A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament WHEREIN Is firmly Establish'd the Truth of those Acts on which the Foundation of CHRISTIAN RELIGION is laid By Richard Simon Priest LONDON Printed for R. Taylor MDCLXXXIX THE PREFACE THe Church from the first and most early Ages of Christianity has been constantly furnished with some Learned Men by whose diligent care the Sacred Writings have been purged from those Faults which by the tract of Time have insensibly crept into them This kind of Labour which requires an exact knowledg of Books joyned with a strict enquiring into the Manuscripts is termed Critical in as much as it Judges and Determines the most Authentick Readings which ought to be inserted into the Text. By this means Origen acquired his Reputation not only in Greece but universally over the Eastern part of the World where the Bibles of his Correction are by the general consent preferred to all others St Jerom who may justly be stiled the Latin Origen has done very great Service to the Western Church by his Critical Correction of the Latin Bibles in Vse in those Churches Pope Damasus very sensible of his profound Learning obliged him to review the ancient Latin Version of the Gospels which was then in a very miserable Condition This look'd like too bold an Attempt and seemed above the force of any private Person who could never hope to escape the Hatred of a multitude of Persons in the free exercising his Censure of Books which had long stood in the peaceable Possession of an universal Reputation In short though it might perhaps be for the benefit of the Church it was yet a dangerous matter to attempt a Reformation of those ancient Errors which derive their Authority from their Age. Pius Labor Hieron Praef. in Evang. ad Dam. sed periculosa praesumptio judicare de caeteris ipsum ab omnibus judicandum senis mutare linguam caneseentem jam mundum ad initia retranere parvulorum 'T is a pious Work says that ancient Father but very hazardous that he exposes himself to the universal Censure who teaches old Men to change their Language and reduce the decaying World to a State of Infancy But considering on the one Hand the powerful Protection and Patronage of so great a Pope and being on the other abundantly convinc'd of the manifest defect of that Translation which had prevailed universally in the West he resolved rather to expose himself to the Malice of an infinite number of ignorant Persons than fail in the discharge of his (a) Quis enim doctus pariter vel indoctus cùm in manus volumen assumpserit à salivâ quam semel imbibit viderit discrepare quod latitat non statim erumpat in vocem me falfarium me clamitans elle sacrilegum qui audeam aliquid in veteribus libris addere mutare corrigere Hieron Praef. in Evang. ad Dam. Duty He knew very well the charge of Innovation and Forgery that would be drawn up against him for endeavouring to alter those ancient Books which till his time had remained perfectly inviolable But here he encouraged himself by the Precedents of Origen Pierius and some other able Criticks who had performed the very same thing in the Greek Original which he then attempted in the Latin Copies of the Gospel For which reason he stoutly deposed all those which after his Reformation remained Bigots to the ancient Latine Version Revertimur ad nostros bipedes asellos Hieron Epist ad Marcell illorum in aure buccinâ magis quà m citharâ concrepamus Illi legant spe gaudentes tempori servientes nos legamus spe gaudentes Domino servientes But time did Justice to that Father And 't is a very difficult matter at present to find any Copies of that Latine Version which was then in Vse in the Western Church Yet enough there are extant to be read as a Memorial to convince those who defend Errors meerly out of Veneration for their Antiquity that St. Jerome has done the Church no small Service in Correcting and Reviewing the ancient Latine Copies according to the strictest Rules of Criticism This we endeavour to demonstrate in this work and that the most ancient Greek Exemplars of the New Testament are not the best since they are suited to those Latine Copies which St. Jerome found so degenerous as to need an Alteration Father Morin and after him Father Amelot who take such pride in those Noble and Venerable Manuscripts on account of their great Antiquity never mind that a thousand or twelve hundred years can never warrant them correct since there is evident proof of their Corruption before that time It was necessary that I should examine to the bottom the Circumstances of these Greek Texts which have been produced to this Time. It is not sufficient to consult those Manuscripts with design only to mark their Antiquity and quote the different Readings There is required a great deal of Discretion and Judgment otherwise we shall mistake those Books which are altered for Primitive and Apostolical Exemplars which is the Case of the two Authors we are about to name Erasmus who was well enough furnished with those sorts of Manuscripts is nevertheless guilty of very gross Errors He accuses the Greeks without reason for correcting in some places their Copies by those of the Latin after their Re-union with the Roman Church This groundless Accusation can proceed from nothing but the want of knowledge of the Criticisms of those Copies which he consulted Beza who was Master of a greater Collection of Manuscripts of the New Testament than Erasmus though assisted too by both Robert and Henry Stephens has not well distinguished the worth of his Manuscript Copies whence I found my self in some places obliged to correct his Errors This Man was so prejudiced by his Religion as to accuse the Italians of Corrupting the old Text and forcing it to a Compliance with their Opinions This Critical History contains divers other Remarks of the like Nature upon the Manuscript Copies of the New Testament both in Greek and Latine My principal aim is to write a Supplement to the Defects of those who compile the different Readings out of the Manuscripts without distinguishing the Good from the Bad. To which intent it is necessary to read a great quantity and nearly examine them in a Critical manner This Art whose difficulty appears formidable to some Divines in this Age made part of their Occupation of some Ladies in St. Jerome's time Who not content to read the Scripture in the Vulgar Tongue dispersed among the People they diligently enquired after the correctest Copies learning those very Tongues in which they were writ I assert nothing which cannot be maintained by the Letters of those Pious Ladies and the answers of that Learned Father who has had oftentimes a difficult Task to satisfie those Questions they propose on matters purely Critical St. Jerome had advanced that the Apostles had never
cited any Passage in the Old Testament which did not perfectly agree with the Hebrew Text. Eustochium Hieron Prooem in lib. 16. Comm. in Isai who perfectly understood the Greek and Hebrew Languages opposed him with such powerful Arguments that he was forced to own himself almost overcome with the strength of her Objections Quod cùm audissem quasi à fortissimo pugile percussus essem coepi tacitus aestuare It is no strange thing to find those Ages when Barbarism reigned over all Europe neglect Critical Studies Then they wanted abundance of those helps which they now enjoy to pursue those Studies which are absolutely necessary to a perfect Knowledg of Divinity But that which amazes me is that in this very Age this Art should still remain in contempt and those Men be thought no more than Grammarians who apply themselves to it Besides we cannot but see the manifest Errors of some Divines in this Age who know not the true Laws of Criticism It is worth observing that the ancient Hereticks have been perpetually accused of having corrupted the Books of the New Testament and perverted them to their own sence That has often been thought a wilful and designed Corruption which proceeded only from the fault of the Transcribers or difference of Copies The Ecclesiastical Writers of the first Ages have not done that strict Justice to the Hereticks of their times in relation to the New Testament that they have given the Jews in the Disputes about the different manners of explaining the Old Testament Those pretended Corruptions presently vanish upon Examination of the ancient Manuscripts and the Original of the various Readings Wherefore in this Piece I have justified the Arrians Nestorians and the rest of the Sectaries from that Imputation of having falsified the Originals of the Evangelists and Apostles to maintain their Innovations We have also plainly evinc'd by some considerable Examples that the most Learned Criticks of our Age are not exempted from those Prejudices in their declaring too freely those Hereticks falsifiers of the Text. The case of some other Sectaries is not the same who declared themselves openly against the Writings of Christ's Disciples which they have corrected and altered according to their own Idea's of the Christian Religion Some daring to forge Supposititious Gospels and Acts the better to give authority to their Fopperies It would be very pertinent for the better Distinction of all the Genuine Pieces of the New Testament to make a Collection of those ancient Acts and diligently examine them Wherefore we have not concealed any of those Arguments which those Hereticks or the other Enemies of Christianity have brought to destroy the Truth of those Books which were received by all the Catholick Churches But as it would be a pernicious thing to expose these ill things without administring Remedies too proper for the cure we have also produced the strongest Reasons which the Ecclesiastical Writers have brought against them We intreat the Protestants to make Reflection on these matters and observe those methods of the first Ages of the Church for establishing the Authority of the Sacred Writings They will find nothing impertinent in the Conduct Irenaeus Tertullian and the rest of the Defenders of those Writings did not object to the Enemies of the Christian Religion their private Spirit which perswaded them of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture but very substantial Reasons void of all such Fanaticism Tho they were sufficiently perswaded of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture they never objected to the Adversaries that it had imprest upon it such lively Characters of its Original that it was a very difficult matter not to acknowledg it when read with a Spirit of Submission and Humility Their Adversaries being Philosophers who consulted their natural Reason they opposed them from sure and indisputable Principles Again I thought in a Work of this nature not convenient to suppress the principal Objections of the Jews against the Books of the New Testament For although this miserable Nation is an Object of the contempt of the whole World yet has there appeared among them Men of great Address and Subtilty in the Disputes against the Christians which I have often found true in my own Experience when I have endeavoured to convince them by their own Principles Since their Plea for Prescription is better and their Pretensions are that the Disciples of Jesus the Son of Mary had no reason to change their Religion which was delivered them by the Fathers It is but necessary to examin what they object against the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles In this Critical History I have treated divers other important Questions And where I deviate from the Methods of the Divines of the School it is because I have found a more secure way I have employed all my strength to avoid the advancing any thing that is not grounded on authentic Records instead of which the School-Divinity teaches us to doubt of the most certain Our Religion consisting principally in Matters of Fact the Subtilties of Divines who are not acquainted with Antiquity can never discover certainty of such matters of Fact They rather serve to confound the Vnderstanding and form pernicious Difficulties against the Mysteries of our Religion Let it not seem strange to any Person that I recede from the Opinions which are generally received in the Schools and prefer to the Sentiments of whole Vniversities the new Opinions of some modern Divines which can hardly be taxed as novel when they are found conformable to the Ancient Doctors of the Church This I speak in reference to that Passage where I handle the Dispute which was formerly between the Divines of Louvain and Doway and the Jesuits of that Country concerning the inspiration of the sacred Books The Doctors of both Faculties censured the Propositions of the Jesuites of Louvain in a manner very injurious to the whole Society But after a due examination of the Reasons on which their grave Gentlemen founded their Censure I could hardly believe their Authority alone a sufficient Rule to oblige me to assent I propose Truth alone to my self in this Work without any Deference to any Master in particular A true Christian who professes to believe the Catholick Faith ought not to stile himself a Disciple of S. Austin S. Jerome or any other particular Father since his Faith is founded on the word of Jesus Christ contained in the Writings of the Apostles and constant Tradition of the Catholick Churches I wish to God the Divines of the Age were all of that opinion we then should not have seen so many useless Disputes which only prove the causes of Disorders in Church and State. I have no private Interest which obliges me to any Party the very name of Party is odious to me I solemnly protest I have no other intentions in composing this Work than the benefit of the Church and the establishing the most sacred and divine thing in the World. It is useless
they rejected the Writings of the Apostles against the Authority of all the Churches of the World and at the same time received the Apocryphal Books that had no Authority If any one continues this Father should oppose you and should make use of your own words that that which you alledge on your behalf is false and on the contrary that which is against you is true (m) Quid ages Quò te convertes Quam libri à te prolati originem quam vetustatem quam seriem successionis testem citabis Aug. ibid. what would you do How could you defend the truth of those Acts that you produce How could you prove their Antiquity not having any Witnesses in Tradition by whose Testimony they might be confirmed From whence he concludes (n) Vides in hac re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat auctoritas quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorum usque ad hodiernum diem succedentium sibimet Episcoporum serie tot populorum consensione firmatur Aug. ibid. that it is absolutely necessary on this occasion to have recourse to the Authority of those Churches that were established ever since the primitive times of the Christian Religion and to the consent of Nations that have received the Books of the New Testament from the Apostles He observes further and more close to the purpose that if it were only disputed concerning the variety of Copies since they are but few in number it would be sufficient to consult the Copies of different Countries and if they did not agree in this point the greater number should be preferred before the lesser or the more ancient before the later Plures paucioribus aut vetustiores recentioribus praeferrentur But the Manicheans who judged not of the Truth of these Books but with relation to their own Ideas refused to submit to this Authority they consulted only their reason in matters of Fact wherein all Deference ought to be given to Authority therefore when any passage was urged to them that thwarted their Opinion they boldly affirmed that that part had been corrupted or that the Book wherein it was found had been composed by some Impostor under the name of the Apostles Faustus for example who avouched that after having diligently perused the Books of Moses he could not find therein any Prophecy that had any regard to Jesus Christ takes this method in answering the Texts of the New Testament Where express mention is made of these Prophecies Jesus Christ saith in speaking of himself Moses hath wrote of me Faustus answers to this Joann v. 46. that after a serious examination of this passage (o) Ratione cogebar in alterum è duobus ut aut falsum pronunciarem capitulum hoc aut mendacem Jesum sed id quidem alienum pietatis eraè Deum existimare mentitum Rectius ergo visum est scriptoribus adscribere falsitatem quam veritatis auctoritati mendacium Apud Aug. lib. 16. contra Faust c. 2. his reason obliged him to conclude either that it was false or that Jesus Christ had not spoken the truth and since it would be no less than impious Blasphemy to say that God could lie it would be more adviseable to attribute the falsification to the Writers themselves When it was demanded of this Heretick why he did not receive the Old Law and the Prophets whom Jesus Christ himself hath authorised in the New Testament by his words I am not come to destroy the Law or the Peophets Matth. v. 17. but to fulfil them he objected against the Testimony of S. Matthew because he is the only Evangelist that hath related this It is supposed saith he that this Discourse was delivered in the Sermon that Jesus Christ made on the Mountain In the mean time S. John (p) Testis idoneus tacet loquitur autem minùs idoneus Apud Aug. cont Faust lib. 17. c. 1. who was there present speaks not a word thereof and yet they would have S. Matthew who saw nothing to mention it He pretends that this hath been wrote by some other person and not by S. Matthew After this manner the Manicheans who sacrificed all to their Reason and almost nothing to Authority entirely destroyed the Books of the New Testament receiving them no farther than they were conformable to their Prejudices they had formed to themselves a certain Idea of Christianity after which they regulated the Writings of the Apostles They would have it that all that which could not be adjusted to this Idea had been inserted in their Books by later Writers who were half Jews Faustus saith Multa enim à majoribus vestris eloquiis Domini nostri inserta verba sunt Apud Aug. l. 33. cont Faust c. 3. quae nomine signata ipsius cum fide non congruant praesertim quia ut jam saepe probatum à nobis est nec ab ipso haec sunt nec ab ejus Apostolis scripta sed multa post eorum assumptionem à nescio quibus ipsis inter se non concordantibus Semi-Judaeis per famas opinionesque comperta sunt c. But S. Augustin represents to them in this very same passage that one must renounce common sense to argue after this manner on matters of Fact to which imaginary reasons ought not to be opposed (q) De quo libro certum erit cujus sit si literae quas Apostolorum dicit tenet Ecclesia ab ipsis Apostolis propagata per omnes gentes tantâ eminentiâ declarata utrùm Apostolorum sint incertum est hoc erit certum scripsisse Apostolos quod huic Ecclesiae contrarii haeretiot proferunt Auctorum suorum nominibus appellati longè post Apostolos existentium Aug. ibid. We cannot be certain saith he of any Book if once we call in question those Works that the Church that is extended throughout the whole World receives with a common consent and if on the contrary we authorise as Apostolical Books that dispute therewith and that carry the name of Writers who have lived a long time after the Apostles He charges them (r) Legunt Scripturas apocryphas Manichaei à nescio quibus fabularum sutoribus sub Apostolorum nomine scriptas quae suorum scriptorum temporibus in auctoritatem sanctae Ecclesiae recipi mererentur si sancti docti bomines qui tunc in hac vita erant examinare talia poterant eos vera locutos esse cognoscerent Aug. cont Faust lib. 22. c. 79. with making Fables and Apocryphal Works to pass for Apostolical Writings and he shews at the same time the falsity of these Acts because they have not any testimony of the Doctors of the Church that were then living He urgeth Faustus to prove what he hath alledged by Books that are Canonical and generally received in all the Churches Non ex quibuscunque literis sed Ecclesiasticis Canonicis Catholicis Aug. l. 23. adv Faus c. 9. This Holy Doctor calls this way
of 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
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
of Justin and Irenaeus who lived some little time after that Book was Composed ought to be preferred to the Opinion of those Authors He further affirms (u) Non videtur propter parvam aliquam aut etiam magnam dissimilitudinem rationis scribendi in universum ac styli ab aliis ejusdem Joannis scriptis longè diversi generis debere aut posse dubitari quin ejus sit opus maximè cùm simul adsint tot alia testimonia conjecturae ut illi ipsi qui prorsus negarent ejus esse illudque rejecerunt coacti fuerint fateri à quopiam conscriptum fuisse qui persuadere voluerit istum ipsum Joannem illud conscripsisse Soc. ibid. that as to the difference of Stile betwixt that Work and those others which were written by St. John this Objection does not oblige him to give those Reasons which prove it to be St. John's since they appeared so convincing to those very persons who rejected the Book that they were forced to acknowledge that it was written by a Man who endeavoured to persuade others that St. John was the Author thereof This last Observation seems to be more subtil than solid a crime that is pardonable in the Unitaries who never applyed themselves to the study of the Ancient Ecclesiastical Authors In the last place the Commentaries on the Apocalyps made by the Calvinists are undeniable proofs that they do receive it into the number of Divine and Prophetical Books Besides they would be very sorry to be without that Prophecy Beza made a Discourse Treating expresly on that Subject by way of Preface to his Notes on that Work where he answers the Objections which Erasmus had published to diminish the Authority thereof That which he had not observed as to any other Books of the New Testament Calvin fearing that he should make himself ridiculous by his false Expositions of a Book that is so very obscure has taken the best side by not publishing any Commentary on the Apocalyps His example had no influence on his Followers for many amongst them did with a Prophetical tone lowdly recommend to the World their own Visions upon that Book Besides the Books of the New Testament which we have hitherto spoken of and that are generally received in all the Churches as Divine and Canonical some others have been read in many Churches which yet never had the same Authority Nevertheless it has so fallen out that those who have made Catalogues of the Sacred Books have not always observed this distinction For they have placed all of them in an equal rank for Books of the Holy Scripture There have been also some Fathers who quoted some Books of this sort as if they had been truely given by Divine Inspiration But it is easie to find even by the Writings of the Fathers that those Works were approved by none but particular persons whose Opinion cannot reasonably be looked upon as a Law. If I had not resolved to confine my Discourse to the Books of the New Testament which are generally approved of in all Churches I would have insisted at large on those other Books but I am obliged to keep within the limits of my first purpose I shall only observe that in a certain Catalogue of the Books of the Bible which is at the end of two very ancient Copies of St. Paul's Epistles there follows immediately after the Epistle of St. Jude (x) Judae Epistola Barnabae Epistola Joannis Revelatio Actus Apostolorum Pastor Actus Pauli Revelatio Petri. Catal. libror. Script S. ex Codd MSS. Bibl. Reg. S. Germ. the Epistle of Barnabas the Revelation or the Apocalyps of John the Acts of the Apostles the Book of the Pastor the Acts of Paul and the Revelation of Peter The number also of the Verses contained in each Book of the Bible is set down in the Catalogue And what is most of all observable is that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not comprehended therein It is nevertheless in those two Greek and Latin Manuscripts that are written with the same Hand as the rest of St. Paul's Epistles but it is placed by it self and after the Catalogue as if it did not belong to that Apostle In this matter they followed the Custom of some of the Western Churches CHAP. XX. The Objections of the Jews and other Enemies of the Christian Religion against the Books of the New Testament Inquiry is made if the Evangelists and Apostles made use of the Greek Version of the Septuagint in the Passages which they quote out of the Old Testament St. Jerom's Opinion upon the Matter That Father declared himself for the Hebrew Text of the Jews in opposition to that of the Septuagint THE Books of the New Testament having been maintained as well in general as in particular it is worth the while to examin the principal Objections that are made against those Books and at the same time against the Apostles who published them The Mahometans endeavour to evince the necessity of the coming of their Prophet from this that seeing the Canonical Books of the Jews and Christians are according to their Opinion wholly corrupted it was necessary that God should send a new Prophet upon the Earth to teach Men the True Religion But because they bring no solid reasons for the confirmation of what they alledge it is to no purpose to refute them The Jews and some Philosophers who are Enemies to the Christians have more particularly attacked the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles They have had the impudence to charge them with Forgery or at least with ignorance seeing as they object they have quoted the Books of the Old Testament otherwise than they are in themselves They further accuse them of annexing to the Passages they produce a sense that was very far from the mind of the Authors Hereupon they draw up the strongest objections they can against the Authority of the New Testament which of necessity must be answered As to the first Objections the Jews do suppose that when a publick Record is produced for confirmation of a Matter of Fact it is necessary that the very words of the Record be delivered in the same manner as they are in the Original or in faithful Copies but say they the Disciples of Jesus Christ have not done that For if the passages of the Old Testament which they have quoted in their Writings be compared with the Original Hebrew Text it will be found that in many places they bear a quite different meaning Whence they conclude that they are either chargeable with falshood or that their Writings have been altered and therefore that there is no credit to be given to them I answer this Objection that it was not necessary for the Apostles when they Preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to make use of the Hebrew Bible On the contrary it was more for their purpose that they should make mention of the passages of the Old Testament so as they
same hand and that the Greek has a greater resemblance of the ancient Capital Letters of the Latins than of those of the Greeks The former are more square the great Letters of the Greeks are longer and finer This I observed in reading the second part of that Cambridge Copy which is in the King's Library and another the like Copy which is in the Library of the Religious Benedictines of St. Germain These two Copies which contain the Epistles of St. Paul do so little differ from one another as well in the Greek as in the Latin that it would seem the one had been copied from the other but that the Characters of that of the Benedictines are greater and more majestical and that it is less disfigured by Corrections It may be easily known by the fashion of the Characters of those two Copies and by the ancient Latin Version which is joined to the Greek Text that they were copied by the Latins for the use of that Church The Greek and the Latin are written with the same Hand and with a Letter altogether alike so that there are Letters that are purely Greek in the Latin. Moreover there is one thing that is very singular in those two Manuscripts and that can only agree to the Latins It is certain that the Greeks did reckon amongst the number of the Epistles of S. Paul that which is directed to the Hebrews whereas many Latin Churches did not receive it And this Epistle is not put with the others in those two Copies It is placed separately at the end of the Book Which cannot be accounted a Transposition or any other thing of the like nature chargeable on those who joyned the Leaves of those two Copies together For the end and the beginning of every one of the Apostle Paul's Epistles are there very exactly marked and in the same order as we read them at this day Yet there is no mention made of the Epistle to the Hebrews because the Churches of those who made use of the Copies did not believe that it belonged to S. Paul nor that it was so much as Canonical And for this reason they added immediately after the Epistle to Philemon a Catalogue of all the Books which were read in those Churches and this Epistle is not marked with others in the Catalogue It is only found at the end of those Books as foreign to the Work and as a Piece that does not carry the same Authority with the others All this does evidently prove that those two Manuscript Copies of S. Paul's Epistles which are of the same nature with that of Cambridge which contains the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were not written by the Greeks seeing all the Churches of the Greeks that of the Arians only excepted did always acknowledg the Epistle to the Hebrews for Divine and Canonical and which they never separated from the rest of that Apostle's Epistles Nor can we believe that the Greeks would joyn to their Greek Copies a Latin Version which they did not understand and which was altogether unprofitable to them In short the numerous Faults that are in the Greek of those Copies is a new proof that they were written by Latin Amanuenses who had no knowledge of the Greek Language I speak not of the small Orthographical Faults which are observed in the ancient Books that were copied by the Greeks as well as in those that were copied by the Latins but of certain Faults in the Words which can only be applied to the latter and of which I would produce several Examples if I did not believe that it has been evidently proved that the Manuscripts of that nature which were used in the Western Churches before S. Jerom amended his ancient Latin Version were written by Latin Transcribers If Beza had made all these Observations and if he had compared with those Manuscripts that which S. Jerom hinted in his Letter to Pope Damasus he would have perceived the reasons of that great difference that is betwixt those Copies and others from which were taken such as have been Printed in these latter times That Father observed that the former were altered by the mixture of several Gospels together and that one Gospel had been corrected by another We need only apply this Observation to the Cambridge Copy which contains the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles and the same Faults will be acknowledged to be therein We shall find in S. Matthew for example some Additions which are taken out of other Gospels and the Genealogy in S. Luke amended by that which is in S. Matthew The Critical Reflections that he made in that Letter on the Copies of his Time has so great a relation to the Cambridge Copy that they would seem to have been made for no other purpose but to give us an exact knowledge of that Copy (e) Vos admonendos duxi tantùm à me in Lucae praesertim Evangelio repertam esse dissonantiam ut vitandae quorundam offensioni asservandam potiùs quà m publicandam existimem Bez. ibid. which differs so much from others that Beza does testifie that he durst not furnish us with all the variations thereof lest he should give offence to some sort of Men. But S. Jerom who informs us that the Copies of the ancient Latin Version that was agreeable to the Greek Copies of this kind were very defective he does also acquaint us with other Greek Copies that were more exact by which he had amended it And by that he does entirely remove that pretended scandal This Learned Critick to effect his Amendments had recourse * Codicum Graecorum emendatâ collatione sed veterum to the ancient and the most exact Greek Copies by the means of which he removed that Confusion which was in the Latin Edition of that time and in some Greek Copies which were in nothing different from that Edition (f) Canones quoque quos Eusebius Caesariensis Episcopus Alexandrinum secutus Ammonium in decem numeros ordinavit sicut in Graeco habentur expressimus Hieron praef in IV. Evang. ad Dam. He made use of the Greek Copy of the Gospels to which Eusebius had added certain Canons which we find at this day at the beginning of the Manuscript Copies as well Greek as Latin and also before some Editions We know by the means of these Canons what the Evangelists have that is common or alike and what they have peculiar to each of them By this Method he applied a remedy in some sort for removing the Disorder that was in the vulgar Copies He does nevertheless add that to the end he might not leave the ancient Latin Copy too much which was then in use (g) Quae ne multùm à lectionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent ita calamo temperavimus ut his tantùm quae sensum videbantur mutare correctis reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant Hier. ibid. he had observed this moderation to amend nothing but what changed the
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
Doctrine There was no talk in those days of reading the Holy Scriptures in the Originals any Copy whatsoever provided it were used in the Orthodox Churches might be relied on as if it had been the first Original written with the hand of the Apostles We ought to give the same credit to Copies that have been made of the Apostolical Writings as to the very Originals because these Copies have been taken from thence even from the times of the Apostles and have been afterwards dispersed almost throughout the whole Earth they have been preserved in all the Churches of the World having been translated into divers Languages insomuch that there is no Book the Copies whereof are more authentick than those of the New Testament and in this we ought chiefly to acknowledge the peculiar Providence of God in the preservation of these Books that he hath given to his Church by the Ministry of the Apostles or of their Disciples Some pretend nevertheless to make it appear by actual Proofs taken out of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that the original Writings of the Apostles have been preserved in the Church during several Ages and this must be examined in particular though I have already discoursed thereof elsewhere In the first place they produce a Passage of Tertullian in his Book of Prescription against Heresies where he saith in speaking of the Churches that had been founded by the Apostles (b) Apud quos ipsae Authenticae Literae eorum recitantur Tertull. de Praescr cap. 36. that they yet kept in his time their Authentick Writings Pamel Annot. in lib. Tertul. de Praescr c. 36. Pamelius in his Notes on this Passage affirms after another Author that the Word Authentick cannot be taken but for the Originals that had been written with the very hand of the Apostles themselves after the same manner as Lawyers call a Testament Authentick that hath been written with the hand of the Testator to distinguish it from a Copy This is also the Sense that Grotius Grot. de Verit. Relig Christ lib. 3. Walton Huetius and many others have given of these Words of Tertullian Tertullianus saith Grotius aliquot librorum ipsa Archetypa suo adhuc tempore ait extitisse He avoucheth from this place of Tertullian (c) Archetypa nonnulla ad annum usque ducentesimum servata sunt Grot. de Verit. Relig. Christ lib. 3. that some Originals of the New Testament have been preserved till the beginning of the third Century But if we carefully examine the different Passages wherein Tertullian makes use of the Word Authentick in his Works we shall find that he hath meant nothing else by this Expression than Books written in their Original Languages This is what Rigaltius hath very well observed on this Sentence of Tertullian where explaining the Word Authenticae he saith Rigalt Annot. in lib. Tertul. de Praescr c. 36. Lingua scilicet eadem qua fuerant ab Apostolis conscriptae sonantes vocem uniuscujusque Sic ipse lib. de Monogamia ad Graecum authenticum Pauli provocat Whereas the Latin Version of the New Testament was only read in the Churches of Africa he gives the Name of Authentick to the Greek Text and in this Sense it is that quoting this Text in his Book of Monogamy he saith Sciamus planè non esse sic in Graeco authentico St. Jerom also useth the like Expression with respect to the Old Testament when he opposeth the Hebrew Text to the Greek and Latin Versions for he calls the former Veritatem Hebraicam the Hebrew Verity designing thereby to denote the Originals of the Scriptures which he likewise denominates as Tertullian doth Authenticos libros Tertul. lib. de Monog c. 11. in his Commentary on chap. 64. of the Prophet Isaiah nevertheless he did not believe that these were the first Originals written with the hand of the Prophets We express our selves also at this day after the same manner when we say that a Version of the Scriptures is not conformable to the Original Tertullian therefore doth not speak of any other Originals in his Book of Prescription than those that we have just now remarked As to the Authority of Lawyers that Pamelius opposeth it is easie to remonstrate by the Testimony even of the most learned Lawyers that the Word Authentick is often taken in a less strict sense Every Act that proves and procures credit of it self whether it be an Original or not is accounted Authentick An Author that publisheth some Manuscript Piece assures us that it is taken ex codice authentico from an authentick Copy Doth he mean by this that he hath the Original of the Book that he sets forth in his own hands In the second place they offer an actual Proof taken from Eusebius Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 10. This Historian speaking of the Zeal and of the Charity of the ancient Christians who went to preach the Gospel to the most remote Nations after the Example of the Apostles saith that Pantenus quitted the City of Alexandria where he was the Principal of a School or Colledge of Christians to promulge the Religion of Jesus Christ to the Indians This faithful Evangelist being among the Indians or Ethiopians found there a Copy of S. Matthew's Gospel written in Hebrew that S. Bartholomew the Apostle of these People had left and was believed to be preserved there to that time But besides that Eusebius doth not confirm this History by any Ecclesiastical Writer being content only to say that it was a common Report 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not see that it can be unquestionably proved from these Words that the Hebrew Copy that Pantenus found at his Arrival in that Country was the Original that St. Bartholomew had left there He only intended to say That the Ethiopians who had been converted to the Faith of Jesus Christ by this Apostle did not make use of the Greek Gospel of S. Matthew but of the Hebrew or Chaldaick that had been written for the first Christians of Jerusalem If this History were true the Primitive Christians of Ethiopia were descended from the Jews and spake the same Language as those that inhabited Judea This is all that can be concluded from the Discourse of Eusebius which hath been amplified in process of time St. Hierom doth not seem to have understood the sense of this Historian when he saith in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers that Pantenus (d) Quod Hebraicis literis scriptum revertens Alexandriam secum detulit Hier. de Scriptor Eccles in Panteno returning to Alexandria carried back with him the Gospel of St. Matthew written in Hebrew Characters Eusebius saith only that the Christians of Ethiopia had preserved this Hebrew Gospel until the Arrival of Pantenus The third material proof that is brought is taken from the Chronicle of Alexandria wherein it is observed that a correct Book of the Gospel of St. John that had been written with that Evangelist's own hand
this is the reason that in some Manuscript Greek Copies we find the name of this Evangelist at the beginning of this Work he declares himself in his Preface that he is the Author of it presenting it to his Friend Theophilus to whom he had already dedicated his Gospel S. Jerom affirmeth (a) Cujus historia usque ad biennium Romae commorantis Pauli pervenit id est usque ad quartum Neronis annum Ex quo intelligimus in eadem urbe librum esse compositum Hieron de Script Eccl. in Lucâ that this History was written at Rome and that it extends to the fourth Year of Nero which was according to his Opinion the second of S. Paul's abode in that great City The Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures thought (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. in Synops that the Acts of the Apostles had been preached by S. Peter and that S. Luke had afterwards committed them to Writing but S. Luke hath recorded almost nothing else but matters of fact of which he himself had been a witness Hieron ibid. And this is the difference that S. Jerom makes between the Gospel of this Disciple of the Apostles and the Acts in regard that not having seen Jesus Christ he could not write his Gospel but on that which he had learned from others sicut audierat scripsit whereas having followed S. Paul in the most part of his Travels he was an eye-witness of his Actions and therefore he hath published nothing but what he had seen himself sicut viderat ipse composuit Although the Title indeed of this History bears the name of all the Apostles in general nevertheless it informs us of very few things concerning them only conducting them to the time when they dispersed themselves into divers Provinces to preach the Gospel S. Luke comes after this to S. Paul's Travels who was accompanied with S. Barnabas without describing the Itineraries of the other Apostles neither doth he finish even those of S. Paul. If it be demanded why S. Luke hath not perfected his History and why he hath not left us in Writing the rest of those Actions of which he was a Witness I have no other Answer to make but that which S. John Chrysostom hath already made to those that in his time asked the same Question This learned Bishop saith Joann Chrys Hom. 1. in Act. Apos That what S. Luke hath written in this matter is sufficient for those that will apply themselves to it that the Apostles moreover and their Disciples who preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joann Chrysost Hom. 1. in Act. Apost have always insisted on that which was most necessary that they did not study to write Histories because they have left many things to the Churches by Tradition only And this ought to be considered for it is certain that the principal business and care of the Apostles was to preach the Gospel and that they would have written nothing of their Preachings if they had not been earnestly sollicited by the People whom they had instructed The Christian Religion might be preserved without any Writings by Tradition alone S. Chrysostom complains in the same place Chrys ib. that that little we have of the History of the Apostles was so neglected in his time that many were not only ignorant of the Author but they did not know whether it had been written It seems that the Gospels and the Epistles of S. Paul were then only accounted to belong to the New Testament perhaps none but these two Works were read in the Churches in these Primitive Ages We see also that the Books that are consecrated for the use of the Greek Churches do only bear these two Titles viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gospel and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle nevertheless afterwards this last Book hath been named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it contains besides the Epistles of S. Paul the best part of the Acts of the Apostles and even the other Books of the New Testament Whereas this History that comprehends the principal Actions of S. Paul is short a certain Priest of Asia since the Primitive times of Christianity thought fit to add to it in form of a Supplement another Book intituled The Travels of Paul and Thecla We are informed by Tertullian (d) Quòd si quae Pauli perperà m scripta legunt exemplum Theclae ad licentiam mulierum docendi tingendique defendunt sciant in Asiâ presbyterum qui eam scripturam construxit quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse loco decessisse Tertull. lib. de Bapt. c. 17. that some Women made use of these Acts to prove by the Authority of this Holy Apostle that it was lawful for them to preach in the Churches and to baptize This Father answers those that alledged the Testimony of S. Paul taken from these Acts that the Priest of Asia the Author of them had been convicted that he had forged them and that he himself had avouched that he was induced to compose them by the love that he had for this Apostle He solidly confutes them by making it appear that these Acts contained a Doctrine altogether contrary to that of S. Paul. (e) Quà m enim fidei proximum videretur ut is docendi tingendi daret feminae potestatem qui ne discere quidem constanter mulieri permisit Tertull. ibid. What probability is there saith he that S. Paul should grant to Women a power to teach and to baptize who hath not so much as permitted them to learn in the Church forbidding them absolutely to speak therein S. Jerom who hath made mention of these Acts published under the Title of the Travels of Paul and Thecla Hieron de script Eccles in Luca. adds that it was S. John that caused the Priest that composed them to be convicted of Forgery Tertullian nevertheless whom he cites in this Passage doth not speak of S. John he saith only that this Priest was of Asia Pope Gelasius hath put this Book in the number of Apocryphal Works Baronius distinguisheth these false Acts of Thecla from others that give an account of the Life and Martyrdom of this Saint Gelas Decr. 1. part dist 15. c. 3. he supports the Authority of these last by the Testimony of several Fathers who have quoted them Baron an c. 47. n. 3 4 5. Epiph. Haer. 78. n. 16. and among others by that of S. Epiphanius who relying on the credit of these Acts relates that Thecla having espoused a very rich and noble man broke off her Marriage after she had heard S. Paul This Cardinal adds that Faustus a famous Manichean hath produced this same History of Thecla and that he hath taken occasion from thence to condemn the Doctrine of S. Paul as abominable because he had compelled by his Discourses a married Woman to continue
before the time of Cajus of the Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews Tertullian nevertheless hath attributed it to S. Barnabas but without shewing any Reasons The same Baronius is very much perplexed when he would explain the Sense of S. Jerom who avoucheth that although this Epistle hath been always received as S. Paul's in the Eastern Churches (i) Eam Latinorum consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas Canonicas Hier. Epist ad Dardan yet the Latins do not put it in the number of the Canonical Epistles this he repeats in several other Passages of his Works But whereas most part of the Latin Fathers before him and even in his time have acknowledged this Epistle not only to be Canonical but also to be written by S. Paul this Cardinal thinks that S. Jerom was deceived in relying altogether on the Testimony of Cajus and Eusebius without consulting the custom of the Latin Churches I confess that this Father in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers according to his usual method hath only copied the Words of Eusebius when he speaks of Cajus but the same thing cannot be said of the other Passages where he affirms distinctly from Eusebius that this Epistle is not generally received amongst the Latins Paulus Apostolus saith he in his Commentary on Isaiah in Epistola ad Hebraeos quam Latina consuetudo non recipit He adds a little after (k) Pauli quoque idcirco ad Hebraeos Epistolae contradicitur quòd ad Hebraeos scribens utatur testimoniis quae in Hebraeis voluminibus non habentur Hier. Comm. in Is l 2. c. 6. that this Epistle of S. Paul was rejected because that in writing to the Hebrews he made use of such Testimonies of the Holy Scriptures as were not found in their Copies This evidently proves that there were some Churches in those times in which the Epistle to the Hebrews was not acknowledged as Canonical Hier. ib. this can only be understood of the Western Churches since he grants that it was universally approved in all those of the East He declares moreover in his Letter to Dardanus (l) Quòd si Epistolam ad Hebraeos Latinorum consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas Canonicas nec Graecorum quidem Ecclesiae Apocalypsim Joannis eâdem libertate suscipiunt tamen nos utramque suscipimus nequaquam hujus temporis consuetudinem sed veterum scriptorum auctoritatem sequentes qui plerumque utriusque abutuntur testimoniis non ut interdùm de apocryphis facere solent sed quasi canonicis ecclesiasticis Hier. Epist ad Dard. that without having regard to the Custom of his Time he received the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse as Canonical Books though the Latins did not allow the first nor the Grecians the second He prefers in this place the Authority of the Ancients who had cited these two Works as Canonical before the practice of his time It cannot be said then with Cardinal Baronius that S. Jerom when he affirms that in his time the Epistle to the Hebrews was not commonly received amongst the Latins had only respect to the Testimony of Cajus and that he hath done nothing but transcribed the Words of Eusebius for he speaks plainly of the Custom of his time But it may be objected that S. Hilary Optatus S. Ambrose S. Augustin and some other Fathers who lived before S. Jerom or were contemporary with him have not doubted that this Epistle was not only Canonical and Divine but they have likewise believed that it was S. Paul's how then could it come to pass that this Father should avouch that it was not acknowledged in his time amongst the Latins It is true that these Fathers who were Latins and some of whom lived at the same time with S. Jerom have all ascribed the Epistle directed to the Hebrews to S. Paul which he doth also himself in divers Passages of his Works however I will not conclude from thence with Baronius that this learned Man hath not sufficiently considered the Practice of his Church (m) Haec igitur oùm ex Eusebio Hieronymus exsoripserit majorem illi quà m par erat sidem tribuit dùm putavit Latinos dictam Epistolam non recipere Baron ann ch 60. n. 52. and that he hath too easily given credit to the Testimony of Eusebius but I will say that a difference ought to be put between the Custom of Churches and the Attestation of particular Writers When S. Jerom hath written that in his time the Epistle to the Hebrews was not allowed among the Latins he hath declared the Practice of many Churches of the West who did not read it in their publick Assemblies this doth not hinder but that the Fathers of those times might esteem it as Canonical and also as S. Paul's It would be an easie matter by this means to reconcile S. Jerom with some other Latin Fathers That which confirms the distinction that I have now made between the Custom of Churches and that of private Writers is this that we find some very ancient Greek Manuscripts of the Epistles of S. Paul with the old Latin Version annexed to them in which the Epistle to the Hebrews hath been separated on purpose from the body of the Epistles It seems to me that there can be no other reason given of this Separation but this that the Latins who have transcribed these Copies as I shall prove hereafter did not read this Epistle in their Churches furthermore it may be observed that all the ancient Latin Authors have not attributed the Epistle to the Hebrews to S. Paul for besides that Tertullian doth not refer to it but under the name of S. Barnabas there is no probability that it was received as Canonical in the Church of S. Cyprian since he never makes use of its Authority in all his Works If we should say with Baronius that this holy Bishop hath followed Tertullian in this whom he read always and called his Master this would not resolve the difficulty I doubt not but if the Epistle to the Hebrews had been publickly read at that time in his Church as being S. Paul's he would have quoted it as well as the others As for the Reasons that are alledged against this Epistle they are not of that weight as to make void the Testimonies of so great a number of Authors who have attributed it to S. Paul. First Hieron Comm. in Is l. 2. c. 6. The Objection proposed by S. Jerom in his Commentaries on Isaiah that is taken from the Passages of the old Testament which the Author of this Epistle hath not cited from the Hebrew Text but from the Greek Version of the Seventy is of no force at all he should have first made it appear that it was originally written in Hebrew which cannot be easily proved and though it were true yet might it be always said as of the Gospel of S. Matthew that the Greek Translator hath inserted into his Version the Passages
Names they bear This is necessary to be observed here that it may be applied to the other Books of the New Testament of which we shall treat in the Sequel of this Work. It hath been often objected to the Lutherans that their Patriarch hath rejected this Epistle who believed not that it was written by any Apostle But besides their reading it in their German Bibles with the other Epistles of S. Paul they answer that it might be permitted to their Master to raise this Doubt after so many ancient Authors and that he hath nevertheless acknowledged (c) Esse tamen pulcherrimam insignem Epistolam à discipulo quodam Apostolorum scriptam Raith Vind. Vers Germ. Luth. th 22. that it was most excellent Calv. argum de ses Comm. sur l' Epist aux Hebr. and composed by some Disciple of the Apostles Calvin hath presixed to his Commentaries on this Epistle a Discourse where he saith For my part I cannot believe that S. Paul is the Author of it One would think that the Socinians should expunge this Epistle to the Hebrews out of the Catalogue of the Canonical Books in imitation of the Arians In the mean time tho they are persuaded that there is no certainty as to the Author of it yet they do not forbear to receive it with the other Epistles of S. Paul. Therefore Socinus himself after he hath produced some Arguments (d) Videtur mihi ipsa in universum scribendi ratio auctoris illius Epistolae admodum diversa ab eâ quâ quam secutus est Paulus quamvis aeque divina Soc. de Auctor Script Sac. n. 2. that give occasion to a scruple whether it appertains to this Apostle adds that however it is no less Divine he confesseth that it is not without reason that it is doubted whether the person to whom it is commonly attributed be certainly the Author but he saith at the same time that tho the name of an Author of a Book be not known it doth not follow that this Book is of no authority or even of less than if it were known Enjedinus a subtil Unitarian insists also at large on this Subject when he examins some Passages of the Epistle to the Hebrews Georg. Enjed. locor Epist ad Hebr. he relates all that he hath read thereupon in the Writings of Erasmus and Beza and of some other Commentators on the holy Scriptures But after he hath too nicely alledged such Reasons as not only take away this Epistle from S. Paul but also render it suspected he doth not fail to reckon it in the number of the Canonical Books It is well worth the observing that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not so favourable to the Orthodox against the Arians but that they have likewise made use of it against the Catholicks to authorize their Novelties This may be seen in the Works of S. Epiphanius who takes notice that altho these Hereticks did not acknowledge it as an Apostolical Writing yet they did not forbear to oppose the Faith of the Church with these words of this same Epistle chap. 3. v. 1 2. (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist ad Hebr. cap. 3. v. 2. Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession Jesus Christ who was faithful to him that appointed him (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 69. n. 37. From these words who was faithful to him that appointed or made him they concluded that Jesus Christ was a Creature As for the Language in which the Epistle to the Hebrews was composed the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers have all judged that the Greek Text which we now have is too pure and elegant to be S. Paul's but it cannot be necessarily concluded from thence that it was at first written in Hebrew or Chaldaick by this holy Apostle I am rather inclined to believe with Origen that it hath been compiled by one of the Amanuenses or Interpreters of S. Paul to whom all Antiquity hath ascribed it by reason of the Grandeur of the Conceptions in which there is a certain Art that could proceed only from a Learned Jew of the Sect of the Pharisees The Jews themselves at this day who have any knowledge of their ancient Authors do freely confess that there is something in it that is great and sublime If we knew precisely to what sort of Jews it was directed we might more easily judge of the Language in which it was written But since this question is but of little moment and we can have nothing but Conjectures thereupon I shall not insist any longer on it CHAP. XVII Of the Catholick or Canonical Epistles in general and in particular THE Grecians have called Catholick or universal the seven Epistles which we read under this Name because for the most part they were not written to particular Churches as those of S. Paul. The Title of Canonical seems to have been affected especially in the Western Churches because it hath been doubted whether some of them ought to be put in the number of the Canonical Books Cardinal Cajetan hath thought that the Epistle of S. James which is directed to the twelve Tribes of the Jews in general (a) Magis libri quà m epistolae titulum merebatur scripta est enim non ut deferretur duodecim Tribubus dispersis cùm hoc esset impossibile sed ad instruendum eos Cajet Comm. in c. 1. Epist Jac. deserves rather the Name of a Book than of an Epistle because it was not written to be carried to the Jews that were dispersed amongst divers Nations but he is mistaken in this for we write as well to Communities even those that are separated in different Countries as to particular Assemblies And these Letters are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catholick or Circulary The Author of the Preface at the beginning of the Canonical Epistles which is attributed to S. Jerom and is found in the most part of Manuscript Copies and in the first Latin Editions of the Bible hath observed (b) Non ita est ordo apud Graecos qui integrè sapiunt fidemque rectam sectantur Epistolarum septem quae Canonicae nuncupantur sicut in Latinis codicibus invenitur ut quòd Petrus primus in ordine Apostolorum prinae sint etiam ejus Epistolae in ordine caeterarum Hieron Prolog in VII Epist Can. that the Order of these Epistles in his time was not the same in the Latin as in the Greek Copies of the Orthodox The Epistle of S. James was the first in the Greek whereas the Latins had placed that of S. Peter at the head of all the rest having had regard to the Primacy of his Apostleship This Author declares that he hath re-established their ancient Order putting that of St. James at the beginning and afterwards the two of St. Peter the three of St. John and at last that of St. Jude this indeed is the Order that is found in the Greek Manuscript Copies and even
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
loco nihilominùs firmissimis documentis aliis stabiliri intelligeret Raith Vind. Vers Germ. Luth. says that Luther did think fit to put that only in his Version which was constantly and by all agreed on and that consequently he might omit a Verse about which some doubts had arisen and which was not in Aldus's Edition which he made use of as it is believed Besides he was persuaded that there were other passages which afforded a lasting Foundation for the belief of the Trinity This is a plausible Reason because Luther took upon him the Translating a Greek Copy into his own Language But if the Master was to be justified in this respect I see no reason why his Disciples should alter his Version in that place and that they should commend to the people for the true word of God a thing they believed to be doubtful It might possibly have been more to the purpose according to their principle to preserve their ancient Dutch Version and content themselves with placing that Verse in the Margin by way of remark On the contrary they bring it at this day against the Antitrinitarians as a strong proof of the Mystery of the Trinity little thinking that they give them by that means the fairest occasion imaginable of Triumphing over them It is the bare Authority of the Church that does at present oblige us to receive that passage as Authentick The Greeks though otherwise disaffected to the Latin Church fully agree with them in this matter There is a greater Uniformity amongst the Calvinists in their Versions of the New Testament than amongst the Lutherans For though they pretend as well as they to Translate the Original Greek yet they have retained that Verse in all their Translations Beza who openly declares that it is not to be found in the most part of the Ancients yet says withal (l) Hic versiculus omninò mihi retinendus videtur Beza Not. in 1 Joann c. 5. v. 7. that it ought to be kept in the Text whereof it is a part Diodati who has likewise retained it in his Italian Version is of Opinion (m) Cosi in essenza come in unione è consentimento di questa testimonianza Diod. Not. in 1 Joann c. 5. that the Unity mentioned in that place is as well an Unity of Nature as an Unity or Consent of Testimony But Calvin is much more reserved on this occasion according to his wonted precaution never to make us weak Arguments against the Antitrinitarians That Expression says he Three are One does not denote the Essence but the Consent Calv. Comm. in Epist 1. Joann c. 5. v. 7. He perceived no less than Luther that that passage was not in the most Copies and was very sensible that it would be a matter of no small difficulty to reconcile the words of St. Jerome in that Preface which is alledged to be his to the ancient Greek Books He durst not deal freely in the matter lest he should have offended his weak Brethren I shall here set down his own words that the World may see how this Man carried himself when upon any occasion he was obliged to Critisize on such places of Scripture as appeared to him doubtful Calv. ibid. All this has been omitted by some Which St. Jerome thought did proceed rather from malice than ignorance or inadvertency and which was not done but by those of the Latin Church But forasmuch as the Greek Books do not agree amongst themselves it is not easie for me to be positive about the matter Nevertheless because the Text runs very well with that Addition and as I observe it is extant in the best and most Correct Copies for my part I am very willing to admit of it CHAP. XIX Of the Book of the Revelation What was the Belief of the Ancients concerning it The Hereticks that did reject it Their Reasons which are Examined There have been also Learned Catholicks of ancient time who have ascribed it to Cerinthus The Opinion of these latter times about the same Book WHat remains of the Books of the New Testament to be examined is the Apocalyps which St. Jerom makes mention of Hierom. Epist ad Dard. in one of his Epistles as being a Book that was not commonly received in the Greek Churches of his time But if Tertullian's Maxim have any weight with us illud verum quod prius i. e. That is most likely to be true that was first We will prefer the Universal Opinion of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers to that of some Greek Churches of later times It is upon this ground that Grotius gives his Judgment of this Book when he says that (a) Apostoli Joannis esse hunc librum credidere illi quibus meritò creditur Justinus contra Tryphonem Irenaeus Tertullianus adversus Marcionem aliis multis in locis quibus consentiunt Clemens Alexandrinus Origenes Cyprianus post eos alii multi Grot. Annot. in tit Apoc. St. Justin St. Irenaeus Tertullian Clement of Alexandria Origen St. Cyprian who may be believed in this matter have by one common consent avouched St. John as the Author of that Book Flaccus Illyricus had affirmed the same thing before assuring us (b) Si iis habeatur fides Patribus qui propiùs ad hoc accesserunt seculum uti certè aequissimum est quales sunt Justinus Tertullianus Irenaeus Apollonius Theophylus Antiochenus affirmari poterit eam ut Joannis Apostoli illo primo seculo habitam Cur enim tam certoò Joannis Apostoli esse confirmarent si dubias de eâ extitisse sententias antecessorum cognovissent Flac. Illyr arg in Apoc. that it is very reasonable we should refer this to the Fathers who lived near the time of the Author And therefore Baronius has judiciously observed that what St. Jerom does alledge concerning the Opinion of the Greek Churches about the Apocalyps cannot be altogether true seeing that St. Epiphanius who lived at that time Baron ann Ch. 97. n. 6. and who was not much older than he defended the Authority of that Book against the Alogian and Theodotian Hereticks That Cardinal does nevertheless declare that he cannot in this respect blame St. Jerom for having unhappily traduced the Greek Churches in his time He believed that he meant St. Basil Amphilochius the two Gregories of Nazianzen and Nysse and the Council of Laodicea Baron ibid. n. 7. who did not reckon the Apocalyps amongst the Canonical Books of Scripture He distinguishes betwixt those Fathers and the Alogians and Theodotians upon this account that the former had not impeached the Authority of that Book with an avowed obstinacy as the latter had done And even St. Epiphanius is not so much against St. Jerom but that he insinuates that the Alogians who rejected in general all that is extant of St. John's Writings would have been in some respect excusable if they had rejected nothing but the Revelation which is an obscure and unintelligible Book The
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
Origen's corrected Copy It may be also said upon good grounds that this Vulgar Greek was altered in sundry places and that therefore it is not justifiable that we should forsake the Vulgar whenever it does not agree with the Vulgar Greek Upon this ground Mariana the Jesuit observed that it is not likely that the Ancient Latin Interpreter is the Author of all the various Readings that make so great a difference betwixt the Greek and the Latin. Neque enim tam multis locis quibus à Graecis Latina discrepant de suo capite finxisse verisimile est (k) Suspicabar ex variis olim codicibus eam lectionem fuisse secutum eosque codices qui communi eruditorum sententiâ eâ aetate maximè probabantur ex alio quopiam uno aut paucis minoris fidei transfusos Graecos codices qui nostrà aetate formis expressi vulgò circumferuntur Mar. pro Edit Vulg. c. 17. He thinks that that Interpreter in making his Version followed the best Copies of his time and that those which have been Printed in this last Age were taken from a very few Copies which were not very correct According to this Observation the Greek of the New Testament may be called as it was Printed a Vulgar Greek if it be compared with the Ancient Manuscripts which the Latin Interpreter made use of and yet for all that those Manuscripts ought not to have the denomination of the Apostolical Greek and of the first Original F. Morin has also given it the name of the Vulgar Greek or that which has been published in our time Cogitent ergo saith he to the Protestants who are very apt to leave the Ancient Latin Edition quoties Vulgatam à Graeco Vulgato dissentientem deprehendunt sed cum vetustissimis codicibus esse consensum à quibus degeneres sunt neoterici Graeci It is moreover a long time since this difference has been observed in the Greek Copies of the New Testament which is founded upon the Rules of Criticism The appellation of Vulgar has been always given to the common Copies of the Bible to distinguish them from those that were corrected by Criticks and are therefore believed to be more exact The Jews for example reform their common and ordinary Copies by those of the Massoret Hilarius Deacon of Rome puts a great value on this Rule in his Commentary upon the fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans v. 14. He rejects the Vulgar Reading of the Greek Copies assuring us that they can never be used so as to prevail against the Latin Edition seeing they vary Sic praescribitur nobis saith he de Graecis codicibus quasi non ipsi ab invicem discrepent He has recourse to the most Ancient Greek Copies from which the Latin Version was taken And seeing (l) Constat autem hoc per quosdam Latinos de veteribus Graecis olim translatos codicibus quos incorruptos simplicitas temporum servavit servat Ambrosiast Comm. in Epist ad Rom. c. 5. v. 14. he is perswaded that the Latin Copies were not corrupted he believes that the Greek from which they were taken is ancient and true F. Amelote might according to this sense have distinguished the Greek at this day from the ancient and true Greek and have called the former the Vulgar Greek But it does not follow from thence that that Ancient Greek is free from all faults and that it must be always preferred to the Greek which is called New. For this latter Greek is no otherwise New but in respect of its being published in these latter times And it may happen that this New Greek may be found agreeable to the most Ancient Authors and that it is consequently very ancient And therefore Hilarius the Deacon gives us three Qualities the consideration of which ought to induce us to prefer one Copy to another Hoc verum arbitror saith he quando Ratio Historia Authoritas observatur Ambros ibid. He grounds the Reading which he believes to be the best in that place upon the Authority of Tertullian of Victorin and St. Cyprian Whence he does conclude that the Vulgar Greek of his time was not to be followed seeing there were more ancient and more true Copies in which the Reading was otherwise I do not inquire if that Deacon was justifiable in the matter of which he treated I content my self with proposing the Rule that he gives us by which we may distinguish the Copies that are called Vulgar or Common from others that are more Ancient and more Correct This being once supposed we shall avoid many unprofitable Questions which Mr. Arnauld does seriously handle upon the occasion of the Vulgar Greek which he alledges to be extant in notion only and which saith he we ought first to make before we speak of it This Learned Man does afterwards endeavour to prove that that name is neither to be given to Robert Stephen's Edition nor to that of the Cardinal Ximenes nor to any other because as he thinks it is Chimerical and of F. Amelote's invention who framed to himself a certain Vulgar Greek the most erroneous that could be imagined in opposition to the Vulgar that the faults of the one might ballance the perfections of the other I am apt to believe that that Father does entertain false Idea's of that which is called the Vulgar Greek But if he be understood in the manner we have already shewn it is no Chimera nor fancy If the Authors of the Translation of the New Testament Printed at Mons have sometimes followed the Vulgar Greek in their Version without making mention of any other Greek they are in that to be blamed For it cannot be absolutely affirmed that the Greek is read in some places otherwise than the Latin when there are Greek Copies where the Reading is the same with the Latin Neither must we always prefer the Greek Copies that agree with the Latin Edition to the Common and Ordinary We are to judge of those Readings according to the Rules of Criticism and examin with the Deacon Hilary which of those Copies are Founded on Reason on History and on Authority The Greek wherein these things do meet shall be the most ancient and the most correct whether it be found in the Old Manuscripts or in the Printed Books There is then nothing more false than the Idea that School Divines and some Canonists have formed of the Greek Copies of the New Testament For under the pretence of defending the Authority of the Ancient Latin Edition they alledge that when there is any difference betwixt the Greek Copies at this day and the Latin we ought always to prefer the Latin to the Greek because the Greeks say they being Schismaticks have corrupted their Books whereas the Truth has remained in the Roman Church there is nothing more unjust than this thought For it is easie to go back to the time before the Schism and to shew that the Origen's the