Languages as seems almost impossible for one Man. 'T is not to be wondered that he has committed Mistakes having had the Misfortune to be brought up in the Church of Rome which uses the Holy Scriptures chiefly in order to corrupt them equalling if not preferring Traditions to them founding its Infallibility on its self being supported by the intricate Juggles of the Canonists and the Gibberish of the Schoolmen However if his Alloy be disliked this Advantage may be expected That the Learned of our Church which pays a due respect to the Scriptures and uncorrupted Antiquity and is accomplished with all kinds of Learning requisite will be hereby excited to refine on the Subject CONTENTS Of the First Part. Chap. I. THE Verity of the New Testament defended in general against the ancient Hereticks Reflections upon the Principle made use of by the Fathers to establish the Authority of these Books Page 1. 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 pag. 12. Chap. III. Concerning Books that have been published under the Name of Jesus Christ and the Apostles Of several other Acts forged by the ancient Hereticks Reflections on the whole matter pag. 19. Chap. IV. The ancient Fathers have not produced the Originals of the New Testament in their Disputes against the Hereticks An Examination of Proofs that are brought to shew that these Originals have been kept in some Churches pag. 30. Chap. V. Of the Books of the New Testament in particular and first of the Gospel of St. Matthew The Original of this Gospel hath been written in the Hebrew Tongue which the Jews of Jerusalem spake at that time An Answer to the Reasons that are contray to this Opinion pag. 39. Chap. VI. The Jews of the Territory of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles spake in the Chaldaick or Syriack Tongue An Answer to the Reasons that Mr. Vossius hath published against this Opinion At the same time several Difficulties are cleared appertaining to this matter pag. 46. Chap. VII Of the Sect of the Nazarenes and of their Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy of the Gospel of St. Matthew pag. 51. Chap. VIII Of the Ebionites Of their Copy of the Gospel of St. Matthew Of some other ancient Hereticks who have made use of this same Gospel pag. 72. Chap. IX Of the Greek Copy of St. Matthew and its Authority A Comparison of this Copy with the Hebrew or Chaldaick An Answer to the Objections of some Hereticks against this Gospel pag. 98. Chap. X. Of the Time and Order of every Gospel Some Greek Manuscript Copies are produced thereupon Of S. Mark and his Gospel which is commonly believed to be the second Of his Office of Interpreter to S. Peter pag. 83. Chap. XI In what Language S. Mark hath written his Gospel Of the twelve last Verses of this Gospel which are not found in several Greek Manuscript Copies pag. 91. Chap. XII Of the Gospel of S. Luke what hath obliged him to publish it since there were two others that had been written before his Of Marcion and his Copy of S. Luke's Gospel The Catholicks have also altered this Gospel in some places pag. 101. Chap. XIII Of the Gospel of S. John and of Hereticks that have rejected this Gospel Their Reasons with an Answer to them An Inquiry concerning the twelve Verses of this Gospel which are not found in some ancient Copies Several Greek Manuscript Copies are cited to clear this Difficulty Some Criticks have imagined without any grounds that the last Chapter of this Gospel did not belong to S. John. pag. 113. Chap. XIV Of the Acts of the Apostles that have been received in the Church Other Acts of the Apostles that have been forged pag. 126. Chap. XV. Of the Epistles of S. Paul in general Of Marcion and his Copy of these Epistles False Letters attributed to S. Paul. pag. 131. Chap. XVI Of the Epistle to the Hebrews in particular Whether it be S. Paul's and Canonical What Antiquity hath believed thereupon as well in the Eastern as in the Western Countries The Opinions of these later Ages concerning this Epistle pag. 142. Chap. XVII Of the Catholick or Canonical Epistles in general and in particular pag. 154. The Contents of the Second Part. Chap. XVIII A Critical Observation on a Passage in S. John's First Epistle Chap. v. ver 7. which is wanting in the most Greek Copies Eastern Editions and the most ancient Latin Copies The Preface to the Canonical Epistles in some Latin Bibles under the name of S. Jerom was not penn'd by that Father It cannot be proved that S. Cyprian had the Passage of S. John's Epistle in his Copy Page 1. 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 pag. 14. 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 pag. 25. Chap. XXI A Discussion of some other Objections against the Books of the New Testament The Evangelists and Apostles in the manner of their explaining the Passages of the Old Testament and applying them to the Messiah followed the Custom which then obtained amongst the Jews There are many Words in the New Testament which have a larger signification than they have in the Old and that can be attributed to nothing but to that usage and to a Tradition received amongst the Jews pag. 36. Chap. XXII A particular Examination of many Passages of the Old Testament cited by the Apostles in a sense that seems to be altogether foreign Some difficulties formed against their Writings are cleared some Principles are established which may answer the Objections of the Jews and the Emperor Julian pag. 46. Chap. XXIII Of the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testament A Refutation of the Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa The Cardinal of Perron has given a very bad Exposition of the Words of the second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy Chap. 3. v. 16. which makes mention of this Inspiration The Disputes betwixt the Jesuits of Louvain and the Divines of the same place upon this matter Three Propositions of the Jesuits censured by the Doctors of Louvain and Douay A Defence of those Propositions against the Censure of those Divines pag. 59. Chap. XXIV An Examination of the Reasons that the Doctors of Louvain and Douay made use of in their Censure of the Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain touching the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings A very free Opinion of a Learned Divine of Paris about the same thing pag. 71. Chap. XXV Spinosa's Objections against the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testam are examined pag. 80. Chap. XXVI Of the Stile of the Evangelists and the Apostles The Opinion of modern Writers and of the ancient Doctors of the Church upon this matter with many Critical Reflections pag. 84. Chap. XXVII Of the Language of the Hellenists or Grecians if that which bears that name be in effect a Language The Reasons of Salmasius against that Language do rather establish than destroy it The Greek of the New Testament may be called the Greek of the Synagogue the Jews Hellenists read in their Synagogues the Hebrew Text of the Bible as well as the Jews pag. 94. Chap. XXVIII A more particular Discussion of the Reasons alledged by Salmasius against the Language that is called Hellenistick Several Difficulties also relating to this matter are cleared pag. 103. Chap. XXIX Of the Manuscript Greek Copies in general and of those who have spoken of them Collections which have been made of divers Readings drawn from those Manuscripts Observations upon the whole matter The Hereticks have been accused sometimes but without any ground for corrupting the Books of the New Testament pag. 110. Chap. XXX Of the Greek Copies of the New Testament in particular The most ancient that we have at this day were written by the Latins and were used by them Those which were printed came from the Greek Churches The ancient Latin Version which was in the Churches of the West before St. Jerom were made by those first Copies which were not very correct Of the ancient Cambridge Copy why it does differ so much from other Greek Copies pag. 128. Chap. XXXI Of the second part of the Cambridge Copy which contains St. Paul's Epistles Examples of the various Readings that are in that second Part. Critical Reflections upon the whole matter pag. 144. Chap. XXXII Of other Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament Examples of the various Readings of those Manuscripts with Critical Reflections on those Differences pag. 156. Chap. XXXIII Of the Order of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament The Verses Chapters and other marks of distinction of those Copies The Canons which Eusebius added to the Gospels and the Use of those Canons pag. 175. FINIS
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
Paris Erasm Declar. ad Theol. Paris is content to say that all these Councils do not speak of the Author of this Epistle but only of its Authority that this Title hath been added to it to denote the Epistle and that it is not denied that many have cited it under the name of S. Paul. Whereas this Answer is is too general and doth not fully satisfie the Authority of these Councils that attribute the Epistle to the Hebrews to S. Paul Guill Est praef Com. in Epist ad Hebr. I shall produce what Estius a Learned Doctor of the Faculty of Doway hath judiciously remarked on all these difficulties This Divine after he hath treated of the Question concerning the Author of this Epistle adds this other viz. whether it be a point of Faith to believe that S. Paul is the Author insomuch that the contrary opinion is to be accounted Heretical as Catharinus Sixtus Senensis Alfonsus and some other modern Writers have averred being supported by the authority of some Councils and by the practice of the whole Church that reads it in her Offices under the name of S. Paul Estius nothwithstanding all these Authorities doth not judge it to be a matter of Faith. This he proves by the positive words of divers Fathers and among others of S. Jerom and S. Augustin We have already seen what the first hath thought thereupon And as for S. Augustin he saith expresly in discoursing of this Epistle (t) Epistola quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos quamplures Apostoli Pauli esse dicunt qudam verò negant c. Aug. lib. 16. de Civ Dei 2.22 that many believe it to be S. Paul's and that others deny it to be his Now it is certain that this Father speaks in this place of Orthodox Authors As for what concerns the Councils the same Estius answers that some of those have been holden before the time of these two Fathers and that consequently nothing can be concluded from them He insists further that nothing can be inferred from the others (v) Neque enim Patribus horum Conciliorum propositum erat definire cujus ea Epistela sit auctoris sed quòd unà cum caeteris Pauli Epistolis quibus receptissimo Ecclesiae more eam annumerant inter Divinas Scripturas sit habenda Est praef Comment in Epist ad Hebr. because the design of the Bishops that were there assembled was not to determine who hath been the Author of this Epistle but only to put it in the number of the Canonical Scriputures with the other Letters of S. Paul. Then he justifies by these same Councils and he proves it also by these words of the Council of Carthage Pauli Epistolae tredecim ad Hebraeos una This Council hath as he thought separately mentioned this that is directed to the Hebrews because they were not so well assured as of the others that it was S. Paul's he adds (x) Verùm sciebat Augustinus non omnia quae quoquo modo dicuntur in Conciliis definitivè dici Est ibid. that S. Augustin who had a Veneration for this Council would not have doubted of the Author of this Epistle if he were persuaded that this had been therein defined This Father saith he knew well that all things that are said or disputed in Councils are not Articles of Faith and he proves it by some Examples But after all Estius (y) Censeo quidem cum Theologicâ Facultate Parisiensi cum Melchiore Cano temerarium esse si quis Epistolam ad Hebraeos negaret esse Pauli Apostoli sed haereticum ob id solum pronunciare non ausim Est ibid. concludes with the Divines of Paris and Melchior Canus that it would be a piece of rashness to maintain that S. Paul is not the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews Nevertheless he durst not pronounce the opinion of those to be Heretical who deny that it was written by this Apostle and in this he appears very judicious for indeed there is no matter of Heresie in it Furthermore I have inlarged a little on this Remark of Estius because it clears every thing that hath respect to the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and teacheth the Divines at the same time not to run too fast in point of Heresie The Divines of Paris do not only condemn Erasmus as being too rash but they add also in their Censure touching the Authors of every Book of the New Testament (z) Jam non est fas Christiano de illis dubitare Cens Fac. Theol. Paris that it is no longer lawful for any Christian to doubt of them On this account every man that is not fully satisfied that S. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews is a bad Christian according to the determination of the Faculty of Divinity at Paris nevertheless he is not an Heretick Erasmus instead of replying punctually to these Learned Doctors elndes their Decrees by general Answers He saith that he doth not believe (a) Quidquid receptum est usu Ecclesiastico non protinùs obligat noi ad credendum tanquam articulum fidei Erasm Declar. ad Theol. Paris that every thing that is received by an Ecclesiastical Custom becomes immediately an Article of Faith. However he shews his submission to the Decrees of the Church when he adds in this same place that if he follows his Reason (b) Juxta sensum humanum nec credo Epistolam ad Hebraeos esse Pauli aut Lucae nec secundam Petri esse Petri nec Apocalypsin esse Joannis Apostoli qui scripsit Evangelium-solus ille scrupulus habet animum meum an Ecclesia receperit titulos ut non solùm velit haberi pro indubitatis quae in his libris scripta sunt verùm pariter exigat ut pro indubitato habeamus ab his auctoribus esse profecta quorum titulos gerunt Id si est damno ac rejicio dubitationem meam-plus apud me valet expressum Ecclesiae judicium quà m ullae rationes humanae Erasm Declar. ad Theol. Paris he cannot judge that the Epistle to the Hebrews is S. Paul's nor S. Luke's neither that the second under the name of S. Peter was written by this Apostle nor that the Revelation doth belong to the Apostle S. John that all his scruple is to know whether the Church hath so authorised the Titles of holy Writ that she hath decreed not only that that which is contained in these Books is most true but also that those persons to whom they are attributed are certainly the Authors of them If this be so saith Erasmus I condemn my Reasons of doubting for I prefer the express Judgment of the Church before any human Reasons whatsoever Upon the whole matter all this Difficulty may be reduced to this to know whether the Church in pronouncing the Books of the Old and New Testament to be Canonical and Divine hath declared at the same time that they were written by the Authors whose
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
that (k) Si non est necessarium ut singulae veritates sententiae quae sunt in Sacris Literis immediatè sint à Spiritu Sancto ipsi scriptori inspiratae non modò sequetur indeterminabilis altercatio super sententiis immediatè vel non immediatè inspiratis verùm etiam de integris Evangeliis quorum historia potuit humanitùs esse nota imò de omnibus Scripturis non Propheticis dubitabitur an immediate Spiritus Sanctus eas scriptoribus inspiraverit Theol. Duac ibid. if it be once granted that it is not necessary that every Truth and Sentence should be immediatly indited by the Spirit of God there will be endless disputes not only about that which is particularly delivered in Scripture by immediate Inspiration but also about entire Gospels the History of which may be known in a humane manner It will be also question'd in general if all the Books of the Scripture that are not Prophetical have been immediatly suggested by the Holy Ghost to those who were the Writers thereof The third Proposition appeared to those Divines to be the most dangerous of all and opposite to the words of St. Paul who does assure us that all the Scripture is given by the Inspiration of God and a Divine Doctrin which was indited by the Holy Spirit It is for this Reason say they that the Decrees of Popes and of Councils were never reckoned in the number of Divine Writings although the Holy Ghost does testifie by the Church that there is nothing that is false in those Decrees And finally they add that that third Proposition of the Jesuits of Louvain could not be maintained without acknowledging that the Histories of Thucydides and of Livie might for the same reason be reckoned amongst the Books of the Scripture if the Holy Ghost should testifie to us that there is nothing of falshood in those Histories They conclude their Censure with this Maxim (l) Non enim ideò inspiratum aliquid divinitùs est quòd posteà sit approbatum sed ideò est approbatum quia fuerat divinitùs inspiratum ibid. That a thing is not therefore given by Divine Inspiration because it so falls out that it is approved of afterwards but that on the contrary it is approved because it was Inspired Let us now see if the Doctors of the two Faculties of Theology had reason to condemn those three Propositions in terms that are injurious to the Society of the Jesuits 'T is observable that before all these things the Jesuits who published at Rome an 1586. a Directory for the Studies of their Society Entitled Ratio Studiorum have placed this Proposition concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings amongst those which their Divines ought to prefer to others (m) Probabilius est verba primorum exemplarium ac fontium incorruptorum fuisse omnia singula à Spiritu Sancto dictata secundùm substantiam multiformiter tamen pro variâ instrumentorum conditione Rat. stud edit Rom. tit de reliq opin del in Theol. fac It is more probable say they that the first and Original Copies which were not corrupted were all particularly indited by the Holy Ghost as to what concerns the substance but in a different manner according to the different condition of the Instruments By that we see that the Jesuits of Rome did not believe at that time that the same Inspiration is to be acknowledged in all the Books of the Scripture and when they say that every word was Inspired they add withal as to what concerns the Substance Besides they do not maintain this Inspiration of words as to what belongs to the substance but as a probable Opinion so that they believe that that may be also denied with probability It is true that the Opinion of those two Faculties of Theology belonging to Louvain and Douay was then most received in the Schools But the Jesuits who from that time have had Learned Men in their Society saw very well that it was contradictory to good sense and likewise opposite to the most Ancient Doctors of the Church Those of their College of Louvain did nothing that was contrary to the Rule or Constitution of their Foundation which (n) Fundator constitutionum 3. part c. 10. disertis verbis cavet ne novae opiniones admittantur Quod tamen ut suavius fieret additum est hâc formulâ nisi ex consensu praepositorum Rat. stud tit de del opin does expresly forbid the introducing of new Opinions for the same rule does proceed unless it be done with the consent of the Superiors There is nothing more judicious than the Liberty of Opinion which is granted by the Constitutions of that Society to its Professors in the manner as it is limited (o) Sequantur ait Ignatius in quavis facultate securiorem magis approbatam doctrinam eos auctores qui eam docent Et ne singulis liberum esset judicium de magis approbatâ securiore doctrinâ deligendâ statim subdit Cujus rei penès Rectorem qui quod statuetur in universâ Societate ad majorem Dei gloriam secuturus est cura sit ibid. Father Ignatius did ordain that in every Science whatsoever they should follow the most certain and the most received Doctrine But seeing it is not easie to distinguish what are the most certain and the most received Opinions he decreed that the choice should depend on the Rector who ought to embrace for the greater Glory of God that which was maintained in the whole Society And the truth is the Jesuits did no sooner appear in the World but there was a birth given to much more considerable assistances for the study of Theology than had ever been before that time And therefore they did wisely that they were not altogether devoted to the Opinions of St. Thomas and St. Augustin though they were zealously embraced in the most part of the Universities at that time They had reason in that case not to follow blindly the Opinions that were most received in the Schools in their time concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings This liberty of Prophesie which had been agreed upon in behalf of their Professors of Theology did afford them an occasion of making new discoveries in this Science and to this I impute the rigor with which the Jesuits of Louvain maintain their Opinions about Inspiration without troubling themselves about the Belief of the two Faculties of Theology of Louvain and Douay who had not carefully enough examined that matter Notwithstanding the Censures of those two Faculties they continued to teach in their College of Louvain the same Opinions concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings Father Cornelius à Lapide a few years after that time kept up in the same place publick Lectures on the Holy Scriptures which he continued for the space of sixteen years He likewise published those Lectures by the Order of the Archbishop of Malines and of his
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
to repeat here what we said in another place concerning the word Critick which is a term of Art which in some sense is bestowed on all Works whose designs are to examin the various readings and establish the true The aim of those which practise that Art it not to destroy but establish As the Holy Books are not exempt from faults which either by the tract of Time or negligence of the Transcribers have slipt into 'em some Learned Persons in all Ages have taken care to render them correct The most barbarous Ages have produced Books which they call Correctoria Bibliae or Corrections of the Bible The Emperor Constantine spared nothing to procure for the Oriental Churches correct Copies of all the Bibles Charlemagne and his Successors have done the same for the Latine Bibles of the VVestern Churches Besides those which were formerly imployed in the Monasteries about Transcribing of Books There were some Criticks who reviewed and corrected them This is the Reason why in some Manuscript ancient Bibles there are some Corrections found of equal Antiquity with the Books themselves But without ascending so far to have a Precedent for the Vse of Critical Reflections on the Sacred Books we need only consider the Transactions of the Latter Age relating to the Latine Editions of our Bibles VVhat prodigious pains was Robert Stephens at according to the Relation of Hentenius a Divine of Louvain to give us an exact and correct Edition of the Bible This Divine which laboured after Stephens in the same matter admires the diligence and excessive expence of that Printer to whom he ingeniously acknowledges himself indebted ‖ Joann Henten Praef. in Bibl. Lovan ann 1547. Nemo est qui nesciat ut unum pro multis in medium adferam quantam diligentiam quantasque impensas tulerit Robertus Stephanus Regius apud Lutetiam Typographus quem honoris causâ nomino ut accuratissima castigatissima nobis Biblia traderet propter quod plurimum etiam illi debent quotquot Sacrarum Literarum lectioni sunt addicti quem ob id etiam in multis secuti sumus The Doctors of the Faculty of Divinity of Louvain perfected afterwards the Edition of their Brother with a greater Collection of Manuscripts and re-altered some places according to the Rules of Criticism which they thought not corrected with exactness enough Nicolas Zegers a Religious Man of the Order of St. Francis apply'd himself entirely to the Correction of the Books of the New Testament He dedicated his Critique to Julian III. under the Title of * Castigationes in Novum Testamentum in quibus depravata restituuntur adjecta resecantur sublata adjiciuntur Autore Tac. Nicolao Zeger Colon. ann 1555. Corrections on the New Testament wherein it re-established what was corrupted expunged what was added and added what was before expunged He assures that Pope in his Epistle Dedicatory (b) Haec est genuina germana emendata veteris nostri Interpretis versio seu translatio quâ hactenùs semper à tempore ferè Apostolorum aut non ita diù pòst usa cognoscitur Romana Ecclesia quam ab innumeris tum mendis tum adulterinis adjectiunculis non sine magnis multis molestiis repurgavimus Zeger Epist ad Jul. III. That he had freed from an infinite number of Faults and false Glosses the ancient Latine Version which bad been in Vse among the VVestern Churches from the very Times of the Apostles There is nothing more exactly †Notaticnes in Sacra Biblia quibus variantia discrepantibus exemplaribus loca summo studio discutiuntur Antverp ann 1580. performed than the Critical Remarks of Lucas Brugensis in his Edition of the Latine Bible of the Divines of Louvain Among the multitude of his Copies he mentions one which was corrected by some Dominicans on the Bibles of Charlemagne He sets some marks of Esteem on another Manuscript entitled The Correction of the Bible Praeter alia id quod maximi facimus Manuscriptum Bibliorum correctorium ab incerto auctore magnâ diligentiâ ac fide contextum ‡ Luc. Brug Notat in Gen. c. 8. v. 7. And he assures us (c) Quae à nostri seculi scriptoribus ex manuscriptis codicibus collectae sunt variae lectiones omnes propemodùm in eo comperimus ad fontes fideliter examinatos deprehendimus Luc. Brug Notat in Gen. c. 8. v. 7. that the different Readings which have been observed by the Criticks of the latter Times are all found in this Book where they are examined according to the Hebrew Text. I have elsewhere mentioned another Manuscript of like nature which is in the ancient Library of the Colledge of Sorbon I have likewise given Extracts out of it which manifestly prove that the Latins have not neglected the Critical Study of the Sacred Books in those very Ages when Barbarism reigned in Europe It is a Vanity in the admirers of the Hebrew Text of the Jews to bestow such great praises on the Massoreth a good part of which consists in Trifles or superstitious Observations The Christians of both the Eastern and Western Churches with more Judgment have taken care in the Correction of the Bibles as manifestly will appear by this Work. We ought to prefer to the Massoreth those learned * Romani Correctores Criticks of Rome which by the order of Pope Sixtus V. and Clement VIII corrected the Latine Bibles which Correction serves instead of an exact Massoreth to the Western Church There are none but Protestants of ill minds such as Thomas James Author of the Bellum Papale who cavil at the differences of the Editions of the Bible published by those two Popes There may indeed be a more perfect work but that ought to be reserved for particular Notes which no ways diminish the Authority of those Books received into publick Vse I must only add two words concerning those Acts which are made use of in this Work. For the Manuscripts I mark the Libraries where they are found I have cited none without reading them the Extracts being all done by my self except that of Cambridge which contains the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles I had procured out of England a faithful Copy of this last Manuscript in what relates to the Greek which I have exactly followed As for the Printed Books of which there are numerous Quotations for the most part I have contented my self to relate the Passages in short following the sense only in the Body of the work For long Citations of Passages where there are but five or six words perhaps pertinent to the Occasion must needs prove very tiresom This is the very same Method which I have followed in the Critical History of the Old Testament But some Persons desiring such Passages at length to avoid searching them in the Books to comply with their Desires and keep to our Method we judged it convenient to put them at large at the bottom of the Page
admiscuisse ea quae sunt legalia Salvatoris verbis Iren. lib. 3. adversus Haer. c. 2. There is no way saith St Irenaeus of convincing this sort of People neither by the Testimony of the Scriptures generally received in the Churches planted by the Apostles nor by authentick Traditions because they imagine themselves to be above all this They were persuaded that they alone were in possession of the truth of Religion that contained hidden Mysteries Se indubitatè incontaminatè sincerè absconditum scire mysterium Iren. ibid. And since they had joined Philosophy with Christianity they intended also to accommodate the one to the other They argued on matters of fact after a pure metaphysical manner and being filled with an infinite number of Prejudices and Notions taken from the Principles of their Philosophy they reformed the Doctrine of the Apostles and even that of Jesus Christ on this foundation under pretence of bringing Religion to a greater Perfection They pretended that the Apostles had preached the Gospel before they had a perfect knowledge of the Truth and that therefore they were at liberty to correct them Ante praedicaverunt quà m perfectam haberent cognitionem This was that which caused them to take the ambitious Title of Learned and Knowing Men or Gnosticks as if none but they were endued with the true knowledge of Religion They vainly boasted also that they had reformed the Apostles Iren. ibid. Gloriantes emendatores se esse Apostolorum S. Irenaeus sharply reproves their rashness in bragging that they had made perfect that which was gross and obscure in the Gospel published by the Apostles It hath been necessary to make all these Reflections on the ancient Sect of the Gnosticks because they have applyed themselves more than any others in those primitive times of the Christian Religion to the obtruding of false Acts under the Names of the Apostles or other specious Titles These are a sort of Philosophers that ought not to pass but for half Christians who have altered the Traditions that the Disciples of Jesus Christ had left to the Churches And therefore no regard ought to be had to all the Books that they have produced under what Name soever since they have professed that they understand Religion better than the Apostles themselves and (h) Existentes extra omnem timorem suas conscriptiones praeferentes plura habere gloriantur quà m sint ipsa Evangelia Si quidem in tantum processerunt audaciae uti quod ab his Apostolis non olim conscriptum est veritatis Evangelium titulent in nihilo conveniens Apostolorum Evangelits ut nec Evangelium quidem sit apud eos sine blasphemia Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. c. 11. have been so bold as to publish new Gospels to which they have given the Title of The Gospel of Truth altho these Gospels do not agree with those of the Apostles This alone is sufficient to make it appear that the Gospels of the Gnosticks were false Acts that cannot be opposed to the Apostolical Writings that have been acknowledged by the primitive Churches It were an easie matter to answer Celsus by this same Principle who heretofore objected to the Christians that they changed their Gospel every day adding thereto and diminishing what they thought fit that they might be able by this means to retract that which they had formerly alledged Origen judiciously answers this Philosopher who was a great Enemy to the Christian Religion that he unhappily confounded the ancient Sectaries with the true Faithful He protests that he knows not in the least that the Gospel hath been corrupted by others than the Gnosticks or Marcion (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 2 contra Cell This is not a Crime saith he that ought to be imputed to the Gospel but to them that have dared to corrupt in He brings an Example of the Sophisters whose false Doctrine cannot be attributed to true Philosophy (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. It is the same thing saith this great Man with respect to the Sects that have introduced Novelties into the Doctrine of Jesus Christ which cannot be charged on true Christianity It is certain that in all times and in all places there hath been a perfect Conformity between the different Copies of these Books the Diversities that are found therein and shall be remarked in the Sequel of this Work are not of so great moment as that we may say with Celsus that the Christians have changed their Gospels to the end that they might suit them to their own opinions This cannot be understood but of the ancient Hereticks who having no certain Rules for their Belief reformed them according to their capricious humor This is that for which the Orthodox Christians heretofore censured the Theodosians Euseb l. 5. Hist Eccl. c. 28. who corrupted the Sacred Books under a pretence of correcting them and whereas several among them had taken this liberty all their Copies differed one from another there were of them under the Names of Asclepiades Theodosius Hermophilus and Apollonius that did not in the least agree together I will say nothing here concerning the Gospel of the Marcionites whereof Origen makes mention because I design to treat of it in another place I shall only add that if we compare the Gospels and the other Books of the New Testament with the Liturgies that we have under the Names of several Apostles to whom the most part of the Eastern Christians do attribute them we shall be convinced that the Gospels are truly of the Apostles For all the Churches have preserved them in their ancient Purity whereas every particular Nation hath added to their Liturgies and hath taken the liberty often to revise them The respect that hath been always had to the Writings of the New Testament without inserting any considerable Additions therein is an evident proof that all People have looked upon them as Divine Books which it is not lawful for any to alter On the contrary they have been persuaded that the Liturgies altho they bear the Names of the Apostles or of some Disciples of Jesus Christ were not originally written by them to whom they were attributed And therefore it hath been left free to the Churches to add to them or to diminish from them according as occasion requires The Principles that have been maintained above in discoursing of the Gnosticks may serve to confute the Manicheans who likewise acknowledge nothing Divine in the Scriptures but that which pleased them or rather was agreeable to their Fancies This caused S. Austin to say addressing himself to Faustus who was one of the chief of this Party (l) Tu es ergo regula veritatis Quidquid contra te fuerit non est verum Aug. lib. 11. cont Faust c. 2. You are then the Rule of Truth whatsoever is against you is not true He clearly demonstrates to them that they were only upheld with false prejudices when
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
had lived before therefore he adds at the same time that (d) Si sub ipsius Pauli nomine Evangelium Marcion intulisset non sufficeret ad fidem singularitas instrumenti destituta patrocinio antecessorum Tertull. ibid. altho Marcion should have published his Gospel even under the name of S. Paul this Title would have availed nothing at least if it had not been accompanied with these Testimonies He goes yet farther in declaring that he did not take advantage of the Title that is at the beginning of S. Luke in the Copies of the Church Ibid. De titulo quoque funis ducendus est contentionis pari hinc inde nisu fluctuante For as to the Title alone Marcion might say as well as the Orthodox That the Gospel which he produced was the true one (e) Ego meum dico verum Marcion suum Ego Marcionis affirmo adulterat um Marcion meum Quis inter nos determinabit nisi temporis ratio ei praescribens auctoritatem quod antiquius reperietur ei praejudicans vitiationem quod posterius revincetur Tertull. ibid. cap. 4. To which then shall we adhere saith Tertullian by what Rule may we determine which is the true Gospel whether that of Marcion that hath been corrupted or that of the Church which is supposed to be entire at least if regard be had to Antiquity insomuch that the most ancient should be the true because the verity of an Act always preceeds the corruption of the same In quantum enim falsum corruptio est veri in tantum praecedat necesse est veritas falsum On this uncontroulable Principle he makes it appear that the true Copy of S. Luke was that which the Orthodox made use of since Marcion himself had not acknowledged any other before he had separated from the Church which he accused of Judaizing and he chiefly defended himself with this pretended Judaism from the Charge of not receiving this Gospel entire which he said had been interpolated by those that authorized Judaism Interpolatum à protectoribus Judaismi Lastly Tertullian concludes That there was no other true Copy of S. Luke but his because it was before that which Marcion had corrected and the Reason that he alledgeth is this That he could not amend any but that which was in the Church and was consequently antecedent to his Id emendans quod invenit id posterius quod de nostro emendatione constituens suum novum fecit But since it might be objected to him that it is not always true that the most ancient Books are the most correct because they also may have been corrupted at least if they be not the true Originals he answers that it is necessary to look back to the time of the Apostles to be certain that we have their genuine Writings (f) In summa si constat id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio ab initio quod ab Apostolis pariter utique constabit id esse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum Tertull. ibid. cap. 5. Now we are assured according to his Opinion that a thing belongs to the times of the Apostles when we see that it hath been inviolably preserved in the Apostolical Churches All these Arguments of Tertullian prove that the constant Tradition of the Church is the mark by which we distinguish the Divine and Canonical Books from those that are not so and that it is this same Church that hath added or at least approved of the Titles of the four Gospels to denote to us that these Gospels were written by Apostles or by their Disciples which does not in the least agree with this private Spirit of some Protestants In seems that Beza believed that the Titles of the Gospels were no less dictated by the Holy Ghost than the Text it self Th. Bezae Resp ad defens reprehens Seb. Castal this he insinuates in his Answer to the Defense of Castalio whom he reprehends for having translated in his Latin Version of the New Testament these Greek Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by these auctore Matthaeo Maldonat hath observed with much more Judgment (g) Non est Sacrorum Scriptorum consuetudo ut ante initium librorum ritulos ponant sed ut vel omittant vel prima libri verba titulum faciant Maldon Comm. in cap. I. Matth. That it is not the custom of the sacred Writers to put Titles at the beginning of their Works but that they either omit them altogether or they include them within the first Words of their Books which he demonstrates by Examples taken out of the Old Testament whence he infers that it is probable that the Evangelists are not the Authors of the Titles of their Gospels He proves it also by the Example of S. Mark who would have put two Titles to his Book if he were the Author of the first that runs thus The Gospel according to Mark because he begins his History with these other Words The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ He adds farther That if the Evangelists had been the Authors of these Titles there would not have been found so great an uniformity amongst them as appears they would have made use of different Expressions as they do in the other parts where they relate the same things but in different terms instead of writing all The Gospel according to N. Again he confirms his Opinion by the diversity that is found among the Greek and Latin Copies Maldon ibid. for these last read The holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to N. which proceeds from this saith Maldonat that the Greek Church hath put the Greek Title and the Latin Church the Latin quod Graecum Titulum Graeca Latinum Latina It seems that Beza in this case chose rather to prefer the Title of the Latin Copy before that of the Greek when he accuseth Castalio of having falsly translated auctore Matthaeo as if S. Matthew had been the Author of his Gospel for to confute his Adversary with more force he saith (h) Neque enim legimus Evangelium Matthaei Marci Lucae vel Joannis sed Evangelium Jesu Christi ut habent omnes Latini codices secundùm Matthaeum Marcum Lucam Joannem Bez. Resp ad Castal p. 12. That we read not the Gospel of Matthew Mark Luke or John but the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew Mark Luke and John as it is in all the Latin Copies Nevertheless this Reading is not found but in the Latin Version and not in all the Latin Copies neither If Maldonat may be believed there is only the Arabick Version printed at Rome Nov. Test Arab. edit Romae an 1591. where it is read The Gospel of Jesus Christ according as it hath been written by S. Matthew one of his twelve Disciples But it is easie to judge that this Arabick Title hath been taken in part from the Latin and those who have copied
hath pronounced any thing thereupon he would readily submit to her Decision which he prefers before all the Reasons that may be proposed to him Erasm declar ad Theol. Paris Plus apud me valet saith this Critick Ecclesiae judicium quam ullae rationes humanae CHAP. III Concerning Books that have been published under the Name of Jesus Christ and the Apostles Of several other Acts forged by the ancient Hereticks Reflections on the whole matter IT hath been observed above that Jesus Christ never published any Work to make known his Doctrine and that he did not so much as give order to his Disciples to write that which he had taught them but only to preach it to all the Nations of the Earth nevertheless there have been found Impostors who have set forth Books under his Name and have attributed to him certain Acts written in form of Letters the forgery whereof discovers it self in regard they are directed to Peter and Paul. They have not minded when they composed these Letters that Paul was not the Disciple of Jesus Christ till after the Death of the same Jesus Christ (a) Quomodo potuit libros quos antequam moreretur eum scripsisse putari volunt ad discipulos tanquam familiarissimos Petrum Paulum scribere cùm Paulus nondum fuerit discipulus ejus August de Consen Evan. lib. 1. c. 10. How then could it be saith St. Augustin that he should write to Peter and Paul as to his dear Disciples with whom he conversed familiarly since this latter was not then in the number of his Disciples Besides these Books were full of Secrets or rather Superstitions of the Art that is called Magick which in no wise agrees with Jesus Christ who hath always professed and the Christians after him to condemn this kind of Superstition It is probable that whereas his extraordinary Actions were famous throughout the World and his Miracles surprizing they took occasion from thence to feign this Work to disperse abroad I know not what magical Secrets which they pretended he had put in practice indeed the Jews who were his Enemies not being able to deny the truth of his Miracles gave it out every where that he was a Magician They have not been ashamed also to set down these Fables in their Talmud and to say that Jesus had learned in Egypt the most subtil Mysteries of Magick Apud Origen lib. 1. cont Cels Celsus reproaches the ancient Christians almost after the same manner under the Person of a Jew whom he introduces to speak This Epicurean Philosopher attributes the miraculous Actions of Jesus to Magick or rather to a certain Art that was learned as he saith in Egypt The Letter of Jesus Christ to Agbar King of Edessa seems not to be so far from Truth because Eusebius that produceth it with the Letter of this Prince to Jesus assures us that he hath taken these two pieces from the Archives of Edessa that contained the Records of what hath passed under the Reign of Agbar and that they were still kept in his time written in Syriack which was the Language of the Country from whence they were translated into Greek Nevertheless Pope Gelasius had reason to reject this Letter of our Saviour to Agbar as Apocryphal Gelas decr 1. par dist 15. c. 3. Epistola Jesu ad Agbarum apocrypha I am apt to believe that these Letters were really found in the Archives of the City of Edessa but we ought not too easily to give credit to the first Originals of Churches every one strives to advance their Antiquity as much as is possible and they make no scruple on such occasions to counterfeit Acts when they have none that are true Eusebius appeared much more judicious when he rejected as Tales made at pleasure certain Parables and Preachments that Papias attributed to Jesus Christ and avouched that he heard them reported by those very Persons that had learnt them of the Apostles We ought then to take it for a certain Maxim that Jesus Christ hath written nothing and that we have nothing of his but what we have received from his Apostles This gave occasion to some Pagans who had a Veneration for him to say (c) Nolunt Evangelio credere quia non ab ipso Jesu illa conscripta sunt sed ab ejus Discipulis quos existimant ei divinitatem qua crederetur Deus errore tribuisse Aug. lib. 2. Retract c. 16. That they could not believe the Gospel because he had not written it himself and that his Disciples who were the Authors thereof had took upon them too much in making him God. Aug. lib. 1. de cons c. 7. S. Augustin confutes these People in his first Book of the Consent of the Gospels They attribute saith he in speaking of these Pagans a most excellent Wisdom to Jesus Christ but they always consider him as a Man (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 1. c. 13. and they pretend that his Disciples have bestowed Qualifications upon him that he had not they declare that they have a disposition to believe his Word in case he had himself committed it to Writing but refuse notwithstanding to give credit to the preaching of the Apostles S. Augustin propounds to them the example of Pythagoras and Socrates two of the greatest Men of the Pagan Antiquity who have written nothing of their own Actions no more than Jesus Christ and yet they do not for this reason decline referring themselves to their Disciples herein He demands of them (d) Quid igitur causae est cur de istis hoc credant quod de illis discipuli eorum literis commendarunt de Christo nolunt credere quod ejus de illo Discipuli conscripserunt Aug. ibid. why they rather believe the Disciples of these two Philosophers in that which they have written concerning them This arguing of S. Augustin manifestly supposeth that we have no Writings of Jesus Christ and this is what he affirms in express terms in another place where he answers Faustus who pretended that we ought to seek for that which Jesus had said of himself Quaerendum esse quid de se Jesus ipse praedicavaerit Can this be known otherwise saith this Father than by the Writings of his Disciples Numquid hoc sciri potest nisi discipulis ejus narrantibus (e) Vnde sieri poterat ut si verè ipsius essent non legerentur non acciperentur non praecipuo culmine auctoritatis eminerent in ipsius Ecclesiâ quae ab ipso per. Apostolos succedentibus sibimet Episcopis usque ad haec tempora propagata diditatur Aug. cont Faust lib. 28. c. 4. If there were adds he any Writings that had been truly of Jesus Christ how comes it to pass that they were not read nor received in his Church and that they were not set in the highest rank therein This also is the Opinion of Origen in his first Book against Celsus
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
accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque autoritatis Ecclesiae tenent Aug. lib. 2. de Doctr. Christ cap. 8. to have regard to the plurality of Churches and to prefer those that are in a greater number and of more eminent note before the others that are in a lesser number and less considerable There is another sort of Acts attributed to the Apostles or their Disciples that have been rejected as Apocryphal in process of time though in the beginning they did really belong to those to whom they were ascribed or at least to their Disciples who had published them under the name of their Masters But these Acts having been interpolated and mangled by the Hereticks or else by others we have been obliged not to allow them any longer as authentick St. Epiphanius seems to have put in this rank the Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Constitution of the Apostles which he often quotes as if it were indeed theirs He draws from thence Proofs to confirm the judgment of the Church when he examines the opinion of the Audians concerning the Passover who produced one of these Constitutions attributing it to the Apostles This Father being very far from condemning or even doubting of it received it with them as Apostolical reproving them only for taking it in a wrong sense And whereas these Constitutions were from that time suspected by some he adds that they ought not to be rejected for this because they contained the whole Ecclesiastical Discipline which makes me judge that he had another Copy different from that which we read at present He appeared to be so well persuaded that these Constitutions were made by the Apostles (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 80. n. 7. that he calls them the Word of God. Nevertheless it is more probable that the Apostles who had received Orders from Jesus Christ to preach his Gospel and not to compose Books are not the Authors of these Constitutions that bear their Name But as S. Mark calls his Gospel the Gospel of Jesus Christ so in like manner Apostolical Men who succeeded the Apostles have collected their Doctrine and Constitutions and published them under the Name of the Apostles It is in this sense that the Apostles Creed is so called being that ancient Confession of Faith that all the Churches undoubtedly received from the Apostles though they had not committed it to Writing CHAP. IV. The ancient Fathers have not produced the Originals of the New Testament in their Disputes against the Hereticks An Examination of Proofs that are brought to shew that these Originals have been kept in some Churches WE may conclude from all that hath been above related that the most ancient Fathers of the Church when they designed to establish the truth of the Books of the New Testament have not had recourse to any Originals that had been kept in the Apostolical Churches but only to true and exact Copies of them which being found the same in all these Churches were in the place of the Originals themselves On this depends all the Dispute of Tertullian against Marcion and that of S. Augustin against Faustus a Manichean Sectary These two Hereticks refused to acknowledge the Copies that were approved in the Catholick Church Tertullian and S. Augustin did not oppose to them the Authority of any Original Pieces but only the constant Tradition of the Churches Vides saith S. Augustin speaking to Faustus in hac re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat auctoritas Aug. lib. 11. cont Faust c. 2. Is it possible may some say that God hath given to his Church Books to serve her for a Rule and that he hath at the same time permitted that the first Originals of these Books should be lost ever since the beginning of the Christian Religion There have been from the very first planting of the Church Hereticks who have disputed against the Writings of the Apostles and therefore it seems to behove the Divine Providence to preserve these Originals at least for some time from whence these Hereticks might be solidly confuted But it hath been already made appear elsewhere Rep. à la Defense des Sent. de quelq Theol. de Holl. ch 6. pag. 179. that it is no wonder that the Primitive Christians who had not a regular Body of a State in which they lived and whose Assemblies were on the contrary furiously disturbed by the Jews and Pagans had lost the Originals of their Books Besides the Apostles had no order from Jesus Christ to write their Books as hath been above observed and although they should not have been written Religion would be equally preserved by the means of Tradition after the same manner as it had been established before the Apostles had committed any thing to Writing Iren. l. 3. adv Haer. c. 4. Quid si saith St. Irenaeus neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias Upon the whole matter Jesus Christ had sent his Apostles to all the Nations of the Earth only to preach his Doctrine to them That which the ancient Christians have called Gospel is only a Collection of the Preachings of these same Apostles or of their Disciples As for what relates to the Primitive Hereticks they would not have been more solidly confuted by opposing to them the Originals of the Writings of the Apostles since they took the liberty to reform their Doctrine and to set up in opposition to their Books I know not what Traditions of which they themselves were the Authors as may be seen more at large in the Books of S. Irenaeus who understood perfectly well the Opinions of these ancient Sectaries of which he hath left us some Records He declares for example in speaking of the Gnosticks Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. cap. 2. that he had to do with Persons that did not acknowledge the Scriptures nor the Tradition of the Church but that squared both the one and the other according to the measure of their own Prejudices therefore he forgets nothing that may serve to establish the true Traditions by which Religion ought to be regulated Although the Scriptures are a sure Rule on which our Faith is founded yet this Rule is not altogether sufficient of it self it is necessary to know besides this what are the Apostolical Traditions and we cannot learn them but from the Apostolical Churches who have preserved the true Sense of Scriptures S. Irenaeus adviseth (a) Omnis sermo ei constabit si Scripturam diligenter legerit apud eos qui in Ecclesia sunt Presbyteri apud quos est Apostolica doctrina Iren. lib. 4. adv Haer. cap. 51. that the sacred Books should be read to be informed from thence of Religion but at the same time he adviseth that they should be read wich those who being the Successors of the Apostles have been as it were the Depositaries or Stewards of their
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
be attributed to the Holy Ghost whose Instruments they have been But can that be called a Demonstration which is only grounded on uncertain Conjectures Would it not be more prudent to refer our selves herein to the testimony of Papias who hath lived with the Disciples of the Apostles If there had been in his time a Greek Version of the Gospel of S. Matthew which had been made by some Apostle he would not have failed to have told us of it He declares on the contrary that every one translated it as he was able There is nothing therefore but the constant Tradition of the Church alone that gives authority to this Version and that can oblige us to prefer it before the Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy of the Nazarenes Whereas the Protestants make the Holy Ghost to descend on the Apostles to translate the Gospel of S. Matthew out of Greek into Hebrew some Catholick Divines on the other side pretend also that the ancient Latin Version of the New Testament hath been inspired But it is much more reasonable only to admit this Inspiration for the Originals of the Holy Scriptures which have been translated into different Languages according to the necessities and occasions of the Churches If we hearken in the mean time to Casaubon and some other Protestants the Greek only of S. Matthew would be accounted Canonical (e) Constat sanè Ecclesiam Dei hunc ipsum textum inter libros Canonis Sacri relatum pari cum caeteris libris veneratione esse persecutam quod neque in Syriacâ Versione neque in ullâ aliâ reperitur esse factum Casaub ibid. because the Church hath put this Text into the Canon that she hath made of the Sacred Books and she hath not put therein the Syriack Version which is most ancient nor any other Translation but where is it to be found that the Church in placing the Gospel of S. Matthew in the rank of Canonical Books hath spoken of the sole Greek Version and hath excluded all others She only speaks in general of the Gospel of S. Matthew which is Divine and Canonical in whatsoever Language it be written It may be said nevertheless that there are some Nations that have exacter Translations of them than others this hinders not but that it may be averred that they all have a Canonical Copy of the Gospel of S. Matthew The Grecians and the Latins have this advantage over the other Christians that their Versions are the most ancient and the most exact and the Syrians after them However there is no Christian Nation that doth not believe but that they have in possession the true Gospel of S. Matthew tho they all have only Copies of it It doth not appear that Casaubon who is usually moderate in his Opinions hath sufficiently considered this matter when he hath unadvisedly taken the part of some Protestants against Baronius I do not pretend to defend all that Baronius hath alledged in this point but it seems to me that those of the Roman Church cannot with Justice be reproached (f) Error est in fide periculosissimus ne dicam Haeresis obtentu Hebraici contextûs qui sam ìnde à principio reperiri desiit in orbis nostri notis Ecclesiis Graeci auctoritatem velle elevare quod omnes hodie Hildebrandinorum sacrorum mystae in hac quaestione faciunt Casaub ibid. as Hereticks when they defend the Hebrew Text of S. Matthew to detract say they from the Authority of the Greek Copy The Defence that they undertake of the Hebrew Text of S. Matthew doth not in the least diminish the Authority of the Greek Version They only insist that the Greek is not the original but the Hebrew and if this Original were come to our hands it might with reason be preferred before the Greek which is but a Translation In the mean time since this Hebrew Text hath not been preserved in its purity in the Orthodox Churches but on the contrary hath been adopted by the Ebionite Hereticks who have corrupted it the Fragments thereof that are now extant are looked upon as Apocryphal Pieces By the word Apocryphal we ought only to understand that those Acts are doubtful and not false nor supposititious This hinders not but that good use may be made of them in those parts that are acknowledged not to have been altered an instance whereof hath been above propounded taken from S. Jerom's Commentaries on S. Matthew It were to be wished that we had at this day this Hebrew or Chaldaick Gospel entire even after the manner as it hath been interpolated by the Nazarenes and altered by the Ebionites we should not reckon it in the number of those Gospels that have been forged by Impostors as Casaubon hath indiscreetly done we should esteem it on the contrary as the most ancient Act of the Christian Religion Is there not reason to conjecture that he that hath translated the Original of S. Matthew out of Hebrew into Greek hath epitomized it in some places and sometimes taken the liberty rather to give us the Sense than the Words at least he seems to have used this liberty in the Quotations of the Old Testament that are therein produced which are more conformable to the Greek Version of the Seventy than to the Hebrew Text in the mean while there is very little appearance that S. Matthew writing his Gospel for the use of the Hebrews who read the Bible in Hebrew in their Synagogues should have quoted the Passages of the Old Testament otherwise than they were read in their Copies It is sufficient to authorize this Greek Version that it hath been read in the Churches that were constituted by the Apostles and that it hath been delivered down to us from Age to Age by a constant Tradition it is on this uninterrupted Tradition of the Churches that we ought to relye in shewing that the Greek Copy of S. Matthew is authentick and not on the imaginary Reasons of some Protestants This same Tradition of all the Churches in the World ought to be opposed to some Hereticks who have believed that the Gospel of S. Matthew hath been mangled and corrupted in several places Faustus a famous Manichean who could not adjust the Genealogy of Jesus Christ that is at the beginning of S. Matthew to the Opinions of his Party hath sought for Reasons to make it appear that it was false whereas he ought to have considered that having been received continually in the Church as well as the rest of this Gospel it bore the same stamp of Authority he compares S. Matthew with S. Luke who have related this Genealogy in a different manner and because (g) Offensus duorum maximè Evangelistarum dissensione qui genealogiam ejus scribunt Lucae Matthaei haesi incertus quemnam potissimum sequerer Apud Aug. lib. 3. cont Faust c. 1. he could not make them agree he abandons them to follow S. Mark and S. John who have made no mention thereof and who
down at the end of many Greek Manuscript Copies Baron an c. 58. n. 32. This cannot be saith Baronius because it is certain that neither S. Luke nor S. Paul have been in Achaia at that time nor even a great while after In the mean time we have no certain Acts from whence we may exactly gather the time of the Publication of this Gospel by S. Luke we only know in general that the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers do all agree that it was not written till after those of S. Matthew and S. Mark. This being granted it may be demanded what reason he had who was only a Disciple of the Apostles to publish a third Gospel knowing that S. Matthew who was an Apostle and a Witness of the most part of the Actions of Jesus Christ had already published one which had been epitomized by S. Mark These two Gospels were then in the hands of all the Christians What necessity was there that S. Luke should make a new one and that he should give notice in his Preface that they who had written before him on this same Subject were not very accurate This hath given occasion to some Authors to believe that the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Mark had not been yet published when S. Luke composed his but since this Opinion is contrary to all Antiquity Baronius insists that these two Gospels one of which was in Hebrew and the other in Greek were not then known to the Grecians and that consequently S. Luke and S. Paul could not make use of them in their Instructions Grotius also thinks that (g) Credibile est ad id tempus Matthaei librum nonnisi sermone Hebraeo extitisse Marcus autem Graecè compendium magis historiae quà m historiam scripserat Grot. Annot. in Praef. Luc. S. Matthew had not been as yet translated out of Hebrew into Greek and as for S. Mark he confesseth that his Gospel was in Greek but since it was only an Epitome this could not hinder S. Luke from writing his History But it is not probable that the Gospel of S. Matthew should have been unknown till then to the Christians that spake the Greek Language especially if we follow the Judgment of these two Writers who give it out that S. Luke had not composed his History till after S. Paul had left Rome It is much more credible that this Evangelist published his History upon occasion of some false Apostles who were set up in opposition to S. Paul whose faithful Companion he was It is a part of Prudence to obviate as much as is possible present Evils therefore S. Luke seeing that false Gospels had been dispersed in those Places where he preached with S. Paul thought himself obliged to compose a true one and to leave it in Writing to those whom he had instructed whereas the business in hand was only to suppress and stop the course of false Gospels that had been scattered abroad this had no regard to S. Matthew and S. Mark. It might also happen that he had compiled this Gospel at the desire of those whom he had converted and more especially of Theophilus to whom he dedicates it It is certain that the other Evangelists as hath been already observed have written their Histories only at the suit of those People to whom they had preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ Marcion and his Followers who in the time of Epiphanius were dispersed through Italy Egypt Palestine Syria Arabia Persia and many other Countries acknowledged none but the Gospel of S. Luke they had nevertheless retrenched divers Passages of it Besides the Name of this Evangelist was not at the head of their Copy whether it were that they received it in this manner or that they did not believe it to be made by S. Luke S. Irenaeus (h) Marcion qui ab eo sunt ad intercidendas conversi sunt scripturas Quasdam quidem in totum non cognoscentes secundùm Lucam autem Evangelium Epistolas Pauli decurtantes haec sola legitima esse dicunt quae ipse minoraverunt Iren. adv Haer. l. 3. c. 12. reproves these Hereticks for having altered according to their humor the Scriptures which the Church had authorized as being founded on a constant Tradition and for accounting no part of S. Luke's Gospel and of the Epistles of S. Paul as legitimate but that which they had reserved after they had taken away from these Books whatsoever they pleased And since they contradicted in this all the Tradition of the Churches (i) Hi qui à Marcione sunt non babent Evangelium hoc enim quod est secundùm Lucam decurtantes gloriantur se habere Evangelium Iren. ibid. he affirms that these Sectaries who boasted that they had a Gospel have none Tertullian hath written a Work on purpose against Marcion (k) Aiunt Marcionem non tam innovasse regulam separatione Legis Evangelii quà m retrò adulteratam recurasse Apud Tertul. l. 4. adv Marc. c. 3. whose Disciples gave it out that their Master had not brought any Innovation into Religion in separating the Law from the Gospel but that he had only rectified the Rule of Faith which was corrupted This Arch-Heretick who followed the Opinions of Cerdon (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 42. n. 4. rejected the Law and all the Prophets and to authorize their Novelties they supported themselves with the Words of S. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians Epist ad Gal. c 2. where this Apostle saith that he had withstood Peter and some other Apostles to the face because they did not walk uprightly according to the Truth of the Gospel Marcion (m) Connititur ad destruendum statum eorum Evangeliorum quae propria sub Apostolorum nomine eduntur vel etiam Apostolicorum ut scilicet fidem quam illis adimit suo conferat Tertull. lib. 4. adv Marc. c. 3. had taken occasion from thence to reform and even to destroy the true Gospels to give more Authority to his own Tertullian answers him that he could not charge the Apostles with corrupting the Gospels without accusing Jesus Christ at the same time who had chosen them he adds (n) Si verò Apostoli quidem integrum Evangelium contulerunt Pseudapostoli autem veritatem eorum interpolaverunt inde sunt nostra digesta quod erit germanum-illud Apostolorum quod adulteros passum est aut si tam funditùs deletum est ut cataclysmo quodam ita inundatione falsariorum obliteratum jam ergo nec Marcion habet verum Tertull. ibid. That if Marcion acknowledged that their Gospel had been entire but that it was interpolated by false Apostles and that this imperfect Copy was now in use he ought at least to shew which was the true and original Gospel that had been corrupted lastly he demands of Marcion how it could happen that he should have the true Gospel if it had been so falsified by Impostors that there was
had also taken away these words of the seventeenth Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is this then that is written the stone which the builders rejected c. He had in like manner retrenched the thirty seventh Verse and a part of the thirty eighth in which the Resurrection of the dead is declared Chap. 21. Vers 18. These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There shall not an hair of your head perish were not in his Copy nor these other words of the twenty first Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then let them which are in Judea flee to the Mountains nor the rest of this History which he had expunged because of these words of the thirty second verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till all be fulfilled Chap. 22. He had not in his Copy the sixteenth Verse of this Chapter nor the thirty fifth and thirty sixth Verses because of these words of the thirty seventh Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This that is written must yet be accomplished nor these other words that are in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he was reckoned among the transgressors He had also retrenched that which is said of S. Peter in the fiftieth Verse when he cut off the ear of one of the Servants of the High Priest Chap. 23. Verse 2. To these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We found this fellow perverting the Nation he had added these other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And destroying the law and the prophets In the same Passage after these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Forbidding to give tribute he had also added these other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and perverting the women and the children In the same Chapter Vers 43. he did not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To day shalt thou be with me in paradise Lastly Marcion had taken away from his Copy the twenty fifth Verse of the twenty fourth Chapter and these words of the twenty sixth Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ought he not to have suffered And instead of these words in vers 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the prophets have spoken he had put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That I have spoken to you Thus we have seen what was the Gospel of Marcion who was not far from the Apostolical Times when the Verity of the Gospels might have been more easily justified from the Copies that the Apostle had left to the Churches which were founded by them S. Justin Martyr had written a Book to convince this Heretick Justin apud Euseb Hist Eccles l. 4. c. 11. who was then living at that time when he wrote against him S. Epiphanius who hath transmitted to us this Gospel of Marcion confutes him by his own Copy which was not so much altered but that there remained some Passages that were sufficient to overthrow his Novelties S. Irenaeus who hath also disputed against the Opinions of this Arch-Heretick had observed this long before (t) Marcion autem id quod est secundùm Lucam circumcidens ex his quae adhuc servantur penes eum blasphemus in solum existentem Deum ostenditur Irenadv Haer. lib. 3. c. 11. It may be proved saith this Father by the rest of the Gospel that Marcion hath left that he hath blasphemed against the only God that exists Altho some Diversities of Marcion's Copy might be attributed to the Transcribers especially in those Passages that are of no moment nevertheless it ought to be done with a great deal of Precaution because it is certain that this Heretick hath not followed in his Alterations any ancient Copies he hath taken care only to adjust the Gospel of S. Luke to the prejudices of his Sect as appears by what hath been above related Therefore Tertullian after he had objected to him all that S. Luke hath specified in the two first Chapters of his Gospel touching the Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ and many other Circumstances that clearly shew that he had a real Body adds (u) His opinor consiliis tot originalia instrumenta Christi delere ausus est ne caro ejus probaretur Tertull. lib. de carne Chr. c. 2. that Marcion had retrenched all this from his Gospel on purpose lest it should be proved from thence that Jesus Christ had flesh as well as we Besides these Amendments that Marcion had inserted into the Gospel of S. Luke there have been also some Catholicks who have altered it in some places who would not have that read in the Gospels which did not suit with their prejudices Therefore they have expunged the Passage wherein it is said Chap. xix 41. That Jesus Christ wept over the City of Jerusalem because this Lamentatation seemed to them to be a weakness unworthy of our Saviour S. Epiphanius who quotes these Words observes (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. in Ancor n. 31. that they were found in the Copies that had not been * For so the Greek word in this Passage of Epiphanius ought to be translated corrected and by this he informs us that the Grecians have sometimes taken the liberty to correct their Copies and to take away from them that which did not please them (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. The Orthodox saith this Father have retrenched these words being moved thereto by fear and not considering the end nor the force of them But they are found at this day in the Copies of all the Christians of what Nation soever and S. Epiphanius shews that they certainly belong to S. Luke by (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Iren. apud Epiph ibid. the testimony of S. Irenaeus who made use of them against some Hereticks If we may give credit to the Testimony of S. Hilary (a) Nec sanè ignorandum nobis est in Graecis in Latinis codicibus complurimis vel dè adveniente Angelo vel de sudore sanguineo nihil scriptum reperiri Hilar. lib. 10. de Trin. the forty third and forty fourth Verses of the twenty second Chapter were not read in many Greek and even Latin Copies of S. Luke's Gospel Mention is made in this place of the Angel that came to comfort Jesus Christ and of the bloody Sweat that fell from his Body This S. Jerom seems also to confirm Hieron lib. 2. adv Pelag. But it is easie to judge that the Grecians had taken the liberty to rase these two Verses out of their Copies for the same reason as they had taken away the Passage wherein it is said that our Saviour wept This Alteration afterwards crept into the Latin Copies (b) Haec erasa videntur à quibusdam qui verebantur Christo tribuere tam insignia humanae infirmitatis argumenta Jansen Gand. Concord Evang. c. 137. These words saith Jansenius seem to have been retrenched by some that were afraid to attribute to Jesus Christ such notable marks of human infirmity There are no Copies at this day nor for a long time since
was the Gospel of S. John from the time of Tatian the Disciple of S. Justin Martyr Selden nevertheless who hath been cited by Walaeus on this place of S. John insists very much upon these two ancient Writers to shew that this History was ever since the Primitive Ages in the Copies of the Eastern Church this he confirms by the Canons that Eusebius hath added to the Harmony of Ammonius and he concludes from thence that Eusebius also read it in his Copy of the New Testament because it is marked in these Canons but it doth not appear that Selden hath very carefully examined the Canons of Eusebius for there is no number or mark of a Section that answers in particular to the History of the adulterous Woman the twelve Verses of which it is composed are comained in the preceding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 86. Section as may be seen in these Sections or Numbers that are printed in the Greek New Testament of Robert Stephen and in some other Editions the Greek Manuscript Copies do agree in this Point with the printed and that which clearly proves that there is no number or Section of the Canons of Eusebius that refers in particular to the aforesaid twelve Verses is that this same number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 86. is also marked in the Manuscript Copies wherein they are not found therefore it cannot be inferred from the distribution or order of the Canons that Eusebius hath read the History of the Adultress in that Book to which he hath annexed them however it is not to be denied that Selden and Walaeus have had reason (c) Mirum non est in seculis primitivis exemplaria fuisse hodiéque manere quibus hae aliaeve periochae sacrae deessent cùm scilicet audacium nimis exscriptorum complurium mos tum esset aliter atque aliter pro multiplici judiciorum discrimine Evangelia variatim emendare augere minuere Quod monet Hieronymus c. Seld. apud Wal. Comm. in Joann to accuse the Grecians in general of assuming to themselves too much liberty in correcting their Copies Seld. apud Wal. Com. in Joan. adding to or diminishing from them sometimes according to their own humour and perhaps they have exercised this critical Faculty too liberally on this place of S. John as well as on many others This same History of the adulterous Woman is not found neither in the Syriack Version that Widmanstadius hath published from good Manuscript Copies of which there hath been since several other Editions nevertheless it is in some Syriack Copies from whence it hath been taken and inserted into the Polyglott Bible of England it is read also in the Arabick Translations that have been printed at Rome and in Holland from whence we may conclude that it is read at present as well in all the Eastern as in the Western Churches However Beza after he hath affirmed (d) Ex vetustis nostris codicibus 17. unus duntaxat illam non habebat In reliquis scripta quidem est sed ita ut mira sit lectionis varietas Bez Annot. in Joan. c. 7. v. 53. that of seventeen ancient Manuscripts which he had read this History was wanting but in one of them doth not forbear to suspect it because the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers as he saith have either unanimously rejected it or have been silent therein he saith moreover that it is not probable that Jesus Christ should have remained alone in the Temple with a Woman that this Relation doth not cohere with what follows and that that which is said of Jesus Christ that he wrote with his finger on the ground is a very extraordinary thing and difficult to be explained Lastly the great diversity of Readings that is found in the Greek Copies in that place causeth him to doubt of the Verity of this History Calvin discourseth with a great deal more moderation and seems also to be more reasonable than his Disciple in his Commentary on this Passage Calv. Com. sur S. Jean c. 8. v. 1. It is well known saith he that the ancient Grecians knew nothing of this present History and therefore some have conjectured that it hath been taken from some other place and added here but forasmuch as it hath been always received in the Latin Churches and is found in many Copies and ancient Books of the Grecians and contains nothing that is unworthy of an Apostolical Spirit there is no cause why we should refuse to make a good use of it Besides that which we have just now observed concerning the History of the Woman taken in Adultery which is not found in many Greek Copies some Criticks have also believed that the last Chapter of the Gospel of S. John was not written by this Evangelist Indeed it seems as if he designed to finish his History with these words Chap. 20.30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his Disciples which are not written in this Book c. Grotius who is of this Opinion (e) Sicut caput ultimum Pentateuchi caput ultimum Josuae post Mosis Josuae mortem additum est à Synedrio Hebraeorum ita caput quod sequitur post mortem Joannis additum ab Ecclesiâ Ephesinà Grot. Annot. ad cap. 20. Joan. vers 30. affirms that the rest of this Gospel hath been added after the Death of S. John by the Church of Ephesus after the same manner as the last Chapter of the Pentateuch and the last Chapter of the History of Joshua have been annexed to these Books of the Sanhedrim of the Jews but he alledgeth no solid proof of what he so freely avoucheth something indeed might have been added to the History of Moses and Joshua after their decease because as I have elsewhere observed they whose Office it was amongst the Hebrews to write the Annals of this Republick have continued their Histories and therefore these two Chapters cannot be properly called Additions but rather a Continuation of the Chronicle of this Commonwealth This case is not the same as that of the Gospel of S. John for the Church of Ephesus was not charged to continue it It may be said that the last Chapter of this Gospel hath not been put in its proper place and that there hath happened some change with respect to the order and sequence of the Words but if we reflect on the Still of S. John and the little regard to a Method or Coherence that appears throughout his whole Book we shall rather impute to himself these small Defects which alter not the Verity of this History CHAP. XIV Of the Acts of the Apostles that have been received in the Church Other Acts of the Apostles that have been forged ALthough there have been several different Acts that bear the Name of the Apostles yet the Church hath received none as true but those that we now read at this day under this Title and which all Antiquity attributes to S. Luke
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
in perpetual Continency S. Augustin adds Baronius farther who rehearseth these Words of Faustus and exactly answers his Objections doth not reject as Apocryphal these last Acts that are intituled the Martyrdom of Thecla But it is probable that these last Acts have been taken from the former and it is no wonder that the Fathers have made use of an Apocryphal Book that was composed by an Impostor because there were many true things in these Travels of Paul and Thecla However it be I think it is more convenient to reject them altogether than to approve of one part and to condemn the other because it would be very difficult to distinguish that which was true from the false If we may judge by the Fragments that remain this Work was filled with Fables for we find therein that Thecla being the Companion of S. Paul in his Travels had in some measure a share in his Apostleship it is declared in these Acts that she preached and baptized and S. Jerom who without doubt had read them Hieron ib. makes mention of the Baptism of a Lion which is the cause that he esteems them as false and Apocryphal Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pauli Theclae saith this Father totam baptizati leonis fabulam inter apocryphas scripturas computamus Whereas the Apostles and their Disciples have left us no relations of their Travels in Writing but that which we have concerning those of S. Paul and S. Barnabas this gave occasion to the counterfeiting of some under their Names Some false Acts have been published under these Titles The Travels of Peter the Travels of John the Travels of Thomas and many others of this sort there was one also called in general The Itinerary or Travels of the Apostles Thus have they endeavoured ever since the Primitive Ages of the Christian Religion by this means to supply that which seemed to be wanting in the History of the Apostles as if it were necessary that the Church should have all their Actions in Writing but these Books were rejected with the common consent of all the Catholick Churches as Supposititious and Apocryphal insomuch that of all the Acts of the Apostles that have been published none have been preserved but those that were composed by S. Luke Nevertheless there were some Sectaries from the very first beginning of Christianity who being Enemies to S. Paul absolutely condemned this History written by S. Luke his faithful Companion in his Travels The Ebionites who treated this Apostle as an Apostate seeing that the Acts that had been received in the Church contradicted their Doctrine (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 16. composed new ones which they filled with Impieties and Calumnies against S. Paul that no credit might be given to the History of S Luke they invented I know not what Fables to render this holy Apostle odious and they gave them out as the true Reasons that had obliged him (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. to write against the Circumcision the Sabbath and the Old Law. (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. They made use of these new Acts of the Apostles saith Epiphanius to invalidate the Truth The Encratites or Severians (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 29. who acknowledged with the Orthodox the Law the Prophets and the Gospels loaded S. Paul also with bitter Invectives and Reproaches and entirely rejected his Epistles with the Acts of the Apostles Lastly the Manicheans who esteemed their Patriarch Manichee not only as an Apostle but as the Paraclet or Comforter that was promised did not allow the Acts of the Apostles because the descent of the Holy Ghost is therein declared (k) Si illos Actus Apostolorum acciperent in quibus evidenter adventus Spiritûs Sancti praedicatur non invenirent quomodo id immissum esse dicerent Aug. de utilit cred cap. 3. If they should receive these Acts saith S. Augustin in which express mention is made of the coming of the Holy Ghost they could not say that he had been sent to them in the Person of Manichee But let us leave these Enthusiasts who had no other reason to refuse the Books that were approved by the whole Church than this because they did not suit with the Idea that they had formed of the Christian Religion This was the cause according to Tertullian that the Marcionites did not regard the Acts of the Apostle Tertul. lib. 5. adv Mare c. 2. I shall say nothing here concerning the Acts of Barnabas that have been published under the Name of John surnamed Mark (l) Quaedam Barnabae Acta ab aliquo ut apparet nebulone scripta circumferuntur ab imperitis magno applausu accipiuntur Baron Annal. Chap. 51. numer 51. which are very displeasing to Baronius and have been manifestly forged being also contrary in some things to the true Acts of the Apostles as this Cardinal hath observed CHAP. XV. Of the Epistles of St. Paul in general Of Marcion and of his Copy of these Epistles False Letters attributed to St. Paul. THE Name of S. Paul that is prefixed at the head of all his Epistles except that which is written to the Hebrews doth plainly discover the Author and since they are for the most part directed to particular Churches who read them publickly in their Assemblies they have been afterwards communicated to other neighbouring Churches and at last by the same means to all the Faithful I shall not here make it my business too critically to enquire into their order nor the time when they were written because in whatsoever manner they are placed as to their distribution or circumstances of time this will cause no alteration in the Text which will always remain the same nevertheless thus much may be observed with S. Chrysostom who hath diligently examined this matter that though the Epistle to the Romans stands in the first rank Joann Chrys Praef. Hom. in Epist ad Rom. yet it was not written first there are clear proofs that the two Epistles inscribed to the Corinthians were written before it this learned Bishop believes also that S. Paul had written to the Thessalonians before he wrote to those of Corinth this may be seen more at large in the Preface before his Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans wherein he gives an Example of the Prophets who have not been ranked according to the order of the time of their respective Prophecies Theodoret who hath treated on this Subject after S. Chrysostom whom he often epitomizeth alledgeth as an instance of the same order as that of S. Paul's Epistles the distribution of the Psalms of David (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor. Praef. in Epist Paul. As David saith he being inspired by God hath written the Psalms and others afterwards have put them into what method they thought fit without having regard to the time when they were composed so in
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
in the ancient Latin Bibles written about seven or eight hundred years ago St. Jerom also hath followed this method in his great Prologue called Galeatus The Syrians have preserved this same Order in their Version as appears from the Edition of Widmanstadius nevertheless they have not in their ancient Copies according to which this Edition of Widmanstadius was regulated the second Epistle of St. Peter nor the second and third of St. John nor that of St. Jude These Epistles were not apparently in the Greek Copies which the Syrians have Translated into their Language However it seems as if there were nothing very certain concerning the Order of these Epistles for in the last of the Canons that bear the name of the Apostles those of St. Peter are set down first and afterwards those of St. John and that of St. James stands in the third rank the Bishops assembled at Trent have also named them after this same manner conformably to the Council of Florence Calvin himself hath set the Epistle of St. Peter at the head of all in his Commentaries on the Canonical Epistles But we ought to prefer the Order that is observed in the Greek and Latin Copies and also in the Oriental Versions As for what concerns the Authority of these Epistles very great difficulties arise from thence for as we have already seen the Syrians have not inserted some of them in their Version of the New Testament which they would have done if they had been read in the Eastern Churches when they Interpreted them out of the Greek into Syriack nevertheless they have since Translated them and they have been likewise Printed therefore they are also found in the Arabick Versions of the New Testament I shall have occasion to examin this matter more exactly in the second Book of this Work wherein I shall Treat of Versions in particular but since my design at present is only to speak of the Text let us see what the Ancients have thought thereupon Eusebius who avoucheth (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 23. that the Epistle of St. James the Brother of our Saviour with the other Canonical Epistles was publickly read in his time in the most part of the Churches observes nevertheless that not many of the ancient Writers have made mention of it as neither of that of St. Jude he would say without doubt that there are few of the ancient Doctors of the Church that have cited it as Canonical therefore in another part of his History where he produceth a Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 25. he reckons the same Epistle of St. James that of St. Jude the second of St. Peter and the second and third of St. John among the Scriptures that were not generally received as Canonical by all the Churches though several ancient Fathers had spoken of them St. Jerom who usually transcribes Eusebius in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers expresseth himself almost after the same manner as this Historian doth on the Epistle of St. James for after he hath said (e) Jacobus qui appellatur frater Domini-unam tantùm scripsit Epistolam quae de septem Catholicis est quae ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur licet paulatim tempore procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem Hieron de Script Eccl. in Jac. that St. James the first Bishop of Jerusalem hath written but one Letter which is in the number of the seven Canonical Epistles he adds to shew that all People were not agreed that it was certainly his that it was said that it hath been written by another in his name though it hath obtained Authority in process of time Cardinal Cajetan makes use of this same Passage of S. Jerom Cajet Comm. in c. 1. Epist Jac. to prove that it is not absolutely certain that this Epistle was composed by S. James the Brother of our Lord Non usquequaque certum an Epistola haec sit Jacobi fratris Domini He hath also entituled his Annotations on this Epistle Commentaries on the Epistle that bears the Name of S. James In eam quae Divo Jacobo inscribitur Commentarii in which point he is more scrupulous than S. Jerom who hath made no difficulty to quote it under this Title Indeed this Father simply relates in this place the various Opinions of several Persons concerning the Author of this Epistle but forasmuch as it was read in the Churches under the Name of S. James and it hath been read therein ever since that time this Cardinal discovers too nice a curiosity as well as when he adds in this very place that the manner of saluting that is at the beginning of this (f) Salutatio hîc posita tam pura est ut nulli salutationi cujuscunque alterius Apostolicae Epistolae conformis sit nam nihil Dei nihil Jesu Christi nihil gratiae nihilve pacis sonat sed profano more salutem nec ipse seipsum nominat Apostolum sed tantùm servum Jesu Christi Cajet Comm. in c. 1. Epist Jac. Epistle contains nothing Apostolical on the contrary that it is altogether profane no mention being therein made of Jesus Christ nor of Grace nor Peace and he doth not call himself saith he an Apostle but a Servant of Jesus Christ Sixtus Senensis hath rehearsed these Words amongst the Objections that Luther hath made against this Epistle and perhaps Cajetan hath taken the best part of these Expressions from him but this Objection is so weak and even so irrational that the Lutherans have had no regard to it no more than to divers other Reasons that their Master hath alledged against the Epistle of S. James for they receive it at this day after the same manner as the Catholicks nevertheless they are not to be excused in this respect because they still retain in some Editions of their German Bible the Prefaces of Luther that are at the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of that of S. James after they have admitted them as Canonical for they disown by these Prefaces what they authorize in the body of their Bible I could have wished that Melchior Canus Melch. Can. de loc Theol. l. 2. c. 11. and some other learned Divines had not made use of the Authority of certain Decretal Epistles falsly attributed to the first Popes to shew that ever since the Primitive Times of Christianity it hath been believed that this Epistle did certainly belong to S. James there is no need of this sort of Proofs for though the Ancients have been divided as to this Point it is enough that the succeeding Ages after a due reflection on this matter have found in Antiquity certain Acts sufficient to justifie the placing this Epistle of S. James in the rank of the Canonical Books of the New Testament and that all the Churches of the World do at
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
being the Author of it The Preface in controversie is not in a certain Manuscript Copy of the whole Bible Cod. MSS. Bibl. Reg. that is in the Royal Library marked 3564. and has been extant these seven Hundred Years neither is it in two other Manuscript Copies of the like antiquity belonging to the Library of the Benedictine Monks of the Abby of S. Germain Cod. MSS. Bibl. Benedict S. Germ. Paris It is found I confess in Charles le Chauve's fair Bible that is in the King's Library but S. Jerome's Name is not there any more than it is in some other ancient Copies Whoever will take the pains to compare the most of the ancient Latin Bibles together shall easily discover that he who gathered all the Books of the Latin Bible into one Body the better part of which was translated or revised by S. Jerome is really the Author of that Preface Since he was not furnished with that Father's Preface to all those Books he supplied in his Collection what was wanting with an addition of some of his own composure and others which he gathered from S. Jerome's Works Hence for example in Charles le Chauve's Copy there is before the Acts of the Apostles a Preface with this Title Praefatio Hieronymi Yet 't is certain that S. Jerome was not the Author of that Preface to the Acts as it is there in express words but the Author of the Collection of the Books of the Latin Bible took the same out of that Father's large Preface entituled Prologus Galeatus and it is expressed in these words Actus Apostolorum nudam quidem resanare historiam videntur nascentis Ecclesiae historiam texere Sed si noverimus scriptorem eorum Lucam esse Medicum cujus laus in Evangelio animadvertemus pariter omnia verba illius animae languentis esse Medicinam that is The Acts of the Apostles seem to be a bare History affording us a prospect of the Church in its Birth But if we consider that the Writer was Luke the Physician who is famous in the Gospel we shall also perceive that all his words are the Medicine of a languishing Soul. 'T is also probable that the Compiler of the Books of the Latin Version which we call the Vulgar not finding in S. Jerome a particular Preface to the Canonical Epistles made one according to that Father's Stile some of whose Expressions he has made use of and amongst others has inserted that word Eustochium 'T is likewise probable that the Addition of the Witness of three Persons was extant before that time in some Copies of S. John's Epistles or at least in some Latin Writers at the time when that Preface was made Upon this account the Author who possibly had not the occasion of consulting the Creek Copies supposed that if that Passage was not extant in any Latin Copy the Translators were to be blamed 'T is observable that the Addition is not in most of the old Copies of S. Jerome's Bible to which nevertheless the Preface is prefixt as I have observed in two Copies one whereof is in the Royal Library and the other in that belonging to Mr. Colbert How incongruous is it to see a Preface at the beginning of the Canonical Epistles where S. Jerome complains of the unfaithfulness of the ancient Latin Translators who have omitted in the First Epistle of S. John Chap. 1. a whole Verse which he restores to the Greek and yet if one turn to the place of S. John's Epistle in the very same Copy the passage is not to be found there There can be no other reason given in my opinion of this incoherency but this that the Transcribers who writ out the Preface made use of such Latin Copies in which that Verse was not extant because neither S. Jerome nor the antient Latin Version had any thing of it If that Father had been the Author of the Preface and of the Addition inserted in S. John's Epistle that Addition would have been extant in all S. Jerome's Latin Bibles This diversity of Copies is in my judgment an evident proof that he did not compose that Preface to prefix it to the Canonical Epistles And that which makes it further manifest that S. Jerome was not the true Author either of the Preface or Addition is that that Addition is placed in the Margin of mose of the antient Copies in the Body of which it is not extant It was no less than surprising (g) Quantum à nostrâ aliorum distet editio lectoris judicio relinquo Hier. Prol. in VII Epist Can. that the pretended S. Jerome should in his Preface commend his new Edition of the Canonical Epistles upon the account of the change he had made especially in the First of S. John whilst there was nothing of such change or amendment to be seen therein Upon which account the Transcribers or they to whom the Copies did belong thought fit to regulate the Text according to the Preface by supplying in the Margin the Verse concerning the Witness of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost which before that time was extant in some Ecclesiastical Authors But since it was a matter of difficulty for those who placed that Addition in the Margin of their Copies to observe a general and perfect uniformity of words it so fell out that the Expressions in the various Copies did likewise vary This diversity does evidently prove that S. Jerome could not be the Author of the Addition in controversie but that it was done by those who had a mind to adjust the Text in S. James to the Preface I shall here give some Examples of that Regulation of the manner how it was added to most of the old Latin Copies of S. Jerome's Bible In that Copy of the Royal Library that is marked 3584. in the Margin over against these words Cod. MSS. Bibl. Reg. Tres sunt qui testimonium dant i. e. There are three which bear witness there are these other words added In coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ hi tres unum sunt i. e. In Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and there are three which bear witness on earth and these three are one The writing of the Addition appears to be no less ancient than that of the Text. The like Addition is to be seen in a Copy that is in Mr. Colbert's Library Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb that is marked 158. where in the Margin over against these words Tres sunt qui testimonium dant these are added In coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ sanguis aqua caro And to make the Text and Addition agree the better there are some of the words of the Text amended or put out There is nothing of this Addition to be read in the three ancient Copies of the Library belonging to the Benedictines of the
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
Earth that should continue for the space of a thousand years during which time all manner of Pleasures should be enjoyed Upon this subject Nepos did publish a Book Entituled †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Refutation of Allegorists laughing at such Catholicks as Expounded Allegorically that place in the Apocalyps that makes mention of the Reign of a thousand years Which Work made a great impression on the minds of those who read it because the Author who had carefully applied himself to the study of the Holy Scriptures had acquired a very great Reputation Besides his Reasons appeared to be the more probable because they were founded on the Literal Sense of Scripture whereas the contrary Opinion was grounded upon Allegories only from which nothing can be concluded Denis does likewise (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb ibid. declare the honorable esteem he had for the Memory of his then deceased Adversary whose Faith and Parts he commends But withal he adds that the love which he bore to the Truth above all other things was a sufficient motive that engaged him to write against that Work that was so much admired in Egypt that many preferred the Doctrine therein contained to the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles they were so much puffed up with the Idea of the thousand years Reign on the Earth The matter was brought to that pass that Nepos his Followers chused rather to make a Schism than to abdicate their Opinion But Denis afterwards in a publick Dispute having discovered the falsity thereof brought them to renounce their error It is a very judicious course that that Learned Bishop takes as to his manner of defending the Authority of the Apocalyps against those who rejected it as a supposititious Book and done by Cerinthus He appeared to be in no wise byassed by any preoccupation as to his own Opinion nor guilty of concealing the Reasons of his Adversaries And therefore he freely declares that (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dion Alex. apud Euseb ibid. cap. 25. some Ecclesiastical Writers who lived in his time had opposed that Book with all their might refuting it with a nice and resolute eagerness alledging that it was written without Sense and without Reason They further assured us that the Title of that Work was forged by Cerinthus and that the Title Apocalyps or Revelation could not be attributed to a Book which in their Opinion was stuffed with things that manifest a profound ignorance Notwithstanding all those Objections Denis avows that he cannot reject it as perceiving that it was approved by the most part of his Brethren and to the Reasons on the other side he replies that there is a sublime and hidden Sense in the Expressions of that Author for which he is resolved to have an high veneration though he does not comprehend it being persuaded that Faith and not his own knowledge ought to be the Rule in that case (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. I do not saith he condemn that which I cannot understand on the contrary I admire it because I cannot comprehend it Which nevertheless does not hinder him from examining all the parts of the Books particularly and he shews (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. That it is impossible to Expound it according to the Letter or Sense which the words at first view seem to warrant He further declares that it was composed by a Man called John who was inspired by God. But he does not think that that John was an Apostle and grounds his Opinion on this that the Apostle St. John did put his Name to none of his Works and that he never speaks of himself On the contrary the Author of the Revelation does name himself at the beginning and frequently in the Body of his Work for example in the Letter he writes to the seven Churches of Asia he begins with these words John to the seven Churches which are in Asia But St. John does not so much as put his name to his Catholick Epistle in his entrance upon the matter Neither is it seen at the beginning of his two other Epistles that are very short and pass under his name This difference of Stile makes Denis the Bishop of Alexandria to conclude that the Revelation was not written by St. John and he affirms at the same time that it is uncertain who that John was He proves nevertheless that it is in no wise likely that he was John Sirnamed Mark made mention of in the Acts of the Apostles and who was Companion to Paul and Barnabas in their Travels because he did not follow them into Asia And therefore he judges that he was one of those who lived at Ephesus where there were two Sepulchres with that name Once he has recourse to the difference of Stile from which he pretends to prove that the Apostle St. John who writ the Gospel and one Epistle cannot be the Author of the Apocalyps According to his Opinion the same things and the same expressions are found in the former Books The Revelation on the contrary is quite different from both Thus I have considered at large the judgment of Denis the Bishop of Alexandria upon the Apocalyps upon which Eusebius has more fully Paraphrased because it contains in a few words all that can be said upon this subject He informs us at the same time that the ancient Doctors of the Church made a great account of Tradition upon such an emergent occasion as required their Judgment whether a Book was Canonical or no. We also see that in such junctures they observed the Rules that are commonly received amongst Criticks For the Bishop according to the rigorous Laws of Criticism does examine the Diction or Stile of the Apocalyps (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionis apud Euseb ibid. Which says he is in no wise good Greek being full of Barbarisms and Solecisms The distinction he uses concerning two Johns who lived in Ephesus is grounded upon the Testimony of Papias who was Contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles Eusebius who inserted that Testimony in his History does add that he is positive in it For (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb if the Apostle St. John is not the true Author of the Apocalyps which bears the name of John it is probable that it was written by that second John. Nevertheless the most ancient Fathers viz. Justin and Irenaeus made no account of this distinction nor difference of Stile on which Denis so much insists upon Nor can there be any thing concluded from the Title of the Apocalyps that in the most of Greek Copies whether Manuscript or Printed there is the name of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John the Divine and not of the Apostle St. John set therein Those who annexed that Title meant only to describe St. John the Evangelist whom the Greek Fathers do call the Divine by way of Excellency to distinguish him from other Evangelists
All the Eastern Churches at this day read that Book under the name of the Apostle St. John. It is true that it is not so in the ancient Syriack Copies because it was not in the Greek one from which those were taken It is ascribed to St. John in the Syriack Edition of the English Polyglott Bible and also in the Arabick Printed in the same Polyglott it bears the name of John the Apostle Evangelist and lastly in the Arabick published by Erpenius that of John the Evangelist Not that I believe such Titles which are but late to be of any great Authority I produce them only to shew the Universal consent of the Churches as well that of the East as that of the West concerning the Author of the Revelation As to what concerns such singular expressions as are no where to be found but in this Book chiefly that where there is mention made of the Reign of Jesus Christ upon the Earth with the Saints which shall continue for the space of a thousand years Illyricus has very well observed that since that Book (p) Phrases illas mysticè ut in sermone prophetico intelligendas Illyr argum in Apoc. is written in a Prophetical Stile the expressions used therein ought to be taken in a Mystical sense In which he had apparently as to his Judgment the advantage of Luther who could not avoid the reproach that was put upon him by Bellarmin and some other Opponents for not considering the Apocalyps as a Prophetical and Apostolical Work yet his Disciples who acknowledged all that Book to be Divine and Canonical have endeavoured to justifie him They alledged (q) Lutherum quod attinet quidquid olim seripserit in veteri praefatione in eâ sane quae hodie in codicibus legitur nihil de Apocalypsi asserit aliud quà m in dubio se relinquere utrum sit Joannis Apostoli quod nonnulli ex vetustioribus Patribus id inficiati sint nihil tamen hoc ipso se prejudicare velle aliis Christ Korthol de Canon Script S. c. 18. without any regard to his ancient Preface that he said nothing else in that which is found in his Works but what has been observed by some of the ancient Fathers viz. that it was not generally agreed upon that St. John was the Author of the Apocalyps And Erasmus had likewise enough to do upon the like account with the Divines of Paris who censure one of his propositions wherein he affirmed (r) De Apocalypsi diu dubitatum est non dico ab haereticis sed ab orthodoxis viris qui scriptum tamen ut à Spiritu Sancto profectum amplectebantur de scriptoris nomine incerti Erasm decl ad Theol. Paris that there had been for a long time some doubting about that Book not only amongst the Hereticks but also the Orthodox who though they received it as Canonical did profess they were not certain who was the Author What Erasmus does affirm in this case is not to be charged with falshood since it is grounded upon a matter of Fact that may be easily proved from the Writings of the ancient Doctors of the Church Yet the Parisian Divines were so forward to censure him since they persuaded themselves that he manifestly knew by the usage of the Church and the definitions of Councils that the Apocalyps was published by St. John. Cons Facul Theol. Paris The Councils on which they stood were the three of Carthage that of Rome under Pope Gelasius and that of Toledo in which Isidore of Sevile was an Assistant To this they joyned the Authority of St. Denis called the Areopagite St. Irenaeus St. Justin Pope Innocent I. St. Augustin and St. John of Damascus Erasmus as it should seem ought to have answered that notwithstanding all those Authorities his supposition might be true seeing he had also Orthodox Authors on his side He might also have said that none of those Councils stood much on the Author of the Apocalyps but barely complyed with the opinion that commonly obtained in their time which ascribed that Book to St. John. But in stead of that he only returned such answers as were extravagant and impertinent He affirms that the World was at that time filled with Apocryphal Books bearing forged Titles and that the most part of honest Men were then persuaded that such sort of falsities might be debated He afterwards inveighs against (ſ) Isidorus Hispalensis scripsit rudi seculo habuisse videtur locupletem bibliothecam quâ potuisset rectiùs uti si fuisset exactè doctus Certè rhapsodus fuit quemadmodum Beda Quanquam Beda meo judicio fuit illo tum eruditior tum cloquentior Erasm declar ad cens Fac. Theol. Paris Isidore as being a Man of mean capacity and judgment who had not the sense to make use of a very good Library which he had in his possession He was saith he as unskilful in making Collections as Beda but the latter was the more Judicious and Eloquent of the two This is an instance of Learning whereof there is an ill use made If Isidore and Bede were justly charged by him on that account he ought to have proved that they were much in the wrong here in preferring the opinion of St. Justin St. Irenaeus and the most ancient Fathers to that of some other Writers who were not so near the first Age. The answer he made to the Divines of Paris was more likely to provoke them than his first Proposition was For he thereby plainly reproached those sage Masters that they were conversant in no good Authors but only Rhapsodists and unskilful Compilers of History It is true that he might not offend them he adds at the same time that (t) Profiteor me de titulis quoque credere quod credit universalis Ecclesia cujus auctoritati facilè sensum meum submitto non hîc tantùm sed in omnibus quoque caeteris modò ne protinùs Ecclesiae sit quidquid quocunque modo in usum Christianorum irrepsit aut cuivis Episcopo placuit Erasm ibid. as to what concerns the Titles of the Books of Scripture he does refer himself to the Judgment of the Universal Church to which he does entirely submit provided that the name of the Church Universal be not ascribed to all that is so called according to the custom and use which has been introduced and does obtain amongst Christians nor to the particular Opinions of every Bishop If we measure the Opinion of the Unitaries by that of Socinus who is one of their Heroes they have affirmed nothing concerning the Apocalyps but what is agreeable to good sense This Unitary does assure us that that Book was always by common consent attributed to St. John Soc. de Auctor Scrip. Sac. c. 1. n. 2. Quod Scriptum semper communi consensu tributum fuit Joauni Apostolo Evangelistae To that objection that many Authors have doubted thereof he makes answer that the Judgment
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
that part of it that was Composed by the Prophets They say the Historical Books were not inspired because as they alledge it is not necessary for him that writes History to be a Prophet Grotius is of that Opinion in his Book Entituled Votum pro pace Ecclesiasticâ (b) Si Lucas divino afflatu dictante sua scripsisset inde potiùs sibi sumpsisset auctoritatem ut Prophetae faciunt quà m à testibus quorum fidem est secutus Sic in iis quae Paulum agentem vidit scribendis nullo ipsi dictante afflatu opus Quid ergo est cur Lucae libri sint canonici Quia piè fideliter soriptos de rebus momenti ad salutem maximi Ecclesia primorum temporum judicavit Grot. Vot pro Pac. Eccl. tit de Can. Script If St. Luke saith that Critick had been Inspired by God when he writ his History he would rather have made use of that Inspiration by the example of the Prophets than the Authority of those whom he takes for Witnesses of his faithfulness He had no need he further says of any Inspiration for writing the Actions of St. Paul of which he himself was a Witness Whence he does conclude that the Writings of St. Luke are Canonical not because they were Inspired but because the Primitive Church did Judge that they were written by godly Men with great faithfulness and Treat of things that are of very great importance to our Salvation He does repeat the same thing elsewhere in his Works against Rivetus who opposed that Opinion as being impious He does there affirm (c) Neque Esdras neque Lucas Prophetae fuere sed viri graves prudentes qui nec fallere vellent nec falli se sinerent Dixitne Lucas Factum est ad Lucam verbum Domini dixit ei Dominus Scribe Grot. Riv. Apolog. discuss pag. 723. that Esdras and St. Luke were not Prophets but Grave and Prudent Men who would neither deceive others nor be deceived themselves He does further affirm That St. Luke does not say in the Prophetical Stile The word of the Lord came unto Luke that the Lord did not say to him Write Spinosa did exactly follow the Opinion of Grotius which he has explained more at large in his Book Entituled Tractatus Theologico-Politicus where he does not indeed deny but that the Apostles were Prophets but he affirms (d) Dubitare possumus num Apostoli tanquam Prophetae ex revelatione expresso mandato ut Moses Jeremias alii an verò ut privati vel Doctores Epistolas scripserint Spin. Tract Theol. polit c. 11. that it may be doubted if they writ their Books in the quality of Prophets by the express command of God inspiring them as Moses Jeremy and others had done He does alledge that (e) Si ad eorum stilum attendere volumus eum à stilo Prophetiae alienissimum inveniemus Nam Prophetis usitatissimum erat ubique testari se èx Dei edicto loqui nempe Sic dicit Deus Ait Deus exercituum Edictum Dei c. Atque hoc non tantùm videtur locum habuisse in publicis Prophetarum concionibus sed etiam in Epistolis quae revelationes continebant Spin. ibid. if we judge of the Works of the Apostles by their Stile we shall find that they writ as particular Doctors and not as Prophets because they have nothing that is Prophetical Which he does prove by the same way of reasoning as Grotius It is saith he the custom of the Prophets to declare through all their Writings that they spake by God's order and they have observed that not only in their Prophecies but in their Letters which contain revelations This Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa has been lately renewed in two Letters Published in a Treatise Entitled The Opinions of some Divines of Holland upon the Critical History of the Old Testament Seeing I have given a sufficient Answer to those two Letters and also to the new Explications thereof which have been since published 't is to no purpose to repeat here what has been said elsewhere We shall only observe in general that those Men do deceive themselves whilst they will not own any Inspiration but that of the Prophecies It is true that the manner of writing a History and Letters is not the same as writing Prophecies And therefore these words The word of God that came to Luke do not begin the History of St. Luke or any other Evangelist The Books of Moses Joshua and in a word all the Historical Books of the Old Testament are not written in that Stile which Grotius does call Prophetical Yet Josephus and all the Ancient Jews call them Prophetical believing that they were given by Divine Inspiration 'T is not necessary for a Book 's being inspired that it should be indited by God word for word The false Idea that those Authors have conceived of the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings made them embrace an opinion which is contrary to all Antiquity as well Judaical as Christian Jesus Christ who promised to his Apostles that the Spirit of God should guide them in all the functions of their Ministry did not therefore deprive them of their Reason and Memory Although they were inspired they continued to be Men still and managed their Affairs as other Men. I freely own that there was no need of Inspiration to put in record such matters of Fact whereof they themselves were Witnesses But this does not hinder but that they were directed by the Spirit of God in all that they put in Writing so as not to fall into error It is certain that all the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers did acknowledge this Inspiration of the Evangelists and Apostles Nevertheless they speak of their care and exactness in penning their Works in the same manner as they speak of other Writers who are not inspired Can Grotius conclude from thence that those Ancient Doctors of the Church did not believe that the Books of the New Testament were given by Divine Inspirations This he cannot do seeing those very Doctors have clearly maintained it We need but call to mind what has been said in the 10th Chap. concerning the Opinion of Papias who was contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles He does assure us that if that Evangelist did not observe in his History the order of things as to their Event that he was not in the least to be blamed for that because he made mention of the things according as he remembred them not being so careful to relate them in their order as he was to say nothing but what was Truth Papias or rather one of the Disciples of the Apostles whose words Papias does produce in that place did not thereby pretend to reject the Inspiration of the Gospel of St. Mark. We need but consult the other Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers who expressed themselves in such a manner as might oblige Grotius and Spinosa to believe that they owned no
thence inferred with him that that Apostle did Write his Gospel in the Hebrew rather than in the Greek For having established his abode in the places where the Greek was spoken he instructed the several People whose Apostle he was in the Language which they spake And seeing his Gospel is only a Collection of his Sermons he writ it in the same Language And therefore I do not apprehend that Salmasius has established undoubted Principles for warranting this general Consequence (e) Scribebant igitur Apostoli idiomate suo linguâ sibi familiari vernaclâ quae protinùs à Syris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel Graecis ipsis ad fidem conversis quos secum habebant Evangelii praedicandi adjutores administros in Graecum transferebantur Salmas ibid. p. 258. That the Apostles writ their Books in their Mother-Tongue which was the Syriack Language and that afterwards they were Translated into Greek by the Syrians who understood the Greek or yet by the Converted Greeks whom they used as Coadjutors and Interpreters for the Preaching of the Gospel But besides that we have formerly spoken of these Interpreters and Fellow helpers though they should be acknowledged to have been in the same manner as Salmasius does suppose it might be always said that the Books of the New Testament are written in the Greek of the Synagogue It is much more probable that the Apostles who were Galileans are the Authors thereof For if they had made use of Persons Learned in the Greek Language there would not be found so many Hebraisms in them The Stile of St. John's Gospel does shew that it was written by a Galilean rather than a Grecian However it be Salmasius is obliged to declare that the Writings of the New Testament are full of modes of Speech that are altogether Syriack and herein the Hellenistick Language is made to consist He only differs from those whom he calls Hellenisticaries (f) Illi Syriasmi quibus totus conspersus est Novi Testamenti Graeci textus ex charactere nimirum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quo de verbo ad verbum expressa peragitur transtatio Salm. ibid. in this that he attributes the form of the Syriack Phrases to the Interpreters of the Apostles whereas the Hellenisticaries do ascribe them to the Apostles themselves But whether it be that the Apostles themselves or their Interpreters were the Authors thereof the thing it self will be always granted And thus he does rather establish than destroy the Hellenistick Language As for St. Paul and St. Luke who understood the Greek Language Salmasius does also acknowledge that their Writings are full of Chaldaisms and the Reason that he brings is (g) Quod de Paulo Lucâ licet asserere qui utriusque linguae periti in eam quâ scripserunt ex alterâ phrases genera lequendi transfuderunt Salm. ibid. that seeing they understood the Greek and the Chaldee they made a mixture of these two Languages In what manner soever it happened he cannot deny but that the Language of the Synagogue does appear in the Works of St. Paul and of St. Luke as well as in the Writings of the other Apostles He only thinks that St. Paul and St. Luke let Hebraisms drop more seldom than the Interpreters who as he believes Translated the Books of the other Apostles out of the Hebrew and the Chaldee into the Greek Yet Vorstius as I have already observed has marked more Hebraisms in St. Luke than in the other Writers of the New Testament And therefore it is better to attribute them to the Apostles themselves if St. Matthew be excepted than to their Fellow Helpers or Interpreters For what remains we agree with Salmasius or rather with the Greek Fathers whom he follows in this matter that the Apostles being rude and destitute of Literature writ their Books in a very mean Stile and in a Language that was used by the Dregs of the People Which in some manner renders their Discourse more intelligible because that Language does commonly contain nothing that is Figurative as to what concerns the Expressions We shall observe nevertheless that altho the Apostles do ordinarily make use of Words that are mean and received amongst the People and consequently easie to be understood they have a certain form of Phrase and certain Expressions which were proper to those of their Nation which appear sometimes obscure to us because we know not the usage of that time Altho their Stile is oftentimes simple and very plain if we look only to the Grammatical Sense it is hard enough to be understood when we intend to reach the true Sense of their Thoughts The Jews had then ways of Expressing themselves very different from those that are in use amongst us And in this the obscurity of the Books of the N. Testament doth chiefly consist They who Translate those Books into another Language ought especially to take care to keep as close as possible to the Words of the Original For when they endeavour to render the bare Sense without adhering to the Words they run a risque of deceiving themselves and making their Author speak those things which he never thought of Beza and Castalio had great Disputes about this The former alledged that in Translating the New Testament several Hebraisms ought to be retained because it is impossible to render them exactly in another Language Further (h) Cùm saepè multiplex sit ratio Hebraismes explicandi quis non videt rectiùs religiosiùs eos facere qui intactos illos integros sinunt quà m qui suam opinionem secuti nullum conjecturae aut privati judicii locum lectoribus relinquunt Bez. Resp ad Def. Cast seeing those Hebraisms are capable of various renditions it is more to the purpose to keep them than to Interpret them in a Sence which may possibly be false and withal deprive others of their liberty of judgment concerning them Castalio on the contrary was of Opinion that an Interpreter ought to content himself to mark the Hebraisms by Notes on the Margin We shall have occasion to speak more fully of those Hebraisms in the second Book of this History when we examin the several Versions of the New Testament CHAP. XXIX Of the Manscript Greek Copies in general and of those who have spoken of them Collections which have been made of divers Readings drawn from those Manuscripts Observations upon the whole Matter The Hereticks have been accused sometimes but without any ground for corrupting the Books of the New Testament ALtho there have been many Learned Criticks in the Greek Church who applied themselves to correct the Books of the New Testament we do not see that any one Greek Copy has been altogether preferred to others that it might be followed by all the Greek Churches Which was the occasion that there was a great difference observed in the various Copies that were in several Churches Origen who was a very knowing person in this
Chrysostom's and several other Fathers of that Church had the Reading in their Copies in the same manner as these have it whom at this day we call Schismaticks This most unjust accusation is nevertheless very Ancient So soon as ever there is a difference perceived in Copies if this difference do favour the Opinions of some Party they will be sure to accuse that Party of corrupting the Sacred Writings although that difference does for the most part come from the Transcribers Hilary the Deacon has made a general Rule in that place formerly mentioned He assures us (m) Quod fecit studium contentionis Quia enim propriâ quis auctoritate uti non potest ad victoriam verba legis adulterat ut sensum suum quasi verba legis asserat ut non ratio sed auctoritas praescribere videatur Ambros ibid. that the Spirit of dispute that is betwixt different Parties is the cause of different Renditions Every one saith he seeing he cannot on such occasions justifie himself by his own Authority does corrupt the Words of the Law that he may make his own Opinions pass for the Words of the Law. Although that has happened sometimes especially to those ancient Hereticks of whom we spake in the beginning of this Work I am perswaded that they have frequently attributed to different Parties such various Renditions in the Copies of the New Testament as had no other cause Originally but what those have which are found in all other Books How many Divines are there for example who believe at this day that they have taken away from the Ancient Greek Copies the Testimony of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost of which mention is made in the first Epistle of St. John Chap. 5. v. 7. to favour the Arian Heresie Others on the contrary do alledge that it was the Arrians who added these Words expresly to the Greek Text to shew the Unity of the Persons of the Trinity is not an Unity of Essence but of Consent Grotius is of this latter Opinion He thinks (n) Neque verò Arianis ablatas esse voces quasdam sed potiùs additas unde colligerent Patrem Filium Spiritum Sanctum non esse unum nisi consensu quomodo spiritus aqua sanguis in unum testimonium consentiunt Quod cum viderent Catholici abstulisse quidem illud quod de Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto insertum fuerat sed reliquisse illud tres unum esse quia id ita positum nocere non poterat Grot. Annot. in 1. Epist Joann c. 5. v. 7. that the Arians for this reason were so far from retrenching some Words from the Text that they added some thereunto that on the contrary the Catholicks had taken away that which is said of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit leaving only these Words These three are the same which can do them no hurt and which as he thinks were likewise added by the Arians But all this is only founded on Conjectures and seeing every one does reason according to his Prejudices some will have the Arians to be the Authors of that Addition and others do attribute the same to the Catholicks This diversity of Opinions proceeds from nothing else but a neglect of examining with sufficient care the ancient Manuscript Copies and other Records which were necessary for the discovery of the Original of those Variations It would be to no purpose for me to repeat here the Critical Reflections which I have formerly made on that Passage of the first Epistle of St. John it having been made evident in what manner it came to pass that those Words that were neither in the Greek Copies nor in the Latin were inserted in the Text. No credit therefore is easily to be given to all those Accusations of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers against the Hereticks upon the point of the Alterations that have happened to the Sacred Writings We have already seen in the Critical History of the Old Testament that the most part of the Fathers did cast the same reproach on the Jews without any ground Seeing the most part of Heresies sprung up in the Greek Church those who maintain the preference of the Latin Copies of the New Testament do not fail to bring this Reason to shew that the Books of the Latins are more ancient than those of the Greeks But before this Accusation is brought it ought to be examined if these Objections have a good foundation for if the thing be considered in general the Original must needs be more perfect than the Versions unless it be in some places where it may be demonstrated that the Version is instead of the Original which has been altered The Sect of the Macedonians were at another time accused as being the Authors of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. vii of St. John v. 39. where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Ghost was not as yet whereas it is in the Vulgar For the Holy Ghost was not yet given The ancient Latin Interpreter did not read the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Greek Copy which is likewise wanting in some Greek Manuscripts and in others belonging to Mr. Colbert's most ancient Library Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb n. 5149. Neither is it extant in the Syriack Version which makes me believe that it was added and that it was not in the first Original Greek But it must not be inferred from hence that those who favoured the Party of Macedonius were the Authors of that Addition there being the like Examples in other places with which they cannot be charged It is much more probable that it was occasion'd by the Greek Scholiasts who placed the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Margin to shew that that place spake of the Holy Spirit and it passed into the Text afterwards There is also in the same Passage the Latin Word datus which is not read in the Greek unless it be in the ancient Copy of the Vatican where there is according to Lewis of Bruges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is very likely that this Word was added by the Latin Interpreter who had in his view the sense of that Passage where the Gifts of the Holy Ghost are spoken of It would be likewise added after the same manner in the Margin of some Greek Copy We also read in the Syriack Version was not yet given which does wholly agree with the Latin and in the three Arabick Versions which have been published it is in the same sense was not yet come Grotius believed that the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as it is in the Latin datus was added for the avoiding the reproach of the Followers of Macedonius In nonnullis datus ad vitandam calumniam Macedoniorum Grot. Annot in hunc loc But it is not at all necessary that they should have had any regard to those Sectaries to induce them to add
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
had slipp'd Yet he dares not be positive because he knows not the reasons of that great diversity And therefore he adds (r) Fieri potuit ut antiquitùs in quaedam exemplaria Lucae nonnulla ex iis Evangeliis quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 existimata sunt irrepserint quae postea Sanctorum Patrum diligentiâ resecta fuerint Mor. ibid. that possibly they might have inserted in some Copies of St. Luke that which was found in other supposed Gospels and that the Fathers had afterwards been at the pains to retrench those Additions If that Critick had narrowly weighed St. Jerome's Preface dedicated to Pope Damasus he would there have found all his doubts cleared Seeing the Cambridge Copy observes the same Order with all the other Greek Copies of the New Testament as to the thread of the History it does manifestly prove that it has not been on purpose altered by the Hereticks Moreover seeing the alterations that are therein do not introduce any Paradox Opinion but consist for the most part in some words which have been placed instead of others and in some Additions that have been taken from other Evangelists or in bare Illustrations we may infer from thence that all the change proceeded from the liberty that was taken by some at that time for rendring the Books of the New Testament the more intelligible without putting themselves to the trouble of adhering to the words of the Original so long as nothing of the sense was altered The Criticks especially St. Jerome in reforming the ancient Vulgar did at the same time amend those ancient Greek Copies with which he agreed entirely He used for that purpose other Greek Copies which were more exact and especially those to which he had added the Ten Canons of Eusebius These latter Copies which were amongst the Greeks before St. Jerome's time always remained with them which is easily proved by the same Canons of Eusebius One of the most surprising varieties of that Copy is that which is found in the Genealogy of Jesus Christ Chap. 3. of St. Luke for this Genealogy is the same with that in St. Matthew unless it be that it goes up to Solomon in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is manifest that this Genealogy has been designedly amended by that of St. Matthew yet with an Addition of those Persons which he had omitted Beza who has also made mention of this diversity in his Notes upon this Chapter of St. Luke declares (ſ) Quînam autem id sit factum nescio cùm recepta lectio tum Syri ipsius interpretis auctoritate tum Scriptorum omnium Sacrorum proptereà de Matthaeo cum Lucâ conciliando laborantium consensu planè confirmetur cui sanè praejudicium ullum afferre nec velim nec ausim Tantùm dico fieri potuisse ut ipsis Evangelistarum temporibus Judaei genealogiam istam quantum in ipsis fuit depravarint quasi fidem caeteris de Christo narrationibus abrogaturi quae fraus à plerisque non animadversa facilè obtinuerit Bez. Annot. in c. 3. Luc. v. 23. that he cannot imagine how that can be because the Syriack Interpreter and all the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers are altogether against that Copy from whom he neither intends nay nor dares to recede That might as he conjectures have happened from the very time of the Evangelists the Jews having corrupted that Genealogy that they might not believe the other Histories which are recorded in the Gospels There is nothing more ridiculous than this conjecture of Beza who does charge the Jews with a crime which they never thought of besides that it was of no advantage to them because they could not corrupt all the Copies which they kept by them There are none to be blamed for that alteration of the Ancient Copies of the New Testament but the Christians and even the Orthodox as it has been frequently observed after St. Jerome who in his Letter to Pope Damasus has taken notice of the change of which we now speak He says that in those days they took the liberty to amend the Gospels by that Gospel which they had read first Ille qui unum è quatuor primum legerat ad ejus exemplum caeteros quoque existimaverat emendandos It is evident that the Genealogy in St. Luke was reformed in the Cambridge Copy according to this Method and that what was supposed to be wanting therein was supplied from the Old Testament And the accusation supposed to have been brought against the Jews was so far from admitting a sufficient ground of reason that there was nothing at that time so common as Copies as well Greek as Latin of that kind especially in the Churches of the West before St. Jerome had revised the Ancient Latin Edition It would be easie to prove that the Gospel of St. Mark has been likewise amended in some places by that of St. Matthew and further that there have been some words changed for others that were synonymous which appeared to be more intelligible but that labour would be to no purpose because every one may consult the divers Readings of that ancient Copy in the sixth Tome of the Polyglott Bible of England and in the Greek Edition of the New Testament Printed at Oxford It is enough that I have observed the true reason of those numerous variations concerning which the Criticks have given us very wide and even false conjectures Those who revised those ancient Copies intending nothing but to make them clear without being at the pains to confine themselves to the true Reading of the Evangelists and the Apostles have given Paraphrases on them whensoever they believed that they were not sufficiently understood They have also abridged them in those places that they thought intricate by reason of superfluous words which they have also transposed in innumerable places for the same reason Which is enough to be observed once for all in general without a particular rehearsal of the Passages which have been altered in the Cambridge Copy as well in the Gospels as in the Acts of the Apostles This does appear yet more in the Acts because there was a very great liberty taken of reforming that History in the first Ages of the Church Nevertheless whatever change those Books have undergone in the ancient time and that the very words of the Evangelists and the Apostles were not observed yet it will not be found that the sense has suffered any alteration They only endeavoured to make them the more intelligible to the People and for that end it was necessary to refine them seeing they were full of Hebraisms and very concise Phrases which they were obliged to illustrate according to that Method Nevertheless in the Cambridge Copy there are certain Additions whereof the same thing cannot be said because they are plain Matters of Fact that have been added For example Chapter 6. of St. Luke verse 5. after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read in that Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is to say On the same day seeing a Man travel on the Sabbath day he said unto him my friend if thou knowest what thou art doing thou art happy but if thou doest not know it thou art cursed and a transgressour of the Law. This History might possibly have been taken from some Ancient Apocryphal Book where it was common in the first Ages of Christianity and it may be it was then believed that it came from the Apostles or their Disciples And therefore those who presumed to reform the first Copies of the New Testament in so many places upon the bare prospect of rendring them intelligible to all the World would not scruple to add thereto Histories of that sort which they believed to be true We have formerly taken notice of examples of the like nature in the Gospel of the Nazarens If we had at this day a sufficient number of Copies of this nature that were before St. Jerome's time especially in the Western Churches we might discover some other Additions in them which are not known to us at present because we have little or nothing remaining of the Books of those first Ages Although it does not appear to us that the Christians have had Massorets or Criticks like to those of the Jews who have given to the Books of the New Testament that uniformity which is found to have been from many Ages in the Greek Copies and also in the Latin since St. Jerom it is probable that the Greeks followed certain Copies which they judged to be more exact than others and that they were Corrected by learned Criticks These Copies were used afterwards as a Massore or Rule By these St. Jerom Corrected the ancient Latin Edition by the Order of Pope Damasus Let us now examin the second Part of the ancient Cambridge Copy which does contain the Epistles of St. Paul. CHAP. XXXI Of the second part of the Cambridge Copy which contains St. Paul's Epistles Examples of the various Readings that are in that second Part. Critical Reflections upon the whole matter THere is nothing can more contribute to the knowledge of the state of the Greek Copies of the New Testament in the most ancient times of the Church than those Books that were so common before St. Jerom and which are not extant but in very few places at this day It will be in vain to look for them in the Churches of the East because they having been written in Greek and in Latin and with the same Hand it is easie to judge that they could be only extant in the West We are indebted to the Monks for having preserved some of those Copies for us That of Cambridge as has been said was found in a Monastery of Lyons The Benedictine Monks of the Abbey of St. Germain have in their Library the second part of the like Copy in which the Epistles of St. Paul are contained Peter Pithou (a) Vidimus nos aliquando vetustissimum exemplar Evangeliorum literis illis majoribus exaratum adjectis è regione Graecis quòd olim fuisse dicebatur Ecclesiae Lugdunensis Vidimus aliud Epistolarum exemplar ejusdem formae aetatis ex Corbejae majoris Galliae Monasterio quae tanquam sanctioris antiquitatis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non sine religione suspicimus veneramur Petr. Pith. de SS Bibl. Interpr had seen those two ancient Copies which he esteemed for their great antiquity He does testifie that it was believed that the former was brought from the Church of Lyons and the latter from the famous Abbey of Corby in France Christian Druthmar an ancient Benedictine Monk who had been for some time in that Abbey has pointed to us the first part of this latter Copy when he makes mention of a Greek Copy which he believed to have belonged to St. Hilary where the Gospel of St. John did immediately follow that of St. Matthew Christ Druthm Expos in Matth. c. 1. Vidi saith that Monk Librum Evangelii Graecè scriptum qui dicebatur Sancti Hilarii fuisse in quo primi erant Matthaeus Joannes In the Royal Library there is another Greek and Latin Copy of St. Paul's Epistles which differs almost in nothing from that of the Benedictines unless it be that the Letters are not so great nor so majestick although they be the same as to their figure and duration The King's Copy is also more disfigured by reason of innumerable corrections than that of the Abbey of St. Germain For although this latter has likewise been amended in many places the corrections thereof are not so gross Further we may call those two Copies the second part of that of Cambridge because they contain that ancient Greek and that ancient Latin Version which was used in the Churches of the West before St. Jerom had reformed it It is true that that Father in his Letter to Damasus does only make mention of four Gospels which he had revised and we are not clearly informed by another Hand that he had corrected the rest of the N. T. after the same manner But however it be the thing is it is certain that the whole ancient Latin Version was amended and that the same method was observed in that Reformation which St. Jerom does testifie to have been followed in his own practice when in complyance to the Order of Pope Damasus he reformed the ancient Latin Translation Beza in his Notes upon St. Paul does frequently cite that ancient Copy of the King's Library under the name of * Codex Claromontanus The Copy of Clermont He also believed that it was the second Part of that which belongs to Cambridge In which he is not mistaken For it is the Greek and the Latin of those ancient Greek and Latin Copies that were commonly read before St. Jerom's time It is not necessary for all that that both of them should have been written with the same Hand It is sufficient that they are of the same Age. And so it may be said that that of the Benedictines as well as the King 's is the second Part of the Cambridge Copy because both the one and the other do represent the ancient Vulgar to us to which they have added the Greek with which it did agree F. Morin who had borrowed that ancient Manuscript of the Du Puis that he might extract the various Readings that confirmed our Vulgar does in his Exercitations insist at some length on the Bible (b) Existimo versionem vetustissimi illius codicis Graeco textui adversam eam esse quâ Ecclesia Latina ut plurimùm ante Sanctum Hieronymum utebatur quam sanctus ille vir jubente Damaso Pontifice ad fidem Graecorum exemplarium postmodùm recensuit emendavit Jo. Mor. Exercit. Bibl. Exerc. 2. c. 4. He is persuaded that the Latin Version that is joyned to the Greek is the ancient Translation which was read in the West before St. Jerom had reformed it by the Command
of Pope Damasus according to the ancient Greek Copies He (c) Consideratis figurâ magnitudine splendore characteris tam Graeci quà m Latini illius ob vetustatem per seipsum multis in locis dimidiatâ obliteratione passimque subobsâ—urâ delineatione versionis insuper cum Vulgatâ textuque Patrum comparatione S. Hieronymi aetatem istius codicis scripto videtur omninò praecedere Mor. ibid. does also judge by the figure and bulk of the Greek and Latin Characters which are almost worn out in some places by reason of their antiquity and by the Latin Version which he compared with our Vulgar and with the Citations of the ancient Fathers that that Copy was written before St. Jerom. He further adds to prove the antiquity of the same Manuscript a Catalogue of the Books of the Scripture which had been inserted at the end in which the twelve small Prophets are noted with the four great Prophets and the Gospel of St. John before that of St. Mark and St. Luke Moreover the Book of the Pastor the Epistle of Barnabas and some others are there placed in the number of the Books of Scripture It is hard saith F. Morin that all this should be since St. Jerom. Quae omnia Sancti Hieronymi aevum vix subsequi possunt multa minus ipsa codicis scriptio It is true that the Greek and Latin Copies of that kind are more ancient than St. Jerom if we consider the ancient Latin Version which was used in the West before it was Revised by that Father But F. Morin's Reasons do not prove that they were written from that time For it is possible that the Monks who Copied the ancient Books writ out those Copies by those that were more ancient and I believe that this did happen on that occasion As for the Character it cannot be denied but that it is most ancient but those who have skill to judg of them do not allow them to be above a thousand years standing at least it is certain that there are Books of the same Character which do not exceed that time Neither do I seé what can be concluded from Letters that are almost defaced for the antiquity of a Manuscript This only does prove that the Ink is not good The truth is the Copy of the Benedictines which is of the same antiquity and has likewise a greater Letter is still so fair that one would believe by looking upon some of its Pages if judgment were to be given by the Ink and Parchment that it had been but just now written Those who have a desire to preserve those ancient Manuscripts ought to put leaves of Paper betwixt the leaves of the Parchment upon which the Writing is to the end that the Ink may not wear off They might at last have added to the end of those Copies a very ancient Catalogue of the Books of the Bible The strongest proof in my Opinion for evincing the great antiquity of that Copy is that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not reckoned with the rest in the number of St. Paul's Epistles as I have formerly observed but by it self and out of the Body of those Letters that were read in the Church F. Morin did not sufficiently consider that Manuscript when he says speaking of the Catalogue which is put at the end (d) Catalogus ille insertus est codici ante Epistolam ad Hebraeos in paginis quibusdam fortuito vacuis Mor. ibid. that they placed it before the Epistle to the Hebrews in some Pages where there was nothing written as it happened For that was done on purpose the Epistle to Philemon being the last of the Copies of that sort which the Latins had writ out for their use Seeing they did not believe that the Epistle to the Hebrews had been written by that Apostle nor that it was Canonical they did not joyn it to the other Epistles And therefore they inserted that Catalogue of the Books of Scripture immediately after the Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon If Beza had considered the corrections that had been made in that Copy which he named of Clermont he would easily have acknowledged that Books of that sort were never in use amongst the Greeks and that so it was not brought out of Greece as he alledged There are so many faults therein especially in the Greek that it is manifestly seen that it could not have been written but by a person who was altogether ignorant of that Language A good part of those faults were amended and these were not only faults of the Orthography but sometimes of Words They further reformed that ancient Version in many places by other Greek Copies which came nearer to these at this day Which without doubt was done by some Latins who corrected at the same time the ancient Vulgar by St. Jerom's new Edition We will not then with Beza charge the Observations that are placed in the Margins of that sort of Copies on the Greek Priests but on those of the Western Church who had some knowledg of the Greek Language As those Books passed through several Hands so they have received amendments some of which are more ancient than others But after all we still see the ancient Readings as well in the Greek as in the Latin especially in the Copy of the Library of St. Germain which has been revised in so curious a manner that the amendment does often consist in nothing else but in small stroaks of the Pen in the Letters Seeing those two Copies do differ in very few things I shall in the following part of my Discourse make use rather of the latter than that of the King's Library which is more disfigured F. Morin has observed in general (e) Variarum istarum lectionum nulla adeò enormis est atque ut ita dicam varia ut cum iis quas ex priori volumine observavimus comparari possit Paulinarum Epistolarum codex ille vulgato textui priore longè conformior est licet illi antiquitate non cedat Mor. ibid. that the Clermont Copy upon St. Paul's Epistles does not so much vary from the ordinary Copies of the New Testament as that of Cambridge does and that it is also more agreeable to our Vulgar though it is no less ancient than the other The same thing is to be said of that of the Benedictines of the Abbey of St. Germain because they are so much alike that one would believe that the one had been copied from the other The reason of this great conformity of St. Paul's Epistles in the Clermont Copy with the ordinary Greek and the Latin of the Vulgar is evident because he had no occasion to amend those Epistles by one another as the Gospels and they were not so much neglected in the first Ages of the Church as the Acts of the Apostles which had been revised with a great deal of liberty in many places Yet if we carefully examin the places where those ancient Copies of
The Canons to which those Sections do answer are marked by other Letters which do not exceed the number of Ten which is the number of those Canons The Letters last mentioned ought to be read according to the method used by Eusebius for distinguishing them the more easily from the others but Rob. Stephen has distinguished them by a small Stroke which is set over those which mark the small Sections All this was also observed in the Latin Editions of the New Testament with great exactness It is not necessary that I should here produce Manuscript Copies it is enough to consult the first Impressions of our Latin Bibles Those ten Canons of Eusebius with the small Sections are found as well at the beginning of the Gospels as in the Margins of every Gospel in particular in the same manner as in the Greek Copies The Sections are marked by our common Figures 1 2 3 c. and the Canons by the Roman Figures I. II. III. c. It was hard for the Greek Transcribers who writ the Canons of Eusebius to commit no fault by putting some Letters for others Indeed in comparing several Manuscript Copies of those Canons I found some difference amongst them which nevertheless is easily helped unless it be in the places where the Copies do not agree about the number of Sections If we consult for Example the ten Canons as they are in Rob. Stephen's Edition and the most part of the Manuscripts 't is manifest that the twelve last Verses of St. Mark were in the Greek Copies in the time of Eusebius For he marks in the tenth Canon the Section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 234. of that Evangelist and in the eighth the Section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 235. which are included in those twelve Verses Nevertheless it might have been so that those two Sections were afterwards added to the Canons of Eusebius by those who read those twelve Verses of St. Mark in their Churches and so those Canons could not be a certain Rule in that place if it were not known upon some other ground that those Verses were extant in S. Mark before Eusebius Marianus Victorius who caus'd to be printed with St. Jerom's Works those ten Canons of Eusebius at the beginning of that Father's Commentaries upon St. Matthew does in the English Canon mark the 234 Section of St. Mark and in the tenth the 235 Section yet he does only mark 233 Sections in the Margin of that Evangelist and it is worth the Observation that the 233 Section which is the last does answer to these words at illae exeuntes c. chap. 16. v. 8. as if all the rest that followed of that Gospel did not truly belong to St. Mark. This was insinuated by S. Jerom in his Letter to Hedibia where he says that the most part of the Greek Copies had not this last Chapter Hieron Epist ad Hedib qu. 3. Omnibus Graeciae libris penè hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus By this Word Capitulum he understood the twelve last verses whether it be that that Chapter does only contain a small Section as in truth there is but one marked in some Manuscripts or that according to other Manuscripts it does include many However it be it does not appear that Marianus did observe an Uniformity in this matter for he does produce a greater number of Sections of St. Mark in the eighth and in the ninth Canon of Eusebius than he has noted in the Margin of that Apostle Basle's Edition of St. Jerom's Works is more exact upon this matter for there is an equal number of Sections Apud Frob. ann 1526. viz. 235. marked in both those places therein It would be to no purpose to speak of the Chapters and Sections of the Acts of the Apostles and of the Epistles of St. Paul because they may be seen in the Commentaries that have been printed under the Name of Oecumenius I will only in this place add another sort of Division called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lessons This distinction of the whole New Testament into several Lessons is very ancient and they are also mark'd in the Cambridge Copy Although these Lessons are not much different from Chapters if the Word Chapter be taken for Title or a great Section yet we are not to confound these two as some Authors have done There are fewer Lessons than Titles or great Sections as I observed in the reading some Copies where these Lessons are mark'd exactly and there are also some in which the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the end and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the beginning are inserted to denote the end of one Lesson and the beginning of another which was taken from the Greek Church Bibles and therefore we find in the Margins of those Manuscript Copies not only the Summaries of Sections called Titles or Chapters but also the days on which those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lessons were to be read in the Churches The Greek Amanuenses have drawn Observations of this nature from their Church Bibles and of them they composed a Table called Synaxarion which they placed at the Beginning or the End of their Books Seeing this does rather belong to the usage of the Greek Churches than to the cognisance of a Critick who treats of the Greek Copies of the New Testament I shall insist on it no longer nevertheless it is worthy of our Observation that that distinction of different Lessons relating to the reading in the Church has occasioned some small Alterations in some Greek Copies They have taken away for example in certain places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore and some other the like Particles whenever they happened to be at the beginning of a Lesson They have also changed some Relative Pronouns into proper Names It was also sometimes necessary not to leave the Sense imperfect to put proper Names at the beginning of their Lessons and the Transcribers have inserted them in their Copies And therefore caution is necessary otherwise we shall multiply various Readings of the New Testament without any necessity When that happens we need only consult the Greek Church Bibles that are used in the Greek Churches to observe in what places they begin their new Lessons FINIS The TRANSLATOR'S POSTSCRIPT TO THE READER THE former Works of the Learned Author have been well accepted by the public and 't is hoped this may be no less The Art of Critic tho by common mistake subjected to the slavish Drudgery of words under the tyranny of the Pedants is notwithstanding of great use throu the universal course of good Learning and an excellent Assistant to the Arts and Sciences even those of the highest Rank as Theology Laws and Medicine This Art the admirable Industry of our Author hath so applied to Theology as to render the most hard dry and unpleasant Subjects no less delightful than profitable he having conversed with so many Books and
Clemens Alexandrinus hath placed it amongst the other Books of the Holy Scriptures but as it hath been already observed that this Father hath inserted in his Catalogue some Pieces that were not Canonical though they passed under the names of the Apostles it can only be inferred from thence that at least ever since the time of Clement this Epistle was attributed to the Apostle St. Jude When Eusebius makes mention of it in his Ecclesiastical History he doth not set it in the rank of counterfeit Acts but of those concerning which some Churches have doubted nevertheless there are none at this day that do not acknowledge it as Divine and Canonical It is intituled in the Syriack Copy which hath been Printed The Letter of Jude the Brother of James neither hath it any other Title in the Arabick Version published by Erpenius In the Arabick Printed in the Polyglott Bible of England is is Intituled The Catholick Epistle of the blessed Jude the Brother of the Lord. The End of the First Part. The Second Part will be Published in Five Days A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament WHEREIN Is firmly Establish'd the Truth of those Acts on which the Foundation of CHRISTIAN RELIGION is laid PART II. By Richard Simon Priest LONDON Printed for R. Taylor MDCLXXXIX A CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE New Testament PART II. CHAP. XVIII A Critical Observation on a Passage in S. John's First Epistle Chap. v. vers 7. which is wanting in the most Greek Copies Eastern Editions and the most ancient Latin Copies The Preface to the Canonical Epistles in some Latin Bibles under the name of S. Jerome was not penn'd by that Father It cannot be proved that S. Cyprian had the Passage of S. John's Epistle in his Copy THE Reflections which many Learned Men have made on that Passage in the First Epistle of S. John Chap. v. vers 7. have not discouraged me from examining it afresh and consulting the most part of the Greek and Latin Manuscripts that I could find about the same The Greeks at this day in their Copy entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read as the Latin Church these words (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Joann c. 5. v. 7. For there are three that bear witness in Heaven 1 Joh. c. 5. v. 7. the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one Yet 't is hard to find among the Greeks any Manuscript Copies that have that Passage I speak not only of the Ancients but also of those of the latter times Erasmus alledged the Greeks had their Books more correct than the Latin Copies but he is mistaken as it shall appear by what follows in this Discourse 'T is much more probable that that Doctrinal Point was formerly written the Margin by way of Scolium or Note but afterward inserted in the Text by those who transcribed the Copies Such were my thoughts when I perused some of the Greek Editions and there is no less probability that it was supplied after the same manner in the antient Latin Copies which nevertheless happened not till after S. Jerom's time who is not the Author of that Addition which Socinus next to Erasmus had laid to his charge After the most diligent search in the King's Library and that of Mr. Colbert in which there are a great many good Manuscript Volumes I found no Copy that had that Passage in it tho I read seven of them in the Royal Library Codd MSS. Bibl. Reg. six whereof are marked 1885. 2247. 2248. 2870. 2871. 2872. Some of the Manuscripts have Notes but no Scholiast or Annotator does make mention of that Passage neither have I found it in five Manuscript Copies belonging to Mr. Colbert's Library Codd MSS. Bibl. Colb which are marked 871. 6123. 4785. 6584. 2844. Yet some of these Manuscripts are only in Paper and much later than the rest There is also one in 16 well written and I believe since the Impression Yet the Passage in question is not found therein any more than in the rest of the ancient Copies I could produce yet other Greek Manuscript Copies which I have seen whose various Readings I observed but that which most deserves our notice is that in the Margin of some of the King 's and Mr. Colbert's Copies there are small Notes set over against the said Passage which in all likelihood have slipped afterwards into the Body of the Text. Take an Example from the King's Copy marked 2247. over against these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is this Remark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By which we may perceive that the Author of the said Remark understood The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost to be signified by the Three Witnesses mentioned by S. John The Spirit the Water and the Blood And what was formerly written by way of Note passed afterwards into the Text as it often falls out In the same Copy over against these other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Note is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is One Deity One God. That Manuscript is about 500 Years old and there are but very few places therein that have Notes There is the like Remark in one of the Manuscripts belonging to Mr. Colbert's Library Numb 871. For besides these words that are set in the Margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One God One Deity the Scholiast has also added these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The testimony of God the Father and of the Holy Ghost This in my opinion is the original of the Passage in question which 't is very hard to find in the Greek Manuscript Copies tho at this day the read it in their Version This is much more likely than what Erasmus alledges that the Greek Copies he had occasion to inspect were much more correct than the Latin which obliged that judicious person to omit the forementioned Passage in his first Editions of the New Testament in which he was not altogether to be blamed not being obliged to insert in the Impression what he could not find in any of his Manuscripts He has nevertheless been charged with a design of favouring the Arrian Party by the omission James Lopes Stunica has mightily accused him for his unlucky rejecting the said Passage in his Edition (b) Sciendum est hoc loco Graecorum codices apertissimè esse corruptos nostros verò veritatem ipsam ut à primâ origine traducti sunt continere quod ex Prologo Beati Hieronymi super Epistolas Canonicas manifestè apparet Jac. Lop. Stun Annot. in Eras supposing that the Greek Copies had been corrupted in that place But this Spanish Critick We must in this place know that the Greek Copies are notoriously corrupted and that ours contain the very truth as they were translated from the Original who had read ancient Manuscripts does not quote any to justifie his own Sentiments He contents himself with an Appeal he makes to S. Jerome's Preface to the