Abby of S. Germans only it is placed in the Margin of one of these Copies Cod. MSS. Bibl. Ben. S. Germ. Paris and the Addition is as old therein as the Text it self 'T is true that it is extant in a Copy written eight Hundred Years ago in the time of Lotharius II. But it is strangely disfigured in that place Cod. MSS. Bibl. Ben. S. Germ. in that Copy the Reading was formerly thus Sunt tres qui testimonium dant the words in terrâ being interlined spiritus aqua sanguis tres unum sunt tres sunt qui de coelo testificantur pater verbum spiritus tres unum sunt But some time afterwards the words de coelo testificantur i. e. bear witness of Heaven were defaced to make room for these testimonium dicunt in coelo i. e. bear witness in Heaven All which different Alterations are evident proofs that there was nothing of that Addition in the first Copies which were published of S. Jerome's Bible for which reason it is not to be found in a certain Version of the French Church which is at least a Thousand Years old and which was published by F. Mabillon a Benedictine Monk and the first who in effect seems to have inserted that Passage in his Works is Victor Bishop of Vite who lived a Hundred Years after S. Jerome Take his own words in his Second Book of the Persecution of the Vandals Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius Divinitatis esse cum Patre Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus Joannis Evangelistae testimonio comprobatur Victor Vitensis l. 2. persec Afric Provinc edit Basil ann 1539. Ait namque tres sunt qui testimonium prohibent in coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus Sanctus hi tres unum sunt i. e. And further to shew that 't is most evident that the Holy Ghost is the same God with the Father and the Son the testimony of S. John the Evangelist is sufficient for he says that there are three that bear witness in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one St. Fulgence a little after did also quote him But I refer that to a larger Discourse in the II. Book of this Work where I shall particularly treat of the Versions of the New Testament I know that a great many Men of Learning have alledged that St. Cyprian who lived a long time before St. Jerom had quoted that passage in his Books The Bishop of Oxford brought the testimony of St. Cyprian (h) Cui gravissimae calumniae de D. Hieronymo falsario S. Scripturarum interpolatore amoliendae sufficere poterit Cyprianum citasse non modò ante Hieronymi tempora sed Arii ipsius litem de dogmate illo quod adeò displicet Socino de trino uno Deo scriptorem Joann Episc Oxon. Not. in Cyp. de unit Eccles to justifie St. Jerom's Preface and at the same time to shew that that Father could not be accused of any unfair dealing because he only re-established the Ancient Latin Edition in its first purity Father Amelote who belongs to the Chappel freely declares that the same passage is wanting in St. Athanasius St. Cyril St. Gregory St. Nazianzen St. Chrysostom Didymus and as to the Fathers of the Latine Church in St. Augustin St. Leon Beda and in divers others and yet does assure us that it is extant in a Treatise of St. Cyprian concerning the Unity of the Church But can we imagine if St. Cyprian had had it in his Copy of the New Testament that St. Augustin would not have made use of it against the Arians of his time The truth is after I had strictly examined that passage of St. Cyprian which is the matter in Question I fully persuaded my self that that Pious Prelate had only made mention of these words hi tres unum sunt i.e. and these three are one about which there is no contest and that from thence he would prove the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost to be one and the same It is written says he of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost and these three are one He applies to the Father Son and Holy Ghost what we read in all the Greek and Latine Copies concerning the testimony of the Spirit the Water and the Blood of which it is said that they are one hi tres unum sunt which differs very much from an express quotation of those Words as if they were in the Text it self And that there may be no doubt left but that this is St. Cyprian's true sense of the words it is but consulting the Learned Facundus who was of the same African Church and gives their explication at large evincing the mystery of the Trinity from them Facund prodefens Tri. capit l. 1. c. 3. after his example He does suppose through his whole Discourse that in St. John's Epistle Chap. v. there are only these words extant Tres sunt qui testificantur in terrâ spiritus aqua sanguis i. e. There are three which bear witness on earth the Spirit the Water and the Blood. But he adds at the same time that they are to be understood of the Father Son and Holy Ghost De Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto dicit tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ spiritus aqua sanguis hi tres unum sunt in spiritu significans Patrem in aquâ Spiritum Sanctum in sanguine vero Filium significans His meaning is that the three Persons are signified by the three Witnesses of the Earth the Spirit the Water and the Blood. And the more to confirm his Opinion he adds that St. Cyprian was of the mind that this is proper sense of that passage in St. John. Quod Joannis Apostoli testimonium beatus Cyprianus Carthaginiensis Antistes Martyr in Epistolâ sive libro quem de * Vnitate Trinitate scripsit de Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto dictum intelligit If the Bishop of Oxford had compared the words of Facundus with those of St. Cyprian he had not brought such weak Arguments against Erasmus and Socinus in the defence of St. Jerome who stood in no need of that service seeing he was not the Author of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles nor of the Addition inserted in St. John's Epistle Chap. v. Victor the Bishop not having considered the matter so narrowly brings in the Witness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as if St. John had expresly made mention of them whereas St. Cyprian and Facundus bring it only as an explication of the Witness of the Spirit the Water and the Blood. The same thing hapned to those who caused to Print St. Athanasius's Works with a Table of the passages of Holy Scripture which are quoted therein They have set down at large there the seventh Verse of the fifth Chapter of the first Epistle of St.
Chrysostom's and several other Fathers of that Church had the Reading in their Copies in the same manner as these have it whom at this day we call Schismaticks This most unjust accusation is nevertheless very Ancient So soon as ever there is a difference perceived in Copies if this difference do favour the Opinions of some Party they will be sure to accuse that Party of corrupting the Sacred Writings although that difference does for the most part come from the Transcribers Hilary the Deacon has made a general Rule in that place formerly mentioned He assures us (m) Quod fecit studium contentionis Quia enim propriâ quis auctoritate uti non potest ad victoriam verba legis adulterat ut sensum suum quasi verba legis asserat ut non ratio sed auctoritas praescribere videatur Ambros ibid. that the Spirit of dispute that is betwixt different Parties is the cause of different Renditions Every one saith he seeing he cannot on such occasions justifie himself by his own Authority does corrupt the Words of the Law that he may make his own Opinions pass for the Words of the Law. Although that has happened sometimes especially to those ancient Hereticks of whom we spake in the beginning of this Work I am perswaded that they have frequently attributed to different Parties such various Renditions in the Copies of the New Testament as had no other cause Originally but what those have which are found in all other Books How many Divines are there for example who believe at this day that they have taken away from the Ancient Greek Copies the Testimony of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost of which mention is made in the first Epistle of St. John Chap. 5. v. 7. to favour the Arian Heresie Others on the contrary do alledge that it was the Arrians who added these Words expresly to the Greek Text to shew the Unity of the Persons of the Trinity is not an Unity of Essence but of Consent Grotius is of this latter Opinion He thinks (n) Neque verò Arianis ablatas esse voces quasdam sed potiùs additas unde colligerent Patrem Filium Spiritum Sanctum non esse unum nisi consensu quomodo spiritus aqua sanguis in unum testimonium consentiunt Quod cum viderent Catholici abstulisse quidem illud quod de Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto insertum fuerat sed reliquisse illud tres unum esse quia id ita positum nocere non poterat Grot. Annot. in 1. Epist Joann c. 5. v. 7. that the Arians for this reason were so far from retrenching some Words from the Text that they added some thereunto that on the contrary the Catholicks had taken away that which is said of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit leaving only these Words These three are the same which can do them no hurt and which as he thinks were likewise added by the Arians But all this is only founded on Conjectures and seeing every one does reason according to his Prejudices some will have the Arians to be the Authors of that Addition and others do attribute the same to the Catholicks This diversity of Opinions proceeds from nothing else but a neglect of examining with sufficient care the ancient Manuscript Copies and other Records which were necessary for the discovery of the Original of those Variations It would be to no purpose for me to repeat here the Critical Reflections which I have formerly made on that Passage of the first Epistle of St. John it having been made evident in what manner it came to pass that those Words that were neither in the Greek Copies nor in the Latin were inserted in the Text. No credit therefore is easily to be given to all those Accusations of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers against the Hereticks upon the point of the Alterations that have happened to the Sacred Writings We have already seen in the Critical History of the Old Testament that the most part of the Fathers did cast the same reproach on the Jews without any ground Seeing the most part of Heresies sprung up in the Greek Church those who maintain the preference of the Latin Copies of the New Testament do not fail to bring this Reason to shew that the Books of the Latins are more ancient than those of the Greeks But before this Accusation is brought it ought to be examined if these Objections have a good foundation for if the thing be considered in general the Original must needs be more perfect than the Versions unless it be in some places where it may be demonstrated that the Version is instead of the Original which has been altered The Sect of the Macedonians were at another time accused as being the Authors of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. vii of St. John v. 39. where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Ghost was not as yet whereas it is in the Vulgar For the Holy Ghost was not yet given The ancient Latin Interpreter did not read the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Greek Copy which is likewise wanting in some Greek Manuscripts and in others belonging to Mr. Colbert's most ancient Library Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb n. 5149. Neither is it extant in the Syriack Version which makes me believe that it was added and that it was not in the first Original Greek But it must not be inferred from hence that those who favoured the Party of Macedonius were the Authors of that Addition there being the like Examples in other places with which they cannot be charged It is much more probable that it was occasion'd by the Greek Scholiasts who placed the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Margin to shew that that place spake of the Holy Spirit and it passed into the Text afterwards There is also in the same Passage the Latin Word datus which is not read in the Greek unless it be in the ancient Copy of the Vatican where there is according to Lewis of Bruges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is very likely that this Word was added by the Latin Interpreter who had in his view the sense of that Passage where the Gifts of the Holy Ghost are spoken of It would be likewise added after the same manner in the Margin of some Greek Copy We also read in the Syriack Version was not yet given which does wholly agree with the Latin and in the three Arabick Versions which have been published it is in the same sense was not yet come Grotius believed that the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as it is in the Latin datus was added for the avoiding the reproach of the Followers of Macedonius In nonnullis datus ad vitandam calumniam Macedoniorum Grot. Annot in hunc loc But it is not at all necessary that they should have had any regard to those Sectaries to induce them to add
Clemens Alexandrinus hath placed it amongst the other Books of the Holy Scriptures but as it hath been already observed that this Father hath inserted in his Catalogue some Pieces that were not Canonical though they passed under the names of the Apostles it can only be inferred from thence that at least ever since the time of Clement this Epistle was attributed to the Apostle St. Jude When Eusebius makes mention of it in his Ecclesiastical History he doth not set it in the rank of counterfeit Acts but of those concerning which some Churches have doubted nevertheless there are none at this day that do not acknowledge it as Divine and Canonical It is intituled in the Syriack Copy which hath been Printed The Letter of Jude the Brother of James neither hath it any other Title in the Arabick Version published by Erpenius In the Arabick Printed in the Polyglott Bible of England is is Intituled The Catholick Epistle of the blessed Jude the Brother of the Lord. The End of the First Part. The Second Part will be Published in Five Days A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament WHEREIN Is firmly Establish'd the Truth of those Acts on which the Foundation of CHRISTIAN RELIGION is laid PART II. By Richard Simon Priest LONDON Printed for R. Taylor MDCLXXXIX A CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE New Testament PART II. CHAP. XVIII A Critical Observation on a Passage in S. John's First Epistle Chap. v. vers 7. which is wanting in the most Greek Copies Eastern Editions and the most ancient Latin Copies The Preface to the Canonical Epistles in some Latin Bibles under the name of S. Jerome was not penn'd by that Father It cannot be proved that S. Cyprian had the Passage of S. John's Epistle in his Copy THE Reflections which many Learned Men have made on that Passage in the First Epistle of S. John Chap. v. vers 7. have not discouraged me from examining it afresh and consulting the most part of the Greek and Latin Manuscripts that I could find about the same The Greeks at this day in their Copy entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read as the Latin Church these words (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Joann c. 5. v. 7. For there are three that bear witness in Heaven 1 Joh. c. 5. v. 7. the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one Yet 't is hard to find among the Greeks any Manuscript Copies that have that Passage I speak not only of the Ancients but also of those of the latter times Erasmus alledged the Greeks had their Books more correct than the Latin Copies but he is mistaken as it shall appear by what follows in this Discourse 'T is much more probable that that Doctrinal Point was formerly written the Margin by way of Scolium or Note but afterward inserted in the Text by those who transcribed the Copies Such were my thoughts when I perused some of the Greek Editions and there is no less probability that it was supplied after the same manner in the antient Latin Copies which nevertheless happened not till after S. Jerom's time who is not the Author of that Addition which Socinus next to Erasmus had laid to his charge After the most diligent search in the King's Library and that of Mr. Colbert in which there are a great many good Manuscript Volumes I found no Copy that had that Passage in it tho I read seven of them in the Royal Library Codd MSS. Bibl. Reg. six whereof are marked 1885. 2247. 2248. 2870. 2871. 2872. Some of the Manuscripts have Notes but no Scholiast or Annotator does make mention of that Passage neither have I found it in five Manuscript Copies belonging to Mr. Colbert's Library Codd MSS. Bibl. Colb which are marked 871. 6123. 4785. 6584. 2844. Yet some of these Manuscripts are only in Paper and much later than the rest There is also one in 16 well written and I believe since the Impression Yet the Passage in question is not found therein any more than in the rest of the ancient Copies I could produce yet other Greek Manuscript Copies which I have seen whose various Readings I observed but that which most deserves our notice is that in the Margin of some of the King 's and Mr. Colbert's Copies there are small Notes set over against the said Passage which in all likelihood have slipped afterwards into the Body of the Text. Take an Example from the King's Copy marked 2247. over against these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is this Remark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By which we may perceive that the Author of the said Remark understood The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost to be signified by the Three Witnesses mentioned by S. John The Spirit the Water and the Blood And what was formerly written by way of Note passed afterwards into the Text as it often falls out In the same Copy over against these other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Note is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is One Deity One God. That Manuscript is about 500 Years old and there are but very few places therein that have Notes There is the like Remark in one of the Manuscripts belonging to Mr. Colbert's Library Numb 871. For besides these words that are set in the Margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One God One Deity the Scholiast has also added these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The testimony of God the Father and of the Holy Ghost This in my opinion is the original of the Passage in question which 't is very hard to find in the Greek Manuscript Copies tho at this day the read it in their Version This is much more likely than what Erasmus alledges that the Greek Copies he had occasion to inspect were much more correct than the Latin which obliged that judicious person to omit the forementioned Passage in his first Editions of the New Testament in which he was not altogether to be blamed not being obliged to insert in the Impression what he could not find in any of his Manuscripts He has nevertheless been charged with a design of favouring the Arrian Party by the omission James Lopes Stunica has mightily accused him for his unlucky rejecting the said Passage in his Edition (b) Sciendum est hoc loco Graecorum codices apertissimè esse corruptos nostros verò veritatem ipsam ut à primâ origine traducti sunt continere quod ex Prologo Beati Hieronymi super Epistolas Canonicas manifestè apparet Jac. Lop. Stun Annot. in Eras supposing that the Greek Copies had been corrupted in that place But this Spanish Critick We must in this place know that the Greek Copies are notoriously corrupted and that ours contain the very truth as they were translated from the Original who had read ancient Manuscripts does not quote any to justifie his own Sentiments He contents himself with an Appeal he makes to S. Jerome's Preface to the
Canonical Epistles from which he proves that the Passage was extant in the ancient Greek Copies out of which that Father compiled his ancient Latin Edition Erasmus in his answer to Stunica does vindicate himself well enough by the authority of those Greek Copies he had yet he was wrought upon by some other consideration contrary to the Authority of all his Manuscripts to insert the Passage of S. John in a new Edition of his New Testament He declares that what obliged him to make that Change was his seeing a Greek Copy in England which he believed was more perfect than any Latin Edition I shall afterwards shew that he is mistaken in believing that the Greeks reformed their Copies of the New Testament to a degree of perfection above those of the Latins after their Reunion with the Roman Church If that were so as that judicious Person does suppose with what warrant and freedom could he correct his Greek Edition by one single Copy which as he himself believed had suffered some alteration He does disparage his own judgment by inveighing against S. Jerome as if that Father had been the Author of the Addition that is found in the Latin Copies in which there are these words Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus Sanctus hi tres unum sunt i. e. Because there are three who bear witness in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one (c) Ille saepenumerò violentus est parumque sibi pudens saepè varius parumque sibi constans Erasm Apol. adv Stun He on this occasion brings a heavy Charge against him as being more forward than wise that is to say if the matter be referred to Erasmus's judgment S. Jerome must stand chargeable with Forgery a bold and presumptuous undertaking to correct the ancient Latin Edition according to his own fancy without the Authority of good Copies Faustus Socinus knew very well what advantage to make of this Answer of Erasmus but withal adds that (d) Hieronymus ut is qui ut rectè de eo Erasmus alicubi scribit non satis prudenter saepe ad victoriam ad causae suae defensionem favorem multa trahebat nactus fortè exemplar aliquod aut etiam plura exemplaria in quibus particula ista adjecta fuerat ut fraus animadverti non posset adversus fidem aliorum omnium exemplarium tam Latinorum quà m Graecorum lectionem particulae istius tanquam germanam defendere promovere coepit conquerens publicè eam culpâ fraude hereticorum abrasam à vulgatis codicibus fuisse Soc. Comm. in 1 Joann c. 5. v. 7. S. Jerome might have had one or more Copies in which this Addition might be so managed as to make it a hard matter to discover the Fraud and that this is the reason obliged him to maintain that additional Passage against the Authority of so many Copies In this manner that Unitary argues according to his custom with more subtilty than solidity But Reason alone is not sufficient to judg of such maters for besides that 't is necessary to be well acquainted with and to examin strictly such Writings as are on publick record and may give light in this affair If Erasmus who had read many Greek and Latin Copies of the New Testament and frequently consulted S. Jerome's Manuscripts had applyed himself to a strict examination of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles which he thinks was written by that Father he would rather have been inclined to reject that Preface as supposititious than to charge S. Jerome with Forgery 'T is not amiss to set down in this place some part of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles Hieron Prolog in VII E. pist Can. ex edit Paris ann 1523. that is thought to be S. Jerome's which is only found in the first Latin Editions of the Bible with this Title Incipit prologus beati Hieronymi presbyteri in septem Epistolas Canonicas i. e. The beginning of the Preface of S. Jerome the Presbyter to the seven Canonical Epistles The Author complains that Interpreters have not faithfully translated those Epistles (e) Illo praecipuè loco ubi de unitate Trinitatis in primâ Joannis Epistolâ positum legimus In quâ etiam ab infidelibus translatoribus multum erratum esse à fidei veritate comperimus trium tantummodò vocabula hoc est aquae sanguinis spiritûs in ipsâ suâ editione ponentibus Patris ubique ac Spiritûs testimonium omittentibus in quo maximè fides Catholica roboratur Patris Filii Spiritûs Sancti una Divinitatis substantia comprobatur Hieron Prol. in VII Epist Can. especially that place of S. John's First Epistle Chap. v. vers 7. where there is mention made of the Unity of Persons in the Blessed Trinity He accuses those unfaithful Translators of falling into great Errors whilst they retained in their Version these words only The Water the Blood and the Spirit and left out the words The Father and the Spirit which are an authentick Testimony of the Catholick Faith about the Mystery of the Trinity The Bishop of Oxford who has lately published a new Edition of S. Cyprian's Works with Observations makes mention of a great number of Latin Bibles where S. Jerome's supposed Preface is found In the mean time he complains that it is left out of the Latin Bibles that are printed in our Age. (f) Vtrum hoc ex casit an maleficio contigerit dispiciant eruditi Joann Oxon. Episc Not. in Cypr. de unit Eccl. Let those says that learned Bishop who are men of Judgment determin if that omission happened by chance or was the effect of some bad Design He could not imagin for what reasons it was taken from the last Editions of the Latin Bible since he found it in the Manuscript Copies and almost in all the ancient Impressions Libris manuscriptis passim fere omnibus codicibus impressis antiquioribus But 't is not just to accuse upon this account those who were concerned in the Translation of the Latin Bibles without that Preface This is true that it is found with other Prefaces of S. Jerome to the Bible in such Latin Copies as have been made not above six Hundred Years ago and in all probability the first Latin Bibles were printed according to such Manuscripts But 't is not altogether so in those that were written about seven or eight Hundred Years ago but in some few only of such Copies And 't is very likely that as to the rest there was a Regulation made according to the later Manuscripts in such Editions of the Bible as have not that Preface 'T is further observable that neither the Name of S. Jerome nor of any other Writer is prefixt to the Preface in some of the ancient Copies where it is found which sufficiently shews that we may on good grounds question S. Jerome's
John as if that Holy Man had quoted that place after that manner Yet in his dispute against the Arians he only made use of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and these Three are One and applied the same to the Trinity I make no question but that this Explication of St. Athanasius was the occasion that some Greek Scoliastes placed in the Margin of their Copies the formentioned Note which afterwards was put in the Text. And that is more probable than what Erasmus thought concerning this matter who was of opinion that the Greek Copies which make mention of the Witness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost were more Correct than the Latin Copies If he had only spoken of such Greek Copies as were written by those of the Latin Church and which served for their use what he alledged would be the more credible But that the Greeks after their reunion with the Latin Church made their Copies of the New Testament more Correct than the Latin is against all appearance of Truth On the contrary 't is manifest that the Copies that have been since that time make no mention of that Testimony The Observation that Fromondus a Divine of Louvain made on that place of St. John after some other Commentators is without any ground He acknowledged that St. Augustin and many other Latin Fathers had not that passage of St. John extant in their Copies but at the same time he adds (i) Videneur Graeci Ariani ex multis codicibus Graecis primùm erasisse deinde translationem Latinam quâ S. Augustinus multi Patres usi sunt ex codice Graeco mutilato factam fuisse From Comm. in Epist 1. Joann c. 5. that the Arians had taken away the same out of many Copies and that the Latin Version which St. Augustin and those other Fathers made use of was compiled out of those Books that were corrupted by the Arians This opinion is most absurd and can have no other ground but the Preface that is fathered on St. Jerome With what reason could they accuse the Arians of changing the Greek Copies of the New Testament in that place seeing St Cyprian who lived before Arius's name was known in the World had no such Verse in his Copy Besides the same alteration must of necessity have reached all other Churches for neither the Syrians of any Sect whatsoever nor any other Eastern Church have it in their Editions of the New Testament And I cannot imagin what advantage the Antitrinitarians can get against the Catholicks upon this ground that that passage is not found in the most part of the Greek Manuscripts nor those others of the Eastern Church nor yet in the old Latin Copies For the most learned Interpreters of the New Testament do not Expound it with reference to the Trinity Such ancient Ecclesiastical Writers as have applyed it to that Mystery followed the Custom of that time which was to give the Scripture such a Theological sense as was accommodated to the Faith then received in the Church Now whether that Verse be Read in the I. Epistle of St. John as all those of the Greek and Latin Churches do at this day or it be not Read yet the Doctrine of the Trinity may always be very well proved from that place against those who deny that Mystery because the Fathers from the first Ages of the Church have applyed the Witness of the Spirit of the Water and of the Blood to the Father Son and Holy Ghost They have proved by the Unity of those Witnesses that the three Persons of the Trinity are one It is therefore to no purpose to dispute about the Addition or Omission of a passage which by it self does not clearly establish but only suppose a Trinity of Persons according to the opinion of the most Ancient Divines of the Church I do not believe that the most of the Modern Divines had any intention of favouring Arianism when they observed that that place shews that the Witnesses are One. Those three says Father Amelote are one in their Testimony the Father gave a Testimony to Jesus Christ in Jordan The Word by his Words and Actions the Holy Ghost in the form of a Dove and by his miraculous Gifts I cannot after all in any wise conceive for what use or purpose Sandius has quoted Herman Cingal Script S. Trinit Revelat. p. 105. upon the credit of others so many different Editions of the New Testament in which the Verse in question is not to be found Seeing the most part of those Greek Editions were taken from one another and but very few of them from Manuscript Copies their great number signifies nothing I do not think for example that that of Strasburg An. 1524. or that of Simon de Colines at Paris An. 1534. were compiled by the help of Manuscripts Wolfius who published that of Strasburg makes no mention of it in his Preface On the contrary he declares that he only Reprinted in a new Letter and another Volume what had been Printed before that time Simon de Colines made no Preface to his Greek Edition which makes me think he compiled it according ro the best of his skill by Editions that were extant before Erasmus is one of the first who gave occasion for the omission of that Verse in those Greek Editions of the New Testament that came after his own which was An. 1516. And he published another An. 1519. where that Verse is also wanting Those Editions on the contrary which came out after the Complute or Alcala An. 1515. have all that Verse Hence it is that it is extant in Robert Stephen's Fair Edition and in the most part of the other Editions The Manuscript and not the Printed Copies are to be heeded unless these be taken from the Manuscripts such as the Edition of Alcala and that of Erasmus Nor is there any account to be made of the great number of Editions of Luther's Dutch Version that Sandius brings against the Lutherans For they are only repetitions of the first in which Luther had followed the Edition of Erasmus or some other there being at that time many even in Holland which had been published without that Verse I do not think that that Patriarch of the North was well Read in the Greek Manuscript Copies though the most part of his followers do justifie him in this manner when it is objected to them that their Master has corrupted the Scripture by leaving out a passage of the New Testament that asserts the Mystery of the Trinity He might say they very well omit that Verse with the Greek Edition of the Haguenau An. 1521. Raithius in answer to this objection (k) Quid mirum si Lutherus qui indubitata tantùm scribere decreverat haec non extra aleam dubitationis posita praetermisit aut quod in Aldi Manutiè Venetâ editione quâ usus creditur non occurrit etiam non vertit cùm praesertim Trinitatem etiam sublato hoc
Inspiration in the Books of the New Testament if they had not expresly maintained it in other places of their Works That which II. Epist ad Tim. c. 3. v. 16. amongst Christians does most of all confirm the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings is the strong Foundation that the Apostle Paul has in one of his Epistles to Timothy all Scripture is given by Divine Inspiration We have elsewhere refuted all the subtil allegations that were brought by Grotius who endeavoured to the utmost of his power to put quite another sense on that Passage But I made it most manifest that that able Critick was to be blamed on many accounts in attempting to wrest the interpretation of those words of St. Paul that he might accommodate them to his own Idea's It is surprising that the Cardinal of Perron who was perswaded of the Inspiration of the Holy Scripture should nevertheless have made his strongest efforts Answ to the Def. of some Holl. Div. c. 10. for depriving Christians of this proof of Inspiration It is customary amongst those who write Books of Controversie to think of nothing but answering the Objections of their Adversaries without examining the proper and natural sense of the Passages of Scripture for the confirmation of their own Opinions He followed this Method of Polemical Authors in his Answer to the King of Great Britain Seeing the Protestants forget nothing that may recommend the Authority of the Scripture alone without the aid of Traditions II. Epist ad Tim. c. 3. v. 16. du Perron likewise for his part forgot nothing that might enhance the Authority of Traditions The Protestants did object to him those words of the Apostle Paul All Scripture is given by Divine Inspiration and it profitable for Doctriue Thus in effect that place of St. Paul to Timothy ought to be rendred nevertheless he does loudly oppose this Translation Du Perr lib. 3. de Trad. Apost c. 4. under a pretence that there is not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tota all or the whole in the Greek but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnis all or every and that we do not read with the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Scripture but without the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Scripture To what purpose are all those niceties of Grammar and Dialect which the Cardinal does use in that place It is true that he does alledge the Authority of St. John Chrysostome Theodoret and some other Fathers for the confirmation of his Opinion But I desire no other testimony but theirs to bring it under condemnation And to avoid being tedious in a thing so easie to be justified seeing the Works of those Fathers are every where to be had it will suffice if we inform our selves of St. Jerome's thoughts in the case he is of a quite different Opinion from that which the Cardinal has Father'd on him That Learned Bishop does not say with the Cardinal that that Passage ought to be understood distributively by translating it all Scripture and not collectively by translating it all the Scripture He does on the contrary assure us in his Homily Chrysost Hom. 9. in Ep. II. ad Tim. upon those words of St. Paul that that Holy Apostle does speak of all the Holy Scripture which Timothy had studied from his Infancy and he concludes that all that Scripture is profitable and given by the Inspiration of God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But by the Scripture that is spoken of in that place it is evident that we must understand all the Old Testament It is in no wise likely that du Perron himself had read St. John Chrysostome's Homily or any other of the Greek Fathers whom he cites That which deceived those who read them for him and gave him an abstract of their pretended sentiments is that they consulted only the Latin Version of that Homily where it is according to the vulgar Translation Omnis Scriptura divinitùs inspirata est utilis i. e. All Scripture that is given by the Inspiration of God is profitable But it was shewn elsewhere that in the ancient vulgar it was Inspirata utilis i. e. is inspired and profitable as it is in the Greek and that we are to expound that Passage collectively and not distributively We may nevertheless very well give that sense also to the vulgar as the rendition is at this day according to that reading the Translation will be All the Scripture which was given by Inspiration is profitable and not with Amelote and with the Authors of the Mons Translation All Scripture that has been given by Divine Inspiration is profitable The Syriack Arabick and Ethiopick Versions which that Cardinal pretends to be favourable to him have quite another sense than what he does attribute to them as I have shewn in the Answer to the Defence of the Opinions of some Holland Divines Answ to the Def. of the Op. Ch. 10. concerning the Critical History of the Old Testament But to proceed I do not comprehend why the Cardinal du Perron does dispute with so much vigour about the manner of Translating that Passage of St. Paul and that from thence he does infer that if it prove any thing it must be that every Canonical Writing was sufficient by it self for universal instruction in all the Christian Religion The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he without an Article does denote every piece of the Holy Scripture distributively But the Greek Fathers did not wire-draw St. Paul's words after that manner but did expound them as if in effect they had read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Scripture with the Article The Catholicks ought also to agree with the Protestants that all the Scripture is profitable for instruction which does not at all exclude Traditions which being joyned to Scripture does compose the Principle upon which the Christian Religion is Founded And therefore there is nothing but subtilty in all the Cardinal's dispute who would pass his refined impertinencies for a Comment on those words of the Apostle and who bids defiance in that adventure to all Antiquity Estius on the contrary has allowed too large a sense to the same Passage He has indeed interpreted the Vulgar very well according to the Greek Text from which the Latin was taken But he went beyond the sense (f) Rectè igitur verissimè ex hoc loco statuitur omnem Scripturam Sacram Canonicam Spiritu Sancto dictante esse conscriptam ita nimirùm ut non solùm sententiae sed verba singula verborum ordo ac tota dispositio sit à Deo tanquam per semetipsum loqùente Est Comm. in Epist II. ad Timot. c. 3. v. 16. when he did conclude from thence that all the Holy Scripture was indited by the Spirit of God not only as to the matter or things therein contained but also in respect of the words and all their circumstances so as there is no word in
Writing as they have been by some He does particularly undertake the defence of St. Paul whom he believed to have been very conversant with the Greek Authors and amongst the rest with the Poets whom he did imitate as he believes for his Expression in sundry places (a) Haec cùm ita sint cùm aliundè pateat Paulum Apostolum Graecos scriptores evolvisse quî credibile sit illum Graecae linguae non satis peritum fuisse Henr. Steph. ibid. Whence he does conclude that to affirm that that Holy Apostle was not Master enough of the Greek Language is a supposition that is altogether incredible We have moreover a Differtation published by Phochen which is Entituled * Diatribe de linguae Graecae Novi Testamenti puritate Of the purity of the Greek Language of the New Testament where the Author forgot nothing which might make it manifest that the Text of that Book is true Greek and that it does not differ very much from the Stile of Profane Authors Textum Novi Testamenti saith Phochen verè Graecum nec alienum planè à Stilo Graeco profano esse asserimus He does refute all those Hebraisms which as some alledge are contained in the Writings of the Apostles and to make it the more evidently appear that they object those Hebraisms in vain he does justifie those Expressions on which they are charged by the like Expressions of Profane Authors There are on the contrary some Learned Criticks who very far from allowing the Apostles a Pure and Elegant Stile have not scrupled to make them pass for Barbarous Writers whose Books are stuffed with Hebraisms Castalio who understood Hebrew and Greek sufficiently to be judge of this Question says in speaking of the Apostles (b) Erant Apostoli natu Hebraei peregrinâ hoc est Graecâ linguâ scribentes hebraizabant non qui juberet Spiritus neque enim pluris facit Spiritus hebraismos quà m graecismos ... res enim dictat Spiritus verba quidem linguam scribendi liberam permittit Sebast Castal defens Translat Bibl. that being born Hebrews they did Hebraize when they writ in Greek whilst the Holy Ghost had no part in that because the Spirit of God does not love Hebraism any more than Graecisms He only Indited the thing to them saith that Author and not the Words leaving them at liberty to express themselves after their own fashion Which is agreeable enough to the Opinion of the Jesuits of Louvain Castalio does further shew why the Apostles did no more improve themselves in the Greek so as to speak it well seeing that Language is Copious in Words full of Sense and easie to be understood whereas the Hebrew Phrases render their Discourses intricate and obscure He says (c) Cur igitur hebraizarunt Primùm quia erant Saeris Literis assueti deinde quia cùm essent Graecae linguae non usque adeò periti id quod eorum scripea ostendùnt facilè in patriam consuetudinem deflectebant Castal ibid. that they were accustomed to the reading of the Sacred Writings and that since they did not sufficiently understand the Greek Language as it is easie to prove by their Works those expressions that were proper to their Mother Tongue did first present themselves to them on all occasions Which he confirms by the example of the French and the Dutch who cannot write in Latin without intermingling somthing of their own Language therewith Dum Latinè scribunt Gallizant Germanizant This latter Opinion which has been followed by very able Criticks is more agreeable than the former to the Opinion of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers I think we ought to acquiesce in the Judgment of the Greek Fathers who are faithful Witnesses of the Greek Stile of the Evangelists and the Apostles Origen was the only Man of all the Greek Fathers who applied himself most to the Study of the Scripture in a manner that was most exact and Critical And therefore his Judgment upon the Question ought of all others to have the most weight with us When that Learned Person Disputes against the Enemies of our Religion who despised the Prophets and the Apostles because of their Stile and because the same things say they were much better expressed in the Writings of the Ancient Philosophers He makes answer to them that we ought not upon that account to despise the Books of the Jews and the Christians because it has been always agreed that the Jews had written before the Greeks As to the Stile he does own that the Greeks have the advantage but he does withal alledge that it cannot be inferred from thence that their Works are better than those of the Jews and of the Christians He does likewise observe that the Books of the Old Testament are not destitute of their ornament in the Hebrew Language Which he does affirm of the Writings of the Apostles because the truth is they had no Politeness in their Expressions having applied themselves more to the Eloquence of Things than of Words (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig adv Cels lib. 7. The Prophets of the Jews saith Origen and the Disciples of Jesus renounced all Ornaments of Discourse and every thing which the Scripture does call human Wisdom and according to the Flesh If any Greek that Learned Father continues should have a design to teach a Doctrin that were profitable to the Egyptians and the Syrians he would rather choose to learn the Barbarous Languages of those Nations than to be useless by speaking Greek to them (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. The thing is the same according to him in the Providence of God who did not only consider those amongst the Greeks who were Men of Learning but rather the ignorant Community And therefore it was suitable to the exigency at that time that they should accommodate themselves to the Stile of the meaner sort that they might gain them in speaking their Language Upon this Principle we ought to form an Idea of the Apostolical and Evangelical Stile and not upon the prejudices of some Protestants who believe that they stand for the Authority of the Scripture by allowing nothing that is very mean to have proceeded out of the Mouth of the Apostles But St. Paul himself declared to the Corinthians who despised him because of his Language that he came not to Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ with excellency of Speech or of Wisdom 1 Cor. ii 1. 1 Cor. i. 17. For Christ saith that Apostle sent me to Preach the Gospel not with wisdom of Words St. John Chrysostom has observed upon this Passage of St. Paul that if the Apostles in their Sermons did not use the Stile of the wise Men of the Earth (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Hom. 3. in Epist 1. ad Cor. cap. 1. that ought not to be attributed to the weakness of the Gift of Tongues which they had received seeing they took that
that Word seeing they only explained the sense of the Greek Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was which in this place is not taken substantively Jansenius Bishop of Gand who had read in all the Greek Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Spirit was not yet did likewise believe that they had changed the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy into that of Datus in the Latin Edition (o) Quoniam ea lectio primâ fronte impium sensum prae se ferebat quasi scilicet Spiritus aliquando non fuerit offensus quispiam ut verisimile est mutavit illud in datus Jans Gand. Concord Eu. c. 75. because that sense did then seem to be impious as if there had been no Holy Ghost as yet But as we have observed Alterations of that kind do happen of themselves without all those Theological Considerations When the Words of a Text are equivocal or very general they are illustrated by Notes and when this Illustration does consist of a few Words the Note does easily pass into the Text which yet happens with greater freedom in a Version Salmeron's Sentiment upon this matter appeared to me to be more just than that of Jansenius and of Grotius That Jesuit did content himself to say (p) Graeca exemplaria antiqua pro datus habent sanctus in sensu nulla est prorsùs à nostra lectione diversitas quia etsi non exprimatur verbum datus supplendum est necessariò Salmer tom 8. tract 37. that there was Sanctus instead of Datus in the ancient Greek Copies but that this does make no difference of reading in respect of the sense because the Word datus must of necessity be supplied although it be not expressed in the Greek Moreover the true and ancient reading of that Passage in the Greek Text was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Spirit was not as yet and it was also read in the ancient Latin Version Nondum enim erat Spiritus as it is in some Latin Copies Luke of Bruges does observe that St. Augustin did not read it otherwise when he treated expresly of that Passage and indeed as this Reading is the most plain so it appears to be the most natural and the most ancient It is requisite that one use great Precaution in reading the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors in those Places where they accuse the Hereticks of having corrupted the Sacred Writings to establish their new Doctrine for these Accusations are oftentimes groundless We do not now read for example in any Latin Copy of the New Testament Chap. 3. of S. John's Gospel v. 6. these Words Quia Deus spiritus est for God is a Spirit which St. Ambrose had in his Copy and which apparently was the Gloss of some Catholick yet that Holy Bishop does mightily exclaim against the Arians on the occasion of that Passage (q) Quem locum ita expressè Ariani testificamini esse de Spiritu ut eum de vestris codicibus auferatis Atque utinam de vestris non etiam de Ecclesiae codicibus tolleretis Eo enim tempore quo impiè infidelis Auxentius Mediolanensem Ecclesiam armis exercituque occupaverat vel à Valente atqueVrsacio nutantibus Sacerdotibus suis incursabatur Ecclesia Sirmiensis falsum hoc sacrilegum in Ecclesiasticis codicibus deprohensum est Et fortasse hoc etiam in Oriente fecistis literas quidem potuistis abolere sed fidem non potuistis auferre Ambr. l. 3. de Spir. San. c. 11. he does accuse them of taking those Words out of their Copies Would to God saith he you had only retrenched them for your own Copies and not from those of the Church He is also so punctual in his Accusation that he marks the time in which he believed that Impiety to have received its Birth and he is afraid that the Greek Copies of the Eastern Churches have been likewise corrupted after the same manner You could he adds speaking to the Arians take away those Words but you could not abolish the Faith. If we examine according to Critical Rules that which St. Ambrose does assure us was retrenched by the Arians from St. John's Text we shall easily judge that it was an Addition of some Catholicks who read in their Copy of the ancient Latin Edition chap. 5. v. 6. of the Gospel of St. John Quod natum est ex Spiritu Spiritus est quia Deus est Spiritus which Edition was never publickly approved by any Church Yet Fulbert Bishop of Chartres did zealously continue the same Accusation against the Arian Party (r) Arii auditores quoniam Spiritum Sanctum Deum esse negabant de Evangelio eraserunt illud quod Salvator ait Spiritus est Deus Fulb. Carnot Episc Epist 1. Because they deny saith he the Holy Ghost they have taken away from the Gospel of St. John these words of our Saviour The Spirit of God. There is yet less probability in the reproachful Charge that Socrates has used against the Nestorians for having retrenched from their Copies these words of the first Epistle of St. John chap. 4. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whatsoever Spirit does divide Christ is not of God. He pretends that Nestorius knew not that this Reading was founded upon ancient Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (ſ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. Hist Eccles lib. 7. c. 32. Those saith he who have separated the Divine from the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ have taken away these words from their Copies and therefore the ancient Commentators on the Scripture have observed that some who would separate the Humanity from the Godhead have corrupted that Epistle Bishop Fulbert did likewise observe in the place lately quoted (t) Et de Epistolâ Joannis eraserunt Et omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum ex Deo non est ficut Nestorius c. Fulb. Carnot ibid. that the Hereticks have taken away from St. John's Epistle these words and whatsoever Spirit does separate Jesus Christ is not of God as Nestorius and the rest But can Nestorius and his Followers be accused for authorizing a false Reading which is at this day in all the Greek Copies and in the Oriental Versions seeing the same Reading is not only found in S. Cyprian but is likewise authorised by S. Polycarp who was contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles It cannot be denied but that the other Reading which is confirmed by the Author of the Vulgar is also very ancient but it is probable that it is a Note or Gloss that in process of time passed into the Text. They would explain these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not confess by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does separate the more effectually to refute the ancient Hereticks who denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ or who did separate Jesus from Christ And upon this account it is that both these Readings are extant in some ancient Fathers where they are sometimes joined both together However it
had lived before therefore he adds at the same time that (d) Si sub ipsius Pauli nomine Evangelium Marcion intulisset non sufficeret ad fidem singularitas instrumenti destituta patrocinio antecessorum Tertull. ibid. altho Marcion should have published his Gospel even under the name of S. Paul this Title would have availed nothing at least if it had not been accompanied with these Testimonies He goes yet farther in declaring that he did not take advantage of the Title that is at the beginning of S. Luke in the Copies of the Church Ibid. De titulo quoque funis ducendus est contentionis pari hinc inde nisu fluctuante For as to the Title alone Marcion might say as well as the Orthodox That the Gospel which he produced was the true one (e) Ego meum dico verum Marcion suum Ego Marcionis affirmo adulterat um Marcion meum Quis inter nos determinabit nisi temporis ratio ei praescribens auctoritatem quod antiquius reperietur ei praejudicans vitiationem quod posterius revincetur Tertull. ibid. cap. 4. To which then shall we adhere saith Tertullian by what Rule may we determine which is the true Gospel whether that of Marcion that hath been corrupted or that of the Church which is supposed to be entire at least if regard be had to Antiquity insomuch that the most ancient should be the true because the verity of an Act always preceeds the corruption of the same In quantum enim falsum corruptio est veri in tantum praecedat necesse est veritas falsum On this uncontroulable Principle he makes it appear that the true Copy of S. Luke was that which the Orthodox made use of since Marcion himself had not acknowledged any other before he had separated from the Church which he accused of Judaizing and he chiefly defended himself with this pretended Judaism from the Charge of not receiving this Gospel entire which he said had been interpolated by those that authorized Judaism Interpolatum à protectoribus Judaismi Lastly Tertullian concludes That there was no other true Copy of S. Luke but his because it was before that which Marcion had corrected and the Reason that he alledgeth is this That he could not amend any but that which was in the Church and was consequently antecedent to his Id emendans quod invenit id posterius quod de nostro emendatione constituens suum novum fecit But since it might be objected to him that it is not always true that the most ancient Books are the most correct because they also may have been corrupted at least if they be not the true Originals he answers that it is necessary to look back to the time of the Apostles to be certain that we have their genuine Writings (f) In summa si constat id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio ab initio quod ab Apostolis pariter utique constabit id esse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum Tertull. ibid. cap. 5. Now we are assured according to his Opinion that a thing belongs to the times of the Apostles when we see that it hath been inviolably preserved in the Apostolical Churches All these Arguments of Tertullian prove that the constant Tradition of the Church is the mark by which we distinguish the Divine and Canonical Books from those that are not so and that it is this same Church that hath added or at least approved of the Titles of the four Gospels to denote to us that these Gospels were written by Apostles or by their Disciples which does not in the least agree with this private Spirit of some Protestants In seems that Beza believed that the Titles of the Gospels were no less dictated by the Holy Ghost than the Text it self Th. Bezae Resp ad defens reprehens Seb. Castal this he insinuates in his Answer to the Defense of Castalio whom he reprehends for having translated in his Latin Version of the New Testament these Greek Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by these auctore Matthaeo Maldonat hath observed with much more Judgment (g) Non est Sacrorum Scriptorum consuetudo ut ante initium librorum ritulos ponant sed ut vel omittant vel prima libri verba titulum faciant Maldon Comm. in cap. I. Matth. That it is not the custom of the sacred Writers to put Titles at the beginning of their Works but that they either omit them altogether or they include them within the first Words of their Books which he demonstrates by Examples taken out of the Old Testament whence he infers that it is probable that the Evangelists are not the Authors of the Titles of their Gospels He proves it also by the Example of S. Mark who would have put two Titles to his Book if he were the Author of the first that runs thus The Gospel according to Mark because he begins his History with these other Words The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ He adds farther That if the Evangelists had been the Authors of these Titles there would not have been found so great an uniformity amongst them as appears they would have made use of different Expressions as they do in the other parts where they relate the same things but in different terms instead of writing all The Gospel according to N. Again he confirms his Opinion by the diversity that is found among the Greek and Latin Copies Maldon ibid. for these last read The holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to N. which proceeds from this saith Maldonat that the Greek Church hath put the Greek Title and the Latin Church the Latin quod Graecum Titulum Graeca Latinum Latina It seems that Beza in this case chose rather to prefer the Title of the Latin Copy before that of the Greek when he accuseth Castalio of having falsly translated auctore Matthaeo as if S. Matthew had been the Author of his Gospel for to confute his Adversary with more force he saith (h) Neque enim legimus Evangelium Matthaei Marci Lucae vel Joannis sed Evangelium Jesu Christi ut habent omnes Latini codices secundùm Matthaeum Marcum Lucam Joannem Bez. Resp ad Castal p. 12. That we read not the Gospel of Matthew Mark Luke or John but the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew Mark Luke and John as it is in all the Latin Copies Nevertheless this Reading is not found but in the Latin Version and not in all the Latin Copies neither If Maldonat may be believed there is only the Arabick Version printed at Rome Nov. Test Arab. edit Romae an 1591. where it is read The Gospel of Jesus Christ according as it hath been written by S. Matthew one of his twelve Disciples But it is easie to judge that this Arabick Title hath been taken in part from the Latin and those who have copied
or translated these Arabick Gospels have added the rest therefore we read in the two other Arabick Editions The Gospel of Matthew or of St. Matthew It is no otherwise in the Syriack the Ethiopick and the Persian in a word it is only in the Latin Version where it is read The Gospel of Jesus Christ which is an apparent Imitation of the first Words of the Gospel of St. Mark. However it be the Opinion of St. John Chrysostom who believed that none of the Gospels were written with the Titles that are at present prefixed to them seems to me more probable than that of some Authors especially among the Protestants who attribute them to the Evangelists and will have them to be a part of the Gospels It is much more likely that the Primitive Christians have annexed them thereunto in those times wherein it was evident that these Gospels did truly belong to those Persons whose Names are put to them on this account it is that we find the Name of S. Luke added to the beginning of some MSS. Greek Copies of the Acts of the Apostles as I have observed in three MSS. of the King's Library We read in two of these Manuscripts (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MSS. Reg. n. 2869. 2248. The Acts of the Apostles by Luke the Evangelist and in the other (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MSS. Reg. n. 2872. The Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke an Apostle Furthermore the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gospel which signifieth literally Good News is taken here for Preaching insomuch that the Gospel of S. Matthew is nothing else but the Preaching of this Apostle who hath made a Collection of the Actions and Words of his Master therefore the Syrians have entituled this Gospel Nov. Test Syr. The Gospel the Preaching of Matthew The Arabick Versions that have been taken from the Syriack do also make use of an Arabick Word that signifies Preaching I do not think it necessary that I should insist on these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew according to Mark as some Commentators on the New Testament have done it seems to me to be too nicely explained They imagine that those that have put these Titles have made choice of this Expression on purpose to shew that neither Matthew Mark Luke nor John were the Authors of the Gospels but that they had only written them this seems to me to be a pure Subtilty for according to the Style of those times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew is the same thing with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Matthew It was said after the same manner the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Hebrews and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Egyptians that is to say of the Hebrews and of the Egyptians as it hath been also said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Heresie according to the Phrygians which is the same thing as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Heresie of the Phrygians Beza himself who was so excessively transported against Castalio about the Version of these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he had translated auctore Matthaeo confesseth that it is commonly said the Gospel of S. Matthew and of S. Mark as it is said the Epistles of S. Paul and of S. Peter but he was afraid lest this Title of Castalio should cause it to be believed that the Evangelists are strictly the Authors of the Gospels that they have published whereas they are only the simple Scribes or Writers of them as if in the very Elegancy of the Latin Tongue Auctor was not the same thing as Scriptor They that affirm that this Expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew seems to denote that St. Matthew and the other Evangelists had not written their Gospels themselves have a great deal more reason to fear lest they should be only Collections that their Disciples had made of the Preachings of their Masters But this Objection is answered at one stroke by making it appear that there is no difference as to the sense between these two Expressions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Matthew Castalio who professeth rather to render the Sense than the Letter hath not ill translated auctore Matthaeo and therefore Beza was in the wrong in taking an occasion from thence to accuse him for having denied the Inspiration of the Sacred Books I cannot but wonder that Grotius should insist on this nicity of Beza Grot. Annot in tit Matth. and that he hath remarked after him in his Notes on this Passage of St. Matthew that the ancient Title was not simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gospel but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gospel of Jesus Christ after the same manner as it is in the beginning of S. Mark. He judges this to be the reason why it was not put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gospel of Matthew but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew This Observation hath no foundation for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Matthew are the same thing as hath been proved above We see also that the Syriack Version the Arabick except the Copy of Rome that hath been apparently alter'd in this point from the Latin the Ethiopick and the Persian all read the Gospel of Matthew The great antiquity of this Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gospel is ordinarily proved by these words of St. Justin Martyr in his Apology for the Christians (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. in Apol. The Apostles in the Acts that they have committed to Writing that are called Gospels Instead of the word Acts it is in the Greek of this Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have at this day four Books of Xenophon extant wherein he relates the Words and Actions of Socrates that are entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Latin according to the Translation of Cardinal Bessarion Xenophontis de factis dictis Socratis memoratu dignis It is in this same sense that this holy Martyr cites the Gospels in his Dialogues against Tryphon Just Mar. in Dial. cont Tryph. under the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if the Apostles had had no other design in their Writings that have been called Gospels than to publish the Words and Actions of Jesus Christ Moreover it is worth the observing that although the Apostles were not the Authors of the Titles that are set at the head of their Gospels we ought nevertheless to receive them after the same manner as if they had put them there themselves because they are derived from the first beginnings of Christianity and are further authorized by a constant Tradition of all the Churches of the World. Erasmus who found a great difficulty in concluding concerning the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews that bears not the Name of St. Paul protests that if the Church
same time by three Dissertations that are annexed at the beginning of this Grammar for in the first he treats (r) De linguae Chaldaicae sive Syriacae nominibus discrimine Georg. Amir Praelud Gramm of the Names of the Chaldaick and Syriack Tongue and of the difference between them in the second (s) De linguae Chaldaicae sive Syriacae antiquitate Ibid. of the Antiquity of the Chaldaick or Syriack Tongue and lastly in the third (t) De linguae Chaldaicae sive Syriacae dignitate ac praestantiâ Ibid. of the Excellency of the Chaldaick or Syriack Tongue Since this ingenious Maronite hath had a very clear notion of this matter I shall produce the sum of what he saith concerning these two Languages in his preliminary Discourses This Tongue whereof we now treat saith Amira hath been called Chaldaick from Chaldaea where it hath been first in use when the Confusion of Languages happened therefore it hath been also named Babylonian from Babylon the Capital City of Chaldaea it was afterwards called Aramean or Syriack from Aram or Syria and even Assyrian from Assyria because it hath also obtained in those places Divers other Names have been given to it which have been borrowed from famous Nations and renowned Men as that of Hebrew because it hath been during some time spoken by the Hebrews Although there is some difference between the Chaldaick and the Syriack nevertheless it cannot be said that it is essential for they agree almost in every thing and this is the cause that in the Holy Scriptures the Words of Chaldaick and Syriack are promiscuously used to signifie the very same Language it is said for example Dan. 1.4 that Daniel and some other young Hebrews were instructed in the Chaldaick Tongue and it is added in the mean time a little after that the Chaldeans spake to the King in Syriack Dan. 2.4 which was the Tongue of that Prince from whence it is evident that the Syriack and the Chaldaick are the same Language The same George Amira produceth other Passages of the Scriptures to shew that this Tongue was also called Assyrian This he confirnis in like manner from profane Authors who have confounded the Names of Chaldeans Syrians and Assyrians From whence he conoludes (u) Quare mirum esse non debet si lingua Chaldaica Syriaca Assyriaca una eademque sit quandequidem nomina quae ei indita sunt pro eodem usurpantur Georg. Amir Praelud Gramm Syr. sive Chald. that it is no wonder that they have also confounded these three Languages Lastly he avoucheth that if the Chaldaick Tongue which hath been in use amongst the Jews had not been dressed by them after the Hebrew Fashion it would have differed much less than it doth from the Chaldaick or Syriack of the natural Syrians Ludovicus de Dieu who had throughly inquired into this matter is also of this Opinion (x) A Syriaca Chaldaicam distinguo quia sic ab aliis fieri solet non rarò phrasi flexione ab eâ differt Alioqui eamdem esse linguam fateor Chaldaicam Syriacam Lud. de Dieu Praef. Gramm Chald. Syr. He distinguisheth as is ordinarily done the Chaldaick Tongue of Daniel and Esdras from the Syriack Paraphrases but he acknowledgeth at the same time that these two Languages ought not truly to be distinguished He believes after Amira (y) Dialectus Chaldaica minus à Syriacâ linguâ differret si punctatoribus visum fuisset Lud. de Dieu ibid. that they would be less different if the Jews had not Printed the Chaldaick of their Books after their manner this he proves by some Examples It would be easie to produce many others and even to make it appear that the great resemblance between these two Tongues hath given occasion to the Jews to take from the Syrians whole Books of the Scriptures which they have attributed to their Paraphrasts but this would lead us too far and we must now return to Mr. Vossius who is so curious in this point that he will not admit that the Chaldaick Tongue which is named Hebrew in the New Testament should be called Syriack This dextrous Man calls the Jews to his assistance Voss Resp ad tert P. Sim. Obj. who have stiled the Aramean or Syriack the Tongue of the Gentiles and to make it more manifest to what degree the Jews hated the Syrians and their Language he makes use of the authority of the Talmud wherein it is read that if any one prays in the Syrian Tongue his Prayers are not heard Voss ibid. because the Angels who are the Ministers of God do not understand this Language He adds farther that the Jews who read in Syria the Version which the Christians and the Arabians call Syriack do term it Chaldaick Lastly he demands who are those People of Syria that have introduced into Jerusalem this Syriack Tongue which is pretended to have been in use in the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles But if he had consulted the Talmud or had but an indifferent knowledge in the Chaldaick Tongue he would not have made such weak Objections It is evident that there is nothing more usual in the Books of the Talmud than to call the Chaldaick or Babylonian Tongue Arami or Syriack The Rabbins who have epitomized the Talmud and have collected its Decisions do also give the name of Arami or Syriack to the Chaldaick Tongue To convince Mr. Vossius even by the example that he hath produced of the Prayer that ought not to be made in the Syriack Tongue the Talmudists give out this fantastick Story upon occasion of the Prayer called Kadis which is in the Chaldaick Tongue and which nevertheless they call in this place Arami or Syriack This Prayer not being so ancient as the others that have been composed in Hebrew is written in the Chaldaick Language which was then understood by the People The Rabbins who are so nicely subtil on all occasions and often tell Tales instead of giving solid Reasons have invented this Fable which Mr. Vossius relates very seriously However it be it is certain that this Prayer Kadis which is supposed according to the Rabbins to be written in Syriack that is not understood by the Angels is written in Chaldaick and in the same Language as the Paraphrases which we have upon the Bible As for the Objection that in the Syriack Version of the New Testament the word Aram hath been put to signifie a Greek a Gentile and an Idolater I do not see that it can be proved from thence that the Jews have not confounded the Words of Syriack and Chaldaick For besides that experience shews us the contrary this only proves that the Jews have looked upon Syria as the Country of Idolatry they have made use of the word Arami in the same sense as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek in the New Testament is applyed to signifie a Greek a
they have been made from the Syriack That which hath misled the Syrians is their believing as Cardinal Baronius hath done after the Writer of the Lives of the Popes that S. Mark could not have written his Gospel at Rome otherwise than in the Language of the Country having composed it at the request of the Faithful of that City who spake Latin. (b) Neminem puto existimaturum Apostolos cùm gentibus praedicarent Evangelium aliis usos fuisse linguis ab his quibus gentes illae uterentur quibus Dei verbum annuntiarent Baron ann c. 45. n. 37. It cannot be imagined saith he that the Apostles should have preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Nations in any other Languages but those that were in use amongst them He hath not taken notice that S. Peter came to Rome to preach the Gospel to his own Country-men and that therefore S. Mark ought to have published it in a Language that was most known to them Now it is certain that the Jews who were dispersed throughout the whole Roman Empire and even the greatest part of those that were then at Rome understood the Greek and that there were very few on the contrary that had any knowledge of the Latin Tongue This hath been very judiciously observed by Grotius in the beginning of his Notes on S. Mark Judaei saith this learned Critick qui Romae agebant plerique Latini sermonis ignari Grot. Annot in tit Marci longâ per Asiam Graeciam habitatione Graecam linguam didicerant Romanorum vix quisquam erat non Graece intelligens This may be sufficient to answer all the Reasons alledged by Baronius who could not apprehend how S. Mark who exercised the Function of an Interpreter at Rome should speak and write in any other Language but the Latin. It is certain saith this Cardinal that S. Peter spake at Rome in the Language of the Romans how then could it come to pass that S. Mark the Interpreter should have translated the Preachings of this holy Apostle out of Latin into Greek If it be said adds he that S. Peter spake Greek or Hebrew S. Mark could not have interpreted his words but in Latin. All this arguing proves nothing if we consider that S. Peter spake to the Jews at Rome in a Language which they understood and that S. Mark hath collected the Preachings of this Apostle in the same at the desire of those Jews that were lately converted Baronius adds to all these Reasons another proof which is taken from the style of S. Mark he affirms that they that have any knowledge of the Greek Tongue may easily judge that he hath written his Gospel in Latin because several improper Words are found therein which are not in the least Greek but Latin Grecised He thereupon quotes Cardinal Sirlet who hath made an exact Collection of them from whence at last he concludes (c) His igitur propè necessariis rationibus non solùm suademur sed obstricti fermè devincimur atque planè cogimur affirmare Evangelium Marci ab eo Latinè potiùs quà m Graecè esse conscriptum Baron ann Ch. 45. n. 41. that the Reasons which he hath produced to make it appear that S. Mark hath written in Latin are so strong and cogent that they seem to be Demonstrations These Reasons on the contrary cannot but appear very weak to those who are versed in the Criticism of the Sacred Books If this last proof concluded any thing it would conclude at the same time that the other Evangelists have also written in Latin because the like Expressions are found in their Gospels that is to say Latin words Grecised It might be proved moreover after this manner that the Syriack and Arabick Versions of the Bible had been first composed in Greek and afterwards translated into Syriack and Arabick because there are in these Translations many Greek words that have been Syriacised and Arabised It is no wonder that S. Mark who is supposed to have written in Greek at Rome should have made use of Latin words Grecised Since it is the custom of all Nations that speak a foreign Language to mingle with it some of their own words and so S. Mark would have spoken Greek as it was spoken at Rome and even in many other Cities of the Empire where the Grecians had adopted divers Roman words If it were true that the very Original of S. Mark is at this day kept at Venice as they of this Country do avouch all this Dispute would be quickly ended but Baronius had no mind rashly to give credit to a popular Tradition that had no Foundation in Antiquity Ciaconius who hath written the Lives of the Popes speaks but doubtfully concerning this question he durst not pronounce magisterially as Baronius hath done that S. Mark hath written in Latin tho he cites the Archives of the Venetians who pretend to have the true Original in their possession He chiefly relies on the testimony of the Syrians and on this that it is improbable that a Gospel should have been written in any other but the Latin Tongue that was made for the use of the Latins Notwithstanding this he leaves the matter undetermined Alfons Ciacon Vit. Sum. Pontif. edit Rom. ann 1601. in Petro. Marcus saith this Historian Petri discipulus sectator in baptismo filius Evangelium quod ipse Apostolorum princeps praedicaverat Romanorum hortatu precibus Graecè itidem conscripsit seu ut alii volunt Latinè cujus eâ linguâ archetypum adservari putant Venetiis in Marcianis thesauris Syri omnes huic rei fidem faciunt ratio suadet ut non alia quà m Latinâ Linguâ Evangelium in usum Latinis futurum conscriberetur Alterutrum horum sit c. One would think to hear this Author speak that S. Mark had only composed his Gospel for the Latins On this account I do not wonder that the Original thereof is kept at Venice in the Treasury of S. Mark. It remains for us to examine the twelve last Verses of this Chapter which are not found in several Greek Manuscript Copies S. Jerom who had seen a great number of these Manuscripts Hieron Epist ad Hedib qu. 3. declares in his Letter to Hedibia that there were in his time very few Greek Copies wherein they were read Omnibus Graeciae libris penè hoc capitulum non habentibus We must not understand as the most part of Commentators on the New Testament have done by this word Capitulum that is in S. Jerom the last Chapter of S. Mark entire but only from these words of the ninth Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to the end as it appears by the Manuscript Copies which I have above consulted and it shall be shewn in the Sequel of this Work that the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers have denoted quite another thing by the word Capitulum Chapter than what we now mean at this day by the Chapters of the
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
either in Greek or Latin in which this Imperfection is to be found The Syrians and the other People of the Levant do all read these two Verses in their Copies This Defect then must take its rise from some superstitious persons who thought that Jesus Christ could never be obnoxious to so great a Weakness There is no probability that these two Histories should have been added to the Text of S. Luke (c) Potiùs credendum est à nonnullis id fuisse deletum quà m à quoquam adjunctum Mald. Comm. in Matth. c. 26. It is much more credible saith Maldonat that they had been blotted out of it CHAP. XIII Of the Gospel of S. John and of Hereticks that have rejected this Gospel Their Reasons with an Answer to them An Inquiry concerning the twelve Verses of this Gospel which are not found in some ancient Copies Several Greek Manuscript Copies are cited to clear this Difficulty Some Criticks have imagined without any grounds that the last Chapter of this Gospel did not belong to S. John. WE cannot precisely determine in what time S. John published his Gospel It is only known that he hath written it the last of all Neither have we any very certain Acts that might inform us of the Motives that induced this holy Apostle to undertake this Work after he had seen the Gospels of S. Matthew S. Mark and S. Luke Clemens Alexandrinus reports what was generally believed in his time viz. that John having read these three Gospels and having approved them as true found (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. apud Euseb lib. 3. c. 24. that there was yet wanting the History of those things that had been done by Jesus Christ at the beginning of his Preaching This was the reason according to the Judgment of this Learned Father that caused him to write his Gospel especially being intreated to do it And by this he supplied that which seemed to be deficient in the History of the other Evangelists He did not think it necessary (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. ibid. to repeat what S. Matthew and S. Luke had already written and this is the principal cause that obliged him to say nothing concerning the Genealogy of our Saviour He judged it more requisite to promulge that which appertained to his Divinity (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. apud Eus Hist Eccles lib. 6. c. 14. John who is the last of the Evangelists saith the same Clement having observed that those things that related to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ had been made manifest in the three other Gospels being inspired by God and at the request of his Friends composed a spiritual Gospel S. Epiphanius saith also (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 51. n. 12. that it would have been to no purpose for S. John to insist any farther on that which belonged to Jesus Christ according to the Flesh because that had been already done Therefore he applied himself to the declaring of those Acts of which the other Evangelists had made no mention S. Irenaeus only saith (e) Joannes discipulus Domini ipse edidit Evangelium Ephesi Asiae commorans Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. cap. 1. that S. John set forth his Gospel at Ephesus where he abode without taking any notice of the time when or of the Reasons that induced him to it The Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures will have it that this Apostle (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. in Synops Script S. preached it when he was banished in the Isle of Patmos and that he afterwards published it at Ephesus S. Jerom discourseth more particularly than the other Fathers of the Considerations that engaged S. John to write his Gospel He affirmeth (g) Joannes cùm esset in Asià jam tunc haereticorum semina pullularent Cerinthi Ebionis caeterorum qui negant Christum in carne venisse quos ipse in Epistolâ suâ Antichristos vocat Apostolus Paulus frequenter peroutit coactus est ab omnibus penè tunc Asie Episcopis multarum Ecclesiarum legationibus de Divinitate Salvatoris altiùs scribere unde Ecclesiastica narrat bistoria cùm à fratribus cogeretur ut scriberet ita facturum se respondisse si indicto jejunio in communo omnes Deum deprecarentur Quo expleto revelatione saturatus illud prooemium è coelo veniens eructavit In principio erat Verbum c. Hier. prooem Comm. in Matth. that S. John being in Asia where the Heresie of Cerinthus and Ebion obtained who denyed that Jesus Christ had been really in the Flesh was forced to write concerning the Divinity of our Saviour at the solicitation of almost all the Bishops of Asia and of many Churches that desired him to do it He adds moreover that it was related in the Ecclesiastical History that this Apostle seeing himself so vehemently urged by his Brethren granted that which they demanded upon condition that a day should be set apart for a publick Fast on this occasion And that the Fast being ended S. John who was filled with the Holy Ghost began his Gospel with these words which came from Heaven In the beginning was the word c. Whereas this History might pass in the Opinion of some for Apocryphal and for one of those Fictions that are ordinarily made use of by the Jews when they would give authority to a Work of great value Baron ann Ch. 99. n. 4. Baronius hath judiciously observed that S. Jerom hath not grounded this Relation on Apocryphal Books Non ex apocrypho aliquo but on an ancient and true History that had been already explained more at large by other Writers Sed ex antiqud verâque historiâ ab aliis jam fusiùs explicatâ There are found on the contrary since the first Ages of Christianity certain Hereticks who maintained an Opinion altogether opposite to that of S. Jerom for being very far from believing with him that S. John wrote his Gospel to confute the Errors of Cerinthus they ascribed it to Cerinthus himself avouching that he was the Author thereof S. Epiphanius who knew not the Name of these Hereticks hath given them that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alogians because they denied the Word called in Greek Logos (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 51. n. 3. Because they do not receive saith this Father the Word that hath been preached by S. John they shall be called Alogians These Alogians rejected the Gospel of S. John as also his Epistles and Revelation pretending (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. that all these Works had been invented in Asia by Cerinthus who lived at the same time with him and they accounted them even unworthy to be read in the Church To the end that it might not be imagined that they called in question the Authority of S. John whom they believed to be an Apostle as well as
as Divine and Canonical Wherefore it is convenient to examine the Acts that we have relating to this matter If we follow this Rule of Tertullian that is grounded on good reason That that is true which is most ancient Illud verum quod prius there will be no occasion to enquire whether the Epistle to the Hebrews was certainly written by S. Paul for all the Eastern Churches seem not to have doubted thereof the Arians have been the first amongst them that have obstinately rejected it seeing that it was not favourable to their Innovations this caused Theodoret speaking of these Hereticks to say (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Praef. Comm. in Epist ad Hebr. that they ought at least to have respect to the length of time and to consider that this Epistle had been read in the Churches ever since they had received the Writings of the Apostles (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. ibid. He opposeth to them moreover the Testimony of Eusebius Caesariensis who could not be suspected by them because they esteemed him as their Chief Now this Eusebius hath acknowledged that the Epistle directed to the Hebrews was S. Paul's and that all the Ancients had believed it so to be As for the Testimony of the Ancients this cannot be true but of those of the Eastern Church for Eusebius himself hath observed that some in the Western Church did not receive this Epistle but the Authority of these Western Writers ought not to be regarded since S. Clement Bishop of Rome who lived before them hath cited it in the Letter that he wrote in the name of his Church to those of Corinth as the same Eusebius assures us He proves by the Authority of this Disciple of the Apostles that the Epistle to the Hebrews hath been reckoned with good reason in the number of the Apostolical Writings and doth not in the least doubt of the Authors because the most part of the ancient Doctors of the Church especially in the East have believed that it did truly belong to S. Paul but since they supposed that he wrote it in Hebrew they do not agree as to the Interpreter (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hi. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 38. some saith Eusebius affirm that it hath been translated by S. Luke and others by S. Clement He confirms this last Opinion by the Stile of this Epistle which is very like to that of S. Clement nevertheless Clemens Alexandrinus proves on the contrary Cl. Alex. in Hypot apud Eus Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 14. by this resemblance of Stile that the Epistle to the Hebrews which he avoucheth to be St. Paul's hath been interpreted by St. Luke Origen who hath written Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews was of opinion (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. Homil. in Epist ad Hebr. apud Euseb 〈◊〉 Eccl. lib. 6. cap. 25. that the matter indeed was S. Paul's but that the Expressions were too lofty and too elegant to be his who wrote in a very simple and plain Stile This learned Critick doth not attribute this diversity of Stile to the Translator but to the Amanuensis that committed the Doctrine of S. Paul to Writing (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. I believe saith Origen that the Sense and Conceptions are of this Apostle but that the Phrase and Composition is another's who hath collected the Sayings of his Master and set them down in writing nevertheless what he adds in the same place makes it appear that in his time there were some Churches that did not ascribe this Epistle to the Hebrews to S. Paul and he judgeth also that it cannot be certainly determined who hath written it (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. If any Churches saith he reads this Epistle as S. Paul's they are to be commended in this for it is not without reason that the Ancients have thought that it was his but God alone knows the truth thereof The Greek Fathers who have lived before and after Origen and even the greatest part of the Hereticks have quoted it under no other name than that of this Holy Apostle Melchis ap Epiph. Haer. 55. The Melchisedecians who preferred Melchisedec before Jesus Christ grounded their Opinion on the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews The Catharians who were a branch of the Novatians relied also on these Words of this Epistle Cath. ap Epiph. Haer. 59. Chap. vi v. 4 5 6. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly Gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost and have tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the World to come if they shall fall away to renew them again unto Repentance Hierac ap Epiph. Haer. 67. c. Hieracqs an Egyptian who was the Chief of the Sect of the Hieracites which was embraced by divers Monks of Egypt pretended to prove by this same Epistle to the Hebrews that Melchisedec was the Holy Ghost Lastly many other Hereticks who separated themselves from the Church attributed it to no other but S. Paul which induceth me to believe that this Opinion was founded on an ancient Tradition of the Churches Cajus in the mean time a famous Writer who lived at the beginning of the third Century under Pope Zephyrinus in a Dispute that he had at Rome with the Cataphryges and which was published acknowledgeth only thirteen Epistles of S. Paul not mentioning that which is directed to the Hebrews Eusebius who hath taken notice of this Dispute observes (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. that some Romans in his time had not as yet received the Epistle to the Hebrews as S. Paul's and in another place where he speaks of the Epistles of the Apostles after he had said that the fourteen Epistles of S. Paul were known to all the World he adds (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 3. that some have rejected this which is written to the Hebrews under pretence that the Roman Church did not believe it to belong to S. Paul. Baronius hath not done justice to this Historian when he accuseth him of favouring in these Words the Party of the Arians his good Friends and of insinuating that the Church of Rome had doubted of the Verity of this Epistle for besides that Eusebius doth only relate a simple matter of fact that was evident and which S. Jerom hath afterwards explained more at large he openly declares in this very place in favour of those that believed that the Epistle to the Hebrews was certainly written by S. Paul when he adds that he will give an account in the sequel of his History what hath been the belief of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers as to this point and he acquits himself after such a manner as makes it manifest that none of these Ancients nor even the Roman Church have ever doubted
being the Author of it The Preface in controversie is not in a certain Manuscript Copy of the whole Bible Cod. MSS. Bibl. Reg. that is in the Royal Library marked 3564. and has been extant these seven Hundred Years neither is it in two other Manuscript Copies of the like antiquity belonging to the Library of the Benedictine Monks of the Abby of S. Germain Cod. MSS. Bibl. Benedict S. Germ. Paris It is found I confess in Charles le Chauve's fair Bible that is in the King's Library but S. Jerome's Name is not there any more than it is in some other ancient Copies Whoever will take the pains to compare the most of the ancient Latin Bibles together shall easily discover that he who gathered all the Books of the Latin Bible into one Body the better part of which was translated or revised by S. Jerome is really the Author of that Preface Since he was not furnished with that Father's Preface to all those Books he supplied in his Collection what was wanting with an addition of some of his own composure and others which he gathered from S. Jerome's Works Hence for example in Charles le Chauve's Copy there is before the Acts of the Apostles a Preface with this Title Praefatio Hieronymi Yet 't is certain that S. Jerome was not the Author of that Preface to the Acts as it is there in express words but the Author of the Collection of the Books of the Latin Bible took the same out of that Father's large Preface entituled Prologus Galeatus and it is expressed in these words Actus Apostolorum nudam quidem resanare historiam videntur nascentis Ecclesiae historiam texere Sed si noverimus scriptorem eorum Lucam esse Medicum cujus laus in Evangelio animadvertemus pariter omnia verba illius animae languentis esse Medicinam that is The Acts of the Apostles seem to be a bare History affording us a prospect of the Church in its Birth But if we consider that the Writer was Luke the Physician who is famous in the Gospel we shall also perceive that all his words are the Medicine of a languishing Soul. 'T is also probable that the Compiler of the Books of the Latin Version which we call the Vulgar not finding in S. Jerome a particular Preface to the Canonical Epistles made one according to that Father's Stile some of whose Expressions he has made use of and amongst others has inserted that word Eustochium 'T is likewise probable that the Addition of the Witness of three Persons was extant before that time in some Copies of S. John's Epistles or at least in some Latin Writers at the time when that Preface was made Upon this account the Author who possibly had not the occasion of consulting the Creek Copies supposed that if that Passage was not extant in any Latin Copy the Translators were to be blamed 'T is observable that the Addition is not in most of the old Copies of S. Jerome's Bible to which nevertheless the Preface is prefixt as I have observed in two Copies one whereof is in the Royal Library and the other in that belonging to Mr. Colbert How incongruous is it to see a Preface at the beginning of the Canonical Epistles where S. Jerome complains of the unfaithfulness of the ancient Latin Translators who have omitted in the First Epistle of S. John Chap. 1. a whole Verse which he restores to the Greek and yet if one turn to the place of S. John's Epistle in the very same Copy the passage is not to be found there There can be no other reason given in my opinion of this incoherency but this that the Transcribers who writ out the Preface made use of such Latin Copies in which that Verse was not extant because neither S. Jerome nor the antient Latin Version had any thing of it If that Father had been the Author of the Preface and of the Addition inserted in S. John's Epistle that Addition would have been extant in all S. Jerome's Latin Bibles This diversity of Copies is in my judgment an evident proof that he did not compose that Preface to prefix it to the Canonical Epistles And that which makes it further manifest that S. Jerome was not the true Author either of the Preface or Addition is that that Addition is placed in the Margin of mose of the antient Copies in the Body of which it is not extant It was no less than surprising (g) Quantum à nostrâ aliorum distet editio lectoris judicio relinquo Hier. Prol. in VII Epist Can. that the pretended S. Jerome should in his Preface commend his new Edition of the Canonical Epistles upon the account of the change he had made especially in the First of S. John whilst there was nothing of such change or amendment to be seen therein Upon which account the Transcribers or they to whom the Copies did belong thought fit to regulate the Text according to the Preface by supplying in the Margin the Verse concerning the Witness of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost which before that time was extant in some Ecclesiastical Authors But since it was a matter of difficulty for those who placed that Addition in the Margin of their Copies to observe a general and perfect uniformity of words it so fell out that the Expressions in the various Copies did likewise vary This diversity does evidently prove that S. Jerome could not be the Author of the Addition in controversie but that it was done by those who had a mind to adjust the Text in S. James to the Preface I shall here give some Examples of that Regulation of the manner how it was added to most of the old Latin Copies of S. Jerome's Bible In that Copy of the Royal Library that is marked 3584. in the Margin over against these words Cod. MSS. Bibl. Reg. Tres sunt qui testimonium dant i. e. There are three which bear witness there are these other words added In coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ hi tres unum sunt i. e. In Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and there are three which bear witness on earth and these three are one The writing of the Addition appears to be no less ancient than that of the Text. The like Addition is to be seen in a Copy that is in Mr. Colbert's Library Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb that is marked 158. where in the Margin over against these words Tres sunt qui testimonium dant these are added In coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ sanguis aqua caro And to make the Text and Addition agree the better there are some of the words of the Text amended or put out There is nothing of this Addition to be read in the three ancient Copies of the Library belonging to the Benedictines of the
charge Apud Cyril lib. 7. adv Jul. who accused the Christians for having abandoned the Law and the Prophets although they made a profession of following them He likewise reproached them for their boldness in calling themselves Israelites having as he alledged a Doctrin altogether opposite to that of Moses and the Ancient Prophets Apud Cyril lib. 8. adv Jul. But it is easie to convince him that the Christians are truly Israelites since they have neither renounced the Law nor the Prophets although sometimes they do expound them in a Mystical and Spiritual sense such an exposition as has been said is not contrary to the Doctrin of the Ancient Jews That Emperor seeing he owned no other sense of the Books of Moses but an Historical and Literal did object against the Christians that those words of Deuteronomy Chap. 18. v. 15. The Lord shall raise up a Prophet like unto me could not be understood of Jesus the Son of Mary seeing Moses does expresly speak (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Julian apud Cyr. ibid. of a Prophet who was to be a Man as he was and not the Son of God. It is true Act. c. 3. v. 22. c. 7. v. 37. that St. Peter and St. Stephen applyed to Jesus Christ that Passage of Deuteronomy which is literally understood of Joshua who was to succeed to Moses and also of other Judges and Prophets who have been in the Commonwealth of the Hebrews But if those Judges and Prophets were the Types of the Messiah why does he oppose the application of the same words to him according to a Sublime and Spiritual Sense of which we have already spoken seeing the Rabbins do frequently make the like applications By the Principles that we have established it will be very easie to resolve the most part of the other Objections which the Jews do raise against the Citations which are found throughout the Books of the New Testament The Apostles who did exactly follow the Expositions which were in use in their time have observed the same method almost through all their Writings The Jews could not oppose them without destroying their own Principles and favouring at the same time the Saddùcees According to this method St. Matthew applyed to St. John the words of the Prophet Esay The voice of one crying in the wilderness make straight the way of the Lord. It is manifest that the Evangelist did by a deras or Spiritual and Allegorical Sense Expound that which we ought to understand Literally and Historically of the returning of the Jews from their Captivity out of Babylon to Jerusalem Besides all those observations which serve as Principles for answering the Objections of the Jews and the Emperor Julian this is likewise remarkable that there are many words in the New Testament which have a larger Sense than in the Old which can be only attributed to the Custom of that time and to a Tradition received amongst the Jews There is nothing in the Books of Moses that does afford us any clear discovery of the state of a future Life which the Jews do call olam habba i.e. The World to come there is no manifest Record in the ancient Law of a Heaven or a Hell any more than there is of a Recompence to the Just and Punishment to the Wicked in that other Life Neither have they proper words to express those things they are obliged to make use of Metaphorical terms The word Gehenna for example which is taken from the Hebrew Gehennam has quite another Sense in the Books of the Old Testament than in the New where it does signifie the Fire of Hell. Which made St. Jerom say (p) Nomen gehennae in veteribus libris non invenitur sed primùm à Salvatore ponitur Hieron Comm. in Matth. that he does not find the word Gehenna in ancient Books that Jesus Christ is the first who used it Yet this does not prove that he was in effect the first that used it in that Sense as it is in the New Testament for it was before that time in use amongst the Jews in the same very Sense and especially amongst the Pharisees St. Jerom meant no more than this that he did not find it in the Old Testament under that signification although their Paraphrasts and their most ancient Rabbins used it in the same Sense as Jesus Christ did afterwards The Hebrew word Sceol will come under the same consideration for in the Hebrew of the Old Testament it does signifie a Sepulchre it is almost every where in the Septuagint rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hell as if they had frequently intended to signifie by that word a subterranean place where Souls are after their separation from the Body St. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles does Expound of the Messiah according to that Sense the words of Psalm xv Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption Which Passage is Literally understood of David who said to God that he would not suffer his Enemies to take away his Life and thus the Hebrew words Sceol and Scahat according to the former Sense do signifie Literally a Sepulchre and a Ditch But according to the Spiritual and Mystical Sense which St. Peter gives to this Psalm that he applies to the Messiah whose Type David was the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he took from the ancient Version of the Septuagint do signifie in the Acts of the Apostles Hell and Corruption The Application that the Apostle made of the words of that Psalm to the Resurrection of the Messiah does contain nothing but what is agreeable to the belief of the Jews of that time who believed the Resurrection of the dead They further acknowledged a subterranean place to which Souls do go after their separation from the Body Without a due regard to all these considerations it is impossible to understand the New Testament Therefore it is to be supposed as a thing constantly agreed upon that the Jews in the time of our Saviour and the Apostles believed many things whereof they had no Literal proofs in all the Old Testament being only founded on their Traditions And the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles ought to be Expounded with a relation to this Idea of the Jewish Faith and not to that which may be conceived of their belief with a reference to the Books of the Old Testament only because those Books contain but one part of their Religion the other part being comprehended in their Traditions The Jews do own this Principle The Jews even the Caraites who do mightily oppose the Traditions of the Talmudists which had degenerated into Fables have preserved those which they believed to be founded on sufficient Records The ancient Hereticks who did not weigh all these considerations did rather choose to deny the truth of the Books of the New Testament and say that in after times there
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
that (k) Si non est necessarium ut singulae veritates sententiae quae sunt in Sacris Literis immediatè sint à Spiritu Sancto ipsi scriptori inspiratae non modò sequetur indeterminabilis altercatio super sententiis immediatè vel non immediatè inspiratis verùm etiam de integris Evangeliis quorum historia potuit humanitùs esse nota imò de omnibus Scripturis non Propheticis dubitabitur an immediate Spiritus Sanctus eas scriptoribus inspiraverit Theol. Duac ibid. if it be once granted that it is not necessary that every Truth and Sentence should be immediatly indited by the Spirit of God there will be endless disputes not only about that which is particularly delivered in Scripture by immediate Inspiration but also about entire Gospels the History of which may be known in a humane manner It will be also question'd in general if all the Books of the Scripture that are not Prophetical have been immediatly suggested by the Holy Ghost to those who were the Writers thereof The third Proposition appeared to those Divines to be the most dangerous of all and opposite to the words of St. Paul who does assure us that all the Scripture is given by the Inspiration of God and a Divine Doctrin which was indited by the Holy Spirit It is for this Reason say they that the Decrees of Popes and of Councils were never reckoned in the number of Divine Writings although the Holy Ghost does testifie by the Church that there is nothing that is false in those Decrees And finally they add that that third Proposition of the Jesuits of Louvain could not be maintained without acknowledging that the Histories of Thucydides and of Livie might for the same reason be reckoned amongst the Books of the Scripture if the Holy Ghost should testifie to us that there is nothing of falshood in those Histories They conclude their Censure with this Maxim (l) Non enim ideò inspiratum aliquid divinitùs est quòd posteà sit approbatum sed ideò est approbatum quia fuerat divinitùs inspiratum ibid. That a thing is not therefore given by Divine Inspiration because it so falls out that it is approved of afterwards but that on the contrary it is approved because it was Inspired Let us now see if the Doctors of the two Faculties of Theology had reason to condemn those three Propositions in terms that are injurious to the Society of the Jesuits 'T is observable that before all these things the Jesuits who published at Rome an 1586. a Directory for the Studies of their Society Entitled Ratio Studiorum have placed this Proposition concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings amongst those which their Divines ought to prefer to others (m) Probabilius est verba primorum exemplarium ac fontium incorruptorum fuisse omnia singula à Spiritu Sancto dictata secundùm substantiam multiformiter tamen pro variâ instrumentorum conditione Rat. stud edit Rom. tit de reliq opin del in Theol. fac It is more probable say they that the first and Original Copies which were not corrupted were all particularly indited by the Holy Ghost as to what concerns the substance but in a different manner according to the different condition of the Instruments By that we see that the Jesuits of Rome did not believe at that time that the same Inspiration is to be acknowledged in all the Books of the Scripture and when they say that every word was Inspired they add withal as to what concerns the Substance Besides they do not maintain this Inspiration of words as to what belongs to the substance but as a probable Opinion so that they believe that that may be also denied with probability It is true that the Opinion of those two Faculties of Theology belonging to Louvain and Douay was then most received in the Schools But the Jesuits who from that time have had Learned Men in their Society saw very well that it was contradictory to good sense and likewise opposite to the most Ancient Doctors of the Church Those of their College of Louvain did nothing that was contrary to the Rule or Constitution of their Foundation which (n) Fundator constitutionum 3. part c. 10. disertis verbis cavet ne novae opiniones admittantur Quod tamen ut suavius fieret additum est hâc formulâ nisi ex consensu praepositorum Rat. stud tit de del opin does expresly forbid the introducing of new Opinions for the same rule does proceed unless it be done with the consent of the Superiors There is nothing more judicious than the Liberty of Opinion which is granted by the Constitutions of that Society to its Professors in the manner as it is limited (o) Sequantur ait Ignatius in quavis facultate securiorem magis approbatam doctrinam eos auctores qui eam docent Et ne singulis liberum esset judicium de magis approbatâ securiore doctrinâ deligendâ statim subdit Cujus rei penès Rectorem qui quod statuetur in universâ Societate ad majorem Dei gloriam secuturus est cura sit ibid. Father Ignatius did ordain that in every Science whatsoever they should follow the most certain and the most received Doctrine But seeing it is not easie to distinguish what are the most certain and the most received Opinions he decreed that the choice should depend on the Rector who ought to embrace for the greater Glory of God that which was maintained in the whole Society And the truth is the Jesuits did no sooner appear in the World but there was a birth given to much more considerable assistances for the study of Theology than had ever been before that time And therefore they did wisely that they were not altogether devoted to the Opinions of St. Thomas and St. Augustin though they were zealously embraced in the most part of the Universities at that time They had reason in that case not to follow blindly the Opinions that were most received in the Schools in their time concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings This liberty of Prophesie which had been agreed upon in behalf of their Professors of Theology did afford them an occasion of making new discoveries in this Science and to this I impute the rigor with which the Jesuits of Louvain maintain their Opinions about Inspiration without troubling themselves about the Belief of the two Faculties of Theology of Louvain and Douay who had not carefully enough examined that matter Notwithstanding the Censures of those two Faculties they continued to teach in their College of Louvain the same Opinions concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings Father Cornelius à Lapide a few years after that time kept up in the same place publick Lectures on the Holy Scriptures which he continued for the space of sixteen years He likewise published those Lectures by the Order of the Archbishop of Malines and of his
Superiors beginning in his Commentaries with the Epistles of St. Paul which he did Dedicate to the Archbishop But in the Exposition which he gives of the Passage of that Apostle where he speaks of the Scriptures being given by the Inspiration of God he is altogether against Estius who was at the same time Professor in the University of Douay It is manifest that that Jesuit did insist on that difficulty on purpose and that he then had an Eye to the Censures of the Divines of Louvain and Douay He maintained in his Commentaries upon that place of St. Paul the Propositions which his Doctors had condemned Although the Commentaries of Cornelius à Lapide may be had every where it is convenient to set down his own words in this place by which we may perceive that the Jesuits of Louvain did not regard the Censures of the Divines there (p) Nota Spiritum Sanctum non eodem modo dictasse omnes Sacras Literas Nam Legem Prophetas ad verbum revelavit dictavit Mosi Prophetis Historias verò morales exhortationes quas anteà vel visu vel auditu vel lectione vel meditatione didicerant ipsi scriptores hagiographi non fuit necesse inspirari aut dictari à Spiritu Sancto utpotè cùm eas scirent aut callerent ipsi scriptores Sic S. Joannes c. 19. v. 35. dicit se scribere quae vidit S. Lueas verò c. 1. v. 2. dicit se scribere Evangelium quod audivit traditione accepit ab Apostolis Cornel. à Lap. Comm. in Epist II. ad Tim. c. 3. v. 16. Observe saith that Jesuit that the Holy Ghost did not indite all the Sacred Writings after the same manner For he indited the Words of the Law and the Prophets to Moses and the Prophets But as to the Histories and the Exhortations to Piety which the Holy Pen-Men had learned by seeing hearing reading or meditation it was not at all necessary that they should be Inspired or Indited by the Spirit of God because those Writers knew such things very well And thus St. John Chap. xix 25. does say that he writ that which he had seen St. Luke does also declare Chap. i. 2. That he writ his Gospel according to what he had learned of the Apostles All this is manifestly contrary to the Censures of the Doctors of Louvain and Douay That Jesuit does deliver himself in a clear and distinct manner He very exquisitely confirms the Opinion of those of his Society who had taught Theology before him in the College of Louvain But seeing it may be objected that this Opinion is the same with that of Grotius and Spinosa who acknowledged no other Inspiration but that of the Prophetical Writings it is worth the while to subjoyn that which Cornelius à Lapide observed in the same place concerning the manner of Inspiration that concerns Historical and Moral part of the Holy Scripture (q) Dicitur tamen Spiritus Sanctus ea quoque illis dictasse primò quia scribentibus adstitit ne vel in puncto à veritate aberrarent secundò quia eos excitavit suggessit ut haec potiùs scriberent quà m illa Conceptum ergo memoriam eorum quae sciebant non eis ingessit Spiritus Sanctus sed inspiravit ut hunc potiùs conceptum quà m illum scriberent Corn. à Lapid ibid. Nevertheless they affirm saith he that these latter Works were also Indited by the Holy Ghost first because he did assist the Writers that they could never be deceived and again because he suggested to them that one thing should be rather written than another So that the Holy Spirit did not suggest to them either their conceptions or the remembrance of those things which they knew but did Inspire them in this respect only that they might put one conception in writing rather than another In this the Inspiration of the Historical and Moral Writings of the Holy Scripture did consist according to the Opinion of that learned Jesuit wherein nothing appears but what is good Sense whereas in the Opinion of the Doctors of Louvain and Douay which is the same with that of the Calvinists there is something unintelligible that does violence both to Reason and Experience It cannot be said that this Opinion is a Novelty that was unadvisedly asserted by that Jesuit For he maintained it in the same Schools where that Dispute had made so great a noise upon the occasion of some Propositions that were put out upon that Subject by some Divines of his Society He was very much desirous to clear that Question in his Commentaries upon St. Paul to make it appear to all the World that the Censures of the two Faculties of Theology of Louvain and Douay had no Foundation and that they were against Reason Further the Provincial of the Jesuits of the Low-Countries who gave his approbation to that Book does declare that he himself had read it and had committed it to the Examination of four Divines of his Society There is also at the beginning of those Commentaries and Approbation of the Censor of the Books of that place who is a Canon of Anvers But that the World may be intirely satisfied that there is nothing either scandalous or dangerous in the Opinion of the Jesuits of the Low-Countries touching the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings we shall proceed to examin the Reasons upon which the Divines of Louvain and of Douay did found their Censures CHAP. XXIV An Examination of the Reasons that the Doctors of Louvain and Douay made use of in their Censure of the Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain touching the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings A very free Opinion of a Learned Divine of Paris about the same thing SEeing I have no other publick Records of the Fathers the Jesuits of Louvain to justifie their Propositions concerning the Inspiration of Scripture than what I have already mentioned I shall endeavour to supply that defect by examining the Reasons of the Censure of the two Faculties of Theology of Louvain and of Douay I am willing to believe that those Divines had no other design therein but what was for the Defence of the Truth or rather their own old Opinions and that Passion had no part in all that Dispute As to what concerns the Jesuits it is probable that they had not introduced that Opinion into the Colledges of Flanders but in conformity to the Liberty which had been granted to their Professors not to ingage themselves easily in the maintainance of any Opinions how old soever when they did not appear to be warrantable In a word the Jesuits make no profession of submitting to the decisions of a Master as a Rule from which there is no Appeal non jurant in verba Magistri And seeing there is nothing in that conduct but what does become wise Men they are much to be blamed who accuse them for opposing the Opinions that are received and authorised in the
most part of the Schools when those Opinions have no good Foundation which happened to them in the matter which we now handle The Divines of Louvain bring for one of the principal motives of their Censure the conformity that the three Propositions of the Jesuits have to an old Opinion that was condemned in the Anomeans whereof St. Epiphanius all through makes mention But to shew the falshood of this objection it will be sufficient to bring the Testimony of Epiphanius That Father does say that the Anomeans (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 76. n. 6. traduced the Prophets and the Evangelists that when they were much urged they avoided the difficulty by answering that the Apostle spake as a Man. Is there any thing in those three Propositions above mentioned that comes near this Did the Jesuits of the College of Louvain alledge that there might possibly be somthing that is false in the Writings of the Apostles under the pretext that they were Men that spake it Yet that is the Opinion of the Anomeans who being unable to satisfie the Reasons that were brought against them out of the Books of the New Testament said that the Authors of those Books had spoken as Men in those places We shall apply the same Answer to another Objection which those Doctors did take from the Preface of St. Jerom's Commentaries upon the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Philemon That Father does in that place make mention of certain Hereticks who rejected that Epistle because they alledged that that Holy Apostle was not guided by the Spirit of God in writing it Hieron prooem Comm. in Epist ad Philem. Those who will not saith he receive the Epistle written to Philemon as one of the Epistles of Paul do say that the Apostle did not speak always nor all things by the immediate assistance of Christ speaking in him because human frailty could not suffer one constant tenor of the Holy Ghost But if it should be granted to those Hereticks that St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles were not Inspired in all that they writ it does not therefore follow that we ought to reject a part of their Writings It is sufficient that we own with the Jesuits that there is nothing but Truth in those very places which were not Inspired and that the Holy Ghost had committed them to us as such Those Sectaries asked the Orthodox Apud Hieron ibid. Epist II. ad Tim. c. 4. v. 13. if St. Paul stood in need of any Inspiration to say When thou doest come bring my Cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus and especially the parchments and many other things of that nature I do declare that it was in no ways necessary that God should Indite such kind of things to St. Paul and other Holy Writers This is the Opinion of the Jesuits of Louvain which was afterwards confirmed in the same place by Cornelius à Lapide whose words I have already mentioned But they did not conclude from thence that we are not obliged to receive the Books of Scripture in any parts or places thereof but those only that were Indited by the Holy Ghost It is sufficient that they were persuaded that the Holy Writers were guided by the Spirit of God in every part of their Writings so as not to fall into any error The Divines of Louvain further objected against the Jesuits that they had renewed an Opinion which had been condemned in the Person of Erasmus But it is easie to make it appear that those Fathers maintained nothing that had affinity to the Proposition which Erasmus owned That Critick was accused for believing that there were * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some errors in the Writing of the Apostles which were to be attributed to a defect of their Memory We shall find nothing like this in the three Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain for although they be very well satisfied that there was no need of any Inspiration for Writing those things that they knew they do not upon that account imagin that the Writers were at any time mistaken through a defect of Memory Erasmus also used his utmost endeavour in one of his Apologies to wipe off that accusation He does protest that he only reported that which St. Jerom had observed upon the matter and that there had been nothing said but what was agreeable to St. Augustine's Opinion Howsoever it is that Critick does assure us (b) Nunc testor me abhorrere ab ullâ oblivione tribuendâ Apostolis Erasm Apol. adv Monach. quosd Hisp that he never intended to charge the Apostles with any defect of Memory I do not inquire if Erasmus was wronged in this It is enough that I have shewn the Proposition that is supposed to have been condemned on his account and have withal made it appear that there is nothing of that nature contained in the three Propositions of the Jesuits that were Censured Those very Divines did also by way of Objection bring the Authority of the Council of Trent Sess IV. the words of St. Peter Epist II. ch 1. v. 21. and those of St. Paul Epist II. to Timothy ch 3. v. 16. But there is nothing in all those places to which the Jesuits of Louvain do not agree The strongest Passage is that of the Epistle to Timothy and yet it is the same upon which Cornelius à Lapide made Observations as I have shewn As to the Testimony of the ancient Fathers who said that the Tongue and the Hand of the Holy were the Holy Ghosts Pen the Jesuits do not deny it The same Cornelius à Lapide has explained it at large in his Commentary upon the second Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Timothy where he makes it appear that it is not contrary to his Opinion about the Inspiration of Scripture And the truth is we cannot imagin that the Holy Ghost deprived the Evangelists and the Apostles of the use of their Reason and Memory The Reasons of the Doctors of the Faculty of Theology of Douay are no more Conclusive than those of the Divines of Louvain They chiefly depend upon some Passages of St. Augustin But since there is nothing that is positive in all those Passages it will not be worth the while to insist on them They bring for example by way of Objection some places of his Books Concerning the consent of the Evangelists Yet there is no Work where that Father has more shewn than in that Treatise that the Sacred Writers made use of their Reason and Memory when they writ their Gospels That Work has also given occasion to Erasmus and some other Writers to affirm that the Memory of the Apostles was not always sure and that they put sometimes one word for another It is true that St. Augustin is withal of the Opinion that that defect in the Apostles was guided by the Holy Ghost But I think it had been much better not to make them fall into error than to
that on the contrary it is approved because it was Inspired it does not contradict the Proposition of the Jesuits who continually suppose that the Books we chiefly treat of have the testimony of the Holy Ghost although they had not been immediatly Inspired which may suffice to render them approved The truth is many Learned Divines believed that it was not necessary that God should Inspire Moses with a knowledge of every thing that he has written in Genesis concerning the Creation of the World and the Genealogies of the Ancient Patriarchs He could be furnished as they judged with sufficient light about those things by what he learned of his Ancestors who had kept Memoirs of the same Doctus eruditus saith the Jesuit Pererius à Majoribus suis Perer. praef in Pentat ad quos ejusmodi rerum doctrina inde ab Adamo usque fidelissimâ posterorum traditione quasi per manus transmissa ad Mosem usque producta fuerat Was it necessary for Example that Moses should be inspired of God to set down in Writing all the Journeys and different Encampings of the Israelites in the Desert after their coming out of Egypt But I need not stay longer on a thing that has in my Opinion been sufficiently cleared And therefore I am so far from accusing the Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain as erroneous that I find nothing to be contained therein but what is agreeable to Truth and good Sense The Doctors who opposed them with so great heat had never exercised their thoughts sufficiently upon Questions of that nature They followed the old Opinion of their own Schools and seeing they only consulted their own prejudices they condemned that with a great deal of precipitation which they did not altogether understand A Learned Doctor of the Faculty of Theology of Paris maintained upon the same subject a Proposition very opposite to the opinion of the Divines of Louvain and Douay which possibly will not appear to be very Orthodox in the judgment of many His Book was nevertheless many times Printed with the approbation of several of his Brethren There was a new Edition thereof Published lately at Paris with the approbation of Mr. Cocquelin in 1685. a Doctor of that Faculty and Chancellor of the University who does assure us that he had read that Work once and again legi ac relegi Which by anticipation does shew that I intend to speak of the Analysis of Faith of Henry Holden who made it manifest through the whole Work that he had meditated much on the Principles of Theology Take therefore the Opinion of this Learned Person concerning the Inspiration of the Holy Scripture The special assistance which God afforded to every Author of those Books which the Church has received for the Word of God does extend it self to those things only that are mere matters of Doctrine or that have a near and necessary relation thereunto But in such things as are not the main business of the Author or have a relation to other things I reckon that God did assist them in no other manner than he used to assist other Writers that were Men of great Piety I shall content my self to explain the Opinion of this Doctor without presuming to offer Arguments against it since I know it is authorised by very sage Masters Yet I dare not maintain it in its full extent It would have done well if he had given us some examples of what he understands by things that are not mere matters of Doctrin or that have not an entire relation thereunto (e) Auxilium speciale divinitùs praestitum auctori cujuslibet scripti quod pro verbo Dei recipit Ecclesia ad ea solummodò se porrigit quae vel sint purè doctrinalia vel proximum aliquem aut necessarium habeant ad doctrinalia respectum In iis verò quae non sunt de instituto scriptoris vel ad alia referuntur eo tantùm subsidio Deum illi adfuisse judicamus quod piissimis caeteris auctoribus commune sit Henr. Hold. div fid Annal. lib. 1. c. 5. (f) Non omnia quae in Scripturis continentur esse simpliciter absolutè objectum nostrae fidei seu spectare ad articulos fidei sola enim revelata sunt objectum fidei ac non omnia quae Scriptura habet docet aut narrat sunt revelata De. Dom. lib. 7. c. 1. De Dominis of whom it would seem Holden had his Principles does much insist on this Subject which he explains with a great deal of subtilty He says that all that is in the Scripture is not simply and absolutely the Object of our Faith that is to say it does not belong to the Articles of our Creed because it is only the things that are revealed that can be the Object of our Faith. But saith that Author the things that are contained in Scripture are not all reveal'd From this Principle which he does illustrate by some Examples he draws this Consequence that we may in some manner excuse some very Learned Catholick Divines who imputed to the Evangelists a few faults which proceeded from a defect of their memory as in putting one name for another in disagreeing amongst themselves about the time or any other circumstances of the actions which they relate provided that it falls not upon the substance and upon the things themselves (g) Tales enim lapsus extra substantiam facti nihil fidei obsunt aut obesse possunt neque sunt circa aliquid fide divinâ credendum sed circa id quod solam humanam sensatam secum fert notitiam Humanam porrò notitiam subesse posse lapsui non videtur absurdum etiam in sacris Spiritûs Sancti scriptoribus quoties lapsus humanae notitiae in facti substantiam adjunctam revelationem non redundat Ibid. Errors of that kind he adds which touch not the substance of the things cannot in the least be any prejudice to our belief seeing they do not relate to that which we are obliged to believe of Divine Faith but only to that which is known by the senses which may be deceived even in the Sacred Writers when the substance does not come under debate Yet although de Dominis does explain this opinion at good length he declares that he dares not prosecute the same to the full He avows that there are many places in the Bible in which it seems that the Writers are mistaken that the solutions that are given for removing difficulties of that nature are very much constrained with which pious Souls ought nevertheless to be content although they do not satisfie those who severely examin every thing (h) Ego sanè quod in me est rigorem depono malo cum difficultate piam amplecti interpretationem quà m lapsum etiam istum levem circa solas circumstantias admittere Ibid. He does choose rather to take the part of those who are far from rigour than charge
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