeing they only explained the sense of the Greek Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was which in this place is not taken substantively Jansenius Bishop of Gand who had read in all the Greek Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Spirit was not yet did likewise believe that they had changed the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy into that of Datus in the Latin Edition (o) Quoniam ea lectio primâ fronte impium sensum prae se ferebat quasi scilicet Spiritus aliquando non fuerit offensus quispiam ut verisimile est mutavit illud in datus Jans Gand. Concord Eu. c. 75. because that sense did then seem to be impious as if there had been no Holy Ghost as yet But as we have observed Alterations of that kind do happen of themselves without all those Theological Considerations When the Words of a Text are equivocal or very general they are illustrated by Notes and when this Illustration does consist of a few Words the Note does easily pass into the Text which yet happens with greater freedom in a Version Salmeron's Sentiment upon this matter appeared to me to be more just than that of Jansenius and of Grotius That Jesuit did content himself to say (p) Graeca exemplaria antiqua pro datus habent sanctus in sensu nulla est prorsùs à nostra lectione diversitas quia etsi non exprimatur verbum datus supplendum est necessariò Salmer tom 8. tract 37. that there was Sanctus instead of Datus in the ancient Greek Copies but that this does make no difference of reading in respect of the sense because the Word datus must of necessity be supplied although it be not expressed in the Greek Moreover the true and ancient reading of that Passage in the Greek Text was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Spirit was not as yet and it was also read in the ancient Latin Version Nondum enim erat Spiritus as it is in some Latin Copies Luke of Bruges does observe that St. Augustin did not read it otherwise when he treated expresly of that Passage and indeed as this Reading is the most plain so it appears to be the most natural and the most ancient It is requisite that one use great Precaution in reading the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors in those Places where they accuse the Hereticks of having corrupted the Sacred Writings to establish their new Doctrine for these Accusations are oftentimes groundless We do not now read for example in any Latin Copy of the New Testament Chap. 3. of S. John's Gospel v. 6. these Words Quia Deus spiritus est for God is a Spirit which St. Ambrose had in his Copy and which apparently was the Gloss of some Catholick yet that Holy Bishop does mightily exclaim against the Arians on the occasion of that Passage (q) Quem locum ita expressè Ariani testificamini esse de Spiritu ut eum de vestris codicibus auferatis Atque utinam de vestris non etiam de Ecclesiae codicibus tolleretis Eo enim tempore quo impiè infidelis Auxentius Mediolanensem Ecclesiam armis exercituque occupaverat vel à Valente atqueVrsacio nutantibus Sacerdotibus suis incursabatur Ecclesia Sirmiensis falsum hoc sacrilegum in Ecclesiasticis codicibus deprohensum est Et fortasse hoc etiam in Oriente fecistis literas quidem potuistis abolere sed fidem non potuistis auferre Ambr. l. 3. de Spir. San. c. 11. he does accuse them of taking those Words out of their Copies Would to God saith he you had only retrenched them for your own Copies and not from those of the Church He is also so punctual in his Accusation that he marks the time in which he believed that Impiety to have received its Birth and he is afraid that the Greek Copies of the Eastern Churches have been likewise corrupted after the same manner You could he adds speaking to the Arians take away those Words but you could not abolish the Faith. If we examine according to Critical Rules that which St. Ambrose does assure us was retrenched by the Arians from St. John's Text we shall easily judge that it was an Addition of some Catholicks who read in their Copy of the ancient Latin Edition chap. 5. v. 6. of the Gospel of St. John Quod natum est ex Spiritu Spiritus est quia Deus est Spiritus which Edition was never publickly approved by any Church Yet Fulbert Bishop of Chartres did zealously continue the same Accusation against the Arian Party (r) Arii auditores quoniam Spiritum Sanctum Deum esse negabant de Evangelio eraserunt illud quod Salvator ait Spiritus est Deus Fulb. Carnot Episc Epist 1. Because they deny saith he the Holy Ghost they have taken away from the Gospel of St. John these words of our Saviour The Spirit of God. There is yet less probability in the reproachful Charge that Socrates has used against the Nestorians for having retrenched from their Copies these words of the first Epistle of St. John chap. 4. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whatsoever Spirit does divide Christ is not of God. He pretends that Nestorius knew not that this Reading was founded upon ancient Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (ſ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. Hist Eccles lib. 7. c. 32. Those saith he who have separated the Divine from the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ have taken away these words from their Copies and therefore the ancient Commentators on the Scripture have observed that some who would separate the Humanity from the Godhead have corrupted that Epistle Bishop Fulbert did likewise observe in the place lately quoted (t) Et de Epistolâ Joannis eraserunt Et omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum ex Deo non est ficut Nestorius c. Fulb. Carnot ibid. that the Hereticks have taken away from St. John's Epistle these words and whatsoever Spirit does separate Jesus Christ is not of God as Nestorius and the rest But can Nestorius and his Followers be accused for authorizing a false Reading which is at this day in all the Greek Copies and in the Oriental Versions seeing the same Reading is not only found in S. Cyprian but is likewise authorised by S. Polycarp who was contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles It cannot be denied but that the other Reading which is confirmed by the Author of the Vulgar is also very ancient but it is probable that it is a Note or Gloss that in process of time passed into the Text. They would explain these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not confess by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does separate the more effectually to refute the ancient Hereticks who denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ or who did separate Jesus from Christ And upon this account it is that both these Readings are extant in some ancient Fathers where they are sometimes joined both together However it
that some had taken them away from their Copies because there were some Hereticks who Baptized with fire But this conjecture has no colour for we read the same words Chap. 3. v. 16. of St. Luke in all the Greek Copies Luke of Bruges does think that they were possibly taken from this Evangelist and that the Transcribers did insert them in St. Matthew Maldonat has very well observed that the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not a conjunctive particle but explicative and that the explication of the preceding words was added to shew that in that place there was no mention made of the Spirit in general but of the descent of the same Spirit in the form of Fire the day of the Pentecost And that which may give us cause to suspect that these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have been added as well in S. Luke as in S. Matthew by way of Explication is that we only read in S. Mark Chap. 1. vers 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nevertheless there are two Manuscripts quoted in the sixth Tome of the Polyglott of England where there is also found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Evangelist But in what manner soever the Reading be in this Evangelist the reading of the Gospel according to S. Matthew cannot be regulated by it seeing the latter is oftentimes only abridged by the former Chap. 5. v. 22. We read in all the Greek Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a cause and it was also in the ancient Vulgar agreeable to the Greek Cambridge Copy Yet S. Augustin Aug. lib. 1. Retr c. 19. who had read it in the Latin Copies of his time retracted his Opinion concerning it because he found it not in the Greek Copies Codices enim Graeci saith that Father non habent sine causâ sicut hic positum est It is apparent that he passed by the ancient Vulgar to embrace the Opinion of S. Jerom who in his new Edition has left out the words without cause and who has also observed in his Commentary upon that place (l) In quibusdam codicibus additur sine causâ Caeterùm in veris definita sententia est ita penitùs tollitur ... Radendum est ergo sine causâ Hieron Comm. in cap. 5. Matth. that they are truly in some Copies but that they are not in the true Copies And therefore he is of the mind that they ought to be left out of all the Greek Copies that have been cited hitherto there is only that of the Vatican mentioned by Luke of Bruges where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found The ancient Author of the Syriack Version did also read it in the Greek Copy which he made use of for making his Translation For he has kept the Greek word which he has only written in Syriack Characters The most ancient Fathers as well Greek as Latin did also read the same word in their Copies There were only some Latins since S. Jerom's Correction who believed that it did not belong to the Text. It would possibly be more proper to re-establish it in the Vulgar which in that Passage is contrary to Antiquity and to many Copies In the same Chapter v. 27. Robert Stephen did not read in seven of his Manuscripts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Ancients Neither is it found in some other Copies that are marked in the Polyglott Bible of England I also observed that it is not in three Manuscripts of Monsieur Colbert's Library Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb n. 2467. 4112. Nevertheless S. Jerom has put it in his new Edition The thirtieth Verse of the same Chapter is not in the ancient Cambridge Copy nor in another quoted in the sixth Tome of the Polyglott of England Cod. MSS. ex Bibl. Colb n. 2259. Neither did I read it in one of M. Colbert's Manuscripts 'T is probable that it is a mere omission of the Transcribers in those Copies which was occasioned by this that the twenty nine and thirty Verses do both end with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Omissions of that sort are very ordinary In one of M. Colbert's Manuscripts we do not read in the forty fourth Verse of the same Chapter Cod. MSS. Colb n. 2467. these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bless them who curse you do good to them who hate you Neither do we read in the same Copy these other words which are in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For them that despitefully use you and as if they did signifie the same with those words that immediately follow Nevertheless all this is found in the ancient Cambridge Copy But S. Jerom has not expressed in his new Edition these first words Nic. Zeg Epanorth in cap. 5. Matth. v. 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zegerus believes that they were taken out of the sixth Chapter of S. Luke and inserted in S. Matthew A studioso quopiam ex Lucae cap. 6. huc translata sunt Chap. 6. v. 4. These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which S. Jerom has not expressed in his Edition are not in the ancient Cambridge Copy And Luke of Bruges has informed us that he does not find them in the Vatican Copy Besides I have not read them in two of M. Colbert's Manuscripts nevertheless S. Augustin does assure us (m) Multa Latina exemplaria sic habent Et pater tuus qui videt in abscondo reddet tibi palà m Sed quia in Graecis quae priora sunt non invenimus palà m non putamus hinc aliquid disserendum esse Aug. de Serm. Dom. in mont lib. 2. cap. 2. that they did read the word palà m in several Copies of his time but that it was not expressed in the original Greek which he prefers to all the Latin Copies Maldonat (n) Tempore Augustini Latini codices legebant Graeci non legebant ut ille scribit Itaque suspicio mihi est primos illos codices Graecos ex quibus translatio Latina quâ Ecclesia ante Hieroaymum utebatur facta fuerat haec verba legisse post scripterum vitio in Graecis abolita in Latinis conservata Hieronymus verò cùm jam ipsius tempore in Graecis non legerentur quia ad Graecorum ut ipse ait codicum veritatem Latinam editionem corrigebat expunxisse de Latinâ quod non invenit in Graecâ Nam legenda quidem esse ipsa indicat antithesis in abscondito in propatulo Mald. Comm. in c. 6. Matth. v. 4. on the contrary does make use of those words of S. Augustin as being of sufficient authority for re-establishing that word in our Vulgar alledging that they did read it in the ancient Vulgar before S. Jerom reformed it by the Copies of his time from which these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were taken away as that Jesuit does think He adds that the opposition that is betwixt these two in secret and openly does prove that we ought to read in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉