they rejected the Writings of the Apostles against the Authority of all the Churches of the World and at the same time received the Apocryphal Books that had no Authority If any one continues this Father should oppose you and should make use of your own words that that which you alledge on your behalf is false and on the contrary that which is against you is true (m) Quid ages Quò te convertes Quam libri à te prolati originem quam vetustatem quam seriem successionis testem citabis Aug. ibid. what would you do How could you defend the truth of those Acts that you produce How could you prove their Antiquity not having any Witnesses in Tradition by whose Testimony they might be confirmed From whence he concludes (n) Vides in hac re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat auctoritas quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorum usque ad hodiernum diem succedentium sibimet Episcoporum serie tot populorum consensione firmatur Aug. ibid. that it is absolutely necessary on this occasion to have recourse to the Authority of those Churches that were established ever since the primitive times of the Christian Religion and to the consent of Nations that have received the Books of the New Testament from the Apostles He observes further and more close to the purpose that if it were only disputed concerning the variety of Copies since they are but few in number it would be sufficient to consult the Copies of different Countries and if they did not agree in this point the greater number should be preferred before the lesser or the more ancient before the later Plures paucioribus aut vetustiores recentioribus praeferrentur But the Manicheans who judged not of the Truth of these Books but with relation to their own Ideas refused to submit to this Authority they consulted only their reason in matters of Fact wherein all Deference ought to be given to Authority therefore when any passage was urged to them that thwarted their Opinion they boldly affirmed that that part had been corrupted or that the Book wherein it was found had been composed by some Impostor under the name of the Apostles Faustus for example who avouched that after having diligently perused the Books of Moses he could not find therein any Prophecy that had any regard to Jesus Christ takes this method in answering the Texts of the New Testament Where express mention is made of these Prophecies Jesus Christ saith in speaking of himself Moses hath wrote of me Faustus answers to this Joann v. 46. that after a serious examination of this passage (o) Ratione cogebar in alterum è duobus ut aut falsum pronunciarem capitulum hoc aut mendacem Jesum sed id quidem alienum pietatis eraè Deum existimare mentitum Rectius ergo visum est scriptoribus adscribere falsitatem quam veritatis auctoritati mendacium Apud Aug. lib. 16. contra Faust c. 2. his reason obliged him to conclude either that it was false or that Jesus Christ had not spoken the truth and since it would be no less than impious Blasphemy to say that God could lie it would be more adviseable to attribute the falsification to the Writers themselves When it was demanded of this Heretick why he did not receive the Old Law and the Prophets whom Jesus Christ himself hath authorised in the New Testament by his words I am not come to destroy the Law or the Peophets Matth. v. 17. but to fulfil them he objected against the Testimony of S. Matthew because he is the only Evangelist that hath related this It is supposed saith he that this Discourse was delivered in the Sermon that Jesus Christ made on the Mountain In the mean time S. John (p) Testis idoneus tacet loquitur autem minùs idoneus Apud Aug. cont Faust lib. 17. c. 1. who was there present speaks not a word thereof and yet they would have S. Matthew who saw nothing to mention it He pretends that this hath been wrote by some other person and not by S. Matthew After this manner the Manicheans who sacrificed all to their Reason and almost nothing to Authority entirely destroyed the Books of the New Testament receiving them no farther than they were conformable to their Prejudices they had formed to themselves a certain Idea of Christianity after which they regulated the Writings of the Apostles They would have it that all that which could not be adjusted to this Idea had been inserted in their Books by later Writers who were half Jews Faustus saith Multa enim à majoribus vestris eloquiis Domini nostri inserta verba sunt Apud Aug. l. 33. cont Faust c. 3. quae nomine signata ipsius cum fide non congruant praesertim quia ut jam saepe probatum à nobis est nec ab ipso haec sunt nec ab ejus Apostolis scripta sed multa post eorum assumptionem à nescio quibus ipsis inter se non concordantibus Semi-Judaeis per famas opinionesque comperta sunt c. But S. Augustin represents to them in this very same passage that one must renounce common sense to argue after this manner on matters of Fact to which imaginary reasons ought not to be opposed (q) De quo libro certum erit cujus sit si literae quas Apostolorum dicit tenet Ecclesia ab ipsis Apostolis propagata per omnes gentes tantâ eminentiâ declarata utrùm Apostolorum sint incertum est hoc erit certum scripsisse Apostolos quod huic Ecclesiae contrarii haeretiot proferunt Auctorum suorum nominibus appellati longè post Apostolos existentium Aug. ibid. We cannot be certain saith he of any Book if once we call in question those Works that the Church that is extended throughout the whole World receives with a common consent and if on the contrary we authorise as Apostolical Books that dispute therewith and that carry the name of Writers who have lived a long time after the Apostles He charges them (r) Legunt Scripturas apocryphas Manichaei à nescio quibus fabularum sutoribus sub Apostolorum nomine scriptas quae suorum scriptorum temporibus in auctoritatem sanctae Ecclesiae recipi mererentur si sancti docti bomines qui tunc in hac vita erant examinare talia poterant eos vera locutos esse cognoscerent Aug. cont Faust lib. 22. c. 79. with making Fables and Apocryphal Works to pass for Apostolical Writings and he shews at the same time the falsity of these Acts because they have not any testimony of the Doctors of the Church that were then living He urgeth Faustus to prove what he hath alledged by Books that are Canonical and generally received in all the Churches Non ex quibuscunque literis sed Ecclesiasticis Canonicis Catholicis Aug. l. 23. adv Faus c. 9. This Holy Doctor calls this way
of S. Thomas without establishing Tradition at the same time because it is impossible to prove this by any Testimony of the Scriptures Socinus To answer this Objection without departing from his Principle lays down (y) Est quiddam medium inter Scripturas traditionem Immò non quiddam modò sed multiplex quiddam soriptae nimirum historiae aliaque testimonia rationes ex quibus factum est fit ut cordati homines Matthaei Evangelium pro vera de Jesu Christo historin habeant Thoma non habeant nullâ hîc intercedente autoritate Ecclesiae Spiritiis quo ipsa porpetuò gubernetur Soc. Epist 4. ad Christoph Ostorod a certain Medium between the Scriptures and Tradition which Medium consists according to his opinion in written Histories in other Testimonies and in Ratiocinations from whence it is proved without making application to any Authority of the Church that the Gospel of S. Matthew contains the true History of Jesus Christ and that on the contrary that which carries the name of S. Thomas is a suppositious Book Episcopius and the other Remonstrants do also make use of this Answer that they may not be obliged to acknowledge the Traditions of the Church But this Medium which they suppose to be between the Scriptures and Tradition is a true Tradition which differs in nothing from that which S. Irenaeus Tertullian Epiphanius S. Augustin and several other Fathers have established when they intended to convince the ancient Hereticks of the Truth of the Apostolical Books These Histories and these other Acts whereof Socinus makes mention are taken from the Churches or from Ecclesiastical Writers and this is that which composeth Tradition He ought to agree to it himself since he avoucheth in his Treatise of the Authority of the Holy Scriptures that since the times of the Apostles to those of Eusebius none have doubted in the Church that the Books of the New Testament were not composed by those whose Names they bear For it is certain that many Hereticks that were out of the Church have not only doubted thereof but have absolutely rejected them That which hath deceived Socinus and the other Sectaries is a false notion that they have conceived of the Authority of the Church they imagine that she Judges by her own Authority only and not upon good Acts and Records that the Books that compose the Old and New Testament are Divine and Canonical CHAP. II. Concerning the Titles that are at the Head of the Gospels and other Books of the New Testament Whether these Titles were made by the Authors of these Books or whether they were since added WE have no solid proof in Antiquity to make it appear to us that the Names that are set at the Head of every Gospel were thereunto prefixed by those who are the Authors of them S. John Chrysostom assures us expresly of the contrary in one of his Homelies (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joann Chrys Hom. 1. in Epist ad Rom. Moses saith this Learned Bishop hath not put his Name to the five Books of the Law that he hath wrote those also that have collected the Acts after him have not set their Names at the beginning of their Histories The same may be said of the Evangelists Matthew Mark Luke and John. As for S. Paul he hath always set his Name at the beginning of his Epistles except that which is directed to the Hebrews and the Reason that S. John Chrysostom produceth is because the former wrote for the use of Persons that were present whereas S. Paul wrote Letters to persons that were at a distance If we should refer our selves herein to the Testimony of this Father we cannot prove precisely from the Titles only that are at the Head of every Gospel that these Gospels have been composed by those whose Names they bear at least if we do not joyn to this the Authority of the Primitive Church that hath added these Titles On this Principle it is that Tannerus and other Jesuits supported themselves in a Conference that they had at Ratisbonne with some Protestants to shew that they could not clearly prove the Title of S. Matthew and without the Testimony of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that this Gospel was made by him whose name it bore they insisted that they could not bring other Proofs of this Truth than those that were taken from humane Authority and not from the Scriptures themselves since they had been added to them Ex solo testimonio hominum eorumque non omnium sed eorum tantum qui Ecclesiae corpus constituunt * David Schramus Theologus Ecclesiastes in aula ad austrum Neoburgica edit Giessae Hassorum ann 1617. A Protestant Divine who had assisted at this Conference hath composed a Book on purpose on this Subject to prove the contrary to that which the Jesuits maintained But to say the truth there is more of Subtilty in these sorts of Disputes than of solid Arguments for although it were true that S. Matthew is the Author of the Title of his Gospel recourse must always be had to the Authority of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers to shew that this Title is of him and that this Gospel certainly belongs to him whose Name it bears at least if we decline flying to a private Spirit which hath been above discoursed and cannot be approved by any judicious Persons These Titles are so ancient in the Church that Tertullian reproves Marcion who acknowledged the Gospel of St. Luke from which he had only took away some Passages (b) Marcion Evangelio scilicet suo nullum adscribit auctorem quasi non licuerit illi titulum quoque adfingere cui nefas non fuit ipsum corpus evertere Tertull. lib. 4. adv Marc. cap. 2. for having no Title at the head of his Copy as if it were not lawful for him saith this Father to annex a Title to a Work the Text whereof he had ventured to corrupt He adds further in this same place That he could not proceed in the Dispute that he held with this Heretick since he had a right to reject a Book as suspected the Title whereof did not appear that he was willing nevertheless thus far to condescend to him because it is easie (c) Ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet Tertull. ibid. to judge by the Copy of S. Luke that was read in the Church whether that of Marcion were the same excepting that which he had cut off from it It is not to be inferred that Tertullian was of Opinion that it might be proved by the Titles only that the Gospels belonged to those whose Names they bore otherwise he ought to have acknowledged as the true Gospels an infinite number of false Books that carried the Names of the Apostles It was necessary according to his mind to have besides this a constant Tradition founded on the Testimonies of those who
be attributed to the Holy Ghost whose Instruments they have been But can that be called a Demonstration which is only grounded on uncertain Conjectures Would it not be more prudent to refer our selves herein to the testimony of Papias who hath lived with the Disciples of the Apostles If there had been in his time a Greek Version of the Gospel of S. Matthew which had been made by some Apostle he would not have failed to have told us of it He declares on the contrary that every one translated it as he was able There is nothing therefore but the constant Tradition of the Church alone that gives authority to this Version and that can oblige us to prefer it before the Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy of the Nazarenes Whereas the Protestants make the Holy Ghost to descend on the Apostles to translate the Gospel of S. Matthew out of Greek into Hebrew some Catholick Divines on the other side pretend also that the ancient Latin Version of the New Testament hath been inspired But it is much more reasonable only to admit this Inspiration for the Originals of the Holy Scriptures which have been translated into different Languages according to the necessities and occasions of the Churches If we hearken in the mean time to Casaubon and some other Protestants the Greek only of S. Matthew would be accounted Canonical (e) Constat sanè Ecclesiam Dei hunc ipsum textum inter libros Canonis Sacri relatum pari cum caeteris libris veneratione esse persecutam quod neque in Syriacâ Versione neque in ullâ aliâ reperitur esse factum Casaub ibid. because the Church hath put this Text into the Canon that she hath made of the Sacred Books and she hath not put therein the Syriack Version which is most ancient nor any other Translation but where is it to be found that the Church in placing the Gospel of S. Matthew in the rank of Canonical Books hath spoken of the sole Greek Version and hath excluded all others She only speaks in general of the Gospel of S. Matthew which is Divine and Canonical in whatsoever Language it be written It may be said nevertheless that there are some Nations that have exacter Translations of them than others this hinders not but that it may be averred that they all have a Canonical Copy of the Gospel of S. Matthew The Grecians and the Latins have this advantage over the other Christians that their Versions are the most ancient and the most exact and the Syrians after them However there is no Christian Nation that doth not believe but that they have in possession the true Gospel of S. Matthew tho they all have only Copies of it It doth not appear that Casaubon who is usually moderate in his Opinions hath sufficiently considered this matter when he hath unadvisedly taken the part of some Protestants against Baronius I do not pretend to defend all that Baronius hath alledged in this point but it seems to me that those of the Roman Church cannot with Justice be reproached (f) Error est in fide periculosissimus ne dicam Haeresis obtentu Hebraici contextûs qui sam ìnde à principio reperiri desiit in orbis nostri notis Ecclesiis Graeci auctoritatem velle elevare quod omnes hodie Hildebrandinorum sacrorum mystae in hac quaestione faciunt Casaub ibid. as Hereticks when they defend the Hebrew Text of S. Matthew to detract say they from the Authority of the Greek Copy The Defence that they undertake of the Hebrew Text of S. Matthew doth not in the least diminish the Authority of the Greek Version They only insist that the Greek is not the original but the Hebrew and if this Original were come to our hands it might with reason be preferred before the Greek which is but a Translation In the mean time since this Hebrew Text hath not been preserved in its purity in the Orthodox Churches but on the contrary hath been adopted by the Ebionite Hereticks who have corrupted it the Fragments thereof that are now extant are looked upon as Apocryphal Pieces By the word Apocryphal we ought only to understand that those Acts are doubtful and not false nor supposititious This hinders not but that good use may be made of them in those parts that are acknowledged not to have been altered an instance whereof hath been above propounded taken from S. Jerom's Commentaries on S. Matthew It were to be wished that we had at this day this Hebrew or Chaldaick Gospel entire even after the manner as it hath been interpolated by the Nazarenes and altered by the Ebionites we should not reckon it in the number of those Gospels that have been forged by Impostors as Casaubon hath indiscreetly done we should esteem it on the contrary as the most ancient Act of the Christian Religion Is there not reason to conjecture that he that hath translated the Original of S. Matthew out of Hebrew into Greek hath epitomized it in some places and sometimes taken the liberty rather to give us the Sense than the Words at least he seems to have used this liberty in the Quotations of the Old Testament that are therein produced which are more conformable to the Greek Version of the Seventy than to the Hebrew Text in the mean while there is very little appearance that S. Matthew writing his Gospel for the use of the Hebrews who read the Bible in Hebrew in their Synagogues should have quoted the Passages of the Old Testament otherwise than they were read in their Copies It is sufficient to authorize this Greek Version that it hath been read in the Churches that were constituted by the Apostles and that it hath been delivered down to us from Age to Age by a constant Tradition it is on this uninterrupted Tradition of the Churches that we ought to relye in shewing that the Greek Copy of S. Matthew is authentick and not on the imaginary Reasons of some Protestants This same Tradition of all the Churches in the World ought to be opposed to some Hereticks who have believed that the Gospel of S. Matthew hath been mangled and corrupted in several places Faustus a famous Manichean who could not adjust the Genealogy of Jesus Christ that is at the beginning of S. Matthew to the Opinions of his Party hath sought for Reasons to make it appear that it was false whereas he ought to have considered that having been received continually in the Church as well as the rest of this Gospel it bore the same stamp of Authority he compares S. Matthew with S. Luke who have related this Genealogy in a different manner and because (g) Offensus duorum maximè Evangelistarum dissensione qui genealogiam ejus scribunt Lucae Matthaei haesi incertus quemnam potissimum sequerer Apud Aug. lib. 3. cont Faust c. 1. he could not make them agree he abandons them to follow S. Mark and S. John who have made no mention thereof and who
this day receive it as such Calvin who hath been more moderate herein than Luther hath chose rather to reconcile the Doctrine of S. James touching Faith and Works with that of S. Paul than unadvisedly to reject this Epistle under colour that it appears to be contrary to the same S. Paul. To receive saith he this Epistle this seems to me to be sufficient Calv. arg de son Comm. sur l'Epist de St. Jaq. that it contains nothing unworthy of an Apostle of Christ The Lutherans themselves soon perceived that their Master sometimes gave out Opinions without a due consideration of what he affirmed Raithius who hath made an Apology for Luther confesseth that he had written in the first Edition of his German Bible to this effect that if this Epistle were compared with those of S. Peter and S. Paul it would appear only an Epistle of Straw Epistola straminea but (g) Post majorem illuminationem ut dies diem docet verba illa duriuscula postertoribus Saerorum Bibliorum editionibus sunt omissa nec post annum 1526. in ullâ amplius editione straminea vocatur Raith Vind. Vers Germ. Luth. th 21. after he had been more enlightned these Words were taken away in the following Editions and they are not to be found in those that have been made since the Year 1526. Nevertheless a certain Lutheran published a Book at Strasbourg in the Year 1527 wherein he speaks after a strange manner of the Epistle of S. James He affirms (h) Non possumus hîc defendere Jacobum citat enim Scripturas falsò solus Spiritui Saucto Legi Prophetis Christo Apostolisque omnibus contradicit Testimomum ipsius vanum est Vni ipsi testi credendum non esse supra annotavimus praesertim cum quo ipse Spiritus Sanctus tot testes veritatis dissentiant Ne igitur succenseas nobis lector si duriùs vehementiùs calamo quandoque in auctorem invecti sumus Meretur enim hoc odium hanc spiritûs vehementiam dum aliam perfectionem atque justitiam à nobis contendit quà m fidei Andr. Altham apud Grot. de discuss Rivet Apolog. p. 722. that he cannot defend it because the Author alledgeth false Quotations of the Scriptures and alone contradicts the Law the Prophets Jesus Christ and the Apostles he condemns the Testimony of this Writer as vain boldly affirming that we ought not to believe him being a single Witness especially since the Holy Ghost and a great number of the Witnesses of the Truth do dissent from him lastly this man after he hath taken so much liberty to declaim against the Author of this Epistle adds at the end of his Book that none ought to be offended that he hath treated him so severely for saith he he deserves this hatred because he hath proposed to us another Righteousness than that of Faith. Can there be any thing more insolent than the Words of this Sectary who durst oppose his false Conceptions against the Testimony of all the Churches of the World Socinus speaks with a great deal more moderation and judgment concerning the Authority of this Epistle This Champion of the Unitarians declares that it was doubted in the beginning touching the Authors of the Epistle of S. James of the second of S. Peter and of that of S. Jude because they were found after the Collection of the other Books of the New Testament had been made (i) Cùm postea tempore procedente ex judiciis huic rei aptis cognitum fuisset istas Epistolas illorum ipsorum Apostolorum esse exempta plerisque illa dubitatio fuit sic inter alias sunt numeratae ea quidem quae Jacobi est ante duas reliquas Soc. de auctor Script Sac. c. 1. n. 2. but forasmuch as it was acknowledged afterwards that they were certainly composed by the Apostles whose Names they bore the most part of the Churches did no longer doubt thereof and the Epistle of S. James was placed before the two others moreover with respect to that of S. James he proves the Antiquity of this Tradition by the ancient Syriack Copies Therefore he doth not only receive them as Canonical but believes also that they do certainly belong to them to whom they are attributed Although it be agreed that the first of these Catholick Epistles was written by S. James nevertheless it remains to be known who this James is The Title of this Epistle doth not resolve this difficulty because it is different according to the various Greek Copies and indeed we ought not to relye on this sort of Title that are later than the Authors of the Books It is read simply in some Manuscript Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2872. The Catholick Epistle of S. James and in others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of the Apostle S. James This is also the Title that hath been prefixed in the Vulgar Latin Epistola Catholica beati Jacobi Apostoli and which Beza hath retained in his Greek Edition of the New Testament where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of the Apostle James But Robert Stephen in his curious Greek Edition of the New Testament in folio hath simply put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of James It is no otherwise in Crespin's Edition at Geneva in the Year 1565. It is read according to the same sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Epistle of S. James in that of Wolfius at Strasbourg in 1524. We read also after the same manner in the Edition of Melchior Sessa at Venice in 1538 and in that of Simon de Colines at Paris in 1534 and in many others This is most natural and most conformable to the Greek Text where S. James at the beginning of his Epistle takes upon him no other Quality than that of a Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ Therefore Grotius hath also preserved this same Title and he hath reason not to approve the Opinion of those that attribute it to James the Son of Zebedee because this James had been put to Death by Herod before the Gospel of Jesus Christ was much spread abroad beyond Judea neither doth he believe that James the Son of Alpheus was the Author of it because he would have taken at the beginning of his Epistle the Name of an Apostle which was a quality in those Primitive Times that gave a great Authority to their Words from whence he concludes that it ought to be ascribed to that James whom the Apostles constituted first Bishop of Jerusalem Hieron de Script Eccles in Jac. This is not very far from the Words of S. Jerom in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers James who is called the Brother of our Lord and sirnamed the Just as some think was the Son of Joseph by another Wife but according to my Opinion of Mary the Sister of our Lord of whom John makes mention
seen in his time at Ephesus two Tombs of John. S. Jerom Hieron de Script Eccl. in Joann who often translates the words of Eusebius out of Greek into Latin hath also made this same Remark Reliquae autem duae saith he speaking of these two Epistles of S. John Joannis Presbyteri asseruntur cujus hodie alterum sepulchrum apud Ephesum ostenditur He adds nevertheless that some thought that these two Monuments were of S. John the Evangelist Nonnulli putant duas memorias ejusdem Joannis Evangelistae esse He repeats this same History when he makes mention of Papias and saith (ſ) Hoc autem diximus propter superiorem opinionem quam à plerisque retulimus traditam duas posteriores Epistolas Joannis non Apostoli esse sed Presbyteri Hieron de Script Eccles in Papiâ that he relates it for the sake of a a great number of persons that believed that this second John to whom the simple name of Priest is given was the Author of these two Epistles and not the Apostle However Athan. in Synops the Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures attributes these two last Epistles no less to the Apostle S. John than the first And it seems that the Latin Church that reads it in her Offices under the same Name hath authorised this Opinion which is likewise conformable to the Testimony of the most ancient Writers of this Church Therefore the Name of this Apostle Beati Joannis Apostoli is retained in the Latin Title of these three Epistles in the vulgar Edition In the Syriack Copy of these two last Epistles that have been Printed in the Polyglott Bible of England the simple Name of John is put whereas in the first it is read of John the Apostle This seems to have been done on purpose to distinguish the Authors of these Epistles In the Arabick Copy published by Erpenius these three Epistles are ascribed to the Apostle S. John who is named in the Title of the two first John the son of Zebedee and in the Title of the third John the Apostle Lastly Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 25. there have been raised no lest doubts in the Primitive Ages of the Church concerning the Epistle of S. Jude than of the preceding Letters for this reason Eusebius hath reckoned it in the number of those Books of the New Testament that were not generally received by all the Churches S. Jerom who hath made the same observation (t) Judas frater Jacobi parvam quae de septem Catholicis est epistolam reliquit quia de libro Enoch qui apocryphus est in ea assumit testimonium à plerisque rejicitur Tamen auctoritatem vetustate jam usu meruit inter Scripturas Sacras computatur Hieron de Script Eccles in Judâ adds that that which gave occasion to reject it was the Apocryphal Book of Enoch which is cited therein And that this nevertheless hath not hindered it from being placed in the rank of the Sacred Books its Antiquity and Use having given it this Authority In like manner it hath been generally received by all the Churches as well Eastern as Western The Unitarians and Protestants also have put it amongst the other Canonical Books of the New Testament Luther hath nevertheless doubted of it as well as of the Epistle of St. James but they that follow his Opinion are so far from rejecting it at present that they use their utmost endeavours to put a fair Construction on their Masters words Calvin after he hath acknowledged that the Ancients have differed very much amongst themselves touching this Epistle Calv. argum de ses Comm. sur l'ep de Sainte Jude expresseth himself thus However because the reading of it is very profitable and it contains nothing but what is agreeable to the purity of the Apostolical Doctrine and in regard also that it hath been accounted Authentick for a long time amongst all good People for my part I willingly place it in the number of the other Epistles Cajetan hath inserred from the above cited words of St. Jerom (u) Ex quibus apparet minoris esse aucloritatis hanc Epistolam iis quae sunt certae Scripturae Sacrae Cajet Comm. in Epist Jud. that this Epistle is of less Authority than these Writings of the Apostles of the verity of which we have been certainly assured but this might have been properly said in those ancient times when it was not approved by all the Churches whereas when this Cardinal wrote there were none that did not receive it as Divine and Canonical and therefore it hath no less Authority than the other Sacred Books that are comprehended in the Canon of the Church Grot. Annot in Epist Jud. Grotius did not believe that this Epistle was written by St. Jude the Apostle because the Author hath taken upon him only the quality of a Servant of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith moreover that (x) Si Apostolica fuisset habita haec Epistola versa fuisset in linguas omnes recepta per omnes Ecclesias Grot. Annot. in Epist Jud. if it were certainly esteemed Apostolical it would have been Translated into all Languages and received by all the Churches therefore he judgeth that it belongs to Jude Bishop of Jerusalem who lived under the Emperor Adrian But the first words of this Epistle do declare to us that it can come from no other hand than that of the Apostle St. Jude since he calls himself Jude the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James For to say with Grotius that these words Brother of James have been afterwards added by the Transcribers that it might be believed that this Jude was certainly an Apostle is to beg the question they that would prove that this hath been inserted by the Transcribers ought to produce good Copies of this Epistle or certain ancient Acts on which we might rely Any Man that should have a mind absolutely to reject the Epistle of St. Jude might easily say with as much reason as Grotius that he that hath forged it hath put therein the name of Jude the Brother of James Therefore Arguments that are purely Critical ought never to be opposed against Acts that are ancient and generally received by all the World. It is true that the Epistle of St. Jude is less quoted by the ancient Doctors of the Church than the most part of the other Books of the New Testament and that it is not found in the ancient Copies of the Syriack Version But it can be only concluded from thence that it was not at first received in all the Churches it might however have been published ever since the Primitive times of the Christian Religion under the name of St. Jude the Brother of James and yet not be Translated into all the Languages of the Churches because it was then doubted in the most part of these Churches whether it was his whose name it bore
in the proper Languages of the respective Authors A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament Wherein is establish'd The Truth of those ACTS on which CHRISTIANITY is founded PART I. CHAPTER I. The Verity of the New Testament defended in general against the ancient Hereticks Reflections upon the Principle made use of by the Fathers to establish the Authority of these Books JEsus Christ having profess'd that he came not into the World to destroy the Old Law but rather to accomplish it Matt. v. 17. it seemed not to him necessary to publish his Doctrine in Writing He was content to prove his Mission by his Miracles and to support his Reformation upon the Books of the Old Testament which were received by all the Jews to whom the Messias had been promised So that we do not find him to have given order to his Disciples to putany thing into Writing He only commands them to Preach his Gospel to all the Nations of the Earth Go ye says he to them Mar. xvi 15. into all the world and preach the Gospel The Books of the New Testament took their Original from this preaching This it was that caused Tertullian to say (a) Constituimus in primis Evangelicum instrumentum Apostolos autores habere quibus hoc munus Evangelii promulgandi ab ipso Domino sit impositum Tertul. l. 4. adv Marcion c. 2. That the Apostles to whom Jesus Christ had given this Command to promulge the Gospel were the Authors thereof Upon the whole matter the Gospels had not been put in Writing but at the request of those People who were willing to preserve the memory of that which the Apostles had preached to them S. Paul composed the greater part of his Epistles for the Instruction of Churches which were already erected That History which we call the Acts of the Apostles was published to no other end but to shew to the Faithful the Progress of the Christian Religion upon its first advance into the World and the Christians not having at that time any State separate from that of the Jews and being present and assisting at all their Ceremonies in the Temple and in the Synagogues they had no Persons appointed to record any thing of importance which pass'd among them And this is the reason that we find not here as in the Old Testament any publick Writers who had the Charge of collecting the Acts of their State. This during the Primitive times of Christianity gave a pretence to several Hereticks to doubt of the truth of those Apostolical Books which to them seem'd to want some publick Attestation S. Ignatius in one of his Epistles complains (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignut Ep. ad Philad That he understood there were some men who said they could not believe the Gospel except they could find it written in the * There are some who read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ancients Archives The holy Martyr answers them That it was written that the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and a Faith in him were instead of the most authentick Archives It was then difficult to distinguish the Books which had been composed by the Apostles or by their Disciples from those which had been forged by false Apostles or by some Sectaries Every one bore in its front either the Name of the Apostles in general or of some single one of their number and since there were no publick Archives to which recourse might be had for the deciding and clearing of matters of this nature the Hereticks took occasion from thence to publish a great number of false Acts of which hardly any thing is left to Posterity except the Titles of them and a few Fragments These Sectaries boasted that they taught the Doctrine of the Apostles or at least of their Disciples Basilides who was one of the most ancient Hereticks avouched that he had for his Master (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Clem. Alex. lib. 7. Strom. Glaucias one of St. Peter's Interpreters Và lentin affirmed with the same boldness that he had been instructed in Religion by Theodad (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Clem. Alex. ibid. who was one of St. Paul 's familiar Acquaintance But whereas they did not agree amongst themselves and on the contrary the Doctrine of the Apostles was perfectly uniform in the Churches that they had planted the Fathers made use of this Uniformity of Doctrine to confirm and establish the truth of the Apostolical Writings Clemens Alexandrinus answers Basilides and Valentin that there was but one true ancient Church that was before all Heresies From thence he brings an unquestionable proof of the falsity of the Doctrine of these Sectaries who durst be so bold as to give the Name of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of the Apostles to their own Inventions he represents to them that (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. ibid. the Doctrine of the Apostles were one as well as their Tradition The Primitive Christians argued against the Hereticks of those times from Tradition and from the Conformity of that Belief that was manifest in all the Churches founded by the Apostles as may be seen at large in the Works of St. Irenaeus Tertullian Epiphanius and St. Augustin and in a word of all the Fathers that have defended the Writings of the Apostles against the Hereticks Whensoever any Sectary opposed the declared Gospel they immediately convinced him of the forgery of those Acts that he produced by the true ones that were kept in the Apostolical Churches and were instead of Archives (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 42. If any one saith St. Epiphanius should go about to counterfeit the Edicts or Ordinances of Emperors the Cheat would be soon laid open by producing the true Copies taken from the Archives of the Court In like manner adds he false Gospels composed by Hereticks may be detected their spuriousness may be easily discovered by producing the true Gospels that are kept in the Churches as it were in Archives This manner of defending the Truth of the Apostolical Writings against the ancient Sectaries hath proved so effectually convincing that the Gnosticks were obliged to support their Novelties to fly to I know not what secret Tradition that was known to none but themselves They were so insolent as to prefer themselves before the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ accusing them as not having preached the Purity of the Gospel with sincerity because say they they have retained many Ceremonies of the old Law. They thought by this means that they might be able with Authority to reform the Writings of the Apostles (g) Cùm autem ad eam iterum traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per successiones Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos adversantur traditioni dicentes se non solùm Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes superiores sinceram invenisse veritatem Apostolos autem
of arguing of the Manicheans folly insaniam dementiam who not being able to accommodate the Writings of the Apostles to the Idea that they had formed to themselves of the Christian Religion or under colour of certain contradictions in the Scriptures which they could not resolve (ſ) Non à Christi Apostolis sed longo pòst tempore à quibusdam incerti nominis viris qui ne sibi non haboretur fides scribentibus quae nescirent partim Apostolorum nomina partim eorum qui Apostolos secuti viderentur scriptorum suorum frontibus indiderunt asseverantes secundùm eos se scripsisse quae scripserint Apud Aug. lib. 32. cont Faust c. 2. would needs have it believed that these Books were composed after the Apostles themselves by uncertain Authors who had made bold to borrow the Names of these Apostles to gain Credit and Authority to their Works To convince them the more easily of their folly he sets before their eyes the Books (t) Platonis Aristotelis Ciceronis Varronis aliorumque ejusmodi autorum libros unde noverunt homines quôd ipsorum sint nisi temporum fibimet succedentium contestatione continuâ August cont Faust lib. 33. c. 6. of Hippocrates Plato Aristotle Varto and Cicero and of several other Writers that are believed to be the Authors of those Works that we have under their Names because they have been attributed to them in the time wherein they lived and they have been always so attributed successively from Age to Age. Now there is nothing more contrary to reason than not to grant the same privilege to the Church and not to acknowledge that she hath faithfully kept the Writings of the Apostles whose Doctrine she hath always preserved by the means of the Succession of Bishops We have enlarged a little on these Reflections of S. Augustin and of the other Fathers that preceded him because they have mightily evinced the Truth of the Books of the New Testament without having recourse to I know not what particular Spirit which is an invention of these later times We cannot imagine any thing more opposite to good reason than these Words of the Confession of Faith of those that formerly took the Name of the Reformed of the Churches of France Confess Art. 4. We acknowledge these Books in speaking of the whole Scriptures to be Canonical not so much by the common agreement and consent of the Church as by the testimony and inward persuasion of the Holy Ghost The Fathers nevertheless have always confuted the ancient Hereticks who refused to acknowledge these Books as Canonical by the common agreement and consent of the Church It would have been a pleasant way of reasoning if every one in these primitive times of Christianity would not have acknowledged for divine Books only those that his private Spirit should dictate to him to be such This hath appeared to be so great an extravagance to those of that Persuasion who in the Low Countries are called Remonstrants that they look upon the Calvinists that follow this Principle as People that have renounced common sense Simon Episcopius who hath been one of the Champions of this Party after having handled this question with a great deal of subtilty concludes that it is a very ill sort of argumentation to admit besides the testimony of the Church another inward testimony of the Holy Ghost to know whether certain Books have a divine Authority stampt upon them Hinc patet saith this Protestant ineptos esse eos qui vel praeter vel citra testimonium Ecclesiae requiri aiunt internum Spiritus Sancti testimonium ad hoc ut libros hos divinos esse authoritatem divinam habere intelligamus Remonst Confess c. 1. de scrip n. 8. It is sufficient according to the Remonstrants that we have there upon the testimony of (v) Ecclesia primitiva quae temporibus Apostolorum fuit certissimè resciscere potuit indubiè etiam rescivit libros istos ab Apostolis scriptos esse vel saltem approbatos nobisque istius rei scientiam quasi per manus tradidit ac veluti depositum quoddam reliquit Remonst Confess cap. 1. de Script n. 8. the primitive Church that certainly knew that these Books were written by the Apostles or approved by them and that this testimony is come down to us by a constant Tradition This Spirit that is diffused through the whole Church ought without doubt to be preferred to a private Spirit that can only serve to make a division therein Grot. Animad in Anim. Riv. This is what Grotius hath judiciously observed Spiritus ille privatus saith this Critick Spiritus Ecclesiae divisor It would be to no purpose for the Calvinists to object to the Remonstrants that their Opinion is taken out of the Writings of Socinus because an evident truth ought not to be rejected under pretence that it may be found in the Books of Socinus This Heretick hath proved in his Treatise Of the Authority of the Holy Scriptures and in another Work intituled Sacred Lectures the Truth of the Sacred Books and principally of those of the New Testament by the very same reasons and after the same manner that S. Irenaeus Tertullian and S. Augustin have done Socin lib. de Auctor Script sac (x) Legantur ea quae hac de re Eusebius scribit pluribus in locis Historiae Ecclesiasticae invenietur usque ad illius Eusebit aetatem hoc est per 250. circiter annorum perpetuum spatium postquam scripta illa conscripta atque edita fuerunt nunquam fuisse in Ecclesia qui dubitaret quin quatuor quae habemus Evangelia liber Actorum Apostolorum Epistolae omnes quae Pauli Apostoli esse dicuntur praeter eam quae ad Hebraeos est scripta prior Apostoli Petri prima Joannis Apostoli haec inquam omnia ab iis scripta fuissent quibus attribuuntur Socin lib. de Auctor Script Sac. Let them read saith Socinus that which Eusebius hath written on this matter in his Ecclesiastical History and they will find therein a perpetual consent of all the Churches of the World since these Books were written to the time of this Author He insists very much in these two Treatises on the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers Will any one say for this that this is a Socinian Method because Socinus hath made use of it after the most Learned Ecclesiastical Writers Would to God that this Enemy of the Traditions of the Catholick Church had always followed this Principle he would not have introduced so many Innovations into Religion Neither can he avoid an Objection that may be made even by those of his own Party that according to his Principles he ought necessarily to acknowledge a Tradition after the same manner as it is maintained in the Church of Rome We cannot might they say to him receive the Gospel of S. Matthew and reject that which hath been published under the Name
simple Cyril of Jerusalem who lived a little after the first appearance of this Sect attributes this Gospel to one of the Disciples of Manes named Thomas (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Cyr. Catech. 6. Let none saith this Holy Bishop read the Gospel of Thomas for he is not one of the twelve Apostles but one of the three wicked Disciples of Manes The Names of these three Disciples according to the testimony of the same Cyril were Thomas Baddas and Hermas Nevertheless Pope Gelasius condemns it Gelasius decr 1. par dist 15. c. 3. as belonging as they said to the Apostle S. Thomas Evangelium nomine Thomae Apostoli quo utuntur Manichaei apocryphum S. Augustin writing against Faustus hath made mention of certain Apocryphal Books which the Manicheans made use of Aug. cont Faust lib. 22. c. 79. wherein were related several Actions of S. Thomas of which he hath produced some Examples But not to be tedious I shall pass by many other Gospels that have been published under the Names of the Apostles the Titles of them may be seen in the Catalogne of Pope Gelasius who hath ranked them in the number of Apocryphal Books Altho the Church doth acknowledge as Canonical only two Epistles of S. Peter that are also but short yet if we believe the ancient Hereticks he hath composed several other Works that are mentioned by S. Jerome viz. certain Acts a Gospel an Apocalypse and two other Books (q) Vnus Actorum ejus inscribitur alius Evangelit tertius Praedicationis quartus Apocalypseos quintus Judicii Hieron de Scriptor Eccl. in Petr. one of which was intituled The Preaching of Peter and the other The Judgment Eusebius who hath also taken notice of these Books attributed to S. Peter adds that they were generally rejected by all the Catholicks (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccles lib 3. c. 3. because it did not appear that any Ecclesiastical Writer had ever subscribed to their Authority which is not true for he avouches himself in another place that Clement of Alexandria hath cited the Apocalypse of S. Peter the same Clement hath also cited the Book that bears the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Preaching of Peter he hath also produced some Fragments of these two Works which Origen hath likewise done after him It is probable that Eusebius only intended to say that no Ecclesiastical Author had quoted these Books as Divine and Canonical After the same manner may be explained another Passage of his History where after he had rejected as Apocryphal the Gospels that had been published by the Hereticks under the Names of Peter Thomas Matthias and some other Apostles he adds Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 25. that no Ecclesiastical Writer since the Apostles to his time had made mention of these Gospels Serapion Bishop of Antioch hath written a Letter on purpose against the Gospel that bears the name of Peter Seraph apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. cap. 12. on occasion of certain Christians of Rhossus in Cilicia who having read this Gospel were fallen into the Error He saith in this Letter that he embraced as well as they the Writings of S. Peter and the other Apostles as the Word of Jesus Christ but that he rejected this false Gospel that had been forged under the Name of S. Peter and was not grounded on any Tradition The Hereticks that were called Docites made use thereof and Serapion himself before he had examined it had permitted those of Rhossus to read it but afterwards having found some Passages therein contrary to the Orthodox Faith he absolutely forbad them the reading it Sozomen affirms (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sozom. Hist Eccles lib. 7. cap. 19. that the Apocalypse attributed to S. Peter was read even in his time every year on Good Friday in some Churches of Palestine altho this Piece had been exploded by all Antiquity The ancient Ecclesiastical Authors do moreover make mention of certain Acts attributed to S. Paul which Eusebius hath rejected as Apocryphal (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb lib. 3. Hist Eccles cap. 3. We receive not saith this Historian among the Books that are not suspected that which is called the Acts of Paul and he speaks of these Acts in another place (v) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb ib. c. 24. as a false and supposititious Writing Many other Books have been compiled under the Name of this Apostle and among others an Apocalypse or Revelation which Pope Gelasius hath inserted in the List of Apocryphal Pieces Gelasius decr 1. part dist 15. c. 3. Revelatio quae appellatur Pauli Apostoli apocrypha Sozomen hath observed (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sozom. Hist Eccles lib. 7. c. 19. that in his time the greatest part of the Monks very much esteemed this Apocalypse tho it had no testimony of Antiquity To gain more authority to it they feigned that it had been found at Tarsus in Cilicia buried under ground in S. Paul's House The Cainites who acknowledged Cain for their Father from whom they took their Name had forged another Work under the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 38. n. 2. that contains the History of that which happened to S. Paul when he ascended into Heaven where he learn'd things which he was not permitted to reveal The Gnosticks adopted this Book for their use I shall not insist on some Epistles that have been also published under the Name of S. Paul because I shall have occasion to speak of them in another place Besides all these Acts counterfeited under the Names of the Apostles of which scarce any thing is left but the Titles we have others more entire that have been Printed but they are so full of Fables and absurd Tales that we cannot read them without being at the same time convinced of their falsity Is there any thing for example more ridiculous than the Gospel attributed to Nicodemus There is nothing also that comes nearer to Fable than the little Book intituled Protevangelium Jacobi The first Gospel of James wherein it is treated among other things concerning the Birth and Infancy of the blessed Virgin Mary William Postel who first brought this false Gospel from the Levant would persuade all the World to believe that it was read publickly in the Eastern Churches and that they did not there doubt of the Author thereof He translated it out of Greek into Latin and having sent his Translation to Oporinus a Printer at Basil Bibliander caused it to be Printed with this specious Title Protevangelion sive de Natalibus Jesu Christi ipsius matris Virginis Mariae Sermo Historicus D. Jacobi Minoris consobrini fratris Domini Jesu Protev Jac. edit Basil in 3. ann 1552. Apostoli primarii Episcopi Christianorum primi Hierosolymis He added also some Notes thereto after his way with a Discourse wherein he avoucheth after Postel that
and in another place that (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joann 19.13 Gabbatha and (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. ver 17. Golgotha are Hebrew Words One would think that after so many Testimonies of the New Testament we could not doubt that the Jews of Jerusalem spake Hebrew in the times of the Apostles In the mean time Mr. Vossius who hath openly declared against the Hebrew Text of the Jews hath thought that he could not give a greater Authority to the Greek Version of the LXX than in making it appear that Jesus Christ and his Apostles had read it in the Temple and in the Synagogues of Jerusalem But it was not necessary to cast himself into this extremity and to argue against actual proofs of matter of fact that are indisputable to defend the ancient Greek Translation against some Protestants that had unhappily attacked it He supposeth to establish his Opinion that (g) In Imperio Romano Graecus sermo Latinus omnibus erat in usu Hebraea vero lingua ne ab ipsis quidem Judaeis intelligebatur Voss Resp ad Object Theol. Leyd the Greek and Latin were the Languages in use throughout the whole Empire and that the Hebrew was not understood even by the Jews We willingly agree with him that the Greek and Latin were the Languages of the Empire but this doth not prove that these two Languages only were spoken therein There are on the contrary positive Proofs in the New Testament confirmed by all Antiquity that evidently shew that the Jews of Jerusalem then spake Hebrew or Chaldaick We agree also with him that the ancient Hebrew Tongue was not at that time a vulgar Language and that none but the Priests understood it but it cannot be concluded from thence that they spake Greek Josephus who was very well skilled in the Greek Tongue (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph Praefat. Antiq. Jud. affures us that it was foreign to him and to those of his Nation Mr. Vossius to whom all these difficulties have been represented cannot resolve them but in supposing always that (i) Stante Imperio Romano solus ibi regnabat Graeous sermo ..... Graecè omnes scripserc Graecè etiam loquebantur Voss Resp ad iter P. Sim. Obj. during the Subsistence of the Roman Empire no other Language was spoken but the Greek in Jerusalem and in all Palestin He would have the Syriack sought for without the Empire this he proves by the Example of St. Ephraem and others Fathers that have written in this Language and have all been of the Parthian or Arabian Nation affirming that we must look for the Syriack Tongue amongst the Assyrians and the Arabians that inhabited the lower Syria and not amongst the Syrians that were in the Roman Empire and besides that we ought not to call that Syriack whick is called Chaldaick in the New Testament He adds farther that the Jews of Jerusalem could not learn the Chaldaick but of the Jews that were on the other side of the River Euphrates that it is madness to say that the said Jews of Jerusalem have kept this Language by Tradition in a place where the Greek hath been in use for many Ages especially it being impossible to bring any Example that may make it appear that a Language can be preserved in a Country when another hath obtained therein He concludes at last that the Jews of Jerusalem had no other vulgar Tongue in the time of our Saviour and the Apostles than the Greek and Latin and that those who had some knowledge of the Hebrew or Chaldaick had attained it after the same manner as we now learn the Latin at this day or by the Commerce that they had with the Jews that were on the farther side of Euphrates where the Chaldaick was spoken Here it would be requisite to follow Mr. Vossius step by step who hath had no other design in all this long Discourse than to confound and intricate the matter in hand not being able to answer precisely to the Reasons that have been proposed to him It may be observed in the first place that the present Question is not concerning the ancient Fathers that have spoken Syriack and have written Books in this same Language but only relating to the Jews and therefore the Examples that he produceth of St. Ephraem and some other Doctors of the Church are nothing to the purpose for we agree with him that those that have inhabited the Country that is on the farther side of Euphrates have spoken Syriack it is agreed also that the Jews of the Parthian or Arabian Nation who depended not on the Roman Empire spake the Chaldaick or Babylonish Language And not to insist on Questions about names we are willing also to call that Tongue Chaldaick rather than Syriack which is called Hebrew in the New Testament though the ancient Fathers have named it Syriack and though it be properly neither Chaldaick nor Syriack it being degenerated from the true Chaldaick All that Mr. Vossius can conclude from his Supposition is that the Jews who were beyond Euphrates spake only Chaldaick whereas the Jews of Jerusalem and of Palestine at least the most polite of them spake besides the Chaldaick which their Fathers had brought from Babylon the Greek Tongue which was become vulgar in these places It is madness to say that St. Paul when he made his Oration in Hebrew or Chaldaick in the presence of the Jews of Jerusalem had only regard to those that were beyond Euphrates and to those that had learn'd the Chaldaick Tongue of them He directs his Words in general to all the Jews that were present and it cannot be said that he had only Strangers for his Auditors Josephus was of the number of the Jews of Jerusalem and not of the Parthian or Arabian Nation he declares in the mean time Joseph Praefat. Antiq. Jud. that that which had hindered him from writing the Antiquities of his Nation so soon as he had intended it was that he found it difficult to express his mind in the Greek Tongue that was foreign to him He saith in another place that he was born an Hebrew that he is of Jerusalem Joseph Praefat. lib. de Bell. Jud. and a Priest and in this same Passage he calls the Chaldaick the Language of his Country This makes it evident that the Chaldaick cannot be restrained to the Jews only that were on the other side of Euphrates since Josephus was not of that Country Both the one and the other sort spake in this Tongue with this difference only that those that dwelled in the Countries that were beyond Euphrates spake nothing but Chaldaick and those of Jerusalem could besides the Chaldaick speak the Greek Language that was dispersed through Palestin As to what Mr. Vossius objects that it is impossible to shew that a Language hath been preserved in a Country when another hath come in its place I answer that it is easie to give him
to John hath been preached by himself in the Isle of Patmos thirty years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ By this it may be seen what is the belief of the Greek Church touching the time wherein every Gospel hath been written and though we cannot conclude any thing as from certain Acts nevertheless we may infer from thence that S. Mark obtains the second place amongst the Evangelists if respect be had to the time in which they wrote they are also placed in this order in a great number of Manuscript Copies which I have read they are notwithstanding disposed otherwise in the Greek and Latin Copy of Cambridge which is one of the most ancient that we have at this day and contains the four Evangelists with the Acts of the Apostles S. John in this Copy follows immediately after S. Matthew S. Luke after S. John and S. Mark is the last of the four This Order cannot be attributed to him that hath bound the Leafs of this Manuscript together for the ranking of them is expressed at the end of every Gospel See what is read at the end of S. Matthew Cod. MSS. Cantabr (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MS. Cantabrig The Gospel according to Matthew is ended the Gospel according to John beginneth afterwards it is read at the end of S. John (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. MS. The Gospel according to John is ended the Gospel according to Luke beginneth and at the end of S. Luke it is read (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. MS. The Gospel according to Luke is ended the Gospel according to Mark beginneth and lastly these Words are to be read at the end of S. Mark (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. MS. The Gospel according to Mark is ended the Acts of the Apostles begin This way of specifying the end of one Book and the beginning of that which follows is natural and the most ancient there is no other to be found in the most ancient Manuscripts of the New Testament The Manuscript Copy of the Epistles of S. Paul which is in the Library of the Benedictin Monks of the Abby of S. Germain and is not inferior in Antiquity nor in the Beauty of its Characters to that of Cambridge ranketh the Epistles of S. Paul in order after the same manner whereas in the Manuscripts that are of a later date and in the printed Books some other Circumstances have been added that shew the place from whence these Epistles have been written and the Persons by whom they have been sent Moreover the order of the Gospels which the Cambridge Manuscript follows is not peculiar to it for it may be seen also in an ancient Catalogue of the Books of the Holy Scriptures which is at the end of the before mentioned MS. Copy of the Benedictines It is probable that this Alteration hath been made by the Latins who have transcribed the Greek Copies for their use Druthmar an ancient Benedictin Monk Christ Druthm Expos in Matth. cap. 1. declares that he had seen a Copy like to that of Cambridge wherein the Gospel of S. John immediately followed after that of S. Matthew and it was believed that this Copy heretofore belonged to S. Hilary But this different Disposition in point of order of the Copies of the Gospels doth not interfere with the general Opinion of the Ecclesiastical Writers who all give the second place among the Evangelists to S. Mark. It is also commonly believed that he was only the Disciple of the Apostles and that therefore he could not be an Eye-witness of the Actions which he relates he hath only published that which he had learn'd from them more especially from S. Peter whose Interpreter it is affirmed that he hath been Marcus saith S. Irenaeus interpres sectator Petri as if S. Peter had only preached this Gospel and that it had been afterwards written by S. Mark. This Opinion is very ancient for Papias who had received it from one of the Disciples of the Apostles declares it after him in these Words (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 3. cap. 39. Mark who was Peter 's Interpreter hath written exactly all that he had retained in his memory without observing the order of the Words and Actions of Jesus Christ for he had not himself heard Jesus Christ not having followed him but he had followed Peter who preached to the People according as their necessities required without taking care to put the Words of our Saviour in order Therefore Mark cannot be accused of any fault who hath recorded some Actions as they came into his mind He hath applied himself solely not to forget any thing that he had heard and to say nothing but what was true This Testimony of Papias confirms that which hath been abovesaid that the Gospels are only Collections of the Preachings of the Apostles that have been committed to Writing without having too scrupulous a regard to the times when those Actions happened which are related therein Indeed these sacred Writers have made it their business rather to exhibit a true History than exactly to describe the circumstances and order of Time. Clemens Alexandrinus informs us moreover that S. Peter publickly preached the Gospel at Rome and that S. Mark who for a long time followed this Apostle put it in Writing at the request of the Faithful of that place he adds also that (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. c. 14. S. Peter having known it did neither dissuade him from it nor exhort him to it Eus Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 15. Eusebius nevertheless relying on the Authority of the same Clement will have it that S. Peter after he had been informed of the great Zeal that the Faithful of Rome testified to have his Preachings in Writing approved of the Collection that S. Mark had made of them to the end that being authorized by himself it should be read in the Churches S. Jerom hath only copied and epitomized after his manner the Words of Eusebius in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers Hier. de Script Eccles in Marco where he saith in speaking of S. Mark Marcus Discipulus Interpres Petri juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat rogatus Romae à fratribus breve scripsit Evangelium quod cùm Petrus audisset probavit Ecclesiae legendum sua autoritate dedit The Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures hath also believed that S. Mark hath only published the Preachings of S. Peter (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas in Synops S. Script The Gospel according to Mark saith he hath been preached at Rome by the Apostle Peter and hath been published by the blessed Apostle Mark who hath also preached it at Alexandria in Egypt in Pentapolis and in Lybia In a word it hath been the Judgment of all Antiquity after Papias who was contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles
Conference with them and that they had all agreed on a certain and sure Rule of Faith they separated to go every one to his respective station to promulge the Gospel of Jesus Christ S. Augustin relies on the same Principle in disproving a false Epistle that the Manicheans had published under the Name of Jesus Christ Is there any one so foolish saith this Learned Father as to believe that the Epistle that Manichee attributes to Jesus Christ is true and that the Gospel of S. Matthew which hath been always preserved in the Church doth not belong to this Apostle He demands whether they could with any color of Reason believe an obscure Man who appeared not in the World till more than two hundred years after Jesus Christ (z) Cùm ipse Apostolus Paulus post ascensionem Domini de coelo vocatus si non inveniret in carne Apostolos quibus communicando cum quibus conferendo Evangelium ejusdem esse societatis appareret Ecclesia illi omninò non crederet Aug. lib. 28. cont Manich. c. 4. since the Church would not have given credit to S. Paul himself who was called to the Apostleship immediately after the Ascension of our Saviour if he had not conferred with the Apostles touching the Doctrine that he preached It is a Maxim generally received among all the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that Jesus Christ alone is the Author of the Christian Religion and that his Apostles who have been the Witnesses of his Actions and Words have only related to us those things that they had seen or learned from their Master When it was objected to the primitive Fathers that the Gospels of S. Mark and S. Luke as also the Epistles of S. Paul ought not to be received as Canonical because the Authors of these Writings were not Apostles but only Apostolical Men. They have answered that these Apostolical Persons have written nothing but what they had received from their Masters They have concluded from thence that the same authority ought to be given to their Writings as if the Apostles themselves had been the Authors of them Therefore when Tertullian speaks of S. Luke and S. Mark who according to his Opinion were only Apostolical he adds at the same time that these Apostolical Men were not (a) Si Apostolicos non tamen solos sed cum Apostolis post Apostolos quoniam praedicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset de gloriae studio si non adsistat illi auctoritas magistrorum imò Christi qui magistros Apostolos fecit Tertull. lib. 4. adv Marc. c. 2. alone having written jointly with the Apostles and after them and that therefore their Doctrine could not be suspected since it hath been authorised by their Masters and even by Jesus Christ who had constituted these Masters We may apply unto S. Paul that which Tertullian saith here of S. Mark and S. Luke And this may serve to resolve all the Objections of the ancient Hereticks who refused to allow his Writings because they denied that he was truly an Apostle I have already given an account of the Manicheans who acknowledged nothing of S. Paul but what was agreeable to the Idea that they had formed of the Christian Religion These Sectaries argued against common Sense For in as much as they were not able to reconcile two Passages of this Apostle they thought it sufficient to conclude from thence that one of the two must of necessity be corrupted since it was not possible said they that he should contradict in one place what he had affirmed in another When it was demanded of Faustus whether he received the Apostle Apostolum accipis He answered that he did And when it was proved to him by the Writings of S. Paul that he ought to believe that Jesus Christ the Son of God derived his Original from David according to the flesh he then replyed (b) Non equidem crediderim Apostolum Dei contraria sibi scribere potuisse modò hanc modò illam de Domino nostro habuisse sententiam Apud Aug. lib. 11. cont Faust c. 1. that it is not credible that the Apostle of God should have written things that are contrary and overthrow one another he maintained that the Epistles of S. Paul had been interpolated as well as the Gospels and to make his Subtilty more apparent in inventing new Answers he adds that this Apostle might be reconciled with himself in saying that he had two Conceptions thereupon and that that which was objected was his old Opinion which he had abandoned after he had been better instructed But let us leave these Hereticks who had no certain Principles and were therefore obliged sometimes to have recourse to their Paraclet which was their great Engine We see almost the same thing at present in some illuminated and enthusiastick Persons who for want of good reasons are forced to fly to I know not what private Spirit that discovers to them the most hidden Mysteries of the Christian Religion I would entreat these People to reflect a little on the Conduct of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers in their Disputes against the Hereticks and on their manner of arguing they will find therein neither Paraclet nor private Spirit but solid Arguments that are very far from the Fanaticism which is predominant in our Age. Lastly to return to S. Paul the vanity of these ancient Hereticks was so great that S. Irenaeus was compelled to confute some Sectaries (c) Eos autem qui dicunt solum Paulum veritatem cognovisse cui per revelationem manifestum est mysterium ipse Paulus convincat eos dicens unum ipsum Deum operatum Petro in Apostolatu circumcisionis sibi in Gentes Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. c. 13. who affirmed that this Apostle only was endued with the knowledge of the Truth and that he alone had the Revelation of the Mysteries of the Gospel but this Father convinceth them by the very Words of S. Paul who hath born witness to the Apostleship of S. Peter CHAP. XVI Of the Epistle to the Hebrews in particular Whether it be St. Paul's and Canonical What Antiquity hath believed thereupon as well in the Eastern as in the Western Countries The Opinions of these later Ages concerning this Epistle SInce I have no other design in this Work than to treat of the Text of the New Testament and to establish as much as is possible the Writings of the Apostles I shall not insist in particular on the Subject of every Epistle of S. Paul this is a task that belongs rather to a Commentator of the Scriptures than to a Critical History of the Text for this reason I come immediately to the Epistle to the Hebrews that seems to have been disputed in Antiquity principally in the Western Churches some of which have refused to read it in their publick Assemblies there are also at this day some learned Criticks that doubt whether S. Paul be the Author thereof though they acknowledge it
in his Book he was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles immediately after the Passion of our Lord and hath written one Letter only which is in the number of the seven Catholick Epistles He doth not nominate this James as an Apostle but only as the Brother of our Lord which is the sole Qualification that is given him by the Arabick Interpreter published by Erpenius in the Title of this Epistle S. Jerom hath said nothing in this place but what is agreeable to the judgment of Hegisippus a grave Author who lived not long after the times of the Apostles This great man hath observed that divers Persons at that time bore the Name of James and saith of this James of whom we now discourse (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hegesipp apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 2. c. 23. that being the Brother of our Lord he took the Government of the Church of Jerusalem jointly with the Apostles that the Name of Just was also given to him with one common Consent which was continued ever since the time of our Saviour Jesus Christ Hegisippus then did not believe that he was an Apostle forasmuch as he saith that he took upon him the care of the Church of Jerusalem with the Apostles and he distinguisheth him from others that went under the Name of James only by the Sirname of Just In the mean time Baronius and after him Estius declare that this third James distinguished from the two others who was simply Bishop of Jerusalem without being an Apostle is a chimerical James that never was But since this Cardinal grounds his Opinion on very weak Reasons and contradicts Antiquity in this point no regard ought to be had to what he affirms against the Judgment of Hegisippus and S. Jerom and even against the Testimony of the Author of this Epistle who would not have failed to have stiled himself an Apostle of Jesus Christ in the beginning of his Letter if he had been really so This may serve at the same time for a sufficient Answer to Cardinal Cajetan Cajet Comm. in c. 1. Epist Jac. who hath objected to derogate from the Authority of this Epistle that this James hath not taken upon him the Name of an Apostle but only that of a Servant nec ipse seipsum nominat Apostolum sed tantùm servum As to what this Cardinal saith in the same place that this Writer hath made no mention of God nor of Jesus Christ the contrary is apparent from the first Words of this Epistle in which he attributes to himself no other Quality than that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jac. 1. v. 1. James a Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ He could not have chosen a Title that might better express his Qualifications especially writing to the Jews who were already accustomed by the reading of the Old Testament to the Phrase of the Servant of God and when he adds these other Words and of the Lord Jesus Christ he lets them know that he is one of the Ministers of the new Law that had been promulged by the Messiah Lastly we may observe that in the Title of the Syriack Version these Words are read The Epistle of James an Apostle it is no otherwise in the Ethiopick Version but in the general Title of the three Catholick Epistles which the Syrians have in their ancient Copies we read that these three Epistles were written by James Peter and John who were the Witnesses of the Transfiguration of our Lord. This would prove that this James was the Son of Zebedee but it is a manifest error of the Syrians who have inserted this Inscription into their Copy As for what relates to the Epistles of S. Peter and S. John Euseb Hist Ecel l. 3. c. 25. Eusebius puts the first Epistles of these two Apostles in the number of the Canonical Books of the New Testament that have been received with the common Consent of all the Churches but he observes at the same time that there hath been some doubt concerning the Second of S. Peter as well as of the Second and Third of S. John. S. Jerom adds (l) Simon Petrus scripsit duas Epistolas quae Catholicae nominantur quarum secunda à plerisque negatur propter stili cum priore dissonantiam Hier. de Script Eccl. in Sim. Pet. that that which hath caused the Ancients to doubt of the second Epistle of S. Peter is the difference of the Stile of these two Epistles We cannot rely on the Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus who reckons in the number of the Canonical Writings of the New Testament all the Epistles that we call Catholick for he placeth amongst them at the same time the Epistle of Barnabas Clem. Al. apud Euseb Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 14. and the Book entituled The Revelation of Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Father who was an extraordinary learned man hath not been very exact in distinguishing the Books of the Holy Scriptures that were generally received by all the Churches from the others that are either dubious or Apocryphal he makes use of all equally on several occasions following in this the method of the ancient Rhetoricians who took no care to be very punctual in their Argumentations Origen his Disciple durst not altogether venture to rank the above said Epistles amongst the Canonical Scriptures and whereas they had not obtained in his time the general Approbation of all the Christian World he explains himself thereupon with a great deal of Precaution (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. apud Eus Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 25. Peter saith he on whom the Church of Jesus Christ is built hath left an Epistle which is generally received and a second if you please for it is doubted (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. John hath likewise left a very short Epistle and a second and third if you please but all people are not agreed that these two last are genuine This proves that the Church hath never doubted of the Authority of the first Epistles of these two Apostles and that they were certainly composed by them whose Names they bear moreover that although some have doubted of the others yet this Scruple was not universal since Origen agrees that they were received as really belonging to these Apostles to whom they were attributed The Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures makes no question thereof he avoucheth (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. in Syn. Scrip. S. that the second Epistle of S. Peter was written by this Apostle as well as the first and that he sent it to those that had then embraced Christianity Cajetan who hath started so many Difficulties against the Epistle to the Hebrews and against that of S. James is much more moderate with respect to this he insists that the Argument that is taken from the difference of the Stile of the two Epistles of S. Peter is not a sufficient proof
All the Eastern Churches at this day read that Book under the name of the Apostle St. John. It is true that it is not so in the ancient Syriack Copies because it was not in the Greek one from which those were taken It is ascribed to St. John in the Syriack Edition of the English Polyglott Bible and also in the Arabick Printed in the same Polyglott it bears the name of John the Apostle Evangelist and lastly in the Arabick published by Erpenius that of John the Evangelist Not that I believe such Titles which are but late to be of any great Authority I produce them only to shew the Universal consent of the Churches as well that of the East as that of the West concerning the Author of the Revelation As to what concerns such singular expressions as are no where to be found but in this Book chiefly that where there is mention made of the Reign of Jesus Christ upon the Earth with the Saints which shall continue for the space of a thousand years Illyricus has very well observed that since that Book (p) Phrases illas mysticè ut in sermone prophetico intelligendas Illyr argum in Apoc. is written in a Prophetical Stile the expressions used therein ought to be taken in a Mystical sense In which he had apparently as to his Judgment the advantage of Luther who could not avoid the reproach that was put upon him by Bellarmin and some other Opponents for not considering the Apocalyps as a Prophetical and Apostolical Work yet his Disciples who acknowledged all that Book to be Divine and Canonical have endeavoured to justifie him They alledged (q) Lutherum quod attinet quidquid olim seripserit in veteri praefatione in eâ sane quae hodie in codicibus legitur nihil de Apocalypsi asserit aliud quà m in dubio se relinquere utrum sit Joannis Apostoli quod nonnulli ex vetustioribus Patribus id inficiati sint nihil tamen hoc ipso se prejudicare velle aliis Christ Korthol de Canon Script S. c. 18. without any regard to his ancient Preface that he said nothing else in that which is found in his Works but what has been observed by some of the ancient Fathers viz. that it was not generally agreed upon that St. John was the Author of the Apocalyps And Erasmus had likewise enough to do upon the like account with the Divines of Paris who censure one of his propositions wherein he affirmed (r) De Apocalypsi diu dubitatum est non dico ab haereticis sed ab orthodoxis viris qui scriptum tamen ut à Spiritu Sancto profectum amplectebantur de scriptoris nomine incerti Erasm decl ad Theol. Paris that there had been for a long time some doubting about that Book not only amongst the Hereticks but also the Orthodox who though they received it as Canonical did profess they were not certain who was the Author What Erasmus does affirm in this case is not to be charged with falshood since it is grounded upon a matter of Fact that may be easily proved from the Writings of the ancient Doctors of the Church Yet the Parisian Divines were so forward to censure him since they persuaded themselves that he manifestly knew by the usage of the Church and the definitions of Councils that the Apocalyps was published by St. John. Cons Facul Theol. Paris The Councils on which they stood were the three of Carthage that of Rome under Pope Gelasius and that of Toledo in which Isidore of Sevile was an Assistant To this they joyned the Authority of St. Denis called the Areopagite St. Irenaeus St. Justin Pope Innocent I. St. Augustin and St. John of Damascus Erasmus as it should seem ought to have answered that notwithstanding all those Authorities his supposition might be true seeing he had also Orthodox Authors on his side He might also have said that none of those Councils stood much on the Author of the Apocalyps but barely complyed with the opinion that commonly obtained in their time which ascribed that Book to St. John. But in stead of that he only returned such answers as were extravagant and impertinent He affirms that the World was at that time filled with Apocryphal Books bearing forged Titles and that the most part of honest Men were then persuaded that such sort of falsities might be debated He afterwards inveighs against (ſ) Isidorus Hispalensis scripsit rudi seculo habuisse videtur locupletem bibliothecam quâ potuisset rectiùs uti si fuisset exactè doctus Certè rhapsodus fuit quemadmodum Beda Quanquam Beda meo judicio fuit illo tum eruditior tum cloquentior Erasm declar ad cens Fac. Theol. Paris Isidore as being a Man of mean capacity and judgment who had not the sense to make use of a very good Library which he had in his possession He was saith he as unskilful in making Collections as Beda but the latter was the more Judicious and Eloquent of the two This is an instance of Learning whereof there is an ill use made If Isidore and Bede were justly charged by him on that account he ought to have proved that they were much in the wrong here in preferring the opinion of St. Justin St. Irenaeus and the most ancient Fathers to that of some other Writers who were not so near the first Age. The answer he made to the Divines of Paris was more likely to provoke them than his first Proposition was For he thereby plainly reproached those sage Masters that they were conversant in no good Authors but only Rhapsodists and unskilful Compilers of History It is true that he might not offend them he adds at the same time that (t) Profiteor me de titulis quoque credere quod credit universalis Ecclesia cujus auctoritati facilè sensum meum submitto non hîc tantùm sed in omnibus quoque caeteris modò ne protinùs Ecclesiae sit quidquid quocunque modo in usum Christianorum irrepsit aut cuivis Episcopo placuit Erasm ibid. as to what concerns the Titles of the Books of Scripture he does refer himself to the Judgment of the Universal Church to which he does entirely submit provided that the name of the Church Universal be not ascribed to all that is so called according to the custom and use which has been introduced and does obtain amongst Christians nor to the particular Opinions of every Bishop If we measure the Opinion of the Unitaries by that of Socinus who is one of their Heroes they have affirmed nothing concerning the Apocalyps but what is agreeable to good sense This Unitary does assure us that that Book was always by common consent attributed to St. John Soc. de Auctor Scrip. Sac. c. 1. n. 2. Quod Scriptum semper communi consensu tributum fuit Joauni Apostolo Evangelistae To that objection that many Authors have doubted thereof he makes answer that the Judgment
Greek Version which was publickly received it being indifferent to them to quote the Hebrew or the Greek in those Passages Although the Apostles did prefer the Greek of the Septuagint to the Hebrew Text it cannot be inferred from thence that the Greek Version is better than the Hebrew of the Jews as some Authors especially amongst the Catholicks have too easily believed We ought to consider by what motives the Apostles were led to give this preference to the Greek Seeing they did it for no other end but to accommodate themselves to the capacity of the People whom they instructed and who read the Bible in Greek there can be no consequence drawn from thence to give more Authority to the Version of the Septuagint than to the Hebrew Text which they did not meddle with In the Hebrew or Chaldaick Gospel of St. Matthew the Passages of the Old Testament were quoted according to the Hebrew Text because the Jews of Palestine for whose sake it was written read the Bible in that Language The People who at that time understood not the Hebrew Language had Glosses on the Hebrew Text written in the Chaldee so that if that Evangelist had quoted the Bible in the vulgar Language he had quoted the same according to the Chaldaick Glosses and not according to the Greek of the Septuagint which was not in use amongst the Jews of Palestine It will further appear that the Evangelists and the Apostles did not confine themselves in their quotations to the rigor of the Letter because that was in no wise needful for carrying on their Work. They did content themselves sometimes with delivering the sense of the Words which they adapted to their Discourse A thing commonly practised and they cannot be branded with Falshood or Imposture who set down after this manner such Records in their Works as serve for proofs A Copy of Record cannot be alledged to be false unless the sense be changed But this can never be found in the quotations of the Apostles who followed a received custom and which could be blamed by none The same thing happened to most of the Fathers when they quoted in the Works the Passages of Scripture for they made no scruple to change the Words so long as that change was of no importance to the Sense Which ought to be the Standard of our Judgment about the Passages of the Old Testament which are quoted in the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles for though they were taken from the Greek Version they do not always express the very Words I know it may be objected that this Version has very much degenerated from its ancient purity and that therefore it can no more serve as a Rule by which we may judge of the Truth of the Apostolical quotations But what ever change has happened to this Translation it is sufficient as it remains to decide the matter of Fact we are now about It is agreed by all the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors that the Evangelists and Apostles in the Passages they quote out of the Old Testament were more ready to express the Sense than the Words which is the meaning of these Words of St. Jerom Hieron Comm. in Is l. 3. c. 7. In multis testimoniis saith he quae Evangelistae vel Apostoli de libris veteribus assumpserunt curiosius attendendum est non eos verborum ordinem secutos esse sed sensum Which he often repeats in his works (e) Notare debemus illud quod plerumque admonuimus Evangelistas Apostolos non verbum interpretatos esse de verbo nec Septuaginta Interpretum auctoritatem secutos quorum editio illo jam tempore legebatur sed quasi Hebraeos instructos in Lege absque damno sensuum suis usos esse sermonibus Hieron Comm. in Isai lib. 9. cap. 29. We ought to observe well saith he in another place what I have often said before viz. That the Evangelists and Apostles did not make a Translation word for word and that they followed not the Version of the Septuagint that was read in their days but being Hebrews and skilful in the Law they made use of their Terms That Learned Man does agree with the other Fathers in assuring us that the Apostles did not in their Writings report the passages of the Old Testament word for word But since he was prepossessed with an opinion in favour of the Hebrew Text when he composed his Commentaries on the most part of the Prophets he affirms that the same Apostles made use of their own Expressions and not those of the Septuagint Yet 't is easie to prove the contrary and in this the most part of the Protestants are very much to be blamed for neglecting this Ancient Greek Version For it is impossible for him to understand the Books of the New Testament well who is not first much employed in the reading of the Septuagint It was upon those Seventy Ancient Interpreters that the Apostles formed their Stile and not upon the Hebrew Text of the Jews I do not in the least comprehend upon what ground St. Jerome could alledge that (f) Paraphr asim hujus testimonii quasi Hebraeus ex Hebraeis assumit Apostolus Paulus de authenticis libris in Epistolâ quam scribit ad Corinthios non verbum ex verbo reddens quod facere ommnò contemnit sed sensuum exprimens veritatem quibus utitur ad id quod voluerit roborandum Hieron Comm. in Is lib. 17. cap. 64. St. Paul being an Hebrew born did in his first Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 2. give a paraphrase on the words of the Prophet Isaiah Chap. 64. v. 4. as they are in the Hebrew and had regard to nothing but the sense according to his Custom Yet there is nothing in that place that can oblige us to have recourse to the Hebrew rather than the Greek for understanding the Apostles meaning St. Jerome dream'd then of nothing else but settling his New Translation of the Scriptures upon the Hebrew thereby to give satisfaction to a great number of People who spake evil of him upon that occasion This Spirit reigns in his Commentaries on the Old Testament in those chiefly which are on the great Prophets He endeavours to prevent with an assiduous Persecution that which might be objected against from all sides that the Church ought not to receive any other Scripture of the Old Testament than that which was Authorised by the Apostles Indeed this Objection which was a terrible one must needs have made a great impression on his Spirit and if he dare not say that the Apostles always follow'd the Hebrew Text he endeavours at least to shelter himself by assuring us that sometimes they did not adhere either to the one or the other because ordinarily that which was considered by them was the sense and not the Words And this he does affirm of the words of the Prophet Jeremy Jerem. cap. 31. v. 15. a Voice was heard in Rama c.
were interpolations made therein than to attribute to the Apostles such things as they did not understand It is upon this supposed ground that the Manichees who found no express Passages in the Law of Moses that made mention of Jesus Christ rejected as false all those Places of the Pentateuch that were applied to him in the New Testament They did not consider that at the time of Christ and the Apostles there was a Mystical and Spiritual Sense approved of by all the Jews some Sadducees possibly excepted And with respect to this Sense the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles are to be Expounded And therefore they deceive themselves who pretend that there ought to be a Literal Sense in all the Citations of the Apostles especially in those which they bring in for Proofs It is true that a Passage of Scripture taken Allegorically cannot serve for a Proof but we speak here of such Allegorical Senses as were received and which were also founded on Traditions that were warranted by Authority They were therefore permitted to apply them to their Discourse and likewise to draw such Consequences from them as might promote their design in the same manner as the Pharisees made use of them in their Disputes against the Sadducees Those Allegorical Senses prove nothing for their own confirmation but suppose a belief already established upon which they were founded It is probable that Theodore de Mopsueste Expounded the Psalms and the Prophesies according to this Method and that he had regard to nothing when he was condemned as a favourer of the Jews but the Literal and Historical Sense which he gave to those ancient Prophesies They will not consider the Application he made thereof with the whole Church to the Messiah according to a Spiritual and Mystical Sense If we believe Facundus there is no justice done to that great Man who had a perfect knowledge of the Sacred Writings (q) Eum dicunt evacuasse omnes in Christum factas Prophetias quod Manichaeorum erroris est Fac. pro def tri cap. Conc. Calc lib. 9. c. 1. They accused him of destroying the Prophesies that related to Jesus Christ by an error like to that of the Manichees But he shews the falshood of this accusation by producing the very words of Theodore taken out of his Commentaries upon the Psalms Quod autem saith Facundus nec evacuet omnes in Christum prophetias palam est quia rursus in ejusdem Psalmi expositione dicit c. Whence he concludes (r) Non ergo Theodorus Judaicae impietatis arguendus est tanquam hominem putaverit Christum cùm potiùs Judaeos irrideat Fac. ibid. That it was hard to make Theodore pass for an impious person who believed with the Jews that Jesus Christ was a mere Man seeing he vigorously defended the contrary This is no place to inquire if Theodore was unjustly condemned as Facundus does assure us I have only made mention of the Passage that I might shew that great Men have of a long time acknowledged two Senses of Scripture as we have already made evident It is certain that the Christian Religion is founded on that of the Jews The Christians have this in common with them that they adore the same God and that they believe a Messiah promised in the Writings of the Old Testament which they receive equally And therefore the Christians who Expound those Writings in a Literal and Historical Sense cannot be blamed as if they favoured Judaism in exclusion of the Christian Religion seeing they acknowledged a second Sense called Spiritual and Mystical which they apply to the Messiah This latter Sense is the same that the Jews call deras In a word it is impossible to arrive at a perfect knowledge of the Christian Religion and the Principles upon which it is established so long as that of the Jews is not known to which the former does owe its Original Celsus Porphyrius Julian and the Jews have brought some other Objections against the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles The Principal is that which is drawn from the Genealogy of Jesus Christ Recorded in a different manner by St. Matthew and St. Luke They alledge that besides that these two Evangelists do not agree they have delivered manifest falsities But this aspersion has been so clearly wiped off by many Commentators upon the New Testament and also in the Volumes that purposely have been written for that end that it is needless to insist on it I shall only observe in general that it is easie to make answer to the Jews upon such objections as are drawn from Genealogies When they bring against the Christians the difference that is betwixt our Evangelists and the Books of the Old Testament their Mouths will be stopped if we shew them that there is no less in this matter betwixt the Chronicles which they attribute to Esdras and the rest of the Historical Writings of the Old Testament Their Rabbins who could not reconcile things that appeared so remote from one another are forced to own that the same Genealogies which are written in a different manner were taken out of Records that did likewise differ And may not we also affirm that the Evangelists Collected the Genealogy of Jesus Christ out of such Records as were amongst the Jews at that time but are not extant at this day And therefore it is better to leave the things as they are than to judg rashly of them or correct that Genealogy upon bare conjectures CHAP. XXIII Of the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testament A Refutation of the Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa The Cardinal of Perron has given a very bad Exposition of the Words of the second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy Chap. 3. v. 16. which makes mention of this Inspiration The Disputes betwixt the Jesuits of Louvain and the Divines of the same place upon this matter Three Propositions of the Jesuits Censured by the Doctors of Louvain and Douay A Defence of those Propositions against the Censure of those Divines I Have Treated elsewhere of the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings in general But seeing I only Treated of them occasionally and by way of Answer to some Objections which were brought against the Critical History of the Old Testament I shall here Handle it more particularly with respect to the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles It is the common Belief of the Jews that the Books of the Old Testament were written by Persons who were Inspired which Belief was transmitted from the Jews to the Christians Upon which occasion Origen affirmed (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 5. cont Cels that both the one and the other did equally acknowledge that the Sacred Scripture was written by the Spirit of God. The Christians have also extended that Inspiration to the Books of the New Testament There are but very few Criticks who are of the Opinion that there is nothing of Inpiration in Scripture but only in
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