cannot possibly conclude any thing against them For it will be easily demonstrated that those Writers in that matter followed the custom and Tradition of their Time. The Book where the most of that sort of citations are found is the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews where we find nothing else but Passages of the Old Testament explained in a manner that is altogether Allegorical and Foreign to the Letter which has also given an occasion to some Writers to suspect that St. Paul was not the Author But it seems on the contrary that if we reflect upon the Pharisees Method in their Expounding Scripture it cannot be attributed to any other than to that Holy Apostle who having Studied in Jerusalem under the Doctor Gamaliel did penetrate into all the most refined Points of their secret and mystical Interpretations of the Bible In effect after I had recommended the reading of this Epistle to a Jew who was well Read in his own ancient Authors he having perused it freely declared that it must needs have been written by some great * A Man of Tradition Mekubal of his own Nation And he was so far from telling me that St. Paul had wrested the true Sense of Scripture with his Allegories at pleasure that he extolled his profound skill in the sublime Sense of the Bible and always returned to his great Mekubal of whom he never spoke but with admiration Enjedine a subtil Unitary was so much persuaded of this Truth that after he had proposed the most part of those Reasons which are ordinarily objected against the Epistle to the Hebrews he adds (n) Praemonemus omnia penè testimonia exempla quae ex Veteri Testamento huc transferuntur non secundùm historiae veritatem sensum ut vocant literalem sed mysticè sensu spirituali intelligi allegorico ad Novuon Testamentum applicari explicari Quod ita manifestum est ut nisi quis hoc admittat in absurda manifestissima incidat Georg. Enjed. explic loc Vet. Nov. Test explic loc Epist ad Heb. that the most part of the Passages which are cited in this Epistle out of the Old Testament are not to be understood in a literal but in a mystical and spiritual Sense otherwise it were impossible to avoid several manifest absurdities He does likewise suppose in another place that this manner of Exposition of Scripture was then approved by the Jews and that Jesus Christ made use of it when he disputed with the Pharisees who received the same He brings for an example these Words of Psalm cix 1. The Lord said unto my Lord c. which Jesus Christ understood of the Messiah and not of David (o) Cuòd autem Christus hoc loco usus est mysticâ interpretandi Scripturas formâ observavit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cùm enim essent tres Judaeorum sectae Sadducaei solum literalem Scripturae sensum admitterent Pharisaei verò etiam mysticum approbarent cum Pharisaeis disputans arripuit hoc quod illi pro confesso concesso habebant licere nimirum Scripturas mysticè interpretari quia norat illum Psalmum qui literaliter de Salomone aut potiùs de ipso Davide est compositus spiritu aliter referri solere ad Messiam ideò tam confidenter hunc Psalmum de Davide de Messiâ conscriptum esse affirmat Quod illi negare nisi sectae suae renunciare vellent non poterant Enjed. explic loc Matth. when Christ saith Enjedine explained that Passage in a mystical Sense he did nothing but what was very pertinent for there were three Sects amongst the Jews at that time The Sadducees did only receive the Literal Sense of the Scripture The Pharisees on the contrary besides the Literal did also approve of the Mystical Sense And therefore in his Disputing with the Pharisees he followed a Custom in which they were agreed that is of giving Mystical Expositions to Scripture Seeing he knew that the Psalm which was understood of Solomon or rather of David according to the Literal Sense was ordinarily applied to the Messiah he freely declares that David had the Messiah in his view when he writ it Which the Pharisees could not deny unless they would have renounced their own Sect. This observation of Enjedine does agree with the Principle which was formerly established in this Discourse for answering the Jews who accused the Evangelists and the Apostles of giving false Interpretations to the Passages of the Old Testament I will further say that there were certain Traditions which were not only received by the Pharisees but also by the other Sects I reckon in the number of those Traditions the belief of a Messiah which it would have been hard to prove only by the Books of Moses Nevertheless the Samaritans who owned nothing but the Pentateuch to be Divine and Canonical Scripture did believe at that time and still believe the Messiah at this day and the ground that they have for it is taken from some Passages of the Law which appear to have another Sense if they be Interally Expounded Whence I conclude that this Spiritual and Mystical Sense was not only in use amongst the Pharisees but also amongst the other Sects Nevertheless the Pharisees had abused it by allowing it too great a latitude And therefore our Lord does sometimes reproach them for this bad use which they had made of Traditions yet without condemning the Traditions themselves The Jews Caraites also who very much despised the Fables that abound in the Talmud do not absolutely reject all the Traditions which are contained in that Book If the Unitaries would make a just reflection on the Principle which has established and which may serve as an answer to the most part of the objections of the Jews against the Books of the Old Testament they would not so much insist upon the Literal Exposition of certain Passages of Scripture which they oppose to the Theological Expositions of the ancient Fathers Seeing the Jews have Authorised by their Traditions some Interpretations of the Old Testament that are in no wise Literal the Doctors of the Church have also used the like in their Exposition of Scripture Interpretations of that kind are found in all the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers I shall content my self to produce in this place the Testimony of an Author who cannot be suspected by the Unitaries That is Theodore of Heraclea a favourer of the Arian Party and who writ learned Commentaries on the Bible but there remains nothing of them but some fragments in the Collections or Chains of the Greek Fathers That famous Divine does establish these two sorts of Senses viz. the Literal and the Theological and he does apply them to those words of the Psalmist (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The heavens were established by the word of the Lord and all their host by the breath of his mouth he does Expound Literally the word de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
of S. Thomas without establishing Tradition at the same time because it is impossible to prove this by any Testimony of the Scriptures Socinus To answer this Objection without departing from his Principle lays down (y) Est quiddam medium inter Scripturas traditionem Immò non quiddam modò sed multiplex quiddam soriptae nimirum historiae aliaque testimonia rationes ex quibus factum est fit ut cordati homines Matthaei Evangelium pro vera de Jesu Christo historin habeant Thoma non habeant nullâ hîc intercedente autoritate Ecclesiae Spiritiis quo ipsa porpetuò gubernetur Soc. Epist 4. ad Christoph Ostorod a certain Medium between the Scriptures and Tradition which Medium consists according to his opinion in written Histories in other Testimonies and in Ratiocinations from whence it is proved without making application to any Authority of the Church that the Gospel of S. Matthew contains the true History of Jesus Christ and that on the contrary that which carries the name of S. Thomas is a suppositious Book Episcopius and the other Remonstrants do also make use of this Answer that they may not be obliged to acknowledge the Traditions of the Church But this Medium which they suppose to be between the Scriptures and Tradition is a true Tradition which differs in nothing from that which S. Irenaeus Tertullian Epiphanius S. Augustin and several other Fathers have established when they intended to convince the ancient Hereticks of the Truth of the Apostolical Books These Histories and these other Acts whereof Socinus makes mention are taken from the Churches or from Ecclesiastical Writers and this is that which composeth Tradition He ought to agree to it himself since he avoucheth in his Treatise of the Authority of the Holy Scriptures that since the times of the Apostles to those of Eusebius none have doubted in the Church that the Books of the New Testament were not composed by those whose Names they bear For it is certain that many Hereticks that were out of the Church have not only doubted thereof but have absolutely rejected them That which hath deceived Socinus and the other Sectaries is a false notion that they have conceived of the Authority of the Church they imagine that she Judges by her own Authority only and not upon good Acts and Records that the Books that compose the Old and New Testament are Divine and Canonical CHAP. II. Concerning the Titles that are at the Head of the Gospels and other Books of the New Testament Whether these Titles were made by the Authors of these Books or whether they were since added WE have no solid proof in Antiquity to make it appear to us that the Names that are set at the Head of every Gospel were thereunto prefixed by those who are the Authors of them S. John Chrysostom assures us expresly of the contrary in one of his Homelies (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joann Chrys Hom. 1. in Epist ad Rom. Moses saith this Learned Bishop hath not put his Name to the five Books of the Law that he hath wrote those also that have collected the Acts after him have not set their Names at the beginning of their Histories The same may be said of the Evangelists Matthew Mark Luke and John. As for S. Paul he hath always set his Name at the beginning of his Epistles except that which is directed to the Hebrews and the Reason that S. John Chrysostom produceth is because the former wrote for the use of Persons that were present whereas S. Paul wrote Letters to persons that were at a distance If we should refer our selves herein to the Testimony of this Father we cannot prove precisely from the Titles only that are at the Head of every Gospel that these Gospels have been composed by those whose Names they bear at least if we do not joyn to this the Authority of the Primitive Church that hath added these Titles On this Principle it is that Tannerus and other Jesuits supported themselves in a Conference that they had at Ratisbonne with some Protestants to shew that they could not clearly prove the Title of S. Matthew and without the Testimony of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that this Gospel was made by him whose name it bore they insisted that they could not bring other Proofs of this Truth than those that were taken from humane Authority and not from the Scriptures themselves since they had been added to them Ex solo testimonio hominum eorumque non omnium sed eorum tantum qui Ecclesiae corpus constituunt * David Schramus Theologus Ecclesiastes in aula ad austrum Neoburgica edit Giessae Hassorum ann 1617. A Protestant Divine who had assisted at this Conference hath composed a Book on purpose on this Subject to prove the contrary to that which the Jesuits maintained But to say the truth there is more of Subtilty in these sorts of Disputes than of solid Arguments for although it were true that S. Matthew is the Author of the Title of his Gospel recourse must always be had to the Authority of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers to shew that this Title is of him and that this Gospel certainly belongs to him whose Name it bears at least if we decline flying to a private Spirit which hath been above discoursed and cannot be approved by any judicious Persons These Titles are so ancient in the Church that Tertullian reproves Marcion who acknowledged the Gospel of St. Luke from which he had only took away some Passages (b) Marcion Evangelio scilicet suo nullum adscribit auctorem quasi non licuerit illi titulum quoque adfingere cui nefas non fuit ipsum corpus evertere Tertull. lib. 4. adv Marc. cap. 2. for having no Title at the head of his Copy as if it were not lawful for him saith this Father to annex a Title to a Work the Text whereof he had ventured to corrupt He adds further in this same place That he could not proceed in the Dispute that he held with this Heretick since he had a right to reject a Book as suspected the Title whereof did not appear that he was willing nevertheless thus far to condescend to him because it is easie (c) Ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet Tertull. ibid. to judge by the Copy of S. Luke that was read in the Church whether that of Marcion were the same excepting that which he had cut off from it It is not to be inferred that Tertullian was of Opinion that it might be proved by the Titles only that the Gospels belonged to those whose Names they bore otherwise he ought to have acknowledged as the true Gospels an infinite number of false Books that carried the Names of the Apostles It was necessary according to his mind to have besides this a constant Tradition founded on the Testimonies of those who
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
〈◊〉 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
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
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
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
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
had lived before therefore he adds at the same time that (d) Si sub ipsius Pauli nomine Evangelium Marcion intulisset non sufficeret ad fidem singularitas instrumenti destituta patrocinio antecessorum Tertull. ibid. altho Marcion should have published his Gospel even under the name of S. Paul this Title would have availed nothing at least if it had not been accompanied with these Testimonies He goes yet farther in declaring that he did not take advantage of the Title that is at the beginning of S. Luke in the Copies of the Church Ibid. De titulo quoque funis ducendus est contentionis pari hinc inde nisu fluctuante For as to the Title alone Marcion might say as well as the Orthodox That the Gospel which he produced was the true one (e) Ego meum dico verum Marcion suum Ego Marcionis affirmo adulterat um Marcion meum Quis inter nos determinabit nisi temporis ratio ei praescribens auctoritatem quod antiquius reperietur ei praejudicans vitiationem quod posterius revincetur Tertull. ibid. cap. 4. To which then shall we adhere saith Tertullian by what Rule may we determine which is the true Gospel whether that of Marcion that hath been corrupted or that of the Church which is supposed to be entire at least if regard be had to Antiquity insomuch that the most ancient should be the true because the verity of an Act always preceeds the corruption of the same In quantum enim falsum corruptio est veri in tantum praecedat necesse est veritas falsum On this uncontroulable Principle he makes it appear that the true Copy of S. Luke was that which the Orthodox made use of since Marcion himself had not acknowledged any other before he had separated from the Church which he accused of Judaizing and he chiefly defended himself with this pretended Judaism from the Charge of not receiving this Gospel entire which he said had been interpolated by those that authorized Judaism Interpolatum à protectoribus Judaismi Lastly Tertullian concludes That there was no other true Copy of S. Luke but his because it was before that which Marcion had corrected and the Reason that he alledgeth is this That he could not amend any but that which was in the Church and was consequently antecedent to his Id emendans quod invenit id posterius quod de nostro emendatione constituens suum novum fecit But since it might be objected to him that it is not always true that the most ancient Books are the most correct because they also may have been corrupted at least if they be not the true Originals he answers that it is necessary to look back to the time of the Apostles to be certain that we have their genuine Writings (f) In summa si constat id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio ab initio quod ab Apostolis pariter utique constabit id esse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum Tertull. ibid. cap. 5. Now we are assured according to his Opinion that a thing belongs to the times of the Apostles when we see that it hath been inviolably preserved in the Apostolical Churches All these Arguments of Tertullian prove that the constant Tradition of the Church is the mark by which we distinguish the Divine and Canonical Books from those that are not so and that it is this same Church that hath added or at least approved of the Titles of the four Gospels to denote to us that these Gospels were written by Apostles or by their Disciples which does not in the least agree with this private Spirit of some Protestants In seems that Beza believed that the Titles of the Gospels were no less dictated by the Holy Ghost than the Text it self Th. Bezae Resp ad defens reprehens Seb. Castal this he insinuates in his Answer to the Defense of Castalio whom he reprehends for having translated in his Latin Version of the New Testament these Greek Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by these auctore Matthaeo Maldonat hath observed with much more Judgment (g) Non est Sacrorum Scriptorum consuetudo ut ante initium librorum ritulos ponant sed ut vel omittant vel prima libri verba titulum faciant Maldon Comm. in cap. I. Matth. That it is not the custom of the sacred Writers to put Titles at the beginning of their Works but that they either omit them altogether or they include them within the first Words of their Books which he demonstrates by Examples taken out of the Old Testament whence he infers that it is probable that the Evangelists are not the Authors of the Titles of their Gospels He proves it also by the Example of S. Mark who would have put two Titles to his Book if he were the Author of the first that runs thus The Gospel according to Mark because he begins his History with these other Words The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ He adds farther That if the Evangelists had been the Authors of these Titles there would not have been found so great an uniformity amongst them as appears they would have made use of different Expressions as they do in the other parts where they relate the same things but in different terms instead of writing all The Gospel according to N. Again he confirms his Opinion by the diversity that is found among the Greek and Latin Copies Maldon ibid. for these last read The holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to N. which proceeds from this saith Maldonat that the Greek Church hath put the Greek Title and the Latin Church the Latin quod Graecum Titulum Graeca Latinum Latina It seems that Beza in this case chose rather to prefer the Title of the Latin Copy before that of the Greek when he accuseth Castalio of having falsly translated auctore Matthaeo as if S. Matthew had been the Author of his Gospel for to confute his Adversary with more force he saith (h) Neque enim legimus Evangelium Matthaei Marci Lucae vel Joannis sed Evangelium Jesu Christi ut habent omnes Latini codices secundùm Matthaeum Marcum Lucam Joannem Bez. Resp ad Castal p. 12. That we read not the Gospel of Matthew Mark Luke or John but the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew Mark Luke and John as it is in all the Latin Copies Nevertheless this Reading is not found but in the Latin Version and not in all the Latin Copies neither If Maldonat may be believed there is only the Arabick Version printed at Rome Nov. Test Arab. edit Romae an 1591. where it is read The Gospel of Jesus Christ according as it hath been written by S. Matthew one of his twelve Disciples But it is easie to judge that this Arabick Title hath been taken in part from the Latin and those who have copied
this History of the Birth of Jesus Christ and of the Virgin passeth for an authentick Book in the Oriental Churches Biblian in Epist nunenp Authenticus habetur in Orientalibus Ecclesias The Greek of this little Work hath also been printed afterwards at Basil with the Latin Version in a Collection of several Pieces intituled Monumenta Orthodoxa The Title that answers to that of the Latin Translation is thus expressed An. 1569. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Commentary on the six days of the Creation that Leo Allatius hath published under the Name of Eustathius Bishop of Antioch who lived at the beginning of the fourth Century did certainly belong to that Bishop the Protevangelium would be of sufficient Antiquity there is found in this Book a considerable fragment of it that is delivered in such manner that the most fabulous part thereof is omitted The Expression that Eustathius useth in citing it makes it appear that he did not believe it to be of St. James under whose name they had published it but of another James for observe how he speaks (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eustath Comm. in Hex It is convenient here to peruse the History that one James relates of the Virgin Mary However it be we find in the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors a part of the things that are contained in this little History and that apparently come from the Gnosticks who had written many Fables relating to the Birth of Jesus Christ and the Virgin. I admire that the Protestants who have caused this Protevangelium of James to be printed have thought it worthy to be published with some other pieces of the like nature under the Title of * Orthodoxogr edit Basil Lat. ann 1555. ibid. Lat. Gr. an 1569. Biblian ibid. Orthodoxographa Bibliander seriously divulgeth the Impostures of William Postel who had averred that this Protevangelium was the beginning of the Gospel of S. Mark and even the foundation of Evangelical History this he repeats also in a little Discourse wherein he gives his Judgment of this Book Ipse Postellus saith he aestimat Protevangelium ut gemmam inter Libros Theologicos Basim atque fundamentum totius Historiae Evangelicae caput Evangelii secundùm Marcum Biblian in censu judic Protevan In a word he forgets nothing that might set a value on this wicked Piece which he thinks to be recommendable because it hath not been reckoned in the number of the Apocryphal Books with the Gospels of Nicodemus Thomas and many others that are recited at large in the Catalogue of Pope Gelasius But this proves only that the Protevangelium had not been as yet published in that time or that not being translated into Latin this Pope had took no cognisance thereof Indeed he hath placed among the Apocryphal Works a Book that treated on the same Subject as may be judged by the Title Liber de Nativitate Salvatoris saith Gelasius de Sancta Maria Gelas apud Grat. decr 1. part dist 15. c. 3. de obstetrice Salvatoris apocryphus It were to be wished that Father Jerom Xavier a Missionary Jesuit had not inserted so many very improbable things taken out of this sort of Books in his History of Jesus Christ written in the Persian Tongue It would be to no purpose for me to enlarge any farther on the false Acts that have been published under the names of the Apostles it is enough to observe in general that they have been for the most part invented by Hereticks that have been willing to support their Novelties by attributing them to some Disciples of Jesus Christ Hegisippus who lived immediately after the Disciples of the Apostles speaking of Apocryphal Books testifies (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 4. cap. 22. that a part of these Books have been composed by the Hereticks of his time therefore when the Primitive Fathers designed to judge whether a Book were Canonical or not they have examined its Doctrine to see if it were conformable to that which was taught in the Catholick Church they have moreover consulted the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors who have lived since the Apostles to their times that they might by this means know the Tradition Serapion applied these two Rules to the Gospel that passed under the name of S. Peter which was read by those of the Church of Rhossus thinking that it did certainly belong to him whose name it bore (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Serap apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. cap. 12. We have found saith this holy Bishop in this Gospel Serap apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. c. 12. many things that agree with the true Religion of Jesus Christ but there are also some things that are far from it He judgeth in the same place that the Act that had been produced to him was false because it was not grounded on Tradition Not but that the Fathers have sometimes made use of Apocryphal Books and have quoted even false Gospels as for example the Gospel that is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Egyptians is not to be allowed as authentick for this very reason that it is thought to be most ancient and that mention is made thereof in Clement of Alexandria it ought not to be rejected neither under this pretence alone that the Gnosticks and Sabellians have maintained their Errors by this Book The Primitive Fathers who have written against the Pagans and Jews do sometimes follow in their Disputes and even in their other Works the method of Rhetoricians who often employ Reasons purely probable and doubtful Acts after which we must not always regulate our selves This is to be seen principally in the Works of Clement of Alexandria and Origen Clement hath on this account related some Words of Jesus Christ (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. lib. 3. Strom. that are not to be found in the four Evangelists authorized by the Tradition of the Church and he saith that they are in the Gospel of the Egyptians He only quotes them after the Heretick Cassian Clem. Al. l. 2. Strom. and in arguing with the Followers of Basilides he refers to certain Writings attributed to St. Barnabas On the other side the Hereticks making Profession of Christianity as well as the Orthodox have not always recourse to apocryphal and supposititious Pieces to defend their Innovations Therefore to judge rightly of an Act whether it be valuable or not in point of Religion and whether it carrieth with it a Divine Authority it is absolutely necessary to apply to it the two Rules that have been above mentioned S. Augustin's Advice is when any such Difficulties arise (c) Tenebit hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis ut eas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis Catholicis praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt In eis verò quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus praeponat eas quas plures gravioresque
Gospel a Passage of Chap. 47. of Isaiah Which he would not have done saith he if he had written in Hebrew because he would have produced the very Words of the Text. And it is not credible adds he that the Interpreter should be the Author of this Abbreviation All this Argumentation that is grounded on no positive proof is nothing to the purpose The Apostles on the contrary do often cite the Passages of the Old Testament only according to the sense and they rehearse them sometimes in short only producing that which relates to their design J. Wolz. Proleg in 4. Evang. cap. 9. Wolzogenius a famous Unitarian hath also collected in the beginning of his Commentaries on the Gospels a part of these same Reasons to shew that the Original of S. Matthew hath not been written in Hebrew but he explains himself after such a manner as makes it appear that the Fratres Poloni have but little knowledge in facts that respect the Criticism of the Scriptures I shall pass by in silence the Reflections of Dr. Lightfoot on this Subject because they seem to me to be too Rabbinical J. Lightf Hor. Hebr. in cap. 1. Matth. and even little intelligible That which he adds in the same place that the Gospel of S. Matthew hath not been immediately written in Hebrew but in Greek and that it hath been afterwards translated from the Greek into Hebrew to the end that it might be read by the Learned Jews is not supposed with any Foundation all Antiquity having believed the contrary There is not even at this day any Christian Society in the Levant that is not persuaded that the Greek Gospel of S. Matthew is only a Version of the Hebrew Text. Therefore we find at the end of some Greek Manuscript Copies of this Gospel that it hath been published 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Jerusalem Nov. Test Syr. edit Viennae in Bibl. Polygl We read also at the end of the Syriack Version of the same Gospel that S. Matthew hath preached it in Hebrew in Palestine Some Copies of the Arabick Version and the Persian Translation have also in the Title that is at the beginning of S. Matthew that it hath been written in the Hebrew Tongue This agrees perfectly with the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers whose Sentiments have been explained in a few words by S. Jerome Hieron Praef. Comm. in Matth. Matthaeus saith this Father Evangelium in Judaea Hebraeo Sermone edidit ob eorum maximè causam qui in Jesum crediderant ex Judaeis All this makes it appear that Mr. Vossius hath had reason to call some Divines of his own Party who hold that S. Matthew hath not written in Hebrew (i) Audio semi-Theologos quosdam Rabbinistas omnium Patrum omniumque Ecclesiarum testimonia conculcare ac seriò adfirmare Matthaeum non Hebraicè sed Graecè scripsisse Stulti simus si istiusmodi deliriis aliquid reponamus If. Voss Praef. in Appen ad lib de LXX Interp. Demi-Theologues possessed with Rabbinism He esteems them also so foolish that he would not have them answered However I have thought that I ought not to neglect their Reasons that have given me ocasion to clear up this matter And there are at this day very many persons especially among the Protestants that cannot yield to Mr. Vossius who hath attacked them with Injuries and Reproaches rather than Arguments The very Supposition it self that he makes that the Jews of Jerusalem spake in the Greek Tongue amongst themselves and that they made use of the Greek Version of the Septuagint in their Assemblies is a strong argument to prove that S. Matthew had indeed composed his Gospel in Greek This obligeth me here to examine the Reasons on which Mr. Vossius grounds this Paradox and to shew at the same time that the Jews of Jerusalem spake the Chaldaick or Syriack Language at the time of our Saviour and the Apostles 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 IT is to be feared lest these Protestant Divines whom Mr. Vossius seems so much to despise should in their turn reprove him because he overthrows all Tradition and contradicts the Holy Scriptures themselves and all Learned Divines Is Voss Resp ad iter P. Sim. Obj. p. 375. when he avoucheth that in the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles the Jems of Jerusalem spake no other Language but the Greek In like manner he treats those persons * Semidoctorum sanaticorum as half-learned and Fanaticks that believe that Jesus Christ and his Disciples have spoken in the Syriack Tongue At that rate all the World would be filled with half-learned and fanatical People and Mr. Vossius alone would be truly learned and exempt from Fanaticism Cor solus habet solus ingenium The ancient Ecclesiastical Authors who have affirmed that S. Matthew hath written his Gospel in Hebrew would be all Fanaticks for they declare that they have embraced this Opinion only because the Jews of Jerusalem then spake Hebrew that is to say the Chaldaick or Syriack Tongue and since they have confirmed this their Judgment by express Passages of the New Testament I think it necessary here to produce some of them It is expresly said in the Acts of the Apostles (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Actor 21.40 that St. Paul made a discourse in Hebrew to the Jews of Jerusalem (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Actor 22.1 who hearkened to him because he spake their Language This holy Apostle being of Tarsus a City of Cilicia where he had learn'd Greek would not have fail'd to make an Oration to them in that Language if it had been the vulgar Tongue of the Jews of Jerusalem But because he was an Hebrew and of Hebrew Parents and had been educated in their City studying under the Doctor Gamaliel he spake to them in the Language that was understood by the People It was for this reason also that the Tribune demanded of S. Paul whether he could speak Greek Graecè nosti He supposed that the Jews of Jerusalem spake in a different Tongue from the Greek Act. 21.37 viz. the Chaldaick or Syriack as appears manifestly from S. Luke who saith (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 1.19 that the Field of Judas was called Aceldama in the Language that was then spoken at Jerusalem Moreover Act. 1.19 we find in the New Testament divers Chaldaick or Syriack Words as for example Bethesda Golgotha Tabitha and some others that the Evangelists call Hebrew according to the manner of speaking at that time St. John making mention of the Fish-pond or Pool of Jerusalem saith (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joann 5.2 that it was called in Hebrew Bethesda
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)
be attributed to the Holy Ghost whose Instruments they have been But can that be called a Demonstration which is only grounded on uncertain Conjectures Would it not be more prudent to refer our selves herein to the testimony of Papias who hath lived with the Disciples of the Apostles If there had been in his time a Greek Version of the Gospel of S. Matthew which had been made by some Apostle he would not have failed to have told us of it He declares on the contrary that every one translated it as he was able There is nothing therefore but the constant Tradition of the Church alone that gives authority to this Version and that can oblige us to prefer it before the Hebrew or Chaldaick Copy of the Nazarenes Whereas the Protestants make the Holy Ghost to descend on the Apostles to translate the Gospel of S. Matthew out of Greek into Hebrew some Catholick Divines on the other side pretend also that the ancient Latin Version of the New Testament hath been inspired But it is much more reasonable only to admit this Inspiration for the Originals of the Holy Scriptures which have been translated into different Languages according to the necessities and occasions of the Churches If we hearken in the mean time to Casaubon and some other Protestants the Greek only of S. Matthew would be accounted Canonical (e) Constat sanè Ecclesiam Dei hunc ipsum textum inter libros Canonis Sacri relatum pari cum caeteris libris veneratione esse persecutam quod neque in Syriacâ Versione neque in ullâ aliâ reperitur esse factum Casaub ibid. because the Church hath put this Text into the Canon that she hath made of the Sacred Books and she hath not put therein the Syriack Version which is most ancient nor any other Translation but where is it to be found that the Church in placing the Gospel of S. Matthew in the rank of Canonical Books hath spoken of the sole Greek Version and hath excluded all others She only speaks in general of the Gospel of S. Matthew which is Divine and Canonical in whatsoever Language it be written It may be said nevertheless that there are some Nations that have exacter Translations of them than others this hinders not but that it may be averred that they all have a Canonical Copy of the Gospel of S. Matthew The Grecians and the Latins have this advantage over the other Christians that their Versions are the most ancient and the most exact and the Syrians after them However there is no Christian Nation that doth not believe but that they have in possession the true Gospel of S. Matthew tho they all have only Copies of it It doth not appear that Casaubon who is usually moderate in his Opinions hath sufficiently considered this matter when he hath unadvisedly taken the part of some Protestants against Baronius I do not pretend to defend all that Baronius hath alledged in this point but it seems to me that those of the Roman Church cannot with Justice be reproached (f) Error est in fide periculosissimus ne dicam Haeresis obtentu Hebraici contextûs qui sam ìnde à principio reperiri desiit in orbis nostri notis Ecclesiis Graeci auctoritatem velle elevare quod omnes hodie Hildebrandinorum sacrorum mystae in hac quaestione faciunt Casaub ibid. as Hereticks when they defend the Hebrew Text of S. Matthew to detract say they from the Authority of the Greek Copy The Defence that they undertake of the Hebrew Text of S. Matthew doth not in the least diminish the Authority of the Greek Version They only insist that the Greek is not the original but the Hebrew and if this Original were come to our hands it might with reason be preferred before the Greek which is but a Translation In the mean time since this Hebrew Text hath not been preserved in its purity in the Orthodox Churches but on the contrary hath been adopted by the Ebionite Hereticks who have corrupted it the Fragments thereof that are now extant are looked upon as Apocryphal Pieces By the word Apocryphal we ought only to understand that those Acts are doubtful and not false nor supposititious This hinders not but that good use may be made of them in those parts that are acknowledged not to have been altered an instance whereof hath been above propounded taken from S. Jerom's Commentaries on S. Matthew It were to be wished that we had at this day this Hebrew or Chaldaick Gospel entire even after the manner as it hath been interpolated by the Nazarenes and altered by the Ebionites we should not reckon it in the number of those Gospels that have been forged by Impostors as Casaubon hath indiscreetly done we should esteem it on the contrary as the most ancient Act of the Christian Religion Is there not reason to conjecture that he that hath translated the Original of S. Matthew out of Hebrew into Greek hath epitomized it in some places and sometimes taken the liberty rather to give us the Sense than the Words at least he seems to have used this liberty in the Quotations of the Old Testament that are therein produced which are more conformable to the Greek Version of the Seventy than to the Hebrew Text in the mean while there is very little appearance that S. Matthew writing his Gospel for the use of the Hebrews who read the Bible in Hebrew in their Synagogues should have quoted the Passages of the Old Testament otherwise than they were read in their Copies It is sufficient to authorize this Greek Version that it hath been read in the Churches that were constituted by the Apostles and that it hath been delivered down to us from Age to Age by a constant Tradition it is on this uninterrupted Tradition of the Churches that we ought to relye in shewing that the Greek Copy of S. Matthew is authentick and not on the imaginary Reasons of some Protestants This same Tradition of all the Churches in the World ought to be opposed to some Hereticks who have believed that the Gospel of S. Matthew hath been mangled and corrupted in several places Faustus a famous Manichean who could not adjust the Genealogy of Jesus Christ that is at the beginning of S. Matthew to the Opinions of his Party hath sought for Reasons to make it appear that it was false whereas he ought to have considered that having been received continually in the Church as well as the rest of this Gospel it bore the same stamp of Authority he compares S. Matthew with S. Luke who have related this Genealogy in a different manner and because (g) Offensus duorum maximè Evangelistarum dissensione qui genealogiam ejus scribunt Lucae Matthaei haesi incertus quemnam potissimum sequerer Apud Aug. lib. 3. cont Faust c. 1. he could not make them agree he abandons them to follow S. Mark and S. John who have made no mention thereof and who
down at the end of many Greek Manuscript Copies Baron an c. 58. n. 32. This cannot be saith Baronius because it is certain that neither S. Luke nor S. Paul have been in Achaia at that time nor even a great while after In the mean time we have no certain Acts from whence we may exactly gather the time of the Publication of this Gospel by S. Luke we only know in general that the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers do all agree that it was not written till after those of S. Matthew and S. Mark. This being granted it may be demanded what reason he had who was only a Disciple of the Apostles to publish a third Gospel knowing that S. Matthew who was an Apostle and a Witness of the most part of the Actions of Jesus Christ had already published one which had been epitomized by S. Mark These two Gospels were then in the hands of all the Christians What necessity was there that S. Luke should make a new one and that he should give notice in his Preface that they who had written before him on this same Subject were not very accurate This hath given occasion to some Authors to believe that the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Mark had not been yet published when S. Luke composed his but since this Opinion is contrary to all Antiquity Baronius insists that these two Gospels one of which was in Hebrew and the other in Greek were not then known to the Grecians and that consequently S. Luke and S. Paul could not make use of them in their Instructions Grotius also thinks that (g) Credibile est ad id tempus Matthaei librum nonnisi sermone Hebraeo extitisse Marcus autem Graecè compendium magis historiae quà m historiam scripserat Grot. Annot. in Praef. Luc. S. Matthew had not been as yet translated out of Hebrew into Greek and as for S. Mark he confesseth that his Gospel was in Greek but since it was only an Epitome this could not hinder S. Luke from writing his History But it is not probable that the Gospel of S. Matthew should have been unknown till then to the Christians that spake the Greek Language especially if we follow the Judgment of these two Writers who give it out that S. Luke had not composed his History till after S. Paul had left Rome It is much more credible that this Evangelist published his History upon occasion of some false Apostles who were set up in opposition to S. Paul whose faithful Companion he was It is a part of Prudence to obviate as much as is possible present Evils therefore S. Luke seeing that false Gospels had been dispersed in those Places where he preached with S. Paul thought himself obliged to compose a true one and to leave it in Writing to those whom he had instructed whereas the business in hand was only to suppress and stop the course of false Gospels that had been scattered abroad this had no regard to S. Matthew and S. Mark. It might also happen that he had compiled this Gospel at the desire of those whom he had converted and more especially of Theophilus to whom he dedicates it It is certain that the other Evangelists as hath been already observed have written their Histories only at the suit of those People to whom they had preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ Marcion and his Followers who in the time of Epiphanius were dispersed through Italy Egypt Palestine Syria Arabia Persia and many other Countries acknowledged none but the Gospel of S. Luke they had nevertheless retrenched divers Passages of it Besides the Name of this Evangelist was not at the head of their Copy whether it were that they received it in this manner or that they did not believe it to be made by S. Luke S. Irenaeus (h) Marcion qui ab eo sunt ad intercidendas conversi sunt scripturas Quasdam quidem in totum non cognoscentes secundùm Lucam autem Evangelium Epistolas Pauli decurtantes haec sola legitima esse dicunt quae ipse minoraverunt Iren. adv Haer. l. 3. c. 12. reproves these Hereticks for having altered according to their humor the Scriptures which the Church had authorized as being founded on a constant Tradition and for accounting no part of S. Luke's Gospel and of the Epistles of S. Paul as legitimate but that which they had reserved after they had taken away from these Books whatsoever they pleased And since they contradicted in this all the Tradition of the Churches (i) Hi qui à Marcione sunt non babent Evangelium hoc enim quod est secundùm Lucam decurtantes gloriantur se habere Evangelium Iren. ibid. he affirms that these Sectaries who boasted that they had a Gospel have none Tertullian hath written a Work on purpose against Marcion (k) Aiunt Marcionem non tam innovasse regulam separatione Legis Evangelii quà m retrò adulteratam recurasse Apud Tertul. l. 4. adv Marc. c. 3. whose Disciples gave it out that their Master had not brought any Innovation into Religion in separating the Law from the Gospel but that he had only rectified the Rule of Faith which was corrupted This Arch-Heretick who followed the Opinions of Cerdon (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 42. n. 4. rejected the Law and all the Prophets and to authorize their Novelties they supported themselves with the Words of S. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians Epist ad Gal. c 2. where this Apostle saith that he had withstood Peter and some other Apostles to the face because they did not walk uprightly according to the Truth of the Gospel Marcion (m) Connititur ad destruendum statum eorum Evangeliorum quae propria sub Apostolorum nomine eduntur vel etiam Apostolicorum ut scilicet fidem quam illis adimit suo conferat Tertull. lib. 4. adv Marc. c. 3. had taken occasion from thence to reform and even to destroy the true Gospels to give more Authority to his own Tertullian answers him that he could not charge the Apostles with corrupting the Gospels without accusing Jesus Christ at the same time who had chosen them he adds (n) Si verò Apostoli quidem integrum Evangelium contulerunt Pseudapostoli autem veritatem eorum interpolaverunt inde sunt nostra digesta quod erit germanum-illud Apostolorum quod adulteros passum est aut si tam funditùs deletum est ut cataclysmo quodam ita inundatione falsariorum obliteratum jam ergo nec Marcion habet verum Tertull. ibid. That if Marcion acknowledged that their Gospel had been entire but that it was interpolated by false Apostles and that this imperfect Copy was now in use he ought at least to shew which was the true and original Gospel that had been corrupted lastly he demands of Marcion how it could happen that he should have the true Gospel if it had been so falsified by Impostors that there was
nothing of it left Tertullian moreover establisheth the true Gospel of S. Luke on the universal Consent of the Churches that were planted by the Apostles Tertul. ib. c. 5. and of other Churches that derived their Original from them all these Churches preserved the Copy of S. Luke in the same condition as it had been published from the beginning whereas that of Marcion on the contrary was hardly known or if it were known it was at the same time condemned he relieth also on this same Tradition of the Churches in representing to Marcion (o) Et de his Marcion flagitandus quòd omissis eis Lucae potiùs institerit quasi non haec apud Ecclesias à primordio fuerint quemadmodum Luc. Tertull. ib. cap. 5. that he had no reason out of all the Gospels to select that of S. Luke and to neglect the others as if they were not to be esteemed and as if they had not been as generally received in all the Churches ever since their first Foundation He comes afterwards to some particular Passages that Marcion had taken away from his Gospel He charges him with having retrenched that place where Jesus Christ saith that he was not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets but rather to fulfil them but this Objection appears to be ill grounded for these Words are to be found only in S. Matthew's Gospel which was not owned by Marcion Tertullian seems here to have confounded S. Luke with S. Matthew when he read in S. Luke's Gospel that which is not therein at present He objects to him in the second place that he had taken away from the Gospel these other Words I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel This Passage is also found in S. Matthew only and not in S. Luke which may induce us to believe that these two Objections of Tertullian have respect to the Gospel in general as if he had supposed that Marcion had no reason to receive one Gospel more than another but then he would have proved nothing directly against his Adversary It might be that Tertullian's Copy was not exact and that the Lessons of several Gospels had been blended together Since S. Epiphanius hath much more accurately treated on this matter and hath carefully examined the Passages that Marcion had altered in his Copy of S. Luke we shall here produce the particular Remarks of this Father that we may have a better knowledge of the Gospel of the Marcionites Marcion had not in his Gospel all the beginning of S. Luke to these Words in the fifteenth year of the Reign of Tiberius Caesar that is to say he had cut off the two first Chapters of our Edition neither did he read as we do at this day the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies now and hath some relation to that which proceeds S. Epiphanius adds (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 42. n. 11. that besides the Passages which this Heretick had taken away from his Gospel he observed no Order nor Coherence and that he had also inserted some Additions which he describes in particular See the Alterations that he hath remarked on which I shall make some Reflections In the fifth Chapter of S. Luke and the fourteenth Verse where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a testimony unto them Marcion read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this may be a testimony unto you making that to fall on them that were healed by Jesus Christ which relates to the Priests in our Copies Moreover S. Epiphanius reads in this same place after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Offering which was not in Marcion's Copy no more than in the greatest part of ours but this diversity is of no importance the sense being always the same after whatsoever manner we read it and it could not happen but from the Transcribers who have omitted or added it Chap. 16. v. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Epiphanius read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being come down with them Marcion read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he came down in them This may be also a various reading that doth not alter the sense it may be an Hebraism commonly used in the Sacred Books the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie in this place the same thing as the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew to which the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers now the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth indifferently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Therefore it ought not to be translated here as Father Petau would have it he came down in them but according to the Hebraism he came down with them this sort of Hebraisms is found in S. Luke as well as in the other Evangelists Chap. 8. v. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Mother and his Brethren Marcion did not read these Words in his Copy but only in the beginning Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy Mother and thy Brethren This doth not appear nevertheless to be a vicious Alteration since these Words being repeated the sense will remain always the same though they be read but once it is possible then that Marcion might read it so in his Copy without altering it Chap. 9. v. 40. and 41. Marcion did not read in his Copy these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They could not cast it out and he said unto them O faithless Generation how long shall I suffer you S. Epiphanius reads it thus but Marcion's way of reading it is more concise however the sense is preserved It may be that he thought the other Words superfluous and would not put into the mouth of Jesus Christ speaking to his Disciples this expression that seemed harsh to him O faithless Generation He ought not in the mean time to have corrected this Passage according to his own Conceptions and without being supported by good Copies Chap. 10. v. 21. where we read I thank thee O Father Marcion had not in his Copy the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Father S. Epiphanius affirmeth that it ought to be read because it is repeated in the following Verse he saith moreover that Marcion had retrenched it only (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph ibid. that it might not be proved from this Passage that Jesus Christ had called his Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Creator But this Repetition seems rather to shew that this Heretick had not maliciously taken away from his Copy the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Father for whether we read it or not the sense is not changed Marcion had not also in his Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of Earth but only Lord of Heaven Chap. 11. v. 29 and 30. Marcion had taken away from his Gospel all that is said in this place concerning Jonas reading only these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
as Divine and Canonical Wherefore it is convenient to examine the Acts that we have relating to this matter If we follow this Rule of Tertullian that is grounded on good reason That that is true which is most ancient Illud verum quod prius there will be no occasion to enquire whether the Epistle to the Hebrews was certainly written by S. Paul for all the Eastern Churches seem not to have doubted thereof the Arians have been the first amongst them that have obstinately rejected it seeing that it was not favourable to their Innovations this caused Theodoret speaking of these Hereticks to say (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Praef. Comm. in Epist ad Hebr. that they ought at least to have respect to the length of time and to consider that this Epistle had been read in the Churches ever since they had received the Writings of the Apostles (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. ibid. He opposeth to them moreover the Testimony of Eusebius Caesariensis who could not be suspected by them because they esteemed him as their Chief Now this Eusebius hath acknowledged that the Epistle directed to the Hebrews was S. Paul's and that all the Ancients had believed it so to be As for the Testimony of the Ancients this cannot be true but of those of the Eastern Church for Eusebius himself hath observed that some in the Western Church did not receive this Epistle but the Authority of these Western Writers ought not to be regarded since S. Clement Bishop of Rome who lived before them hath cited it in the Letter that he wrote in the name of his Church to those of Corinth as the same Eusebius assures us He proves by the Authority of this Disciple of the Apostles that the Epistle to the Hebrews hath been reckoned with good reason in the number of the Apostolical Writings and doth not in the least doubt of the Authors because the most part of the ancient Doctors of the Church especially in the East have believed that it did truly belong to S. Paul but since they supposed that he wrote it in Hebrew they do not agree as to the Interpreter (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hi. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 38. some saith Eusebius affirm that it hath been translated by S. Luke and others by S. Clement He confirms this last Opinion by the Stile of this Epistle which is very like to that of S. Clement nevertheless Clemens Alexandrinus proves on the contrary Cl. Alex. in Hypot apud Eus Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 14. by this resemblance of Stile that the Epistle to the Hebrews which he avoucheth to be St. Paul's hath been interpreted by St. Luke Origen who hath written Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews was of opinion (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. Homil. in Epist ad Hebr. apud Euseb 〈◊〉 Eccl. lib. 6. cap. 25. that the matter indeed was S. Paul's but that the Expressions were too lofty and too elegant to be his who wrote in a very simple and plain Stile This learned Critick doth not attribute this diversity of Stile to the Translator but to the Amanuensis that committed the Doctrine of S. Paul to Writing (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. I believe saith Origen that the Sense and Conceptions are of this Apostle but that the Phrase and Composition is another's who hath collected the Sayings of his Master and set them down in writing nevertheless what he adds in the same place makes it appear that in his time there were some Churches that did not ascribe this Epistle to the Hebrews to S. Paul and he judgeth also that it cannot be certainly determined who hath written it (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. ibid. If any Churches saith he reads this Epistle as S. Paul's they are to be commended in this for it is not without reason that the Ancients have thought that it was his but God alone knows the truth thereof The Greek Fathers who have lived before and after Origen and even the greatest part of the Hereticks have quoted it under no other name than that of this Holy Apostle Melchis ap Epiph. Haer. 55. The Melchisedecians who preferred Melchisedec before Jesus Christ grounded their Opinion on the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews The Catharians who were a branch of the Novatians relied also on these Words of this Epistle Cath. ap Epiph. Haer. 59. Chap. vi v. 4 5 6. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly Gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost and have tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the World to come if they shall fall away to renew them again unto Repentance Hierac ap Epiph. Haer. 67. c. Hieracqs an Egyptian who was the Chief of the Sect of the Hieracites which was embraced by divers Monks of Egypt pretended to prove by this same Epistle to the Hebrews that Melchisedec was the Holy Ghost Lastly many other Hereticks who separated themselves from the Church attributed it to no other but S. Paul which induceth me to believe that this Opinion was founded on an ancient Tradition of the Churches Cajus in the mean time a famous Writer who lived at the beginning of the third Century under Pope Zephyrinus in a Dispute that he had at Rome with the Cataphryges and which was published acknowledgeth only thirteen Epistles of S. Paul not mentioning that which is directed to the Hebrews Eusebius who hath taken notice of this Dispute observes (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 20. that some Romans in his time had not as yet received the Epistle to the Hebrews as S. Paul's and in another place where he speaks of the Epistles of the Apostles after he had said that the fourteen Epistles of S. Paul were known to all the World he adds (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 3. that some have rejected this which is written to the Hebrews under pretence that the Roman Church did not believe it to belong to S. Paul. Baronius hath not done justice to this Historian when he accuseth him of favouring in these Words the Party of the Arians his good Friends and of insinuating that the Church of Rome had doubted of the Verity of this Epistle for besides that Eusebius doth only relate a simple matter of fact that was evident and which S. Jerom hath afterwards explained more at large he openly declares in this very place in favour of those that believed that the Epistle to the Hebrews was certainly written by S. Paul when he adds that he will give an account in the sequel of his History what hath been the belief of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers as to this point and he acquits himself after such a manner as makes it manifest that none of these Ancients nor even the Roman Church have ever doubted
this day receive it as such Calvin who hath been more moderate herein than Luther hath chose rather to reconcile the Doctrine of S. James touching Faith and Works with that of S. Paul than unadvisedly to reject this Epistle under colour that it appears to be contrary to the same S. Paul. To receive saith he this Epistle this seems to me to be sufficient Calv. arg de son Comm. sur l'Epist de St. Jaq. that it contains nothing unworthy of an Apostle of Christ The Lutherans themselves soon perceived that their Master sometimes gave out Opinions without a due consideration of what he affirmed Raithius who hath made an Apology for Luther confesseth that he had written in the first Edition of his German Bible to this effect that if this Epistle were compared with those of S. Peter and S. Paul it would appear only an Epistle of Straw Epistola straminea but (g) Post majorem illuminationem ut dies diem docet verba illa duriuscula postertoribus Saerorum Bibliorum editionibus sunt omissa nec post annum 1526. in ullâ amplius editione straminea vocatur Raith Vind. Vers Germ. Luth. th 21. after he had been more enlightned these Words were taken away in the following Editions and they are not to be found in those that have been made since the Year 1526. Nevertheless a certain Lutheran published a Book at Strasbourg in the Year 1527 wherein he speaks after a strange manner of the Epistle of S. James He affirms (h) Non possumus hîc defendere Jacobum citat enim Scripturas falsò solus Spiritui Saucto Legi Prophetis Christo Apostolisque omnibus contradicit Testimomum ipsius vanum est Vni ipsi testi credendum non esse supra annotavimus praesertim cum quo ipse Spiritus Sanctus tot testes veritatis dissentiant Ne igitur succenseas nobis lector si duriùs vehementiùs calamo quandoque in auctorem invecti sumus Meretur enim hoc odium hanc spiritûs vehementiam dum aliam perfectionem atque justitiam à nobis contendit quà m fidei Andr. Altham apud Grot. de discuss Rivet Apolog. p. 722. that he cannot defend it because the Author alledgeth false Quotations of the Scriptures and alone contradicts the Law the Prophets Jesus Christ and the Apostles he condemns the Testimony of this Writer as vain boldly affirming that we ought not to believe him being a single Witness especially since the Holy Ghost and a great number of the Witnesses of the Truth do dissent from him lastly this man after he hath taken so much liberty to declaim against the Author of this Epistle adds at the end of his Book that none ought to be offended that he hath treated him so severely for saith he he deserves this hatred because he hath proposed to us another Righteousness than that of Faith. Can there be any thing more insolent than the Words of this Sectary who durst oppose his false Conceptions against the Testimony of all the Churches of the World Socinus speaks with a great deal more moderation and judgment concerning the Authority of this Epistle This Champion of the Unitarians declares that it was doubted in the beginning touching the Authors of the Epistle of S. James of the second of S. Peter and of that of S. Jude because they were found after the Collection of the other Books of the New Testament had been made (i) Cùm postea tempore procedente ex judiciis huic rei aptis cognitum fuisset istas Epistolas illorum ipsorum Apostolorum esse exempta plerisque illa dubitatio fuit sic inter alias sunt numeratae ea quidem quae Jacobi est ante duas reliquas Soc. de auctor Script Sac. c. 1. n. 2. but forasmuch as it was acknowledged afterwards that they were certainly composed by the Apostles whose Names they bore the most part of the Churches did no longer doubt thereof and the Epistle of S. James was placed before the two others moreover with respect to that of S. James he proves the Antiquity of this Tradition by the ancient Syriack Copies Therefore he doth not only receive them as Canonical but believes also that they do certainly belong to them to whom they are attributed Although it be agreed that the first of these Catholick Epistles was written by S. James nevertheless it remains to be known who this James is The Title of this Epistle doth not resolve this difficulty because it is different according to the various Greek Copies and indeed we ought not to relye on this sort of Title that are later than the Authors of the Books It is read simply in some Manuscript Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2872. The Catholick Epistle of S. James and in others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of the Apostle S. James This is also the Title that hath been prefixed in the Vulgar Latin Epistola Catholica beati Jacobi Apostoli and which Beza hath retained in his Greek Edition of the New Testament where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of the Apostle James But Robert Stephen in his curious Greek Edition of the New Testament in folio hath simply put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Catholick Epistle of James It is no otherwise in Crespin's Edition at Geneva in the Year 1565. It is read according to the same sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Epistle of S. James in that of Wolfius at Strasbourg in 1524. We read also after the same manner in the Edition of Melchior Sessa at Venice in 1538 and in that of Simon de Colines at Paris in 1534 and in many others This is most natural and most conformable to the Greek Text where S. James at the beginning of his Epistle takes upon him no other Quality than that of a Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ Therefore Grotius hath also preserved this same Title and he hath reason not to approve the Opinion of those that attribute it to James the Son of Zebedee because this James had been put to Death by Herod before the Gospel of Jesus Christ was much spread abroad beyond Judea neither doth he believe that James the Son of Alpheus was the Author of it because he would have taken at the beginning of his Epistle the Name of an Apostle which was a quality in those Primitive Times that gave a great Authority to their Words from whence he concludes that it ought to be ascribed to that James whom the Apostles constituted first Bishop of Jerusalem Hieron de Script Eccles in Jac. This is not very far from the Words of S. Jerom in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers James who is called the Brother of our Lord and sirnamed the Just as some think was the Son of Joseph by another Wife but according to my Opinion of Mary the Sister of our Lord of whom John makes mention
Earth that should continue for the space of a thousand years during which time all manner of Pleasures should be enjoyed Upon this subject Nepos did publish a Book Entituled †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Refutation of Allegorists laughing at such Catholicks as Expounded Allegorically that place in the Apocalyps that makes mention of the Reign of a thousand years Which Work made a great impression on the minds of those who read it because the Author who had carefully applied himself to the study of the Holy Scriptures had acquired a very great Reputation Besides his Reasons appeared to be the more probable because they were founded on the Literal Sense of Scripture whereas the contrary Opinion was grounded upon Allegories only from which nothing can be concluded Denis does likewise (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb ibid. declare the honorable esteem he had for the Memory of his then deceased Adversary whose Faith and Parts he commends But withal he adds that the love which he bore to the Truth above all other things was a sufficient motive that engaged him to write against that Work that was so much admired in Egypt that many preferred the Doctrine therein contained to the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles they were so much puffed up with the Idea of the thousand years Reign on the Earth The matter was brought to that pass that Nepos his Followers chused rather to make a Schism than to abdicate their Opinion But Denis afterwards in a publick Dispute having discovered the falsity thereof brought them to renounce their error It is a very judicious course that that Learned Bishop takes as to his manner of defending the Authority of the Apocalyps against those who rejected it as a supposititious Book and done by Cerinthus He appeared to be in no wise byassed by any preoccupation as to his own Opinion nor guilty of concealing the Reasons of his Adversaries And therefore he freely declares that (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dion Alex. apud Euseb ibid. cap. 25. some Ecclesiastical Writers who lived in his time had opposed that Book with all their might refuting it with a nice and resolute eagerness alledging that it was written without Sense and without Reason They further assured us that the Title of that Work was forged by Cerinthus and that the Title Apocalyps or Revelation could not be attributed to a Book which in their Opinion was stuffed with things that manifest a profound ignorance Notwithstanding all those Objections Denis avows that he cannot reject it as perceiving that it was approved by the most part of his Brethren and to the Reasons on the other side he replies that there is a sublime and hidden Sense in the Expressions of that Author for which he is resolved to have an high veneration though he does not comprehend it being persuaded that Faith and not his own knowledge ought to be the Rule in that case (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. I do not saith he condemn that which I cannot understand on the contrary I admire it because I cannot comprehend it Which nevertheless does not hinder him from examining all the parts of the Books particularly and he shews (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. That it is impossible to Expound it according to the Letter or Sense which the words at first view seem to warrant He further declares that it was composed by a Man called John who was inspired by God. But he does not think that that John was an Apostle and grounds his Opinion on this that the Apostle St. John did put his Name to none of his Works and that he never speaks of himself On the contrary the Author of the Revelation does name himself at the beginning and frequently in the Body of his Work for example in the Letter he writes to the seven Churches of Asia he begins with these words John to the seven Churches which are in Asia But St. John does not so much as put his name to his Catholick Epistle in his entrance upon the matter Neither is it seen at the beginning of his two other Epistles that are very short and pass under his name This difference of Stile makes Denis the Bishop of Alexandria to conclude that the Revelation was not written by St. John and he affirms at the same time that it is uncertain who that John was He proves nevertheless that it is in no wise likely that he was John Sirnamed Mark made mention of in the Acts of the Apostles and who was Companion to Paul and Barnabas in their Travels because he did not follow them into Asia And therefore he judges that he was one of those who lived at Ephesus where there were two Sepulchres with that name Once he has recourse to the difference of Stile from which he pretends to prove that the Apostle St. John who writ the Gospel and one Epistle cannot be the Author of the Apocalyps According to his Opinion the same things and the same expressions are found in the former Books The Revelation on the contrary is quite different from both Thus I have considered at large the judgment of Denis the Bishop of Alexandria upon the Apocalyps upon which Eusebius has more fully Paraphrased because it contains in a few words all that can be said upon this subject He informs us at the same time that the ancient Doctors of the Church made a great account of Tradition upon such an emergent occasion as required their Judgment whether a Book was Canonical or no. We also see that in such junctures they observed the Rules that are commonly received amongst Criticks For the Bishop according to the rigorous Laws of Criticism does examine the Diction or Stile of the Apocalyps (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionis apud Euseb ibid. Which says he is in no wise good Greek being full of Barbarisms and Solecisms The distinction he uses concerning two Johns who lived in Ephesus is grounded upon the Testimony of Papias who was Contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles Eusebius who inserted that Testimony in his History does add that he is positive in it For (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb if the Apostle St. John is not the true Author of the Apocalyps which bears the name of John it is probable that it was written by that second John. Nevertheless the most ancient Fathers viz. Justin and Irenaeus made no account of this distinction nor difference of Stile on which Denis so much insists upon Nor can there be any thing concluded from the Title of the Apocalyps that in the most of Greek Copies whether Manuscript or Printed there is the name of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John the Divine and not of the Apostle St. John set therein Those who annexed that Title meant only to describe St. John the Evangelist whom the Greek Fathers do call the Divine by way of Excellency to distinguish him from other Evangelists
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
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