insist (ſ) Principium Evangelii Joannis est obscurissimum quod figuratae voces inusitatae loquendi formulae praecipuè autem diversitas opinionum in verbis Joannis explicandis varietas contrarietas ostendit Nulla enim ferè vocula est certè nulla clausula quae multiplices inter se dissidentes interpretationes non habeat Enjed. ibid. on the obscurity of the beginning of that Gospel where as he thinks we can find nothing but figurative words and uncouth forms of Speech There is not a Word or Diction therein as that Unitary does add but what may be Expounded several different nay even opposite ways This being so I admire the headstrong prejudice of the Protestants and Unitaries who dare oppose the common Belief of all the Churches of the World having no other Foundation but that of Records which they acknowledg to be so obscure and difficult to be understood It is true that the Protestants do not altogether agree about the obscurity of Scripture especially in the most important places but the Unitaries in this matter shew more Candor not denying a thing which is obvious They only desire that the number of the Fundamental Points of our Faith be limited It is not sufficient to study the Greek Language in Profane Authors seeing the Writers of the New Testament have a particular Stile that is abstruse and requires an extraordinary Application Hentenius has very patly observed in his Preface which he prefixed to his Version of the Commentaries of Euthymius upon the Gospels (t) Animadvertendum est Evangelistas Apostolos cùm genere Hebraei essent hac in re sicut in aliis multis Hebraicum secutos idioma quo illi frequentissimè pro praesenti quod proprium non habent aut pro futuro efferunt praeteritum Vtque in universum dicam tempus unum pro alio Hebraei saepenumerò collocant Quod etiam Evangelistae non rarò fecerunt nec solus Matthaeus qui patriâ scripsit linguâ hoc est Hebraeâ sed caeteri qui Graecè scripserunt c. Joann Hent praef Vers Comm. Euthym. in Evang. That the Apostles and the Evangelists being born Hebrews did follow in their Writings the Genius of the Hebrew Language which frequently puts one time for another and has many other things pecuhar to it He adds it is not only St. Matthew who does imitate this Stile of the Hebrew but the other Evangelists do it also That one may be acquainted with this Stile it is fit to read the Greek Version of the Septuagint which the Apostles have imitated It is further necessary to study particularly the Stile of every Book of the New Testament For although they are written in a certain Language which I elsewhere called the Language of the Synagogue every Writer has somthing peculiar to himself Of all the Holy Writers St. Paul is most hard to be understood who sometimes comes to a full stop before he has done which has given occasion to so great a number of Hyperbates or Transpositions in his Epistles Gagnejus who writ very judicious Notes upon those Epistles calls the Reading or Stile of St. Paul Lectionem turbulentam salebrosam i.e. an obscure and rugged Stile (u) Salebrosas illas Pauli Epistolas plerumque lectitanti mihi tam longis byperbatis hiulcas tot anapodotis inabsolutas tantâ sensuum profunditate inaccessas invias visum est non hîc divinatore Apollinis Pythone sed divino Pauli spiritu opus esse Vnde non possum illorum non admirari impudentiam qui cùm non Pauli id est pacis ac quietis sed schismatum ac dissensionis spiritum habeant confestim nullo interprete absque sanctorum doctorum hominum Commentariis quae cavillari solent unos se Pauli mentem tenere impudenter arrogant Gagn. Epist dedic Schol. in Epist Pauli He is persuaded of their obscurity because of their abstruse Stile wherein they were written which he thinks almost impossible to be explained without the same Spirit that St. Paul had He does withal admire the impudence of the Protestants who having quite another sort of Spirit than what the Apostle had do insolently boast that they understand them without any other assistance than that of their own Spirit I should have some cause to glory saith that Divine if I could give some light to St. Paul's obscure Stile which as many think that Apostle did expresly affect Non parum gloriabor si quid lucis Pauli tenebris adjecisse inveniar ut multi putant de industriâ affectlatis But that Apostle in that did the rather follow his Spirit which represented to him many things at once And therefore sometimes he only begins a Discourse and leaves it incompleat nay he raises some objections to which he makes no answer I know that St. Augustin in his Books concerning the Christian Religion Aug. l. 4. de Doct. Christ c. 7. composed a Chapter expresly to shew that there was true Eloquence in the Holy Scripture especially in St. Paul's Writings where he finds perfection of Wisdom accompanied with the greatness of Eloquence But seeing that Father did not understand the Greek Language we ought in this case to prefer the Opinion of the Greek Fathers to his He seems nevertheless in that place to speak only of a kind of Eloquence that he calls Wisdom and which he makes to consist rather in Things than in Expressions If St. Paul was Eloquent because of some Figures which St. Augustin observed in his Stile there is almost no Author but may pass for Eloquent upon that score There is indeed a force in that Apostle's discourse There are very high thoughts and a perfect knowledg of Religion But all this is not called Eloquence according to the common notion which we have of the Word He himself declares writing to the Corinthians who charged him with rudeness of Speech that his discourse was mean and that he had not the art of speaking or did not use enticing words of Man's wisdom St. Jerome does plainly assure us (x) Illud quod crebrò diximus etsi imperitus sermone non tamen scientiâ nequaquà m Paulum de humilitate sed de consciontiae veritate dixisse etiam nunc approbamus Profundos enim reonditos sensus lingua non explicat cùm ipse sentiat quid loquatur in alienas aures puro non potest transferre sermone quem cùm in vernaculâ linguâ habeat disertissimum quippe Hebraeus ex Hebraeis eruditus ad pedes Gamalielis viri in lege doctissimi scriptum interpretari cupiens involvitur Hier. Epist ad Alg. qu. 10. that that acknowledgment of St. Paul did not so much proceed from the deep humility that was in him as from the Truth which he owned because his Tongue could not well express his profound and hidden thoughts That Apostle saith he being an Hebrew and having studied under Gamaliel a Doctor of the Law is put hard to it when
admiscuisse ea quae sunt legalia Salvatoris verbis Iren. lib. 3. adversus Haer. c. 2. There is no way saith St Irenaeus of convincing this sort of People neither by the Testimony of the Scriptures generally received in the Churches planted by the Apostles nor by authentick Traditions because they imagine themselves to be above all this They were persuaded that they alone were in possession of the truth of Religion that contained hidden Mysteries Se indubitatè incontaminatè sincerè absconditum scire mysterium Iren. ibid. And since they had joined Philosophy with Christianity they intended also to accommodate the one to the other They argued on matters of fact after a pure metaphysical manner and being filled with an infinite number of Prejudices and Notions taken from the Principles of their Philosophy they reformed the Doctrine of the Apostles and even that of Jesus Christ on this foundation under pretence of bringing Religion to a greater Perfection They pretended that the Apostles had preached the Gospel before they had a perfect knowledge of the Truth and that therefore they were at liberty to correct them Ante praedicaverunt quà m perfectam haberent cognitionem This was that which caused them to take the ambitious Title of Learned and Knowing Men or Gnosticks as if none but they were endued with the true knowledge of Religion They vainly boasted also that they had reformed the Apostles Iren. ibid. Gloriantes emendatores se esse Apostolorum S. Irenaeus sharply reproves their rashness in bragging that they had made perfect that which was gross and obscure in the Gospel published by the Apostles It hath been necessary to make all these Reflections on the ancient Sect of the Gnosticks because they have applyed themselves more than any others in those primitive times of the Christian Religion to the obtruding of false Acts under the Names of the Apostles or other specious Titles These are a sort of Philosophers that ought not to pass but for half Christians who have altered the Traditions that the Disciples of Jesus Christ had left to the Churches And therefore no regard ought to be had to all the Books that they have produced under what Name soever since they have professed that they understand Religion better than the Apostles themselves and (h) Existentes extra omnem timorem suas conscriptiones praeferentes plura habere gloriantur quà m sint ipsa Evangelia Si quidem in tantum processerunt audaciae uti quod ab his Apostolis non olim conscriptum est veritatis Evangelium titulent in nihilo conveniens Apostolorum Evangelits ut nec Evangelium quidem sit apud eos sine blasphemia Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. c. 11. have been so bold as to publish new Gospels to which they have given the Title of The Gospel of Truth altho these Gospels do not agree with those of the Apostles This alone is sufficient to make it appear that the Gospels of the Gnosticks were false Acts that cannot be opposed to the Apostolical Writings that have been acknowledged by the primitive Churches It were an easie matter to answer Celsus by this same Principle who heretofore objected to the Christians that they changed their Gospel every day adding thereto and diminishing what they thought fit that they might be able by this means to retract that which they had formerly alledged Origen judiciously answers this Philosopher who was a great Enemy to the Christian Religion that he unhappily confounded the ancient Sectaries with the true Faithful He protests that he knows not in the least that the Gospel hath been corrupted by others than the Gnosticks or Marcion (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 2 contra Cell This is not a Crime saith he that ought to be imputed to the Gospel but to them that have dared to corrupt in He brings an Example of the Sophisters whose false Doctrine cannot be attributed to true Philosophy (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. It is the same thing saith this great Man with respect to the Sects that have introduced Novelties into the Doctrine of Jesus Christ which cannot be charged on true Christianity It is certain that in all times and in all places there hath been a perfect Conformity between the different Copies of these Books the Diversities that are found therein and shall be remarked in the Sequel of this Work are not of so great moment as that we may say with Celsus that the Christians have changed their Gospels to the end that they might suit them to their own opinions This cannot be understood but of the ancient Hereticks who having no certain Rules for their Belief reformed them according to their capricious humor This is that for which the Orthodox Christians heretofore censured the Theodosians Euseb l. 5. Hist Eccl. c. 28. who corrupted the Sacred Books under a pretence of correcting them and whereas several among them had taken this liberty all their Copies differed one from another there were of them under the Names of Asclepiades Theodosius Hermophilus and Apollonius that did not in the least agree together I will say nothing here concerning the Gospel of the Marcionites whereof Origen makes mention because I design to treat of it in another place I shall only add that if we compare the Gospels and the other Books of the New Testament with the Liturgies that we have under the Names of several Apostles to whom the most part of the Eastern Christians do attribute them we shall be convinced that the Gospels are truly of the Apostles For all the Churches have preserved them in their ancient Purity whereas every particular Nation hath added to their Liturgies and hath taken the liberty often to revise them The respect that hath been always had to the Writings of the New Testament without inserting any considerable Additions therein is an evident proof that all People have looked upon them as Divine Books which it is not lawful for any to alter On the contrary they have been persuaded that the Liturgies altho they bear the Names of the Apostles or of some Disciples of Jesus Christ were not originally written by them to whom they were attributed And therefore it hath been left free to the Churches to add to them or to diminish from them according as occasion requires The Principles that have been maintained above in discoursing of the Gnosticks may serve to confute the Manicheans who likewise acknowledge nothing Divine in the Scriptures but that which pleased them or rather was agreeable to their Fancies This caused S. Austin to say addressing himself to Faustus who was one of the chief of this Party (l) Tu es ergo regula veritatis Quidquid contra te fuerit non est verum Aug. lib. 11. cont Faust c. 2. You are then the Rule of Truth whatsoever is against you is not true He clearly demonstrates to them that they were only upheld with false prejudices when
they rejected the Writings of the Apostles against the Authority of all the Churches of the World and at the same time received the Apocryphal Books that had no Authority If any one continues this Father should oppose you and should make use of your own words that that which you alledge on your behalf is false and on the contrary that which is against you is true (m) Quid ages Quò te convertes Quam libri à te prolati originem quam vetustatem quam seriem successionis testem citabis Aug. ibid. what would you do How could you defend the truth of those Acts that you produce How could you prove their Antiquity not having any Witnesses in Tradition by whose Testimony they might be confirmed From whence he concludes (n) Vides in hac re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat auctoritas quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorum usque ad hodiernum diem succedentium sibimet Episcoporum serie tot populorum consensione firmatur Aug. ibid. that it is absolutely necessary on this occasion to have recourse to the Authority of those Churches that were established ever since the primitive times of the Christian Religion and to the consent of Nations that have received the Books of the New Testament from the Apostles He observes further and more close to the purpose that if it were only disputed concerning the variety of Copies since they are but few in number it would be sufficient to consult the Copies of different Countries and if they did not agree in this point the greater number should be preferred before the lesser or the more ancient before the later Plures paucioribus aut vetustiores recentioribus praeferrentur But the Manicheans who judged not of the Truth of these Books but with relation to their own Ideas refused to submit to this Authority they consulted only their reason in matters of Fact wherein all Deference ought to be given to Authority therefore when any passage was urged to them that thwarted their Opinion they boldly affirmed that that part had been corrupted or that the Book wherein it was found had been composed by some Impostor under the name of the Apostles Faustus for example who avouched that after having diligently perused the Books of Moses he could not find therein any Prophecy that had any regard to Jesus Christ takes this method in answering the Texts of the New Testament Where express mention is made of these Prophecies Jesus Christ saith in speaking of himself Moses hath wrote of me Faustus answers to this Joann v. 46. that after a serious examination of this passage (o) Ratione cogebar in alterum è duobus ut aut falsum pronunciarem capitulum hoc aut mendacem Jesum sed id quidem alienum pietatis eraè Deum existimare mentitum Rectius ergo visum est scriptoribus adscribere falsitatem quam veritatis auctoritati mendacium Apud Aug. lib. 16. contra Faust c. 2. his reason obliged him to conclude either that it was false or that Jesus Christ had not spoken the truth and since it would be no less than impious Blasphemy to say that God could lie it would be more adviseable to attribute the falsification to the Writers themselves When it was demanded of this Heretick why he did not receive the Old Law and the Prophets whom Jesus Christ himself hath authorised in the New Testament by his words I am not come to destroy the Law or the Peophets Matth. v. 17. but to fulfil them he objected against the Testimony of S. Matthew because he is the only Evangelist that hath related this It is supposed saith he that this Discourse was delivered in the Sermon that Jesus Christ made on the Mountain In the mean time S. John (p) Testis idoneus tacet loquitur autem minùs idoneus Apud Aug. cont Faust lib. 17. c. 1. who was there present speaks not a word thereof and yet they would have S. Matthew who saw nothing to mention it He pretends that this hath been wrote by some other person and not by S. Matthew After this manner the Manicheans who sacrificed all to their Reason and almost nothing to Authority entirely destroyed the Books of the New Testament receiving them no farther than they were conformable to their Prejudices they had formed to themselves a certain Idea of Christianity after which they regulated the Writings of the Apostles They would have it that all that which could not be adjusted to this Idea had been inserted in their Books by later Writers who were half Jews Faustus saith Multa enim à majoribus vestris eloquiis Domini nostri inserta verba sunt Apud Aug. l. 33. cont Faust c. 3. quae nomine signata ipsius cum fide non congruant praesertim quia ut jam saepe probatum à nobis est nec ab ipso haec sunt nec ab ejus Apostolis scripta sed multa post eorum assumptionem à nescio quibus ipsis inter se non concordantibus Semi-Judaeis per famas opinionesque comperta sunt c. But S. Augustin represents to them in this very same passage that one must renounce common sense to argue after this manner on matters of Fact to which imaginary reasons ought not to be opposed (q) De quo libro certum erit cujus sit si literae quas Apostolorum dicit tenet Ecclesia ab ipsis Apostolis propagata per omnes gentes tantâ eminentiâ declarata utrùm Apostolorum sint incertum est hoc erit certum scripsisse Apostolos quod huic Ecclesiae contrarii haeretiot proferunt Auctorum suorum nominibus appellati longè post Apostolos existentium Aug. ibid. We cannot be certain saith he of any Book if once we call in question those Works that the Church that is extended throughout the whole World receives with a common consent and if on the contrary we authorise as Apostolical Books that dispute therewith and that carry the name of Writers who have lived a long time after the Apostles He charges them (r) Legunt Scripturas apocryphas Manichaei à nescio quibus fabularum sutoribus sub Apostolorum nomine scriptas quae suorum scriptorum temporibus in auctoritatem sanctae Ecclesiae recipi mererentur si sancti docti bomines qui tunc in hac vita erant examinare talia poterant eos vera locutos esse cognoscerent Aug. cont Faust lib. 22. c. 79. with making Fables and Apocryphal Works to pass for Apostolical Writings and he shews at the same time the falsity of these Acts because they have not any testimony of the Doctors of the Church that were then living He urgeth Faustus to prove what he hath alledged by Books that are Canonical and generally received in all the Churches Non ex quibuscunque literis sed Ecclesiasticis Canonicis Catholicis Aug. l. 23. adv Faus c. 9. This Holy Doctor calls this way
Miracles of Jesus Christ are evident Proofs of his Mission And therefore if it should be supposed with them that the Passages we speak of are not always justly applyed it cannot be concluded from thence that the Christian Religion is built on a false Foundation That we may make a right judgment of the Reasonings of Jesus Christ and his Disciples in the Books of the New Testament we must have recourse to the practice of the Jews at that time and if it be proved that their manner of reasoning and applying to the Messias certain Passages of Scripture is agreeable to the usage of that time they cannot without great injustice be blamed They will be sufficiently acquitted of that which is charged upon them if we consult the ancient Books of the Jews especially the Chaldaick Paraphrases and the Medraschim or ancient Allegorical Commentaries They have in those Works attributed to the Messiah many Places of Scripture which seem to have a quite different sense if the Letter be only considered The Rabbins likewise give two senses to many Passages one of which is merely Historical and another that is more large which in some sort may be called Mystical or Allegorical although in effect it is as much literal in its own nature as the former Thus they expound the same Passage of David and of the Messias All their old Medraschim or Allegorical Commentaries which are the most ancient Expositions that they have of the Bible follow this Method Their Doctors never began to insist on the literal sense till they had occasion to dispute with the Christians and it was easie to make Answer to them according to no other Principles than those which they themselves had established Why then do they think it strange that the Evangelists and Apostles who came from amongst them should make use of the same Principles to oppose them Why do they perswade us that in the matter of the Messiah there ought to be no such Proofs used as are Founded on the Mystical Allegorical sense of Scriptures since they themselves have always observed that Method The truth is if the Jews be much press'd about those Passages of the Old Testament which they make use of to confirm the belief of a Messiah which they have placed amongst the Fundamental Articles of their Religion it will be hard enough for them to Answer those Objections that may be brought against them upon the point unless they have recourse to those Mystical and Allegorical senses which being Founded upon the Tradition of their Fathers ought to pass for real Proofs There has been a certain Rabbin amongst their ancient Doctors who absolutely denied that the Messiah should come because he did not believe that it was Founded upon the literal and evident Proofs of Scripture They did not for all that exclude him from their Communion by which it does appear that the Article was not yet at that time in the number of those they call Fundamental The Jews do renounce their Principle when they object against the Disciples of Jesus Christ that their Expositions are not purely literal but Allegorical and that there can nothing be concluded from an Allegory 'T is true that that which is meerly Allegorical cannot suffice as a positive Proof for the Confirmation of a Religion But when those Allegories are Founded on Tradition they may be used and applyed to Matters of Fact which are already agreed upon by that Tradition In this manner all the Objections of the Jews may be Answered without a particular enumeration of those Passages which they pretend to have been falsly applied to our Messiah in the New Testament for they cannot abdicate that Principle which is taken from their own Doctors and their Custom lest they themselves should renounce the belief of a Messiah to come Moses Bar-cepha a Syrian Author having considered this Truth (m) Sicut inter haereticos qui contendun minimè convenire ut Veteris Testamenti scripta mysticè atque aliter quà m de ipsis rebus interpretentur graviterque accusant eos qui contrà faciunt At qui si ita statuas multa ut consequantur absurda necesse est obfirmabitur Manetis Marcionis sententia qui dicebant Vetus Testamentum nequaquam ab auctore Deo Christi Patre esse Praetereà nisi in illo recondita fuerint arcana sensa unde potuere prisci Patres Prophetae aliique sancti viri intelligere Christum olim venturum Denique si ita cum illis haereticis sentimus profectò in Judaismum incidimus Mos Barcepha Comm. de Parad. part 1. c. 3. does put those in the number of Hereticks who alledge that the Old Testament ought not to be Mystically Explained but only Literally and according to the Historical Sense If that be so says that Author the Heresies of the Manichees and the Marcionites are thereby set up It cannot henceforth be shewn whence the ancient Fathers and the Prophets had the account which they gave us of the coming of the Messiah In a word he does assure us that that Opinion is mere Judaism To which it may be added that it is mere Sadduceism for the true Jews are all agreed that a Sense that is merely Literal and Historical separated from Tradition cannot in any wise confirm the Articles of their Religion This Principle is so true that the Antitrinitarians who refuse to receive the Traditions of the Catholicks in the Disputes betwixt them and who do only admit the Literal Expositions of Scripture without any dependance on Tradition do plainly see themselves obliged to acknowledge some other Sense than what is Literal when they are to enter into the Lists with the Jews This does plainly appear in the Works of Socinus Enjedine and of some other Unitaries In which they give evident proofs of the inconstancy of their Principle They did not foresee that whilst they framed certain Maxims against the Catholicks they did at the same time give Authority to Sadduceism and Manicheism Faustus one of the Heroes of the Manichean Party not finding in the Books of Moses any Passage which he could literally understand of Jesus Christ and otherwise perceiving that it was in plain terms asserted in the New Testament that Moses had written concerning Jesus Christ chose rather to say that the Writings of the Evangelists had been corrupted than to renounce his own Principle There was a greater Harmony manifest in his Reasonings and Maxims than in those of the Antitrinitarians who received Tradition in some things and in others did reject it They argue against the Jews in the matters of Religion after another manner than against the Catholicks seeing those things do consist in matters of Fact they cannot be proved merely by the light of Reason Tradition is likewise to be consulted And therefore so long as the Jews shall with bare Reasons oppose the Exposition of the Passages of the Old Testament which the Evangelists and the Apostles have cited in the New they
A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament WHEREIN Is firmly Establish'd the Truth of those Acts on which the Foundation of CHRISTIAN RELIGION is laid By Richard Simon Priest LONDON Printed for R. Taylor MDCLXXXIX THE PREFACE THe Church from the first and most early Ages of Christianity has been constantly furnished with some Learned Men by whose diligent care the Sacred Writings have been purged from those Faults which by the tract of Time have insensibly crept into them This kind of Labour which requires an exact knowledg of Books joyned with a strict enquiring into the Manuscripts is termed Critical in as much as it Judges and Determines the most Authentick Readings which ought to be inserted into the Text. By this means Origen acquired his Reputation not only in Greece but universally over the Eastern part of the World where the Bibles of his Correction are by the general consent preferred to all others St Jerom who may justly be stiled the Latin Origen has done very great Service to the Western Church by his Critical Correction of the Latin Bibles in Vse in those Churches Pope Damasus very sensible of his profound Learning obliged him to review the ancient Latin Version of the Gospels which was then in a very miserable Condition This look'd like too bold an Attempt and seemed above the force of any private Person who could never hope to escape the Hatred of a multitude of Persons in the free exercising his Censure of Books which had long stood in the peaceable Possession of an universal Reputation In short though it might perhaps be for the benefit of the Church it was yet a dangerous matter to attempt a Reformation of those ancient Errors which derive their Authority from their Age. Pius Labor Hieron Praef. in Evang. ad Dam. sed periculosa praesumptio judicare de caeteris ipsum ab omnibus judicandum senis mutare linguam caneseentem jam mundum ad initia retranere parvulorum 'T is a pious Work says that ancient Father but very hazardous that he exposes himself to the universal Censure who teaches old Men to change their Language and reduce the decaying World to a State of Infancy But considering on the one Hand the powerful Protection and Patronage of so great a Pope and being on the other abundantly convinc'd of the manifest defect of that Translation which had prevailed universally in the West he resolved rather to expose himself to the Malice of an infinite number of ignorant Persons than fail in the discharge of his (a) Quis enim doctus pariter vel indoctus cùm in manus volumen assumpserit à salivâ quam semel imbibit viderit discrepare quod latitat non statim erumpat in vocem me falfarium me clamitans elle sacrilegum qui audeam aliquid in veteribus libris addere mutare corrigere Hieron Praef. in Evang. ad Dam. Duty He knew very well the charge of Innovation and Forgery that would be drawn up against him for endeavouring to alter those ancient Books which till his time had remained perfectly inviolable But here he encouraged himself by the Precedents of Origen Pierius and some other able Criticks who had performed the very same thing in the Greek Original which he then attempted in the Latin Copies of the Gospel For which reason he stoutly deposed all those which after his Reformation remained Bigots to the ancient Latine Version Revertimur ad nostros bipedes asellos Hieron Epist ad Marcell illorum in aure buccinâ magis quà m citharâ concrepamus Illi legant spe gaudentes tempori servientes nos legamus spe gaudentes Domino servientes But time did Justice to that Father And 't is a very difficult matter at present to find any Copies of that Latine Version which was then in Vse in the Western Church Yet enough there are extant to be read as a Memorial to convince those who defend Errors meerly out of Veneration for their Antiquity that St. Jerome has done the Church no small Service in Correcting and Reviewing the ancient Latine Copies according to the strictest Rules of Criticism This we endeavour to demonstrate in this work and that the most ancient Greek Exemplars of the New Testament are not the best since they are suited to those Latine Copies which St. Jerome found so degenerous as to need an Alteration Father Morin and after him Father Amelot who take such pride in those Noble and Venerable Manuscripts on account of their great Antiquity never mind that a thousand or twelve hundred years can never warrant them correct since there is evident proof of their Corruption before that time It was necessary that I should examine to the bottom the Circumstances of these Greek Texts which have been produced to this Time. It is not sufficient to consult those Manuscripts with design only to mark their Antiquity and quote the different Readings There is required a great deal of Discretion and Judgment otherwise we shall mistake those Books which are altered for Primitive and Apostolical Exemplars which is the Case of the two Authors we are about to name Erasmus who was well enough furnished with those sorts of Manuscripts is nevertheless guilty of very gross Errors He accuses the Greeks without reason for correcting in some places their Copies by those of the Latin after their Re-union with the Roman Church This groundless Accusation can proceed from nothing but the want of knowledge of the Criticisms of those Copies which he consulted Beza who was Master of a greater Collection of Manuscripts of the New Testament than Erasmus though assisted too by both Robert and Henry Stephens has not well distinguished the worth of his Manuscript Copies whence I found my self in some places obliged to correct his Errors This Man was so prejudiced by his Religion as to accuse the Italians of Corrupting the old Text and forcing it to a Compliance with their Opinions This Critical History contains divers other Remarks of the like Nature upon the Manuscript Copies of the New Testament both in Greek and Latine My principal aim is to write a Supplement to the Defects of those who compile the different Readings out of the Manuscripts without distinguishing the Good from the Bad. To which intent it is necessary to read a great quantity and nearly examine them in a Critical manner This Art whose difficulty appears formidable to some Divines in this Age made part of their Occupation of some Ladies in St. Jerome's time Who not content to read the Scripture in the Vulgar Tongue dispersed among the People they diligently enquired after the correctest Copies learning those very Tongues in which they were writ I assert nothing which cannot be maintained by the Letters of those Pious Ladies and the answers of that Learned Father who has had oftentimes a difficult Task to satisfie those Questions they propose on matters purely Critical St. Jerome had advanced that the Apostles had never
cited any Passage in the Old Testament which did not perfectly agree with the Hebrew Text. Eustochium Hieron Prooem in lib. 16. Comm. in Isai who perfectly understood the Greek and Hebrew Languages opposed him with such powerful Arguments that he was forced to own himself almost overcome with the strength of her Objections Quod cùm audissem quasi à fortissimo pugile percussus essem coepi tacitus aestuare It is no strange thing to find those Ages when Barbarism reigned over all Europe neglect Critical Studies Then they wanted abundance of those helps which they now enjoy to pursue those Studies which are absolutely necessary to a perfect Knowledg of Divinity But that which amazes me is that in this very Age this Art should still remain in contempt and those Men be thought no more than Grammarians who apply themselves to it Besides we cannot but see the manifest Errors of some Divines in this Age who know not the true Laws of Criticism It is worth observing that the ancient Hereticks have been perpetually accused of having corrupted the Books of the New Testament and perverted them to their own sence That has often been thought a wilful and designed Corruption which proceeded only from the fault of the Transcribers or difference of Copies The Ecclesiastical Writers of the first Ages have not done that strict Justice to the Hereticks of their times in relation to the New Testament that they have given the Jews in the Disputes about the different manners of explaining the Old Testament Those pretended Corruptions presently vanish upon Examination of the ancient Manuscripts and the Original of the various Readings Wherefore in this Piece I have justified the Arrians Nestorians and the rest of the Sectaries from that Imputation of having falsified the Originals of the Evangelists and Apostles to maintain their Innovations We have also plainly evinc'd by some considerable Examples that the most Learned Criticks of our Age are not exempted from those Prejudices in their declaring too freely those Hereticks falsifiers of the Text. The case of some other Sectaries is not the same who declared themselves openly against the Writings of Christ's Disciples which they have corrected and altered according to their own Idea's of the Christian Religion Some daring to forge Supposititious Gospels and Acts the better to give authority to their Fopperies It would be very pertinent for the better Distinction of all the Genuine Pieces of the New Testament to make a Collection of those ancient Acts and diligently examine them Wherefore we have not concealed any of those Arguments which those Hereticks or the other Enemies of Christianity have brought to destroy the Truth of those Books which were received by all the Catholick Churches But as it would be a pernicious thing to expose these ill things without administring Remedies too proper for the cure we have also produced the strongest Reasons which the Ecclesiastical Writers have brought against them We intreat the Protestants to make Reflection on these matters and observe those methods of the first Ages of the Church for establishing the Authority of the Sacred Writings They will find nothing impertinent in the Conduct Irenaeus Tertullian and the rest of the Defenders of those Writings did not object to the Enemies of the Christian Religion their private Spirit which perswaded them of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture but very substantial Reasons void of all such Fanaticism Tho they were sufficiently perswaded of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture they never objected to the Adversaries that it had imprest upon it such lively Characters of its Original that it was a very difficult matter not to acknowledg it when read with a Spirit of Submission and Humility Their Adversaries being Philosophers who consulted their natural Reason they opposed them from sure and indisputable Principles Again I thought in a Work of this nature not convenient to suppress the principal Objections of the Jews against the Books of the New Testament For although this miserable Nation is an Object of the contempt of the whole World yet has there appeared among them Men of great Address and Subtilty in the Disputes against the Christians which I have often found true in my own Experience when I have endeavoured to convince them by their own Principles Since their Plea for Prescription is better and their Pretensions are that the Disciples of Jesus the Son of Mary had no reason to change their Religion which was delivered them by the Fathers It is but necessary to examin what they object against the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles In this Critical History I have treated divers other important Questions And where I deviate from the Methods of the Divines of the School it is because I have found a more secure way I have employed all my strength to avoid the advancing any thing that is not grounded on authentic Records instead of which the School-Divinity teaches us to doubt of the most certain Our Religion consisting principally in Matters of Fact the Subtilties of Divines who are not acquainted with Antiquity can never discover certainty of such matters of Fact They rather serve to confound the Vnderstanding and form pernicious Difficulties against the Mysteries of our Religion Let it not seem strange to any Person that I recede from the Opinions which are generally received in the Schools and prefer to the Sentiments of whole Vniversities the new Opinions of some modern Divines which can hardly be taxed as novel when they are found conformable to the Ancient Doctors of the Church This I speak in reference to that Passage where I handle the Dispute which was formerly between the Divines of Louvain and Doway and the Jesuits of that Country concerning the inspiration of the sacred Books The Doctors of both Faculties censured the Propositions of the Jesuites of Louvain in a manner very injurious to the whole Society But after a due examination of the Reasons on which their grave Gentlemen founded their Censure I could hardly believe their Authority alone a sufficient Rule to oblige me to assent I propose Truth alone to my self in this Work without any Deference to any Master in particular A true Christian who professes to believe the Catholick Faith ought not to stile himself a Disciple of S. Austin S. Jerome or any other particular Father since his Faith is founded on the word of Jesus Christ contained in the Writings of the Apostles and constant Tradition of the Catholick Churches I wish to God the Divines of the Age were all of that opinion we then should not have seen so many useless Disputes which only prove the causes of Disorders in Church and State. I have no private Interest which obliges me to any Party the very name of Party is odious to me I solemnly protest I have no other intentions in composing this Work than the benefit of the Church and the establishing the most sacred and divine thing in the World. It is useless
in the proper Languages of the respective Authors A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament Wherein is establish'd The Truth of those ACTS on which CHRISTIANITY is founded PART I. CHAPTER I. The Verity of the New Testament defended in general against the ancient Hereticks Reflections upon the Principle made use of by the Fathers to establish the Authority of these Books JEsus Christ having profess'd that he came not into the World to destroy the Old Law but rather to accomplish it Matt. v. 17. it seemed not to him necessary to publish his Doctrine in Writing He was content to prove his Mission by his Miracles and to support his Reformation upon the Books of the Old Testament which were received by all the Jews to whom the Messias had been promised So that we do not find him to have given order to his Disciples to putany thing into Writing He only commands them to Preach his Gospel to all the Nations of the Earth Go ye says he to them Mar. xvi 15. into all the world and preach the Gospel The Books of the New Testament took their Original from this preaching This it was that caused Tertullian to say (a) Constituimus in primis Evangelicum instrumentum Apostolos autores habere quibus hoc munus Evangelii promulgandi ab ipso Domino sit impositum Tertul. l. 4. adv Marcion c. 2. That the Apostles to whom Jesus Christ had given this Command to promulge the Gospel were the Authors thereof Upon the whole matter the Gospels had not been put in Writing but at the request of those People who were willing to preserve the memory of that which the Apostles had preached to them S. Paul composed the greater part of his Epistles for the Instruction of Churches which were already erected That History which we call the Acts of the Apostles was published to no other end but to shew to the Faithful the Progress of the Christian Religion upon its first advance into the World and the Christians not having at that time any State separate from that of the Jews and being present and assisting at all their Ceremonies in the Temple and in the Synagogues they had no Persons appointed to record any thing of importance which pass'd among them And this is the reason that we find not here as in the Old Testament any publick Writers who had the Charge of collecting the Acts of their State. This during the Primitive times of Christianity gave a pretence to several Hereticks to doubt of the truth of those Apostolical Books which to them seem'd to want some publick Attestation S. Ignatius in one of his Epistles complains (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignut Ep. ad Philad That he understood there were some men who said they could not believe the Gospel except they could find it written in the * There are some who read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ancients Archives The holy Martyr answers them That it was written that the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and a Faith in him were instead of the most authentick Archives It was then difficult to distinguish the Books which had been composed by the Apostles or by their Disciples from those which had been forged by false Apostles or by some Sectaries Every one bore in its front either the Name of the Apostles in general or of some single one of their number and since there were no publick Archives to which recourse might be had for the deciding and clearing of matters of this nature the Hereticks took occasion from thence to publish a great number of false Acts of which hardly any thing is left to Posterity except the Titles of them and a few Fragments These Sectaries boasted that they taught the Doctrine of the Apostles or at least of their Disciples Basilides who was one of the most ancient Hereticks avouched that he had for his Master (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Clem. Alex. lib. 7. Strom. Glaucias one of St. Peter's Interpreters Và lentin affirmed with the same boldness that he had been instructed in Religion by Theodad (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apud Clem. Alex. ibid. who was one of St. Paul 's familiar Acquaintance But whereas they did not agree amongst themselves and on the contrary the Doctrine of the Apostles was perfectly uniform in the Churches that they had planted the Fathers made use of this Uniformity of Doctrine to confirm and establish the truth of the Apostolical Writings Clemens Alexandrinus answers Basilides and Valentin that there was but one true ancient Church that was before all Heresies From thence he brings an unquestionable proof of the falsity of the Doctrine of these Sectaries who durst be so bold as to give the Name of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of the Apostles to their own Inventions he represents to them that (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. ibid. the Doctrine of the Apostles were one as well as their Tradition The Primitive Christians argued against the Hereticks of those times from Tradition and from the Conformity of that Belief that was manifest in all the Churches founded by the Apostles as may be seen at large in the Works of St. Irenaeus Tertullian Epiphanius and St. Augustin and in a word of all the Fathers that have defended the Writings of the Apostles against the Hereticks Whensoever any Sectary opposed the declared Gospel they immediately convinced him of the forgery of those Acts that he produced by the true ones that were kept in the Apostolical Churches and were instead of Archives (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 42. If any one saith St. Epiphanius should go about to counterfeit the Edicts or Ordinances of Emperors the Cheat would be soon laid open by producing the true Copies taken from the Archives of the Court In like manner adds he false Gospels composed by Hereticks may be detected their spuriousness may be easily discovered by producing the true Gospels that are kept in the Churches as it were in Archives This manner of defending the Truth of the Apostolical Writings against the ancient Sectaries hath proved so effectually convincing that the Gnosticks were obliged to support their Novelties to fly to I know not what secret Tradition that was known to none but themselves They were so insolent as to prefer themselves before the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ accusing them as not having preached the Purity of the Gospel with sincerity because say they they have retained many Ceremonies of the old Law. They thought by this means that they might be able with Authority to reform the Writings of the Apostles (g) Cùm autem ad eam iterum traditionem quae est ab Apostolis quae per successiones Presbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur provocamus eos adversantur traditioni dicentes se non solùm Presbyteris sed etiam Apostolis existentes superiores sinceram invenisse veritatem Apostolos autem
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
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
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
S. Matthaei Evangelium quod ipse descripserat ei indigitat atque Apostolum fidei auctorem se in patria habere ut adversariis repenat praecipit This is in a few words the discovery of this Vision of Bishop Anthimius who very opportunely caused St. Barnabas to appear tanquam Deum è Machina to oppose Petrus Fullo Patriarch of Antioch and that there might not remain any doubt of his Revelation he put into the hands of St. Barnabas the Gospel of St. Matthew Mr. le Mome a learned Protestant Mr. le Moine Prol. in var. opusc Gr. and well versed in the Oriental Languages assures us that it was written in Hebrew because St. Barnabas who had transcribed it for his own use was born a Jew and preached to those of his Nation But it is more likely that Anthimius who was not a Jew should forge a Greek one neither is it credible that it should have been publickly read in the Church of Constantinople if it had been written in Hebrew As for the deference that Baronius gives to the Testimony of the Monk Alexander Author of the Life of St. Barnabas this Cardinal is not very favourable to the said Monk in another part of his Annals where (i) Alexander Graecus auctor qui res Barnabae prosecutus est encomiasticè potiùs quam historicè c. Baron ann ch 51. n. 53. he speaks of him as an Inventor of Tales that hath not written the Life of this Holy Apostle as an Historian I could bring other Examples of the like Revelations that have as many Circumstances as that of Bishop Anthimius and yet for all this are never the more true Under the Reign of the Emperor Theodosius a Revelation was feigned to authorize the false Apocalypse that was attributed to S. Paul. It was also found under ground at Tarsus in Cicilia in the House of this Holy Apostle There were also a great number of Alexanders or Monks in Palestine that every where extolled this false Piece as if it had truly belonged to him whose Title it bore Soz. Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 19. But Sozomon who relates this History informs us at the same time that a Priest of the City of Tarsus who was a very old man had assured him that this was false Furthermore we do not find that the two greatest men of the Church I mean Origen and St. Hierom who have searched the ancient Copies of the Scriptures with so much care and diligence and have visited so many Churches in the East have ever spoken of Originals of the New Testament written with the hand of the Apostles which they would not have failed to do if there had been any in their times especially St. Hierom who consulted a very great number of Greek and Latin Copies when by order of Pope Damasus he revised the ancient Latin Version of the Gospels Where were then these pretended Originals It is true there was no talk as yet of the Revelation of Anthimius nor of the History of Monk Alexander This Father hath said well that the Latin Copies were all different one from another Tot enim sunt exemplaria penè quot codices Therefore (k) Hoc certe cum in nostro sermone discordat in diversos rivulorum tramites uno de fonte quaerendum est Hieron Praef. in Evang. ad Damas he judges it necessary in this great diversity of Copies to have recourse to the Original Greek from whence the Latin hath been taken but he makes no mention of these first Originals that Mr. Huet supposeth (l) Ex fide primigeniorum illorum exemplarium quae servabantur in Ecclesiarum tabulariis dirimebantur controversiae haesitantium dubitatio tollebatur D. Huet in Demonst Evang. pag. 642. primae edit to have been kept in the Archives of the Churches since the time of St. Ignatius by which saith this learned man they were regulated in their Controversies and Disputes The Jesuit Maldonat on the contrary proves by the same Passage of St. Ignatius (m) Illis primis temporibus ut ait Ignatius nonnulli erant qui adeò suspecta haberent omnia ut negarent se Evangelio nisi in Ecclesiae archivis invenirent credituros Maldon Praef. in Evang. cap. 2. that in these Primitive Apostolical times there were People who doubted of the truth of the Gospels at least if they could not find them in the Archives of the Church To conclude Tertullian and St. Augustin who have so vigorously disputed with the ancient Hereticks that destroyed the Verity of the Writings of the Apostles have never objected these Originals to them so that this is by no means necessary for the establishing of the Christian Religion as hath been above shewed CHAP. V. Of the Books of the New Testament in particular and first of the Gospel of S. Matthew The Original of this Gospel hath been written in the Hebrew Tongue which the Jews of Jerusalem spake at that time An Answer to the Reasons that are contrary to this Opinion IT is a constant Tradition founded on the general consent of all the Churches in the World that there are but four Gospels the first of which is that of S. Matthew Iren. l. 3. adv Haer. l. 11. Neque autem plura numero quà m haec sunt saith S. Irenaeus neque rursus pauciora capit esse Nevertheless there are found in these later times some Authors who have believed that S. Matthew is not the first that hath committed the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Writing They ground their Opinion on this Luc. i. 1. that S. Luke seems to accuse those of little care and exactness that had published Gospels before him and since this Accusation cannot fall on any of the three other Evangelists they conclude from thence that none of them had written before But we ought not to oppose an Inference that at most carries with it but a probability to the Testimony of all Antiquity Therefore Grotius (a) Refragatur vetustissimus librorum ordo apud omnes nationes refragatur traditio vetus Irenaeo Tertulliano testibus suffulta Grot. Annot. in c. 1. Luc. v. 1. rejects this Opinion as being contrary to the order of the four Gospels established at all times among all Nations and authorised by the most ancient Fathers Maldonat who attributes this Argument to Beza refutes it also with no other Reasons than that of Tradition and adds at the same time that (b) Si haereticis crederemus nihil in ipsa etiam Religione certum stabileque haberemus Maldon Praef. in Evang. c. 4. if we should refer our selves herein to Hereticks we should have no certainty in point of Religion It cannot be denied also at least without contradicting all Antiquity but that S. Matthew hath written his Gospel in Hebrew that is to say in the Language that the Jews of Jerusalem then spake that was called Hebrew and was either Chaldaick or Syriack (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pap. apud Euseb
Hist Eccles lib. 3. cap. 39. Papias who lived with the Disciples of the Apostles avoucheth this in express terms and S. Irenaeus Origen and many other Fathers have afterwards confirmed it S. Irenaeus saith (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Irea apud Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 8. that S. Matthew being among the Hebrews composed his Gospel in their proper Dialect Origen in the Canon that he hath given us of the Sacred Books names S. Matthew the first of the Evangelists (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. apud Euseb lib. 6. Hist Eccl. cap. 25. who published it in Hebrew for the use of the Jews that had embraced the Christian Religion These primitive Christians were called Nazarenes by the Jews as appears from the Acts of the Apostles where they accuse S. Paul of being the Ringleader of the Sect of the Nazarenes Act. xxiv 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ever since that time they have always given to the Christians the name of Nazarenes which is found in their Talmud and in their other Books There were afterwards certain Sectaries under this same name who adopted this Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew some Fragments of which are yet extant to this day whereof we shall discourse hereafter It is expedient before we proceed any further to examine the Reasons of those that affirm that S. Matthew hath not composed his Gospel in Hebrew Erasmus who had no knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue hath been one of the first that hath thereupon opposed the common sentiments of all Antiquity but the Reasons tha the produceth are so weak that he sometimes makes himself even ridiculous when he would talk like a Critick concerning a matter of which he was altogether ignorant He would refer in every thing that relates to the Hebrew Tongue to Oecolampadius who understood it no more than himself which caused him to fall into gross Errors and gave occasion to his Adversaries especially Stunica a Learned Spaniard to reprehend his Ignorance Jacob. Lop. Stun Annot. in Erasm Cardinal Cajetan who was skilled neither in Hebrew nor Greek hath blindly followed the mistakes of Erasmus in this point as not being capable of correcting them But the greatest part of the Catholicks have herein abandoned Cajetan that they might not without reason and judgment withstand a Tradition established on good Acts. Some Protestants on the contrary who feared lest they should not have the true Gospel of S. Matthew if it were evident that it had been written in Hebrew or Chaldaick and lest the Greek that remains to us should be only a Translation have readily embraced the Opinion of Erasmus and Cajetan Flacius Illyricus hath diligently enough collected the Reasons that may be alledged in desence thereof and hath put them at the Head of his Edition of the New Testament which he hath caused to be Printed in Greek and Latin. This we must now take into examination This famous Protestant objects in the first place with Cajetan Matthias Flac. Illyr Praef. in Evang. Matth. several Hebrew Words that are explained in another Language in the Gospel of S. Matthew as for example Eli Eli lama sabactani If S. Matthew saith this Cardinal had written his Gospel in Hebrew it would not have been necessary for him to expound these Words in a different Idiom But these Interpretations ought rather to be ascribed to the Translator than to the Author To which he replys that if this came from the Interpreter he ought to have translated all the Hebrew of this Gospel and not to have selected only some Words as he hath done To which it may be answered that it is the custom of the Interpreters of the Sacred Books to let certain Hebrew Words remain in their Versions which they think to have more energy or emphasie in them and that cannot be always exactly translated This is easie to be proved from the Septuagint and other ancient Greek Interpreters of the Bible Grotius who hath also made this Objection in his Notes on S. Matthew answers (f) Solenne est omnibus scriptoribus etiam interpretibus vocabula peregrina notabiliora servare integra sed addito interpretamento Quod aliquoties etiam factum videmus à Senibus Septuaginta Grot. Annot. in tit Matth. that it is an ordinary thing for Writers and also Interpreters to retain foreign Wards that are remarkable adding the Interpretation to them and that this hath been sometimes practised by the Septuagint Illyrious opposeth in the second place two Reasons of Erasmus the first is that none have avouched that they have seen this Hebrew Gospel because that of which S. Jerome speaks was the Gospel of the Nazarenes which was written in Syriack or Chaldaick The second consists in this that the style of the Gospel of S. Matthew is like to that of S. Mark. From whence he concludes that S. Matthew hath written in Greek as well as S. Mark. S. Jerom himself answers to the first Reason when he saith (g) Vocatur à plerisque Matthaei authenticum Hieron Comm. in Cap. 12. Matth. that the most part of the ancient Doctors of the Church have believed that this Hebrew Gospel was the Original of S. Matthew's Certainly it is the very same that this Apostle wrote for the primitive Christians of Judaea who then spake the Chaldaick Language Erasmus tells us that he never heard of this matter when he objects that the Gospel of the Nazarenes was not in Hebrew but in Chaldaick or Syriack not knowing that this Chaldaick or Syriack was then called Hebrew As for the Style this Reason is too general to be able to conclude any thing from thence Stunica hath very well answered (h) Non hoc mirum videri debet si loquendi idiomate omnes conveniant etiamsi diversis linguis Evangelia conscripserint erant enim ejusdem generis hoc est Hebraei ex Herbaeis qui Graecè ex illis scripserunt patriae linguae proprietatem in Craecâ scripturâ saepissimè referunt Jacob. Lop. Stun init Annotat. in Erasm that it is not to be admired that the style of the Gospel appears to be the same in all the Evangelists altho they had written in different Languages because that being Jews those among them that have written in Greek have very often kept the Genius and propriety of the Hebrew Tongue This he proves by the example of S. Luke who tho he hath composed his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles in more elegant Greek than that of the other Evangelists doth not forbear to make use of divers Expressions that are purely Hebrew The third Objection is taken from Calvin and is grounded on several Passages of the Old Testament cited by S. Matthew according to the Greek Version of the Septuagint Whence he infers that S. Matthew hath composed his Gospel in Greek otherwise writing for the use of the Hebrews who read the Bible in Hebrew he would have rehearsed these Passages after the same
Gentile and an Idolater I am willing to grant that the Jews give the name of Chaldaick to the Versions which the Christians call Syriack But what can be concluded from thence since these same Jews do indifferently call that Tongue in which they are written Chaldaick or Syriack The Christians of the Syrian Nation do very often call their Syriack Tongue Chaldaick The Syriack Missal which hath been Printed at Rome for the use of the Maronites is intituled * Missale Chaldaic juxta ritum Eccl. nationis Maronitarum edit Romae ann 1594. A Chaldaick Missal This manifestly makes it appear that the Words Chaldaick and Syriack are oftentimes confounded together by the Jews and by the Christians that bear the Name of Syrians Lastly the Example of Josephus hath been opposed to Mr. Vossius Joseph Praef. lib. de Bell. Jud. who was a Jew of Jerusalem and who assures us that before he published his History of the Wars of the Jews in Greek he had written it in Chaldaick which he calls the Language of his Country Now forasmuch as he cannot deny the matter of Fact which this Historian hath so clearly delivered he answers after his usual way that Josephus had composed this History in Chaldaick only for the Jews on the other side of Euphrates But is there any probability that a Man that makes profession to publish an Account of the Wars of the People of his own Nation for their use and for this reason to write in their Language should not have written it for those of Jerusalem which was not only the Capital City but also his own Country He would have it design'd only for the perusal of the Jews that were far distant and since there is no appearance of truth in this he is obliged to have recourse to certain equivocal Terms used by Josephus This Historian saith that in publishing his History in the Chaldaick Tongue he hath had regard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say according to Mr. Vossius's opinion to those Barbarians or Jews that were beyond the Empire because this expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can only denote People afar off After this manner he eludes a most clear testimony under a pretence that these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Grammatical Sense may be extended equally to time and place But the design of Josephus makes it evident enough that he set forth his History in Chaldaick generally for all those of his Nation and even rather for those of Palestine than for the Jews that dwelt beyond Euphrates They all spake in the Chaldaick or Syriack Tongue Therefore this famous Writer makes no distinction of Language in his Preface when he speaks of those of his Nation he therein calls the Chaldaick the Tongue of his Country He declares moreover in another place (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joseph Antiq. Jud. lib. 20. cap. ult that he had attained to the knowledge of the Greek by study and that he could not pronounce it well because he was accustomed to the Accent of his Mother-Tongue Now it is certain that he was not of the number of these Parthian Babylonian and Arabian Jews but of those of Jerusalem who consequently had another vulgar Language different from the Greek He praiseth also in this same Passage those of his own Nation upon occasion of the Greek Tongue because they did not apply themselves to the knowledge of divers Languages but to the study of their Sacred Books CHAP. VII Of the Sect of the Nazarenes and of their Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy of the Gospel of S. Matthew BEsides all the Reasons that we have just now alledged to make it appear that S. Matthew at first composed his Gospel in Chaldaick for the Jews of Jerusalem who had embraced the Christian Religion we might also produce the Example of the Nazarene Sectaries who made use of this same Hebrew or Chaldaick Gospel in their Assemblies S. Epiphanius who hath written very accurately of this ancient Sect informs us (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 29. n. 7. that they received with the New Testament all the Books of the Old that were in the Canon of the Jews viz. the Law the Prophets and the other Parts of Holy Writ and that they differed in nothing from the Jews as to Doctrine and Ceremonies save only that they believed in Jesus Christ they made publick Profession to believe in one God and in his Son Jesus Christ they had moreover a perfect knowledge in the Hebrew Tongue He observes also that these ancient Nazarenes whose principal abode was in the City of Berea and who were dispersed throughout all the lower Syria were descended from the Primitive Christians of the same Name who retired from Jerusalem to Pella Epiph. Haer. 29. n. 7. From thence saith Epiphanius the Sect of the Nazarenes derive their original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This agrees very ' well with the Testimonies of the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors who affirm that S. Matthew preached the Gospel to the Jews of Jerusalem and all Palestin in their vulgar Tongue These Nazarene Sectaries who sprang from those primitive Christians of Jerusalem and who also spake their Language always preserved and read it in their Churches or Assemblies The same S. Epiphanius adds that the Jews mortally hated the Nazarenes and that (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 29. n. 9. in their Synagogues where they assemble thrice every day they solemnly cursed them saying Let God curse the Nazarenes This Imprecation of the Jews against the Christians under the name of Nazarenes is yet to be found even at this day in their Books S. Hierom also doth mention it in his Commentaries on the Prophet Isaiah Hieron lib. 2. Comm. in Es cap. 5. where he saith speaking of the Jews Ter per singulos dies in omnibus Synagogis sub nomine Nazarenorum anathematizant vocabulum Christianum This hatred came from hence (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. because the Nazarenes being Jews as well as they and embracing the whole Law of Moses preached besides this that Jesus was the Messiah We ought then to seek for the Original of the Gospel of S. Matthew amongst these Nazarenes who being desended from the primitive Christians of Jerusalem have preserved it in their Churches S. Epiphanius who seemed to be persuaded of this Truth saith freely (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. that they had for their use the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew most entire and that it was not to be doubted that they still kept it in his time written in Hebrew Letters he doubts only whether they had retrenched from this Gospel the Genealogy of Jesus Christ which was not in the Copy of the Ebionites who read it also But it is most probable that the Nazarenes had not taken away this Genealogy from their Copies For (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 14. Cerinthus
these Objections of Casaubon I am so far from thinking that the Opinion of Baronius can be called impious that I affirm it on the contrary to be grounded on the testimony of all Antiquity and on good Reason It is certain and Casaubon himself agrees to it that S. Matthew hath written his Gospel in Hebrew of which the Greek is only a Version This being granted why may not the Name of an Original be given to this Hebrew Text There is nothing in this that is not conformable to reason and good sense This is the Principle on which the Protestants rely when they correct the Versions of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew but say they we have no longer the Hebrew of S. Matthew It is true but ought this to hinder us from calling it Authentick with the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers since in effect it is so If it were not lost might we not have recourse thereto at this day to resolve several Difficulties in the Greek Version We see that S. Hierom hath consulted it on the second Verse of the sixth Chapter of S. Matthew where we read in the vulgar Latin Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie (m) Quod nos supersubstantialem expressimus in Graeco habetur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Evangelio quod appellatur secundùm Hebraeos pro substantiali pane reperi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod dicitur crastinum id est futurum da nobis hodie Hieron Comm. in Matth. lib. 1. c. 6. He observes that it is in the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies of to morrow from whence he infers that the sense of this Passage is Give us this day our bread of to morrow that is to say of every day as it was in the ancient vulgar Latin and S. Jerom hath kept the word quotidianum in S. Luke Chap. xi 3. This Exposition of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is obscure is considerable The Grammarians do at this day dispute concerning its signification but the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was in the Gospel of the Nazarenes resolves all their doubts This hath caused Grotius to say that after the Testimony of S. Jerom Grot. Annot in Evangel Matth. c. vi v. 11. who hath thereupon consulted the Hebrew or Chaldaick Text we ought not any longer to dispute about the Original of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know the meaning of it Altho we should have at this very day continues Casaubon the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes we could not make it pass for an original because it hath been used by Hereticks and that the Catholicks have always adhered to the Greek Copy ever since the first beginning of the Church But tho we should suppose with Casaubon that the Nazarenes have been Hereticks would this hinder their Hebrew Gospel which had been written in this Language by S. Matthew from being a true Original I would willingly know whether the Hebrew Text of the Law of Moses is less authentick in the Hands of the Samaritans and of the Jews called Caraites than it is in the Hands of the other Jews who bear the name of Rabbanites and from whom we have received it The Protestants are on the same bottom with respect to the Church of Rome as the Ebionites were heretofore with respect to the Orthodox This Church reckons them equally in the number of Hereticks may it be said for this reason that the New Testament which is in use among the Protestants is not authentick This no rational Catholick will ever avouch And therefore the proof that Casaubon brings from the pretended Heresie of the Nazarenes and from that of the Ebionites is of no weight Besides it is not true that the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew hath been in use among the Hereticks only since as hath been above shewn it hath been composed for the Primitive Christians of Palestin from whom the Nazarene Sectaries were descended and the Greek is only a Version of it Neither can it be averred that the Catholicks have not acknowledged any other Copy of S. Matthew than that which is in Greek since the Jews of the Territory of Jerusalem who embraced the Christian Religion and were called Nazarenes have been the first Christians in the World it would be a piece of injustice in us to treat them as Hereticks for this reason only because they retained the Ceremonies of the Old Law with Christianity otherwise we must treat the Apostles as Hereticks who observed them also at the beginning this might be then tolerated in these Primitive Christians who sprang out from the middle of the Jews and who had before their eyes the Example of Jesus Christ and the Apostles That which hath misled Casaubon and many others as well Protestants as Catholicks who have rejected the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes as an Apocryphal Piece is that they have not duly reflected on the Original of the Christian Religion The Primitive Christians of Jerusalem and of Palestin who made use of this Hebrew Gospel having not long subsisted in their first estate and the others on the contrary who spake Greek being dispersed throughout the whole earth it hath happened from thence that the Greek Gospel only hath been preserved amongst the Catholicks because all the other Christians have taken their Versions from this Copy The Chaldaick Tongue in which the Gospel of the Nazarenes was written was not understood but by some Jews besides the Nazarenes who had retained Judaism with Christianity became odious to the other Christians who were converted from Gentilism and there was an irreconcileable Hatred between them If the ancient Nazarenes for whom S. Matthew had written his Gospel were yet in being their Hebrew Copy would be without doubt preferred before the Greek Version which we have S. Jerom and S. Epiphanius are so far from being favourable to the Judgment of Casaubon that on the contrary they overthrow it in express terms as appears from their Testimonies which we have above related This is so true that Casaubon to justifie his Opinion hath on purpose corrupted a Passage of St. Epiphanius who calls the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most entire he would have it read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was not entire against all the Editions of the Works of this Father and without producing any Manuscript to prove an Alteration of this Importance he saith only that this place of S. Epiphanius is contrary to another wherein he calls the Hebrew Gospel of the Ebionites a Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was not entire but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupted and mutilated Casaubon hath not taken heed that although the Nazarenes and the Ebionites did equally make use of the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew their Copies were nevertheless different these last as S. Epiphanius himself hath remarked had corrupted their Copy and
who hath made no scruple to rank this Gospel amongst those that have been counterfeited under the Names of S. Thaddaeus and S. Thomas Grotius who discourseth thereof with more Moderation (x) Narrationes quaedam non praescriptae à Mattheo sed auditu perceptae videntur paulatim à Nazaraeis assutae iis quae penes ipsos erant exemplaribus Grot. Annot in tit Matth. believes that the Nazarenes have inserted that which they have in their Copies and which is not in ours relying upon certain Relations that they had heard It is for this reason that when he speaks of the History of the adulterous Woman of whom mention is made in S. John and which he judgeth to have been taken out of the Gospel of these Nazarenes that he forbears not to ascribe to it the same Authority as if the Apostles were the true Authors of it He acknowledgeth nevertheless that it was not originally neither in the Hebrew of S. Matthew nor in the Greek of S. John nec à Matthaeo scriptam in Hebraeo Evangelio nec à Joanne in Graeco He believes that (y) Quia Apostoli vivâ voce hanc historiam saepè narraverant attextam à Nazarenis quidem Palestinae Hebraeo Evangelio à Papiâ autem aliisque Joannis discipulis Graeco Joannis ab Ecclesia probatam ideo quòd satis certo testimonio constaret ab Apostolis traditam Grot. Annot. in c. 8. Joann the Nazarenes of Palestine had added it to their Hebrew Gospel because it came from the Apostles and that afterwards Papias and the other Disciples of S. John had put it into his Gospel written in Greek which said History hath been approved by the Church because it was grounded on an Apostolical Tradition Jansenius Bishop of Gand who had written the same thing before Grotius (z) Ex quibus satis patet hanc historiam non in primis fuisse ab Evangelistâ hoc loco descriptam sed vel ex apocrypho illo Evangelio additam quae tamen autoritatem obtinuerit non quòd in apocryphis scripta fuerit sed quòd eam Papias è suo doctore audierit quodque hanc Ecclesiae consensus ut Evangelio dignam comprobarit vel Joannem post semel descriptum à se Evangelium adjecisse hanc partem suo Evangelio ut ob id contigerit in quibusdam codicibus haberi in quibusdam non Jans Episc Gand. Comm. in Concor Eu. c. 76. would have this History considered as Canonical because Papias had received it from his Master and because it hath been allowed by the Church he saith nevertheless that it might happen that S. John hath added it himself to his Gospel after he had written it and that for this reason it was not found in some Copies But there seems to be but little Probability in this last Remark and there can be nothing determined thereupon with any certainty We only know that Papias reckons in the number of Histories which he had learned from the Disciples of the Apostles that which hath regard to the Woman accused of many Crimes in the Presence of our Saviour and that he adds at the same time that it was related in the Gospel which was called according to the Hebrews Now since it is not unlikely that this Woman accused of many Crimes is the same with the adulterous Woman of whom S. John makes mention it seems as if it might be inferred from thence that in the time of Papias this History was not to be found but in the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes This makes it appear that all the Additions which have been inserted into this Gospel ought not to be accounted as Fables since Papias hath produced one of them which came from an Apostolical Tradition this might be also said of the others with some Probability Hegesippus who was familiarly acquainted with the Disciples of the Apostles (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hin Eccl. lib. 4. c. 22. hath also sometimes made use of the Hebrew or Syriack Gospel of the Nazarenes and he hath quoted it even in Hebrew from whence Eusebius concludes that he must needs be of the number of the Hebrews that had embraced the Christian Religion CHAP. VIII Of the Ebionites Of their Copy of the Gospel of S. Matthew Of some other ancient Hereticks who have made use of this same Gospel WE have already observed in discoursing of the Nazarenes that the Ebionites did also make use of the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew as well as they but that they had nevertheless altered and corrupted it in some places to make it agreeable to their false Notions and Prejudices Ebionaei saith S. Irenaeus eo Evangelio quod est secundùm Matthaeum Iren. l. 3. adv Haer. c. 4. solo utentes ex illo ipso convincuntur The ancient Ecclesiastical Writers according to Eusebius have called these Sectaries Ebionites from a Word that signifies in Hebrew Poor because they had poor Conceptions concerning Jesus Christ whom they believed to be a simple Man. (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 27. They made use of that Gospel only adds this Historian which was called according to the Hebrews little esteeming the rest Origen who hath been followed by Eusebius (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 4. de princ apud Vales Annot. in lib. 3. Hist Eccles Euseb doth also derive the Etymology of the Name of these Hereticks from the Hebrew Word Ebion which signifies Poor because they were saith he poor in Judgment and wanted Understanding But all this seems to me to be ill grounded and to be but a simple Allusion to the Name of these Sectaries which indeed signifies Poor in the Hebrew Tongue It is more probable that the Jews called them so in derision and scorn because in these Primitive times of Christianity there were scarce any but poor People that had embraced it This gave occasion to Jesus Christ to say to his Disciples Luke vi 20. Blessed be ye poor for yours is the Kingdom of God. This Kingdom of God was the Gospel on which they believed therefore our Saviour saith in another place Luke vii 20. that the Gospel is preached to the Poor Origen himself seems to confirm this Opinion in his Books against Celsus Matth. xi 15. where he observes that (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 2. contra Celsum the Word Ebion signifieth Poor in Hebrew and that they have given the name of Ebionites or poor to those among the Jews who have believed that Jesus was the Messiah Since then the Jews called those of their own Nation that turned Christians Nazarenes and Galileans by way of contempt it is also very probable that they have named them Ebionites or poor It may be further said that these Primitive Christians took this Name themselves conformably to their Profession This agrees very well with the Remark of S. Epiphanius who informs us that the Ebionites (d)
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 17. boasted of this Name giving it out that they were poor in imitation of the Apostles the custom being in those times to sell their Goods and to lay them at their Feet This Name degenerated afterwards into that of a Sect which was a Branch of the Nazarenes and held certain particular Opinions but in the rest they agreed with them in the same Foundation of Religion as to every thing that concerned the Old Law which they kept equally with Christianity S. Epiphanius in the mean time will have it that there hath certainly been a Man called Ebion from whom the Ebionites took their original who lived at the same time with the Nazarenes and Cerinthians It may well be that this Father and all the others who have thought that there was indeed a Man named Ebion Author of the Sect of the Ebionites have had no better grounds whereon to establish this Ebion than a certain Spanish Historian who hath written the History of the Popes in his Language hath had in like manner to invent a Man called Hugo a Sacramentarian Arch-Heretick Hugo Haeresiarcha Sacramentarius (e) Hugo de quien se llaman los herejes de Francia Hugonotes Illescas lib. 6. de la Hist Pontif. fol. 453. from whom the Hereticks of France have been named Hugonots The same S. Epiphanius more exactly describes the original of these Sectaries whose beginning and first appearance he dates after the destruction of Jerusalem and at that time when the Primitive Christians that were called Nazarenes and were lately departed from this City came to dwell at Pella in the Province of Decapolis It appears from thence that the Ebionites are only an Off-spring of the ancient Nazarenes having nevertheless corrupted the purity and simplicity of the Faith of these primitive Christians Therefore they revised the original Hebrew of S. Matthew to make it more conformable to their Opinions It will not be amiss here to produce some Fragments of their Gospel which Epiphanius hath transmitted to us In the first place he saith in general (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 13. that the Gospel of the Ebionites was not entire but corrupted and mutilated They had taken out of it the Genealogy of Jesus Christ and all that follows to Chapter 3. of S. Matthew (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. beginning their Gospel with these words It came to pass in the days of Herod the King of Judaea that John came baptizing the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan who was said to be of the race of Aaron the priest the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth and all people came unto him The Baptism of our Saviour by S. John was related after this manner in the Gospel of the Ebionites (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Evang. Ebion apud Epiph. ibid. After the people had been baptised Jesus came also and was baptised by John and as he ascended out of the water the Heavens were opened and he saw the Holy Spirit of God in the form of a Dove which descended and came towards him and a voice was heard from heaven saying thou art my beloved son in thee have I been well pleased And continuing (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Evang. Ebion ibid. This day have I begotten thee and immediately a great light shone about the place and John having seen it saith unto him who art thou Lord And again a voice from heaven said unto him this is my beloved son in whom I have been well pleased and then John falling down before him said I pray thee Lord baptise thou me but he forbad him saying suffer it to be so for thus it becometh all things to be fulfilled We may judge by that which we have now produced of the Gospel of the Ebionites that the order of the words was not altogether the same as in our Copies and that there were besides some Alterations and Additions There is another Passage at the beginning of the Gospel from whence we may be able to take a better estimate thereof (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Evang Ebion apud Epiph. ibid. There was a certain man Jesus by name of about thirty years of age who hath chosen us and being come to Caphernaum he entred into the house of Simon sirnamed Peter and opening his mouth he said When I passed along the lake of Tiberias I chose John and James the sons of Zebedee and Simon and Andrew and Thaddeus and Simon Zelotes and Judas Iscariot and I called thee Matthew sitting at the receit of custom and thou hast followed me I will then that you be twelve Apostles for a testimony unto Israel And John was baptising and the Pharisees came unto him and were baptised and all Jerusalem and John had his raiment os camels hair and a leathern girdle about his loins and his food was wild honey that had the taste of Manna as a cake dipt in oil S. Epiphanius here reproves the Ebionites for having corrupted the Gospel of S. Matthew in reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this alteration could have happened only in the Greek and not in their Hebrew or Syriack Copy wherein there is no such resemblance of words They must either have a particular Greek Translation which they had made for their own use or they must have adjusted ours to their Text. Furthermore these Sectaries were different from the Nazarenes with respect to the Holy Scriptures for whereas these received as hath been already observed all the Old Testament as it was in the Canon of the Jews the Ebionites on the contrary rejected all the Prophets They abhorred the Names of David Solomon Isaiah Jeremiah Daniel and Ezechiel they only adhered to the Pentateuch and they did not much regard that neither (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ebion apud Epiph. ibid. n. 18. What use said they can there be made of the Law after the coming of the Gospel And when they were asked why they had a veneration for Moses Abraham and the other ancient Patriarchs they answered That they therein followed the example of Jesus Christ It is probable that the Ebionites who received no other but the five Books of Moses and only considered Joshua in quality of his Successor were descended from some Samaritans who embraced Christianity in imitation of the Nazarenes Epiph. ib. n. 1. Thus Epiphanius hath observed that Ebion was infected with the Superstitions of the Samaritans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereas they both retain the Old Law with the Gospel the Ebionites do only keep the Books of Moses because the Samaritans have never received any but these five Books as Canonical But the Nazarenes who passed from Judaism to the Christian Religion continued to read the whole Old Testament as they read it before in their Synagogues S. Epiphanius hath further remarked that these Ebionites
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. had their Priests or Elders and their Chiefs of the Synagogue For they call not saith he their Assembly a Church but a Synagogue He speaks apparently of the Ebionites that understood the Greek Tongue and even read a Greek Translation of their Hebrew or Syriack Gospel For this distinction between the Words Synagogue and Church is not to be found in the Hebrew or Syriack and the sense of these two words is the same in the Greek as it is easie to prove from the Greek Version of the Septuagint The Ebionites were not content only to have corrupted the Gospel of S. Matthew but they forged also divers Books according to Epiphanius (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. n. 22. under the Names of James Matthew and other Disciples of Jesus Christ They read one in like manner under the Name of S. John abusing by this means the Names of the Apostles that they might the more easily impose on those of their party (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. n. 15. Besides they made use of the Voyages of S. Peter written by S. Clement but they had so altered and mangled them that there hardly remained any thing of Truth they modelled them after a new manner and suited them to their humors to cause S. Peter to utter abundance of Falsities that authorized that which was practised among them These Hereticks may be easily convinced of having retrenched from their Copy of S. Matthew the Genealogy of Jesus Christ for the Cerinthians and the Carpocratians who read it and who held the same Opinions as they do touching the Birth of our Saviour had this Genealogy in their Copy they refer to this to prove that Jesus Christ was a mere Man. Now these Cerinthians had established their Sect before that of the Ebionites appeared S. Epiphanius believes (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. n. 3. that these last had chosen for their use the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew only in imitation of the Cerinthians Cerinthus was a zealous Defender of the Circumcision as well as the Nazarenes and Ebionites I know not from whence the same S. Epiphanius hath taken that which he reports concerning him to wit that he was the Ringleader of a Faction that rose up at Jerusalem against S. Peter on occasion that he was found among the uncircumcised and had eaten with them It is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles that the Faithful that were circumcised disputed on this Subject against this holy Apostle Cerinthus if we may believe S. Epiphanius was the chief in this Dispute when he was yet in the number of the Faithful and took this pretence to separate himself from them The Church was divided from that time into different Opinions Some of them that were circumcised would not submit to the Revelation that had been made to S. Peter in the City of Joppa they insisted that none ought to be received into the Church but those that were circumcised and they that were of this Sect retained the Hebrew Gospel of S. Mattew because they were come from Judaism Therefore the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers have called this Gospel according to the Hebrews The others on the contrary who were for the most part converted from Gentilism made use of the Greek Copy of this same Gospel and this last alone is preserved in the Church that of the Hebrews remained only among some Sectaries and hath been lost at the same time when these Sects have been extinct CHAP. IX Of the Greek Copy of S. Matthew and its Authority A Comparison of this Copy with the Hebrew or Chaldaick An Answer to the Objections of some Hereticks against this Gospel ALL Antiquity is agreed that the Original of the Gospel of S. Matthew hath been written in the Language that the Jews of Jerusalem spake at that time and that it hath been since translated into Greek But we have nothing certain concerning the Author of this Greek Version (a) Matthaeus qui Levi ex publicano Apostolus primus in Judaeâ propter eos qui ex circumcisione crediderunt Evangelium Christi Hebraicis literis verbisque composuit Quod quis postea in Graecum transtulerit non satis certum est Hieron de Script Eccl. in Matth. Matthew saith S. Jerom is the first that hath written the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Hebrew for the use of the Jews that had embraced Christianity but it is not known who hath translated it out of Hebrew into Greek The Author of the Synopsis attributed to S. Athanasius affirmeth nevertheless (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan in Synops S Script that it hath been first composed in Hebrew by S. Matthew who published it in Jerusalem in this same Tongue and that S. James who hath been the first Bishop of this City translated it into Greek He produceth no Act of the ancient Writers of the Church to justifie this Opinion Papias on the contrary who was not far distant from the time of the Apostles declares (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pap. apud Euseb lib. 3. Hist Eccl. c. 39. that the Original of S. Matthew was in Hebrew and that afterwards every one interpreted it as he was able This makes me think that in these primitive times of the Christian Religion divers private persons had translated this Gospel for their own use and almost after the same manner as there have been several Latin Versions from the Greek tho there was one that was more generally received in the Churches than the others It is probable also that the Cerinthians the Carpocratians the Ebionites and in one word all the ancient Sectaries who preferred the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew before the others made Greek Versions of it for their use as well as the Orthodox Casaubon Casaub Exercit. 15. ad Annal. Baron n. 12. who hath used his utmost endeavours to decry the Hebrew Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites had kept that he might give the greater authority to the Greek avoucheth freely that the Fathers are very much divided in their Opinions on this Subject some ascribing this Version to S. James others to S. John others to S. Barnabas and lastly some few to S. Paul and S. Luke (d) Quae diversitas sententiarum ut de vero autore certò pronuntiare nos vetat ita illud certissimè demonstrat ipsis Apostolorum temporibus ab uno illorum aut illorum auspiciis vel potiùs Spiritûs Sancti cujus ipsi erant organa Graecum Textum ex Hebraico esse confectum Casaubon Exercit. 15. ad Annal. Baron n. 12. This diversity of Opinions adds he plainly shews that it cannot be certainly affirmed who hath been the Author of this Greek Version but it serves saith he for a demonstration to make it appear that it is derived from the very times of the Apostles who are the Authors or Promoters of it or rather it ought to
be attributed to the Holy Ghost whose Instruments they have been But can that be called a Demonstration which is only grounded on uncertain Conjectures Would it not be more prudent to refer our selves herein to the testimony of Papias who hath lived with the Disciples of the Apostles If there had been in his time a Greek Version of the Gospel of S. Matthew which had been made by some Apostle he would not have failed to have told us of it He declares on the contrary that every one translated it as he was able There is nothing therefore but the constant Tradition of the Church alone that gives authority to this Version and that can oblige us to prefer it before the Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy of the Nazarenes Whereas the Protestants make the Holy Ghost to descend on the Apostles to translate the Gospel of S. Matthew out of Greek into Hebrew some Catholick Divines on the other side pretend also that the ancient Latin Version of the New Testament hath been inspired But it is much more reasonable only to admit this Inspiration for the Originals of the Holy Scriptures which have been translated into different Languages according to the necessities and occasions of the Churches If we hearken in the mean time to Casaubon and some other Protestants the Greek only of S. Matthew would be accounted Canonical (e) Constat sanè Ecclesiam Dei hunc ipsum textum inter libros Canonis Sacri relatum pari cum caeteris libris veneratione esse persecutam quod neque in Syriacâ Versione neque in ullâ aliâ reperitur esse factum Casaub ibid. because the Church hath put this Text into the Canon that she hath made of the Sacred Books and she hath not put therein the Syriack Version which is most ancient nor any other Translation but where is it to be found that the Church in placing the Gospel of S. Matthew in the rank of Canonical Books hath spoken of the sole Greek Version and hath excluded all others She only speaks in general of the Gospel of S. Matthew which is Divine and Canonical in whatsoever Language it be written It may be said nevertheless that there are some Nations that have exacter Translations of them than others this hinders not but that it may be averred that they all have a Canonical Copy of the Gospel of S. Matthew The Grecians and the Latins have this advantage over the other Christians that their Versions are the most ancient and the most exact and the Syrians after them However there is no Christian Nation that doth not believe but that they have in possession the true Gospel of S. Matthew tho they all have only Copies of it It doth not appear that Casaubon who is usually moderate in his Opinions hath sufficiently considered this matter when he hath unadvisedly taken the part of some Protestants against Baronius I do not pretend to defend all that Baronius hath alledged in this point but it seems to me that those of the Roman Church cannot with Justice be reproached (f) Error est in fide periculosissimus ne dicam Haeresis obtentu Hebraici contextûs qui sam ìnde à principio reperiri desiit in orbis nostri notis Ecclesiis Graeci auctoritatem velle elevare quod omnes hodie Hildebrandinorum sacrorum mystae in hac quaestione faciunt Casaub ibid. as Hereticks when they defend the Hebrew Text of S. Matthew to detract say they from the Authority of the Greek Copy The Defence that they undertake of the Hebrew Text of S. Matthew doth not in the least diminish the Authority of the Greek Version They only insist that the Greek is not the original but the Hebrew and if this Original were come to our hands it might with reason be preferred before the Greek which is but a Translation In the mean time since this Hebrew Text hath not been preserved in its purity in the Orthodox Churches but on the contrary hath been adopted by the Ebionite Hereticks who have corrupted it the Fragments thereof that are now extant are looked upon as Apocryphal Pieces By the word Apocryphal we ought only to understand that those Acts are doubtful and not false nor supposititious This hinders not but that good use may be made of them in those parts that are acknowledged not to have been altered an instance whereof hath been above propounded taken from S. Jerom's Commentaries on S. Matthew It were to be wished that we had at this day this Hebrew or Chaldaick Gospel entire even after the manner as it hath been interpolated by the Nazarenes and altered by the Ebionites we should not reckon it in the number of those Gospels that have been forged by Impostors as Casaubon hath indiscreetly done we should esteem it on the contrary as the most ancient Act of the Christian Religion Is there not reason to conjecture that he that hath translated the Original of S. Matthew out of Hebrew into Greek hath epitomized it in some places and sometimes taken the liberty rather to give us the Sense than the Words at least he seems to have used this liberty in the Quotations of the Old Testament that are therein produced which are more conformable to the Greek Version of the Seventy than to the Hebrew Text in the mean while there is very little appearance that S. Matthew writing his Gospel for the use of the Hebrews who read the Bible in Hebrew in their Synagogues should have quoted the Passages of the Old Testament otherwise than they were read in their Copies It is sufficient to authorize this Greek Version that it hath been read in the Churches that were constituted by the Apostles and that it hath been delivered down to us from Age to Age by a constant Tradition it is on this uninterrupted Tradition of the Churches that we ought to relye in shewing that the Greek Copy of S. Matthew is authentick and not on the imaginary Reasons of some Protestants This same Tradition of all the Churches in the World ought to be opposed to some Hereticks who have believed that the Gospel of S. Matthew hath been mangled and corrupted in several places Faustus a famous Manichean who could not adjust the Genealogy of Jesus Christ that is at the beginning of S. Matthew to the Opinions of his Party hath sought for Reasons to make it appear that it was false whereas he ought to have considered that having been received continually in the Church as well as the rest of this Gospel it bore the same stamp of Authority he compares S. Matthew with S. Luke who have related this Genealogy in a different manner and because (g) Offensus duorum maximè Evangelistarum dissensione qui genealogiam ejus scribunt Lucae Matthaei haesi incertus quemnam potissimum sequerer Apud Aug. lib. 3. cont Faust c. 1. he could not make them agree he abandons them to follow S. Mark and S. John who have made no mention thereof and who
correspond in this that they do not make Jesus the Son of David for S. John calls him God and S. Mark the Son of God from whence he concludes that Jesus Christ was not born as S. Matthew and S. Luke have written S. Augustin answers Faustus that he is not the first that hath taken notice of this seeming Contradiction of the two Evangelists that an infinite number of learned Men especially in the Greek Church have spared no pains to reconcile them which he endeavours to do in this place and by this he condemns the rash Judgment of the Manicheans who rejected as false all that was contrary to their Prejudices Indeed those People were so obstinate in their Opinions that the same Faustus reviled the Orthodox who received the Genealogy that is at the beginning of S. Matthew as not being Catholicks but Followers of Matthew and he maintained also Apud Aug. l. 23. cont Faust c. 2. that it was contrary to their Creed Quod si tu credas saith this Heretick ita ut scriptum est eris jam quidem Matthaeanus sic enim mihi dicendum est Catholicus vero nequaquam (h) De duobus vos unum fateri oportet aut hunc non esse Matthaeum qui haec videtur asserere aut vos non tenere Apostolicam fidem Apud Aug. lib. 23. cont Faust c. 22. You must either acknowledge added he that St. Matthew hath not written this Genealogy which he called in derision Genesidium or that you do not hold the Apostolical Faith. But it were an easie matter without arguing at large on all the Difficulties that Faustus propounded to represent to him that this Genealogy had been always read in the Churches ever since the Apostles besides that (i) Fides Catholica eademque Apostolica est Dominum nostrum Salvatorem Jesum Christum filium Dei esse secundùm Divinitatem filium David secundùm carnem quod ita probamus ex Evangelicis Apostolicis literis ut nemo possit contradicere nisi qui ipsis literis contradicit Aug. lib. 23. cont Faust c. 5. it was the Belief of the Catholick and Apostolick Church as S. Augustin saith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God according to his Divinity and the Son of David according to the Flesh that this Truth was so clearly proved by the Writings of the Apostles that they could not contradict it at least if they did not reject them altogether By this same Principle the Arguments of certain Anabaptists of whom Sixtus Senensis and Baronius makes mention might be confuted but since their Objections are almost the same as those of the Manicheans it would be to no purpose to insist on them They have accounted as false that which S. Matthew hath related concerning the Wise Men that came to worship Jesus in the Cradle as also the History of the Children whom Herod caused to be put to death against the credit of these two Relations they have opposed the silence of the other Evangelists and of Josephus an Historian of that time Sixtus Senensis replies judiciously Sixt. Sen. Bibl. S.l. 7. that by the same reason they ought not to believe the Resurrection of Lazarus because none but S. John has spoken of it neither doth the silence of Josephus prove any thing for he hath not mentioned divers other Actions which nevertheless do not cease to be true They that make such Objections as these ought to alledge positive Proofs as for example from the diversity of ancient Copies some of which they should produce wherein these Histories are not to be found then they might infer with some probability that they had been added afterwards but on the contrary they are to be seen in all our most ancient Records and the greatest Enemies of the Christian Religion have cited them ever since the first Ages Apud Orig. l. 1. cont Cels Celsus hath read them in the Gospel after the same manner as we do at present Porphyrius and Julian have also made some Objections against the Gospel of S. Matthew or rather against all the Books of the New Testament but we shall have occasion to examine them in the sequel of this Work. CHAP. X. Of the Time and Order of every Gospel Some Greek Manuscript Copies are produced thereupon Of S. Mark and his Gospel which is commonly believed to be the second Of his Office of Interpreter to S. Peter ALthough some Ecclesiastical Writers have carefully set down the time in which they have believed that every Evangelist hath published his Gospel we cannot nevertheless determine any thing thereupon Because we have no ancient and certain Acts on which we might relye I shall only relate what I have read on this Subject at the end of some Manuscript Copies The most ancient of these Manuscripts that I have seen is at most but 700 Years old as may be judged by the Character it is written in great Letters with the Accents and Points and may be seen in Mr. Colbert's Library having been brought from Cyprus There are also many in the King's Library wherein the time in which every Evangelist hath written his Gospel is specified but as I have just now said these Manuscripts are not ancient Indeed there are no such Remarks as these in the most ancient the custom of those Primitive times being only to put at the end of every Book of the New Testament The End of such a Book the beginning of this other Book To return to the Manuscripts that contain the Dates of the Gospels see that which is found in the Copy of Cyprus which is in Mr. Colbert's Library (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MS. Colb n. 5149. The Gospel according to Matthew hath been published by himself at Jerusalem eight years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ This Word at Jerusalem is of a later Writing than the rest (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id MS. The Gospel according to Mark hath been published ten years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. MS. The Gospel according to Luke hath been published fifteen years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ In another Copy that is in the King's Library and contains all the New Testament the Date of every Gospel is therein expressed after this manner in the beginning of them (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MS. Reg. n 2871. The Holy Gospel according to Matthew written in the Hebrew Tongue hath been published at Jerusalem and interpreted by John eight years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. MS. The Gospel according to Mark hath been published ten years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ and preached by Peter at Rome (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. MS. The Gospel according to Luke hath been published fifteen years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ and preached by Paul at Rome (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. MS. The Gospel according
the Catholicks they endeavoured to support their Novelties with some Reasons They said amongst other things that (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph ibid. n. 4. these Books attributed to S. John did not agree with the Writings of the other Apostles and that consequently they ought not to be acknowledged as Divine Whether tends said they the beginning of this Gospel In the beginning was the word and the word was with God. And these other words And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth To what purpose added these Hereticks is that which immediately follows John bare witness of him and cryed saying This was he of whom I spake And a little after Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world The Alogians produced several other Passages of S. John no part of which was found in the other Evangelists S. Epiphanius answers them very prudently that if they had no other Reasons to object against the Verity of S. John's Gospel they might also reject the Gospels of S. Matthew S. Mark and S. Luke who have all used the same manner of Writing and who have every one something that is singular He said (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid that their Method depended not on them but that it came from the Holy Ghost as well as their Doctrine This he explains more particularly and at large This Father confutes them also by the Doctrine of S. John which he affirms to be altogether opposite to that of Cerinthus This Heretick believed that Jesus Christ was born a mere Man. S. John on the contrary testifyeth in his Gospel that the Word was from all eternity that he came down from Heaven and that he was made Man. It is certain that Cerinthus believed with some other Hereticks of those primitive times that Jesus was * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a mere Man. Which Opinion they grounded on the Genealogy that is in the beginning of S. Matthew Therefore one would think that if Cerinthus had designed to forge a New Gospel to authorise his Heresie he would not have omitted this Genealogy It may be observed nevertheless that this Heretick acknowledged in Jesus Christ somewhat more than mere Man. This Epiphanius himself explains after this manner (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 28. n. 1. He pretends that the World was not created by the first and supreme Power but that Jesus who was begotten of the Seed of Joseph and Mary being become great had received from above of the Supreme God the Christ in himself that is to say the Holy Ghost in the form of a Dove when he was baptised in the River Jordan He attributed to this celestial Virtue that Jesus as he thought had received in his Baptism all the Miracles that he wrought afterwards He said moreover that this Virtue left him at the time of his Passion and that it returned to Heaven from whence it came Perhaps the Alogians took occasion from hence to ascribe the Gospel of S. John to Cerinthus because this Heretick distinguished two things in Jesus Christ for besides that they thought that he was born of Joseph and Mary after the same manner as other Men they acknowledged in him a Celestial Vertue that had been communicated to him by the Sovereign God of the Universe he called this Vertue Christ distinguishing Christ from Jesus S. Irenaeus hath also observed (n) Hi qui à Valentino sunt eo quod est secundùm Joannem plenissimè utentes ad ostensionem conjugationum suarum Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. c. 11. that the Gnosticks the Followers of Valentin altogether made use of the Gospel of S. John to establish their Opinions (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Haeret. Fabul lib. 2. Haer. 7. de Valent. They gave to Jesus saith Theodoret the Name of Saviour and of Christ the Word The Sethians who were a branch of the Gnosticks maintained also that Jesus differed from Christ (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. ibid. lib. 2. Haer. 14. de Sethian that Jesus was born of the Virgin but that the Christ descended on him from Heaven That which might farther confirm the Alogians in their erroneous Conceits was this that there were some very learned Men and those too very Orthodox who had affirmed that the Apocalypse was made by Cerinthus who insolently boasted that he was the true Apostle of Jesus Christ Besides these Alogians who refused to receive with the whole Catholick Church the Writings of S. John as Divine and Canonical there was one Theodotus of Byzantium the Chief of a Sect that were called Theodotians who after their example rejected the Gospel and Revelation of S. John as not belonging to him Nevertheless Celsus Porphyrius and the Emperor Julian who opposed the Gospels with all their Might have not denied that they were certainly composed by them whose Names they bore they have been content only to decry them as if they had been filled with Falsities and Contradictions When Julian speaks of the Gospel of S. John he doth not disown it to be his but he accuseth this Apostle of having introduced Innovations into the Christian Religion he saith that neither (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyrill Alex. lib. 10. contra Julian Matthew nor Mark nor Luke nor even Paul durst make Jesus Christ to pass for a God that S. John was the first that hath published it after he had observed that a great party of simple People as well among the Grecians as Latins was of this Opinion thus this Emperor who was persuaded that S. John's Gospel could not be charged with falsity gives out his imaginary Reasons that were grounded on no Authority As we have above remarked that the twelve last Verses of S. Mark were not read in some Greek Manuscript Copies so there are also twelve that are not found in divers Greek Manuscript Copies of the Gospel of S. John nor in some Versions of the Oriental Church These Verses begin at the end of Chap. vii v. 53. and end at the 11 verse of the following Chapter insomuch that they comprehend the whole History of the Woman taken in Adultery S. Jerom's manner of Expression in speaking of this Relation makes it appear that it was not read in his time in some Greek and Latin Copies In Evangelio secundùm Joannem Hieron l. 2. adv Pelag. saith this Father in multis Graecis Latinis codicibus invenitur de adulterâ muliere quae accusata est apud Dominum Sixtus Senensis who hath observed that the Anabaptists made use of the Authority of S. Jerom and the Testimony of some other ancient Writers Sixt. Sen. l. 7. Bibl. S. to shew that the History of the adulterous Woman had been added to the Gospel of S. John hath not sufficiently answered their Objections Maldonat who had thereupon
this is the reason that in some Manuscript Greek Copies we find the name of this Evangelist at the beginning of this Work he declares himself in his Preface that he is the Author of it presenting it to his Friend Theophilus to whom he had already dedicated his Gospel S. Jerom affirmeth (a) Cujus historia usque ad biennium Romae commorantis Pauli pervenit id est usque ad quartum Neronis annum Ex quo intelligimus in eadem urbe librum esse compositum Hieron de Script Eccl. in Lucâ that this History was written at Rome and that it extends to the fourth Year of Nero which was according to his Opinion the second of S. Paul's abode in that great City The Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures thought (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. in Synops that the Acts of the Apostles had been preached by S. Peter and that S. Luke had afterwards committed them to Writing but S. Luke hath recorded almost nothing else but matters of fact of which he himself had been a witness Hieron ibid. And this is the difference that S. Jerom makes between the Gospel of this Disciple of the Apostles and the Acts in regard that not having seen Jesus Christ he could not write his Gospel but on that which he had learned from others sicut audierat scripsit whereas having followed S. Paul in the most part of his Travels he was an eye-witness of his Actions and therefore he hath published nothing but what he had seen himself sicut viderat ipse composuit Although the Title indeed of this History bears the name of all the Apostles in general nevertheless it informs us of very few things concerning them only conducting them to the time when they dispersed themselves into divers Provinces to preach the Gospel S. Luke comes after this to S. Paul's Travels who was accompanied with S. Barnabas without describing the Itineraries of the other Apostles neither doth he finish even those of S. Paul. If it be demanded why S. Luke hath not perfected his History and why he hath not left us in Writing the rest of those Actions of which he was a Witness I have no other Answer to make but that which S. John Chrysostom hath already made to those that in his time asked the same Question This learned Bishop saith Joann Chrys Hom. 1. in Act. Apos That what S. Luke hath written in this matter is sufficient for those that will apply themselves to it that the Apostles moreover and their Disciples who preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joann Chrysost Hom. 1. in Act. Apost have always insisted on that which was most necessary that they did not study to write Histories because they have left many things to the Churches by Tradition only And this ought to be considered for it is certain that the principal business and care of the Apostles was to preach the Gospel and that they would have written nothing of their Preachings if they had not been earnestly sollicited by the People whom they had instructed The Christian Religion might be preserved without any Writings by Tradition alone S. Chrysostom complains in the same place Chrys ib. that that little we have of the History of the Apostles was so neglected in his time that many were not only ignorant of the Author but they did not know whether it had been written It seems that the Gospels and the Epistles of S. Paul were then only accounted to belong to the New Testament perhaps none but these two Works were read in the Churches in these Primitive Ages We see also that the Books that are consecrated for the use of the Greek Churches do only bear these two Titles viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gospel and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle nevertheless afterwards this last Book hath been named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it contains besides the Epistles of S. Paul the best part of the Acts of the Apostles and even the other Books of the New Testament Whereas this History that comprehends the principal Actions of S. Paul is short a certain Priest of Asia since the Primitive times of Christianity thought fit to add to it in form of a Supplement another Book intituled The Travels of Paul and Thecla We are informed by Tertullian (d) Quòd si quae Pauli perperà m scripta legunt exemplum Theclae ad licentiam mulierum docendi tingendique defendunt sciant in Asiâ presbyterum qui eam scripturam construxit quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse loco decessisse Tertull. lib. de Bapt. c. 17. that some Women made use of these Acts to prove by the Authority of this Holy Apostle that it was lawful for them to preach in the Churches and to baptize This Father answers those that alledged the Testimony of S. Paul taken from these Acts that the Priest of Asia the Author of them had been convicted that he had forged them and that he himself had avouched that he was induced to compose them by the love that he had for this Apostle He solidly confutes them by making it appear that these Acts contained a Doctrine altogether contrary to that of S. Paul. (e) Quà m enim fidei proximum videretur ut is docendi tingendi daret feminae potestatem qui ne discere quidem constanter mulieri permisit Tertull. ibid. What probability is there saith he that S. Paul should grant to Women a power to teach and to baptize who hath not so much as permitted them to learn in the Church forbidding them absolutely to speak therein S. Jerom who hath made mention of these Acts published under the Title of the Travels of Paul and Thecla Hieron de script Eccles in Luca. adds that it was S. John that caused the Priest that composed them to be convicted of Forgery Tertullian nevertheless whom he cites in this Passage doth not speak of S. John he saith only that this Priest was of Asia Pope Gelasius hath put this Book in the number of Apocryphal Works Baronius distinguisheth these false Acts of Thecla from others that give an account of the Life and Martyrdom of this Saint Gelas Decr. 1. part dist 15. c. 3. he supports the Authority of these last by the Testimony of several Fathers who have quoted them Baron an c. 47. n. 3 4 5. Epiph. Haer. 78. n. 16. and among others by that of S. Epiphanius who relying on the credit of these Acts relates that Thecla having espoused a very rich and noble man broke off her Marriage after she had heard S. Paul This Cardinal adds that Faustus a famous Manichean hath produced this same History of Thecla and that he hath taken occasion from thence to condemn the Doctrine of S. Paul as abominable because he had compelled by his Discourses a married Woman to continue
in perpetual Continency S. Augustin adds Baronius farther who rehearseth these Words of Faustus and exactly answers his Objections doth not reject as Apocryphal these last Acts that are intituled the Martyrdom of Thecla But it is probable that these last Acts have been taken from the former and it is no wonder that the Fathers have made use of an Apocryphal Book that was composed by an Impostor because there were many true things in these Travels of Paul and Thecla However it be I think it is more convenient to reject them altogether than to approve of one part and to condemn the other because it would be very difficult to distinguish that which was true from the false If we may judge by the Fragments that remain this Work was filled with Fables for we find therein that Thecla being the Companion of S. Paul in his Travels had in some measure a share in his Apostleship it is declared in these Acts that she preached and baptized and S. Jerom who without doubt had read them Hieron ib. makes mention of the Baptism of a Lion which is the cause that he esteems them as false and Apocryphal Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pauli Theclae saith this Father totam baptizati leonis fabulam inter apocryphas scripturas computamus Whereas the Apostles and their Disciples have left us no relations of their Travels in Writing but that which we have concerning those of S. Paul and S. Barnabas this gave occasion to the counterfeiting of some under their Names Some false Acts have been published under these Titles The Travels of Peter the Travels of John the Travels of Thomas and many others of this sort there was one also called in general The Itinerary or Travels of the Apostles Thus have they endeavoured ever since the Primitive Ages of the Christian Religion by this means to supply that which seemed to be wanting in the History of the Apostles as if it were necessary that the Church should have all their Actions in Writing but these Books were rejected with the common consent of all the Catholick Churches as Supposititious and Apocryphal insomuch that of all the Acts of the Apostles that have been published none have been preserved but those that were composed by S. Luke Nevertheless there were some Sectaries from the very first beginning of Christianity who being Enemies to S. Paul absolutely condemned this History written by S. Luke his faithful Companion in his Travels The Ebionites who treated this Apostle as an Apostate seeing that the Acts that had been received in the Church contradicted their Doctrine (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 16. composed new ones which they filled with Impieties and Calumnies against S. Paul that no credit might be given to the History of S Luke they invented I know not what Fables to render this holy Apostle odious and they gave them out as the true Reasons that had obliged him (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. to write against the Circumcision the Sabbath and the Old Law. (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. They made use of these new Acts of the Apostles saith Epiphanius to invalidate the Truth The Encratites or Severians (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 29. who acknowledged with the Orthodox the Law the Prophets and the Gospels loaded S. Paul also with bitter Invectives and Reproaches and entirely rejected his Epistles with the Acts of the Apostles Lastly the Manicheans who esteemed their Patriarch Manichee not only as an Apostle but as the Paraclet or Comforter that was promised did not allow the Acts of the Apostles because the descent of the Holy Ghost is therein declared (k) Si illos Actus Apostolorum acciperent in quibus evidenter adventus Spiritûs Sancti praedicatur non invenirent quomodo id immissum esse dicerent Aug. de utilit cred cap. 3. If they should receive these Acts saith S. Augustin in which express mention is made of the coming of the Holy Ghost they could not say that he had been sent to them in the Person of Manichee But let us leave these Enthusiasts who had no other reason to refuse the Books that were approved by the whole Church than this because they did not suit with the Idea that they had formed of the Christian Religion This was the cause according to Tertullian that the Marcionites did not regard the Acts of the Apostle Tertul. lib. 5. adv Mare c. 2. I shall say nothing here concerning the Acts of Barnabas that have been published under the Name of John surnamed Mark (l) Quaedam Barnabae Acta ab aliquo ut apparet nebulone scripta circumferuntur ab imperitis magno applausu accipiuntur Baron Annal. Chap. 51. numer 51. which are very displeasing to Baronius and have been manifestly forged being also contrary in some things to the true Acts of the Apostles as this Cardinal hath observed CHAP. XV. Of the Epistles of St. Paul in general Of Marcion and of his Copy of these Epistles False Letters attributed to St. Paul. THE Name of S. Paul that is prefixed at the head of all his Epistles except that which is written to the Hebrews doth plainly discover the Author and since they are for the most part directed to particular Churches who read them publickly in their Assemblies they have been afterwards communicated to other neighbouring Churches and at last by the same means to all the Faithful I shall not here make it my business too critically to enquire into their order nor the time when they were written because in whatsoever manner they are placed as to their distribution or circumstances of time this will cause no alteration in the Text which will always remain the same nevertheless thus much may be observed with S. Chrysostom who hath diligently examined this matter that though the Epistle to the Romans stands in the first rank Joann Chrys Praef. Hom. in Epist ad Rom. yet it was not written first there are clear proofs that the two Epistles inscribed to the Corinthians were written before it this learned Bishop believes also that S. Paul had written to the Thessalonians before he wrote to those of Corinth this may be seen more at large in the Preface before his Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans wherein he gives an Example of the Prophets who have not been ranked according to the order of the time of their respective Prophecies Theodoret who hath treated on this Subject after S. Chrysostom whom he often epitomizeth alledgeth as an instance of the same order as that of S. Paul's Epistles the distribution of the Psalms of David (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor. Praef. in Epist Paul. As David saith he being inspired by God hath written the Psalms and others afterwards have put them into what method they thought fit without having regard to the time when they were composed so in
Conference with them and that they had all agreed on a certain and sure Rule of Faith they separated to go every one to his respective station to promulge the Gospel of Jesus Christ S. Augustin relies on the same Principle in disproving a false Epistle that the Manicheans had published under the Name of Jesus Christ Is there any one so foolish saith this Learned Father as to believe that the Epistle that Manichee attributes to Jesus Christ is true and that the Gospel of S. Matthew which hath been always preserved in the Church doth not belong to this Apostle He demands whether they could with any color of Reason believe an obscure Man who appeared not in the World till more than two hundred years after Jesus Christ (z) Cùm ipse Apostolus Paulus post ascensionem Domini de coelo vocatus si non inveniret in carne Apostolos quibus communicando cum quibus conferendo Evangelium ejusdem esse societatis appareret Ecclesia illi omninò non crederet Aug. lib. 28. cont Manich. c. 4. since the Church would not have given credit to S. Paul himself who was called to the Apostleship immediately after the Ascension of our Saviour if he had not conferred with the Apostles touching the Doctrine that he preached It is a Maxim generally received among all the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that Jesus Christ alone is the Author of the Christian Religion and that his Apostles who have been the Witnesses of his Actions and Words have only related to us those things that they had seen or learned from their Master When it was objected to the primitive Fathers that the Gospels of S. Mark and S. Luke as also the Epistles of S. Paul ought not to be received as Canonical because the Authors of these Writings were not Apostles but only Apostolical Men. They have answered that these Apostolical Persons have written nothing but what they had received from their Masters They have concluded from thence that the same authority ought to be given to their Writings as if the Apostles themselves had been the Authors of them Therefore when Tertullian speaks of S. Luke and S. Mark who according to his Opinion were only Apostolical he adds at the same time that these Apostolical Men were not (a) Si Apostolicos non tamen solos sed cum Apostolis post Apostolos quoniam praedicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset de gloriae studio si non adsistat illi auctoritas magistrorum imò Christi qui magistros Apostolos fecit Tertull. lib. 4. adv Marc. c. 2. alone having written jointly with the Apostles and after them and that therefore their Doctrine could not be suspected since it hath been authorised by their Masters and even by Jesus Christ who had constituted these Masters We may apply unto S. Paul that which Tertullian saith here of S. Mark and S. Luke And this may serve to resolve all the Objections of the ancient Hereticks who refused to allow his Writings because they denied that he was truly an Apostle I have already given an account of the Manicheans who acknowledged nothing of S. Paul but what was agreeable to the Idea that they had formed of the Christian Religion These Sectaries argued against common Sense For in as much as they were not able to reconcile two Passages of this Apostle they thought it sufficient to conclude from thence that one of the two must of necessity be corrupted since it was not possible said they that he should contradict in one place what he had affirmed in another When it was demanded of Faustus whether he received the Apostle Apostolum accipis He answered that he did And when it was proved to him by the Writings of S. Paul that he ought to believe that Jesus Christ the Son of God derived his Original from David according to the flesh he then replyed (b) Non equidem crediderim Apostolum Dei contraria sibi scribere potuisse modò hanc modò illam de Domino nostro habuisse sententiam Apud Aug. lib. 11. cont Faust c. 1. that it is not credible that the Apostle of God should have written things that are contrary and overthrow one another he maintained that the Epistles of S. Paul had been interpolated as well as the Gospels and to make his Subtilty more apparent in inventing new Answers he adds that this Apostle might be reconciled with himself in saying that he had two Conceptions thereupon and that that which was objected was his old Opinion which he had abandoned after he had been better instructed But let us leave these Hereticks who had no certain Principles and were therefore obliged sometimes to have recourse to their Paraclet which was their great Engine We see almost the same thing at present in some illuminated and enthusiastick Persons who for want of good reasons are forced to fly to I know not what private Spirit that discovers to them the most hidden Mysteries of the Christian Religion I would entreat these People to reflect a little on the Conduct of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers in their Disputes against the Hereticks and on their manner of arguing they will find therein neither Paraclet nor private Spirit but solid Arguments that are very far from the Fanaticism which is predominant in our Age. Lastly to return to S. Paul the vanity of these ancient Hereticks was so great that S. Irenaeus was compelled to confute some Sectaries (c) Eos autem qui dicunt solum Paulum veritatem cognovisse cui per revelationem manifestum est mysterium ipse Paulus convincat eos dicens unum ipsum Deum operatum Petro in Apostolatu circumcisionis sibi in Gentes Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. c. 13. who affirmed that this Apostle only was endued with the knowledge of the Truth and that he alone had the Revelation of the Mysteries of the Gospel but this Father convinceth them by the very Words of S. Paul who hath born witness to the Apostleship of S. Peter CHAP. XVI Of the Epistle to the Hebrews in particular Whether it be St. Paul's and Canonical What Antiquity hath believed thereupon as well in the Eastern as in the Western Countries The Opinions of these later Ages concerning this Epistle SInce I have no other design in this Work than to treat of the Text of the New Testament and to establish as much as is possible the Writings of the Apostles I shall not insist in particular on the Subject of every Epistle of S. Paul this is a task that belongs rather to a Commentator of the Scriptures than to a Critical History of the Text for this reason I come immediately to the Epistle to the Hebrews that seems to have been disputed in Antiquity principally in the Western Churches some of which have refused to read it in their publick Assemblies there are also at this day some learned Criticks that doubt whether S. Paul be the Author thereof though they acknowledge it
seen in his time at Ephesus two Tombs of John. S. Jerom Hieron de Script Eccl. in Joann who often translates the words of Eusebius out of Greek into Latin hath also made this same Remark Reliquae autem duae saith he speaking of these two Epistles of S. John Joannis Presbyteri asseruntur cujus hodie alterum sepulchrum apud Ephesum ostenditur He adds nevertheless that some thought that these two Monuments were of S. John the Evangelist Nonnulli putant duas memorias ejusdem Joannis Evangelistae esse He repeats this same History when he makes mention of Papias and saith (ſ) Hoc autem diximus propter superiorem opinionem quam à plerisque retulimus traditam duas posteriores Epistolas Joannis non Apostoli esse sed Presbyteri Hieron de Script Eccles in Papiâ that he relates it for the sake of a a great number of persons that believed that this second John to whom the simple name of Priest is given was the Author of these two Epistles and not the Apostle However Athan. in Synops the Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures attributes these two last Epistles no less to the Apostle S. John than the first And it seems that the Latin Church that reads it in her Offices under the same Name hath authorised this Opinion which is likewise conformable to the Testimony of the most ancient Writers of this Church Therefore the Name of this Apostle Beati Joannis Apostoli is retained in the Latin Title of these three Epistles in the vulgar Edition In the Syriack Copy of these two last Epistles that have been Printed in the Polyglott Bible of England the simple Name of John is put whereas in the first it is read of John the Apostle This seems to have been done on purpose to distinguish the Authors of these Epistles In the Arabick Copy published by Erpenius these three Epistles are ascribed to the Apostle S. John who is named in the Title of the two first John the son of Zebedee and in the Title of the third John the Apostle Lastly Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 25. there have been raised no lest doubts in the Primitive Ages of the Church concerning the Epistle of S. Jude than of the preceding Letters for this reason Eusebius hath reckoned it in the number of those Books of the New Testament that were not generally received by all the Churches S. Jerom who hath made the same observation (t) Judas frater Jacobi parvam quae de septem Catholicis est epistolam reliquit quia de libro Enoch qui apocryphus est in ea assumit testimonium à plerisque rejicitur Tamen auctoritatem vetustate jam usu meruit inter Scripturas Sacras computatur Hieron de Script Eccles in Judâ adds that that which gave occasion to reject it was the Apocryphal Book of Enoch which is cited therein And that this nevertheless hath not hindered it from being placed in the rank of the Sacred Books its Antiquity and Use having given it this Authority In like manner it hath been generally received by all the Churches as well Eastern as Western The Unitarians and Protestants also have put it amongst the other Canonical Books of the New Testament Luther hath nevertheless doubted of it as well as of the Epistle of St. James but they that follow his Opinion are so far from rejecting it at present that they use their utmost endeavours to put a fair Construction on their Masters words Calvin after he hath acknowledged that the Ancients have differed very much amongst themselves touching this Epistle Calv. argum de ses Comm. sur l'ep de Sainte Jude expresseth himself thus However because the reading of it is very profitable and it contains nothing but what is agreeable to the purity of the Apostolical Doctrine and in regard also that it hath been accounted Authentick for a long time amongst all good People for my part I willingly place it in the number of the other Epistles Cajetan hath inserred from the above cited words of St. Jerom (u) Ex quibus apparet minoris esse aucloritatis hanc Epistolam iis quae sunt certae Scripturae Sacrae Cajet Comm. in Epist Jud. that this Epistle is of less Authority than these Writings of the Apostles of the verity of which we have been certainly assured but this might have been properly said in those ancient times when it was not approved by all the Churches whereas when this Cardinal wrote there were none that did not receive it as Divine and Canonical and therefore it hath no less Authority than the other Sacred Books that are comprehended in the Canon of the Church Grot. Annot in Epist Jud. Grotius did not believe that this Epistle was written by St. Jude the Apostle because the Author hath taken upon him only the quality of a Servant of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith moreover that (x) Si Apostolica fuisset habita haec Epistola versa fuisset in linguas omnes recepta per omnes Ecclesias Grot. Annot. in Epist Jud. if it were certainly esteemed Apostolical it would have been Translated into all Languages and received by all the Churches therefore he judgeth that it belongs to Jude Bishop of Jerusalem who lived under the Emperor Adrian But the first words of this Epistle do declare to us that it can come from no other hand than that of the Apostle St. Jude since he calls himself Jude the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James For to say with Grotius that these words Brother of James have been afterwards added by the Transcribers that it might be believed that this Jude was certainly an Apostle is to beg the question they that would prove that this hath been inserted by the Transcribers ought to produce good Copies of this Epistle or certain ancient Acts on which we might rely Any Man that should have a mind absolutely to reject the Epistle of St. Jude might easily say with as much reason as Grotius that he that hath forged it hath put therein the name of Jude the Brother of James Therefore Arguments that are purely Critical ought never to be opposed against Acts that are ancient and generally received by all the World. It is true that the Epistle of St. Jude is less quoted by the ancient Doctors of the Church than the most part of the other Books of the New Testament and that it is not found in the ancient Copies of the Syriack Version But it can be only concluded from thence that it was not at first received in all the Churches it might however have been published ever since the Primitive times of the Christian Religion under the name of St. Jude the Brother of James and yet not be Translated into all the Languages of the Churches because it was then doubted in the most part of these Churches whether it was his whose name it bore
Clemens Alexandrinus hath placed it amongst the other Books of the Holy Scriptures but as it hath been already observed that this Father hath inserted in his Catalogue some Pieces that were not Canonical though they passed under the names of the Apostles it can only be inferred from thence that at least ever since the time of Clement this Epistle was attributed to the Apostle St. Jude When Eusebius makes mention of it in his Ecclesiastical History he doth not set it in the rank of counterfeit Acts but of those concerning which some Churches have doubted nevertheless there are none at this day that do not acknowledge it as Divine and Canonical It is intituled in the Syriack Copy which hath been Printed The Letter of Jude the Brother of James neither hath it any other Title in the Arabick Version published by Erpenius In the Arabick Printed in the Polyglott Bible of England is is Intituled The Catholick Epistle of the blessed Jude the Brother of the Lord. The End of the First Part. The Second Part will be Published in Five Days A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament WHEREIN Is firmly Establish'd the Truth of those Acts on which the Foundation of CHRISTIAN RELIGION is laid PART II. By Richard Simon Priest LONDON Printed for R. Taylor MDCLXXXIX A CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE New Testament PART II. CHAP. XVIII A Critical Observation on a Passage in S. John's First Epistle Chap. v. vers 7. which is wanting in the most Greek Copies Eastern Editions and the most ancient Latin Copies The Preface to the Canonical Epistles in some Latin Bibles under the name of S. Jerome was not penn'd by that Father It cannot be proved that S. Cyprian had the Passage of S. John's Epistle in his Copy THE Reflections which many Learned Men have made on that Passage in the First Epistle of S. John Chap. v. vers 7. have not discouraged me from examining it afresh and consulting the most part of the Greek and Latin Manuscripts that I could find about the same The Greeks at this day in their Copy entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read as the Latin Church these words (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Joann c. 5. v. 7. For there are three that bear witness in Heaven 1 Joh. c. 5. v. 7. the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one Yet 't is hard to find among the Greeks any Manuscript Copies that have that Passage I speak not only of the Ancients but also of those of the latter times Erasmus alledged the Greeks had their Books more correct than the Latin Copies but he is mistaken as it shall appear by what follows in this Discourse 'T is much more probable that that Doctrinal Point was formerly written the Margin by way of Scolium or Note but afterward inserted in the Text by those who transcribed the Copies Such were my thoughts when I perused some of the Greek Editions and there is no less probability that it was supplied after the same manner in the antient Latin Copies which nevertheless happened not till after S. Jerom's time who is not the Author of that Addition which Socinus next to Erasmus had laid to his charge After the most diligent search in the King's Library and that of Mr. Colbert in which there are a great many good Manuscript Volumes I found no Copy that had that Passage in it tho I read seven of them in the Royal Library Codd MSS. Bibl. Reg. six whereof are marked 1885. 2247. 2248. 2870. 2871. 2872. Some of the Manuscripts have Notes but no Scholiast or Annotator does make mention of that Passage neither have I found it in five Manuscript Copies belonging to Mr. Colbert's Library Codd MSS. Bibl. Colb which are marked 871. 6123. 4785. 6584. 2844. Yet some of these Manuscripts are only in Paper and much later than the rest There is also one in 16 well written and I believe since the Impression Yet the Passage in question is not found therein any more than in the rest of the ancient Copies I could produce yet other Greek Manuscript Copies which I have seen whose various Readings I observed but that which most deserves our notice is that in the Margin of some of the King 's and Mr. Colbert's Copies there are small Notes set over against the said Passage which in all likelihood have slipped afterwards into the Body of the Text. Take an Example from the King's Copy marked 2247. over against these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is this Remark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By which we may perceive that the Author of the said Remark understood The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost to be signified by the Three Witnesses mentioned by S. John The Spirit the Water and the Blood And what was formerly written by way of Note passed afterwards into the Text as it often falls out In the same Copy over against these other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Note is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is One Deity One God. That Manuscript is about 500 Years old and there are but very few places therein that have Notes There is the like Remark in one of the Manuscripts belonging to Mr. Colbert's Library Numb 871. For besides these words that are set in the Margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One God One Deity the Scholiast has also added these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The testimony of God the Father and of the Holy Ghost This in my opinion is the original of the Passage in question which 't is very hard to find in the Greek Manuscript Copies tho at this day the read it in their Version This is much more likely than what Erasmus alledges that the Greek Copies he had occasion to inspect were much more correct than the Latin which obliged that judicious person to omit the forementioned Passage in his first Editions of the New Testament in which he was not altogether to be blamed not being obliged to insert in the Impression what he could not find in any of his Manuscripts He has nevertheless been charged with a design of favouring the Arrian Party by the omission James Lopes Stunica has mightily accused him for his unlucky rejecting the said Passage in his Edition (b) Sciendum est hoc loco Graecorum codices apertissimè esse corruptos nostros verò veritatem ipsam ut à primâ origine traducti sunt continere quod ex Prologo Beati Hieronymi super Epistolas Canonicas manifestè apparet Jac. Lop. Stun Annot. in Eras supposing that the Greek Copies had been corrupted in that place But this Spanish Critick We must in this place know that the Greek Copies are notoriously corrupted and that ours contain the very truth as they were translated from the Original who had read ancient Manuscripts does not quote any to justifie his own Sentiments He contents himself with an Appeal he makes to S. Jerome's Preface to the
of Justin and Irenaeus who lived some little time after that Book was Composed ought to be preferred to the Opinion of those Authors He further affirms (u) Non videtur propter parvam aliquam aut etiam magnam dissimilitudinem rationis scribendi in universum ac styli ab aliis ejusdem Joannis scriptis longè diversi generis debere aut posse dubitari quin ejus sit opus maximè cùm simul adsint tot alia testimonia conjecturae ut illi ipsi qui prorsus negarent ejus esse illudque rejecerunt coacti fuerint fateri à quopiam conscriptum fuisse qui persuadere voluerit istum ipsum Joannem illud conscripsisse Soc. ibid. that as to the difference of Stile betwixt that Work and those others which were written by St. John this Objection does not oblige him to give those Reasons which prove it to be St. John's since they appeared so convincing to those very persons who rejected the Book that they were forced to acknowledge that it was written by a Man who endeavoured to persuade others that St. John was the Author thereof This last Observation seems to be more subtil than solid a crime that is pardonable in the Unitaries who never applyed themselves to the study of the Ancient Ecclesiastical Authors In the last place the Commentaries on the Apocalyps made by the Calvinists are undeniable proofs that they do receive it into the number of Divine and Prophetical Books Besides they would be very sorry to be without that Prophecy Beza made a Discourse Treating expresly on that Subject by way of Preface to his Notes on that Work where he answers the Objections which Erasmus had published to diminish the Authority thereof That which he had not observed as to any other Books of the New Testament Calvin fearing that he should make himself ridiculous by his false Expositions of a Book that is so very obscure has taken the best side by not publishing any Commentary on the Apocalyps His example had no influence on his Followers for many amongst them did with a Prophetical tone lowdly recommend to the World their own Visions upon that Book Besides the Books of the New Testament which we have hitherto spoken of and that are generally received in all the Churches as Divine and Canonical some others have been read in many Churches which yet never had the same Authority Nevertheless it has so fallen out that those who have made Catalogues of the Sacred Books have not always observed this distinction For they have placed all of them in an equal rank for Books of the Holy Scripture There have been also some Fathers who quoted some Books of this sort as if they had been truely given by Divine Inspiration But it is easie to find even by the Writings of the Fathers that those Works were approved by none but particular persons whose Opinion cannot reasonably be looked upon as a Law. If I had not resolved to confine my Discourse to the Books of the New Testament which are generally approved of in all Churches I would have insisted at large on those other Books but I am obliged to keep within the limits of my first purpose I shall only observe that in a certain Catalogue of the Books of the Bible which is at the end of two very ancient Copies of St. Paul's Epistles there follows immediately after the Epistle of St. Jude (x) Judae Epistola Barnabae Epistola Joannis Revelatio Actus Apostolorum Pastor Actus Pauli Revelatio Petri. Catal. libror. Script S. ex Codd MSS. Bibl. Reg. S. Germ. the Epistle of Barnabas the Revelation or the Apocalyps of John the Acts of the Apostles the Book of the Pastor the Acts of Paul and the Revelation of Peter The number also of the Verses contained in each Book of the Bible is set down in the Catalogue And what is most of all observable is that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not comprehended therein It is nevertheless in those two Greek and Latin Manuscripts that are written with the same Hand as the rest of St. Paul's Epistles but it is placed by it self and after the Catalogue as if it did not belong to that Apostle In this matter they followed the Custom of some of the Western Churches CHAP. XX. The Objections of the Jews and other Enemies of the Christian Religion against the Books of the New Testament Inquiry is made if the Evangelists and Apostles made use of the Greek Version of the Septuagint in the Passages which they quote out of the Old Testament St. Jerom's Opinion upon the Matter That Father declared himself for the Hebrew Text of the Jews in opposition to that of the Septuagint THE Books of the New Testament having been maintained as well in general as in particular it is worth the while to examin the principal Objections that are made against those Books and at the same time against the Apostles who published them The Mahometans endeavour to evince the necessity of the coming of their Prophet from this that seeing the Canonical Books of the Jews and Christians are according to their Opinion wholly corrupted it was necessary that God should send a new Prophet upon the Earth to teach Men the True Religion But because they bring no solid reasons for the confirmation of what they alledge it is to no purpose to refute them The Jews and some Philosophers who are Enemies to the Christians have more particularly attacked the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles They have had the impudence to charge them with Forgery or at least with ignorance seeing as they object they have quoted the Books of the Old Testament otherwise than they are in themselves They further accuse them of annexing to the Passages they produce a sense that was very far from the mind of the Authors Hereupon they draw up the strongest objections they can against the Authority of the New Testament which of necessity must be answered As to the first Objections the Jews do suppose that when a publick Record is produced for confirmation of a Matter of Fact it is necessary that the very words of the Record be delivered in the same manner as they are in the Original or in faithful Copies but say they the Disciples of Jesus Christ have not done that For if the passages of the Old Testament which they have quoted in their Writings be compared with the Original Hebrew Text it will be found that in many places they bear a quite different meaning Whence they conclude that they are either chargeable with falshood or that their Writings have been altered and therefore that there is no credit to be given to them I answer this Objection that it was not necessary for the Apostles when they Preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to make use of the Hebrew Bible On the contrary it was more for their purpose that they should make mention of the passages of the Old Testament so as they
were read in the Greek Copies that were in the Hands of the most part of the World. Very few of the Jews at that time understood the Hebrew Language whereas the Greek Language was spread through the whole Empire Since therefore Jesus Christ did not send his Disciples to Preach the Gospel to a handful of Learned Jews who understood the Hebrew but to all the Nations of the Earth the most part whereof spake Greek they ought not only to speak in that Language but also to report the passages of the Old Testament after the same manner as had been written for a long time in the same Language There was at that time a Greek Version of the whole Bible that had been made by Jews many Ages before and therefore could not be suspected And so the Evangelists and the Apostles could not justly be charged with falshood for quoting passages otherwise than they were in the Original since they made use of such Writings as were approved by the Jews and were in use amongst them It is true that if they to whom the Gospel was Preached had understood the Hebrew Language it had been better to quote the Original Hebrew than the Greek Version of the LXX because the Original ought always to be preferred to Translations But as things were then the Apostles acted most wisely in preferring the Greek Copy of the Bible to the Hebrew which was understood almost by none And therefore the Church from its first beginning had no other Scripture but the Ancient Greek Version and the whole Eastern Church the Syrians being excepted have no other at this day I do not think it necessary to prove that the Apostles in their Writings quoted the passages of the Old Testament according to the Greek of the Septuagint and not according to the Hebrew Text. It requires no extraordinary skill in both the Languages to make one capable of judging aright in this matter It is certain that (a) Crebrò dixisse me novi Apostolos Evangelistas ubicunque de Veteri Instrumento ponunt testimonia si inter Hebraicum Septuaginta nulla diversitas sit vel suis vel Septuaginta Interpretum verbis uti solitos Sin autem aliter in Hebraico aliter in Veteri Editione sensus est Hebraicum magis quà m Septuaginta Interpretes sequi Hieron prooem lib. 15. Comm. in Is St. Jerom once endeavoured to persuade the World to the contrary and to confirm his Opinion gave instances of some places of the Old Testament that were quoted in the New which yet are not as he alledged in the Original Hebrew But it is easie to judge by that Learned Father 's own words that he maintained that Opinion only to give the more Authority to a new Translation which he had made out of the Hebrew because the most knowing Men of his time did strongly oppose him as if he had designed to introduce the Jewish Religion into the Church It will appear therefore that St. Jerom in that place does give an answer to his Adversaries and endeavours as much as in him lies to make an honorable retreat Hieron ibid. Aemuli nostri doceant saith he assumpta aliquot testimonia quae non sint in Hebraeorum libris finita contentio est i. e. Let our Adversaries shew what testimonies are made use of that are not in the Hebrew Books and the Dispute is at an end I desire no other Witness of what I alledge but himself seeing he does establish for a general Maxim for all the citations out of the Old Testament that are not only made use of by the Apostles but also by their Disciples (b) Hoc autem generaliter observandum quòd ubicunque sancti Apostoli aut Apostolici viri loquuntur ad populos his plerunque abuti testimoniis quae jam fuerant in gentibus divulgata Hieron Qu. Heb. in Gen. That when the Apostles or Apostolical Men speak to the people they commonly make use of such testimonies as had been published before that time amongst the Nations That is to say of the Version of the Septuagint which being written in Greek was published amongst all those Nations which spoke the Language whereas the Hebrew Text was only read in the Jews Synagogues He proves by the same Principle that St. Luke when he wrote the Acts of the Apostles to declare to the Nations the first beginnings of the Christian Religion was to quote the Passages of the Old Testament in the same manner as they were in the Version of the Scripture which was before that time spread amongst the People There is therefore nothing so absurd as the Opinion of some Protestants who notwithstanding the agreement that is found betwixt the quotations of the Apostles and the Greek Version of the LXX maintain with no small Zeal that the Apostles reported the Passages of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew Text. They attribute that agreement to some Writers whom they suppose to have lived after the times of the Apostles and who according to their Opinion corrected the Version of the Septuagint in all such Passages as are quoted in the New Testament The Evangelists and the Apostles say they regarded the sense only and not the Words of Scripture If any one ask these Men the Reason why they maintain so strange a Paradox their answer will be but this (c) Quis credat spiritum Apostolorum spiritui Graeculi interpretis se subjecisse aut limpidos fontes coenosis Hellenistarum rivulis praetulisse ubi passim de capite aliquo Religionis adversus Judeos agebatur Apostolos relicto Canone Hebraeo Lesbiam Graecorum regulam usurpasse Auctor Diss apud Capp in qu. de loc parall that it cannot be imagined that the spirit of the Apostles should be subject to the spirit of a little Greek Interpreter and that they preferred the Streams to the Fountain by leaving the Hebrew Canon to follow an uncertain Rule especially when there was an occasion for defending the Fundamental Points of Religion against the Jews Thus some Protestants extreamly addicted to the Hebrew do argue agreeable to the Ideas they have framed about matters of Fact that are as clear as the day instead of examining the things in themselves Seeing Lewis Cappel has solidly refuted this Opinion which has not the least appearance of truth it will be to no purpose to spend time about it That Learned Protestant judiciously observed that the spirit of the Apostles is not subject to the spirit of an Interpreter (d) Piâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quadam sanctâ charitatisque plenâ prudentiâ Christianâ versionem tum receptam secuti sunt iis in locis in quibus parùm aut nihil omninò ad rem ipsam interest utrum textum Hebraicum an verò Graecam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Septuaginta versionem sequaris Lud. Capp qu. de loc parall pag. 450. but through a Pious condescendency and by a true Christian Prudence they followed the
who did oppose him propter contentiosos that St. Matthew in that place had cited the words of Chap. 23. of Numbers Num. 23.22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. God who brought him out of Egypt And this is in effect the Opinion of the most Learned Greek Commentators on the Scriptures who lived before St. Jerome (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Heracl in Cat. Gr. in Matth. It is written in the Book of Numbers says Theodore of Heraclea upon this place of St. Matthew God called him out of Egypt When 't is also supposed that St. Matthew had in his view that Passage of the Prophet Hosea which is more probable why does he deny that it was from the beginning in the Septuagint as St Matthew has cited it and that that difference does proceed from those who altered the ancient Greek Version by their Glosses They believed that by translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Children as if it had been in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sense would be the more clear because that which follows is put in the Plural Number There might other examples be given of alterations of that kind which must be imputed to those who changed the ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint by their false Glosses 'T is therefore very probable that the reading in that place of the Septuagint was formerly the same as it is in St. Matthew and likewise in Aquila who also translated that passage of the Prophet Hosea by these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have called my Son out of Egypt St. Jerome does yet triumph over his Adversaries in his Commentary upon the words of the Prophet Zechary Zach. 12.10 They looked upon me whom they have pierced St. John who cited that passage in his Gospel does give it in the same manner according to the Hebrew Text whereas in the Septuagint it is They looked upon me because they have insulted (l) Joannes Evangelista qui de pectore Domini hausit sapientiam Hebraeus ex Hebraeis quem Salvator amabat plurimùm non magnoperè curavit quid Graecè literae continerent sed verbum interpretatus verbo est ut in Hebraeo legerat tempore dominicae passionis dixit esse completum Quod si quis non recipit det testimomum de quo sanctarum scripturarum loco Joannes ista protulerit Hieron Comm. in Zach. lib. 3. c. 12. St. John says that Father being an Hebrew born did not much regard its being read in the Greek Version of the Septuagint On the contrary he has rendred that place of Zechary word for word as it was in the Hebrew But if one will not believe him he must shew the place of Scripture from which St. John took the same He further adds that the likeness of the Letter R and D in the Hebrew was the cause of the false Translation of the Seventy Interpreters ob similitudinem literarum error est natus because they read as he thinks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But in my opinion seeing St. John did follow the Septuagint more than the Hebrew in all the Passages of his Gospel there is no reason to maintain that in that place he consulted the Hebrew Copy of the Jews without any regard to the Greek Version of the Septuagint Which makes me believe that at the beginning it was read in the Septuagint as it was in the Hebrew and in St. John. The change of Letters of that nature gave occasion of altering the true and ancient Text in other places And this happened to that Passage of Zechary which ought to be amended in the Greek Version of the Septuagint according to the reading in the Gospel of St. John. That which does confirm this Opinion is that St. Cyprian did read it after that manner in the ancient Latin Version which was taken from the Septuagint The Rendition of that Father has more Authority in this case than that of some Greek Scholiasts who have also read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they insulted as it is in St. John agreeable to the Hebrew Text. For these Scholiasts in their Expositions do frequently follow Aquila or some other Greek Interpreter without declaring that they do so And therefore 't is necessary that we be cautious herein that we do not confound the Version of the Septuagint with other ancient Greek Interpreters This should be the place for the examples of the alterations we spake of whereby the ancient Greek Rendition was very much changed but it would take up too much time It suffices that we have touched something of it in general to justifie the Citations of the Evangelists and of the Apostles Neither will I stay to examin particularly some other Passages of the Old Testament which St. Jerome pretends to have been cited by the Apostles in their Writings rather according to the Hebrew than according to the Septuagint For besides that it does require a long time to discuss them the rules that are confirmed already are sufficient to Answer all that Father's Objections who himself has acknowledged in many places of his Works that the Disciples of Jesus Christ who Preached the Gospel to a People that spake the Greek Tongue must have made use of the ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint which was in the hands of every one and not of the Hebrew Bible which was read by none but the Jews Besides there were but few amongst them who could have understood it We come now to the other Objection which is brought against the Books of the New Testament and which consists in a supposition that the Apostles and the Evangelists have not only changed the words of the Passages which they cite but that they have likewise wrested the same by giving them a sense altogether different from the meaning of the Authors CHAP. XXI A Discussion of some other Objections against the Books of the New Testament The Evangelists and Apostles in the manner of their explaining the Passages of the Old Testament and applying them to the Messiah followed the Custom which then obtained amongst the Jews There are many words in the New Testament which have a larger signification than they have in the Old And that can be attributed to nothing but to that usage and to a tradition received amongst the Jews THE Present Times gave not a beginning to the very great and difficult Objections that have been formed against the Testimonies of the Old Testament which the Evangelists and Apostles have made use of in their Writings for the Confirmation of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ Celsus Porphyrius Julian and the Jews have brought them against the Christians that they might thereby shew as they think the weakness of those Proofs upon which the Christian Religion is founded But they are deceived when they perswade themselves that Christianity has nothing else but such sort of Proofs for its Foundation The
〈◊〉 Word by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Decree and the other words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the breath of his mouth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Power so that according to the Literal Sense of that Passage the World was Created by the Will and by the Omnipotency of God. (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Heracl Cat. in Psalm 32. This saith Theodore is the Sense which does here present it self and he does afterwards add that according to the true Theological Sense we ought to understand the Word of God and the Holy Ghost We may also call that a Theological Sense which was given to many Passages of the Old Testament by Jesus Christ and his Apostles because it was agreeable to the Theology of the Jews of those times chiefly to that of the Pharisees who Composed the leading Sect and the most received amongst the People The Jews at this day do altogether follow their Opinions The first Christians who received the Sacred Writings from them have likewise imitated them in their manner of Expounding those Books Michael Servetus did also in many places of his Works acknowledge this Mystical and Spiritual Sense which he makes to go joyntly with the Literal He does alledge that by that way Jesus Christ may be clearly found in the Books of the Law. He thinks that there is nothing but what is Natural in the Application that St. Paul made of these words Psalm ci Thou hast created the earth from the beginning to Jesus Christ as the Creator of Heaven and Earth Which words saith he though in the opinion of some they have but a forced Sense when they are applyed to Christ yet that is the proper Sense as the Apostle does shew Hebr. i. He does insist somewhat long on this Subject Expounding in the same manner many other Psalms which he understands of Jesus Christ although it seems that according to the Natural Sense they ought to be understood in general of God. The like is to be judged of other Psalms though they by reason of their ignorance of Christ do otherwise expound them This is no place for to examin the Consequences which Servetus does draw from his Principle I brought his words only to shew that the greatest Enemies of Tradition are obliged in their Expositions of many Passages of Scripture to acknowledg a Theological Sense which can be founded on nothing but Tradition and common Belief seeing they do agree that they who are ignorant of Jesus Christ put others Senses on the Scriptures Faustus Socinus did not find a more short or effectual way than this to answer the objections that the Jews and other enemies of the Christian Religion make against the Books of the New Testament He does suppose it to have been constantly agreed upon (r) Saepè Spiritus Sanctus unâ praedictione aut affirmatione plura complecti voluit idque ut semper mos praecipuè vaticinationum fuit ad rem ipsam praedictam occultandam saltem aliquâ ex parte donec ipsa res existeret Soc. Lect. Sac. that the Passages of the Old Testament that are cited in the New have had several Senses it being true especially as to the Prophesies which according to his Opinion were so Composed that the things foretold might be concealed till their accomplishment should happen He further says that we ought not to think variety to be surprising seeing the Jews who opposed the Evangelists and Apostles do agree to it But I question if that Unitary can convince the Jews of this Truth if he build on no other Principles than those which he makes use of in his Disputing against the Catholicks Indeed to speak exactly there is but one Literal Sense of every particular Passage of Scripture That other Sense which admits of a greater latitude and which the Christians are obliged to own is founded on the received and warranted traditions of the Jews Seeing the Jews have as well as the Catholicks approved of Traditions of that kind they cannot accuse the Apostles of having wrested the true Sense of several Passages of Scripture by false Interpretations unless they themselves do renounce the Expositions of their own Doctors Let us now particularly examin some of those Passages which the Emperor Julian and the Jews have objected against the Christians The first that presents it self is taken from those Words of the Prophet Esay Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son Is vii 14. and thou shall call his name Emmanuel St. Matthew has applied them to the Messiah who was born of a Virgin and has rendred them after this manner Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son and they shall call his name Emmanuel The Jews do accuse this Evangelist of an unfaithful citation and also a false application of the words of the Prophet They say first that the Hebrew word Alma does not signifie a Virgin as St. Matthew has rendred it but simply a young Woman whether she be a Virgin or not which they endeavour to prove from other places of Scripture St. Jerom does assure us on the contrary that the Hebrew word (ſ) Alma non solùm puella vel virgo sed cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 virgo abscondita dicitur secreta quae nunquam virorum patuerit aspectibus sed magnâ parentum diligentia custodita sit Linguâ quoque Punicâ quae de Hebraeorum fontibus emanare dicitur propriè virgo alma appellatur Hieron Comm. in Is lib. 3. c. 7. Alma does properly signifie a Virgin and also a Virgin hid or shut up and that it has likewise that signification in the Carthaginian Language which derives its Original from the Hebrew The learned observation of that Father is very pertinent not only to justifie St. Matthew but also to shew that in the Septuagint the Hebrew word Alma is very well Translated And therefore seeing it not necessary to prosecute this matter with a long train of critical observations nor run through all the places of the Old Testament in particular where this word Alma is found it will suffice to bring against the Jews their own ancient Greek Version which St. Matthew or rather his Interpreter has followed It cannot be said that those Jews who lived so long a time before Jesus Christ did by a false Translation on purpose corrupt the Sense of that place The accusations with which they charge St. Matthew fall on those of their own Nation They say in the second place that in the Hebrew it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. they shall call but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou shall call which does regard the young Woman who was to call her Son Emmanuel St. Jerom declares that all the ancient Interpreters have rendred it according to the Hebrew thou shalt call But at the same time does add (t) In multis testimoniis quae Evangelistae vel Apostoli de libris veteribus assumpserunt curiosiùs attendendum est non
eos verborum ordinem secutos esse sed sensum Hieron that the Evangelists and the Apostles did not scrupulously limit themselves to the very words of the Passages of the Old Testament contenting themselves to give their Sense This is sufficient though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou shalt call is likewise found in some Greek Copies As for the Sense of this Passage the Jews pretend that it cannot be applied to the Messiah as St. Matthew has done it seeing that place does make mention of a thing that should happen very soon afterwards St. Jerom observes that they understood it of Hezekiah the Son of Achaz because Samaria was invaded under his Reign But he does solidly refute them by making it appear to them that Achaz was already far advanced in years before he came to the Kingdom He brings in the same place another Exposition of a (u) Quidam de nostris judaizans Esaiam Prophetam duos filios habuisse contendit Jesub Emmanuel Emmanuel de Prophetissâ uxore ejus esse generatum in typum Domini Salvatoris Hieron ibid. Christian who in his Opinion did Judaize That Author believed that in that place it was spoken of the Prophet Esay's Wife who had two Children Jesub and Emmanuel that the latter was the Type of Jesus Christ But whatever St. Jerom does say of it I do not perceive that there is any thing affirmed therein but what is altogether consonant to the Principles of the Christian Religion and also to those which he does elsewhere maintain That Prophesie as the most part of the rest has a double Sense the one which is here spoken of has relation to the Prophet Esay's Wife the other which is of a greater latitude and may be called Spiritual or Mystical does point at the times of the Messiah and it is also in some manner Literal because it is founded on the Theology and Traditions of the Jews It will be easie to answer their objections by supposing these two Senses whereas if the Exposition of that Prophesie be rigorously restrained to the Messiah it will be more difficult to satisfie them Seeing this Principle is of great importance and may be useful for the resolution of many difficulties of this nature it is fit to confirm it by the Authority of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers and chiefly St. Jerom who has mentioned it in his Commentaries upon the Prophet Daniel Porphyrius did pretend that there is nothing in that Book but what is Historical He applyed to Antiochus that which the Christians Expound of Antichrist aand the end of the World. The Christians nevertheless did not wholly reject the Interpretation of Porphyrius but they affirmed that Antiochus was a Type of Antichrist Typum eum volunt says St. Jerom in speaking of the ancient Doctors of the Church Antichristi habere quae in illo ex parte praecesserint in Antichristo ex toto esse implenda And to make their Opinion the more clear he further adds this excellent Maxim (x) Hunc esse morem Scripturae Sanctae ut futurorum veritatem praemittat in typis juxta illud quod de Domino Salvatore in 71. Psalm dicitur qui praenotatur Salomonis omnia quae de eo dicuntur Salomoni non valent convenire Apud Hieron Comm. in Dan. c. 11. that it is usual for the Holy Scripture to describe the Truth of future things by Types Which he confirmed by Psalm lxxi which is understood of Jesus Christ and which is nevertheless applyed to Solomon though every thing spoken in that Psalm cannot agree to him Those ancient Ecclesiastical Writers did conclude from thence that (y) Sicut igitur Salvator habet Salomonem caeteros sanctos in typum adventûs sui sic Antichristus pessimum Regem Antiochum qui sanctos persecutus est templumque violavit rectè typum sui habuisse credendus est Hieron ibid. seeing Jesus Christ had Solomon and other Saints of the Old Testament for Types we ought likewise to believe that Antichrist had Antiochus for a Type he having been a very wicked King who persecuted the Saints and violated the Temple St. Jerom does explain the Prophesie of Daniel according to those two Senses and seeing in that he cannot be charged with having favoured the impieties of Porphyrius who alledged that the Book of Daniel was not so ancient as the Jews and Christians did pretend those cancot be accused of Judaism who received a part of the Expositions that the Jews have given of the Prophesies and who do withal with the Evangelists and Apostles apply them to the Messiah in a larger Sense CHAP. XXII A particular Examination of many Passages of the Old Testament cited by the Apostles in a sense that seems to be altogether Foreign Some difficulties formed against their Writings are cleared some Principles are established which may Answer the Objections of the Jews and the Emperor Julian AS it would require much time so it is of no use to explain here all the Passages of the Old Testament which the Evangelists and the Apostles have cited in their Writings because Commentators may be consulted thereupon especially Maldonat and Grotius who commonly follow the Principle that we have already established That Principle did appear so much the more reasonable as being equally founded on a joint suffrage of the Jews and Christians Seeing I design to give general Rules for answering the Objections of the Jews against the Books of the New Testament 't is sufficient if I only take notice of some of those citations by which means these Rules may be the more manifest One of the places that are most difficult to be reconciled is the Passage of the Prophet Micah which is cited in the eleventh Chap. of St. Matthew v. 6. (a) Quod testimonium nec Hebraico nec Septuaginta Interpretibus convenire me quoque tacente perspicuum est Hieron lib. 2. in Mic. c. 5. St. Jerome does assure us that it is as clear as the day that it does neither agree with the Hebrew Text nor with the Greek of the Septuagint He brings at the same time the Opinion of some Authors who believed (b) Sunt autem qui asserant in omnibus penè testimoniis quae de Veteri Testamento sumuntur istiusmodi esse errorem ut aut ordo mutetur aut verba interdùm sensus quoque ipse diversus sit vel Apostolis vel Evangelistis non ex libro carpentibus testimonia sed memoriae credentibus quae nonnunquam fallitur Hieron ibid. that the Evangelists and Apostles were not at all exact in their citations because they trusted to their memory But seeing this Answer does rather destroy than establish the truth of the Gospels he has recourse to another solution He says that they are the Jewish Doctors who speak in that place so that St. Matthew intending to shew that those Doctors neglected the study of the Scripture has cited that Passage in the same manner
(d) Populus ille in Aegypto exulans Christi ibidem exulaturi figura dici potest sicut nunc corpus mystieum Ecclesiae corporis naturalis Christi figura est Christus populo in eo similis est quod uterque Dei filius appelletur Mald. Comm. in c. 2. Matth. v. 15. The People of Israel saith Maldonat in the time of their exile in Egypt may be said to be a figure of Jesus Christ who was also to be there in Exile as at this day the Mystical Body of the Church is a Figure of the natural Body of the same Jesus Christ who is like to Israel in this that both the one and the other is called the Son of God. The Jews could not deny this Mystical and Spiritual sense which is founded on Theology and their Ancient Doctors and whereof there are Examples in the most part of their Writings And therefore all that they object against the Authors of the New Testament does fall on their own heads seeing the Evangelists and Apostles have only imitated them In their application of the Prophecies to the Messiah they followed a Method which was approved by the Jews especially by the Pharisees All that does remain of the Jews in the World if we except the Jews Caraites who are in a very small number derive their original from the Pharisees who besides the Literal and Historical sense of Scripture do acknowledg a Sublime and Mystical sense Whence it is that those senses are frequently to be found in the Commentaries of their Rabbins Origen in his Writings against Celsus maintained with all his might that sublime sense of the Prophecies He calls that sense a Mystical Theory of the Prophets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He says (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Orig. lib. 2. cont Cels that the Prophets did not confine their thoughts to the Historical sense which came first in view nor to the Words and bare Letter of the Law. He does moreover establish this general Rule (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 2. cont Cels that the predictions of the Prophets concerning the Messiah are different some being Enigmatical and others Allegorical or of some other sort there being also some of them that are Literal It will suffice as an Answer to the Jews who in their disputes against the Christians do very much insist on the Literal and Historical sense of the Prophecies to bring that which Origen upon the like occasion answered Celsus who brought in a Jew speaking in his Writings He does reproach him (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. that he does not make the Jew speak pertinently and according to the Character he had given him because he put such words in his mouth as did agree rather to a Samanitane or Sadducee than to a true Jew I always followed this Method when at any time I met with such Jews as impugned the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles in the manner as I have already shewn For perceiving that they were pressed by the very Principles of their own Doctors they never returned me any Answer but this that the Mystical and Allegorical Interpretations of their Ancient Masters gave a great advantage to the Christian Religion When I ask'd them if they would renounce the Principles of their Rabbins to embrace those of the Sadducees or even of the Caraites they declared to me that they had a very great aversion to Men of that stamp This way is to be taken in our disputes with the Jews about Religion They are mightily puzzled when ever this Method is employed against them because we fight against them with the same Arms that they themselves make use of against the Sectaries whom we have already mentioned To return to the testimonies of the Prophets that are cited in the New Testament St. Matthew has in the same second Chapter of his Gospel applyed to the Messiah that which is written in Jeremiah Chap. 31. which seems to have no such meaning if it be expounded literally A voice was heard in Rama a voice of lamentation and great weeping Rachel weeping for her Children and would not be comforted because they are not (h) Hebraei de abductione duarum tribuum Judae Benjamin interpretantur nec dubium est ex circumstantiis Jeremiae quin de illis intelligatur per Rachelem tota regio duarum tribuum significetur Mald. Comm. in c. 2. Matth. v. 18. The Jews Jerem. 31.15 as Maldonat affirms in their exposition of this Passage of Jeremy apply it to the carrying away of the two Tribes and there is no doubt but that is the true sense and that by Rachel all the Cities of those two Tribes are to be understood If it be so the Jews may say why has your Evangelist expounded it of the murder of the Children that happened upon the occasion of your Messiah 'T is easie to make Answer that as to that there is nothing that is extraordinary and which is not agreeable to the expositions of their own Authors Aderas to use their own terms or an Allegorical sense does very well agree to the murder of those Infants The similitude that was between those two Events gave an occasion to St. Matthew to apply that which had been already accomplished in the time of the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin This was observed by Crellius after Maldonat referuntur à Matthaeo saith that Unitary ad caedem Infantium Bethlehemiticorum propter rei similitudinem quia id quod olim quidem impletum fuit in aliis in illis infantibus impletum fuit Faustus Socinus who also believed that the Jews stood upon the literal sense of that Passage of Jeremy observed that Tremellius and Junius alledged that it could not be understood literally any other way than according to St. Matthew's Interpretation (i) Verùm nulla hîc est absurditas si duplici sensu intelligantur praedictiones Veteris Testamenti esse prolatae Imò hoc videtur proprium consentaneum praedictionibus esse Soc. Lect. Sac. But in that saith he there is no absurdity if two senses be admitted in the Prophecies of the Old Testament It does also appear that it is proper and agreeable to those Prophecies The truth is if those two senses be not owned we shall give an occasion to the Jews to accuse the Evangelists and the Apostles for having falsly applyed the Ancient Prophecies We find in the same Chapter of St. Matthew another citation out of the Prophets in general which seems to be more Foreign than any that has been yet taken notice of That Evangelist saith that Jesus came and dwelt in a City called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet he shall be called a Nazarene Seeing he named no Prophet in particular the difficulty is to know what Prophet it was who foretold that the Messiah should be called a Nazarene St. John Chrysostome who had not observed those words
were interpolations made therein than to attribute to the Apostles such things as they did not understand It is upon this supposed ground that the Manichees who found no express Passages in the Law of Moses that made mention of Jesus Christ rejected as false all those Places of the Pentateuch that were applied to him in the New Testament They did not consider that at the time of Christ and the Apostles there was a Mystical and Spiritual Sense approved of by all the Jews some Sadducees possibly excepted And with respect to this Sense the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles are to be Expounded And therefore they deceive themselves who pretend that there ought to be a Literal Sense in all the Citations of the Apostles especially in those which they bring in for Proofs It is true that a Passage of Scripture taken Allegorically cannot serve for a Proof but we speak here of such Allegorical Senses as were received and which were also founded on Traditions that were warranted by Authority They were therefore permitted to apply them to their Discourse and likewise to draw such Consequences from them as might promote their design in the same manner as the Pharisees made use of them in their Disputes against the Sadducees Those Allegorical Senses prove nothing for their own confirmation but suppose a belief already established upon which they were founded It is probable that Theodore de Mopsueste Expounded the Psalms and the Prophesies according to this Method and that he had regard to nothing when he was condemned as a favourer of the Jews but the Literal and Historical Sense which he gave to those ancient Prophesies They will not consider the Application he made thereof with the whole Church to the Messiah according to a Spiritual and Mystical Sense If we believe Facundus there is no justice done to that great Man who had a perfect knowledge of the Sacred Writings (q) Eum dicunt evacuasse omnes in Christum factas Prophetias quod Manichaeorum erroris est Fac. pro def tri cap. Conc. Calc lib. 9. c. 1. They accused him of destroying the Prophesies that related to Jesus Christ by an error like to that of the Manichees But he shews the falshood of this accusation by producing the very words of Theodore taken out of his Commentaries upon the Psalms Quod autem saith Facundus nec evacuet omnes in Christum prophetias palam est quia rursus in ejusdem Psalmi expositione dicit c. Whence he concludes (r) Non ergo Theodorus Judaicae impietatis arguendus est tanquam hominem putaverit Christum cùm potiùs Judaeos irrideat Fac. ibid. That it was hard to make Theodore pass for an impious person who believed with the Jews that Jesus Christ was a mere Man seeing he vigorously defended the contrary This is no place to inquire if Theodore was unjustly condemned as Facundus does assure us I have only made mention of the Passage that I might shew that great Men have of a long time acknowledged two Senses of Scripture as we have already made evident It is certain that the Christian Religion is founded on that of the Jews The Christians have this in common with them that they adore the same God and that they believe a Messiah promised in the Writings of the Old Testament which they receive equally And therefore the Christians who Expound those Writings in a Literal and Historical Sense cannot be blamed as if they favoured Judaism in exclusion of the Christian Religion seeing they acknowledged a second Sense called Spiritual and Mystical which they apply to the Messiah This latter Sense is the same that the Jews call deras In a word it is impossible to arrive at a perfect knowledge of the Christian Religion and the Principles upon which it is established so long as that of the Jews is not known to which the former does owe its Original Celsus Porphyrius Julian and the Jews have brought some other Objections against the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles The Principal is that which is drawn from the Genealogy of Jesus Christ Recorded in a different manner by St. Matthew and St. Luke They alledge that besides that these two Evangelists do not agree they have delivered manifest falsities But this aspersion has been so clearly wiped off by many Commentators upon the New Testament and also in the Volumes that purposely have been written for that end that it is needless to insist on it I shall only observe in general that it is easie to make answer to the Jews upon such objections as are drawn from Genealogies When they bring against the Christians the difference that is betwixt our Evangelists and the Books of the Old Testament their Mouths will be stopped if we shew them that there is no less in this matter betwixt the Chronicles which they attribute to Esdras and the rest of the Historical Writings of the Old Testament Their Rabbins who could not reconcile things that appeared so remote from one another are forced to own that the same Genealogies which are written in a different manner were taken out of Records that did likewise differ And may not we also affirm that the Evangelists Collected the Genealogy of Jesus Christ out of such Records as were amongst the Jews at that time but are not extant at this day And therefore it is better to leave the things as they are than to judg rashly of them or correct that Genealogy upon bare conjectures CHAP. XXIII Of the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testament A Refutation of the Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa The Cardinal of Perron has given a very bad Exposition of the Words of the second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy Chap. 3. v. 16. which makes mention of this Inspiration The Disputes betwixt the Jesuits of Louvain and the Divines of the same place upon this matter Three Propositions of the Jesuits Censured by the Doctors of Louvain and Douay A Defence of those Propositions against the Censure of those Divines I Have Treated elsewhere of the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings in general But seeing I only Treated of them occasionally and by way of Answer to some Objections which were brought against the Critical History of the Old Testament I shall here Handle it more particularly with respect to the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles It is the common Belief of the Jews that the Books of the Old Testament were written by Persons who were Inspired which Belief was transmitted from the Jews to the Christians Upon which occasion Origen affirmed (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. lib. 5. cont Cels that both the one and the other did equally acknowledge that the Sacred Scripture was written by the Spirit of God. The Christians have also extended that Inspiration to the Books of the New Testament There are but very few Criticks who are of the Opinion that there is nothing of Inpiration in Scripture but only in
Inspiration in the Books of the New Testament if they had not expresly maintained it in other places of their Works That which II. Epist ad Tim. c. 3. v. 16. amongst Christians does most of all confirm the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings is the strong Foundation that the Apostle Paul has in one of his Epistles to Timothy all Scripture is given by Divine Inspiration We have elsewhere refuted all the subtil allegations that were brought by Grotius who endeavoured to the utmost of his power to put quite another sense on that Passage But I made it most manifest that that able Critick was to be blamed on many accounts in attempting to wrest the interpretation of those words of St. Paul that he might accommodate them to his own Idea's It is surprising that the Cardinal of Perron who was perswaded of the Inspiration of the Holy Scripture should nevertheless have made his strongest efforts Answ to the Def. of some Holl. Div. c. 10. for depriving Christians of this proof of Inspiration It is customary amongst those who write Books of Controversie to think of nothing but answering the Objections of their Adversaries without examining the proper and natural sense of the Passages of Scripture for the confirmation of their own Opinions He followed this Method of Polemical Authors in his Answer to the King of Great Britain Seeing the Protestants forget nothing that may recommend the Authority of the Scripture alone without the aid of Traditions II. Epist ad Tim. c. 3. v. 16. du Perron likewise for his part forgot nothing that might enhance the Authority of Traditions The Protestants did object to him those words of the Apostle Paul All Scripture is given by Divine Inspiration and it profitable for Doctriue Thus in effect that place of St. Paul to Timothy ought to be rendred nevertheless he does loudly oppose this Translation Du Perr lib. 3. de Trad. Apost c. 4. under a pretence that there is not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tota all or the whole in the Greek but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnis all or every and that we do not read with the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Scripture but without the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Scripture To what purpose are all those niceties of Grammar and Dialect which the Cardinal does use in that place It is true that he does alledge the Authority of St. John Chrysostome Theodoret and some other Fathers for the confirmation of his Opinion But I desire no other testimony but theirs to bring it under condemnation And to avoid being tedious in a thing so easie to be justified seeing the Works of those Fathers are every where to be had it will suffice if we inform our selves of St. Jerome's thoughts in the case he is of a quite different Opinion from that which the Cardinal has Father'd on him That Learned Bishop does not say with the Cardinal that that Passage ought to be understood distributively by translating it all Scripture and not collectively by translating it all the Scripture He does on the contrary assure us in his Homily Chrysost Hom. 9. in Ep. II. ad Tim. upon those words of St. Paul that that Holy Apostle does speak of all the Holy Scripture which Timothy had studied from his Infancy and he concludes that all that Scripture is profitable and given by the Inspiration of God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But by the Scripture that is spoken of in that place it is evident that we must understand all the Old Testament It is in no wise likely that du Perron himself had read St. John Chrysostome's Homily or any other of the Greek Fathers whom he cites That which deceived those who read them for him and gave him an abstract of their pretended sentiments is that they consulted only the Latin Version of that Homily where it is according to the vulgar Translation Omnis Scriptura divinitùs inspirata est utilis i. e. All Scripture that is given by the Inspiration of God is profitable But it was shewn elsewhere that in the ancient vulgar it was Inspirata utilis i. e. is inspired and profitable as it is in the Greek and that we are to expound that Passage collectively and not distributively We may nevertheless very well give that sense also to the vulgar as the rendition is at this day according to that reading the Translation will be All the Scripture which was given by Inspiration is profitable and not with Amelote and with the Authors of the Mons Translation All Scripture that has been given by Divine Inspiration is profitable The Syriack Arabick and Ethiopick Versions which that Cardinal pretends to be favourable to him have quite another sense than what he does attribute to them as I have shewn in the Answer to the Defence of the Opinions of some Holland Divines Answ to the Def. of the Op. Ch. 10. concerning the Critical History of the Old Testament But to proceed I do not comprehend why the Cardinal du Perron does dispute with so much vigour about the manner of Translating that Passage of St. Paul and that from thence he does infer that if it prove any thing it must be that every Canonical Writing was sufficient by it self for universal instruction in all the Christian Religion The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he without an Article does denote every piece of the Holy Scripture distributively But the Greek Fathers did not wire-draw St. Paul's words after that manner but did expound them as if in effect they had read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Scripture with the Article The Catholicks ought also to agree with the Protestants that all the Scripture is profitable for instruction which does not at all exclude Traditions which being joyned to Scripture does compose the Principle upon which the Christian Religion is Founded And therefore there is nothing but subtilty in all the Cardinal's dispute who would pass his refined impertinencies for a Comment on those words of the Apostle and who bids defiance in that adventure to all Antiquity Estius on the contrary has allowed too large a sense to the same Passage He has indeed interpreted the Vulgar very well according to the Greek Text from which the Latin was taken But he went beyond the sense (f) Rectè igitur verissimè ex hoc loco statuitur omnem Scripturam Sacram Canonicam Spiritu Sancto dictante esse conscriptam ita nimirùm ut non solùm sententiae sed verba singula verborum ordo ac tota dispositio sit à Deo tanquam per semetipsum loqùente Est Comm. in Epist II. ad Timot. c. 3. v. 16. when he did conclude from thence that all the Holy Scripture was indited by the Spirit of God not only as to the matter or things therein contained but also in respect of the words and all their circumstances so as there is no word in
matter (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. tom 15. Comm. in Matth. has observed this great diversity of the Greek Copies which he attributed partly to the negligence of the Transcribers and partly to the liberty that Criticks assumed in correcting the Books of the New Testament adding to and taking away from it according as they judged it convenient Indeed if it be remembred what was briefly said of it upon the occasion of the last Chapter of S. Mark and of the History of the adulterous Woman Chap. 8. of S. John we shall find evident proofs there of this observation of Origen which would further appear if we had several Copies of that time which we might compare with those that remain whereas we have very few that are above a thousand years continuance and which as we shall shew in the next Chapter do very much differ from those others we have at this day They have likewise all those Errors that we have observed That Father does add in the same place that he had in some sort remedied the diversity of the Greek Copies of the Septuagint Version which he had revised and corrected according to the ordinary Rules of Criticism He likewise declares in what manner he had gone through that great Work that had all the success that he could hope for But he did not the like as to the Books of the New Testament unless it be that he carefully searched for the most correct Copies and made many Critical Reflections on sundry places according as occasions did present themselves for that purpose Neither do we find that the Ecclesiastical Writers who lived after Origen made a distinction of two sorts of Editions of the New Testament as they have of two Editions of the Version of the Septuagint They made a difference betwixt that which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vulgar which was publickly used and that which was corrected according to the Rules of Criticism They considered this latter as the true Edition of the Septuagint altho it was as yet very imperfect and the most part of the Oriental Churches made use of it for correcting their Copies Yet for all this Origen as well as several other Criticks did correct some Greek Copies of the New Testament and S. Jerom does sometimes cite them But it does not appear that his Critical Observations were in the place of a Law as to those Books as they were as to an ancient Greek Version of the Old Testament If it had been so we should have had a Massore of the Greek Text of the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles in the same manner as the Jews had of the Hebrew Text of the Bible We should not find so many different Readings as there are at this day For every one would have exactly followed Origen's Copy as the Jews followed the Copy that was corrected by their Doctors whom they commonly called Massorets And from hence it is that we find not at this day any ancient Hebrew Copies of the Scripture amongst them For they reformed them all by the Massore and seeing they hold it for infallible they wholly neglected their ancient Books They are so much persuaded that the Books of the Law which they now read are perfectly conformable to the Original of Moses that they do keep in their Synagogues any old Roll or Volume The Jews of the Portuguese Synagogue of Amsterdam have at least fifty Rolls of their Sepher tora or Book of the Law which for the most part are very well written but they are all new If any ask for ancient ones they take no notice because they are prepossessed with a Belief that there can be no difference betwixt the ancient and the modern It is not so amongst the Christians who have had no Massorets whom they altogether follow in copying their Greek Copies of the New Testament And therefore we ought not to be surprised to find therein a much greater number of various Renditions than in the Hebrew Copies of the Jews I dare also be bold to say that this manifold variety ought to gain a greater authority to them than if there had been no such difference For it is impossible that a Book which has passed through so many hands should always continue the same unless they have corrected it and afterwards follow exactly that Correction as it happened to the Jews in respect of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament It is the advantage of a Book that there have been several different Copies thereof to the end that a better Judgment may be given of the true Rendition And upon this account the Books of the New Testament are to be preferred to the most part of the others because the Christian Religion having spread into so many different Countries every Nation has Copies and Versions thereof These are the different Copies by which we are to be guided at this day because we have not now the first Original We shall with all possible exactness examine the Greek Manuscript Copies and also the most ancient Versions which have been taken from the Greek We are not to depend upon one Greek Edition more than upon another if it be not founded on better Manuscripts We shall prefer the Editions which together with the Text do contain divers Renditions of sundry Copies It is a rare thing to find Greek Manuscripts where such variations are noted in the Margin for seeing those Books are read in the Churches they observe commonly no other Reading than what is authorised by custom They did content themselves to mark them in distinct Works especially in the Notes which they joyned to the Greek Text of the New Testament And therefore besides the various Manuscript Copies we ought to consult the Notes which it is easie enough to find in good Libraries Many Learned Criticks of the latter Days when the Study of the Greek Language was re-established applied themselves carefully to this Labor Valla was the first who made search for the Greek Copies of the New Testament and also for the Latin. Laur. Vall. Annot in Nov. Test Edit Basil in 8. an 1526. He cites many of them in his Remarks which Erasmus took care to Print at Basle and altho he does much insist upon the little Niceties of the Latin Grammar yet we are obliged to him for the new Discoveries which he has made to us in a time when Barbarity did still reign in Europe It was by the force of his Example that Erasmus was induced to write Notes on the New Testament where he cites a much greater number of Greek and Latin Manuscripts which he had read There is also annexed to some Editions of his New Testament a Collection of divers Readings taken from the Greek Copies He seemed to be better versed than Valla in this sort of Reasoning especially as to his knowledge of Manuscripts Nevertheless his Critical Reflections do speak the Author's liberty more than their own evidence When he meets
Languages as seems almost impossible for one Man. 'T is not to be wondered that he has committed Mistakes having had the Misfortune to be brought up in the Church of Rome which uses the Holy Scriptures chiefly in order to corrupt them equalling if not preferring Traditions to them founding its Infallibility on its self being supported by the intricate Juggles of the Canonists and the Gibberish of the Schoolmen However if his Alloy be disliked this Advantage may be expected That the Learned of our Church which pays a due respect to the Scriptures and uncorrupted Antiquity and is accomplished with all kinds of Learning requisite will be hereby excited to refine on the Subject CONTENTS Of the First Part. Chap. I. THE Verity of the New Testament defended in general against the ancient Hereticks Reflections upon the Principle made use of by the Fathers to establish the Authority of these Books Page 1. Chap. II. Concerning the Titles that are at the Head of the Gospels and other Books of the New Testament whether these Titles were made by the Authors of these Books or whether they were since added pag. 12. Chap. III. Concerning Books that have been published under the Name of Jesus Christ and the Apostles Of several other Acts forged by the ancient Hereticks Reflections on the whole matter pag. 19. Chap. IV. The ancient Fathers have not produced the Originals of the New Testament in their Disputes against the Hereticks An Examination of Proofs that are brought to shew that these Originals have been kept in some Churches pag. 30. Chap. V. Of the Books of the New Testament in particular and first of the Gospel of St. Matthew The Original of this Gospel hath been written in the Hebrew Tongue which the Jews of Jerusalem spake at that time An Answer to the Reasons that are contray to this Opinion pag. 39. Chap. VI. The Jews of the Territory of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles spake in the Chaldaick or Syriack Tongue An Answer to the Reasons that Mr. Vossius hath published against this Opinion At the same time several Difficulties are cleared appertaining to this matter pag. 46. Chap. VII Of the Sect of the Nazarenes and of their Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy of the Gospel of St. Matthew pag. 51. Chap. VIII Of the Ebionites Of their Copy of the Gospel of St. Matthew Of some other ancient Hereticks who have made use of this same Gospel pag. 72. Chap. IX Of the Greek Copy of St. Matthew and its Authority A Comparison of this Copy with the Hebrew or Chaldaick An Answer to the Objections of some Hereticks against this Gospel pag. 98. Chap. X. Of the Time and Order of every Gospel Some Greek Manuscript Copies are produced thereupon Of S. Mark and his Gospel which is commonly believed to be the second Of his Office of Interpreter to S. Peter pag. 83. Chap. XI In what Language S. Mark hath written his Gospel Of the twelve last Verses of this Gospel which are not found in several Greek Manuscript Copies pag. 91. Chap. XII Of the Gospel of S. Luke what hath obliged him to publish it since there were two others that had been written before his Of Marcion and his Copy of S. Luke's Gospel The Catholicks have also altered this Gospel in some places pag. 101. Chap. XIII Of the Gospel of S. John and of Hereticks that have rejected this Gospel Their Reasons with an Answer to them An Inquiry concerning the twelve Verses of this Gospel which are not found in some ancient Copies Several Greek Manuscript Copies are cited to clear this Difficulty Some Criticks have imagined without any grounds that the last Chapter of this Gospel did not belong to S. John. pag. 113. Chap. XIV Of the Acts of the Apostles that have been received in the Church Other Acts of the Apostles that have been forged pag. 126. Chap. XV. Of the Epistles of S. Paul in general Of Marcion and his Copy of these Epistles False Letters attributed to S. Paul. pag. 131. Chap. XVI Of the Epistle to the Hebrews in particular Whether it be S. Paul's and Canonical What Antiquity hath believed thereupon as well in the Eastern as in the Western Countries The Opinions of these later Ages concerning this Epistle pag. 142. Chap. XVII Of the Catholick or Canonical Epistles in general and in particular pag. 154. The Contents of the Second Part. Chap. XVIII A Critical Observation on a Passage in S. John's First Epistle Chap. v. ver 7. which is wanting in the most Greek Copies Eastern Editions and the most ancient Latin Copies The Preface to the Canonical Epistles in some Latin Bibles under the name of S. Jerom was not penn'd by that Father It cannot be proved that S. Cyprian had the Passage of S. John's Epistle in his Copy Page 1. Chap. XIX Of the Book of the Revelation What was the Belief of the Ancients concerning it The Hereticks that did reject it Their Reasons which are Examined There have been also Learned Catholicks of ancient time who have ascribed it to Cerinthus The Opinion of these latter times about the same Book pag. 14. Chap. XX. The Objections of the Jews and other Enemies of the Christian Religion against the Books of the New Testament Inquiry is made if the Evangelists and Apostles made use of the Greek Version of the Septuagint in the Passages which they quote out of the Old Testament St. Jerom's Opinion upon the matter That Father declared himself for the Hebrew Text of the Jews in opposition to that of the Septuagint pag. 25. Chap. XXI A Discussion of some other Objections against the Books of the New Testament The Evangelists and Apostles in the manner of their explaining the Passages of the Old Testament and applying them to the Messiah followed the Custom which then obtained amongst the Jews There are many Words in the New Testament which have a larger signification than they have in the Old and that can be attributed to nothing but to that usage and to a Tradition received amongst the Jews pag. 36. Chap. XXII A particular Examination of many Passages of the Old Testament cited by the Apostles in a sense that seems to be altogether foreign Some difficulties formed against their Writings are cleared some Principles are established which may answer the Objections of the Jews and the Emperor Julian pag. 46. Chap. XXIII Of the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testament A Refutation of the Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa The Cardinal of Perron has given a very bad Exposition of the Words of the second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy Chap. 3. v. 16. which makes mention of this Inspiration The Disputes betwixt the Jesuits of Louvain and the Divines of the same place upon this matter Three Propositions of the Jesuits censured by the Doctors of Louvain and Douay A Defence of those Propositions against the Censure of those Divines pag. 59. Chap. XXIV An Examination of the Reasons that the Doctors of Louvain and Douay made use of in their Censure of the Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain touching the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings A very free Opinion of a Learned Divine of Paris about the same thing pag. 71. Chap. XXV Spinosa's Objections against the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testam are examined pag. 80. Chap. XXVI Of the Stile of the Evangelists and the Apostles The Opinion of modern Writers and of the ancient Doctors of the Church upon this matter with many Critical Reflections pag. 84. Chap. XXVII Of the Language of the Hellenists or Grecians if that which bears that name be in effect a Language The Reasons of Salmasius against that Language do rather establish than destroy it The Greek of the New Testament may be called the Greek of the Synagogue the Jews Hellenists read in their Synagogues the Hebrew Text of the Bible as well as the Jews pag. 94. Chap. XXVIII A more particular Discussion of the Reasons alledged by Salmasius against the Language that is called Hellenistick Several Difficulties also relating to this matter are cleared pag. 103. Chap. XXIX Of the Manuscript Greek Copies in general and of those who have spoken of them Collections which have been made of divers Readings drawn from those Manuscripts Observations upon the whole matter The Hereticks have been accused sometimes but without any ground for corrupting the Books of the New Testament pag. 110. Chap. XXX Of the Greek Copies of the New Testament in particular The most ancient that we have at this day were written by the Latins and were used by them Those which were printed came from the Greek Churches The ancient Latin Version which was in the Churches of the West before St. Jerom were made by those first Copies which were not very correct Of the ancient Cambridge Copy why it does differ so much from other Greek Copies pag. 128. Chap. XXXI Of the second part of the Cambridge Copy which contains St. Paul's Epistles Examples of the various Readings that are in that second Part. Critical Reflections upon the whole matter pag. 144. Chap. XXXII Of other Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament Examples of the various Readings of those Manuscripts with Critical Reflections on those Differences pag. 156. Chap. XXXIII Of the Order of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament The Verses Chapters and other marks of distinction of those Copies The Canons which Eusebius added to the Gospels and the Use of those Canons pag. 175. FINIS