varietatem illam interpretationis ex librariorum aut interpretum diversâ sententiâ profectam esse non ex fraude ulla Pneumatomachorum vel aliorum haereticorum Petav. Theol. Dog. lib. 2. c. 6. n. 6. that that diversity of pointing those words of S. John ought not to be attributed to the ill design of those who denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost or to other Hereticks but only to the different Opinions of the Transcribers and Interpreters The truth is the Orthodox Authors do not always agree amongst themselves about it It happens sometimes that the same Writer does differently point the same Passage in different places of his Works And so there is nothing else but good Sense and the Rules of Criticism that can direct us in our choice in preferring one Punctation to another I know we ought to follow the plurality of good Manuscript Copies and the consent of Interpreters For example without taking notice of all that S. Augustine has observed upon the manner of pointing the third Verse of the first Chapter of the Gospel according to S. John we may read that Verse after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without him was not any thing made that was made This reading which is almost in all Manuscripts has been approved by the most Ancient Greek Fathers The other which does place a point after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is somewhat forced and according to this punctation it ought to be translated Without him nothing was made that which was made had life in him It is worth the while to observe that many Greek Manuscript Copies have a point after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that point answers to our comma in those Manuscripts which have two sorts of points the one truly answering to our point and the other to that we call a comma Yet St. Augustine does frequently maintain the distinction that places the point after the word nihil He further maintains that this Passage is pointed after this manner in the most correct Copies Quod factum est in illo vita erat that which was made in him was life so that there is not only a point to be placed after nihil but also a comma after these other words quod factum est Sic ergo saith this Father distinguendum est ut cum dixerimus quod factum est deinde inferamus in illo vita est non in se scilicet hoc est in suâ naturâ (d) Non ergo pronunciari oportet quod factum est in illo vita est ut subdistinguamus quod factum est in illo deinde inferamus vita est Quid enim non in illo factum est Aug. ibid. c. 13. He condemns those who placed a comma after the Pronoun illo and who favoured their own prejudices by this punctation But there appears commonly more subtilty than solidity in Reasonings of this sort For seeing every one does reason from certain Principles which he supposes to be true he points the Copies of the Scripture after his own fashion Those disputes had so divided the Minds of the Ancients of that time that there were four different ways of pointing this Passage of St. John whereas at this day there is no dispute about it This does inform us that although the most part of Transcribers did then neglect the points and the other marks of distinction yet they were put for all that in some Copies The Commentators on the Scripture observed them likewise in their Commentaries when they judged it fit But seeing they had not the first Original of the Evangelists and the Apostles where those marks of distinction were extant there is nothing certain in this matter We ought also to use precaution in reading the Writings of the Fathers especially when they dispute against the Hereticks of their time from whom they removed in their Opinions as far as it was possible for them Now it is not necessary to insist too nicely on this sort of distinctions and stops there commonly needs but a little of good sense to make a due estimate of them There is none for example but will condemn some of the Moderns for the innovations they have made in our Age who in favour of their own prejudicate Opinions read Chap. 23. of St. Luke v. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say unto thee to day thou shalt be with me in Paradise They palce a comma after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 day whereas according to the ordinary Reading of the Greek Copies whether Manuscript or Printed it ought to be placed after the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thee Which gives a very different sense viz. I say unto thee to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise Besides those marks of distinction of which we have been speaking there is another which is common to all the ancient Books and which is made by the means of Verses The Bulk of a Work did once appear if the number of Verses contained therein were summ'd up at the end A Verse was nothing else but a Line that the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that by numbering the Verses they discovered how many Lines were contained in any Volume Yet some Criticks could not comprehend how they could by those Lines or Verses reckon the just content of a Book because the Parchments upon which they writ having been unequal the Lines must needs have been so too and so the number of those Lines could not adjust the Bulk of a Work. This was that which Crojus brought against Causabon and withal he confirm'd his Opinion by the testimony of some Ancient Writers by whom he pretended to prove that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does signifie an entire Period or the several parts of Periods But this Objection does fall by it self if we make a just reflection on those Ancient Parchments which composed Volumes or Rolls Every Roll contained many Pages that were all equal and in every Page there was a certain number of Lines and lastly in every Line there was a fixed number of Letters And this is observed by the Jews at this day in their Rolls which must have a certain proportion as well in length as in breadth Moreover every Line ought to consist of thirty Letters and they called these Letters sitta which is the same thing with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks and the versus of the Latins We are not to imagine that the manner in which the Rabbins have divided the Bible is of their own invention They followed in that the practice of other Nations as I have proved elsewhere And seeing they have retained their ancient use of Rolls we must learn of them whatever belongs to the division of the Rolls or Ancient Volumes Further it is not hard to shew how the measure of the Lines or Verses might have been retained in the form of those ordinary Books in which the Parchments or Papers were
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
cited any Passage in the Old Testament which did not perfectly agree with the Hebrew Text. Eustochium Hieron Prooem in lib. 16. Comm. in Isai who perfectly understood the Greek and Hebrew Languages opposed him with such powerful Arguments that he was forced to own himself almost overcome with the strength of her Objections Quod cùm audissem quasi à fortissimo pugile percussus essem coepi tacitus aestuare It is no strange thing to find those Ages when Barbarism reigned over all Europe neglect Critical Studies Then they wanted abundance of those helps which they now enjoy to pursue those Studies which are absolutely necessary to a perfect Knowledg of Divinity But that which amazes me is that in this very Age this Art should still remain in contempt and those Men be thought no more than Grammarians who apply themselves to it Besides we cannot but see the manifest Errors of some Divines in this Age who know not the true Laws of Criticism It is worth observing that the ancient Hereticks have been perpetually accused of having corrupted the Books of the New Testament and perverted them to their own sence That has often been thought a wilful and designed Corruption which proceeded only from the fault of the Transcribers or difference of Copies The Ecclesiastical Writers of the first Ages have not done that strict Justice to the Hereticks of their times in relation to the New Testament that they have given the Jews in the Disputes about the different manners of explaining the Old Testament Those pretended Corruptions presently vanish upon Examination of the ancient Manuscripts and the Original of the various Readings Wherefore in this Piece I have justified the Arrians Nestorians and the rest of the Sectaries from that Imputation of having falsified the Originals of the Evangelists and Apostles to maintain their Innovations We have also plainly evinc'd by some considerable Examples that the most Learned Criticks of our Age are not exempted from those Prejudices in their declaring too freely those Hereticks falsifiers of the Text. The case of some other Sectaries is not the same who declared themselves openly against the Writings of Christ's Disciples which they have corrected and altered according to their own Idea's of the Christian Religion Some daring to forge Supposititious Gospels and Acts the better to give authority to their Fopperies It would be very pertinent for the better Distinction of all the Genuine Pieces of the New Testament to make a Collection of those ancient Acts and diligently examine them Wherefore we have not concealed any of those Arguments which those Hereticks or the other Enemies of Christianity have brought to destroy the Truth of those Books which were received by all the Catholick Churches But as it would be a pernicious thing to expose these ill things without administring Remedies too proper for the cure we have also produced the strongest Reasons which the Ecclesiastical Writers have brought against them We intreat the Protestants to make Reflection on these matters and observe those methods of the first Ages of the Church for establishing the Authority of the Sacred Writings They will find nothing impertinent in the Conduct Irenaeus Tertullian and the rest of the Defenders of those Writings did not object to the Enemies of the Christian Religion their private Spirit which perswaded them of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture but very substantial Reasons void of all such Fanaticism Tho they were sufficiently perswaded of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture they never objected to the Adversaries that it had imprest upon it such lively Characters of its Original that it was a very difficult matter not to acknowledg it when read with a Spirit of Submission and Humility Their Adversaries being Philosophers who consulted their natural Reason they opposed them from sure and indisputable Principles Again I thought in a Work of this nature not convenient to suppress the principal Objections of the Jews against the Books of the New Testament For although this miserable Nation is an Object of the contempt of the whole World yet has there appeared among them Men of great Address and Subtilty in the Disputes against the Christians which I have often found true in my own Experience when I have endeavoured to convince them by their own Principles Since their Plea for Prescription is better and their Pretensions are that the Disciples of Jesus the Son of Mary had no reason to change their Religion which was delivered them by the Fathers It is but necessary to examin what they object against the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles In this Critical History I have treated divers other important Questions And where I deviate from the Methods of the Divines of the School it is because I have found a more secure way I have employed all my strength to avoid the advancing any thing that is not grounded on authentic Records instead of which the School-Divinity teaches us to doubt of the most certain Our Religion consisting principally in Matters of Fact the Subtilties of Divines who are not acquainted with Antiquity can never discover certainty of such matters of Fact They rather serve to confound the Vnderstanding and form pernicious Difficulties against the Mysteries of our Religion Let it not seem strange to any Person that I recede from the Opinions which are generally received in the Schools and prefer to the Sentiments of whole Vniversities the new Opinions of some modern Divines which can hardly be taxed as novel when they are found conformable to the Ancient Doctors of the Church This I speak in reference to that Passage where I handle the Dispute which was formerly between the Divines of Louvain and Doway and the Jesuits of that Country concerning the inspiration of the sacred Books The Doctors of both Faculties censured the Propositions of the Jesuites of Louvain in a manner very injurious to the whole Society But after a due examination of the Reasons on which their grave Gentlemen founded their Censure I could hardly believe their Authority alone a sufficient Rule to oblige me to assent I propose Truth alone to my self in this Work without any Deference to any Master in particular A true Christian who professes to believe the Catholick Faith ought not to stile himself a Disciple of S. Austin S. Jerome or any other particular Father since his Faith is founded on the word of Jesus Christ contained in the Writings of the Apostles and constant Tradition of the Catholick Churches I wish to God the Divines of the Age were all of that opinion we then should not have seen so many useless Disputes which only prove the causes of Disorders in Church and State. I have no private Interest which obliges me to any Party the very name of Party is odious to me I solemnly protest I have no other intentions in composing this Work than the benefit of the Church and the establishing the most sacred and divine thing in the World. It is useless
they rejected the Writings of the Apostles against the Authority of all the Churches of the World and at the same time received the Apocryphal Books that had no Authority If any one continues this Father should oppose you and should make use of your own words that that which you alledge on your behalf is false and on the contrary that which is against you is true (m) Quid ages Quò te convertes Quam libri à te prolati originem quam vetustatem quam seriem successionis testem citabis Aug. ibid. what would you do How could you defend the truth of those Acts that you produce How could you prove their Antiquity not having any Witnesses in Tradition by whose Testimony they might be confirmed From whence he concludes (n) Vides in hac re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat auctoritas quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorum usque ad hodiernum diem succedentium sibimet Episcoporum serie tot populorum consensione firmatur Aug. ibid. that it is absolutely necessary on this occasion to have recourse to the Authority of those Churches that were established ever since the primitive times of the Christian Religion and to the consent of Nations that have received the Books of the New Testament from the Apostles He observes further and more close to the purpose that if it were only disputed concerning the variety of Copies since they are but few in number it would be sufficient to consult the Copies of different Countries and if they did not agree in this point the greater number should be preferred before the lesser or the more ancient before the later Plures paucioribus aut vetustiores recentioribus praeferrentur But the Manicheans who judged not of the Truth of these Books but with relation to their own Ideas refused to submit to this Authority they consulted only their reason in matters of Fact wherein all Deference ought to be given to Authority therefore when any passage was urged to them that thwarted their Opinion they boldly affirmed that that part had been corrupted or that the Book wherein it was found had been composed by some Impostor under the name of the Apostles Faustus for example who avouched that after having diligently perused the Books of Moses he could not find therein any Prophecy that had any regard to Jesus Christ takes this method in answering the Texts of the New Testament Where express mention is made of these Prophecies Jesus Christ saith in speaking of himself Moses hath wrote of me Faustus answers to this Joann v. 46. that after a serious examination of this passage (o) Ratione cogebar in alterum è duobus ut aut falsum pronunciarem capitulum hoc aut mendacem Jesum sed id quidem alienum pietatis eraè Deum existimare mentitum Rectius ergo visum est scriptoribus adscribere falsitatem quam veritatis auctoritati mendacium Apud Aug. lib. 16. contra Faust c. 2. his reason obliged him to conclude either that it was false or that Jesus Christ had not spoken the truth and since it would be no less than impious Blasphemy to say that God could lie it would be more adviseable to attribute the falsification to the Writers themselves When it was demanded of this Heretick why he did not receive the Old Law and the Prophets whom Jesus Christ himself hath authorised in the New Testament by his words I am not come to destroy the Law or the Peophets Matth. v. 17. but to fulfil them he objected against the Testimony of S. Matthew because he is the only Evangelist that hath related this It is supposed saith he that this Discourse was delivered in the Sermon that Jesus Christ made on the Mountain In the mean time S. John (p) Testis idoneus tacet loquitur autem minùs idoneus Apud Aug. cont Faust lib. 17. c. 1. who was there present speaks not a word thereof and yet they would have S. Matthew who saw nothing to mention it He pretends that this hath been wrote by some other person and not by S. Matthew After this manner the Manicheans who sacrificed all to their Reason and almost nothing to Authority entirely destroyed the Books of the New Testament receiving them no farther than they were conformable to their Prejudices they had formed to themselves a certain Idea of Christianity after which they regulated the Writings of the Apostles They would have it that all that which could not be adjusted to this Idea had been inserted in their Books by later Writers who were half Jews Faustus saith Multa enim à majoribus vestris eloquiis Domini nostri inserta verba sunt Apud Aug. l. 33. cont Faust c. 3. quae nomine signata ipsius cum fide non congruant praesertim quia ut jam saepe probatum à nobis est nec ab ipso haec sunt nec ab ejus Apostolis scripta sed multa post eorum assumptionem à nescio quibus ipsis inter se non concordantibus Semi-Judaeis per famas opinionesque comperta sunt c. But S. Augustin represents to them in this very same passage that one must renounce common sense to argue after this manner on matters of Fact to which imaginary reasons ought not to be opposed (q) De quo libro certum erit cujus sit si literae quas Apostolorum dicit tenet Ecclesia ab ipsis Apostolis propagata per omnes gentes tantâ eminentiâ declarata utrùm Apostolorum sint incertum est hoc erit certum scripsisse Apostolos quod huic Ecclesiae contrarii haeretiot proferunt Auctorum suorum nominibus appellati longè post Apostolos existentium Aug. ibid. We cannot be certain saith he of any Book if once we call in question those Works that the Church that is extended throughout the whole World receives with a common consent and if on the contrary we authorise as Apostolical Books that dispute therewith and that carry the name of Writers who have lived a long time after the Apostles He charges them (r) Legunt Scripturas apocryphas Manichaei à nescio quibus fabularum sutoribus sub Apostolorum nomine scriptas quae suorum scriptorum temporibus in auctoritatem sanctae Ecclesiae recipi mererentur si sancti docti bomines qui tunc in hac vita erant examinare talia poterant eos vera locutos esse cognoscerent Aug. cont Faust lib. 22. c. 79. with making Fables and Apocryphal Works to pass for Apostolical Writings and he shews at the same time the falsity of these Acts because they have not any testimony of the Doctors of the Church that were then living He urgeth Faustus to prove what he hath alledged by Books that are Canonical and generally received in all the Churches Non ex quibuscunque literis sed Ecclesiasticis Canonicis Catholicis Aug. l. 23. adv Faus c. 9. This Holy Doctor calls this way
of S. Thomas without establishing Tradition at the same time because it is impossible to prove this by any Testimony of the Scriptures Socinus To answer this Objection without departing from his Principle lays down (y) Est quiddam medium inter Scripturas traditionem Immò non quiddam modò sed multiplex quiddam soriptae nimirum historiae aliaque testimonia rationes ex quibus factum est fit ut cordati homines Matthaei Evangelium pro vera de Jesu Christo historin habeant Thoma non habeant nullâ hîc intercedente autoritate Ecclesiae Spiritiis quo ipsa porpetuò gubernetur Soc. Epist 4. ad Christoph Ostorod a certain Medium between the Scriptures and Tradition which Medium consists according to his opinion in written Histories in other Testimonies and in Ratiocinations from whence it is proved without making application to any Authority of the Church that the Gospel of S. Matthew contains the true History of Jesus Christ and that on the contrary that which carries the name of S. Thomas is a suppositious Book Episcopius and the other Remonstrants do also make use of this Answer that they may not be obliged to acknowledge the Traditions of the Church But this Medium which they suppose to be between the Scriptures and Tradition is a true Tradition which differs in nothing from that which S. Irenaeus Tertullian Epiphanius S. Augustin and several other Fathers have established when they intended to convince the ancient Hereticks of the Truth of the Apostolical Books These Histories and these other Acts whereof Socinus makes mention are taken from the Churches or from Ecclesiastical Writers and this is that which composeth Tradition He ought to agree to it himself since he avoucheth in his Treatise of the Authority of the Holy Scriptures that since the times of the Apostles to those of Eusebius none have doubted in the Church that the Books of the New Testament were not composed by those whose Names they bear For it is certain that many Hereticks that were out of the Church have not only doubted thereof but have absolutely rejected them That which hath deceived Socinus and the other Sectaries is a false notion that they have conceived of the Authority of the Church they imagine that she Judges by her own Authority only and not upon good Acts and Records that the Books that compose the Old and New Testament are Divine and Canonical CHAP. II. Concerning the Titles that are at the Head of the Gospels and other Books of the New Testament Whether these Titles were made by the Authors of these Books or whether they were since added WE have no solid proof in Antiquity to make it appear to us that the Names that are set at the Head of every Gospel were thereunto prefixed by those who are the Authors of them S. John Chrysostom assures us expresly of the contrary in one of his Homelies (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joann Chrys Hom. 1. in Epist ad Rom. Moses saith this Learned Bishop hath not put his Name to the five Books of the Law that he hath wrote those also that have collected the Acts after him have not set their Names at the beginning of their Histories The same may be said of the Evangelists Matthew Mark Luke and John. As for S. Paul he hath always set his Name at the beginning of his Epistles except that which is directed to the Hebrews and the Reason that S. John Chrysostom produceth is because the former wrote for the use of Persons that were present whereas S. Paul wrote Letters to persons that were at a distance If we should refer our selves herein to the Testimony of this Father we cannot prove precisely from the Titles only that are at the Head of every Gospel that these Gospels have been composed by those whose Names they bear at least if we do not joyn to this the Authority of the Primitive Church that hath added these Titles On this Principle it is that Tannerus and other Jesuits supported themselves in a Conference that they had at Ratisbonne with some Protestants to shew that they could not clearly prove the Title of S. Matthew and without the Testimony of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that this Gospel was made by him whose name it bore they insisted that they could not bring other Proofs of this Truth than those that were taken from humane Authority and not from the Scriptures themselves since they had been added to them Ex solo testimonio hominum eorumque non omnium sed eorum tantum qui Ecclesiae corpus constituunt * David Schramus Theologus Ecclesiastes in aula ad austrum Neoburgica edit Giessae Hassorum ann 1617. A Protestant Divine who had assisted at this Conference hath composed a Book on purpose on this Subject to prove the contrary to that which the Jesuits maintained But to say the truth there is more of Subtilty in these sorts of Disputes than of solid Arguments for although it were true that S. Matthew is the Author of the Title of his Gospel recourse must always be had to the Authority of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers to shew that this Title is of him and that this Gospel certainly belongs to him whose Name it bears at least if we decline flying to a private Spirit which hath been above discoursed and cannot be approved by any judicious Persons These Titles are so ancient in the Church that Tertullian reproves Marcion who acknowledged the Gospel of St. Luke from which he had only took away some Passages (b) Marcion Evangelio scilicet suo nullum adscribit auctorem quasi non licuerit illi titulum quoque adfingere cui nefas non fuit ipsum corpus evertere Tertull. lib. 4. adv Marc. cap. 2. for having no Title at the head of his Copy as if it were not lawful for him saith this Father to annex a Title to a Work the Text whereof he had ventured to corrupt He adds further in this same place That he could not proceed in the Dispute that he held with this Heretick since he had a right to reject a Book as suspected the Title whereof did not appear that he was willing nevertheless thus far to condescend to him because it is easie (c) Ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet Tertull. ibid. to judge by the Copy of S. Luke that was read in the Church whether that of Marcion were the same excepting that which he had cut off from it It is not to be inferred that Tertullian was of Opinion that it might be proved by the Titles only that the Gospels belonged to those whose Names they bore otherwise he ought to have acknowledged as the true Gospels an infinite number of false Books that carried the Names of the Apostles It was necessary according to his mind to have besides this a constant Tradition founded on the Testimonies of those who
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
the Catholicks they endeavoured to support their Novelties with some Reasons They said amongst other things that (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph ibid. n. 4. these Books attributed to S. John did not agree with the Writings of the other Apostles and that consequently they ought not to be acknowledged as Divine Whether tends said they the beginning of this Gospel In the beginning was the word and the word was with God. And these other words And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth To what purpose added these Hereticks is that which immediately follows John bare witness of him and cryed saying This was he of whom I spake And a little after Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world The Alogians produced several other Passages of S. John no part of which was found in the other Evangelists S. Epiphanius answers them very prudently that if they had no other Reasons to object against the Verity of S. John's Gospel they might also reject the Gospels of S. Matthew S. Mark and S. Luke who have all used the same manner of Writing and who have every one something that is singular He said (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid that their Method depended not on them but that it came from the Holy Ghost as well as their Doctrine This he explains more particularly and at large This Father confutes them also by the Doctrine of S. John which he affirms to be altogether opposite to that of Cerinthus This Heretick believed that Jesus Christ was born a mere Man. S. John on the contrary testifyeth in his Gospel that the Word was from all eternity that he came down from Heaven and that he was made Man. It is certain that Cerinthus believed with some other Hereticks of those primitive times that Jesus was * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a mere Man. Which Opinion they grounded on the Genealogy that is in the beginning of S. Matthew Therefore one would think that if Cerinthus had designed to forge a New Gospel to authorise his Heresie he would not have omitted this Genealogy It may be observed nevertheless that this Heretick acknowledged in Jesus Christ somewhat more than mere Man. This Epiphanius himself explains after this manner (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 28. n. 1. He pretends that the World was not created by the first and supreme Power but that Jesus who was begotten of the Seed of Joseph and Mary being become great had received from above of the Supreme God the Christ in himself that is to say the Holy Ghost in the form of a Dove when he was baptised in the River Jordan He attributed to this celestial Virtue that Jesus as he thought had received in his Baptism all the Miracles that he wrought afterwards He said moreover that this Virtue left him at the time of his Passion and that it returned to Heaven from whence it came Perhaps the Alogians took occasion from hence to ascribe the Gospel of S. John to Cerinthus because this Heretick distinguished two things in Jesus Christ for besides that they thought that he was born of Joseph and Mary after the same manner as other Men they acknowledged in him a Celestial Vertue that had been communicated to him by the Sovereign God of the Universe he called this Vertue Christ distinguishing Christ from Jesus S. Irenaeus hath also observed (n) Hi qui à Valentino sunt eo quod est secundùm Joannem plenissimè utentes ad ostensionem conjugationum suarum Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. c. 11. that the Gnosticks the Followers of Valentin altogether made use of the Gospel of S. John to establish their Opinions (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Haeret. Fabul lib. 2. Haer. 7. de Valent. They gave to Jesus saith Theodoret the Name of Saviour and of Christ the Word The Sethians who were a branch of the Gnosticks maintained also that Jesus differed from Christ (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. ibid. lib. 2. Haer. 14. de Sethian that Jesus was born of the Virgin but that the Christ descended on him from Heaven That which might farther confirm the Alogians in their erroneous Conceits was this that there were some very learned Men and those too very Orthodox who had affirmed that the Apocalypse was made by Cerinthus who insolently boasted that he was the true Apostle of Jesus Christ Besides these Alogians who refused to receive with the whole Catholick Church the Writings of S. John as Divine and Canonical there was one Theodotus of Byzantium the Chief of a Sect that were called Theodotians who after their example rejected the Gospel and Revelation of S. John as not belonging to him Nevertheless Celsus Porphyrius and the Emperor Julian who opposed the Gospels with all their Might have not denied that they were certainly composed by them whose Names they bore they have been content only to decry them as if they had been filled with Falsities and Contradictions When Julian speaks of the Gospel of S. John he doth not disown it to be his but he accuseth this Apostle of having introduced Innovations into the Christian Religion he saith that neither (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyrill Alex. lib. 10. contra Julian Matthew nor Mark nor Luke nor even Paul durst make Jesus Christ to pass for a God that S. John was the first that hath published it after he had observed that a great party of simple People as well among the Grecians as Latins was of this Opinion thus this Emperor who was persuaded that S. John's Gospel could not be charged with falsity gives out his imaginary Reasons that were grounded on no Authority As we have above remarked that the twelve last Verses of S. Mark were not read in some Greek Manuscript Copies so there are also twelve that are not found in divers Greek Manuscript Copies of the Gospel of S. John nor in some Versions of the Oriental Church These Verses begin at the end of Chap. vii v. 53. and end at the 11 verse of the following Chapter insomuch that they comprehend the whole History of the Woman taken in Adultery S. Jerom's manner of Expression in speaking of this Relation makes it appear that it was not read in his time in some Greek and Latin Copies In Evangelio secundùm Joannem Hieron l. 2. adv Pelag. saith this Father in multis Graecis Latinis codicibus invenitur de adulterâ muliere quae accusata est apud Dominum Sixtus Senensis who hath observed that the Anabaptists made use of the Authority of S. Jerom and the Testimony of some other ancient Writers Sixt. Sen. l. 7. Bibl. S. to shew that the History of the adulterous Woman had been added to the Gospel of S. John hath not sufficiently answered their Objections Maldonat who had thereupon
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
Greek Version which was publickly received it being indifferent to them to quote the Hebrew or the Greek in those Passages Although the Apostles did prefer the Greek of the Septuagint to the Hebrew Text it cannot be inferred from thence that the Greek Version is better than the Hebrew of the Jews as some Authors especially amongst the Catholicks have too easily believed We ought to consider by what motives the Apostles were led to give this preference to the Greek Seeing they did it for no other end but to accommodate themselves to the capacity of the People whom they instructed and who read the Bible in Greek there can be no consequence drawn from thence to give more Authority to the Version of the Septuagint than to the Hebrew Text which they did not meddle with In the Hebrew or Chaldaick Gospel of St. Matthew the Passages of the Old Testament were quoted according to the Hebrew Text because the Jews of Palestine for whose sake it was written read the Bible in that Language The People who at that time understood not the Hebrew Language had Glosses on the Hebrew Text written in the Chaldee so that if that Evangelist had quoted the Bible in the vulgar Language he had quoted the same according to the Chaldaick Glosses and not according to the Greek of the Septuagint which was not in use amongst the Jews of Palestine It will further appear that the Evangelists and the Apostles did not confine themselves in their quotations to the rigor of the Letter because that was in no wise needful for carrying on their Work. They did content themselves sometimes with delivering the sense of the Words which they adapted to their Discourse A thing commonly practised and they cannot be branded with Falshood or Imposture who set down after this manner such Records in their Works as serve for proofs A Copy of Record cannot be alledged to be false unless the sense be changed But this can never be found in the quotations of the Apostles who followed a received custom and which could be blamed by none The same thing happened to most of the Fathers when they quoted in the Works the Passages of Scripture for they made no scruple to change the Words so long as that change was of no importance to the Sense Which ought to be the Standard of our Judgment about the Passages of the Old Testament which are quoted in the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles for though they were taken from the Greek Version they do not always express the very Words I know it may be objected that this Version has very much degenerated from its ancient purity and that therefore it can no more serve as a Rule by which we may judge of the Truth of the Apostolical quotations But what ever change has happened to this Translation it is sufficient as it remains to decide the matter of Fact we are now about It is agreed by all the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors that the Evangelists and Apostles in the Passages they quote out of the Old Testament were more ready to express the Sense than the Words which is the meaning of these Words of St. Jerom Hieron Comm. in Is l. 3. c. 7. In multis testimoniis saith he quae Evangelistae vel Apostoli de libris veteribus assumpserunt curiosius attendendum est non eos verborum ordinem secutos esse sed sensum Which he often repeats in his works (e) Notare debemus illud quod plerumque admonuimus Evangelistas Apostolos non verbum interpretatos esse de verbo nec Septuaginta Interpretum auctoritatem secutos quorum editio illo jam tempore legebatur sed quasi Hebraeos instructos in Lege absque damno sensuum suis usos esse sermonibus Hieron Comm. in Isai lib. 9. cap. 29. We ought to observe well saith he in another place what I have often said before viz. That the Evangelists and Apostles did not make a Translation word for word and that they followed not the Version of the Septuagint that was read in their days but being Hebrews and skilful in the Law they made use of their Terms That Learned Man does agree with the other Fathers in assuring us that the Apostles did not in their Writings report the passages of the Old Testament word for word But since he was prepossessed with an opinion in favour of the Hebrew Text when he composed his Commentaries on the most part of the Prophets he affirms that the same Apostles made use of their own Expressions and not those of the Septuagint Yet 't is easie to prove the contrary and in this the most part of the Protestants are very much to be blamed for neglecting this Ancient Greek Version For it is impossible for him to understand the Books of the New Testament well who is not first much employed in the reading of the Septuagint It was upon those Seventy Ancient Interpreters that the Apostles formed their Stile and not upon the Hebrew Text of the Jews I do not in the least comprehend upon what ground St. Jerome could alledge that (f) Paraphr asim hujus testimonii quasi Hebraeus ex Hebraeis assumit Apostolus Paulus de authenticis libris in Epistolâ quam scribit ad Corinthios non verbum ex verbo reddens quod facere ommnò contemnit sed sensuum exprimens veritatem quibus utitur ad id quod voluerit roborandum Hieron Comm. in Is lib. 17. cap. 64. St. Paul being an Hebrew born did in his first Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 2. give a paraphrase on the words of the Prophet Isaiah Chap. 64. v. 4. as they are in the Hebrew and had regard to nothing but the sense according to his Custom Yet there is nothing in that place that can oblige us to have recourse to the Hebrew rather than the Greek for understanding the Apostles meaning St. Jerome dream'd then of nothing else but settling his New Translation of the Scriptures upon the Hebrew thereby to give satisfaction to a great number of People who spake evil of him upon that occasion This Spirit reigns in his Commentaries on the Old Testament in those chiefly which are on the great Prophets He endeavours to prevent with an assiduous Persecution that which might be objected against from all sides that the Church ought not to receive any other Scripture of the Old Testament than that which was Authorised by the Apostles Indeed this Objection which was a terrible one must needs have made a great impression on his Spirit and if he dare not say that the Apostles always follow'd the Hebrew Text he endeavours at least to shelter himself by assuring us that sometimes they did not adhere either to the one or the other because ordinarily that which was considered by them was the sense and not the Words And this he does affirm of the words of the Prophet Jeremy Jerem. cap. 31. v. 15. a Voice was heard in Rama c.
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
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
maintain afterwards with that Father that they would not so much as amend the faults of that Nature after they had acknowledged them upon a Pretext that they were persuaded they had done every thing relating thereunto by the Spirit of God directing their thoughts Erasmus had also recourse in one of his Apologies to this Answer of St. Augustin seeing he could not deny that he had charged the Evangelists with a defect of Memory which was the occasion that they put the name of one Prophet for another he endeavours to get off by answering That (c) Vbi memoriam oblivionem gubernat Spiritus Sanctus ibi tam est utilis oblivio quà m memoria Erasm ibid. when Memory and Forgetfulness are equally governed by the Holy Ghost Forgetfulness is then as useful as Memory Maldonat who attributes this Opinion to St. Augustin and Beda had reason to reject it and indeed it is not to be maintained Nor can we find any thing in the Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain that has any affinity with it That which the Divines of Douay borrowed of Gabriel for shewing that many Natural Truths were discovered to the Apostles by Inspiration and that we may very well reconcile Inspiration to the Labour and Meditation of the Sacred Writers would be agreeable to good Sense if by that Inspiration we understand a single direction of the Spirit of God that kept the Apostles from falling into any error If it be meant on the contrary that the Holy Spirit did indite the matters of Fact of which they had been Witnesses that cannot be maintained as Cornelius à Lapide has observed Nor is their Opinion established by the example which they bring of Jesus Christ who could say they use such Meditation and Application that is ordinary amongst other Men if he had Composed any Books for this proves nothing because if it be supposed that he had written Books treating of such things as he had seen with his Eyes we will always maintain that it was not necessary that he should be the Instrument of the Holy Ghost for Writing things of that nature This example does moreover appear to be somwhat Metaphysical and can only be relished by those who are accustomed to the subtilties of the School To that which they object That all the Truths of the Scripture ought to be immediately Inspired that otherwise there will be eternal Disputes about what is and what is not immediately Inspired I answer that it is easie to distinguish these two sorts of Inspirations according to the Principles of the Jesuit à Lapide He does suppose with good Reason that in Histories of things which were seen and heard and in the Exhortations that concern Morality there is no need for any immediate Inspiration because there is nothing that is Prophetical therein But we may say they according to this Principle doubt of all those Writings that are not Prophetical as the Gospels for example if they were immediately Inspired I affirm on the contrary that there is no ground for any doubt here For the same Jesuit has clearly shewn by the words of St. John and of St. Luke that an immediate Inspiration was not necessary for Writing of Histories The Evangelists writ that which they had seen or that which they learned upon certain grounds And upon this account Maldonat explaining these words of Jesus Christ Matth. xxvi 28. This is my blood of the New Testament and comparing them with these words of St. Luke Luc. 〈◊〉 20. This cup is the New Testament in my blood does freely declare that the very words of Jesus Christ were those that were Recorded by St. Matthew and not those of St. Luke The Reason which that Learned Jesuit brings for this Opinion is that St. Matthew was present at the Action Matthaeus qui aderat Whence he does conclude that seeing Jesus Christ expressed himself only in one manner it is (d) Credendum igitur est verbis potiùs Matthaei Marci quà m Lueae Pauli Christum usum fuisse Mald. Comm. in Matth. c. xxvi v. 28. better to believe St. Matthew who was an Eye Witness and who was followed by St. Mark than St. Luke and St. Paul who were not present at the Action It is easie to judg that in that place Maldonat had not recourse to Inspiration since he affirms that St. Matthew had barely reported that which he had seen Yet for all this I do not believe that the Proof which that Jesuit does use against the Protestants is altogether Conclusive For it is to be supposed that the manner wherein the Evangelists express the same thing does wholly proceed from themselves It is sufficient that they all agree in the substance of the things whilst it is not necessary that they should joyn in the Expressions Every one of them might choose his own Words according to his pleasure And therefore it cannot be necessarily inferred from Maldonat's Reasoning that Jesus Christ did rather say that which was mentioned by St. Matthew than that which is Recorded by St. Luke and by St. Paul. The Divines of Douay do insist yet more vigorously on the third Proposition of the Jesuits of Louvain than upon the two others This last Proposition does contain as they think a manifest error manifesti erroris periculum continens for it does Authorise such Books for Divine and Canonical as have been written by Men without any assistance of the Holy Spirit humanâ industriâ sine assistentiâ Spiruûs Sancti It cannot be denied but that the Jesuits set out this Proposition which seems to be much like the Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa but they add withal that it is sufficient that the Holy Spirit does assure us that there is nothing but Truth in those Writings Si Spinitus Sanctus postea testetur ibi nihil esse falsum efficitur Scriptura We may by the same Reason say the Doctors of Douay call the Decrees of Popes and Councils Holy Scripture because we are also assured that there is no falshood in those Decrees We may also place Livy and Thucydides in the number of the Holy Writings if the Holy Ghost testifie that they contain nothing that is false But this Consequence does not at all follow from the third Proposition of the Jesuits of Louvain For they Suppose that the Holy Ghost does propose those Books to us as Canonical to be for a Rule in Religion The Decrees of Councils and of Popes have no such thing in them if it were so they would not be any longer considered as bare Decrees of the Church but as works that had been to the same Church to serve for a Rule as well in Faith as in Manners The Example of the Histories of Thucydides and of Livy which they bring is nothing to the purpose for those Authors have not written of things that concern our Salvation As to the Maxim of those Divines That a thing is not Inspired because it was afterwards approved but
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
Colb MS. Colb n. 3941. Robert Stephen has also observed that this word was only in one of his S. Jerom has not expressed it in his new Edition Cod. MS. Colb n. 2259. 3947. Neither did he find it in the ancient Vulgar In the thirty sixth verse of the same Chapter we do not read in one of Colbert's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idle Beza observed in his Note on that place that this word was not in one of his Manuscripts Cod. MS. Colb n. 4112. Chap. 13. vers 11. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Heaven we read in two of Colbert's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God. Cod. MS. Colb n. 4112. S. Jerom observed upon the thirty fifth verse of the same Chapter a different Reading which is not found in any Greek Copy nor likewise in any of the ancient Versions That Learned Critick observes (o) Legi in nonnullis codicibus studiosus lector fortè reperiet id ipsum in eo loco ubi nos posuimus vulgata habet Editio ut impleretur quod dictum est per Prophetam dicentem ibi scriptum per Esaiam Prophetam dicentem Quod quia mimmè inveniebatur in Esaiâ arbitror postea à prudentibus viris esse sublatum sed mihi videtur in principio ita editum quod scriptum est per Asaph Prophetam Hieron lib. 2. Comm. in Matth. c. 13. that instead of the word Prophetam that was in the Ancient Vulgar and which he kept in his New Edition he read in some Copies Esaiam Prophetam And this made him think that the ancient Reading of that Passage was Asaph Prophetam because in truth the testimony of that Prophet who is there spoken of is taken out of Psalm 77 which bears * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Name Asaph He believed that seeing it was not found in Esay that the name of this Prophet was taken away But it is more probable in my Opinion that the Reading that is in all the Greek Copies and in all the Versions at this day is the ancient and the true Reading The Evangelist who cited this Psalm under the name of the Prophet in general did mean David to whom the Psalms were ordinarily ascribed without noticing the particular Titles of the Psalms They might afterwards put the name of Asaph by way of Note in the Margin of this Place of St. Matthew and others might change it to that of Esay and this latter Note would pass as it often happens into the Copies which St. Jerom assures us he did read In the same Chapter Cod. MS. Colb n. 4112. v. 41. we do not read in one of Colbert's these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Son of Man nor these others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of his Kingdom Ver. 55. Instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is in two of Colbert's Cod. MSS. Colb n. 5149. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John as in the Cambridge Copy and in another of Colbert 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the ancient Vatican Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Reading was followed by the Vulgar Chap. 14. v. 24. Cod. MS. Colb n. 4112. We do not read in one of Colbert's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the wind was contrary Further ver 33. We do not read in another of Colbert's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod. MS. Colb n. 3947. being come Chap. 15. v. 8. These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are cited out of the Prophet Esay Cod. MS. Colb n. 2467. and are extant as well in the Hebrew as in the Greek of the Septuagint are not in the Cambridge Copy from which they have taken them away as being useless St. Jerom who did not read them in the ancient Vulgar did likewise omit them in his new Edition Ver. 31. of the same Chapter the Marquess of Veles did not read in one of his Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the maimed to be whol◠neither are they expressed in St. Jerom's Edition though they are in the Cambridge Copy and in the ancient Vulgar Ver. 36. We do not read in one of Colbert's Cod. MS. Colb n. 4112. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seven which might easily have been omitted especially in the most ancient Copies where they marked the Numbers by single Letters as in this place in the Cambridge Copy where there is only the Letter Z ' In the same verse Beza observed that these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the fishes are not in one of his Manuscripts Chap. 16. v. 2. Cod. MS. Colb n. 5149. We read after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one of Colbert's this Addition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so it is Ver. 3. of the same Chapter the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not in two of Colbert's nor in the Cambridge Copy Cod. MSS. Colb n. 2467. 3497. St. Jerom who found it not in the ancient Vulgar has not expressed it in his new Edition In the same verse we read in one of Colbert's after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Addition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he answered and said Cod. Colb n. 2259. Ver. 11. of the same Chapter we read after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one of Colbert's and in three of Rob. Stephen's Manuscripts Cod. Colb MS. n. 4112. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but beware In the same Chap. v. 13. Beza did not read in one of his Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither has St. Jerom expressed this Pronoun in his new Edition It also appeared by his Commentary on the place that he did not believe that we ought to read it For this is his observation Non dixit quem me dicunt esse homines sed filium hominis i. e. He did not say whom do men say that I am but that the Son of Man is Nevertheless it was in the ancient Vulgar agreeable to the Cambridge Greek Copy Ver. 17. where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Jerom does observe (p) Volunt scriptorum vitio depravatum ut pro bar Iohanna heo est filius Joannis bar Jona scriptum sit unâ detractâ syllabâ Hieron l. 3. Comm. in Matth. c. 16. that some believed that it was an error of the Transcribers and that instead of bar Jona it ought to be bar Johanna the Son of John. Junius has also put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Edition of Wekel But the former Reading is founded on all the ancient and true Copies The Jews of those times had abridged many of their Names And therefore bar Jona was the same thing with bar Johanna and it does not in St. Matthew signifie the Son of a Dove as St. Jerom did Expound it but the Son of John. Chap. 17. v. 20. Instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unbelief Cod. MS. Colb n. 5149. we read in one of Colbert's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same Sense Which yet seems to be a
The Canons to which those Sections do answer are marked by other Letters which do not exceed the number of Ten which is the number of those Canons The Letters last mentioned ought to be read according to the method used by Eusebius for distinguishing them the more easily from the others but Rob. Stephen has distinguished them by a small Stroke which is set over those which mark the small Sections All this was also observed in the Latin Editions of the New Testament with great exactness It is not necessary that I should here produce Manuscript Copies it is enough to consult the first Impressions of our Latin Bibles Those ten Canons of Eusebius with the small Sections are found as well at the beginning of the Gospels as in the Margins of every Gospel in particular in the same manner as in the Greek Copies The Sections are marked by our common Figures 1 2 3 c. and the Canons by the Roman Figures I. II. III. c. It was hard for the Greek Transcribers who writ the Canons of Eusebius to commit no fault by putting some Letters for others Indeed in comparing several Manuscript Copies of those Canons I found some difference amongst them which nevertheless is easily helped unless it be in the places where the Copies do not agree about the number of Sections If we consult for Example the ten Canons as they are in Rob. Stephen's Edition and the most part of the Manuscripts 't is manifest that the twelve last Verses of St. Mark were in the Greek Copies in the time of Eusebius For he marks in the tenth Canon the Section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 234. of that Evangelist and in the eighth the Section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 235. which are included in those twelve Verses Nevertheless it might have been so that those two Sections were afterwards added to the Canons of Eusebius by those who read those twelve Verses of St. Mark in their Churches and so those Canons could not be a certain Rule in that place if it were not known upon some other ground that those Verses were extant in S. Mark before Eusebius Marianus Victorius who caus'd to be printed with St. Jerom's Works those ten Canons of Eusebius at the beginning of that Father's Commentaries upon St. Matthew does in the English Canon mark the 234 Section of St. Mark and in the tenth the 235 Section yet he does only mark 233 Sections in the Margin of that Evangelist and it is worth the Observation that the 233 Section which is the last does answer to these words at illae exeuntes c. chap. 16. v. 8. as if all the rest that followed of that Gospel did not truly belong to St. Mark. This was insinuated by S. Jerom in his Letter to Hedibia where he says that the most part of the Greek Copies had not this last Chapter Hieron Epist ad Hedib qu. 3. Omnibus Graeciae libris penè hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus By this Word Capitulum he understood the twelve last verses whether it be that that Chapter does only contain a small Section as in truth there is but one marked in some Manuscripts or that according to other Manuscripts it does include many However it be it does not appear that Marianus did observe an Uniformity in this matter for he does produce a greater number of Sections of St. Mark in the eighth and in the ninth Canon of Eusebius than he has noted in the Margin of that Apostle Basle's Edition of St. Jerom's Works is more exact upon this matter for there is an equal number of Sections Apud Frob. ann 1526. viz. 235. marked in both those places therein It would be to no purpose to speak of the Chapters and Sections of the Acts of the Apostles and of the Epistles of St. Paul because they may be seen in the Commentaries that have been printed under the Name of Oecumenius I will only in this place add another sort of Division called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lessons This distinction of the whole New Testament into several Lessons is very ancient and they are also mark'd in the Cambridge Copy Although these Lessons are not much different from Chapters if the Word Chapter be taken for Title or a great Section yet we are not to confound these two as some Authors have done There are fewer Lessons than Titles or great Sections as I observed in the reading some Copies where these Lessons are mark'd exactly and there are also some in which the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the end and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the beginning are inserted to denote the end of one Lesson and the beginning of another which was taken from the Greek Church Bibles and therefore we find in the Margins of those Manuscript Copies not only the Summaries of Sections called Titles or Chapters but also the days on which those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lessons were to be read in the Churches The Greek Amanuenses have drawn Observations of this nature from their Church Bibles and of them they composed a Table called Synaxarion which they placed at the Beginning or the End of their Books Seeing this does rather belong to the usage of the Greek Churches than to the cognisance of a Critick who treats of the Greek Copies of the New Testament I shall insist on it no longer nevertheless it is worthy of our Observation that that distinction of different Lessons relating to the reading in the Church has occasioned some small Alterations in some Greek Copies They have taken away for example in certain places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore and some other the like Particles whenever they happened to be at the beginning of a Lesson They have also changed some Relative Pronouns into proper Names It was also sometimes necessary not to leave the Sense imperfect to put proper Names at the beginning of their Lessons and the Transcribers have inserted them in their Copies And therefore caution is necessary otherwise we shall multiply various Readings of the New Testament without any necessity When that happens we need only consult the Greek Church Bibles that are used in the Greek Churches to observe in what places they begin their new Lessons FINIS The TRANSLATOR'S POSTSCRIPT TO THE READER THE former Works of the Learned Author have been well accepted by the public and 't is hoped this may be no less The Art of Critic tho by common mistake subjected to the slavish Drudgery of words under the tyranny of the Pedants is notwithstanding of great use throu the universal course of good Learning and an excellent Assistant to the Arts and Sciences even those of the highest Rank as Theology Laws and Medicine This Art the admirable Industry of our Author hath so applied to Theology as to render the most hard dry and unpleasant Subjects no less delightful than profitable he having conversed with so many Books and