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
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
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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
cited any Passage in the Old Testament which did not perfectly agree with the Hebrew Text. Eustochium Hieron Prooem in lib. 16. Comm. in Isai who perfectly understood the Greek and Hebrew Languages opposed him with such powerful Arguments that he was forced to own himself almost overcome with the strength of her Objections Quod cùm audissem quasi à fortissimo pugile percussus essem coepi tacitus aestuare It is no strange thing to find those Ages when Barbarism reigned over all Europe neglect Critical Studies Then they wanted abundance of those helps which they now enjoy to pursue those Studies which are absolutely necessary to a perfect Knowledg of Divinity But that which amazes me is that in this very Age this Art should still remain in contempt and those Men be thought no more than Grammarians who apply themselves to it Besides we cannot but see the manifest Errors of some Divines in this Age who know not the true Laws of Criticism It is worth observing that the ancient Hereticks have been perpetually accused of having corrupted the Books of the New Testament and perverted them to their own sence That has often been thought a wilful and designed Corruption which proceeded only from the fault of the Transcribers or difference of Copies The Ecclesiastical Writers of the first Ages have not done that strict Justice to the Hereticks of their times in relation to the New Testament that they have given the Jews in the Disputes about the different manners of explaining the Old Testament Those pretended Corruptions presently vanish upon Examination of the ancient Manuscripts and the Original of the various Readings Wherefore in this Piece I have justified the Arrians Nestorians and the rest of the Sectaries from that Imputation of having falsified the Originals of the Evangelists and Apostles to maintain their Innovations We have also plainly evinc'd by some considerable Examples that the most Learned Criticks of our Age are not exempted from those Prejudices in their declaring too freely those Hereticks falsifiers of the Text. The case of some other Sectaries is not the same who declared themselves openly against the Writings of Christ's Disciples which they have corrected and altered according to their own Idea's of the Christian Religion Some daring to forge Supposititious Gospels and Acts the better to give authority to their Fopperies It would be very pertinent for the better Distinction of all the Genuine Pieces of the New Testament to make a Collection of those ancient Acts and diligently examine them Wherefore we have not concealed any of those Arguments which those Hereticks or the other Enemies of Christianity have brought to destroy the Truth of those Books which were received by all the Catholick Churches But as it would be a pernicious thing to expose these ill things without administring Remedies too proper for the cure we have also produced the strongest Reasons which the Ecclesiastical Writers have brought against them We intreat the Protestants to make Reflection on these matters and observe those methods of the first Ages of the Church for establishing the Authority of the Sacred Writings They will find nothing impertinent in the Conduct Irenaeus Tertullian and the rest of the Defenders of those Writings did not object to the Enemies of the Christian Religion their private Spirit which perswaded them of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture but very substantial Reasons void of all such Fanaticism Tho they were sufficiently perswaded of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture they never objected to the Adversaries that it had imprest upon it such lively Characters of its Original that it was a very difficult matter not to acknowledg it when read with a Spirit of Submission and Humility Their Adversaries being Philosophers who consulted their natural Reason they opposed them from sure and indisputable Principles Again I thought in a Work of this nature not convenient to suppress the principal Objections of the Jews against the Books of the New Testament For although this miserable Nation is an Object of the contempt of the whole World yet has there appeared among them Men of great Address and Subtilty in the Disputes against the Christians which I have often found true in my own Experience when I have endeavoured to convince them by their own Principles Since their Plea for Prescription is better and their Pretensions are that the Disciples of Jesus the Son of Mary had no reason to change their Religion which was delivered them by the Fathers It is but necessary to examin what they object against the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles In this Critical History I have treated divers other important Questions And where I deviate from the Methods of the Divines of the School it is because I have found a more secure way I have employed all my strength to avoid the advancing any thing that is not grounded on authentic Records instead of which the School-Divinity teaches us to doubt of the most certain Our Religion consisting principally in Matters of Fact the Subtilties of Divines who are not acquainted with Antiquity can never discover certainty of such matters of Fact They rather serve to confound the Vnderstanding and form pernicious Difficulties against the Mysteries of our Religion Let it not seem strange to any Person that I recede from the Opinions which are generally received in the Schools and prefer to the Sentiments of whole Vniversities the new Opinions of some modern Divines which can hardly be taxed as novel when they are found conformable to the Ancient Doctors of the Church This I speak in reference to that Passage where I handle the Dispute which was formerly between the Divines of Louvain and Doway and the Jesuits of that Country concerning the inspiration of the sacred Books The Doctors of both Faculties censured the Propositions of the Jesuites of Louvain in a manner very injurious to the whole Society But after a due examination of the Reasons on which their grave Gentlemen founded their Censure I could hardly believe their Authority alone a sufficient Rule to oblige me to assent I propose Truth alone to my self in this Work without any Deference to any Master in particular A true Christian who professes to believe the Catholick Faith ought not to stile himself a Disciple of S. Austin S. Jerome or any other particular Father since his Faith is founded on the word of Jesus Christ contained in the Writings of the Apostles and constant Tradition of the Catholick Churches I wish to God the Divines of the Age were all of that opinion we then should not have seen so many useless Disputes which only prove the causes of Disorders in Church and State. I have no private Interest which obliges me to any Party the very name of Party is odious to me I solemnly protest I have no other intentions in composing this Work than the benefit of the Church and the establishing the most sacred and divine thing in the World. It is useless
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
accipiunt eis quas pauciores minorisque autoritatis Ecclesiae tenent Aug. lib. 2. de Doctr. Christ cap. 8. to have regard to the plurality of Churches and to prefer those that are in a greater number and of more eminent note before the others that are in a lesser number and less considerable There is another sort of Acts attributed to the Apostles or their Disciples that have been rejected as Apocryphal in process of time though in the beginning they did really belong to those to whom they were ascribed or at least to their Disciples who had published them under the name of their Masters But these Acts having been interpolated and mangled by the Hereticks or else by others we have been obliged not to allow them any longer as authentick St. Epiphanius seems to have put in this rank the Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Constitution of the Apostles which he often quotes as if it were indeed theirs He draws from thence Proofs to confirm the judgment of the Church when he examines the opinion of the Audians concerning the Passover who produced one of these Constitutions attributing it to the Apostles This Father being very far from condemning or even doubting of it received it with them as Apostolical reproving them only for taking it in a wrong sense And whereas these Constitutions were from that time suspected by some he adds that they ought not to be rejected for this because they contained the whole Ecclesiastical Discipline which makes me judge that he had another Copy different from that which we read at present He appeared to be so well persuaded that these Constitutions were made by the Apostles (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Haer. 80. n. 7. that he calls them the Word of God. Nevertheless it is more probable that the Apostles who had received Orders from Jesus Christ to preach his Gospel and not to compose Books are not the Authors of these Constitutions that bear their Name But as S. Mark calls his Gospel the Gospel of Jesus Christ so in like manner Apostolical Men who succeeded the Apostles have collected their Doctrine and Constitutions and published them under the Name of the Apostles It is in this sense that the Apostles Creed is so called being that ancient Confession of Faith that all the Churches undoubtedly received from the Apostles though they had not committed it to Writing CHAP. IV. The ancient Fathers have not produced the Originals of the New Testament in their Disputes against the Hereticks An Examination of Proofs that are brought to shew that these Originals have been kept in some Churches WE may conclude from all that hath been above related that the most ancient Fathers of the Church when they designed to establish the truth of the Books of the New Testament have not had recourse to any Originals that had been kept in the Apostolical Churches but only to true and exact Copies of them which being found the same in all these Churches were in the place of the Originals themselves On this depends all the Dispute of Tertullian against Marcion and that of S. Augustin against Faustus a Manichean Sectary These two Hereticks refused to acknowledge the Copies that were approved in the Catholick Church Tertullian and S. Augustin did not oppose to them the Authority of any Original Pieces but only the constant Tradition of the Churches Vides saith S. Augustin speaking to Faustus in hac re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat auctoritas Aug. lib. 11. cont Faust c. 2. Is it possible may some say that God hath given to his Church Books to serve her for a Rule and that he hath at the same time permitted that the first Originals of these Books should be lost ever since the beginning of the Christian Religion There have been from the very first planting of the Church Hereticks who have disputed against the Writings of the Apostles and therefore it seems to behove the Divine Providence to preserve these Originals at least for some time from whence these Hereticks might be solidly confuted But it hath been already made appear elsewhere Rep. à la Defense des Sent. de quelq Theol. de Holl. ch 6. pag. 179. that it is no wonder that the Primitive Christians who had not a regular Body of a State in which they lived and whose Assemblies were on the contrary furiously disturbed by the Jews and Pagans had lost the Originals of their Books Besides the Apostles had no order from Jesus Christ to write their Books as hath been above observed and although they should not have been written Religion would be equally preserved by the means of Tradition after the same manner as it had been established before the Apostles had committed any thing to Writing Iren. l. 3. adv Haer. c. 4. Quid si saith St. Irenaeus neque Apostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias Upon the whole matter Jesus Christ had sent his Apostles to all the Nations of the Earth only to preach his Doctrine to them That which the ancient Christians have called Gospel is only a Collection of the Preachings of these same Apostles or of their Disciples As for what relates to the Primitive Hereticks they would not have been more solidly confuted by opposing to them the Originals of the Writings of the Apostles since they took the liberty to reform their Doctrine and to set up in opposition to their Books I know not what Traditions of which they themselves were the Authors as may be seen more at large in the Books of S. Irenaeus who understood perfectly well the Opinions of these ancient Sectaries of which he hath left us some Records He declares for example in speaking of the Gnosticks Iren. adv Haer. lib. 3. cap. 2. that he had to do with Persons that did not acknowledge the Scriptures nor the Tradition of the Church but that squared both the one and the other according to the measure of their own Prejudices therefore he forgets nothing that may serve to establish the true Traditions by which Religion ought to be regulated Although the Scriptures are a sure Rule on which our Faith is founded yet this Rule is not altogether sufficient of it self it is necessary to know besides this what are the Apostolical Traditions and we cannot learn them but from the Apostolical Churches who have preserved the true Sense of Scriptures S. Irenaeus adviseth (a) Omnis sermo ei constabit si Scripturam diligenter legerit apud eos qui in Ecclesia sunt Presbyteri apud quos est Apostolica doctrina Iren. lib. 4. adv Haer. cap. 51. that the sacred Books should be read to be informed from thence of Religion but at the same time he adviseth that they should be read wich those who being the Successors of the Apostles have been as it were the Depositaries or Stewards of their
S. Matthaei Evangelium quod ipse descripserat ei indigitat atque Apostolum fidei auctorem se in patria habere ut adversariis repenat praecipit This is in a few words the discovery of this Vision of Bishop Anthimius who very opportunely caused St. Barnabas to appear tanquam Deum è Machina to oppose Petrus Fullo Patriarch of Antioch and that there might not remain any doubt of his Revelation he put into the hands of St. Barnabas the Gospel of St. Matthew Mr. le Mome a learned Protestant Mr. le Moine Prol. in var. opusc Gr. and well versed in the Oriental Languages assures us that it was written in Hebrew because St. Barnabas who had transcribed it for his own use was born a Jew and preached to those of his Nation But it is more likely that Anthimius who was not a Jew should forge a Greek one neither is it credible that it should have been publickly read in the Church of Constantinople if it had been written in Hebrew As for the deference that Baronius gives to the Testimony of the Monk Alexander Author of the Life of St. Barnabas this Cardinal is not very favourable to the said Monk in another part of his Annals where (i) Alexander Graecus auctor qui res Barnabae prosecutus est encomiasticè potiùs quam historicè c. Baron ann ch 51. n. 53. he speaks of him as an Inventor of Tales that hath not written the Life of this Holy Apostle as an Historian I could bring other Examples of the like Revelations that have as many Circumstances as that of Bishop Anthimius and yet for all this are never the more true Under the Reign of the Emperor Theodosius a Revelation was feigned to authorize the false Apocalypse that was attributed to S. Paul. It was also found under ground at Tarsus in Cicilia in the House of this Holy Apostle There were also a great number of Alexanders or Monks in Palestine that every where extolled this false Piece as if it had truly belonged to him whose Title it bore Soz. Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 19. But Sozomon who relates this History informs us at the same time that a Priest of the City of Tarsus who was a very old man had assured him that this was false Furthermore we do not find that the two greatest men of the Church I mean Origen and St. Hierom who have searched the ancient Copies of the Scriptures with so much care and diligence and have visited so many Churches in the East have ever spoken of Originals of the New Testament written with the hand of the Apostles which they would not have failed to do if there had been any in their times especially St. Hierom who consulted a very great number of Greek and Latin Copies when by order of Pope Damasus he revised the ancient Latin Version of the Gospels Where were then these pretended Originals It is true there was no talk as yet of the Revelation of Anthimius nor of the History of Monk Alexander This Father hath said well that the Latin Copies were all different one from another Tot enim sunt exemplaria penè quot codices Therefore (k) Hoc certe cum in nostro sermone discordat in diversos rivulorum tramites uno de fonte quaerendum est Hieron Praef. in Evang. ad Damas he judges it necessary in this great diversity of Copies to have recourse to the Original Greek from whence the Latin hath been taken but he makes no mention of these first Originals that Mr. Huet supposeth (l) Ex fide primigeniorum illorum exemplarium quae servabantur in Ecclesiarum tabulariis dirimebantur controversiae haesitantium dubitatio tollebatur D. Huet in Demonst Evang. pag. 642. primae edit to have been kept in the Archives of the Churches since the time of St. Ignatius by which saith this learned man they were regulated in their Controversies and Disputes The Jesuit Maldonat on the contrary proves by the same Passage of St. Ignatius (m) Illis primis temporibus ut ait Ignatius nonnulli erant qui adeò suspecta haberent omnia ut negarent se Evangelio nisi in Ecclesiae archivis invenirent credituros Maldon Praef. in Evang. cap. 2. that in these Primitive Apostolical times there were People who doubted of the truth of the Gospels at least if they could not find them in the Archives of the Church To conclude Tertullian and St. Augustin who have so vigorously disputed with the ancient Hereticks that destroyed the Verity of the Writings of the Apostles have never objected these Originals to them so that this is by no means necessary for the establishing of the Christian Religion as hath been above shewed CHAP. V. Of the Books of the New Testament in particular and first of the Gospel of S. Matthew The Original of this Gospel hath been written in the Hebrew Tongue which the Jews of Jerusalem spake at that time An Answer to the Reasons that are contrary to this Opinion IT is a constant Tradition founded on the general consent of all the Churches in the World that there are but four Gospels the first of which is that of S. Matthew Iren. l. 3. adv Haer. l. 11. Neque autem plura numero quà m haec sunt saith S. Irenaeus neque rursus pauciora capit esse Nevertheless there are found in these later times some Authors who have believed that S. Matthew is not the first that hath committed the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Writing They ground their Opinion on this Luc. i. 1. that S. Luke seems to accuse those of little care and exactness that had published Gospels before him and since this Accusation cannot fall on any of the three other Evangelists they conclude from thence that none of them had written before But we ought not to oppose an Inference that at most carries with it but a probability to the Testimony of all Antiquity Therefore Grotius (a) Refragatur vetustissimus librorum ordo apud omnes nationes refragatur traditio vetus Irenaeo Tertulliano testibus suffulta Grot. Annot. in c. 1. Luc. v. 1. rejects this Opinion as being contrary to the order of the four Gospels established at all times among all Nations and authorised by the most ancient Fathers Maldonat who attributes this Argument to Beza refutes it also with no other Reasons than that of Tradition and adds at the same time that (b) Si haereticis crederemus nihil in ipsa etiam Religione certum stabileque haberemus Maldon Praef. in Evang. c. 4. if we should refer our selves herein to Hereticks we should have no certainty in point of Religion It cannot be denied also at least without contradicting all Antiquity but that S. Matthew hath written his Gospel in Hebrew that is to say in the Language that the Jews of Jerusalem then spake that was called Hebrew and was either Chaldaick or Syriack (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pap. apud Euseb
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
〈◊〉 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