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
Writing as they have been by some He does particularly undertake the defence of St. Paul whom he believed to have been very conversant with the Greek Authors and amongst the rest with the Poets whom he did imitate as he believes for his Expression in sundry places (a) Haec cùm ita sint cùm aliundè pateat Paulum Apostolum Graecos scriptores evolvisse quî credibile sit illum Graecae linguae non satis peritum fuisse Henr. Steph. ibid. Whence he does conclude that to affirm that that Holy Apostle was not Master enough of the Greek Language is a supposition that is altogether incredible We have moreover a Differtation published by Phochen which is Entituled * Diatribe de linguae Graecae Novi Testamenti puritate Of the purity of the Greek Language of the New Testament where the Author forgot nothing which might make it manifest that the Text of that Book is true Greek and that it does not differ very much from the Stile of Profane Authors Textum Novi Testamenti saith Phochen verè Graecum nec alienum planè à Stilo Graeco profano esse asserimus He does refute all those Hebraisms which as some alledge are contained in the Writings of the Apostles and to make it the more evidently appear that they object those Hebraisms in vain he does justifie those Expressions on which they are charged by the like Expressions of Profane Authors There are on the contrary some Learned Criticks who very far from allowing the Apostles a Pure and Elegant Stile have not scrupled to make them pass for Barbarous Writers whose Books are stuffed with Hebraisms Castalio who understood Hebrew and Greek sufficiently to be judge of this Question says in speaking of the Apostles (b) Erant Apostoli natu Hebraei peregrinâ hoc est Graecâ linguâ scribentes hebraizabant non qui juberet Spiritus neque enim pluris facit Spiritus hebraismos quà m graecismos ... res enim dictat Spiritus verba quidem linguam scribendi liberam permittit Sebast Castal defens Translat Bibl. that being born Hebrews they did Hebraize when they writ in Greek whilst the Holy Ghost had no part in that because the Spirit of God does not love Hebraism any more than Graecisms He only Indited the thing to them saith that Author and not the Words leaving them at liberty to express themselves after their own fashion Which is agreeable enough to the Opinion of the Jesuits of Louvain Castalio does further shew why the Apostles did no more improve themselves in the Greek so as to speak it well seeing that Language is Copious in Words full of Sense and easie to be understood whereas the Hebrew Phrases render their Discourses intricate and obscure He says (c) Cur igitur hebraizarunt Primùm quia erant Saeris Literis assueti deinde quia cùm essent Graecae linguae non usque adeò periti id quod eorum scripea ostendùnt facilè in patriam consuetudinem deflectebant Castal ibid. that they were accustomed to the reading of the Sacred Writings and that since they did not sufficiently understand the Greek Language as it is easie to prove by their Works those expressions that were proper to their Mother Tongue did first present themselves to them on all occasions Which he confirms by the example of the French and the Dutch who cannot write in Latin without intermingling somthing of their own Language therewith Dum Latinè scribunt Gallizant Germanizant This latter Opinion which has been followed by very able Criticks is more agreeable than the former to the Opinion of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers I think we ought to acquiesce in the Judgment of the Greek Fathers who are faithful Witnesses of the Greek Stile of the Evangelists and the Apostles Origen was the only Man of all the Greek Fathers who applied himself most to the Study of the Scripture in a manner that was most exact and Critical And therefore his Judgment upon the Question ought of all others to have the most weight with us When that Learned Person Disputes against the Enemies of our Religion who despised the Prophets and the Apostles because of their Stile and because the same things say they were much better expressed in the Writings of the Ancient Philosophers He makes answer to them that we ought not upon that account to despise the Books of the Jews and the Christians because it has been always agreed that the Jews had written before the Greeks As to the Stile he does own that the Greeks have the advantage but he does withal alledge that it cannot be inferred from thence that their Works are better than those of the Jews and of the Christians He does likewise observe that the Books of the Old Testament are not destitute of their ornament in the Hebrew Language Which he does affirm of the Writings of the Apostles because the truth is they had no Politeness in their Expressions having applied themselves more to the Eloquence of Things than of Words (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig adv Cels lib. 7. The Prophets of the Jews saith Origen and the Disciples of Jesus renounced all Ornaments of Discourse and every thing which the Scripture does call human Wisdom and according to the Flesh If any Greek that Learned Father continues should have a design to teach a Doctrin that were profitable to the Egyptians and the Syrians he would rather choose to learn the Barbarous Languages of those Nations than to be useless by speaking Greek to them (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. The thing is the same according to him in the Providence of God who did not only consider those amongst the Greeks who were Men of Learning but rather the ignorant Community And therefore it was suitable to the exigency at that time that they should accommodate themselves to the Stile of the meaner sort that they might gain them in speaking their Language Upon this Principle we ought to form an Idea of the Apostolical and Evangelical Stile and not upon the prejudices of some Protestants who believe that they stand for the Authority of the Scripture by allowing nothing that is very mean to have proceeded out of the Mouth of the Apostles But St. Paul himself declared to the Corinthians who despised him because of his Language that he came not to Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ with excellency of Speech or of Wisdom 1 Cor. ii 1. 1 Cor. i. 17. For Christ saith that Apostle sent me to Preach the Gospel not with wisdom of Words St. John Chrysostom has observed upon this Passage of St. Paul that if the Apostles in their Sermons did not use the Stile of the wise Men of the Earth (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Hom. 3. in Epist 1. ad Cor. cap. 1. that ought not to be attributed to the weakness of the Gift of Tongues which they had received seeing they took that
of arguing of the Manicheans folly insaniam dementiam who not being able to accommodate the Writings of the Apostles to the Idea that they had formed to themselves of the Christian Religion or under colour of certain contradictions in the Scriptures which they could not resolve (ſ) Non à Christi Apostolis sed longo pòst tempore à quibusdam incerti nominis viris qui ne sibi non haboretur fides scribentibus quae nescirent partim Apostolorum nomina partim eorum qui Apostolos secuti viderentur scriptorum suorum frontibus indiderunt asseverantes secundùm eos se scripsisse quae scripserint Apud Aug. lib. 32. cont Faust c. 2. would needs have it believed that these Books were composed after the Apostles themselves by uncertain Authors who had made bold to borrow the Names of these Apostles to gain Credit and Authority to their Works To convince them the more easily of their folly he sets before their eyes the Books (t) Platonis Aristotelis Ciceronis Varronis aliorumque ejusmodi autorum libros unde noverunt homines quôd ipsorum sint nisi temporum fibimet succedentium contestatione continuâ August cont Faust lib. 33. c. 6. of Hippocrates Plato Aristotle Varto and Cicero and of several other Writers that are believed to be the Authors of those Works that we have under their Names because they have been attributed to them in the time wherein they lived and they have been always so attributed successively from Age to Age. Now there is nothing more contrary to reason than not to grant the same privilege to the Church and not to acknowledge that she hath faithfully kept the Writings of the Apostles whose Doctrine she hath always preserved by the means of the Succession of Bishops We have enlarged a little on these Reflections of S. Augustin and of the other Fathers that preceded him because they have mightily evinced the Truth of the Books of the New Testament without having recourse to I know not what particular Spirit which is an invention of these later times We cannot imagine any thing more opposite to good reason than these Words of the Confession of Faith of those that formerly took the Name of the Reformed of the Churches of France Confess Art. 4. We acknowledge these Books in speaking of the whole Scriptures to be Canonical not so much by the common agreement and consent of the Church as by the testimony and inward persuasion of the Holy Ghost The Fathers nevertheless have always confuted the ancient Hereticks who refused to acknowledge these Books as Canonical by the common agreement and consent of the Church It would have been a pleasant way of reasoning if every one in these primitive times of Christianity would not have acknowledged for divine Books only those that his private Spirit should dictate to him to be such This hath appeared to be so great an extravagance to those of that Persuasion who in the Low Countries are called Remonstrants that they look upon the Calvinists that follow this Principle as People that have renounced common sense Simon Episcopius who hath been one of the Champions of this Party after having handled this question with a great deal of subtilty concludes that it is a very ill sort of argumentation to admit besides the testimony of the Church another inward testimony of the Holy Ghost to know whether certain Books have a divine Authority stampt upon them Hinc patet saith this Protestant ineptos esse eos qui vel praeter vel citra testimonium Ecclesiae requiri aiunt internum Spiritus Sancti testimonium ad hoc ut libros hos divinos esse authoritatem divinam habere intelligamus Remonst Confess c. 1. de scrip n. 8. It is sufficient according to the Remonstrants that we have there upon the testimony of (v) Ecclesia primitiva quae temporibus Apostolorum fuit certissimè resciscere potuit indubiè etiam rescivit libros istos ab Apostolis scriptos esse vel saltem approbatos nobisque istius rei scientiam quasi per manus tradidit ac veluti depositum quoddam reliquit Remonst Confess cap. 1. de Script n. 8. the primitive Church that certainly knew that these Books were written by the Apostles or approved by them and that this testimony is come down to us by a constant Tradition This Spirit that is diffused through the whole Church ought without doubt to be preferred to a private Spirit that can only serve to make a division therein Grot. Animad in Anim. Riv. This is what Grotius hath judiciously observed Spiritus ille privatus saith this Critick Spiritus Ecclesiae divisor It would be to no purpose for the Calvinists to object to the Remonstrants that their Opinion is taken out of the Writings of Socinus because an evident truth ought not to be rejected under pretence that it may be found in the Books of Socinus This Heretick hath proved in his Treatise Of the Authority of the Holy Scriptures and in another Work intituled Sacred Lectures the Truth of the Sacred Books and principally of those of the New Testament by the very same reasons and after the same manner that S. Irenaeus Tertullian and S. Augustin have done Socin lib. de Auctor Script sac (x) Legantur ea quae hac de re Eusebius scribit pluribus in locis Historiae Ecclesiasticae invenietur usque ad illius Eusebit aetatem hoc est per 250. circiter annorum perpetuum spatium postquam scripta illa conscripta atque edita fuerunt nunquam fuisse in Ecclesia qui dubitaret quin quatuor quae habemus Evangelia liber Actorum Apostolorum Epistolae omnes quae Pauli Apostoli esse dicuntur praeter eam quae ad Hebraeos est scripta prior Apostoli Petri prima Joannis Apostoli haec inquam omnia ab iis scripta fuissent quibus attribuuntur Socin lib. de Auctor Script Sac. Let them read saith Socinus that which Eusebius hath written on this matter in his Ecclesiastical History and they will find therein a perpetual consent of all the Churches of the World since these Books were written to the time of this Author He insists very much in these two Treatises on the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers Will any one say for this that this is a Socinian Method because Socinus hath made use of it after the most Learned Ecclesiastical Writers Would to God that this Enemy of the Traditions of the Catholick Church had always followed this Principle he would not have introduced so many Innovations into Religion Neither can he avoid an Objection that may be made even by those of his own Party that according to his Principles he ought necessarily to acknowledge a Tradition after the same manner as it is maintained in the Church of Rome We cannot might they say to him receive the Gospel of S. Matthew and reject that which hath been published under the Name
Conference with them and that they had all agreed on a certain and sure Rule of Faith they separated to go every one to his respective station to promulge the Gospel of Jesus Christ S. Augustin relies on the same Principle in disproving a false Epistle that the Manicheans had published under the Name of Jesus Christ Is there any one so foolish saith this Learned Father as to believe that the Epistle that Manichee attributes to Jesus Christ is true and that the Gospel of S. Matthew which hath been always preserved in the Church doth not belong to this Apostle He demands whether they could with any color of Reason believe an obscure Man who appeared not in the World till more than two hundred years after Jesus Christ (z) Cùm ipse Apostolus Paulus post ascensionem Domini de coelo vocatus si non inveniret in carne Apostolos quibus communicando cum quibus conferendo Evangelium ejusdem esse societatis appareret Ecclesia illi omninò non crederet Aug. lib. 28. cont Manich. c. 4. since the Church would not have given credit to S. Paul himself who was called to the Apostleship immediately after the Ascension of our Saviour if he had not conferred with the Apostles touching the Doctrine that he preached It is a Maxim generally received among all the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that Jesus Christ alone is the Author of the Christian Religion and that his Apostles who have been the Witnesses of his Actions and Words have only related to us those things that they had seen or learned from their Master When it was objected to the primitive Fathers that the Gospels of S. Mark and S. Luke as also the Epistles of S. Paul ought not to be received as Canonical because the Authors of these Writings were not Apostles but only Apostolical Men. They have answered that these Apostolical Persons have written nothing but what they had received from their Masters They have concluded from thence that the same authority ought to be given to their Writings as if the Apostles themselves had been the Authors of them Therefore when Tertullian speaks of S. Luke and S. Mark who according to his Opinion were only Apostolical he adds at the same time that these Apostolical Men were not (a) Si Apostolicos non tamen solos sed cum Apostolis post Apostolos quoniam praedicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset de gloriae studio si non adsistat illi auctoritas magistrorum imò Christi qui magistros Apostolos fecit Tertull. lib. 4. adv Marc. c. 2. alone having written jointly with the Apostles and after them and that therefore their Doctrine could not be suspected since it hath been authorised by their Masters and even by Jesus Christ who had constituted these Masters We may apply unto S. Paul that which Tertullian saith here of S. Mark and S. Luke And this may serve to resolve all the Objections of the ancient Hereticks who refused to allow his Writings because they denied that he was truly an Apostle I have already given an account of the Manicheans who acknowledged nothing of S. Paul but what was agreeable to the Idea that they had formed of the Christian Religion These Sectaries argued against common Sense For in as much as they were not able to reconcile two Passages of this Apostle they thought it sufficient to conclude from thence that one of the two must of necessity be corrupted since it was not possible said they that he should contradict in one place what he had affirmed in another When it was demanded of Faustus whether he received the Apostle Apostolum accipis He answered that he did And when it was proved to him by the Writings of S. Paul that he ought to believe that Jesus Christ the Son of God derived his Original from David according to the flesh he then replyed (b) Non equidem crediderim Apostolum Dei contraria sibi scribere potuisse modò hanc modò illam de Domino nostro habuisse sententiam Apud Aug. lib. 11. cont Faust c. 1. that it is not credible that the Apostle of God should have written things that are contrary and overthrow one another he maintained that the Epistles of S. Paul had been interpolated as well as the Gospels and to make his Subtilty more apparent in inventing new Answers he adds that this Apostle might be reconciled with himself in saying that he had two Conceptions thereupon and that that which was objected was his old Opinion which he had abandoned after he had been better instructed But let us leave these Hereticks who had no certain Principles and were therefore obliged sometimes to have recourse to their Paraclet which was their great Engine We see almost the same thing at present in some illuminated and enthusiastick Persons who for want of good reasons are forced to fly to I know not what private Spirit that discovers to them the most hidden Mysteries of the Christian Religion I would entreat these People to reflect a little on the Conduct of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers in their Disputes against the Hereticks and on their manner of arguing they will find therein neither Paraclet nor private Spirit but solid Arguments that are very far from the Fanaticism which is predominant in our Age. Lastly to return to S. Paul the vanity of these ancient Hereticks was so great that S. Irenaeus was compelled to confute some Sectaries (c) Eos autem qui dicunt solum Paulum veritatem cognovisse cui per revelationem manifestum est mysterium ipse Paulus convincat eos dicens unum ipsum Deum operatum Petro in Apostolatu circumcisionis sibi in Gentes Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. c. 13. who affirmed that this Apostle only was endued with the knowledge of the Truth and that he alone had the Revelation of the Mysteries of the Gospel but this Father convinceth them by the very Words of S. Paul who hath born witness to the Apostleship of S. Peter CHAP. XVI Of the Epistle to the Hebrews in particular Whether it be St. Paul's and Canonical What Antiquity hath believed thereupon as well in the Eastern as in the Western Countries The Opinions of these later Ages concerning this Epistle SInce I have no other design in this Work than to treat of the Text of the New Testament and to establish as much as is possible the Writings of the Apostles I shall not insist in particular on the Subject of every Epistle of S. Paul this is a task that belongs rather to a Commentator of the Scriptures than to a Critical History of the Text for this reason I come immediately to the Epistle to the Hebrews that seems to have been disputed in Antiquity principally in the Western Churches some of which have refused to read it in their publick Assemblies there are also at this day some learned Criticks that doubt whether S. Paul be the Author thereof though they acknowledge it
course that they might not obstruct the Preaching of the Gospel If it be so that Father adds why was Apollo who was an Eloquent Man sent to the Corinthians To which he answers that he was not chosen because of his Eloquence but because he was mighty in the Scriptures and vigorously refuted the Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Chrysostom does very much insist upon this to shew that the Apostles were rude in their Expressions and unskilful in the Greek Tongue (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys ibid. When the Greeks shall accuse saith he the Disciples of Jesus Christ for not using a Discourse more polished than what the commonalty did pretend to and for being altogether unlearned we ought to grant all this and to enforce the like charge more than they He also reproves those of his time who alledged that St. Paul was a Learned and an Eloquent Man. He makes mention of a Dispute which was held about it in his time betwixt a Greek and a Christian He thought it was a ridiculous thing in the Christian to maintain that St. Paul understood the Greek Language perfectly All (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys ibid. that Dispute went upon a comparison of St. Paul with Plato The Graecian endeavoured to demonstrate that St. Paul was an illiterate Man. The Christian on the contrary was so silly as to undertake to prove that St. Paul was more Learned and Eloquent than Plato But as that Holy Bishop observes the Graecian on that occasion said what the Christian ought to have said the Christian on the contrary made use of such words as would have better become the Graecian It is no new thing to find Christians defend the purity of the Stile of the Apostles If Henry Stephen Phochen and some others had lived in St. Chrysostom's time he would have found also in them the like Conduct which he would not have failed to brand with the title of ridiculous He would have said to them as to those who lived in his days (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys ibid. that the same thing therefore may not befal you and that the Greeks may not deride us in Dispute let us accuse the Apostles of being illiterate persons for such an accusation is their praise And the truth is the Power of the Gospel did not consist in the Knowledge and Eloquence of the Apostles but in the Efficacy of the Word of God. The Mahometans admire the greatness and majesty of the Stile of their Alcoran The Christians on the contrary who acknowledge the most part of the Writings of the New Testament to be but simple and mean as to the Stile are nevertheless persuaded of the truth of their Religion which was Preached by Men (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys ibid. who were obscure and illiterate (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys ibid. This is no matter of defamation St Chrysostom does add when we speak of such Disciples of Jesus Christ It is rather matter of their praise who being such persons made themselves renowned through the whole World. And therefore Origen made no scruple to give some examples of the simple and mean Stile of the Apostles and also to observe their Solecisms which some Fathers have done after him He says that (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. Philoc. c. 4. the Apostles who were persuaded of their mean capacity as to human literature to which they had never applied themselves did freely declare the simplicity of their Stile and that they were very little acquainted with the Rules of Discourse although they were very skilful in the matters of Religion The same Father does observe in many places of his Works that St. Paul's diction is full of Hyperbates nay even of Barbarisms which made him obscure St. Irenaeus (n) Quoniam autem hyperbatis frequenter utitur Apostolus propter velocitatem sermonum suorum propter impetum qui in ipso est spiritûs ex multis quidem aliis est invenire Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. c. 7. who also acknowledged those Hyperbates in that Apostles Stile did attribute the same to the readiness of his Discourse and to the vigor of that Spirit which was in him I should never have done if I should particularly relate all the Testimonies of the Greek Writers concerning the simple and low Stile of the Evangelists and the Apostles They have not so much as excepted St. Luke though it is generally believed that he had a more exact knowledg of the Greek Language than the rest of the Writers of the New Testament The Greek Scholiasts who have written on St. John observe after St. Chrysostom in the Prefaces which they prefix to that Evangelist that St. John was (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Schol. Gr. in IV. Evang. ex cod MS Bibl. Colb of a pitiful Village called Bethsaida in Galilee the Son of a poor Fisher who was altogether ignorant of that which the Men of the World call good Literature himself a rude and plain Fisherman who could neither speak nor write The Cardinal Toletus who writ a judicious Commentary upon St. John's Gospel speaks no otherwise of that Evangelists Stile in a Summary prefixed to his Commentary There he affirms that St. John (p) Minùs quà m caeteri Evangelistae Graecè locutus est Hebraicis phrasibus abundat Vnde fit ut Hebraici sermonis peritia non minùs quà m Graeci ad sensum sententiarum assequendum sit necessaria Franc. Tol. argum Comm. in Joann does speak worse Greek than the other Evangelists that he is stuffed with Hebraisms and that to understand him it is necessary to know the Hebrew as well as the Greek He desires us to (q) Attendendum est maximam vim in particulis causalibus illativis continuativis caeterìsque ejusmodi esse positam ut interdùm una particula integrum sententiae sensum contineat ostendat Tol. ibid. observe well the Causal Particles the Illatives the Conjunctives and others of that Nature which have a great force in all his Discourse because the Sense does sometimes wholly depend on those Particles Enjedine a subtil Unitary did also enlarge his Observations on the Stile of that Evangelist which he looked upon as very obscure and very hard to be understood (r) Si obscuritas concisa abrupta minimè sibi cohaerens ex allegoriis constans oratio sublimitas dicenda est fateor Joannem esse sublimem Nam vix ullam Christi concionem ab eo relatam invenias quae tota non sit allegerica intellectu difficillima Georg. Enjed. prooem in Joann If we saith he ought to call that greatness of Stile which is an obscure Discourse abridged and interrupted without any connection and which is full of Allegories I avow that in that Sense St. John's Stile is sublime for he makes no Harangue concerning Jesus Christ which is not Allegorical and very difficult to be understood He does strongly
of their Books were written has been called in this Age the Hellenistick Language This Language is Greek in respect of the words but the order of the Phrase is Hebrew or Chaldee as we still see at this day that the Spanish Jews have composed the Translations of the Bible in a kind of Spanish Language which is hard to be understood by any one who does not understand the Hebrew It is the same thing in their other Versions of the Bible in whatsoever Language they are written They do not only continually mix therewith some Hebrew or half Hebrew words but their manner of expression in all the Vulgar Languages has also a great affinity with the Hebrew The Ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint was written in this sort of Greek as well as the Books of the New Testament and they called this Language Hellenistick because it was in use among the Jews who spake the Greek Language and who are called Hellenists or Greeks in the Acts of the Apostles Vossius who frequently frames Maxims which he does not confirm by any solid Proofs does alledge that those were called Hellenists who favoured the Greeks and that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does signifie that in the same manner as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signifie to favour the Romans and the Persians And thus that incomparable Person does often judge of things merely by Grammatical Notions without being in any measure concerned whether those notions do or do not agree to the things to which he applies them But if we should confine our selves only to the Grammatical sense of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is certain that it does signifie as well in Profane as Ecclesiastical Authors to speak Greek and likewise to speak that Language in its purity He thinks that those among the Jews were called Hebrews who by reason of the great zeal they had for their Law were unwilling to submit to the Greeks and the Romans and would by no means allow that their Nation should pay tribute to Strangers The rest on the contrary were called Hellenists who paid tribute with good will. But all this is a mere imagination that has not the least shadow of Reason and which signifies nothing as to that Passage of the Acts of the Apostles Chap. 6. where there is mention made of the Hebrews and Hellenists or Greeks St. Chrysostom Theodoret Oecumenius and many other Fathers did not by those Grecians understand any other Jews but those who had the Greek for their Vulgar Language whereas the rest spake the Chaldee or Babylonish Tongue St. Luke saith Oecumenius speaking of the former (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oecum in c. 6. Act. Apost calls them Greeks or Hellenists not upon the account of their Religion but because they spake the Greek Language Although they were Jews as well as others they are not commonly called Hebrews because they spake not the Hebrew or rather the Chaldee Language That Hebrew Language had continued among the Jews of Palestine since their return from Babylon and they look'd upon themselves to be more considerable than the rest of the Jews who were dispersed through the several Provinces of the Roman Empire where they spake Greek The most able Criticks of our Age have owned the Hellenistick Language to which they have had frequent recourse for explaining many Passages of the New Testament Yet Salmasius and after him Crojus have used their utmost endeavour to cry down this new Language which as they imagin was unknown to all the Ancients and which is as they alledge chymerical seeing it cannot be reduced to any of the Ancient Greek Dialects The former has expresly written two Books upon this Subject one whereof is entitled De Hellenisticâ Commentarius and another Funus Linguae Hellenisticae He does really in these two Works shew himself to be a Man of great Learning But he is so far from destroying that Language as he pretends that he does confirm it in several places The Patrons of the Hellenistick Language never believed that there was a Greek Dialect of that name and so all Salmasius's long Discourse upon the several Greek Dialects is nothing to the purpose Further seeing we intend not to dispute with him on words it shall be granted that the word Hellenist does signifie Greek and that those who speak not that Language properly ought rather to be called Non Hellenists than Hellenists The truth is in the Prohibition that Julian laid on the Christians not to apply themselves to the Study of the Greek Language he uses this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it does signifie to speak pure Greek And therefore St. Gregory of Nazianzen calls him in derision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lover of the Greek Language and he tells him (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Naz. Orat. 1. adv Jul. he who made this Law has forbidden us to speak in the Attick Dialect but he has not restrained us from speaking the Truth In this sense there are no true Hellenists but those who have a perfect Knowledge of the Greek Language which does differ from the Hellenistick Language and this I would rather call the Greek of the Synagogue because it owes its Original to the Synagogues of the Jews But those who first call'd this Language the Hellenistick did it only in conformity to that place of the Acts where the Jews are called Hellenists and not according to the ordinary notion of the word Hellenist Salmasius does grant that there are many Hebraisms in the Version of the Septuagint and in the Writings of the Apostles He only denies that we ought upon that account to call that the Hellenistick Language in which those Books were written Otherwise saith he we ought to give the same name to the Ancient Latin Version of the Bible because there is also a great many Hebraisms in that Version But it was necessary that it should have been written in Greek before it could be called an Hellenistick Version We do not call the Language of the Septuagint and of the New Testament Hellenistick merely because it contains many Hebraisms but because it is Greek mixed with Hebraisms There may be any name chosen and applyed in this case provided that there be an agreement in the thing it self It is vain to dispute on words when the matter is past dispute Now Salmasius does in his two Books suppose certain Principles which manifestly establish the Language which some Criticks in this last Age have called the Hellenistick He assures us for example that the Seventy Interpreters who understood the Greek very well (c) Nisi verbum verbo in pluribus reddere curassent longè ut ita dicam Graecatiorem omnibus Hebraismis totidemque barbarismis repurgatam potuissent edere translationem Hebraismi non aliunde exorti sunt quà m ex vertendi modo qui se verbis alligat qui sensa non exprimere contentus
cited any Passage in the Old Testament which did not perfectly agree with the Hebrew Text. Eustochium Hieron Prooem in lib. 16. Comm. in Isai who perfectly understood the Greek and Hebrew Languages opposed him with such powerful Arguments that he was forced to own himself almost overcome with the strength of her Objections Quod cùm audissem quasi à fortissimo pugile percussus essem coepi tacitus aestuare It is no strange thing to find those Ages when Barbarism reigned over all Europe neglect Critical Studies Then they wanted abundance of those helps which they now enjoy to pursue those Studies which are absolutely necessary to a perfect Knowledg of Divinity But that which amazes me is that in this very Age this Art should still remain in contempt and those Men be thought no more than Grammarians who apply themselves to it Besides we cannot but see the manifest Errors of some Divines in this Age who know not the true Laws of Criticism It is worth observing that the ancient Hereticks have been perpetually accused of having corrupted the Books of the New Testament and perverted them to their own sence That has often been thought a wilful and designed Corruption which proceeded only from the fault of the Transcribers or difference of Copies The Ecclesiastical Writers of the first Ages have not done that strict Justice to the Hereticks of their times in relation to the New Testament that they have given the Jews in the Disputes about the different manners of explaining the Old Testament Those pretended Corruptions presently vanish upon Examination of the ancient Manuscripts and the Original of the various Readings Wherefore in this Piece I have justified the Arrians Nestorians and the rest of the Sectaries from that Imputation of having falsified the Originals of the Evangelists and Apostles to maintain their Innovations We have also plainly evinc'd by some considerable Examples that the most Learned Criticks of our Age are not exempted from those Prejudices in their declaring too freely those Hereticks falsifiers of the Text. The case of some other Sectaries is not the same who declared themselves openly against the Writings of Christ's Disciples which they have corrected and altered according to their own Idea's of the Christian Religion Some daring to forge Supposititious Gospels and Acts the better to give authority to their Fopperies It would be very pertinent for the better Distinction of all the Genuine Pieces of the New Testament to make a Collection of those ancient Acts and diligently examine them Wherefore we have not concealed any of those Arguments which those Hereticks or the other Enemies of Christianity have brought to destroy the Truth of those Books which were received by all the Catholick Churches But as it would be a pernicious thing to expose these ill things without administring Remedies too proper for the cure we have also produced the strongest Reasons which the Ecclesiastical Writers have brought against them We intreat the Protestants to make Reflection on these matters and observe those methods of the first Ages of the Church for establishing the Authority of the Sacred Writings They will find nothing impertinent in the Conduct Irenaeus Tertullian and the rest of the Defenders of those Writings did not object to the Enemies of the Christian Religion their private Spirit which perswaded them of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture but very substantial Reasons void of all such Fanaticism Tho they were sufficiently perswaded of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture they never objected to the Adversaries that it had imprest upon it such lively Characters of its Original that it was a very difficult matter not to acknowledg it when read with a Spirit of Submission and Humility Their Adversaries being Philosophers who consulted their natural Reason they opposed them from sure and indisputable Principles Again I thought in a Work of this nature not convenient to suppress the principal Objections of the Jews against the Books of the New Testament For although this miserable Nation is an Object of the contempt of the whole World yet has there appeared among them Men of great Address and Subtilty in the Disputes against the Christians which I have often found true in my own Experience when I have endeavoured to convince them by their own Principles Since their Plea for Prescription is better and their Pretensions are that the Disciples of Jesus the Son of Mary had no reason to change their Religion which was delivered them by the Fathers It is but necessary to examin what they object against the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles In this Critical History I have treated divers other important Questions And where I deviate from the Methods of the Divines of the School it is because I have found a more secure way I have employed all my strength to avoid the advancing any thing that is not grounded on authentic Records instead of which the School-Divinity teaches us to doubt of the most certain Our Religion consisting principally in Matters of Fact the Subtilties of Divines who are not acquainted with Antiquity can never discover certainty of such matters of Fact They rather serve to confound the Vnderstanding and form pernicious Difficulties against the Mysteries of our Religion Let it not seem strange to any Person that I recede from the Opinions which are generally received in the Schools and prefer to the Sentiments of whole Vniversities the new Opinions of some modern Divines which can hardly be taxed as novel when they are found conformable to the Ancient Doctors of the Church This I speak in reference to that Passage where I handle the Dispute which was formerly between the Divines of Louvain and Doway and the Jesuits of that Country concerning the inspiration of the sacred Books The Doctors of both Faculties censured the Propositions of the Jesuites of Louvain in a manner very injurious to the whole Society But after a due examination of the Reasons on which their grave Gentlemen founded their Censure I could hardly believe their Authority alone a sufficient Rule to oblige me to assent I propose Truth alone to my self in this Work without any Deference to any Master in particular A true Christian who professes to believe the Catholick Faith ought not to stile himself a Disciple of S. Austin S. Jerome or any other particular Father since his Faith is founded on the word of Jesus Christ contained in the Writings of the Apostles and constant Tradition of the Catholick Churches I wish to God the Divines of the Age were all of that opinion we then should not have seen so many useless Disputes which only prove the causes of Disorders in Church and State. I have no private Interest which obliges me to any Party the very name of Party is odious to me I solemnly protest I have no other intentions in composing this Work than the benefit of the Church and the establishing the most sacred and divine thing in the World. It is useless
in the proper Languages of the respective Authors A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament Wherein is establish'd The Truth of those ACTS on which CHRISTIANITY is founded PART I. CHAPTER I. The Verity of the New Testament defended in general against the ancient Hereticks Reflections upon the Principle made use of by the Fathers to establish the Authority of these Books JEsus Christ having profess'd that he came not into the World to destroy the Old Law but rather to accomplish it Matt. v. 17. it seemed not to him necessary to publish his Doctrine in Writing He was content to prove his Mission by his Miracles and to support his Reformation upon the Books of the Old Testament which were received by all the Jews to whom the Messias had been promised So that we do not find him to have given order to his Disciples to putany thing into Writing He only commands them to Preach his Gospel to all the Nations of the Earth Go ye says he to them Mar. xvi 15. into all the world and preach the Gospel The Books of the New Testament took their Original from this preaching This it was that caused Tertullian to say (a) Constituimus in primis Evangelicum instrumentum Apostolos autores habere quibus hoc munus Evangelii promulgandi ab ipso Domino sit impositum Tertul. l. 4. adv Marcion c. 2. That the Apostles to whom Jesus Christ had given this Command to promulge the Gospel were the Authors thereof Upon the whole matter the Gospels had not been put in Writing but at the request of those People who were willing to preserve the memory of that which the Apostles had preached to them S. Paul composed the greater part of his Epistles for the Instruction of Churches which were already erected That History which we call the Acts of the Apostles was published to no other end but to shew to the Faithful the Progress of the Christian Religion upon its first advance into the World and the Christians not having at that time any State separate from that of the Jews and being present and assisting at all their Ceremonies in the Temple and in the Synagogues they had no Persons appointed to record any thing of importance which pass'd among them And this is the reason that we find not here as in the Old Testament any publick Writers who had the Charge of collecting the Acts of their State. This during the Primitive times of Christianity gave a pretence to several Hereticks to doubt of the truth of those Apostolical Books which to them seem'd to want some publick Attestation S. Ignatius in one of his Epistles complains (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignut Ep. ad Philad That he understood there were some men who said they could not believe the Gospel except they could find it written in the * There are some who read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ancients Archives The holy Martyr answers them That it was written that the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and a Faith in him were instead of the most authentick Archives It was then difficult to distinguish the Books which had been composed by the Apostles or by their Disciples from those which had been forged by false Apostles or by some Sectaries Every one bore in its front either the Name of the Apostles in general or of some single one of their number and since there were no publick Archives to which recourse might be had for the deciding and clearing of matters of this nature the Hereticks took occasion from thence to publish a great number of false Acts of which hardly any thing is left to Posterity except the Titles of them and a few Fragments These Sectaries boasted that they taught the Doctrine of the Apostles or at least of their Disciples Basilides who was one of the most ancient Hereticks avouched that he had for his Master (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Clem. Alex. lib. 7. Strom. Glaucias one of St. Peter's Interpreters Và lentin affirmed with the same boldness that he had been instructed in Religion by Theodad (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Clem. Alex. ibid. who was one of St. Paul 's familiar Acquaintance But whereas they did not agree amongst themselves and on the contrary the Doctrine of the Apostles was perfectly uniform in the Churches that they had planted the Fathers made use of this Uniformity of Doctrine to confirm and establish the truth of the Apostolical Writings Clemens Alexandrinus answers Basilides and Valentin that there was but one true ancient Church that was before all Heresies From thence he brings an unquestionable proof of the falsity of the Doctrine of these Sectaries who durst be so bold as to give the Name of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of the Apostles to their own Inventions he represents to them that (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. ibid. the Doctrine of the Apostles were one as well as their Tradition The Primitive Christians argued against the Hereticks of those times from Tradition and from the Conformity of that Belief that was manifest in all the Churches founded by the Apostles as may be seen at large in the Works of St. Irenaeus Tertullian Epiphanius and St. Augustin and in a word of all the Fathers that have defended the Writings of the Apostles against the Hereticks Whensoever any Sectary opposed the declared Gospel they immediately convinced him of the forgery of those Acts that he produced by the true ones that were kept in the Apostolical Churches and were instead of Archives (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 42. If any one saith St. Epiphanius should go about to counterfeit the Edicts or Ordinances of Emperors the Cheat would be soon laid open by producing the true Copies taken from the Archives of the Court In like manner adds he false Gospels composed by Hereticks may be detected their spuriousness may be easily discovered by producing the true Gospels that are kept in the Churches as it were in Archives This manner of defending the Truth of the Apostolical Writings against the ancient Sectaries hath proved so effectually convincing that the Gnosticks were obliged to support their Novelties to fly to I know not what secret Tradition that was known to none but themselves They were so insolent as to prefer themselves before the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ accusing them as not having preached the Purity of the Gospel with sincerity because say they they have retained many Ceremonies of the old Law. They thought by this means that they might be able with Authority to reform the Writings of the Apostles (g) Cùm autem ad eam iterum traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per successiones Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos adversantur traditioni dicentes se non solùm Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes superiores sinceram invenisse veritatem Apostolos autem
admiscuisse ea quae sunt legalia Salvatoris verbis Iren. lib. 3. adversus Haer. c. 2. There is no way saith St Irenaeus of convincing this sort of People neither by the Testimony of the Scriptures generally received in the Churches planted by the Apostles nor by authentick Traditions because they imagine themselves to be above all this They were persuaded that they alone were in possession of the truth of Religion that contained hidden Mysteries Se indubitatè incontaminatè sincerè absconditum scire mysterium Iren. ibid. And since they had joined Philosophy with Christianity they intended also to accommodate the one to the other They argued on matters of fact after a pure metaphysical manner and being filled with an infinite number of Prejudices and Notions taken from the Principles of their Philosophy they reformed the Doctrine of the Apostles and even that of Jesus Christ on this foundation under pretence of bringing Religion to a greater Perfection They pretended that the Apostles had preached the Gospel before they had a perfect knowledge of the Truth and that therefore they were at liberty to correct them Ante praedicaverunt quà m perfectam haberent cognitionem This was that which caused them to take the ambitious Title of Learned and Knowing Men or Gnosticks as if none but they were endued with the true knowledge of Religion They vainly boasted also that they had reformed the Apostles Iren. ibid. Gloriantes emendatores se esse Apostolorum S. Irenaeus sharply reproves their rashness in bragging that they had made perfect that which was gross and obscure in the Gospel published by the Apostles It hath been necessary to make all these Reflections on the ancient Sect of the Gnosticks because they have applyed themselves more than any others in those primitive times of the Christian Religion to the obtruding of false Acts under the Names of the Apostles or other specious Titles These are a sort of Philosophers that ought not to pass but for half Christians who have altered the Traditions that the Disciples of Jesus Christ had left to the Churches And therefore no regard ought to be had to all the Books that they have produced under what Name soever since they have professed that they understand Religion better than the Apostles themselves and (h) Existentes extra omnem timorem suas conscriptiones praeferentes plura habere gloriantur quà m sint ipsa Evangelia Si quidem in tantum processerunt audaciae uti quod ab his Apostolis non olim conscriptum est veritatis Evangelium titulent in nihilo conveniens Apostolorum Evangelits ut nec Evangelium quidem sit apud eos sine blasphemia Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. c. 11. have been so bold as to publish new Gospels to which they have given the Title of The Gospel of Truth altho these Gospels do not agree with those of the Apostles This alone is sufficient to make it appear that the Gospels of the Gnosticks were false Acts that cannot be opposed to the Apostolical Writings that have been acknowledged by the primitive Churches It were an easie matter to answer Celsus by this same Principle who heretofore objected to the Christians that they changed their Gospel every day adding thereto and diminishing what they thought fit that they might be able by this means to retract that which they had formerly alledged Origen judiciously answers this Philosopher who was a great Enemy to the Christian Religion that he unhappily confounded the ancient Sectaries with the true Faithful He protests that he knows not in the least that the Gospel hath been corrupted by others than the Gnosticks or Marcion (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 2 contra Cell This is not a Crime saith he that ought to be imputed to the Gospel but to them that have dared to corrupt in He brings an Example of the Sophisters whose false Doctrine cannot be attributed to true Philosophy (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. It is the same thing saith this great Man with respect to the Sects that have introduced Novelties into the Doctrine of Jesus Christ which cannot be charged on true Christianity It is certain that in all times and in all places there hath been a perfect Conformity between the different Copies of these Books the Diversities that are found therein and shall be remarked in the Sequel of this Work are not of so great moment as that we may say with Celsus that the Christians have changed their Gospels to the end that they might suit them to their own opinions This cannot be understood but of the ancient Hereticks who having no certain Rules for their Belief reformed them according to their capricious humor This is that for which the Orthodox Christians heretofore censured the Theodosians Euseb l. 5. Hist Eccl. c. 28. who corrupted the Sacred Books under a pretence of correcting them and whereas several among them had taken this liberty all their Copies differed one from another there were of them under the Names of Asclepiades Theodosius Hermophilus and Apollonius that did not in the least agree together I will say nothing here concerning the Gospel of the Marcionites whereof Origen makes mention because I design to treat of it in another place I shall only add that if we compare the Gospels and the other Books of the New Testament with the Liturgies that we have under the Names of several Apostles to whom the most part of the Eastern Christians do attribute them we shall be convinced that the Gospels are truly of the Apostles For all the Churches have preserved them in their ancient Purity whereas every particular Nation hath added to their Liturgies and hath taken the liberty often to revise them The respect that hath been always had to the Writings of the New Testament without inserting any considerable Additions therein is an evident proof that all People have looked upon them as Divine Books which it is not lawful for any to alter On the contrary they have been persuaded that the Liturgies altho they bear the Names of the Apostles or of some Disciples of Jesus Christ were not originally written by them to whom they were attributed And therefore it hath been left free to the Churches to add to them or to diminish from them according as occasion requires The Principles that have been maintained above in discoursing of the Gnosticks may serve to confute the Manicheans who likewise acknowledge nothing Divine in the Scriptures but that which pleased them or rather was agreeable to their Fancies This caused S. Austin to say addressing himself to Faustus who was one of the chief of this Party (l) Tu es ergo regula veritatis Quidquid contra te fuerit non est verum Aug. lib. 11. cont Faust c. 2. You are then the Rule of Truth whatsoever is against you is not true He clearly demonstrates to them that they were only upheld with false prejudices when
adv Pelag. declarat Sixt. Sen. Biblioth S. lib. 7. who urgeth that S. Jerom's words can only be understood of certain Apocryphal Periods which had been adjoyned to some Greek Copies by uncertain Authors is very far from truth It is sufficient only to read the words of this Reverend Doctor as well in his Epistle to Hedibia as in his Work against the Pelagians to judge that he speaks apparently in those two places of two different Additions And that there may remain no doubt thereof I shall here produce what I could observe on this Subject in reading the ancient Greek Copies It is to be supposed as hath been above said that the question is not concerning the whole last Chapter of S. Mark but only the twelve last Verses This is that part which S. Jerom hath called Capitulum Chapter wherein is described the History of the Resurrection The most ancient Greek Copy of the Gospels of those that are in the King of France his Library contains after these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Remark written as the rest of the Text and with the same Hand * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is read in some places as followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They declared in a few words to those that were with Peter all things that had been commanded them Ex cod MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2861. and afterwards Jesus himself published by their Ministry this holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal Salvation There follows afterwards in this Manuscript this Observation written in the Body of the Book and with the same Hand as the Text * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found that which followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to the end of the Gospel We may easily judge by this that they that have written this Greek Copy which is ancient have believed that the Gospel of S. Mark ended at these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have nevertheless added the rest written with the same hand but only in form of a Remark because it was not read in their Church which is altogether conformable to the Testimony of S. Jerom in his Letter to Hedibia Since this diversity is considerable it is necessary for me to make some Reflections thereon grounded on this ancient Manuscript of the King's Library It seems that Beza hath seen this Manuscript or at least one like it Bez. Annot in c. 16. Marci v. 9. for he saith in his Notes on Mark xvi that he hath found in one Copy these words added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the rest as hath been above related But he ought to have explained himself more distinctly thereupon and to have observed that this Addition was written in the Manuscript only in form of a Schotion or Note and not as belonging to the Text of S. Mark 's Gospel This appears manifestly in the Manuscript of the King's Library We ought to judge after the same manner of this other Addition which S. Jerom declares that he hath read in some Greek Copies and which he publisheth in these terms In quibusdam exemplaribus maxime in Graecis codicibus juxta Marcum in fine ejus Evangelii sic scribitur Postea cùm accubuissent undecim apparuit eis Jesus exprobravit incredulitatem duritiem cordis eorum quia iis qui viderant eum resurgentem non crediderunt Et illi satisfaciebant dicentes Seculum istud iniquitatis incredulitatis substantia est quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veri Dei apprehendi virtutem Idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam This hath been apparently taken out of some Apocryphal Gospels as we have above seen a like Addition taken from that of the Nazarenes The Greek Transcribers thinking thereby to make their diligence and exactness more apparent have inserted them into their Copies But they have done it by way of Remark and there have been others afterwards who have left these Additions in the Text without annexing any thing that denoted that they were only as it were Observations because these Additions were not read in their Churches they did not think these little Notes necessary By this same method we may justifie the Observation of S. Jerom in his Letter to Hedibia wherein he declares that the last Chapter of S. Mark that is to say the twelve last Verses were not read in the greatest part of the Greek Copies Beza on the contrary (k) Testor in omnibus vetustis codicibus quos nobis videre contigit hoc caput inveniri Bez. Annot. in cap. 16. Marci v. 9. protests that this Chapter is found in all the old Manuscripts that he hath read but he hath not regarded that altho it be found in the ancient Greek Manuscripts yet there are many of them in which it is written only as it were an Addition that doth not appertain to the Text. This evidently appears in the King 's ancient Manuscript above cited For tho these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the rest to the end of the Gospel be written therein with the same Hand as the whole Body of the Book nevertheless the Remark that is adjoyned makes it plainly appear that they that have written this Copy have not considered them as part of the Text. It is to be observed moreover that the Sections are marked in the Margin of the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament by the Letters of the Alphabet which serve instead of Numbers of Figures These Marks are in the first Editions of the Greek New Testament of Erasmus in Robert Stephen's Edition in Folio and in some others Now there are none of these found in the King's Manuscript over against these twelve Verses which is a proof that they were not read in their Church that have transcribed this Copy This will appear yet more clearly in the Sequel of this Discourse wherein I shall explain the use of these Marks or Sections in the Greek Copies of the New Testament Euthymius who hath made Learned and Judicious Annotations on the New Testament confirms all this that we have just now alledged and justifieth at the same time S. Jerom's Observation in his Letter to Hedibia See what he saith on these words of S. Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. xvi 9. (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euthym. in cap. 16. Marci ex cod MS. Biblioth Reg. n. 2401. Some Interpreters say that the Gospel of S. Mark is ended here and that that which follows is a later Addition We must nevertheless explain this also because it containeth nothing contrary to the truth There is also another Manuscript Copy of the Gospels in the King's Library ancient enough and written very exactly wherein is also read this Observation on the same Passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. MS. Reg. n. 2868. The Evangelist ends here in some Copies but in
down at the end of many Greek Manuscript Copies Baron an c. 58. n. 32. This cannot be saith Baronius because it is certain that neither S. Luke nor S. Paul have been in Achaia at that time nor even a great while after In the mean time we have no certain Acts from whence we may exactly gather the time of the Publication of this Gospel by S. Luke we only know in general that the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers do all agree that it was not written till after those of S. Matthew and S. Mark. This being granted it may be demanded what reason he had who was only a Disciple of the Apostles to publish a third Gospel knowing that S. Matthew who was an Apostle and a Witness of the most part of the Actions of Jesus Christ had already published one which had been epitomized by S. Mark These two Gospels were then in the hands of all the Christians What necessity was there that S. Luke should make a new one and that he should give notice in his Preface that they who had written before him on this same Subject were not very accurate This hath given occasion to some Authors to believe that the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Mark had not been yet published when S. Luke composed his but since this Opinion is contrary to all Antiquity Baronius insists that these two Gospels one of which was in Hebrew and the other in Greek were not then known to the Grecians and that consequently S. Luke and S. Paul could not make use of them in their Instructions Grotius also thinks that (g) Credibile est ad id tempus Matthaei librum nonnisi sermone Hebraeo extitisse Marcus autem Graecè compendium magis historiae quà m historiam scripserat Grot. Annot. in Praef. Luc. S. Matthew had not been as yet translated out of Hebrew into Greek and as for S. Mark he confesseth that his Gospel was in Greek but since it was only an Epitome this could not hinder S. Luke from writing his History But it is not probable that the Gospel of S. Matthew should have been unknown till then to the Christians that spake the Greek Language especially if we follow the Judgment of these two Writers who give it out that S. Luke had not composed his History till after S. Paul had left Rome It is much more credible that this Evangelist published his History upon occasion of some false Apostles who were set up in opposition to S. Paul whose faithful Companion he was It is a part of Prudence to obviate as much as is possible present Evils therefore S. Luke seeing that false Gospels had been dispersed in those Places where he preached with S. Paul thought himself obliged to compose a true one and to leave it in Writing to those whom he had instructed whereas the business in hand was only to suppress and stop the course of false Gospels that had been scattered abroad this had no regard to S. Matthew and S. Mark. It might also happen that he had compiled this Gospel at the desire of those whom he had converted and more especially of Theophilus to whom he dedicates it It is certain that the other Evangelists as hath been already observed have written their Histories only at the suit of those People to whom they had preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ Marcion and his Followers who in the time of Epiphanius were dispersed through Italy Egypt Palestine Syria Arabia Persia and many other Countries acknowledged none but the Gospel of S. Luke they had nevertheless retrenched divers Passages of it Besides the Name of this Evangelist was not at the head of their Copy whether it were that they received it in this manner or that they did not believe it to be made by S. Luke S. Irenaeus (h) Marcion qui ab eo sunt ad intercidendas conversi sunt scripturas Quasdam quidem in totum non cognoscentes secundùm Lucam autem Evangelium Epistolas Pauli decurtantes haec sola legitima esse dicunt quae ipse minoraverunt Iren. adv Haer. l. 3. c. 12. reproves these Hereticks for having altered according to their humor the Scriptures which the Church had authorized as being founded on a constant Tradition and for accounting no part of S. Luke's Gospel and of the Epistles of S. Paul as legitimate but that which they had reserved after they had taken away from these Books whatsoever they pleased And since they contradicted in this all the Tradition of the Churches (i) Hi qui à Marcione sunt non babent Evangelium hoc enim quod est secundùm Lucam decurtantes gloriantur se habere Evangelium Iren. ibid. he affirms that these Sectaries who boasted that they had a Gospel have none Tertullian hath written a Work on purpose against Marcion (k) Aiunt Marcionem non tam innovasse regulam separatione Legis Evangelii quà m retrò adulteratam recurasse Apud Tertul. l. 4. adv Marc. c. 3. whose Disciples gave it out that their Master had not brought any Innovation into Religion in separating the Law from the Gospel but that he had only rectified the Rule of Faith which was corrupted This Arch-Heretick who followed the Opinions of Cerdon (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 42. n. 4. rejected the Law and all the Prophets and to authorize their Novelties they supported themselves with the Words of S. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians Epist ad Gal. c 2. where this Apostle saith that he had withstood Peter and some other Apostles to the face because they did not walk uprightly according to the Truth of the Gospel Marcion (m) Connititur ad destruendum statum eorum Evangeliorum quae propria sub Apostolorum nomine eduntur vel etiam Apostolicorum ut scilicet fidem quam illis adimit suo conferat Tertull. lib. 4. adv Marc. c. 3. had taken occasion from thence to reform and even to destroy the true Gospels to give more Authority to his own Tertullian answers him that he could not charge the Apostles with corrupting the Gospels without accusing Jesus Christ at the same time who had chosen them he adds (n) Si verò Apostoli quidem integrum Evangelium contulerunt Pseudapostoli autem veritatem eorum interpolaverunt inde sunt nostra digesta quod erit germanum-illud Apostolorum quod adulteros passum est aut si tam funditùs deletum est ut cataclysmo quodam ita inundatione falsariorum obliteratum jam ergo nec Marcion habet verum Tertull. ibid. That if Marcion acknowledged that their Gospel had been entire but that it was interpolated by false Apostles and that this imperfect Copy was now in use he ought at least to shew which was the true and original Gospel that had been corrupted lastly he demands of Marcion how it could happen that he should have the true Gospel if it had been so falsified by Impostors that there was
there shall be no sign given to this Generation He did not read also the two following Verses wherein mention is made of the Queen of the South of Solomon and the Ninivites In this same Chapter v. 42. where it is in our Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judgment Marcion had in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vocation This Epiphanius condemns as a vicious Alteration and made on purpose because the following Words shew clearly that it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It might be nevertheless that the little difference that there is between these two Words in the Greek hath caused this diversity of reading and that Marcion had retained this fault of the Transcriber in his Copy He did not read also in his Copy in the 49 Verse of this same Chapter these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore also said the Wisdom of God I will send them Prophets Now since he rejected the Prophets it is not to be doubted but that he hath retrenched this Passage from his Copy that hath so clearly established them neither did he read these other Words which are in the same place v. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it shall be required of this Generation Chap. 12. v. 6. He had not in his Copy these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Are not five Sparrows sold for two farthings and not one of them is forgotten before God. In the same Chapter v. 8. instead of these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Angels of God Marcion read only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God. This might be an Omission of the Transcriber that doth not interrupt the sense in this place nevertheless S. Epiphanius accuseth Marcion of Infidelity and Prevarication as much in this minute tittle as in any other Alteration of greater consequence because (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. he that durst alter any thing of that which hath been written from the beginning is not in the way of truth He did not read these words of the 28 Verse of the same Chap. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God clotheth the grass and in the 32 verse where we have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Father he read it simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Father In the same Chapter ver 38. instead of these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second or third watch he read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the evening watch Marcion had also expunged out of his Copy the three first Verses of the 13 Chapter and especially these words of the fifth Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish In the same Chapter Verse 28. in place of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then ye shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the Prophets in the Kingdom of God Marcion had put these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then you shall see all the just in the Kingdom of God and you your selves thrust out He adds saith S. Epiphanius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 detained without and these other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is weeping and gnashing of teeth These last words are not an Addition but a Transposition for the same words are found in our Copies at the beginning of this Verse besides whereas S. Epiphanius reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Father who quotes the Scriptures according to his Memory or applies them to his present Discourse doth sometimes change the words into others or abbreviate them and this is to be observed likewise in other places The true difference of Marcion's Copy consists in the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prophets which he hath changed into that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just and he hath added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 detained without without altering the sense Marcion had taken away divers other words of this Chapter out of his Copy viz. I. These words of the twenty ninth Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They shall come from the East and from the West and shall sit down in the Kingdom II. These of the thirtieth Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The last shall be first III. These words of the thirty first Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There came certain of the Pharisees saying unto him Get thee out and depart hence for Herod will kill thee IV. The whole thirty second Verse and part of the thirty third Verse to these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it cannot be And from the thirty fourth Verse he had cut off these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Jerusalem Jerusalem which killest the Prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee And these other words of the same Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen These words from the thirty fifth Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Your house is left And lastly he had retrenched these other words from the same Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye shall not see me until the time come when ye shall say blessed is This Heretick had cut off from his Gospel the whole Parable of the prodigal Son which is in the fifteenth Chapter as also these words chap. 17. vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Say we are unprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty to do He had taken away a little after in the same Chapter several parts of the Passage wherein mention is made of the Lepers that met Jesus Christ See what he reads in that place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He sent them away saying shew your selves to the Priests He had in like manner altered divers other Circumstances in this History where he read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There were many lepers in the time of the prophet Elisha and none were cleansed except Neeman the Syrian Chap. 18. vers 19. After these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 None is good save one Marcion added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Father and at the twentieth verse instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou knowest he read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know He had also retrenched the thirty first Verse of this same Chapter and these words from the thirty second and thirty third Verses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall be delivered he shall be put to death and the third day he shall rise again Cap. 19. (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ib. he had expunged out of his Copy that which belongs to the History of the arrival of Jesus Christ at the Mount of Olives which was near Bethphage and all that which is related in this same Chapter concerning the Ass on which our Saviour rode when he made his entry into Jerusalem as also the other Verses wherein mention is made of the Temple Chap. 20. He left out of his Copy the whole Parable of the Vineyard that was let forth to Husbandmen beginning at the ninth Verse and ending at the sixteenth He
in perpetual Continency S. Augustin adds Baronius farther who rehearseth these Words of Faustus and exactly answers his Objections doth not reject as Apocryphal these last Acts that are intituled the Martyrdom of Thecla But it is probable that these last Acts have been taken from the former and it is no wonder that the Fathers have made use of an Apocryphal Book that was composed by an Impostor because there were many true things in these Travels of Paul and Thecla However it be I think it is more convenient to reject them altogether than to approve of one part and to condemn the other because it would be very difficult to distinguish that which was true from the false If we may judge by the Fragments that remain this Work was filled with Fables for we find therein that Thecla being the Companion of S. Paul in his Travels had in some measure a share in his Apostleship it is declared in these Acts that she preached and baptized and S. Jerom who without doubt had read them Hieron ib. makes mention of the Baptism of a Lion which is the cause that he esteems them as false and Apocryphal Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pauli Theclae saith this Father totam baptizati leonis fabulam inter apocryphas scripturas computamus Whereas the Apostles and their Disciples have left us no relations of their Travels in Writing but that which we have concerning those of S. Paul and S. Barnabas this gave occasion to the counterfeiting of some under their Names Some false Acts have been published under these Titles The Travels of Peter the Travels of John the Travels of Thomas and many others of this sort there was one also called in general The Itinerary or Travels of the Apostles Thus have they endeavoured ever since the Primitive Ages of the Christian Religion by this means to supply that which seemed to be wanting in the History of the Apostles as if it were necessary that the Church should have all their Actions in Writing but these Books were rejected with the common consent of all the Catholick Churches as Supposititious and Apocryphal insomuch that of all the Acts of the Apostles that have been published none have been preserved but those that were composed by S. Luke Nevertheless there were some Sectaries from the very first beginning of Christianity who being Enemies to S. Paul absolutely condemned this History written by S. Luke his faithful Companion in his Travels The Ebionites who treated this Apostle as an Apostate seeing that the Acts that had been received in the Church contradicted their Doctrine (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 16. composed new ones which they filled with Impieties and Calumnies against S. Paul that no credit might be given to the History of S Luke they invented I know not what Fables to render this holy Apostle odious and they gave them out as the true Reasons that had obliged him (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. to write against the Circumcision the Sabbath and the Old Law. (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. They made use of these new Acts of the Apostles saith Epiphanius to invalidate the Truth The Encratites or Severians (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 29. who acknowledged with the Orthodox the Law the Prophets and the Gospels loaded S. Paul also with bitter Invectives and Reproaches and entirely rejected his Epistles with the Acts of the Apostles Lastly the Manicheans who esteemed their Patriarch Manichee not only as an Apostle but as the Paraclet or Comforter that was promised did not allow the Acts of the Apostles because the descent of the Holy Ghost is therein declared (k) Si illos Actus Apostolorum acciperent in quibus evidenter adventus Spiritûs Sancti praedicatur non invenirent quomodo id immissum esse dicerent Aug. de utilit cred cap. 3. If they should receive these Acts saith S. Augustin in which express mention is made of the coming of the Holy Ghost they could not say that he had been sent to them in the Person of Manichee But let us leave these Enthusiasts who had no other reason to refuse the Books that were approved by the whole Church than this because they did not suit with the Idea that they had formed of the Christian Religion This was the cause according to Tertullian that the Marcionites did not regard the Acts of the Apostle Tertul. lib. 5. adv Mare c. 2. I shall say nothing here concerning the Acts of Barnabas that have been published under the Name of John surnamed Mark (l) Quaedam Barnabae Acta ab aliquo ut apparet nebulone scripta circumferuntur ab imperitis magno applausu accipiuntur Baron Annal. Chap. 51. numer 51. which are very displeasing to Baronius and have been manifestly forged being also contrary in some things to the true Acts of the Apostles as this Cardinal hath observed CHAP. XV. Of the Epistles of St. Paul in general Of Marcion and of his Copy of these Epistles False Letters attributed to St. Paul. THE Name of S. Paul that is prefixed at the head of all his Epistles except that which is written to the Hebrews doth plainly discover the Author and since they are for the most part directed to particular Churches who read them publickly in their Assemblies they have been afterwards communicated to other neighbouring Churches and at last by the same means to all the Faithful I shall not here make it my business too critically to enquire into their order nor the time when they were written because in whatsoever manner they are placed as to their distribution or circumstances of time this will cause no alteration in the Text which will always remain the same nevertheless thus much may be observed with S. Chrysostom who hath diligently examined this matter that though the Epistle to the Romans stands in the first rank Joann Chrys Praef. Hom. in Epist ad Rom. yet it was not written first there are clear proofs that the two Epistles inscribed to the Corinthians were written before it this learned Bishop believes also that S. Paul had written to the Thessalonians before he wrote to those of Corinth this may be seen more at large in the Preface before his Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans wherein he gives an Example of the Prophets who have not been ranked according to the order of the time of their respective Prophecies Theodoret who hath treated on this Subject after S. Chrysostom whom he often epitomizeth alledgeth as an instance of the same order as that of S. Paul's Epistles the distribution of the Psalms of David (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor. Praef. in Epist Paul. As David saith he being inspired by God hath written the Psalms and others afterwards have put them into what method they thought fit without having regard to the time when they were composed so in
of the Old Testament according to the Septuagint which was read at that time by the most part of the Jews If we follow the Opinion of Origen who was well versed in the Criticism of the Sacred Books this Epistle hath been composed in Greek by one of the Scribes or Disciples of S. Paul who hath only committed to Writing that which he learned from his Master This may serve to answer another Objection that is ordinarily offered against this Epistle by reason of the diversity of Stile which is pretended to be very different from that of the other Epistles of S. Paul. Theophylact who hath taken notice of this declares (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. Comm. in c. 1. Epist ad Hebr. that S. Paul hath written it in Hebrew and that it was afterwars translated into Greek by S. Luke as some think or by S. Clement which he judgeth most probable because of the resemblance of the Stile It is objected in the third place that if this Epistle were S. Paul's he would have set his Name at the head of it as he hath done in his other Epistles Theodor. Praef. Com. in Epist ad Hebr. Theodoret who hath related this Objection from the Arians answers that there is a great deal of difference between this Letter and the others that bear the Name of this Apostle he hath prefixed his Name according to his Opinion at the beginning of those that were written to the Gentiles because he was their Apostle whereas in writing to the Jews whose Apostle he was not it was not requisite for him to do the like The Arians might have seen this Answer in the Works of Clemens Alexandrinus who lived before the appearing of their Heresie as also another that he gives in the same place but it is grounded as the former only on a Conjecture he saith (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. in Hypotyp apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 14. that it was a piece of Wisdom in S. Paul not to set his Name at the head of an Epistle that he wrote to a sort of People that were possessed with a prejudice against him and that he did very prudently in concealing his Name that he might not hinder them from reading it There is a fourth Reason that appears to be much stronger than the preceding against the ascribing the Epistle to the Hebrews to S. Paul. Epist ad Heb. c. 6. v. 4 5 6. It seems as if the Author designed absolutely to condemn all Repentance after Baptism for he saith Chap. 6. that it is impossible that those that have been once enlightened that is to say baptized and have fallen away after this should be renewed by Repentance this is manifestly contrary to the Doctrine of the New Testament and to the Practice of the Church There is a great deal of probability that this was that which obliged some Latin Churches not to read this Epistle publickly in their Assemblies especially since the Novatians had made use of it to support their Schism (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Comm. in c. 6. Epist ad Hebr. The Novatians saith Theodoret used these Words to oppose the Truth I have found an Answer to this Objection in an ancient Latin Translation that hath been made before the time of S. Jerom for whereas in the present vulgar the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated impossibile it is in this ancient Version difficile and that which deserves further to be observed is that it ordinarily follows the words of the Greek Text but in this place it is rather according to the Sense than the strictness of the Letter This makes it evident that in those times the Latins found this expression somewhat harsh and contrary to the Judgment of the Church and this partly induced Luther to deny that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by S. Paul or any other of the Apostles Erasmus hath affirmed in his Notes on this Epistle that S. Ambrose Erasm Not. in Epist ad Hebr. who hath written Commentaries on the Epistles of S. Paul hath made none upon this because it was received but very lately in the Roman Church He adds that the Grecians have already embraced it because it was contrary to the Arians who rejected it But he is mistaken in attributing Commentaries to S. Ambrose that are not his and which the most judicious Criticks believe to be made by S. Hilary Deacon of Rome neither is it true that it hath been more approved by the Grecians since it was exploded by the Arians for Clemens Alexandrinus who lived before Arius hath avouched that it was S. Paul's Besides they that have disputed against the Arians have thereupon opposed to them the universal Consent of the Ecclesiastical Writers before the appearing of their Heresie The same Erasmus offended the greatest part of the Divines especially those of the Faculty of Paris by these two Propositions (q) De Epistolae ad Hebraeos auctore semper est dubitatum ut ipse ingenuè fatear adhuc dubito Erasm Propos It hath been always doubted of the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and to say the truth I do still doubt thereof This so exasperated the Reverend Doctors of Paris that they censured the aforesaid Propositions after this manner (r) He duae propositiones arroganter schismaticè asseruntur contra usum determinationem Ecclesiae in multis conciliis Nicaeno Laodicensi Carthaginensi tertio cui adfuit Augustinus in Concilio 70. Episcoporum praeside Gelasio Cens Facult Theol. Paris tit de Auctor libr Novi Test These two Propositions are insolent and schismatical against the Practice and Decrees of the Church in the Councils of Nice Laodicea the third of Carthage in which S. Augustin assisted and in a Council of seventy Bishops wherein Pope Gelasius presided These Divines added to this the Testimonies of S. Denis whom they called the Disciple of S. Paul of S. Clement Innocent I. S Gregory Nazianzen and of some other Fathers From whence they conclude (ſ) Nec verum est semper dubitatum esse de auctore hujus Epistolae ad Hebraeos cùm scribat Origenes quòd ante tempora suaomnes antiqui majores eam ut Pauli Apostoli suscipiebant Cens Facult Theol. Paris ibid. that it is not true that it hath been always doubted of the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews since Origen avoucheth that all the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that have lived before him have received it as S. Paul's Moreover these same Divines opposed to Erasmus the words of S. Peter 2 Pet. 3.15 that are at the end of his second Canonical Epistle directed to the Hebrews wherein he saith expresly that his beloved Brother Paul had also written unto them they do not doubt but S. Peter designed in this place to hint at the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews Erasmus in his answer to these Doctors of
this day receive it as such Calvin who hath been more moderate herein than Luther hath chose rather to reconcile the Doctrine of S. James touching Faith and Works with that of S. Paul than unadvisedly to reject this Epistle under colour that it appears to be contrary to the same S. Paul. To receive saith he this Epistle this seems to me to be sufficient Calv. arg de son Comm. sur l'Epist de St. Jaq. that it contains nothing unworthy of an Apostle of Christ The Lutherans themselves soon perceived that their Master sometimes gave out Opinions without a due consideration of what he affirmed Raithius who hath made an Apology for Luther confesseth that he had written in the first Edition of his German Bible to this effect that if this Epistle were compared with those of S. Peter and S. Paul it would appear only an Epistle of Straw Epistola straminea but (g) Post majorem illuminationem ut dies diem docet verba illa duriuscula postertoribus Saerorum Bibliorum editionibus sunt omissa nec post annum 1526. in ullâ amplius editione straminea vocatur Raith Vind. Vers Germ. Luth. th 21. after he had been more enlightned these Words were taken away in the following Editions and they are not to be found in those that have been made since the Year 1526. Nevertheless a certain Lutheran published a Book at Strasbourg in the Year 1527 wherein he speaks after a strange manner of the Epistle of S. James He affirms (h) Non possumus hîc defendere Jacobum citat enim Scripturas falsò solus Spiritui Saucto Legi Prophetis Christo Apostolisque omnibus contradicit Testimomum ipsius vanum est Vni ipsi testi credendum non esse supra annotavimus praesertim cum quo ipse Spiritus Sanctus tot testes veritatis dissentiant Ne igitur succenseas nobis lector si duriùs vehementiùs calamo quandoque in auctorem invecti sumus Meretur enim hoc odium hanc spiritûs vehementiam dum aliam perfectionem atque justitiam à nobis contendit quà m fidei Andr. Altham apud Grot. de discuss Rivet Apolog. p. 722. that he cannot defend it because the Author alledgeth false Quotations of the Scriptures and alone contradicts the Law the Prophets Jesus Christ and the Apostles he condemns the Testimony of this Writer as vain boldly affirming that we ought not to believe him being a single Witness especially since the Holy Ghost and a great number of the Witnesses of the Truth do dissent from him lastly this man after he hath taken so much liberty to declaim against the Author of this Epistle adds at the end of his Book that none ought to be offended that he hath treated him so severely for saith he he deserves this hatred because he hath proposed to us another Righteousness than that of Faith. Can there be any thing more insolent than the Words of this Sectary who durst oppose his false Conceptions against the Testimony of all the Churches of the World Socinus speaks with a great deal more moderation and judgment concerning the Authority of this Epistle This Champion of the Unitarians declares that it was doubted in the beginning touching the Authors of the Epistle of S. James of the second of S. Peter and of that of S. Jude because they were found after the Collection of the other Books of the New Testament had been made (i) Cùm postea tempore procedente ex judiciis huic rei aptis cognitum fuisset istas Epistolas illorum ipsorum Apostolorum esse exempta plerisque illa dubitatio fuit sic inter alias sunt numeratae ea quidem quae Jacobi est ante duas reliquas Soc. de auctor Script Sac. c. 1. n. 2. but forasmuch as it was acknowledged afterwards that they were certainly composed by the Apostles whose Names they bore the most part of the Churches did no longer doubt thereof and the Epistle of S. James was placed before the two others moreover with respect to that of S. James he proves the Antiquity of this Tradition by the ancient Syriack Copies Therefore he doth not only receive them as Canonical but believes also that they do certainly belong to them to whom they are attributed Although it be agreed that the first of these Catholick Epistles was written by S. James nevertheless it remains to be known who this James is The Title of this Epistle doth not resolve this difficulty because it is different according to the various Greek Copies and indeed we ought not to relye on this sort of Title that are later than the Authors of the Books It is read simply in some Manuscript Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2872. The Catholick Epistle of S. James and in others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of the Apostle S. James This is also the Title that hath been prefixed in the Vulgar Latin Epistola Catholica beati Jacobi Apostoli and which Beza hath retained in his Greek Edition of the New Testament where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of the Apostle James But Robert Stephen in his curious Greek Edition of the New Testament in folio hath simply put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of James It is no otherwise in Crespin's Edition at Geneva in the Year 1565. It is read according to the same sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Epistle of S. James in that of Wolfius at Strasbourg in 1524. We read also after the same manner in the Edition of Melchior Sessa at Venice in 1538 and in that of Simon de Colines at Paris in 1534 and in many others This is most natural and most conformable to the Greek Text where S. James at the beginning of his Epistle takes upon him no other Quality than that of a Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ Therefore Grotius hath also preserved this same Title and he hath reason not to approve the Opinion of those that attribute it to James the Son of Zebedee because this James had been put to Death by Herod before the Gospel of Jesus Christ was much spread abroad beyond Judea neither doth he believe that James the Son of Alpheus was the Author of it because he would have taken at the beginning of his Epistle the Name of an Apostle which was a quality in those Primitive Times that gave a great Authority to their Words from whence he concludes that it ought to be ascribed to that James whom the Apostles constituted first Bishop of Jerusalem Hieron de Script Eccles in Jac. This is not very far from the Words of S. Jerom in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers James who is called the Brother of our Lord and sirnamed the Just as some think was the Son of Joseph by another Wife but according to my Opinion of Mary the Sister of our Lord of whom John makes mention
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.
Alogians pretended that the Apocalips and the rest of St. John's Writings were composed by the Heretick Cerinthus Which they endeavoured to shew by the agreement that the Doctrine which Cerinthus professed had to that contained in the Books of that Apostle and especially in his Revelation They likewise drew up particular objections against this latter Work. (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alog. apud Epiph. Haer. 51. n. 32. Of what use say they can the Revelation of St. John be to us when he tells us of seven Angels and of seven Trumpets St. Epiphanius gives them this answer Epiph. ibid. that God was pleased to reveal to his servant John what was most mysterious in the Law and the Prophets to the end that he might treat of them in a spiritual and intelligible manner And seeing those Hereticks were so bold as to ridicule what is said of the seven Trumpets he charges them upon that account either of malice or ignorance from the words of St. Paul who has also made mention of those Trumpets in his first Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. xv 52. where he says The trumpet shall sound and at the sound of this trumpet the dead shall rise Some of the Alogians to disparage the Authority of the Apocalyps another argument make use of these words for in Chap. ii ver 18. of the Book To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira write (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alog. apud Epiph. ibid. n. 33. There was not at that time say they any Christian Church in Thyatira How could St. John write to a Church which had no being St. Epiphanius being of the same opinion with the Alogians that there was no Church in that place at that time that he may answer their objection is forced to have recourse to the Spirit of Prophecy He thinks that St. John who was inspired by God foresaw what should happen in process of time And therefore he gives us the most exact account that he can of the City of Thyatira about the time when the Phrygian Hereticks did bear sway there He shews how it afterwards became an Orthodox and most famous Church (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. The design of the Holy Ghost says he was to reveal in that place of the Apocalyps that that Church should fall from the Truth after the time of St. John and the other Apostles Which happened as Epiphanius himself does tell us ninety three years after the Ascension of our Lord and Saviour Seeing this answer of St. Epiphanius does agree with the Opinion of the Alogians that there was no Christian Church in effect in the City of Thyatira at that time Socinus (f) Mihi quidem ut verum fatear responsio ista non admodum probatur cùm propter alia tum propter id quod nimis apertè ex ipsâ historiâ Apacalypsis constare videtur jam istam Ecclesiam Thyatirensem reverà extitisse Soc. Lect. Sacr. p. 306. could by no means admit of it being persuaded that the Text of the Apocalyps does evidently shew that there was a Church therein He believed that there were several Cities of that name But for all that he does not prove against the Alogians that there was a Church in Thyatira When he brings the plain words of the Apocalyps against them he gets the thing in Question for an Answer seeing those Sectaries endeavoured by that means to lessen the Authority of that Book It is probable that at that time when St. Epiphanius lived there was no Catalogue of the Bishops of that Church nor of other publick Records that might make it manifest that there had beed a Church founded in that City from the times of the Apostles And therefore Grotius does give a more judicious answer That the truth is Grot. Annot. ad c. 2. Apoc. v. 18. there was not any Church of the Gentiles in Thyatira when St. John writ the Revelation but there was a Church of the Jews as also there was the like at Thessalonica before St. Paul Preached there The Alogians do also cavil about that which is mentioned in the same Book Chap. ix ver 14. Of the four Angels which were bound on the River Euphrates Epiph. ibid. But St. Epiphanius does in this charge them with ignorance because those Angels who were placed on the River Euphrates do signifie according to his Opinion so many Nations that were situated on that River viz. the Assyrians Babylonians Medes and Persians And adds that seeing Nations are subject to Angels those words of the Apocalyps Loose the four Angels which are upon Euphrates make very good sense St. John intending to shew thereby that those Nations being loosed should make War against another People I shall not here examin whether or no the Exposition given by St. Epiphanius be agreeable to the Text but content my self to observe in general that seeing that Book is a Prophesie and no History the Author was to write as Prophets were wont to do in a Figurative Stile And so the Alogians were inexcusable for their prejudice against this Book upon the account of the expressions which to them appeared very strange unless they imagined that there was no such thing as a Prophesie in the New Testament Cajus an Orthodox Writer who lived at Rome under Pope Zephyrin and of whom we have spoken before did also believe that Cerinthus was the Author of the Revelation of St. John. He treated that Heretick with derision (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caj apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 28. who As if he had been a great Apostle writ Revelations which he pretended to have received from Angels and in which he assured us that after the Resurrection Jesus Christ shall reign upon the Earth He allowed the space of a thousand years to this Carnal Kingdom which was to be accompanied with all sorts of pleasures For this cause he calls Cerinthus an Enemy to the Holy Scriptures and spoke in this manner of the Apocalyps which he thought was written by him and not by St. John. Denis Dion Alex. apud Eus bid Bishop of Alexandria who vigorously defended the Authority of this Book did likewise observe that some Authors did ascribe the Apocalyps to Cerinthus who according to their Opinion had prefixed St. John's Name to the Book to give Authority to his Babling about the Carnal Reign of Jesus Christ on the Earth Seeing this Opinion that maintained a Chimerical Dominion of a thousand years was spread in the Church this Learned Bishop writ two Treatises against it Entituled * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the Promises Wherein he takes to task (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 7. Hist Eccl. c. 24. Nepos a certain Bishop of Egypt who Expounded the Promises which God in Scripture has made to Mankind in a sense that speaks the Expositor to have been more Jew than Christian dreaming of a Carnal Kingdom upon the
who did oppose him propter contentiosos that St. Matthew in that place had cited the words of Chap. 23. of Numbers Num. 23.22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. God who brought him out of Egypt And this is in effect the Opinion of the most Learned Greek Commentators on the Scriptures who lived before St. Jerome (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Heracl in Cat. Gr. in Matth. It is written in the Book of Numbers says Theodore of Heraclea upon this place of St. Matthew God called him out of Egypt When 't is also supposed that St. Matthew had in his view that Passage of the Prophet Hosea which is more probable why does he deny that it was from the beginning in the Septuagint as St Matthew has cited it and that that difference does proceed from those who altered the ancient Greek Version by their Glosses They believed that by translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Children as if it had been in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sense would be the more clear because that which follows is put in the Plural Number There might other examples be given of alterations of that kind which must be imputed to those who changed the ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint by their false Glosses 'T is therefore very probable that the reading in that place of the Septuagint was formerly the same as it is in St. Matthew and likewise in Aquila who also translated that passage of the Prophet Hosea by these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have called my Son out of Egypt St. Jerome does yet triumph over his Adversaries in his Commentary upon the words of the Prophet Zechary Zach. 12.10 They looked upon me whom they have pierced St. John who cited that passage in his Gospel does give it in the same manner according to the Hebrew Text whereas in the Septuagint it is They looked upon me because they have insulted (l) Joannes Evangelista qui de pectore Domini hausit sapientiam Hebraeus ex Hebraeis quem Salvator amabat plurimùm non magnoperè curavit quid Graecè literae continerent sed verbum interpretatus verbo est ut in Hebraeo legerat tempore dominicae passionis dixit esse completum Quod si quis non recipit det testimomum de quo sanctarum scripturarum loco Joannes ista protulerit Hieron Comm. in Zach. lib. 3. c. 12. St. John says that Father being an Hebrew born did not much regard its being read in the Greek Version of the Septuagint On the contrary he has rendred that place of Zechary word for word as it was in the Hebrew But if one will not believe him he must shew the place of Scripture from which St. John took the same He further adds that the likeness of the Letter R and D in the Hebrew was the cause of the false Translation of the Seventy Interpreters ob similitudinem literarum error est natus because they read as he thinks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But in my opinion seeing St. John did follow the Septuagint more than the Hebrew in all the Passages of his Gospel there is no reason to maintain that in that place he consulted the Hebrew Copy of the Jews without any regard to the Greek Version of the Septuagint Which makes me believe that at the beginning it was read in the Septuagint as it was in the Hebrew and in St. John. The change of Letters of that nature gave occasion of altering the true and ancient Text in other places And this happened to that Passage of Zechary which ought to be amended in the Greek Version of the Septuagint according to the reading in the Gospel of St. John. That which does confirm this Opinion is that St. Cyprian did read it after that manner in the ancient Latin Version which was taken from the Septuagint The Rendition of that Father has more Authority in this case than that of some Greek Scholiasts who have also read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they insulted as it is in St. John agreeable to the Hebrew Text. For these Scholiasts in their Expositions do frequently follow Aquila or some other Greek Interpreter without declaring that they do so And therefore 't is necessary that we be cautious herein that we do not confound the Version of the Septuagint with other ancient Greek Interpreters This should be the place for the examples of the alterations we spake of whereby the ancient Greek Rendition was very much changed but it would take up too much time It suffices that we have touched something of it in general to justifie the Citations of the Evangelists and of the Apostles Neither will I stay to examin particularly some other Passages of the Old Testament which St. Jerome pretends to have been cited by the Apostles in their Writings rather according to the Hebrew than according to the Septuagint For besides that it does require a long time to discuss them the rules that are confirmed already are sufficient to Answer all that Father's Objections who himself has acknowledged in many places of his Works that the Disciples of Jesus Christ who Preached the Gospel to a People that spake the Greek Tongue must have made use of the ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint which was in the hands of every one and not of the Hebrew Bible which was read by none but the Jews Besides there were but few amongst them who could have understood it We come now to the other Objection which is brought against the Books of the New Testament and which consists in a supposition that the Apostles and the Evangelists have not only changed the words of the Passages which they cite but that they have likewise wrested the same by giving them a sense altogether different from the meaning of the Authors CHAP. XXI A Discussion of some other Objections against the Books of the New Testament The Evangelists and Apostles in the manner of their explaining the Passages of the Old Testament and applying them to the Messiah followed the Custom which then obtained amongst the Jews There are many words in the New Testament which have a larger signification than they have in the Old And that can be attributed to nothing but to that usage and to a tradition received amongst the Jews THE Present Times gave not a beginning to the very great and difficult Objections that have been formed against the Testimonies of the Old Testament which the Evangelists and Apostles have made use of in their Writings for the Confirmation of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ Celsus Porphyrius Julian and the Jews have brought them against the Christians that they might thereby shew as they think the weakness of those Proofs upon which the Christian Religion is founded But they are deceived when they perswade themselves that Christianity has nothing else but such sort of Proofs for its Foundation The
〈◊〉 Word by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Decree and the other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the breath of his mouth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Power so that according to the Literal Sense of that Passage the World was Created by the Will and by the Omnipotency of God. (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Heracl Cat. in Psalm 32. This saith Theodore is the Sense which does here present it self and he does afterwards add that according to the true Theological Sense we ought to understand the Word of God and the Holy Ghost We may also call that a Theological Sense which was given to many Passages of the Old Testament by Jesus Christ and his Apostles because it was agreeable to the Theology of the Jews of those times chiefly to that of the Pharisees who Composed the leading Sect and the most received amongst the People The Jews at this day do altogether follow their Opinions The first Christians who received the Sacred Writings from them have likewise imitated them in their manner of Expounding those Books Michael Servetus did also in many places of his Works acknowledge this Mystical and Spiritual Sense which he makes to go joyntly with the Literal He does alledge that by that way Jesus Christ may be clearly found in the Books of the Law. He thinks that there is nothing but what is Natural in the Application that St. Paul made of these words Psalm ci Thou hast created the earth from the beginning to Jesus Christ as the Creator of Heaven and Earth Which words saith he though in the opinion of some they have but a forced Sense when they are applyed to Christ yet that is the proper Sense as the Apostle does shew Hebr. i. He does insist somewhat long on this Subject Expounding in the same manner many other Psalms which he understands of Jesus Christ although it seems that according to the Natural Sense they ought to be understood in general of God. The like is to be judged of other Psalms though they by reason of their ignorance of Christ do otherwise expound them This is no place for to examin the Consequences which Servetus does draw from his Principle I brought his words only to shew that the greatest Enemies of Tradition are obliged in their Expositions of many Passages of Scripture to acknowledg a Theological Sense which can be founded on nothing but Tradition and common Belief seeing they do agree that they who are ignorant of Jesus Christ put others Senses on the Scriptures Faustus Socinus did not find a more short or effectual way than this to answer the objections that the Jews and other enemies of the Christian Religion make against the Books of the New Testament He does suppose it to have been constantly agreed upon (r) Saepè Spiritus Sanctus unâ praedictione aut affirmatione plura complecti voluit idque ut semper mos praecipuè vaticinationum fuit ad rem ipsam praedictam occultandam saltem aliquâ ex parte donec ipsa res existeret Soc. Lect. Sac. that the Passages of the Old Testament that are cited in the New have had several Senses it being true especially as to the Prophesies which according to his Opinion were so Composed that the things foretold might be concealed till their accomplishment should happen He further says that we ought not to think variety to be surprising seeing the Jews who opposed the Evangelists and Apostles do agree to it But I question if that Unitary can convince the Jews of this Truth if he build on no other Principles than those which he makes use of in his Disputing against the Catholicks Indeed to speak exactly there is but one Literal Sense of every particular Passage of Scripture That other Sense which admits of a greater latitude and which the Christians are obliged to own is founded on the received and warranted traditions of the Jews Seeing the Jews have as well as the Catholicks approved of Traditions of that kind they cannot accuse the Apostles of having wrested the true Sense of several Passages of Scripture by false Interpretations unless they themselves do renounce the Expositions of their own Doctors Let us now particularly examin some of those Passages which the Emperor Julian and the Jews have objected against the Christians The first that presents it self is taken from those Words of the Prophet Esay Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son Is vii 14. and thou shall call his name Emmanuel St. Matthew has applied them to the Messiah who was born of a Virgin and has rendred them after this manner Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son and they shall call his name Emmanuel The Jews do accuse this Evangelist of an unfaithful citation and also a false application of the words of the Prophet They say first that the Hebrew word Alma does not signifie a Virgin as St. Matthew has rendred it but simply a young Woman whether she be a Virgin or not which they endeavour to prove from other places of Scripture St. Jerom does assure us on the contrary that the Hebrew word (ſ) Alma non solùm puella vel virgo sed cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 virgo abscondita dicitur secreta quae nunquam virorum patuerit aspectibus sed magnâ parentum diligentia custodita sit Linguâ quoque Punicâ quae de Hebraeorum fontibus emanare dicitur propriè virgo alma appellatur Hieron Comm. in Is lib. 3. c. 7. Alma does properly signifie a Virgin and also a Virgin hid or shut up and that it has likewise that signification in the Carthaginian Language which derives its Original from the Hebrew The learned observation of that Father is very pertinent not only to justifie St. Matthew but also to shew that in the Septuagint the Hebrew word Alma is very well Translated And therefore seeing it not necessary to prosecute this matter with a long train of critical observations nor run through all the places of the Old Testament in particular where this word Alma is found it will suffice to bring against the Jews their own ancient Greek Version which St. Matthew or rather his Interpreter has followed It cannot be said that those Jews who lived so long a time before Jesus Christ did by a false Translation on purpose corrupt the Sense of that place The accusations with which they charge St. Matthew fall on those of their own Nation They say in the second place that in the Hebrew it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. they shall call but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou shall call which does regard the young Woman who was to call her Son Emmanuel St. Jerom declares that all the ancient Interpreters have rendred it according to the Hebrew thou shalt call But at the same time does add (t) In multis testimoniis quae Evangelistae vel Apostoli de libris veteribus assumpserunt curiosiùs attendendum est non
eos verborum ordinem secutos esse sed sensum Hieron that the Evangelists and the Apostles did not scrupulously limit themselves to the very words of the Passages of the Old Testament contenting themselves to give their Sense This is sufficient though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou shalt call is likewise found in some Greek Copies As for the Sense of this Passage the Jews pretend that it cannot be applied to the Messiah as St. Matthew has done it seeing that place does make mention of a thing that should happen very soon afterwards St. Jerom observes that they understood it of Hezekiah the Son of Achaz because Samaria was invaded under his Reign But he does solidly refute them by making it appear to them that Achaz was already far advanced in years before he came to the Kingdom He brings in the same place another Exposition of a (u) Quidam de nostris judaizans Esaiam Prophetam duos filios habuisse contendit Jesub Emmanuel Emmanuel de Prophetissâ uxore ejus esse generatum in typum Domini Salvatoris Hieron ibid. Christian who in his Opinion did Judaize That Author believed that in that place it was spoken of the Prophet Esay's Wife who had two Children Jesub and Emmanuel that the latter was the Type of Jesus Christ But whatever St. Jerom does say of it I do not perceive that there is any thing affirmed therein but what is altogether consonant to the Principles of the Christian Religion and also to those which he does elsewhere maintain That Prophesie as the most part of the rest has a double Sense the one which is here spoken of has relation to the Prophet Esay's Wife the other which is of a greater latitude and may be called Spiritual or Mystical does point at the times of the Messiah and it is also in some manner Literal because it is founded on the Theology and Traditions of the Jews It will be easie to answer their objections by supposing these two Senses whereas if the Exposition of that Prophesie be rigorously restrained to the Messiah it will be more difficult to satisfie them Seeing this Principle is of great importance and may be useful for the resolution of many difficulties of this nature it is fit to confirm it by the Authority of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers and chiefly St. Jerom who has mentioned it in his Commentaries upon the Prophet Daniel Porphyrius did pretend that there is nothing in that Book but what is Historical He applyed to Antiochus that which the Christians Expound of Antichrist aand the end of the World. The Christians nevertheless did not wholly reject the Interpretation of Porphyrius but they affirmed that Antiochus was a Type of Antichrist Typum eum volunt says St. Jerom in speaking of the ancient Doctors of the Church Antichristi habere quae in illo ex parte praecesserint in Antichristo ex toto esse implenda And to make their Opinion the more clear he further adds this excellent Maxim (x) Hunc esse morem Scripturae Sanctae ut futurorum veritatem praemittat in typis juxta illud quod de Domino Salvatore in 71. Psalm dicitur qui praenotatur Salomonis omnia quae de eo dicuntur Salomoni non valent convenire Apud Hieron Comm. in Dan. c. 11. that it is usual for the Holy Scripture to describe the Truth of future things by Types Which he confirmed by Psalm lxxi which is understood of Jesus Christ and which is nevertheless applyed to Solomon though every thing spoken in that Psalm cannot agree to him Those ancient Ecclesiastical Writers did conclude from thence that (y) Sicut igitur Salvator habet Salomonem caeteros sanctos in typum adventûs sui sic Antichristus pessimum Regem Antiochum qui sanctos persecutus est templumque violavit rectè typum sui habuisse credendus est Hieron ibid. seeing Jesus Christ had Solomon and other Saints of the Old Testament for Types we ought likewise to believe that Antichrist had Antiochus for a Type he having been a very wicked King who persecuted the Saints and violated the Temple St. Jerom does explain the Prophesie of Daniel according to those two Senses and seeing in that he cannot be charged with having favoured the impieties of Porphyrius who alledged that the Book of Daniel was not so ancient as the Jews and Christians did pretend those cancot be accused of Judaism who received a part of the Expositions that the Jews have given of the Prophesies and who do withal with the Evangelists and Apostles apply them to the Messiah in a larger Sense CHAP. XXII A particular Examination of many Passages of the Old Testament cited by the Apostles in a sense that seems to be altogether Foreign Some difficulties formed against their Writings are cleared some Principles are established which may Answer the Objections of the Jews and the Emperor Julian AS it would require much time so it is of no use to explain here all the Passages of the Old Testament which the Evangelists and the Apostles have cited in their Writings because Commentators may be consulted thereupon especially Maldonat and Grotius who commonly follow the Principle that we have already established That Principle did appear so much the more reasonable as being equally founded on a joint suffrage of the Jews and Christians Seeing I design to give general Rules for answering the Objections of the Jews against the Books of the New Testament 't is sufficient if I only take notice of some of those citations by which means these Rules may be the more manifest One of the places that are most difficult to be reconciled is the Passage of the Prophet Micah which is cited in the eleventh Chap. of St. Matthew v. 6. (a) Quod testimonium nec Hebraico nec Septuaginta Interpretibus convenire me quoque tacente perspicuum est Hieron lib. 2. in Mic. c. 5. St. Jerome does assure us that it is as clear as the day that it does neither agree with the Hebrew Text nor with the Greek of the Septuagint He brings at the same time the Opinion of some Authors who believed (b) Sunt autem qui asserant in omnibus penè testimoniis quae de Veteri Testamento sumuntur istiusmodi esse errorem ut aut ordo mutetur aut verba interdùm sensus quoque ipse diversus sit vel Apostolis vel Evangelistis non ex libro carpentibus testimonia sed memoriae credentibus quae nonnunquam fallitur Hieron ibid. that the Evangelists and Apostles were not at all exact in their citations because they trusted to their memory But seeing this Answer does rather destroy than establish the truth of the Gospels he has recourse to another solution He says that they are the Jewish Doctors who speak in that place so that St. Matthew intending to shew that those Doctors neglected the study of the Scripture has cited that Passage in the same manner
Scripture nor any order by ranging of words but what comes from God. This Opinion is very little agreeable to the Doctrin of the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers who seemed not to have stretched that Inspiration beyond the things themselves But Estius who taught Theology in the University of Douay was obliged to speak the Language of the Divines of that place who had made a Decree upon that matter against the Fathers the Jesuits of Louvain who had set out some propositions directly opposite thereunto Besides Estius was the Principal Author of the censure to which those propositions were exposed We shall give here a full account of the difference that happened between those Doctors of Louvain and Douay and the Jesuits of the Colledg of Louvain about the Point of Inspiration It is not of late that the Divines who make profession of following St. Augustine in their Schools and Books have opposed the Theology of the Fathers the Jesuits Those Fathers having an 1586. maintained in their Colledge of Louvain some Propositions upon the Subject of Grace Predestination and the Holy Scripture which appeared new to the Doctors of Louvain and Douay these Doctors did censure them and withal published the reasons of their censure Seeing we do not speak in this place of Grace and Predestination but only of the Holy Scripture I shall insist on such things only as concern the Scripture You may take a view of the Title of the Censure issued out by the Divines of Louvain as it was Printed at Paris at the end of a Book entitled Florentii Conrii Peregrinus Jerichuntinus Censura Facultatum Sacrae Theologiae Lovaniensis ac Duacensis super quibusdam Articulis de Sacrâ Scripturâ c. anno Domini 1586. Scripto traditis The Censure is directed to all the Body of the Jesuits of Louvain in these Terms Reverendis in Christo Patribus Patri Rectori ac Professoribus caeterisque Patribus Collegii Societatis nominis Jesu in Universitate Lovaniensi Decanus reliqui Facultatis in eâdem Vniversitate Magistri aeternam salutem pacemque precamur Those Wise Masters whilst they declared against the Jesuits a War that was never to have an end do not fail to wish them eternal Peace They call their Doctrin strange scandalous and dangerous peregrina offensiva periculosa dogmata Amongst the Propositions which they censured there are three which run thus (g) Vt aliquid sit Scriptura Sacra non est necessarium singula ejus verba inspirata esse à Spiritu Sancto II. Non est necessarium ut singulae veritates sententiae sint immediatè à Spiritu Sancto ipsi scriptori inspiratae III. Liber aliquis qualis fortasse est secundus Maccabaeorum humanâ industriâ sine assistentiâ Spiritûs Sancti scriptus si Spiritus Sanctus posteà testetur ibi nihil esse falsum efficitur Scriptura Sacra Jesuit Colleg. Lovan assert apud Flor. Conr. 1. That a thing should be Holy Scripture it is not necessary that all the words thereof should be inspired by God. 2. It is not necessary for all Truths and Sentences to be immediatly indited by Inspiration to the Writer 3. A Book as for example the second of the Maccabees which was written by Men only without the assistance of the Holy Ghost does afterwards become Holy Scripture if the Holy Spirit doth testifie that there is nothing that is false in that Book These three Propositions were extracted out of the Writings of the Fathers the Jesuits who taught Theology in the College of Louvain and they were so far from condemning them upon a remonstrance made to them that they were scandalous that they freely defended them adding thereunto new explications ab iisdem ibidem Professoribus pro suis agnitae comprobatae scholiisque illustratae They appeared to be really agreeable to good sense neither do they much vary from the Theology of the Ancient Fathers whom we are more bound to hear upon this Subject than the Sacred Faculty of Theology of Louvain who in condemning them as they did were guilty of a great act of injustice against the Society of the Jesuits The words of the Censure as to their purport are (h) Tres illae assertiones accedere videntur ad damnatam olim Anomaeorum opinionem qui Prophetas Apostolos in multis volebant ut homines fuisse locutos ut refert Epiphanius Haeresi 76. ad eorum sententiam quam praefatione in Epistolam ad Philemonem alibi Hieronymus reprehendit de quâ notatus Erasmus fuit Cens Fac. Theol. Lovan that those three Assertions did come near to the ancient Heresie of the Anomeans who were of Opinion that the Prophets and the Apostles had frequently spoken as other private Men and to the sentiments of those of whom St. Jerome makes mention in the Preface of his Commentaries upon the Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon which Opinion was censured in the Person of Erasmus They do further oppose to those Assertions the Council of Trent the words of St. Peter in his second Epistle of St. Paul in his second Epistle to Timothy and finally the Authority of the Ancient Fathers who assure us that the Tongue and Hand of the Holy Writers were made use of as a Pen by the Holy Ghost Before we enter upon a discussion of what concerns the Divines of Louvain we shall relate the Censure of the Faculty of Theology of Douay These Divines declare that they have examined the Propositions of the Jesuits by the Order of the Archbishops of Cambray and of Malines and of the Bishop of Gand They do not condemn them in gross as the Doctors of Louvain had done but they apply their Censure to each Proposition in particular To the two first they oppose St. Augustine who did according to their Opinion believe that the Sacred Writers received from God a partioular faculty and method of delivering and composing their discourse They do also quote Gabriel a Scholastick Divine who affirmed that the Apostles were Inspired with many natural Truths and that a Book might be inspired although there be pains and meditation used in its composure Those Divines do likewise give for an Example Jesus Christ (i) Si scribere voluisset laborem nonnunquam meditationem simulque industriam aliquam adhibere potuit humanam quamvis interim spiritus ejus humanus itemque os lingua manus digiti perpetua quaedam essent instrumenta Divini Spiritûs Cens Theol. Duac who say they if he had written any Book might as a Man have meditated and applyed himself to that Work although his Spirit his Mouth his Tongue his Hands and his Fingers would continually have been the Instruments of the Holy Ghost And thus the Doctors of Douay do endeavour to destroy the Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain which to them appeared to be scandalous And also under a pretence of shewing that they subvert all Religion in speaking to the second Proposition they add
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
is in effect a Subordination betwixt them two the one does not destroy the other Spinosa's Prophets are Enthusiasts who are more like Men push'd on by a Spirit of Fury than by a Spirit of Prophecy He does alledge (d) Prophetiae auctoritas ratiocinari non patitur Quisquis enim vult sua dogmata ratione consirmare eo ipso ea arbitrali uniuscujusque judicio submittit Spin. ibid. that the quality of a Prophet does not admit of the use of his Reason because he who confirms his Doctrines by Reasons does submit to the judgment of others But if one will carefully read the Books of Moses whom he reckons amongst the Prophets he will own that that Law-giver does Reason sometimes There is indeed a submission to the judgment of others where there is nothing but Reasonings But this cannot be said when such Reasonings are guided by the Spirit of God And this was the Case of Moses and the other Prophets Spinosa himself gives an Example here For there is none but thinks these Words of Moses Deut. Chap. 31. v. 27. While I am yet alive with you this day ye have been rebellious against the Lord and how much more after my Death to be very formal Reasoning And indeed the Prophets who directed their discourse to Men who made use of their Reason did not in the least destroy their Spirit of Prophecy when they proposed the Will of God to those Men by way of Reasoning But Spinosa who reasons in all this Discourse upon a false Idea which he had of Prophecy does alledge (e) Verba illa Mosis moralis locutio tantùm sunt quâ rhetericè prout futuram populi defectionem vividiùs imaginari potuerat praedicit Spin. ibid. that that expression of Moses was a Moral kind of speaking which he used as an Orator to foretel and represent to the life so far as he could imagin the future Rebellion of the Israelites But what does it signifie that Moses did express himself an Orator or in any other manner does that prove that he did not truly Reason in that and several other places where he explains himself as other Men It was not necessary that God should indite all his Reasonings and all his Exhortations It is enough that he guided him by his Spirit and that he prevented his falling into error This being supposed we will freely agree with Spinosa that Moses said many things that were not revealed to him and this we have proved elsewhere He is also obliged (f) Nolo tamen absolutè negare Prophetas ex revelatione argumentari potuisse Ib. to declare that the Prophets could Reason by Revelation and consequently Prophecy and Revelation are not incompatible The Apostles then could by way of reasoning propose to the People the truths they delivered and be at the same time Inspired with the Spirit of God. Spinosa does nevertheless add that the more that the Prophets do reason in form the Knowledg that they had of things revealed did come so much the more near to natural Knowledge and that that which does characterize the supernatural Knowledg of the Prophets is when they pronounce Sentences and Degrees without any Reasoning For this reason it is saith he Moses who was the greatest of the Prophets made no Argument in form that on the contrary St. Paul does reason every where and draws consequences from the Principles which he does establish as appears in his Epistle to the Romans Upon this account he believed that the Epistles of the Apostle were not written by supernatural Revelation That Man does always confound Prophecy with Enthusiasm Moses who was a Law-giver pronounced Sentences and Judgments by warrant from God which did not hinder him from Reasoning in some places If he did not so as frequently as St. Paul the occasion was he writ Histories which require no reasoning whereas St. Paul does write as a Doctor who instructs the People and draws consequences from Principles which he had laid down From thence it cannot be concluded that he followed nothing but his Reason because that very Reason of his might have been supernaturally enlightned and guided by the Spirit of God. And therefore all that Spinosa does object for shewing that the most part of that Apostle's Discourse does only consist in Advertisements and Moral Exhortations does not destroy the Inspiration of the Apostles in the manner as we have formerly supposed it with the Jesuits of Louvain For we made it plain that it was not necessary for that purpose that God should indite to St. Paul and the other Apostles all their Discourses of Morality It was permitted them to make use of their natural Lights and to use all the means with which their Reason could furnish them for persuading the People After the same manner all Spinosa's objections may be answered seeing he does continually reason upon a false Idea which he has formed of the Inspiration of the Pen-Men of the New Testament We may also give our assent to a great part of what he says in his Objections without giving advantage for drawing any Conclusions against that Inspiration according to the true Explication thereof Seeing I insisted long enough upon this Subject in my two Answers To the Opinions of some Divines of Holland it is needless for me to repeat here what I have said in those two Books The truth is those Divines by opposing the Inspiration of the Holy Scripture have only given a more advantageous light to Spinosa's reasons who squared this matter to the false prejudices with which he was prepossessed If he had read the Works of some Catholick Doctors who have treated judiciously of this Subject he would soon have acknowledged to what little purpose the most part of his Objections serve because they stumble upon those things in which we do agree with him And therefore we ought to be very cautious in refuting his Opinion that we do not contest with him in vain about the things that are true and from which he does nevertheless draw consequences that are directly false or too wide otherwise we shall rather strengthen than destroy his errors CHAP. XXVI Of the Stile of the Evangelists and the Apostles The Opinion of Modern Writers and of the Ancient Doctors of the Church upon this matter with many Critical Reflections IN this last Age there have been Works composed that treat of the Stile of the Evangelists and the Apostles Henry Stephen has handled this matter in the Preface to his Greek New Testament Henr. Steph. Nov. Test in 12. edit ann 1576. He had also promised to publish a Treatise on purpose upon this Subject to demonstrate that those Sacred Writers are much more Polite than some Authors have believed He likewise gives some examples thereof in his Preface by way of anticipation He does sometimes admire them for the elegancy of their Stile and does wish that they were not treated as rude and barbarous Persons in respect of their manner of
I shall content my self to mention here what belongs to the New Testament We read in one of the Manuscripts of the Royal Library that St. Matthew contains 68 Titles and 355 Chapters St. Mark 48 Titles and 234 Chapters St. Luke 83 Titles and 342 Chapters St. John 18 Titles and 231 Chapters Suidas Which agrees with the Observation of Suidas upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless we must in that Author instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 36. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 236. as it is in some Manuscripts and in the Greek Edition in folio of Robert Stephen's New Testament (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod. MS. Biblioth Reg. n. 2861. Moreover we read at the beginning of the same Manuscript of the Royal Library that there is in St. Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 68 Chapters so as they call that a Chapter in that place which is called a Title in the end of the Book and there is the same thing observable in the other three Gospels By which we may know that the word Chapter is taken two ways and that it is applyed as well to the great as to the small Sections When they prefix the numbers of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Chapters to the Books this words does then signifie great Sections and in this manner they are marked at the beginning of the most part of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament in the first Editions of Erasmus in that of Robert Stephen in folio and in some others This is instead of a Table or Index of the Contents which at once does represent the Principal things in a Work. In this manner the most exact Greek Transcribers do mark the Summaries under the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapters at the beginning of their Copies And seeing they have likewise noted them in the Margin of their Copies or at the top or the bottom of the Pages in all the places where those Chapters begin they have for this reason given them the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 titles There is then no difference betwixt Title and Chapter according to this sense unless it be that the Chapters are marked at the beginning of the Books and the Titles in the Margin This I observed in comparing several Manuscript Greek Copies of the New Testament one with the other The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does on the contrary signifie the small Sections that are marked in the Margins of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament by Letters instead of Numbers Erasmus did also put them in his first Editions of the New Testament in which he was followed by Robert Stephen in his Edition in Folio who has likewise subjoyned them separately at the end of S. Mark where he reckons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 236 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapters and at the end of S. Luke where he computes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 342. whereas in the King's Manuscript which I quoted S. Mark does only contain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 234 Chapters The truth is the Greek Copies do not agree amongst themselves about the thing especially in the Gospel of S. Mark. We have already shewn that several Greek Churches did not once read the twelve last Verses of this Gospel which begin with these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and so they might have had fewer small Sections in their Copies than what are ordinarily reckoned Nevertheless there are some Manuscripts where the Section 234. is last marked over against these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. there being no other that answers to the rest of the Text. Moreover it is certain that the Churches where these Copies were in use did read those twelve Verses for they have inserted in that place the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 end and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beginning to note that they began another Lesson there Yet we have no sure foundation here to build any certainty upon because the Observations of that sort have been taken from the Synaxarion or the Church Bibles of the Greeks And so they regulated these distinctions by the Lectionaries which were then read in the Churches to accommodate the Copies of the New Testament to the custom that obtained amongst them The Churches which did not read the twelve last Verses of S. Mark Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2861. do only reckon in that Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 233. small Sections as it appears by an ancient Manuscript of the Royal Library There is another Copy less ancient than that in the same Library Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2856. which does likewise only represent 233. and the last small Section answers to these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to which Rob. Stephen in his Edition made the Section 233. to answer The Churches which did read those twelve Verses reckon more than 233. Sections but they agree not amongst themselves for some have comprehended all those Verses under one Section and in their Copies there are only 234 Sections extant others on the contrary Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2859. have divided them into many small Sections and therefore Rob. Stephen has mark'd after some Manuscripts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 236. I have also seen a Manuscript Copy where there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 241. Further this division of the Sacred Books is very ancient Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 1879. for Justin Martyr makes mention of these small Sections under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius in his Letter to Carpianus which was printed with the ten Canons which he so ingeniously invented for shewing at once that wherein the Evangelists did agree and that which is peculiar to each of them does use indifferently these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Section and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter Denis of Alexandria speaking of certain Authors who rejected the Revelation of S. John says that they had examined all the Chapters Dionys Alex. apud Eus Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In a word There are few of the ancient Greek Writers where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter is not found in the sense that we have observed Eusebius is not then the Author of those small Sections but he made a very profitable use of them in the ten Canons that he invented and which St. Jerom applied to the Latin Copies of the four Gospels in the same manner as he had seen them applied to the Greek Copies Those who cannot consult the Manuscript Copies for this ought to read the first Greek Editions of the New Testament that were published by Erasmus or that were done by Rob. Stephen which is in folio Those ten Canons are rank'd before the Gospel under ten separte Titles and the Application thereof is marked in the Margin of every Gospel The small Sections are there noted by Letters instead of Numbers according to the custom of the Greeks
perfectly agree with the ordinary Greek at this day They might very well illustrate that Passage of St. Matthew by some Note but it is not at all allowable to insert that Note in the Text. And therefore St. Jerome has not inserted it in his Latin Edition when he corrected it by good Manuscripts according to the order he had received from Pope Damasus Which is a new Proof that we ought to keep to the reading of the ordinary Greek which is the most ancient That Father did content himself to make in his Commentaries upon St. Matthew such an observation as we have already mentioned without changing the Text of that Evangelist in any Thing Si voluerimus saith he Jechoniam in fine primae tessaredecadis ponere in sequente non erunt quatuordecim sed tredecim Sciamus igitur Jechoniam priorem ipsum esse quem Joakim secundum autem filium non patrem quorum prior per k. m. sequens per ch n. scribitur quod scriptorum vitio longitudine temporum apud Graecos Latinosque confusum est He does suppose in this observation that some did read with Epiphanius two several Jechonias whom he does distinguish by writing them differently according to the reading of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament But this amendment is Founded upon no Copy of St. Matthew unless it be such as has been reformed For what remains I do not know how the reading was in those Greek and Latin Copies of the New Testament that were before St. Jerome For the nineteen first Verses of St. Matthew are wanting in the Cambridge Copy which does only begin at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 20. of the first Chapter The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew who likewise did read as we do in the ordinary Greek has observed that it is otherwise in the Book of the Kings (f) Ergo talis est ordo Josias genuit Eliachim posteà vocatum Joachim Joachim autem genuit Jechoniam Auct Oper. imperf in Matth. cap. 1. v. 11. and the order of the Genealogy ought to be expressed thus Josias begat Eliachim who was afterwards called Joachim and Joachim begat Jechonias He only takes notice of the order that that Genealogy ought to have according to the History of the New Testament He does not for all that reform the ordinary Text of St. Matthew For he adds (g) Nec obest quòd filius Josiae dictus est cùm sit nepos quoniam nepotes rectè filii dicuntur Id. ibid. that that does not hinder but that Jechonias who was the Grandson of Josias might have been called his Son because it was very ordinary to give the name of Sons to Grandsons Chap. 2. of St. Matthew v. 17. where we read in the ordinary Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Robert Stephen did read in one of his Manuscripts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which reading is confirmed by another ancient Manuscript cited by Mr. Salbert and in the Cambridge Copy Although Beza (h) Probatur haec lectio quam secutus sum manuscripti exemplaris auctoritate ita solere loqui Matthaeum superiora ostendunt Certè magna vis est horum verborum ex quibus intelligimus non ipsos Prophetas sed Dominum ore Prophetarum loqui Bez. ad cap. 2. Matth. v. 17. found that reading only in one Manuscript yet he does prefer it to the other because it appeared to him to be St. Matthew's Stile and he believed that there is a great force in that expression which declares to us that the Lord does speak by the mouth of his Prophets But it is much more probable that these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were added in the Cambridge Copy there being very few other Copies where it is extant It cannot be therefore any longer thought with any assurance that they are of St. Matthew's Stile seeing that Evangelist does not express them in many places where that same manner of speech does occur In short he would disparage his own judgment who would leave the ordinary reading of the Greek Copies and embrace one reading which is only founded on a very small number of Copies under a pretext that they contain an expression which seems to have more force For according to the Laws of Criticks the reading which is most plain and is withal confirmed by the plurality of Copies ought to be accounted the best And therefore St. Jerome did rather choose to follow those Greek Copies than the ancient Vulgar In the same Chapter 2. v. 18. although we read in all the Greek Copies of the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ramâ as the proper name of a Place Origen has observed (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. Cat. Gr. in Matth. 2. 18. that that Word does signifie an high place and that it is in some Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. on high But this reading is only extant in the ancient Alexandrine Copy of the Septuagint Version where the signification of the Hebrew word Rama is put St. Jerome also who has in excelso in his new Translation from the Hebrew has left the word in Rama in his ancient Latin Edition which he had taken from the Septuagint and he has kept the same reading in his Edition of the Gospels He only observed in his Commentary (k) Quod autem dicitur in Rama non putemus loci nomen esse juxta Gabaa sed rama excelsum interpretatur ut sit sensus Vox in excelso audita est id est long è lateque dispersa Hieron Comm. in c. 2. Matth. v. 18. that Rama is not the proper name of a place which was near to Gabaa but that this word does signifie high so that the sense of the Passage according to his mind will run thus A voice was heard on high that is to say that that voice was spread far and wide Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb n. 2467. Further in the same verse we do not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a Manuscript of Mr. Colbert's Library nor in Justin Martyr who made mention of that Passage in his Dialogue against Tryphon the Jew Neither is it found in the Vulgar although it is in the Ancient Vulgar and in the Greek of the Cambridge Copy Chap. 3. v. 11. These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not found in a great number of Greek Manuscript Copies Robert Stephen did not read them in seven of his and there are also seven others marked in the Polyglott of England which have them not Besides I have not found them in two Copies that belong to Mr. Colbert But they are in the Cambridge Copy and the two Vulgars St. Jerome having kept them in his new Edition He has likewise explained them in his Commentary without observing that there was any variety of reading upon that Passage The truth is the most Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers had no other reading which made Erasmus conjecture
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉