in the proper Languages of the respective Authors A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament Wherein is establish'd The Truth of those ACTS on which CHRISTIANITY is founded PART I. CHAPTER I. The Verity of the New Testament defended in general against the ancient Hereticks Reflections upon the Principle made use of by the Fathers to establish the Authority of these Books JEsus Christ having profess'd that he came not into the World to destroy the Old Law but rather to accomplish it Matt. v. 17. it seemed not to him necessary to publish his Doctrine in Writing He was content to prove his Mission by his Miracles and to support his Reformation upon the Books of the Old Testament which were received by all the Jews to whom the Messias had been promised So that we do not find him to have given order to his Disciples to putany thing into Writing He only commands them to Preach his Gospel to all the Nations of the Earth Go ye says he to them Mar. xvi 15. into all the world and preach the Gospel The Books of the New Testament took their Original from this preaching This it was that caused Tertullian to say (a) Constituimus in primis Evangelicum instrumentum Apostolos autores habere quibus hoc munus Evangelii promulgandi ab ipso Domino sit impositum Tertul. l. 4. adv Marcion c. 2. That the Apostles to whom Jesus Christ had given this Command to promulge the Gospel were the Authors thereof Upon the whole matter the Gospels had not been put in Writing but at the request of those People who were willing to preserve the memory of that which the Apostles had preached to them S. Paul composed the greater part of his Epistles for the Instruction of Churches which were already erected That History which we call the Acts of the Apostles was published to no other end but to shew to the Faithful the Progress of the Christian Religion upon its first advance into the World and the Christians not having at that time any State separate from that of the Jews and being present and assisting at all their Ceremonies in the Temple and in the Synagogues they had no Persons appointed to record any thing of importance which pass'd among them And this is the reason that we find not here as in the Old Testament any publick Writers who had the Charge of collecting the Acts of their State. This during the Primitive times of Christianity gave a pretence to several Hereticks to doubt of the truth of those Apostolical Books which to them seem'd to want some publick Attestation S. Ignatius in one of his Epistles complains (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignut Ep. ad Philad That he understood there were some men who said they could not believe the Gospel except they could find it written in the * There are some who read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ancients Archives The holy Martyr answers them That it was written that the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and a Faith in him were instead of the most authentick Archives It was then difficult to distinguish the Books which had been composed by the Apostles or by their Disciples from those which had been forged by false Apostles or by some Sectaries Every one bore in its front either the Name of the Apostles in general or of some single one of their number and since there were no publick Archives to which recourse might be had for the deciding and clearing of matters of this nature the Hereticks took occasion from thence to publish a great number of false Acts of which hardly any thing is left to Posterity except the Titles of them and a few Fragments These Sectaries boasted that they taught the Doctrine of the Apostles or at least of their Disciples Basilides who was one of the most ancient Hereticks avouched that he had for his Master (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Clem. Alex. lib. 7. Strom. Glaucias one of St. Peter's Interpreters Và lentin affirmed with the same boldness that he had been instructed in Religion by Theodad (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Clem. Alex. ibid. who was one of St. Paul 's familiar Acquaintance But whereas they did not agree amongst themselves and on the contrary the Doctrine of the Apostles was perfectly uniform in the Churches that they had planted the Fathers made use of this Uniformity of Doctrine to confirm and establish the truth of the Apostolical Writings Clemens Alexandrinus answers Basilides and Valentin that there was but one true ancient Church that was before all Heresies From thence he brings an unquestionable proof of the falsity of the Doctrine of these Sectaries who durst be so bold as to give the Name of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of the Apostles to their own Inventions he represents to them that (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. ibid. the Doctrine of the Apostles were one as well as their Tradition The Primitive Christians argued against the Hereticks of those times from Tradition and from the Conformity of that Belief that was manifest in all the Churches founded by the Apostles as may be seen at large in the Works of St. Irenaeus Tertullian Epiphanius and St. Augustin and in a word of all the Fathers that have defended the Writings of the Apostles against the Hereticks Whensoever any Sectary opposed the declared Gospel they immediately convinced him of the forgery of those Acts that he produced by the true ones that were kept in the Apostolical Churches and were instead of Archives (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 42. If any one saith St. Epiphanius should go about to counterfeit the Edicts or Ordinances of Emperors the Cheat would be soon laid open by producing the true Copies taken from the Archives of the Court In like manner adds he false Gospels composed by Hereticks may be detected their spuriousness may be easily discovered by producing the true Gospels that are kept in the Churches as it were in Archives This manner of defending the Truth of the Apostolical Writings against the ancient Sectaries hath proved so effectually convincing that the Gnosticks were obliged to support their Novelties to fly to I know not what secret Tradition that was known to none but themselves They were so insolent as to prefer themselves before the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ accusing them as not having preached the Purity of the Gospel with sincerity because say they they have retained many Ceremonies of the old Law. They thought by this means that they might be able with Authority to reform the Writings of the Apostles (g) Cùm autem ad eam iterum traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per successiones Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos adversantur traditioni dicentes se non solùm Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes superiores sinceram invenisse veritatem Apostolos autem
of S. Thomas without establishing Tradition at the same time because it is impossible to prove this by any Testimony of the Scriptures Socinus To answer this Objection without departing from his Principle lays down (y) Est quiddam medium inter Scripturas traditionem Immò non quiddam modò sed multiplex quiddam soriptae nimirum historiae aliaque testimonia rationes ex quibus factum est fit ut cordati homines Matthaei Evangelium pro vera de Jesu Christo historin habeant Thoma non habeant nullâ hîc intercedente autoritate Ecclesiae Spiritiis quo ipsa porpetuò gubernetur Soc. Epist 4. ad Christoph Ostorod a certain Medium between the Scriptures and Tradition which Medium consists according to his opinion in written Histories in other Testimonies and in Ratiocinations from whence it is proved without making application to any Authority of the Church that the Gospel of S. Matthew contains the true History of Jesus Christ and that on the contrary that which carries the name of S. Thomas is a suppositious Book Episcopius and the other Remonstrants do also make use of this Answer that they may not be obliged to acknowledge the Traditions of the Church But this Medium which they suppose to be between the Scriptures and Tradition is a true Tradition which differs in nothing from that which S. Irenaeus Tertullian Epiphanius S. Augustin and several other Fathers have established when they intended to convince the ancient Hereticks of the Truth of the Apostolical Books These Histories and these other Acts whereof Socinus makes mention are taken from the Churches or from Ecclesiastical Writers and this is that which composeth Tradition He ought to agree to it himself since he avoucheth in his Treatise of the Authority of the Holy Scriptures that since the times of the Apostles to those of Eusebius none have doubted in the Church that the Books of the New Testament were not composed by those whose Names they bear For it is certain that many Hereticks that were out of the Church have not only doubted thereof but have absolutely rejected them That which hath deceived Socinus and the other Sectaries is a false notion that they have conceived of the Authority of the Church they imagine that she Judges by her own Authority only and not upon good Acts and Records that the Books that compose the Old and New Testament are Divine and Canonical CHAP. II. Concerning the Titles that are at the Head of the Gospels and other Books of the New Testament Whether these Titles were made by the Authors of these Books or whether they were since added WE have no solid proof in Antiquity to make it appear to us that the Names that are set at the Head of every Gospel were thereunto prefixed by those who are the Authors of them S. John Chrysostom assures us expresly of the contrary in one of his Homelies (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joann Chrys Hom. 1. in Epist ad Rom. Moses saith this Learned Bishop hath not put his Name to the five Books of the Law that he hath wrote those also that have collected the Acts after him have not set their Names at the beginning of their Histories The same may be said of the Evangelists Matthew Mark Luke and John. As for S. Paul he hath always set his Name at the beginning of his Epistles except that which is directed to the Hebrews and the Reason that S. John Chrysostom produceth is because the former wrote for the use of Persons that were present whereas S. Paul wrote Letters to persons that were at a distance If we should refer our selves herein to the Testimony of this Father we cannot prove precisely from the Titles only that are at the Head of every Gospel that these Gospels have been composed by those whose Names they bear at least if we do not joyn to this the Authority of the Primitive Church that hath added these Titles On this Principle it is that Tannerus and other Jesuits supported themselves in a Conference that they had at Ratisbonne with some Protestants to shew that they could not clearly prove the Title of S. Matthew and without the Testimony of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that this Gospel was made by him whose name it bore they insisted that they could not bring other Proofs of this Truth than those that were taken from humane Authority and not from the Scriptures themselves since they had been added to them Ex solo testimonio hominum eorumque non omnium sed eorum tantum qui Ecclesiae corpus constituunt * David Schramus Theologus Ecclesiastes in aula ad austrum Neoburgica edit Giessae Hassorum ann 1617. A Protestant Divine who had assisted at this Conference hath composed a Book on purpose on this Subject to prove the contrary to that which the Jesuits maintained But to say the truth there is more of Subtilty in these sorts of Disputes than of solid Arguments for although it were true that S. Matthew is the Author of the Title of his Gospel recourse must always be had to the Authority of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers to shew that this Title is of him and that this Gospel certainly belongs to him whose Name it bears at least if we decline flying to a private Spirit which hath been above discoursed and cannot be approved by any judicious Persons These Titles are so ancient in the Church that Tertullian reproves Marcion who acknowledged the Gospel of St. Luke from which he had only took away some Passages (b) Marcion Evangelio scilicet suo nullum adscribit auctorem quasi non licuerit illi titulum quoque adfingere cui nefas non fuit ipsum corpus evertere Tertull. lib. 4. adv Marc. cap. 2. for having no Title at the head of his Copy as if it were not lawful for him saith this Father to annex a Title to a Work the Text whereof he had ventured to corrupt He adds further in this same place That he could not proceed in the Dispute that he held with this Heretick since he had a right to reject a Book as suspected the Title whereof did not appear that he was willing nevertheless thus far to condescend to him because it is easie (c) Ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet Tertull. ibid. to judge by the Copy of S. Luke that was read in the Church whether that of Marcion were the same excepting that which he had cut off from it It is not to be inferred that Tertullian was of Opinion that it might be proved by the Titles only that the Gospels belonged to those whose Names they bore otherwise he ought to have acknowledged as the true Gospels an infinite number of false Books that carried the Names of the Apostles It was necessary according to his mind to have besides this a constant Tradition founded on the Testimonies of those who
accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque autoritatis Ecclesiae tenent Aug. lib. 2. de Doctr. Christ cap. 8. to have regard to the plurality of Churches and to prefer those that are in a greater number and of more eminent note before the others that are in a lesser number and less considerable There is another sort of Acts attributed to the Apostles or their Disciples that have been rejected as Apocryphal in process of time though in the beginning they did really belong to those to whom they were ascribed or at least to their Disciples who had published them under the name of their Masters But these Acts having been interpolated and mangled by the Hereticks or else by others we have been obliged not to allow them any longer as authentick St. Epiphanius seems to have put in this rank the Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Constitution of the Apostles which he often quotes as if it were indeed theirs He draws from thence Proofs to confirm the judgment of the Church when he examines the opinion of the Audians concerning the Passover who produced one of these Constitutions attributing it to the Apostles This Father being very far from condemning or even doubting of it received it with them as Apostolical reproving them only for taking it in a wrong sense And whereas these Constitutions were from that time suspected by some he adds that they ought not to be rejected for this because they contained the whole Ecclesiastical Discipline which makes me judge that he had another Copy different from that which we read at present He appeared to be so well persuaded that these Constitutions were made by the Apostles (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 80. n. 7. that he calls them the Word of God. Nevertheless it is more probable that the Apostles who had received Orders from Jesus Christ to preach his Gospel and not to compose Books are not the Authors of these Constitutions that bear their Name But as S. Mark calls his Gospel the Gospel of Jesus Christ so in like manner Apostolical Men who succeeded the Apostles have collected their Doctrine and Constitutions and published them under the Name of the Apostles It is in this sense that the Apostles Creed is so called being that ancient Confession of Faith that all the Churches undoubtedly received from the Apostles though they had not committed it to Writing CHAP. IV. The ancient Fathers have not produced the Originals of the New Testament in their Disputes against the Hereticks An Examination of Proofs that are brought to shew that these Originals have been kept in some Churches WE may conclude from all that hath been above related that the most ancient Fathers of the Church when they designed to establish the truth of the Books of the New Testament have not had recourse to any Originals that had been kept in the Apostolical Churches but only to true and exact Copies of them which being found the same in all these Churches were in the place of the Originals themselves On this depends all the Dispute of Tertullian against Marcion and that of S. Augustin against Faustus a Manichean Sectary These two Hereticks refused to acknowledge the Copies that were approved in the Catholick Church Tertullian and S. Augustin did not oppose to them the Authority of any Original Pieces but only the constant Tradition of the Churches Vides saith S. Augustin speaking to Faustus in hac re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat auctoritas Aug. lib. 11. cont Faust c. 2. Is it possible may some say that God hath given to his Church Books to serve her for a Rule and that he hath at the same time permitted that the first Originals of these Books should be lost ever since the beginning of the Christian Religion There have been from the very first planting of the Church Hereticks who have disputed against the Writings of the Apostles and therefore it seems to behove the Divine Providence to preserve these Originals at least for some time from whence these Hereticks might be solidly confuted But it hath been already made appear elsewhere Rep. à la Defense des Sent. de quelq Theol. de Holl. ch 6. pag. 179. that it is no wonder that the Primitive Christians who had not a regular Body of a State in which they lived and whose Assemblies were on the contrary furiously disturbed by the Jews and Pagans had lost the Originals of their Books Besides the Apostles had no order from Jesus Christ to write their Books as hath been above observed and although they should not have been written Religion would be equally preserved by the means of Tradition after the same manner as it had been established before the Apostles had committed any thing to Writing Iren. l. 3. adv Haer. c. 4. Quid si saith St. Irenaeus neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias Upon the whole matter Jesus Christ had sent his Apostles to all the Nations of the Earth only to preach his Doctrine to them That which the ancient Christians have called Gospel is only a Collection of the Preachings of these same Apostles or of their Disciples As for what relates to the Primitive Hereticks they would not have been more solidly confuted by opposing to them the Originals of the Writings of the Apostles since they took the liberty to reform their Doctrine and to set up in opposition to their Books I know not what Traditions of which they themselves were the Authors as may be seen more at large in the Books of S. Irenaeus who understood perfectly well the Opinions of these ancient Sectaries of which he hath left us some Records He declares for example in speaking of the Gnosticks Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. cap. 2. that he had to do with Persons that did not acknowledge the Scriptures nor the Tradition of the Church but that squared both the one and the other according to the measure of their own Prejudices therefore he forgets nothing that may serve to establish the true Traditions by which Religion ought to be regulated Although the Scriptures are a sure Rule on which our Faith is founded yet this Rule is not altogether sufficient of it self it is necessary to know besides this what are the Apostolical Traditions and we cannot learn them but from the Apostolical Churches who have preserved the true Sense of Scriptures S. Irenaeus adviseth (a) Omnis sermo ei constabit si Scripturam diligenter legerit apud eos qui in Ecclesia sunt Presbyteri apud quos est Apostolica doctrina Iren. lib. 4. adv Haer. cap. 51. that the sacred Books should be read to be informed from thence of Religion but at the same time he adviseth that they should be read wich those who being the Successors of the Apostles have been as it were the Depositaries or Stewards of their
cited any Passage in the Old Testament which did not perfectly agree with the Hebrew Text. Eustochium Hieron Prooem in lib. 16. Comm. in Isai who perfectly understood the Greek and Hebrew Languages opposed him with such powerful Arguments that he was forced to own himself almost overcome with the strength of her Objections Quod cùm audissem quasi à fortissimo pugile percussus essem coepi tacitus aestuare It is no strange thing to find those Ages when Barbarism reigned over all Europe neglect Critical Studies Then they wanted abundance of those helps which they now enjoy to pursue those Studies which are absolutely necessary to a perfect Knowledg of Divinity But that which amazes me is that in this very Age this Art should still remain in contempt and those Men be thought no more than Grammarians who apply themselves to it Besides we cannot but see the manifest Errors of some Divines in this Age who know not the true Laws of Criticism It is worth observing that the ancient Hereticks have been perpetually accused of having corrupted the Books of the New Testament and perverted them to their own sence That has often been thought a wilful and designed Corruption which proceeded only from the fault of the Transcribers or difference of Copies The Ecclesiastical Writers of the first Ages have not done that strict Justice to the Hereticks of their times in relation to the New Testament that they have given the Jews in the Disputes about the different manners of explaining the Old Testament Those pretended Corruptions presently vanish upon Examination of the ancient Manuscripts and the Original of the various Readings Wherefore in this Piece I have justified the Arrians Nestorians and the rest of the Sectaries from that Imputation of having falsified the Originals of the Evangelists and Apostles to maintain their Innovations We have also plainly evinc'd by some considerable Examples that the most Learned Criticks of our Age are not exempted from those Prejudices in their declaring too freely those Hereticks falsifiers of the Text. The case of some other Sectaries is not the same who declared themselves openly against the Writings of Christ's Disciples which they have corrected and altered according to their own Idea's of the Christian Religion Some daring to forge Supposititious Gospels and Acts the better to give authority to their Fopperies It would be very pertinent for the better Distinction of all the Genuine Pieces of the New Testament to make a Collection of those ancient Acts and diligently examine them Wherefore we have not concealed any of those Arguments which those Hereticks or the other Enemies of Christianity have brought to destroy the Truth of those Books which were received by all the Catholick Churches But as it would be a pernicious thing to expose these ill things without administring Remedies too proper for the cure we have also produced the strongest Reasons which the Ecclesiastical Writers have brought against them We intreat the Protestants to make Reflection on these matters and observe those methods of the first Ages of the Church for establishing the Authority of the Sacred Writings They will find nothing impertinent in the Conduct Irenaeus Tertullian and the rest of the Defenders of those Writings did not object to the Enemies of the Christian Religion their private Spirit which perswaded them of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture but very substantial Reasons void of all such Fanaticism Tho they were sufficiently perswaded of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture they never objected to the Adversaries that it had imprest upon it such lively Characters of its Original that it was a very difficult matter not to acknowledg it when read with a Spirit of Submission and Humility Their Adversaries being Philosophers who consulted their natural Reason they opposed them from sure and indisputable Principles Again I thought in a Work of this nature not convenient to suppress the principal Objections of the Jews against the Books of the New Testament For although this miserable Nation is an Object of the contempt of the whole World yet has there appeared among them Men of great Address and Subtilty in the Disputes against the Christians which I have often found true in my own Experience when I have endeavoured to convince them by their own Principles Since their Plea for Prescription is better and their Pretensions are that the Disciples of Jesus the Son of Mary had no reason to change their Religion which was delivered them by the Fathers It is but necessary to examin what they object against the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles In this Critical History I have treated divers other important Questions And where I deviate from the Methods of the Divines of the School it is because I have found a more secure way I have employed all my strength to avoid the advancing any thing that is not grounded on authentic Records instead of which the School-Divinity teaches us to doubt of the most certain Our Religion consisting principally in Matters of Fact the Subtilties of Divines who are not acquainted with Antiquity can never discover certainty of such matters of Fact They rather serve to confound the Vnderstanding and form pernicious Difficulties against the Mysteries of our Religion Let it not seem strange to any Person that I recede from the Opinions which are generally received in the Schools and prefer to the Sentiments of whole Vniversities the new Opinions of some modern Divines which can hardly be taxed as novel when they are found conformable to the Ancient Doctors of the Church This I speak in reference to that Passage where I handle the Dispute which was formerly between the Divines of Louvain and Doway and the Jesuits of that Country concerning the inspiration of the sacred Books The Doctors of both Faculties censured the Propositions of the Jesuites of Louvain in a manner very injurious to the whole Society But after a due examination of the Reasons on which their grave Gentlemen founded their Censure I could hardly believe their Authority alone a sufficient Rule to oblige me to assent I propose Truth alone to my self in this Work without any Deference to any Master in particular A true Christian who professes to believe the Catholick Faith ought not to stile himself a Disciple of S. Austin S. Jerome or any other particular Father since his Faith is founded on the word of Jesus Christ contained in the Writings of the Apostles and constant Tradition of the Catholick Churches I wish to God the Divines of the Age were all of that opinion we then should not have seen so many useless Disputes which only prove the causes of Disorders in Church and State. I have no private Interest which obliges me to any Party the very name of Party is odious to me I solemnly protest I have no other intentions in composing this Work than the benefit of the Church and the establishing the most sacred and divine thing in the World. It is useless
they rejected the Writings of the Apostles against the Authority of all the Churches of the World and at the same time received the Apocryphal Books that had no Authority If any one continues this Father should oppose you and should make use of your own words that that which you alledge on your behalf is false and on the contrary that which is against you is true (m) Quid ages Quò te convertes Quam libri à te prolati originem quam vetustatem quam seriem successionis testem citabis Aug. ibid. what would you do How could you defend the truth of those Acts that you produce How could you prove their Antiquity not having any Witnesses in Tradition by whose Testimony they might be confirmed From whence he concludes (n) Vides in hac re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat auctoritas quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorum usque ad hodiernum diem succedentium sibimet Episcoporum serie tot populorum consensione firmatur Aug. ibid. that it is absolutely necessary on this occasion to have recourse to the Authority of those Churches that were established ever since the primitive times of the Christian Religion and to the consent of Nations that have received the Books of the New Testament from the Apostles He observes further and more close to the purpose that if it were only disputed concerning the variety of Copies since they are but few in number it would be sufficient to consult the Copies of different Countries and if they did not agree in this point the greater number should be preferred before the lesser or the more ancient before the later Plures paucioribus aut vetustiores recentioribus praeferrentur But the Manicheans who judged not of the Truth of these Books but with relation to their own Ideas refused to submit to this Authority they consulted only their reason in matters of Fact wherein all Deference ought to be given to Authority therefore when any passage was urged to them that thwarted their Opinion they boldly affirmed that that part had been corrupted or that the Book wherein it was found had been composed by some Impostor under the name of the Apostles Faustus for example who avouched that after having diligently perused the Books of Moses he could not find therein any Prophecy that had any regard to Jesus Christ takes this method in answering the Texts of the New Testament Where express mention is made of these Prophecies Jesus Christ saith in speaking of himself Moses hath wrote of me Faustus answers to this Joann v. 46. that after a serious examination of this passage (o) Ratione cogebar in alterum è duobus ut aut falsum pronunciarem capitulum hoc aut mendacem Jesum sed id quidem alienum pietatis eraè Deum existimare mentitum Rectius ergo visum est scriptoribus adscribere falsitatem quam veritatis auctoritati mendacium Apud Aug. lib. 16. contra Faust c. 2. his reason obliged him to conclude either that it was false or that Jesus Christ had not spoken the truth and since it would be no less than impious Blasphemy to say that God could lie it would be more adviseable to attribute the falsification to the Writers themselves When it was demanded of this Heretick why he did not receive the Old Law and the Prophets whom Jesus Christ himself hath authorised in the New Testament by his words I am not come to destroy the Law or the Peophets Matth. v. 17. but to fulfil them he objected against the Testimony of S. Matthew because he is the only Evangelist that hath related this It is supposed saith he that this Discourse was delivered in the Sermon that Jesus Christ made on the Mountain In the mean time S. John (p) Testis idoneus tacet loquitur autem minùs idoneus Apud Aug. cont Faust lib. 17. c. 1. who was there present speaks not a word thereof and yet they would have S. Matthew who saw nothing to mention it He pretends that this hath been wrote by some other person and not by S. Matthew After this manner the Manicheans who sacrificed all to their Reason and almost nothing to Authority entirely destroyed the Books of the New Testament receiving them no farther than they were conformable to their Prejudices they had formed to themselves a certain Idea of Christianity after which they regulated the Writings of the Apostles They would have it that all that which could not be adjusted to this Idea had been inserted in their Books by later Writers who were half Jews Faustus saith Multa enim à majoribus vestris eloquiis Domini nostri inserta verba sunt Apud Aug. l. 33. cont Faust c. 3. quae nomine signata ipsius cum fide non congruant praesertim quia ut jam saepe probatum à nobis est nec ab ipso haec sunt nec ab ejus Apostolis scripta sed multa post eorum assumptionem à nescio quibus ipsis inter se non concordantibus Semi-Judaeis per famas opinionesque comperta sunt c. But S. Augustin represents to them in this very same passage that one must renounce common sense to argue after this manner on matters of Fact to which imaginary reasons ought not to be opposed (q) De quo libro certum erit cujus sit si literae quas Apostolorum dicit tenet Ecclesia ab ipsis Apostolis propagata per omnes gentes tantâ eminentiâ declarata utrùm Apostolorum sint incertum est hoc erit certum scripsisse Apostolos quod huic Ecclesiae contrarii haeretiot proferunt Auctorum suorum nominibus appellati longè post Apostolos existentium Aug. ibid. We cannot be certain saith he of any Book if once we call in question those Works that the Church that is extended throughout the whole World receives with a common consent and if on the contrary we authorise as Apostolical Books that dispute therewith and that carry the name of Writers who have lived a long time after the Apostles He charges them (r) Legunt Scripturas apocryphas Manichaei à nescio quibus fabularum sutoribus sub Apostolorum nomine scriptas quae suorum scriptorum temporibus in auctoritatem sanctae Ecclesiae recipi mererentur si sancti docti bomines qui tunc in hac vita erant examinare talia poterant eos vera locutos esse cognoscerent Aug. cont Faust lib. 22. c. 79. with making Fables and Apocryphal Works to pass for Apostolical Writings and he shews at the same time the falsity of these Acts because they have not any testimony of the Doctors of the Church that were then living He urgeth Faustus to prove what he hath alledged by Books that are Canonical and generally received in all the Churches Non ex quibuscunque literis sed Ecclesiasticis Canonicis Catholicis Aug. l. 23. adv Faus c. 9. This Holy Doctor calls this way
Earth that should continue for the space of a thousand years during which time all manner of Pleasures should be enjoyed Upon this subject Nepos did publish a Book Entituled †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Refutation of Allegorists laughing at such Catholicks as Expounded Allegorically that place in the Apocalyps that makes mention of the Reign of a thousand years Which Work made a great impression on the minds of those who read it because the Author who had carefully applied himself to the study of the Holy Scriptures had acquired a very great Reputation Besides his Reasons appeared to be the more probable because they were founded on the Literal Sense of Scripture whereas the contrary Opinion was grounded upon Allegories only from which nothing can be concluded Denis does likewise (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb ibid. declare the honorable esteem he had for the Memory of his then deceased Adversary whose Faith and Parts he commends But withal he adds that the love which he bore to the Truth above all other things was a sufficient motive that engaged him to write against that Work that was so much admired in Egypt that many preferred the Doctrine therein contained to the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles they were so much puffed up with the Idea of the thousand years Reign on the Earth The matter was brought to that pass that Nepos his Followers chused rather to make a Schism than to abdicate their Opinion But Denis afterwards in a publick Dispute having discovered the falsity thereof brought them to renounce their error It is a very judicious course that that Learned Bishop takes as to his manner of defending the Authority of the Apocalyps against those who rejected it as a supposititious Book and done by Cerinthus He appeared to be in no wise byassed by any preoccupation as to his own Opinion nor guilty of concealing the Reasons of his Adversaries And therefore he freely declares that (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dion Alex. apud Euseb ibid. cap. 25. some Ecclesiastical Writers who lived in his time had opposed that Book with all their might refuting it with a nice and resolute eagerness alledging that it was written without Sense and without Reason They further assured us that the Title of that Work was forged by Cerinthus and that the Title Apocalyps or Revelation could not be attributed to a Book which in their Opinion was stuffed with things that manifest a profound ignorance Notwithstanding all those Objections Denis avows that he cannot reject it as perceiving that it was approved by the most part of his Brethren and to the Reasons on the other side he replies that there is a sublime and hidden Sense in the Expressions of that Author for which he is resolved to have an high veneration though he does not comprehend it being persuaded that Faith and not his own knowledge ought to be the Rule in that case (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. I do not saith he condemn that which I cannot understand on the contrary I admire it because I cannot comprehend it Which nevertheless does not hinder him from examining all the parts of the Books particularly and he shews (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. That it is impossible to Expound it according to the Letter or Sense which the words at first view seem to warrant He further declares that it was composed by a Man called John who was inspired by God. But he does not think that that John was an Apostle and grounds his Opinion on this that the Apostle St. John did put his Name to none of his Works and that he never speaks of himself On the contrary the Author of the Revelation does name himself at the beginning and frequently in the Body of his Work for example in the Letter he writes to the seven Churches of Asia he begins with these words John to the seven Churches which are in Asia But St. John does not so much as put his name to his Catholick Epistle in his entrance upon the matter Neither is it seen at the beginning of his two other Epistles that are very short and pass under his name This difference of Stile makes Denis the Bishop of Alexandria to conclude that the Revelation was not written by St. John and he affirms at the same time that it is uncertain who that John was He proves nevertheless that it is in no wise likely that he was John Sirnamed Mark made mention of in the Acts of the Apostles and who was Companion to Paul and Barnabas in their Travels because he did not follow them into Asia And therefore he judges that he was one of those who lived at Ephesus where there were two Sepulchres with that name Once he has recourse to the difference of Stile from which he pretends to prove that the Apostle St. John who writ the Gospel and one Epistle cannot be the Author of the Apocalyps According to his Opinion the same things and the same expressions are found in the former Books The Revelation on the contrary is quite different from both Thus I have considered at large the judgment of Denis the Bishop of Alexandria upon the Apocalyps upon which Eusebius has more fully Paraphrased because it contains in a few words all that can be said upon this subject He informs us at the same time that the ancient Doctors of the Church made a great account of Tradition upon such an emergent occasion as required their Judgment whether a Book was Canonical or no. We also see that in such junctures they observed the Rules that are commonly received amongst Criticks For the Bishop according to the rigorous Laws of Criticism does examine the Diction or Stile of the Apocalyps (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionis apud Euseb ibid. Which says he is in no wise good Greek being full of Barbarisms and Solecisms The distinction he uses concerning two Johns who lived in Ephesus is grounded upon the Testimony of Papias who was Contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles Eusebius who inserted that Testimony in his History does add that he is positive in it For (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb if the Apostle St. John is not the true Author of the Apocalyps which bears the name of John it is probable that it was written by that second John. Nevertheless the most ancient Fathers viz. Justin and Irenaeus made no account of this distinction nor difference of Stile on which Denis so much insists upon Nor can there be any thing concluded from the Title of the Apocalyps that in the most of Greek Copies whether Manuscript or Printed there is the name of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John the Divine and not of the Apostle St. John set therein Those who annexed that Title meant only to describe St. John the Evangelist whom the Greek Fathers do call the Divine by way of Excellency to distinguish him from other Evangelists
Greek Version which was publickly received it being indifferent to them to quote the Hebrew or the Greek in those Passages Although the Apostles did prefer the Greek of the Septuagint to the Hebrew Text it cannot be inferred from thence that the Greek Version is better than the Hebrew of the Jews as some Authors especially amongst the Catholicks have too easily believed We ought to consider by what motives the Apostles were led to give this preference to the Greek Seeing they did it for no other end but to accommodate themselves to the capacity of the People whom they instructed and who read the Bible in Greek there can be no consequence drawn from thence to give more Authority to the Version of the Septuagint than to the Hebrew Text which they did not meddle with In the Hebrew or Chaldaick Gospel of St. Matthew the Passages of the Old Testament were quoted according to the Hebrew Text because the Jews of Palestine for whose sake it was written read the Bible in that Language The People who at that time understood not the Hebrew Language had Glosses on the Hebrew Text written in the Chaldee so that if that Evangelist had quoted the Bible in the vulgar Language he had quoted the same according to the Chaldaick Glosses and not according to the Greek of the Septuagint which was not in use amongst the Jews of Palestine It will further appear that the Evangelists and the Apostles did not confine themselves in their quotations to the rigor of the Letter because that was in no wise needful for carrying on their Work. They did content themselves sometimes with delivering the sense of the Words which they adapted to their Discourse A thing commonly practised and they cannot be branded with Falshood or Imposture who set down after this manner such Records in their Works as serve for proofs A Copy of Record cannot be alledged to be false unless the sense be changed But this can never be found in the quotations of the Apostles who followed a received custom and which could be blamed by none The same thing happened to most of the Fathers when they quoted in the Works the Passages of Scripture for they made no scruple to change the Words so long as that change was of no importance to the Sense Which ought to be the Standard of our Judgment about the Passages of the Old Testament which are quoted in the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles for though they were taken from the Greek Version they do not always express the very Words I know it may be objected that this Version has very much degenerated from its ancient purity and that therefore it can no more serve as a Rule by which we may judge of the Truth of the Apostolical quotations But what ever change has happened to this Translation it is sufficient as it remains to decide the matter of Fact we are now about It is agreed by all the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors that the Evangelists and Apostles in the Passages they quote out of the Old Testament were more ready to express the Sense than the Words which is the meaning of these Words of St. Jerom Hieron Comm. in Is l. 3. c. 7. In multis testimoniis saith he quae Evangelistae vel Apostoli de libris veteribus assumpserunt curiosius attendendum est non eos verborum ordinem secutos esse sed sensum Which he often repeats in his works (e) Notare debemus illud quod plerumque admonuimus Evangelistas Apostolos non verbum interpretatos esse de verbo nec Septuaginta Interpretum auctoritatem secutos quorum editio illo jam tempore legebatur sed quasi Hebraeos instructos in Lege absque damno sensuum suis usos esse sermonibus Hieron Comm. in Isai lib. 9. cap. 29. We ought to observe well saith he in another place what I have often said before viz. That the Evangelists and Apostles did not make a Translation word for word and that they followed not the Version of the Septuagint that was read in their days but being Hebrews and skilful in the Law they made use of their Terms That Learned Man does agree with the other Fathers in assuring us that the Apostles did not in their Writings report the passages of the Old Testament word for word But since he was prepossessed with an opinion in favour of the Hebrew Text when he composed his Commentaries on the most part of the Prophets he affirms that the same Apostles made use of their own Expressions and not those of the Septuagint Yet 't is easie to prove the contrary and in this the most part of the Protestants are very much to be blamed for neglecting this Ancient Greek Version For it is impossible for him to understand the Books of the New Testament well who is not first much employed in the reading of the Septuagint It was upon those Seventy Ancient Interpreters that the Apostles formed their Stile and not upon the Hebrew Text of the Jews I do not in the least comprehend upon what ground St. Jerome could alledge that (f) Paraphr asim hujus testimonii quasi Hebraeus ex Hebraeis assumit Apostolus Paulus de authenticis libris in Epistolâ quam scribit ad Corinthios non verbum ex verbo reddens quod facere ommnò contemnit sed sensuum exprimens veritatem quibus utitur ad id quod voluerit roborandum Hieron Comm. in Is lib. 17. cap. 64. St. Paul being an Hebrew born did in his first Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 2. give a paraphrase on the words of the Prophet Isaiah Chap. 64. v. 4. as they are in the Hebrew and had regard to nothing but the sense according to his Custom Yet there is nothing in that place that can oblige us to have recourse to the Hebrew rather than the Greek for understanding the Apostles meaning St. Jerome dream'd then of nothing else but settling his New Translation of the Scriptures upon the Hebrew thereby to give satisfaction to a great number of People who spake evil of him upon that occasion This Spirit reigns in his Commentaries on the Old Testament in those chiefly which are on the great Prophets He endeavours to prevent with an assiduous Persecution that which might be objected against from all sides that the Church ought not to receive any other Scripture of the Old Testament than that which was Authorised by the Apostles Indeed this Objection which was a terrible one must needs have made a great impression on his Spirit and if he dare not say that the Apostles always follow'd the Hebrew Text he endeavours at least to shelter himself by assuring us that sometimes they did not adhere either to the one or the other because ordinarily that which was considered by them was the sense and not the Words And this he does affirm of the words of the Prophet Jeremy Jerem. cap. 31. v. 15. a Voice was heard in Rama c.
charge Apud Cyril lib. 7. adv Jul. who accused the Christians for having abandoned the Law and the Prophets although they made a profession of following them He likewise reproached them for their boldness in calling themselves Israelites having as he alledged a Doctrin altogether opposite to that of Moses and the Ancient Prophets Apud Cyril lib. 8. adv Jul. But it is easie to convince him that the Christians are truly Israelites since they have neither renounced the Law nor the Prophets although sometimes they do expound them in a Mystical and Spiritual sense such an exposition as has been said is not contrary to the Doctrin of the Ancient Jews That Emperor seeing he owned no other sense of the Books of Moses but an Historical and Literal did object against the Christians that those words of Deuteronomy Chap. 18. v. 15. The Lord shall raise up a Prophet like unto me could not be understood of Jesus the Son of Mary seeing Moses does expresly speak (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Julian apud Cyr. ibid. of a Prophet who was to be a Man as he was and not the Son of God. It is true Act. c. 3. v. 22. c. 7. v. 37. that St. Peter and St. Stephen applyed to Jesus Christ that Passage of Deuteronomy which is literally understood of Joshua who was to succeed to Moses and also of other Judges and Prophets who have been in the Commonwealth of the Hebrews But if those Judges and Prophets were the Types of the Messiah why does he oppose the application of the same words to him according to a Sublime and Spiritual Sense of which we have already spoken seeing the Rabbins do frequently make the like applications By the Principles that we have established it will be very easie to resolve the most part of the other Objections which the Jews do raise against the Citations which are found throughout the Books of the New Testament The Apostles who did exactly follow the Expositions which were in use in their time have observed the same method almost through all their Writings The Jews could not oppose them without destroying their own Principles and favouring at the same time the Saddùcees According to this method St. Matthew applyed to St. John the words of the Prophet Esay The voice of one crying in the wilderness make straight the way of the Lord. It is manifest that the Evangelist did by a deras or Spiritual and Allegorical Sense Expound that which we ought to understand Literally and Historically of the returning of the Jews from their Captivity out of Babylon to Jerusalem Besides all those observations which serve as Principles for answering the Objections of the Jews and the Emperor Julian this is likewise remarkable that there are many words in the New Testament which have a larger Sense than in the Old which can be only attributed to the Custom of that time and to a Tradition received amongst the Jews There is nothing in the Books of Moses that does afford us any clear discovery of the state of a future Life which the Jews do call olam habba i.e. The World to come there is no manifest Record in the ancient Law of a Heaven or a Hell any more than there is of a Recompence to the Just and Punishment to the Wicked in that other Life Neither have they proper words to express those things they are obliged to make use of Metaphorical terms The word Gehenna for example which is taken from the Hebrew Gehennam has quite another Sense in the Books of the Old Testament than in the New where it does signifie the Fire of Hell. Which made St. Jerom say (p) Nomen gehennae in veteribus libris non invenitur sed primùm à Salvatore ponitur Hieron Comm. in Matth. that he does not find the word Gehenna in ancient Books that Jesus Christ is the first who used it Yet this does not prove that he was in effect the first that used it in that Sense as it is in the New Testament for it was before that time in use amongst the Jews in the same very Sense and especially amongst the Pharisees St. Jerom meant no more than this that he did not find it in the Old Testament under that signification although their Paraphrasts and their most ancient Rabbins used it in the same Sense as Jesus Christ did afterwards The Hebrew word Sceol will come under the same consideration for in the Hebrew of the Old Testament it does signifie a Sepulchre it is almost every where in the Septuagint rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hell as if they had frequently intended to signifie by that word a subterranean place where Souls are after their separation from the Body St. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles does Expound of the Messiah according to that Sense the words of Psalm xv Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption Which Passage is Literally understood of David who said to God that he would not suffer his Enemies to take away his Life and thus the Hebrew words Sceol and Scahat according to the former Sense do signifie Literally a Sepulchre and a Ditch But according to the Spiritual and Mystical Sense which St. Peter gives to this Psalm that he applies to the Messiah whose Type David was the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he took from the ancient Version of the Septuagint do signifie in the Acts of the Apostles Hell and Corruption The Application that the Apostle made of the words of that Psalm to the Resurrection of the Messiah does contain nothing but what is agreeable to the belief of the Jews of that time who believed the Resurrection of the dead They further acknowledged a subterranean place to which Souls do go after their separation from the Body Without a due regard to all these considerations it is impossible to understand the New Testament Therefore it is to be supposed as a thing constantly agreed upon that the Jews in the time of our Saviour and the Apostles believed many things whereof they had no Literal proofs in all the Old Testament being only founded on their Traditions And the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles ought to be Expounded with a relation to this Idea of the Jewish Faith and not to that which may be conceived of their belief with a reference to the Books of the Old Testament only because those Books contain but one part of their Religion the other part being comprehended in their Traditions The Jews do own this Principle The Jews even the Caraites who do mightily oppose the Traditions of the Talmudists which had degenerated into Fables have preserved those which they believed to be founded on sufficient Records The ancient Hereticks who did not weigh all these considerations did rather choose to deny the truth of the Books of the New Testament and say that in after times there
exigunt Jo. Mor. Exercit. lib. 1. Exerc. 2. cap. 4. that the Protestants are to blame for that they frequently follow in their Versions the vulgar Edition of the Hebrew Text against the Authority of the Manuscript Copies although they themselves do cite these Manuscripts He brings for an Example Beza's Translation who in several places has preferred this vulgar Edition of the Greek Text to his Ancient Manuscript Copies He does observe withal that Robert Stephen has also left out of his Greek Edition of the New Testament many Readings which are not agreeable to any of the Manuscripts which he does produce And yet the Protestants in their Translations of the New Testament choosed rather to follow Robert Stephen than the various Readings of the Manuscripts which he had mark'd in the Margin of his Edition There would have been nothing which deserved reprehension in that if the Protestants in their Versions had imitated Stephen's Method in his Greek New Testament For if they had placed the Translation of all those various Renditions in the Margin of their Works they could not have been accused for preferring the Greek Vulgar Edition to the Ancient Manuscripts They would have only placed in the body of their Translations that Edition which they believed to be the most exact to the end that they might observe some uniformity amongst themselves without any prejudice done to other Examples upon that account The care that Father Amelote took to insert in his French Version of the New Testament the various Readings of the Manuscript Copies which are agreeable to the ancient Latin Interpreters deserves to be praised But he offends against Modesty and even against Truth when he speaks of those Venerable and August Manuscripts which he pretends to have examined with such exactness as the like was never seen before P. Amel. Pref. Franc. de sa Vers du Nouv. Test I have saith he used such diligence that there has not been the like heard of before to shew the conformity of the Latin with the Ancient Greek and the first Original I have narrowly examined all the Manuscripts extant for above these thousand years which are kept through all the Christian World and I have obtained extracts of them all I have had more than twenty of that sort from France all those of the Vatican and the famous Italian Libraries sixteen from Spain not to reckon others with which Cardinal Ximenes used to perfect his Bible of Alcala those of England and the Northern Countries and many from the innermost Parts of Greece with those that belonged to the several Fathers There is none who reads those Words but would believe that that Father had in his hands all those Copies whereof he makes mention at least the Extracts of the Manuscripts But all that long Discourse is only a Rhetorical flourish which he uses that the Subject of which he treats of may be embellished with a noble expression according to the lofty Idea which he had of it And this he avowed to one of his Fraternity to whom he shewed his Preface in Writing and who advised him to amend it especially in that place where he makes mention of his Manuscripts He made no other Answer about it to his Brother who at the same time shew'd him those various Readings in Print but that the subject matter required that he should express himself in a noble manner to make the greater impression in the minds of those who read his Works So that all those Venerable and August Manuscripts which F. Amelote consulted are nothing else but a Figure of Rhetorick Indeed if he had made such an exact scrutiny into those Manuscripts he ought to have told us another story than what is found in the Catalogues that have been Printed of them It is true that he writ into Spain to know what had become of those that belonged to the Marquess of Veles * Mr. d' Aubusseau The Archbishop of Ambrun the French Ambassador then at that Court who was one of his Friends made him Answer that he had no account at Madrid of the Manuscripts of that Marquess He continued the same Rhetorical Figure when he would persuade us that he obtained Copies of many various readings by the means of his Friends For he shew'd nothing of that nature but what was contained in the Sixth Volume of the Polyglott of England or in Lacerda the Jesuit or in F. Morin It was by the assistance of the latter that he framed a design of collecting the various Readings that establish the ancient Latin Edition It were easie to let him see by his own words that he did not very well understand that sort of Criticism He was so far from having all the Extracts of the Manuscript mentioned by him that it seems that he had not the skill to read the Catalogues of those Manuscripts perfectly For I would fain know what he meant by the two Manuscripts of Magdebourg College in Oxford which he mentions in the two Prefaces to his French New Testament He had read in the Catalogue of Manuscripts Printed in the Sixth Volume of the Polyglott of England Magd. 1. Novum Testamentum integrum exceptâ Apocalypsi in Collegio Magd. Oxon. Further Magd. 2. Epistolae ad Rom. Corinth cum aecum Colleg. Oxon. All the World knows that this abbreviation Coll. Magd. Oxon. does denote Magdalen College in Oxford But F. Amelote who used such diligence that we have not heard of the like before does give us two Manuscripts of the New Testament which are extant in Magdeburg College in Oxford and if we believe him he had the Copies thereof extracted You may see in what manner he marks them in his Latin Preface Magd. 1. Magdeburgensis Collegii apud Oxonium Novum Testamentum integrum exceptâ Apocalypsi Magd. 2. Magdeburgensis Collegii Codex Epistolarum ad Romanos ad Corinthios which he repeats in his French Preface Seeing we shall have occasion in the Second Part of this Book to speak of the French Version of this Father I shall there treat of his Collection of the various Readings It was easie for Mr. Arnauld to refute him upon this Subject in his New defence of the Translation of the New Testament Printed at Mons. I could only have wished that he had not reckon'd as Chimerical that which F. Amelote and after him Mr. Mallet call the Vulgar Greek that is to say for the explaining of the Vulgar Edition of the Greek Text of the New Testament It is true that these two Authors had a false notion of this Vulgar Greek but that does not hinder but that they might very well have used that expression when they compared the ordinary Editions of the Greek New Testament with the various Readings of many Ancient Manuscripts And in this sense they gave the appellation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Vulgar to the Ancient Greek Edition of the Septuagint which was in every ones hands to distinguish it from
Origen's corrected Copy It may be also said upon good grounds that this Vulgar Greek was altered in sundry places and that therefore it is not justifiable that we should forsake the Vulgar whenever it does not agree with the Vulgar Greek Upon this ground Mariana the Jesuit observed that it is not likely that the Ancient Latin Interpreter is the Author of all the various Readings that make so great a difference betwixt the Greek and the Latin. Neque enim tam multis locis quibus à Graecis Latina discrepant de suo capite finxisse verisimile est (k) Suspicabar ex variis olim codicibus eam lectionem fuisse secutum eosque codices qui communi eruditorum sententiâ eâ aetate maximè probabantur ex alio quopiam uno aut paucis minoris fidei transfusos Graecos codices qui nostrà aetate formis expressi vulgò circumferuntur Mar. pro Edit Vulg. c. 17. He thinks that that Interpreter in making his Version followed the best Copies of his time and that those which have been Printed in this last Age were taken from a very few Copies which were not very correct According to this Observation the Greek of the New Testament may be called as it was Printed a Vulgar Greek if it be compared with the Ancient Manuscripts which the Latin Interpreter made use of and yet for all that those Manuscripts ought not to have the denomination of the Apostolical Greek and of the first Original F. Morin has also given it the name of the Vulgar Greek or that which has been published in our time Cogitent ergo saith he to the Protestants who are very apt to leave the Ancient Latin Edition quoties Vulgatam à Graeco Vulgato dissentientem deprehendunt sed cum vetustissimis codicibus esse consensum à quibus degeneres sunt neoterici Graeci It is moreover a long time since this difference has been observed in the Greek Copies of the New Testament which is founded upon the Rules of Criticism The appellation of Vulgar has been always given to the common Copies of the Bible to distinguish them from those that were corrected by Criticks and are therefore believed to be more exact The Jews for example reform their common and ordinary Copies by those of the Massoret Hilarius Deacon of Rome puts a great value on this Rule in his Commentary upon the fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans v. 14. He rejects the Vulgar Reading of the Greek Copies assuring us that they can never be used so as to prevail against the Latin Edition seeing they vary Sic praescribitur nobis saith he de Graecis codicibus quasi non ipsi ab invicem discrepent He has recourse to the most Ancient Greek Copies from which the Latin Version was taken And seeing (l) Constat autem hoc per quosdam Latinos de veteribus Graecis olim translatos codicibus quos incorruptos simplicitas temporum servavit servat Ambrosiast Comm. in Epist ad Rom. c. 5. v. 14. he is perswaded that the Latin Copies were not corrupted he believes that the Greek from which they were taken is ancient and true F. Amelote might according to this sense have distinguished the Greek at this day from the ancient and true Greek and have called the former the Vulgar Greek But it does not follow from thence that that Ancient Greek is free from all faults and that it must be always preferred to the Greek which is called New. For this latter Greek is no otherwise New but in respect of its being published in these latter times And it may happen that this New Greek may be found agreeable to the most Ancient Authors and that it is consequently very ancient And therefore Hilarius the Deacon gives us three Qualities the consideration of which ought to induce us to prefer one Copy to another Hoc verum arbitror saith he quando Ratio Historia Authoritas observatur Ambros ibid. He grounds the Reading which he believes to be the best in that place upon the Authority of Tertullian of Victorin and St. Cyprian Whence he does conclude that the Vulgar Greek of his time was not to be followed seeing there were more ancient and more true Copies in which the Reading was otherwise I do not inquire if that Deacon was justifiable in the matter of which he treated I content my self with proposing the Rule that he gives us by which we may distinguish the Copies that are called Vulgar or Common from others that are more Ancient and more Correct This being once supposed we shall avoid many unprofitable Questions which Mr. Arnauld does seriously handle upon the occasion of the Vulgar Greek which he alledges to be extant in notion only and which saith he we ought first to make before we speak of it This Learned Man does afterwards endeavour to prove that that name is neither to be given to Robert Stephen's Edition nor to that of the Cardinal Ximenes nor to any other because as he thinks it is Chimerical and of F. Amelote's invention who framed to himself a certain Vulgar Greek the most erroneous that could be imagined in opposition to the Vulgar that the faults of the one might ballance the perfections of the other I am apt to believe that that Father does entertain false Idea's of that which is called the Vulgar Greek But if he be understood in the manner we have already shewn it is no Chimera nor fancy If the Authors of the Translation of the New Testament Printed at Mons have sometimes followed the Vulgar Greek in their Version without making mention of any other Greek they are in that to be blamed For it cannot be absolutely affirmed that the Greek is read in some places otherwise than the Latin when there are Greek Copies where the Reading is the same with the Latin Neither must we always prefer the Greek Copies that agree with the Latin Edition to the Common and Ordinary We are to judge of those Readings according to the Rules of Criticism and examin with the Deacon Hilary which of those Copies are Founded on Reason on History and on Authority The Greek wherein these things do meet shall be the most ancient and the most correct whether it be found in the Old Manuscripts or in the Printed Books There is then nothing more false than the Idea that School Divines and some Canonists have formed of the Greek Copies of the New Testament For under the pretence of defending the Authority of the Ancient Latin Edition they alledge that when there is any difference betwixt the Greek Copies at this day and the Latin we ought always to prefer the Latin to the Greek because the Greeks say they being Schismaticks have corrupted their Books whereas the Truth has remained in the Roman Church there is nothing more unjust than this thought For it is easie to go back to the time before the Schism and to shew that the Origen's the
Colb MS. Colb n. 3941. Robert Stephen has also observed that this word was only in one of his S. Jerom has not expressed it in his new Edition Cod. MS. Colb n. 2259. 3947. Neither did he find it in the ancient Vulgar In the thirty sixth verse of the same Chapter we do not read in one of Colbert's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idle Beza observed in his Note on that place that this word was not in one of his Manuscripts Cod. MS. Colb n. 4112. Chap. 13. vers 11. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Heaven we read in two of Colbert's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God. Cod. MS. Colb n. 4112. S. Jerom observed upon the thirty fifth verse of the same Chapter a different Reading which is not found in any Greek Copy nor likewise in any of the ancient Versions That Learned Critick observes (o) Legi in nonnullis codicibus studiosus lector fortè reperiet id ipsum in eo loco ubi nos posuimus vulgata habet Editio ut impleretur quod dictum est per Prophetam dicentem ibi scriptum per Esaiam Prophetam dicentem Quod quia mimmè inveniebatur in Esaiâ arbitror postea à prudentibus viris esse sublatum sed mihi videtur in principio ita editum quod scriptum est per Asaph Prophetam Hieron lib. 2. Comm. in Matth. c. 13. that instead of the word Prophetam that was in the Ancient Vulgar and which he kept in his New Edition he read in some Copies Esaiam Prophetam And this made him think that the ancient Reading of that Passage was Asaph Prophetam because in truth the testimony of that Prophet who is there spoken of is taken out of Psalm 77 which bears * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Name Asaph He believed that seeing it was not found in Esay that the name of this Prophet was taken away But it is more probable in my Opinion that the Reading that is in all the Greek Copies and in all the Versions at this day is the ancient and the true Reading The Evangelist who cited this Psalm under the name of the Prophet in general did mean David to whom the Psalms were ordinarily ascribed without noticing the particular Titles of the Psalms They might afterwards put the name of Asaph by way of Note in the Margin of this Place of St. Matthew and others might change it to that of Esay and this latter Note would pass as it often happens into the Copies which St. Jerom assures us he did read In the same Chapter Cod. MS. Colb n. 4112. v. 41. we do not read in one of Colbert's these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Son of Man nor these others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of his Kingdom Ver. 55. Instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is in two of Colbert's Cod. MSS. Colb n. 5149. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John as in the Cambridge Copy and in another of Colbert 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the ancient Vatican Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Reading was followed by the Vulgar Chap. 14. v. 24. Cod. MS. Colb n. 4112. We do not read in one of Colbert's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the wind was contrary Further ver 33. We do not read in another of Colbert's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod. MS. Colb n. 3947. being come Chap. 15. v. 8. These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are cited out of the Prophet Esay Cod. MS. Colb n. 2467. and are extant as well in the Hebrew as in the Greek of the Septuagint are not in the Cambridge Copy from which they have taken them away as being useless St. Jerom who did not read them in the ancient Vulgar did likewise omit them in his new Edition Ver. 31. of the same Chapter the Marquess of Veles did not read in one of his Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the maimed to be whol◠neither are they expressed in St. Jerom's Edition though they are in the Cambridge Copy and in the ancient Vulgar Ver. 36. We do not read in one of Colbert's Cod. MS. Colb n. 4112. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seven which might easily have been omitted especially in the most ancient Copies where they marked the Numbers by single Letters as in this place in the Cambridge Copy where there is only the Letter Z ' In the same verse Beza observed that these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the fishes are not in one of his Manuscripts Chap. 16. v. 2. Cod. MS. Colb n. 5149. We read after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one of Colbert's this Addition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so it is Ver. 3. of the same Chapter the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not in two of Colbert's nor in the Cambridge Copy Cod. MSS. Colb n. 2467. 3497. St. Jerom who found it not in the ancient Vulgar has not expressed it in his new Edition In the same verse we read in one of Colbert's after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Addition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he answered and said Cod. Colb n. 2259. Ver. 11. of the same Chapter we read after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one of Colbert's and in three of Rob. Stephen's Manuscripts Cod. Colb MS. n. 4112. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but beware In the same Chap. v. 13. Beza did not read in one of his Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither has St. Jerom expressed this Pronoun in his new Edition It also appeared by his Commentary on the place that he did not believe that we ought to read it For this is his observation Non dixit quem me dicunt esse homines sed filium hominis i. e. He did not say whom do men say that I am but that the Son of Man is Nevertheless it was in the ancient Vulgar agreeable to the Cambridge Greek Copy Ver. 17. where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Jerom does observe (p) Volunt scriptorum vitio depravatum ut pro bar Iohanna heo est filius Joannis bar Jona scriptum sit unâ detractâ syllabâ Hieron l. 3. Comm. in Matth. c. 16. that some believed that it was an error of the Transcribers and that instead of bar Jona it ought to be bar Johanna the Son of John. Junius has also put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Edition of Wekel But the former Reading is founded on all the ancient and true Copies The Jews of those times had abridged many of their Names And therefore bar Jona was the same thing with bar Johanna and it does not in St. Matthew signifie the Son of a Dove as St. Jerom did Expound it but the Son of John. Chap. 17. v. 20. Instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unbelief Cod. MS. Colb n. 5149. we read in one of Colbert's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same Sense Which yet seems to be a