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
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
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 Copies as of the Sense whether we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in the following Verse instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the two Vulgars in vobis there being a double difference in these words and it does also happen often enough that the Transcribers do put these two Pronouns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one for the other Vers 15. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is in the ancient Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the two Vulgars Olympiadem Vers 16. we do not read these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor these in the ancient Latin Version salutant vos omnes Ecclesiae Christi Vers 17. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the two Vulgar rogo In the same place after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is an Addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the ancient Vulgar of diligenter moreover after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the ancient Latin Version dicentes vel facientes Vers 18. we do not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor in the ancient Vulgar benedictiones Vers 21. after the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the ancient Vulgar Ecclesiae universae Christi In the last place Vers 24. after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read in the ancient Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the two Vulgar seculorum It may appear by the different Readings which we have now mentioned in the two preceding Chapters how we are to judge of the ancient Greek Copies that were before St. Jerom especially in the Western Churches and to which the ancient Latin Version which was used in those Churches was agreeable It is true that the Vulgar at this day does frequently agree with those ancient Greek Copies but it does also differ from them very often and therefore it cannot be thought according to the Opinion of F. Morin and F. Amelote that we must always prefer the reading of the Vulgar in those places where it does agree with those ancient Copies seeing there are so many other places where it differs from them If that Greek be the true Original of the Apostles as those two Authors seem to have insinuated it ought to be the Original throughout and we must consequently entirely adhere to the ancient Vulgar which is exactly agreeable to it Yet St. Jerom believed that it was absolutely necessary to correct it seeing it was very defective If I were not afraid of being too tedious I would here produce the various Readings of that ancient Greek Copy upon St. Paul's Epistles but I shall observe them more conveniently in the second part of this Critical History when we shall examine the Version of the ancient Latin Interpreter and shall take particular notice of such Places as agree with the ancient Greek Copies that were extant before St. Jerom. 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 WE find in our Libraries several Greek Copies of the New Testament which were written out by the Greeks and were in use amongst them Although they differ in sundry places from one another the most of those differences are but of small importance They agree together in this that they are very little like those which we have last observed that were copied by the Latins This I observed in reading many of those Copies which are in the King 's and in Mr. Colbert's Library It is true that I found none in those two Libraries that were so ancient as those other Greek Copies to which they joyned the ancient Latin Version which was before St. Jerom yet this does not hinder but that there were some of the like Antiquity but they are very rare I believe that we ought to reckon the Copy of the Vatican in the number of which some Criticks have made mention and whereof they have also observed some different Readings in their Works The Copy which is commonly called the Alexandrine because it came from Alexandria in Egypt is likewise very ancient Some of the English Nation after Cyrillus Lucar have observed that that Book which contains the Old and the New Testament in Greek was written more than thirteen hundred Years ago by an Egyptian Lady called Thecle But they produce no certain proofs of this Antiquity It was the Interest of the Patriarch Cyrillus who made a Present of that Bible to the King of England to make it as ancient as he could There have been many Thecle's and they also gave that Name to some Roman Ladies who retired into solitude in the East where their great Piety was admired by the whole World These Ladies understood the Greek Language and were curious to read the Holy Scripture in that Tongue There were also Monasteries consecrated to St. Thecle and it might very well be that that Copy belonged to some Monastery of that name However it be it cannot be denied but that it is very ancient Yet it differs from those other Greek Copies which were writ out by the Latins as it is easie to judge by the various Readings which the English have Printed in their Polyglott Bible Grotius has also made mention of a good part of those various Readings upon the New Testament We shall nevertheless observe that this Critick is not always exact in his citations In short I cannot give full assurance that that Manuscript called the Alexandrine and that of the Vatican cannot be reckoned in the number of those which were writ out by Latin Amanuenses in those Ancient times I make no question but that Cardinal Ximenes consulted the most Ancient Copies of the New Testament when he published his Edition But it is to be feared that some of the readings of those Ancient Copies were inserted therein under a pretext that he found them more agreeable to our Vulgar It is also possible that Stephen's Copy which was compared in Italy with many Greek Manuscripts does likewise contain some readings of those same Copies which were revised and to which they annexed the Ancient Latin Version The same judgment ought to be made of the Sixteen Copies which the Marquess of Veles had consulted and whereof some do in many places agree with our Vulgar It is fit to make all these Observations in general to supply in some sort the negligence of those Learned Men who were not at the pains to give us particular marks of distinction to know what were good and what were bad amongst their Manuscripts Erasmus and Beza who had perused several of those Greek Copies and who signalized their diligence in this matter were frequently mistaken when they spoke of their Manuscripts They were ignorant of the distinction that we formerly mentioned betwixt
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
this day receive it as such Calvin who hath been more moderate herein than Luther hath chose rather to reconcile the Doctrine of S. James touching Faith and Works with that of S. Paul than unadvisedly to reject this Epistle under colour that it appears to be contrary to the same S. Paul. To receive saith he this Epistle this seems to me to be sufficient Calv. arg de son Comm. sur l'Epist de St. Jaq. that it contains nothing unworthy of an Apostle of Christ The Lutherans themselves soon perceived that their Master sometimes gave out Opinions without a due consideration of what he affirmed Raithius who hath made an Apology for Luther confesseth that he had written in the first Edition of his German Bible to this effect that if this Epistle were compared with those of S. Peter and S. Paul it would appear only an Epistle of Straw Epistola straminea but (g) Post majorem illuminationem ut dies diem docet verba illa duriuscula postertoribus Saerorum Bibliorum editionibus sunt omissa nec post annum 1526. in ullâ amplius editione straminea vocatur Raith Vind. Vers Germ. Luth. th 21. after he had been more enlightned these Words were taken away in the following Editions and they are not to be found in those that have been made since the Year 1526. Nevertheless a certain Lutheran published a Book at Strasbourg in the Year 1527 wherein he speaks after a strange manner of the Epistle of S. James He affirms (h) Non possumus hîc defendere Jacobum citat enim Scripturas falsò solus Spiritui Saucto Legi Prophetis Christo Apostolisque omnibus contradicit Testimomum ipsius vanum est Vni ipsi testi credendum non esse supra annotavimus praesertim cum quo ipse Spiritus Sanctus tot testes veritatis dissentiant Ne igitur succenseas nobis lector si duriùs vehementiùs calamo quandoque in auctorem invecti sumus Meretur enim hoc odium hanc spiritûs vehementiam dum aliam perfectionem atque justitiam à nobis contendit quà m fidei Andr. Altham apud Grot. de discuss Rivet Apolog. p. 722. that he cannot defend it because the Author alledgeth false Quotations of the Scriptures and alone contradicts the Law the Prophets Jesus Christ and the Apostles he condemns the Testimony of this Writer as vain boldly affirming that we ought not to believe him being a single Witness especially since the Holy Ghost and a great number of the Witnesses of the Truth do dissent from him lastly this man after he hath taken so much liberty to declaim against the Author of this Epistle adds at the end of his Book that none ought to be offended that he hath treated him so severely for saith he he deserves this hatred because he hath proposed to us another Righteousness than that of Faith. Can there be any thing more insolent than the Words of this Sectary who durst oppose his false Conceptions against the Testimony of all the Churches of the World Socinus speaks with a great deal more moderation and judgment concerning the Authority of this Epistle This Champion of the Unitarians declares that it was doubted in the beginning touching the Authors of the Epistle of S. James of the second of S. Peter and of that of S. Jude because they were found after the Collection of the other Books of the New Testament had been made (i) Cùm postea tempore procedente ex judiciis huic rei aptis cognitum fuisset istas Epistolas illorum ipsorum Apostolorum esse exempta plerisque illa dubitatio fuit sic inter alias sunt numeratae ea quidem quae Jacobi est ante duas reliquas Soc. de auctor Script Sac. c. 1. n. 2. but forasmuch as it was acknowledged afterwards that they were certainly composed by the Apostles whose Names they bore the most part of the Churches did no longer doubt thereof and the Epistle of S. James was placed before the two others moreover with respect to that of S. James he proves the Antiquity of this Tradition by the ancient Syriack Copies Therefore he doth not only receive them as Canonical but believes also that they do certainly belong to them to whom they are attributed Although it be agreed that the first of these Catholick Epistles was written by S. James nevertheless it remains to be known who this James is The Title of this Epistle doth not resolve this difficulty because it is different according to the various Greek Copies and indeed we ought not to relye on this sort of Title that are later than the Authors of the Books It is read simply in some Manuscript Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2872. The Catholick Epistle of S. James and in others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of the Apostle S. James This is also the Title that hath been prefixed in the Vulgar Latin Epistola Catholica beati Jacobi Apostoli and which Beza hath retained in his Greek Edition of the New Testament where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of the Apostle James But Robert Stephen in his curious Greek Edition of the New Testament in folio hath simply put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of James It is no otherwise in Crespin's Edition at Geneva in the Year 1565. It is read according to the same sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Epistle of S. James in that of Wolfius at Strasbourg in 1524. We read also after the same manner in the Edition of Melchior Sessa at Venice in 1538 and in that of Simon de Colines at Paris in 1534 and in many others This is most natural and most conformable to the Greek Text where S. James at the beginning of his Epistle takes upon him no other Quality than that of a Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ Therefore Grotius hath also preserved this same Title and he hath reason not to approve the Opinion of those that attribute it to James the Son of Zebedee because this James had been put to Death by Herod before the Gospel of Jesus Christ was much spread abroad beyond Judea neither doth he believe that James the Son of Alpheus was the Author of it because he would have taken at the beginning of his Epistle the Name of an Apostle which was a quality in those Primitive Times that gave a great Authority to their Words from whence he concludes that it ought to be ascribed to that James whom the Apostles constituted first Bishop of Jerusalem Hieron de Script Eccles in Jac. This is not very far from the Words of S. Jerom in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers James who is called the Brother of our Lord and sirnamed the Just as some think was the Son of Joseph by another Wife but according to my Opinion of Mary the Sister of our Lord of whom John makes mention
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
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