with Greek Manuscripts agreeable to the Latin he does judge that the former were corrected by the latter He thinks for example that the English Greek Copy where we read Epist I. of S. John chap. 5. vers 7. of the Testimony of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (b) Ad Latinorum codices fuisse castigatum Posteaquam enim Graeci concordiam interunt cum Ecclesià Romanâ studuerunt hac in parte cum Romanis consentire Erasm Apol. adv Jac. Lop. Stun was reformed by the Greeks themselves according to the Latin Edition since the Reconciliation of those two Churches But he will never be able to prove this Besides the places which he alledges to have been corrected have no relation to the Disputes that were betwixt the Greeks and the Latins To which we may add that the Greeks were never greater enemies to the Latins than since their Reconciliation in the Council of Florence The most part of those who had subscribed to that Council were hardly well returned home when they assembled at Constantinople where they protested against all that they had done at Florence The Record of that Protestation is yet extant with the Names of those who subscribed it We cannot enough admire In 1550. Robert Stephen's Fair Edition of the New Testament in Greek in Folio wherein he gives us proofs of his Learning and of his Judgment The Cardinal Ximenes In 1515. to whom we are obliged for his first Edition of the New Testament had made a search into good Manuscript Copies but he has not marked in the Margin of his Edition the various renditions of those Copies having only kept in the Text that which he judged to be the best Stephen has wisely redressed this fault For he has placed the various Readings of six Manuscript Copies in the Margin of his Edition and thus though he commonly follows the Edition of Ximenes in his Text he is not obliged to adhere to it unless he were persuaded that the renditions of the Cardinal's Copy are the best in those places It is no great matter for a Reading to be inserted in the Body of a Book or to be placed in the Margin provided that it be known that those which are in the Margin are taken from good Manuscript Copies as well as those which are in the Text. It were also much to be desired for observing a greater uniformity that those who have published new Editions of the New Testament in Greek had all of them exactly followed the Alcala or the Complutum Edition which is the first and that they had contented themselves to refer to the Margin the various Readings of their Manuscripts Yet Beza has produced a greater number of different Readings in several Copies of the N. T. than Robert Stephen has done But he has only observed them in his Notes which are full of things that serve to no purpose whereas he ought to have placed them after Stephen's example in the Margin of the Greek Text. Neither has he marked all of them that he might not give offence to those who were weak amongst his Party who would not have had so great a Veneration for the Word of God if they had observed so great a number of various Readings He declares that (c) Ad haec omnia accessit exemplar ex Stephani nostri Bibliothecâ cum viginti quinque plus minùs manuscriptis codicibus omnibus penè impressis ab Henrico Stephano ejus filio paternae sedulitatis haerede quam diligentissimè collatum Bez. in Epist de lic ad Elizab. Angl. Reg. he was indebted for the greatest part of those Manuscripts to Henry Stephen from whom he had a Copy that had been compared with twenty five Manuscripts and with the most part of those that were Printed He had besides that a very ancient Copy whereof he makes mention in his Notes the first part of which is yet extant containing the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles reserved in Cambridge and the second part in which the Epistles of St. Paul are comprehended in the King's Library We shall examin in the following Chapter that ancient Manuscript with which Beza was not well enough acquainted The English have inserted in the sixteenth Tome of their Polyglott Bible a larger Collection taken from the different Manuscript Copies of the New Testament than any had been before that time They likewise joyned thereto the observations of some Learned Criticks upon this matter and amongst others that of Luke of Bruges Which cleared the thing very much For a single Catalogue of divers renditions is not sufficient They are also all in a considerable error who have published the different Readings of the Manuscript Copies which they consulted They have not been at the pains to examin those Manuscripts particularly and to observe the good and the evil qualities thereof Which frequently happens because they who produce those Collections have not themselves read those Manuscripts Seeing they commonly depend upon the Credit of those whom they employed in that Work which is very troublesom their Collections are not always exact The New Testament Printed at Oxford in octavo In 1675. ought to be preferred to all other Editions because it contains a greater variety than any we have as yet seen upon it There is moreover this advantage that these various renditions are at once joyned to the Text. But seeing they have hardly done any thing else in that Collection but Compiled that which had been Printed before that time they have not Corrected the faults that were in other Collections with that care that was requisite but on the contrary have encreased them to a far greater number It would be to no purpose to give examples in this place of those errors because I am informed that they intend to publish a new Greek Edition of the New Testament which will be more ample than the former which must needs be very useful if it chance to be well done Stephen Courcel caused to Print the New Testament in Greek In 1658. with a considerable Collection of various Readings which had formerly been in the Possession of Elzevir He has only marked the Varieties without mentioning of the Manuscript Copies whence they are taken Which renders his Work the less perfect seeing he did content himself to point at them in his Preface He had an intention to put forth a larger Edition (d) In quâ si Deus dederit ut eam aliquando adornare vacet Vulgatam Versionem Latinam unà cum variantibus ejus lectionibus aliaque ejus generis plara adjungere meditamur Curc Praef. N. T. to which he promised to joyn the Latin Text of the Vulgar to the various Readings of the different Latin Copies but it did not appear that he was so good as his Word In 1675. For there was published a new Edition of that Greek New Testament which differed in nothing from the former unless
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
Abby of S. Germans only it is placed in the Margin of one of these Copies Cod. MSS. Bibl. Ben. S. Germ. Paris and the Addition is as old therein as the Text it self 'T is true that it is extant in a Copy written eight Hundred Years ago in the time of Lotharius II. But it is strangely disfigured in that place Cod. MSS. Bibl. Ben. S. Germ. in that Copy the Reading was formerly thus Sunt tres qui testimonium dant the words in terrâ being interlined spiritus aqua sanguis tres unum sunt tres sunt qui de coelo testificantur pater verbum spiritus tres unum sunt But some time afterwards the words de coelo testificantur i. e. bear witness of Heaven were defaced to make room for these testimonium dicunt in coelo i. e. bear witness in Heaven All which different Alterations are evident proofs that there was nothing of that Addition in the first Copies which were published of S. Jerome's Bible for which reason it is not to be found in a certain Version of the French Church which is at least a Thousand Years old and which was published by F. Mabillon a Benedictine Monk and the first who in effect seems to have inserted that Passage in his Works is Victor Bishop of Vite who lived a Hundred Years after S. Jerome Take his own words in his Second Book of the Persecution of the Vandals Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius Divinitatis esse cum Patre Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus Joannis Evangelistae testimonio comprobatur Victor Vitensis l. 2. persec Afric Provinc edit Basil ann 1539. Ait namque tres sunt qui testimonium prohibent in coelo Pater Verbum Spiritus Sanctus hi tres unum sunt i. e. And further to shew that 't is most evident that the Holy Ghost is the same God with the Father and the Son the testimony of S. John the Evangelist is sufficient for he says that there are three that bear witness in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one St. Fulgence a little after did also quote him But I refer that to a larger Discourse in the II. Book of this Work where I shall particularly treat of the Versions of the New Testament I know that a great many Men of Learning have alledged that St. Cyprian who lived a long time before St. Jerom had quoted that passage in his Books The Bishop of Oxford brought the testimony of St. Cyprian (h) Cui gravissimae calumniae de D. Hieronymo falsario S. Scripturarum interpolatore amoliendae sufficere poterit Cyprianum citasse non modò ante Hieronymi tempora sed Arii ipsius litem de dogmate illo quod adeò displicet Socino de trino uno Deo scriptorem Joann Episc Oxon. Not. in Cyp. de unit Eccles to justifie St. Jerom's Preface and at the same time to shew that that Father could not be accused of any unfair dealing because he only re-established the Ancient Latin Edition in its first purity Father Amelote who belongs to the Chappel freely declares that the same passage is wanting in St. Athanasius St. Cyril St. Gregory St. Nazianzen St. Chrysostom Didymus and as to the Fathers of the Latine Church in St. Augustin St. Leon Beda and in divers others and yet does assure us that it is extant in a Treatise of St. Cyprian concerning the Unity of the Church But can we imagine if St. Cyprian had had it in his Copy of the New Testament that St. Augustin would not have made use of it against the Arians of his time The truth is after I had strictly examined that passage of St. Cyprian which is the matter in Question I fully persuaded my self that that Pious Prelate had only made mention of these words hi tres unum sunt i.e. and these three are one about which there is no contest and that from thence he would prove the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost to be one and the same It is written says he of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost and these three are one He applies to the Father Son and Holy Ghost what we read in all the Greek and Latine Copies concerning the testimony of the Spirit the Water and the Blood of which it is said that they are one hi tres unum sunt which differs very much from an express quotation of those Words as if they were in the Text it self And that there may be no doubt left but that this is St. Cyprian's true sense of the words it is but consulting the Learned Facundus who was of the same African Church and gives their explication at large evincing the mystery of the Trinity from them Facund prodefens Tri. capit l. 1. c. 3. after his example He does suppose through his whole Discourse that in St. John's Epistle Chap. v. there are only these words extant Tres sunt qui testificantur in terrâ spiritus aqua sanguis i. e. There are three which bear witness on earth the Spirit the Water and the Blood. But he adds at the same time that they are to be understood of the Father Son and Holy Ghost De Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto dicit tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ spiritus aqua sanguis hi tres unum sunt in spiritu significans Patrem in aquâ Spiritum Sanctum in sanguine vero Filium significans His meaning is that the three Persons are signified by the three Witnesses of the Earth the Spirit the Water and the Blood. And the more to confirm his Opinion he adds that St. Cyprian was of the mind that this is proper sense of that passage in St. John. Quod Joannis Apostoli testimonium beatus Cyprianus Carthaginiensis Antistes Martyr in Epistolâ sive libro quem de * Vnitate Trinitate scripsit de Patre Filio Spiritu Sancto dictum intelligit If the Bishop of Oxford had compared the words of Facundus with those of St. Cyprian he had not brought such weak Arguments against Erasmus and Socinus in the defence of St. Jerome who stood in no need of that service seeing he was not the Author of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles nor of the Addition inserted in St. John's Epistle Chap. v. Victor the Bishop not having considered the matter so narrowly brings in the Witness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as if St. John had expresly made mention of them whereas St. Cyprian and Facundus bring it only as an explication of the Witness of the Spirit the Water and the Blood. The same thing hapned to those who caused to Print St. Athanasius's Works with a Table of the passages of Holy Scripture which are quoted therein They have set down at large there the seventh Verse of the fifth Chapter of the first Epistle of St.
I shall content my self to mention here what belongs to the New Testament We read in one of the Manuscripts of the Royal Library that St. Matthew contains 68 Titles and 355 Chapters St. Mark 48 Titles and 234 Chapters St. Luke 83 Titles and 342 Chapters St. John 18 Titles and 231 Chapters Suidas Which agrees with the Observation of Suidas upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless we must in that Author instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 36. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 236. as it is in some Manuscripts and in the Greek Edition in folio of Robert Stephen's New Testament (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod. MS. Biblioth Reg. n. 2861. Moreover we read at the beginning of the same Manuscript of the Royal Library that there is in St. Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 68 Chapters so as they call that a Chapter in that place which is called a Title in the end of the Book and there is the same thing observable in the other three Gospels By which we may know that the word Chapter is taken two ways and that it is applyed as well to the great as to the small Sections When they prefix the numbers of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Chapters to the Books this words does then signifie great Sections and in this manner they are marked at the beginning of the most part of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament in the first Editions of Erasmus in that of Robert Stephen in folio and in some others This is instead of a Table or Index of the Contents which at once does represent the Principal things in a Work. In this manner the most exact Greek Transcribers do mark the Summaries under the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapters at the beginning of their Copies And seeing they have likewise noted them in the Margin of their Copies or at the top or the bottom of the Pages in all the places where those Chapters begin they have for this reason given them the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 titles There is then no difference betwixt Title and Chapter according to this sense unless it be that the Chapters are marked at the beginning of the Books and the Titles in the Margin This I observed in comparing several Manuscript Greek Copies of the New Testament one with the other The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does on the contrary signifie the small Sections that are marked in the Margins of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament by Letters instead of Numbers Erasmus did also put them in his first Editions of the New Testament in which he was followed by Robert Stephen in his Edition in Folio who has likewise subjoyned them separately at the end of S. Mark where he reckons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 236 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapters and at the end of S. Luke where he computes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 342. whereas in the King's Manuscript which I quoted S. Mark does only contain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 234 Chapters The truth is the Greek Copies do not agree amongst themselves about the thing especially in the Gospel of S. Mark. We have already shewn that several Greek Churches did not once read the twelve last Verses of this Gospel which begin with these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and so they might have had fewer small Sections in their Copies than what are ordinarily reckoned Nevertheless there are some Manuscripts where the Section 234. is last marked over against these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. there being no other that answers to the rest of the Text. Moreover it is certain that the Churches where these Copies were in use did read those twelve Verses for they have inserted in that place the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 end and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beginning to note that they began another Lesson there Yet we have no sure foundation here to build any certainty upon because the Observations of that sort have been taken from the Synaxarion or the Church Bibles of the Greeks And so they regulated these distinctions by the Lectionaries which were then read in the Churches to accommodate the Copies of the New Testament to the custom that obtained amongst them The Churches which did not read the twelve last Verses of S. Mark Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2861. do only reckon in that Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 233. small Sections as it appears by an ancient Manuscript of the Royal Library There is another Copy less ancient than that in the same Library Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2856. which does likewise only represent 233. and the last small Section answers to these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to which Rob. Stephen in his Edition made the Section 233. to answer The Churches which did read those twelve Verses reckon more than 233. Sections but they agree not amongst themselves for some have comprehended all those Verses under one Section and in their Copies there are only 234 Sections extant others on the contrary Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2859. have divided them into many small Sections and therefore Rob. Stephen has mark'd after some Manuscripts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 236. I have also seen a Manuscript Copy where there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 241. Further this division of the Sacred Books is very ancient Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 1879. for Justin Martyr makes mention of these small Sections under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius in his Letter to Carpianus which was printed with the ten Canons which he so ingeniously invented for shewing at once that wherein the Evangelists did agree and that which is peculiar to each of them does use indifferently these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Section and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter Denis of Alexandria speaking of certain Authors who rejected the Revelation of S. John says that they had examined all the Chapters Dionys Alex. apud Eus Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In a word There are few of the ancient Greek Writers where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter is not found in the sense that we have observed Eusebius is not then the Author of those small Sections but he made a very profitable use of them in the ten Canons that he invented and which St. Jerom applied to the Latin Copies of the four Gospels in the same manner as he had seen them applied to the Greek Copies Those who cannot consult the Manuscript Copies for this ought to read the first Greek Editions of the New Testament that were published by Erasmus or that were done by Rob. Stephen which is in folio Those ten Canons are rank'd before the Gospel under ten separte Titles and the Application thereof is marked in the Margin of every Gospel The small Sections are there noted by Letters instead of Numbers according to the custom of the Greeks
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
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
this History of the Birth of Jesus Christ and of the Virgin passeth for an authentick Book in the Oriental Churches Biblian in Epist nunenp Authenticus habetur in Orientalibus Ecclesias The Greek of this little Work hath also been printed afterwards at Basil with the Latin Version in a Collection of several Pieces intituled Monumenta Orthodoxa The Title that answers to that of the Latin Translation is thus expressed An. 1569. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Commentary on the six days of the Creation that Leo Allatius hath published under the Name of Eustathius Bishop of Antioch who lived at the beginning of the fourth Century did certainly belong to that Bishop the Protevangelium would be of sufficient Antiquity there is found in this Book a considerable fragment of it that is delivered in such manner that the most fabulous part thereof is omitted The Expression that Eustathius useth in citing it makes it appear that he did not believe it to be of St. James under whose name they had published it but of another James for observe how he speaks (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eustath Comm. in Hex It is convenient here to peruse the History that one James relates of the Virgin Mary However it be we find in the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors a part of the things that are contained in this little History and that apparently come from the Gnosticks who had written many Fables relating to the Birth of Jesus Christ and the Virgin. I admire that the Protestants who have caused this Protevangelium of James to be printed have thought it worthy to be published with some other pieces of the like nature under the Title of * Orthodoxogr edit Basil Lat. ann 1555. ibid. Lat. Gr. an 1569. Biblian ibid. Orthodoxographa Bibliander seriously divulgeth the Impostures of William Postel who had averred that this Protevangelium was the beginning of the Gospel of S. Mark and even the foundation of Evangelical History this he repeats also in a little Discourse wherein he gives his Judgment of this Book Ipse Postellus saith he aestimat Protevangelium ut gemmam inter Libros Theologicos Basim atque fundamentum totius Historiae Evangelicae caput Evangelii secundùm Marcum Biblian in censu judic Protevan In a word he forgets nothing that might set a value on this wicked Piece which he thinks to be recommendable because it hath not been reckoned in the number of the Apocryphal Books with the Gospels of Nicodemus Thomas and many others that are recited at large in the Catalogue of Pope Gelasius But this proves only that the Protevangelium had not been as yet published in that time or that not being translated into Latin this Pope had took no cognisance thereof Indeed he hath placed among the Apocryphal Works a Book that treated on the same Subject as may be judged by the Title Liber de Nativitate Salvatoris saith Gelasius de Sancta Maria Gelas apud Grat. decr 1. part dist 15. c. 3. de obstetrice Salvatoris apocryphus It were to be wished that Father Jerom Xavier a Missionary Jesuit had not inserted so many very improbable things taken out of this sort of Books in his History of Jesus Christ written in the Persian Tongue It would be to no purpose for me to enlarge any farther on the false Acts that have been published under the names of the Apostles it is enough to observe in general that they have been for the most part invented by Hereticks that have been willing to support their Novelties by attributing them to some Disciples of Jesus Christ Hegisippus who lived immediately after the Disciples of the Apostles speaking of Apocryphal Books testifies (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 4. cap. 22. that a part of these Books have been composed by the Hereticks of his time therefore when the Primitive Fathers designed to judge whether a Book were Canonical or not they have examined its Doctrine to see if it were conformable to that which was taught in the Catholick Church they have moreover consulted the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors who have lived since the Apostles to their times that they might by this means know the Tradition Serapion applied these two Rules to the Gospel that passed under the name of S. Peter which was read by those of the Church of Rhossus thinking that it did certainly belong to him whose name it bore (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Serap apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. cap. 12. We have found saith this holy Bishop in this Gospel Serap apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. c. 12. many things that agree with the true Religion of Jesus Christ but there are also some things that are far from it He judgeth in the same place that the Act that had been produced to him was false because it was not grounded on Tradition Not but that the Fathers have sometimes made use of Apocryphal Books and have quoted even false Gospels as for example the Gospel that is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Egyptians is not to be allowed as authentick for this very reason that it is thought to be most ancient and that mention is made thereof in Clement of Alexandria it ought not to be rejected neither under this pretence alone that the Gnosticks and Sabellians have maintained their Errors by this Book The Primitive Fathers who have written against the Pagans and Jews do sometimes follow in their Disputes and even in their other Works the method of Rhetoricians who often employ Reasons purely probable and doubtful Acts after which we must not always regulate our selves This is to be seen principally in the Works of Clement of Alexandria and Origen Clement hath on this account related some Words of Jesus Christ (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. lib. 3. Strom. that are not to be found in the four Evangelists authorized by the Tradition of the Church and he saith that they are in the Gospel of the Egyptians He only quotes them after the Heretick Cassian Clem. Al. l. 2. Strom. and in arguing with the Followers of Basilides he refers to certain Writings attributed to St. Barnabas On the other side the Hereticks making Profession of Christianity as well as the Orthodox have not always recourse to apocryphal and supposititious Pieces to defend their Innovations Therefore to judge rightly of an Act whether it be valuable or not in point of Religion and whether it carrieth with it a Divine Authority it is absolutely necessary to apply to it the two Rules that have been above mentioned S. Augustin's Advice is when any such Difficulties arise (c) Tenebit hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis ut eas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis Catholicis praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt In eis verò quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus praeponat eas quas plures gravioresque
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
manner as they are in the Hebrew Text. But this reason is destructive of it self because he that hath translated the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew into Greek performing it for persons that spake Greek and read the Bible in this Language ought to quote the Authorities of the Old Testament rather according to the Greek Version of the Septuagint than according to the Hebrew Text which they understood not Illyricus adds to all these Reasons that there is no likelyhood that S. Matthew should design to write his Gospel in a Language that was no longer in use because at that time all People and even the Jews themselves spake Greek or Chaldaick Besides that the Holy Ghost who was the Author of these Books knew that the Destruction of Jerusalem was not far off Therefore there is no appearance saith he that he should intend to publish the Gospel in any other Language but the Greek which was the Language of the Empire This Protestant is grosly mistaken when he believes after Erasmus that it is supposed that the Gospel of S. Matthew hath been written in the ancient Hebrew whereas the Hebrew of the Jews at that time was the Chaldaick Language which they had brought with them from Babylon and had only a little altered it It hath indeed been more convenient that the Books of the New Testament should be written rather in Greek than in another Language But here it is only argued concerning the Jews of Palestine to whom S. Matthew first preached the Gospel And since those People spake Chaldaick it was necessary for him to preach to them in this same Language On these grounds all Antiquity hath relied when they have believed that S. Matthew had composed his Gospel in Hebrew He opposeth moreover that S. Macthew saw that the Jews did daily harden their Hearts and that they had an Abhorrence of the Religion of Jesus Christ And therefore it is not credible saith Illyricus that this holy Apostle hath written his Gospel for their sake and in their Language But to what purpose are reasons drawn from expediency against matters of fact that are evident We cannot doubt but many Jews of Palestine have received the Gospel of Jesus Christ by the Ministry of S. Matthew and whereas they spake Chaldaick or Syriack he could not leave this Gospel with them in Writing but in the Language that was spoken by them On this account we may judge of other the like reasons alledged by Illyricus to the same purpose He pretends for example that Divine Providence would never have permitted the loss of so great a Treasure if it were certain that the Gospel of S. Matthew had been written in Hebrew He adds farther that if S. Hierom had been truly persuaded that the Hebrew was the Original of this Gospel he would rather have translated it than the Greek now it cannot be said that he hath translated it from the Hebrew into Greek It is in vain that this Protestant calls the Providence of God to his assistance in opposition to a fact that cannot be reasonably doubted of The Fathers and the Jews themselves make no difficulty to acknowledge that some Sacred Books have been lost which nevertheless cannot be said of the Gospel of S. Matthew since we have it in Greek in a state sufficiently perfect The reason why the Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy is not preserved is because the Churches of Judaea for whose use it was primarily written have not long subsisted On the contrary the Churches wherein the Greek Tongue flourished have always endured and it is through the means of these last Churches that we have yet to this day the Greek Copy of S. Matthew This may serve also for an Answer to the Objection of Chamierus Chamier Panstrat lib. 11 c. 8. n. 8. who could not imagine how it could come to pass that there should have been so great a negligence in the Church in general and in particular in that of Jerusalem that the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew hath been lost from the first Ages of Christianity Nevertheless it is very easie to be apprehended if we consider that the Writings of the Apostles that were read in the Churches were preserved by the means of the same it is not therefore an extraordinary thing to see that the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew hath been lost in the loss of the Churches of the Nazarenes It is in the mean time worth the observing that it perished not entirely from the primitive times of Christianity for the Sect of the Nazarenes who took their original from the first Nazarenes or Christians of Judaea continued for a long time to read it in their Assemblies It passed also to the Ebionites who altered it in some places notwithstanding these Alterations it might always be said that this was the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew especially if respect were had to the Copy of the Nazarenes which was more pure than that of the Ebionites and was still extant in the time of S. Hierom who translated it into Greek and Latin. The other Christians neglected it because besides their not understanding the Language in which it was written they considered the Nazarenes as a sort of half Christians that still kept the Ceremonies of the Law and they rejected the Ebionites as Hereticks Illyricus adds farther to all these Objections that S. Matthew being a Publican was either half a Grecian or a Roman and that for this reason he ought rather to apply himself to write his Gospel in Greek for those of his Nation than in Hebrew for the Jews If this way of reasoning concluded any thing it might be inferred from thence at the same time that S. John who was an Hebrew and whose Mother-Tongue was Syriack or Chaldaick should have composed his Gospel in this Language for those of his own Nations It availeth nothing to oppose simple reasons of conveniency to manifest and clear matters of Fact. Neither is there any weight in a proof that he brings in the same place from certain Latin Words that are found in the Gospel of S. Matthew which are more agreeable as he thinks to a Greek Author than to a Man that writes in Hebrew because the Grecians had more Intercourse with the Latins than the Hebrews But may it not be said that these Latin Words do rather belong to the Greek Translation than to the original Hebrew Besides the Jews of those times who were under subjection to the Romans might have adopted divers Latin Words into their Language This same Principle may serve to resolve another Objection that he raiseth from the word Petrus which is in S. Matthew If this Apostle saith Illyricus had written in Hebrew or Syriack he would have made use of the Word Cephas and not of that of Petrus as if it might not be said that it is the Greeks Interpreter that hath inserted the Word Petrus Lastly he objects that S. Matthew epitomizeth with too much liberty in Chap. xii of his
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
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
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
Bez. Ann. in Matth. believed that they were taken out of St. John and inserted in this place of St. Matthew Nevertheless we read these words in our Vulgar and they are likewise put in the Text of St. Matthew which was Printed with St. Jerom's Commentary But if we examin the manner how he does express himself in that Commentary we shall easily judge that he has not added them in his Edition Indeed the Divines of Louvain have marked 15 Latin Manuscripts in the Margin of their Edition of the New Testament where they did not read them In the same Chapter v. 49. this verse is not in a Manuscript cited in the sixth Tome of the Polyglott of England At the end of the same verse after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rob. Stephen did in two of his Manuscripts read this Addition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But another taking a Spear pierced his Side and there came forth blood and water Luke of Bruges does observe that these words are not St. Matthew's but that they were taken out of St. John Chap. 19. v. 34. In the 64 verse of the same Chapter we do not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by night in three of Colbert's in the Cambridge Copy in the Alexandrine in two of Rob. Stephen's Manuscripts nor in the Marquess of Veles's Neither has St. Jerom expressed these words in his new Edition Chap. 28. v. 2. we do not read these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the door in the Cambridge Copy nor in the Marquess of Veles's St. Jerom seeing he found them not in the Ancient Vulgar has not put them in his new Edition but they are extant in all the other Manuscripts We do likewise read after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in two Colbert's and many other Manuscripts Cod. MS. Colb n. 2467. 4078. which are marked in the sixth Tome of the Polyglott of England 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sepulcher ver 7. of the same Chap. we do not read in the Cambridge Copy nor in the Marquess of Veles these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the dead whence they were in all probability taken away as superfluous Neither has St. Jerome expressed them in his Edition But they are extant in all other Greek Copies It would be to no purpose to run through the other Books of the New Testament for marking the various readings thereof or at least the Principal amongst them Those we have already produced are sufficient to shew that they were not exempted from such changes as length of time and the errors of Transcribers do bring (y) Totum hoc membrum cum Prophetae testimonio in nullis vetustis codicibus reperimus neque legitur in Syrâ interpretatione Adjectum proculdubio ex Joann 19.24 Bez. ibid. v. 35. into Books I have in this Collection rather kept to the Manuscripts of Monsieur Colbert's Library than to the King 's because as I suppose there have been none of the former as yet published I shall handle more at large those different Readings of the Copies of the New Testament in the Second Part of this Work where I shall particularly examine our Latin Edition and the ancient Versions of the Oriental Churches by comparing them with the Greek Copies whence they were taken I have likewise beforehand spoken somewhat of the Method which S. Jerom took in reforming the Ancient Vulgar by the best Greek Copies of his time 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 THE most ancient Greek Copies of the New Testament are written without any distinction not only of Chapters and Verses but also of Words so that we may apply to those Copies that which was said elsewhere of the Books of the Old Testament that they only make one Pasuk or Verse from their several beginnings They did not then know what it was to mark with Points Comma's and other Distinctions which have been afterwards inserted in Books to make the reading more easie and distinct We shall further observe that even since Distinctions of this nature have been in use the most part of Transcribers did neglect them as well as the Accents in the ancient Greek Manuscripts And therefore it is very rare to find such Marks of Distinction in the Greek Copies for above these thousand years past The Copy of S. Paul's Epistles which is in the Royal Library and that of the Benedictins of the Abbey of S. Germain are also written without any distinction of Points and other Stops and altho the Words are accented there it seems that the Accents were added in the King's Copy seeing they are not of the same Hand with the Body of the Book This does not hinder but that Accents and Points or Marks of Distinction are much more ancient than these two Manuscripts But the Transcribers did commonly neglect them There were none but very curious and very exact persons who took care to add them to their Copies Georgius Syncellus (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Georg. Syncel Chronol p. 203. makes mention of a Greek Copy of the Bible that was written before this great Accuracy where the Accents and Points were placed He says that that Copy was brought to him from the Library of Cesarea in Cappadocia and that he perceived by the Inscription of the Book that it had been transcribed from an ancient Copy which had been corrected by the great S. Basil There are also Manuscript Hebrew Copies which have been copied by the Jews It is very rare to find the Points Vowels and the Accents to have been noted therein for sive or six hundred years past This only happens in the most exact Books yet there are some Works extant above four hundred years where there is mention made of those Points and Accents which were in use at that time in their Copies The most ancient Church Writers do likewise in their Works speak of all those Marks of Dictinction which are at present in the Greek Copies of the New Testament We read there of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Section and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter They sometimes observe the places where the Points ought to be marked to remove the ambiguity of a Discourse especially when the Hereticks do observe a different Punctation But after all it must be avowed that there has been nothing determined to the purpose upon this matter Every one did most commonly according to his prejudices mark that sort of Distinctions which depended on the Transcribers and the Expositors of the Scripture And therefore Petavius after having observed what S. Epiphanius and some other ancient Doctors of the Church have brought against some Hereticks about the manner of pointing the third Verse of the first Chapter of the Gospel according to S. John does add (b) Existimo
Orig. l. 1. cont Cels where he acknowledgeth that Jesus hath published nothing of his Actions that we know them only by the Relations of his Disciples in their Gospels As for what concerns false Gospels false Acts false Apocalypses or Revelations and other pieces of the like nature that have been composed under the Names of the Apostles there hath been so great a number of them that it would be very difficult to describe them all exactly Pope Gelasius hath furnished a Catalogue of them long enough which hath been inserted into the Decretal of Gratian Decr. 1. part dist 15. c. 3. and altho these false Books have been almost all lost yet there are some Fragments of them remaining in the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers S. Luke seems to have written his Gospel only because some who had undertaken the same thing before him had not acquitted themselves faithfully therein This is the Sense that the Fathers generally give to the first words of this Evangelist when they explain the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. i. 1. which is translated in the vulgar Latin conati sunt Many saith Theophylact have written Gospels and (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophyl Comm. in c. 1. Luc. vers 1. we have Examples of them in that which is called The Gospel of the Egyptians and in another intituled The Gospel of the Twelve These People adds he have only made an attempt but they have not finished The common Opinion of the ancient Interpreters of the Scriptures whether Greek or Latin is that S. Luke designed to mark out in this place those Writers that durst publish false Gospels Pseudopostolos saith Baronius Pseudoscriptores his suggillatos verbis à Luca firma est Patrum sententia Baron an Christ 58 n. 31. Nevertheless many of them have been deceived when they have produced as Examples of these false Gospels Writings that have not been published till after the time of S. Luke This hath given occasion to some Learned Commentators on the New Testament to doubt of the Explication that the Fathers have brought of this Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who take it in a bad sense in this passage Maldonat after he hath rehearsed in few words what several Fathers have thought thereupon adds (g) A quâ sententiâ non quòd certà mihi ratione probari posse videatur sed quòd omnibus vulgò probari videam nolo discedere Maldon Comm. in c. 1. Luc. vers 1. that he will not recede from the common Opinion altho it be not grounded on any convincing Reason because the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may also be explained in a good sense But whether there were any false Gospels or not before S. Luke published his we cannot doubt but a great number of them have been forged since that time of which the Hereticks have been the Authors I will not here speak of that of the Nazareans which was called also the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Hebrews because I am persuaded that this Gospel was the Original of S. Matthew into which they afterwards inserted some Additions as I shall shew hereafter The Ebionites who read this same Gospel of S. Matthew according to the Hebrews (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 23. had others also which they had substituted under the Names of the Apostles especially of James and John that they might the more easily impose on those of their own Sect by those false Gospels that went under the Names of the Disciples of Jesus Christ They had the impudence even to counterfeit new Acts of the Apostles which they filled with Impieties and Defamations against S. Paul whom they called by way of raillery The man of Tarsus being desirous to prove from thence that he was not a Jew by Nation but a Proselyte and one born of Parents that had been converted from Gentilism to the Religion of the Jews Nevertheless Eusebius assures us that these Hereticks did not receive any but the Gospel called According to the Hebrews and that they had but little esteem for the others In regard that they had preserved Judaism with the Christian Religion Eusebius Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 27. they absolutely rejected the Epistles of S. Paul whom they treated as an Apostate because he had said they abandoned the old Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Gnosticks who fancied themselves to have a more perfect knowledge of Religion than all the other Christians and looked upon the Apostles as Men that were but rude and stupid even when they published their Gospels composed a Work in Verse Epiph. Haer. 26. n. 22. which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gospel of Perfection (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. n. 13. They made use of a Gospel also that they attributed to S. Philip a Disciple of Jesus Christ some words whereof Epiphanius relates Some of this same Sect that was divided into several Branches had invented a Gospel intituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gospel of Eve wherein they scattered their wild conceits under the Name of this Woman whom they considered as a perfect Gnostick who had received great illuminations in the Conference that she held with the Serpent The Sethians who were another sort of Gnosticks who boasted that they took their original from Seth whom they believed to be Jesus Christ had forged (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph Haer. 39. n. 4. an Apocalypse under the Name of the Patriarch Abraham S. Epiphanius observes judiciously that the design of these Gnosticks in publishing so many false Books under such great Names was to delude the simple and to cause them to believe that they were ignorant of nothing concerning the Life of Jesus Christ Those amongst them who were called Marcosians Epiph. Haer. 34. n. 18. had composed certain false Histories of his Infancy wherein they observed after what manner he had learned to read The Encratites who acknowledged for the Author of their Sect the famous Tatian a Disciple of S. Justin Martyr (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 47. n. 1. adhered to the Acts of S. Andrew S. John S. Thomas and some other Apocryphal Books as it were to the Authentical Scriptures Those that took the Name (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph Haer. 61. n. 1. of Apostolical and were a Branch of the Encratites relyed after their example on the false Acts of S. Andrew and S. Thomas (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 63. n. 2. the Origenians whose Opinions came near to those of Epiphanius who was of the Sect of the Gnosticks made use also of the Acts attributed to S. Andrew and of some other Books of the same nature The (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Hierosol Catech. 4. Manicheans had composed a Gospel under the name of Thomas and they made choice of this name of a Gospel to impose on the