as Divine and Canonical Wherefore it is convenient to examine the Acts that we have relating to this matter If we follow this Rule of Tertullian that is grounded on good reason That that is true which is most ancient Illud verum quod prius there will be no occasion to enquire whether the Epistle to the Hebrews was certainly written by S. Paul for all the Eastern Churches seem not to have doubted thereof the Arians have been the first amongst them that have obstinately rejected it seeing that it was not favourable to their Innovations this caused Theodoret speaking of these Hereticks to say (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Praef. Comm. in Epist ad Hebr. that they ought at least to have respect to the length of time and to consider that this Epistle had been read in the Churches ever since they had received the Writings of the Apostles (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. ibid. He opposeth to them moreover the Testimony of Eusebius Caesariensis who could not be suspected by them because they esteemed him as their Chief Now this Eusebius hath acknowledged that the Epistle directed to the Hebrews was S. Paul's and that all the Ancients had believed it so to be As for the Testimony of the Ancients this cannot be true but of those of the Eastern Church for Eusebius himself hath observed that some in the Western Church did not receive this Epistle but the Authority of these Western Writers ought not to be regarded since S. Clement Bishop of Rome who lived before them hath cited it in the Letter that he wrote in the name of his Church to those of Corinth as the same Eusebius assures us He proves by the Authority of this Disciple of the Apostles that the Epistle to the Hebrews hath been reckoned with good reason in the number of the Apostolical Writings and doth not in the least doubt of the Authors because the most part of the ancient Doctors of the Church especially in the East have believed that it did truly belong to S. Paul but since they supposed that he wrote it in Hebrew they do not agree as to the Interpreter (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hi. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 38. some saith Eusebius affirm that it hath been translated by S. Luke and others by S. Clement He confirms this last Opinion by the Stile of this Epistle which is very like to that of S. Clement nevertheless Clemens Alexandrinus proves on the contrary Cl. Alex. in Hypot apud Eus Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 14. by this resemblance of Stile that the Epistle to the Hebrews which he avoucheth to be St. Paul's hath been interpreted by St. Luke Origen who hath written Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews was of opinion (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. Homil. in Epist ad Hebr. apud Euseb 〈◊〉 Eccl. lib. 6. cap. 25. that the matter indeed was S. Paul's but that the Expressions were too lofty and too elegant to be his who wrote in a very simple and plain Stile This learned Critick doth not attribute this diversity of Stile to the Translator but to the Amanuensis that committed the Doctrine of S. Paul to Writing (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. I believe saith Origen that the Sense and Conceptions are of this Apostle but that the Phrase and Composition is another's who hath collected the Sayings of his Master and set them down in writing nevertheless what he adds in the same place makes it appear that in his time there were some Churches that did not ascribe this Epistle to the Hebrews to S. Paul and he judgeth also that it cannot be certainly determined who hath written it (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. If any Churches saith he reads this Epistle as S. Paul's they are to be commended in this for it is not without reason that the Ancients have thought that it was his but God alone knows the truth thereof The Greek Fathers who have lived before and after Origen and even the greatest part of the Hereticks have quoted it under no other name than that of this Holy Apostle Melchis ap Epiph. Haer. 55. The Melchisedecians who preferred Melchisedec before Jesus Christ grounded their Opinion on the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews The Catharians who were a branch of the Novatians relied also on these Words of this Epistle Cath. ap Epiph. Haer. 59. Chap. vi v. 4 5 6. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly Gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost and have tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the World to come if they shall fall away to renew them again unto Repentance Hierac ap Epiph. Haer. 67. c. Hieracqs an Egyptian who was the Chief of the Sect of the Hieracites which was embraced by divers Monks of Egypt pretended to prove by this same Epistle to the Hebrews that Melchisedec was the Holy Ghost Lastly many other Hereticks who separated themselves from the Church attributed it to no other but S. Paul which induceth me to believe that this Opinion was founded on an ancient Tradition of the Churches Cajus in the mean time a famous Writer who lived at the beginning of the third Century under Pope Zephyrinus in a Dispute that he had at Rome with the Cataphryges and which was published acknowledgeth only thirteen Epistles of S. Paul not mentioning that which is directed to the Hebrews Eusebius who hath taken notice of this Dispute observes (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. that some Romans in his time had not as yet received the Epistle to the Hebrews as S. Paul's and in another place where he speaks of the Epistles of the Apostles after he had said that the fourteen Epistles of S. Paul were known to all the World he adds (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 3. that some have rejected this which is written to the Hebrews under pretence that the Roman Church did not believe it to belong to S. Paul. Baronius hath not done justice to this Historian when he accuseth him of favouring in these Words the Party of the Arians his good Friends and of insinuating that the Church of Rome had doubted of the Verity of this Epistle for besides that Eusebius doth only relate a simple matter of fact that was evident and which S. Jerom hath afterwards explained more at large he openly declares in this very place in favour of those that believed that the Epistle to the Hebrews was certainly written by S. Paul when he adds that he will give an account in the sequel of his History what hath been the belief of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers as to this point and he acquits himself after such a manner as makes it manifest that none of these Ancients nor even the Roman Church have ever doubted
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
in the ancient Latin Bibles written about seven or eight hundred years ago St. Jerom also hath followed this method in his great Prologue called Galeatus The Syrians have preserved this same Order in their Version as appears from the Edition of Widmanstadius nevertheless they have not in their ancient Copies according to which this Edition of Widmanstadius was regulated the second Epistle of St. Peter nor the second and third of St. John nor that of St. Jude These Epistles were not apparently in the Greek Copies which the Syrians have Translated into their Language However it seems as if there were nothing very certain concerning the Order of these Epistles for in the last of the Canons that bear the name of the Apostles those of St. Peter are set down first and afterwards those of St. John and that of St. James stands in the third rank the Bishops assembled at Trent have also named them after this same manner conformably to the Council of Florence Calvin himself hath set the Epistle of St. Peter at the head of all in his Commentaries on the Canonical Epistles But we ought to prefer the Order that is observed in the Greek and Latin Copies and also in the Oriental Versions As for what concerns the Authority of these Epistles very great difficulties arise from thence for as we have already seen the Syrians have not inserted some of them in their Version of the New Testament which they would have done if they had been read in the Eastern Churches when they Interpreted them out of the Greek into Syriack nevertheless they have since Translated them and they have been likewise Printed therefore they are also found in the Arabick Versions of the New Testament I shall have occasion to examin this matter more exactly in the second Book of this Work wherein I shall Treat of Versions in particular but since my design at present is only to speak of the Text let us see what the Ancients have thought thereupon Eusebius who avoucheth (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 23. that the Epistle of St. James the Brother of our Saviour with the other Canonical Epistles was publickly read in his time in the most part of the Churches observes nevertheless that not many of the ancient Writers have made mention of it as neither of that of St. Jude he would say without doubt that there are few of the ancient Doctors of the Church that have cited it as Canonical therefore in another part of his History where he produceth a Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 25. he reckons the same Epistle of St. James that of St. Jude the second of St. Peter and the second and third of St. John among the Scriptures that were not generally received as Canonical by all the Churches though several ancient Fathers had spoken of them St. Jerom who usually transcribes Eusebius in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers expresseth himself almost after the same manner as this Historian doth on the Epistle of St. James for after he hath said (e) Jacobus qui appellatur frater Domini-unam tantùm scripsit Epistolam quae de septem Catholicis est quae ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur licet paulatim tempore procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem Hieron de Script Eccl. in Jac. that St. James the first Bishop of Jerusalem hath written but one Letter which is in the number of the seven Canonical Epistles he adds to shew that all People were not agreed that it was certainly his that it was said that it hath been written by another in his name though it hath obtained Authority in process of time Cardinal Cajetan makes use of this same Passage of S. Jerom Cajet Comm. in c. 1. Epist Jac. to prove that it is not absolutely certain that this Epistle was composed by S. James the Brother of our Lord Non usquequaque certum an Epistola haec sit Jacobi fratris Domini He hath also entituled his Annotations on this Epistle Commentaries on the Epistle that bears the Name of S. James In eam quae Divo Jacobo inscribitur Commentarii in which point he is more scrupulous than S. Jerom who hath made no difficulty to quote it under this Title Indeed this Father simply relates in this place the various Opinions of several Persons concerning the Author of this Epistle but forasmuch as it was read in the Churches under the Name of S. James and it hath been read therein ever since that time this Cardinal discovers too nice a curiosity as well as when he adds in this very place that the manner of saluting that is at the beginning of this (f) Salutatio hîc posita tam pura est ut nulli salutationi cujuscunque alterius Apostolicae Epistolae conformis sit nam nihil Dei nihil Jesu Christi nihil gratiae nihilve pacis sonat sed profano more salutem nec ipse seipsum nominat Apostolum sed tantùm servum Jesu Christi Cajet Comm. in c. 1. Epist Jac. Epistle contains nothing Apostolical on the contrary that it is altogether profane no mention being therein made of Jesus Christ nor of Grace nor Peace and he doth not call himself saith he an Apostle but a Servant of Jesus Christ Sixtus Senensis hath rehearsed these Words amongst the Objections that Luther hath made against this Epistle and perhaps Cajetan hath taken the best part of these Expressions from him but this Objection is so weak and even so irrational that the Lutherans have had no regard to it no more than to divers other Reasons that their Master hath alledged against the Epistle of S. James for they receive it at this day after the same manner as the Catholicks nevertheless they are not to be excused in this respect because they still retain in some Editions of their German Bible the Prefaces of Luther that are at the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of that of S. James after they have admitted them as Canonical for they disown by these Prefaces what they authorize in the body of their Bible I could have wished that Melchior Canus Melch. Can. de loc Theol. l. 2. c. 11. and some other learned Divines had not made use of the Authority of certain Decretal Epistles falsly attributed to the first Popes to shew that ever since the Primitive Times of Christianity it hath been believed that this Epistle did certainly belong to S. James there is no need of this sort of Proofs for though the Ancients have been divided as to this Point it is enough that the succeeding Ages after a due reflection on this matter have found in Antiquity certain Acts sufficient to justifie the placing this Epistle of S. James in the rank of the Canonical Books of the New Testament and that all the Churches of the World do at
Alogians pretended that the Apocalips and the rest of St. John's Writings were composed by the Heretick Cerinthus Which they endeavoured to shew by the agreement that the Doctrine which Cerinthus professed had to that contained in the Books of that Apostle and especially in his Revelation They likewise drew up particular objections against this latter Work. (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alog. apud Epiph. Haer. 51. n. 32. Of what use say they can the Revelation of St. John be to us when he tells us of seven Angels and of seven Trumpets St. Epiphanius gives them this answer Epiph. ibid. that God was pleased to reveal to his servant John what was most mysterious in the Law and the Prophets to the end that he might treat of them in a spiritual and intelligible manner And seeing those Hereticks were so bold as to ridicule what is said of the seven Trumpets he charges them upon that account either of malice or ignorance from the words of St. Paul who has also made mention of those Trumpets in his first Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. xv 52. where he says The trumpet shall sound and at the sound of this trumpet the dead shall rise Some of the Alogians to disparage the Authority of the Apocalyps another argument make use of these words for in Chap. ii ver 18. of the Book To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira write (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alog. apud Epiph. ibid. n. 33. There was not at that time say they any Christian Church in Thyatira How could St. John write to a Church which had no being St. Epiphanius being of the same opinion with the Alogians that there was no Church in that place at that time that he may answer their objection is forced to have recourse to the Spirit of Prophecy He thinks that St. John who was inspired by God foresaw what should happen in process of time And therefore he gives us the most exact account that he can of the City of Thyatira about the time when the Phrygian Hereticks did bear sway there He shews how it afterwards became an Orthodox and most famous Church (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. The design of the Holy Ghost says he was to reveal in that place of the Apocalyps that that Church should fall from the Truth after the time of St. John and the other Apostles Which happened as Epiphanius himself does tell us ninety three years after the Ascension of our Lord and Saviour Seeing this answer of St. Epiphanius does agree with the Opinion of the Alogians that there was no Christian Church in effect in the City of Thyatira at that time Socinus (f) Mihi quidem ut verum fatear responsio ista non admodum probatur cùm propter alia tum propter id quod nimis apertè ex ipsâ historiâ Apacalypsis constare videtur jam istam Ecclesiam Thyatirensem reverà extitisse Soc. Lect. Sacr. p. 306. could by no means admit of it being persuaded that the Text of the Apocalyps does evidently shew that there was a Church therein He believed that there were several Cities of that name But for all that he does not prove against the Alogians that there was a Church in Thyatira When he brings the plain words of the Apocalyps against them he gets the thing in Question for an Answer seeing those Sectaries endeavoured by that means to lessen the Authority of that Book It is probable that at that time when St. Epiphanius lived there was no Catalogue of the Bishops of that Church nor of other publick Records that might make it manifest that there had beed a Church founded in that City from the times of the Apostles And therefore Grotius does give a more judicious answer That the truth is Grot. Annot. ad c. 2. Apoc. v. 18. there was not any Church of the Gentiles in Thyatira when St. John writ the Revelation but there was a Church of the Jews as also there was the like at Thessalonica before St. Paul Preached there The Alogians do also cavil about that which is mentioned in the same Book Chap. ix ver 14. Of the four Angels which were bound on the River Euphrates Epiph. ibid. But St. Epiphanius does in this charge them with ignorance because those Angels who were placed on the River Euphrates do signifie according to his Opinion so many Nations that were situated on that River viz. the Assyrians Babylonians Medes and Persians And adds that seeing Nations are subject to Angels those words of the Apocalyps Loose the four Angels which are upon Euphrates make very good sense St. John intending to shew thereby that those Nations being loosed should make War against another People I shall not here examin whether or no the Exposition given by St. Epiphanius be agreeable to the Text but content my self to observe in general that seeing that Book is a Prophesie and no History the Author was to write as Prophets were wont to do in a Figurative Stile And so the Alogians were inexcusable for their prejudice against this Book upon the account of the expressions which to them appeared very strange unless they imagined that there was no such thing as a Prophesie in the New Testament Cajus an Orthodox Writer who lived at Rome under Pope Zephyrin and of whom we have spoken before did also believe that Cerinthus was the Author of the Revelation of St. John. He treated that Heretick with derision (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caj apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 28. who As if he had been a great Apostle writ Revelations which he pretended to have received from Angels and in which he assured us that after the Resurrection Jesus Christ shall reign upon the Earth He allowed the space of a thousand years to this Carnal Kingdom which was to be accompanied with all sorts of pleasures For this cause he calls Cerinthus an Enemy to the Holy Scriptures and spoke in this manner of the Apocalyps which he thought was written by him and not by St. John. Denis Dion Alex. apud Eus bid Bishop of Alexandria who vigorously defended the Authority of this Book did likewise observe that some Authors did ascribe the Apocalyps to Cerinthus who according to their Opinion had prefixed St. John's Name to the Book to give Authority to his Babling about the Carnal Reign of Jesus Christ on the Earth Seeing this Opinion that maintained a Chimerical Dominion of a thousand years was spread in the Church this Learned Bishop writ two Treatises against it Entituled * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the Promises Wherein he takes to task (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 7. Hist Eccl. c. 24. Nepos a certain Bishop of Egypt who Expounded the Promises which God in Scripture has made to Mankind in a sense that speaks the Expositor to have been more Jew than Christian dreaming of a Carnal Kingdom upon the
Earth that should continue for the space of a thousand years during which time all manner of Pleasures should be enjoyed Upon this subject Nepos did publish a Book Entituled †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Refutation of Allegorists laughing at such Catholicks as Expounded Allegorically that place in the Apocalyps that makes mention of the Reign of a thousand years Which Work made a great impression on the minds of those who read it because the Author who had carefully applied himself to the study of the Holy Scriptures had acquired a very great Reputation Besides his Reasons appeared to be the more probable because they were founded on the Literal Sense of Scripture whereas the contrary Opinion was grounded upon Allegories only from which nothing can be concluded Denis does likewise (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb ibid. declare the honorable esteem he had for the Memory of his then deceased Adversary whose Faith and Parts he commends But withal he adds that the love which he bore to the Truth above all other things was a sufficient motive that engaged him to write against that Work that was so much admired in Egypt that many preferred the Doctrine therein contained to the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles they were so much puffed up with the Idea of the thousand years Reign on the Earth The matter was brought to that pass that Nepos his Followers chused rather to make a Schism than to abdicate their Opinion But Denis afterwards in a publick Dispute having discovered the falsity thereof brought them to renounce their error It is a very judicious course that that Learned Bishop takes as to his manner of defending the Authority of the Apocalyps against those who rejected it as a supposititious Book and done by Cerinthus He appeared to be in no wise byassed by any preoccupation as to his own Opinion nor guilty of concealing the Reasons of his Adversaries And therefore he freely declares that (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dion Alex. apud Euseb ibid. cap. 25. some Ecclesiastical Writers who lived in his time had opposed that Book with all their might refuting it with a nice and resolute eagerness alledging that it was written without Sense and without Reason They further assured us that the Title of that Work was forged by Cerinthus and that the Title Apocalyps or Revelation could not be attributed to a Book which in their Opinion was stuffed with things that manifest a profound ignorance Notwithstanding all those Objections Denis avows that he cannot reject it as perceiving that it was approved by the most part of his Brethren and to the Reasons on the other side he replies that there is a sublime and hidden Sense in the Expressions of that Author for which he is resolved to have an high veneration though he does not comprehend it being persuaded that Faith and not his own knowledge ought to be the Rule in that case (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. I do not saith he condemn that which I cannot understand on the contrary I admire it because I cannot comprehend it Which nevertheless does not hinder him from examining all the parts of the Books particularly and he shews (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. That it is impossible to Expound it according to the Letter or Sense which the words at first view seem to warrant He further declares that it was composed by a Man called John who was inspired by God. But he does not think that that John was an Apostle and grounds his Opinion on this that the Apostle St. John did put his Name to none of his Works and that he never speaks of himself On the contrary the Author of the Revelation does name himself at the beginning and frequently in the Body of his Work for example in the Letter he writes to the seven Churches of Asia he begins with these words John to the seven Churches which are in Asia But St. John does not so much as put his name to his Catholick Epistle in his entrance upon the matter Neither is it seen at the beginning of his two other Epistles that are very short and pass under his name This difference of Stile makes Denis the Bishop of Alexandria to conclude that the Revelation was not written by St. John and he affirms at the same time that it is uncertain who that John was He proves nevertheless that it is in no wise likely that he was John Sirnamed Mark made mention of in the Acts of the Apostles and who was Companion to Paul and Barnabas in their Travels because he did not follow them into Asia And therefore he judges that he was one of those who lived at Ephesus where there were two Sepulchres with that name Once he has recourse to the difference of Stile from which he pretends to prove that the Apostle St. John who writ the Gospel and one Epistle cannot be the Author of the Apocalyps According to his Opinion the same things and the same expressions are found in the former Books The Revelation on the contrary is quite different from both Thus I have considered at large the judgment of Denis the Bishop of Alexandria upon the Apocalyps upon which Eusebius has more fully Paraphrased because it contains in a few words all that can be said upon this subject He informs us at the same time that the ancient Doctors of the Church made a great account of Tradition upon such an emergent occasion as required their Judgment whether a Book was Canonical or no. We also see that in such junctures they observed the Rules that are commonly received amongst Criticks For the Bishop according to the rigorous Laws of Criticism does examine the Diction or Stile of the Apocalyps (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionis apud Euseb ibid. Which says he is in no wise good Greek being full of Barbarisms and Solecisms The distinction he uses concerning two Johns who lived in Ephesus is grounded upon the Testimony of Papias who was Contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles Eusebius who inserted that Testimony in his History does add that he is positive in it For (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb if the Apostle St. John is not the true Author of the Apocalyps which bears the name of John it is probable that it was written by that second John. Nevertheless the most ancient Fathers viz. Justin and Irenaeus made no account of this distinction nor difference of Stile on which Denis so much insists upon Nor can there be any thing concluded from the Title of the Apocalyps that in the most of Greek Copies whether Manuscript or Printed there is the name of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John the Divine and not of the Apostle St. John set therein Those who annexed that Title meant only to describe St. John the Evangelist whom the Greek Fathers do call the Divine by way of Excellency to distinguish him from other Evangelists