A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament;  
WHEREIN Is firmly Established the Truth of those Acts on which the Foundation of CHRISTIAN RELIGION is laid.  
By Richard Simon, Priest.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Taylor, MDCLXXXIX.   

THE PREFACE.  
THe Church, from the first and most early Ages of Christianity, has been constantly furnished with some Learned Men, by whose diligent care the Sacred Writings have been purged from those Faults, which by the tract of Time have insensibly crept into them. This kind of Labour, which requires an exact knowledge of Books, joined with a strict enquiring into the Manuscripts, is termed Critical; in as much as it Judges and Determines the most Authentic Readins, which ought to be inserted into the Text. By this means Origen acquired his Reputation, not only in Greece, but universally over the Eastern part of the World, where the Bibles of his Correction are by the general consent preferred to all others.  
St Jerom, who may justly be styled the Latin Origen, has done very great Service to the Western Church, by his Critical Correction of the Latin Bibles, in Use in those Churches. Pope Damasus, very sensible of his profound Learning, obliged him to review the ancient Latin Version of the Gospels, which was then in a very miserable Condition. This looked like too bold an Attempt, and seemed above the force of any private Person, who could never hope to escape the Hatred of a multitude of Persons in the free exercising his Censure of Books, which had long stood in the peaceable Possession of an universal Reputation.  
In short, though it might perhaps be for the benefit of the Church, it was yet a dangerous matter to attempt a Reformation of those ancient Errors, which derive their Authority from their Age. Pius Labour, 
Hieron. Praef. in Evang. ad Dam.  sed periculosa praesumptio judicare de caeteris, ipsum ab omnibus judicandum, senis mutare linguam, & caneseentem jam mundum ad initia retranere parvulorum. ['Tis a pious Work, (says that ancient Father) but very hazardous, that he exposes himself to the universal Censure, who teaches old Men to change their Language, and reduce the decaying World to a State of Infancy.] But considering on the one Hand the powerful Protection and Patronage of so great a Pope, and being on the other abundantly convinced of the manifest defect of that Translation, which had prevailed universally in the West; he resolved rather to expose himself to the Malice of an infinite number of ignorant Persons, than fail in the discharge of his 
(a) Quis enim doctus pariter vel indoctus, cùm in manus volumen assumpserit, & à saliuâ quam semel imbibit viderit discrepare quod latitat, non statim erumpat in vocem, me falfarium, me clamitans elle sacrilegum, qui audeam aliquid in veteribus libris addere, mutare, corrigere? Hieron. Praef. in Evang. ad Dam.  Duty. He knew very well the charge of Innovation and Forgery, that would be drawn up against him for endeavouring to alter those ancient Books, which till his time had remained perfectly inviolable. But here he encouraged himself by the Precedents of Origen, Pierius, and some other able Critics, who had performed the very same thing in the Greek Original, which he then attempted in the Latin Copies of the Gospel. For which reason he stoutly deposed all those which after his Reformation remained Bigots to the ancient Latin Version. Revertimur ad nostros bipedes asellos, 
Hieron. Epist. ad Marcell.  & illorum in aure buccinâ magis quàm citharâ concrepamus. Illi legant, spe gaudentes, tempori servientes nos legamus, spe gaudentes, Domino servientes.  
But time did Justice to that Father. And 'tis a very difficult matter at present, to find any Copies of that Latin Version, which was then in Use in the Western Church. Yet enough there are extant to be read as a Memorial to convince those who defend Errors merely out of Veneration for their Antiquity, that St. Jerome has done the Church no small Service, in Correcting and Reviewing the ancient Latin Copies, according to the strictest Rules of Criticism. This we endeavour to demonstrate in this work, and that the most ancient Greek Exemplars of the New Testament are not the best, since they are suited to those Latin Copies, which St. Jerome found so degenerous as to need an Alteration.  
Father Morin, and after him Father Amelot, who take such pride in those Noble and Venerable Manuscripts, on account of their great Antiquity, never mind, that a thousand or twelve hundred years can never warrant them correct, since there is evident proof of their Corruption before that time. It was necessary that I should examine to the bottom, the Circumstances of these Greek Texts, which have been produced to this Time. It is not sufficient to consult those Manuscripts with design only to mark their Antiquity, and quote the different Readins. There is required a great deal of Discretion and Judgement, otherwise we shall mistake those Books which are altered, for Primitive and Apostolical Exemplars, which is the Case of the two Authors we are about to name.  
Erasmus, who was well enough furnished with those sorts of Manuscripts, is nevertheless guilty of very gross Errors. He accuses the Greeks without reason, for correcting in some places, their Copies by those of the Latin, after their Reunion with the Roman Church. This groundless Accusation can proceed from nothing, but the want of knowledge of the Criticisms of those Copies, which he consulted.  
Beza, who was Master of a greater Collection of Manuscripts of the New Testament than Erasmus, though assisted too by both Robert and Henry Stephens, has not well distinguished the worth of his Manuscript Copies, whence I found myself in some places obliged to correct his Errors. This Man was so prejudiced by his Religion, as to accuse the Italians of Corrupting the old Text, and forcing it to a Compliance with their Opinions.  
This Critical History contains divers other Remarks of the like Nature, upon the Manuscript Copies of the New Testament, both in Greek and Latin. My principal aim is to write a Supplement to the Defects of those who compile the different Readins out of the Manuscripts, without distinguishing the Good from the Bad. To which intent, it is necessary to read a great quantity, and nearly examine them in a Critical manner. This Art, whose difficulty appears formidable to some Divines in this Age, made part of their Occupation of some Ladies in St. Jerome's time: Who not content to read, the Scripture in the Vulgar Tongue, dispersed among the People, they diligently enquired after the correctest Copies, learning those very Tongues in which they were writ.  
I assert nothing, which cannot be maintained by the Letters of those Pious Ladies, and the answers of that Learned Father, who has had oftentimes a difficult Task to satisfy those Questions they propose on matters purely Critical. St. Jerome had advanced, that the Apostles had never cited any Passage in the Old Testament, which did not perfectly agree with the Hebrew Text. Eustochium, 
Hieron. Prooem. in lib. 16. Comm. in Isai.  who perfectly understood the Greek and Hebrew Languages, opposed him with such powerful Arguments, that he was forced to own himself almost overcome with the strength of her Objections. Quod cùm audissem, quasi à fortissimo pugile percussus essem coepi tacitus aestuare.  
It is no strange thing to find those Ages, when Barbarism reigned over all Europe, neglect Critical Studies. Then they wanted abundance of those helps, which they now enjoy to pursue those Studies, which are absolutely necessary to a perfect Knowledge 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 Heretics have been perpetually accused of having corrupted the Books of the New Testament, and perverted them to their own sense. 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 Heretics 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 Readins. 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 evinced, by some considerable Examples, that the most Learned Critics of our Age are not exempted from those Prejudices in their declaring too freely those Heretics 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 Ideas 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 Heretics, or the other Enemies of Christianity have brought to destroy the Truth of those Books, which were received by all the Catholic Churches.  
But as it would be a pernicious thing to expose these ill things, without administering Remedies too proper for the cure, we have also produced the strongest Reasons which the Ecclesiastical Writers have brought against them. We entreat 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 persuaded them of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture, but very substantial Reasons, void of all such Fanaticism. Tho they were sufficiently persuaded of the Divinity of the Holy Scripture, they never objected to the Adversaries, that it had impressed upon it such lively Characters of its Original, that it was a very difficult matter not to acknowledge 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 Subtlety 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 examine 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 Subtleties of Divines, who are not acquainted with Antiquity, can never discover certainty of such matters of Fact: They rather serve to confound the Understanding, 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 Universities 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 Douai, and the Jesuits of that Country, concerning the inspiration of the sacred Books. The Doctors of both Faculties censured the Propositions of the Jesuits 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 myself in this Work, without any Deference to any Master in particular. A true Christian who professes to believe the Catholic Faith, ought not to style 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 Catholic 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 to repeat here what we said in another place concerning the word Critic, which is a term of Art, which in some sense is bestowed on all Works whose designs are to examine the various readings, and establish the true. The aim of those which practise that Art, it not to destroy, but establish. As the Holy Books are not exempt from faults, which either by the tract of Time, or negligence of the Transcribers have slipped into 'em; some Learned Persons in all Ages have taken care to render them correct. The most barbarous Ages have produced Books, which they call, Correctoria Bibliae, or Corrections of the Bible. The Emperor Constantine, spared nothing to procure for the Oriental Churches correct Copies of all the Bibles. Charlemain and his Successors have done the same for the Latin Bibles of the Western Churches.  
Besides those which were formerly employed in the Monasteries about Transcribing of Books: There were some Critics who reviewed and corrected them. This is the Reason why in some Manuscript ancient Bibles, there are some Corrections found of equal Antiquity with the Books themselves. But without ascending so far to have a Precedent for the Use of Critical Reflections on the Sacred Books, we need only consider the Transactions of the Latter Age, relating to the Latin Editions of our Bibles: What prodigious pains was Robert Stephens at, according to the Relation of Hentenius a Divine of Louvain, to give us an exact and correct Edition of the Bible? This Divine which laboured after Stephens in the same matter, admires the diligence and excessive expense of that Printer, to whom he ingeniously acknowledges himself indebted. 
‖ Joann. Henten. Praef. in Bibl. Lovan. ann. 1547.  Nemo est, qui nesciat, ut unum pro multis in medium adferam, quantam diligentiam, quantasque impensas tulerit Robertus Stephanus Regius apud Lutetiam Typographus, quem honoris causâ nomino, ut accuratissima & castigatissima nobis Biblia traderet, propter quod plurimum etiam illi debent quotquot Sacrarum Literarum lectioni sunt addicti, quem ob id etiam in multis secuti sumus.  
The Doctors of the Faculty of Divinity of Louvain, perfected afterwards the Edition of their Brother, with a greater Collection of Manuscripts, and re-altered some places according to the Rules of Criticism, which they thought not corrected with exactness enough. Nicolas Zegers, a Religious Man of the Order of St. Francis, applied himself entirely to the Correction of the Books of the New Testament. He dedicated his Critic to Julian III. under the Title of 
* Castigationes in Novum Testamentum, in quibus depravata restituuntur, adjecta resecantur, & sublata adjiciuntur. Autore Tac. Nicolao Zeger. Colon. ann. 1555.  Corrections on the New Testament, wherein it reestablished what was corrupted, expunged what was added, and added what was before expunged. He assures that Pope in his Epistle Dedicatory, 
(b) Haec est genuina, germana & emendata veteris nostri Interpretis versio seu translatio, quâ hactenùs semper à tempore ferè Apostolorum, aut non ita diù pòst, usa cognoscitur Romana Ecclesia, quam ab innumeris tum mendis, tum adulterinis adjectiunculis, non sine magnis & multis molestiis repurgavimus. Zeger. Epist. ad Jul. III.  That he had freed from an infinite number of Faults and false Glosses the ancient Latin Version, which bade been in Use among the Western Churches, from the very Times of the Apostles.  
There is nothing more exactly 
† Notaticnes in Sacra Biblia, quibus variantia discrepantibus exemplaribus loca summo studio discutiuntur. Antverp. ann. 1580.  performed than the Critical Remarks of Lucas Brugensis in his Edition of the Latin Bible of the Divines of Louvain. Among the multitude of his Copies, he mentions one which was corrected by some Dominicans on the Bibles of Charlemain. He sets some marks of Esteem on another Manuscript, entitled, The Correction of the Bible. Praeter alia, id quod maximi facimus Manuscriptum Bibliorum correctorium ab incerto auctore magnâ diligentiâ ac fide contextum. 
‡ Luc. Brug. Notat. in Gen. c. 8. v. 7.  And he assures us, 
(c) Quae à nostri seculi scriptoribus ex manuscriptis codicibus collectae sunt variae lectiones, omnes propemodùm in eo comperimus, & ad fontes fideliter examinatos deprehendimus. Luc. Brug. Notat. in Gen. c. 8. v. 7.  that the different Readins, which have been observed by the Critics of the latter Times, are all found in this Book, where they are examined according to the Hebrew Text.  
I have elsewhere mentioned another Manuscript of like nature, which is in the ancient Library of the College of Sorbon. I have likewise given Extracts out of it, which manifestly prove that the Latins have not neglected the Critical Study of the Sacred Books, in those very Ages when Barbarism reigned in Europe.  
It is a Vanity in the admirers of the Hebrew Text of the Jews, to bestow such great praises on the Massoreth, a good part of which consists in Trifles or superstitious Observations. The Christians of both the Eastern and Western Churches, with more Judgement, have taken care in the Correction of the Bibles, as manifestly will appear by this Work. We ought to prefer to the Massoreth those learned 
* Romani Correctores.  Critics of Rome, which by the order of Pope Sixtus V and Clement VIII. corrected the Latin Bibles, which Correction serves instead of an exact Massoreth to the Western Church. There are none but Protestants of ill minds, such as Thomas James, Author of the Bellum Papale, who cavil at the differences of the Editions of the Bible published by those two Popes. There may indeed be a more perfect work, but that aught to be reserved for particular Notes, which no ways diminish the Authority of those Books received into public Use.  
I must only add two words concerning those Acts which are made use of in this Work. For the Manuscripts, I mark the Libraries where they are found, I have cited none without reading them; the Extracts being all done by myself, except that of Cambridge, which contains the four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles. I had procured out of England a faithful Copy of this last Manuscript in what relates to the Greek, which I have exactly followed.  
As for the Printed Books, of which there are numerous Quotations, for the most part I have contented myself to relate the Passages in short following the sense only, in the Body of the work. For long Citations of Passages where there are but five or six words, perhaps, pertinent to the Occasion, must needs prove very tiresome. This is the very same Method which I have followed in the Critical History of the Old Testament. But some Persons desiring such Passages at length, to avoid searching them in the Books, to comply with their Desires, and keep to our Method; we judged it convenient to put them at large at the bottom of the Page in the proper Languages of the respective Authors.   

A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament, Wherein is established 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 Heretics. Reflections upon the Principle made use of by the Fathers to establish the Authority of these Books.  
JEsus Christ having professed 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 Messiah 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. xuj. 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. Martion. 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 show 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 passed among them. And this is the reason that we find not here, as in the Old Testament, any public Writers who had the Charge of collecting the Acts of their State. This, during the Primitive times of Christianity, gave a pretence to several Heretics to doubt of the truth of those Apostolical Books which to them seemed to want some public 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 authentic 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 public Archives, to which recourse might be had for the deciding and clearing of matters of this nature, the Heretics 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 Heretics, avouched that he had for his Master, 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apud Clem. Alex. lib. 7. Strom.  Glaucias, one of St. Peter's Interpreters. Vàlentin 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 Heretics 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 Heretics. 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 Heretics 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 Gnostics 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 authentic 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 reform 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, quàm perfectam haberent cognitionem. This was that which caused them to take the ambitious Title of Learned and Knowing Men, or Gnostics, as if none but they were endued with the true knowledge of Religion. They vainly boasted also that they had reform 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 Gnostics, because they have applied 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 quàm 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, although these Gospels do not agree with those of the Apostles. This alone is sufficient to make it appear, that the Gospels of the Gnostics were false Acts, that cannot be opposed to the Apostolical Writings that have been acknowledged by the primitive Churches.  
It were an easy 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 alleged. 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 Gnostics or Martion: 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. lib. 2 contra Cell.  This is not a Crime (saith he) that aught 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 Heretics, who having no certain Rules for their Belief, reform them according to their capricious humour. 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, although 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 Gnostics, may serve to confute the Manicheans, who likewise acknowledge nothing Divine in the Scriptures but that which pleased them, or rather was agreeable to their Fancies. This caused S. Austin to say, addressing himself to Faustus, who was one of the chief of this Party, 
(l) Tu es ergo regula veritatis. Quidquid contra te fuerit non est verum. Aug. lib. 11. cont. Faust. c. 2.  You are then the Rule of Truth, whatsoever is against you is not true. He clearly demonstrates to them, that they were only upheld with false prejudices, when they rejected the Writings of the Apostles against the Authority of all the Churches of the World, and at the same time received the Apocryphal Books that had no Authority. If any one (continues this Father) should oppose you, and should make use of your own words, that that which you allege on your behalf is false; and on the contrary that which is against you is true, 
(m) Quid ages? Quò te convertes? Quam libri à te prolati originem, quam vetustatem, quam seriem successionis testem citabis? Aug. ibid.  what would you do? How could you defend the truth of those Acts that you produce? How could you prove their Antiquity, not having any Witnesses in Tradition by whose Testimony they might be confirmed? From whence he concludes 
(n) Vides in hac re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat auctoritas, quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorum usque ad hodiernum diem succedentium sibimet Episcoporum serie & tot populorum consensione firmatur. Aug. ibid.  that it is absolutely necessary on this occasion to have recourse to the Authority of those Churches that were established ever since the primitive times of the Christian Religion, and to the consent of Nations that have received the Books of the New Testament from the Apostles.  
He observes further, and more close to the purpose; that if it were only disputed concerning the variety of Copies, since they are but few in number, it would be sufficient to consult the Copies of different Countries; and if they did not agree in this point, the greater number should be preferred before the lesser, or the more ancient before the later: Plures paucioribus, aut vetustiores recentioribus praeferrentur. But the Manicheans, who judged not of the Truth of these Books but with relation to their own Ideas, refused to submit to this Authority, they consulted only their reason in matters of Fact, wherein all Deference ought to be given to Authority; therefore when any passage was urged to them that thwarted their Opinion, they boldly affirmed that that part had been corrupted, or that the Book wherein it was found had been composed by some Impostor under the name of the Apostles. Faustus, for example, who avouched, that after having diligently perused the Books of Moses, he could not find therein any Prophecy that had any regard to Jesus Christ, takes this method in answering the Texts of the New Testament. Where express mention is made of these Prophecies, Jesus Christ saith in speaking of himself, Moses hath wrote of me; Faustus answers to this, 
Joann. v. 46.  that after a serious examination of this passage, 
(o) Ratione cogebar in alterum è duobus, ut aut falsum pronunciarem capitulum hoc, aut mendacem Jesum; sed id quidem alienum pietatis eraè Deum existimare mentitum, Rectius ergo visum est scriptoribus adscribere falsitatem, quam veritatis auctoritati mendacium. Apud. Aug. lib. 16. contra Faust. c. 2.  his reason obliged him to conclude, either that it was false, or that Jesus Christ had not spoken the truth; and since it would be no less than impious Blasphemy to say that God could lie, it would be more adviseable to attribute the falsification to the Writers themselves. When it was demanded of this Heretic why he did not receive the Old Law and the Prophets whom Jesus Christ himself hath authorised in the New Testament, by his words, I am not come to destroy the Law or the Peophets, 
Matth. v. 17.  but to fulfil them: he objected against the Testimony of S. Matthew, because he is the only Evangelist that hath related this. It is supposed (saith he) that this Discourse was delivered in the Sermon that Jesus Christ made on the Mountain. In the mean time S. John 
(p) Testis idoneus tacet, loquitur autem minùs idoneus. Apud Aug. count. Faust. lib. 17. c. 1.  who was there present speaks not a word thereof; and yet they would have S. Matthew, who saw nothing, to mention it. He pretends that this hath been wrote by some other person, and not by S. Matthew.  
After this manner the Manicheans who sacrificed all to their Reason, and almost nothing to Authority, entirely destroyed the Books of the New Testament, receiving them no farther than they were conformable to their Prejudices: they had form to themselves a certain Idea of Christianity, after which they regulated the Writings of the Apostles. They would have it that all that which could not be adjusted to this Idea had been inserted in their Books by later Writers who were half Jews: Faustus saith, Multa enim à majoribus vestris eloquiis Domini nostri inserta verba sunt, 
Apud Aug. l. 33. cont. Faust. c. 3.  quae nomine signata ipsius cum fide non congruant; praesertim quia, ut jam saepe probatum à nobis est, nec ab ipso haec sunt, nec ab ejus Apostolis scripta; sed multa post eorum assumptionem à nescio quibus, & ipsis inter se non concordantibus Semi-Judaeis, per famas opinionesque comperta sunt, etc.  
But S. Augustin represents to them in this very same passage, that one must renounce common sense to argue after this manner on matters of Fact, to which imaginary reasons ought not to be opposed. 
(q) De quo libro certum erit cujus sit, si literae quas Apostolorum dicit & tenet Ecclesia ab ipsis Apostolis propagata, & per omnes gentes tantâ eminentiâ declarata, utrùm Apostolorum sint incertum est; & hoc erit certum scripsisse Apostolos quod huic Ecclesiae contrarii haeretiot proferunt Auctorum suorum nominibus appellati longè post Apostolos existentium. Aug. ibid.  We cannot be certain (saith he) of any Book, if once we call in question those Works that the Church that is extended throughout the whole World receives with a common consent, and if on the contrary we authorize as Apostolical Books that dispute therewith, and that carry the name of Writers who have lived a long time after the Apostles. He charges them 
(r) Legunt Scripturas apocryphas Manichaei à nescio quibus fabularum sutoribus sub Apostolorum nomine scriptas, quae suorum scriptorum temporibus in auctoritatem sanctae Ecclesiae recipi, mererentur, si sancti & docti bomines qui tunc in hac vita erant, & examinare talia poterant, eos vera locutos esse cognoscerent. Aug. count. Faust. lib. 22. c. 79.  with making Fables and Apocryphal Works to pass for Apostolical Writings: and he shows at the same time the falsity of these Acts, because they have not any testimony of the Doctors of the Church that were then living. He urgeth Faustus to prove what he hath alleged, by Books that are Canonical, and generally received in all the Churches: Non ex quibuscunque literis, sed Ecclesiasticis, Canonicis, Catholicis. 
Aug. l. 23. adv. Faus. c. 9  This Holy Doctor calls this way 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 form 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 count. Faust lib. 33. c. 6.  of Hypocrates, 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 Heretics 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 subtlety, 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 stamped 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, aught without doubt to be preferred to a private Spirit, that can only serve to make a division therein. 
Grot. Animad. in Anim. Riu.  This is what Grotius hath judiciously observed: Spiritus ille privatus (saith this Critic) 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 Heretic hath proved in his Treatise Of the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, and in another Work entitled 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 Catholic 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 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 Heretics 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 Heretics 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 expressly of the contrary in one of his Homilies: 
(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 ourselves 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 join 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 show 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 Subtlety 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 show 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 Martion, who acknowledged the Gospel of St. Luke, from which he had only took away some Passages, 
(b) Martion 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 Heretic, 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 easy 
(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 Martion 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 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.  although Martion 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 Martion might say, as well as the Orthodox, That the Gospel which he produced was the true one. 
(e) Ego meum dico verum, Martion suum. Ego Marcionis affirmo adulterate 'em, Martion 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 Martion 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 precedes the corruption of the same. In quantum enim falsum corruptio est veri, in tantum praecedat necesse est veritas falsum. On this  Principle he makes it appear that the true Copy of S. Luke was that which the Orthodox made use of, since Martion himself had not acknowledged any other before he had separated from the Church, which he accused of Judaizing; and he chief defended himself with this pretended Judaisme, from the Charge of not receiving this Gospel entire, which he said had been interpolated by those that authorised Judaisme: 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 Martion had corrected; and the Reason that he allegeth 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 itself: 
Th. Bezae Resp. ad defence. & reprehends. 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 Judgement, 
(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 gins 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 falsely 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 Arabic Version printed at Rome, 
Nou. 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 easy to judge, that this Arabic Title hath been taken in part from the Latin; and those who have copied or translated these Arabic Gospels, have added the rest; therefore we read in the two other Arabic Editions, The Gospel of Matthew, or of St. Matthew. It is no otherwise in the Syriack, the , and the Persian: in a word, it is only in the Latin Version where it is read, The Gospel of Jesus Christ; which is an apparent Imitation of the first Words of the Gospel of St. Mark. However it be, the Opinion of St. John Chrysostom, who believed that none of the Gospels were written with the Titles that are at present prefixed to them, seems to me more probable than that of some Authors, especially among the Protestants, who attribute them to the Evangelists, and will have them to be a part of the Gospels. It is much more likely, that the Primitive Christians have annexed them thereunto in those times wherein it was evident that these Gospels did truly belong to those Persons whose Names are put to them: on this account it is, that we find the Name of S. Luke added to the beginning of some MSS. Greek Copies of the Acts of the Apostles, as I have observed in three MSS. of the King's Library. We read in two of these Manuscripts, 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. MSS. Reg. n. 2869. & 2248.  The Acts of the Apostles by Luke the Evangelist; and in the other, 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. MSS. Reg. n. 2872.  The Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke an Apostle.  
Furthermore, the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gospel, which signifieth literally Good News, is taken here for Preaching, insomuch that the Gospel of S. Matthew is nothing else but the Preaching of this Apostle, who hath made a Collection of the Actions and Words of his Master: therefore the Syrians have entitled this Gospel, 
Nou. Test. Syr.  The Gospel, the Preaching of Matthew. The Arabic Versions that have been taken from the Syriack, do also make use of an Arabic Word that signifies Preaching.  
I do not think it necessary that I should insist on these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to Matthew, according to Mark, as some Commentators on the New Testament have done; it seems to me to be too nicely explained. They imagine, that those that have put these Titles have made choice of this Expression on purpose, to show that neither Matthew, Mark, Luke nor John, were the Authors of the Gospels, but that they had only written them: this seems to me to be a pure Subtlety; for, according to the Style of those times, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to Matthew, is the same thing with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Matthew. It was said after the same manner, the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Hebrews, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Egyptians, that is to say, of the Hebrews, and of the Egyptians; as it hath been also said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Heresy according to the Phrygians, which is the same thing as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Heresy of the Phrygians. Beza himself, who was so excessively transported against Castalio about the Version of these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he had translated auctore Matthaeo, confesseth, that it is commonly said, the Gospel of S. Matthew and of S. Mark, as it is said the Epistles of S. Paul and of S. Peter: but he was afraid lest this Title of Castalio should cause it to be believed that the Evangelists are strictly the Authors of the Gospels that they have published, whereas they are only the simple Scribes or Writers of them; as if in the very Elegancy of the Latin Tongue, Auctor was not the same thing as Scriptor. They that affirm that this Expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to Matthew, seems to denote that St. Matthew and the other Evangelists had not written their Gospels themselves, have a great deal more reason to fear, lest they should be only Collections that their Disciples had made of the Preach of their Masters. But this Objection is answered at one stroke, by making it appear that there is no difference as to the sense, between these two Expressions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Matthew, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Matthew. Castalio, who professeth rather to render the Sense than the Letter, hath not ill translated auctore Matthaeo: and therefore Beza was in the wrong, in taking an occasion from thence to accuse him for having denied the Inspiration of the Sacred Books.  
I cannot but wonder that Grotius should insist on this nicety of Beza, 
Grot. Annot. in tit. Matth.  and that he hath remarked after him, in his Notes on this Passage of St. Matthew, that the ancient Title was not simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gospel, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, after the same manner as it is in the beginning of S. Mark. He judges this to be the reason why it was not put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Gospel of Matthew, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to Matthew. This Observation hath no foundation; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to Matthew, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Matthew, are the same thing, as hath been proved above. We see also, that the Syriack Version, the Arabic (except the Copy of Rome, that hath been apparently altered in this point from the Latin) the  and the Persian, all read the Gospel of Matthew.  
The great antiquity of this Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gospel, is ordinarily proved by these words of St. Justin Martyr, in his Apology for the Christians, 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Just. Mart. in Apol.  The Apostles in the Acts that they have committed to Writing, that are called Gospels. Instead of the word Acts, it is in the Greek of this Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We have at this day four Books of Xenophon extant, wherein he relates the Words and Actions of Socrates, that are entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in Latin, according to the Translation of Cardinal Bessarion, Xenophontis de factis & dictis Socratis memoratu dignis. It is in this same sense that this holy Martyr citys the Gospels in his Dialogues against Tryphon, 
Just. Mar. in Dial. count. Tryph.  under the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if the Apostles had had no other design in their Writings that have been called Gospels, than to publish the Words and Actions of Jesus Christ.  
Moreover, it is worth the observing, that although the Apostles were not the Authors of the Titles that are set at the head of their Gospels, we ought nevertheless to receive them after the same manner as if they had put them there themselves, because they are derived from the first beginnings of Christianity, and are further authorized by a constant Tradition of all the Churches of the World. Erasmus, who found a great difficulty in concluding concerning the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that bears not the Name of St. Paul, protests, that if the Church hath pronounced any thing thereupon, he would readily submit to her Decision, which he prefers before all the Reasons that may be proposed to him. 
Erasm. declare. ad Theol. Paris.  Plus apud me valet (saith this Critic) Ecclesiae judicium, quam ullae rationes humanae.   

CHAP. III Concerning Books that have been published under the Name of Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Of several other Acts forged by the ancient Heretics. Reflections on the whole matter.  
IT hath been observed above, that Jesus Christ never published any Work to make known his Doctrine, and that he did not so much as give order to his Disciples to write that which he had taught them, but only to preach it to all the Nations of the Earth: nevertheless, there have been found Impostors who have set forth Books under his Name, and have attributed to him certain Acts written in form of Letters, the forgery whereof discovers itself, in regard they are directed to Peter and Paul They have not minded, when they composed these Letters, that Paul was not the Disciple of Jesus Christ till after the Death of the same Jesus Christ. 
(a) Quomodo potuit libros quos, antequam moreretur, eum scripsisse putari volunt, ad discipulos tanquam familiarissimos Petrum & Paulum scribere, cùm Paulus nondum fuerit discipulus ejus? August. de Consen. Evan. lib. 1. c. 10.  How then could it be (saith St. Augustin) that he should write to Peter and Paul, as to his dear Disciples with whom he conversed familiarly, since this latter was not then in the number of his Disciples? Besides, these Books were full of Secrets, or rather Superstitions, of the Art that is called Magic; which in no wise agrees with Jesus Christ, who hath always professed, and the Christians after him, to condemn this kind of Superstition. It is probable, that whereas his extraordinary Actions were famous throughout the World, and his Miracles surprising, they took occasion from thence to feign this Work to disperse abroad I know not what magical Secrets, which they pretended he had put in practice: indeed the Jews, who were his Enemies, not being able to deny the truth of his Miracles, gave it out every where that he was a Magician. They have not been ashamed also to set down these Fables in their Talmud, and to say that Jesus had learned in Egypt the most subtle Mysteries of Magic. 
Apud Origen, lib. 1. cont. Cells.  Celsus reproaches the ancient Christians almost after the same manner, under the Person of a Jew whom he introduces to speak. This Epicurean Philosopher attributes the miraculous Actions of Jesus to Magic, or rather to a certain Art that was learned (as he saith) in Egypt.  
The Letter of Jesus Christ to Agbar King of Edessa, seems not to be so far from Truth, because Eusebius that produceth it with the Letter of this Prince to Jesus, assures us, that he hath taken these two pieces from the Archives of Edessa, that contained the Records of what hath passed under the Reign of Agbar, and that they were still kept in his time written in Syriack, which was the Language of the Country; from whence they were translated into Greek. Nevertheless Pope Gelasius had reason to reject this Letter of our Saviour to Agbar as Apocryphal: 
Gelas. decr. 1. par. dist. 15. c. 3.  Epistola Jesu ad Agbarum apocryphas. I am apt to believe that these Letters were really found in the Archives of the City of Edessa; but we ought not too easily to give credit to the first Originals of Churches: every one strives to advance their Antiquity as much as is possible, and they make no scruple on such occasions to counterfeit Acts when they have none that are true.  
Eusebius appeared much more judicious when he rejected, as Tales made at pleasure, certain Parables and Preachments that Papias attributed to Jesus Christ, and avouched that he heard them reported by those very Persons that had learned them of the Apostles. We ought then to take it for a certain Maxim, that Jesus Christ hath written nothing, and that we have nothing of his but what we have received from his Apostles. This gave occasion to some Pagans who had a Veneration for him, to say, 
(c) Nolunt Evangelio credere, quia non ab ipso (Jesus) illa conscripta sunt, sed ab ejus Discipulis, quos existimant ei divinitatem, qua crederetur Deus, errore tribuisse. Aug. lib. 2. Retract. c. 16.  That they could not believe the Gospel, because he had not written it himself; and that his Disciples, who were the Authors thereof, had took upon them too much in making him God. 
Aug. lib. 1. de cons. c. 7.  S. Augustin confutes these People in his first Book of the Consent of the Gospels; They attribute (saith he, in speaking of these Pagans) a most excellent Wisdom to Jesus Christ; but they always consider him as a Man, 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 1. c. 13.  and they pretend that his Disciples have bestowed Qualifications upon him that he had not: they declare that they have a disposition to believe his Word, in case he had himself committed it to Writing, but refuse notwithstanding to give credit to the preaching of the Apostles. S. Augustin propounds to them the example of Pythagoras and Socrates, two of the greatest Men of the Pagan Antiquity, who have written nothing of their own Actions, no more than Jesus Christ, and yet they do not for this reason decline referring themselves to their Disciples herein. He demands of them 
(d) Quid igitur causae est cur de istis hoc credant, quod de illis discipuli eorum literis commendarunt, & de Christo nolunt credere quod ejus de illo Discipuli conscripserunt? Aug. ibid.  why they rather believe the Disciples of these two Philosophers in that which they have written concerning them?  
This arguing of S. Augustin manifestly supposeth that we have no Writings of Jesus Christ: and this is what he affirms in express terms in another place, where he answers Faustus, who pretended that we ought to seek for that which Jesus had said of himself: Quaerendum esse quid de se Jesus ipse praedicavaerit. Can this be known otherwise (saith this Father) than by the Writings of his Disciples? Numquid hoc sciri potest, nisi discipulis ejus narrantibus? 
(e) Vnde sieri poterat, ut si verè ipsius essent, non legerentur, non acciperentur, non praecipuo culmine auctoritatis eminerent in ipsius Ecclesiâ, quae ab ipso per. Apostolos succedentibus sibimet Episcopis usque ad haec tempora propagata diditatur? Aug. count. Faust. lib. 28. c. 4.  If there were (adds he) any Writings that had been truly of Jesus Christ, how comes it to pass that they were not read nor received in his Church, and that they were not set in the highest rank therein? This also is the Opinion of Origen in his first Book against Celsus, 
Orig. l. 1. cont. Cells.  where he acknowledgeth that Jesus hath published nothing of his Actions; that we know them only by the Relations of his Disciples in their Gospels.  
As for what concerns false Gospels, false Acts, false Apocalypses or Revelations, and other pieces of the like nature that have been composed under the Names of the Apostles, there hath been so great a number of them, that it would be very difficult to describe them all exactly. Pope Gelasius hath furnished a Catalogue of them long enough, which hath been inserted into the Decretal of Gratian: 
Decr. 1. part. dist. 15. c. 3.  and although these false Books have been almost all lost, yet there are some Fragments of them remaining in the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers. S. Luke seems to have written his Gospel, only because some, who had undertaken the same thing before him, had not acquitted themselves faithfully therein. This is the Sense that the Fathers generally give to the first words of this Evangelist, when they explain the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Luc. i 1.  which is translated in the vulgar Latin conati sunt. Many (saith Theophylact) have written Gospels, and 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophyl. Comm. in c. 1. Luc. vers. 1.  we have Examples of them in that which is called The Gospel of the Egyptians, and in another entitled The Gospel of the Twelve. These People (adds he) have only made an attempt, but they have not finished. The common Opinion of the ancient Interpreters of the Scriptures, whether Greek or Latin, is that S. Luke designed to mark out in this place those Writers that durst publish false Gospels. Pseudopostolos (saith Baronius) & Pseudoscriptores his suggillatos verbis à Luca firma est Patrum sententia. 
Baron. an. Christ. 58 n. 31.  Nevertheless many of them have been deceived, when they have produced as Examples of these false Gospels, Writings that have not been published till after the time of S. Luke.  
This hath given occasion to some Learned Commentators on the New Testament to doubt of the Explication that the Fathers have brought of this Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who take it in a bad sense in this passage. Maldonat after he hath rehearsed in few words what several Fathers have thought thereupon, adds, 
(g) A quâ sententiâ, non quòd certà mihi ratione probari posse videatur, sed quòd omnibus vulgò probari videam, nolo discedere. Maldon. Comm. in c. 1. Luc. vers. 1.  that he will not recede from the common Opinion, although it be not grounded on any convincing Reason, because the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may also be explained in a good sense. But whether there were any false Gospels or not, before S. Luke published his, we cannot doubt but a great number of them have been forged since that time, of which the Heretics have been the Authors. I will not here speak of that of the Nazareans, which was called also the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Hebrews, because I am persuaded that this Gospel was the Original of S. Matthew, into which they afterwards inserted some Additions, as I shall show hereafter.  
The Ebionites who read this same Gospel of S. Matthew according to the Hebrews, 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 23.  had others also which they had substituted under the Names of the Apostles, especially of James and John, that they might the more easily impose on those of their own Sect, by those false Gospels that went under the Names of the Disciples of Jesus Christ. They had the impudence even to counterfeit new Acts of the Apostles, which they filled with Impieties and Defamations against S. Paul, whom they called, by way of raillery, The man of Tarsus, being desirous to prove from thence that he was not a Jew by Nation, but a Proselyte, and one born of Parents that had been converted from Gentilism to the Religion of the Jews. Nevertheless Eusebius assures us, that these Heretics did not receive any but the Gospel called According to the Hebrews, and that they had but little esteem for the others. In regard that they had preserved Judaisme with the Christian Religion, 
Eusebius Hist. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 27.  they absolutely rejected the Epistles of S. Paul, whom they treated as an Apostate, because he had (said they) abandoned the old Law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The Gnostics who fancied themselves to have a more perfect knowledge of Religion than all the other Christians, and looked upon the Apostles, as Men that were but rude and stupid even when they▪ published their Gospels, composed a Work in Verse, 
Epiph. Haer. 26. n. 22.  which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Gospel of Perfection. 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid. n. 13.  They made use of a Gospel also that they attributed to S. Philip, a Disciple of Jesus Christ, some words whereof Epiphanius relates. Some of this same Sect that was divided into several Branches, had invented a Gospel entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Gospel of Eve, wherein they scattered their wild conceits under the Name of this Woman, whom they considered as a perfect Gnostick, who had received great illuminations in the Conference that she held with the Serpent.  
The Sethians who were another sort of Gnostics, who boasted, that they took their original from Seth, whom they believed to be Jesus Christ, had forged 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph Haer. 39 n. 4.  an Apocalypse under the Name of the Patriarch Abraham. S. Epiphanius observes judiciously, that the design of these Gnostics in publishing so many false Books under such great Names was to delude the simple, and to cause them to believe that they were ignorant of nothing concerning the Life of Jesus Christ. Those amongst them who were called Marcosians, 
Epiph. Haer. 34. n. 18.  had composed certain false Histories of his Infancy, wherein they observed after what manner he had learned to read.  
The Encratites who acknowledged for the Author of their Sect the famous Tatian, a Disciple of S. Justin Martyr, 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 47. n. 1.  adhered to the Acts of S. Andrew, S. John, S. Thomas, and some other Apocryphal Books, as it were to the Authentical Scriptures. Those that took the Name 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph Haer. 61. n. 1.  of Apostolical, and were a Branch of the Encratites relied after their example on the false Acts of S. Andrew and S. Thomas 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 63. n. 2.  the Origenians, whose Opinions came near to those of Epiphanius, who was of the Sect of the Gnostics, made use also of the Acts attributed to S. Andrew, and of some other Books of the same nature. The 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. 4.  Manicheans had composed a Gospel under the name of Thomas, and they made choice of this name of a Gospel to impose on the simple. Cyril of Jerusalem who lived a little after the first appearance of this Sect, attributes this Gospel to one of the Disciples of Manes named Thomas 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. Cyr. Catech. 6.  Let none (saith this Holy Bishop) read the Gospel of Thomas; for he is not one of the twelve Apostles, but one of the three wicked Disciples of Manes. The Names of these three Disciples, according to the testimony of the same Cyril, were Thomas, Baddas and Hermas. Nevertheless Pope Gelasius condemns it, 
Gelasius decr. 1. par. dist. 15. c. 3.  as belonging (as they said) to the Apostle S. Thomas. Evangelium nomine Thomae Apostoli quo utuntur Manichaei apocryphum. S. Augustin writing against Faustus hath made mention of certain Apocryphal Books which the Manicheans made use of, 
Aug. count. Faust. lib. 22. c. 79.  wherein were related several Actions of S. Thomas, of which he hath produced some Examples. But not to be tedious, I shall pass by many other Gospels that have been published under the Names of the Apostles; the Titles of them may be seen in the Catalogne of Pope Gelasius, who hath ranked them in the number of Apocryphal Books.  
Although the Church doth acknowledge as Canonical only two Epistles of S. Peter, that are also but short; yet (if we believe the ancient Heretics) he hath composed several other Works that are mentioned by S. Jerome, viz. certain Acts, a Gospel, an Apocalypse, and two other Books, 
(q) Vnus Actorum ejus inscribitur; alius, Evangelit; tertius, Praedicationis; quartus, Apocalypseos; quintus, Judicii. Hieron. de Scriptor. Eccl. in Petr.  one of which was entitled, The Preaching of Peter, and the other, The Judgement. Eusebius who hath also taken notice of these Books attributed to S. Peter, adds, that they were generally rejected by all the Catholics, 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib 3. c. 3.  because it did not appear that any Ecclesiastical Writer had ever subscribed to their Authority: which is not true; for he avouches himself in another place, that Clement of Alexandria hath cited the Apocalypse of S. Peter: the same Clement hath also cited the Book that bears the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Preaching of Peter; he hath also produced some Fragments of these two Works; which Origen hath likewise done after him. It is probable, that Eusebius only intended to say, that no Ecclesiastical Author had quoted these Books as Divine and Canonical. After the same manner may be explained another Passage of his History, where after he had rejected as Apocryphal, the Gospels that had been published by the Heretics, under the Names of Peter, Thomas, Mathias and some other Apostles, he adds, 
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 25.  that no Ecclesiastical Writer since the Apostles to his time had made mention of these Gospels.  
Serapion Bishop of Antioch hath written a Letter on purpose against the Gospel that bears the name of Peter, 
Seraph. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 6. cap. 12.  on occasion of certain Christians of Rhossus in Cilicia, who having read this Gospel, were fallen into the Error. He saith in this Letter, that he embraced as well as they the Writings of S. Peter and the other Apostles, as the Word of Jesus Christ; but that he rejected this false Gospel that had been forged under the Name of S. Peter, and was not grounded on any Tradition. The Heretics that were called Docites made use thereof; and Serapion himself before he had examined it, had permitted those of Rhossus to read it; but afterwards having found some Passages therein contrary to the Orthodox Faith, he absolutely forbade them the reading it. Sozomen affirms 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sozom. Hist. Eccles. lib. 7. cap. 19  that the Apocalypse attributed to S. Peter was read even in his time every year on Good Friday in some Churches of Palestine, although this Piece had been exploded by all Antiquity.  
The ancient Ecclesiastical. Authors do moreover make mention of certain Acts attributed to S. Paul, which Eusebius hath rejected as Apocryphal. 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. lib. 3. Hist. Eccles. cap. 3.  We receive not (saith this Historian) among the Books that are not suspected, that which is called the Acts of Paul; and he speaks of these Acts in another place 
(v) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. ib. c. 24.  as a false and supposititious Writing. Many other Books have been compiled under the Name of this Apostle, and among others an Apocalypse or Revelation, which Pope Gelasius hath inserted in the List of Apocryphal Pieces: 
Gelasius decr. 1. part. dist. 15. c. 3.  Revelatio quae appellatur Pauli Apostoli apocryphas. Sozomen hath observed, 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sozom. Hist. Eccles. lib. 7. c. 19  that in his time the greatest part of the Monks very much esteemed this Apocalypse, though it had no testimony of Antiquity. To gain more authority to it, they feigned that it had been found at Tarsus in Cilicia, buried under ground in S. Paul's House. The Cainites who acknowledged Cain for their Father, from whom they took their Name, had forged another Work, under the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Epiph. Haer. 38. n. 2.  that contains the History of that which happened to S. Paul when he ascended into Heaven, where he learned things which he was not permitted to reveal. The Gnostics adopted this Book for their use. I shall not insist on some Epistles that have been also published under the Name of S. Paul, because I shall have occasion to speak of them in another place.  
Besides all these Acts counterfeited under the Names of the Apostles, of which scarce any thing is left but the Titles, we have others more entire that have been Printed, but they are so full of Fables and absurd Tales, that we cannot read them without being at the same time convinced of their falsity. Is there any thing for example, more ridiculous than the Gospel attributed to Nicodemus? There is nothing also that comes nearer to Fable, than the little Book entitled Protevangelium Jacobi, The first Gospel of James, wherein it is treated among other things concerning the Birth and Infancy of the blessed Virgin Mary. William Postel who first brought this false Gospel from the Levant, would persuade all the World to believe, that it was read publicly in the Eastern Churches, and that they did not there doubt of the Author thereof. He translated it out of Greek into Latin, and having sent his Translation to Oporinus, a Printer at Basil, Bibliander caused it to be Printed with this specious Title, Protevangelion, sive de Natalibus Jesus Christi & ipsius matris Virginis Mariae Sermo Historicus D. Jacobi Minoris consobrini & fratris Domini Jesus, 
Protev. Jac. edit. Basil. in 3. ann. 1552.  Apostoli primarii, & Episcopi Christianorum primi Hierosolymis. He added also some Notes thereto after his way with a Discourse, wherein he avoucheth after Postel, that this History of the Birth of Jesus Christ, and of the Virgin, passeth for an authentic 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, entitled, 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 Gnostics, 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 Judgement 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 Heretics 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 Heretics 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 Catholic 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 authentic 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 Gnostics 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 ourselves. 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 Heretic 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 Heretics 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 Scriptures Canonicis, ut eas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis Catholicis, praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt. In eyes verò quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus, praeponat eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, eye 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 Heretics, or else by others, we have been obliged not to allow them any longer as authentic. 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 judgement 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. IU. The ancient Fathers have not produced the Originals of the New Testament in their Disputes against the Heretics. An Examination of Proofs that are brought to show 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 Martion, and that of S. Augustin against Faustus a Manichean Sectary. These two Heretics refused to acknowledge the Copies that were approved in the Catholic 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, Heretics who have disputed against the Writings of the Apostles, and therefore it seems to behoove the Divine Providence to preserve these Originals at least for some time, from whence these Heretics 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, nun 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 Preach of these same Apostles, or of their Disciples.  
As for what relates to the Primitive Heretics, 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 Gnostics, 
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 itself; 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 which those who being the Successors of the Apostles, have been as it were the Depositaries or Stewards of their Doctrine. There was no talk in those days of reading the Holy Scriptures in the Originals; any Copy whatsoever, provided it were used in the Orthodox Churches, might be relied on, as if it had been the first Original written with the hand of the Apostles. We ought to give the same credit to Copies that have been made of the Apostolical Writings, as to the very Originals, because these Copies have been taken from thence even from the times of the Apostles, and have been afterwards dispersed almost throughout the whole Earth: they have been preserved in all the Churches of the World, having been translated into divers Languages; insomuch, that there is no Book the Copies whereof are more authentic than those of the New Testament: and in this we ought chief to acknowledge the peculiar Providence of God in the preservation of these Books that he hath given to his Church by the Ministry of the Apostles, or of their Disciples.  
Some pretend nevertheless to make it appear by actual Proofs taken out of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, that the original Writings of the Apostles have been preserved in the Church during several Ages: and this must be examined in particular, though I have already discoursed thereof elsewhere. In the first place they produce a Passage of Tertullian in his Book of Prescription against Heresies, where he saith, in speaking of the Churches that had been founded by the Apostles, 
(b) Apud quos ipsae Authenticae Literae eorum recitantur. Tertull. de Praescr. cap. 36.  that they yet kept in his time their Authentic Writings. 
Pamel. Annot. in lib. Tertul. de Praescr. c. 36.  Pamelius, in his Notes on this Passage, affirms after another Author, that the Word Authentic cannot be taken but for the Originals that had been written with the very hand of the Apostles themselves; after the same manner as Lawyers call a Testament Authentic that hath been written with the hand of the Testator, to distinguish it from a Copy. This is also the Sense that Grotius, 
Grot. de Verit. Relig. Christ. lib. 3.  Walton, Huetius, and many others, have given of these Words of Tertullian. Tertullianus (saith Grotius) aliquot librorum ipsa Archetypa suo adhuc tempore ait extitisse. He avoucheth, from this place of Tertullian, 
(c) Archetypa nonnulla ad annum usque ducentesimum servata sunt. Grot. de Verit. Relig. Christ. lib. 3.  that some Originals of the New Testament have been preserved till the beginning of the third Century.  
But if we carefully examine the different Passages wherein Tertullian makes use of the Word Authentic in his Works, we shall find that he hath meant nothing else by this Expression than Books written in their Original Languages. This is what Rigaltius hath very well observed on this Sentence of Tertullian, where explaining the Word Authenticae, he saith, 
Rigalt. Annot. in lib. Tertul. de Praescr. c. 36.  Lingua scilicet eadem qua fuerant ab Apostolis conscriptae sonantes vocem uniuscujusque. Sic ipse lib. de Monogamia, ad Graecum authenticum Pauli provocat. Whereas the Latin Version of the New Testament was only read in the Churches of Africa, he gives the Name of Authentic to the Greek Text: and in this Sense it is that quoting this Text in his Book of Monogamy, he saith, Sciamus planè non esse sic in Graeco authentico. St. Jerom also useth the like Expression with respect to the Old Testament, when he opposeth the Hebrew Text to the Greek and Latin Versions; for he calls the former Veritatem Hebraicam, the Hebrew Verity; designing thereby to denote the Originals of the Scriptures which he likewise denominates as Tertullian doth, Authenticos libros, 
Tertul. lib. de Monog. c. 11.  in his Commentary on chap. 64. of the Prophet Isaiah: nevertheless he did not believe that these were the first Originals written with the hand of the Prophets. We express ourselves also at this day after the same manner, when we say that a Version of the Scriptures is not conformable to the Original. Tertullian therefore doth not speak of any other Originals in his Book of Prescription, than those that we have just now remarked. As to the Authority of Lawyers that Pamelius opposeth, it is easy to remonstrate by the Testimony even of the most learned Lawyers, that the Word Authentic is often taken in a less strict sense. Every Act that proves and procures credit of itself, whether it be an Original or not, is accounted Authentic. An Author that publisheth some Manuscript Piece, assures us that it is taken ex codice authentico, from an authentic Copy; Doth he mean by this that he hath the Original of the Book that he sets forth, in his own hands?  
In the second place they offer an actual Proof taken from Eusebius. 
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 10.  This Historian speaking of the Zeal and of the Charity of the ancient Christians, who went to preach the Gospel to the most remote Nations, after the Example of the Apostles, saith that Pantenus quitted the City of Alexandria, where he was the Principal of a School or College of Christians, to promulge the Religion of Jesus Christ to the Indians. This faithful Evangelist being among the Indians or Ethiopians, found there a Copy of S. Matthew's Gospel, written in Hebrew, that S. Bartholomew, the Apostle of these People, had left, and was believed to be preserved there to that time.  
But besides that, Eusebius doth not confirm this History by any Ecclesiastical Writer, being content only to say that it was a common Report, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I do not see that it can be unquestionably proved from these Words, that the Hebrew Copy that Pantenus found at his Arrival in that Country, was the Original that St. Bartholomew had left there. He only intended to say, That the Ethiopians, who had been converted to the Faith of Jesus Christ by this Apostle, did not make use of the Greek Gospel of S. Matthew, but of the Hebrew or Chaldaic that had been written for the first Christians of Jerusalem. If this History were true, the Primitive Christians of Ethiopia were descended from the Jews, and spoke the same Language as those that inhabited Judea. This is all that can be concluded from the Discourse of Eusebius, which hath been amplified in process of time. St. Hierom doth not seem to have understood the sense of this Historian, when he saith in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, that Pantenus 
(d) Quod Hebraicis literis scriptum revertens Alexandriam secum detulit. Hier. de Scriptor. Eccles. in Panteno.  returning to Alexandria, carried back with him the Gospel of St. Matthew written in Hebrew Characters. Eusebius saith only, that the Christians of Ethiopia had preserved this Hebrew Gospel until the Arrival of Pantenus.  
The third material proof that is brought is taken from the Chronicle of Alexandria, wherein it is observed, that a correct Book of the Gospel of St. John, that had been written with that Evangelist's own hand, was preserved in the Church of Ephesus. Peter Bishop of Alexandria maintained that it ought to be read in the nineteen Chap. of S. John, ver. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it was about the third hour, 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chron. Alex. edit. Monachii, p. 521.  because (saith he) this reading is found in the correct Copies, and in that which had been written with St. John the Evangelist's own hand; which Copy is kept at present, by the Grace of God, in the most holy Church of Ephesus, and is there adored by the Faithful.  
It is no difficult matter to judge that all that was said in that time at Ephesus concerning the Original Writing of St. John, who had been Bishop of that City, was only grounded on a popular Error; several like instances whereof it were easy to produce. Can we see any thing more ridiculous than the Tradition of the Venetians with respect to the Gospel of St. Mark, the Original of which, written with his own hand, they pretend yet to keep even to this very day? Baronius could not forbear rejecting this Tradition, as having no foundation in Antiquity. Fertur traditione magis (saith this learned Annalist) quàm antiquorum certo testimonio, ipsum Marcum, Evangelium suum quod Romae Latine scripserat, cum Aqualejae moraretur, missus illuc à Petro ad eam erigendam Ecclesiam, in Graecum transtulisse, ipsumque Originale diutius asservatum Venetias demum esse translatum. Fabiano Justiniani, a Priest of the Oratory of Rome, who hath believed with Lucas Brugensis, that the Latin Gospel of St. Mark which we have, hath been translated from the Greek, doth not stick to declare 
(f) Marcus cùm in Aquilejam Venetae Provinciae civitatem à Sancto Petro missus venisset, ibi idem Evangelium iterum Graeco eloquio exaravit, quod usque hodie in Aquilejensi Ecclesiâ cum eburneâ sede, in quâ illud scripserat, ostenditur, & congruâ devotione reservari dicitur. Fabian. Justin. Comm. de Sacr. Script. lib. 1. part. 2. c. 48. edit. Romae, ann. 1614  to us the common belief of the People of the State of Venice, who show the very Original of St. Mark written in Greek, and even the Ivory Chair wherein he had written it. It is not necessary to confute this sort of vulgar Traditions, that are grounded on no Acts, as Baronius himself hath acknowledged.  
The same thing may be said concerning the Tradition of those of Ephesus related by Peter Bishop of Alexandria: we might demand of him who are the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that have made mention before him, of this Gospel written with St. John's hand? It is requisite that they should explain to us after what manner, and through what Channel this original Piece is conveyed down to this time without having any knowledge thereof in the preceding Ages. If St. Epiphanius had heard any News of this Original, he would not have failed to refer the Alogians to it, who generally rejected all the Books of St. John, which they ascribed to the Heretic Cerinthus: on the contrary, he only opposeth to them good Reasons; and being very far from disputing with them on a vain Tradition that had no grounds but the simplicity of the People, 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 51. n. 3.  he saith, if they had only disallowed the Apocalypse, it might be thought that a certain too curious criticising Humour had obliged them to embrace this Opinion, not to receive an Apocryphal Book, because there are some things in this Book profound and obscure.  
Lastly, they oppose that which happened under the Emperor Zeno in the Isle of Cyprus, where Anthimius Bishop and Metropolitan of this Island, was advertised in a dream of the ground-plot where the Body of St. Barnabas had been interred, which was found accordingly in the place that had been revealed to him, having on his Breast the Gospel of St. Matthew written with his own hand. This Copy was immediately sent to the Emperor, who received it with a profound respect, and kept it as a precious Relic in a Church that was in his Palace. The Church of Constantinople read the Gospel once every Year in this venerable and august Copy of St. Barnabas. To render this Story more probable, they add the Testimony of Cardinal Baronius, who averreth that we cannot doubt thereof, it being generally received of all the World; besides that it hath been written by an Orthodox Monk named Alexander, who lived in that time.  
It cannot be denied indeed, but that a great number of Greek Historians, one after another, have related the matter of fact, as is above said. Theodorus Lector 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodor. Lect. Collect. lib. 2.  doth even specify the name of the Tree under which the Body of St. Barnabas was found who had on his Breast the Gospel of St. Matthew: Nicephorus, Cedrenus, Joel, Nilus Doxapatrius, and some other Greek Writers, have also made mention of this Gospel of St. Matthew written with the hand of St. Barnabas; but they do not tell us whether it were Hebrew or Greek; which is the thing that deserves to be most enquired into in all this Affair, and whereon entirely depends the Discovery of the Vision of Anthimius to whom St. Barnabas appeared: this is observed by all the Greek Historians, with the Monk Alexander, that they of the Isle of Cyprus took occasion from thence to shake off the Yoke of the Patriarch of Antioch, who pretended that they were of his dependence. This was an old Quarrel between this Patriarch and the Bishops of this Island, who refused to take Ordination of him, because their Church having been founded by the Apostle St. Barnabas, aught to be (as they thought) independent. This Affair had been decided in the Council of Ephesus in favour of the Bishops of this Isle, who had represented that they had enjoyed this Privilege time out of mind. Notwithstanding, the Patriarches of Antioch continued to molest the Bishops of Cyprus, and justified their Proceed with the Canon of the Council of Nice, that was favourable to them. It is also very probable, that they of Cyprus did not withdraw themselves from the Jurisdiction of Antioch till this Patriarchal Church fell into Schism. Anthimius, Metropolitan of Constance, took an occasion at that time, in regard that Petrus Fullo who was then Patriarch of Antioch, had declared himself Protector of the Eutychians. But since the whole matter was of necessity to be referred to the Emperor, the Metropolitan of Constance, who was not in his favour, thought fit to feign the Vision above mentioned. Which being come to the knowledge of Zeno, he forthwith forbade the Patriarch of Antioch for the future to disturb the Bishops of Cyprus. Anthimio Constantiensi Episcopo, (saith Father Morin, who epitomised the History of Monk Alexander) eò quòd apud Imperatorem minimè gratiosus esset fluctuanti; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dormitanti apparet S. Barnabas, qui corporis sui reliquias, & 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 publicly 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, etc. 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 authorise 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 Alexander's 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 Heretics 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 showed.   

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 spoke 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 quàm 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 ourselves herein to Heretics, 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 spoke, that was called Hebrew, and was either  or Syriack. 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pap. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 39  Papias, who lived with the Disciples of the Apostles, avoucheth this in express terms; and S. Irenaeus, Origen and many other Fathers have afterwards confirmed it. S. Irenaeus saith 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Irea apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 8.  that S. Matthew being among the Hebrews, composed his Gospel in their proper Dialect. Origen in the Canon that he hath given us of the Sacred Books, names S. Matthew the first of the Evangelists 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. apud Euseb. lib. 6. Hist. Eccl. cap. 25.  who published it in Hebrew for the use of the Jews that had embraced the Christian Religion. These primitive Christians were called Nazarenes by the Jews, as appears from the Acts of the Apostles, where they accuse S. Paul of being the Ringleader of the Sect of the Nazarenes, 
Act. xxiv. 5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ever since that time they have always given to the Christians the name of Nazarenes, which is found in their Talmud, and in their other Books. There were afterwards certain Sectaries under this same name, who adopted this Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew, some Fragments of which are yet extant to this day, whereof we shall discourse hereafter. It is expedient before we proceed any further, to examine the Reasons of those that affirm that S. Matthew hath not composed his Gospel in Hebrew.  
Erasmus, who had no knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue, hath been one of the first that hath thereupon opposed the common sentiments of all Antiquity: but the Reasons than the produceth are so weak, that he sometimes makes himself even ridiculous, when he would talk like a Critic concerning a matter of which he was altogether ignorant. He would refer in every thing that relates to the Hebrew Tongue, to Oecolampadius who understood it no more than himself, which caused him to fall into gross Errors, and gave occasion to his Adversaries, especially Stunica a Learned Spaniard to reprehend his Ignorance. 
Jacob. Lop. Stun. Annot. in Erasm.  Cardinal Cajetan who was skilled neither in Hebrew nor Greek, hath blindly followed the mistakes of Erasmus in this point, as not being capable of correcting them. But the greatest part of the Catholics have herein abandoned Cajetan, that they might not without reason and judgement withstand a Tradition established on good Acts. Some Protestants on the contrary, who feared lest they should not have the true Gospel of S. Matthew, if it were evident that it had been written in Hebrew or Chaldaic, and lest the Greek that remains to us should be only a Translation, have readily embraced the Opinion of Erasmus and Cajetan. Flacius Illyricus hath diligently enough collected the Reasons that may be alleged in defence thereof, and hath put them at the Head of his Edition of the New Testament, which he hath caused to be Printed in Greek and Latin. This we must now take into examination.  
This famous Protestant objects in the first place, with Cajetan, 
Mathias Flac. Illyr, Praef. in Evang. Matth.  several Hebrew Words that are explained in another Language in the Gospel of S. Matthew; as for example, Eli, Eli, & lama sabactani. If S. Matthew (saith this Cardinal) had written his Gospel in Hebrew, it would not have been necessary for him to expound these Words in a different Idiom. But these Interpretations ought rather to be ascribed to the Translator than to the Author. To which he replies, that if this came from the Interpreter, he ought to have translated all the Hebrew of this Gospel, and not to have selected only some Words as he hath done. To which it may be answered, that it is the custom of the Interpreters of the Sacred Books, to let certain Hebrew Words remain in their Versions, which they think to have more energy or emphasy in them, and that cannot be always exactly translated. This is easy to be proved from the Septuagint, and other ancient Greek Interpreters of the Bible. Grotius, who hath also made this Objection in his Notes on S. Matthew, answers 
(f) Solenne est omnibus scriptoribus, etiam interpretibus, vocabula peregrina notabiliora servare integra, sed addito interpretamento. Quod aliquoties etiam factum videmus à Senibus Septuaginta. Grot. Annot. in tit. Matth.  that it is an ordinary thing for Writers, and also Interpreters to retain foreign Wards that are remarkable, adding the Interpretation to them, and that this hath been sometimes practised by the Septuagint.  
Illyriou opposeth in the second place two Reasons of Erasmus; the first is, that none have avouched that they have seen this Hebrew Gospel, because that of which S. Jerome speaks, was the Gospel of the Nazarenes, which was written in Syriack or Chaldaick. The second consists in this, that the style of the Gospel of S. Matthew is like to that of S. Mark. From whence he concludes, that S. Matthew hath written in Greek as well as S. Mark.  
S. Jerom himself answers to the first Reason, when he saith 
(g) Vocatur à plerisque Matthaei authenticum. Hieron. Comm. in Cap. 12. Matth.  that the most part of the ancient Doctors of the Church have believed that this Hebrew Gospel was the Original of S. Matthew's. Certainly it is the very same that this Apostle wrote for the primitive Christians of Judaea, who then spoke the  Language.  
Erasmus tells us, that he never heard of this matter, when he objects that the Gospel of the Nazarenes was not in Hebrew, but in Chaldaick or Syriack, not knowing that this  or Syriack was then called Hebrew. As for the Style this Reason is too general to be able to conclude any thing from thence. Stunica hath very well answered, 
(h) Non hoc mirum videri debet, si loquendi idiomate omnes conveniant, etiamsi diversis linguis Evangelia conscripserint: erant enim ejusdem generis, hoc est Hebraei ex Herbaeis; & qui Graecè ex illis scripserunt, patriae linguae proprietatem in Craecâ scripturâ saepissimè referunt. Jacob. Lop. Stun. init. Annotat. in Erasm.  that it is not to be admired that the style of the Gospel; appears to be the same in all the Evangelists, although they had written in different Languages, because that being Jews, those among them that have written in Greek have very often kept the Genius and propriety of the Hebrew Tongue. This he proves by the example of S. Luke, who, though he hath composed his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles in more elegant Greek than that of the other Evangelists, doth not forbear to make use of divers Expressions that are purely Hebrew.  
The third Objection is taken from Calvin, and is grounded on several Passages of the Old Testament, cited by S. Matthew according to the Greek Version of the Septuagint. Whence he infers, that S. Matthew hath composed his Gospel in Greek: otherwise writing for the use of the Hebrews, who read the Bible in Hebrew, he would have rehearsed these Passages after the same manner as they are in the Hebrew Text. But this reason is destructive of itself, because he that hath translated the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew into Greek, performing it for persons that spoke Greek, and read the Bible in this Language, aught to quote the Authorities of the Old Testament, rather according to the Greek Version of the Septuagint, than according to the Hebrew Text which they understood not.  
Illyricus adds to all these Reasons, that there is no likelihood that S. Matthew should design to write his Gospel in a Language that was no longer in use, because at that time all People, and even the Jews themselves spoke Greek or Chaldaick: Besides that the Holy Ghost, who was the Author of these Books, knew that the Destruction of Jerusalem was not far off. Therefore there is no appearance (saith he) that he should intent to publish the Gospel in any other Language but the Greek, which was the Language of the Empire.  
This Protestant is grossly mistaken, when he believes after Erasmus, that it is supposed that the Gospel of S. Matthew hath been written in the ancient Hebrew; whereas the Hebrew of the Jews at that time was the  Language which they had brought with them from Babylon, and had only a little altered it. It hath indeed been more convenient that the Books of the New Testament should be written rather in Greek than in another Language. But here it is only argued concerning the Jews of Palestine, to whom S. Matthew first preached the Gospel. And since those People spoke Chaldaick, it was necessary for him to preach to them in this same Language. On these grounds all Antiquity hath relied, when they have believed that S. Matthew had composed his Gospel in Hebrew.  
He opposeth moreover, that S. Macthew saw that the Jews did daily harden their Hearts, and that they had an Abhorrence of the Religion of Jesus Christ. And therefore it is not credible (saith Illyricus) that this holy Apostle hath written his Gospel for their sake, and in their Language. But to what purpose are reasons drawn from expediency against matters of fact that are evident? We cannot doubt but many Jews of Palestine have received the Gospel of Jesus Christ by the Ministry of S. Matthew; and whereas they spoke  or Syriack, he could not leave this Gospel with them in Writing, but in the Language that was spoken by them. On this account we may judge of other the like reasons alleged by Illyricus to the same purpose. He pretends, for example, that Divine Providence would never have permitted the loss of so great a Treasure, if it were certain that the Gospel of S. Matthew had been written in Hebrew. He adds farther, that if S. Hierom had been truly persuaded that the Hebrew was the Original of this Gospel, he would rather have translated it than the Greek; now it cannot be said that he hath translated it from the Hebrew into Greek.  
It is in vain that this Protestant calls the Providence of God to his assistance, in opposition to a fact that cannot be reasonably doubted of. The Fathers and the Jews themselves make no difficulty to acknowledge, that some Sacred Books have been lost: which nevertheless cannot be said of the Gospel of S. Matthew, since we have it in Greek in a state sufficiently perfect. The reason why the Hebrew or Chaldaic Copy is not preserved, is because the Churches of Judaea, for whose use it was primarily written, have not long subsisted: On the contrary the Churches wherein the Greek Tongue flourished have always endured, and it is through the means of these last Churches that we have yet to this day the Greek Copy of S. Matthew.  
This may serve also for an Answer to the Objection of Chamierus, 
Chamier. Panstrat. lib. 11 c. 8. n. 8.  who could not imagine how it could come to pass that there should have been so great a negligence in the Church in general, and in particular in that of Jerusalem, that the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew hath been lost from the first Ages of Christianity. Nevertheless it is very easy to be apprehended, if we consider that the Writings of the Apostles that were read in the Churches were preserved by the means of the same: it is not therefore an extraordinary thing to see that the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew hath been lost in the loss of the Churches of the Nazarenes. It is in the mean time worth the observing, that it perished not entirely from the primitive times of Christianity; for the Sect of the Nazarenes who took their original from the first Nazarenes or Christians of Judaea, continued for a long time to read it in their Assemblies. It passed also to the Ebionites, who altered it in some places: notwithstanding these Alterations, it might always be said, that this was the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew, especially if respect were had to the Copy of the Nazarenes, which was more pure than that of the Ebionites, and was still extant in the time of S. Hierom, who translated it into Greek and Latin. The other Christians neglected it, because besides their not understanding the Language in which it was written, they considered the Nazarenes as a sort of half Christians that still kept the Ceremonies of the Law; and they rejected the Ebionites as Heretics.  
Illyricus adds farther to all these Objections, that S. Matthew being a Publican, was either half a Grecian or a Roman; and that for this reason he ought rather to apply himself to write his Gospel in Greek for those of his Nation, than in Hebrew for the Jews. If this way of reasoning concluded any thing, it might be inferred from thence at the same time, that S. John who was an Hebrew, and whose Mother-Tongue was Syriack or Chaldaick should have composed his Gospel in this Language for those of his own Nations. It availeth nothing to oppose simple reasons of conveniency to manifest and clear matters of Fact. Neither is there any weight in a proof that he brings in the same place from certain Latin Words that are found in the Gospel of S. Matthew, which are more agreeable (as he thinks) to a Greek Author, than to a Man that writes in Hebrew, because the Grecians had more Intercourse with the Latins, than the Hebrews. But may it not be said that these Latin Words do rather belong to the Greek Translation, than to the original Hebrew? Besides, the Jews of those times who were under subjection to the Romans, might have adopted divers Latin Words into their Language. This same Principle may serve to resolve another Objection that he raiseth from the word Petrus which is in S. Matthew. If this Apostle (saith Illyricus) had written in Hebrew or Syriack, he would have made use of the Word Cephas, and not of that of Petrus: as if it might not be said that it is the Greeks Interpreter that hath inserted the Word Petrus. Lastly, he objects, that S. Matthew epitomizeth with too much liberty in Chap. xii. of his 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 show 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. 
Nou. 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 Arabic 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 occasion 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 itself that he makes, that the Jews of Jerusalem spoke 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 show at the same time that the Jews of Jerusalem spoke the  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 spoke in the  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 Gems of Jerusalem spoke no other Language but the Greek. In like manner he treats those persons 
* Semidoctorum & sanaticorum.  as half-learned and fanatics, 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 fanatics; for they declare that they have embraced this Opinion only because the Jews of Jerusalem then spoke Hebrew, that is to say, the  or Syriack Tongue: and since they have confirmed this their Judgement by express Passages of the New Testament, I think it necessary here to produce some of them.  
It is expressly 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 harkened to him because he spoke their Language. This holy Apostle being of Tarsus, a City of Cilicia, where he had learned Greek, would not have failed 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 spoke 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 spoke in a different Tongue from the Greek, 
Act. 21.37.  viz. the  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, Tabytha, and some others that the Evangelists call Hebrew, according to the manner of speaking at that time. St. John making mention of the Fishpond or Pool of Jerusalem, saith 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Joann. 5.2.  that it was called in Hebrew, Bethesda; and in another place, that 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Joann. 19.13.  Gabbatha and 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. ver. 17.  Golgotha are Hebrew Words.  
One would think, that after so many Testimonies of the New Testament, we could not doubt that the Jews of Jerusalem spoke Hebrew in the times of the Apostles. In the mean time, Mr. Vossius, who hath openly declared against the Hebrew Text of the Jews, hath thought, that he could not give a greater Authority to the Greek Version of the LXX, than in making it appear that Jesus Christ and his Apostles had read it in the Temple and in the Synagogues of Jerusalem. But it was not necessary to cast himself into this extremity, and to argue against actual proofs of matter of fact that are indisputable, to defend the ancient Greek Translation against some Protestants that had unhappily attacked it. He supposeth, to establish his Opinion, that 
(g) In Imperio Romano Graecus sermo & Latinus omnibus erat in usu: Hebraea vero lingua ne ab ipsis quidem Judaeis intelligebatur. Voss. Resp. ad Object. Theol. Leyd.  the Greek and Latin were the Languages in use throughout the whole Empire; and that the Hebrew was not understood even by the Jews. We willingly agree with him that the Greek and Latin were the Languages of the Empire; but this doth not prove that these two Languages only were spoken therein. There are on the contrary, positive Proofs in the New Testament confirmed by all Antiquity, that evidently show that the Jews of Jerusalem then spoke Hebrew or Chaldaic. We agree also with him, that the ancient Hebrew Tongue was not at that time a vulgar Language, and that none but the Priests understood it; but it cannot be concluded from thence that they spoke Greek. Josephus, who was very well skilled in the Greek Tongue, 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Joseph. Praefat. Antiq. Jud.  affures us, that it was foreign to him and to those of his Nation.  
Mr. Vossius, to whom all these difficulties have been represented, cannot resolve them, but in supposing always, that 
(i) Stante Imperio Romano solus ibi regnabat Graeous sermo ..... Graecè omnes scripserc. Graecè etiam loquebantur. Voss. Resp. ad iter. P. Sim. Obj.  during the Subsistence of the Roman Empire, no other Language was spoken but the Greek in Jerusalem and in all Palestin. He would have the Syriack sought for without the Empire; this he proves by the Example of St. Ephraem and others Fathers that have written in this Language, and have all been of the Parthian or Arabian Nation; affirming that we must look for the Syriack Tongue amongst the Assyrians and the Arabians that inhabited the lower Syria, and not amongst the Syrians that were in the Roman Empire: and besides that, we ought not to call that Syriack whick is called Chaldaick in the New Testament. He adds farther, that the Jews of Jerusalem could not learn the  but of the Jews that were on the other side of the River Euphrates: that it is madness to say that the said Jews of Jerusalem have kept this Language by Tradition in a place where the Greek hath been in use for many Ages; especially it being impossible to bring any Example that may make it appear that a Language can be preserved in a Country, when another hath obtained therein. He concludes at last, that the Jews of Jerusalem had no other vulgar Tongue in the time of our Saviour and the Apostles than the Greek and Latin; and that those who had some knowledge of the Hebrew or Chaldaic, had attained it after the same manner as we now learn the Latin at this day, or by the Commerce that they had with the Jews that were on the farther side of Euphrates, where the Chaldaick was spoken.  
Here it would be requisite to follow Mr. Vossius step by step, who hath had no other design in all this long Discourse, than to confound and intricate the matter in hand, not being able to answer precisely to the Reasons that have been proposed to him. It may be observed in the first place, that the present Question is not concerning the ancient Fathers that have spoken Syriack, and have written Books in this same Language; but only relating to the Jews; and therefore the Examples that he produceth of St. Ephraem and some other Doctors of the Church, are nothing to the purpose; for we agree with him, that those that have inhabited the Country that is on the farther side of Euphrates, have spoken Syriack: it is agreed also, that the Jews of the Parthian or Arabian Nation, who depended not on the Roman Empire, spoke the  or Babylonish Language. And not to insist on Questions about names, we are willing also to call that Tongue Chaldaick rather than Syriack, which is called Hebrew in the New Testament, though the ancient Fathers have named it Syriack, and though it be properly neither  nor Syriack, it being degenerated from the true Chaldaick. All that Mr. Vossius can conclude from his Supposition, is, that the Jews who were beyond Euphrates spoke only , whereas the Jews of Jerusalem and of Palestine, at least the most polite of them, spoke, besides the  which their Fathers had brought from Babylon, the Greek Tongue, which was become vulgar in these places.  
It is madness to say that St. Paul, when he made his Oration in Hebrew or Chaldaic in the presence of the Jews of Jerusalem, had only regard to those that were beyond Euphrates, and to those that had learned the  Tongue of them. He directs his Words in general to all the Jews that were present: and it cannot be said that he had only Strangers for his Auditors. Josephus was of the number of the Jews of Jerusalem, and not of the Parthian or Arabian Nation: he declares in the mean time, 
Joseph. Praefat. Antiq. Jud.  that that which had hindered him from writing the Antiquities of his Nation so soon as he had intended it, was, that he found it difficult to express his mind in the Greek Tongue that was foreign to him. He saith in another place, that he was born an Hebrew, that he is of Jerusalem, 
Joseph. Praefat. lib. de Bell. Jud.  and a Priest; and in this same Passage he calls the  the Language of his Country. This makes it evident that the Chaldaick cannot be restrained to the Jews only that were on the other side of Euphrates, since Josephus was not of that Country. Both the one and the other sort spoke in this Tongue, with this difference only, that those that dwelled in the Countries that were beyond Euphrates, spoke nothing but Chaldaick; and those of Jerusalem could besides the Chaldaick speak the Greek Language that was dispersed through Palestin.  
As to what Mr. Vossius objects, that it is impossible to show that a Language hath been preserved in a Country, when another hath come in its place; I answer, that it is easy to give him satisfaction in this Point, without departing from the Jews of whom the Question is. The History of the Martyrdom of the seven Brethren related in the second Book of Maccabees, informs us that the Jews of that time spoke Greek and Hebrew: the Mother and the Children answered in Greek to Antiochus, 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. TWO Maccab. 7.22.  whereas amongst themselves they spoke the Language of the Country, which was Chaldaick: Antiochus having urged the Mother to exhort one of her Children to yield to that which he required, 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid. v. 27.  she laughing the Tyrant to scorn spoke to her Sons in Hebrew or Chaldaic, which was her proper Tongue.  
This is a manifest Proof, that the Greek was the vulgar Tongue of the Country, and that the Jews, besides the Greek, had preserved the  which they had brought from Babylon, and which they called the Language of the Nation. The Jews of Jerusalem have also retained it always, though the Greek was the vulgar Tongue of Palestine. This is yet more apparently seen in another Example that hath been already opposed to Mr. Vossius, I mean the Jews of the Spanish Rite who dwell at Constantinople and in some other Cities of the Levant: these Jews do still keep their ancient Spanish, with the Language of the Countries which they inhabit; and they have also Translations of the Bible in Spanish for their use.  
Mr. Vossius answers this Objection, that this might be in some manner true in the time of Mariana, because when this Jesuit wrote his History, it was not an Age since the Jews had been driven out of Spain. He adds farther, that the other Historians who have written at that very time speak quite otherwise, because the Jews 
(m) Profugi ex Hispaniâ Lusitaniâque Judaei, si qui in fuga non periere, illi fere omnes per Maurorum dissipati fuere terras, ut nesciam omninò quosnam hic intelligat P. Simonius Hispanici generis Judaeos, qui per Orientem fuere dispersi. Voss. Resp. ad tert. P. Sim. Obj.  that were driven out of Spain and Portugal were all dispersed among the Moors; and finally, that he knows not what is meant by the Spanish Jews that were scattered in the Levant.  
But it is in vain to argue against evident matters of fact that may be known by all the World. We have not made use of the Authority of Mariana to prove them, nor of any other Historian; but of the Books themselves of these Spanish Jews that have been printed at Constantinople in the Spanish Tongue, and in Hebrew Characters. We have their Pentateuch printed at that place not only in Spanish, but also in Vulgar Greek, 
In 1547.  with the Hebrew Text and the  Paraphrase. It is to be seen by the first leaf of this Work, that there are two sorts of Jews in those Parts, some of which speak Spanish, and the others the vulgar Greek; and that these two Versions have been published for their use, that they might more easily understand the Scriptures. The Hebrew Bible of Lombroso which hath been printed at Venice with Grammatical Notes, 
In 1639.  wherein the difficult Words are explained in Spanish, is also very common in the Levant among these Spanish Jews. It is a matter of little moment to know whether the Jews that departed from Spain and Portugal retired amongst the Moors or elsewhere, since it is without doubt, that there are at this day Jews of the Spanish Rite in the Levant, who beside that of the Places where they reside, have still preserved their ancient Spanish Tongue. This is the ground of the present Dispute: and by this it is made appear, that it is not impossible that the Jews should retain their ancient Language where there is another that is vulgarly spoken. We see moreover, that the Portugal Jews of the Spanish Rite, who are settled at Amsterdam, do keep the Portugal, with the Language of the Country; and that their Rabbins do also preach in Portugaise in their Synagogue.  
Furthermore, it is not true that all the Jews that were driven out of Spain and Portugal took refuge among the Moors: there were many that withdrew themselves into Italy, from whence some passed afterwards into the Levant. However it were, it is certain that there is at this day, in the Turkish Territories, a considerable number of Jews, who follow the Spanish Rite; and besides that of the Places where they remain, do speak their ancient Spanish Language. I believe also, that a Party of these Jews was in those Countries before those of their Nation were expelled out of Spain and Portugal.  
Mr. Vossius, who cannot maintain his Paradoxes but with other Paradoxes, corrects the Passage of the xxi. Chap. of the Acts, 
Act. xxi. v. 37.  where the Tribune demands of St. Paul whether he could speak Greek: He pretends that it must not be read with the Point of Interrogation, Graecè scis? as all People read it; but that it ought to be read and translated after this manner, Graecè scis: 
Voss. ibid.  Non ergo es iste Aegyptius qui ante hos dies tumultum concitavit. Thou canst speak Greek: Therefore thou art not that Egyptian which before these days made an Uproar, etc. But I see no reason to change the ordinary reading of the Greek Text and ancient Versions in this place; neither would he have ever thought of it, were it not that this Passage manifestly destroys his Opinion. It is true that according to the most exact Rules of Criticism, no regard ought to be had to Accents, Points, and Commas: but it seems to me not to be permitted without good Reasons to alter the ordinary Readins of the Text, especially when it is supported by ancient Interpreters. It would be (might it be said) a strange sort of sottish Stupidity, that the Tribune, who heard St. Paul talking in Greek, should have demanded of him whether he could speak that Language: nevertheless, there is nothing extraordinary in all this Discourse. St. Paul finding himself oppressed by the People, demanded to speak with the Tribune, who asked him in his turn, Whether he could speak Greek? This implies a Supposition that all the Jews of Jerusalem did not speak in that Tongue. Mr. Vossius, who is rich in Fictions, is obliged to make good his fancy, to suppose that the Egyptian of whom mention is made Arabic was spoken. But to whatsoever side he turns, he will not be able to avoid that which is related in the same Chapter; to wit, that 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 21.40.  St. Paul spoke in Hebrew, that is to say, in Chaldaick, to all this multitude that thronged about him, and attentively harkened to his Speech, because he spoke to them in their own Language.  
There is yet less of solid Reason in the Answer that he makes to that which hath been objected to him, that the Field of Judas was called Haceldama, according to the vulgar Language of Jerusalem, 
Voss. ibid.  which was consequently  or Syriack, since this Word is Chaldaick. Who knows not (saith he) that the Jews do yet at this day give Hebrew Names to their Fields, Burying-places, and divers other things? I confess it; but it is said expressy in the Acts, 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 1.19.  that this Field was called Haceldama in the Language that was spoken at Jerusalem.  
It hath been also objected to him, that there can be no reason alleged why the Title of the Cross hath been written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, unless it were that these three Languages were then spoken in Jerusalem. Now the Hebrew or Chaldaic was the Language of that place. Although it should be granted that there were also then at Jerusalem some Jews that came from beyond Euphrates; yet he will never persuade People endued with common Sense that respect was had only to this last sort of Jews, when this Title was written. It ought to have been written, for the same reason, in the Languages of the other Jews that were also present at that time at Jerusalem.  
It hath been represented to Mr. Vossius, that the Jews of Palestine did understand even in the time of St. Jerom the Chaldaic Tongue, which their Ancestors had brought from Babylon. He demands what Proofs there are of this, and in what place of St. Jerom this is to be found? Nevertheless, he accounts as nothing the Testimony of this Father in his Preface to Tobit; wherein he saith, 
(p) Quia vicina est Chaldaeorum lingua sermoni Hebraico, utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem reperiens, unius diei laborem arripui; & quidquid ille mihi Hebraicis verbis expressit, hoc ego & accito notario sermonibus Latinis exposui. Hieron. Praef. in Tob.  that in translating this Book from Chaldaick into Latin, he was assisted by a Jew, who spoke Hebrew and Chaldaic very well; and that he had put into Latin whatsoever he had expressed to him in Hebrew terms. This Jew spoke Hebrew because he was a Man of great Learning; and he spoke Chaldaick also, because it was the Language that the Jews of those Places yet spoke amongst themselves, and in which they wrote their Books. For this reason the Talmud of Jerusalem hath been written in this Tongue, as well as that of Babylon. The same hath happened to the Massora, which hath been composed in Chaldaick by the Jews of Tiberias. The Chaldaic Tongue hath not been truly spoken in those Countries for many Ages since: but we must not confound the other people with the Jews, who had always continued to speak amongst themselves in the Language that they had received from their Fathers.  
We shall not need then to have recourse to the Parthians, with Mr. Vossius, to introduce into those Places the  or Babylonian Tongue in the time of St. Jerom, no more than in the time of the Apostles; but according to the custom that the Jews have to preserve their ancient Languages, though they are not spoken in the Countries where they have their abode, as we have proved by the Example of the Spanish Jews, who are in the Levant, and of those that are at present at Amsterdam. These last writ Books in Spanish and Portugaise, although they be in a Country where the Flemish Tongue is spoken: they have also translated, for the use of the People, out of Hebrew into Spanish, their Book of Peayers called Seder tephiloth under the Title of Orden de Oraciones.  
Furthermore, not to enter into a fruitless Dispute purely about Words, Mr. Vossius shall be left to his liberty to call the Language that is styled Hebrew in the Books of the New Testament,  rather than Syriack. It is in vain then that he enlargeth so much on this Controversy of Words, and that he is so angry with several learned Men for having called it Syriack or Syra Chaldaick. 
(q) Quae tamen lingua nisi in scriptis forsan neotericorum, qui quando se expedire non possunt, istiusmodi fingunt voces, quas ipsa non capit rerum natura; nec accuratè se loqui existimarunt, nisi barbaris & monstrosis utantur appellationibus. Voss. Resp. ad tert. P. Sim. Obj.  This Language (saith he) is not to be found but in the Writings of modern Authors who have forged these monstrous Words to wave the matter. But it seems to me that it hath been always permitted to any that would express something new, especially in point of Criticism, to invent new Words, that may give a clear and distinct Idea of the thing that is to be explained. Now it is certain that the Tongue which is named Hebrew in the New Testament, is properly neither Hebrew nor Syriack, nor even ; for it is composed of a certain mixture of the Hebrew and of the  or Babylonian. They that have used these Words, which are supposed to be barbarous, have been Persons very skilful in these Languages, and have discoursed of them with a perfect knowledge. When S. Hierom makes mention of the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew that was in use amongst the Nazarenes, he authorizeth the barbarous Word of Syro-Chaldaick, quod Chaldaico, (saith he) Syroque sermone, sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est. 
Hieron. lib. 3. adv. Pelag.  Hence it may be observed, that this learned Father made no difficulty to call indifferently  and Syriack the Language that the Jews of Jerusalem spoke in the time of the Apostles. The greatest part of the Fathers, as well Greek as Latin, do also call Syriack that which bears the name of Hebrew in the New Testament. The most judicious Critics of our Age speak not otherwise: Mr. Vossius alone is singular herein, who hath thought fit of late to reject this Syriack Tongue which he had already approved in his other Works. 
Voss. ibid.  He demands in what time, and after what manner the Hebrew Tongue became Syriack? But as we have before said, he may, if he please, call it Chaldaick, if he remains so obstinate as not to be willing to receive the Name of Syriack with all Antiquity, and with the Suffrage of all People that are expert in these Languages, which he seems not to understand. If he rightly apprehended this matter, he would not insist on a Question that is only concerning a Name.  
To avoid all the trifling and insignificant Circumstances to which Mr. Vossius hath purposely had recourse, that he might make a show of offering at lest something in answer to the Objections that have been made to him, it is convenient that I should relate the Judgement as to this point of George Amira, a learned Maronite, who hath published at Rome an excellent Grammar of the Syriack Tongue: he hath entitled his Book, A Syriack or Chaldaick Grammar; 
Georgii Amirae Gramm. Syr. sive Chald.  and thus he makes it appear from the Title of his Work, that these two Words may be indifferently used: this he confirms at the same time by three Dissertations that are annexed at the beginning of this Grammar; for in the first he treats 
(r) De linguae Chaldaicae sive Syriacae nominibus & discrimine. Georg. Amir. Praelud. Gramm.  of the Names of the  and Syriack Tongue, and of the difference between them; in the second, 
(s) De linguae Chaldaicae sive Syriacae antiquitate. Ibid.  of the Antiquity of the  or Syriack Tongue; and lastly, in the third, 
(t) De linguae Chaldaicae sive Syriacae dignitate ac praestantiâ. Ibid.  of the Excellency of the  or Syriack Tongue. Since this ingenious Maronite hath had a very clear notion of this matter, I shall produce the sum of what he saith concerning these two Languages in his preliminary Discourses.  
This Tongue whereof we now treat (saith Amira) hath been called Chaldaick, from Chaldaea where it hath been first in use, when the Confusion of Languages happened; therefore it hath been also named Babylonian, from Babylon the Capital City of Chaldaea: it was afterwards called Aramean or Syriack, from Aram or Syria; and even Assyrian from Assyria, because it hath also obtained in those places. Divers other Names have been given to it, which have been borrowed from famous Nations and renowned Men, as that of Hebrew, because it hath been, during some time, spoken by the Hebrews. Although there is some difference between the  and the Syriack, nevertheless it cannot be said that it is essential, for they agree almost in every thing: and this is the cause that in the Holy Scriptures the Words of Chaldaick and Syriack are promiscuously used to signify the very same Language: it is said for example, 
Dan. 1.4.  that Daniel and some other young Hebrews were instructed in the  Tongue: and it is added in the mean time a little after, that the Chaldeans spoke to the King in Syriack, 
Dan. 2.4.  which was the Tongue of that Prince: from whence it is evident, that the Syriack and the Chaldaick are the same Language.  
The same George Amira produceth other Passages of the Scriptures to show that this Tongue was also called Assyrian. This he confirnis in like manner from profane Authors, who have confounded the Names of Chaldeans, Syrians and Assyrians. From whence he conoludes 
(u) Quare mirum esse non debet, si lingua Chaldaica, Syriaca & Assyriaca una eademque sit, quandequidem & nomina quae ei indita sunt pro eodem usurpantur. Georg. Amir. Praelud. Gramm. Syr. sive Chald.  that it is no wonder that they have also confounded these three Languages. Lastly, he avoucheth, that if the  Tongue which hath been in use amongst the Jews had not been dressed by them after the Hebrew Fashion, it would have differed much less than it doth, from the  or Syriack of the natural Syrians. Ludovicus de Dieu who had throughly inquired into this matter, is also of this Opinion. 
(x) A Syriaca Chaldaicam distinguo, quia sic ab aliis fieri solet, & non rarò phrasi & flexione ab eâ differt. Alioqui eamdem esse linguam fateor Chaldaicam & Syriacam. Lud. de Dieu, Praef. Gramm. Chald. & Syr.  He distinguisheth, as is ordinarily done, the  Tongue of Daniel and Esdras from the Syriack Paraphrases: but he acknowledgeth at the same time, that these two Languages ought not truly to be distinguished. He believes after Amira 
(y) Dialectus Chaldaica minus à Syriacâ linguâ differret, si punctatoribus visum fuisset. Lud. de Dieu, ibid.  that they would be less different, if the Jews had not Printed the  of their Books after their manner; this he proves by some Examples. It would be easy to produce many others, and even to make it appear that the great resemblance between these two Tongues hath given occasion to the Jews to take from the Syrians whole Books of the Scriptures, which they have attributed to their Paraphrasts; but this would lead us too far, and we must now return to Mr. Vossius, who is so curious in this point, that he will not admit that the  Tongue, which is named Hebrew in the New Testament should be called Syriack.  
This dextrous Man calls the Jews to his assistance, 
Voss. Resp. ad tert. P. Sim. Obj.  who have styled the Aramean or Syriack, the Tongue of the Gentiles: and to make it more manifest to what degree the Jews hated the Syrians and their Language, he makes use of the authority of the Talmud, wherein it is read, that if any one prays in the Syrian Tongue, his Prayers are not heard, 
Voss. ibid.  because the Angels, who are the Ministers of God, do not understand this Language. He adds farther, that the Jews who read in Syria the Version which the Christians and the Arabians call Syriack, do term it Chaldaick. Lastly, he demands who are those People of Syria that have introduced into Jerusalem this Syriack Tongue, which is pretended to have been in use in the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.  
But if he had consulted the Talmud, or had but an indifferent knowledge in the  Tongue, he would not have made such weak Objections. It is evident that there is nothing more usual in the Books of the Talmud than to call the  or Babylonian Tongue Arami or Syriack. The Rabbins who have epitomised the Talmud, and have collected its Decisions, do also give the name of Arami or Syriack to the Chaldaic Tongue. To convince Mr. Vossius, even by the example that he hath produced of the Prayer that ought not to be made in the Syriack Tongue; the Talmudists give out this fantastic Story upon occasion of the Prayer called Kadis, which is in the  Tongue, and which nevertheless they call in this place Arami or Syriack. This Prayer not being so ancient as the others that have been composed in Hebrew, is written in the  Language, which was then understood by the People. The Rabbins who are so nicely subtle on all occasions, and often tell Tales, instead of giving solid Reasons, have invented this Fable which Mr. Vossius relates very seriously. However it be, it is certain that this Prayer Kadis, which is supposed, according to the Rabbins to be written in Syriack, that is not understood by the Angels, is written in Chaldaick, and in the same Language as the Paraphrases which we have upon the Bible.  
As for the Objection, that in the Syriack Version of the New Testament, the word Aram hath been put to signify a Greek, a Gentile, and an Idolater, I do not see that it can be proved from thence that the Jews have not confounded the Words of Syriack and Chaldaick. For besides that experience shows us the contrary, this only proves that the Jews have looked upon Syria as the Country of Idolatry; they have made use of the word Arami in the same sense as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek in the New Testament is applied to signify a Greek, a Gentile and an Idolater.  
I am willing to grant that the Jews give the name of Chaldaick to the Versions which the Christians call Syriack. But what can be concluded from thence, since these same Jews do indifferently call that Tongue in which they are written Chaldaick or Syriack? The Christians of the Syrian Nation do very often call their Syriack Tongue Chaldaick. The Syriack Missal which hath been Printed at Rome for the use of the Maronites, is entitled 
* Missale Chaldaic. juxta ritum Eccl. nationis Maronitarum edit. Romae. ann. 1594.  A  Missal. This manifestly makes it appear that the Words  and Syriack are oftentimes confounded together by the Jews and by the Christians that bear the Name of Syrians.  
Lastly the Example of Josephus hath been opposed to Mr. Vossius, 
Joseph. Praef. lib. de Bell. Jud.  who was a Jew of Jerusalem, and who assures us, that before he published his History of the Wars of the Jews in Greek, he had written it in Chaldaick, which he calls the Language of his Country. Now forasmuch as he cannot deny the matter of Fact which this Historian hath so clearly delivered, he answers after his usual way, that Josephus had composed this History in Chaldaick only for the Jews on the other side of Euphrates. But is there any probability, that a Man that makes profession to publish an Account of the Wars of the People of his own Nation for their use, and for this reason to write in their Language, should not have written it for those of Jerusalem, which was not only the Capital City, but also his own Country? He would have it designed only for the perusal of the Jews that were far distant: and since there is no appearance of truth in this, he is obliged to have recourse to certain equivocal Terms used by Josephus. This Historian saith that in publishing his History in the  Tongue, he hath had regard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, according to Mr. Vossius' opinion, to those Barbarians or Jews that were beyond the Empire, because this expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can only denote People afar off. After this manner he eludes a most clear testimony, under a pretence that these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Grammatical Sense may be extended equally to time and place. But the design of Josephus makes it evident enough, that he set forth his History in Chaldaick generally for all those of his Nation, and even rather for those of Palestine, than for the Jews that dwelled beyond Euphrates. They all spoke in the  or Syriack Tongue. Therefore this famous Writer makes no distinction of Language in his Preface, when he speaks of those of his Nation; he therein calls the  the Tongue of his Country. He declares moreover in another place, 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Joseph. Antiq. Jud. lib. 20. cap. ult.  that he had attained to the knowledge of the Greek by study, and that he could not pronounce it well because he was accustomed to the Accent of his Mother-Tongue. Now it is certain that he was not of the number of these Parthian, Babylonian and Arabian Jews, but of those of Jerusalem, who consequently had another vulgar Language different from the Greek. He praiseth also in this same Passage those of his own Nation upon occasion of the Greek Tongue, because they did not apply themselves to the knowledge of divers Languages, but to the study of their Sacred Books.   

CHAP. VII. Of the Sect of the Nazarenes, and of their Hebrew or Chaldaic Copy of the Gospel of S. Matthew.  
BEsides all the Reasons that we have just now alleged to make it appear, that S. Matthew at first composed his Gospel in Chaldaick, for the Jews of Jerusalem who had embraced the Christian Religion, we might also produce the Example of the Nazarene Sectaries, who made use of this same Hebrew or Chaldaic Gospel in their Assemblies. S. Epiphanius who hath written very accurately of this ancient Sect, informs us 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 29. n. 7.  that they received with the New Testament all the Books of the Old, that were in the Canon of the Jews, viz. the Law, the Prophets, and the other Parts of Holy Writ; and that they differed in nothing from the Jews, as to Doctrine and Ceremonies, save only that they believed in Jesus Christ: they made public Profession to believe in one God, and in his Son Jesus Christ: they had moreover a perfect knowledge in the Hebrew Tongue. He observes also, that these ancient Nazarenes, whose principal abode was in the City of Berea, and who were dispersed throughout all the lower Syria, were descended from the Primitive Christians of the same Name, who retired from Jerusalem to Pella. 
Epiph. Haer. 29. n. 7.  From thence (saith Epiphanius) the Sect of the Nazarenes derive their original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This agrees very' well with the Testimonies of the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors, who affirm that S. Matthew preached the Gospel to the Jews of Jerusalem and all Palestin in their vulgar Tongue. These Nazarene Sectaries, who sprang from those primitive Christians of Jerusalem, and who also spoke their Language, always preserved and read it in their Churches or Assemblies.  
The same S. Epiphanius adds, that the Jews mortally hated the Nazarenes, and that 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 29. n. 9  in their Synagogues, where they assemble thrice every day, they solemnly cursed them, saying, Let God curse the Nazarenes. This Imprecation of the Jews against the Christians, under the name of Nazarenes, is yet to be found even at this day in their Books. S. Hierom also doth mention it in his Commentaries on the Prophet Isaiah; 
Hieron. lib. 2. Comm. in Es. cap. 5.  where he saith, speaking of the Jews, Ter per singulos dies in omnibus Synagogis sub nomine Nazarenorum anathematizant vocabulum Christianum. This hatred came from hence, 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid.  because the Nazarenes, being Jews as well as they, and embracing the whole Law of Moses, preached besides this, that Jesus was the Messiah.  
We ought then to seek for the Original of the Gospel of S. Matthew amongst these Nazarenes, who being descended from the primitive Christians of Jerusalem, have preserved it in their Churches. S. Epiphanius, who seemed to be persuaded of this Truth, (saith freely 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid.  that they had for their use the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew most entire, and that it was not to be doubted that they still kept it in his time written in Hebrew Letters: he doubts only whether they had retrenched from this Gospel the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, which was not in the Copy of the Ebionites, who read it also. But it is most probable that the Nazarenes had not taken away this Genealogy from their Copies. For 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 14.  Cerinthus and Carpocras, Heretics of those primitive times, who also used the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew, read the Genealogy entire, and even proved from thence that Jesus Christ was sprung from the Seed of Joseph and Mary.  
S. Hierom, who had translated this same Gospel of the Nazarenes into Greek and Latin, assures us 
(f) In Evangelio juxta Hebraeos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone, sed Hebraicis literis, scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni. Hieron. lib. 3. adv. Pelag.  that these Sectaries still read it in his time in their Assemblies; he had seen two Copies of them, one 
(g) Ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodie in Caesareensi bibliothecâ, quam Pamphilus martyr studiosissimè confecit. Mihi quoque à Nazarenis qui in Beraea urbe Syriae hoc volumine utuntur, describendi facultas fuit. Hieron. de Script. Eccles. in Matth.  of which was kept in the Library of Caesarea, and he had borrowed the other from the Nazarenes themselves of Berea to copy it out. This was the Copy from which he made his Translation. He saith moreover that 
(h) In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni & Ebionitae, quod nuper in Graecum sermonem transtulimus, quod vocatur à plerisque Matthaei authenticum, etc. Idem, Comm. lib. 2. in Matth. c. 12.  many People believed, that this Hebrew Gospel whereof the Nazarenes and the Ebionites made use, was the original of S. Matthew. However it be, it seems that the most ancient Ecclesiastical Writers have cited it as the true Gospel of S. Matthew, several have believed that S. Ignatius Martyr had taken from thence these words of our Saviour to S. Peter, which he quotes in her Epistle to those of Smyrna: 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrn.  Touch me, and see that I am not a spirit. Eusebius and S. Hierom cite these same words of S. Ignatius, which are still to be found at this day in this Epistle. And this last observes that they are taken from the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes, which he had lately translated: 
Hieron. de script. Eccles. in Ign.  De Evangelio quod nuper à me translatum est.  
It is probable that S. Ignatius, being Bishop of Antioch, had read this Gospel of the Hebrews that was spread abroad through Syria which the Nazarenes inhabited. This induceth me to believe that Tatian, who abode also in Syria, had made use of the same Gospel, when after his manner he composed one out of four, which some according to Epiphanius calls the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 
Epiph. Haer. 46. n. 1.  This ought not to be understood, as if this Collection of Tatian had not been different from the Gospel of the Hebrews; for this would make no sense. Valestus hath not made a sufficient Reflection on this Gospel of Tatian, 
Vales. Annot. in l. 4. Hist. Eccl. Eus. c. 29. Grot. Annot. in tit. Matth.  when he hath discoursed thereof on this account in his Notes on Eusebius. Grotius hath made a much better Remark on occasion of this Passage of S. Epiphanius, that Tatian in the Work which he composed from the four Gospels, had related the words of S. Matthew, not only according to the Greek Copies, but also according to those which were in Hebrew; and that for this reason, this Gospel which was commonly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it was made out of four, had been named by some Authors, according to the Hebrews. He believes moreover, that it is also for this reason, that some others have given it the Name of 
* Some nevertheless believe that it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of five, as having been collected from five Gospels. All this seems to be most probable, were it not that the Gospel of Tatian which hath been published, doth not contain that which was singular in the Hebrew Copy of the Nazarenes.  
Although Baronius is mistaken in several places of his Annals, wherein he treats concerning the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew, nevertheless he hath had reason to consider it as an Original. He hath been so bold as to say, according to this Principle, that if there were a necessity of correcting the Latin Version of S. Matthew, 
Baron. an. Christ. 34. n. 72.  it ought to be done rather after the Hebrew Text than the Greek: but he is deceived when he attributes this Opinion to S. Hierom, and grounds it on the Epistle of this Father to Pope Damasus. For S. Hierom speaks in this Epistle of the whole New Testament in general, and he would have the faults that were in the Latin to be amended from the Greek Text from whence the Latin hath been taken.  
Casaubon, 
Casaub. Exercit. 15. ad Annal. Baron. Sect. 4. n. 18.  who hath acknowledged with all antiquity, that S. Matthew hath certainly written his Gospel in Hebrew, could not allow the opinion of this Cardinal, which he accuseth of Impiety. Haec sententia (saith he) fidem Catholicae Ecclesiae facit pendere, nefas dictu, ab Haereticorum fide. He could not comprehend how it could be said that the authority of the Greek Text of S. Mattthew depends on the Hebrew Text which is lost. He affirms also that though we should still have at this day the Hebrew Copy, yet we could not consider it as an original Piece from which we ought to correct the Greek Version, 
(k) In antiquis temporibus, quando Hebraea extabant, Nazareni & Ebionitae haeretici Hebraicum textum sibi vindicarunt, ut testes sunt Hieronymus & Epiphanius. Catholici Graecum semper à principio sunt amplexi. Casaub. Exercit. 16. ad Annal. Bar. sect. 115.  because none but the Nazarene Heretics and the Ebionites have made use of it, as may be proved (as he thinks) by the testimony of Epiphanius and S. Jerom. He calls those among the Catholics that have given the name of Authentic to the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew, simple People. They have too easily (saith he) given credit to these Heretics who boasted that they had the original of this Gospel. 
(l) Sine injuriâ veteris Ecclesiae dici non potest passuram illam fuisse ut impii haeretici vindicarent sibi ceu proprium eum textum quem constaret esse Ecclesiae authenticum. Ibid.  This would be according to his Judgement to offer an injury to the Primitive Church, to say that she had suffered wicked Heretics to ascribe to themselves a Gospel which had been the true original. Lastly he adds, that the Hebrew Gospel which hath been in use among the Ebionites and some other Heretics, was filled with Fables, and that it hath been corrupted in divers places: from whence he concludes, that it cannot pass for an original Piece, according to which the Greek Version received by the whole Church might be amended. He calls this last proof an invincible Argument, Argumentum invictum. 
Casaub. ib   
But it is an easy matter to show the weakness of all these Objections of Casaubon. I am so far from thinking that the Opinion of Baronius can be called impious, that I affirm it on the contrary to be grounded on the testimony of all Antiquity and on good Reason. It is certain, and Casaubon himself agrees to it, that S. Matthew hath written his Gospel in Hebrew, of which the Greek is only a Version. This being granted, why may not the Name of an Original be given to this Hebrew Text? There is nothing in this that is not conformable to reason and good sense. This is the Principle on which the Protestants rely when they correct the Versions of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew: but (say they) we have no longer the Hebrew of S. Matthew. It is true, but aught this to hinder us from calling it Authentic with the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, since in effect it is so? If it were not lost, might we not have recourse thereto at this day to resolve several Difficulties in the Greek Version? We see that S. Hierom hath consulted it on the second Verse of the sixth Chapter of S. Matthew, where we read in the vulgar Latin, Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie. 
(m) Quod nos supersubstantialem expressimus, in Graeco habetur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— In Evangelio quod appellatur secundùm Hebraeos, pro substantiali pane reperi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod dicitur crastinum, id est, futurum da nobis hodie. Hieron. Comm. in Matth. lib. 1. c. 6.  He observes that it is in the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies of to morrow: from whence he infers, that the sense of this Passage is, Give us this day our bread of to morrow, that is to say, of every day, as it was in the ancient vulgar Latin; and S. Jerom hath kept the word quotidianum in S. Luke, Chap. xi. 3. This Exposition of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is obscure, is considerable. The Grammarians do at this day dispute concerning its signification: but the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, resolves all their doubts. This hath caused Grotius to say, that after the Testimony of S. Jerom, 
Grot. Annot. in Evangel. Matth. c. vi. v. 11.  who hath thereupon consulted the Hebrew or Chaldaic Text, we ought not any longer to dispute about the Original of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to know the meaning of it.  
Although we should have at this very day (continues Casaubon) the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes, we could not make it pass for an original, because it hath been used by Heretics, and that the Catholics have always adhered to the Greek Copy ever since the first beginning of the Church. But though we should suppose with Casaubon, that the Nazarenes have been Heretics, would this hinder their Hebrew Gospel which had been written in this Language by S. Matthew, from being a true Original? I would willingly know whether the Hebrew Text of the Law of Moses is less authentic in the Hands of the Samaritans, and of the Jews called Caraites, than it is in the Hands of the other Jews who bear the name of Rabbanites, and from whom we have received it? The Protestants are on the same bottom with respect to the Church of Rome, as the Ebionites were heretofore with respect to the Orthodox. This Church reckons them equally in the number of Heretics; may it be said for this reason that the New Testament which is in use among the Protestants is not authentic? This no rational Catholic will ever avouch. And therefore the proof that Casaubon brings from the pretended Heresy of the Nazarenes, and from that of the Ebionites, is of no weight.  
Besides it is not true that the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew hath been in use among the Heretics only, since, as hath been above shown, it hath been composed for the Primitive Christians of Palestin, from whom the Nazarene Sectaries were descended, and the Greek is only a Version of it. Neither can it be averred, that the Catholics have not acknowledged any other Copy of S. Matthew than that which is in Greek, since the Jews of the Territory of Jerusalem who embraced the Christian Religion, and were called Nazarenes, have been the first Christians in the World, it would be a piece of injustice in us to treat them as Heretics, for this reason only, because they retained the Ceremonies of the Old Law with Christianity: otherwise we must treat the Apostles as Heretics, who observed them also at the beginning: this might be then tolerated in these Primitive Christians who sprang out from the middle of the Jews, and who had before their eyes the Example of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.  
That which hath misled Casaubon and many others, as well Protestants as Catholics, who have rejected the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes as an Apocryphal Piece, is that they have not duly reflected on the Original of the Christian Religion. The Primitive Christians of Jerusalem and of Palestin, who made use of this Hebrew Gospel, having not long subsisted in their first estate, and the others on the contrary who spoke Greek, being dispersed throughout the whole earth; it hath happened from thence that the Greek Gospel only hath been preserved amongst the Catholics, because all the other Christians have taken their Versions from this Copy. The Chaldaic Tongue, in which the Gospel of the Nazarenes was written, was not understood but by some Jews: besides, the Nazarenes, who had retained Judaisme with Christianity, became odious to the other Christians who were converted from Gentilism, and there was an irreconcilable Hatred between them. If the ancient Nazarenes for whom S. Matthew had written his Gospel were yet in being, their Hebrew Copy would be without doubt preferred before the Greek Version which we have.  
S. Jerom and S. Epiphanius are so far from being favourable to the Judgement of Casaubon, that on the contrary they overthrow it in express terms, as appears from their Testimonies which we have above related. This is so true, that Casaubon, to justify his Opinion, hath on purpose corrupted a Passage of St. Epiphanius, who calls the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, most entire; he would have it read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that was not entire, against all the Editions of the Works of this Father, and without producing any Manuscript to prove an Alteration of this Importance: he saith only, that this place of S. Epiphanius is contrary to another, wherein he calls the Hebrew Gospel of the Ebionites, a Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that was not entire, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, corrupted and mutilated. Casaubon hath not taken heed that although the Nazarenes and the Ebionites did equally make use of the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew, their Copies were nevertheless different: these last, as S. Epiphanius himself hath remarked, had corrupted their Copy, and had retrenched from it the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, which he saith not of the Nazarenes, who had it (if you will believe him) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, most entire.  
It is true that in the very Copy of the Nazarenes there were some Additions that seemed to have been inserted therein; but we must not reject an Act that is altogether entire, under colour that something hath been annexed to it afterwards, especially when these Augmentations come not from suspected Persons that have a design to corrupt it: otherwise we must lay aside the greatest part of Books, there being very few of them wherein some Additions may not be found. There would not be at this day any Copy even of the New Testament, either Greek, Latin, Syriack or Arabic, that might be truly called authentic, because there is not one, in whatsoever Language it be written, that is absolutely exempt from Additions. I might also avouch, that the Greek Transcribers have taken a very great liberty in writing their Copies, as shall be proved in another place.  
Not that I would go about here to defend the vicious Additions and the Corruptions of the Hebrew Copy of the Ebionites: Baronius himself hath never thought of this: he is content to say, 
(n) Nazaraei Evangelium Matthaei, quod semel acceperant, aliquandiu illibatum incorruptumque servarunt. Baron. Ann. Ch. 41. n. 18.  that the Nazarenes during some time preserved the true Gospel of S. Matthew entire, and without any Additions: he confutes the Opinion of Bede, who hath believed that this Hebrew Gospel ought not to be reckoned in the number of Apocryphal Books: he judgeth, that it ought to be placed in the rank of Apocryphal Pieces, because S. Jerom hath quoted in his Works several Passages out of it, which are not to be found in the Copies that have been received and approved of by the Church. 
(o) Periculosum esse putamus id in aliam quàm in apocryphorum classem refer, cum non nisi una possit esse veritas. Bar. ibid.  It is dangerous (saith this Cardinal) to put it in any other Class than that of Apocryphal Books, because there can be but one Truth. If we understand in the mean time by Apocryphal, a false Book, it is not true in that sense, that the Gospel of the Nazarenes is Apocryphal; it may be only said, that if there are considerable Additions therein that alter the sense, it is no more Authentic: and this is that which is to be proved. I speak only of the Copy of the Nazarenes, and not of that of the Ebionites, who had corrupted it on purpose to adjust it to their Prejudices.  
We ought not, notwithstanding, to compare the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes, 
Casaub. Exercit. 16. ad Annal. Bar. n. 126.  as Casaubon hath done, with the Gospel entitled according to the Egyptians, the Acts of Barnabas, the Prophecy of Cham, and other Books that have been forged by Impostors. It is not to be doubted on the contrary, that the Gospel of the Nazarenes hath been certainly composed by the Apostle whose Name it bears: as for what concerns the Additions which the Nazarenes might have inserted in the first Original of S. Matthew, it may happen that they are not false: we ought rather to attribute them to their Simplicity, and to their good Faith, than to their malice. It was the custom in these Primitive times of Christianity, to take a great deal of pains to inform themselves of that which the Disciples of the Apostles had learned of their Masters, as appears by the Example of Papias who lived in those times, of S. Irenaeus who was not long after, and of some others of the Ancient. It is probable that the Nazarenes have annexed to their Gospel of S. Matthew the like Histories which they had learned, and which they believed to be founded on good Testimonies: therefore they are not all to be rejected as false, though they are not to be found in any of the Copies that are used and allowed by the Church. It may be observed, that all the Churches of the World have taken their Versions from the Greek Copy wherein these Additions are not expressed, because the Gospel of S. Matthew had been apparently translated out of Hebrew into Greek before the Nazarenes had inserted them.  
Furthermore, these Differences of the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes from our Copy, seem to have been numerous enough, if we may judge of them by those that S. Jerom hath left us in divers Passages of his Works, a part of which hath been collected by some Commentators on the New Testament. Nevertheless, there is a diversity of Opinions as to some of these Histories or Additions of the Nazarenes: all men, for example, are not agreed that the History of the adulterous Woman, of whom mention is made Chap. viij. of S. John, hath been in their Hebrew Gospel. That which hath given occasion to believe it, is the Testimony of Papias, who had lived with the Disciples of the Apostles: he saith 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pap. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 39  that the History of the Woman who was accused of many Sins before our Saviour, is to be read in the Gospel that was called according to the Hebrews; which seems not to be meant of any other than that adulterous Woman, whom S. John hath mentioned. Nevertheless, 
Baron. Ann. c. 99 n. 6.  Baronius hath thought, and some others after him, that the History related in Eusebius by Papias is different from that whereof S. John speaks, because 
(q) Cùm Papias multorum criminum dicat illam fominam accusatam, Joannes verò habeat unius tantùm facinoris, nempê quòd deprehensa esset in adulterio, insimulatam, planè diversam ab illa fuisse, cujus nulla esset mentio apud Evangelistas, significare videtur. Baron. ann. Christ. 99 n. 6.  Papias discourseth of a Woman accused of many Crimes in general, whereas S. John simply takes notice of an adulterous Woman: but there is but little likelihood that Papias should have designed to describe in this Passage any other than the adulterous Woman, though his Expression runs in general terms. This hath caused several learned men to believe, that the History of the adulterous Woman hath been taken from the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes, and that it hath been afterwards inserted into that of S. John: indeed it is not found in a great number of Copies of this Gospel, as we shall show hereafter.  
I shall only observe here, that if this be true, we ought not to cast away, as false Histories, all the Additions that the Nazarenes had inserted into their Hebrew Copy of S. Matthew, because they might have received them from good hands.  
It is for this reason that Cardinal Baronius authorizeth an Apparition of our Saviour to S. James, 
Baron. Ann. c 34. n. 182.  which was found only in the Copy of the Nazarenes, and is related after this manner by S. Jerom; Evangelium quoque quod appellatur secundùm Hebraeos, 
Hieron. de Script. Eccl. in Jacobo.  & à me nuper in Graecum Latinumque sermonem translatum est, quo & Origines saepe utitur, post resurrectionem Salvatoris refert: " Dominus autem cùm dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis, ivit ad Jacobum, & apparuit ei. Juraverat enim Jacobus, se non comesturum panem ab illa hora qua biberat calicem Domini, donec videret eum resurgentem à mortuis. Rursusque post paululùm: Afferte, ait Dominus, mensam & panem. Statimque additur, Tulit panem, & benedixit ac fregit, & post dedit Jacobo Justo, & dixit ei, Frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis à dormientibus. Baronius, who hath also inserted into his Annals this Extract of the Gospel of the Nazarenes, adds, that 
(r) Hactenus ex dicto Evangelio Nazaraeorum Hieronymus, qui cum non excipiat de apocrypho, ut de aliis assolet, se ejusdem historiae fidem haud impugnasse demonstras. Baron. ibid.  S. Jerom did not believe that it was false, because he rejected it not in that place, as he was wont to do when he cited Apocryphal Pieces. If this observation of the Cardinal be true, the greatest part of the Additions of this Gospel will then be admitted, because S. Jerom is ordinarily content to rehearse them simply without disapproving them.  
After this manner also on Chap. xii. of S. Matthew, 
Hieron. Comm. lib. 2. in c. 12. Matth.  wherein mention is made of a Man who had his hand withered, and was healed by Jesus Christ, he quotes the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, where this History is written more at large, and with other Circumstances. It is specified therein, that this Man was a Mason by Trade, and that he thus addressed himself to our Saviour; I was a Mason, that gained my Livelihood by working. I pray thee, Jesus, to heal me, that I may not be obliged shamefully to beg. S. Jerom is so far from rejecting this History as a Fable, that he saith on the contrary in this same Passage, that the Gospel of the Nazarenes, from whence he hath taken it, passeth for Authentic in the Judgement of many People. In Evangelio (saith this learned Father) quo utuntur Nazareni & Ebionitae, quod nuper in Graecum de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus, & quod vocatur à plerisque Matthaei Authenticum, homo iste qui aridam habet manum cementarius scribitur, istiusmodi vocibus auxilium precans: " Cementarius eram manibus victum quaeritans. Precor te, Jesus, ut mihi restituas sanitatem, ne turpiter mendicem cibos.  
Moreover, S. Jerom citys two other considerable Passages of this same Gospel at the beginning of his third Book against the Pelagians, without lessening their credit by any Restriction. The first hath regard to the Baptism of S. John, whereof Jesus Christ said that he had no need; and the other is a various reading of the 21 and 22 Verses of the xviii. Chap. of S. Matthew. In Evangelio (saith S. Jerom) juxta Hebraeos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone, 
Hieron. lib. 3. adv. Pelag.  sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni secundùm Apostolos, sive ut plerique autumant, juxta Matthaum, quod & in Caesariensi habetur Bibliothecâ, narrat historia. " Ecce mater Domini & fratres ejus dicebant ei, Joannes Baptista baptizat in remissionem peccatorum, eamus & baptizemur ab eo. Dixit autem eyes, quid peccavi ut vadam & baptizer ab eo, nisi fortè hoc ipsum quod dixi ignorantia est. Et in eodem volumine. Si peccaverit, inquit, frater tuus in verbo, & satis tibi fecerit, septies in die suscipe eum. Dixit illi Simon discipulus ejus, septies in die? Respondit Dominus, & dixit ei, etiam ego dico tibi usque septuagesies. Etenim in Prophetis quoque, postquàm uncti sunt Spiritu Sancto, inventus est sermo peccati.  
The same Nazarenes read also otherwise than we have it in our Copies, the 16 and 17 Verses of the three Chapter of S. Matthew, when the Baptism of Jesus Christ is mentioned. S. Jerom hath taken notice in his Commentary on Isaiah, that they read it after this manner: Factum est autem cum ascendisset Dominus de aqua, 
Evang. Nazar. apud. Hier. l. 4. Comm. in Es. c. 11.  descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti, & requievit super eum, & dixit illi, fili mi, in omnibus Prophetis expectabam te ut venires, & requiescerem in te: tu es enim requies mea, tu es filius meus primogenitus qui regnas in sempiternum.  
Amongst the Miracles that happened at the Death of our Saviour, and that are declared in the xxvii Chap. of S. Matthew, the Nazarenes relate this in their Gospel, 
(s) In Evangelio cujus saepè facimus mentionem, superliminare templi infinitae magnitudinis fractum esse atque divisum legimus. Hieron. lib. 4. Comment. in Matth. c. 27.  that the top of the Gate of the Temple, that was of a prodigious bigness, was broken in pieces; whereas we read only in our Copies, that the Veil of the Temple was rend in twain. 
Mat. xxvii. 51.   
I shall take no notice of some other Examples that I might produce of the diversity that was found between the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Greek, which hath remained alone in use throughout all the Churches in the World. I shall only add to what hath been already observed, that in the xxiii. Chapter of S. Matthew, ver. 25. where we read Zacharias Son of Barachias, 
(t) In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni, pro filio Barachiae, filium Jojadae, reperimus. Hieron. lib. 4. Comm. in Matth. c. 23.  the Nazarenes had in their Copy according to the Testimony of S. Jerom, Zacharias Son of Jojada: and this Reading is confirmed by that which is related concerning this Zacharias in the Old Testament. Now according to our Copies, the Father of Zacharias must have had two Names: and since this doth not appear to us, I believe that in this place the Hebrew Gospel ought to be preferred before the other Copies, especially there being no prejudice that could have obliged the Nazarenes or the Ebionites to make any alteration in this Point.  
We may see plainly, by all these Examples, what hath been the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew; or as others call it, of the twelve Apostles, which hath been used by the Nazarenes: we may judge also, at the same time, that it was different enough from our Copies. It would be in the mean time a piece of Rashness to put all these diversities in the number of Fables with Casaubon, 
(u) Tam igitur apocryphum hoc Evangelium, quàm illud quod Thaddaei dicebatur, aut quod Thomae adscribebant, & pro vero usurpabànt Manichaei. Casaub. ad Ann. Eccles. Baron.  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 viuâ 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 Heretics 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 Heretics from the Hebrew Word Ebion, which signifies Poor, because they were (saith he) poor in Judgement, 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 seven. 20.  that the Gospel is preached to the Poor. Origen himself seems to confirm this Opinion in his Books against Celsus, 
Matth. xi. 15.  where he observes, that 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. lib. 2. contra Celsum.  the Word Ebion signifieth Poor in Hebrew, and that they have given the name of Ebionites or poor to those among the Jews who have believed that Jesus was the Messiah.  
Since then the Jews called those of their own Nation that turned Christians, Nazarenes. and Galileans, by way of contempt, it is also very probable, that they have named them Ebionites or poor. It may be further said, that these Primitive Christians took this Name themselves conformably to their Profession. This agrees very well with the Remark of S. Epiphanius, who informs us, that the Ebionites 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 17.  boasted of this Name, giving it out, that they were poor in imitation of the Apostles; the custom being in those times to sell their Goods, and to lay them at their Feet. This Name degenerated afterwards into that of a Sect, which was a Branch of the Nazarenes, and held certain particular Opinions; but in the rest they agreed with them in the same Foundation of Religion as to every thing that concerned the Old Law, which they kept equally with Christianity. S. Epiphanius in the mean time will have it that there hath certainly been a Man called Ebion, from whom the Ebionites took their original, who lived at the same time with the Nazarenes and Cerinthians. It may well be, that this Father and all the others who have thought that there was indeed a Man named Ebion, Author of the Sect of the Ebionites, have had no better grounds whereon to establish this Ebion, than a certain Spanish Historian, who hath written the History of the Popes in his Language, hath had in like manner to invent a Man called Hugo a Sacramentarian Arch-Heretick, Hugo Haeresiarcha Sacramentarius, 
(e) Hugo de quien se llaman los herejes de Francia Hugonotes. Illescas lib. 6. de la Hist. Pontif. fol. 453.  from whom the Heretics of France have been named Hugonots.  
The same S. Epiphanius more exactly describes the original of these Sectaries, whose beginning and first appearance he dates after the destruction of Jerusalem, and at that time when the Primitive Christians that were called Nazarenes, and were lately departed from this City, came to dwell at Pella in the Province of Decapolis. It appears from thence that the Ebionites are only an Offspring of the ancient Nazarenes, having nevertheless corrupted the purity and simplicity of the Faith of these primitive Christians. Therefore they revised the original Hebrew of S. Matthew, to make it more conformable to their Opinions. It will not be amiss here to produce some Fragments of their Gospel which Epiphanius hath transmitted to us.  
In the first place he saith in general 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 13.  that the Gospel of the Ebionites was not entire, but corrupted and mutilated. They had taken out of it the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, and all that follows to Chapter 3. of S. Matthew 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid.  beginning their Gospel with these words, It came to pass in the days of Herod the King of Judaea, that John came baptising the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, who was said to be of the race of Aaron the priest the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, and all people came unto him.  
The Baptism of our Saviour by S. John was related after this manner in the Gospel of the Ebionites. 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Evang. Ebion. apud Epiph. ibid.  After the people had been baptised, Jesus came also, and was baptised by John, and as he ascended out of the water, the Heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit of God in the form of a Dove, which descended and came towards him; and a voice was heard from heaven saying, thou art my beloved son, in thee have I been well pleased. And continuing 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Evang. Ebion. ibid.  This day have I begotten thee, and immediately a great light shone about the place: and John having seen it, saith unto him, who art thou, Lord? And again a voice from heaven said unto him, this is my beloved son in whom I have been well pleased; and than John falling down before him said, I pray thee, Lord, baptise thou me: but he forbade him, saying, suffer it to be so; for thus it becometh all things to be fulfilled.  
We may judge by that which we have now produced of the Gospel of the Ebionites, that the order of the words was not altogether the same as in our Copies, and that there were besides some Alterations and Additions. There is another Passage at the beginning of the Gospel, from whence we may be able to take a better estimate thereof 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Evang Ebion. apud Epiph. ibid.  There was a certain man, Jesus by name, of about thirty years of age, who hath chosen us, and being come to Caphernaum he entered into the house of Simon surnamed Peter, and opening his mouth he said, When I passed along the lake of Tiberias I chose John and James the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and Thaddeus and Simon Zelotes and Judas Iscariot, and I called thee Matthew sitting at the receipt of custom, and thou hast followed me. I will then that you be twelve Apostles for a testimony unto Israel. And John was baptising, and the Pharisees came unto him, and were baptised and all Jerusalem, and John had his raiment os camels hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins, and his food was wild honey, that had the taste of Manna, as a cake dipped in oil. S. Epiphanius here reproves the Ebionites for having corrupted the Gospel of S. Matthew, in reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But this alteration could have happened only in the Greek, and not in their Hebrew or Syriack Copy, wherein there is no such resemblance of words. They must either have a particular Greek Translation, which they had made for their own use, or they must have adjusted ours to their Text.  
Furthermore these Sectaries were different from the Nazarenes, with respect to the Holy Scriptures: for whereas these received, as hath been already observed, all the Old Testament, as it was in the Canon of the Jews; the Ebionites on the contrary rejected all the Prophets. They abhorred the Names of David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel and Ezechiel: they only adhered to the Pentateuch, and they did not much regard that neither. 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ebion. apud Epiph. ibid. n. 18.  What use (said they) can there be made of the Law after the coming of the Gospel? And when they were asked why they had a veneration for Moses, Abraham and the other ancient Patriarches: they answered, That they therein followed the example of Jesus Christ.  
It is probable that the Ebionites who received no other but the five Books of Moses, and only considered Joshua in quality of his Successor, were descended from some Samaritans who embraced Christianity in imitation of the Nazarenes. 
Epiph. ib. n. 1.  Thus Epiphanius hath observed that Ebion was infected with the Superstitions of the Samaritans: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Whereas they both retain the Old Law with the Gospel, the Ebionites do only keep the Books of Moses, because the Samaritans have never received any but these five Books as Canonical. But the Nazarenes who passed from Judaisme to the Christian Religion, continued to read the whole Old Testament, as they read it before in their Synagogues. S. Epiphanius hath further remarked, that these Ebionites 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid.  had their Priests or Elders, and their Chiefs of the Synagogue. For they call not (saith he) their Assembly a Church, but a Synagogue. He speaks apparently of the Ebionites that understood the Greek Tongue, and even read a Greek Translation of their Hebrew or Syriack Gospel: For this distinction between the Words Synagogue and Church is not to be found in the Hebrew or Syriack, and the sense of these two words is the same in the Greek; as it is easy to prove from the Greek Version of the Septuagint.  
The Ebionites were not content only to have corrupted the Gospel of S. Matthew, but they forged also divers Books, (according to Epiphanius) 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid. n. 22.  under the Names of James, Matthew and other Disciples of Jesus Christ. They read one in like manner under the Name of S. John, abusing by this means the Names of the Apostles, that they might the more easily impose on those of their party. 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid. n. 15.  Besides they made use of the Voyages of S. Peter, written by S. Clement: but they had so altered and mangled them, that there hardly remained any thing of Truth; they modelled them after a new manner, and suited them to their humours, to cause S. Peter to utter abundance of Falsities that authorised that which was practised among them. These Heretics may be easily convinced of having retrenched from their Copy of S. Matthew the Genealogy of Jesus Christ: for the Cerinthians and the Carpocratians who read it, and who held the same Opinions as they do touching the Birth of our Saviour, had this Genealogy in their Copy, they refer to this to prove that Jesus Christ was a mere Man. Now these Cerinthians had established their Sect before that of the Ebionites appeared. S. Epiphanius believes 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid. n. 3.  that these last had chosen for their use the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew only, in imitation of the Cerinthians.  
Cerinthus was a zealous Defender of the Circumcision as well as the Nazarenes and Ebionites. I know not from whence the same S. Epiphanius hath taken that which he reports concerning him, to wit, that he was the Ringleader of a Faction that risen up at Jerusalem against S. Peter, on occasion that he was found among the uncircumcised, and had eaten with them. It is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, that the Faithful that were circumcised disputed on this Subject against this holy Apostle. Cerinthus (if we may believe S. Epiphanius) was the chief in this Dispute, when he was yet in the number of the Faithful, and took this pretence to separate himself from them. The Church was divided from that time into different Opinions. Some of them that were circumcised would not submit to the Revelation that had been made to S. Peter in the City of Joppa; they insisted that none ought to be received into the Church but those that were circumcised; and they that were of this Sect retained the Hebrew Gospel of S. Mattew, because they were come from Judaisme. Therefore the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers have called this Gospel according to the Hebrews. The others on the contrary, who were for the most part converted from Gentilism, made use of the Greek Copy of this same Gospel; and this last alone is preserved in the Church: that of the Hebrews remained only among some Sectaries, and hath been lost at the same time when these Sects have been extinct.   

CHAP. IX. Of the Greek Copy of S. Matthew, and its Authority. A Comparison of this Copy with the Hebrew or Chaldaic. An Answer to the Objections of some Heretics against this Gospel.  
ALL Antiquity is agreed, that the Original of the Gospel of S. Matthew hath been written in the Language that the Jews of Jerusalem spoke at that time, and that it hath been since translated into Greek. But we have nothing certain concerning the Author of this Greek Version. 
(a) Matthaeus, qui & Levi, ex publicano Apostolus primus in Judaeâ propter eos qui ex circumcisione crediderunt, Evangelium Christi Hebraicis literis verbisque composuit. Quod quis postea in Graecum transtulerit, non satis certum est. Hieron. de Script. Eccl. in Matth.  Matthew (saith S. Jerom) is the first that hath written the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Hebrew for the use of the Jews that had embraced Christianity; but it is not known who hath translated it out of Hebrew into Greek. The Author of the Synopsis, attributed to S. Athanasius, affirmeth nevertheless 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athan in Synops. S Script.  that it hath been first composed in Hebrew by S. Matthew, who published it in Jerusalem in this same Tongue; and that S. James who hath been the first Bishop of this City translated it into Greek. He produceth no Act of the ancient Writers of the Church to justify this Opinion. Papias on the contrary, who was not far distant from the time of the Apostles, declares, 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pap. apud Euseb. lib. 3. Hist. Eccl. c. 39  that the Original of S. Matthew was in Hebrew, and that afterwards every one interpreted it as he was able. This makes me think that in these primitive times of the Christian Religion divers private persons had translated this Gospel for their own use, and almost after the same manner as there have been several Latin Versions from the Greek, though there was one that was more generally received in the Churches than the others. It is probable also that the Cerinthians, the Carpocratians, the Ebionites, and in one word all the ancient Sectaries, who preferred the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew before the others, made Greek Versions of it for their use, as well as the Orthodox.  
Casaubon, 
Casaub. Exercit. 15. ad Annal. Baron. n. 12.  who hath used his utmost endeavours to decry the Hebrew Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites had kept, that he might give the greater authority to the Greek, avoucheth freely that the Fathers are very much divided in their Opinions on this Subject; some ascribing this Version to S. James, others to S. John, others to S. Barnabas; and lastly some few to S. Paul and S. Luke. 
(d) Quae diversitas sententiarum, ut de vero autore certò pronuntiare nos vetat: ita illud certissimè demonstrat, ipsis Apostolorum temporibus ab uno illorum, aut illorum auspiciis, vel potiùs Spiritûs Sancti, cujus ipsi erant organa, Graecum Textum ex Hebraico esse confectum. Casaubon. Exercit. 15. ad Annal. Baron. n. 12.  This diversity of Opinions (adds he) plainly shows that it cannot be certainly affirmed who hath been the Author of this Greek Version: but it serves (saith he) for a demonstration to make it appear that it is derived from the very times of the Apostles, who are the Authors or Promoters of it; or rather it ought to be attributed to the Holy Ghost, whose Instruments they have been.  
But can that be called a Demonstration which is only grounded on uncertain Conjectures? Would it not be more prudent to refer ourselves 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 Chaldaic 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 Catholic 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 harken 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, though 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 alleged 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 Heretics, 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 Heretics, 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 Chaldaic 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 epitomised 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 authorise 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 rely, in showing that the Greek Copy of S. Matthew is authentic, 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 Heretics, who have believed that the Gospel of S. Matthew hath been mangled and corrupted in several places. Faustus, a famous Manichean, who could not adjust the Genealogy of Jesus Christ that is at the beginning of S. Matthew to the Opinions of his Party, hath sought for Reasons to make it appear, that it was false; whereas he ought to have considered, that having been received continually in the Church, as well as the rest of this Gospel, it bore the same stamp of Authority: he compares S. Matthew with S. Luke, who have related this Genealogy in a different manner; and because 
(g) Offensus duorum maximè Evangelistarum dissensione, qui genealogiam ejus scribunt, Lucae & Matthaei, haesi incertus quemnam potissimum sequerer. Apud Aug. lib. 3. cont. Faust. c. 1.  he could not make them agree, he abandons them to follow S. Mark and S. John who have made no mention thereof, and who correspond in this, that they do not make Jesus the Son of David; for S. John calls him God, and S. Mark the Son of God: from whence he concludes, that Jesus Christ was not born as S. Matthew and S. Luke have written.  
S. Augustin answers Faustus, that he is not the first that hath taken notice of this seeming Contradiction of the two Evangelists: that an infinite number of learned Men, especially in the Greek Church, have spared no pains to reconcile them; which he endeavours to do in this place: and by this he condemns the rash Judgement of the Manicheans, who rejected as false, all that was contrary to their Prejudices. Indeed those People were so obstinate in their Opinions, that the same Faustus reviled the Orthodox who received the Genealogy that is at the beginning of S. Matthew, as not being Catholics, but Followers of Matthew; and he maintained also, 
Apud Aug. l. 23. cont. Faust. c. 2.  that it was contrary to their Creed. Quod si tu credas (saith this Heretic) ita ut scriptum est, eris jam quidem Matthaeanus, sic enim mihi dicendum est; Catholicus vero nequaquam. 
(h) De duobus vos unum fateri oportet, aut hunc non esse Matthaeum qui haec videtur asserere, aut vos non tenere Apostolicam fidem. Apud Aug. lib. 23. cont. Faust. c. 22.  You must either acknowledge (added he) that St. Matthew hath not written this Genealogy (which he called in derision Genesidium) or that you do not hold the Apostolical Faith.  
But it were an easy matter, without arguing at large on all the Difficulties that Faustus propounded, to represent to him that this Genealogy had been always read in the Churches ever since the Apostles: besides, that 
(i) Fides Catholica eademque Apostolica est, Dominum nostrum & Salvatorem Jesum Christum, & filium Dei esse secundùm Divinitatem, & filium David secundùm carnem: quod ita probamus ex Evangelicis & Apostolicis literis, ut nemo possit contradicere, nisi qui ipsis literis contradicit. Aug. lib. 23. cont. Faust. c. 5.  it was the Belief of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, (as S. Augustin saith) that Jesus Christ is the Son of God according to his Divinity, and the Son of David according to the Flesh: that this Truth was so clearly proved by the Writings of the Apostles, that they could not contradict it, at least if they did not reject them altogether.  
By this same Principle the Arguments of certain Anabaptists, of whom Sixtus Senensis, and Baronius makes mention, might be confuted; but since their Objections are almost the same as those of the Manicheans, it would be to no purpose to insist on them. They have accounted as false that which S. Matthew hath related concerning the Wise Men that came to worship Jesus in the Cradle, as also the History of the Children whom Herod caused to be put to death: against the credit of these two Relations, they have opposed the silence of the other Evangelists, and of Josephus, an Historian of that time.  
Sixtus Senensis replies judiciously, 
Sixt. Sen. Bibl. S.l. 7.  that by the same reason they ought not to believe the Resurrection of Lazarus, because none but S. John has spoken of it: neither doth the silence of Josephus prove any thing; for he hath not mentioned divers other Actions, which nevertheless do not cease to be true. They that make such Objections as these, aught to allege positive Proofs, as for example, from the diversity of ancient Copies, some of which they should produce wherein these Histories are not to be found; then they might infer with some probability that they had been added afterwards: but on the contrary they are to be seen in all our most ancient Records; and the greatest Enemies of the Christian Religion have cited them ever since the first Ages. 
Apud Orig. l. 1. cont. Cells.  Celsus hath read them in the Gospel after the same manner as we do at present. Porphyrius and Julian have also made some Objections against the Gospel of S. Matthew, or rather against all the Books of the New Testament: but we shall have occasion to examine them in the sequel of this Work.   

CHAP. X. Of the Time and Order of every Gospel. Some Greek Manuscript Copies are produced thereupon. Of S. Mark and his Gospel, which is commonly believed to be the second. Of his Office of Interpreter to S. Peter.  
ALthough some Ecclesiastical Writers have carefully set down the time in which they have believed that every Evangelist hath published his Gospel, we cannot nevertheless determine any thing thereupon. Because we have no ancient and certain Acts on which we might rely, I shall only relate what I have read on this Subject at the end of some Manuscript Copies: The most ancient of these Manuscripts that I have seen is at most but 700 Years old, as may be judged by the Character: it is written in great Letters with the Accents and Points, and may be seen in Mr. Colbert's Library, having been brought from Cyprus. There are also many in the King's Library, wherein the time in which every Evangelist hath written his Gospel is specified: but as I have just now said, these Manuscripts are not ancient. Indeed there are no such Remarks as these in the most ancient, the custom of those Primitive times being only to put at the end of every Book of the New Testament, The End of such a Book; the beginning of this other Book.  
To return to the Manuscripts that contain the Dates of the Gospels, see that which is found in the Copy of Cyprus which is in Mr. Colbert's Library. 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. MS. Colb. n. 5149.  The Gospel according to Matthew hath been published by himself at Jerusalem eight years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ. This Word at Jerusalem is of a later Writing than the rest. 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id MS.  The Gospel according to Mark hath been published ten years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ. 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. MS.  The Gospel according to Luke hath been published fifteen years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ.  
In another Copy that is in the King's Library, and contains all the New Testament, the Date of every Gospel is therein expressed after this manner in the beginning of them. 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. MS. Reg. n 2871.  The Holy Gospel according to Matthew, written in the Hebrew Tongue, hath been published at Jerusalem, and interpreted by John eight years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ. 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. MS.  The Gospel according to Mark hath been published ten years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ, and preached by Peter at Rome. 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. MS.  The Gospel according to Luke hath been published fifteen years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ, and preached by Paul at Rome. 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. MS.  The Gospel according to John hath been preached by himself in the Isle of Patmos thirty years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ.  
By this it may be seen what is the belief of the Greek Church touching the time wherein every Gospel hath been written: and though we cannot conclude any thing as from certain Acts, nevertheless we may infer from thence, that S. Mark obtains the second place amongst the Evangelists, if respect be had to the time in which they wrote: they are also placed in this order in a great number of Manuscript Copies which I have read: they are notwithstanding disposed otherwise in the Greek and Latin Copy of Cambridge, which is one of the most ancient that we have at this day, and contains the four Evangelists, with the Acts of the Apostles. S. John, in this Copy follows immediately after S. Matthew, S. Luke after S. John, and S. Mark is the last of the four. This Order cannot be attributed to him that hath bound the Leaves of this Manuscript together; for the ranking of them is expressed at the end of every Gospel. See what is read at the end of S. Matthew, 
Cod. MSS. Cantabr.  
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. MS. Cantabrig.  The Gospel according to Matthew is ended; the Gospel according to John beginneth: afterwards it is read at the end of S. John, 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. MS.  The Gospel according to John is ended, the Gospel according to Luke beginneth: and at the end of S. Luke it is read, 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. MS.  The Gospel according to Luke is ended, the Gospel according to Mark beginneth: and lastly these Words are to be read at the end of S. Mark, 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. MS.  The Gospel according to Mark is ended, the Acts of the Apostles begin. This way of specifying the end of one Book, and the beginning of that which follows, is natural and the most ancient: there is no other to be found in the most ancient Manuscripts of the New Testament. The Manuscript Copy of the Epistles of S. Paul, which is in the Library of the Benedictin Monks of the Abbey of S. , and is not inferior in Antiquity, nor in the Beauty of its Characters, to that of Cambridge, ranketh the Epistles of S. Paul in order after the same manner; whereas in the Manuscripts that are of a later date, and in the printed Books, some other Circumstances have been added, that show the place from whence these Epistles have been written, and the Persons by whom they have been sent. Moreover, the order of the Gospels which the Cambridge Manuscript follows is not peculiar to it; for it may be seen also in an ancient Catalogue of the Books of the Holy Scriptures which is at the end of the before mentioned MS. Copy of the Benedictines. It is probable that this Alteration hath been made by the Latins who have transcribed the Greek Copies for their use. Druthmar, an ancient Benedictin Monk, 
Christ. Druthm. Expos. in. Matth. cap. 1.  declares that he had seen a Copy like to that of Cambridge, wherein the Gospel of S. John immediately followed after that of S. Matthew: and it was believed, that this Copy heretofore belonged to S. Hilary.  
But this different Disposition in point of order of the Copies of the Gospels, doth not interfere with the general Opinion of the Ecclesiastical Writers, who all give the second place among the Evangelists to S. Mark. It is also commonly believed, that he was only the Disciple of the Apostles, and that therefore he could not be an Eye-witness of the Actions which he relates: he hath only published that which he had learned from them, more especially from S. Peter, whose Interpreter it is affirmed that he hath been. Marcus (saith S. Irenaeus) interpres & sectator Petri; as if S. Peter had only preached this Gospel, and that it had been afterwards written by S. Mark. This Opinion is very ancient; for Papias, who had received it from one of the Disciples of the Apostles, declares it after him in these Words: 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 39  Mark, who was Peter 's Interpreter, hath written exactly all that he had retained in his memory, without observing the order of the Words and Actions of Jesus Christ; for he had not himself heard Jesus Christ, not having followed him; but he had followed Peter, who preached to the People according as their necessities required, without taking care to put the Words of our Saviour in order. Therefore Mark cannot be accused of any fault, who hath recorded some Actions as they came into his mind. He hath applied himself solely not to forget any thing that he had heard, and to say nothing but what was true.  
This Testimony of Papias confirms that which hath been abovesaid, that the Gospels are only Collections of the Preach of the Apostles, that have been committed to Writing without having too scrupulous a regard to the times when those Actions happened which are related therein. Indeed, these sacred Writers have made it their business rather to exhibit a true History, than exactly to describe the circumstances and order of Time. Clemens Alexandrinus informs us moreover, that S. Peter publicly preached the Gospel at Rome; and that S. Mark, who for a long time followed this Apostle, put it in Writing at the request of the Faithful of that place: he adds also, that 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 6. c. 14.  S. Peter having known it, did neither dissuade him from it nor exhort him to it. 
Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 15.  Eusebius nevertheless relying on the Authority of the same Clement, will have it, that S. Peter after he had been informed of the great Zeal that the Faithful of Rome testified to have his Preach in Writing, approved of the Collection that S. Mark had made of them; to the end that being authorized by himself, it should be read in the Churches.  
S. Jerom hath only copied and epitomised after his manner the Words of Eusebius, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, 
Hier. de Script. Eccles. in Marco.  where he saith, in speaking of S. Mark, Marcus Discipulus & Interpres Petri juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat rogatus Romae à fratribus, breve scripsit Evangelium: quod cùm Petrus audisset, probavit, & Ecclesiae legendum sua autoritate dedit. The Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures hath also believed that S. Mark hath only published the Preach of S. Peter: 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athanas. in Synops. S. Script.  The Gospel according to Mark (saith he) hath been preached at Rome by the Apostle Peter, and hath been published by the blessed Apostle Mark, who hath also preached it at Alexandria in Egypt, in Pentapolis and in Lybia. In a word, it hath been the Judgement of all Antiquity after Papias, who was contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles, that the Gospel of S. Mark is only a Collection of the Preach of S. Peter, whose Interpreter he was; and the most part of the Fathers have avouched at the same time, that it was made at Rome, at the entreaty of the Primitive Christians of that City.  
Papias, nevertheless, saith nothing of the place in the Passage that we have above cited; and S. Irenaeus speaks of it a little otherwise than the other Fathers; he declares that S. Mark wrote not his Gospel till after the Death of S. Peter and S. Paul; at least this is the most natural sense that can be given to his Words, according as they are set down in the ancient Latin Edition of the Works of this Father: observe what he saith, Matthaeus in Hebraeis ipsorum lingua Scripturam edidit Evangelii, cùm Petrus & Paulus Romae Evangelizarent, 
Iren. adv. Haer. lib. 3. cap. 1.  & fundarent Ecclesiam. Post verò horum excessum, Marcus Discipulus & Interpres Petri, & ipsa quae à Petro annuntiata erant per scripta nobis tradidit. Eusebius hath rehearsed in Greek these very Words of Irenaeus. Fevardent, 
Eus. Hist. Eccles. l. 5. c. 8.  in his Edition of the Works of this Father, hath observed that these words post horum excessum, are not found in Eusebius: but he may be convinced of the contrary by the Greek of Eusebius, where there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the ancient Interpreter of S. Irenaeus hath translated post horum excessum, and Ruffinus, post quorum exitum. That whichg hath deceived Fevardent is the Error of Christopherson, who hath left them out in his Latin Version, having thought that it should be read in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quo edito.  
If this reading were grounded on any Manuscript Copies, without doubt it ought to be preferred before the other: but Christopherson seems to have corrected this place on purpose in his Translation, to reconcile S. Irenaeus with the other Greek Fathers, which ought never to be done; for if it were permitted to alter the Text of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers in those places where they do not agree, especially where they treat of Chronology and the Designation of Times, we must of necessity cast them into a new model: therefore Jacobus Grynaeus hath judiciously reestablished this Passage in the Edition which he hath set forth with his Amendments of Christopherson's Version: he hath put in the body of the Translation post obitum autem illorum, and in the Margin these Greek Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to show that it must be read so, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Valesius hath also followed this same reading in his History of Eusebius, and he hath put in his Latin Version post horum interitum. He reprehends also, in his Notes on this place, the Translation of Christopherson, as being contrary to all the Greek Copies, and to Ruffinus. We may observe in the mean time, that the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Latin Excessus or Exitus, which the ancient Interpreter of S. Irenaeus and Ruffinus have used, is equivocal; for it signifieth Departure as well as Death. According to the first sense, S. Irenaeus would have only said, that S. Mark published his Gospel after S. Peter and S. Paul were departed from Rome.  
St. John Chrysostom hath believed contrary to the Judgement of most part of the Fathers, that S. Mark hath written his Gospel in Egypt, and not at Rome; nevertheless, he doth not ground his Opinion on any ancient Acts, but only on this, That it was commonly said so, viz. 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Joann. Chrysost. Homil. 1. in Matth.  that as S. Matthew had composed his Gospel at the Suit of the Jews whom he had converted to the Faith of Jesus Christ, and that desired to have his Preach in Writing; in like manner S. Mark had written his Gospel at the Request of his Disciples in Egypt. This seems so much the more probable, in regard that the Apostles and their Disciples were wholly employed in preaching the Gospel, and that they never would have thought of committing their Preach to Writing, if they had not been pressed to do it by the People whom they instructed. I doubt not that S. John Chrysostom hath had respect to this general Maxim of the Apostles and their Disciples, and that he hath considered that S. Mark hath been the first Apostle of Egypt; not but that the Opinion of this learned Bishop might be easily reconciled with that of the other Fathers, in saying that S. Mark hath delivered his Gospel to the Faithful of Rome in quality of Interpreter of S. Peter, who preached the Religion of Jesus Christ in that great City; and that he hath also given it afterwards to the Primitive Christians of Egypt in quality of Apostle or Bishop. We cannot however determine any thing hereupon but in general, because we have no certain Acts whereon we may confide. Therefore it is no wonder that the Fathers do not agree amongst themselves when they speak in particular of such Transactions as these, having oftentimes nothing to rely on but Conjectures.  
S. Augustin seems to have considered S. Mark only as it were an Abbreviator of the Gospel of S. Matthew. Marcus (saith this Father) Matthaeum subsecutus, tanquam pedissequus & breviator ejus videtur. 
Aug. l. 1. de Cons. Eccl. c. 2.  Indeed if we compare these two Gospels together, we shall find not only the same things, but also the very same expressions, which S. Mark sometimes epitomizeth, as if he had designed only to make an Abstract of the Gospel of S. Matthew. This would seem to prove that this last had been written in Greek, and not in Hebrew or Chaldaic; at least it might be said that the Greek Version of S. Matthew's Gospel was already published when S. Mark composed his. Grotius is of a different Persuasion, viz. that 
(q) Sicut autem Marcus usus est Matthaei hebraeo ni fallor codice; ita Marcilibro Graeco usus mihi videtur quisquis is fuit Matthaei Graecus interpres. Nam quae Marcus ex Matthaeo desumpserat, idem hic iisdem propè verbis posuit, nisi quod quaedam à Marco Hebraico aut Chaldaico loquendi genere expressa propiùs ad Graeci sermonis normam emollivit. Grot. Annot. in tit. Matth.  S. Mark hath made use of the Hebrew Gospel of S. Matthew, and that afterwards he that translated the latter out of Hebrew into Greek hath followed the Greek Copy of S. Mark, whose dialect or way of speaking he hath only mollified, as being somewhat harsh, and too near the Hebrew, suiting it to the Genius of the Greek Tongue. But we can expect nothing but Conjectures herein.  
It is worth the observing, that S. Mark cannot pass for a simple Abbreviator of S. Matthew, because he insists more at large than he doth in some places; besides, if he had only a design to publish an Epitome of S. Matthew's Gospel, he would not have taken away the entire Genealogy of Jesus Christ, which makes one of the most principal parts of it: it is not the custom of those that epitomise the Works of others, to retrench the most considerable parts of them. And we must take heed of this, lest we unadvisedly authorise the Opinion of the Ebionites and Manicheans, who would have the Genealogy which is at the beginning of S. Matthew and S. Luke, to be added afterwards by some later Writers, who had (as they said) revised and interpolated these two Gospels.  
The Office of Interpreter to S. Peter, which the ancient Doctors of the Church have unanimously attributed to S. Mark, admits of some difficulties; for how could it be (may it be objected) that this Apostle who had received of the Holy Ghost the gift of Tongues, should have need of an Interpreter either in Writing or in speaking in public? But there is nothing very surprising in this: S. Paul, who was very well skilled in the Greek Tongue, because he had learned it from his Youth at Tarsus, where it was spoken, did not forbear to take Titus for his Interpreter. Therefore S. Jerom expounding these Words of this Apostle, God that comforteth those that are cast down, 
Epist. 2. ad Cor. c. 7. v. 6.  comforted us by the coming of Titus, declareth, 
(r) Ergo & Paulus contristatur, quia praedicationis suae in praesentiarum fistulam organumque per quod Christo caneret non invenerat. Hier. Epist. ad Hedib. qu. 11.  that the Joy that S. Paul had in the Presence of Titus sprang from this, that in his Absence he was not able to preach the Gospel as he desired, because Titus, who was his Interpreter, and spoke Greek more fluently than he, served him as an Organ to promulge the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the People. 
(s) Cúmque Paulus haberet scientiam sanctarum scripturarum, & sermonis diversarumque linguarum gratiam possideret, unde ipse gloriatur in domino— divinorum sensuum majestatem digno non poterat Graeci eloquii explicare sermone; habebat ergo Titum interpretem, sicut & B. Petrus Marcum. Hieron. ibid.  He ascribes to S. Paul all possible knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, and of divers Languages, but he could not (saith he) express the Majesty of the Divine Oracles after so noble and eloquent a manner as he wished; which obliged him to take Titus for his Interpreter, as S. Peter also made choice of S. Mark for the same Function. 
Joseph. Antiq. l. 20. c. ult.  We know that Josephus, who understood the Greek Tongue perfectly, and had diligently studied it, saith of himself, that it was impossible for him to pronounce it well, by reason of his Mother Tongue. 
Bar. Ann. c. 45 n. 34.  Baronius, who hath considered this Example of Josephus, could not, nevertheless, absolutely give his Suffrage to S. Jerom. 
(t) Quòd pertinet ad Apostolos, cùm unà cum caeteris Linguis & Graecam fuerint divinitùs assecuti, Deique dona perfecta sint, eos nihilominus Graecam linguam eâ facilitate quâ Hebraeam pronuntiasse, mihi facilè persuadéo. Baron. ann. c. 45. n. 34.  He is persuaded, that the Apostles who have received from God the gift of Tongues, have not received them imperfect; and that therefore they knew as well how to pronounce the Greek as the Hebrew: insomuch that he is obliged to have recourse to another sort of Interpreters, of whom mention is made in the first Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians. 
Epist. 1. ad Cor. cap. 14.  Whereas there were sometimes Persons of different Nations and Languages in the Primitive Assemblies of Christians, it was necessary that there should be Interpreters, who might explain to them in their own, what the Apostles delivered in the vulgar Tongue of the Country. It is certain that the Church of Corinth mentioned by S. Paul, was composed of divers Jews who spoke Chaldaick or Syriack: and this seems to have given occasion to all this Discourse of S. Paul touching the gift of Prophecy and that of Tongues. This holy Apostle excludes none from the Assembly; he permits those that had no knowledge of the Language of the Place to speak in their own proper Dialect, though it were not understood by the others: he only requires them in this case to make use of an Interpreter, according to the Custom of the Synagogues at that time. 
Epist. 1. ad Cor. c. 14. v. 5.  Greater is he that prophesieth (saith he) than he that speaketh with Tongues, except he interpret that the Church may receive edifying.  
But it is evident that Papias and the other ancient Ecclesiastical Authors, did not intent to describe this sort of Interpreters, when they said that S. Mark had been the Interpreter of S. Peter. 
Baron. an. c. 45. n. 29.  Baronius himself hath believed that S. Peter had written his Epistles in Hebrew or Syriack, and that they had been afterwards put into Greek: he insinuates, that S. Mark who was his Interpreter translated the first. However it be, I see no reason that can hinder us from affording to S. Peter and the other Apostles who did not perfectly understand the Greek Tongue, the use of true Interpreters, either in speaking or writing. It is in this sense that all Antiquity hath given to S. Mark the Title of Interpreter to S. Peter.   

CHAP. XI. In what Language St. Mark hath written his Gospel. Of the twelve last Verses of this Gospel, which are not found in several Greek Manuscript Copies.  
CArdinal Baronius hath forgot nothing in his Annals that might serve to prove that S. Mark, who was the Interpreter of S. Peter at Rome, hath written his Gospel in Latin: he confesseth nevertheless, that S. Jerom and S. Augustin are of a different Opinion. But he might have said, that all Antiquity hath believed with one accord, that S. Mark hath composed his Gospel in Greek, and that the Author of the Lives of the Pope's is the first that hath written the contrary. As for S. Gregory Nazianzen, whose Testimony this Cardinal produceth as if it were favourable to his Opinion; he only saith, that S. Mark hath published his Gospel for the Latins, and not in Latin. Therefore the Jesuit Maldonat 
(a) Constantissima autem apud omnes veteres auctores fuit opinio, caeteros quidem Graecè, Matthaeum verò Hebraico scripsisse sermone. Mald. Praef. in 4 Evang. c. 5.  frankly declares, that if we except S. Matthew who hath written in Hebrew, the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors do all agree, that the other Evangelists have written in Greek.  
It is true that we read at the end of S. Mark in the Syriack Version, that he hath preached his Gospel in Latin in the City of Rome. But it is sufficiently known of what Authority these Inscriptions can be, which are at the beginning and at the end of the Sacred Books, especially in the Oriental Versions. I account as nothing the Arabic and Persian Translations wherein the same is read, because they have been made from the Syriack. That which hath misled the Syrians, is their believing, as Cardinal Baronius hath done after the Writer of the Lives of the Popes, that S. Mark could not have written his Gospel at Rome otherwise than in the Language of the Country, having composed it at the request of the Faithful of that City who spoke Latin. 
(b) Neminem puto existimaturum Apostolos, cùm gentibus praedicarent Evangelium, aliis usos fuisse linguis ab his quibus gentes illae uterentur, quibus Dei verbum annuntiarent. Baron. ann. c. 45. n. 37.  It cannot be imagined (saith he) that the Apostles should have preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Nations in any other Languages but those that were in use amongst them. He hath not taken notice that S. Peter came to Rome to preach the Gospel to his own Countrymen; and that therefore S. Mark aught to have published it in a Language that was most known to them. Now it is certain that the Jews who were dispersed throughout the whole Roman Empire, and even the greatest part of those that were then at Rome, understood the Greek; and that there were very few, on the contrary, that had any knowledge of the Latin Tongue. This hath been very judiciously observed by Grotius in the beginning of his Notes on S. Mark; Judaei (saith this learned Critic) qui Romae agebant plerique Latini sermonis ignari, 
Grot. Annot. in tit. Marci.  longâ per Asiam & Graeciam habitatione Graecam linguam didicerant, & Romanorum vix quisquam erat non Graece intelligens.  
This may be sufficient to answer all the Reasons alleged by Baronius, who could not apprehend how S. Mark, who exercised the Function of an Interpreter at Rome, should speak and write in any other Language but the Latin. It is certain (saith this Cardinal) that S. Peter spoke at Rome in the Language of the Romans; how then could it come to pass that S. Mark the Interpreter should have translated the Preach of this holy Apostle out of Latin into Greek? If it be said (adds he) that S. Peter spoke Greek or Hebrew, S. Mark could not have interpreted his words but in Latin. All this arguing proves nothing, if we consider that S. Peter spoke to the Jews at Rome in a Language which they understood, and that S. Mark hath collected the Preach of this Apostle in the same, at the desire of those Jews that were lately converted.  
Baronius adds to all these Reasons another proof which is taken from the style of S. Mark; he affirms that they that have any knowledge of the Greek Tongue may easily judge that he hath written his Gospel in Latin, because several improper Words are found therein which are not in the least Greek, but Latin Grecised. He thereupon quotes Cardinal Sirlet, who hath made an exact Collection of them; from whence at last he concludes, 
(c) His igitur propè necessariis rationibus non solùm suademur, sed obstricti fermè devincimur atque planè cogimur affirmare, Evangelium Marci ab eo Latinè potiùs quàm Graecè esse conscriptum. Baron. ann. Ch. 45. n. 41.  that the Reasons which he hath produced to make it appear that S. Mark hath written in Latin, are so strong and cogent, that they seem to be Demonstrations.  
These Reasons on the contrary cannot but appear very weak to those who are versed in the Criticism of the Sacred Books. If this last proof concluded any thing, it would conclude at the same time that the other Evangelists have also written in Latin, because the like Expressions are found in their Gospels, that is to say, Latin words Grecised. It might be proved moreover after this manner that the Syriack and Arabic Versions of the Bible had been first composed in Greek, and afterwards translated into Syriack and Arabic, because there are in these Translations many Greek words that have been Syriacised and Arabised. It is no wonder that S. Mark, who is supposed to have written in Greek at Rome, should have made use of Latin words Grecised. Since it is the custom of all Nations that speak a foreign Language to mingle with it some of their own words, and so S. Mark would have spoken Greek, as it was spoken at Rome, and even in many other Cities of the Empire, where the Grecians had adopted divers Roman words.  
If it were true that the very Original of S. Mark is at this day kept at Venice, as they of this Country do avouch, all this Dispute would be quickly ended; but Baronius had no mind rashly to give credit to a popular Tradition that had no Foundation in Antiquity. Ciaconius, who hath written the Lives of the Popes, speaks but doubtfully concerning this question; he durst not pronounce magisterially as Baronius hath done, that S. Mark hath written in Latin, though he citys the Archives of the Venetians, who pretend to have the true Original in their possession. He chief relies on the testimony of the Syrians, and on this, that it is improbable that a Gospel should have been written in any other but the Latin Tongue, that was made for the use of the Latins. Notwithstanding this he leaves the matter undetermined. 
Alfons. Ciacon. Vit. Sum. Pontif. edit. Rom. ann. 1601. in Petro.  Marcus (saith this Historian) Petri discipulus & sectator, & in baptismo filius, Evangelium, quod ipse Apostolorum princeps praedicaverat, Romanorum hortatu & precibus Graecè itidem conscripsit, seu, ut alii volunt, Latinè, cujus eâ linguâ archetypum adservari putant Venetiis in Marcianis thesauris. Sylli omnes huic rei fidem faciunt, & ratio suadet, ut non alia quàm Latinâ Linguâ Evangelium in usum Latinis futurum conscriberetur. Alterutrum horum sit, etc. One would think, to hear this Author speak, that S. Mark had only composed his Gospel for the Latins. On this account I do not wonder that the Original thereof is kept at Venice in the Treasury of S. Mark.  
It remains for us to examine the twelve last Verses of this Chapter, which are not found in several Greek Manuscript Copies. S. Jerom who had seen a great number of these Manuscripts, 
Hieron. Epist. ad Hedib. qu. 3.  declares in his Letter to Hedibia, that there were in his time very few Greek Copies wherein they were read: Omnibus Graeciae libris penè hoc capitulum non habentibus. We must not understand, as the most part of Commentators on the New Testament have done, by this word Capitulum that is in S. Jerom, the last Chapter of S. Mark entire, but only from these words of the ninth Verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. to the end, as it appears by the Manuscript Copies which I have above consulted; and it shall be shown in the Sequel of this Work, that the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers have denoted quite another thing by the word Capitulum, Chapter, than what we now mean at this day by the Chapters of the New Testament, and also of the whole Bible.  
Grotius hath believed with many other Authors, that it is not possible that S. Mark should have omitted in his Gospel the entire History of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. 
Grot. Annot. in c. 16. Marci.  He cannot also imagine that it hath been written, and lost afterwards, insomuch that that which we read at present is only a Supplement made by a later Writer. It is not credible (saith he) that this should have happened to a Book of which so many Copies have been made as soon as it was published. Besides, he that is supposed to have added this Supplement would have followed S. Matthew. He adds farther that the Latin, Syriack and Arabic Copies, as also S. Irenaeus, who is a most ancient Witness, do all confirm this Chapter. He confesseth nevertheless that it was not found in some Greek Copies from the time of S. Gregory Nyssen. Lastly he judgeth for the Reasons that we have now related, that this defect in the Greek Copies ought to be attributed to the Transcribers, who not being able to make that which this Evangelist saith touching the Resurrection of Jesus Christ conformable to S. Matthew, have taken away from S. Mark all this History. Indeed the Emperor Julian hath opposed to the Christians the contradiction of their Gospels in this place; and there have been Learned Writers among the Grecians who have composed Works on purpose on this Subject to reconcile them.  
Maldonat 
(d) Quòd nonnulli repugnantiam, quae inter Marcum hoc loco & Matthaeum videtur esse, causam putant ejusmodi suspicioni tribuisse, absurda prorsùs est ratio. Mald. Comm. in c. 16. Marci.  on the contrary could not admit the Opinion of those that ascribe this defect in the Greek Copies to the Transcribers, who could not make this Place of S. Mark agree with S. Matthew, because if this reason were good, they ought to have done the same thing, with respect to the last Chapter of S. Luke, and the last Chapter but one of S. John, which differ yet more from S. Matthew in this point, than S. Matthew doth from S. Mark. Major enim (saith this Learned Jesuit) inter illos & Matthaeum, quàm inter Matthaeum & Marcum, apparet repugnantia. 
(e) Magis etiam miror non majore Hieronymum study ejus auctoritatem asseruisse, quòd nulla prorsùs conjectura sit ullâ ex parte probabilis fuisse ad Marci Evangelium adjectum. Mald. ibid.  Moreover he admires that S. Jerom who hath took so much pains in observing the diversity of the Copies, hath applied himself so little to establish the Authority of this Chapter, which cannot be affirmed not to belong to the Gospel of S. Mark.  
The harsh manner of expression that the same S. Jerom hath used in discoursing of these twelve last Verses of S. Mark hath yet more offended Baronius, 
Baron. an. Ch. 34. n. 134.  who could hardly believe that he should let fall such words as seemed to destroy the Authority of this last Chapter. This Learned Father in answering Hedibia, who had desired him to reconcile the Evangelists in the matter of the Resurrection of our Saviour, saith 
(f) Hujus quaestionis duplex est solutio: aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium quod in raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Graeciae libris penè hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus, etc. Hieron. Epist. ad Hedib. qu. 3.  that this difficulty might be resolved two several ways; the first of which is, 
Hieron. Epist. ad Hedib. qu. 3.  that this Testimony of S. Mark might be rejected as being found but in a very few Greek Copies.  
Baronius useth his utmost endeavours to show even by the authority of S. Jerom himself, that there is no reason to suspect that this last Chapter hath been added afterwards to the Gospel of S. Mark. He opposeth to this Father his own words in his second Book against the Pelagians, wherein he observes, that in some Greek Copies there was a long addition at the end of the Gospel of S. Mark, which he also produceth. From whence this Cardinal concludes, that even according to the Report of S. Jerom, this Chapter now in dispute was not only in the Greek Copies, but that there were also some found wherein an Addition had been inserted; and takes an occasion thereupon to correct the words of this Father in his Letter to Hedibia 
(g) Pro eo quod dicere debuisset, in Graecis codicibus Marci ultimum caput quibusdam auctum reperiri, illud ipsum in iis desiderari dixisse. Baron. ann. Chr. 34. n. 185.  where he ought not to have said, (if we may believe Baronius) that this last Chapter was wanting in some Greek. Copies, but only that a considerable Addition had been annexed to them, which said Addition (according to his opinion) might come from the Manicheans who had altered some Copies of the Scriptures. Lastly he infers from the Premises, that the Church hath amended these Greek Copies from the Latin. 
Baron. ib.  Quamobrem Dei Ecclesiam adinstar Latinorum correxisse Graecorum exemplaria certum est. And after all these Reasons 
(h) Haec quidem omnia si comperta satisque explorata habuisset quidam ex recentioribus, nequaquam adeò temerè in re tantâ Catholico homine indignam tulisset sententiam, dicens ultimum Marci capitulum non esse solidae auctoritatis ad firmandam fidem. Baron. ibid.  he sharply reproves Cardinal Cajetan, because he doubted, being induced thereto by the Testimony of S. Jerom, of the verity of the last Chapter of S. Mark.  
But after all, I think that Cajetan might have been treated more mildly, who hath entertained a doubt on the sole authority of S. Jerom, concerning the verity of this last Chapter, before the Council of Trent had determined any thing thereupon, because this Father hath grounded his Judgement on divers Copies that he had read. I find moreover that Baronius hath only copied Sixtus Senensis without throughly examining this matter: If he had consulted the ancient Greek Copies he would not have took so much liberty to correct S. Jerom's Remark on the twelve last Verses of this Chapter: for this Father hath very well distinguished these Verses which he mentions in his Letter to Hedibia, from this other Addition of which he discourseth in his second Book against the Pelagians. And therefore the Observation of Sixtus Senensis 
(i) Quod autem subtexuit Hieronymus, olim caput istud in Graecis exemplaribus non fuisse, & ob id ab aliquibus rejectum, eò quòd aliis Evangelistis videretur contraria continere, non de totâ hujus capituli scripturâ intellexit, sed de quibusdam apocryphis capituli hujus periodis ab incertis auctoribus in quibusdam codicibus immissis, quae quia vel dubiae, vel aliis Evangelistis contrariae viderentur, idcirco à Patribus de Graecis codicibus, subductae sunt. Quod ipse D. Hieronymus lib. 2. adv. Pelag. declarat. Sixt. Sen. Biblioth. S. lib. 7.  who urgeth that S. Jerom's words can only be understood of certain Apocryphal Periods which had been adjoined to some Greek Copies by uncertain Authors, is very far from truth. It is sufficient only to read the words of this Reverend Doctor as well in his Epistle to Hedibia, as in his Work against the Pelagians, to judge that he speaks apparently in those two places of two different Additions. And that there may remain no doubt thereof, I shall here produce what I could observe on this Subject in reading the ancient Greek Copies.  
It is to be supposed, as hath been above said, that the question is not concerning the whole last Chapter of S. Mark, but only the twelve last Verses. This is that part which S. Jerom hath called Capitulum Chapter, wherein is described the History of the Resurrection. The most ancient Greek Copy of the Gospels of those that are in the King of France his Library, contains after these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this Remark written as the rest of the Text, and with the same Hand, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is read in some places as followeth: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They declared in a few words to those that were with Peter all things that had been commanded them; 
Ex cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2861.  and afterwards Jesus himself published by their Ministry this holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal Salvation.  
There follows afterwards in this Manuscript this Observation written in the Body of the Book, and with the same Hand as the Text 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. After these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found that which followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. to the end of the Gospel. We may easily judge by this, that they that have written this Greek Copy which is ancient, have believed that the Gospel of S. Mark ended at these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They have nevertheless added the rest written with the same hand, but only in form of a Remark, because it was not read in their Church, which is altogether conformable to the Testimony of S. Jerom in his Letter to Hedibia. Since this diversity is considerable, it is necessary for me to make some Reflections thereon, grounded on this ancient Manuscript of the King's Library.  
It seems that Beza hath seen this Manuscript; or at least one like it; 
Bez. Annot. in c. 16. Marci v. 9  for he saith in his Notes on Mark xuj. that he hath found in one Copy these words added, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the rest, as hath been above related. But he ought to have explained himself more distinctly thereupon, and to have observed that this Addition was written in the Manuscript only in form of a Schotion or Note, and not as belonging to the Text of S. Mark's Gospel. This appears manifestly in the Manuscript of the King's Library.  
We ought to judge after the same manner of this other Addition which S. Jerom declares that he hath read in some Greek Copies, and which he publisheth in these terms. In quibusdam exemplaribus, & maxim in Graecis codicibus, juxta Marcum in fine ejus Evangelii sic scribitur: Postea cùm accubuissent undecim, apparuit eye Jesus, & exprobravit incredulitatem & duritiem cordis eorum, quia iis qui viderant eum resurgentem non crediderunt. Et illi satisfaciebant dicentes: Seculum istud iniquitatis & incredulitatis substantia est, quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veri Dei apprehendi virtutem. Idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam. This hath been apparently taken out of some Apocryphal Gospels, as we have above seen a like Addition taken from that of the Nazarenes. The Greek Transcribers thinking thereby to make their diligence and exactness more apparent have inserted them into their Copies. But they have done it by way of Remark; and there have been others afterwards who have left these Additions in the Text, without annexing any thing that denoted that they were only as it were Observations: because these Additions were not read in their Churches, they did not think these little Notes necessary.  
By this same method we may justify the Observation of S. Jerom in his Letter to Hedibia, wherein he declares that the last Chapter of S. Mark, that is to say, the twelve last Verses were not read in the greatest part of the Greek Copies. Beza on the contrary 
(k) Testor in omnibus vetustis codicibus quos nobis videre contigit hoc caput inveniri. Bez. Annot. in cap. 16. Marci, v. 9  protests that this Chapter is found in all the old Manuscripts that he hath read; but he hath not regarded, that although it be found in the ancient Greek Manuscripts, yet there are many of them in which it is written only as it were an Addition that doth not appertain to the Text. This evidently appears in the King's ancient Manuscript above cited. For though these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the rest to the end of the Gospel be written therein with the same Hand as the whole Body of the Book, nevertheless the Remark that is adjoined makes it plainly appear, that they that have written this Copy have not considered them as part of the Text. It is to be observed moreover, that the Sections are marked in the Margin of the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament by the Letters of the Alphabet, which serve instead of Numbers of Figures. These Marks are in the first Editions of the Greek New Testament of Erasmus, in Robert Stephen's Edition in Folio, and in some others. Now there are none of these found in the King's Manuscript over against these twelve Verses, which is a proof that they were not read in their Church that have transcribed this Copy. This will appear yet more clearly in the Sequel of this Discourse, wherein I shall explain the use of these Marks or Sections in the Greek Copies of the New Testament.  
Euthymius who hath made Learned and Judicious Annotations on the New Testament, confirms all this that we have just now alleged, and justifieth at the same time S. Jerom's Observation in his Letter to Hedibia. See what he saith on these words of S. Mark, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chap. xuj. 9 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euthym. in cap. 16. Marci, ex cod. MS. Biblioth. Reg. n. 2401.  Some Interpreters say that the Gospel of S. Mark is ended here, and that that which follows is a later Addition. We must nevertheless explain this also, because it containeth nothing contrary to the truth.  
There is also another Manuscript Copy of the Gospels in the King's Library, ancient enough, and written very exactly, wherein is also read this Observation on the same Passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. MS. Reg. n. 2868.  The Evangelist ends here in some Copies; but in many the following words are found, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the rest to the end of the Gospel. The little Sections are marked in this Copy over against these last Verses, as well as in the rest of the Gospel; which proves that they were read in that Church for whose use it was written. And there is annexed to it a Synaxarion or Lectionary that contains in order the Gospels of the whole year, and the day on which this Gospel was to be read. I have also seen another Copy in Monsieur Colbert's Library, 
Ex Cod. MS. Bibl. Colb. n. 2467.  which was written with a great deal of care, wherein this same Note is found after these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and is expressed in the same Terms.  
It seems to me that these Observations that are grounded on good Greek Manuscript Copies are more than sufficient to justify the Critical Remark of S. Jerom in his Letter to Hedibia, on the twelve last Verses of the Gospel of S. Mark. It must needs be that in his time they were not read in the most part of the Greek Churches. This Father nevertheless doth not believe that they ought to be absolutely rejected; for he endeavours in this Epistle to reconcile S. Mark with S. Matthew, after the same manner as Euthymius doth; and after he hath taken notice that some Interpreters of the New Testament have thought that those words have been added, he forbears not to expound them however, whether they belong to S. Mark's Gospel or not.  
But notwithstanding all these Reflections, we ought by no means to doubt of the verity of this Chapter, which is as ancient as the Gospel of S. Mark. Therefore the Grecians do all generally read it at this day in their Churches, as may be proved by their Lectionaries, one of which in Manuscript is kept in the King's Library. 
Ex Cod. Bibl. Reg. n. 1884.  This Manuscript indeed is not ancient, but it is magnificent and hath served some Church of Constantinople. Neither can we find a more ancient Testimony than that of S. Irenaeus, who lived before all this happened that hath been produced concerning this difference of the Greek Copies. This Father citys in express words the end of the Gospel of S. Mark: In fine autem (saith he) Evangelii ait Marcus: 
Iren. adv. Haer. lib. 3. c. 11.  " Et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est eyes, receptus est in Coelo, & sedet ad dextram Dei. He quotes in this Passage the nineteenth Verse of the last Chapter of this Gospel; and the whole Chapter contains but twenty.  
Lastly, there is no diversity in the most ancient Latin Copies, nor in the Syriack; whereby it may be proved that this Chapter was read in the Greek Copies, from whence these Versions that are very ancient, especially the Latin, have been taken. It is found also in the Cambridge Copy, and in that which is called the Alexandrian, which are the two most ancient Greek Manuscripts of the Gospel that we now have in Europe.   

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 Martion, and his Copy of S. Luke's Gospel. The Catholics have also altered this Gospel in some places.  
AS it hath been the general Opinion of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, that S. Mark hath collected his Gospel from the Preach of S. Peter, whose Interpreter he was; in like manner, they have also believed that S. Luke, who hath followed S. Paul in his Travels, hath done nothing else but gathered together the Preach of this Holy Apostle. 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Iren. apud Euseb Hist. Eccl lib. 5. c. 8.  Luke (saith S. Irenaeus) who followed Paul, hath committed to Writing the Gospel which he preached. This Luke, (if we give credit to the Testimony of these ancient Writers) is he of whom S. Paul speaks in his Epistle to the Colossians, 
Epist. ad Colos. c. 4. v. 14.  where he saith, Luke, the beloved Physician, greeteth you. The Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures bestows on S. Luke the Titles of 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athan. in Synops. Script. S.  Blessed Apostle and Physician; and he adds, that he hath published the Gospel that had been preached by S. Paul We ought not, nevertheless, to place him in the same rank with the true Apostles of Jesus Christ, as having been no more than their Disciple: he declares himself, in the beginning of his Gospel, that he hath only undertaken to write what he had learned from those who had been eye-witnesses of the things which he related. Therefore Tertullian 
(c) Lucas non Apostolus, sed Apostolicus, non magister, sed discipulus. Tertul. lib. 4. adv. Marc. c. 2.  doth not call him an Apostle, but an Apostolical Person; he speaks after the same manner of S. Mark, 
(d) Ex Apostolicis Lucas & Marcus. Ibid.  who (according to his Opinion) was but the Disciple of the Apostles.  
S. Luke, in the Introduction to his History, protests that he would write nothing but what he had received from very good Information: indeed his design was to divert the Christians from the reading of some false Gospels that had been published in his time: and since it might have been opposed against him, that not having been himself a Witness of the Actions which he related, he was not endued with Qualifications necessary to an Historian, he immediately prevents this Objection in the Preface to his Gospel, where he assures us, that he hath avouched nothing but what had been faithfully reported to him by Persons that had seen those things with thei● own eyes. 
Luc. i 2.  This hath caused S. Jerom to say, 
(e) Evangelium sicut audierat scripsit, Acta verò Apostolorum sicut viderat ipse composuit. Hieron. de Script. Eccles. in Luca.  that S. Luke had written his Gospel on that which he had heard, and that he had composed the Acts of the Apostles on that which he had seen himself. S. Irenaeus hath also observed, 
(f) Lucas nemini invidens ea quae ab Apostolis didicerat tradidit nobis. Iren. adv. Haer. l. 3. c. 14.  that this Evangelist had truly related that which he had learned from the Apostles.  
We do not certainly know the time when S. Luke wrote his Gospel: Grotius conjectures, after some other Authors, that he published it with the Acts of the Apostles, a little after S. Paul had departed from Rome to go into Spain, because his History of the Acts ends about that time. 
Hieron. Prooem. Comm. in Matth.  If we believe S. Jerom in this Point, he composed it in Achaia, when S. Paul traveled into that Country. In Achaiae Boeotiaeque partibus volumen condidit. Baronius makes use of the Authority of this Father to confute Euthymius and several other Writers, who have affirmed that S. Luke had written fifteen Years after the Ascension of our Saviour; which time is also set 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 epitomised 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, quàm 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 spoke the Greek Language; especially if we follow the Judgement 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.  
Martion 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) Martion, & 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 Heretics for having altered according to their humour 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 Martion, 
(k) Aiunt Marcionem non tam innovasse regulam separatione Legis & Evangelii, quàm 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 authorise 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. Martion 
(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 Martion 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 show which was the true and original Gospel that had been corrupted: lastly, he demands of Martion 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 Martion, 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 Martion, 
(o) Et de his Martion flagitandus, quòd omissis eye 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 Martion 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 Martion. 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 Martion 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 Martion 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.  
Martion 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 Heretic 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, Martion 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. Martion 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 signify 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. Martion 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 Martion might read it so in his Copy without altering it.  
Chap. 9 v. 40. and 41. Martion 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, Martion 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 Martion 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 show that this Heretic had not maliciously taken away from his Copy the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, O Father; for whether we read it or not, the sense is not changed. Martion had not also in his Copy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of Earth, but only, Lord of Heaven.  
Chap. 11. v. 29 and 30. Martion had taken away from his Gospel all that is said in this place concerning Ionas, reading only these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there shall be no sign given to this Generation. He did not read also the two following Verses, wherein mention is made of the Queen of the South, of Solomon, and the Ninivites.  
In this same Chapter, v. 42. where it is in our Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Judgement, Martion had in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vocation. This Epiphanius condemns as a vicious Alteration, and made on purpose, because the following Words show clearly that it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It might be, nevertheless, that the little difference that there is between these two Words in the Greek hath caused this diversity of reading, and that Martion had retained this fault of the Transcriber in his Copy.  
He did not read also in his Copy in the 49 Verse of this same Chapter these Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Therefore also said the Wisdom of God, I will send them Prophets. Now since he rejected the Prophets, it is not to be doubted but that he hath retrenched this Passage from his Copy, that hath so clearly established them: neither did he read these other Words which are in the same place, v. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it shall be required of this Generation.  
Chap. 12. v. 6. He had not in his Copy these Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Are not five Sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God.  
In the same Chapter, v. 8. instead of these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Angels of God, Martion read only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God. This might be an Omission of the Transcriber that doth not interrupt the sense in this place; nevertheless, S. Epiphanius accuseth Martion of Infidelity and Prevarication as much in this minute tittle as in any other Alteration of greater consequence; because 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid.  he that durst alter any thing of that which hath been written from the beginning, is not in the way of truth.  
He did not read these words of the 28 Verse of the same Chap. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God clotheth the grass; and in the 32 verse, where we have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, your Father, he read it simply, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Father. In the same Chapter, ver. 38. instead of these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the second or third watch, he read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the evening watch.  
Martion had also expunged out of his Copy the three first Verses of the 13 Chapter, and especially these words of the fifth Verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.  
In the same Chapter, Verse 28. in place of these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the Prophets in the Kingdom of God; Martion had put these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than you shall see all the just in the Kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. He adds, (saith S. Epiphanius) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, detained without, and these other words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. These last words are not an Addition, but a Transposition; for the same words are found in our Copies at the beginning of this Verse: besides, whereas S. Epiphanius reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This Father, who quotes the Scriptures according to his Memory, or applies them to his present Discourse, doth sometimes change the words into others, or abbreviate them; and this is to be observed likewise in other places. The true difference of Marcion's Copy consists in the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Prophets, which he hath changed into that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, just; and he hath added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, detained without, without altering the sense.  
Martion had taken away divers other words of this Chapter out of his Copy: viz. I. These words of the twenty ninth Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They shall come from the East, and from the West, and shall sit down in the Kingdom. II. These of the thirtieth Verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The last shall be first. III. These words of the thirty first Verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, There came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and departed hence, for Herod will kill thee. iv The whole thirty second Verse, and part of the thirty third Verse to these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For it cannot be. And from the thirty fourth Verse he had cut off these Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the Prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee. And these other words of the same Verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, How often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen. These words from the thirty fifth Verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Your house is left. And lastly he had retrenched these other words from the same Verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, blessed is,  
This Heretic had cut off from his Gospel the whole Parable of the prodigal Son, which is in the fifteenth Chapter; as also these words, chap. 17. vers. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Say, we are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. He had taken away a little after in the same Chapter several parts of the Passage wherein mention is made of the Lepers that met Jesus Christ. See what he reads in that place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He sent them away saying, show yourselves to the Priests. He had in like manner altered divers other Circumstances in this History, where he read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. There were many lepers in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none were cleansed except Neeman the Syrian.  
Chap. 18. vers. 19 After these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, None is good save one, Martion added, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Father; and at the twentieth verse instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou knowest, he read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I know. He had also retrenched the thirty first Verse of this same Chapter and these words from the thirty second and thirty third Verses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He shall be delivered, he shall be put to death, and the third day he shall rise again.  
Cap. 19 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ib.  he had expunged out of his Copy that which belongs to the History of the arrival of Jesus Christ at the Mount of Olives, which was near Bethphage, and all that which is related in this same Chapter, concerning the Ass on which our Saviour road when he made his entry into Jerusalem, as also the other Verses wherein mention is made of the Temple.  
Chap. 20. He left out of his Copy the whole Parable of the Vineyard that was let forth to Husbandmen, beginning at the ninth Verse, and ending at the sixteenth. He had also taken away these words of the seventeenth Verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, What is this then that is written, the stone which the bvilders rejected, etc. He had in like manner retrenched the thirty seventh Verse, and a part of the thirty eighth in which the Resurrection of the dead is declared.  
Chap. 21. Vers. 18. These words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, There shall not an hair of your head perish, were not in his Copy, nor these other words of the twenty first Verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then let them which are in Judea, flee to the Mountains: nor the rest of this History, which he had expunged because of these words of the thirty second verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, till all be fulfilled.  
Chap. 22. He had not in his Copy the sixteenth Verse of this Chapter, nor the thirty fifth and thirty sixth Verses; because of these words of the thirty seventh Verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This that is written must yet be accomplished: nor these other words that are in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And he was reckoned among the transgressors. He had also retrenched that which is said of S. Peter in the fiftieth Verse, when he cut off the ear of one of the Servants of the High Priest.  
Chap. 23. Verse 2. To these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, We found this fellow perverting the Nation, he had added these other, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And destroying the law and the prophets. In the same Passage after these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Forbidding to give tribute, he had also added these other words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and perverting the women and the children.  
In the same Chapter, Vers. 43. he did not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.  
Lastly Martion had taken away from his Copy the twenty fifth Verse of the twenty fourth Chapter, and these words of the twenty sixth Verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ought he not to have suffered? And instead of these words, in vers. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That the prophets have spoken, he had put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That I have spoken to you.  
Thus we have seen what was the Gospel of Martion, who was not far from the Apostolical Times, when the Verity of the Gospels might have been more easily justified from the Copies that the Apostle; had left to the Churches which were founded by them. S. Justin Martyr had written a Book to convince this Heretic, 
Justin. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 4. c. 11.  who was then living at that time when he wrote against him. S. Epiphanius who hath transmitted to us this Gospel of Martion, confutes him by his own Copy, which was not so much altered, but that there remained some Passages that were sufficient to overthrow his Novelties. S. Irenaeus, who hath also disputed against the Opinions of this Arch-Heretick, had observed this long before. 
(t) Martion autem id quod est secundùm Lucam circumcidens ex his quae adhuc servantur penes eum, blasphemus in solum existentem Deum ostenditur. Irenadv. Haer. lib. 3. c. 11.  It may be proved (saith this Father) by the rest of the Gospel that Martion hath left, that he hath blasphemed against the only God that exists.  
Although some Diversities of Marcion's Copy might be attributed to the Transcribers, especially in those Passages that are of no moment; nevertheless it ought to be done with a great deal of Precaution, because it is certain, that this Heretic hath not followed in his Alterations any ancient Copies: he hath taken care only to adjust the Gospel of S. Luke to the prejudices of his Sect, as appears by what hath been above related. Therefore Tertullian, after he had objected to him all that S. Luke hath specified in the two first Chapters of his Gospel touching the Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, and many other Circumstances that clearly show that he had a real Body, adds 
(u) His opinor consiliis tot originalia instrumenta Christi delere ausus est, ne caro ejus probaretur. Tertull. lib. de carne Chr. c. 2.  that Martion had retrenched all this from his Gospel on purpose, lest it should be proved from thence that Jesus Christ had flesh as well as we.  
Besides these Amendments that Martion had inserted into the Gospel of S. Luke, there have been also some Catholics who have altered it in some places; who would not have that read in the Gospels which did not suit with their prejudices. Therefore they have expunged the Passage wherein it is said, Chap. nineteen. 41. That Jesus Christ wept over the City of Jerusalem, because this Lamentatation seemed to them to be a weakness unworthy of our Saviour. S. Epiphanius, who quotes these Words, observes 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. in Anchor. n. 31.  that they were found in the Copies that had not been 
* For so the Greek word in this Passage of Epiphanius ought to be translated.  corrected, and by this he informs us that the Grecians have sometimes taken the liberty to correct their Copies, and to take away from them that which did not please them 
(y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid.  The Orthodox (saith this Father) have retrenched these words, being moved thereto by fear, and not considering the end nor the force of them. But they are found at this day in the Copies of all the Christians of what Nation soever; and S. Epiphanius shows that they certainly belong to S. Luke, by 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Iren. apud Epiph ibid.  the testimony of S. Irenaeus, who made use of them against some Heretics.  
If we may give credit to the Testimony of S. Hilary, 
(a) Nec sanè ignorandum nobis est, & in Graecis & in Latinis codicibus complurimis vel dè adveniente Angelo, vel de sudore sanguineo nihil scriptum reperiri. Hilar. lib. 10. de Trin.  the forty third and forty fourth Verses of the twenty second Chapter were not read in many Greek, and even Latin Copies of S. Luke's Gospel. Mention is made in this place of the Angel that came to comfort Jesus Christ, and of the bloody Sweat that fell from his Body. This S. Jerom seems also to confirm. 
Hieron. lib. 2. adv. Pelag.  But it is easy to judge, that the Grecians had taken the liberty to raze these two Verses out of their Copies, for the same reason as they had taken away the Passage wherein it is said, that our Saviour wept. This Alteration afterwards crept into the Latin Copies. 
(b) Haec erasa videntur à quibusdam, qui verebantur Christo tribuere tam insignia humanae infirmitatis argumenta. Jansen. Gand. Concord. Evang. c. 137.  These words (saith Jansenius) seem to have been retrenched by some that were afraid to attribute to Jesus Christ such notable marks of human infirmity. There are no Copies at this day, nor for a long time since, either in Greek or Latin in which this Imperfection is to be found. The Syrians and the other People of the Levant do all read these two Verses in their Copies. This Defect than must take its rise from some superstitious persons, who thought that Jesus Christ could never be obnoxious to so great a Weakness. There is no probability that these two Histories should have been added to the Text of S. Luke. 
(c) Potiùs credendum est à nonnullis id fuisse deletum, quàm à quoquam adjunctum. Mald. Comm. in Matth. c. 26.  It is much more credible (saith Maldonat) that they had been blotted out of it.   

CHAP. XIII. Of the Gospel of S. John; and of Heretics 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 Critics have imagined without any grounds that the last Chapter of this Gospel did not belong to S. John.  
WE cannot precisely determine in what time S. John published his Gospel. It is only known that he hath written it the last of all. Neither have we any very certain Acts that might inform us of the Motives that induced this holy Apostle to undertake this Work after he had seen the Gospels of S. Matthew, S. Mark and S. Luke. Clemens Alexandrinus reports what was generally believed in his time, viz. that John having read these three Gospels, and having approved them as true, (found 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Alex. apud Euseb. lib. 3. c. 24.  that there was yet wanting the History of those things that had been done by Jesus Christ at the beginning of his Preaching. This was the reason (according to the Judgement of this Learned Father) that caused him to write his Gospel, especially being entreated to do it. And by this he supplied that which seemed to be deficient in the History of the other Evangelists. He did not think it necessary 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. ibid.  to repeat what S. Matthew and S. Luke had already written; and this is the principal cause that obliged him to say nothing concerning the Genealogy of our Saviour. He judged it more requisite to promulge that which appertained to his Divinity. 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Alex. apud Eus. Hist. Eccles. lib. 6. c. 14.  John who is the last of the Evangelists (saith the same Clement) having observed that those things that related to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ had been made manifest in the three other Gospels, being inspired by God, and at the request of his Friends, composed a spiritual Gospel. S. Epiphanius saith also, 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 51. n. 12.  that it would have been to no purpose for S. John to insist any farther on that which belonged to Jesus Christ according to the Flesh, because that had been already done. Therefore he applied himself to the declaring of those Acts of which the other Evangelists had made no mention.  
S. Irenaeus only saith, 
(e) Joannes discipulus Domini— & ipse edidit Evangelium Ephesi Asiae commorans. Iren. adv. Haer. lib. 3. cap. 1.  that S. John set forth his Gospel at Ephesus, where he abode, without taking any notice of the time when, or of the Reasons that induced him to it. The Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures, will have it that this Apostle 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athan. in Synops. Script. S.  preached it when he was banished in the Isle of Patmos, and that he afterwards published it at Ephesus. S. Jerom discourseth more particularly than the other Fathers of the Considerations that engaged S. John to write his Gospel. He affirmeth 
(g) Joannes cùm esset in Asià, & jam tunc haereticorum semina pullularent Cerinthi, Ebionis & caeterorum qui negant Christum in carne venisse, quos & ipse in Epistolâ suâ Antichristos vocat, & Apostolus Paulus frequenter peroutit, coactus est ab omnibus penè tunc Asie Episcopis & multarum Ecclesiarum legationibus de Divinitate Salvatoris altiùs scribere— unde & Ecclesiastica narrat bistoria cùm à fratribus cogeretur ut scriberet, ita facturum se respondisse si indicto jejunio in communo omnes Deum deprecarentur. Quo expleto, revelatione saturatus illud prooemium è coelo veniens eructavit, In principio erat Verbum, etc. Hier. prooem. Comm. in Matth.  that S. John being in Asia, where the Heresy of Cerinthus and Ebion obtained, who denied that Jesus Christ had been really in the Flesh, was forced to write concerning the Divinity of our Saviour, at the solicitation of almost all the Bishops of Asia, and of many Churches that desired him to do it. He adds moreover, that it was related in the Ecclesiastical History, that this Apostle seeing himself so vehemently urged by his Brethren, granted that which they demanded, upon condition that a day should be set apart for a public Fast on this occasion: And that the Fast being ended, S. John, who was filled with the Holy Ghost, began his Gospel with these words which came from Heaven, In the beginning was the word, etc. Whereas this History might pass in the Opinion of some for Apocryphal, and for one of those Fictions that are ordinarily made use of by the Jews when they would give authority to a Work of great value. 
Baron. ann. Ch. 99 n. 4.  Baronius hath judiciously observed, that S. Jerom hath not grounded this Relation on Apocryphal Books, Non ex apocrypho aliquo, but on an ancient and true History that had been already explained more at large by other Writers, Sed ex antiqud verâque historiâ, ab aliis jam fusiùs explicatâ.  
There are found on the contrary since the first Ages of Christianity, certain Heretics who maintained an Opinion altogether opposite to that of S. Jerom; for being very far from believing with him, that S. John wrote his Gospel to confute the Errors of Cerinthus, they ascribed it to Cerinthus himself, avouching that he was the Author thereof. S. Epiphanius, who knew not the Name of these Heretics, hath given them that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Alogians, because they denied the Word called in Greek Logos 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 51. n. 3.  Because they do not receive (saith this Father) the Word that hath been preached by S. John, they shall be called Alogians.  
These Alogians rejected the Gospel of S. John, as also his Epistles and Revelation, pretending 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid.  that all these Works had been invented in Asia by Cerinthus, who lived at the same time with him; and they accounted them even unworthy to be read in the Church. To the end that it might not be imagined that they called in question the Authority of S. John, whom they believed to be an Apostle as well as the Catholics, they endeavoured to support their Novelties with some Reasons. They said amongst other things that 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph, ibid. n. 4.  these Books attributed to S. John did not agree with the Writings of the other Apostles; and that consequently they ought not to be acknowledged as Divine. Whether tends (said they) the beginning of this Gospel: In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God. And these other words; And the word was made flesh and dwelled among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth. To what purpose (added these Heretics) is that which immediately follows, John bare witness of him, and cried saying, This was he of whom I spoke. And a little after; Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world. The Alogians produced several other Passages of S. John, no part of which was found in the other Evangelists.  
S. Epiphanius answers them very prudently, that if they had no other Reasons to object against the Verity of S. John's Gospel, they might also reject the Gospels of S. Matthew, S. Mark and S. Luke, who have all used the same manner of Writing, and who have every one something that is singular. He said 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid.  that their Method depended not on them, but that it came from the Holy Ghost as well as their Doctrine. This he explains more particularly, and at large. This Father confutes them also by the Doctrine of S. John, which he affirms to be altogether opposite to that of Cerinthus. This Heretic believed that Jesus Christ was born a mere Man. S. John on the contrary testifieth in his Gospel, that the Word was from all eternity, that he came down from Heaven, and that he was made Man. It is certain that Cerinthus believed with some other Heretics of those primitive times that Jesus was 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  a mere Man. Which Opinion they grounded on the Genealogy that is in the beginning of S. Matthew. Therefore one would think, that if Cerinthus had designed to forge a New Gospel to authorize his Heresy, he would not have omitted this Genealogy.  
It may be observed nevertheless that this Heretic acknowledged in Jesus Christ somewhat more than mere Man. This Epiphanius himself explains after this manner. 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 28. n. 1.  He pretends that the World was not created by the first and supreme Power; but that Jesus who was begotten of the Seed of Joseph and Mary being become great, had received from above of the Supreme God the Christ in himself, that is to say, the Holy Ghost, in the form of a Dove when he was baptised in the River Jordan. He attributed to this celestial Virtue that Jesus (as he thought) had received in his Baptism, all the Miracles that he wrought afterwards. He said moreover, that this Virtue left him at the time of his Passion, and that it returned to Heaven from whence it came. Perhaps the Alogians took occasion from hence to ascribe the Gospel of S. John to Cerinthus, because this Heretic distinguished two things in Jesus Christ; for besides that they thought that he was born of Joseph and Mary after the same manner as other Men, they acknowledged in him a Celestial Virtue that had been communicated to him by the Sovereign God of the Universe: he called this Virtue Christ, distinguishing Christ from Jesus.  
S. Irenaeus hath also observed, 
(n) Hi qui à Valentino sunt eo quod est secundùm Joannem plenissimè utentes ad ostensionem conjugationum suarum. Iren. adv. Haer. lib. 3. c. 11.  that the Gnostics, the Followers of Valentin, altogether made use of the Gospel of S. John to establish their Opinions, 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. Haeret. Fabul. lib. 2. Haer. 7. de Valent.  They gave to Jesus (saith Theodoret) the Name of Saviour and of Christ the Word. The Sethians, who were a branch of the Gnostics, maintained also, that Jesus differed from Christ; 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. ibid. lib. 2. Haer. 14. de Sethian.  that Jesus was born of the Virgin, but that the Christ descended on him from Heaven. That which might farther confirm the Alogians in their erroneous Conceits was this, that there were some very learned Men, and those too very Orthodox, who had affirmed that the Apocalypse was made by Cerinthus, who insolently boasted that he was the true Apostle of Jesus Christ.  
Besides these Alogians who refused to receive with the whole Catholic Church the Writings of S. John as Divine and Canonical, there was one Theodotus of Byzantium, the Chief of a Sect that were called Theodotians, who after their example rejected the Gospel and Revelation of S. John, as not belonging to him. Nevertheless, Celsus Porphyrius and the Emperor Julian, who opposed the Gospels with all their Might, have not denied that they were certainly composed by them whose Names they bore; they have been content only to decry them, as if they had been filled with Falsities and Contradictions. When Julian speaks of the Gospel of S. John, he doth not disown it to be his, but he accuseth this Apostle of having introduced Innovations into the Christian Religion: he saith, that neither 
(q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyrill. Alex. lib. 10. contra Julian.  Matthew, nor Mark, nor Luke, nor even Paul, durst make Jesus Christ to pass for a God; that S. John was the first that hath published it, after he had observed that a great party of simple People; as well among the Grecians as Latins, was of this Opinion: thus this Emperor, who was persuaded that S. John's Gospel could not be charged with falsity, gives out his imaginary Reasons that were grounded on no Authority.  
As we have above remarked, that the twelve last Verses of S. Mark were not read in some Greek Manuscript Copies, so there are also twelve that are not found in divers Greek Manuscript Copies of the Gospel of S. John, nor in some Versions of the Oriental Church. These Verses begin at the end of Chap. seven. v. 53. and end at the 11 verse of the following Chapter, insomuch that they comprehend the whole History of the Woman taken in Adultery. S. Jerom's manner of Expression in speaking of this Relation, makes it appear that it was not read in his time in some Greek and Latin Copies. In Evangelio secundùm Joannem, 
Hieron. l. 2. adv. Pelag.  (saith this Father) in multis & Graecis & Latinis codicibus invenitur de adulterâ muliere quae accusata est apud Dominum. Sixtus Senensis, who hath observed that the Anabaptists made use of the Authority of S. Jerom and the Testimony of some other ancient Writers, 
Sixt. Sen. l. 7. Bibl. S.  to show that the History of the adulterous Woman had been added to the Gospel of S. John, hath not sufficiently answered their Objections.  
Maldonat, who had thereupon consulted the ancient Interpreters of the New Testament, and many Manuscript Copies, is much more exact: he freely confesseth, 
(r) Consului veteres Graecorum codices multos: nullus ex manuscriptis habebat praeter unum. Maldon. Comm. in c. 8. Joann.  that of a considerable number of Greek Copies which he had read, he found it but in one. 
(s) Non habebat antiquissimus ille Vaticani codex quem saepè nominavimus, non Graeca Catena, in quâ, cùm tres & viginti auctores sint, nemo ejus meminit. Habemus Graecos impressos multos, Origenem, Clementem Alexandrinum, Chrysostomum, Nonnum, Theophylactum. Nemo eorum legit, cùm Chrysostomus & Theophylactus scripserint in totum Joannem Commentarios. Mald. ibid.  It was not (saith he) in the most ancient Copy of the Vatican, which I have often cited; nor in the Catena or Collection of Greek Fathers, that contains twenty three Authors: and yet there is not one of them that makes mention of this History; even those that are printed, viz. Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Chrysostom, Nonnus and Theophylact, do say nothing to it, though Chrysostom and Theophylact have written Commentaries on the whole Gospel of S. John. Lastly, Maldonat adds, that of all the Greek Authors that have written on S. John, Euthymius alone, who is a Writer of these later times, hath expounded in his Annotations this History of the adulterous Woman, and he hath done it after such a manner, as rather seems to derogate from, than to establish the Authority thereof: for he informs us at the same time, that it was not read in the most correct Copies; and that even in those where it was found, it was marked with an Asterisk, to show that it hath been added to the Text of S. John.  
However, this learned Jesuit, notwithstanding these Reasons and some others which he adds in this same place, insists, that all this Criticism ought not to be preferred before the Authority of the Council of Trent, which hath acknowledged as Divine and Canonical all the parts of the Holy Scriptures, as they are at present read in the Church: he concludes from thence, that it hath also approved of the History of the adulterous Woman as Canonical, because it is a part of S. John's Gospel; and that it might not be thought that he absolutely relies on the sole Authority of the Church, he produceth several Acts, viz. the very Words of S. Jerom above related.  
This Father saith, 
Hieron. l. 2. adv. Pelag.  that this Revelation was found in his time in many Copies as well Greek as Latin; In multis & Graecis & Latinis codicibus invenitur: Moreover, Ammonius, who is much more ancient than S. Jerom, hath made mention thereof in his Harmony of the Gospels; and St. Athanasius in his Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures.  
As for the Authority of S. Chrysostom, who hath taken no notice of it in his Homilies on S. John, he answers, That since this History is plain and easy to be understood, he hath not judged it necessary to expound it; besides, this Father hath spoken of the adulterous Woman in another Homily on S. John; 
Chrysost. Hom. 60. in Joann.  and there is no probability (adds he) that what he saith in that place hath been afterwards inserted into his Text, as some have thought. He adjoineth to all these Proofs the Testimony of S. Ambrose, S. Augustin, and many other Fathers, who have all read this History, and have explained it in their Commentaries; from whence he concludes at last, that it hath been no less written by S. John than the rest of his Gospel: he conjectures that it hath been taken away by some Grecian, who hath exercised his critical Talon on this place with too much liberty.  
I have a little enlarged on these Reflections of Maldonat, because they clear all the Difficulties that relate to the History of the adulterous Woman, which is not found in a great number of ancient Copies: but since this Jesuit speaks only in general of the Manuscript Books which he quotes, and doth not produce in particular what is contained in them, I shall endeavour to supply this defect, by the search that I have made into these Manuscripts with as much exactness as possibly I could.  
I shall begin with the Commentary of Euthymius, of which I have only seen the Latin Version, the Greek Copy of this Author being very scarce. See his own words in his Remark on the last Verse of the seven. Chap. of S. John, 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euthym. Comm. in Joann. ex cod. MS. Biblioth. Reg. n. 2401.  We must know that that which is read here to these words, Then spoke Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the Light of the World, either is not found in the exact Copies, or is marked with an Obelus. Therefore it seems to have been written afterwards, and added; and this is a proof, that S. Chrysostom hath made no mention thereof. This Observation of Euthymius is justified by the Greek Manuscript Copies, some of which do not contain this History; or if they do, it is marked with an Obelus or little stroke, or some such like note, to show that it doth not belong to the Text of the Gospel.  
The most ancient Manuscript Copy of the Gospels, of those that are in the King's Library, 
Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2861.  hath not the twelve Verses that are now in question; but a blank space is left in the place wherein they should have been written, to signify that they were in some Copies. It is probable that the Transcriber that hath written this Manuscript had not these Verses in his Copy, because they were not read in his Church. It hath been a custom in this sort of Manuscripts to annex to the end of the Gospel of S. John these same Verses, with some little critical Remark; but since there are some Leaves wanting at the end of this, I can say nothing to it, only that this is found in the greatest part of other Manuscripts of this nature, as we may judge by the Manuscript that follows this.  
There is in the same Library another Manuscript of the Gospels, to which is adjoined a Collection of Commentators, which is commonly called Catena, or a Chain. There are found in this, these twelve Verses written at the end of the Gospel of S. John, with this note, 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 1883.  The Verses marked with an [Obelus] are not in some Copies, nor in the Apolinarian; but they are all in the ancient.  
I have seen in the Library of the Fathers of the Oratory at Paris, a like Collection or Chain of Greek Commentators on the Gospel of S. John, gathered together by Nicetas: The History of the adulterous Woman is not joined to the Text of this Chain, but only to the end, with this remark, (x) The end of the Gospel of S. John; 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Cod. MS. Bibl. PP. Orat. Paris.  and afterwards, But there are found some other things in the ancient Copies, which we think convenient to write at the end of this same Gospel, viz. And every man went unto his own house, etc. to the end of the eleventh Verse of the eighth Chapter of this Gospel. This same note is found at the end of another like Manuscript Collection of Greek Fathers on the four Gospels, which is in the King's Library: and the same thing is read therein at the end of S. John 
(y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 1869.  as in the Copy of the Oratory, and expressed after the same manner. This confirms that which Maldonat hath above observed in speaking of these Greek Chains, in which the History of the adulterous Woman was not found.  
Furthermore, it may be seen by the Remarks that are at the end of the Manuscript Copies above produced, that some Grecians have thought that there was no reason why this History should not be read in the Text of S. John's Gospel since it was extant in the ancient Copies: I believe that on this account it hath been added in the Margin of another Copy in the King's Library, 
Ex Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2868.  wherein it is not written; nevertheless, the Addition is of a later and different hand from the Text: This Copy is written very curiously, and the musical Notes that are marked on certain Words for the more easy singing of the Gospels, make it appear that it hath been made for the use of some Greek Church. It is very probable also, that these Verses were not read in S. Chrysostom's Church, since he doth not expound them in his Homily on the Section of S. John where we read them at present. I have not read them in another Copy in the King's Library endorsed 2860, nor in one of those that are in Mr. Colbert's Library, which is very rich in all sorts of Manuscripts. 
Ex Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2860. Ex Cod. MS. Bibl. Colb. n. 4112.  There is in this last another Manuscript, wherein all this History of the adulterous Woman is indeed written with the same hand as the whole Text of S. John; but this mark ܍ in form of an Asterisk was put at the beginning of every line, as if it were designed to denote that it was taken from other Copies, and that it had been inserted into the Text.  
But after all, it is certain that the Greek Manuscripts in which this History is written, very much exceed those in number in which it is not to be found; and among these first there are some very ancient; for it is read in the Copy of Cambridge, which is the most ancient of any that we have at this day: we can say nothing of the Alexandrian Copy, which is imperfect in this place: it is also found in a very ancient Manuscript written in Capital Letters, which is in Mr. Colbert's Library, 
Cod. MS. Bibl. Colb. n. 5149.  and was brought from Cyprus.  
It is worth the observing, that there are some Manuscripts wherein these Verses are not only read after the same manner as the rest of the Text, but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Chapter that answers to this History is marked in the Margin: thus in one of the Manuscripts of the King's Library, we read in this place at the bottom of the Page these Words, 
Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2863.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the adulterous Woman; and in the beginning of the Gospel of S. John, wherein are put (according to the usual manner of Greek Manuscripts) all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chapters or Contents of this Gospel, that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the adulterous Woman, is found with the other Chapters. But out of a very great number of Manuscripts that I have consulted thereupon, in which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Contents, are set at the Head of every Gospel, I could find but two, that are in the King's Library, in which there was a particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Summary for this History.  
Nevertheless, it is certain that it hath been read, at least for some Ages, in all the Greek Churches, because it is contained in their Lectionaries of the Gospels: 
Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 1884.  I have read it in a Manuscript Copy of this Lectionary, but it is not ancient: we may observe, that there are at the end of them some Gospels for certain Festivals, which seem to be as it were without the Work: they might be added according as the Ecclesiastical Office of the Grecians hath been augmented; and this is common to all these Offices. See the Title, 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lection. Evang.  Gospels for divers Commemorations of Saints. These Gospels are not for the Festivals of Saints in particular, but only in general; as for example 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Lection. Evangel. ex cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 1884.  for the Angels, for the Prophets, for an Apostle, for the chief Priests, for the Martyrs, and for many others; there are some also for the habit of a Monk, and of a Nun, for the infirm, for Earthquakes, etc. Lastly, there are two for those that confess, one of which is for Men, and the other that is for Women is taken out of the eighth Chapter of S. John, and is expressed in these terms, 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. usque ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lection. Evang.  In that time the Scribes and Pharisees brought unto Jesus a Woman taken in Adultery, and the rest to those Words, go, and sin no more. There is in the King's Library a very ancient Lectionary of the Gospels; but since it is not entire, and the latter part of it being wanting, I can say nothing of the Antiquity of this Gospel that is recited to Women when they confess, and is entitled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The Proof that Maldonat allegeth, taken out of the Harmony of Ammonius Alexandrinus, wherein this History of the Adultress is found, is more positive and concluding, because this Writer lived in the first Ages of the Church: I shall only observe by the way, that in the Bibliotheca Patrum, the Work of Tatian hath been printed under the Name of Ammonius, and that of Ammonius under the Name of Tatian, who hath also inserted this History into his Epitome of the four Gospels. There are nevertheless some Reasons that may cause us to question whether this Work were Tatian's or not: now whereas he hath written before Ammonius, a better testimony of the Antiquity of this History cannot be given than that which is taken from his Collection: but because there are some Arguments that seem to prove that he composed it as well from the Hebrew as from the four Greek Gospels, there will be always matter of doubt whether he hath not followed in this the Hebrew or Chaldaic Gospel of S. Matthew wherein it was contained; insomuch that it cannot be certainly demonstrated what was the Gospel of S. John from the time of Tatian the Disciple of S. Justin Martyr.  
Selden, nevertheless, who hath been cited by Walaeus on this place of S. John, insists very much upon these two ancient Writers, to show that this History was ever since the Primitive Ages, in the Copies of the Eastern Church: this he confirms by the Canons that Eusebius hath added to the Harmony of Ammonius: and he concludes from thence, that Eusebius also read it in his Copy of the New Testament, because it is marked in these Canons: but it doth not appear that Selden hath very carefully examined the Canons of Eusebius; for there is no number or mark of a Section that answers in particular to the History of the adulterous Woman: the twelve Verses of which it is composed, are comained in the preceding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 86. Section, as may be seen in these Sections or Numbers that are printed in the Greek New Testament of Robert Stephen, and in some other Editions: the Greek Manuscript Copies do agree in this Point with the printed: and that which clearly proves that there is no number or Section of the Canons of Eusebius that refers in particular to the aforesaid twelve Verses, is, that this same number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 86. is also marked in the Manuscript Copies wherein they are not found: therefore it cannot be inferred from the distribution or order of the Canons, that Eusebius hath read the History of the Adultress in that Book to which he hath annexed them; however, it is not to be denied that Selden and Walaeus have had reason 
(c) Mirum non est in seculis primitivis exemplaria fuisse hodiéque manere, quibus hae aliaeve periochae sacrae deessent, cùm scilicet audacium nimis exscriptorum complurium mos tum esset aliter atque aliter pro multiplici judiciorum discrimine Evangelia variatim emendare, augere, minuere. Quod monet Hieronymus, etc. Seld. apud Wal. Comm. in Joann.  to accuse the Grecians in general of assuming to themselves too much liberty in correcting their Copies, 
Seld. apud Wal. Com. in Joan.  adding to, or diminishing from them sometimes according to their own humour; and perhaps they have exercised this critical Faculty too liberally on this place of S. John as well as on many others.  
This same History of the adulterous Woman is not found neither in the Syriack Version that Widmanstadius hath published from good Manuscript Copies, of which there hath been since several other Editions; nevertheless it is in some Syriack Copies, from whence it hath been taken, and inserted into the Polyglot Bible of England; it is read also in the Arabic Translations that have been printed at Rome and in Holland: from whence we may conclude, that it is read at present as well in all the Eastern as in the Western Churches.  
However, Beza, after he hath affirmed, 
(d) Ex vetustis nostris codicibus 17. unus duntaxat illam non habebat. In reliquis scripta quidem est, sed ita ut mira sit lectionis varietas. Bez Annot. in Joan. c. 7. v. 53.  that of seventeen ancient Manuscripts which he had read, this History was wanting but in one of them, doth not forbear to suspect it, because the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers (as he saith) have either unanimously rejected it, or have been silent therein: he saith moreover, that it is not probable that Jesus Christ should have remained alone in the Temple with a Woman; that this Relation doth not cohere with what follows; and that that which is said of Jesus Christ, that he wrote with his finger on the ground, is a very extraordinary thing, and difficult to be explained. Lastly, the great diversity of Readins that is found in the Greek Copies in that place, causeth him to doubt of the Verity of this History.  
Calvin discourseth with a great deal more moderation, and seems also to be more reasonable than his Disciple, in his Commentary on this Passage; 
Calv. Com. sur S. Jean. c. 8. v. 1.  It is well known (saith he) that the ancient Grecians knew nothing of this present History; and therefore some have conjectured that it hath been taken from some other place, and added here: but forasmuch as it hath been always received in the Latin Churches, and is found in many Copies and ancient Books of the Grecians, and contains nothing that is unworthy of an Apostolical Spirit, there is no cause why we should refuse to make a good use of it.  
Besides that which we have just now observed concerning the History of the Woman taken in Adultery, which is not found in many Greek Copies, some Critics have also believed, that the last Chapter of the Gospel of S. John was not written by this Evangelist. Indeed it seems as if he designed to finish his History with these words, Chap. 20.30. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his Disciples, which are not written in this Book, etc. Grotius, who is of this Opinion, 
(e) Sicut caput ultimum Pentateuchi & caput ultimum Josuae post Mosis & Josuae mortem additum est à Synedrio Hebraeorum: ita & caput quod sequitur post mortem Joannis additum ab Ecclesiâ Ephesinà. Grot. Annot. ad. cap. 20. Joan. vers. 30.  affirms, that the rest of this Gospel hath been added after the Death of S. John by the Church of Ephesus, after the same manner as the last Chapter of the Pentateuch, and the last Chapter of the History of Joshua have been annexed to these Books of the Sanhedrim of the Jews; but he allegeth no solid proof of what he so freely avoucheth: something indeed might have been added to the History of Moses and Joshua after their decease, because (as I have elsewhere observed) they whose Office it was amongst the Hebrews to write the Annals of this Republic, have continued their Histories; and therefore these two Chapters cannot be properly called Additions, but rather a Continuation of the Chronicle of this Commonwealth. This case is not the same as that of the Gospel of S. John, for the Church of Ephesus was not charged to continue it. It may be said, that the last Chapter of this Gospel hath not been put in its proper place, and that there hath happened some change with respect to the order and sequence of the Words; but if we reflect on the Still of S. John, and the little regard to a Method or Coherence that appears throughout his whole Book, we shall rather impute to himself these small Defects which altar not the Verity of this History.   

CHAP. XIV. Of the Acts of the Apostles that have been received in the Church. Other Acts of the Apostles that have been forged.  
ALthough there have been several different Acts that bear the Name of the Apostles, yet the Church hath received none as true but those that we now read at this day under this Title, and which all Antiquity attributes to S. Luke: 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 aught 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 Preach, if they had not been earnestly solicited 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, entitled, The Travels of Paul and Thecla. We are informed by Tertullian, 
(d) Quòd si quae Pauli perperàm 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 baptise. This Father answers those that alleged 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) Quàm 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 baptise, 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 citys in this Passage, doth not speak of S. John; he saith only, that this Priest was of Asia. Pope Gelasius hath put this Book in the number of Apocryphal Works. Baronius distinguisheth these false Acts of Thecla from others that give an account of the Life and Martyrdom of this Saint: 
Gelas. Decr. 1. part. dist. 15. c. 3.  he supports the Authority of these last by the Testimony of several Fathers who have quoted them; 
Baron. an. c. 47. n. 3, 4, & 5. Epiph. Haer. 78. n. 16.  and among others, by that of S. Epiphanius, who relying on the credit of these Acts, relates that Thecla having espoused a very rich and noble man, broke off her Marriage after she had heard S. Paul: This Cardinal adds, that Faustus, a famous Manichean, hath produced this same History of Thecla, and that he hath taken occasion from thence to condemn the Doctrine of S. Paul as abominable, because he had compelled by his Discourses a married Woman to continue in perpetual Continency. S. Augustin (adds Baronius farther) who rehearseth these Words of Faustus, and exactly answers his Objections, doth not reject as Apocryphal these last Acts that are entitled the Martyrdom of Thecla.  
But it is probable, that these last Acts have been taken from the former; and it is no wonder that the Fathers have made use of an Apocryphal Book, that was composed by an Impostor, because there were many true things in these Travels of Paul and Thecla. However it be, I think it is more convenient to reject them altogether, than to approve of one part and to condemn the other, because it would be very difficult to distinguish that which was true from the false. If we may judge by the Fragments that remain, this Work was filled with Fables; for we find therein, that Thecla, being the Companion of S. Paul in his Travels, had in some measure a share in his Apostleship: it is declared in these Acts that she preached and baptised; and S. Jerom, who without doubt had read them, 
Hieron. ib.  makes mention of the Baptism of a Lion, which is the cause that he esteems them as false and Apocryphal Books. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pauli & Theclae (saith this Father) & totam baptizati leonis fabulam inter apocryphas scripturas computamus.  
Whereas the Apostles and their Disciples have left us no relations of their Travels in Writing, but that which we have concerning those of S. Paul and S. Barnabas, this gave occasion to the counterfeiting of some under their Names. Some false Acts have been published under these Titles, The Travels of Peter, the Travels of John, the Travels of Thomas, and many others of this sort: there was one also called in general, The Itinerary, or Travels of the Apostles. Thus have they endeavoured ever since the Primitive Ages of the Christian Religion, by this means to supply that which seemed to be wanting in the History of the Apostles, as if it were necessary that the Church should have all their Actions in Writing: but these Books were rejected with the common consent of all the Catholic Churches, as Supposititious and Apocryphal; insomuch, that of all the Acts of the Apostles that have been published, none have been preserved but those that were composed by S. Luke.  
Nevertheless, there were some Sectaries from the very first beginning of Christianity, who being Enemies to S. Paul, absolutely condemned this History written by S. Luke his faithful Companion in his Travels. The Ebionites, who treated this Apostle as an Apostate, seeing that the Acts that had been received in the Church contradicted their Doctrine, 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 30. n. 16.  composed new ones, which they filled with Impieties and Calumnies against S. Paul, that no credit might be given to the History of S Luke: they invented I know not what Fables to render this holy Apostle odious; and they gave them out as the true Reasons that had obliged him 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid.  to write against the Circumcision, the Sabbath, and the Old Law. 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid.  They made use of these new Acts of the Apostles (saith Epiphanius) to invalidate the Truth. The Encratites or Severians, 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 29.  who acknowledged, with the Orthodox, the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels, loaded S. Paul also with bitter Invectives and Reproaches, and entirely rejected his Epistles with the Acts of the Apostles.  
Lastly, the Manicheans, who esteemed their Patriarch Manichee not only as an Apostle, but as the Paraclet or Comforter that was promised, did not allow the Acts of the Apostles, because the descent of the Holy Ghost is therein declared. 
(k) Si illos Actus Apostolorum acciperent, in quibus evidenter adventus Spiritûs Sancti praedicatur, non invenirent quomodo id immissum esse dicerent. Aug. de utilit. cred. cap. 3.  If they should receive these Acts (saith S. Augustin) in which express mention is made of the coming of the Holy Ghost, they could not say that he had been sent to them in the Person of Manichee. But let us leave these Enthusiasts, who had no other reason to refuse the Books that were approved by the whole Church than this, because they did not suit with the Idea that they had form of the Christian Religion: This was the cause (according to Tertullian) that the Marcionites did not regard the Acts of the Apostle. 
Tertul. lib. 5. adv. Mare. c. 2.  I shall say nothing here concerning the Acts of Barnabas that have been published under the Name of John surnamed Mark; 
(l) Quaedam Barnabae Acta ab aliquo, ut apparet, nebulone scripta circumferuntur, & ab imperitis magno applausu accipiuntur. Baron. Annal. Chap. 51. number. 51.  which are very displeasing to Baronius, and have been manifestly forged, being also contrary in some things to the true Acts of the Apostles, as this Cardinal hath observed.   

CHAP. XV. Of the Epistles of St. Paul in general. Of Martion, and of his Copy of these Epistles. False Letters attributed to St. Paul  
THE Name of S. Paul that is prefixed at the head of all his Epistles, except that which is written to the Hebrews, doth plainly discover the Author: and since they are for the most part directed to particular Churches, who read them publicly in their Assemblies, they have been afterwards communicated to other neighbouring Churches, and at last, by the same means, to all the Faithful. I shall not here make it my business too critically to inquire into their order, nor the time when they were written, because in whatsoever manner they are placed, as to their distribution or circumstances of time, this will cause no alteration in the Text which will always remain the same: nevertheless, thus much may be observed with S. Chrysostom, who hath diligently examined this matter, that though the Epistle to the Romans stands in the first rank, 
Joann. Chrys. Praef. Hom. in Epist. ad Rom.  yet it was not written first; there are clear proofs, that the two Epistles inscribed to the Corinthians were written before it: this learned Bishop believes also, that S. Paul had written to the Thessalonians before he wrote to those of Corinth; this may be seen more at large in the Preface before his Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, wherein he gives an Example of the Prophets who have not been ranked according to the order of the time of their respective Prophecies. Theodoret, who hath treated on this Subject after S. Chrysostom, whom he often epitomizeth, allegeth, as an instance of the same order as that of S. Paul's Epistles, the distribution of the Psalms of David. 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodor. Praef. in Epist. Paul  As David (saith he) being inspired by God hath written the Psalms, and others afterwards have put them into what method they thought fit, without having regard to the time when they were composed: so in like manner, the same thing hath been done with respect to the Epistles of S. Paul  
Martion, who received the greatest part of the Epistles of S. Paul, from which nevertheless he had retrenched some Passages, had placed them after this manner: 
Marc. apud Epiph. Haeret. 42.  The Epistle to the Galatians was the first of all, and afterwards the two to the Corinthians; the Epistle to the Romans was the fourth; afterwards followed the two to the Thessalonians, and after these the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Philippians. He acknowledged none but these ten Epistles in the aforesaid order; for as to the Epistle directed to those of Laodicea, some Portions of which he received (according to Epiphanius) it is the same as that which is written to the Ephesians, as it is easy to prove from the Passages that this Heretic hath cited, and are also related by S. Epiphanius.  
Martion had entitled his Collection of the Epistles of S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apostolic. The Marcionite that is introduced in the Dialogue against those of this Sect, attributed to Origen, did often refuse to acknowledge some Quotations out of S. Paul's Epistles, and saith in speaking to Adamantius, who objected to him some words of this Apostle 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. Dial. adv. Marc. sect. 1.  I do not believe your false Apostolic. And in another place he answers Adamantius, who asked him whether he believed the Apostle, that is to say, S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I believe my own Apostolic. 
Ib. Sect. 2.  Therefore Adamantius doth not oppose to him the Epistles of S. Paul after the same manner as they were read in the Church, but that which the Marcionites called their Apostolic, which was a Collection that they had made of these Epistles. I have (saith Adamantius) your Apostolic: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This caused S. Jerom to say, speaking of this Collection of the Marcionites, 
(c) Cùm Apostolorum Epistolas non Apostolorum Christi fecerunt esse, sed proprias, miror quomodo sibi Christianorum nomen audeant vendicare. Hieron. prooem. in Epist. ad Tit.  that they had forged Epistles of the Apostles of their own invention, and that he admired how those people durst take upon them the name of Christians.  
S. Epiphanius hath observed some Passages that Martion had altered in the Epistles of S. Paul, which I shall here produce according to their order. In chap. 5. v. 31. of the Epistle to the Ephesians, where we read these words; A man shall leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, this Heretic had taken away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to his wife.  
In the Epistle to the Galatians, chap. 5. verse 9 instead of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, leaveneth, he had put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, corrupteth, which doth not interrupt the sense in this place, and therefore it seems rather to be a various reading, than an alteration made on purpose. Indeed in the ancient Copy of Clermont that is kept in the King's Library it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the Latin Version that is annexed to it, which is the ancient vulgar, there is according to this reading corrumpit, as in the vulgar used at this day.  
In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 9 vers. 8. where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Or saith not the law the same also? He had in his Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tho the law of Moses doth not say the same.  
Chap. 14. ver. 19 of this same Epistle Martion had altered the sense of these words, Yet in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding. He read in his Copy, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In my understanding, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because of the law. But it is probable, that this reading of Martion came from a fault of the Transcriber, who hath read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is in the present Greek Copies, which reading approacheth nearer to that of Martion, than that of S. Epiphanius, which agrees nevertheless with the two most ancient Greek Copies that we have, viz. the Alexandrian, and that of Clermont in the King's Library. It is read in these two Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the ancient Latin Version which is joined to the Copy of Clermont there is sensu meo. It is also read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the ancient Copy of the Epistles of S. Paul, which is in the Library of the Benedictin Fathers of the Abbey of S. ; but there is in the Latin Version that is added to it per sensum meum. This causeth me to believe that the Author of this ancient Translation hath read in his Greek Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is read at present. Nevertheless S. Epiphanius accuseth Martion of making this alteration on purpose, to wrest the words of S. Paul to his own Conceptions.  
In the second Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. iv. 13. where we read, Having the same spirit of faith according as it is written, Martion had retrenched from his Copy these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, According as it is written. S. Epiphanius reproves him in this place. Because (saith he) whether he reads these words or not, the scope of the Discourse is plainly evident. Indeed it might happen that he did not read them in his Copy. And if this Heretic had made no other alterations in S. Paul's Epistles than those that we have above marked, there would be no cause to charge him with corrupting them; for there are found in our Greek Copies greater diversities than those, and very many more in number.  
Neither do I see that Martion hath committed a great fault in placing the Epistle to the Romans the fourth in his Copy. Nevertheless, if we believe Epiphanius, this Heretic 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Herald 42.  hath only set it in this order, because he would have nothing right. But S. Paul himself hath not ranked his Epistles after the same manner as we have done at present; as this Father always supposeth in his Dispute against Martion. He confesseth himself that the Greek Copies do not all agree in this point. For when he accuseth him of having placed the Epistle to Philemon the ninth, which S. Paul (according to his opinion) had set the last, he saith that in some Copies it was found immediately before that which was written to the Hebrews, and which was the fourteenth in these Copies. He adds 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid.  that there are others wherein the Epistle to the Hebrews is the tenth, immediately before the two that are written to Timothy, and those that are directed to Titus and Philemon.  
S. Epiphanius declares in the same place, 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid.  that he hath remarked nothing in the Epistle to Philemon, because Martion had entirely corrupted it. Tertullian 
(g) Soli huic Epistolae brevitas sua profuit, ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet. Tertull. lib. 5. adv. Marc. c. 21.  on the contrary affirms that this Epistle hath not been vitiated by Martion, because it was too short. He admires only 
(h) Miror tamen, cùm ad unum hominem literas factas receperit, quid ad Timotheum duas, & unam ad Titum de Ecclesiastico statù compositas, recusaverit. Affectavit etiam numerum Epistolarum interpolare. Tertull. ibid.  that this Heretic having received a Letter directed to a single person, would not acknowledge the two that are written to Timothy, and that to Titus, which treat of Ecclesiastical Affairs. I believe (saith he) that he hath affected to diminish the number of these Epistles. S. Jerom speaks also of this Epistle to Philemon after the same manner as Tertullian, 
(i) Pauli esse Epistolam ad Philemonem saltem Marcione auctore doceantur, qui cùm caeteras Epistolas ejusdem, vel non susceperit, vel quaedam in his mutaverit atque corroserit, in hanc solam manus non est ausus mittere, quia sua illam brevitas defendebat. Hieron. prooem. Comm. in Epist. ad Philem.  and he proves also by the authority of Martion, that it is one of S. Paul's Epistles, since this Heretic who hath rejected a part of them, and hath altered those which he approved, hath received this entire, and hath not so much as touched it because it was too short.  
If we may give credit to Epiphanius, Martion had inserted into his Book which he had entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apostolic, an Epistle of S. Paul to the Laodiceans. But he confesseth at the same time that that which this Heretic citys out of the Epistle to those of Laodicea, is found in that which is inscribed to the Ephesians; therefore it ought not to be put in Marcion's Collection under the name of Laodiceans, but under that of Ephesians; otherwise he would have received eleven Epistles of S. Paul, whereas he never acknowledged but ten. Tertullian indeed rebukes him 
(k) Ecclesiae quidem veritate Epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos; sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi & in isto diligentissimus explorator. Tertull. lib. 5. adv. Marc. c. 17.  for changing the Title of the Epistle to the Ephesians; nevertheless he judiciously observeth, that this alteration of the Title is of no importance, because S. Paul writing to a particular Church, wrote at the same time to all the others. Nihil autem de titulis interest, cùm ad omnes Apostolus scripserit, dum ad quosdam.  
He accuseth him with more reason of taking away from his Copy of this Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. 2. v. 20. the word Prophets; for where we read it as the Church doth, And are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Martion read only, Are built upon the foundation of the Apostles. It seems also that Tertullian hath reproved Martion for taking away these words from the same Epistle, chap. 6. v. 2. Which is the first commandment with promise. Nam etsi Martion, (saith he) abstulit, Hoc est enim primum in promissione praeceptum; Lex loquitur, Honora patrem & matrem. S. Jerom moreover 
(l) Sciendum quoque in Marcionis Apostolo non esse scriptum, & per Deum patrem, volentis exponere Christum non à Deo patre, sed per sometipsum suscitatum. Hieron. lib. 1. Comm. in Epist. ad Gal. c. 1. v. 1.  hath charged Martion with expunging out of his Copy of the Epistle to the Galatians, chap. 1. v. 1. these words, And God the Father, to make it appear that Jesus Christ was himself the Author of his Resurrection, and not his Father.  
Besides these various Readins of the Apostolic of the Marcionites above remarked, the Marcionite in the Dialogue attributed to Origen, 
Orig. Dial. cont. Marc. Sect. 5.  saith that it was not read in this Apostolic, 2 Cor. xv. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God giveth it a spirit as it hath pleased him. And after those words immediately follow these in the Apostolic: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; it is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorrruption. These last words are also found in our Copies, but in another order.  
Tertullian solidly confutes these Sectaries who would receive nothing of S. Paul but what was agreeable to their notions, in representing to them, that they might as well reject his Works all together as a part of them. He demands of Martion what proofs he hath of his Apostolic which he ascribed to S. Paul, Pauli quoque originem à Marcione desidero. He requires him 
(m) Edas velim nobis quo Symbolo susceperis Apostolum Paulum, quis illum tituli charactere percusserit, quis transmiserit tibi, quis imposuerit ut possis eum constanter exponere. Tertull. lib. 5. adv. Marc. c. 1.  to produce some certain marks that this Book did really belong to that Apostle, and to declare who hath given it this Title, and by what Tradition it came to his hands?  
The same Objections might be made at this day to some Protestants who receive the Works of the Apostles, and refuse at the same time to submit to the true Traditions of the Church, to which they are beholden for these Apostolical Writings. For who hath told them that that which they read under the name of S. Paul is certainly his? Is it (saith Tertullian, speaking to Martion) because this Apostle hath said so himself? Ipse se Apostolum est professus. 
(n) Profiteri potest semetipsum quivis: verùm professio ejus alterius auctoritate conficitur. Alius scribit, alius subscribit. Alius obsignat, alius actis refert. Nemo sibi & professor & testis est. Tertull. ibid.  Every one (adds he) might give a testimony of himself; but it is not believed, at least if it be not attested by others, because no Man can be a Witness of his own Actions. This is a very strong proof against the Marcionites, because they not allow the Acts of the Apostles, which afford a great Testimony to the Doctrine contained in the Epistles of S. Paul  
The Author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites makes use of this same argument to convince his Marcionite. 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apud Orig. Dial. contr. Marc. sect. 2.  We do not receive (said this Marcionite) neither the Prophets nor the Law, because they are not of our God, but we receive the Gospel and the Apostle. What Apostle do you mean (answers Adamantius) for there are many? Paul, saith the Marcionite. To whom Adamantius replies, How can you be assured that Paul hath written the Epistles that you read under his name, since there is no mention thereof made in the Gospel? And whereas these Heretics acknowledged none but the Gospel of S. Luke, which they had adjusted to their Notions, and their Apostolic. Adamantius presseth them very much thereupon, and concludes against them, that according to their Principle no Scriptures give a Testimony to S. Paul, since he is not mentioned in the Gospel. The Marcionite is obliged to have recourse to S. Paul, who hath written of himself, 
2 Cor. 1.1.  Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ. But Adamantius opposeth to him those other words of S. Paul, He that bears witness of himself is not approved. He makes it appear from hence, 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  that he is not to be believed that only gives his own Testimony of himself.  
S. Epiphanius moreover reproves Martion, for having quoted a Passage out of S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, under the Title of an Epistle written by this Apostle to the Laodiceans, 
Epiph. Haer. 42. n. 12.  which (saith he) was never in the number of the Epistles of S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But we can only infer from thence, that Martion was mistaken in the Title of this Epistle, reading under the name of the Laodiceans that which is written to the Ephesians. Nevertheless S. Epiphanius hath reason to say, that there never was any Epistle to the Laodiceans. The Fragment that Jacobus Faber, Sixtus Senensis and some other Authors have published under this Title, and hath been Printed even in some Bibles, is a Piece of no Authority; not but that in the Primitive Ages of the Church there hath been read an Epistle under this Title attributed to S. Paul, but the most Learned Fathers have rejected it as an Apocryphal Act. Therefore S. Jerom 
(q) Legunt quidam & ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur. Hieron. de Script. Eccles. in Paulo.  affirms, that in his time it was generally exploded by all the world; insomuch that there is no other true Epistle to the Laodiceans, but that which is written to the Ephesians, the Title of which the Marcionites had only changed. The Heretics (saith Tertullian, in speaking of the Marcionites 
(r) Epistola quam nos ad Ephesios praescriptam habemus, haeretici ad Laodicenos. Tertull. lib. 5. adv. Marc. c 11.  have entitled to the Laodiceans that Epistle which we read directed to the Ephesians.  
They that have forged an Epistle of S. Paul to the Laodiceans, have taken occasion from these words of his Epistle to the Colossians, chap. 4. vers. 16. And when this Epistle is read amongst you, cause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea. 
Chrys. Homil. 12. in Epist. ad Coloss.  S. Chrysostom hath observed on these last words, 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. Hom. 12. in Epist. ad Coloss.  that some Writers had taken notice before him, that it was not a Letter that S. Paul had sent to the Laodiceans, but one that they of Laodicea had written to S. Paul, because it is not in the Text to the Laodiceans, but from Laodicea. This hath caused Theodoret, who repeats the same thing in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians, to conclude that the Letter to the Laodiceans that some produced in his time was a counterfeit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Baronius hath had reason to prefer the Judgement of these two Greek Fathers before that of some Latin Writers, who have thought that S. Paul hath written fifteen Epistles one of which (as they say) hath been lost. P. Amilote seems to have favoured this Opinion, when he translated this Passage of the Epistle to the Colossians, Ye shall likewise read that which I have written to the Laodiceans. But if there were an ambiguous expression in his Text, he ought also to retain it in his Version, and not to limit it, by giving us an Epistle of S. Paul to the Laodiceans which never was, according to the Sentiments of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers.  
I shall take no notice of two other Epistles that have been heretofore published under the Name of S. Paul, viz. a third to the Corinthians, and a third to the Thessalonians, because they have much less foundation than that which is supposed to have been written to the Laodiceans. I shall only observe, that some Impostors in his time dispersed abroad false Letters in his name, that they might thereby authorize their false Doctrines, which obliged him to write his Name at the bottom of his Epistles with a certain particular Mark, 
2 Thess. 3.17.  as he declares himself at the end of his second Epistle to the Thessalonians.  
I shall not here insist on the Ebionites, concerning whom I have already sufficiently discoursed. Since these Heretics had declared openly against S. Paul, and had also composed false Acts to defame his Person and Doctrine, they were very far from receiving his Epistles which contradicted their Opinions. The Encratites Severians 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 4. c. 29.  who had no less an aversion for this Holy Apostle, absolutely rejected his Epistles. Origen moreover makes mention of a certain Sect that took the name of Helcesaites, 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 6. cap. 38.  who acknowledged but a part of the Canon of the Holy Scriptures as well of the Old as the New Testament. But they altogether disapproved of S. Paul, and 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. ibid.  had forged I know not what Book, which they feigned to have fallen down from Heaven.  
It is no wonder that so many ancient Heretics have publicly exploded the Writings of S. Paul; because they pretended that not having seen Jesus Christ in the flesh, he could not call himself his Apostle. They accused him moreover of having taught things that were contrary to the Law of God. In a word, they esteemed him as an Innovator, who under pretence (said they) of introducing Christianity among the Gentiles had abolished the Sabbath, the Circumcision, and the other Ceremonies of the Old Law. Therefore this Holy Apostle speaks often in his Epistles concerning his Apostleship, which his Enemies opposed in vain. Tho he had not seen Jesus Christ, yet he invincibly proveth that he hath not brought any Novelties into the Gospel, since he hath avouched nothing before he had thereupon conferred with the other Apostles. This hath caused Tertullian to say, that S. Paul 
(y) Propterea Hierosolymam ascendit ad cognoscendos Apostolos & consultandoes, ne forte in vacuum cucurrisset, id est, ne non secundùm illos evangelizaret. Denique ut cum auctoribus contulit & convenit de regulâ fidei, dexteras miscuere, & exinde officia praedicandi distinxerunt. Tertull. lib. 4. adv. Marc. c. 2.  went on purpose to Jerusalem, to deliberate with the Apostles on all things that appertained to the preaching of the Gospel, that he might do nothing that was opposite to their Doctrine. He adds that after this Apostle had had a Conference with them, and that they had all agreed on a certain and sure Rule of Faith, they separated to go every one to his respective station to promulge the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  
S. Augustin relies on the same Principle in disproving a false Epistle that the Manicheans had published under the Name of Jesus Christ. Is there any one so foolish, (saith this Learned Father) as to believe that the Epistle that Manichee attributes to Jesus Christ is true, and that the Gospel of S. Matthew which hath been always preserved in the Church, doth not belong to this Apostle? He demands whether they could with any colour of Reason believe an obscure Man, who appeared not in the World till more than two hundred years after Jesus Christ, 
(z) Cùm ipse Apostolus Paulus post ascensionem Domini de coelo vocatus, si non inveniret in carne Apostolos, quibus communicando & cum quibus conferendo Evangelium ejusdem esse societatis appareret, Ecclesia illi omninò non crederet. Aug. lib. 28. cont. Manich. c. 4.  since the Church would not have given credit to S. Paul himself, who was called to the Apostleship immediately after the Ascension of our Saviour, if he had not conferred with the Apostles touching the Doctrine that he preached.  
It is a Maxim generally received among all the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, that Jesus Christ alone is the Author of the Christian Religion, and that his Apostles who have been the Witnesses of his Actions and Words, have only related to us those things that they had seen or learned from their Master. When it was objected to the primitive Fathers, that the Gospels of S. Mark and S. Luke, as also the Epistles of S. Paul ought not to be received as Canonical, because the Authors of these Writings were not Apostles, but only Apostolical Men. They have answered that these Apostolical Persons have written nothing but what they had received from their Masters. They have concluded from thence, that the same authority ought to be given to their Writings, as if the Apostles themselves had been the Authors of them. Therefore when Tertullian speaks of S. Luke and S. Mark, who (according to his Opinion) were only Apostolical, he adds at the same time, that these Apostolical Men were not 
(a) Si & Apostolicos, non tamen solos, sed cum Apostolis & post Apostolos, quoniam praedicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset de gloriae study, si non adsistat illi auctoritas magistrorum, imò Christi qui magistros Apostolos fecit. Tertull. lib. 4. adv. Marc. c. 2.  alone, having written jointly with the Apostles, and after them; and that therefore their Doctrine could not be suspected, since it hath been authorised by their Masters, and even by Jesus Christ who had constituted these Masters. We may apply unto S. Paul that which Tertullian saith here of S. Mark and S. Luke. And this may serve to resolve all the Objections of the ancient Heretics who refused to allow his Writings, because they denied that he was truly an Apostle.  
I have already given an account of the Manicheans, who acknowledged nothing of S. Paul, but what was agreeable to the Idea that they had form of the Christian Religion. These Sectaries argued against common Sense. For in as much as they were not able to reconcile two Passages of this Apostle, they thought it sufficient to conclude from thence that one of the two must of necessity be corrupted; since it was not possible (said they) that he should contradict in one place what he had affirmed in another. When it was demanded of Faustus whether he received the Apostle, Apostolum accipis? He answered that he did. And when it was proved to him by the Writings of S. Paul, that he ought to believe that Jesus Christ the Son of God derived his Original from David, according to the flesh, he then replied, 
(b) Non equidem crediderim Apostolum Dei contraria sibi scribere potuisse, & modò hanc, modò illam de Domino nostro habuisse sententiam. Apud Aug. lib. 11. cont. Faust. c. 1.  that it is not credible that the Apostle of God should have written things that are contrary, and overthrow one another: he maintained that the Epistles of S. Paul had been interpolated as well as the Gospels; and to make his Subtlety more apparent in inventing new Answers, he adds, that this Apostle might be reconciled with himself, in saying that he had two Conceptions thereupon, and that that which was objected was his old Opinion, which he had abandoned after he had been better instructed.  
But let us leave these Heretics who had no certain Principles, and were therefore obliged sometimes to have recourse to their Paraclet, which was their great Engine. We see almost the same thing at present in some illuminated and enthusiastic Persons, who for want of good reasons are forced to fly to I know not what private Spirit that discovers to them the most hidden Mysteries of the Christian Religion. I would entreat these People to reflect a little on the Conduct of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers in their Disputes against the Heretics, and on their manner of arguing; they will find therein neither Paraclet, nor private Spirit, but solid Arguments, that are very far from the Fanaticism which is predominant in our Age.  
Lastly, to return to S. Paul, the vanity of these ancient Heretics was so great, that S. Irenaeus was compelled to confute some Sectaries, 
(c) Eos autem qui dicunt, solum Paulum veritatem cognovisse, cui per revelationem manifestum est mysterium, ipse Paulus convincat eos dicens unum & ipsum Deum operatum Petro in Apostolatu circumcisionis, & sibi in Gentes. Iren. adv. Haer. lib. 3. c. 13.  who affirmed that this Apostle only was endued with the knowledge of the Truth, and that he alone had the Revelation of the Mysteries of the Gospel: but this Father convinceth them by the very Words of S. Paul, who hath born witness to the Apostleship of S. Peter.   

CHAP. XVI. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews in particular. Whether it be St. Paul's, and Canonical. What Antiquity hath believed thereupon, as well in the Eastern as in the Western Countries. The Opinions of these later Ages concerning this Epistle.  
SInce I have no other design in this Work than to treat of the Text of the New Testament, and to establish as much as is possible the Writings of the Apostles, I shall not insist in particular on the Subject of every Epistle of S. Paul; this is a task that belongs rather to a Commentator of the Scriptures, than to a Critical History of the Text: for this reason I come immediately to the Epistle to the Hebrews, that seems to have been disputed in Antiquity, principally in the Western Churches, some of which have refused to read it in their public Assemblies: there are also at this day some learned Critics, that doubt whether S. Paul be the Author thereof, though they acknowledge it 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 inquire 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 Heretics, 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 Style 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 Style, 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 Style. This learned Critic doth not attribute this diversity of Style 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 fewer who hath collected the Say 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 Heretics, 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.  etc. 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 Heretics 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 before the time of Cajus, of the Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Tertullian, nevertheless, hath attributed it to S. Barnabas, but without showing any Reasons.  
The same Baronius is very much perplexed when he would explain the Sense of S. Jerom, who avoucheth, that although this Epistle hath been always received as S. Paul's in the Eastern Churches, 
(i) Eam Latinorum consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas Canonicas. Hier. Epist. ad Dardan.  yet the Latins do not put it in the number of the Canonical Epistles: this he repeats in several other Passages of his Works. But whereas most part of the Latin Fathers before him, and even in his time, have acknowledged this Epistle not only to be Canonical, but also to be written by S. Paul; this Cardinal thinks that S. Jerom was deceived in relying altogether on the Testimony of Cajus and Eusebius, without consulting the custom of the Latin Churches.  
I confess that this Father in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers, according to his usual method, hath only copied the Words of Eusebius, when he speaks of Cajus; but the same thing cannot be said of the other Passages, where he affirms distinctly from Eusebius, that this Epistle is not generally received amongst the Latins. Paulus Apostolus (saith he in his Commentary on Isaiah) in Epistola ad Hebraeos, quam Latina consuetudo non recipit. He adds a little after, 
(k) Pauli quoque idcirco ad Hebraeos Epistolae contradicitur, quòd ad Hebraeos scribens utatur testimoniis quae in Hebraeis voluminibus non habentur. Hier. Comm. in Is. l 2. c. 6.  that this Epistle of S. Paul was rejected, because that in writing to the Hebrews he made use of such Testimonies of the Holy Scriptures as were not found in their Copies. This evidently proves that there were some Churches in those times in which the Epistle to the Hebrews was not acknowledged as Canonical; 
Hier. ib.  this can only be understood of the Western Churches, since he grants that it was universally approved in all those of the East. He declares moreover, in his Letter to Dardanus, 
(l) Quòd si Epistolam ad Hebraeos Latinorum consuetudo non recipit, inter Scripturas Canonicas, nec Graecorum quidem Ecclesiae Apocalypsim Joannis eâdem libertate suscipiunt, & tamen nos utramque suscipimus, nequaquam hujus temporis consuetudinem, sed veterum scriptorum auctoritatem sequentes, qui plerumque utriusque abutuntur testimoniis, non ut interdùm de apocryphis facere solent, sed quasi canonicis & ecclesiasticis. Hier. Epist. ad Dard.  that without having regard to the Custom of his Time, he received the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse as Canonical Books, though the Latins did not allow the first, nor the Grecians the second. He prefers in this place the Authority of the Ancients who had cited these two Works as Canonical, before the practice of his time. It cannot be said then, with Cardinal Baronius, that S. Jerom, when he affirms that in his time the Epistle to the Hebrews was not commonly received amongst the Latins, had only respect to the Testimony of Cajus, and that he hath done nothing but transcribed the Words of Eusebius; for he speaks plainly of the Custom of his time.  
But it may be objected, that S. Hilary, Optatus, S. Ambrose, S. Augustin, and some other Fathers who lived before S. Jerom, or were contemporary with him, have not doubted that this Epistle was not only Canonical and Divine, but they have likewise believed that it was S. Paul's; how then could it come to pass that this Father should avouch that it was not acknowledged in his time amongst the Latins? It is true, that these Fathers who were Latins, and some of whom lived at the same time with S. Jerom, have all ascribed the Epistle directed to the Hebrews to S. Paul, which he doth also himself in divers Passages of his Works: however, I will not conclude from thence with Baronius, that this learned Man hath not sufficiently considered the Practice of his Church, 
(m) Haec igitur oùm ex Eusebio Hieronymus exsoripserit, majorem illi quàm par erat sidem tribuit, dùm putavit Latinos dictam Epistolam non recipere. Baron. ann. ch. 60. n. 52.  and that he hath too easily given credit to the Testimony of Eusebius; but I will say that a difference ought to be put between the Custom of Churches, and the Attestation of particular Writers. When S. Jerom hath written that in his time the Epistle to the Hebrews was not allowed among the Latins, he hath declared the Practice of many Churches of the West who did not read it in their public Assemblies: this doth not hinder but that the Fathers of those times might esteem it as Canonical, and also as S. Paul's. It would be an easy matter by this means to reconcile S. Jerom with some other Latin Fathers.  
That which confirms the distinction that I have now made between the Custom of Churches and that of private Writers, is this, that we find some very ancient Greek Manuscripts of the Epistles of S. Paul with the old Latin Version annexed to them, in which the Epistle to the Hebrews hath been separated on purpose from the body of the Epistles. It seems to me that there can be no other reason given of this Separation but this, that the Latins who have transcribed these Copies (as I shall prove hereafter) did not read this Epistle in their Churches: furthermore, it may be observed, that all the ancient Latin Authors have not attributed the Epistle to the Hebrews to S. Paul; for besides that Tertullian doth not refer to it but under the name of S. Barnabas, there is no probability that it was received as Canonical in the Church of S. Cyprian, since he never makes use of its Authority in all his Works. If we should say with Baronius, that this holy Bishop hath followed Tertullian in this, whom he read always, and called his Master, this would not resolve the difficulty: I doubt not but if the Epistle to the Hebrews had been publicly read at that time in his Church, as being S. Paul's, he would have quoted it as well as the others.  
As for the Reasons that are alleged against this Epistle, they are not of that weight as to make void the Testimonies of so great a number of Authors who have attributed it to S. Paul First, 
Hieron. Comm. in Is. l. 2. c. 6.  The Objection proposed by S. Jerom in his Commentaries on Isaiah, that is taken from the Passages of the old Testament, which the Author of this Epistle hath not cited from the Hebrew Text, but from the Greek Version of the Seventy, is of no force at all: he should have first made it appear that it was originally written in Hebrew, which cannot be easily proved; and though it were true, yet might it be always said, as of the Gospel of S. Matthew, that the Greek Translator hath inserted into his Version the Passages of the Old Testament according to the Septuagint, which was read at that time by the most part of the Jews.  
If we follow the Opinion of Origen who was well versed in the Criticism of the Sacred Books, this Epistle hath been composed in Greek by one of the Scribes or Disciples of S. Paul, who hath only committed to Writing that which he learned from his Master. This may serve to answer another Objection that is ordinarily offered against this Epistle, by reason of the diversity of Style, which is pretended to be very different from that of the other Epistles of S. Paul Theophylact, who hath taken notice of this, declares 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theoph. Comm. in c. 1. Epist. ad Hebr.  that S. Paul hath written it in Hebrew, and that it was afterwards translated into Greek by S. Luke, as some think, or by S. Clement, which he judgeth most probable, because of the resemblance of the Style.  
It is objected in the third place, that if this Epistle were S. Paul's, he would have set his Name at the head of it, as he hath done in his other Epistles. 
Theodor. Praef. Com. in Epist. ad Hebr.  Theodoret, who hath related this Objection from the Arians, answers, that there is a great deal of difference between this Letter, and the others that bear the Name of this Apostle: he hath prefixed his Name (according to his Opinion) at the beginning of those that were written to the Gentiles, because he was their Apostle; whereas in writing to the Jews, whose Apostle he was not, it was not requisite for him to do the like. The Arians might have seen this Answer in the Works of Clemens Alexandrinus who lived before the appearing of their Heresy, as also another that he gives in the same place; but it is grounded as the former, only on a Conjecture: he saith 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Alex. in Hypotyp. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 6. c. 14.  that it was a piece of Wisdom in S. Paul not to set his Name at the head of an Epistle that he wrote to a sort of People that were possessed with a prejudice against him; and that he did very prudently in concealing his Name, that he might not hinder them from reading it.  
There is a fourth Reason that appears to be much stronger than the preceding, against the ascribing the Epistle to the Hebrews to S. Paul 
Epist. ad Heb. c. 6. v. 4, 5, 6.  It seems as if the Author designed absolutely to condemn all Repentance after Baptism; for he saith; Chap. 6. that it is impossible that those that have been once enlightened, that is to say, baptised, and have fallen away after this, should be renewed by Repentance; this is manifestly contrary to the Doctrine of the New Testament, and to the Practice of the Church. There is a great deal of probability, that this was that which obliged some Latin Churches not to read this Epistle publicly in their Assemblies, especially since the Novatians had made use of it to support their Schism. 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. Comm. in c. 6. Epist. ad Hebr.  The Novatians (saith Theodoret) used these Words to oppose the Truth. I have found an Answer to this Objection in an ancient Latin Translation that hath been made before the time of S. Jerom; for whereas in the present vulgar, the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated impossibile, it is in this ancient Version difficile; and that which deserves further to be observed, is that it ordinarily follows the words of the Greek Text; but in this place it is rather according to the Sense, than the strictness of the Letter. This makes it evident that in those times the Latins found this expression somewhat harsh, and contrary to the Judgement of the Church; and this partly induced Luther to deny that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by S. Paul, or any other of the Apostles.  
Erasmus hath affirmed in his Notes on this Epistle, that S. Ambrose, 
Erasm. Not. in Epist. ad Hebr.  who hath written Commentaries on the Epistles of S. Paul, hath made none upon this, because it was received but very lately in the Roman Church. He adds, that the Grecians have already embraced it, because it was contrary to the Arians, who rejected it. But he is mistaken in attributing Commentaries to S. Ambrose that are not his, and which the most judicious Critics believe to be made by S. Hilary, Deacon of Rome: neither is it true that it hath been more approved by the Grecians, since it was exploded by the Arians; for Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived before Arius, hath avouched that it was S. Paul's. Besides they that have disputed against the Arians, have thereupon opposed to them the universal Consent of the Ecclesiastical Writers before the appearing of their Heresy.  
The same Erasmus offended the greatest part of the Divines, especially those of the Faculty of Paris, by these two Propositions. 
(q) De Epistolae ad Hebraeos auctore semper est dubitatum; &, ut ipse ingenuè fatear, adhuc dubito. Erasm. Propos.  It hath been always doubted of the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews: and to say the truth, I do still doubt thereof. This so exasperated the Reverend Doctors of Paris, that they censured the aforesaid Propositions after this manner. 
(r) He duae propositiones arroganter & schismaticè asseruntur, contra usum & determinationem Ecclesiae in multis conciliis Nicaeno, Laodicensi, Carthaginensi tertio, cui adfuit Augustinus, & in Concilio 70. Episcoporum praeside Gelasio. Cens. Facult. Theol. Paris. tit. de Auctor. libr Novi Test.  These two Propositions are insolent and schismatical against the Practice and Decrees of the Church in the Councils of Nice, Laodicea, the third of Carthage, in which S. Augustin assisted, and in a Council of seventy Bishops wherein Pope Gelasius presided. These Divines added to this the Testimonies of S. Denis, whom they called the Disciple of S. Paul, of S. Clement, Innocent I. S Gregory Nazianzen and of some other Fathers. From whence they conclude 
(s) Nec verum est semper dubitatum esse de auctore hujus Epistolae ad Hebraeos, cùm scribat Origenes quòd ante tempora suaomnes antiqui & majores eam ut Pauli Apostoli suscipiebant. Cens. Facult. Theol. Paris. ibid.  that it is not true that it hath been always doubted of the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, since Origen avoucheth that all the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers that have lived before him, have received it as S. Paul's.  
Moreover these same Divines opposed to Erasmus the words of S. Peter, 
2 Pet. 3.15.  that are at the end of his second Canonical Epistle directed to the Hebrews, wherein he saith expressly, that his beloved Brother Paul had also written unto them; they do not doubt but S. Peter designed in this place to hint at the Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews. Erasmus in his answer to these Doctors of Paris, 
Erasm. Declar. ad Theol. Paris.  is content to say that all these Councils do not speak of the Author of this Epistle, but only of its Authority; that this Title hath been added to it to denote the Epistle, and that it is not denied that many have cited it under the name of S. Paul  
Whereas this Answer is is too general, and doth not fully satisfy the Authority of these Councils that attribute the Epistle to the Hebrews to S. Paul, 
Guill Est. praef. Com. in Epist. ad Hebr.  I shall produce what Estius a Learned Doctor of the Faculty of Douai hath judiciously remarked on all these difficulties. This Divine after he hath treated of the Question concerning the Author of this Epistle, adds this other, viz. whether it be a point of Faith to believe that S. Paul is the Author, insomuch that the contrary opinion is to be accounted Heretical, as Catharinus, Sixtus Senensis, Alfonsus and some other modern Writers have averred, being supported by the authority of some Councils, and by the practice of the whole Church that reads it in her Offices under the name of S. Paul?  
Estius, notwithstanding all these Authorities, doth not judge it to be a matter of Faith. This he proves by the positive words of divers Fathers, and among others of S. Jerom and S. Augustin. We have already seen what the first hath thought thereupon. And as for S. Augustin, he saith expressly in discoursing of this Epistle, 
(t) Epistola quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos, quamplures Apostoli Pauli esse dicunt, qudam verò negant, etc. Aug. lib. 16. de Civ. Dei 2.22.  that many believe it to be S. Paul's, and that others deny it to be his. Now it is certain that this Father speaks in this place of Orthodox Authors. As for what concerns the Councils, the same Estius answers, that some of those have been holden before the time of these two Fathers, and that consequently nothing can be concluded from them.  
He insists further, that nothing can be inferred from the others, 
(v) Neque enim Patribus horum Conciliorum propositum erat definire cujus ea Epistela sit auctoris, sed quòd unà cum caeteris Pauli Epistolis, quibus receptissimo Ecclesiae more eam annumerant, inter Divinas Scripturas sit habenda. Est praef. Comment in Epist. ad Hebr.  because the design of the Bishops that were there assembled, was not to determine who hath been the Author of this Epistle, but only to put it in the number of the Canonical Scriputures with the other Letters of S. Paul Then he justifies by these same Councils, and he proves it also by these words of the Council of Carthage, Pauli Epistolae tredecim, ad Hebraeos una. This Council hath (as he thought) separately mentioned this that is directed to the Hebrews, because they were not so well assured, as of the others, that it was S. Paul's, he adds 
(x) Verùm sciebat Augustinus, non omnia quae quoquo modo dicuntur in Conciliis definitiuè dici. Est. ibid.  that S. Augustin, who had a Veneration for this Council, would not have doubted of the Author of this Epistle, if he were persuaded that this had been therein defined. This Father (saith he) knew well that all things that are said or disputed in Councils are not Articles of Faith; and he proves it by some Examples. But after all, Estius 
(y) Censeo quidem cum Theologicâ Facultate Parisiensi, cum Melchiore Canon, temerarium esse si quis Epistolam ad Hebraeos negaret esse Pauli Apostoli; sed haereticum ob id solum pronunciare non ausim. Est. ibid.  concludes with the Divines of Paris and Melchior Canus, that it would be a piece of rashness to maintain that S. Paul is not the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Nevertheless he durst not pronounce the opinion of those to be Heretical, who deny that it was written by this Apostle; and in this he appears very judicious, for indeed there is no matter of Heresy in it. Furthermore I have enlarged a little on this Remark of Estius, because it clears every thing that hath respect to the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and teacheth the Divines at the same time not to run too fast in point of Heresy.  
The Divines of Paris do not only condemn Erasmus as being too rash, but they add also in their Censure touching the Authors of every Book of the New Testament, 
(z) Jam non est fas Christiano de illis dubitare. Cens. Fac. Theol. Paris.  that it is no longer lawful for any Christian to doubt of them. On this account every man that is not fully satisfied that S. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, is a bad Christian, according to the determination of the Faculty of Divinity at Paris; nevertheless he is not an Heretic. Erasmus instead of replying punctually to these Learned Doctors, elndes their Decrees by general Answers. He saith that he doth not believe 
(a) Quidquid receptum est usu Ecclesiastico, non protinùs obligat noi ad credendum tanquam articulum fidei. Erasm. Declar. ad Theol. Paris.  that every thing that is received by an Ecclesiastical Custom, becomes immediately an Article of Faith. However he shows his submission to the Decrees of the Church, when he adds in this same place, that if he follows his Reason, 
(b) Juxta sensum humanum nec credo Epistolam ad Hebraeos esse Pauli aut Lucae, nec secundam Petri esse Petri, nec Apocalypsin esse Joannis Apostoli qui scripsit Evangelium-solus ille scrupulus habet animum meum, an Ecclesia receperit titulos, ut non solùm velit haberi pro indubitatis quae in his libris scripta sunt, verùm pariter exigat ut pro indubitato habeamus ab his auctoribus esse profecta quorum titulos gerunt. Id si est, damno ac rejicio dubitationem meam-plus apud me valet expressum Ecclesiae judicium, quàm ullae rationes humanae. Erasm. Declar. ad Theol. Paris.  he cannot judge that the Epistle to the Hebrews is S. Paul's, nor S. Luke's; neither that the second under the name of S. Peter, was written by this Apostle; nor that the Revelation doth belong to the Apostle S. John: that all his scruple is to know, whether the Church hath so authorised the Titles of holy Writ, that she hath decreed, not only that that which is contained in these Books is most true, but also that those persons to whom they are attributed are certainly the Authors of them. If this be so (saith Erasmus) I condemn my Reasons of doubting; for I prefer the express Judgement of the Church, before any human Reasons whatsoever.  
Upon the whole matter, all this Difficulty may be reduced to this, to know whether the Church in pronouncing the Books of the Old and New Testament to be Canonical and Divine, hath declared at the same time that they were written by the Authors whose Names they bear. This is necessary to be observed here, that it may be applied to the other Books of the New Testament, of which we shall treat in the Sequel of this Work.  
It hath been often objected to the Lutherans, that their Patriarch hath rejected this Epistle, who believed not that it was written by any Apostle. But besides their reading it in their Germane Bibles with the other Epistles of S. Paul, they answer that it might be permitted to their Master to raise this Doubt after so many ancient Authors: and that he hath nevertheless acknowledged 
(c) Esse tamen pulcherrimam & insignem Epistolam à discipulo quodam Apostolorum scriptam. Raith. Vind. Vers. Germ. Luth. th'. 22.  that it was most excellent, 
Calv. argum de ses Comm. sur l' Epist. aux Hebr.  and composed by some Disciple of the Apostles. Calvin hath presixed to his Commentaries on this Epistle, a Discourse where he saith, For my part I cannot believe that S. Paul is the Author of it.  
One would think that the Socinians should expunge this Epistle to the Hebrews out of the Catalogue of the Canonical Books, in imitation of the Arians. In the mean time though they are persuaded that there is no certainty as to the Author of it, yet they do not forbear to receive it with the other Epistles of S. Paul Therefore Socinus himself after he hath produced some Arguments 
(d) Videtur mihi ipsa in universum scribendi ratio auctoris illius Epistolae admodum diversa ab eâ quâ quam secutus est Paulus, quamvis aeque divina. Soc. de Auctor. Script. Sac. n. 2.  that give occasion to a scruple whether it appertains to this Apostle, adds that however it is no less Divine; he confesseth that it is not without reason that it is doubted whether the person to whom it is commonly attributed be certainly the Author: but he saith at the same time, that though the name of an Author of a Book be not known, it doth not follow that this Book is of no authority, or even of less than if it were known. Enjedinus a subtle Unitarian insists also at large on this Subject when he examines some Passages of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
Georg. Enjed. locor. Epist. ad Hebr.  he relates all that he hath read thereupon in the Writings of Erasmus and Beza, and of some other Commentators on the holy Scriptures. But after he hath too nicely alleged such Reasons as not only take away this Epistle from S. Paul, but also render it suspected, he doth not fail to reckon it in the number of the Canonical Books.  
It is well worth the observing, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not so favourable to the Orthodox against the Arians, but that they have likewise made use of it against the Catholics to authorise their Novelties. This may be seen in the Works of S. Epiphanius, who takes notice that although these Heretics did not acknowledge it as an Apostolical Writing, yet they did not forbear to oppose the Faith of the Church with these words of this same Epistle, chap. 3. v. 1, 2. 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epist. ad Hebr. cap. 3. v. 2.  Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus Christ; who was faithful to him that appointed him 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 69. n. 37.  From these words, who was faithful to him that appointed [or made] him, they concluded that Jesus Christ was a Creature.  
As for the Language in which the Epistle to the Hebrews was composed, the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers have all judged that the Greek Text which we now have is too pure and elegant to be S. Paul's; but it cannot be necessarily concluded from thence that it was at first written in Hebrew or Chaldaic by this holy Apostle. I am rather inclined to believe with Origen, that it hath been compiled by one of the amanuensis or Interpreters of S. Paul, to whom all Antiquity hath ascribed it, by reason of the Grandeur of the Conceptions in which there is a certain Art that could proceed only from a Learned Jew of the Sect of the Pharisees. The Jews themselves at this day who have any knowledge of their ancient Authors, do freely confess that there is something in it that is great and sublime. If we knew precisely to what sort of Jews it was directed, we might more easily judge of the Language in which it was written. But since this question is but of little moment, and we can have nothing but Conjectures thereupon, I shall not insist any longer on it.   

CHAP. XVII. Of the Catholic or Canonical Epistles in general, and in particular.  
THE Grecians have called Catholic or universal the seven Epistles which we read under this Name; because for the most part they were not written to particular Churches, as those of S. Paul The Title of Canonical seems to have been affected, especially in the Western Churches, because it hath been doubted whether some of them ought to be put in the number of the Canonical Books. Cardinal Cajetan hath thought that the Epistle of S. James, which is directed to the twelve Tribes of the Jews in general, 
(a) Magis libri quàm epistolae titulum merebatur: scripta est enim non ut deferretur duodecim Tribubus dispersis, cùm hoc esset impossibile, sed ad instruendum eos. Cajet. Comm. in c. 1. Epist. Jac.  deserves rather the Name of a Book than of an Epistle, because it was not written to be carried to the Jews that were dispersed amongst divers Nations; but he is mistaken in this, for we writ as well to Communities, even those that are separated in different Countries, as to particular Assemblies. And these Letters are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Catholic, or Circulary.  
The Author of the Preface at the beginning of the Canonical Epistles, which is attributed to S. Jerom, and is found in the most part of Manuscript Copies, and in the first Latin Editions of the Bible, hath observed 
(b) Non ita est ordo apud Graecos qui integrè sapiunt, fidemque rectam sectantur, Epistolarum septem quae Canonicae nuncupantur, sicut in Latinis codicibus invenitur, ut quòd Petrus primus in ordine Apostolorum, prinae sint etiam ejus Epistolae in ordine caeterarum. Hieron. Prologue. in VII. Epist. Can.  that the Order of these Epistles in his time was not the same in the Latin, as in the Greek Copies of the Orthodox. The Epistle of S. James was the first in the Greek; whereas the Latins had placed that of S. Peter at the head of all the rest, having had regard to the Primacy of his Apostleship. This Author declares that he hath reestablished their ancient Order, putting that of St. James at the beginning, and afterwards the two of St. Peter, the three of St. John, and at last that of St. Judas: this indeed is the Order that is found in the Greek Manuscript Copies, and even in the ancient Latin Bibles written about seven or eight hundred years ago. St. Jerom also hath followed this method in his great Prologue called Galeatus.  
The Syrians have preserved this same Order in their Version, as appears from the Edition of Widmanstadius, nevertheless they have not in their ancient Copies (according to which this Edition of Widmanstadius was regulated) the second Epistle of St. Peter, nor the second and third of St. John, nor that of St. Judas. These Epistles were not apparently in the Greek Copies which the Syrians have Translated into their Language: However it seems as if there were nothing very certain concerning the Order of these Epistles; for in the last of the Canons that bear the name of the Apostles, those of St. Peter are set down first, and afterwards those of St. John, and that of St. James stands in the third rank: the Bishops assembled at Trent have also named them after this same manner, conformably to the Council of Florence. Calvin himself hath set the Epistle of St. Peter at the head of all, in his Commentaries on the Canonical Epistles. But we ought to prefer the Order that is observed in the Greek and Latin Copies, and also in the Oriental Versions.  
As for what concerns the Authority of these Epistles, very great difficulties arise from thence; for as we have already seen, the Syrians have not inserted some of them in their Version of the New Testament, which they would have done if they had been read in the Eastern Churches, when they Interpreted them out of the Greek into Syriack, nevertheless they have since Translated them, and they have been likewise Printed; therefore they are also found in the Arabic Versions of the New Testament. I shall have occasion to examine this matter more exactly in the second Book of this Work, wherein I shall Treat of Versions in particular; but since my design at present is only to speak of the Text, let us see what the Ancients have thought thereupon.  
Eusebius, who avoucheth 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 23.  that the Epistle of St. James, the Brother of our Saviour, with the other Canonical Epistles, was publicly read in his time in the most part of the Churches, observes nevertheless that not many of the ancient Writers have made mention of it, as neither of that of St. Judas; he would say, without doubt, that there are few of the ancient Doctors of the Church that have cited it as Canonical; therefore in another part of his History where he produceth a Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 25.  he reckons the same Epistle of St. James, that of St. Judas, the second of St. Peter, and the second and third of St. John among the Scriptures that were not generally received as Canonical by all the Churches, though several ancient Fathers had spoken of them.  
St. Jerom, who usually transcribes Eusebius, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, expresseth himself almost after the same manner as this Historian doth, on the Epistle of St. James; for after he hath said 
(e) Jacobus qui appellatur frater Domini-unam tantùm scripsit Epistolam, quae de septem Catholicis est, quae & ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur, licet paulatim tempore procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem. Hieron. de Script. Eccl. in Jac.  that St. James the first Bishop of Jerusalem hath written but one Letter, which is in the number of the seven Canonical Epistles, he adds (to show that all People were not agreed that it was certainly his) that it was said that it hath been written by another in his name, though it hath obtained Authority in process of time.  
Cardinal Cajetan makes use of this same Passage of S. Jerom, 
Cajet. Comm. in c. 1. Epist. Jac.  to prove that it is not absolutely certain that this Epistle was composed by S. James the Brother of our Lord; Non usquequaque certum an Epistola haec sit Jacobi fratris Domini. He hath also entitled his Annotations on this Epistle, Commentaries on the Epistle that bears the Name of S. James; In eam quae Divo Jacobo inscribitur Commentarii: in which point he is more scrupulous than S. Jerom, who hath made no difficulty to quote it under this Title. Indeed this Father simply relates in this place the various Opinions of several Persons concerning the Author of this Epistle: but forasmuch as it was read in the Churches under the Name of S. James, and it hath been read therein ever since that time, this Cardinal discovers too nice a curiosity, as well as when he adds in this very place, that the manner of saluting that is at the beginning of this 
(f) Salutatio hîc posita tam pura est, ut nulli salutationi cujuscunque alterius Apostolicae Epistolae conformis sit, nam nihil Dei, nihil Jesu Christi, nihil gratiae, nihilve pacis sonat, sed profano more salutem, nec ipse seipsum nominat Apostolum, sed tantùm servum Jesu Christi. Cajet. Comm. in c. 1. Epist. Jac.  Epistle contains nothing Apostolical; on the contrary, that it is altogether profane, no mention being therein made of Jesus Christ, nor of Grace, nor Peace; and he doth not call himself (saith he) an Apostle, but a Servant of Jesus Christ.  
Sixtus Senensis hath rehearsed these Words amongst the Objections that Luther hath made against this Epistle, and perhaps Cajetan hath taken the best part of these Expressions from him: but this Objection is so weak, and even so irrational, that the Lutherans have had no regard to it, no more than to divers other Reasons that their Master hath alleged against the Epistle of S. James; for they receive it at this day after the same manner as the Catholics: nevertheless, they are not to be excused in this respect, because they still retain in some Editions of their Germane Bible, the Prefaces of Luther that are at the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and of that of S. James, after they have admitted them as Canonical; for they disown by these Prefaces what they authorise in the body of their Bible.  
I could have wished that Melchior Canus, 
Melch. Can. de loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 11.  and some other learned Divines, had not made use of the Authority of certain Decretal Epistles falsely attributed to the first Popes, to show that ever since the Primitive Times of Christianity it hath been believed that this Epistle did certainly belong to S. James: there is no need of this sort of Proofs; for though the Ancients have been divided as to this Point, it is enough that the succeeding Ages, after a due reflection on this matter, have found in Antiquity certain Acts sufficient to justify the placing this Epistle of S. James in the rank of the Canonical Books of the New Testament, and that all the Churches of the World do at 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 Germane 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 enlightened, 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 quàm fidei. Andr. Altham. apud Grot. de discuss. Rivet. Apolog. p. 722.  that he cannot defend it, because the Author allegeth 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 judgement 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. Judas, 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 Catholic 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 rely 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 Catholic Epistle of S. James; and in others, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Catholic 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 Catholic Epistle of the Apostle James. But Robert Stephen, in his curious Greek Edition of the New Testament in folio, hath simply put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Catholic 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 surnamed 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 in his Book: he was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles immediately after the Passion of our Lord, and hath written one Letter only, which is in the number of the seven Catholic Epistles. He doth not nominate this James as an Apostle, but only as the Brother of our Lord, which is the sole Qualification that is given him by the Arabic Interpreter published by Erpenius, in the Title of this Epistle.  
S. Jerom hath said nothing in this place but what is agreeable to the judgement of Hegisippus a grave Author, who lived not long after the times of the Apostles. This great man hath observed, that divers Persons at that time bore the Name of James, and saith of this James (of whom we now discourse) 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hegesipp. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 2. c. 23.  that being the Brother of our Lord, he took the Government of the Church of Jerusalem jointly with the Apostles; that the Name of Just was also given to him with one common Consent, which was continued ever since the time of our Saviour Jesus Christ: Hegisippus then did not believe that he was an Apostle, forasmuch as he saith that he took upon him the care of the Church of Jerusalem with the Apostles; and he distinguisheth him from others that went under the Name of James, only by the Surname of Just.  
In the mean time Baronius, and after him Estius, declare that this third James, distinguished from the two others, who was simply Bishop of Jerusalem without being an Apostle, is a chimerical James that never was. But since this Cardinal grounds his Opinion on very weak Reasons, and contradicts Antiquity in this point, no regard ought to be had to what he affirms against the Judgement of Hegisippus and S. Jerom, and even against the Testimony of the Author of this Epistle, who would not have failed to have styled himself an Apostle of Jesus Christ in the beginning of his Letter, if he had been really so.  
This may serve at the same time for a sufficient Answer to Cardinal Cajetan, 
Cajet. Comm. in c. 1. Epist. Jac.  who hath objected, to derogate from the Authority of this Epistle, that this James hath not taken upon him the Name of an Apostle, but only that of a Servant; nec ipse seipsum nominat Apostolum, sed tantùm servum. As to what this Cardinal saith in the same place, that this Writer hath made no mention of God, nor of Jesus Christ, the contrary is apparent from the first Words of this Epistle, in which he attributes to himself no other Quality than that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Jac. 1. v. 1.  James a Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. He could not have chosen a Title that might better express his Qualifications, especially writing to the Jews, who were already accustomed by the reading of the Old Testament to the Phrase of the Servant of God: and when he adds these other Words, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, he lets them know that he is one of the Ministers of the new Law that had been promulged by the Messiah.  
Lastly we may observe, that in the Title of the Syriack Version these Words are read, The Epistle of James an Apostle; it is no otherwise in the  Version: but in the general Title of the three Catholic Epistles which the Syrians have in their ancient Copies, we read that these three Epistles were written by James, Peter, and John, who were the Witnesses of the Transfiguration of our Lord. This would prove that this James was the Son of Zebedee; but it is a manifest error of the Syrians, who have inserted this Inscription into their Copy.  
As for what relates to the Epistles of S. Peter and S. John, 
Euseb. Hist. Ecel. l. 3. c. 25.  Eusebius puts the first Epistles of these two Apostles in the number of the Canonical Books of the New Testament, that have been received with the common Consent of all the Churches: but he observes at the same time, that there hath been some doubt concerning the Second of S. Peter, as well as of the Second and Third of S. John. S. Jerom adds, 
(l) Simon Petrus— scripsit duas Epistolas quae Catholicae nominantur, quarum secunda à plerisque negatur propter stili cum priore dissonantiam. Hier. de Script. Eccl. in Sim. Pet.  that that which hath caused the Ancients to doubt of the second Epistle of S. Peter, is the difference of the Style of these two Epistles.  
We cannot rely on the Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, who reckons in the number of the Canonical Writings of the New Testament all the Epistles that we call Catholic; for he placeth amongst them, at the same time, the Epistle of Barnabas, 
Clem. Al. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 14.  and the Book entitled, The Revelation of Peter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This Father, who was an extraordinary learned man, hath not been very exact in distinguishing the Books of the Holy Scriptures that were generally received by all the Churches, from the others that are either dubious or Apocryphal: he makes use of all equally on several occasions; following in this the method of the ancient Rhetoricians, who took no care to be very punctual in their Argumentations.  
Origen, his Disciple, durst not altogether venture to rank the above said Epistles amongst the Canonical Scriptures: and whereas they had not obtained in his time the general Approbation of all the Christian World, he explains himself thereupon with a great deal of Precaution. 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. apud Eus. Hist. Eccles. l. 6. c. 25.  Peter, (saith he) on whom the Church of Jesus Christ is built, hath left an Epistle which is generally received, and a second if you please; for it is doubted. 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Orig. ibid.  John hath likewise left a very short Epistle, and a second and third if you please; but all people are not agreed that these two last are genuine. This proves that the Church hath never doubted of the Authority of the first Epistles of these two Apostles, and that they were certainly composed by them whose Names they bear; moreover, that although some have doubted of the others, yet this Scruple was not universal, since Origen agrees that they were received as really belonging to these Apostles to whom they were attributed.  
The Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures makes no question thereof; he avoucheth, 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athan. in Syn. Scrip. S.  that the second Epistle of S. Peter was written by this Apostle as well as the first, and that he sent it to those that had then embraced Christianity.  
Cajetan, who hath started so many Difficulties against the Epistle to the Hebrews, and against that of S. James, is much more moderate with respect to this: he insists, that the Argument that is taken from the difference of the Style of the two Epistles of S. Peter, is not a sufficient proof to show that the second is not his; 
(p) Haec ratio non minus infert primam quàm secundam non esse Petri: nam tuntum dissonas prima à secundâ quantum secunda à primâ. Gajet. praef. Comm. in post. Epist. Pet  because this Reason might as well be applied to the first as to the second: but this Cardinal hath not considered that it was never doubted in any Church whether the first Epistle of S. Peter was certainly written by him; and therefore from this Act which is unquestionable we should judge of the other that hath not the same certainty. If the diversity of Style only be a sure Touchstone whereby the verity of a Piece may be tried, the reason of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers taken from the difference of the Style, and related by S. Jerom, is a good proof to show that the second Epistle ascribed to S. Peter is not this Apostles. That which Cajetan adds in the same place, that a diversity of Style doth not necessarily infer a diversity of Authors, is on much better grounds. It is certain, that St. Jerom, who acknowledged this diversity of Style, hath attributed it to the different Interpreters of St. Peter: he supposeth that St. Peter did not write his Epistles in Greek himself, but that he had Interpreters with him who understood that Language: mention is also made in the New Testament of those that exercised the Function of Interpreters in those Primitive and Apostolical Times.  
According to this Opinion, which is maintained by the ancient Doctors of the Church, St. Jerom saith, 
(q) Ex quò intelligimus pro necessitate rerum diversis eum usum interpretibus. Hioron. Epist. ad Hedib. qu. 11.  that St. Peter hath made use of divers Interpreters as different Occasions required. Baronius hath concluded from thence, 
Bar. ann. c 45. n. 28.  that this Father believed that Saint Mark had translated the first Epistle of Saint Peter out of Hebrew into Greek; but Saint Jerom only declares in this place, that the Apostles who did not very well express themselves in the Greek Tongue, emploved Scribes or Interpreters.  
Calvin, after he hath a little enlarged on this diversity of Style, which seems to denote a difference between the Authors of these two Epistles, doth not forbear to acknowledge the second as Divine and Canonical. 
Calv. arg. de ses Com. sur la 2. Epist. de S. Pier.  However it be (saith he) since in all the parts of the Epistle the Majesty of the Spirit of Christ is clearly manifest, I cannot in conscience reject it altogether, though I do not find therein the true and natural Phrose of Saint Peter. Flaccius Illyricus hath written Notes on this Epistle, without doubting in the least whether it was made by him whose Name it bears.  
Grotius hath chosen rather to attribute it to another Simeon or Simon the Successor of St. James in the Bishopric of Jerusalem, than to Simon Peter: He believes that the ancient Title of this Epistle hath been changed, and that it was not Simon Peter a Servant and an Apostle of Jesus Christ, as it is read at this day; but simply Simeon a Servant of Jesus Christ: there would be some likelihood of this, if it were grounded on any Manuscript Copies or ancient Acts; but he only confirms his Opinion by a Critical Argument that is not concluding: he urgeth, that this Epistle, at least the third Chapter of it, could not have been written till after the Destruction of Jerusalem, because mention is therein made of the entire ruin of the World, which was impatiently expected by the Christians of those times. Now S. Peter died under Nero. No Christian (saith Grotius) could look for this last Destruction of the World, till after that of the State of the Jews.  
But it doth not follow from thence, that Jerusalem ought to have been then destroyed; for this Persuasion was generally received amongst the Disciples of Jesus Christ, whilst he was yet living: ever since that time they waited with Impatience for his happy Reign, which could not be established (as they thought) but on the ruin of the State of the Jews: therefore when Jesus Christ speaks to them, Chap. xxiv. of S. Matthew, of the ruin of the Temple, he mixeth some things concerning his coming. 
(r) Existimabant Apostoli haec esse conjuncta finem templi & finem mundi. Noluit Christus hunc illis errorem eripere, ne post templi eversionem in longum expectationem porrigentes securi essent. Mald. Comm. in c. 24. Matth. v. 25.  The Apostles (saith Maldonat) thought that the end of the Temple, and the end of the World were necessarily joined together. Jesus Christ would not undeceive them, lest after the destruction of the Temple, seeing their Expectations deferred they might grow negligent and secure.  
S. Peter then might have written this Epistle before the Destruction of Jerusalem, and might have declared to the Faithful in the third Chapter thereof, that Jesus Christ had not delayed the accomplishment of his word, as some amongst them imagined. The Primitive Christians expected with impatience the ruin of the Temple, and thought that the general destruction of the whole World would follow soon after: S. Peter exhorts them in this place to wait patiently, because One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, 
2 Pet. 3. v. 8.  and a thousand years as one day. Therefore the Conjecture of Grotius seems to have no better Foundation than that of Didymus, 
Didym. Comm. in Epist. 2. Pet.  who lived at the beginning of the fourth Century, and hath rejected this Epistle as suppositious, because mention is made (as he thinks) in this same Chap. 3. of I know not what renovation of the world conformably to the Opinion of the Platonic Philosophers. But there is nothing in this whole Chapter that doth not perfectly agree with the Doctrine of the Primitive Christians touching the end of the World.  
It is not necessary to spend much time in insisting on the second and third Epistles of S. John, of which it hath been also doubted in the Primitive Ages of the Church. Papias, 
Pap. apud Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 29.  who lived with the Disciples of the Apostles, distinguisheth two Johns, who have dwelled in Asia, the first of which is our Apostle, and the other was a Priest and Disciple of the Apostles.  
Papias, who was the Disciple of this last John, ascribes to him no other quality than that of a Priest; and this hath caused divers Ecclesiastical Writers to believe, that he was the Author of the second and third Epistles attributed to the Apostle S. John. Indeed he doth not take the name of Apostle, but simply that of Priest or Elder, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Eusebius relying on the Testimony of Papias, 
Euseb. ib.  approves the Opinion of those that believed that there were two persons in Asia that were called by the name of John: this Persuasion was further confirmed, in regard that there was yet seen in his time at Ephesus two Tombs of John. S. Jerom, 
Hieron. de Script. Eccl. in Joann.  who often translates the words of Eusebius out of Greek into Latin, hath also made this same Remark, Reliquae autem duae; (saith he, speaking of these two Epistles of S. John) Joannis Presbyteri asseruntur, cujus hodie alterum sepulchrum apud Ephesum ostenditur. He adds nevertheless that some thought that these two Monuments were of S. John the Evangelist, Nonnulli putant duas memorias ejusdem Joannis Evangelistae esse. He repeats this same History when he makes mention of Papias, and saith 
(s) Hoc autem diximus propter superiorem opinionem, quam à plerisque retulimus traditam, duas posteriores Epistolas Joannis non Apostoli esse, sed Presbyteri. Hieron. de Script. Eccles. in Papiâ.  that he relates it for the sake of a a great number of persons that believed that this second John, to whom the simple name of Priest is given, was the Author of these two Epistles, and not the Apostle.  
However, 
Athan. in Synops.  the Author of the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures attributes these two last Epistles no less to the Apostle S. John than the first. And it seems that the Latin Church that reads it in her Offices under the same Name, hath authorised this Opinion, which is likewise conformable to the Testimony of the most ancient Writers of this Church. Therefore the Name of this Apostle, Beati Joannis Apostoli, is retained in the Latin Title of these three Epistles in the vulgar Edition. In the Syriack Copy of these two last Epistles that have been Printed in the Polyglot Bible of England, the simple Name of John is put; whereas in the first it is read of John the Apostle. This seems to have been done on purpose to distinguish the Authors of these Epistles. In the Arabic Copy published by Erpenius, these three Epistles are ascribed to the Apostle S. John, who is named in the Title of the two first, John the son of Zebedee, and in the Title of the third, John the Apostle.  
Lastly, 
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 25.  there have been raised no lest doubts in the Primitive Ages of the Church, concerning the Epistle of S. Judas, than of the preceding Letters; for this reason Eusebius hath reckoned it in the number of those Books of the New Testament that were not generally received by all the Churches. S. Jerom who hath made the same observation, 
(t) Judas frater Jacobi parvam quae de septem Catholicis est epistolam reliquit: & quia de libro Enoch qui apocryphus est in ea assumit testimonium, à plerisque rejicitur. Tamen auctoritatem vetustate jam & usu meruit, & inter Scripturas Sacras computatur. Hieron. de Script. Eccles. in Judâ.  adds, that that which gave occasion to reject it, was the Apocryphal Book of Enoch, which is cited therein. And that this nevertheless hath not hindered it from being placed in the rank of the Sacred Books, its Antiquity and Use having given it this Authority. In like manner it hath been generally received by all the Churches, as well Eastern as Western. The Unitarians and Protestants also have put it amongst the other Canonical Books of the New Testament.  
Luther hath nevertheless doubted of it, as well as of the Epistle of St. James: but they that follow his Opinion, are so far from rejecting it at present, that they use their utmost endeavours to put a fair Construction on their Master's words. Calvin after he hath acknowledged that the Ancients have differed very much amongst themselves touching this Epistle, 
Calv. argum. de ses Comm. sur l'ep. de saint Judas.  expresseth himself thus; However because the reading of it is very profitable, and it contains nothing but what is agreeable to the purity of the Apostolical Doctrine: and in regard also that it hath been accounted Authentic for a long time amongst all good People, for my part I willingly place it in the number of the other Epistles.  
Cajetan hath inserred from the above cited words of St. Jerom, 
(u) Ex quibus apparet minoris esse aucloritatis hanc Epistolam iis quae sunt certae Scripturae Sacrae. Cajet. Comm. in Epist. Jud.  that this Epistle is of less Authority than these Writings of the Apostles, of the verity of which we have been certainly assured: but this might have been properly said in those ancient times when it was not approved by all the Churches: whereas when this Cardinal wrote, there were none that did not receive it as Divine and Canonical: and therefore it hath no less Authority than the other Sacred Books that are comprehended in the Canon of the Church. 
Grot. Annot. in Epist. Jud.   
Grotius did not believe that this Epistle was written by St. Judas the Apostle, because the Author hath taken upon him only the quality of a Servant of Jesus Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith moreover that 
(x) Si Apostolica fuisset habita haec Epistola, versa fuisset in linguas omnes, & recepta per omnes Ecclesias. Grot. Annot. in Epist. Jud.  if it were certainly esteemed Apostolical, it would have been Translated into all Languages, and received by all the Churches: therefore he judgeth that it belongs to Judas Bishop of Jerusalem, who lived under the Emperor Adrian. But the first words of this Epistle do declare to us that it can come from no other hand than that of the Apostle St. Judas, since he calls himself, Judas the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James. For to say with Grotius, that these words Brother of James, have been afterwards added by the Transcribers that it might be believed that this Judas was certainly an Apostle, is to beg the question; they that would prove that this hath been inserted by the Transcribers ought to produce good Copies of this Epistle, or certain ancient Acts on which we might rely. Any Man that should have a mind absolutely to reject the Epistle of St. Judas, might easily say with as much reason as Grotius, that he that hath forged it, hath put therein the name of Judas the Brother of James. Therefore Arguments that are purely Critical ought never to be opposed against Acts that are ancient and generally received by all the World.  
It is true that the Epistle of St. Judas is less quoted by the ancient Doctors of the Church, than the most part of the other Books of the New Testament, and that it is not found in the ancient Copies of the Syriack Version. But it can be only concluded from thence, that it was not at first received in all the Churches: it might however have been published ever since the Primitive times of the Christian Religion, under the name of St. Judas the Brother of James, and yet not be Translated into all the Languages of the Churches, because it was then doubted in the most part of these Churches, whether it was his whose name it bore, Clemens Alexandrinus hath placed it amongst the other Books of the Holy Scriptures; but as it hath been already observed, that this Father hath inserted in his Catalogue some Pieces that were not Canonical, though they passed under the names of the Apostles; it can only be inferred from thence that at least ever since the time of Clement, this Epistle was attributed to the Apostle St. Judas. When Eusebius makes mention of it in his Ecclesiastical History, he doth not set it in the rank of counterfeit Acts, but of those concerning which some Churches have doubted, nevertheless there are none at this day that do not acknowledge it as Divine and Canonical: It is entitled in the Syriack Copy which hath been Printed, The Letter of Judas the Brother of James: neither hath it any other Title in the Arabic Version published by Erpenius. In the Arabic Printed in the Polyglot Bible of England, is is Entitled The Catholic Epistle of the blessed Judas, the Brother of the Lord.   
The End of the First Part.   

The Second Part will be Published in Five Days.   

A CRITICAL HISTORY Of the TEXT of the New Testament; WHEREIN Is firmly Established the Truth of those Acts on which the Foundation of CHRISTIAN RELIGION is laid.  
PART II.  
By Richard Simon, Priest.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Taylor, MDCLXXXIX.   

A CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE New Testament.  
PART II.  

CHAP. XVIII. A Critical Observation on a Passage in S. John's First Epistle, Chap. v. vers. 7. which is wanting in the most Greek Copies, Eastern Editions, and the most ancient Latin Copies. The Preface to the Canonical Epistles in some Latin Bibles, under the name of S. Jerome, was not penned by that Father. It cannot be proved that S. Cyprian had the Passage of S. John's Epistle in his Copy.  
THE Reflections which many Learned Men have made on that Passage in the First Epistle of S. John, Chap. v. vers. 7. have not discouraged me from examining it afresh, and consulting the most part of the Greek and Latin Manuscripts that I could find about the same. The Greeks at this day, in their Copy entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, read (as the Latin Church) these words 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1 Joann. c. 5. v. 7.  For there are three that bear witness in Heaven, 
1 Joh. c. 5. v. 7.  the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. Yet 'tis hard to find among the Greeks any Manuscript Copies that have that Passage; I speak not only of the Ancients, but also of those of the latter times. Erasmus alleged the Greeks had their Books more correct than the Latin Copies, but he is mistaken, as it shall appear by what follows in this Discourse. 'Tis much more probable, that that Doctrinal Point was formerly written the Margin, by way of Scolium or Note, but afterward inserted in the Text by those who transcribed the Copies. Such were my thoughts when I perused some of the Greek Editions; and there is no less probability, that it was supplied after the same manner in the ancient Latin Copies; which nevertheless happened not till after S. Jerom's time, who is not the Author of that Addition, which Socinus, next to Erasmus, had laid to his charge.  
After the most diligent search in the King's Library, and that of Mr. Colbert, in which there are a great many good Manuscript Volumes, I found no Copy that had that Passage in it, though I read seven of them in the Royal Library, 
Codd. MSS. Bibl. Reg.  six whereof are marked 1885. 2247. 2248. 2870. 2871. 2872. Some of the Manuscripts have Notes; but no Scholiast or Annotator does make mention of that Passage, neither have I found it in five Manuscript Copies belonging to Mr. Colbert's Library, 
Codd. MSS. Bibl. Colb.  which are marked 871. 6123. 4785. 6584. 2844. Yet some of these Manuscripts are only in Paper, and much later than the rest. There is also one in 16, well written, and I believe since the Impression: Yet the Passage in question is not found therein, any more than in the rest of the ancient Copies.  
I could produce yet other Greek Manuscript Copies which I have seen, whose various Readins I observed; but that which most deserves our notice, is that in the Margin of some of the King's and Mr. Colbert's Copies, there are small Notes set over against the said Passage, which in all likelihood have slipped afterwards into the Body of the Text. Take an Example from the King's Copy, marked 2247. over against these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is this Remark, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By which we may perceive that the Author of the said Remark, understood The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, to be signified by the Three Witnesses mentioned by S. John, The Spirit, the Water, and the Blood: And what was formerly written by way of Note, passed afterwards into the Text, as it often falls out. In the same Copy over against these other words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this Note is added, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, One Deity, One God. That Manuscript is about 500 Years old, and there are but very few places therein that have Notes. There is the like Remark in one of the Manuscripts belonging to Mr. Colbert's Library, Numb. 871. For besides these words that are set in the Margin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, One God, One Deity; the Scholiast has also added these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The testimony of God the Father, and of the Holy Ghost.  
This, in my opinion, is the original of the Passage in question, which 'tis very hard to find in the Greek Manuscript Copies, though at this day the read it in their Version. This is much more likely than what Erasmus alleges; that the Greek Copies he had occasion to inspect, were much more correct than the Latin, which obliged that judicious person to omit the forementioned Passage in his first Editions of the New Testament; in which he was not altogether to be blamed, not being obliged to insert in the Impression what he could not find in any of his Manuscripts; He has nevertheless been charged with a design of favouring the Arrian Party by the omission. James Lopes Stunica has mightily accused him for his unlucky rejecting the said Passage in his Edition, 
(b) Sciendum est hoc loco Graecorum codices apertissimè esse corruptos; nostros verò veritatem ipsam ut à primâ origine traducti sunt continere: quod ex Prologo Beati Hieronymi super Epistolas Canonicas manifestè apparet. Jac. Lop. Stun. Annot. in Eras.  supposing that the Greek Copies had been corrupted in that place. But this Spanish Critic, 
We must in this place know, that the Greek Copies are notoriously corrupted, and that ours contain the very truth, as they were translated from the Original.  who had read ancient Manuscripts, does not quote any to justify his own Sentiments: He contents himself with an Appeal he makes to S. Jerome's Preface to the Canonical Epistles, from which he proves that the Passage was extant in the ancient Greek Copies, out of which that Father compiled his ancient Latin Edition.  
Erasmus in his answer to Stunica, does vindicate himself well enough by the authority of those Greek Copies he had; yet he was wrought upon by some other consideration, contrary to the Authority of all his Manuscripts, to insert the Passage of S. John in a new Edition of his New Testament. He declares that what obliged him to make that Change, was his seeing a Greek Copy in England, which he believed was more perfect than any Latin Edition. I shall afterwards show that he is mistaken, in believing that the Greeks reform their Copies of the New Testament to a degree of perfection, above those of the Latins, after their Reunion with the Roman Church.  
If that were so, as that judicious Person does suppose, with what warrant and freedom could he correct his Greek Edition by one single Copy, which as he himself believed, had suffered some alteration. He does disparage his own judgement, by inveighing against S. Jerome, as if that Father had been the Author of the Addition that is found in the Latin Copies, in which there are these words, Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in coelo, Pater, Verbum & Spiritus Sanctus, & high tres unum sunt; i. e. Because there are three who bear witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. 
(c) Ille saepenumerò violentus est parumque sibi pudens, saepè varius parumque sibi constans. Erasm. Apol. adv. Stun.  He on this occasion brings a heavy Charge against him, as being more forward than wise; that is to say, if the matter be referred to Erasmus' judgement, S. Jerome must stand chargeable with Forgery, a bold and presumptuous undertaking to correct the ancient Latin Edition according to his own fancy, without the Authority of good Copies.  
Faustus Socinus knew very well what advantage to make of this Answer of Erasmus; but withal adds, that 
(d) Hieronymus, ut is qui, ut rectè de eo Erasmus alicubi scribit, non satis prudenter saepe ad victoriam & ad causae suae defensionem & favorem multa trahebat, nactus fortè exemplar aliquod, aut etiam plura exemplaria in quibus particula ista adjecta fuerat, ut fraus animadverti non posset, adversus fidem aliorum omnium exemplarium tam Latinorum quàm Graecorum lectionem particulae, istius tanquam germanam defendere & promovere coepit, conquerens publicè eam culpâ & fraud hereticorum abrasam à vulgatis codicibus fuisse. Soc. Comm. in 1 Joann. c. 5. v. 7.  S. Jerome might have had one or more Copies, in which this Addition might be so managed, as to make it a hard matter to discover the Fraud, and that this is the reason obliged him to maintain that additional Passage against the Authority of so many Copies. In this manner that Unitary argues, according to his custom, with more subtlety than solidity. But Reason alone is not sufficient to judge of such matters; for besides that, 'tis necessary to be well acquainted with, and to examine strictly such Writings as are on public record, and may give light in this affair. If Erasmus, who had read many Greek and Latin Copies of the New Testament, and frequently consulted S. Jerome's Manuscripts, had applied himself to a strict examination of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles, which he thinks was written by that Father, he would rather have been inclined to reject that Preface, as supposititious, than to charge S. Jerome with Forgery.  
'Tis not amiss to set down in this place some part of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles, 
Hieron. Prologue. in VII. E. pist. Can. ex edit. Paris. ann. 1523.  that is thought to be S. Jerome's, which is only found in the first Latin Editions of the Bible with this Title. Incipit prologus beati Hieronymi presbyteri in septem Epistolas Canonicas. i e. The beginning of the Preface of S. Jerome the Presbyter, to the seven Canonical Epistles.  
The Author complains, that Interpreters have not faithfully translated those Epistles, 
(e) Illo praecipuè loco ubi de unitate Trinitatis in primâ Joannis Epistolâ positum legimus. In quâ etiam ab infidelibus translatoribus multum erratum esse à fidei veritate comperimus, trium tantummodò vocabula, hoc est, aquae, sanguinis & spiritûs in ipsâ suâ editione ponentibus, & Patris ubique ac Spiritûs testimonium omittentibus, in quo maximè & fides Catholica roboratur, & Patris & Filii & Spiritûs Sancti una Divinitatis substantia comprobatur. Hieron. Prol. in VII. Epist. Can.  especially that place of S. John's First Epistle, Chap. v. vers. 7. where there is mention made of the Unity of Persons in the Blessed Trinity. He accuses those unfaithful Translators of falling into great Errors, whilst they retained in their Version these words only, The Water, the Blood, and the Spirit, and left out the words, The Father, and the Spirit, which are an authentic Testimony of the Catholic Faith, about the Mystery of the Trinity.  
The Bishop of Oxford, who has lately published a new Edition of S. Cyprian's Works with Observations, makes mention of a great number of Latin Bibles, where S. Jerome's supposed Preface is found: In the mean time he complains, that it is left out of the Latin Bibles that are printed in our Age. 
(f) Vtrum hoc ex casit an maleficio contigerit dispiciant eruditi. Joann. Oxon. Episc. Not. in Cypr. de unit. Eccl.  Let those (says that learned Bishop) who are men of Judgement determine, if that omission happened by chance, or was the effect of some bad Design. He could not imagine for what reasons it was taken from the last Editions of the Latin Bible, since he found it in the Manuscript Copies, and almost in all the ancient Impressions: Libris manuscriptis passim & fere omnibus codicibus impressis antiquioribus.  
But 'tis not just to accuse, upon this account, those who were concerned in the Translation of the Latin Bibles without that Preface. This is true, that it is found with other Prefaces of S. Jerome to the Bible, in such Latin Copies as have been made not above six Hundred Years ago, and in all probability the first Latin Bibles were printed according to such Manuscripts.  
But 'tis not altogether so in those that were written about seven or eight Hundred Years ago, but in some few only of such Copies: And 'tis very likely that as to the rest, there was a Regulation made, according to the later Manuscripts in such Editions of the Bible; as have not that Preface. 'Tis further observable, that neither the Name of S. Jerome, nor of any other Writer, is prefixed to the Preface, in some of the ancient Copies where it is found, which sufficiently shows, that we may on good grounds question S. Jerome's being the Author of it.  
The Preface in controversy is not in a certain Manuscript Copy of the whole Bible, 
Cod. MSS. Bibl. Reg.  that is in the Royal Library, marked 3564. and has been extant these seven Hundred Years; neither is it in two other Manuscript Copies of the like antiquity, belonging to the Library of the Benedictine Monks of the Abbey of S. . 
Cod. MSS. Bibl. Benedict. S. Germ. Paris.  It is found I confess in Charles le Chauve's fair Bible that is in the King's Library; but S. Jerome's Name is not there, any more than it is in some other ancient Copies.  
Whoever will take the pains to compare the most of the ancient Latin Bibles together, shall easily discover, that he who gathered all the Books of the Latin Bible into one Body, (the better part of which was translated or revised by S. Jerome) is really the Author of that Preface. Since he was not furnished with that Father's Preface to all those Books, he supplied, in his Collection, what was wanting with an addition of some of his own composure, and others, which he gathered from S. Jerome's Works. Hence, for example, in Charles le Chauve's Copy, there is, before the Acts of the Apostles, a Preface with this Title, Praefatio Hieronymi: Yet 'tis certain, that S. Jerome was not the Author of that Preface to the Acts, as it is there in express words, but the Author of the Collection of the Books of the Latin Bible, took the same out of that Father's large Preface, entitled Prologus Galeatus; and it is expressed in these words, Actus Apostolorum nudam quidem resanare historiam videntur, & nascentis Ecclesiae historiam texere: Sed si noverimus scriptorem eorum Lucam esse Medicum, cujus laus in Evangelio, animadvertemus pariter omnia verba illius animae languentis esse Medicinam: that is, The Acts of the Apostles seem to be a bare History, affording us a prospect of the Church in its Birth: But if we consider that the Writer was Luke the Physician, who is famous in the Gospel, we shall also perceive, that all his words are the Medicine of a languishing Soul. 'Tis also probable, that the Compiler of the Books of the Latin Version, which we call the Vulgar, not finding in S. Jerome a particular Preface to the Canonical Epistles, made one according to that Father's Style, some of whose Expressions he has made use of, and amongst others, has inserted that word Eustochium.  
'Tis likewise probable, that the Addition of the Witness of three Persons was extant before that time, in some Copies of S. John's Epistles, or at least in some Latin Writers, at the time when that Preface was made. Upon this account the Author, who possibly had not the occasion of consulting the Creek Copies, supposed, that if that Passage was not extant in any Latin Copy, the Translators were to be blamed. 'Tis observable that the Addition is not in most of the old Copies of S. Jerome's Bible, to which nevertheless the Preface is prefixed, as I have observed in two Copies, one whereof is in the Royal Library, and the other in that belonging to Mr. Colbert. How incongruous is it, to see a Preface at the beginning of the Canonical Epistles, where S. Jerome complains of the unfaithfulness of the ancient Latin Translators, who have omitted in the First Epistle of S. John, Chap. 1. a whole Verse which he restores to the Greek; and yet, if one turn to the place of S. John's Epistle in the very same Copy, the passage is not to be found there. There can be no other reason given, in my opinion, of this incoherency, but this, that the Transcribers who writ out the Preface, made use of such Latin Copies, in which that Verse was not extant; because neither S. Jerome, nor the ancient Latin Version had any thing of it. If that Father had been the Author of the Preface, and of the Addition inserted in S. John's Epistle, that Addition would have been extant in all S. Jerome's Latin Bibles. This diversity of Copies is in my judgement an evident proof, that he did not compose that Preface to prefix it to the Canonical Epistles.  
And that which makes it further manifest, that S. Jerome was not the true Author either of the Preface or Addition, is, that that Addition is placed in the Margin of mose of the ancient Copies, in the Body of which it is not extant. It was no less than surprising, 
(g) Quantum à nostrâ aliorum distet editio, lectoris judicio relinquo. Hier. Prol. in VII. Epist. Can.  that the pretended S. Jerome should in his Preface, commend his new Edition of the Canonical Epistles, upon the account of the change he had made, especially in the First of S. John, whilst there was nothing of such change or amendment to be seen therein. Upon which account the Transcribers, or they to whom the Copies did belong, thought fit to regulate the Text according to the Preface, by supplying, in the Margin, the Verse concerning the Witness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; which, before that time was extant in some Ecclesiastical Authors. But since it was a matter of difficulty for those who placed that Addition in the Margin of their Copies, to observe a general and perfect uniformity of words, it so fell out, that the Expressions in the various Copies did likewise vary. This diversity does evidently prove that S. Jerome could not be the Author of the Addition in controversy, but that it was done by those who had a mind to adjust the Text in S. James to the Preface. I shall here give some Examples of that Regulation, of the manner how it was added to most of the old Latin Copies of S. Jerome's Bible.  
In that Copy of the Royal Library that is marked 3584. in the Margin over against these words, 
Cod. MSS. Bibl. Reg.  Tres sunt qui testimonium daunt, i. e. There are three which bear witness; there are these other words added, In coelo, Pater, Verbum, & Spiritus: & tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ, & high tres unum sunt. i e. In Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit: and there are three which bear witness on earth, and these three are one. The writing of the Addition appears to be no less ancient than that of the Text. The like Addition is to be seen in a Copy that is in Mr. Colbert's Library, 
Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb.  that is marked 158. where in the Margin, over against these words, Tres sunt qui testimonium daunt, these are added, In coelo, Pater, Verbum, & Spiritus, & tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ, sanguis, aqua, & caro. And to make the Text and Addition agree the better, there are some of the words of the Text amended or put out. There is nothing of this Addition to be read in the three ancient Copies of the Library belonging to the Benedictines of the Abbey of S. Germane, only it is placed in the Margin of one of these Copies, 
Cod. MSS. Bibl. Ben. S. Germ. Paris.  and the Addition is as old therein as the Text itself.  
'Tis true, that it is extant in a Copy written eight Hundred Years ago, in the time of Lotharius II. But it is strangely disfigured in that place; 
Cod. MSS. Bibl. Ben. S. Germ.  in that Copy the Reading was formerly thus, Sunt tres qui testimonium daunt, (the words in terrâ being interlined) spiritus, aqua, & sanguis; & tres unum sunt: & tres sunt qui de coelo testificantur, pater, verbum, & spiritus, & tres unum sunt. But some time afterwards, the words (de coelo testificantur, i. e. bear witness of Heaven) were defaced, to make room for these, testimonium dicunt in coelo, i. e. bear witness in Heaven.  
All which different Alterations are evident proofs that there was nothing of that Addition in the first Copies which were published of S. Jerome's Bible; for which reason it is not to be found in a certain Version of the French Church, which is at least a Thousand Years old, and which was published by F. Mabillon a Benedictine Monk, and the first who in effect seems to have inserted that Passage in his Works, is Victor Bishop of Vite, who lived a Hundred Years after S. Jerome. Take his own words in his Second Book of the Persecution of the Vandals: Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius Divinitatis esse cum Patre & Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus, Joannis Evangelistae testimonio comprobatur. 
Victor Vitensis, l. 2. persec. Afric. Provinc. edit. Basil. ann. 1539.  Ait namque, tres sunt qui testimonium prohibent in coelo, Pater, Verbum, & Spiritus Sanctus, & high tres unum sunt: i. e. And further, to show, that 'tis most evident, that the Holy Ghost is the same God with the Father and the Son, the testimony of S. John the Evangelist is sufficient; for he says, that there are three that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. St. Fulgence a little after did also quote him. But I refer that to a larger Discourse in the II. Book of this Work, where I shall particularly treat of the Versions of the New Testament.  
I know that a great many Men of Learning have alleged that St. Cyprian, (who lived a long time before St. Jerom,) had quoted that passage in his Books. The Bishop of Oxford brought the testimony of St. Cyprian, 
(h) Cui gravissimae calumniae de D. Hieronymo falsario & S. Scripturarum interpolatore amoliendae sufficere poterit Cyprianum citasse non modò ante Hieronymi tempora, sed Arii ipsius & litem de dogmate illo quod adeò displicet Socino de trino & uno Deo scriptorem. Joann. Episc. Oxon. Not. in Cyp. de unit. Eccles.  to justify St. Jerom's Preface, and at the same time, to show, that that Father could not be accused of any unfair dealing, because he only reestablished the Ancient Latin Edition in its first purity. Father Amelote, who belongs to the Chapel, freely declares that the same passage is wanting in St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, St. Gregory, St. Nazianzen, St. Chrysostom; Didymus, and (as to the Fathers of the Latin Church,) in St. Augustin, St. Leon, Beda, and in divers others; and yet does assure us, that it is extant in a Treatise of St. Cyprian concerning the Unity of the Church.  
But can we imagine, if St. Cyprian had had it in his Copy of the New Testament, that St. Augustin would not have made use of it against the Arians of his time? The truth is, after I had strictly examined that passage of St. Cyprian, which is the matter in Question, I fully persuaded myself that that Pious Prelate had only made mention of these words, & high tres unum sunt, i.e. and these three are one, about which there is no contest, and that from thence he would prove, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, to be one and the same. It is written (says he) of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. He applies to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what we read in all the Greek and Latin Copies concerning the testimony of the Spirit, the Water and the Blood, of which it is said, that they are one, & high tres unum sunt, which differs very much from an express quotation of those Words, as if they were in the Text itself.  
And that there may be no doubt left, but that this is St. Cyprian's true sense of the words, it is but consulting the Learned Facundus, who was of the same African Church, and gives their explication at large, evincing the mystery of the Trinity from them, 
Facund. prodefens. Tri. capit. l. 1. c. 3.  after his example. He does suppose through his whole Discourse, that in St. John's Epistle, Chap. v. there are only these words extant, Tres sunt qui testificantur in terrâ, spiritus, aqua & sanguis. i e. There are three which bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the Water and the Blood. But he adds at the same time, that they are to be understood of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. De Patre Filio & Spiritu Sancto dicit, tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terrâ, spiritus, aqua & sanguis, & high tres unum sunt; in spiritu significans Patrem, in aquâ Spiritum Sanctum, in sanguine vero Filium significans. His meaning is that the three Persons are signified by the three Witnesses of the Earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood. And the more to confirm his Opinion, he adds, that St. Cyprian was of the mind, that this is proper sense of that passage in St. John. Quod Joannis Apostoli testimonium beatus Cyprianus Carthaginiensis Antistes & Martyr, in Epistolâ sive libro quem de 
* Vnitate.  Trinitate scripsit, de Patre, Filio & Spiritu Sancto dictum intelligit.  
If the Bishop of Oxford had compared the words of Facundus with those of St. Cyprian, he had not brought such weak Arguments against Erasmus and Socinus, in the defence of St. Jerome, who stood in no need of that service, seeing he was not the Author of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles, nor of the Addition inserted in St. John's Epistle, Chap. v. Victor the Bishop, not having considered the matter so narrowly, brings in the Witness of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as if St. John had expressly made mention of them, whereas St. Cyprian and Facundus, bring it only as an explication of the Witness of the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood. The same thing happened to those who caused to Print St. Athanasius' Works, with a Table of the passages of Holy Scripture, which are quoted therein. They have set down at large there, the seventh Verse of the fifth Chapter of the first Epistle of St. John, as if that Holy Man had quoted that place after that manner. Yet in his dispute against the Arians, he only made use of these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and these Three are One, and applied the same to the Trinity.  
I make no question but that this Explication of St. Athanasius, was the occasion that some Greek Scoliastes placed in the Margin of their Copies the formentioned Note, which afterwards was put in the Text. And that is more probable than what Erasmus thought concerning this matter, who was of opinion, that the Greek Copies, which make mention of the Witness of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were more Correct than the Latin Copies. If he had only spoken of such Greek Copies as were written by those of the Latin Church, and which served for their use, what he alleged, would be the more credible. But that the Greeks, after their reunion with the Latin Church, made their Copies of the New Testament more Correct than the Latin, is against all appearance of Truth. On the contrary, 'tis manifest that the Copies that have been since that time, make no mention of that Testimony.  
The Observation that Fromondus, a Divine of Louvain, made on that place of St. John, after some other Commentators is without any ground. He acknowledged that St. Augustin, and many other Latin Fathers, had not that passage of St. John extant in their Copies; but at the same time he adds, 
(i) Videneur Graeci Ariani ex multis codicibus Graecis primùm erasisse, & deinde translationem Latinam, quâ S. Augustinus & multi Patres usi sunt, ex codice Graeco mutilato factam fuisse. From Comm. in Epist. 1. Joann. c. 5.  that the Arians had taken away the same out of many Copies, and that the Latin Version which St. Augustin, and those other Fathers made use of, was compiled out of those Books that were corrupted by the Arians. This opinion is most absurd, and can have no other ground, but the Preface that is fathered on St. Jerome. With what reason could they accuse the Arians of changing the Greek Copies of the New Testament in that place, seeing St Cyprian, who lived before Arius' name was known in the World, had no such Verse in his Copy? Besides, the same alteration must of necessity have reached all other Churches: for neither the Syrians of any Sect whatsoever, nor any other Eastern Church have it in their Editions of the New Testament.  
And I cannot imagine what advantage the Antitrinitarians can get against the Catholics, upon this ground, that that passage is not found in the most part of the Greek Manuscripts, nor those others of the Eastern Church, nor yet in the old Latin Copies. For the most learned Interpreters of the New Testament do not Expound it with reference to the Trinity. Such ancient Ecclesiastical Writers as have applied it to that Mystery, followed the Custom of that time, which was to give the Scripture such a Theological sense, as was accommodated to the Faith then received in the Church. Now whether that Verse be Read in the I. Epistle of St. John, as all those of the Greek and Latin Churches do at this day, or it be not Read; yet the Doctrine of the Trinity may always be very well proved from that place, against those who deny that Mystery; because the Fathers from the first Ages of the Church, have applied the Witness of the Spirit, of the Water, and of the Blood, to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They have proved, by the Unity of those Witnesses, that the three Persons of the Trinity are one.  
It is therefore to no purpose to dispute about the Addition or Omission of a passage, which by itself, does not clearly establish, but only suppose a Trinity of Persons, according to the opinion of the most Ancient Divines of the Church. I do not believe, that the most of the Modern Divines had any intention of favouring Arianism, when they observed that that place shows that the Witnesses are One. Those three (says Father Amelote) are one in their Testimony, the Father gave a Testimony to Jesus Christ, in Jordan. The Word, by his Words and Actions, the Holy Ghost, in the form of a Dove, and by his miraculous Gifts.  
I cannot after all, in any wise conceive for what use or purpose Sandius has quoted, 
Herman. Cingal. Script. S. Trinit. Revelat. p. 105.  upon the credit of others, so many different Editions of the New Testament, in which the Verse in question is not to be found. Seeing the most part of those Greek Editions were taken from one another, and but very few of them from Manuscript Copies, their great number signifies nothing. I do not think, for example, that that of Strasburg, An. 1524. or that of Simon de Colines, at Paris, An. 1534. were compiled by the help of Manuscripts. Wolfius, who published that of Strasburg, makes no mention of it in his Preface. On the contrary, he declares, that he only Reprinted in a new Letter, and another Volume, what had been Printed before that time. Simon de Colines made no Preface to his Greek Edition; which makes me think he compiled it according ro the best of his skill, by Editions that were extant before. Erasmus is one of the first, who gave occasion for the omission of that Verse, in those Greek Editions of the New Testament that came after his own, which was An. 1516. And he published another, An. 1519. where that Verse is also wanting. Those Editions, on the contrary, which came out after the Complute or Alcala, An. 1515. have all that Verse. Hence it is, that it is extant in Robert Stephen's Fair Edition, and in the most part of the other Editions. The Manuscript, and not the Printed Copies, are to be heeded, unless these be taken from the Manuscripts, such as the Edition of Alcala, and that of Erasmus.  
Nor is there any account to be made of the great number of Editions, of Luther's  Version, that Sandius brings against the Lutherans. For they are only repetitions of the first, in which Luther had followed the Edition of Erasmus, or some other, there being at that time many, even in Holland, which had been published without that Verse. I do not think that that Patriarch of the North was well Read in the Greek Manuscript Copies, though the most part of his followers do justify him in this manner, when it is objected to them, that their Master has corrupted the Scripture, by leaving out a passage of the New Testament, that asserts the Mystery of the Trinity. He might (say they) very well omit that Verse, with the Greek Edition of the Haguenau, An. 1521. Raithius, in answer to this objection, 
(k) Quid mirum, si Lutherus qui indubitata tantùm scribere decreverat, haec non extra aleam dubitationis posita praetermisit, aut quod in Aldi Manutiè Venetâ editione quâ usus creditur non occurrit, etiam non vertit, cùm praesertim Trinitatem etiam sublato hoc loco nihilominùs firmissimis documentis aliis stabiliri intelligeret. Raith. Vind. Verse. Germ. Luth.  says, that Luther did think fit to put that only in his Version, which was constantly, and by all agreed on, and that consequently, he might omit a Verse about which some doubts had arisen, and which was not in Aldus' Edition, which he made use of, as it is believed. Besides, he was persuaded that there were other passages, which afforded a lasting Foundation for the belief of the Trinity.  
This is a plausible Reason, because Luther took upon him the Translating a Greek Copy into his own Language. But if the Master was to be justified in this respect, I see no reason why his Disciples should alter his Version in that place, and that they should commend to the people, for the true word of God, a thing they believed to be doubtful. It might possibly have been more to the purpose, according to their principle, to preserve their ancient Dutch Version, and content themselves with placing that Verse in the Margin, by way of remark. On the contrary they bring it at this day against the Antitrinitarians, as a strong proof of the Mystery of the Trinity; little thinking, that they give them, by that means, the fairest occasion imaginable of Triumphing over them. It is the bare Authority of the Church that does at present oblige us to receive that passage as Authentic. The Greeks, though otherwise disaffected to the Latin Church, fully agree with them in this matter.  
There is a greater Uniformity amongst the Calvinists, in their Versions of the New Testament, than amongst the Lutherans. For though they pretend, as well as they to Translate the Original Greek, yet they have retained that Verse in all their Translations. Beza, who openly declares that it is not to be found in the most part of the Ancients, yet says withal, 
(l) Hic versiculus omninò mihi retinendus videtur. Beza Not. in 1 Joann. c. 5. v. 7.  that it ought to be kept in the Text, whereof it is a part. Diodati, who has likewise retained it in his Italian Version, is of Opinion, 
(m) Cosi in essenza come in union è consentimento di questa testimonianza. Diod. Not. in 1 Joann. c. 5.  that the Unity mentioned in that place, is as well an Unity of Nature, as an Unity or Consent of Testimony. But Calvin is much more reserved on this occasion, according to his wont precaution, never to make us weak Arguments against the Antitrinitarians. That Expression, (says he) Three are One does not denote the Essence, but the Consent. 
Calv. Comm. in Epist. 1. Joann. c. 5. v. 7.   
He perceived, no less than Luther, that that passage was not in the most Copies, and was very sensible that it would be a matter of no small difficulty to reconcile the words of St. Jerome, (in that Preface which is alleged to be his) to the ancient Greek Books. He durst not deal freely in the matter, lest he should have offended his weak Brethren. I shall here set down his own words, that the World may see how this Man carried himself, when upon any occasion he was obliged to Critisize on such places of Scripture as appeared to him doubtful. 
Calv. ibid.  All this has been omitted by some. Which St. Jerome thought, did proceed rather from malice, than ignorance or inadvertency, and which was not done but by those of the Latin Church. But forasmuch as the Greek Books do not agree amongst themselves, it is not easy for me to be positive about the matter. Nevertheless, because the Text runs very well with that Addition, and, as I observe, it is extant in the best, and most Correct Copies, for my part I am very willing to admit of it.   

CHAP. XIX. Of the Book of the Revelation. What was the Belief of the Ancients concerning it. The Heretics that did reject it. Their Reasons; which are Examined. There have been also Learned Catholics of ancient time, who have ascribed it to Cerinthus. The Opinion of these latter times about the same Book.  
WHat remains of the Books of the New Testament, to be examined, is the Apocalypse, which St. Jerom makes mention of, 
Hierom. Epist. ad Dard.  in one of his Epistles, as being a Book that was not commonly received in the Greek Churches of his time. But if Tertullian's Maxim have any weight with us, illud verum quod prius, i. e. That is most likely to be true that was first. We will prefer the Universal Opinion of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, to that of some Greek Churches, of later times. It is upon this ground, that Grotius gives his Judgement of this Book, when he says, that 
(a) Apostoli Joannis esse hunc librum credidere illi quibus meritò creditur, Justinus contra Tryphonem, Irenaeus, Tertullianus adversus Marcionem, & aliis multis in locis, quibus consentiunt Clemens Alexandrinus, Origenes, Cyprianus, & post eos alii multi. Grot. Annot. in tit. Apoc.  St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Cyprian, who may be believed in this matter, have by one common consent, avouched St. John as the Author of that Book. Flaccus Illyricus had affirmed the same thing before, assuring us 
(b) Si iis habeatur fides Patribus, qui propiùs ad hoc accesserunt seculum, uti certè aequissimum est, quales sunt Justinus, Tertullianus, Irenaeus, Apollonius, Theophylus Antiochenus— affirmari poterit eam ut Joannis Apostoli illo primo seculo habitam. Cur enim tam certoò Joannis Apostoli esse confirmarent, si dubias de eâ extitisse sententias antecessorum cognovissent. Flac. Illyr. arg. in Apoc.  that it is very reasonable we should refer this to the Fathers, who lived near the time of the Author.  
And therefore Baronius has judiciously observed, that what St. Jerom does allege, concerning the Opinion of the Greek Churches about the Apocalypse, cannot be altogether true, seeing that St. Epiphanius who lived at that time, 
Baron. ann. Ch. 97. n. 6.  and who was not much older than he, defended the Authority of that Book, against the Alogian, and Theodotian Heretics. That Cardinal does nevertheless declare, that he cannot in this respect blame St. Jerom; for having unhappily traduced the Greek Churches in his time. He believed that he meant St. Basil, Amphilochius, the two Gregory's of Nazianzen and Nysse, and the Council of Laodicea, 
Baron. ibid. n. 7.  who did not reckon the Apocalypse amongst the Canonical Books of Scripture. He distinguishes betwixt those Fathers, and the Alogians and Theodotians, upon this account, that the former had not impeached the Authority of that Book, with an avowed obstinacy as the latter had done. And even St. Epiphanius is not so much against St. Jerom, but that he insinuates, that the Alogians, (who rejected in general all that is extant of St. John's Writings,) would have been in some respect excusable, if they had rejected nothing but the Revelation, which is an obscure and unintelligible Book.  
The Alogians pretended that the Apocalypses, and the rest of St. John's Writings, were composed by the Heretic Cerinthus. Which they endeavoured to show, by the agreement that the Doctrine which Cerinthus professed, had to that contained in the Books of that Apostle, and especially in his Revelation.  
They likewise drew up particular objections against this latter Work. 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Alog. apud Epiph. Haer. 51. n. 32.  Of what use (say they) can the Revelation of St. John be to us, when he tells us of seven Angels, and of seven Trumpets? St. Epiphanius gives them this answer, 
Epiph. ibid.  that God was pleased to reveal to his servant John, what was most mysterious in the Law and the Prophets, to the end that he might treat of them in a spiritual and intelligible manner. And seeing those Heretics were so bold as to ridicule what is said of the seven Trumpets, he charges them, upon that account, either of malice or ignorance, from the words of St. Paul, who has also made mention of those Trumpets, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, 
1 Cor. xv. 52.  where he says, The trumpet shall sound, and at the sound of this trumpet the dead shall rise.  
Some of the Alogians, to disparage the Authority of the Apocalypse, another argument; make use of these words, for in Chap. two. ver. 18. of the Book, To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira, writ: 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Alog. apud Epiph. ibid. n. 33.  There was not at that time (say they,) any Christian Church in Thyatira. How could St. John write to a Church, which had no being? St. Epiphanius being of the same opinion with the Alogians, that there was no Church in that place, at that time, that he may answer their objection, is forced to have recourse to the Spirit of Prophecy. He thinks that St. John, who was inspired by God, foresaw what should happen in process of time. And therefore he gives us the most exact account that he can, of the City of Thyatira, about the time when the Phrygian Heretics did bear sway there. He shows how it afterwards became an Orthodox and most famous Church. 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. ibid.  The design of the Holy Ghost (says he) was to reveal, in that place of the Apocalypse, that that Church should fall from the Truth, after the time of St. John, and the other Apostles. Which happened, as Epiphanius himself does tell us, ninety three years after the Ascension of our Lord and Saviour.  
Seeing this answer of St. Epiphanius does agree with the Opinion of the Alogians, that there was no Christian Church in effect, in the City of Thyatira, at that time, Socinus 
(f) Mihi quidem, ut verum fatear, responsio ista non admodum probatur, cùm propter alia, tum propter id quod nimis apertè ex ipsâ historiâ Apacalypsis constare videtur, jam istam Ecclesiam Thyatirensem reverà extitisse. Soc. Lect. Sacr. p. 306.  could by no means admit of it, being persuaded that the Text of the Apocalypse does evidently show that there was a Church therein. He believed that there were several Cities of that name. But for all that, he does not prove against the Alogians, that there was a Church in Thyatira. When he brings the plain words of the Apocalypse against them, he gets the thing in Question for an Answer, seeing those Sectaries endeavoured by that means to lessen the Authority of that Book. It is probable that at that time, when St. Epiphanius lived, there was no Catalogue of the Bishops of that Church, nor of other public Records, that might make it manifest, that there had beed a Church founded in that City, from the times of the Apostles. And therefore Grotius does give a more judicious answer, That the truth is, 
Grot. Annot. ad c. 2. Apoc. v. 18.  there was not any Church of the Gentiles in Thyatira, when St. John writ the Revelation, but there was a Church of the Jews, as also, there was the like at Thessalonica before St. Paul Preached there.  
The Alogians do also cavil about that which is mentioned in the same Book, Chap. ix. ver. 14. Of the four Angels which were bound on the River Euphrates. 
Epiph. ibid.  But St. Epiphanius does in this charge them with ignorance, because those Angels, who were placed on the River Euphrates, do signify, according to his Opinion, so many Nations that were situated on that River, viz. the Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes and Persians. And adds, that seeing Nations are subject to Angels, those words of the Apocalypse, Lose the four Angels which are upon Euphrates, make very good sense, St. John intending to show thereby, that those Nations being loosed should make War against another People. I shall not here examine whether or no, the Exposition given by St. Epiphanius be agreeable to the Text, but content myself to observe in general, that seeing that Book, is a Prophecy, and no History, the Author was to write as Prophets were wont to do, in a Figurative Style. And so the Alogians were inexcusable for their prejudice against this Book, upon the account of the expressions; (which to them appeared very strange) unless they imagined that there was no such thing as a Prophecy in the New Testament.  
Cajus, an Orthodox Writer, who lived at Rome, under Pope Zephyrin, and of whom we have spoken before, did also believe that Cerinthus was the Author of the Revelation of St. John. He treated that Heretic with derision, 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Caj. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 28.  who, As if he had been a great Apostle, writ Revelations which he pretended to have received from Angels, and in which, he assured us, that after the Resurrection, Jesus Christ shall reign upon the Earth. He allowed the space of a thousand years to this Carnal Kingdom, which was to be accompanied with all sorts of pleasures. For this cause he calls Cerinthus an Enemy to the Holy Scriptures, and spoke in this manner of the Apocalypse, which he thought, was written by him, and not by St. John.  
Denis, 
Dion. Alex. apud Eus. bid.  Bishop of Alexandria, who vigorously defended the Authority of this Book, did likewise observe that some Authors did ascribe the Apocalypse to Cerinthus, who (according to their Opinion) had prefixed St. John's Name to the Book, to give Authority to his Babbling about the Carnal Reign of Jesus Christ on the Earth. Seeing this Opinion that maintained a Chimerical Dominion of a thousand years was spread in the Church, this Learned Bishop writ two Treatises against it, Entitled 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Of the Promises. Wherein he takes to task 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. l. 7. Hist. Eccl. c. 24.  Nepos, a certain Bishop of Egypt, who Expounded the Promises, which God in Scripture has made to Mankind, in a sense that speaks the Expositor to have been more Jew than Christian; dreaming of a Carnal Kingdom upon the 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, Entitled 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  A Refutation of Allegorists, laughing at such Catholics as Expounded Allegorically that place in the Apocalypse, 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 honourable 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, choosed rather to make a Schism, than to abdicate their Opinion. But Denis, afterwards, in a public 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 Apocalypse against those who rejected it as a supposititious Book, and done by Cerinthus. He appeared to be in no wise biased 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, alleging 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 Apocalypse, 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, aught 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 shows, 
(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 gins 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 Catholic 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 Style 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, Surnamed 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 Sepulchers with that name. Once he has recourse to the difference of Style, from which he pretends to prove, that the Apostle St. John, who writ the Gospel, and one Epistle, cannot be the Author of the Apocalypse. 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 judgement of Denis, the Bishop of Alexandria, upon the Apocalypse, (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 Judgement, whether a Book was Canonical or no. We also see, that in such junctures they observed the Rules that are commonly received amongst Critics. For the Bishop, according to the rigorous Laws of Criticism, does examine the Diction, or Style of the Apocalypse, 
(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 Apocalypse, 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 Style, on which Denis so much insists upon.  
Nor can there be any thing concluded from the Title of the Apocalypse, that in the most of Greek Copies, whether Manuscript or Printed, there is the name of 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  John the Divine, and not of the Apostle St. John set therein. Those who annexed that Title meant only to describe St. John the Evangelist, whom the Greek Fathers do call the Divine; by way of Excellency, to distinguish him from other Evangelists.  
All the Eastern Churches at this day, read that Book under the name of the Apostle St. John. It is true, that it is not so in the ancient Syriack Copies, because it was not in the Greek one, from which those were taken. It is ascribed to St. John, in the Syriack Edition of the English Polyglot Bible: and also in the Arabic Printed in the same Polyglot, it bears the name of John the Apostle, Evangelist; and lastly in the Arabic published by Erpenius, that of John the Evangelist. Not that I believe such Titles, (which are but late,) to be of any great Authority. I produce them only to show the Universal consent of the Churches, as well that of the East, as that of the West, concerning the Author of the Revelation.  
As to what concerns such singular expressions, as are not where to be found, but in this Book; chief, that, where there is mention made of the Reign of Jesus Christ upon the Earth with the Saints, which shall continue for the space of a thousand years. Illyricus has very well observed, that since that Book 
(p) Phrases illas mysticè ut in sermone prophetico intelligendas. Illyr. argum. in Apoc.  is written in a Prophetical Style, the expressions used therein aught to be taken in a Mystical sense. In which he had apparently, as to his Judgement, the advantage of Luther, who could not avoid the reproach that was put upon him by Bellarmin, and some other Opponents, for not considering the Apocalypse as a Prophetical and Apostolical Work; yet his Disciples, who acknowledged all that Book to be Divine and Canonical, have endeavoured to justify him. They alleged, 
(q) Lutherum quod attinet, quidquid olim seripserit in veteri praefatione, in eâ sane quae hodie in codicibus legitur nihil de Apocalypsi asserit aliud, quàm in dubio se relinquere utrum sit Joannis Apostoli, quod nonnulli ex vetustioribus Patribus id inficiati sint, nihil tamen hoc ipso se prejudicare velle aliis. Christ. Korthol. de Canon. Script. S. c. 18.  without any regard to his ancient Preface, that he said nothing else in that, which is found in his Works, but what has been observed by some of the ancient Fathers, viz. that it was not generally agreed upon that St. John was the Author of the Apocalypse.  
And Erasmus had likewise enough to do upon the like account with the Divines of Paris, who censure one of his propositions, wherein he affirmed, 
(r) De Apocalypsi diu dubitatum est, non dico ab haereticis, sed ab orthodoxis viris, qui scriptum tamen ut à Spiritu Sancto profectum amplectebantur, de scriptoris nomine incerti. Erasm. decls. ad Theol. Paris.  that there had been, for a long time, some doubting about that Book, not only amongst the Heretics, but also the Orthodox; who though they received it as Canonical, did profess they were not certain who was the Author. What Erasmus does affirm in this case, is not to be charged with falsehood, since it is grounded upon a matter of Fact, that may be easily proved from the Writings of the ancient Doctors of the Church. Yet the Parisian Divines were so forward to censure him, since they persuaded themselves that he manifestly knew, by the usage of the Church, and the definitions of Councils, that the Apocalypse was published by St. John. 
Cons. Facul. Theol. Paris.  The Councils on which they stood, were the three of Carthage, that of Rome, under Pope Gelasius, and that of Toledo, in which Isidore of Sevile, was an Assistant. To this they joined the Authority of St. Denis, called the Areopagite, St. Irenaeus, St. Justin, Pope Innocent I. St. Augustin, and St. John of Damascus.  
Erasmus, as it should seem, aught to have answered, that notwithstanding all those Authorities, his supposition might be true, seeing he had also Orthodox Authors on his side. He might also have said, that none of those Councils stood much on the Author of the Apocalypse, but barely complied with the opinion that commonly obtained in their time, which ascribed that Book to St. John. But in stead of that, he only returned such answers as were extravagant and impertinent. He affirms, that the World was at that time filled with Apocryphal Books bearing forged Titles, and that the most part of honest Men, were then persuaded that such sort of falsities might be debated. He afterwards inveighs against 
(s) Isidorus Hispalensis scripsit rudi seculo, & habuisse videtur locupletem bibliothecam, quâ potuisset rectiùs uti, si fuisset exactè doctus. Certè rhapsodus fuit, quemadmodum Beda. Quanquam Beda meo judicio fuit illo tum eruditior, tum cloquentior. Erasm. declare. ad cens. Fac. Theol. Paris.  Isidore, as being a Man of mean capacity and judgement, who had not the sense to make use of a very good Library which he had in his possession. He was (saith he) as unskilful in making Collections as Beda, but the latter was the more Judicious and Eloquent of the two.  
This is an instance of Learning, whereof there is an ill use made. If Isidore and Bede, were justly charged by him on that account, he ought to have proved that they were much in the wrong here, in preferring the opinion of St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, and the most ancient Fathers, to that of some other Writers, who were not so near the first Age. The answer he made to the Divines of Paris, was more likely to provoke them than his first Proposition was. For he thereby plainly reproached those sage Masters, that they were conversant in no good Authors, but only Rhapsodists, and unskilful Compilers of History.  
It is true, that he might not offend them, he adds at the same time, that 
(t) Profiteor me de titulis quoque credere quod credit universalis Ecclesia, cujus auctoritati facilè sensum meum submitto, non hîc tantùm, sed in omnibus quoque caeteris, modò ne protinùs Ecclesiae sit quidquid quocunque modo in usum Christianorum irrepsit, aut cuivis Episcopo placuit. Erasm. ibid.  as to what concerns the Titles of the Books of Scripture, he does refer himself to the Judgement of the Universal Church, to which he does entirely submit, provided that the name of the Church Universal be not ascribed to all that is so called according to the custom and use, which has been introduced, and does obtain amongst Christians, nor to the particular Opinions of every Bishop.  
If we measure the Opinion of the Unitaries by that of Socinus, who is one of their Heroes, they have affirmed nothing concerning the Apocalypse, but what is agreeable to good sense. This Unitary does assure us, that that Book was always, by common consent, attributed to St. John: 
Soc. de Auctor. Scrip. Sac. c. 1. n. 2.  Quod Scriptum semper communi consensu tributum fuit Joauni Apostolo & Evangelistae. To that objection, that many Authors have doubted thereof, he makes answer, that the Judgement of Justin and Irenaeus, who lived some little time after that Book was Composed, aught to be preferred to the Opinion of those Authors. He further affirms, 
(u) Non videtur propter parvam aliquam aut etiam magnam dissimilitudinem rationis scribendi in universum ac styli ab aliis ejusdem Joannis scriptis longè diversi generis debere aut posse dubitari quin ejus sit opus, maximè cùm simul adsint tot alia testimonia & conjecturae, ut illi ipsi qui prorsus negarent ejus esse, illudque rejecerunt, coacti fuerint fateri à quopiam conscriptum fuisse qui persuadere voluerit istum ipsum Joannem illud conscripsisse. Soc. ibid.  that as to the difference of Style, betwixt that Work, and those others which were written by St. John, this Objection does not oblige him to give those Reasons which prove it to be St. John's, since they appeared so convincing to those very persons who rejected the Book, that they were forced to acknowledge that it was written by a Man who endeavoured to persuade others, that St. John was the Author thereof. This last Observation seems to be more subtle than solid; a crime that is pardonable in the Unitaries, who never applied themselves to the study of the Ancient Ecclesiastical Authors.  
In the last place, the Commentaries on the Apocalypse made by the Calvinists, are undeniable proofs, that they do receive it into the number of Divine and Prophetical Books. Besides they would be very sorry to be without that Prophecy. Beza made a Discourse, Treating expressly on that Subject, by way of Preface to his Notes on that Work; where he answers the Objections which Erasmus had published to diminish the Authority thereof: That which he had not observed as to any other Books of the New Testament. Calvin, fearing that he should make himself ridiculous by his false Expositions, of a Book that is so very obscure, has taken the best side, by not publishing any Commentary on the Apocalypse. His example had no influence on his Followers; for many amongst them, did with a Prophetical tone loudly recommend to the World their own Visions upon that Book.  
Besides the Books of the New Testament, which we have hitherto spoken of, and that are generally received in all the Churches, as Divine and Canonical, some others have been read in many Churches, which yet never had the same Authority. Nevertheless it has so fallen out, that those who have made Catalogues of the Sacred Books, have not always observed this distinction. For they have placed all of them in an equal rank, for Books of the Holy Scripture. There have been also some Fathers, who quoted some Books of this sort, as if they had been truly given by Divine Inspiration. But it is easy to find, even by the Writings of the Fathers, that those Works were approved by none but particular persons, whose Opinion cannot reasonably be looked upon as a Law. If I had not resolved to confine my Discourse to the Books of the New Testament, which are generally approved of in all Churches, I would have insisted at large on those other Books, but I am obliged to keep within the limits of my first purpose. I shall only observe, that in a certain Catalogue of the Books of the Bible, which is at the end of two very ancient Copies of St. Paul's Epistles, there follows (immediately after the Epistle of St. Judas) 
(x) Judae Epistola, Barnabae Epistola, Joannis Revelatio, Actus Apostolorum, Pastor, Actus Pauli, Revelatio Petri. Catal. libror. Script. S. ex Codd. MSS. Bibl. Reg. & S. Germ.  the Epistle of Barnabas, the Revelation, or the Apocalypse of John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Book of the Pastor, the Acts of Paul, and the Revelation of Peter. The number also of the Verses contained in each Book of the Bible is set down in the Catalogue. And what is most of all observable, is, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not comprehended therein. It is nevertheless in those two Greek and Latin Manuscripts that are written with the same Hand, as the rest of St. Paul's Epistles; but it is placed by itself, and after the Catalogue, as if it did not belong to that Apostle. In this matter, they followed the Custom of some of the Western Churches.   

CHAP. XX. The Objections of the Jews, and other Enemies of the Christian Religion, against the Books of the New Testament. Inquiry is made if the Evangelists and Apostles made use of the Greek Version of the Septuagint, in the Passages which they quote out of the Old Testament. St. Jerom's Opinion upon the Matter. That Father declared himself for the Hebrew Text of the Jews, in opposition to that of the Septuagint.  
THE Books of the New Testament having been maintained, as well in general, as in particular, it is worth the while to examine the principal Objections that are made against those Books; and at the same time against the Apostles who published them. The Mahometans endeavour to evince the necessity of the coming of their Prophet, from this, that seeing the Canonical Books of the Jews and Christians, are (according to their Opinion,) wholly corrupted, it was necessary that God should send a new Prophet upon the Earth, to teach Men the True Religion. But because they bring no solid reasons for the confirmation of what they allege, it is to no purpose to refute them. The Jews and some Philosophers, who are Enemies to the Christians, have more particularly attacked the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles. They have had the impudence to charge them with Forgery, or at least with ignorance, seeing (as they object) they have quoted the Books of the Old Testament otherwise than they are in themselves. They further accuse them, of annexing to the Passages they produce, a sense that was very far from the mind of the Authors. Hereupon they draw up the strongest objections they can, against the Authority of the New Testament; which of necessity must be answered.  
As to the first Objections; the Jews do suppose, that when a public Record is produced for confirmation of a Matter of Fact, it is necessary, that the very words of the Record be delivered in the same manner as they are in the Original, or in faithful Copies; but (say they) the Disciples of Jesus Christ have not done that. For if the passages of the Old Testament which they have quoted in their Writings, be compared with the Original Hebrew Text, it will be found, that in many places they bear a quite different meaning. Whence they conclude that they are either chargeable with falsehood, or that their Writings have been altered, and therefore that there is no credit to be given to them.  
I answer this Objection, that it was not necessary for the Apostles, when they Preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to make use of the Hebrew Bible. On the contrary, it was more for their purpose that they should make mention of the passages of the Old Testament, so as they were read in the Greek Copies that were in the Hands of the most part of the World. Very few of the Jews at that time understood the Hebrew Language: whereas the Greek Language was spread through the whole Empire. Since therefore Jesus Christ did not send his Disciples to Preach the Gospel to a handful of Learned Jews, who understood the Hebrew, but to all the Nations of the Earth, the most part whereof spoke Greek; they ought not only to speak in that Language, but also to report the passages of the Old Testament, after the same manner as had been written for a long time in the same Language. There was at that time, a Greek Version of the whole Bible, that had been made by Jews many Ages before, and therefore could not be suspected. And so the Evangelists and the Apostles could not justly be charged with falsehood, for quoting passages otherwise than they were in the Original, since they made use of such Writings as were approved by the Jews, and were in use amongst them.  
It is true, that if they to whom the Gospel was Preached, had understood the Hebrew Language, it had been better to quote the Original Hebrew, than the Greek Version of the LXX, because the Original aught always to be preferred to Translations. But as things were then, the Apostles acted most wisely, in preferring the Greek Copy of the Bible to the Hebrew, which was understood almost by none. And therefore the Church from its first beginning, had no other Scripture but the Ancient Greek Version; and the whole Eastern Church, (the Syrians being excepted) have no other at this day.  
I do not think it necessary to prove, that the Apostles, in their Writings, quoted the passages of the Old Testament, according to the Greek of the Septuagint, and not according to the Hebrew Text. It requires no extraordinary skill in both the Languages, to make one capable of judging aright in this matter. It is certain that 
(a) Crebrò dixisse me novi, Apostolos & Evangelistas ubicunque de Veteri Instrumento ponunt testimonia, si inter Hebraicum & Septuaginta nulla diversitas sit, vel suis, vel Septuaginta Interpretum verbis uti solitos. Sin autem aliter in Hebraico, aliter in Veteri Editione sensus est, Hebraicum magis quàm Septuaginta Interpretes sequi. Hieron. prooem. lib. 15. Comm. in Is.  St. Jerom once endeavoured to persuade the World to the contrary, and to confirm his Opinion, gave instances of some places of the Old Testament that were quoted in the New, which yet are not (as he alleged) in the Original Hebrew. But it is easy to judge by that Learned Father's own words, that he maintained that Opinion, only to give the more Authority to a new Translation which he had made out of the Hebrew, because the most knowing Men of his time did strongly oppose him, as if he had designed to introduce the Jewish Religion into the Church.  
It will appear therefore, that St. Jerom in that place does give an answer to his Adversaries, and endeavours as much as in him lies, to make an honourable retreat. 
Hieron. ibid.  Aemuli nostri doceant (saith he) assumpta aliquot testimonia quae non sint in Hebraeorum libris; & finita contentio est. i e. Let our Adversaries show what testimonies are made use of, that are not in the Hebrew Books, and the Dispute is at an end. I desire no other Witness of what I allege but himself, seeing he does establish for a general Maxim, for all the citations out of the Old Testament, that are not only made use of by the Apostles, but also by their Disciples, 
(b) Hoc autem generaliter observandum, quòd ubicunque sancti Apostoli aut Apostolici viri loquuntur ad populos, his plerunque abuti testimoniis quae jam fuerant in gentibus divulgata. Hieron. Qu. Heb. in Gen.  That when the Apostles, or Apostolical Men speak to the people, they commonly make use of such testimonies as had been published before that time amongst the Nations. That is to say, of the Version of the Septuagint, which being written in Greek, was published amongst all those Nations which spoke the Language, whereas the Hebrew Text was only read in the Jews Synagogues. He proves by the same Principle, that St. Luke, (when he wrote the Acts of the Apostles, to declare to the Nations, the first beginnings of the Christian Religion) was to quote the Passages of the Old Testament, in the same manner as they were in the Version of the Scripture, which was before that time spread amongst the People.  
There is therefore nothing so absurd as the Opinion of some Protestants, who (notwithstanding the agreement that is found betwixt the quotations of the Apostles, and the Greek Version of the LXX) maintain with no small Zeal, that the Apostles reported the Passages of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew Text. They attribute that agreement to some Writers, whom they suppose to have lived after the times of the Apostles, and who (according to their Opinion) corrected the Version of the Septuagint, in all such Passages as are quoted in the New Testament. The Evangelists and the Apostles (say they) regarded the sense only, and not the Words of Scripture. If any one ask these Men the Reason why they maintain so strange a Paradox, their answer will be but this 
(c) Quis credat spiritum Apostolorum spiritui Graeculi interpretis se subjecisse, aut limpidos fontes coenosis Hellenistarum rivulis praetulisse; & ubi passim de capite aliquo Religionis adversus Judeos agebatur, Apostolos, relicto Canone Hebraeo, Lesbiam Graecorum regulam usurpasse. Auctor. Diss. apud Capp. in qu. de loc. parall.  that it cannot be imagined, that the spirit of the Apostles should be subject to the spirit of a little Greek Interpreter; and that they preferred the Streams to the Fountain, by leaving the Hebrew Canon to follow an uncertain Rule, especially when there was an occasion for defending the Fundamental Points of Religion against the Jews.  
Thus some Protestants extremely addicted to the Hebrew, do argue agreeable to the Ideas they have framed, about matters of Fact that are as clear as the day; instead of examining the things in themselves. Seeing Lewis Cappel has solidly refuted this Opinion, which has not the least appearance of truth, it will be to no purpose to spend time about it. That Learned Protestant judiciously observed, that the spirit of the Apostles is not subject to the spirit of an Interpreter; 
(d) Piâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quadam & sanctâ charitatisque plenâ prudentiâ Christianâ versionem tum receptam secuti sunt iis in locis in quibus parùm aut nihil omninò ad rem ipsam interest utrum textum Hebraicum, an verò Graecam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Septuaginta versionem sequaris. Lud. Capp. qu. de loc. parall. pag. 450.  but through a Pious condescendency, and by a true Christian Prudence, they followed the Greek Version which was publicly received, it being indifferent to them to quote the Hebrew or the Greek in those Passages.  
Although the Apostles did prefer the Greek of the Septuagint, to the Hebrew Text, it cannot be inferred from thence, that the Greek Version is better than the Hebrew of the Jews, as some Authors, especially amongst the Catholics, have too easily believed. We ought to consider by what motives the Apostles were led, to give this preference to the Greek. Seeing they did it for no other end, but to accommodate themselves to the capacity of the People, whom they instructed, and who read the Bible in Greek, there can be no consequence drawn from thence, to give more Authority to the Version of the Septuagint than to the Hebrew Text, which they did not meddle with. In the Hebrew or Chaldaic Gospel of St. Matthew, the Passages of the Old Testament were quoted according to the Hebrew Text; because the Jews of Palestine, for whose sake it was written, read the Bible in that Language. The People, who at that time understood not the Hebrew Language, had Glosses on the Hebrew Text, written in the Chaldee, so that if that Evangelist had quoted the Bible in the vulgar Language, he had quoted the same according to the Chaldaic Glosses, and not according to the Greek of the Septuagint, which was not in use amongst the Jews of Palestine.  
It will further appear, that the Evangelists and the Apostles did not confine themselves in their quotations to the rigour of the Letter, because that was in no wise needful for carrying on their Work. They did content themselves sometimes, with delivering the sense of the Words, which they adapted to their Discourse. A thing commonly practised; and they cannot be branded with Falsehood or Imposture, who set down after this manner, such Records in their Works, as serve for proofs. A Copy of Record cannot be alleged to be false, unless the sense be changed. But this can never be found in the quotations of the Apostles, who followed a received custom, and which could be blamed by none. The same thing happened to most of the Fathers, when they quoted in the Works, the Passages of Scripture; for they made no scruple to change the Words, so long as that change was of no importance to the Sense. Which ought to be the Standard of our Judgement, about the Passages of the Old Testament, which are quoted in the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, for though they were taken from the Greek Version, they do not always express the very Words.  
I know it may be objected, that this Version has very much degenerated from its ancient purity, and that therefore, it can no more serve as a Rule by which we may judge of the Truth of the Apostolical quotations. But what ever change has happened to this Translation, it is sufficient as it remains, to decide the matter of Fact we are now about. It is agreed by all the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors, that the Evangelists and Apostles, in the Passages they quote out of the Old Testament, were more ready to express the Sense than the Words: which is the meaning of these Words of St. Jerom, 
Hieron. Comm. in Is. l. 3. c. 7.  In multis testimoniis (saith he) quae Evangelistae vel Apostoli de libris veteribus assumpserunt, curiosius attendendum est, non eos verborum ordinem secutos esse sed sensum. Which he often repeats in his works, 
(e) Notare debemus illud quod plerumque admonuimus, Evangelistas & Apostolos non verbum interpretatos esse de verbo, nec Septuaginta Interpretum auctoritatem secutos, quorum editio illo jam tempore legebatur; sed quasi Hebraeos & instructos in Lege absque damno sensuum suis usos esse sermonibus. Hieron. Comm. in Isai. lib. 9 cap. 29.  We ought to observe well (saith he in another place) what I have often said before, viz. That the Evangelists and Apostles did not make a Translation, word for word, and that they followed not the Version of the Septuagint, that was read in their days; but being Hebrews, and skilful in the Law, they made use of their Terms.  
That Learned Man does agree with the other Fathers, in assuring us, that the Apostles did not in their Writings, report the passages of the Old Testament word for word: But, since he was prepossessed with an opinion, in favour of the Hebrew Text, when he composed his Commentaries on the most part of the Prophets; he affirms, that the same Apostles made use of their own Expressions, and not those of the Septuagint. Yet 'tis easy to prove the contrary; and in this, the most part of the Protestants are very much to be blamed, for neglecting this Ancient Greek Version: For it is impossible for him to understand the Books of the New Testament well, who is not first much employed in the reading of the Septuagint. It was upon those Seventy Ancient Interpreters that the Apostles form their Style, and not upon the Hebrew Text of the Jews: I do not in the least comprehend, upon what ground St. Jerome could allege, that 
(f) Paraphr asim hujus testimonii quasi Hebraeus ex Hebraeis assumit Apostolus Paulus de authenticis libris in Epistolâ quam scribit ad Corinthios, non verbum ex verbo reddens, quod facere ommnò contemnit, sed sensuum exprimens veritatem, quibus utitur ad id quod voluerit roborandum. Hieron. Comm. in Is. lib. 17. cap. 64.  St. Paul being an Hebrew born, did, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, Chap. 2. give a paraphrase on the words of the Prophet Isaiah, Chap. 64. v. 4. as they are in the Hebrew, and had regard to nothing but the sense, according to his Custom: Yet there is nothing in that place, that can oblige us to have recourse to the Hebrew, rather than the Greek, for understanding the Apostles meaning.  
St. Jerome dreamed then of nothing else, but settling his New Translation of the Scriptures upon the Hebrew, thereby to give satisfaction to a great number of People, who spoke evil of him upon that occasion. This Spirit reigns in his Commentaries on the Old Testament, in those chief which are on the great Prophets. He endeavours to prevent, with an assiduous Persecution, that which might be objected against from all sides; that the Church ought not to receive any other Scripture of the Old Testament, than that which was Authorised by the Apostles. Indeed this Objection which was a terrible one, must needs have made a great impression on his Spirit, and if he dare not say, that the Apostles always followed the Hebrew Text; he endeavours at least to shelter himself by assuring us, that sometimes they did not adhere either to the one or the other, because ordinarily, that which was considered by them, was the sense and not the Words.  
And this he does affirm of the words of the Prophet Jeremy, 
Jerem. cap. 31. v. 15.  a Voice was heard in Rama, etc. St. Matthew (saith he) does neither report that passage, according to the Hebrew, nor according to the Greek: nec juxta Hebraicum, nec juxta Septuaginta sumpsit testimonium. 
(g) Ex quo perspicuum est Evangelistas & Apostolos nequaquam ex Hebraeo interpretationem alicujus secutos, sed quasi Hebraeos ex Hebraeis quod legebant Hebraicè suis sermonibus expressisse. Hieron. Comm. in Is. lib. 6. c. 31.  Whence he does conclude, that the Evangelists and Apostles did not tie themselves to the Version of any Interpreter; but that being Hebrews, they used their own words, in expressing that which they read in the Hebrew Text; this general answer is what he gives almost every where.  
But it may be said, and more truly, that the Apostles and Evangelists, when they instructed the People, who read the Bible in Greek, used, in their quotations, the expressions of the Bible, yet did not scrupulously adhere to the words, because they had the sense only in their view. To convince St. Jerome of this, there needs no other Passage of Scripture than that which was mentioned by himself: For which 'tis only needful to look into the Hebrew Text, and the Greek of the Septuagint; for, whereas it is in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which that Father (together with some Jews) in his Version, translated in excelso i. e. on high; the Septuagint who have made it a proper Name, have rendered it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Rama, and St. Matthew followed them in his citation of the same passage: It is true, that in the other words, St. Matthew does rather agree with the Hebrew than the Septuagint, as St. Jerome has mentioned them, agreeable to the Edition of Rome; for it is in St. Matthew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and he refused to be comforted, as it is in the Hebrew at this day; whereas in the Septuagint it is rendered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he refused rest.  
But it is probable, that the ancient reading of the Septuagint was agreeable to St. Matthew; and at this day it is extant in the Copy of Alexandria, in the Editions of Old, and Complutum or Alcala; and likewise in the Arabian Version, which was taken from the Septuagint. And here 'tis observable, that although that of Rome, is the best of all the Editions of the Septuagint, because it is the most ancient and pure of any of them, yet it is not free from errors. 'Tis to be supposed, that long before Origen, the Greek of the Septuagint was altered in some places, by some half-learned Men, whether Jews or Christians, who were far from a through knowledge of the Hebrew Language, but rather consulted their Dictionaries about the Hebrew words of the Bible; I believe that that place of Jeremy, is of the number of those which were altered in the Septuagint.  
Amendments of that nature were then only placed in the Margin of the Greek Copies, by way of Notes; to show that the Hebrew words might have been interpreted in another manner, and it happened afterwards, that the Marginal Note or reading passed into the Text: Seeing it was the custom at that time, to have Dictionaries of the words of every famous Author; I make no Question, but that there was also composed a Dictionary, containing the words of the Bible, and also of every Book thereof in particular. The Jewish Greeks, who read in their Synagogues the Hebrew Text of the Law and the Prophets, and who joined thereunto the Greek Version of the Septuagint, had their Dictionaries of that kind written in Greek, in which they marked the different significations of the Hebrew words. There is for example, in that Passage of Jeremy we now treat of, the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the Septuagint, is rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But seeing in other places they have translated the same Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that was noted in the Dictionaries; some one or other would place in the Margin of his Copy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and this first reading which was then in the Margin, by way of note only, was afterwards put in the Text, and it has remained alone in the Edition of Rome.  
This observation is absolutely necessary, for the diserning of many false Glosses that are in the Septuagint, from the true reading; some examples of which I would set down, but that I fear it will take up too much room. St. Jerome, who had not considered this, judged of the Version of the Septuagint by the Copy which he had; and took no notice that that Version was altered by false Glosses in the most ancient Copies; and even a long time before Origen, whose critical observations afforded no remedy for that imperfection. This principle being once established, may serve as a rule to justify the citations of the Evangelists and the Apostles, which differ not so much from the ancient Greek Version, as St. Jerome believed.  
Nevertheless that Learned Father found four or five Passages, which he pretends to be cited in the New Testament as they are in the Hebrew; whereas they are otherwise in the Septuagint: He does frequently object the same to his Adversaries, to show them, that the Evangelists and Apostles being Hebrews, had consulted the Hebrew more than the Greek Version. Therein he takes Sanctuary, to avoid the reproaches which from all sides are cast upon him, about his new Translation of the Bible: And thus, (as he thinks) St. Matthew has rendered the words of Hosea, I have called my Son out of Egypt. 
(h) Pro eo quod nos diximus, ex Aegypto vocavi filium meum, Septuaginta transtulerunt, ex Aegypto vocavi filios ejus, quod in Hebraico non habetur; nullique dubium est Matthaeum de hoc loco sumpsisse testimonium juxta Hebraicom veritatem. Ergo qui detrahunt nostrae translationi videant Scripturam de quâ Evangelista hoc testimomum sumpserit. Hieron. Comm. in Os. lib. 3. cap. 11.  There is no doubt (saith he) but that St. Matthew did make use of the Hebrew here; because the Septuagint has it thus, I have called my Children out of Egypt. Let those (he adds) who traduce my Version, consult the Scripture from whence the Evangelists took this Passage; he repeats the same thing in his Commentary on St. Matthew; 
(i) Respondeant qui Hebraicorum voluminum denegant veritatem, ubi hoc in Septuaginta legatur Interpretibus: quod cùm non invenerint, nos eis dicemus in Osée Prophetâ scriptum, sicut & exemplaria probare possunt quae nuper edidimus. Hieron. Comm. in Matth. lib. 1. cap. 2.  where he does ask those who reject the Hebrew Copy of the Jews, in what place of the Septuagint, they shall find that which is cited there: And seeing he believed that they could not possibly find the passage, he does refer them to his new Translation of the Prophet Hosea. But he himself resolves the doubt, by adding, in favour of those who did oppose him, propter contentiosos, that St. Matthew in that place, had cited the words of Chap. 23. of Numbers; 
Num. 23.22.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. God who brought him out of Egypt. And this is in effect the Opinion of the most Learned Greek Commentators on the Scriptures, who lived before St. Jerome. 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. Heracl. in Cat. Gr. in Matth.  It is written in the Book of Numbers (says Theodore of Heraclea, upon this place of St. Matthew, God called him out of Egypt.  
When 'tis also supposed, that St. Matthew had in his view that Passage of the Prophet Hosea, which is more probable; why does he deny that it was from the beginning in the Septuagint, as St Matthew has cited it; and that that difference does proceed from those who altered the ancient Greek Version by their Glosses? They believed, that by translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his Children, (as if it had been in the Hebrew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) the sense would be the more clear, because that which follows is put in the Plural Number. There might other examples be given of alterations of that kind, which must be imputed to those who changed the ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint, by their false Glosses. 'Tis therefore very probable, that the reading in that place of the Septuagint, was formerly the same as it is in St. Matthew, and likewise in Aquila, who also translated that passage of the Prophet Hosea, by these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I have called my Son out of Egypt.  
St. Jerome does yet triumph over his Adversaries, in his Commentary upon the words of the Prophet Zechary; 
Zach. 12.10.  They looked upon me whom they have pierced: St. John, who cited that passage in his Gospel, does give it in the same manner, according to the Hebrew Text; whereas in the Septuagint, it is, They looked upon me, because they have insulted. 
(l) Joannes Evangelista qui de pectore Domini hausit sapientiam, Hebraeus ex Hebraeis, quem Salvator amabat plurimùm, non magnoperè curavit quid Graecè literae continerent, sed verbum interpretatus verbo est, ut in Hebraeo legerat, & tempore dominicae passionis dixit esse completum. Quod si quis non recipit, det testimomum de quo sanctarum scripturarum loco Joannes ista protulerit. Hieron. Comm. in Zach. lib. 3. c. 12.  St. John, (says that Father) being an Hebrew born, did not much regard its being read in the Greek Version of the Septuagint: On the contrary, he has rendered that place of Zechary, word for word, as it was in the Hebrew. But if one will not believe him, he must show the place of Scripture, from which St. John took the same. He further adds, that the likeness of the Letter R and D in the Hebrew, was the cause of the false Translation of the Seventy Interpreters, ob similitudinem literarum error est natus, because they read (as he thinks) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
But in my opinion, seeing St. John did follow the Septuagint more than the Hebrew, in all the Passages of his Gospel, there is no reason to maintain, that, in that place, he consulted the Hebrew Copy of the Jews; without any regard to the Greek Version of the Septuagint: Which makes me believe, that at the beginning, it was read in the Septuagint, as it was in the Hebrew, and in St. John. The change of Letters of that nature, gave occasion of altering the true and ancient Text in other places: And this happened to that Passage of Zechary, which ought to be amended in the Greek Version of the Septuagint, according to the reading in the Gospel of St. John. That which does confirm this Opinion, is, that St. Cyprian did read it after that manner, in the ancient Latin Version, which was taken from the Septuagint: The Rendition of that Father has more Authority in this case, than that of some Greek Scholiasts, who have also read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they insulted; as it is in St. John, agreeable to the Hebrew Text. For these Scholiasts in their Expositions, do frequently follow Aquila, or some other Greek Interpreter without declaring that they do so: And therefore 'tis necessary that we be cautious herein, that we do not confound the Version of the Septuagint, with other ancient Greek Interpreters.  
This should be the place for the examples of the alterations we spoke of, whereby the ancient Greek Rendition was very much changed; but it would take up too much time: It suffices that we have touched something of it, in general, to justify the Citations of the Evangelists and of the Apostles. Neither will I stay, to examine particularly, some other Passages of the Old Testament, which St. Jerome pretends to have been cited by the Apostles, in their Writings, rather according to the Hebrew than according to the Septuagint. For besides that it does require a long time to discuss them, the rules that are confirmed already, are sufficient to Answer all that Father's Objections, who himself has acknowledged, in many places of his Works, that the Disciples of Jesus Christ, who Preached the Gospel to a People that spoke the Greek Tongue, must have made use of the ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint, which was in the hands of every one; and not of the Hebrew Bible, which was read by none but the Jews: Besides there were but few amongst them, who could have understood it. We come now to the other Objection, which is brought against the Books of the New Testament, and which consists in a supposition, that the Apostles and the Evangelists have not only changed the words of the Passages which they cite, but that they have likewise wrested the same, by giving them a sense altogether different from the meaning of the Authors.   

CHAP. XXI. A Discussion of some other Objections against the Books of the New Testament: The Evangelists and Apostles (in the manner of their explaining the Passages of the Old Testament, and applying them to the Messiah) followed the Custom which then obtained amongst the Jews. There are many words in the New Testament, which have a larger signification than they have in the Old: And that can be attributed to nothing but to that usage, and to a tradition received amongst the Jews.  
THE Present Times gave not a beginning to the very great and difficult Objections, that have been form against the Testimonies of the Old Testament, which the Evangelists and Apostles have made use of in their Writings, for the Confirmation of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Celsus, Porphyrius, Julian and the Jews have brought them against the Christians, that they might thereby show, (as they think) the weakness of those Proofs, upon which the Christian Religion is founded: But they are deceived, when they persuade themselves, that Christianity has nothing else but such sort of Proofs, for its Foundation. The 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 applied, it cannot be concluded from thence, that the Christian Religion is built on a false Foundation.  
That we may make a right judgement 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 Messiah 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  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 Messiah: 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 easy 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 persuade 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 pressed 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, aught 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. 'Tis true, that that which is merely 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 applied 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 falsely 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 Barcepha, a Syrian Author, having considered this Truth, 
(m) Sicut inter haereticos qui contendun. minimè convenire ut Veteris Testamenti scripta mysticè atque aliter quàm 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 Heretics, who allege 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 shown 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 Judaisme. 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 Catholics, in the Disputes betwixt them, and who do only admit the Literal Expositions of Scripture, without any dependence 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 Catholics, 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 Catholics, 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 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 subtle 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. & Nou. 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, etc. 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 myself 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 itself: 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, chief 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 jointly with the Literal. He does allege, 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 applied to Christ, yet that is the proper Sense, as the Apostle does show, 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 examine the Consequences which Servetus does draw from his Principle. I brought his words, only to show, that the greatest Enemies of Tradition, are obliged in their Expositions of many Passages of Scripture to acknowledge 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 Prophecies, 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 Catholics. 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 Catholics, 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 examine some of those Passages, which the Emperor Julian, and the Jews have objected against the Christians.  
The first that presents itself, is taken from those Words of the Prophet Esay, Behold a Virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a Son, 
Is. seven. 14.  and thou shall call his name Emmanuel. St. Matthew has applied them to the Messiah, who was born of a Virgin, and has rendered 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 signify a Virgin, as St. Matthew has rendered 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 signify 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 justify St. Matthew, but also to show, 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 rendered it according to the Hebrew, thou shalt call. But at the same time does add, 
(t) In multis testimoniis quae Evangelistae vel Apostoli de libris veteribus assumpserunt curiosiùs attendendum est non eos verborum ordinem secutos esse, sed sensum. Hieron.  that the Evangelists and the Apostles did not scrupulously limit themselves to the very words of the Passages of the Old Testament, contenting themselves to give their Sense. This is sufficient; though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou shalt call, is likewise found in some Greek Copies.  
As for the Sense of this Passage, the Jews pretend that it cannot be applied to the Messiah, as St. Matthew has done it, seeing that place does make mention of a thing that should happen very soon afterwards. St. Jerom observes that they understood it of Hezekiah, the Son of Achaz, because Samaria was invaded under his Reign. But he does solidly refute them, by making it appear to them, that Achaz was already far advanced in years before he came to the Kingdom. He brings, in the same place, another Exposition of a 
(u) Quidam de nostris judaizans Esaiam Prophetam duos filios habuisse contendit, Jesub & Emmanuel; & Emmanuel de Prophetissâ uxore ejus esse generatum in typum Domini Salvatoris. Hieron. ibid.  Christian, who (in his Opinion) did Judaize. That Author believed, that in that place it was spoken of the Prophet Esay's Wife, who had two Children, Jesub and Emmanuel, that the latter was the Type of Jesus Christ. But whatever St. Jerom does say of it, I do not perceive, that there is any thing affirmed therein, but what is altogether consonant to the Principles of the Christian Religion, and also to those which he does elsewhere maintain. That Prophecy, as the most part of the rest, has a double Sense: the one, which is here spoken of, has relation to the Prophet Esay's Wife, the other, which is of a greater latitude, and may be called Spiritual or Mystical, does point at the times of the Messiah; and it is also in some manner Literal, because it is founded on the Theology and Traditions of the Jews. It will be easy to answer their objections, by supposing these two Senses: whereas if the Exposition of that Prophecy be rigorously restrained to the Messiah, it will be more difficult to satisfy them. Seeing this Principle is of great importance, and may be useful for the resolution of many difficulties of this nature, it is fit to confirm it by the Authority of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, and chief St. Jerom, who has mentioned it in his Commentaries upon the Prophet Daniel. Porphyrius did pretend that there is nothing in that Book but what is Historical. He applied to Antiochus that which the Christians Expound of Antichrist, and the end of the World. The Christians nevertheless, did not wholly reject the Interpretation of Porphyrius; but they affirmed that Antiochus was a Type of Antichrist. Typum eum volunt, (says St. Jerom in speaking of the ancient Doctors of the Church) Antichristi habere, & quae in illo ex parte praecesserint, in Antichristo ex toto esse implenda. And to make their Opinion the more clear, he further adds this excellent Maxim: 
(x) Hunc esse morem Scripturae Sanctae, ut futurorum veritatem praemittat in typis, juxta illud quod de Domino Salvatore in 71. Psalm dicitur, qui praenotatur Salomonis, & omnia quae de eo dicuntur Salomoni non valent convenire. Apud Hieron. Comm. in Dan. c. 11.  that it is usual for the Holy Scripture to describe the Truth of future things by Types. Which he confirmed by Psalm lxxi. which is understood of Jesus Christ, and which is nevertheless applied to Solomon, though every thing spoken in that Psalm cannot agree to him.  
Those ancient Ecclesiastical Writers did conclude from thence, that 
(y) Sicut igitur Salvator habet & Salomonem & caeteros sanctos in typum adventûs sui; sic & Antichristus pessimum Regem Antiochum qui sanctos persecutus est, templumque violavit, rectè typum sui habuisse credendus est. Hieron. ibid.  seeing Jesus Christ had Solomon, and other Saints of the Old Testament for Types; we ought likewise to believe, that Antichrist had Antiochus for a Type; he having been a very wicked King, who persecuted the Saints, and violated the Temple. St. Jerom does explain the Prophecy of Daniel according to those two Senses: and seeing in that he cannot be charged with having favoured the impieties of Porphyrius, who alleged that the Book of Daniel was not so ancient as the Jews and Christians did pretend; those cancot be accused of Judaisme, who received a part of the Expositions that the Jews have given of the Prophecies, and who do withal, (with the Evangelists and Apostles, apply them to the Messiah in a larger Sense.   

CHAP. XXII. A particular Examination of many Passages of the Old Testament, cited by the Apostles in a sense that seems to be altogether Foreign. Some difficulties form against their Writings are cleared; some Principles are established, which may Answer the Objections of the Jews, and the Emperor Julian.  
AS it would require much time, so it is of no use, to explain here all the Passages of the Old Testament, which the Evangelists and the Apostles have cited in their Writings, because Commentators may be consulted thereupon, especially Maldonat and Grotius, who commonly follow the Principle that we have already established. That Principle did appear so much the more reasonable, as being equally founded on a joint suffrage of the Jews and Christians: Seeing I design to give general Rules, for answering the Objections of the Jews, against the Books of the New Testament, 'tis sufficient, if I only take notice of some of those citations, by which means these Rules may be the more manifest.  
One of the places that are most difficult to be reconciled, is the Passage of the Prophet Micah, which is cited in the eleventh Chap. of St. Matthew, v. 6. 
(a) Quod testimonium nec Hebraico nec Septuaginta Interpretibus convenire, me quoque tacente, perspicuum est. Hieron. lib. 2. in Mic. c. 5.  St. Jerome does assure us, that it is as clear as the day, that it does neither agree with the Hebrew Text, nor with the Greek of the Septuagint. He brings at the same time, the Opinion of some Authors, who believed 
(b) Sunt autem qui asserant in omnibus penè testimoniis quae de Veteri Testamento sumuntur, istiusmodi esse errorem, ut aut ordo mutetur, aut verba, & interdùm sensus quoque ipse diversus sit, vel Apostolis vel Evangelistis non ex libro carpentibus testimonia, sed memoriae credentibus quae nonnunquam fallitur. Hieron. ibid.  that the Evangelists and Apostles were not at all exact in their citations, because they trusted to their memory: But seeing this Answer does rather destroy than establish the truth of the Gospels, he has recourse to another solution. He says, that they are the Jewish Doctors, who speak in that place; so that St. Matthew intending to show, that those Doctors neglected the study of the Scripture, has cited that Passage in the same manner as they had delivered it. But it does not at all appear, that the Evangelist meant to accuse them of ignorance.  
Yet it cannot be denied, but that they were Jews who spoke to Herod, to whom we ought consequently to impute the citation of that Passage of Micah. St. Matthew as an Historian, does only report that which passed betwixt Herod and the Principal Doctors of the Jews. That Prince did ask them, where their Messiah should be Born; they made Answer, that he should be Born in Bethlehem, of the Tribe of Juda; and they proved it by that Passage of the Prophet Micah, and thou Bethlehem in the Land of Judah, art not the least amongst the Princes of Judah, for out of thee a Governor shall come, who shall rule my People Israel. If this is not a faithful citation, the error ought not to be imputed to St. Matthew, but to the Jewish Doctors who spoke it. Was it possible (they may say) that all the Learned Men who were in Jerusalem at that time, should be deceived in citing a Passage that was so well known to them? Ought they not to have reported it, as it is in the Hebrew Text, where we read that Bethlehem is a little City? On the contrary the Doctors affirmed, in St. Matthew, that it was not a little one.  
Some Commentators have endeavoured to reconcile this contradiction, by supposing the Jews to have read that place with an Interrogation: And the truth is, seeing there are no marks in the Hebrew for such Interrogations; it may be expounded in that sense, without changing the Prophetical Text; which it were easy to confirm by many Examples from the Writings of the Jews. Gabriel Sionita has also translated the Syriack in that place, with an Interrogation, though it be wholly agreeable to the Hebrew. Tertullian and St. Cyprian did likewise read non, in the ancient Latin Version, as if it were to be read in the Greek of the Septuagint, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Orig. lib. 1. cont. Cells.  which Reading is confirmed by Origen: Nevertheless, it might have so been, that St. Matthew's rendition instead of the reading of the Prophet, was put in those Writers, or that they themselves did cite the words of Micah, as they are in St. Matthew: St. Jerome, in his ancient Version, read modica es, thou art little, without a negation, agreeable to the Hebrew Text.  
Mr. Pocock found another way of reconciling those two places, without having recourse to an interrogation: He does allege, that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in the Prophet Micah; and which is ordinarily interpreted small, does in that place signify great, because it does equally signify both. And this he does likewise prove by the testimony of some Rabbins; and it may be further proved by the ancient Greek Interpreters. 'Tis probable that the Jewish Doctors reported that Passage to King Herod, according to the exposition it received in the Glosses of that time, which were read to the People, without keeping to the words of their Text, which was only understood by the Learned. That which confirms me in this Opinion, is, that instead of these words, and thou Bethlehem Ephrata, or as it is in the Septuagint, Bethlehem the House of Ephrata, they put these words, which were more known at that time, and thou Bethlehem in the Land of Judah.  
There is likewise read in the Hebrew, and in the Septuagint, amongst the Thousands of Judah, and in St. Matthew, amongst the Princes of Judah: This different Interpretation does proceed from this, that the same Hebrew word that is in the Prophet, may be interpreted both ways, according to the different vowels, or rather according to the caprice of the Transcribers, who did add or take away at their pleasure, the letter vau, in which the difference of interpretation does consist. The Scribes did read it with the letter vau 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aluphe, whereas the Septuagint read it, as it is at this day amongst the Jews, in the Hebrew of the Masorets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alphe. There is nothing more ordinary in the Hebrew Manuscript Copies of the Bible, than this kind of alteration: And therefore, when it does occur, the sense is rather to be regarded than the manner wherein the Hebrew words are written. The Jews of that time, expounded that Passage of Micah, as if it had been in the Hebrew Text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aluphe, with the letter vau.  
St. Jerome, endeavouring to justify the liberty he took, in giving more heed to the sense than words, did produce this Passage of the Prophet Micah, to show, that it is quite otherwise in the Hebrew and in the Septuagint, than in St. Matthew. He adds withal, 
(c) Haec replico, non ut Evangelistas arguam falsitatis, hoc quippe impiorum est Celsi, Porphyrii & Juliani; sed ut reprehensores meos arguam imperitiae, & impetrem ab eis veniam, ut concedant mihi in simplici epistolâ quod in Scriptures Sanctis velint nolint Apostolis concessuri sunt. Hieron. de oped. gen. interp. ad Pammach.  that he did not, by that answer, charge the Evangelists with falsehood; as Celsus, Porphyrius and the Emperor Julian had done; but to convince his Adversaries of ignorance, and to show them, that he might in one single Letter, take the same liberty that the Apostles had taken in Translating the Sacred Writings. It seems, that that Learned Father, does here attribute to St. Matthew, what he attributed to the Jewish Doctors, in his Commentaries upon the Prophet Micah: However, 'tis more to the purpose, that we reconcile those two different Interpretations, by having recourse to the Fountain, then by increasing the difficulty.  
St. Matthew applied to the Messiah, in the same Chapter of his Gospel, the words of the Prophet Hosea, Out of Egypt I have called my Son: It is evident, that the Prophet speaks of the People of Israel, whom God calls his Son. Answer may be made to this Objection of the Jews, that that People was a Type of the Messiah, to whom, that which was spoken of Israel, in a literal sense, might, according to the custom of that time, be applied in a Mystical and Spiritual sense. See Maldonat in his Commentary on this place of St. Matthew, where that Learned Jesuit does, at the same time, establish solid Principles, for the exposition of the most part of the Prophetical Texts, that have been cited by the Evangelists and the Apostles. He does judiciously observe, that a Prophecy is reckoned to be accomplished, not only when 'tis truly, and in the Letter fulfilled, but also, when the thing which is figuratively signified by the words, is accomplished: He brings St. Paul for an example, who, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, Chap. 1. has applied to the Messiah, that which is spoken of Solomon in the second Book of Samuel, Chap. 7. v. 14. I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son. And the same may be said of the Prophecy of Hosea. 
(d) Populus ille in Aegypto exulans Christi ibidem exulaturi figura dici potest; sicut nunc corpus mystieum Ecclesiae corporis naturalis Christi figura est; & Christus populo in eo similis est, quod uterque Dei filius appelletur. Mald. Comm. in c. 2. Matth. v. 15.  The People of Israel (saith Maldonat) in the time of their exile in Egypt, may be said to be a figure of Jesus Christ, who was also to be there in Exile; as at this day, the Mystical Body of the Church, is a Figure of the natural Body of the same Jesus Christ, who is like to Israel in this; that both the one and the other is called the Son of God.  
The Jews could not deny this Mystical and Spiritual sense, which is founded on Theology and their Ancient Doctors, and whereof there are Examples in the most part of their Writings: And therefore, all that they object against the Authors of the New Testament, does fall on their own heads, seeing the Evangelists and Apostles have only imitated them. In their application of the Prophecies to the Messiah; they followed a Method which was approved by the Jews, especially by the Pharisees. All that does remain of the Jews in the World (if we except the Jews Caraites, who are in a very small number) derive their original from the Pharisees, who, besides the Literal and Historical sense of Scripture, do acknowledge a Sublime and Mystical sense: Whence it is, that those senses are frequently to be found in the Commentaries of their Rabbins.  
Origen, in his Writings against Celsus, maintained with all his might that sublime sense of the Prophecies: He calls that sense a Mystical Theory of the Prophets, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He says, 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Orig. lib. 2. cont. Cells.  that the Prophets did not confine their thoughts to the Historical sense, which came first in view; nor to the Words and bare Letter of the Law. He does moreover establish this general Rule 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. lib. 2. cont. Cells.  that the predictions of the Prophets, concerning the Messiah are different, some being Enigmatical, and others Allegorical, or of some other sort, there being also some of them that are Literal. It will suffice, as an Answer to the Jews, (who, in their disputes against the Christians, do very much insist on the Literal and Historical sense of the Prophecies,) to bring that which Origen, upon the like occasion answered Celsus; who brought in a Jew speaking in his Writings. He does reproach him, 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. ibid.  that he does not make the Jew speak pertinently, and according to the Character he had given him, because he put such words in his mouth as did agree rather to a Samanitane or Sadducee, than to a true Jew.  
I always followed this Method, when at any time I met with such Jews, as impugned the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, in the manner as I have already shown: For, perceiving that they were pressed by the very Principles of their own Doctors; they never returned me any Answer but this, that the Mystical and Allegorical Interpretations of their Ancient Masters, gave a great advantage to the Christian Religion. When I asked them, if they would renounce the Principles of their Rabbins, to embrace those of the Sadducees, or even of the Caraites; they declared to me, that they had a very great aversion to Men of that stamp. This way is to be taken in our disputes with the Jews about Religion: They are mightily puzzled, when ever this Method is employed against them; because we fight against them with the same Arms that they themselves make use of, against the Sectaries whom we have already mentioned.  
To return to the testimonies of the Prophets, that are cited in the New Testament; St. Matthew has, in the same second Chapter of his Gospel, applied to the Messiah, that which is written in Jeremiah, Chap. 31. which seems to have no such meaning, if it be expounded literally. A voice was heard in Rama, a voice of lamentation and great weeping; Rachel weeping for her Children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. 
(h) Hebraei de abductione duarum tribuum Judae & Benjamin interpretantur; nec dubium est ex circumstantiis Jeremiae, quin de illis intelligatur, & per Rachelem tota regio duarum tribuum significetur. Mald. Comm. in c. 2. Matth. v. 18.  The Jews, 
Jerem. 31.15.  (as Maldonat affirms) in their exposition of this Passage of Jeremy, apply it to the carrying away of the two Tribes; and there is no doubt but that is the true sense, and that by Rachel, all the Cities of those two Tribes are to be understood.  
If it be so, the Jews may say, why has your Evangelist expounded it of the murder of the Children, that happened upon the occasion of your Messiah? 'Tis easy to make Answer, that as to that, there is nothing that is extraordinary, and which is not agreeable to the expositions of their own Authors. Aderas, (to use their own terms) or an Allegorical sense, does very well agree to the murder of those Infants: The similitude that was between those two Events, gave an occasion to St. Matthew, to apply that which had been already accomplished in the time of the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin. This was observed by Crellius, after Maldonat, referuntur à Matthaeo, (saith that Unitary,) ad caedem Infantium Bethlehemiticorum propter rei similitudinem, quia id quod olim quidem impletum fuit in aliis, in illis infantibus impletum fuit. Faustus Socinus, (who also believed, that the Jews stood upon the literal sense of that Passage of Jeremy) observed, that Tremellius and Junius alleged, that it could not be understood literally, any other way than according to St. Matthew's Interpretation. 
(i) Verùm nulla hîc est absurditas, si duplici sensu intelligantur praedictiones Veteris Testamenti esse prolatae. Imò hoc videtur proprium & consentaneum praedictionibus esse. Soc. Lect. Sac.  But in that (saith he) there is no absurdity, if two senses be admitted in the Prophecies of the Old Testament: It does also appear, that it is proper and agreeable to those Prophecies. The truth is, if those two senses be not owned, we shall give an occasion to the Jews to accuse the Evangelists and the Apostles, for having falsely applied the Ancient Prophecies.  
We find in the same Chapter of St. Matthew, another citation out of the Prophets, in general, which seems to be more Foreign, than any that has been yet taken notice of. That Evangelist saith, that, Jesus came and dwelled in a City called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet, he shall be called a Nazarene. Seeing he named no Prophet in particular, the difficulty is to know, what Prophet it was who foretold that the Messiah should be called a Nazarene. St. John chrysostom, who had not observed those words in any of the Prophets, did believe, 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. Hom. 9 in Matth.  that we ought not to involve ourselves in the trouble of an endless search, because there have been several Books of the Prophets lost, which may be proved (as he says) by the History of the Chronicles. The Author of the Imperfect Work on St. Matthew, does observe, that the Evangelist does not say, 
(l) Dum dicit per Prophetas, non per Prophetam, manifestat quòd non certam auctoritatem Prophetae protulerit, sed sensum Prophetarum colligens dixit, aut fortè legerunt alios Prophetas ita dicentes qui non sunt nobis canonizati. Auct. Op. imp. in c. 2. Matth.  per Prophetam, by a Prophet, but per Prophetas, by the Prophets; to signify, that he did not mean the testimony of any Prophet in particular, but only, that it might be gathered from the Prophets in general. He adds afterwards, that there were probably at that time, other Prophetical Books; which were not placed in the Canon of the Sacred Writings. The ground of this Answer seems to be, that St. Jerome has in his Works, made mention of some other Prophetical Books than those we have at this day, and which were read by the Nazarene Sectaries, who came from the first Christians of Jerusalem, who were also called Nazarenes, for whom St. Matthew writ his Gospel.  
Nevertheless that Father had no recourse to this solution, in his Commentaries upon this place, where he plainly affirms the same thing with the Author of the Imperfect Work, viz. That St. Matthew 
(m) Pluraliter Prophetas vocans ostendit se non verba de Scriptures sumpsisse, sed sensum. Nazaraeus sanctus interpretatur. Sanctum autem Dominum futurum omnis Scriptura commemorat. Hieron. lib. 1. Comm. in Matth. c. 2.  having cited the Prophets in general, intended to show, that he made no mention of the words of any one in particular, but only of the sense: But seeing the word Nazarene does signify Holy, the Scripture does declare throughout, that the Lord should be Holy. He does yet subjoin another more particular explication, and which appeared to be more probable, as being founded on a Passage of the Prophet Esay, Chap. 11. v. 1. 
(n) Possumus & aliter dicere, quod etiam eisdem verbis juxta Hebraicam veritatem in Esaiâ scriptum sit, Exiet virga de radice Jesse, & Nazaraeus de radice ejus ascendet. Hieron. ibid.  And there shall come forth a Rod out of the Stem of Jesse, and a Nazarene (vulg. Branch) shall grow out of his Roots. I make no Question, but that the Jews will condemn this Translation of the words of Esay, as well as St. Matthew's citation, because it is not in the Hebrew, Nazaraeus, Nazarene, as St. Jerome has rendered it, but netser, which does signify a flower; as he himself had expounded it in the Version of that Prophet. He likewise observed in his Commentary upon this place of Esay, that the Hebrew word which does signify Nazarene, is written with the letter zain, and that in this place, it is written with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tsade, where it does signify a flower.  
This critical Observation of St. Jerome, upon the 11. Chap. of the Prophet Esay, seems to destroy what he had observed in his Commentary upon the 2. Chap. of St. Matthew: The truth is, 'twas the custom of that Learned Father, in his Commentaries upon the Scripture, rather to report that which he had read in other Commentators, than to establish an opinion of his own. And therefore, 'tis not surprising if we sometimes do find opposite opinions therein: Nevertheless his Learning does afford us great help, for finding out the sense of the most difficult Passages of the Sacred Writings. The Opinion of those who believed that St. Matthew, in that place, had cited the Passage of Chap. 11. of the Prophet Esay, seems, in my opinion to be the most probable. 'Tis very likely, that St. Jerome did apply it to the Nazarenes, when he says, in his Commentary upon that Prophet, that the Learned amongst the Jews took it from that place: Eruditi Hebraeorum de hoc loco assumptum putant. Those Hebrews are the Sect of the Nazarenes, who were called Hebrews, and who were so in effect: Seeing they read the Gospel of St. Matthew in the Chaldee or Syriack, the allusion to the Hebrew word netser, that is in Esay, is better known in their Copy than in the Greek; and it was also better perceived by those who had the Hebrew and Chaldaic Languages.  
That we make a right judgement hereof, that Passage of St. Matthew ought to be read in the Syriack Version, which in that place, should not differ from the Original Chaldee of St. Matthew: But the Syrians do read these two words, Nazareth and Nazarene alike, with the letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tsade. And after this manner they ought in effect, to be read in St. Matthew; who intended not to signify the Nazarites of the Old Testament, whose name is written with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 zain. He made a bare allusion, according to the method of that time, to the Hebrew word netser of Esay, which does signify a flower, and which is written with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tsade, as well as that of the City Nazareth. 'Tis of importance carefully to observe, that the Jews do agree with the Christians; that that Passage of Esay, which speaks of that flower, called in Hebrew netser, is understood of the Messiah. Which being known at that time to all the World, St. Matthew, (who wrote in the Chaldee, for the Jews of Jerusalem then newly converted, who were accustomed to expositions of that nature) made an allusion to this Hebrew word netser or flower.  
'Tis but consulting the Jewish Talmud, their Book entitled Zohar, and their Ancient Medraschim, or Allegorical Commentaries; for we may there find the like Interpretations of Scripture to be extant, founded on bare allusions, and similitudes, not only of words, but even of letters. If the Jews could but seriously reflect on all these considerations, they would not brand, with the title of either false or ridiculous, the citation of St. Matthew; who has (say they) perverted the words of the Prophet Esay, to apply them to their Messiah. For, seeing that Evangelist, writing for Jews who were inclining to embrace the Religion of Jesus Christ, did follow the custom and usage that obtained at that time amongst them: Unless we go back to that ancient custom; we shall meet with great difficulties in the most part of the Passages of the Old Testament, which the Evangelists and Apostles have cited in their Writings, for the confirmation of their own Sentiments.  
We ought to pursue this Method, for answering the Jews solidly; we are to represent to them the course their Fathers took, which, unless they renounce their Religion, they cannot reject. This Principle also may serve for the refutation of Julian's impious charge, 
Apud Cyril. lib. 7. adv. Jul.  who accused the Christians for having abandoned the Law and the Prophets; although they made a profession of following them: He likewise reproached them for their boldness in calling themselves Israelites, having (as he alleged) a Doctrine altogether opposite to that of Moses and the Ancient Prophets. 
Apud Cyril. lib. 8. adv. Jul.  But it is easy to convince him, that the Christians are truly Israelites, since they have neither renounced the Law nor the Prophets, although sometimes they do expound them in a Mystical and Spiritual sense, such an exposition, as has been said, is not contrary to the Doctrine of the Ancient Jews.  
That Emperor, seeing he owned no other sense of the Books of Moses, but an Historical and Literal, did object against the Christians; that those words of Deuteronomy, Chap. 18. v. 15. The Lord shall raise up a Prophet like unto me, could not be understood of Jesus the Son of Mary; seeing Moses does expressly speak 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Julian. apud Cyr. ibid.  of a Prophet, who was to be a Man as he was, and not the Son of God. It is true, 
Act. c. 3. v. 22. c. 7. v. 37.  that St. Peter and St. Stephen applied to Jesus Christ, that Passage of Deuteronomy, which is literally understood of Joshua, who was to succeed to Moses, and also of other Judges and Prophets, who have been in the Commonwealth of the Hebrews. But if those Judges and Prophets were the Types of the Messiah, why does he oppose the application of the same words to him according to a Sublime and Spiritual Sense, of which we have already spoken, seeing the Rabbins do frequently make the like applications.  
By the Principles that we have established, it will be very easy to resolve the most part of the other Objections which the Jews do raise against the Citations which are found throughout the Books of the New Testament. The Apostles, who did exactly follow the Expositions which were in use in their time, have observed the same method, almost through all their Writings. The Jews could not oppose them without destroying their own Principles, and favouring at the same time the Saddùcees. According to this method St. Matthew applied to St. John the words of the Prophet Esay, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, make strait the way of the Lord. It is manifest that the Evangelist did, by a deras, or Spiritual and Allegorical Sense, Expound that which we ought to understand Literally, and Historically of the returning of the Jews from their Captivity out of Babylon to Jerusalem.  
Besides all those observations which serve as Principles for answering the Objections of the Jews, and the Emperor Julian, this is likewise remarkable, that there are many words in the New Testament, which have a larger Sense than in the Old, which can be only attributed to the Custom of that time, and to a Tradition received amongst the Jews. There is nothing in the Books of Moses, that does afford us any clear discovery of the state of a future Life, which the Jews do call olam habba, i.e. The World to come,, there is no manifest Record in the ancient Law, of a Heaven or a Hell, any more than there is of a Recompense to the Just, and Punishment to the Wicked in that other Life. Neither have they proper words to express those things; they are obliged to make use of Metaphorical terms. The word Gehenna, for example, which is taken from the Hebrew Gehennam, has quite another Sense in the Books of the Old Testament, than in the New, where it does signify the Fire of Hell. Which made St. Jerom say 
(p) Nomen gehennae in veteribus libris non invenitur, sed primùm à Salvatore ponitur. Hieron. Comm. in Matth.  that he does not find the word Gehenna in ancient Books; that Jesus Christ is the first who used it. Yet this does not prove that he was in effect the first that used it in that Sense, as it is in the New Testament; for it was before that time in use amongst the Jews, in the same very Sense, and especially amongst the Pharisees. St. Jerom meant no more than this, that he did not find it, in the Old Testament, under that signification, although their Paraphrasts, and their most ancient Rabbins used it in the same Sense as Jesus Christ did afterwards.  
The Hebrew word Sceol will come under the same consideration, for in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, it does signify a Sepulchre; it is almost every where in the Septuagint, rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hell, as if they had frequently intended to signify by that word, a subterranean place, where Souls are after their separation from the Body. St. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles, does Expound of the Messiah, according to that Sense, the words of Psalm xv. Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy holy one to see corruption. Which Passage is Literally understood of David, who said to God that he would not suffer his Enemies to take away his Life: and thus the Hebrew words Sceol and Scahat, according to the former Sense, do signify Literally a Sepulchre, and a Ditch. But according to the Spiritual and Mystical Sense, which St. Peter gives to this Psalm that he applies to the Messiah, whose Type David was, the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he took from the ancient Version of the Septuagint, do signify in the Acts of the Apostles, Hell and Corruption. The Application that the Apostle made of the words of that Psalm, to the Resurrection of the Messiah, does contain nothing but what is agreeable to the belief of the Jews of that time, who believed the Resurrection of the dead. They further acknowledged a subterranean place, to which Souls do go after their separation from the Body. Without a due regard to all these considerations, it is impossible to understand the New Testament.  
Therefore it is to be supposed as a thing constantly agreed upon, that the Jews, in the time of our Saviour and the Apostles, believed many things, whereof they had no Literal proofs in all the Old Testament, being only founded on their Traditions. And the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles, aught to be Expounded with a relation to this Idea of the Jewish Faith, and not to that which may be conceived of their belief, with a reference to the Books of the Old Testament only; because those Books contain but one part of their Religion, the other part being comprehended in their Traditions. The Jews do own this Principle. The Jews, even the Caraites, who do mightily oppose the Traditions of the Talmudists, which had degenerated into Fables, have preserved those which they believed to be founded on sufficient Records.  
The ancient Heretics, who did not weigh all these considerations, did rather choose to deny the truth of the Books of the New Testament, and say, that in after times there were interpolations made therein, than to attribute to the Apostles such things as they did not understand. It is upon this supposed ground that the Manichees, (who found no express Passages in the Law of Moses, that made mention of Jesus Christ,) rejected as false, all those Places of the Pentateuch, that were applied to him in the New Testament. They did not consider that at the time of Christ and the Apostles, there was a Mystical and Spiritual Sense approved of by all the Jews, some Sadducees possibly excepted. And with respect to this Sense, the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles are to be Expounded.  
And therefore they deceive themselves, who pretend that there ought to be a Literal Sense in all the Citations of the Apostles, especially in those which they bring in for Proofs. It is true, that a Passage of Scripture taken Allegorically, cannot serve for a Proof; but we speak here of such Allegorical Senses as were received, and which were also founded on Traditions that were warranted by Authority. They were therefore permitted to apply them to their Discourse, and likewise to draw such Consequences from them as might promote their design, in the same manner as the Pharisees made use of them in their Disputes against the Sadducees. Those Allegorical Senses prove nothing for their own confirmation, but suppose a belief already established, upon which they were founded.  
It is probable that Theodore de Mopsueste, Expounded the Psalms and the Prophecies according to this Method, and that he had regard to nothing, when he was condemned as a favourer of the Jews, but the Literal and Historical Sense, which he gave to those ancient Prophecies. They will not consider the Application he made thereof, with the whole Church, to the Messiah, according to a Spiritual and Mystical Sense. If we believe Facundus, there is no justice done to that great Man, who had a perfect knowledge of the Sacred Writings. 
(q) Eum dicunt evacuasse omnes in Christum factas Prophetias, quod Manichaeorum erroris est. Fac. pro def. tri. cap. Conc. Calc. lib. 9 c. 1.  They accused him of destroying the Prophecies that related to Jesus Christ, by an error like to that of the Manichees. But he shows the falsehood of this accusation, by producing the very words of Theodore, taken out of his Commentaries upon the Psalms. Quod autem (saith Facundus) nec evacuet omnes in Christum prophetias palam est quia rursus in ejusdem Psalmi expositione dicit, etc. Whence he concludes, 
(r) Non ergo Theodorus Judaicae impietatis arguendus est, tanquam hominem putaverit Christum, cùm potiùs Judaeos irrideat. Fac. ibid.  That it was hard to make Theodore pass for an impious person, who believed with the Jews that Jesus Christ was a mere Man, seeing he vigorously defended the contrary. This is no place to inquire if Theodore was unjustly condemned, as Facundus does assure us. I have only made mention of the Passage that I might show, that great Men have of a long time acknowledged two Senses of Scripture, as we have already made evident.  
It is certain that the Christian Religion is founded on that of the Jews. The Christians have this in common with them, that they adore the same God, and that they believe a Messiah promised in the Writings of the Old Testament; which they receive equally. And therefore the Christians who Expound those Writings in a Literal and Historical Sense, cannot be blamed, as if they favoured Judaisme, in exclusion of the Christian Religion, seeing they acknowledged a second Sense, called Spiritual and Mystical, which they apply to the Messiah. This latter Sense is the same that the Jews call deras. In a word, it is impossible to arrive at a perfect knowledge of the Christian Religion, and the Principles upon which it is established, so long as that of the Jews is not known, to which the former does owe its Original.  
Celsus, Porphyrius, Julian, and the Jews have brought some other Objections against the Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles. The Principal is that which is drawn from the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, Recorded in a different manner by St. Matthew and St. Luke. They allege, that besides that these two Evangelists do not agree, they have delivered manifest falsities. But this aspersion has been so clearly wiped off, by many Commentators upon the New Testament, and also in the Volumes that purposely have been written for that end, that it is needless to insist on it. I shall only observe in general, that it is easy to make answer to the Jews, upon such objections as are drawn from Genealogies. When they bring against the Christians, the difference that is betwixt our Evangelists and the Books of the Old Testament, their Mouths will be stopped, if we show them, that there is no less in this matter betwixt the Chronicles, which they attribute to Esdras, and the rest of the Historical Writings of the Old Testament. Their Rabbins, who could not reconcile things that appeared so remote from one another, are forced to own, that the same Genealogies, which are written in a different manner, were taken out of Records that did likewise differ. And may not we also affirm, that the Evangelists Collected the Genealogy of Jesus Christ out of such Records as were amongst the Jews at that time, but are not extant at this day? And therefore it is better to leave the things as they are, than to judge rashly of them, or correct that Genealogy upon bare conjectures.   

CHAP. XXIII. Of the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testament. A Refutation of the Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa. The Cardinal of Perron has given a very bad Exposition of the Words of the second Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, Chap. 3. v. 16. which makes mention of this Inspiration. The Disputes betwixt the Jesuits of Louvain, and the Divines of the same place, upon this matter. Three Propositions of the Jesuits Censured by the Doctors of Louvain and Dovay. A Defence of those Propositions against the Censure of those Divines.  
I Have Treated elsewhere of the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings in general. But seeing I only Treated of them occasionally, and by way of Answer to some Objections which were brought against the Critical History of the Old Testament, I shall here Handle it more particularly, with respect to the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles. It is the common Belief of the Jews, that the Books of the Old Testament were written by Persons who were Inspired: which Belief was transmitted from the Jews to the Christians. Upon which occasion Origen affirmed 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. lib. 5. cont. Cells.  that both the one and the other did equally acknowledge, that the Sacred Scripture was written by the Spirit of God.  
The Christians have also extended that Inspiration to the Books of the New Testament. There are but very few Critics who are of the Opinion, that there is nothing of Inpiration in Scripture, but only in that part of it that was Composed by the Prophets. They say the Historical Books were not inspired, because (as they allege) it is not necessary for him that writes History, to be a Prophet. Grotius is of that Opinion, in his Book Entitled, Votum pro pace Ecclesiasticâ; 
(b) Si Lucas divino afflatu dictante sua scripsisset, inde potiùs sibi sumpsisset auctoritatem, ut Prophetae faciunt, quàm à testibus quorum fidem est secutus. Sic in iis quae Paulum agentem vidit scribendis nullo ipsi dictante afflatu opus. Quid ergo est cur Lucae libri sint canonici? Quia piè & fideliter soriptos, & de rebus momenti ad salutem maximi Ecclesia primorum temporum judicavit. Grot. Vot. pro Pac. Eccl. tit. de Can. Script.  If St. Luke, (saith that Critic) had been Inspired by God, when he writ his History, he would rather have made use of that Inspiration, by the example of the Prophets, than the Authority of those whom he takes for Witnesses of his faithfulness. He had no need, (he further says) of any Inspiration for writing the Actions of St. Paul, of which he himself was a Witness. Whence he does conclude, that the Writings of St. Luke are Canonical, not because they were Inspired, but because the Primitive Church did Judge that they were written by godly Men, with great faithfulness, and Treat of things that are of very great importance to our Salvation. He does repeat the same thing elsewhere, in his Works against Rivetus, who opposed that Opinion as being impious. He does there affirm, 
(c) Neque Esdras neque Lucas Prophetae fuere, sed viri graves & prudentes, qui nec fallere vellent, nec falli se sinerent. Dixitne Lucas, Factum est ad Lucam verbum Domini; & dixit ei Dominus, Scribe? Grot. Riu. Apolog. discuss. pag. 723.  that Esdras and St. Luke were not Prophets, but Grave and Prudent Men, who would neither deceive others, nor be deceived themselves. He does further affirm, That St. Luke does not say in the Prophetical Style, The word of the Lord came unto Luke, that the Lord did not say to him, Writ.  
Spinosa did exactly follow the Opinion of Grotius; which he has explained more at large in his Book, Entitled Tractatus Theologico-Politicus; where he does not indeed deny, but that the Apostles were Prophets, but he affirms 
(d) Dubitare possumus num Apostoli tanquam Prophetae ex revelatione & expresso mandato, ut Moses, Jeremias & alii, an verò ut privati, vel Doctores, Epistolas scripserint. Spin. Tract. Theol. polit. c. 11.  that it may be doubted, if they writ their Books in the quality of Prophets, by the express command of God inspiring them, as Moses, Jeremy, and others had done. He does allege, that 
(e) Si ad eorum stilum attendere volumus, eum à stilo Prophetiae alienissimum inveniemus. Nam Prophetis usitatissimum erat ubique testari se èx Dei edicto loqui, nempe, Sic dicit Deus, Ait Deus exercituum, Edictum Dei, & c. Atque hoc non tantùm videtur locum habuisse in publicis Prophetarum concionibus, sed etiam in Epistolis quae revelationes continebant. Spin. ibid.  if we judge of the Works of the Apostles by their Style, we shall find that they writ as particular Doctors, and not as Prophets, because they have nothing that is Prophetical. Which he does prove by the same way of reasoning, as Grotius. It is (saith he) the custom of the Prophets, to declare through all their Writings, that they spoke by God's order; and they have observed that, not only in their Prophecies, but in their Letters which contain revelations.  
This Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa, has been lately renewed in two Letters, Published in a Treatise, Entitled, The Opinions of some Divines of Holland upon the Critical History of the Old Testament. Seeing I have given a sufficient Answer to those two Letters, and also to the new Explications thereof, which have been since published; 'tis to no purpose to repeat here what has been said elsewhere: We shall only observe in general, that those Men do deceive themselves, whilst they will not own any Inspiration, but that of the Prophecies. It is true, that the manner of writing a History, and Letters is not the same as writing Prophecies; And therefore, these words (The word of God that came to Luke) do not begin the History of St. Luke or any other Evangelist. The Books of Moses, Joshua, and in a word, all the Historical Books of the Old Testament, are not written in that Style which Grotius does call Prophetical: Yet Josephus and all the Ancient Jews call them Prophetical, believing that they were given by Divine Inspiration.  
'Tis not necessary, for a Book's being inspired, that it should be indicted by God, word for word. The false Idea that those Authors have conceived of the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings, made them embrace an opinion which is contrary to all Antiquity, as well Judaical as Christian. Jesus Christ, who promised to his Apostles; that the Spirit of God should guide them in all the functions of their Ministry, did not therefore, deprive them of their Reason and Memory: Although they were inspired, they continued to be Men still, and managed their Affairs as other Men. I freely own, that there was no need of Inspiration, to put in record such matters of Fact, whereof they themselves were Witnesses. But this does not hinder, but that they were directed by the Spirit of God in all that they put in Writing, so as not to fall into error.  
It is certain, that all the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers did acknowledge this Inspiration of the Evangelists and Apostles. Nevertheless they speak of their care, and exactness in penning their Works, in the same manner, as they speak of other Writers, who are not inspired. Can Grotius conclude from thence, that those Ancient Doctors of the Church did not believe, that the Books of the New Testament were given by Divine Inspirations. This he cannot do, seeing those very Doctors have clearly maintained it. We need but call to mind what has been said in the 10th Chap. concerning the Opinion of Papias, who was contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles: He does assure us, that if that Evangelist, did not observe in his History, the order of things as to their Event, that he was not in the least to be blamed for that; because he made mention of the things according as he remembered them, not being so careful to relate them in their order, as he was, to say nothing but what was Truth. Papias, or rather one of the Disciples of the Apostles, (whose words Papias does produce in that place) did not thereby pretend to reject the Inspiration of the Gospel of St. Mark. We need but consult the other Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, who expressed themselves in such a manner, as might oblige Grotius and Spinosa to believe, that they owned no Inspiration in the Books of the New Testament, if they had not expressly 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 subtle 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 Critic 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 Ideas.  
It is surprising, that the Cardinal of Perron, who was persuaded of the Inspiration of the Holy Scripture, should nevertheless have made his strongest efforts, 
Answ. to the Def. of some Holl. Diu. c. 10.  for depriving Christians of this proof of Inspiration. It is customary amongst those who writ Books of Controversy, 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 Doctrive. Thus in effect, that place of St. Paul to Timothy ought to be rendered; 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 allege the Authority of St. John chrysostom, 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 easy to be justified, seeing the Works of those Fathers are every where to be had, it will suffice, if we inform ourselves of St. Jerome's thoughts in the case; he is of a quite different Opinion from that which the Cardinal has Fathered 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 citys. 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 shown 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, Arabic, and  Versions, which that Cardinal pretends to be favourable to him, have quite another sense than what he does attribute to them, as I have shown, 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 itself, 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 wiredraw 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 Catholics ought also to agree with the Protestants, that all the Scripture is profitable for instruction: which does not at all exclude Traditions, which being joined to Scripture, does compose the Principle upon which the Christian Religion is Founded: And therefore there is nothing but subtlety 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 indicted 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 Scripture, nor any order by ranging of words, but what comes from God. This Opinion is very little agreeable to the Doctrine of the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, who seemed not to have stretched that Inspiration beyond the things themselves. But Estius, who taught Theology in the University of Dovay, was obliged to speak the Language of the Divines of that place, who had made a Decree, upon that matter, against the Fathers, the Jesuits of Louvain, who had set out some propositions directly opposite thereunto. Besides, Estius was the Principal Author of the censure to which those propositions were exposed. We shall give here a full account of the difference, that happened between those Doctors of Louvain and Dovay, and the Jesuits of the College of Louvain about the Point of Inspiration.  
It is not of late, that the Divines, who make profession of following St. Augustine in their Schools and Books, have opposed the Theology of the Fathers the Jesuits. Those Father's having an 1586. maintained in their College of Louvain some Propositions upon the Subject of Grace, Predestination and the Holy Scripture, which appeared new to the Doctors of Louvain and Dovay; these Doctors did censure them, and withal published the reasons of their censure: Seeing we do not speak in this place, of Grace and Predestination, but only of the Holy Scripture, I shall insist on such things only as concern the Scripture. You may take a view of the Title of the Censure issued out by the Divines of Louvain, as it was Printed at Paris, at the end of a Book entitled, Florentii Conrii Peregrinus Jerichuntinus, Censura Facultatum Sacrae Theologiae Lovaniensis ac Duacensis super quibusdam Articulis de Sacrâ Scripturâ, etc. anno Domini 1586. Scripto traditis. The Censure is directed to all the Body of the Jesuits of Louvain, in these Terms; Reverendis in Christo Patribus, Patri Rectori ac Professoribus caeterisque Patribus Collegii Societatis nominis Jesu in Universitate Lovaniensi, Decanus & reliqui Facultatis in eâdem Vniversitate Magistri, aeternam salutem pacemque precamur.  
Those Wise Masters, whilst they declared against the Jesuits a War that was never to have an end, do not fail to wish them eternal Peace: They call their Doctrine, strange, scandalous and dangerous, peregrina, offensiva & periculosa dogmata. Amongst the Propositions which they censured, there are three which run thus. 
(g)  aliquid sit Scriptura Sacra, non est necessarium singula ejus verba inspirata esse à Spiritu Sancto. II. Non est necessarium ut singulae veritates & sententiae sint immediatè à Spiritu Sancto ipsi scriptori inspiratae. III. Liber aliquis, qualis fortasse est secundus Maccabaeorum, humanâ industriâ sine assistentiâ Spiritûs Sancti scriptus, si Spiritus Sanctus posteà testetur ibi nihil esse falsum, efficitur Scriptura Sacra. Jesuit. Colleg. Lovan. assert. apud Flor. Conr.  1. That a thing should be Holy Scripture, it is not necessary that all the words thereof should be inspired by God. 2. It is not necessary for all Truths and Sentences, to be immediately indicted by Inspiration to the Writer. 3. A Book, as for example, the second of the Maccabees, which was written by Men only without the assistance of the Holy Ghost, does afterwards become Holy Scripture, if the Holy Spirit doth testify that there is nothing that is false, in that Book.  
These three Propositions were extracted out of the Writings of the Fathers the Jesuits, who taught Theology in the College of Louvain; and they were so far from condemning them, upon a remonstrance made to them, that they were scandalous, that they freely defended them, adding thereunto new explications: ab iisdem ibidem Professoribus pro suis agnitae, comprobatae, scholiisque illustratae. They appeared to be really agreeable to good sense, neither do they much vary from the Theology of the Ancient Fathers, whom we are more bound to hear, upon this Subject, than the Sacred Faculty of Theology of Louvain; who, in condemning them as they did, were guilty of a great act of injustice against the Society of the Jesuits: The words of the Censure, as to their purport, are 
(h) Tres illae assertiones accedere videntur ad damnatam olim Anomaeorum opinionem, qui Prophetas & Apostolos in multis volebant ut homines fuisse locutos, ut refert Epiphanius, Haeresi 76. & ad eorum sententiam quam praefatione in Epistolam ad Philemonem & alibi Hieronymus reprehendit, de quâ & notatus Erasmus fuit. Cens. Fac. Theol. Lovan.  that those three Assertions, did come near to the ancient Heresy of the Anomeans, who were of Opinion, that the Prophets and the Apostles had frequently spoken, as other private Men, and to the sentiments of those, of whom St. Jerome makes mention, in the Preface of his Commentaries upon the Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon; which Opinion was censured in the Person of Erasmus. They do further oppose to those Assertions, the Council of Trent, the words of St. Peter, in his second Epistle; of St. Paul, in his second Epistle to Timothy, and finally, the Authority of the Ancient Fathers; who assure us, that the Tongue and Hand of the Holy Writers, were made use of as a Pen by the Holy Ghost.  
Before we enter upon a discussion of what concerns the Divines of Louvain, we shall relate the Censure of the Faculty of Theology of Dovay. These Divines declare, that they have examined the Propositions of the Jesuits, by the Order of the Archbishops of Cambray and of Malines, and of the Bishop of Gand: They do not condemn them in gross, as the Doctors of Louvain had done, but they apply their Censure to each Proposition in particular. To the two first they oppose St. Augustine, who did (according to their Opinion) believe, that the Sacred Writers received from God, a partioular faculty and method of delivering and composing their discourse. They do also quote Gabriel a Scholastic Divine; who affirmed, that the Apostles were Inspired with many natural Truths, and that a Book might be inspired, although there be pains and meditation used in its composure. Those Divines do likewise give for an Example, Jesus Christ, 
(i) Si scribere voluisset, laborem nonnunquam & meditationem simulque industriam aliquam adhibere potuit humanam, quamvis interim spiritus ejus humanus, itemque os, lingua, manus, digiti perpetua quaedam essent instrumenta Divini Spiritûs. Cens. Theol. Duac.  who (say they) if he had written any Book, might as a Man have meditated, and applied himself to that Work, although his Spirit, his Mouth, his Tongue, his Hands, and his Fingers would continually have been the Instruments of the Holy Ghost. And thus the Doctors of Dovay do endeavour to destroy the Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain, which to them appeared to be scandalous: And also under a pretence of showing, that they subvert all Religion, in speaking to the second Proposition, they add, that 
(k) Si non est necessarium ut singulae veritates & sententiae quae sunt in Sacris Literis immediatè sint à Spiritu Sancto ipsi scriptori inspiratae, non modò sequetur indeterminabilis altercatio super sententiis immediatè vel non immediatè inspiratis, verùm etiam de integris Evangeliis, quorum historia potuit humanitùs esse nota; imò & de omnibus Scripturis non Propheticis dubitabitur, an immediate Spiritus Sanctus eas scriptoribus inspiraverit. Theol. Duac. ibid.  if it be once granted, that it is not necessary, that every Truth and Sentence should be immediately indicted by the Spirit of God; there will be endless disputes, not only about that which is particularly delivered in Scripture by immediate Inspiration, but also about entire Gospels, the History of which may be known in a humane manner: It will be also questioned, in general, if all the Books of the Scripture that are not Prophetical, have been immediately suggested by the Holy Ghost, to those who were the Writers thereof.  
The third Proposition appeared to those Divines, to be the most dangerous of all, and opposite to the words of St. Paul, who does assure us, that all the Scripture is given by the Inspiration of God, and a Divine Doctrine, which was indicted by the Holy Spirit. It is for this Reason, (say they) that the Decrees of Popes and of Councils, were never reckoned in the number of Divine Writings; although the Holy Ghost does testify by the Church, that there is nothing that is false in those Decrees. And finally they add, that that third Proposition of the Jesuits of Louvain could not be maintained, without acknowledging, that the Histories of Thucydides, and of Livy, might for the same reason be reckoned amongst the Books of the Scripture; if the Holy Ghost should testify to us, that there is nothing of falsehood in those Histories. They conclude their Censure with this Maxim: 
(l) Non enim ideò inspiratum aliquid divinitùs est quòd posteà sit approbatum; sed ideò est approbatum, quia fuerat divinitùs inspiratum. ibid.  That a thing is not therefore given by Divine Inspiration; because it so falls out, that it is approved of afterwards; but that, on the contrary, it is approved, because it was Inspired. Let us now see, if the Doctors of the two Faculties of Theology had reason to condemn those three Propositions, in terms that are injurious to the Society of the Jesuits.  
'Tis observable, that before all these things, the Jesuits, who published at Rome, an. 1586. a Directory for the Studies of their Society, Entitled, Ratio Studiorum, have placed this Proposition concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings, amongst those which their Divines ought to prefer to others: 
(m) Probabilius est verba primorum exemplarium ac fontium incorruptorum fuisse omnia & singula à Spiritu Sancto dictata secundùm substantiam, multiformiter tamen pro variâ instrumentorum conditione. Rat. stud. edit. Rom. tit. de reliq. opin. del. in Theol. fac.  It is more probable (say they) that the first and Original Copies, which were not corrupted, were all particularly indicted by the Holy Ghost, as to what concerns the substance, but in a different manner according to the different condition of the Instruments.  
By that we see, that the Jesuits of Rome did not believe at that time, that the same Inspiration is to be acknowledged in all the Books of the Scripture; and when they say, that every word was Inspired, they add withal, as to what concerns the Substance. Besides, they do not maintain this Inspiration of words, as to what belongs to the substance, but as a probable Opinion; so that they believe, that that may be also denied with probability. It is true, that the Opinion of those two Faculties of Theology, belonging to Louvain and Dovay, was then most received in the Schools. But the Jesuits, who from that time, have had Learned Men in their Society, saw very well, that it was contradictory to good sense; and likewise opposite to the most Ancient Doctors of the Church. Those of their College of Louvain, did nothing that was contrary to the Rule or Constitution of their Foundation; which 
(n) Fundator constitutionum, 3. part. c. 10. disertis verbis cavet ne novae opiniones admittantur. Quod tamen ut suavius fieret additum est, hâc formulâ, nisi ex consensu praepositorum. Rat. stud. tit. de del. opin.  does expressly forbid the introducing of new Opinions, for the same rule does proceed, unless it be done with the consent of the Superiors.  
There is nothing more judicious, than the Liberty of Opinion, which is granted by the Constitutions of that Society to its Professors, in the manner as it is limited. 
(o) Sequantur, ait Ignatius, in quavis facultate securiorem & magis approbatam doctrinam, & eos auctores qui eam docent. Et ne singulis liberum esset judicium de magis approbatâ & securiore doctrinâ deligendâ, statim subdit, Cujus rei penès Rectorem, qui quod statuetur in universâ Societate ad majorem Dei gloriam secuturus est, cura sit. ibid.  Father Ignatius did ordain, that in every Science whatsoever, they should follow the most certain and the most received Doctrine. But seeing it is not easy to distinguish, what are the most certain and the most received Opinions; he decreed, that the choice should depend on the Rector, who ought to embrace, for the greater Glory of God, that which was maintained in the whole Society.  
And the truth is, the Jesuits did no sooner appear in the World, but there was a birth given to much more considerable assistances, for the study of Theology, than had ever been before that time. And therefore they did wisely, that they were not altogether devoted to the Opinions of St. Thomas, and St. Augustin, though they were zealously embraced in the most part of the Universities at that time. They had reason in that case, not to follow blindly the Opinions that were most received in the Schools in their time, concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings. This liberty of Prophecy, which had been agreed upon, in behalf of their Professors of Theology, did afford them an occasion of making new discoveries in this Science: and to this I impute the rigour with which the Jesuits of Louvain maintain their Opinions about Inspiration, without troubling themselves about the Belief of the two Faculties of Theology of Louvain and Dovay, who had not carefully enough examined that matter.  
Notwithstanding the Censures of those two Faculties, they continued to teach, in their College of Louvain, the same Opinions concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings. Father Cornelius à Lapide, a few years after that time, kept up, in the same place, public Lectures on the Holy Scriptures; which he continued for the space of sixteen years. He likewise published those Lectures by the Order of the Archbishop of Malines, and of his Superiors, beginning in his Commentaries with the Epistles of St. Paul, which he did Dedicate to the Archbishop. But in the Exposition which he gives of the Passage of that Apostle, where he speaks of the Scriptures being given by the Inspiration of God, he is altogether against Estius, who was at the same time Professor in the University of Dovay. It is manifest, that that Jesuit did insist on that difficulty on purpose, and that he then had an Eye to the Censures of the Divines of Louvain and Dovay. He maintained in his Commentaries upon that place of St. Paul, the Propositions which his Doctors had condemned.  
Although the Commentaries of Cornelius à Lapide may be had every where, it is convenient to set down his own words in this place, by which we may perceive that the Jesuits of Louvain did not regard the Censures of the Divines there. 
(p) Nota Spiritum Sanctum non eodem modo dictasse omnes Sacras Literas. Nam Legem & Prophetas ad verbum revelavit & dictavit Mosi & Prophetis. Historias verò & morales exhortationes, quas anteà vel visu, vel auditu, vel lectione, vel meditatione didicerant ipsi scriptores hagiographi, non fuit necesse inspirari aut dictari à Spiritu Sancto, utpotè cùm eas scirent aut callerent ipsi scriptores. Sic S. Joannes, c. 19 v. 35. dicit se scribere quae vidit. S. Lueas verò, c. 1. v. 2. dicit se scribere Evangelium quod audivit & traditione accepit ab Apostolis. Cornel. à Lap. Comm. in Epist. II. ad Tim. c. 3. v. 16.  Observe, (saith that Jesuit,) that the Holy Ghost did not indite all the Sacred Writings after the same manner. For he indicted the Words of the Law and the Prophets, to Moses and the Prophets. But as to the Histories, and the Exhortations to Piety, which the Holy Penmen had learned, by seeing, hearing, reading, or meditation, it was not at all necessary, that they should be Inspired or Indicted by the Spirit of God; because those Writers knew such things very well. And thus St. John Chap. nineteen. 25. does say, that he writ that which he had seen. St. Luke does also declare, Chap. i. 2. That he writ his Gospel, according to what he had learned of the Apostles. All this is manifestly contrary to the Censures of the Doctors of Louvain and Dovay. That Jesuit does deliver himself in a clear and distinct manner. He very tightly confirms the Opinion of those of his Society, who had taught Theology before him in the College of Louvain.  
But seeing it may be objected that this Opinion is the same with that of Grotius and Spinosa, who acknowledged no other Inspiration but that of the Prophetical Writings, it is worth the while to subjoin that which Cornelius à Lapide observed in the same place, concerning the manner of Inspiration that concerns Historical and Moral part of the Holy Scripture. 
(q) Dicitur tamen Spiritus Sanctus ea quoque illis dictasse, primò, quia scribentibus adstitit, ne vel in puncto à veritate aberrarent: secundò, quia eos excitavit & suggessit, ut haec potiùs scriberent quàm illa. Conceptum ergo & memoriam eorum quae sciebant non eis ingessit Spiritus Sanctus, sed inspiravit ut hunc potiùs conceptum quàm illum scriberent. Corn. à Lapid. ibid.  Nevertheless, they affirm (saith he) that these latter Works were also Indicted by the Holy Ghost, first, because he did assist the Writers; that they could never be deceived: and again, because he suggested to them, that one thing should be rather written than another. So that the Holy Spirit did not suggest to them either their conceptions, or the remembrance of those things which they knew; but did Inspire them in this respect only, that they might put one conception in writing, rather than another. In this, the Inspiration of the Historical, and Moral Writings of the Holy Scripture did consist, according to the Opinion of that learned Jesuit; wherein nothing appears but what is good Sense; whereas in the Opinion of the Doctors of Louvain and Dovay, (which is the same with that of the Calvinists) there is something unintelligible, that does violence both to Reason and Experience.  
It cannot be said that this Opinion is a Novelty that was unadvisedly asserted by that Jesuit. For he maintained it in the same Schools, where that Dispute had made so great a noise, upon the occasion of some Propositions that were put out upon that Subject, by some Divines of his Society. He was very much desirous to clear that Question in his Commentaries upon St. Paul, to make it appear to all the World, that the Censures of the two Faculties of Theology of Louvain and Dovay had no Foundation, and that they were against Reason. Further, the Provincial of the Jesuits of the Low-Countries, who gave his approbation to that Book, does declare that he himself had read it, and had committed it to the Examination of four Divines of his Society. There is also at the beginning of those Commentaries, and Approbation of the Censor of the Books of that place, who is a Canon of Anvers. But that the World may be entirely satisfied, that there is nothing either scandalous or dangerous, in the Opinion of the Jesuits of the Low-Countries, touching the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings, we shall proceed to examine the Reasons upon which the Divines of Louvain and of Dovay did found their Censures.   

CHAP. XXIV. An Examination of the Reasons that the Doctors of Louvain and Dovay 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.  
SEeing I have no other public Records of the Fathers the Jesuits of Louvain, to justify their Propositions concerning the Inspiration of Scripture, than what I have already mentioned, I shall endeavour to supply that defect, by examining the Reasons of the Censure of the two Faculties of Theology of Louvain and of Dovay. I am willing to believe that those Divines had no other design therein, but what was for the Defence of the Truth, or rather their own old Opinions, and that Passion had no part in all that Dispute. As to what concerns the Jesuits, it is probable, that they had not introduced that Opinion into the Colleges of Flanders, but in conformity to the Liberty which had been granted to their Professors, not to engage themselves easily in the maintenance of any Opinions, how old soever, when they did not appear to be warrantable. In a word, the Jesuits make no profession of submitting to the decisions of a Master, as a Rule from which there is no Appeal, non jurant in verba Magistri. And seeing there is nothing in that conduct, but what does become wise Men, they are much to be blamed who accuse them for opposing the Opinions that are received and authorised in the most part of the Schools; when those Opinions have no good Foundation: which happened to them in the matter which we now handle.  
The Divines of Louvain bring for one of the principal motives of their Censure, the conformity that the three Propositions of the Jesuits have to an old Opinion that was condemned in the Anomeans, whereof St. Epiphanius all through makes mention. But to show the falsehood of this objection, it will be sufficient to bring the Testimony of Epiphanius. That Father does say, that the Anomeans 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. Haer. 76. n. 6.  traduced the Prophets and the Evangelists: that when they were much urged, they avoided the difficulty by answering, that the Apostle spoke as a Man. Is there any thing in those three Propositions above mentioned that comes near this? Did the Jesuits of the College of Louvain allege, that there might possibly be something that is false in the Writings of the Apostles, under the pretext that they were Men that spoke it? Yet that is the Opinion of the Anomeans, who being unable to satisfy the Reasons that were brought against them, out of the Books of the New Testament, said that the Authors of those Books had spoken as Men in those places.  
We shall apply the same Answer to another Objection which those Doctors did take from the Preface of St. Jerom's Commentaries upon the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Philemon. That Father does, in that place, make mention of certain Heretics who rejected that Epistle, because they alleged that that Holy Apostle was not guided by the Spirit of God in writing it. 
Hieron. prooem. Comm. in Epist. ad Philem.  Those who will not (saith he) receive the Epistle written to Philemon, as one of the Epistles of Paul, do say, that the Apostle did not speak always, nor all things, by the immediate assistance of Christ speaking in him; because human frailty could not suffer one constant tenor of the Holy Ghost. But if it should be granted to those Heretics, that St. Paul, and the rest of the Apostles were not Inspired in all that they writ, it does not therefore follow, that we ought to reject a part of their Writings. It is sufficient, that we own with the Jesuits, that there is nothing but Truth in those very places which were not Inspired, and that the Holy Ghost had committed them to us as such.  
Those Sectaries asked the Orthodox, 
Apud Hieron. ibid. Epist. II. ad Tim. c. 4. v. 13.  if St. Paul stood in need of any Inspiration to say; When thou dost come, bring my Cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and especially the parchments; and many other things of that nature. I do declare, that it was in no ways necessary that God should Indite such kind of things to St. Paul, and other Holy Writers. This is the Opinion of the Jesuits of Louvain, which was afterwards confirmed in the same place by Cornelius à Lapide, whose words I have already mentioned. But they did not conclude from thence, that we are not obliged to receive the Books of Scripture, in any parts or places thereof, but those only that were Indicted by the Holy Ghost. It is sufficient that they were persuaded that the Holy Writers were guided by the Spirit of God in every part of their Writings, so as not to fall into any error.  
The Divines of Louvain further objected against the Jesuits, that they had renewed an Opinion, which had been condemned in the Person of Erasmus. But it is easy to make it appear, that those Fathers maintained nothing that had affinity to the Proposition which Erasmus owned. That Critic was accused for believing that there were 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  some errors in the Writing of the Apostles; which were to be attributed to a defect of their Memory. We shall find nothing like this in the three Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain, for although they be very well satisfied, that there was no need of any Inspiration for Writing those things that they knew, they do not upon that account imagine that the Writers were at any time mistaken through a defect of Memory. Erasmus also used his utmost endeavour in one of his Apologies, to wipe off that accusation. He does protest, that he only reported that which St. Jerom had observed upon the matter, and that there had been nothing said, but what was agreeable to St. Augustine's Opinion. Howsoever it is, that Critic does assure us, 
(b) Nunc testor me abhorrere ab ullâ oblivione tribuendâ Apostolis. Erasm. Apol. adv. Monach. quosd. Hisp.  that he never intended to charge the Apostles with any defect of Memory. I do not inquire if Erasmus was wronged in this. It is enough that I have shown the Proposition, that is supposed to have been condemned on his account, and have withal made it appear, that there is nothing of that nature contained in the three Propositions of the Jesuits that were Censured.  
Those very Divines did also by way of Objection, bring the Authority of the Council of Trent, Sess. iv the words of St. Peter, Epist. II. ch. 1. v. 21. and those of St. Paul, Epist. II. to Timothy, ch. 3. v. 16. But there is nothing in all those places to which the Jesuits of Louvain do not agree. The strongest Passage is that of the Epistle to Timothy, and yet it is the same, upon which Cornelius à Lapide made Observations, as I have shown. As to the Testimony of the ancient Fathers, who said, that the Tongue, and the Hand of the Holy, were the Holy Ghosts Pen, the Jesuits do not deny it. The same Cornelius à Lapide has explained it at large, in his Commentary upon the second Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Timothy, where he makes it appear that it is not contrary to his Opinion about the Inspiration of Scripture. And the truth is, we cannot imagine that the Holy Ghost deprived the Evangelists and the Apostles of the use of their Reason and Memory.  
The Reasons of the Doctors of the Faculty of Theology of Dovay are no more Conclusive than those of the Divines of Louvain. They chief depend upon some Passages of St. Augustin. But since there is nothing that is positive in all those Passages, it will not be worth the while to insist on them. They bring for example, by way of. Objection, some places of his Books Concerning the consent of the Evangelists. Yet there is no Work, where that Father has more shown than in that Treatise, that the Sacred Writers made use of their Reason and Memory, when they writ their Gospels. That Work has also given occasion to Erasmus, and some other Writers to affirm that the Memory of the Apostles was not always sure, and that they put sometimes one word for another.  
It is true, that St. Augustin is withal of the Opinion, that that defect in the Apostles was guided by the Holy Ghost. But I think it had been much better not to make them fall into error, than to maintain afterwards with that Father, that they would not so much as amend the faults of that Nature, after they had acknowledged them, upon a Pretext that they were persuaded they had done every thing relating thereunto, by the Spirit of God directing their thoughts. Erasmus had also recourse in one of his Apologies to this Answer of St. Augustin, seeing he could not deny that he had charged the Evangelists with a defect of Memory, which was the occasion that they put the name of one Prophet for another; he endeavours to get off by answering, That 
(c) Vbi memoriam & oblivionem gubernat Spiritus Sanctus, ibi tam est utilis oblivio quàm memoria. Erasm. ibid.  when Memory and Forgetfulness are equally governed by the Holy Ghost, Forgetfulness is then as useful as Memory. Maldonat, who attributes this Opinion to St. Augustin and Beda, had reason to reject it; and indeed it is not to be maintained. Nor can we find any thing in the Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain that has any affinity with it.  
That which the Divines of Dovay borrowed of Gabriel, for showing that many Natural Truths were discovered to the Apostles by Inspiration, and that we may very well reconcile Inspiration to the Labour and Meditation of the Sacred Writers, would be agreeable to good Sense, if by that Inspiration we understand a single direction of the Spirit of God, that kept the Apostles from falling into any error. If it be meant on the contrary, that the Holy Spirit did indite the matters of Fact, of which they had been Witnesses, that cannot be maintained, as Cornelius à Lapide has observed. Nor is their Opinion established by the example which they bring of Jesus Christ, who could (say they) use such Meditation and Application that is ordinary amongst other Men, if he had Composed any Books; for this proves nothing, because if it be supposed that he had written Books treating of such things as he had seen with his Eyes, we will always maintain, that it was not necessary that he should be the Instrument of the Holy Ghost for Writing things of that nature. This example does moreover appear to be somewhat Metaphysical, and can only be relished by those who are accustomed to the subtleties of the School.  
To that which they object, That all the Truths of the Scripture ought to be immediately Inspired; that otherwise, there will be eternal Disputes about what is, and what is not immediately Inspired: I answer, that it is easy to distinguish these two sorts of Inspirations, according to the Principles of the Jesuit à Lapide. He does suppose with good Reason, that in Histories of things which were seen and heard, and in the Exhortations that concern Morality, there is no need for any immediate Inspiration, because there is nothing that is Prophetical therein.  
But we may (say they) according to this Principle, doubt of all those Writings that are not Prophetical, as the Gospels, for example, if they were immediately Inspired. I affirm, on the contrary that there is no ground for any doubt here. For the same Jesuit has clearly shown, by the words of St. John, and of St. Luke, that an immediate Inspiration was not necessary for Writing of Histories. The Evangelists writ that which they had seen, or that which they learned upon certain grounds.  
And upon this account, Maldonat explaining these words of Jesus Christ, Matth. xxvi. 28. This is my blood of the New Testament, and comparing them with these words of St. Luke, 
Luc. 〈◊〉 20.  This cup is the New Testament in my blood; does freely declare that the very words of Jesus Christ, were those that were Recorded by St. Matthew, and not those of St. Luke. The Reason which that Learned Jesuit brings for this Opinion, is, that St. Matthew was present at the Action, Matthaeus qui aderat. Whence he does conclude, that seeing Jesus Christ expressed himself only in one manner, it is 
(d) Credendum igitur est verbis potiùs Matthaei & Marci, quàm Lueae & Pauli Christum usum fuisse. Mald. Comm. in Matth. c. xxvi. v. 28.  better to believe St. Matthew who was an Eye Witness, and who was followed by St. Mark, than St. Luke and St. Paul, who were not present at the Action. It is easy to judge, that in that place Maldonat had not recourse to Inspiration, since he affirms that St. Matthew had barely reported that which he had seen.  
Yet for all this, I do not believe, that the Proof which that Jesuit does use against the Protestants, is altogether Conclusive. For it is to be supposed, that the manner wherein the Evangelists express the same thing, does wholly proceed from themselves. It is sufficient that they all agree in the substance of the things, whilst it is not necessary that they should join in the Expressions. Every one of them might choose his own Words according to his pleasure. And therefore it cannot be necessarily inferred from Maldonat's Reasoning, that Jesus Christ did rather say that which was mentioned by St. Matthew, than that which is Recorded by St. Luke, and by St. Paul  
The Divines of Dovay do insist yet more vigorously on the third Proposition of the Jesuits of Louvain, than upon the two others. This last Proposition does contain (as they think) a manifest error, manifesti erroris periculum continens; for it does Authorize such Books for Divine and Canonical, as have been written by Men without any assistance of the Holy Spirit, humanâ industriâ, sine assistentiâ Spiruûs Sancti. It cannot be denied but that the Jesuits set out this Proposition, which seems to be much like the Opinion of Grotius and Spinosa: but they add withal, that it is sufficient that the Holy Spirit does assure us, that there is nothing but Truth in those Writings. Si Spinitus Sanctus postea testetur ibi nihil esse falsum, efficitur Scriptura.  
We may by the same Reason (say the Doctors of Dovay) call the Decrees of Popes and Councils Holy Scripture, because we are also assured that there is no falsehood in those Decrees. We may also place Livy, and Thucydides in the number of the Holy Writings, if the Holy Ghost testify that they contain nothing that is false. But this Consequence does not at all follow from the third Proposition of the Jesuits of Louvain. For they Suppose that the Holy Ghost does propose those Books to us as Canonical, to be for a Rule in Religion. The Decrees of Councils, and of Popes, have no such thing in them; if it were so, they would not be any longer considered as bare Decrees of the Church, but as works that had been to the same Church, to serve for a Rule as well in Faith as in Manners. The Example of the Histories of Thucydides and of Livy, which they bring, is nothing to the purpose; for those Authors have not written of things that concern our Salvation.  
As to the Maxim of those Divines, That a thing is not Inspired, because it was afterwards approved, but that, on the contrary it is approved, because it was Inspired, it does not contradict the Proposition of the Jesuits; who continually suppose, that the Books we chief treat of, have the testimony of the Holy Ghost, although they had not been immediately Inspired; which may suffice to render them approved. The truth is, many Learned Divines believed, that it was not necessary, that God should Inspire Moses with a knowledge of every thing that he has written in Genesis, concerning the Creation of the World, and the Genealogies of the Ancient Patriarches. He could be furnished (as they judged) with sufficient light about those things, by what he learned of his Ancestors, who had kept Memoirs of the same. Doctus & eruditus (saith the Jesuit Pererius) à Majoribus suis, 
Perer. praef. in Pentat.  ad quos ejusmodi rerum doctrina inde ab Adamo usque fidelissimâ posterorum traditione, quasi per manus transmissa, & ad Mosem usque producta fuerat. Was it necessary, for Example, that Moses should be inspired of God, to set down in Writing all the Journeys and different Encamp of the Israelites in the Desert, after their coming out of Egypt? But I need not stay longer on a thing that has, in my Opinion, been sufficiently cleared. And therefore, I am so far from accusing the Propositions of the Jesuits of Louvain as erroneous, that I find nothing to be contained therein, but what is agreeable to Truth and good Sense. The Doctors who opposed them with so great heat, had never exercised their thoughts sufficiently upon Questions of that nature: They followed the old Opinion of their own Schools; and seeing they only consulted their own prejudices, they condemned that with a great deal of precipitation, which they did not altogether understand.  
A Learned Doctor of the Faculty of Theology of Paris, maintained upon the same subject, a Proposition very opposite to the opinion of the Divines of Louvain and Dovay; which possibly will not appear to be very Orthodox in the judgement of many. His Book was nevertheless many times Printed, with the approbation of several of his Brethren. There was a new Edition thereof Published lately at Paris, with the approbation of Mr. Cocquelin, 
in 1685.  a Doctor of that Faculty and Chancellor of the University; who does assure us, that he had read that Work once and again, legi ac relegi. Which by anticipation does show, that I intent to speak of the Analysis of Faith of Henry Holden, who made it manifest, through the whole Work, that he had meditated much on the Principles of Theology. Take therefore the Opinion of this Learned Person, concerning the Inspiration of the Holy Scripture; The special assistance which God afforded to every Author of those Books which the Church has received for the Word of God, does extend itself to those things only that are mere matters of Doctrine, or that have a near and necessary relation thereunto. But in such things as are not the main business of the Author, or have a relation to other things, I reckon that God did assist them in no other manner than he used to assist other Writers, that were Men of great Piety. I shall content myself to explain the Opinion of this Doctor, without presuming to offer Arguments against it, since I know it is authorised by very sage Masters. Yet I dare not maintain it in its full extent: It would have done well, if he had given us some examples of what he understands by things that are not mere matters of Doctrine, or that have not an entire relation thereunto. 
(e) Auxilium speciale divinitùs praestitum auctori cujuslibet scripti quod pro verbo Dei recipit Ecclesia, ad ea solummodò se porrigit quae vel sint purè doctrinalia, vel proximum aliquem aut necessarium habeant ad doctrinalia respectum. In iis verò quae non sunt de instituto scriptoris, vel ad alia referuntur, eo tantùm subsidio Deum illi adfuisse judicamus, quod piissimis caeteris auctoribus commune sit. Henr. Hold. div. fid. Annal. lib. 1. c. 5.  
(f) Non omnia quae in Scriptures continentur esse simpliciter & absolutè objectum nostrae fidei, seu spectare ad articulos fidei: sola enim revelata sunt objectum fidei, ac non omnia quae Scriptura habet, docet aut narrat, sunt revelata. De. Dom. lib. 7. c. 1.   
De Dominis, of whom it would seem Holden had his Principles, does much insist on this Subject, which he explains with a great deal of subtlety. He says, that all that is in the Scripture, is not simply and absolutely the Object of our Faith, that is to say, it does not belong to the Articles of our Creed; because it is only the things that are revealed, that can be the Object of our Faith. But (saith that Author) the things that are contained in Scripture are not all revealed: From this Principle, (which he does illustrate by some Examples) he draws this Consequence, that we may in some manner, excuse some very Learned Catholic Divines, who imputed to the Evangelists, a few faults which proceeded from a defect of their memory, as in putting one name for another, in disagreeing amongst themselves about the time, or any other circumstances of the actions which they relate, provided that it falls not upon the substance, and upon the things themselves: 
(g) Tales enim lapsus extra substantiam facti nihil fidei obsunt aut obesse possunt, neque sunt circa aliquid fide divinâ credendum, sed circa id quod solam humanam sensatam secum fert notitiam. Humanam porrò notitiam subesse posse lapsui non videtur absurdum, etiam in sacris Spiritûs Sancti scriptoribus, quoties lapsus humanae notitiae in facti substantiam & adjunctam revelationem non redundat. Ibid.  Errors of that kind, (he adds) which touch not the substance of the things, cannot in the least, be any prejudice to our belief, seeing they do not relate to that which we are obliged to believe of Divine Faith, but only to that which is known by the senses; which may be deceived, even in the Sacred Writers, when the substance does not come under debate.  
Yet although de Dominis does explain this opinion at good length, he declares, that he dares not prosecute the same to the full. He avows, that there are many places in the Bible, in which it seems that the Writers are mistaken; that the solutions that are given for removing difficulties of that nature, are very much constrained, with which pious Souls ought nevertheless to be content, although they do not satisfy those who severely examine every thing. 
(h) Ego sanè quod in me est rigorem depono, & malo cum difficultate piam amplecti interpretationem, quàm lapsum etiam istum levem & circa solas circumstantias admittere. Ibid.  He does choose rather to take the part of those who are far from rigour, than charge the Holy Writers with the least fault, even in the things of small importance. But after all, he does not disapprove the Opinion of the Catholic Doctors, who alleged mistakes of that kind, which are not prejudicial to our Faith: There is nothing that does more diminish the Authority of the Holy Scripture, even in things Essential and Revealed, than constrained Answers, that provoke laughter in those, who are not of the same belief with us: By this we perceive, that the Archbishop of Spalatro was in a straight, whose part he was to take, about a Question of this delicacy.  
As for Doctor Holden, of all he says upon that Subject, this is most full of good sense, 
(i) Veritates Philosophicae nec probandae nec improbandae sunt ex puris nudisque Sacrae Scripturae verbis & sententiis. Quamvis enim nullam complectatur Scriptura falsitatem, attamen ipsius loquendi modus utplurimùm vulgaris est, at que ad communem hominum captum, potiùs quàm ad loquelae proprietatem & sermonis rigorem adaptatus. Hold. ibid.  That we ought not to approve or condemn, upon the bare words of Scripture, all that belongs solely to Philosophy. For as he observes in the same place, though there is nothing false in Scripture; the expressions therein are frequently accommodated to the Opinions commonly received amongst the People, and they are not always very exact; which is agreeable to St. John Chrysostome's Opinion, who observed 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. Hom. 9 in Epist. ad Philipp. c. 2.  that St Paul does often speak according to the Sentiments of the Populace, that he may accommodate himself to his Auditors.   

CHAP. XXV. Spinosa's Objections against the Inspiration of the Books of the New Testament are Examined.  
ALthough Spinosa had very little or no knowledge of the Books of the New Testament, yet he would by all means, insert in his Treatise Entitled Theologico-politicus, a whole Chapter against the Inspiration of those Books; where he only gives a greater light to that which Grotius had formerly written upon this matter, in many places of his Works. His great Principle is, 
(a) Apostoli non tanquàm Prophetae, sed tanquam Doctores scripserunt, & viam ad docendum elegerunt quam faciliorem judicaverunt fore discipulis quos tum docere volebant. Spin. Tract. Theol. polit. cap. 12.  that the Apostles did not write as Prophets, but as single Doctors; and that therefore it was not necessary that they should be Inspired. But this distinction betwixt Prophets and Doctors, does not at all destroy that Inspiration, which is attributed to the Apostles; which does only consist in a bare direction of the Spirit of God, as has been shown before.  
God (say they) did not command them to write, as he commanded the Prophets to publish their Prophecies: We have also observed from the beginning of this Work, that, when the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers speak of the Gospels, they declare, that they were composed only occasionally, and at the request of the first Believers. It does not indeed so evidently appear to us, that the Evangelists and Apostles had an express Commandment of God, or even of Jesus Christ, to publish Books for the Instruction of the first Christians, as it does appear, that the Prophets did speak to the People of Israel, by God's Order. But we see, that Jesus Christ commanded his Disciples to go and Preach the Gospel, to all Nations of the Earth: But their Histories, which we call Gospels, are nothing else but Collections of their Sermons, which were animated by the Spirit of God, whom their Master had promised to them.  
The Prophets (Spinosa continues,) do not only observe in their Prophecies, but also in their Letters, that it was God who spoke by their Mouth; which he proves by the Letter that the Prophet Elias writ to King Joram, and is mentioned 2 Chron. Ch. 21. v. 12. Which gins with these words, Thus saith the Lord, 
(b) In Epistolis Apostolorum nihil simile legimus, sed contra in I. ad Cor. 7.40. Paulus secundùm suam sententiam loquitur. Spin. ibid. cap. 11.  we read no such thing, (saith he) in the Letters of the Apostles. St. Paul on the contrary, speaks as from himself, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, Chap. 7. v. 40.  
If the Style of the Apostles be not altogether the same as that of the Prophets; it cannot from thence be concluded, that the former were not guided by the Spirit of God, in all the actions of their Ministry. It was in no wise necessary, that they should repeat in every discourse, that it was the Lord who spoke. It was sufficient, for them to declare in general, that Jesus Christ had sent them to Preach the Truths of the Gospel, and that he, who had given them that Mission in his Father's Name, had told them expressly, It is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Heavenly Father who speaks in you.  
It is true, that St. Paul does speak as from himself, in the first Epistle to the Corinth. Chap. 7. where he makes use of this Expression; I give my judgement, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But he adds withal, that he thinks he has the Spirit of God: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The ground of Spinosa's error was, that a Man could not use his Reason, and be also guided by the Spirit of God, at the same time; as if by becoming God's Interpreter, he must cease to be a Man, and be only a Passive Instrument, if I may use the Term: To proceed, it is not true, that the Apostles never observed at the beginning of their Letters, that it was God who spoke by their Mouth. For they begin their Letter, which they writ to their Brethren of Antioch, by these words, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us; 
Acts xv. 28.  to let them know, that what they laid upon them came from God, whose Inrerpreters they only were.  
The other expressions of St. Paul, which Spinosa, in the same place, makes use of to show, that that Apostle writ to gratify his own inclination, without being encouraged thereunto by the Spirit of God; may be easily explained by the Principle which we have established. That Man does always suppose, that Inspiration does wholly deprive one of the use of his Reason; which is most false: 
(c) Apostoli ubique ratiocinantur: it a ut non prophetare sed disputare videantur. Spin. ibid.  The Apostles, (saith he) are every where upon Reasoning, so that they are more like Disputants than Prophets. But besides, that he has form to himself a false Idea, of the Inspiration of the Prophets, 'tis sufficient if we object against him, the example formerly given, where the Apostles, after they had deliberated and reasoned in an Assembly; did nevertheless use this expression, it seemed to the Holy Ghost and to us: Which does evidently show, that the Spirit of God, who had guided them in that Assembly, did not deprive them of the use of their Reason: There is in effect, a Subordination betwixt them two; the one does not destroy the other.  
Spinosa's Prophets are Enthusiasts, who are more like Men pushed on by a Spirit of Fury, than by a Spirit of Prophecy. He does allege 
(d) Prophetiae auctoritas ratiocinari non patitur. Quisquis enim vult sua dogmata ratione consirmare, eo ipso ea arbitrali uniuscujusque judicio submittit. Spin. ibid.  that the quality of a Prophet does not admit of the use of his Reason; because he, who confirms his Doctrines by Reasons, does submit to the judgement of others. But if one will carefully read the Books of Moses, whom he reckons amongst the Prophets, he will own, that that Lawgiver does Reason sometimes: There is indeed a submission to the judgement of others, where there is nothing but Reasonings. But this cannot be said, when such Reasonings are guided by the Spirit of God: And this was the Case of Moses and the other Prophets. Spinosa himself gives an Example here; For there is none, but thinks these Words of Moses, Deut. Chap. 31. v. 27. While I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord; and how much more after my Death, to be very formal Reasoning. And indeed, the Prophets who directed their discourse to Men who made use of their Reason, did not in the least destroy their Spirit of Prophecy, when they proposed the Will of God to those Men, by way of Reasoning.  
But Spinosa (who reasons in all this Discourse upon a false Idea which he had of Prophecy,) does allege, 
(e) Verba illa Mosis moralis locutio tantùm sunt, quâ rhetericè & prout futuram populi defectionem vividiùs imaginari potuerat, praedicit. Spin. ibid.  that that expression of Moses, was a Moral kind of speaking, which he used as an Orator, to foretell, and represent to the life (so far as he could imagine) the future Rebellion of the Israelites. But what does it signify, that Moses did express himself an Orator, or in any other manner, does that prove, that he did not truly Reason in that, and several other places, where he explains himself as other Men? It was not necessary that God should indite all his Reasonings and all his Exhortations. It is enough that he guided him by his Spirit, and that he prevented his falling into error. This being supposed, we will freely agree with Spinosa, that Moses said many things, that were not revealed to him; and this we have proved elsewhere.  
He is also obliged 
(f) Nolo tamen absolutè negare Prophetas ex revelatione argumentari potuisse. Ib.  to declare, that the Prophets could Reason by Revelation; and consequently Prophecy and Revelation are not incompatible. The Apostles then, could by way of reasoning, propose to the People the truths they delivered, and be at the same time, Inspired with the Spirit of God. Spinosa does nevertheless add, that the more that the Prophets do reason in form, the Knowledge that they had of things revealed, did come so much the more near to natural Knowledge; and that that which does  the supernatural Knowledge of the Prophets, is, when they pronounce Sentences and Degrees without any Reasoning. For this reason it is, (saith he) Moses, who was the greatest of the Prophets, made no Argument in form; that on the contrary, St. Paul does reason every where, and draws consequences from the Principles which he does establish, as appears in his Epistle to the Romans. Upon this account, he believed, that the Epistles of the Apostle were not written by supernatural Revelation.  
That Man does always confound Prophecy with Enthusiasm. Moses, who was a Lawgiver, pronounced Sentences and Judgements by warrant from God; which did not hinder him from Reasoning in some places: If he did not so, as frequently as St. Paul, the occasion was, he writ Histories, which require no reasoning; whereas St. Paul does write as a Doctor who instructs the People, and draws consequences from Principles which he had laid down. From thence it cannot be concluded, that he followed nothing but his Reason, because that very Reason of his might have been supernaturally enlightened, and guided by the Spirit of God. And therefore, all that Spinosa does object for showing, that the most part of that Apostle's Discourse, does only consist in Advertisements and Moral Exhortations, does not destroy the Inspiration of the Apostles, in the manner as we have formerly supposed it with the Jesuits of Louvain: For we made it plain, that it was not necessary, for that purpose, that God should indite to St. Paul and the other Apostles, all their Discourses of Morality. It was permitted them to make use of their natural Lights, and to use all the means with which their Reason could furnish them, for persuading the People.  
After the same manner, all Spinosa's objections may be answered; seeing he does continually reason upon a false Idea, which he has form, of the Inspiration of the Penmen of the New Testament: We may also give our assent to a great part of what he says in his Objections, without giving advantage, for drawing any Conclusions against that Inspiration, according to the true Explication thereof. Seeing I insisted long enough upon this Subject, in my two Answers To the Opinions of some Divines of Holland, it is needless for me to repeat here, what I have said in those two Books. The truth is, those Divines, by opposing the Inspiration of the Holy Scripture, have only given a more advantageous light to Spinosa's reasons, who squared this matter, to the false prejudices with which he was prepossessed. If he had read the Works of some Catholic Doctors who have treated judiciously of this Subject, he would soon have acknowledged, to what little purpose the most part of his Objections serve, because they stumble upon those things in which we do agree with him. And therefore, we ought to be very cautious, in refuting his Opinion, that we do not contest with him in vain, about the things that are true, and from which he does nevertheless draw consequences, that are directly false or too wide; otherwise, we shall rather strengthen, than destroy his errors.   

CHAP. XXVI. Of the Style 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.  
IN this last Age, there have been Works composed, that treat of the Style of the Evangelists and the Apostles. Henry Stephen has handled this matter in the Preface to his Greek New Testament. 
Henr. Steph. Nou. Test. in 12. edit. ann. 1576.  He had also promised to publish a Treatise on purpose upon this Subject, to demonstrate, that those Sacred Writers are much more Polite than some Authors have believed. He likewise gives some examples thereof, in his Preface, by way of anticipation. He does sometimes admire them, for the elegancy of their Style, and does wish, that they were not treated as rude and barbarous Persons, in respect of their manner of Writing, as they have been by some. He does particularly undertake the defence of St. Paul, whom he believed to have been very conversant with the Greek Authors, and amongst the rest, with the Poets, whom he did imitate (as he believes) for his Expression, in sundry places. 
(a) Haec cùm ita sint, & cùm aliundè pateat Paulum Apostolum Graecos scriptores evolvisse, quî credibile sit illum Graecae linguae non satis peritum fuisse? Henr. Steph. ibid.  Whence he does conclude, that to affirm that that Holy Apostle was not Master enough of the Greek Language, is a supposition that is altogether incredible.  
We have moreover a Differtation published by Phochen, which is Entitled, 
* Diatribe de linguae Graecae Novi Testamenti puritate.  Of the purity of the Greek Language of the New Testament, where the Author forgot nothing which might make it manifest, that the Text of that Book is true Greek, and that it does not differ very much from the Style of Profane Authors. Textum Novi Testamenti, (saith Phochen) verè Graecum nec alienum planè à Stilo Graeco profano esse asserimus. He does refute all those Hebraisms, which as some allege, are contained in the Writings of the Apostles: and to make it the more evidently appear, that they object those Hebraisms in vain, he does justify those Expressions on which they are charged, by the like Expressions of Profane Authors.  
There are on the contrary some Learned Critics, who, very far from allowing the Apostles a Pure and Elegant Style, have not scrupled to make them pass for Barbarous Writers, whose Books are stuffed with Hebraisms. Castalio, who understood Hebrew and Greek sufficiently, to be judge of this Question, says, in speaking of the Apostles, 
(b) Erant Apostoli natu Hebraei, & peregrinâ, hoc est Graecâ linguâ scribentes hebraizabant, non qui juberet Spiritus; neque enim pluris facit Spiritus hebraismos quàm graecismos ... res enim dictat Spiritus, verba quidem & linguam scribendi liberam permittit. Sebast. Castal. defence. Translat. Bibl.  that being born Hebrews, they did Hebraize when they writ in Greek, whilst the Holy Ghost had no part in that, because the Spirit of God does not love Hebraism any more than Graecisms. He only Indicted the thing to them, (saith that Author,) and not the Words, leaving them at liberty to express themselves after their own fashion. Which is agreeable enough to the Opinion of the Jesuits of Louvain.  
Castalio does further show, why the Apostles did no more improve themselves in the Greek, so as to speak it well, seeing that Language is Copious in Words, full of Sense, and easy to be understood, whereas the Hebrew Phrases render their Discourses intricate and obscure. He says, 
(c) Cur igitur hebraizarunt? Primùm quia erant Saeris Literis assueti; deinde quia cùm essent Graecae linguae non usque adeò periti, id quod eorum scripea ostendùnt, facilè in patriam consuetudinem deflectebant. Castal. ibid.  that they were accustomed to the reading of the Sacred Writings, and that since they did not sufficiently understand the Greek Language, (as it is easy to prove by their Works) those expressions that were proper to their Mother Tongue did first present themselves to them on all occasions. Which he confirms by the example of the French and the Dutch, who cannot write in Latin, without intermingling something of their own Language therewith. Dum Latinè scribunt, Gallizant & Germanizant. This latter Opinion, which has been followed by very able Critics, is more agreeable, than the former, to the Opinion of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers. I think we ought to acquiesce in the Judgement of the Greek Fathers, who are faithful Witnesses of the Greek Style of the Evangelists and the Apostles.  
Origen was the only Man of all the Greek Fathers, who applied himself most to the Study of the Scripture, in a manner that was most exact and Critical. And therefore his Judgement upon the Question, aught of all others to have the most weight with us. When that Learned Person Disputes against the Enemies of our Religion, who despised the Prophets and the Apostles, because of their Style, and because the same things (say they) were much better expressed in the Writings of the Ancient Philosophers. He makes answer to them, that we ought not upon that account to despise the Books of the Jews and the Christians, because it has been always agreed, that the Jews had written before the Greeks. As to the Style, he does own that the Greeks have the advantage; but he does withal allege that it cannot be inferred from thence, that their Works are better than those of the Jews and of the Christians. He does likewise observe, that the Books of the Old Testament are not destitute of their ornament in the Hebrew Language. Which he does affirm of the Writings of the Apostles, because, the truth is, they had no Politeness in their Expressions, having applied themselves more to the Eloquence of Things, than of Words.  

(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig adv. Cells. lib. 7.  The Prophets of the Jews (saith Origen,) and the Disciples of Jesus renounced all Ornaments of Discourse, and every thing which the Scripture does call human Wisdom; and according to the Flesh. If any Greek (that Learned Father continues) should have a design to teach a Doctrine, that were profitable to the Egyptians and the Syrians, he would rather choose to learn the Barbarous Languages of those Nations, than to be useless by speaking Greek to them. 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. ibid.  The thing is the same (according to him) in the Providence of God, who did not only consider those amongst the Greeks who were Men of Learning, but rather the ignorant Community. And therefore it was suitable to the exigency at that time, that they should accommodate themselves to the Style of the meaner sort, that they might gain them, in speaking their Language.  
Upon this Principle we ought to form an Idea of the Apostolical and Evangelical Style, and not upon the prejudices of some Protestants, who believe that they stand for the Authority of the Scripture, by allowing nothing that is very mean to have proceeded out of the Mouth of the Apostles. But St. Paul himself declared to the Corinthians, who despised him, because of his Language; that he came not to Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ with excellency of Speech, or of Wisdom. 
1 Cor. two. 1. 1 Cor. i 17.  For Christ (saith that Apostle) sent me to Preach the Gospel, not with wisdom of Words. St. John Chrysostom has observed, upon this Passage of St. Paul, that if the Apostles in their Sermons, did not use the Style of the wise Men of the Earth, 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. Hom. 3. in Epist. 1. ad Cor. cap. 1.  that ought not to be attributed to the weakness of the Gift of Tongues which they had received, seeing they took that course, that they might not obstruct the Preaching of the Gospel. If it be so, (that Father adds) why was Apollo, who was an Eloquent Man, sent to the Corinthians? To which he answers, that he was not chosen because of his Eloquence, but because he was mighty in the Scriptures, and vigorously refuted the Jews: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
St. Chrysostom does very much insist upon this, to show that the Apostles were rude in their Expressions, and unskilful in the Greek Tongue. 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. ibid.  When the Greeks shall accuse (saith he) the Disciples of Jesus Christ, for not using a Discourse more polished than what the commonalty did pretend to, and for being altogether unlearned, we ought to grant all this, and to enforce the like charge, more than they. He also reproves those of his time, who alleged that St. Paul was a Learned and an Eloquent Man. He makes mention of a Dispute which was held about it in his time, betwixt a Greek and a Christian. He thought it was a ridiculous thing in the Christian to maintain that St. Paul understood the Greek Language perfectly. All 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. ibid.  that Dispute went upon a comparison of St. Paul with Plato. The Grecian endeavoured to demonstrate that St. Paul was an illiterate Man The Christian, on the contrary, was so silly as to undertake to prove, that St. Paul was more Learned and Eloquent than Plato. But as that Holy Bishop observes, the Grecian on that occasion, said what the Christian ought to have said: the Christian on the contrary, made use of such words as would have better become the Grecian.  
It is no new thing to find Christians defend the purity of the Style of the Apostles. If Henry Stephen, Phochen, and some others had lived in St. Chrysostom's time, he would have found also in them the like Conduct, which he would not have failed to brand with the title of ridiculous. He would have said to them, as to those who lived in his days, 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. ibid.  that the same thing therefore may not befall you, and that the Greeks may not deride us in Dispute, let us accuse the Apostles of being illiterate persons; for such an accusation is their praise. And the truth is, the Power of the Gospel did not consist in the Knowledge and Eloquence of the Apostles, but in the Efficacy of the Word of God. The Mahometans admire the greatness and majesty of the Style of their Alcoran. The Christians on the contrary, who acknowledge the most part of the Writings of the New Testament to be but simple and mean as to the Style, are nevertheless persuaded of the truth of their Religion, which was Preached by Men, 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. ibid.  who were obscure and illiterate. 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. ibid.  This is no matter of defamation (St Chrysostom does add) when we speak of such Disciples of Jesus Christ. It is rather matter of their praise, who being such persons made themselves renowned through the whole World.  
And therefore Origen made no scruple to give some examples of the simple and mean Style of the Apostles, and also to observe their Solecisms; which some Fathers have done after him. He says that 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. Philoc. c. 4.  the Apostles who were persuaded of their mean capacity, as to human literature, to which they had never applied themselves, did freely declare the simplicity of their Style, and that they were very little acquainted with the Rules of Discourse, although they were very skilful in the matters of Religion. The same Father does observe in many places of his Works, that St. Paul's diction is full of Hyperbates, nay even of Barbarisms, which made him obscure. St. Irenaeus 
(n) Quoniam autem hyperbatis frequenter utitur Apostolus propter velocitatem sermonum suorum, & propter impetum qui in ipso est spiritûs ex multis quidem aliis est invenire. Iren. adv. Haer. lib. 3. c. 7.  who also acknowledged those Hyperbates in that Apostles Style, did attribute the same to the readiness of his Discourse, and to the vigour of that Spirit which was in him. I should never have done, if I should particularly relate all the Testimonies of the Greek Writers concerning the simple and low Style of the Evangelists and the Apostles. They have not so much as excepted St. Luke, though it is generally believed that he had a more exact knowledge of the Greek Language, than the rest of the Writers of the New Testament.  
The Greek Scholiasts who have written on St. John, observe, after St. Chrysostom, in the Prefaces which they prefix to that Evangelist, that St. John was 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Scholar Gr. in IU. Evang. ex cod. MS Bibl. Colb.  of a pitiful Village called Bethsaida in Galilee, the Son of a poor Fisher, who was altogether ignorant of that which the Men of the World call good Literature, himself a rude and plain Fisherman, who could neither speak nor write. The Cardinal Toletus, who writ a judicious Commentary upon St. John's Gospel, speaks not otherwise of that Evangelists Style, in a Summary prefixed to his Commentary. There he affirms that St. John 
(p) Minùs quàm caeteri Evangelistae Graecè locutus est. Hebraicis phrasibus abundat. Vnde fit ut Hebraici sermonis peritia, non minùs quàm Graeci, ad sensum sententiarum assequendum sit necessaria. Franc. Tol. argum. Comm. in Joann.  does speak worse Greek than the other Evangelists, that he is stuffed with Hebraisms; and that to understand him, it is necessary to know the Hebrew as well as the Greek. He desires us to 
(q) Attendendum est maximam vim in particulis causalibus, illativis, continuativis, caeterìsque ejusmodi esse positam, ut interdùm una particula integrum sententiae sensum contineat & ostendat. Tol. ibid.  observe well the Causal Particles, the Illatives, the Conjunctives, and others of that Nature, which have a great force in all his Discourse, because the Sense does sometimes wholly depend on those Particles.  
Enjedine, a subtle Unitary, did also enlarge his Observations on the Style of that Evangelist, which he looked upon as very obscure, and very hard to be understood, 
(r) Si obscuritas concisa, abrupta, minimè sibi cohaerens, & ex allegoriis constans oratio sublimitas dicenda est, fateor Joannem esse sublimem. Nam vix ullam Christi concionem ab eo relatam invenias, quae tota non sit allegerica & intellectu difficillima. Georg. Enjed. prooem. in Joann.  If we (saith he) ought to call that greatness of Style which is an obscure Discourse, abridged and interrupted, without any connection, and which is full of Allegories, I avow, that in that Sense, St. John's Style is sublime: for he makes no Harangue concerning Jesus Christ which is not Allegorical, and very difficult to be understood. He does strongly insist 
(s) Principium Evangelii Joannis est obscurissimum, quod figuratae voces, inusitatae loquendi formulae, praecipuè autem diversitas & opinionum in verbis Joannis explicandis varietas & contrarietas ostendit. Nulla enim ferè vocula est, certè nulla clausula, quae multiplices & inter se dissidentes interpretationes non habeat. Enjed. ibid.  on the obscurity of the beginning of that Gospel, where (as he thinks) we can find nothing but figurative words, and uncouth forms of Speech. There is not a Word or Diction therein (as that Unitary does add) but what may be Expounded, several, different, nay even opposite ways. This being so, I admire the headstrong prejudice of the Protestants and Unitaries, who dare oppose the common Belief of all the Churches of the World, having no other Foundation but that of Records, which they acknowledge to be so obscure and difficult to be understood. It is true that the Protestants do not altogether agree about the obscurity of Scripture; especially in the most important places; but the Unitaries in this matter, show more Candour, not denying a thing which is obvious. They only desire that the number of the Fundamental Points of our Faith be limited.  
It is not sufficient to study the Greek Language in Profane Authors; seeing the Writers of the New Testament have a particular Style that is abstruse, and requires an extraordinary Application. Hentenius has very patly observed in his Preface which he prefixed to his Version of the Commentaries of Euthymius upon the Gospels. 
(t) Animadvertendum est Evangelistas & Apostolos cùm genere Hebraei essent hac in re, sicut & in aliis multis, Hebraicum secutos idioma, quo illi frequentissimè pro praesenti quod proprium non habent, aut pro futuro efferunt praeteritum. Vtque in universum dicam, tempus unum pro alio Hebraei saepenumerò collocant. Quod etiam Evangelistae non rarò fecerunt, nec solus Matthaeus, qui patriâ scripsit linguâ, hoc est Hebraeâ, sed & caeteri qui Graecè scripserunt, etc. Joann. Hent. praef. Verse. Comm. Euthym. in Evang.  That the Apostles and the Evangelists being born Hebrews, did follow; in their Writings, the Genius of the Hebrew Language, which frequently puts one time for another, and has many other things pecuhar to it. He adds, it is not only St. Matthew, who does imitate this Style of the Hebrew; but the other Evangelists do it also. That one may be acquainted with this Style, it is fit to read the Greek Version of the Septuagint, which the Apostles have imitated. It is further necessary to study particularly the Style of every Book of the New Testament. For although they are written in a certain Language, which I elsewhere called the Language of the Synagogue, every Writer has something peculiar to himself.  
Of all the Holy Writers, St. Paul is most hard to be understood; who sometimes comes to a full stop before he has done: which has given occasion to so great a number of Hyperbates, or Transpositions in his Epistles. Gagnejus, who writ very judicious Notes upon those Epistles, calls the Reading, or Style of St. Paul, Lectionem turbulentam & salebrosam, i.e. an obscure and rugged Style. 
(u) Salebrosas illas Pauli Epistolas plerumque lectitanti mihi tam longis byperbatis hiulcas, tot anapodotis inabsolutas, tantâ sensuum profunditate inaccessas & invias visum est non hîc divinatore Apollinis Pythone, sed divino Pauli spiritu opus esse. Vnde non possum illorum non admirari impudentiam, qui cùm non Pauli, id est pacis ac quietis, sed schismatum ac dissensionis spiritum habeant, confestim nullo interpret absque sanctorum & doctorum hominum Commentariis quae cavillari solent, unos se Pauli mentem tenere impudenter arrogant. Gagn. Epist. dedic. Scholar in Epist. Pauli.  He is persuaded of their obscurity, because of their abstruse Style wherein they were written, which he thinks almost impossible to be explained, without the same Spirit that St. Paul had. He does withal admire the impudence of the Protestants, who having quite another sort of Spirit than what the Apostle had, do insolently boast, that they understand them, without any other assistance, than that of their own Spirit: I should have some cause to glory, (saith that Divine) if I could give some light to St. Paul's obscure Style, which (as many think) that Apostle did expressly affect. Non parum gloriabor, si quid lucis Pauli tenebris adjecisse inveniar, ut multi putant, de industriâ affectlatis. But that Apostle, in that, did the rather follow his Spirit, which represented to him many things at once. And therefore, sometimes he only gins a Discourse, and leaves it incomplete, nay he raises some objections to which he makes no answer.  
I know that St. Augustin in his Books concerning the Christian Religion, 
Aug. l. 4. de Doct. Christ. c. 7.  composed a Chapter expressly to show that there was true Eloquence in the Holy Scripture, especially in St. Paul's Writings, where he finds perfection of Wisdom, accompanied with the greatness of Eloquence. But seeing that Father did not understand the Greek Language, we ought in this case to prefer the Opinion of the Greek Fathers to his. He seems nevertheless, in that place, to speak only of a kind of Eloquence, that he calls Wisdom, and which he makes to consist rather in Things, than in Expressions. If St. Paul was Eloquent, because of some Figures which St. Augustin observed in his Style, there is almost no Author but may pass for Eloquent upon that score. There is indeed a force in that Apostle's discourse: There are very high thoughts, and a perfect knowledge of Religion: But all this is not called Eloquence, according to the common notion which we have of the Word. He himself declares, writing to the Corinthians, who charged him with rudeness of Speech, that his discourse was mean, and that he had not the art of speaking, or did not use enticing words of Man's wisdom.  
St. Jerome does plainly assure us, 
(x) Illud quod crebrò diximus, etsi imperitus sermone, non tamen scientiâ, nequaquàm Paulum de humilitate, sed de consciontiae veritate dixisse etiam nunc approbamus. Profundos enim & reonditos sensus lingua non explicat; & cùm ipse sentiat quid loquatur, in alienas aures puro non potest transferre sermone, quem cùm in vernaculâ linguâ habeat disertissimum, quip Hebraeus ex Hebraeis eruditus ad pedes Gamalielis viri in lege doctissimi scriptum interpretari cupiens involvitur. Hier. Epist. ad Alg. qu. 10.  that that acknowledgement of St. Paul did not so much proceed from the deep humility that was in him, as from the Truth which he owned, because his Tongue could not well express his profound and hidden thoughts. That Apostle, (saith he) being an Hebrew, and having studied under Gamaliel, a Doctor of the Law, is put hard to it, when he would express what is upon his Spirit, although he had from his Infancy, Learned the Greek Language at Tarsus in Cilicia. He does allege after Origen, that St. Paul 
(y) Multa sunt verba quibus juxta morem urbis & provinciae suae familiariùs Apostolus utitur— Nec hoc miremur in Apostolo, si utatur ejus linguae consuetudine in quâ natus est & nutritus; cum Virgilius alter Homerus apud nos patriae suae sequens consuetudinem sceleratum frigus appellet. Hieron. ibid.  used many forms of Speech, which were peculiar to those of Cilicia, where he was bred, and likewise he gives some examples thereof, which I do not here examine. He adds, that that is no surprising thing, seeing Virgil, who was a perfect Master of the Latin Tongue, has nevertheless made use of some expressions that were peculiar to those of his Country.  
That Father, as to what he further alleges with so great freedom of St. Paul's Style, has given us nothing but what he had read in the Ancient Ecclesiastical Authors, and what St. John Chrysostom, who lived at the same time, has shown at large in his Eloquent Homilies, which he Preached to the People. Yet St. Augustine was of a belief, contrary to the Opinion of St. Chrysostom, and the most Learned of the Ancient time 
(z) Malè doctis hominibus respondendum fuit, qui nostros auctores contemnendos putant, non quia non babent, sed quia non ostentant quàm nimis isti diligunt eloquentiam. Aug. de Doct. Christ. lib. 4. c. 7.  that he ought to make an Apology for St. Paul, by answering a sort of Men of his time, who despised that Apostle, because he made no show of Eloquence in his discourse.  
But Origen, who was not ashamed to produce St. Paul's Solecisms, did judiciously observe 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. Philoc. cap. 4.  that that Apostle, who was appointed by God to be the Minister of the New Testamment, had in his Preaching, and not in men's Wisdom, shown the virtue and efficacy of the Gospel, that the Conversion of Nations might not be attributed to that Worldly Wisdom. And therefore St. Paul and the other Apostles have no need of Apologies, which might afford him a Sanctuary, against those reproaches which may be cast on them, about the manner of their Writing, seeing God was pleased, not to make use of Orators for the Preaching of the Gospel, but simple Fishermen who had no Learning.  
Further, it does not yet follow, but that it is demonstrable, that the most part of the words that St. Paul, and the other Writers of the New Testament have used, are good Greek; only the Symmetry of their Phrases, and their modes of Speech are not always accommodated to the Greek, which is not extraordinary. For every Nation has a peculiar manner of expressing their own thoughts; and though they deliver them in terms that are purely Greek or Latin, we soon perceive, that the Order is not altogether Greek or Latin. We need only for Example, look on the Greek Version of the Psalms, and upon the Ancient Latin Translation, which was done out of the Greek; we see there something that is singular, and not agreeable either to the Greek or the Latin Genius; when it is even supposed, that the words are pure Greek and Latin. And for this reason, those amongst the Greek Fathers, who had a perfect knowledge of the Greek Language, were sometimes at a loss, as to their comprehending the Greek of the Septuagint.  
We may further observe, that if the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, had known the Hebrew as well as the Greek; they would not have found the Style of the Sacred Writings so barbarous as some of them believed. I am astonished, that St. Jerome who understood both Languages, did not take this way to explain what seemed to be most strange in their Style, rather than accuse them of Solecisms and Barbarisms. I believe, that in those places, he followed the Opinion of Origen, whom he frequently transcribes. Indeed, he does sometimes admire the greatness of St. Paul's thoughts: He acknowledged, that that Holy Apostle had applied himself to the study of Profane Authors, whom he sometimes quotes. But after all, he is of the mind, that we ought not to look for Eloquent Discourses in the Writings of the Apostles, because Jesus Christ did not intent to have his Church composed of Orators and Philosophers, but of Men who were the Dregs of the People. Ecclesia Christi non de Academia & Lyceo, sed de vili plebe congregata est.   

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.  
THere are some Passages in the Acts of the Apostles, from which there are Proofs commonly drawn, that the Jews, when Christianity began, were divided into two Parties. The one were 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  purely called Hebrews, and the other Hellenists or Grecians. Those who remained in the Territory of Babylon, after they were first dispersed, retained the name of Hebrews; because they spoke the very Language, which was used beyond the River Euphrates, and which, for that reason ought to be called Hebrew, although it was Chaldee. And the Jews who dwelled in Palestine, after their return from the Babylonish Captivity, were also purely called Hebrews; because they brought from Babylon the Chaldaic Language, which they called Hebrew. These Hebrews, in their Synagogues, read the Hebrew Text of the Law and the Prophets, to which they joined Glosses that were written in the Chaldee, which was their Vulgar Tongue.  
They called those Grecians, who were Jews of Alexandria, and many other places where they spoke the Greek Language. These read in their Assemblies, the Greek Version of the Septuagint, which they joined to the Hebrew Text, to be used as an Interpretation. They were called Hellenists or Greeks, because they spoke Greek, and read no other Books, in their ordinary custom, than what were written in Greek: Yet they always maintained a particular respect for the Original Hebrew of the Bible. And therefore in their Synagogues, they continued to read it in Hebrew, no less than the other Jews; which is still practised by the Jews at this day, in all places where they are, through the whole World. The Jews, for Example, of the Spanish Nation and Rite, the Dutch Jews, who live in Holland and the Neighbouring Provinces; and in a word, all the Jews of what Nation soever, read in their Synagogues, the Holy Scripture in the Original Language: They are called Spanish and Dutch, because of their Vulgar Tongue.  
There were at that time also, Jews who spoke Greek, whom they likewise called Greeks or Hellenists, and the Language in which the most part of their Books were written, has been called in this Age, the Hellenistick Language. This Language is Greek in respect of the words, but the order of the Phrase is Hebrew or Chaldee; as we still see at this day, that the Spanish Jews have composed the Translations of the Bible in a kind of Spanish Language, which is hard to be understood by any one who does not understand the Hebrew: It is the same thing in their other Versions of the Bible, in whatsoever Language they are written. They do not only continually mix therewith, some Hebrew or half Hebrew words; but their manner of expression, in all the Vulgar Languages, has also a great affinity with the Hebrew. The Ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint was written in this sort of Greek, as well as the Books of the New Testament, and they called this Language Hellenistick, because it was in use among the Jews who spoke the Greek Language, and who are called Hellenists or Greeks in the Acts of the Apostles.  
Vossius, who frequently frames Maxims, which he does not confirm by any solid Proofs, does allege, that those were called Hellenists, who favoured the Greeks; and that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does signify that, in the same manner as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signify to favour the Romans and the Persians. And thus that incomparable Person does often judge of things merely by Grammatical Notions, without being in any measure concerned, whether those notions do, or do not agree to the things, to which he applies them. But if we should confine ourselves only to the Grammatical sense of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is certain, that it does signify, as well in Profane as Ecclesiastical Authors, to speak Greek; and likewise, to speak that Language in its purity. He thinks that those among the Jews, were called Hebrews; who, by reason of the great zeal they had for their Law, were unwilling to submit to the Greeks and the Romans, and would by no means allow that their Nation should pay tribute to Strangers: The rest on the contrary, were called Hellenists who paid tribute with good will.  
But all this is a mere imagination, that has not the least shadow of Reason, and which signifies nothing; as to that Passage of the Acts of the Apostles, Chap. 6. where there is mention made of the Hebrews and Hellenists, or Greeks. St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and many other Fathers, did not by those Grecians understand any other Jews, but those who had the Greek for their Vulgar Language; whereas the rest spoke the Chaldee or Babylonish Tongue. St. Luke (saith Oecumenius speaking of the former) 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Oecum. in c. 6. Act. Apost.  calls them Greeks or Hellenists, not upon the account of their Religion, but because they spoke the Greek Language: Although they were Jews as well as others, they are not commonly called Hebrews, because they spoke not the Hebrew, or rather the Chaldee Language. That Hebrew Language had continued among the Jews of Palestine since their return from Babylon, and they looked upon themselves to be more considerable than the rest of the Jews, who were dispersed through the several Provinces of the Roman Empire where they spoke Greek.  
The most able Critics of our Age, have owned the Hellenistick Language, to which they have had frequent recourse for explaining many Passages of the New Testament. Yet Salmasius, and after him Crojus, have used their utmost endeavour to cry down this new Language, which (as they imagine) was unknown to all the Ancients, and which is, as they allege, chimerical, seeing it cannot be reduced to any of the Ancient Greek Dialects.  
The former has expressly written two Books upon this Subject, one whereof is entitled, De Hellenisticâ Commentarius, and another, Funus Linguae Hellenisticae. He does really, in these two Works, show himself to be a Man of great Learning: But he is so far from destroying that Language, as he pretends, that he does confirm it in several places.  
The Patrons of the Hellenistick Language never believed, that there was a Greek Dialect of that name; and so, all Salmasius' long Discourse upon the several Greek Dialects, is nothing to the purpose. Further, seeing we intent not to dispute with him on words, it shall be granted, that the word Hellenist does signify Greek; and that those who speak not that Language properly, ought rather to be called Non Hellenists than Hellenists. The truth is, in the Prohibition that Julian laid on the Christians, not to apply themselves to the Study of the Greek Language, he uses this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; as it does signify to speak pure Greek. And therefore St. Gregory of Nazianzen calls him in derision, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a lover of the Greek Language; and he tells him, 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Greg. Naz. Orat. 1. adv. Jul.  he who made this Law, has forbidden us to speak in the Attic Dialect, but he has not restrained us from speaking the Truth.  
In this sense, there are no true Hellenists, but those who have a perfect Knowledge of the Greek Language: which does differ from the Hellenistick Language, and this I would rather call the Greek of the Synagogue, because it owes its Original to the Synagogues of the Jews. But those who first called this Language the Hellenistick, did it only in conformity to that place of the Acts, where the Jews are called Hellenists, and not according to the ordinary notion of the word Hellenist. Salmasius does grant, that there are many Hebraisms in the Version of the Septuagint, and in the Writings of the Apostles. He only denies, that we ought, upon that account, to call that the Hellenistick Language, in which those Books were written: Otherwise, (saith he) we ought to give the same name to the Ancient Latin Version of the Bible, because there is also a great many Hebraisms in that Version: But it was necessary that it should have been written in Greek, before it could be called an Hellenistick Version. We do not call the Language of the Septuagint, and of the New Testament Hellenistick, merely because it contains many Hebraisms, but because it is Greek mixed with Hebraisms.  
There may be any name chosen and applied in this case, provided that there be an agreement in the thing itself: It is vain to dispute on words, when the matter is past dispute. Now Salmasius does, in his two Books, suppose certain Principles which manifestly establish the Language which some Critics, in this last Age, have called the Hellenistick. He assures us, for example, that the Seventy Interpreters, who understood the Greek very well, 
(c) Nisi verbum verbo in pluribus reddere curassent, longè, ut ita dicam, Graecatiorem & omnibus Hebraismis totidemque barbarismis repurgatam potuissent edere translationem. Hebraismi non aliunde exorti sunt, quàm ex vertendi modo qui se verbis alligat, qui sensa non exprimere contentus, etiam vim ipsam vocularum repraesent are satagit. Salm. Epist. dedic. Comm. de Hellenist.  could have made a Version, of better Greek, and free from all the Hebraisms and Barbarisms with which it abounds. He is of the Opinion that these Hebraisms, were occasioned by the too great care they took to render the Hebrew words literally, and to express the force they have in the Original. According to this supposition, the Greek of the Septuagint is not pure, but Greek mixed with Hebraisms; and they have likewise given new significations to Greek words, the better to express the sense of the Original. This is that which is called the Hellenistick Language: Thus you see, how Salmasius is become a great Hellenisticary, whilst he never dreamed any such thing.  

(d) Cùm Hebraicos loquendi modos inseruere, non ex Graecâ copiâ quâ abundabant eos hauserunt, sed ex textu Hebraico, cui nimis se in vertendo adstringebant, sumpserunt. Salm. ibid.  When they inserted (saith he, speaking of the Septuagint,) the Hebrew modes of Speech, they did not draw them from the copiousness of the Greek Language, but from the Hebrew Text, to which they adhered very closely: Salmasius does use his utmost endeavour, to confirm by those words, the Greek Language of the Synagogue, otherwise called the Hellenistick Language. 'Tis no great matter how it is called, provided the thing be plain. He declares, that he always allowed, that the words of that Version are Greek, but that the Phrase is Hebrew; De re semper inter omnes constitit verba esse Graeca, Phrasim Hebraicam: If it be so, why did he write two pretty large Books, in which he disputes on nothing else but the name that is to be given to that Language? The only thing that he is careful for, is to show, that there never was a Dialect amongst the Greeks, that was called the Hellenistick. De re totâ (saith he) disputatur, & quaeritur, an omnino fuerit, hoc est, an Hellenistica aliqua dialectus fuerit: We freely grant, that there never was any Dialect of this name, amongst the Greeks. And therefore, I have elsewhere called this Language of the Jews-Hellenists, a Greek of the Synagogue: And in the same manner, we may at this day distinguish the pure Spanish amongst the Jews, from the Spanish of the Synagogue, into which they have translated the Bible of that Language. They have also framed on the same Model, an Arabic of the Synagogue, a Persian Language of the Synagogue, in which they have written their Translations of the Bible, and their Prayer-Books. If we have not this Idea, in reading the Greek of the Septuagint and the New Testament; we cannot have an exact knowledge of the Style of those Books, which are not written in a Language that is purely Greek, as Salmasius himself does suppose, with those whom he calls Hellenisticaries.  
Seeing it is so, I do not see to what purpose the most part of that Critics Questions do serve, which he has proposed in his Commentary concerning the Hellenistick Language. To what end, for example, does he so exactly inquire, 
(e) An dialectus peculiaris constituenda sit ea elocutio quâ Septuaginta Interpretes in Bibliis transferendis usi sunt. An plures quàm quinque dialectos Graeci noverint, & an Hellenisticae inter eas dialectos meminerint. An Hellenisticae nomen conveniat ei phrasi quae verbis Graecis Hebraeos concipit intellectus. Salm. init. Comm. de Hellen.  if the Language which the Seventy Interpreters use in their Version, does constitute a particular Dialect, and if they reckoned amongst those Dialects, that which was called Hellenistick? If the appellation of the Hellenistick Language does agree to that sort of Phrase, whereof the words are Greek and the conceptions Hebrew; it was an easy matter for him to compile large Treatises, by that Method, because he does seldom or never treat of the matter in Question: After he had enumerated all the Dialects of the Greeks, he concludes, 
(f) Ex his quae proposuimus sole manifestius liquet, ejusmodi elocutionem Graecam, quae nec ullius certae gentis unquam propria fuit, nec certas habuit notas verbis inhaerentes quibus discerneretur ab aliis dialectis, non posse videri dialectum, nec teneri definitione dialecti. Salm. Comm. de Hellen. p. 84.  that it is more clear than the day; that that Greek Language that belonged to no Nation, and that had no mark, to characterise or distinguish it from other Dialects, is not a true Dialect.  
But that was not the thing he was to prove, because we are of the same Opinion with him, that that which some able Critics have called the Hellenistick Language is none of the Greek Dialects. They only think, that that Language is not pure Greek, by reason of the Hebraisms with which it abounds. The Hellenistick Language, according to those Critics is a Language that contains Greek words and Hebrew Phrases: Lingua Hellenistica est quae verbis Graecis utitur, phrasibus Hebraicis. All the Question than is to know, if the Version of the Septuagint, and the Books of the Old Testament be written in this manner: Since he himself does grant this, it may be concluded from hence, that those Writers have no particular and proper Language. It is not to be looked for in any Dialect of the Greeks, nor in any Nation in particular, but in the Synagogues of the Jews-Greeks or Hellenists. As, if at this day, I would know, what is the Language of the Bible's Printed in Spanish at Ferrara, and at Constantinople; I would not look for a particular Nation that speaks that Language, but would consult the usage of their Synagogues. The Apostles who frequented the Synagogues of the Jews-Hellenists, and who read with them, the Greek Version of the Septuagint, borrowed the expressions thereof; besides, being Jews by Birth, and the Chaldee being their Mother Tongue, it was very hard for them not to mix some Hebraisms and Chaldaisms with the Greek in which they writ.  
Crojus, who is of the same Opinion with Salmasius upon this Subject, did likewise establish the Hellenistick Language in the same manner as Salmasius had done, though he had at the same time, an intention to destroy it. That Author, after he had recounted many things, which were no way for the purpose he designed them, does conclude against Heinsius, a Hero of the Hellenisticary Party, that the Evangelists and the Apostles are not Hellenists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they did not speak good Greek, but did Hebraize or Chaldaize, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their Phrases being Hebrew, Chaldee and Syriack. Whereby he does establish that Hellenistick Language, whereof the words are Greek, and the Phrases Hebrew. He asks Heinsius, how he can reconcile these two things, viz. 
(g) Si Apostolus ejusque collegae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut in omnibus ferè observationibus contendit Heinsius, quomodo profiteri potest eos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Joann. Croj. Sacr. Obs. in N. T. c. 34.  That St. Paul and the other Writers of the New Testament are Hellenists, and at the same time do Hebraize: 'Tis easy to reconcile the Two. For Heinsius and the rest of the Hellenisticaries, do not take (as it has been already observed) the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be an Hellenist, in the sense that the Greeks ordinarily used it in; they do not think, that it does in that place, signify to speak pure Greek, but that which has been mentioned before. And therefore Crojus does, no less than Salmasius, dispute about words: For the avoiding of which inconveniency, we shall call that Language the Greek of the Synagogue.  
But whence was it (it may be said) that those Jews-Hellenists, whose Vulgar Language was the Greek, spoke that Greek of the Synagogue, that is to say, a Greek mixed with Hebraisms and Chaldaisms; seeing the Hebrew and Chaldee was not then in use amongst them? Philon for Example, who was one of those Jews that were called Hellenists, spoke Greek very well. He does not in the least make any thing appear in his Works, that comes near the Greek of the Synagogue.  
To this it may be answered, that the Greek Hellenists did continually read the Hebrew Bible in their Synagogues, as well as the other Jews, who called themselves purely Hebrews: Although those Hellenists writ some particular Works in pure Greek, which had nothing of the Greek of the Synagogue, it was not the same thing as their Greek Versions of the Bible, and some other of their Books. Seeing in these Works, they confined themselves to the Hebrew Text, they expressed the form of the Hebrew Phrase. This may be justified by the Arabic, Persian, Spanish, and the Vulgar Greek Versions of the Bible, which were made by the Jews. There are pure Hebraisms owned to be in all these, although the Authors thereof were Jews, who spoke those Languages: Which could proceed from nothing else but their scrupulous adhering in their Translations, to the Words of the Original Hebrew.  
It is true, that the most part of those who defend the Hellenistick Language, believe, that the Jews-Hellenists did read no other Bible in their Synagogues, but the Greek Version of the Septuagint; but they are mistaken in that. Even Salmasius, who declared himself very much against the Hellenisticaries, does assure us, that the Jews in whatsoever place they were, did continually read the Hebrew Text of the Bible in their Synagogues. They who pretend to prove the contrary, by the 146 Constitution of Justinian, did not narrowly enough observe the words of that Constitution, which shows it quite otherwise: Yet Lewis Cappel and several other Learned Critics 
(h) Quin & inter Hellenistas ad septimi usque seculi initium liturgia Judaeorum Graecâ linguâ peragebatur, non Hebraicâ. Singulis enim Sabbatis lectio ex Mose & Prophetis in Synagogis ex Graecâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Septuaginta Versione fiebat: quod liquet ex novella Justiniani constitutione 146. Lud. Capp. qu. de loc. parall. Vet. & Nou. Test.  depend on that Emperor's Novel to demonstrate, that the Greek Hellenists, in their Liturgy or Office, did use the Greek Language, till the beginning of the Seventh Age, and that they had read no other Scripture, in their Synagogues until that time, but the Greek Version of the Septuagint. Grotius was also of this Opinion in his Note on the sixth Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, where there is mention made of the Hellenists. 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Judaeorum Religione, sed qui cùm Alexandria & vicinis in locis vixissent anteà, morem inde retinuerant sacra scripta legendi Graecè, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— qui mos mansit ad Justiniani tempora, ut cognoscimus ex Novella 146. Grot. Annot. in c. 6. Act. Apost.  Those Jews (saith he) were Religious Jews, and having lived at Alexandria and the neighbouring places, had retained the custom of reading the Scripture in Greek, which custom continued till Justinian's time, as appears by the 146 Novel.  
But the words of that Novel, which 'tis fit to set down in this place, do expressly make the contrary manifest. The Jews, in Justinian's time, were divided into two Parties: The one was for reading only the pure Hebrew Text in their Synagogues; the other, besides that Text, read the Ancient Greek Version of the Septuagint, instead of an Interpretation, because they understood not the Hebrew Language. The Emperor Justinian does declare, 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Novel. 146. ut. de Ebr.  that having understood their discord, he thought it expedient to apply a remedy thereunto by a Judgement: The account of their dispute is conceived in these terms. 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  Some amongst them, who only retained the Hebrew Text of the Bible, were for reading it alone, at the public Service in the Synagogues. 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  Others, on the contrary, alleged that besides the Original Hebrew, the Greek Interpretation ought to have been used. We ought chief to take notice of these last Words, which give us to understand, that the matter in agitation was not simply to have the Bible in Greek in the Synagogues of the Jews-Hellenists, as is commonly believed, but to join the Reading of the Greek Version to the Reading of the Hebrew Text.  
This will yet more clearly appear by the very words of Justinian's Decree, 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  who pronounced Sentence in favour of those, who, besides the Original Hebrew, read in their Assemblies a Version in Greek, or in another Vulgar Language, according to the places of their abode. 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  He Ordained therefore, that it should be permitted to the Jews, who had a mind to it, to read the Holy Writings in Greek, in those places where the People understood the Greek, and in every other Language, for example, in Latin, according to the Language of the Country were they dwelled.  
Cappel did not understand the Sense of this Ordinance of Justinian, when he endeavoured to prove that the Jewish Doctors did at that time forbidden, under the pain of an Anathema, the public reading of any other Scripture but the Original Hebrew in their Synagogues. Whence he concludes, that the Custom which is at this day amongst the Jews, of not having their Liturgy in the Vulgar Tongue, but in Hebrew, was not introduced amongst them, but since the publication of the Talmud. If he had diligently read Justinian's Constitution, he would have been satisfied, that they read in those days the Law and the Prophets in Hebrew, in all the Synagogues of the World. But they added afterwards to the Hebrew, a Version or Paraphrase in the Vulgar Language of every Country. They of Jerusalem, for example, and all Palestine, who called themselves purely Hebrews, joined an Interpretation in Chaldee to the reading of the Original. There is also a probability, that the Custom the Jews have still at this day, of reading privately every Saturday, a Parasca, or Section of the Chaldee Paraphrase, did proceed from that ancient usage of the Synagogues who joined the reading of the Paraphrase to the Hebrew Text.  
The Jewish Doctors did not therefore, prohibit at that time, the reading of the Greek Version, and other Translations of Scripture, as if they had read those Versions only in their Synagogues; but they decreed that there should be no Version added to the reading of the Original Text, which had been practised till that time. They had used an Interpreter till that time, who rendered the words of the Hebrew Text in the Language of the People. Which appears by the Talmud, and all other Books which Treat of the Jewish Laws and Customs. That ancient usage has altogether ceased amongst them. They have indeed Translations of the Bible in their Vulgar Tongues, but they read these only privately. This they also observe as to their Service Books, which they read in Hebrew in all their Synagogues, although they have Translations of them in several Languages.   

CHAP. XXVIII. A more particular Discussion of the Reasons alleged by Salmasius, against the Language that is called Hellenistick. Several difficulties also relating to this matter are cleared.  
THis should be the place to observe particularly the principal Hebraisms, which are scattered through the whole New Testament: but besides that my only design is to explain the Style of those Books in general, they may be found Collected in the Sacred Philology of John Vorstius, who has enlarged sufficiently on this Subject. The answer of Thomas Gatakerus to the Dissertation of Phochen, (vid. if he be the English Whittaker— if this Author's Name was Thomas) may likewise be consulted in this matter. I shall speak of these two Books, and some other the like, in the third Part of this Critical History. I shall only confine myself here to Salmasius his Reasons, by which he pretends to show, that all that is said of the Hellenistick Language is without a Foundation.  
This Learned Critic does absolutely deny that the Seventy Interpreters were Hellenists, 
Salm. in Epist. dedic. Comm. de Hellen.  because this Name can only be attributed to the Jews, who were dispersed into several Countries, out of the Land of Judah. But it is Universally agreed upon, that the Seventy belonged to Jerusalem, and that consequently they were purely Hebrews. In Jerusalem they did read the Bible in Hebrew, and not in Greek. If they joined to it any Gloss, it was written in the Language of the Jews of that Place, that is to say in the Chaldee. The same thing (saith Salmasius) may be alleged as to the Apostles, who for the most part were Jews Originally, and who lived in Judah, even after the death of Jesus Christ. How then is it possible that they could be Greeks or Hellenists? There was only St. Paul amongst them, who (being of Tarsus in Cilicia, where they spoke the Greek Language) could assume the quality of a Jew-Hellenist. But having been bred at Jerusalem, where he Studied under the Renowned Rabbin Gamaliel, he denominates himself a mere Hebrew, Hebraeus ex Hebraeis. Indeed, since he was of the Pharisees, he cannot be reckoned in the number of the Jews-Hellenists, who did read the Bible in Greek in their Synagogues.  
It is easy to solve all these difficulties with the least trouble imaginable. It may be observed, that although the Appellation of Jews-Hellenists, was given to those who were scattered out of Judaea, into those several Countries where they spoke the Greek Language, this does not hinder, but that there may be found true Hellenists even in the Land of Judah: for every Jew who writ in that Greek, which we have formerly called the Greek of the Synagogue, may be called a Hellenist, by reason of the Language he used in writing his Works. Upon this ground, when it shall be supposed, that the Authors of the ancient Greek Version, which is ascribed to the Seventy Interpreters, were of Jerusalem, they are truly Hellenists, because they Composed their Version in a Greek, that is full of Hebraisms and of Chaldaisms. The Apostles who were of Galilee, and consequently natural born Jews, are also in this Sense Jews-Hellenists, if they be considered as the Authors of such Books as they writ in the Greek of the Synagogue. St. Paul was indeed born a Hellenist, having learned the Greek Language from his Infancy: but being afterwards Educated in the Schools at Jerusalem, he became a pure Hebrew, as to what concerned the Rites and Usages of those of his Nation. Yet he ought to be reckoned among the Hellenists, if we consider his Works, which are written in a Greek Style full of Hebraisms, in which, by common suffrage, the Hellenistick Language does consist.  
Salmasius does object against this, that the modes of Speech in a Language do change according to the Times, whilst the name of the Language does not change. If so, it cannot be said, that an Hebrew or Syriack Phrase, 
Salm. de Lang. Hellen. p. 131.  which is delivered in pure Greek terms, can constitute a particular Language or Dialect of a Nation. It does only give a new Character of the Language. The Style of the Poets, for example, is very remote from the ordinary Greek. Yet none ever affirmed that that was a particular Language. So it cannot be said that the Hellenistick Language, does make a particular Dialect common to a whole Nation, as if it were a Language spoken by the Community. They were content to confine it to their Synagogues, and the Works of those who writ in the Language of the Synagogue. Let it be only called, if one please, a new Character in the Greek Language. But this is nothing to the Question, seeing we Dispute not of the Word, but of the Thing. Salmasius does grant, that the Greek Version of the Septuagint, and of the Books of the New Testament are written in Greek, full of Hebraisms: we require no more for the Confirmation of the Hellenistick Language.  
It is possible that the Hellenisticaries abuse the Word Language. But it is sufficient that they do explain what they understand by this Word, and that they own, that they did not intent thereby the General Language of a Nation. For it is certain, that the Jews, Greeks, or Hellenists, did every one speak the Greek Language of the places where they were. St. Paul, for example, spoke the Greek which was in his time used at Tarsus. Philon spoke the Greek of those of Alexandria: and seeing he had Studied that Language with great Application, he writ in a Style that was exceedingly polished. Nevertheless all the Jews, who were Greeks or Hellenists, did not write in the Language which is here called the Hellenistick, because it was Consecrated chief to the use of the Synagogues, and was framed according to the Language of the Holy Writings. The Jews who were purely Hebrews, and who writ in Greek, were more Hellenisticaries, than the Jews-Hellenists themselves, because their Style did more abound with Hebraisms, and Chaldaisms, than that of the Hellenists, who had the Greek for their Vulgar Language.  
And though we should suppose with Salmasius, that the most part of the Disciples of Jesus Christ, being Galileans, and of the Dregs of the People, spoke no other Language but the Syriack, it could not from thence be proved, that the Books of the Old Testament that are in Greek, are not written in the Hellenistick Language. All that can be proved from that supposition is, that the Apostles did then compose their Works in their Mother Tongue, which was the Syriack, and that they were afterwards Translated into Greek by Interpreters, who accompanied them in their Travels, and who understood the Greek Language. This is truly the Opinion of that Critic, who believed that the most part of the Apostles were but very slow in learning the Greek, at that time when they were commanded to Preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. 
(a) Sed & plures ex iis verisimile est per interpretem Graecis & Romanis Evangelium adnuntiasse, exceptis si qui Graecè noverant, ut potè inter Graecos nati, quod de Paulo certum est. Salm. de Hellen. p. 254.  It is likewise probable, (saith he) that several of them Preached the Gospel to the Greeks and Romans, by Interpreters, there being only those of them who were Greeks by Birth, (for example, St. Paul,) who Preached in Greek.  
But that supposition is so far from destroying the Hellenistick Language of the Books of the New Testament, that it does establish it the more. For Salmasius assures us in the same place, that the Greek Books that were Translated out of the Hebrew and the Syriack, do more abound with Hebraisms and Chaldaisms, than those which had been written in Greek before that time. And therefore he alleges, that there are much fewer Hebraisms in St. Luke, and in St. Paul, who understood the Greek Language, than in St. Matthew, who had been Translated out of the Hebrew or Chaldee. 
(b) Hanc differentiam stili in Graecè translatis, & merè Graecis, notavit aliquot locis Hieronymus. Salm. ibid. p. 258.  He confirms his Observation by the Authority of St. Jerom, who acknowledged, (as he thinks) this difference of Style, betwixt the Books that were written in Greek, and those which were Translated into that Language. All that can be concluded from his Supposition is, that the Books which were written by the Disciples of Jesus Christ, who were Galileans, were not composed by Jews-Hellenists, but by mere Hebrews, in the Language of their Country, which was the  Language.  
He cannot conclude from thence, that the Greek of the Books which we have at this day, is not a Greek of the Synagogues. On the contrary, the Distinction that he makes betwixt the Works, which were then written in Greek, and those which were Translated out of the Hebrew and the Chaldee, does manifestly suppose it. Nevertheless we ought not to oppose, in this matter, all the Ancients, who believed that of the four Evangelists, St. Matthew did only write his Gospel in Hebrew. As for the Hebraisms, which he thinks abound more in the Books that were Translated out of Hebrew into Greek, than in others, Vorstius is not altogether of the same mind. For he believes that there are more Hebraisms in St. Luke's Gospel, than in the other Gospels. He likewise adds, 
(c) Ego contenderim S. Lucam plus Hebraismorum usurpasse, quàm ullum caeterorum Novi Testamenti Scriptorum, & in uno capite primo Evangelii Lucae vel quinquaginta: in uno verò ejusdem capitis versiculo, vel quatuor, aut plures Hebraismos demonstrare possim. Joann. Vorst. Philolog. Sac. part. alt. Epist. dedic.  that he could easily show fifty Hebraisms in the first Chapter of that Evangelist, and four and more, even in one Verse: indeed it may very well be that St. Luke may make use of more pure Greek Terms, than the other Evangelists do, and yet for all this, have a Phrase that is altogether Hebrew or Syriack.  
Salmasius does further assure us, against the Opinion of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, 
(d) Graecè nescisse Apostolos vel uno vincitur argumento, quod ex Septuaginta Interpretum Versione testimonia non citarint, sed ex Hebraico textu. Salm. de Hellen. pag. 255.  that amongst all the Apostles, it was only St. Paul who understood the Greek. Which he proves by their citing the Old Testament according to the Hebrew Text, and not according to the Greek of the Septuagint. But we have already shown the contrary: and although St. Jerom is sometimes of that Opinion, he frequently takes the opposite side upon very good Reasons. The Reason, (Salmasius adds) why the Passages of the Old Testament, which are cited in the New, do not agree with the Greek of the Septuagint, is because the Evangelists and the Apostles took them from the Hebrew, and the Interpreters, Translating them into Greek, do not always agree with the Septuagint. But if it were so, those Translators would at least have expressed the Hebrew by other Greek Words, and would have been conformable to that Hebrew: which yet is not true, for they agree more often with the Septuagint, than with the Hebrew Text. This difference, as it has been elsewhere observed, proceeds from this, that the Apostles according to the usage of their time, did not trouble themselves in their citations to relate the express Words of Scripture, because they adhered chief to the Sense.  
But was it necessary (Salmasius continues) that St. Peter, who was an Apostle of the Jews, should understand the Greek Language, seeing the Jews of that time understood the Syriack and the Hebrew? It is not true that all the Jews of that time understood the Hebrew and the Syriack. For in all the Roman Empire, only those of Palestine knew the Syriack or the Chaldee, and yet those of that Country who were above the Common Rank, did likewise understand the Greek Language. As for the Hebrew, there were only a very few Learned Men amongst them who understood it; whereas the Greek Language was spread through a considerable part of the Empire, and the Jews of Rome, where St. Peter was, accompanied with St. Mark, spoke Greek more than any other Language. To that which is objected, that St. Mark, according to the testimony of all Antiquity, was St. Peter's Interpreter; I answer, that it cannot be proved from thence that S. Peter was altogether ignorant of the Greek Language, seeing all those ancient Doctors of the Church, who make St. Mark to be St. Peter's Interpreter, do not deny but that this Holy Apostle understood the Greek. St. Paul had likewise Titus for his Interpreter; and yet Salmasius thinks that that Apostle knew the Greek better than the Hebrew.  
We will freely grant to this Critic, that St. John, who was a Galilean, had a more exact knowledge of the Hebrew, or rather of the Chaldaic Language, than of the Greek. But it cannot be from thence inferred with him, that that Apostle did Write his Gospel in the Hebrew, rather than in the Greek. For having established his abode in the places where the Greek was spoken, he instructed the several People whose Apostle he was, in the Language which they spoke. And seeing his Gospel is only a Collection of his Sermons, he writ it in the same Language. And therefore I do not apprehend that Salmasius has established undoubted Principles for warranting this general Consequence, 
(e) Scribebant igitur Apostoli idiomate suo & linguâ sibi familiari & vernaclâ, quae protinùs à Syris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vel Graecis ipsis ad fidem conversis, quos secum habebant Evangelii praedicandi adjutores & administros, in Graecum transferebantur. Salmas. ibid. p. 258.  That the Apostles writ their Books in their Mother-Tongue, which was the Syriack Language, and that afterwards they were Translated into Greek by the Syrians, who understood the Greek, or yet by the Converted Greeks, whom they used as Coadjutors, and Interpreters for the Preaching of the Gospel. But besides that we have formerly spoken of these Interpreters and Fellow helpers, though they should be acknowledged to have been in the same manner as Salmasius does suppose, it might be always said, that the Books of the New Testament are written in the Greek of the Synagogue. It is much more probable that the Apostles, who were Galileans, are the Authors thereof. For if they had made use of Persons Learned in the Greek Language, there would not be found so many Hebraisms in them. The Style of St. John's Gospel does show that it was written by a Galilean, rather than a Grecian.  
However it be, Salmasius is obliged to declare that the Writings of the New Testament are full of modes of Speech that are altogether Syriack: and herein the Hellenistick Language is made to consist. He only differs from those whom he calls Hellenisticaries 
(f) Illi Syriasmi quibus totus conspersus est Novi Testamenti Graeci textus ex charactere nimirum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quo de verbo ad verbum expressa peragitur transtatio. Salm. ibid.  in this, that he attributes the form of the Syriack Phrases to the Interpreters of the Apostles; whereas the Hellenisticaries do ascribe them to the Apostles themselves. But whether it be, that the Apostles themselves, or their Interpreters were the Authors thereof, the thing itself will be always granted. And thus he does rather establish, than destroy the Hellenistick Language.  
As for St. Paul and St. Luke, who understood the Greek Language, Salmasius does also acknowledge that their Writings are full of Chaldaisms: and the Reason that he brings, is, 
(g) Quod de Paulo & Lucâ licet asserere, qui utriusque linguae periti, in eam quâ scripserunt ex alterâ phrases & genera lequendi transfuderunt. Salm. ibid.  that seeing they understood the Greek and the Chaldee, they made a mixture of these two Languages. In what manner soever it happened, he cannot deny but that the Language of the Synagogue does appear in the Works of St. Paul and of St. Luke, as well as in the Writings of the other Apostles. He only thinks that St. Paul and St. Luke let Hebraisms drop more seldom than the Interpreters, who (as he believes) Translated the Books of the other Apostles out of the Hebrew and the Chaldee, into the Greek. Yet Vorstius, as I have already observed, has marked more Hebraisms in St. Luke, than in the other Writers of the New Testament. And therefore it is better to attribute them to the Apostles themselves, if St. Matthew be excepted, than to their Fellow Helpers or Interpreters.  
For what remains we agree with Salmasius, or rather with the Greek Fathers, whom he follows in this matter, that the Apostles being rude and destitute of Literature, writ their Books in a very mean Style, and in a Language that was used by the Dregs of the People. Which in some manner renders their Discourse more intelligible, because that Language does commonly contain nothing that is Figurative as to what concerns the Expressions. We shall observe nevertheless, that although the Apostles do ordinarily make use of Words that are mean and received amongst the People, and consequently easy to be understood, they have a certain form of Phrase, and certain Expressions which were proper to those of their Nation; which appear sometimes obscure to us, because we know not the usage of that time. Although their Style is oftentimes simple and very plain, if we look only to the Grammatical Sense, it is hard enough to be understood, when we intent to reach the true Sense of their Thoughts. The Jews had then ways of Expressing themselves, very different from those that are in use amongst us: And in this, the obscurity of the Books of the N. Testament doth chief consist.  
They who Translate those Books into another Language, ought especially to take care to keep as close as possible to the Words of the Original. For when they endeavour to render the bare Sense, without adhering to the Words, they run a risk of deceiving themselves, and making their Author speak those things which he never thought of. Beza and Castalio had great Disputes about this. The former alleged, that in Translating the New Testament several Hebraisms ought to be retained, because it is impossible to render them exactly in another Language. Further, 
(h) Cùm saepè multiplex sit ratio Hebraismes explicandi, quis non videt rectiùs & religiosiùs eos facere qui intactos illos & integros sinunt, quàm qui suam opinionem secuti, nullum conjecturae aut privati judicii locum lectoribus relinquunt. Bez. Resp. ad Def. Cast.  seeing those Hebraisms are capable of various renditions, it is more to the purpose to keep them, than to Interpret them in a Sense which may possibly be false; and withal deprive others of their liberty of judgement concerning them. Castalio, on the contrary, was of Opinion that an Interpreter ought to content himself to mark the Hebraisms by Notes on the Margin. We shall have occasion to speak more fully of those Hebraisms in the second Book of this History, when we examine the several Versions of the New Testament.   

CHAP. XXIX. Of the Manscript Greek Copies in general, and of those who have spoken of them. Collections which have been made of divers Readins drawn from those Manuscripts. Observations upon the whole Matter. The Heretics have been accused sometimes, but without any ground, for corrupting the Books of the New Testament.  
Although there have been many Learned Critics in the Greek Church, who applied themselves to correct the Books of the New Testament, we do not see, that any one Greek Copy has been altogether preferred to others, that it might be followed by all the Greek Churches. Which was the occasion that there was a great difference observed in the various Copies that were in several Churches. Origen, who was a very knowing person in this matter, 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. tom. 15. Comm. in Matth.  has observed, this great diversity of the Greek Copies, which he attributed partly to the negligence of the Transcribers, and partly to the liberty that Critics assumed, in correcting the Books of the New Testament, adding to, and taking away from it, according as they judged it convenient. Indeed, if it be remembered what was briefly said of it, upon the occasion of the last Chapter of S. Mark, and of the History of the adulterous Woman, Chap. 8. of S. John, we shall find evident proofs there of this observation of Origen: which would further appear, if we had several Copies of that time, which we might compare with those that remain, whereas we have very few that are above a thousand years' continuance; and which, as we shall show in the next Chapter, do very much differ from those others we have at this day. They have likewise all those Errors that we have observed.  
That Father does add, in the same place, that he had in some sort remedied the diversity of the Greek Copies of the Septuagint Version, which he had revised and corrected according to the ordinary Rules of Criticism. He likewise declares in what manner he had gone through that great Work, that had all the success that he could hope for. But he did not the like as to the Books of the New Testament, unless it be that he carefully searched for the most correct Copies, and made many Critical Reflections on sundry places, according as occasions did present themselves for that purpose. Neither do we find that the Ecclesiastical Writers, who lived after Origen, made a distinction of two sorts of Editions of the New Testament, as they have of two Editions of the Version of the Septuagint. They made a difference betwixt that which was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vulgar, which was publicly used, and that which was corrected according to the Rules of Criticism. They considered this latter as the true Edition of the Septuagint, although it was as yet very imperfect, and the most part of the Oriental Churches made use of it for correcting their Copies.  
Yet for all this, Origen as well as several other Critics did correct some Greek Copies of the New Testament, and S. Jerom does sometimes cite them. But it does not appear that his Critical Observations were in the place of a Law, as to those Books, as they were as to an ancient Greek Version of the Old Testament. If it had been so, we should have had a Massore of the Greek Text of the Writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles, in the same manner as the Jews had of the Hebrew Text of the Bible. We should not find so many different Readins as there are at this day. For every one would have exactly followed Origen's Copy, as the Jews followed the Copy that was corrected by their Doctors, whom they commonly called Massorets. And from hence it is that we find not at this day any ancient Hebrew Copies of the Scripture amongst them. For they reform them all by the Massore: and seeing they hold it for infallible, they wholly neglected their ancient Books. They are so much persuaded, that the Books of the Law which they now read, are perfectly conformable to the Original of Moses, that they do keep in their Synagogues any old Roll or Volume. The Jews of the Portuguese Synagogue of Amsterdam have at least fifty Rolls of their Sepher tora, or Book of the Law, which, for the most part, are very well written, but they are all new. If any ask for ancient ones, they take no notice, because they are prepossessed with a Belief, that there can be no difference betwixt the ancient and the modern.  
It is not so amongst the Christians who have had no Massorets, whom they altogether follow in copying their Greek Copies of the New Testament. And therefore we ought not to be surprised, to find therein a much greater number of various Renditions than in the Hebrew Copies of the Jews. I dare also be bold to say, that this manifold variety ought to gain a greater authority to them, than if there had been no such difference. For it is impossible, that a Book which has passed through so many hands should always continue the same, unless they have corrected it, and afterwards follow exactly that Correction, as it happened to the Jews, in respect of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. It is the advantage of a Book, that there have been several different Copies thereof, to the end that a better Judgement may be given of the true Rendition. And upon this account, the Books of the New Testament are to be preferred to the most part of the others, because the Christian Religion having spread into so many different Countries, every Nation has Copies and Versions thereof.  
These are the different Copies by which we are to be guided at this day, because we have not now the first Original. We shall with all possible exactness examine the Greek Manuscript Copies, and also the most ancient Versions which have been taken from the Greek. We are not to depend upon one Greek Edition more than upon another, if it be not founded on better Manuscripts. We shall prefer the Editions which, together with the Text, do contain divers Renditions of sundry Copies. It is a rare thing to find Greek Manuscripts where such variations are noted in the Margin; for seeing those Books are read in the Churches, they observe commonly no other Reading than what is authorised by custom. They did content themselves to mark them in distinct Works, especially in the Notes which they joined to the Greek Text of the New Testament. And therefore besides the various Manuscript Copies, we ought to consult the Notes which it is easy enough to find in good Libraries.  
Many Learned Critics of the latter Days, when the Study of the Greek Language was reestablished, applied themselves carefully to this Labour. Valla was the first who made search for the Greek Copies of the New Testament, and also for the Latin. 
Laur. Vall. Annot. in Nou. Test. Edit. Basil. in 8. an. 1526.  He citys many of them in his Remarks which Erasmus took care to Print at Basle; and although he does much insist upon the little Niceties of the Latin Grammar, yet we are obliged to him for the new Discoveries which he has made to us in a time when Barbarity did still reign in Europe. It was by the force of his Example, that Erasmus was induced to write Notes on the New Testament, where he citys a much greater number of Greek and Latin Manuscripts which he had read. There is also annexed to some Editions of his New Testament a Collection of divers Readins taken from the Greek Copies. He seemed to be better versed than Valla, in this sort of Reasoning, especially as to his knowledge of Manuscripts. Nevertheless his Critical Reflections do speak the Author's liberty more than their own evidence. When he meets with Greek Manuscripts agreeable to the Latin, he does judge that the former were corrected by the latter. He thinks, for example, that the English Greek Copy, where we read, Epist. I. of S. John, chap. 5. vers. 7. of the Testimony of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 
(b) Ad Latinorum codices fuisse castigatum. Posteaquam enim Graeci concordiam interunt cum Ecclesià Romanâ, studuerunt & hac in parte cum Romanis consentire. Erasm. Apol. adv. Jac. Lop. Stun.  was reform by the Greeks themselves, according to the Latin Edition, since the Reconciliation of those two Churches. But he will never be able to prove this. Besides, the places which he alleges to have been corrected, have no relation to the Disputes that were betwixt the Greeks and the Latins. To which we may add, that the Greeks were never greater enemies to the Latins than since their Reconciliation in the Council of Florence. The most part of those who had subscribed to that Council, were hardly well returned home, when they assembled at Constantinople, where they protested against all that they had done at Florence. The Record of that Protestation is yet extant, with the Names of those who subscribed it.  
We cannot enough admire, 
In 1550.  Robert Stephen's Fair Edition of the New Testament in Greek, in Folio, wherein he gives us proofs of his Learning, and of his Judgement. The Cardinal Ximenes, 
In 1515.  to whom we are obliged for his first Edition of the New Testament, had made a search into good Manuscript Copies; but he has not marked in the Margin of his Edition, the various renditions of those Copies, having only kept in the Text that which he judged to be the best. Stephen has wisely redressed this fault. For he has placed the various Readins of six Manuscript Copies, in the Margin of his Edition, and thus, though he commonly follows the Edition of Ximenes in his Text, he is not obliged to adhere to it, unless he were persuaded, that the renditions of the Cardinal's Copy are the best in those places. It is no great matter for a Reading to be inserted in the Body of a Book, or to be placed in the Margin, provided that it be known that those which are in the Margin are taken from good Manuscript Copies, as well as those which are in the Text. It were also much to be desired, for observing a greater uniformity, that those who have published new Editions of the New Testament in Greek, had all of them exactly followed the Alcala, or the Complutum Edition, which is the first, and that they had contented themselves to refer to the Margin the various Readins of their Manuscripts.  
Yet Beza has produced a greater number of different Readins in several Copies of the N. T. than Robert Stephen has done. But he has only observed them in his Notes which are full of things that serve to no purpose, whereas he ought to have placed them, after Stephen's example, in the Margin of the Greek Text. Neither has he marked all of them, that he might not give offence to those who were weak amongst his Party, who would not have had so great a Veneration for the Word of God, if they had observed so great a number of various Readins. He declares, that 
(c) Ad haec omnia accessit exemplar ex Stephani nostri Bibliothecâ cum viginti quinque plus minùs manuscriptis codicibus, & omnibus penè impressis ab Henrico Stephano ejus filio & paternae sedulitatis haerede quam diligentissimè collatum. Bez. in Epist. de. lic. ad Elizab. Angl. Reg.  he was indebted for the greatest part of those Manuscripts to Henry Stephen, from whom he had a Copy that had been compared with twenty five Manuscripts, and with the most part of those that were Printed. He had besides that, a very ancient Copy, whereof he makes mention in his Notes, the first part of which is yet extant, (containing the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles) reserved in Cambridge, and the second part, in which the Epistles of St. Paul are comprehended in the King's Library. We shall examine in the following Chapter, that ancient Manuscript with which Beza was not well enough acquainted.  
The English have inserted in the sixteenth Tome of their Polyglot Bible, a larger Collection taken from the different Manuscript Copies of the New Testament, than any had been before that time. They likewise joined thereto, the observations of some Learned Critics upon this matter, and amongst others, that of Luke of Bruges. Which cleared the thing very much. For a single Catalogue of divers renditions is not sufficient. They are also all in a considerable error, who have published the different Readins of the Manuscript Copies which they consulted. They have not been at the pains to examine those Manuscripts particularly, and to observe the good and the evil qualities thereof. Which frequently happens, because they who produce those Collections, have not themselves read those Manuscripts. Seeing they commonly depend upon the Credit of those whom they employed in that Work, which is very troublesome, their Collections are not always exact.  
The New Testament Printed at Oxford in octavo, 
In 1675.  aught to be preferred to all other Editions, because it contains a greater variety than any we have as yet seen upon it. There is moreover this advantage, that these various renditions are at once joined to the Text. But seeing they have hardly done any thing else in that Collection, but Compiled that which had been Printed before that time, they have not Corrected the faults that were in other Collections with that care that was requisite, but on the contrary have increased them to a far greater number. It would be to no purpose to give examples in this place, of those errors, because I am informed that they intent to publish a new Greek Edition of the New Testament, which will be more ample than the former, which must needs be very useful, if it chance to be well done.  
Stephen Courcel caused to Print the New Testament in Greek, 
In 1658.  with a considerable Collection of various Readins, which had formerly been in the Possession of Elzevir. He has only marked the Varieties, without mentioning of the Manuscript Copies whence they are taken. Which renders his Work the less perfect, seeing he did content himself to point at them in his Preface. He had an intention to put forth a larger Edition 
(d) In quâ si Deus dederit ut eam aliquando adornare vacet, Vulgatam Versionem Latinam unà cum variantibus ejus lectionibus aliaque ejus generis plara adjungere meditamur. Curc. Praef. N. T.  to which he promised to join the Latin Text of the Vulgar, to the various Readins of the different Latin Copies: but it did not appear that he was so good as his Word. 
In 1675.  For there was published a new Edition of that Greek New Testament, which differed in nothing from the former, unless it was that they writ under every particular Page, some Varieties, that had been separately Printed in the first Edition, at the end of the Acts of the Apostles, and of the Epistles of St. Paul  
If Mr. Saubert had continued on the Books of the Old Testament, that which he did upon St. Matthew's Gospel, that Work had been as considerable as any that has been done as yet. For besides all the various Readins of the Greek Copies, he has observed those which may be taken from several Versions, or which confirm those various renditions. He has also added some Critical Notes by way of illustration; in which he appeared to be exact, although he is mistaken in some Passages. It is a matter of difficulty for one Man to perform a Work of that importance; seeing it does require that he himself should read all the Manuscripts: which is impossible. So one must be obliged to depend upon the Authority of other Men. Nevertheless that Critic has observed some errors that are in Walton's Collections; 
In 1672.  and he prefixed a learned Preface to his Work that was Printed at Helmstat, where he discourses judiciously of the various Greek Copies of the New Testament, and of the different renditions.  
I might produce several other Authors who have treated of this same Subject. But seeing the most part have only done it occasionally, I will refer it to another place, where there will be occasion to speak something of their Works. I will only here make mention of those who have spoken of various Greek Readins which establish the ancient Latin Version. Beza, who did not spare that ancient Version, was obliged to acknowledge 
(e) Aliquot locis animadvertimus veteris interpretis lectionem, quamvis cum nostris Graecis exemplaribus interdum ei non conveniat, tamen ipsis rebus multò meliùs quadrare, nempè quòd ille quisquis fuit emendatius aliquod exemplar nactus est. Bez. Epist. ad Regin. Eliz.  that there were sometimes Greek Copies more exact, than those which we have at present. 
(f) Quàm immeritò (Erasmus) multis veterem interpretem reprehendit tanquam à Graecis dissentientem? Dissentiebat fateor ab iis exemplaribus quae ille nactus erat; sed non uno loco comperimus aliorum codicum, & quidem vetustissimorum auctoritate eam intorpretationem niti quam ille reprehendit; Bez. ibid.  He does allege, that Erasmus did sometimes reject the ancient Latin Interpreter, without any show of Reason, under a pretence that it did very little agree with the Greek. Which is true, saith Beza, if we only consider the New Greek Copies. But that Interpreter does agree with other more ancient Greek Copies. Upon this ground it would seem, that the Protestants do not always act with Reason, when they forsake the ancient Latin Edition, and adhere to the Greek at this day. Beza himself, who owned this fault in the Version of Erasmus, is not yet free from the same himself. Not but that he believes that those ancient Manuscripts ought always to be preferred to others: for there is none but the Original of the Apostles alone, which can admit of this perfection. They pretend only to prove thereby, that those who made New Translations of the New Testament from the Greek, were not always exact in their Versions, because they only consulted a very small number of Greek Editions, whereas they ought to have likewise consulted several Manuscript Copies, which afforded a great many Readins.  
Peter Faxard a Noble Spanish Marquis of Veles, was the first who was at the pains to make this sort of Collections; of which we now treat. Mariana does assure us, that 
(g) Ad Novi Testamenti Graeci exteriorem marginem minio varias lectiones suâ manu suoque labour 16. codicum factâ collatione, in quibus octo erant ex Regiâ Bibliothecâ D. Laurentii, plerique vetustate insignes, adjecerat Petrus Fagiardus Velesius Marchio. Ingens thesaurus magnopere aestimandus, si vir ille optimus & Graecae linguae praestans, quibus ex libris singulae lectiones essent depromptae notasset. Mar. pro Edit. Vulg. c. 17.  that Marquis had compared sixteen Greek Manuscripts, with our Vulgar Edition: Eight of these Manuscripts were in the King of Spain's Library. And he had carefully marked in the Margin of a Greek Copy of the New Testament, the various Readins of those Manuscripts, upon which the Ancient Latin Edition is Founded; as to those places in which it does not agree with the Greek at this day. But that which was wanting to so laudable a Work, and which could not be sufficiently valued, is, that the Copies whence those various Readins had been taken, were not pointed out. Mariana, who had not seen those Manuscripts, does nevertheless say, that they were, for the most part Ancient: This was, in all probability the only Remark, which the Marquis of Veles had made upon the Quality of his Manuscripts. This Jesuit, who had transcribed the Marquess' Copy, in which those various Readins were recorded, 
(h) Dono Reverendissimi Joannis Marianae è Societate nostrâ habco exemplar Novi Testamenti, in quo variae lectiones sunt manu transcriptae exceptae ex exemplari, quas item manu propriâ adnotarat illustrissimus Marchio Velesius Petrus Faxardus, factâ collatione 16. exemplarium, in quibus erant octo ex Bibliothecâ Regiâ D. Laurentii. Lacerd. Advers. Sac. c. 91.  made a present thereof to Lacerda of the same Society, who published them in his Book Entitled, Adversaria Sacra; and they were afterwards inserted in many Collections of divers Readins of the New Testament.  
Father Morin did likewise insert in his Exercitations upon the Bible, the various Readins of some Greek Copies of the New Testament, in the places that confirm our Latin Version. He pretends that he had shown the conformity of the vulgar to the ancient Greek Manuscripts, in more than 440 places: Conformitatem illam Vulgatae cum vetustissimis Exemplaribus— in locis plusquam 440 Demonstramus. He made it his business to mark, especially those of the Cambridge Copy, upon the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and he followed, upon the Epistles of St. Paul, the Copy which Beza calls Claromontanum, of Clermont: Seeing his design was to prove to the Protestants, that there was a great number of various Readins, as well in the Old, as in the New Testament; he could not, upon the New, make choice of any Books, in which there was more to be found than in those two Books. He likewise does add some Notes, for the illustration of this matter; and after having produced a sufficient number of those various Readins, which established the vulgar, he concludes, 
(i) Plurimis in locis testantur in omnibus antiquis codicibus aliter legi quàm in vulgato textu Graeco. Ipsi tamen in versiombus suis contra omnium exemplarium fidem textum Graecè semel excusum amplectuntur, & ad illum invitis omnibus codicibus MSS. versiones exigunt. Jo. Mor. Exercit. lib. 1. Exerc. 2. cap. 4.  that the Protestants are to blame, for that they frequently follow, in their Versions, the vulgar Edition of the Hebrew Text, against the Authority of the Manuscript Copies, although they themselves do cite these Manuscripts. He brings for an Example, Beza's Translation, who, in several places, has preferred this vulgar Edition of the Greek Text to his Ancient Manuscript Copies. He does observe withal, that Robert Stephen has also left out of his Greek Edition of the New Testament, many Readins which are not agreeable to any of the Manuscripts which he does produce: And yet the Protestants, in their Translations of the New Testament, choosed rather to follow Robert Stephen, than the various Readins of the Manuscripts, which he had marked in the Margin of his Edition. There would have been nothing which deserved reprehension, in that, if the Protestants in their Versions, had imitated Stephen's Method in his Greek New Testament. For if they had placed the Translation of all those various Renditions, in the Margin of their Works, they could not have been accused for preferring the Greek Vulgar Edition to the Ancient Manuscripts. They would have only placed in the body of their Translations, that Edition which they believed to be the most exact, to the end that they might observe some uniformity amongst themselves, without any prejudice done to other Examples upon that account.  
The care that Father Amelote took, to insert in his French Version of the New Testament, the various Readins of the Manuscript Copies, which are agreeable to the ancient Latin Interpreters, deserves to be praised. But he offends against Modesty, and even against Truth, when he speaks of those Venerable and August Manuscripts, which he pretends to have examined with such exactness, as the like was never seen before. 
P. Amel. Pref. Franc. de sa Verse. du Novu. Test.  I have (saith he) used such diligence, that there has not been the like heard of before, to show the conformity of the Latin, with the Ancient Greek and the first Original, I have narrowly examined all the Manuscripts extant for above these thousand years, which are kept through all the Christian World, and I have obtained extracts of them all. I have had more than twenty of that sort from France; all those of the Vatican, and the famous Italian Libraries; sixteen from Spain, not to reckon others, with which Cardinal Ximenes used to perfect his Bible of Alcala; those of England and the Northern Countries, and many from the innermost Parts of Greece, with those that belonged to the several Fathers.  
There is none who reads those Words but would believe, that that Father had in his hands all those Copies whereof he makes mention, at least the Extracts of the Manuscripts. But all that long Discourse is only a Rhetorical flourish which he uses, that the Subject of which he treats of may be embellished with a noble expression, according to the lofty Idea which he had of it. And this he avowed to one of his Fraternity, to whom he shown his Preface in Writing, and who advised him to amend it, especially in that place where he makes mention of his Manuscripts. He made no other Answer about it, to his Brother, who at the same time showed him those various Readins in Print, but, that the subject matter required, that he should express himself in a noble manner, to make the greater impression in the minds of those who read his Works. So that all those Venerable and August Manuscripts, which F. Amelote consulted are nothing else but a Figure of Rhetoric.  
Indeed, if he had made such an exact scrutiny into those Manuscripts, he ought to have told us another story than what is found in the Catalogues, that have been Printed of them. It is true, that he writ into Spain, to know what had become of those that belonged to the Marquis of Veles. 
* Mr. d' Aubusseau.  The Archbishop of Ambrun, the French Ambassador, then at that Court, who was one of his Friends, made him Answer, that he had no account at Madrid, of the Manuscripts of that Marquis. He continued the same Rhetorical Figure, when he would persuade us, that he obtained Copies of many various readings by the means of his Friends; For he showed nothing of that nature, but what was contained in the Sixth Volume of the Polyglot of England, or in Lacerda the Jesuit, or in F. Morin. It was by the assistance of the latter, that he framed a design of collecting the various Readins that establish the ancient Latin Edition: It were easy to let him see, by his own words, that he did not very well understand that sort of Criticism. He was so far from having all the Extracts of the Manuscript mentioned by him, that it seems, that he had not the skill to read the Catalogues of those Manuscripts perfectly. For I would fain know, what he meant by the two Manuscripts of Magdebourg College in Oxford, which he mentions in the two Prefaces to his French New Testament. He had read in the Catalogue of Manuscripts, Printed in the Sixth Volume of the Polyglot of England, Magd. 1. Novum Testamentum integrum, exceptâ Apocalypsi, in Collegio Magd. Oxon. Further, Magd. 2. Epistolae ad Rom. & Corinth. cum aecum. Colleg. Oxon. All the World knows, that this abbreviation Coll. Magd. Oxon. does denote Magdalen College in Oxford. But F. Amelote, who used such diligence, that we have not heard of the like before, does give us two Manuscripts of the New Testament, which are extant in Magdeburg College in Oxford; and if we believe him, he had the Copies thereof extracted. You may see in what manner he marks them in his Latin Preface Magd. 1. Magdeburgensis Collegii apud Oxonium Novum Testamentum integrum, exceptâ Apocalypsi. Magd. 2. Magdeburgensis Collegii Codex Epistolarum ad Romanos & ad Corinthios; which he repeats in his French Preface: Seeing we shall have occasion in the Second Part of this Book, to speak of the French Version of this Father, I shall there treat of his Collection of the various Readins.  
It was easy for Mr. Arnauld to refute him upon this Subject, in his New defence of the Translation of the New Testament, Printed at Mons. I could only have wished that he had not reckoned as Chimerical, that which F. Amelote, and after him Mr. Mallet, call the Vulgar Greek, that is to say, for the explaining of the Vulgar Edition of the Greek Text of the New Testament. It is true, that these two Authors had a false notion of this Vulgar Greek; but that does not hinder, but that they might very well have used that expression, when they compared the ordinary Editions of the Greek New Testament, with the various Readins of many. Ancient Manuscripts. And in this sense, they gave the appellation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Vulgar, to the Ancient Greek Edition of the Septuagint, which was in every one's hands, to distinguish it from Origen's corrected Copy. It may be also said upon good grounds, that this Vulgar Greek was altered in sundry places, and that therefore it is not justifiable, that we should forsake the Vulgar, whenever it does not agree with the Vulgar Greek. Upon this ground Mariana the Jesuit observed, that it is not likely, that the Ancient Latin Interpreter is the Author of all the various Readins, that make so great a difference betwixt the Greek and the Latin. Neque enim tam multis locis, quibus à Graecis Latina discrepant, de suo capite finxisse verisimile est. 
(k) Suspicabar ex variis olim codicibus eam lectionem fuisse secutum, eosque codices qui communi eruditorum sententiâ eâ aetate maximè probabantur ex alio quopiam uno aut paucis minoris fidei transfusos Graecos codices qui nostrà aetate formis expressi vulgò circumferuntur. Mar. pro Edit. Vulg. c. 17.  He thinks that that Interpreter, in making his Version, followed the best Copies of his time, and that those which have been Printed in this last Age, were taken from a very few Copies, which were not very correct.  
According to this Observation, the Greek of the New Testament may be called, as it was Printed, a Vulgar Greek, if it be compared with the Ancient Manuscripts, which the Latin Interpreter made use of, and yet for all that, those Manuscripts ought not to have the denomination of the Apostolical Greek, and of the first Original. F. Morin has also given it the name of the Vulgar Greek, or that which has been published in our time. Cogitent ergo (saith he to the Protestants, who are very apt to leave the Ancient Latin Edition) quoties Vulgatam à Graeco Vulgato dissentientem deprehendunt, sed cum vetustissimis codicibus esse consensum, à quibus degeneres sunt neoterici Graeci.  
It is moreover a long time, since this difference has been observed in the Greek Copies of the New Testament, which is founded upon the Rules of Criticism. The appellation of Vulgar has been always given to the common Copies of the Bible, to distinguish them from those that were corrected by Critics, and are therefore believed to be more exact. The Jews for example, reform their common and ordinary Copies by those of the Massoret. Hilarius Deacon of Rome puts a great value on this Rule, in his Commentary upon the fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, v. 14. He rejects the Vulgar Reading of the Greek Copies, assuring us, that they can never be used so as to prevail against the Latin Edition, seeing they vary. Sic praescribitur nobis, (saith he) de Graecis codicibus quasi non ipsi ab invicem discrepent. He has recourse to the most Ancient Greek Copies, from which the Latin Version was taken. And seeing 
(l) Constat autem hoc per quosdam Latinos de veteribus Graecis olim translatos codicibus, quos incorruptos simplicitas temporum servavit & servat. Ambrosiast. Comm. in Epist. ad Rom. c. 5. v. 14.  he is persuaded that the Latin Copies were not corrupted, he believes, that the Greek from which they were taken is ancient and true.  
F. Amelote, might according to this sense, have distinguished the Greek at this day, from the ancient and true Greek, and have called the former the Vulgar Greek. But it does not follow from thence, that that Ancient Greek is free from all faults, and that it must be always preferred to the Greek which is called New. For this latter Greek is no otherwise New, but in respect of its being published in these latter times. And it may happen, that this New Greek may be found agreeable to the most Ancient Authors, and that it is consequently very ancient. And therefore Hilarius the Deacon gives us three Qualities, the consideration of which ought to induce us to prefer one Copy to another. Hoc verum arbitror, (saith he) quando & Ratio & Historia & Authoritas observatur: 
Ambros. ibid.  He grounds the Reading, which he believes to be the best in that place, upon the Authority of Tertullian, of Victorin, and St. Cyprian. Whence he does conclude, that the Vulgar Greek of his time was not to be followed, seeing there were more ancient and more true Copies, in which the Reading was otherwise. I do not inquire, if that Deacon was justifiable in the matter of which he treated: I content myself with proposing the Rule that he gives us, by which we may distinguish the Copies that are called Vulgar or Common, from others that are more Ancient and more Correct.  
This being once supposed, we shall avoid many unprofitable Questions, which Mr. Arnauld does seriously handle, upon the occasion of the Vulgar Greek, which he alleges to be extant in notion only, and which (saith he) we ought first to make, before we speak of it. This Learned Man does afterwards endeavour to prove, that that name is neither to be given to Robert Stephen's Edition, nor to that of the Cardinal Ximenes, nor to any other, because, (as he thinks) it is Chimerical, and of F. Amelotes invention, who framed to himself a certain Vulgar Greek, the most erroneous that could be imagined, in opposition to the Vulgar, that the faults of the one might balance the perfections of the other. I am apt to believe, that that Father does entertain false Ideas of that which is called the Vulgar Greek? But if he be understood in the manner we have already shown, it is no Chimaera nor fancy. If the Authors of the Translation of the New Testament, Printed at Mons, have sometimes followed the Vulgar Greek in their Version, without making mention of any other Greek, they are in that to be blamed: For it cannot be absolutely affirmed, that the Greek is read in some places, otherwise than the Latin, when there are Greek Copies where the Reading is the same with the Latin: Neither must we always prefer the Greek Copies that agree with the Latin Edition, to the Common and Ordinary. We are to judge of those Readins according to the Rules of Criticism, and examine with the Deacon Hilary; which of those Copies are Founded on Reason, on History, and on Authority. The Greek wherein these things do meet, shall be the most ancient and the most correct, whether it be found in the Old Manuscripts, or in the Printed Books.  
There is then nothing more false, than the Idea that School Divines, and some Canonists have form, of the Greek Copies of the New Testament. For under the pretence of defending the Authority of the Ancient Latin Edition, they allege, that when there is any difference betwixt the Greek Copies at this day and the Latin, we ought always to prefer the Latin to the Greek; because the Greeks (say they) being Schismatics have corrupted their Books, whereas the Truth has remained in the Roman Church; there is nothing more unjust than this thought; For it is easy to go back to the time before the Schism, and to show that the Origen's, the Chrysostom's, and several other Fathers of that Church had the Reading in their Copies, in the same manner as these have it, whom at this day we call Schismatics.  
This most unjust accusation is nevertheless very Ancient: So soon as ever there is a difference perceived in Copies, if this difference do favour the Opinions of some Party, they will be sure to accuse that Party of corrupting the Sacred Writings, although that difference does for the most part come from the Transcribers. Hilary the Deacon has made a general Rule, in that place formerly mentioned: He assures us, 
(m) Quod fecit studium contentionis. Quia enim propriâ quis auctoritate uti non potest ad victoriam, verba legis adulterate, ut sensum suum quasi verba legis asserat, ut non ratio, sed auctoritas praescribere videatur. Ambros. ibid.  that the Spirit of dispute, that is betwixt different Parties is the cause of different Renditions. Every one (saith he) seeing he cannot on such occasions, justify himself by his own Authority, does corrupt the Words of the Law, that he may make his own Opinions pass for the Words of the Law.  
Although that has happened sometimes, especially to those ancient Heretics of whom we spoke in the beginning of this Work, I am persuaded, that they have frequently attributed to different Parties, such various Renditions in the Copies of the New Testament, as had no other cause Originally, but what those have which are found in all other Books. How many Divines are there, for example, who believe at this day, that they have taken away from the Ancient Greek Copies, the Testimony of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; of which mention is made in the first Epistle of St. John, Chap. 5. v. 7. to favour the Arian Heresy. Others, on the contrary do allege, that it was the Arrians who added these Words expressly to the Greek Text, to show, the Unity of the Persons of the Trinity is not an Unity of Essence, but of Consent. Grotius is of this latter Opinion: He thinks 
(n) Neque verò Arianis ablatas esse voces quasdam, sed potiùs additas, unde colligerent Patrem & Filium & Spiritum Sanctum non esse unum nisi consensu, quomodo spiritus, aqua & sanguis in unum testimonium consentiunt. Quod cum viderent Catholici, abstulisse quidem illud quod de Patre, Filio & Spiritu Sancto insertum fuerat, sed reliquisse illud, tres unum esse, quia id ita positum nocere non poterat. Grot. Annot. in 1. Epist. Joann. c. 5. v. 7.  that the Arians, for this reason, were so far from retrenching some Words from the Text, that they added some thereunto: that, on the contrary, the Catholics had taken away that which is said of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, leaving only these Words, These three are the same; which can do them no hurt, and which (as he thinks) were likewise added by the Arians. But all this is only founded on Conjectures: and seeing every one does reason according to his Prejudices, some will have the Arians to be the Authors of that Addition, and others do attribute the same to the Catholics. This diversity of Opinions proceeds from nothing else but a neglect of examining with sufficient care, the ancient Manuscript Copies and other Records which were necessary for the discovery of the Original of those Variations. It would be to no purpose for me to repeat here the Critical Reflections which I have formerly made on that Passage of the first Epistle of St. John, it having been made evident in what manner it came to pass that those Words, that were neither in the Greek Copies nor in the Latin, were inserted in the Text.  
No credit therefore is easily to be given to all those Accusations of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers against the Heretics, upon the point of the Alterations that have happened to the Sacred Writings. We have already seen, in the Critical History of the Old Testament, that the most part of the Fathers did cast the same reproach on the Jews, without any ground. Seeing the most part of Heresies sprung up in the Greek Church, those who maintain the preference of the Latin Copies of the New Testament, do not fail to bring this Reason, to show that the Books of the Latins are more ancient than those of the Greeks. But before this Accusation is brought, it ought to be examined if these Objections have a good foundation: for if the thing be considered in general, the Original must needs be more perfect than the Versions, unless it be in some places, where it may be demonstrated that the Version is instead of the Original which has been altered.  
The Sect of the Macedonians were at another time accused, as being the Authors of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. seven. of St. John, v. 39 where we read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Holy Ghost was not as yet; whereas it is in the Vulgar, For the Holy Ghost was not yet given. The ancient Latin Interpreter did not read the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Greek Copy; which is likewise wanting in some Greek Manuscripts, and in others belonging to Mr. Colbert's most ancient Library. 
Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb. n. 5149.  Neither is it extant in the Syriack Version: which makes me believe that it was added, and that it was not in the first Original Greek. But it must not be inferred from hence, that those who favoured the Party of Macedonius were the Authors of that Addition, there being the like Examples in other places, with which they cannot be charged. It is much more probable, that it was occasioned by the Greek Scholiasts, who placed the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Margin, to show that that place spoke of the Holy Spirit, and it passed into the Text afterwards.  
There is also in the same Passage the Latin Word datus, which is not read in the Greek, unless it be in the ancient Copy of the Vatican, where there is, according to Lewis of Bruges, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is very likely that this Word was added by the Latin Interpreter, who had in his view the sense of that Passage where the Gifts of the Holy Ghost are spoken of. It would be likewise added after the same manner in the Margin of some Greek Copy. We also read in the Syriack Version, was not yet given; which does wholly agree with the Latin: and in the three Arabic Versions which have been published, it is in the same sense, was not yet come. Grotius believed that the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or as it is in the Latin, datus, was added for the avoiding the reproach of the Followers of Macedonius; In nonnullis, datus, ad vitandam calumniam Macedoniorum. 
Grot. Annot. in hunc loc.  But it is not at all necessary that they should have had any regard to those Sectaries to induce them to add that Word, seeing they only explained the sense of the Greek Verb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was, which in this place is not taken substantively. Jansenius Bishop of Gand, who had read in all the Greek Copies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the Spirit was not yet, did likewise believe, that they had changed the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy into that of Datus in the Latin Edition, 
(o) Quoniam ea lectio primâ fronte impium sensum prae se ferebat, quasi scilicet Spiritus aliquando non fuerit, offensus quispiam, ut verisimile est, mutavit illud in datus. Jans. Gand. Concord. Eu. c. 75.  because that sense did then seem to be impious, as if there had been no Holy Ghost as yet.  
But, as we have observed, Alterations of that kind do happen of themselves, without all those Theological Considerations. When the Words of a Text are equivocal or very general, they are illustrated by Notes; and when this Illustration does consist of a few Words, the Note does easily pass into the Text; which yet happens with greater freedom in a Version. Salmeron's Sentiment upon this matter appeared to me to be more just than that of Jansenius and of Grotius. That Jesuit did content himself to say, 
(p) Graeca exemplaria antiqua pro datus habent sanctus, & in sensu nulla est prorsùs à nostra lectione diversitas, quia etsi non exprimatur verbum datus, supplendum est necessariò. Salmer. tom. 8. tract. 37.  that there was Sanctus instead of Datus, in the ancient Greek Copies; but that this does make no difference of reading in respect of the sense, because the Word datus must of necessity be supplied, although it be not expressed in the Greek. Moreover, the true and ancient reading of that Passage in the Greek Text was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the Spirit was not as yet: and it was also read in the ancient Latin Version, Nondum enim erat Spiritus, as it is in some Latin Copies. Luke of Bruges does observe, that St. Augustin did not read it otherwise when he treated expressly of that Passage: and indeed, as this Reading is the most plain, so it appears to be the most natural and the most ancient.  
It is requisite that one use great Precaution in reading the ancient Ecclesiastical Authors in those Places where they accuse the Heretics of having corrupted the Sacred Writings, to establish their new Doctrine; for these Accusations are oftentimes groundless. We do not now read, for example, in any Latin Copy of the New Testament, Chap. 3. of S. John's Gospel, v. 6. these Words, Quia Deus spiritus est, for God is a Spirit, which St. Ambrose had in his Copy, and which apparently was the Gloss of some Catholic; yet that Holy Bishop does mightily exclaim against the Arians on the occasion of that Passage: 
(q) Quem locum ita expressè Ariani testificamini esse de Spiritu, ut eum de vestris codicibus auferatis. Atque utinam de vestris, & non etiam de Ecclesiae codicibus tolleretis. Eo enim tempore quo impiè infidelis Auxentius Mediolanensem Ecclesiam armis exercituque occupaverat, vel à Valente atqueVrsacio nutantibus Sacerdotibus suis incursabatur, Ecclesia Sirmiensis falsum hoc & sacrilegum in Ecclesiasticis codicibus deprohensum est. Et fortasse hoc etiam in Oriente fecistis, & literas quidem potuistis abolere, sed fidem non potuistis auferre. Ambr. l. 3. de Spir. San. c. 11.  he does accuse them of taking those Words out of their Copies. Would to God (saith he) you had only retrenched them for your own Copies, and not from those of the Church. He is also so punctual in his Accusation, that he marks the time in which he believed that Impiety to have received its Birth; and he is afraid, that the Greek Copies of the Eastern Churches have been likewise corrupted after the same manner. You could (he adds speaking to the Arians) take away those Words, but you could not abolish the Faith.  
If we examine according to Critical Rules, that which St. Ambrose does assure us was retrenched by the Arians from St. John's Text, we shall easily judge that it was an Addition of some Catholics who read in their Copy of the ancient Latin Edition, chap. 5. v. 6. of the Gospel of St. John, Quod natum est ex Spiritu, Spiritus est, quia Deus est Spiritus; which Edition was never publicly approved by any Church. Yet Fulbert Bishop of Chartres did zealously continue the same Accusation against the Arian Party; 
(r) Arii auditores quoniam Spiritum Sanctum Deum esse negabant, de Evangelio eraserunt illud quod Salvator ait, Spiritus est Deus. Fulb. Carnot. Episc. Epist. 1.  Because they deny (saith he) the Holy Ghost, they have taken away from the Gospel of St. John these words of our Saviour, The Spirit of God.  
There is yet less probability in the reproachful Charge that Socrates has used against the Nestorians, for having retrenched from their Copies these words of the first Epistle of St. John, chap. 4. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Whatsoever Spirit does divide Christ, is not of God. He pretends that Nestorius knew not that this Reading was founded upon ancient Copies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. Hist. Eccles. lib. 7. c. 32.  Those (saith he) who have separated the Divine from the Humane Nature in Jesus Christ, have taken away these words from their Copies: and therefore the ancient Commentators on the Scripture have observed, that some who would separate the Humanity from the Godhead have corrupted that Epistle. Bishop Fulbert did likewise observe in the place lately quoted, 
(t) Et de Epistolâ Joannis eraserunt, Et omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum, ex Deo non est, sicut Nestorius, etc. Fulb. Carnot. ibid.  that the Heretics have taken away from St. John's Epistle these words, and whatsoever Spirit does separate Jesus Christ is not of God; as Nestorius and the rest.  
But can Nestorius and his Followers be accused for authorising a false Reading, which is at this day in all the Greek Copies, and in the Oriental Versions, seeing the same Reading is not only found in S. Cyprian, but is likewise authorised by S. Polycarp, who was contemporary with the Disciples of the Apostles? It cannot be denied but that the other Reading, which is confirmed by the Author of the Vulgar, is also very ancient: but it is probable, that it is a Note or Gloss that in process of time passed into the Text. They would explain these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not confess, by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does separate, the more effectually to refute the ancient Heretics who denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ, or who did separate Jesus from Christ. And upon this account it is, that both these Readins are extant in some ancient Fathers, where they are sometimes joined both together. However it be, Socrates had no reason to reject the ancient and the true Reading of the Greek Text of S. John, under a Pretext that the Nestorians did believe that it favoured their Opinion. It can only be said, that they are two different Readins of the same Passage, which are very ancient. It cannot be discovered which is the true one, or at lest which is to be preferred, unless, for that end, we observe with Hilary the Deacon, the Rules of Criticism, which have been already taken notice of.   

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.  
THose who have published the divers Readins of different Greek Copies of the New Testament, aught in the same time to have observed what sort of Copies they were. Seeing they have not done this, I shall endeavour to supply this defect, that we may be the more able to judge what are the best Renditions among so many various Readins. In the former Chapter, it was shown from a Passage of Origen, that the Greek amanuensis who writ out the Books of the New Testament, and likewise the Critics who corrected them, had assumed a very great liberty; and that that was the occasion of a mighty confusion. St. Jerom does confirm the same thing, especially with respect to the ancient Latin Copies, in his Letter to Pope Damasus, who had commanded him to revise the ancient Latin Version.  
That Father believed 
(a) Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant quibus: tot enim sunt exemplaria penè quot codices. Sin autem veritas est quaerenda de pluribus, cur non ad Graecam originem revertentes, ea quae vel à vitiosis interpretibus malè reddita, vel à praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversiùs, vel à librariis dormitantibus aut addita sunt, aut mutata, corrigimus. Hieron. Praef. in IU. Evang. ad Dam.  that it was absolutely necessary to have recourse to the Original Greek, to correct the great number of faults that were in that Version, because there were so many different Latin Copies as there were different Books, and that every one did presume to change this ancient Latin Edition according to the Greek taken in his own sense; besides the Errors of the Transcribers which were also very numerous. That labour was by so much the more difficult, as the Greek Copies were not more correct than the Latin; and so it seems that the Rule to be followed was very uncertain: for the undertaking was to amend the Faults of the Latin by the Greek, which likewise had Faults. St. Jerom observes, in speaking of the Copies of that Time, 
(b) Magnus siquidem hic in nostris codicibus error inolevit, dum quod in eadem re alius Evangelista plus dixit, in alio, quia minùs putaverint, addiderunt, vel dum eumdem sensum alius aliter expressit, ille qui unum è quatuor primum legerat, ad ejus exemplum caeteros quoque existimaverit emendandos. Vnde accidit, ut apud nos mixta sint omnia, & in Marco plura Lucae atque Matthaei, rursus in Matthaeo plura Joannis & Marci & in caeteris reliquorum quae aliis propria inveniantur. Hier. ibid.  that the amanuensis had altered them in a strange manner, by the mixture they had made of several Gospels together, taking from one that which seemed to be wanting in another. If it also happened that one Gospel had expressed a thing in a different manner from another, the Transcribers reform the rest according to what they had first read: so that there was nothing but confusion in those ancient Copies. We see many things in St. Mark which belonged to St. Luke and St. Matthew; and in St. Matthew, which was St. John's and St. Mark's; and in short, every Gospel had something borrowed from the rest. It is true, that this Observation seems to reach the Latin Copies only; but in the sequel of this Discourse I shall make it appear, that it does likewise agree to several Greek Copies of that Time. If we had still, at this day, any of those ancient Books of which St. Jerom speaks, it would be easily believed, that he exaggerates the Faults thereof, the better to show the necessity that was incumbent on him, to amend the Latin Version that was agreeable to some Greek Copies, which were no less defective than the Latin. Beza's Greek and Latin Copy which is now kept at Cambridge is of this number, having been writ out by Latin amanuensis by such like Copies as were extant before St. Jerom reform them. That Calvinist never knew the nature of that Book 
(c) Quatuor Evangeliorum & Actorum Apostolicorum Graeco-Latinum exemplar ex S. Irenaei Caenobio Lugdunensi ante aliquos annos nactus, mutilum quidem illud, & neque satis emendatè ab initio ubique descriptum, neque ita, ut oportuit, habitum, sicut ex paginis quibusdam diverso charactere insertis, & indocti cujuspiam Graeci Calogeri barbaris adscriptis alicubi notis apparet. Bez. Epist. ad Acad. Cantab.  which was found in the Monastery of Lions: he believed, that it had been corrected in some places by an ignorant Scholiast, who had added some Notes or Amendments to it. But those Corrections or Notes were not made by a Greek Caloiz, seeing Books of that sort that were written in Greek with the ancient Latin Version, were never in use amongst the Greeks but the Latins only, as shall be made manifest in the following part of this Discourse. He is in a notorious mistake when he assures us, 
(d) Est hoc exemplar venerandae vetustatis, ex Graeciâ, ut apparet ex barbaris quibusdam notis ad màrginem adscriptis, adportatum. Bez. ibid.  that that Manuscript was brought from Greece, because he observed Remarks to be written in Greek therein. He knew not that the Latins who had some skill in the Greek Tongue, joined the Greek to the Latin Version in their Copies of the New Testament, and also of the Psalms.  
They were not so zealous at that time for the Latin Tongue, but that they believed that the Original Greek was sometimes necessary, not only to regulate, but also to understand it. Upon this ground St. Jerom and St. Augustin judged, that it was fit to correct the Latin in many places by the Greek, when the former happens to be defective. That the Original might be the more easily consulted, those who were curious did join it in the same Copy to the ancient Latin Edition. Neither did Beza observe, that the Greek and the Latin of Manuscripts of that sort are written with the same hand, and that the Greek has a greater resemblance of the ancient Capital Letters of the Latins than of those of the Greeks. The former are more square, the great Letters of the Greeks are longer and finer. This I observed in reading the second part of that Cambridge Copy which is in the King's Library, and another the like Copy which is in the Library of the Religious Benedictines of St. . These two Copies, which contain the Epistles of St. Paul, do so little differ from one another, as well in the Greek as in the Latin, that it would seem the one had been copied from the other, but that the Characters of that of the Benedictines are greater and more majestical, and that it is less disfigured by Corrections. It may be easily known by the fashion of the Characters of those two Copies, and by the ancient Latin Version which is joined to the Greek Text, that they were copied by the Latins for the use of that Church. The Greek and the Latin are written with the same Hand, and with a Letter altogether alike; so that there are Letters that are purely Greek in the Latin.  
Moreover, there is one thing that is very singular in those two Manuscripts, and that can only agree to the Latins. It is certain, that the Greeks did reckon amongst the number of the Epistles of S. Paul, that which is directed to the Hebrews; whereas many Latin Churches did not receive it. And this Epistle is not put with the others in those two Copies. It is placed separately at the end of the Book. Which cannot be accounted a Transposition, or any other thing of the like nature, chargeable on those who joined the Leaves of those two Copies together. For the end and the beginning of every one of the Apostle Paul's Epistles are there very exactly marked, and in the same order as we read them at this day. Yet there is no mention made of the Epistle to the Hebrews, because the Churches of those who made use of the Copies did not believe that it belonged to S. Paul, nor that it was so much as Canonical. And for this reason they added, immediately after the Epistle to Philemon, a Catalogue of all the Books which were read in those Churches; and this Epistle is not marked with others in the Catalogue. It is only found at the end of those Books as foreign to the Work, and as a Piece that does not carry the same Authority with the others.  
All this does evidently prove, that those two Manuscript Copies of S. Paul's Epistles, which are of the same nature with that of Cambridge, which contains the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, were not written by the Greeks, seeing all the Churches of the Greeks, that of the Arians only excepted, did always acknowledge the Epistle to the Hebrews for Divine and Canonical, and which they never separated from the rest of that Apostle's Epistles. Nor can we believe, that the Greeks would join to their Greek Copies a Latin Version which they did not understand, and which was altogether unprofitable to them. In short, the numerous Faults that are in the Greek of those Copies is a new proof that they were written by Latin amanuensis, who had no knowledge of the Greek Language. I speak not of the small Orthographical Faults, which are observed in the ancient Books that were copied by the Greeks, as well as in those that were copied by the Latins; but of certain Faults in the Words which can only be applied to the latter, and of which I would produce several Examples, if I did not believe that it has been evidently proved, that the Manuscripts of that nature, which were used in the Western Churches, before S. Jerom amended his ancient Latin Version, were written by Latin Transcribers.  
If Beza had made all these Observations, and if he had compared with those Manuscripts that which S. Jerom hinted in his Letter to Pope Damasus, he would have perceived the reasons of that great difference that is betwixt those Copies and others, from which were taken such as have been Printed in these latter times. That Father observed, that the former were altered by the mixture of several Gospels together, and that one Gospel had been corrected by another. We need only apply this Observation to the Cambridge Copy, which contains the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and the same Faults will be acknowledged to be therein. We shall find in S. Matthew, for example, some Additions which are taken out of other Gospels, and the Genealogy in S. Luke amended by that which is in S. Matthew. The Critical Reflections that he made in that Letter on the Copies of his Time, has so great a relation to the Cambridge Copy, that they would seem to have been made for no other purpose, but to give us an exact knowledge of that Copy 
(e) Vos admonendos duxi tantùm à me, in Lucae praesertim Evangelio, repertam esse dissonantiam, ut vitandae quorundam offensioni asservandam potiùs quàm publicandam existimem. Bez. ibid.  which differs so much from others, that Beza does testify, that he durst not furnish us with all the variations thereof, lest he should give offence to some sort of Men.  
But S. Jerom, who informs us that the Copies of the ancient Latin Version that was agreeable to the Greek Copies of this kind were very defective, he does also acquaint us with other Greek Copies that were more exact, by which he had amended it. And by that he does entirely remove that pretended scandal. This Learned Critic, to effect his Amendments, had recourse 
* Codicum Graecorum emendatâ collatione sed veterum.  to the ancient and the most exact Greek Copies, by the means of which he removed that Confusion which was in the Latin Edition of that time, and in some Greek Copies which were in nothing different from that Edition. 
(f) Canon's quoque quos Eusebius Caesariensis Episcopus Alexandrinum secutus Ammonium in decem numeros ordinavit, sicut in Graeco habentur expressimus. Hieron. praef. in iv Evang. ad Dam.  He made use of the Greek Copy of the Gospels to which Eusebius had added certain Canons, which we find at this day at the beginning of the Manuscript Copies, (as well Greek as Latin) and also before some Editions. We know by the means of these Canons, what the Evangelists have that is common or alike, and what they have peculiar to each of them. By this Method he applied a remedy in some sort, for removing the Disorder that was in the vulgar Copies.  
He does nevertheless add, that to the end he might not leave the ancient Latin Copy too much, which was then in use, 
(g) Quae ne multùm à lectionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent, ita calamo temperavimus, ut his tantùm quae sensum videbantur mutare correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant. Hier. ibid.  he had observed this moderation, to amend nothing but what changed the sense, retaining, as to the rest, that ancient Version. This Reformation is judicious, and it does withal discover to us, the reasons of the great difference that is betwixt the Cambridge Copy and those at this day. By this we further know, why those ancient Greek Manuscripts (which were extant before S. Jerom amended the vulgar) do better agree with our vulgar, than the Printed Greek, which was taken from the Copies that were used in the Greek Churches. Seeing he himself testifies, that he did not altogether follow the Greek Copies by which he amended the ancient Latin Version, a part of which he kept, he has left many places in his Edition which were agreeable to the Greek, by which it was made, or at least revised. But it is the same Greek that is in the Cambridge Copy, in that of Clermont which is in the Royal Library, and in the Copy of the Religious Benedictins of the Abbey of S. .  
Erasmus and some other Critics after him, who knew not the difference that was betwixt those two sorts of Greek Copies, believed that those which were more agreeable than the rest to the ancient Latin Interpreter, were amended by our vulgar. And thus he makes answer to Stunica, who had found these words in our vulgar, Super tristitiam (Epistle II. to the Corinthians, chap. 2. vers. 3.) in an ancient Greek Copy which had been brought from Rhodes, 
(h) Ego illi Rhodiensi oppono tot vetusta exemplaria quae nos vidimus partim in Angliâ, partim in Brabantiâ, partim Basileae— ac deprehendi quosdam Graecos codices ad nostros esse castigatos. Quo de numero suspicor esse Rhodiensem illum— Ego magis fiderem Graeco exemplari quod non usquequaque consentir et cum nostris. Erasm. Resp. ad Stun.  To this Copy of Rhodes (saith Erasmus) I oppose the many ancient Manuscripts that I saw in England, in Brabant, and at Basle— And I found some Greek Copies which were corrected by our Latin, and I conjecture that that of Rhodes is of this number— I would give more credit to a Greek Copy which does not altogether agree with our Latin Edition.  
It is possible that some Latins had corrected in several places those Greek Copies which Erasmus does assure us he had seen. I have also read the like Amendments in the most ancient Manuscripts that eaten in our Hands; but they were all done by other Greek Copies, and not by the Latin Edition only. I need no other Example, to show the Falsehood of Erasmus his Conjecture, but that which did afford him an occasion to make this Critical Observation, and to believe, that the Manuscript of Rhodes was corrected by the Latin. For we read these Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Epist. II. to the Corinthians, chap. 2. vers. 3. not only in the Copy of Rhodes, which was followed in that place by the Cardinal Ximenes in his Alcala Edition, but also in the ancient Copy of Clermont, which is the second part of that of Cambridge, and in that of the Benedictins of the Abbey of S. German. Those two Manuscripts, as it has been already observed, are of the number of those ancient Greek Copies, to which the ancient Latin Version is agreeable, and whereof S. Jerom does witness, that he preserved one part in his New Edition, that he might not too much neglect the ancient Vulgar, which was in the Hands of every one.  
I found indeed these Words, Super tristitiam, in that ancient Vulgar, which is joined to the Greek Text, in the Copy of the Royal Library, and in that of the Abbey of S. . S. Jerom has kept them in his new Edition, according to the Method which he proposed to follow, designing to amend that only which did change the sense. If Erasmus had contented himself to say, that they had been taken from another place of S. Paul, Ex alio loco Pauli adjecta, he would have had more reason; being certain that there are the like Additions in the ancient Copies, and also sometimes in their synonymous terms. For there we find in some places two Readins which the Transcribers have joined together, that nothing might be forgotten by them. If there had been cause to believe that the Greek had been amended by the Latin, that could be only true of the ancient Greek Copies which were in use amongst the Latins before S. Jerom's time, and not of those of the latter Ages. But it is more probable that the Latin was amended by the Greek. I here speak of the ancient Latin which was taken from the Greek Copies that were altered in so many places, that that Father was obliged to revise the Latin by other Greek Copies that were more correct.  
Yet I can hardly believe, that the ancient Vulgar had all those Faults at the beginning, the Greek Copies possibly not being as yet so corrupted, as they were afterwards. Seeing this Principle was generally received amongst the Latins, that the Version was to be corrected by the Original, it happened apparently, that the Greek being altered by Glosses and by Additions, they assumed the liberty to insert the same Glosses and Additions in the Latin Copies; and they were so numerous, that S. Jerom durst only take a part of them, because he would have been otherwise obliged to make too great a Change. He also prevented what might have been objected about the thing. 
(i) Quis enim doctus pariter vel indoctus, cùm in manus volumen assumpserit, & à saliuâ quam semel imbibit viderit discrepare quod lectitat, non statim erumpat in vocem, me falsarium, me clamitans esse sacrilegum, qui audeam aliquid in veteribus libris addere, mutare, corrigere? Hieron. praef. in iv Evang. ad Dam.  There is no body (saith he) who sees that the ancient Vulgar does so much differ from my new Edition, but will presently cry out that I am false and impious, who durst presume to change and reform the ancient Edition of the Church in so many places.  
According to the Principle that we have established, Stunica, who by the order of Cardinal Ximenes, had compared many ancient Greek Copies with the Latin Edition, could say 
(k) Annotavimus Latina cum Graecis optimè convenire. Graeca autem dico, non qualiacunque exemplaria significare volo, sed ea tantùm quae apud Graecos antiquissima reputantur, qualia videlicet illa fuerunt ad quorum collationem D. Hicronymus nostra olim emendavit; non exim quae passim ferebantur exemplaria in recognitione illâ Hieronymum secutum, sed vetera ipsemet asserit. Stun. in antapol. adv. Fab. Stap.  that the Latin Copies are very agreeable to the Greek, if we pass the Greek Copies at this day, and only consider the Copies that S. Jerom used for making his new Edition, and which he assures us to have been ancient. Nevertheless it cannot be inferred from thence, that the Reading of those ancient Copies is always to be preferred to these which are at present called new. For the latter may be agreeable to those of S. Jerom, seeing he assures us, that he did not resolve to follow those Copies exactly, that he might not be thought to introduce too many Innovations into the Latin Bible. Stunica likewise adds 
(l) Quòd si alicubi praeter librariorum mendas Latini codices à Graecâ origine variare videntur, in verbis id tantùm erit, non in sensu. Vbi enim idem sensus erat, noluit D. Hieronymus quicquam immutare. Stun. ib.  that if there be any difference betwixt the Latin and that ancient Greek, it does consist only in some words, and not at all in the sense, because that Father did not intent to make any change in those places where the sense was the same.  
It is not then true, as some others have alleged, that our Latin Edition does represent the first Edition of the Apostles, in all those places where it agrees with those ancient Greek Copies formerly mentioned. For besides that they had great Imperfections, as I have proved, S. Jerom, who consulted the most correct Copies for making his new Edition, has left on purpose some of those Imperfections therein. I do not examine if that Learned Critic revised the Epistles of S. Paul, and the rest of the New Testament as well as the Gospels. This belongs to the Second Book of this Work, where we shall treat of the Versions. 'Tis sufficient to suppose here, as certain de facto, that the Latin Version of S. Paul's Epistles was amended as well as the Gospels, whether that Correction was performed by S. Jerom or another, and that it was revised in such a manner, that that ancient Edition is preserved as far as it was possible. Beza whowas ignorant of the original of that great number of various Readins in his own ancient Copy, which by itself contains more of those various Readins, than all other Greek Copies put together, does avow, 
(m) In hac tamen non sententiarum, sed vocum diversitate nihil profectò comperi, unde suspicari potuerim à veteribus illis haereticis fuisse depravatum. Imò multa mihi videor deprehendisse observatione digna, quaedam etiam sic à receptâ Scripturâ discrepantia, ut tamen cum veterum quorundam & Graecorum & Latinorum Patrum scriptis consentiant. Non pauca denique quibus vetusta Latina editio corroboratur. Bez. Epist. ad Acad. Cantab.  that he had observed nothing in all those Variations that might raise a suspicion, that it was corrupted by the ancient Heretics. On the contrary, (saith he) I have found many things worthy of Observation, and though in some places it was in some sort different from the ordinary Reading, that yet in these places it agreed with the Greek and Latin Fathers. He does also assure us, that he observed some Readins therein that confirm the ancient Latin Edition. Indeed those Diversities are owing principally to the Greeks, who to render the Writings of the Gospels, and of the Apostles more intelligible, have illustrated one Gospel by another, and they have likewise explained by more clear Terms that which appeared to them obscure and intricate.  
This custom of making the Apostles speak better Greek than they did in their Writings is very ancient. Eusebius gives us a considerable Example thereof in his Ecclesiastical History, where he observed, after some other Writers, that Tatian the Disciple of Justin Martyr did not only compose a Body of Gospels of the four which he put in one, but 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 29.  that he had also taken the liberty to correct S. Paul's Diction, to give him more proper and clearer Expressions. There were some Greek Churches which made no scruple to read those Greek Copies that had been revised in that manner, and which possibly did acknowledge no other. There is nothing more surprising than that which Theodoret 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. Haeret. Fabul. lib. 1. tit. de Tat. n. 20.  writes of some Churches of his Diocese, which read publicly the Collection of the Gospels which Tatian had abridged of his own Head. Seeing they were ignorant of the mischief the Author had done, they used his Work because it was compendious. That Learned Bishop does assure us, that he found more than two hundred Copies of this Gospel of Tatian, which were very much esteemed in those Churches, from whom he took them, and restoredt he four Gospels to them.  
We do not observe the like in the Cambridge Copy, which has been altered by some Orthodox Remarks, according to the custom of those first Ages, where they have taken the liberty to insert, by way of supplement, that which they believed to be wanting in one Gospel, taking it from another Gospel. Thus for example, after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, chap. 20. of S. Matthew, vers. 28. they have added these Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is found in the same sense in the ancient Latin Version which is joined to that Greek Copy: Vos autem quaeritis de minimo crescere, & de magno minui. Introeuntes autem & rogati coenare, ne discubueritis in eminentioribus locis, ne fortè dignior te superveniat, & accedens coenae invitator dicat tibi, Adhuc, deorsum accede, & confundaris. Si autem discubueris in minimum locum, & superveniat minor te, dicet tibi invitator coenae, Collige adhuc superius, & erit tibi hoc utile. That is, But you seek to rise from a low condition, and from being great to become servants. When thou art bidden of any man to supper, sit not down in the highest room, lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him, and he that bade thee and him come and say unto thee, Give this man place, and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room: But if thou dost sit down in the lowest room, and another poorer man than thou do come, he will say unto thee, Friend, go up higher, and this shall be profitable for thee.  
Several Learned Critics have observed this Addition after Beza: I have marked it with the same faults, as it is in the Greek Manuscript, where it is written in Capital Letters, without accents and without any distinction of words. St. Jerome took this Addition from the Ancient Latin Edition, when he revised it, by the Order of Pope Damasus. He was easily satisfied, according to the Method which he had proposed in his correction, that those words were taken from St. Luke's Gospel, Chap. 14. v. 8. & 9 but that there is some difference in the words: Which is an ordinary thing to that Copy, where the words are sometimes changed to others that are Synonymous. That Father who consulted the Ancient Greek Copies, especially those where the Canons of Eusebius were marked, presently perceived in reading the Tenth Canon, that that was only found in that 178 Section of St. Luke, and that so he must take it away from the 204 Section of St. Matthew, where it had been inserted in the Ancient Greek. And therefore, he adds the same Canons of Eusebius to the Latin Edition, which he had amended by good Greek Copies, that he might remove that mixture and confusion that was in the Latin Copies. By this way there is a distinction observed betwixt what was common to the several Gospels, and what was peculiar to every one of them. Cum itaque (saith St. Jerome) canon's legeris qui subjecti sunt, confusionis errore sublato, & similia omnia scies, & singulis sua quaeque restitues.  
There are several other the like Editions in that Cambridge Copy, 
Hieron. praef. in IU. Evan. ad Dam.  which it is needless to mention, because they may be seen in Beza's Notes upon the New Testament, in the Sixteenth Volume of the Polyglot Bible of England, and in the Greek Edition of the New Testament Printed at Oxford. We will only observe, that Beza, and likewise some other Critics, who knew not the original cause of those changes, delivered nothing concerning them but what was only Founded on wide conjectures; whereas if they had compared that Ancient Copy with St. Jerome's Observations, in his Letter to Pope Damasus, they would have acknowledged, that a Part of the Greek and Latin Copies, were at that time agreeable to that of Cambridge. That Learned Father amended them by the best Greek Copies: If we had any other Greek Copies of that time, besides that of Cambridge, that contained the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, we should find the same Additions in them. The Copy of the Benedictines of the Abbey of St. , which has St. Paul's Epistles, does perfectly agree, (as well in the Greek as in the Latin) with that of the Royal Library, which is the Second Part of that of Cambridge.  
It is only (for example) in the latter Copy, that we read Chap. 6. of St. John, v. 56. these Words added, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As my Father is in me, I am also in my Father: Verily, verily, I say unto you, if ye receive not the body of the Son of Man as the Bread of life, you have no life in you. Beza is surprised with this Addition, in uno codice vetusto (saith he) mirum hic quiddam deprehendimus: It seems that he meant another Copy than that of Cambridge, and he likewise does place this Addition, immediately after the 53 verse, whereas in that of Cambridge it is in the 68 after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, after the 56 verse; where it is also read in one of Robert Stephen's Copies, whence that Calvinist might have taken it, without speaking of his Ancient Cambridge Copy. If he had consulted it, he would not have said in his Note upon that place, that 
(p) Haec ego sicut temerè non expunxerim, ac prasertim priorem partem, quae totidem verbis alibi reperitur, ita non facilè admiserim, cùm in uno illo exemplari sint à nobis reperta. Certè alteram partem suppositam esse suspicor, quia simile nihil alibi invenio: neque enim usquam fit mentio sumendi corporis praeterito sanguine; & exemplar illud unde haec desumpsimus fuerat in Italiâ collatum, ubi facile fuit aliquid in Bohemorum, id est Evangelii odium, addere. Bez. Annot. in c. 6. Joann. v. 53.  he durst not wholly reject that Addition, especially the first Part, which is found in another place; but that he durst not also admit it, because he read it only in one Copy. He does add afterwards, agreeably to his own prejudices rather than to the truth, I suspect that the other Part is supposititious, because I find nothing like it elsewhere: For he makes no mention in any other place, of taking the Body without the Blood; and the Copy whence that reading was taken, was compared in Italy, where it was easy to add something in hatred of the Bohemians, that is to say, of the Gospel.  
That Man was so extremely zealous for his Calvinism, that he took no notice, that the same Addition is in the Cambridge Copy, which he often calls vetustissimum, & admirandae Vetustatis codicem. The Bohemians had not come on the Stage in those Ancient times: Stephen's Greek Copy which was compared with many others in Italy, is very sincere in that place. That Addition was in all probability taken from a Copy like to that of Cambridge; and there was no talk then of taking away the Cup, nor of those who are called Evangelical or Protestants: But as it has been already observed, there were always several Glosses added to those ancient Manuscripts, which were for the most part taken from some other places of those same Books; besides some Illustrations that were inserted therein. This is not the place for bringing other Proofs of Beza's disingenuity in his Notes upon the New Testament; it will be more proper to do that elsewhere. I designed only in this place, to make use of some Examples, in which I might give some account of that Ancient Cambridge Manuscript, which to this day has been admired for the manifold diversity of its Readins, whilst true reasons thereof have not been observed.  
F. Morin, to whom was given the Collection that Junius the Library Keeper of Cambridge, had made of all the places where that Ancient Greek Copy differed from others; did content himself with publishing those which agreed with our vulgar. Nevertheless he could not but admire, 
(q) Evangelium Lucae in isto antiquissimo manuscripto à vulgato Graeco textu, atque etiam à Vulgatâ Latinâ Versione adeò distat, tam multae periodi vel truncatae sunt, vel superadditae, vel mutilatae, vel aliis verbis enunciatae, ut legenti non sine causâ sint admirationi— Si transpositiones excipias, quae sensum non laedunt, nullibi Septuaginta Interpretes à Masorethico textu tam saepè & enormiter variant, quàm hic Lucae codex à trito & vulgato textu sive Graeco sive Latino. Sequitur tamen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 textûs Lucae ordinem & historiam: ita ut appareat ex alio Lucae manuscripto, haec olim exscripta fuisse, hancque varietatem lapsu temporis irrepsisse. Jo. Mor. Exerc. Bibl. lib. 1. Exerc. 2. c. 3.  that enormous difference, which appeared chief in the Gospel of St. Luke, where he is very far from, not only the ordinary Greek, but from the vulgar. Those varieties, (saith that Father,) consist in entire Periods, which were retrenched or added, strained or explained in other terms. He is confident, that the Version of the Septuagint does not so much differ from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, (the transpositions excepted, which altar not the Text) as the Cambridge Copy does differ from all others: But because it does agree with them in every thing that relates to the scope of the Text, he thinks that it was taken from another Copy of St. Luke, into which those variations in process of time had slipped: Yet he dares not be positive, because he knows not the reasons of that great diversity. And therefore he adds 
(r) Fieri potuit ut antiquitùs in quaedam exemplaria Lucae nonnulla ex iis Evangeliis quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 existimata sunt, irrepserint, quae postea Sanctorum Patrum diligentiâ resecta fuerint. Mor. ibid.  that possibly they might have inserted in some Copies of St. Luke, that which was found in other supposed Gospels, and that the Fathers had afterwards been at the pains to retrench those Additions. If that Critic had narrowly weighed St. Jerome's Preface, dedicated to Pope Damasus, he would there have found all his doubts cleared.  
Seeing the Cambridge Copy observes the same Order, with all the other Greek Copies of the New Testament, as to the thread of the History, it does manifestly prove, that it has not been on purpose altered by the Heretics. Moreover, seeing the alterations that are therein, do not introduce any Paradox Opinion, but consist for the most part, in some words which have been placed instead of others, and in some Additions that have been taken from other Evangelists, or in bare Illustrations, we may infer from thence, that all the change proceeded from the liberty that was taken by some at that time, for rendering the Books of the New Testament the more intelligible, without putting themselves to the trouble of adhering to the words of the Original, so long as nothing of the sense was altered. The Critics, especially St. Jerome, in reforming the ancient Vulgar, did at the same time amend those ancient Greek Copies, with which he agreed entirely. He used for that purpose, other Greek Copies, which were more exact, and especially those to which he had added the Ten Canons of Eusebius. These latter Copies which were amongst the Greeks, before St. Jerome's time always remained with them, which is easily proved by the same Canons of Eusebius.  
One of the most surprising varieties of that Copy, is that which is found in the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, Chap. 3. of St. Luke, for this Genealogy is the same with that in St. Matthew, unless it be, that it goes up to Solomon in this manner. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is manifest that this Genealogy has been designedly amended by that of St. Matthew, yet with an Addition of those Persons which he had omitted. Beza, who has also made mention of this diversity, in his Notes upon this Chapter of St. Luke, declares 
(s) Quînam autem id sit factum nescio, cùm recepta lectio tum Syri ipsius interpretis auctoritate tum Scriptorum omnium Sacrorum, proptereà de Matthaeo cum Lucâ conciliando laborantium, consensu planè confirmetur: cui sanè praejudicium ullum afferre nec velim nec ausim. Tantùm dico. fieri potuisse, ut ipsis Evangelistarum temporibus Judaei genealogiam istam quantum in ipsis fuit depravarint, quasi fidem caeteris de Christo narrationibus abrogaturi, quae fraus à plerisque non animadversa facilè obtinuerit. Bez. Annot. in c. 3. Luc. v. 23.  that he cannot imagine how that can be, because the Syriack Interpreter, and all the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers are altogether against that Copy, from whom he neither intends, nay nor dares to recede. That might, as he conjectures, have happened from the very time of the Evangelists, the Jews having corrupted that Genealogy that they might not believe the other Histories, which are recorded in the Gospels.  
There is nothing more ridiculous than this conjecture of Beza, who does charge the Jews with a crime which they never thought of; besides that it was of no advantage to them, because they could not corrupt all the Copies which they kept by them. There are none to be blamed for that alteration of the Ancient Copies of the New Testament, but the Christians and even the Orthodox, as it has been frequently observed after St. Jerome, who, in his Letter to Pope Damasus, has taken notice of the change of which we now speak. He says, that in those days they took the liberty to amend the Gospels by that Gospel, which they had read first. Ille qui unum è quatuor primum legerat, ad ejus exemplum caeteros quoque existimaverat emendandos. It is evident, that the Genealogy in St. Luke was reform in the Cambridge Copy, according to this Method, and that what was supposed to be wanting therein, was supplied from the Old Testament. And the accusation supposed to have been brought against the Jews, was so far from admitting a sufficient ground of reason, that there was nothing at that time so common, as Copies, as well Greek as Latin of that kind, especially in the Churches of the West, before St. Jerome had revised the Ancient Latin Edition: It would be easy to prove, that the Gospel of St. Mark has been likewise amended in some places, by that of St. Matthew; and further, that there have been some words changed for others that were synonymous, which appeared to be more intelligible; but that labour would be to no purpose, because every one may consult the divers Readins of that ancient Copy in the sixth Tome of the Polyglot Bible of England, and in the Greek Edition of the New Testament Printed at Oxford. It is enough that I have observed the true reason of those numerous variations, concerning which the Critics have given us very wide, and even false conjectures.  
Those who revised those ancient Copies, intending nothing but to make them clear, without being at the pains to confine themselves to the true Reading of the Evangelists and the Apostles, have given Paraphrases on them, whensoever they believed that they were not sufficiently understood. They have also abridged them in those places that they thought intricate, by reason of superfluous words, which they have also transposed in innumerable places for the same reason: Which is enough to be observed once for all, in general, without a particular rehearsal of the Passages, which have been altered in the Cambridge Copy, as well in the Gospels, as in the Acts of the Apostles. This does appear yet more in the Acts, because there was a very great liberty taken of reforming that History in the first Ages of the Church. Nevertheless whatever change those Books have undergone in the ancient time, and that the very words of the Evangelists and the Apostles were not observed, yet it will not be found that the sense has suffered any alteration. They only endeavoured to make them the more intelligible to the People, and for that end, it was necessary to refine them, seeing they were full of Hebraisms and very concise Phrases, which they were obliged to illustrate according to that Method.  
Nevertheless, in the Cambridge Copy there are certain Additions whereof the same thing cannot be said, because they are plain Matters of Fact that have been added. For example, Chapter 6. of St. Luke, verse 5. after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we read in that Copy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is to say, On the same day, seeing a Man travel on the Sabbath day, he said unto him, my friend, if thou knowest what thou art doing, thou art happy, but if thou dost not know it, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the Law. This History might possibly have been taken from some Ancient Apocryphal Book, where it was common in the first Ages of Christianity; and it may be, it was then believed, that it came from the Apostles or their Disciples. And therefore those who presumed to reform the first Copies of the New Testament, in so many places, upon the bare prospect of rendering them intelligible to all the World, would not scruple to add thereto Histories of that sort, which they believed to be true. We have formerly taken notice of examples of the like nature in the Gospel of the nazarenes: If we had at this day a sufficient number of Copies of this nature, that were before St. Jerome's time, especially in the Western Churches, we might discover some other Additions in them, which are not known to us at present, because we have little or nothing remaining of the Books of those first Ages.  
Although it does not appear to us, that the Christians have had Massorets or Critics like to those of the Jews, who have given to the Books of the New Testament that uniformity which is found to have been from many Ages in the Greek Copies, and also in the Latin, since St. Jerom: it is probable that the Greeks followed certain Copies which they judged to be more exact than others, and that they were Corrected by learned Critics. These Copies were used afterwards as a Massore or Rule. By these St. Jerom Corrected the ancient Latin Edition, by the Order of Pope Damasus. Let us now examine the second Part of the ancient Cambridge Copy, which does contain the Epistles of St. Paul   

CHAP. XXXI. Of the second part of the Cambridge Copy, which contains St. Paul's Epistles. Examples of the various Readins that are in that second Part. Critical Reflections upon the whole matter.  
THere is nothing can more contribute to the knowledge of the state of the Greek Copies of the New Testament, in the most ancient times of the Church, than those Books that were so common before St. Jerom, and which are not extant, but in very few places at this day. It will be in vain to look for them in the Churches of the East; because they having been written in Greek and in Latin, and with the same Hand, it is easy to judge that they could be only extant in the West. We are indebted to the Monks for having preserved some of those Copies for us. That of Cambridge, as has been said, was found in a Monastery of Lions. The Benedictine Monks of the Abbey of St. , have in their Library the second part of the like Copy, in which the Epistles of St. Paul are contained. Peter Pithou, 
(a) Vidimus & nos aliquando vetustissimum exemplar Evangeliorum literis illis majoribus exaratum, adjectis è regione Graecis, quòd olim fuisse dicebatur Ecclesiae Lugdunensis. Vidimus & aliud Epistolarum exemplar ejusdem formae & aetatis ex Corbejae majoris Galliae Monasterio, quae tanquam sanctioris antiquitatis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non sine religione suspicimus & veneramur. Petr. Pith. de SS. Bibl. Interpr.  had seen those two ancient Copies, which he esteemed for their great antiquity. He does testify, that it was believed, that the former was brought from the Church of Lions, and the latter from the famous Abbey of Corby in France. Christian Druthmar, an ancient Benedictine Monk, who had been for some time in that Abbey, has pointed to us the first part of this latter Copy, when he makes mention of a Greek Copy, which he believed to have belonged to St. Hilary, where the Gospel of St. John did immediately follow that of St. Matthew. 
Christ. Druthm. Expos. in Matth. c. 1.  Vidi (saith that Monk) Librum Evangelii Graecè scriptum, qui dicebatur Sancti Hilarii fuisse, in quo primi erant Matthaeus & Joannes. In the Royal Library, there is another Greek and Latin Copy of St. Paul's Epistles, which differs almost in nothing from that of the Benedictines, unless it be that the Letters are not so great, nor so majestic, although they be the same as to their figure and duration. The King's Copy is also more disfigured by reason of innumerable corrections, than that of the Abbey of St. . For although this latter has likewise been amended in many places, the corrections thereof are not so gross.  
Further, we may call those two Copies the second part of that of Cambridge, because they contain that ancient Greek, and that ancient Latin Version, which was used in the Churches of the West, before St. Jerom had reform it. It is true that that Father in his Letter to Damasus, does only make mention of four Gospels which he had revised, and we are not clearly informed by another Hand, that he had corrected the rest of the N. T. after the same manner. But however it be, the thing is, it is certain that the whole ancient Latin Version was amended, and that the same method was observed in that Reformation, which St. Jerom does testify to have been followed in his own practice, when in compliance to the Order of Pope Damasus, he reform the ancient Latin Translation.  
Beza, in his Notes upon St. Paul, does frequently cite that ancient Copy of the King's Library, under the name of 
* Codex Claromontanus.  The Copy of Clermont. He also believed that it was the second Part of that which belongs to Cambridge. In which he is not mistaken. For it is the Greek and the Latin of those ancient Greek and Latin Copies that were commonly read before St. Jerom's time. It is not necessary for all that, that both of them should have been written with the same Hand. It is sufficient that they are of the same Age. And so it may be said, that that of the Benedictines, as well as the King's, is the second Part of the Cambridge Copy, because both the one and the other do represent the ancient Vulgar to us, to which they have added the Greek, with which it did agree.  
F. Morin, who had borrowed that ancient Manuscript of the Duke Puis, that he might extract the various Readins that confirmed our Vulgar, does in his Exercitations, insist at some length on the Bible. 
(b) Existimo versionem vetustissimi illius codicis Graeco textui adversam eam esse, quâ Ecclesia Latina ut plurimùm ante Sanctum Hieronymum utebatur, quam sanctus ille vir, jubente Damaso Pontifice, ad fidem Graecorum exemplarium postmodùm recensuit & emendavit. Jo. Mor. Exercit. Bibl. Exerc. 2. c. 4.  He is persuaded that the Latin Version, that is joined to the Greek, is the ancient Translation, which was read in the West before St. Jerom had reform it by the Command of Pope Damasus, according to the ancient Greek Copies. He 
(c) Consideratis figurâ, magnitudine & splendore characteris tam Graeci quàm Latini, illius ob vetustatem per seipsum multis in locis dimidiatâ obliteratione, passimque subobs●urâ delineatione, versionis insuper cum Vulgatâ textuque Patrum comparatione, S. Hieronymi aetatem istius codicis scripto videtur omninò praecedere. Mor. ibid.  does also judge by the figure and bulk of the Greek and Latin Characters, which are almost worn out in some places, by reason of their antiquity, and by the Latin Version which he compared with our Vulgar, and with the Citations of the ancient Fathers, that that Copy was written before St. Jerom. He further adds, to prove the antiquity of the same Manuscript, a Catalogue of the Books of the Scripture, which had been inserted at the end, in which the twelve small Prophets are noted with the four great Prophets, and the Gospel of St. John before that of St. Mark and St. Luke. Moreover, the Book of the Pastor, the Epistle of Barnabas, and some others, are there placed in the number of the Books of Scripture. It is hard (saith F. Morin,) that all this should be since St. Jerom. Quae omnia Sancti Hieronymi aevum vix subsequi possunt, multa minus ipsa codicis scriptio.  
It is true, that the Greek and Latin Copies of that kind are more ancient than St. Jerom, if we consider the ancient Latin Version which was used in the West, before it was Revised by that Father. But F. Morin's Reasons do not prove that they were written from that time. For it is possible that the Monks, who Copied the ancient Books, writ out those Copies by those that were more ancient: and I believe that this did happen on that occasion. As for the Character, it cannot be denied but that it is most ancient; but those who have skill to judge of them, do not allow them to be above a thousand years standing; at least it is certain, that there are Books of the same Character which do not exceed that time. Neither do I see what can be concluded from Letters that are almost defaced, for the antiquity of a Manuscript. This only does prove that the Ink is not good. The truth is, the Copy of the Benedictines which is of the same antiquity, and has likewise a greater Letter, is still so fair, that one would believe by looking upon some of its Pages, (if judgement were to be given by the Ink and Parchment) that it had been but just now written. Those who have a desire to preserve those ancient Manuscripts, aught to put leaves of Paper betwixt the leaves of the Parchment upon which the Writing is, to the end that the Ink may not wear off. They might at last have added to the end of those Copies, a very ancient Catalogue of the Books of the Bible.  
The strongest proof in my Opinion for evincing the great antiquity of that Copy, is, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not reckoned with the rest, in the number of St. Paul's Epistles, as I have formerly observed, but by itself, and out of the Body of those Letters that were read in the Church. F. Morin did not sufficiently consider that Manuscript, when he says, (speaking of the Catalogue, which is put at the end) 
(d) Catalogus ille insertus est codici ante Epistolam ad Hebraeos in paginis quibusdam fortuito vacuis. Mor. ibid.  that they placed it before the Epistle to the Hebrews, in some Pages where there was nothing written as it happened. For that was done on purpose, the Epistle to Philemon being the last of the Copies of that sort, which the Latins had writ out for their use. Seeing they did not believe, that the Epistle to the Hebrews had been written by that Apostle, nor that it was Canonical, they did not join it to the other Epistles. And therefore they inserted that Catalogue of the Books of Scripture immediately after the Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon.  
If Beza had considered the corrections that had been made in that Copy which he named of Clermont, he would easily have acknowledged, that Books of that sort were never in use amongst the Greeks, and that so it was not brought out of Greece, as he alleged. There are so many faults therein, especially in the Greek, that it is manifestly seen, that it could not have been written but by a person who was altogether ignorant of that Language. A good part of those faults were amended, and these were not only faults of the Orthography, but sometimes of Words. They further reform that ancient Version in many places, by other Greek Copies, which came nearer to these at this day. Which without doubt was done by some Latins, who corrected at the same time the ancient Vulgar, by St. Jerom's new Edition.  
We will not then, with Beza, charge the Observations that are placed in the Margins of that sort of Copies, on the Greek Priests, but on those of the Western Church, who had some knowledge of the Greek Language. As those Books passed through several Hands, so they have received amendments, some of which are more ancient than others. But after all, we still see the ancient Readins, as well in the Greek as in the Latin, especially in the Copy of the Library of St. , which has been revised in so curious a manner, that the amendment does often consist in nothing else but in small strokes of the Pen in the Letters. Seeing those two Copies do differ in very few things, I shall in the following part of my Discourse, make use rather of the latter, than that of the King's Library, which is more disfigured.  
F. Morin has observed in general, 
(e) Variarum istarum lectionum nulla adeò enormis est, atque ut ita dicam varia, ut cum iis quas ex priori volumine observavimus comparari possit. Paulinarum Epistolarum codex ille vulgato textui priore longè conformior est, licet illi antiquitate non cedat. Mor. ibid.  that the Clermont Copy upon St. Paul's Epistles, does not so much vary from the ordinary Copies of the New Testament, as that of Cambridge does, and that it is also more agreeable to our Vulgar, though it is no less ancient than the other. The same thing is to be said of that of the Benedictines of the Abbey of St. , because they are so much alike, that one would believe, that the one had been copied from the other. The reason of this great conformity of St. Paul's Epistles, in the Clermont Copy with the ordinary Greek, and the Latin of the Vulgar is evident, because he had no occasion to amend those Epistles by one another, as the Gospels; and they were not so much neglected in the first Ages of the Church, as the Acts of the Apostles, which had been revised with a great deal of liberty in many places. Yet if we carefully examine the places where those ancient Copies of St. Paul's Epistles, that were before St. Jerom, do differ from the Ordinary, we shall find that they were not reform in the same manner, and according to the same method as the Gospels and the Acts. We shall there observe the like Additions of Words, Synonymous Terms, several Readins joined together, with Glosses annexed. Moreover, Transpositions are frequently found there: which would seem to have been done on purpose, to render the Sense more clear, and also to avoid sometimes the Hyperbates with which St. Paul's Epistles are filled. There are also some places more abridged, than what are in the ordinary Copies. Whether it was that they intended to remove what was of no use, or that that is in truth the ancient Reading. For although those Copies have been revised, they were amended throughout; and then they might represent the ancient Reading. To the end that they may be the better known, I shall here give some examples taken from the Epistle to the Romans, and there may be a great many more observed in the second Book of this Work, with respect to the Vulgar.  
In the Epistle to the Romans, Chap. 2. ver. 7. It is not in the Copy of the Abbey of St. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Beloved of God, neither is it expressed in the ancient Latin Version which is joined to it. Indeed these Words make nothing for the Sense, which is sufficiently expressed by the others which follow, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, called Saints.  
In the 13. v. of the same Chapter, instead of these Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will not, we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think not. But they have placed in the Margin of the Clermont Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the ordinary Reading, and this happens frequently. In the 16. v. we do not read in that ancient Copy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Christ, after the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gospel, neither is it expressed in the two Vulgars'. It is probable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was added. Likewise, it is not found in some other ancient Greek Copies. In v. 29. there is not the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but immediately after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is in that ancient Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and it is read in the same manner in the ancient Vulgar, so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be superfluous. The Vulgar at this day does also represent that ancient Reading, if the word nequitia be left out, which has been added for no use to the Greek at this day.  
Verse 31. of the same Chapter, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not in that ancient Copy, but it has been added, neither is sine foedere, in the ancient Vulgar, as it is in that which is used at this day, in conformity to the ordinary Greek. We shall observe that in the Copy of the Abbey of St. , there are many the like Additions written of the same Hand with the body of the Book, and they are for the most part placed at the bottom of the Page with a mark of Reference, as if they had been true omissions. But these are ordinarily amendments according to some other Greek Copies. Additions of this sort are also common in the Latin. Nevertheless there are some places in which the Latin does not altogether answer to the Greek Addition. We see the same thing in the Copy that belongs to the Royal Library. They who copied those Manuscripts, by the ancient Copies, did at the same time correct them by others, and in process of time there were other amendments added thereto.  
Verse 32. of the same Chapter, after the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we read in the same Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the ancient Vulgar, as well as in that we have at this day, it is non intellexerunt. Erasmus has observed, in his Remark upon this place, that he does not know why it is in the Latin Copies non intellexerunt, which is not in the Greek, unless it be, that it has been added in the Latin. F. Morin does assure us of the contrary, 
(f) Non de suo haec addidit Hieronymus, sed qui cum praecesserat interpres haec & similia verterat, & textui inseruerat, antiquorum codicum fidem sequens; vel ipse Hieronymus eâdem fide fretus ista restituit. Muratio postea facta est in Graeco textu, non in Vulgatâ nostrâ, ut tot exemplis jam demonstravimus, atque iterùm demonstrabimus. Mor. ibid.  that the Reading that is in our Vulgar was not St. Jerom's, but that it is in the ancient Latin Interpreter, who was before him, and who in this place followed the Greek of his time; or that that Father, having relied on Greek Manuscripts of the like nature, had inserted that sort of Additions: whence he does conclude, that that Change was afterwards made in the ordinary Greek, and not in our Vulgar. He does likewise make a general Rule of it.  
It is true, that St. Jerom, or he who revised the ancient Vulgar, is not the Author of this Addition, non intellexerunt, seeing it is found in the Greek and Latin of St.  Copy, and in that of the Royal Library. But it cannot be concluded, with F. Morin, that we are obliged to prefer those ancient Copies to the ordinary Greek in all those places where there are the like Additions, it being certain that they were revised that they might be the more plain. It is convenient on such occasions to compare them with other Copies; and if it happen that not so much as one does agree with them, it is a sign that in those Places there have been Amendments made in those old Copies to which the ancient Vulgar was agreeable. St. Jerom does testify, that in his new Edition, which is the Vulgar at this day, he left some of those Additions, because they did not change the sense.  

(g) Si plura exemplaria, quale hoc est, ante mille ducentos & aliquot annos descripta aliquis nancisceretur, nihil in Vulgatâ nostrâ discrepans deprehenderetur, quod illis antiquis codicibus non confirmetur. Ibid.  If we had (F. Morin continues) many of those Copies which were written above twelve hundred years ago, we would acknowledge that our Vulgar does perfectly agree with those ancient Copies, in those places where it does differ from the ordinary Greek. But suppose it were so, could it be alleged that our Vulgar does in all those places represent the first Original of the Apostles, as F. Amelote did likewise think? I desire no other but St. Jerom to be Judge in this Dispute, which has so mightily divided men's minds in this latter Age. 
Hieron. Praef. in IU. Evan. ad Dam.  That learned Critic does give us a very strange draught of those ancient Copies which have been written above these twelve hundred Years. He was obliged to reform the ancient Latin Edition, that was so defective, by other Greek Copies that were more correct; which he nevertheless performed in such a manner as to retain somewhat of the ancient Edition in those places where he might have corrected them by his Greek Copies. Can it be said that our Vulgar does represent the first and true Original of the Apostles in those places that have been left on purpose with their faults, because they had no mind to meddle with them? This is to show that F. Morin, and after him F. Amelote, had not a sufficient knowledge of those venerable and august Manuscripts that were written above twelve hundred years ago. Antiquity is not a good proof of the Goodness and Faithfulness of a Record, when it is otherwise proved that that Record has been vitiated within that time.  
Chap. 3. v. 12. of the same Epistle, we do not read in the Copy of the Abbey of St. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor in the ancient Latin Version that is joined thereunto, non est qui faciat bonum. These words were only added, as well in the Greek as in the Latin, at the bottom of the Page, with a mark of Reference, as a Supplement which was taken from the ordinary Greek Copies, and from the Vulgar that had been revised. Although those Words which are taken out of the xiii. Psalms (the xiv. in the Hebrew) are extant in all the Greek Copies, in conformity to the Hebrew Text, St. Justin does not read them in his Dialogue against the Jew Tryphon. It is possible, that those who revised the Greek of the New Testament in the ancient times left them out, as thinking them needless, seeing they were of the number of those Repetitions which are so frequent in the Psalms. We shall nevertheless observe, that S. Justin did instead of them read these other Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are in the same Epistle to the Romans, v. 7. But we cannot depend on the Citations of the Fathers, which are not very exact when they quote Scripture Passages. It would be dangerous to reform the Greek Copies of the New Testament by them, which might be easily justified by innumerable Examples.  
Chap. 4. v. 9 after the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is read in that Copy, which yet is not expressed in the ancient Vulgar that is joined thereunto, although it is in that which is used at this day. The sense does require that Supplement. V 16. of the same Chapter, the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is in the ancient Copy as well as in the ordinary Greek, is not expressed in the ancient Vulgar, where we barely read, non ei qui ex lege est, and the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also in the Greek. Vers. 23. there is a Repetition made of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the ancient Vulgar ad justitiam, which is also retained in the Vulgar now used.  
Chap. 5. vers. 1. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is in that ancient Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the two Vulgars' habeamus. Vers. 2. we do not read in the same Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor in the ancient Version annexed to it per fidem; but it is in our Vulgar agreeable to the ordinary Greek. Vers. 5. We read not in the Greek of that Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor is it expressed in the ancient Vulgar; but it is marked at the bottom of the Page, as well in the Greek as in the Latin, which must have been taken from another Copy. Vers. 12. we do not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vers. 16. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the two Vulgars' peccatum. Vers. 18. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the two Vulgars' justitiam.  
Chap. 6. v. 11. we read not in the ancient Greek Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor in the ancient Vulgar Domino nostro. Vers. 12. these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are not in the same Copy, nor in the Latin Version annexed to it, in concupiscentiis ejus. Vers. 16. we read not likewise in that Copy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor in the ancient Vulgar ad mortem.  
Chap. 7. v. 6. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read in the ancient Copy of St.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the two Vulgars' mortis; which reading is conformable to Origen. Beza observes in his Remark upon that place, that he only found it in his ancient Clermont Copy. Nullius (saith he) Graeci codicis authoritate confirmatur haec lectio, excepto illo Claromontano, quem alioqui plurimi facio. Vers. 14. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These two Particles are often put for one another, as well in the Greek Copies as in the ancient Versions. Vers. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not in the ancient Copy, nor hoc in the ancient Vulgar; where also we have not bonum, which is in the Vulgar at this day. Vers. 25. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is in the ancient Version, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the two Vulgars' gratia Dei.  
Chap. 8. v. 38. This Verse is expressed in the ancient Copy after this manner, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the ancient Vulgar, agreeable to that Reading, neque Angelus, neque Potestas, neque initia, neque instantia, neque futura, neque virtus.  
Chap. 9 v. 31. We do not read in that ancient Copy the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor the Word justitiae in the same place in the ancient Vulgar.  
Chap. 10. v. 1. instead of these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we read in that ancient Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the ancient Vulgar pro illis, which is also in our Vulgar, but thesein there is fit added. Vers. 8. after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the two Vulgars' Scriptura. Vers. 17. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is in the ancient Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the two Vulgars' Christi. Beza, 
(h) Invenimus quidem in tribus exemplaribus; sed tamen vix possim probare. Bez. Annot. in Epist. ad Rom. c. 9 v. 17.  who also did read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his three Copies, does testify, that he does not approve of this reading. There is nothing more ordinary in those ancient Greek Copies than the interchanging of these three Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they are there written by way of Contraction thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which gave occasion to the Transcribers to put one frequently for another. V 20. we read not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor in the Latin Version audet &; besides, this makes nothing for the sense.  
Chap. 11. v. 6. we do not read in the ancient Copies these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But if it be by Works than it is no more Grace, otherwise work is no work. Neither are they expressed in the two Vulgars'. Beza 
(i) Hanc partem non legunt vetus Interpres, nec Origenes, nec Chrysostomus, nec Ambrose, quam tamen summo consensu in Graecis codicibus inveni, Claromontano excepto— & mihi quidem planè videtur necessaria explendae operum & fidei antithesi. Bez. ibid. c. 11. v. 6.  observes that they were not in Origen, St. Chrysostom, nor St. Ambrose, but that he read them in all the Greek Copies except that of Clermont. He is of the Judgement that we ought to read them to complete the Antithesis that is in that place betwixt Works and Faith: nevertheless Erasmus is for the ancient Reading, which he had more strongly confirmed if he had read the two ancient Copies to which the ancient Latin Version is annexed. 
Grot. Annot. in Epist. ad Rom. c. 11. v. 6.  Grotius followed the Opinion of Erasmus, Haec rectè (saith this Critic) desunt in manuscripto, nec legit Latinus Interpres, sed nec Origines, nec Ambrose, nec Chrysostomus. Estius durst not be so positive in this matter; he does only say, 
(k)  satis probabile sit additamentum esse Graeci cujuspiam ad textum— Quocircà Cajetano non assentior affirmanti integram hanc sententiam deesse in Latino textu, cùm verius existimem simpliciter cam redundare. Est Comm. in Epist. ad Rom. c. 11. v. 6.  that it is probable enough that those Words were added to the Text: nevertheless he does reject the Opinion of Cajetan, who believed that they were wanting in the Vulgar. Vers. 13. we read not in the ancient Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor in the annexed Latin Version gentium Apostolus, but it is only written in the bottom of the Page by the same hand with the Book, with the ordinary mark of reference.  
Chap. 12. v. 11. This Contraction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is in the ancient Copy gave occasion to a different Reading in the Greek Copies; for some did read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lord, and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Time: but we ought to read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and it is in the two Vulgars' Domino, agreeable to that Reading. Vers. 14. these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉... are also transposed in that ancient Copy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is also in the ancient Latin Version according to this Transposition, & nolite maledicere, benedicite persequentes vos. Vers. 17. These words which we read in the Vulgar at this day, non tantum coram Deo, sed etiam, are not in the ancient Vulgar, nor in the ancient Greek any more than in the new.  
Chap. 13. v. 5. We do not read in the ancient Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor in the ancient Vulgar necessitate, but only subditi estote, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nevertheless they have added in the Margin of the Latin necessitate, and at the bottom of the Page in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vers. 9 we do not read in that Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor in the ancient Vulgar non falsum testimonium dices. Vers. 12. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we read in the same Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which does not change the sense. In the same Verse, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, arms, there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the ancient Vulgar opera, works.  
Chap. 14. v. 9 these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉... are thus transposed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and it is in the ancient Latin Version which is annexed to it, & vixit & mortuus est & resurrexit. We read not in our Vulgar vixit. He who revised it did in all probability believe that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in the ancient Copy, had the same signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that these were Readins of the same Word. Vers. 10. after the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is an Addition of these Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in conformity to this Reading it is in the ancient Vulgar in non manducando. In the same Verse, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the ancient Vulgar Dei. Ver. 19 after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is added; and according to this Reading, we find in the two Vulgars' custodiamus.  
Chap. 15. v. 11. after the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vers. 13. we do not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor in the ancient Vulgar in credendo. Vers. 19 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the two Vulgars' sancti, and we find that the following Words are transposed and somewhat changed, in this manner, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the ancient Vulgar, ita ut compleretur ab Jerusalem usque in Illyricum & in circuitu. There are some other Transpositions in the same Chapter which I omit, because they are of no importance. We have reason to believe that those Words were transposed to make the sense the clearer. Vers. 24. we do not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is not expressed in the two Vulgars'. Ver. 27. we do not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor in the ancient Vulgar placuit enim eyes. Vers. 29. we cannot find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor in the ancient Version Evangelii. Vers. 30. after the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the two Vulgars' vestris. Vers. 32. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the ancient Vulgar Christi Jesus: in the same place, instead of these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we read in the ancient Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the ancient Vulgar refrigerem vobiscum. V 33. after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 added, and sit in the Vulgar.  
Chap. 16. v. 2. after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we read the following words transposed (and somewhat changed) after this manner, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and it is also in the ancient Vulgar mihi & multis aliis. Ver. 3. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the two Vulgars' priscam. In the same Verse there is a Transposition, which seems to have been made on purpose to avoid an Hyperbate; for after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the Vulgar, & domesticam eorum Ecclesiam. After which we read these other words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Vers. 5. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we read in the ancient Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. There is nothing more ordinary amongst the Greek Manuscripts than this various Reading; and therefore we ought not, upon such occasions to take so much notice of the reading of the Copies as of the Sense, whether we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So in the following Verse, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the two Vulgars' in vobis, there being a double difference in these words: and it does also happen often enough, that the Transcribers do put these two Pronouns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the one for the other. Vers. 15. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is in the ancient Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the two Vulgars' Olympiadem. Vers. 16. we do not read these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor these in the ancient Latin Version, salutant vos omnes Ecclesiae Christi. Vers. 17. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the two Vulgar rogo. In the same place, after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is an Addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the ancient Vulgar of diligenter: moreover, after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the ancient Latin Version dicentes vel facientes. Vers. 18. we do not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor in the ancient Vulgar benedictiones. Vers. 21. after the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the ancient Vulgar, & Ecclesiae universae Christi. In the last place, Vers. 24. after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we read in the ancient Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the two Vulgar seculorum.  
It may appear by the different Readins which we have now mentioned in the two preceding Chapters, how we are to judge of the ancient Greek Copies that were before St. Jerom, especially in the Western Churches, and to which the ancient Latin Version which was used in those Churches was agreeable.  
It is true that the Vulgar at this day does frequently agree with those ancient Greek Copies; but it does also differ from them very often: and therefore it cannot be thought (according to the Opinion of F. Morin and F. Amelote) that we must always prefer the reading of the Vulgar in those places where it does agree with those ancient Copies, seeing there are so many other places where it differs from them. If that Greek be the true Original of the Apostles, as those two Authors seem to have insinuated, it ought to be the Original throughout, and we must consequently entirely adhere to the ancient Vulgar which is exactly agreeable to it. Yet St. Jerom believed that it was absolutely necessary to correct it, seeing it was very defective. If I were not afraid of being too tedious, I would here produce the various Readins of that ancient Greek Copy upon St. Paul's Epistles, but I shall observe them more conveniently in the second part of this Critical History, when we shall examine the Version of the ancient Latin Interpreter, and shall take particular notice of such Places as agree with the ancient Greek Copies that were extant before St. Jerom.   

CHAP. XXXII. Of other Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament. Examples of the various Readins of those Manuscripts; with Critical Reflections on those Differences.  
WE find in our Libraries several Greek Copies of the New Testament which were written out by the Greeks, and were in use amongst them. Although they differ in sundry places from one another, the most of those differences are but of small importance. They agree together in this, that they are very little like those which we have last observed, that were copied by the Latins. This I observed in reading many of those Copies which are in the King's and in Mr. Colbert's Library. It is true that I found none in those two Libraries that were so ancient as those other Greek Copies to which they joined the ancient Latin Version which was before St. Jerom: yet this does not hinder but that there were some of the like Antiquity; but they are very rare. I believe that we ought to reckon the Copy of the Vatican in the number, of which some Critics have made mention, and whereof they have also observed some different Readins in their Works.  
The Copy which is commonly called the Alexandrine, because it came from Alexandria in Egypt, is likewise very ancient. Some of the English Nation, after Cyrillus Lucar, have observed that that Book which contains the Old and the New Testament in Greek was written, more than thirteen hundred Years ago by an Egyptian Lady called Thecle. But they produce no certain proofs of this Antiquity. It was the Interest of the Patriarch Cyrillus, who made a Present of that Bible to the King of England, to make it as ancient as he could. There have been many Thecle's, and they also gave that Name to some Roman Ladies, who retired into solitude in the East, where their great Piety was admired by the whole World: These Ladies understood the Greek Language, and were curious to read the Holy Scripture in that Tongue. There were also Monasteries consecrated to St. Thecle; and it might very well be, that that Copy belonged to some Monastery of that name: However it be, it cannot be denied, but that it is very ancient. Yet it differs from those other Greek Copies, which were writ out by the Latins, as it is easy to judge by the various Readins, which the English have Printed in their Polyglot Bible: Grotius has also made mention of a good part of those various Readins upon the New Testament: We shall nevertheless observe, that this Critic is not always exact in his citations. In short, I cannot give full assurance, that that Manuscript called the Alexandrine, and that of the Vatican, cannot be reckoned in the number of those, which were writ out by Latin amanuensis in those Ancient times.  
I make no question, but that Cardinal Ximenes consulted the most Ancient Copies of the New Testament, when he published his Edition. But it is to be feared, that some of the readings of those Ancient Copies were inserted therein, under a pretext, that he found them more agreeable to our Vulgar. It is also possible, that Stephen's Copy, which was compared in Italy, with many Greek Manuscripts, does likewise contain some readings of those same Copies which were revised, and to which they annexed the Ancient Latin Version. The same judgement ought to be made of the Sixteen Copies, which the Marquis of Veles had consulted, and whereof some do in many places, agree with our Vulgar: It is fit to make all these Observations in general, to supply in some sort the negligence of those Learned Men, who were not at the pains to give us particular marks of distinction, to know what were good and what were bad amongst their Manuscripts. Erasmus and Beza, who had perused several of those Greek Copies, and who signalised their diligence in this matter, were frequently mistaken, when they spoke of their Manuscripts. They were ignorant of the distinction, that we formerly mentioned, betwixt two sorts of Greek Copies of the New Testament. For what remains, seeing I have given several examples of the various readings that were writ out by the Latins, it will be very fit, to produce in this place, some instances of the various readings of other Greek Copies. And because there have been several collections already made, whereby it may be known wherein those variations do consist; I shall confine myself to such as are the principal of them, and upon which it will be needful to make some Critical reflections.  
Chap. 1. of St. Matthew, v. 11. we read in the Ordinary Greek Copies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Josiah begat Jechoniah. The Ancient Latin Interpreter, the Syriack Version and other Translations of the Eastern Church, do confirm this Reading: But Robert Stephen did read it in one of his Copies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which reading is found in many other Greek Manuscripts, cited in the sixth Tome of the Polyglot Bible of England, with this difference, that instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is in those Manuscripts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Flaccius Illyricus has inserted it in his Greek Edition of the New Testament, and it is also put in the Version of Erasmus, which was joined thereto upon its being revised according to the Greek, Josias autem genuit Jakin, Jakin autem genuit Jechoniam. Simon de Coline has likewise followed this reading in his Greek New Testament, according to which Castalio has put in his Latin Version Josias Joacimum, 
Nou. Test. Sebast. Cast. edit. ann. 1556.  Joacimus Jechoniam.  
Beza did also once approve of the reading of Stephen's Manuscript, as it appeared by the first Editions of his Version of the New Testament, where it is, Josias autem genuit Jakim, Jakim autem genuit Jechoniam. 
Nou. Test. Bez. Gr. & Lat. in 8. ann. 1565.  Nevertheless he leaves the ordinary Reading in the Greek Text: But he changed his Opinion afterwards, as appeared by his great Notes, in which he does assure us, 
(a) Quam lectionem aliquando secutus sum, sed his obstat historiae veritas. Bez. Annot. in c. 1. Matth. v. 11.  that this Reading which he had once followed, was against the truth of the History, although he had found it owned in one of Stephen's Manuscripts, and approved by the testimony of James le Feure, and of Martin Bucer, who had seen (as he believes) that Manuscript, into which 
(b) In hac quoque lectione illius manuscripti codicis, alioqui verâ & germanâ lectione, error inolevit, sed levis, & sic emendandus est, ut nunc transtuli, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— Bez. ibid.  an error had slipped, as he thought. He is of the mind, that we ought to reform the place in this manner, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He adds, that he had amended his Version by this Standard. Yet he does follow, in his own latter Editions, as well in the Greek as in the Latin, the ordinary Greek Edition.  
Maldonat the Jesuit, in his Commentary upon this place of St. Matthew, did prefer Stephen's Manuscript or rather that of James le Feure, to the ordinary Greek and to the Vulgar. He chief depends on the Authority of St. Epiphanius, who alleged, that in that place, there was an error in the Vulgar Greek Copies; because the Transcribers, who perceived, that the name of Jechonias was marked four times, did imagine with themselves, that that repetition was superfluous. I do agree (saith Maldonat) with St. Epiphanius, in his Opinion, that there was an omission of the Transcriber in that place: Yet I do not reckon with him, that it does consist in these words, Jechonias begat Jechonias, but in these, Joachim begat Jechonias.— And therefore, I think that this place ought to be amended thus; Josias begat Joachim and his Brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon, and Joachim begat Jechonias.  
But notwithstanding the Authority of some Greek Manuscripts, which confirm this Reading, I am persuaded that we ought to keep the ordinary Reading in the Text and in the Versions, because it is the most ancient and the most plain. That other reading was brought in by the Scholiasts, who noted in the Margin of their Copies, that one generation was wanting in that place; and at the same time they marked it in their Scholium or Marginal Note, which was afterwards put in the Text. Indeed St. Epiphanius does cite no ancient Copy, to give authority to his amendment: On the contrary, he does suppose, that it was extant in the Copies of his Time, as it is in the ordinary Greek Copies at this day: He only says, that they who have a mind to consult exact Copies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will approve his correction. But besides that he makes mention of none in particular, he falls into manifest errors, and such as contradict the History of the Old Testament: He seemed to correct his Vulgar reading for no other reason, but because, St. Matthew having divided the Genealogy of Jesus Christ into three Classes, every one whereof ought to contain fourteen Persons 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. lib. 1. adv. Haer. tit. de Epic. n. 8.  he only found thirteen in the third Class. Which he imputes to the Transcribers, who perceiving the name of Jechonias repeated, believed that the second Jechonias ought not to be reckoned in the number of those 
(c) Epiphanio in hoc assentior, ut existimem scriptorum vitio aliqua verba intercidisse, quibus significetur Joacim filium Josiae genuisse Jechoniam. In eo non assentior, quod non existimo deesse haec, Jechonias autem genuit Jechoniam; sed haec, Joacim autem genuit Jechoniam.— Itaque totum locum sic restituendum puto, Josias autem genuit Joacim & fratres ejus in transmigratione Babylonis, (quemadmodum Stapulensis affirmat se in antiquo quodam Graeco codice legisse) Joacim autem genuit Jechoniam. Mald. Comm. in c. 1. Matth. v. 11.  Persons, that belonged to the Genealogy of Jesus Christ; whereas in truth, it did appertain thereto.  
St. Jerome observed something of the like nature, at the beginning of his Commentaries upon Daniel, where he says, 
(e) In Evangelio secundùm Matthaeum una videtur deesse generatio, quia secunda 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Joakim desinit filio Josiae, & tertia incipit à Joachin filio Joakim. Quod ignorans Porphyrius, calumniam struit Ecclesiae; suam ostendens imperitiam, dum Evangelistae Matthaei arguere nititur falsitatem. Hieron. init. Comm. in Dan.  that it seems that there is one generation wanting in St. Matthew, because the second Class or Order gins at Joakim the Son of Josias, and the third gins at Joachin the Son of Joakim, and thus he answers Porphyrius, who had accused St. Matthew of falsehood in that place: But his does not establish this reading by the Authority of any Greek Copy. The only thing he aimed at, was to make an Answer to Porphyrius, whose objection does suppose, that the ancient Copies do perfectly agree with the ordinary Greek at this day. They might very well illustrate that Passage of St. Matthew by some Note, but it is not at all allowable to insert that Note in the Text. And therefore St. Jerome has not inserted it in his Latin Edition, when he corrected it by good Manuscripts, according to the order he had received from Pope Damasus: Which is a new Proof, that we ought to keep to the reading of the ordinary Greek which is the most ancient. That Father did content himself to make, in his Commentaries upon St. Matthew, such an observation as we have already mentioned, without changing the Text of that Evangelist in any Thing. Si voluerimus, (saith he) Jechoniam in fine primae tessaredecadis ponere, in sequente non erunt quatuordecim, sed tredecim. Sciamus igitur Jechoniam priorem ipsum esse, quem & Joakim; secundum autem filium, non patrem, quorum prior per k. & m. sequens per ch. & n. scribitur, quod scriptorum vitio & longitudine temporum apud Graecos Latinosque confusum est. He does suppose in this observation, that some did read with Epiphanius, two several Jechonias whom he does distinguish by writing them differently according to the reading of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. But this amendment is Founded upon no Copy of St. Matthew, unless it be such as has been reform: For what remains, I do not know how the reading was in those Greek and Latin Copies of the New Testament, that were before St. Jerome. For the nineteen first Verses of St. Matthew are wanting in the Cambridge Copy, which does only begin at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 20. of the first Chapter.  
The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew, who likewise did read as we do, in the ordinary Greek, has observed, that it is otherwise in the Book of the Kings, 
(f) Ergo talis est ordo: Josias genuit Eliachim, posteà vocatum Joachim. Joachim autem genuit Jechoniam. Auct. Oper. imperf. in Matth. cap. 1. v. 11.  and the order of the Genealogy ought to be expressed thus, Josias begat Eliachim, who was afterwards called Joachim, and Joachim begat Jechonias. He only takes notice of the order that that Genealogy ought to have, according to the History of the New Testament. He does not, for all that, reform the ordinary Text of St. Matthew: For he adds, 
(g) Nec obest quòd filius Josiae dictus est, cùm sit nepos, quoniam & nepotes rectè filii dicuntur. Id. ibid.  that that does not hinder, but that Jechonias who was the Grandson of Josias, might have been called his Son, because it was very ordinary to give the name of Sons to Grandsons.  
Chap. 2. of St. Matthew, v. 17. where we read in the ordinary Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Robert Stephen did read in one of his Manuscripts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which reading is confirmed by another ancient Manuscript, cited by Mr. Salbert, and in the Cambridge Copy: Although Beza 
(h) Probatur haec lectio quam secutus sum manuscripti exemplaris auctoritate, & ita solere loqui Matthaeum superiora ostendunt. Certè magna vis est horum verborum, ex quibus intelligimus non ipsos Prophetas, sed Dominum ore Prophetarum loqui. Bez. ad cap. 2. Matth. v. 17.  found that reading only in one Manuscript; yet he does prefer it to the other, because it appeared to him to be St. Matthew's Style, and he believed, that there is a great force in that expression, which declares to us, that the Lord does speak by the mouth of his Prophets. But it is much more probable, that these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were added in the Cambridge Copy, there being very few other Copies where it is extant. It cannot be therefore any longer thought with any assurance, that they are of St. Matthew's Style, seeing that Evangelist does not express them in many places, where that same manner of speech does occur. In short, he would disparage his own judgement, who would leave the ordinary reading of the Greek Copies, and embrace one reading, which is only founded on a very small number of Copies, under a pretext that they contain an expression, which seems to have more force. For according to the Laws of Critics, the reading which is most plain, and is withal confirmed by the plurality of Copies, aught to be accounted the best: And therefore, St. Jerome did rather choose to follow those Greek Copies than the ancient Vulgar.  
In the same Chapter, 2. v. 18. although we read in all the Greek Copies of the New Testament, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Ramâ, as the proper name of a Place, Origen has observed 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. Cat. Gr. in Matth. 2. 18.  that that Word does signify an high place, and that it is in some Copies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. on high. But this reading is only extant in the ancient Alexandrine Copy of the Septuagint Version, where the signification of the Hebrew word Rama is put: St. Jerome also, who has in excelso, in his new Translation from the Hebrew, has left the word, (in Rama) in his ancient Latin Edition which he had taken from the Septuagint; and he has kept the same reading in his Edition of the Gospels. He only observed in his Commentary, 
(k) Quod autem dicitur in Rama, non putemus loci nomen esse juxta Gabaa, sed rama excelsum interpretatur, ut sit sensus, Vox in excelso audita est, id est, long è lateque dispersa. Hieron. Comm. in c. 2. Matth. v. 18.  that Rama is not the proper name of a place which was near to Gabaa, but that this word does signify high, so that the sense of the Passage according to his mind, will run thus, A voice was heard on high, that is to say, that that voice was spread far and wide. 
Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb. n. 2467.  Further, in the same verse, we do not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a Manuscript of Mr. Colbert's Library, nor in Justin Martyr, who made mention of that Passage in his Dialogue against Tryphon the Jew: Neither is it found in the Vulgar, although it is in the Ancient Vulgar, and in the Greek of the Cambridge Copy.  
Chap. 3. v. 11. These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are not found in a great number of Greek Manuscript Copies, Robert Stephen did not read them in seven of his, and there are also seven others marked in the Polyglot of England which have them not. Besides, I have not found them in two Copies that belong to Mr. Colbert: But they are in the Cambridge Copy and the two Vulgars', St. Jerome having kept them in his new Edition. He has likewise explained them in his Commentary, without observing that there was any variety of reading upon that Passage. The truth is, the most Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers had no other reading; which made Erasmus conjecture that some had taken them away from their Copies, because there were some Heretics who Baptised with fire. But this conjecture has no colour, for we read the same words, Chap. 3. v. 16. of St. Luke, in all the Greek Copies: Luke of Bruges does think that they were possibly taken from this Evangelist, and that the Transcribers did insert them in St. Matthew. Maldonat has very well observed, that the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &, is not a conjunctive particle, but explicative; and that the explication of the preceding words was added, to show that in that place there was no mention made of the Spirit in general, but of the descent of the same Spirit in the form of Fire, the day of the Pentecost. And that which may give us cause to suspect, that these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have been added, as well in S. Luke, as in S. Matthew by way of Explication, is, that we only read in S. Mark, Chap. 1. vers. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nevertheless there are two Manuscripts quoted in the sixth Tome of the Polyglot of England, where there is also found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this Evangelist. But in what manner soever the Reading be in this Evangelist, the reading of the Gospel according to S. Matthew cannot be regulated by it, seeing the latter is oftentimes only abridged by the former.  
Chap. 5. v. 22. We read in all the Greek Copies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without a cause; and it was also in the ancient Vulgar agreeable to the Greek Cambridge Copy. Yet S. Augustin, 
Aug. lib. 1. Retr. c. 19  who had read it in the Latin Copies of his time, retracted his Opinion concerning it, because he found it not in the Greek Copies. Codices enim Graeci (saith that Father) non habent sine causâ, sicut hic positum est. It is apparent, that he passed by the ancient Vulgar, to embrace the Opinion of S. Jerom, who in his new Edition has left out the words, without cause, and who has also observed in his Commentary upon that place, 
(l) In quibusdam codicibus additur sine causâ. Caeterùm in veris definita sententia est, & ita penitùs tollitur ... Radendum est ergo sine causâ. Hieron. Comm. in cap. 5. Matth.  that they are truly in some Copies, but that they are not in the true Copies. And therefore he is of the mind, that they ought to be left out of all the Greek Copies that have been cited hitherto, there is only that of the Vatican, mentioned by Luke of Bruges, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found. The ancient Author of the Syriack Version did also read it in the Greek Copy which he made use of for making his Translation. For he has kept the Greek word which he has only written in Syriack Characters. The most ancient Fathers as well Greek as Latin did also read the same word in their Copies. There were only some Latins, since S. Jerom's Correction, who believed that it did not belong to the Text. It would possibly be more proper to re-establish it in the Vulgar, which in that Passage is contrary to Antiquity and to many Copies.  
In the same Chapter, v. 27. Robert Stephen did not read in seven of his Manuscripts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the Ancients. Neither is it found in some other Copies that are marked in the Polyglot Bible of England. I also observed that it is not in three Manuscripts of Monsieur Colbert's Library. 
Cod. MSS. Bibl. Colb. n. 2467. 4112.  Nevertheless S. Jerom has put it in his new Edition.  
The thirtieth Verse of the same Chapter is not in the ancient Cambridge Copy, nor in another quoted in the sixth Tome of the Polyglot of England. 
Cod. MSS. ex Bibl. Colb. n. 2259.  Neither did I read it in one of M. Colbert's Manuscripts. 'Tis probable that it is a mere omission of the Transcribers, in those Copies which was occasioned by this, that the twenty nine and thirty Verses do both end with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Omissions of that sort are very ordinary.  
In one of M. Colbert's Manuscripts we do not read in the forty fourth Verse of the same Chapter, 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 2467.  these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Bless them who curse you, do good to them who hate you. Neither do we read in the same Copy these other words which are in the same place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For them that despitefully use you and; as if they did signify the same with those words that immediately follow. Nevertheless all this is found in the ancient Cambridge Copy. But S. Jerom has not expressed in his new Edition these first words, 
Nic. Zeg. Epanorth. in cap. 5. Matth. v. 44.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Zegerus believes that they were taken out of the sixth Chapter of S. Luke, and inserted in S. Matthew, A studioso quopiam ex Lucae cap. 6. huc translata sunt.  
Chap. 6. v. 4. These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which S. Jerom has not expressed in his Edition, are not in the ancient Cambridge Copy. And Luke of Bruges has informed us, that he does not find them in the Vatican Copy. Besides, I have not read them in two of M. Colbert's Manuscripts: nevertheless S. Augustin does assure us, 
(m) Multa Latina exemplaria sic habent, Et pater tuus qui videt in abscondo, reddet tibi palàm. Sed quia in Graecis quae priora sunt non invenimus palàm, non putamus hinc aliquid disserendum esse. Aug. de Serm. Dom. in mont. lib. 2. cap. 2.  that they did read the word palàm in several Copies of his time, but that it was not expressed in the original Greek, which he prefers to all the Latin Copies. (Maldonat) 
(n) Tempore Augustini Latini codices legebant, Graeci non legebant, ut ille scribit. Itaque suspicio mihi est primos illos codices Graecos, ex quibus translatio Latina, quâ Ecclesia ante Hieroaymum utebatur, facta fuerat, haec verba legisse post scripterum vitio in Graecis abolita, in Latinis conservata. Hieronymus verò cùm jam ipsius tempore in Graecis non legerentur, quia ad Graecorum, ut ipse ait, codicum veritatem Latinam editionem corrigebat, expunxisse de Latinâ quod non invenit in Graecâ. Nam legenda quidem esse ipsa indicat antithesis in abscondito, & in propatulo. Mald. Comm. in c. 6. Matth. v. 4.  on the contrary does make use of those words of S. Augustin, as being of sufficient authority, for re-establishing that word in our Vulgar, alleging, that they did read it in the ancient Vulgar, before S. Jerom reform it by the Copies of his time, from which these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were taken away, as that Jesuit does think. He adds, that the opposition that is betwixt these two, in secret and openly, does prove, that we ought to read in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and consequently palàm in the Latin Version. But S. Augustin does only say, that he found the word palàm in many Copies, and not in all. S. Jerom has kept in his Edition, the ancient reading of some Greek and Latin Copies. And thus Maldonat is mistaken, when he would persuade us, that that Father did correct the ancient Vulgar by the Greek Copies of his time, from which he had taken away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For the ancient Cambridge Copy does prove the contrary; besides that the Observation of S. Augustin does manifestly suppose, that they did not read palàm in some Latin Copies of the ancient Vulgar. In short, the reason which that Jesuit brings from the opposition that is betwixt the words in secret and openly, is not at all conclusive. For whether we read the word openly, or no, the sense will be always perfect.  
Moreover, the same words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are in the ordinary Greek, ver. 18. of the same sixth Chapter are not in any of Robert Stephen's Copies, nor in the ancient one of Cambridge, 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 2464. 3947. 2259.  nor in that of the Vatican, nor in another ancient Copy cited by Salbert. Neither have I read them in three Manuscripts of Monsieur Colbert's Library.  
In the same Chapter, vers. 13. these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory for ever, are not in one of Robert Stephen's Manuscripts, nor in the Cambridge Copy, nor in another ancient one quoted by Salbert. Yet they are extant in the most part of the Greek Copies, and also in some ancient Fathers of the Greek Church. But we ought here to prefer a few Greek Copies to a great number, because those few Copies are agreeable to the most ancient Latin Fathers. We further see evidently enough, that that which we read in the Greek, is an Addition that was taken from the Greek Liturgy, and inserted in the Copies which they did read in their Churches. The Church Bibles which are used in the same Churches have also occasioned many changes in the Greek Copies, as I have observed when I examined those Lectionaries.  
In the twenty fifth verse of the same Chapter we do not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and what ye shall drink. 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 2467.  Neither are these words expressed in our Vulgar.  
Chap. 8. vers. 13. Robert Stephen did read in three of his Manuscripts, after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And the Centurion having returned to his house at the same hour, found his servant whole. This Addition is likewise extant in some other Manuscripts marked in the sixth Tome of the Polyglot of England. And I found it in one of Monsieur Colbert's Manuscripts. 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 2467.  But I could not know if it was also in the ancient Cambridge Copy, because some Leaves are wanting in that place.  
Chap. 9 v. 13. we do not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to repentance in two of Robert Stephen's Manuscripts, nor in another belonging to M. Colbert's Library, 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 2467.  nor in the ancient Cambridge Copy. S. Jerom, who did not find it in the ancient Latin Edition, did therefore omit it in his New Edition.  
Chap. 10. v. 8. Robert Stephen did not read these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, raise the dead, in nine of his Copies; neither are they extant in some others that are quoted by Salbert, nor in three of Monsieur Colbert's. They are in the ancient Cambridge Copy, but transposed. S. Jerom has kept that Transposition in his New Edition, in the same manner as it was in the Ancient Vulgar. Nevertheless that Father, who, in his Commentary rehearses the words of this verse does not read mortuos suscitate. They were not in all appearance in the Greek Manuscripts which he believed to be the most exact. Yet he kept them in his Latin Edition, because he did not propose to himself an entire amendment of the Ancient Vulgar.  
In the twelfth verse of the same Chapter we read after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in five of Robert Stephen's Manuscripts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saying, Peace be to this house. The same words are in the Cambridge Copy, and in some other Manuscripts quoted by Salbert. I found them also in one of Monsieur Colbert's. 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 3947.  S. Jerom has left them out of his Edition, though they are extant in our Vulgar at this day. Nevertheless, there are some Latin Manuscripts in which they are not found.  
In the twenty third verse of the same Chapter. I found, after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 2467. 3947.  this Addition in two of Colbert's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But if they chase you from this city, flee ye to another. There is also something like this in two of Rob. Stephen's Manuscripts, and in the ancient Cambridge Copy. But S. Jerom put nothing of it in his New Edition, because he believed it to be an unprofitable Addition.  
The fortieth verse of the same Chapter is wholly wanting in one of Monsieur Colber's Manuscripts, 
Col. MSS. Colb. n. 2467.  which appeared to be an omission of the Transcriber, by reason of the verses 40, and 41. which begin with the same word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Neither do we find in the Cambridge Copy these other words, vers. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. It seems they have left them out on purpose, because they appeared to have the same signification with the preceding words, S. Jerom restored them in his New Edition in conformity to other Greek Copies which were more correct.  
Chap. 11. v. 1. We do not read in one of Monsieur Colbert's the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Twelve. 
MS. Colb. n. 2467.  In the same Chap. v. 2. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is in the Cambridge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and we read in the ancient Latin Version annexed to it, per discipulos, which Reading is agreeable to the Author of the Syriack Version, who has likewise in his Copy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But S. Jerom has put in his new Edition, duos de discipulis, as it is in other Greek Manuscripts.  
Chap. 12. v. 26. We do not read in one of Colbert's these words, 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 2259.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; How then shall his Kingdom stand? In the thirty first verse of the same Chapter we do not read in another of Colbert's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Men. 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 2467.  Nor do we find there in another of his vers. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the same Chapter. vers. 35. we do not read in two of Colbert's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor in several other Manuscripts quoted in the sixth Tome of the Polyglot of England. 
Colb. MS. Colb. n. 3941.  Robert Stephen has also observed, that this word was only in one of his. S. Jerom has not expressed it in his new Edition. 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 2259. 3947.  Neither did he find it in the ancient Vulgar. In the thirty sixth verse of the same Chapter, we do not read in one of Colbert's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, idle. Beza observed in his Note on that place, that this word was not in one of his Manuscripts. 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 4112.   
Chap. 13. vers. 11. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Heaven, we read in two of Colbert's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of God. 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 4112.  S. Jerom observed upon the thirty fifth verse of the same Chapter, a different Reading which is not found in any Greek Copy, nor likewise in any of the ancient Versions. That Learned Critic observes 
(o) Legi in nonnullis codicibus, & studiosus lector fortè reperiet, id ipsum in eo loco ubi nos posuimus, & vulgata habet Editio, ut impleretur quod dictum est per Prophetam dicentem, ibi scriptum, per Esaiam Prophetam dicentem. Quod quia mimmè inveniebatur in Esaiâ, arbitror postea à prudentibus viris esse sublatum: sed mihi videtur in principio ita editum, quod scriptum est per Asaph Prophetam. Hieron. lib. 2. Comm. in Matth. c. 13.  that instead of the word Prophetam, that was in the Ancient Vulgar, and which he kept in his New Edition, he read in some Copies Esaiam Prophetam. And this made him think, that the ancient Reading of that Passage was Asaph Prophetam, because, in truth, the testimony of that Prophet who is there spoken of, is taken out of Psalm 77, which bears 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the Name Asaph. He believed, that seeing it was not found in Esay, that the name of this Prophet was taken away. But it is more probable in my Opinion, that the Reading that is in all the Greek Copies, and in all the Versions at this day, is the ancient and the true Reading. The Evangelist who cited this Psalm under the name of the Prophet in general, did mean David, to whom the Psalms were ordinarily ascribed, without noticing the particular Titles of the Psalms. They might afterwards put the name of Asaph, by way of Note in the Margin of this Place of St. Matthew, and others might change it to that of Esay; and this latter Note would pass, as it often happens, into the Copies which St. Jerom assures us he did read.  
In the same Chapter. 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 4112.  v. 41. we do not read in one of Colbert's, these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Son of Man, nor these others, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, out of his Kingdom. Ver. 55. Instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is in two of Colbert's, 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 5149.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, John, as in the Cambridge Copy, and in another of Colbert, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the ancient Vatican Copy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Reading was followed by the Vulgar.  
Chap. 14. v. 24. 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 4112.  We do not read, in one of Colbert's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the wind was contrary. Further, ver. 33. We do not read in another of Colbert's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 3947.  being come.  
Chap. 15. v. 8. These words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are cited out of the Prophet Esay, 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 2467.  and are extant as well in the Hebrew, as in the Greek of the Septuagint, are not in the Cambridge Copy, from which they have taken them away as being useless. St. Jerom, who did not read them in the ancient Vulgar, did likewise omit them in his new Edition. Ver. 31. of the same Chapter, the Marquis of Veles did not read in one of his Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the maimed to be whol●, neither are they expressed in St. Jerom's Edition, though they are in the Cambridge Copy, and in the ancient Vulgar. Ver. 36. We do not read in one of Colbert's, 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 4112.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seven, which might easily have been omitted, especially in the most ancient Copies, where they marked the Numbers by single Letters, as in this place in the Cambridge Copy, where there is only the Letter Z'. In the same verse Beza observed that these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the fishes, are not in one of his Manuscripts.  
Chap. 16. v. 2. 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 5149.  We read after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in one of Colbert's, this Addition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so it is. Ver. 3. of the same Chapter, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not in two of Colbert's, nor in the Cambridge Copy. 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 2467. 3497.  St. Jerom, who found it not in the ancient Vulgar, has not expressed it in his new Edition. In the same verse, we read in one of Colbert's, after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this Addition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and he answered and said. 
Cod. Colb. n. 2259.  Ver. 11. of the same Chapter, we read after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in one of Colbert's, and in three of Rob. Stephen's Manuscripts, 
Cod. Colb. MS. n. 4112.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but beware.  
In the same Chap. v. 13. Beza did not read in one of his Copies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Neither has St. Jerom expressed this Pronoun in his new Edition. It also appeared by his Commentary on the place, that he did not believe that we ought to read it. For this is his observation, Non dixit, quem me dicunt esse homines, sed filium hominis. i e. He did not say, whom do men say that I am, but— that the Son of Man is. Nevertheless it was in the ancient Vulgar agreeable to the Cambridge Greek Copy. Ver. 17. where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, St. Jerom does observe, 
(p) Volunt scriptorum vitio depravatum, ut pro bar johanna, heo est, filius Joannis, bar Jona scriptum sit, unâ detractâ syllabâ. Hieron l. 3. Comm. in Matth. c. 16.  that some believed that it was an error of the Transcribers, and that instead of bar Jona, it ought to be bar Johanna, the Son of John. Junius has also put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Edition of Wekel. But the former Reading is founded on all the ancient and true Copies. The Jews of those times had abridged many of their Names. And therefore bar Jona was the same thing with bar Johanna, and it does not in St. Matthew signify the Son of a Dove, as St. Jerom did Expound it, but the Son of John.  
Chap. 17. v. 20. Instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unbelief, 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 5149.  we read in one of Colbert's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same Sense. Which yet seems to be a Gloss of some Scholiast, who had a mind to moderate the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, little faith. Ver. 23. of the same Chapter, we do not read in one of Colbert's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 5149.  and they were exceeding sorry.  
Chap. 18. v. 10. We do not read in one of Colbert's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Heaven. The 11. ver. of the same Chapter, is not (as Beza thinks) in some Greek Copies. But the ancient Greek Fathers did read it, and it is also found in all the ancient Versions. St. Jerom has not in his new Edition expressed those words of the 29. v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, at his feet, not having read them in the ancient Vulgar. Neither are they in the Cambridge Greek Copy, out of which they were in all likelihood left, as being of no use. Beza does assure us, that he found them in all his Manuscripts. In the same verse, Rob. Stephen did not read the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all, in six of his Manuscripts. I found it Transposed after this manner in a Colbert, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ver. 35. these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their offences, 
Cod. Colb. n. 5149.  are not in one of Colbert's, nor in the Cambridge Copy. Yet they were added to the Margin of that of Colbert, but the Addition is of a more late Writing, 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 2259.  than that of the Text. St. Jerom has likewise omitted them, having in that followed the ancient Vulgar. Yet Beza does assure us, 
Bez. Annot. in Matth. 18.35.  that he found them in all his Manuscripts. In omnibus Graecis codicibus haec scripta inveni.  
Chap. 19 v. 9 Instead of these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not for fornication, we read in the Cambridge Copy, according to the same Sense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, except it be for fornication. These two Readins are found joined together in one of Colbert's. 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 2259.  But the second Reading is defaced. Ver. 17. of the same Chapter, where we read in the ordinary Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. callest me good, there is none good but one, that is God, we read in one of Mr. Colbert's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Reading is confirmed by the Cambridge Copy, 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 2464.  by that of the Vatican, and by two of Robert Stephen's. St. Jerom has also kept in his Edition the same Reading, which he had found in the ancient Vulgar, but only that he has added the word Deus, that had not been there before. In the same Chap. v. 20. these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from my youth are not in one of Colbert's. 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 2467.  Neither are they expressed in many ancient Latin Manuscripts. Yet 
(q) Romani Patres censuerunt non esse omittendum illud à juventute meâ, tametsi vetusta manuscripta omittant. Luc. Brug. in loc. insign. Rom. Corr. c. 19 Matth. v. 20.  those who were employed at Rome, in the correction of the Vulgar, thought fit to keep them, as Luke of Bruges has observed. Indeed they are in the ancient Vulgar, and in St. Jerom's new Edition.  
Chap. 20. v. 7. These words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive, are not in the Cambridge Copy, nor in the Marquis of Veles; but they are found in all other Manuscripts, and in the ancient Oriental Versions. St. Jerom, having not seen them in the ancient Vulgar, did omit them in his new. Edition. There are in the same Chapter several other words omitted in the Cambridge Copy, and in the Marquis of Veles, as well as in the Vulgar, which are yet found in all the other Greek Copies. It is probable, that that Marquis consulted some Copy like to that of Cambridge, with which he agrees pretty often, whilst he differs from all other Copies. It is not strange that St. Jerom's new Edition, and our Vulgar, do in those places agree with the Cambridge Copy, and that of the Marquis of Veles, seeing that Father does himself testify, that when he revised the Vulgar Edition of his time, he did not correct it throughly by the Greek Copies, because he was afraid he should offend the Weak, by departing too much from the ancient Edition of the Western Churches.  
In the same Chap. 20. v. 22. instead of these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is in three of Rob. Stephen's Copies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in another of Colberts it is also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and. This change of the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and, into the disjunctive, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, is common enough in the Greek Manuscripts. In the same verse, these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with, are not in the Cambridge Copy, in two of Rob. Stephen's, in the Marquis of Veles, nor in one of Mr. Colbert's Manuscripts. 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 2467.  Nor has St. Jerom expressed them in his Edition. It is very likely that they were taken out of St. Mark, and inserted in this place of St. Matthew. And therefore we do not read in the same Copies, these other words of the following verse. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and ye shall be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with.  
Chap. 21. v. 31. Instead of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, first, we read in that of Cambridge, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, last, and in the ancient Latin Version annexed to it, novissimus: which Reading is also found in some ancient Latin Fathers. St. Jerom, who did likewise read novissimus in the Vulgar Edition of his time, rejects this Reading, 
(r) Sciendum est in veris exemplaribus non haberi novissimum, sed primum. Hieron. lib. 3. Comm. in Matth. c. 21.  assuring us, that it was primus in the true Copies. Vers. 45. of the same Chapter, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pharisees, there is in a Colbert, and some other Manuscripts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Scribes.  
Chap. 23. The 14. v. of this Chapter is not in the Cambridge Copy, nor in the ancient Latin Version which is joined to it. The Critics of Louvain have also in the Margin of their Edition, marked ten Latin Manuscripts, where they do not read it. And it seems, that St. Jerom did not put it in his new Edition. For although it be extant in the Text of St. Matthew, which was Printed with his Commentary upon this Evangelist, he does not in that Commentary explain it, where he does nevertheless explain the other verses which concern the Pharisees, no less than the other. Some Commentators on the New Testament have observed, that Origen, and Eusebius did not read it in their Copies. Yet I have found it in a sufficient number of Greek Copies which I have read. But it is Transposed in the most part of these Copies. We read in five of Colbert's, the 14. verse before the 13. Rob. Stephen, has not in his Manuscripts observed upon it any difference of Reading.  
Chap. 24. v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Rob. Stephen did not read the Negative Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not, in six of his Manuscripts, 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 4112.  and there is one of Colbert's where it is not. Neither is it extant in the Cambridge Copy, nor has St. Jerom expressed it in his new Edition, because it was not in the ancient Vulgar. Verse 9 of the same Chapter, 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 4112.  we do not read in one of Colbert's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nations. Beza, 
(s) In uno codice non additur hoc vocabulum, quo etiam sublato, videtur planior esse sententia. Bez. Annot. in Matth. c. 24. v. 9  who did not read it in one of his Manuscripts, says that the Sense is more entire when it is left out.  
In the same Chapter v. 36. after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is added in the Cambridge Copy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor the Son. Seeing this Addition is found in no other Copy, it is very probable, that it was taken out of St. Luke, where those very words are extant, without any variaation. St. Jerom did not think it convenient to put them 
(t) In quibusdam Latinis codicibus additum est neque filius, cum in Graecis, & maximè Adamantii & Pierii exemplaribus, hoc non habeatur adscriptum. Sed quia in nonnullis legi, etc. Hieron. lib. 4. Comm. in Matth. c. 24.  in his new Edition, although they were in some Latin Copies of the Vulgar Edition at his time. He further observed, that Origen and Pierius did not read them in their Greek Copies, there having been very few, in which they were extant.  
Chap. 25. v. 13. 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 2467.  These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wherein the Son of Man cometh are not in one of Colbert's, nor in the Cambridge Copy, the Alexandrine, Rob. Stephen's three Manuscripts, and the Marquis of Veles. Nor has S. Jerom expressed them in his new Edition.  
Chap. 26. v. 3. We do not read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Scribes, in the Cambridge Copy, in the Alexandrine, and in two of Robert Stephen's, nor in some others that are marked in the VI Tome of the Polyglot of England. St. Jerom has not inserted those words in his Edition. In the same Verse, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we read in one of Colbert, 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 4078.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which appears to be an error of the Transcribers.  
In the same Chapter, vers. 11. we do not read in two Colberts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for— always. 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 4112. 4078.  These same words are transposed in two other Colberts, where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. vers. 24. instead of, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is betrayed, the Marquis of Veles has, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shall be betrayed; which reading is agreeable to St. Jerom's Edition, and to our Vulgar: 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 2467. 2259.  Yet we read in the Ancient Cambridge Copy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
In the 26 verse of the same Chapter, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having blessed it, 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 2259. 2467. 4078. 4149.  we read in five Colberts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having giving thanks; which reading is likewise in seven of Robert Stephen's Manuscripts, in the Alexandrine, and in some Editions of the New Testament. Further, these two words, do not differ in that place, as to the sense, vers. 28. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is shed, we read only in the Marquis of Veles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which shall be shed, agreeable to St. Jerom's Edition. Nevertheless Maldonat the Jesuit, did rather choose to read it with the ordinary Greek, effunditur, is shed, in the present, than with the Vulgar effundetur, shall be shed, in the future.  
Chap. 27. v. 9 We read in all the Greek Copies, which have been known until this day, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Jeremy. Yet the Passage which St. Matthew does quote in that place, is not found in the Prophet Jeremy, but in Zachary: Which gave an occasion to some Commentators on the New Testament, to believe, that that Evangelist, who had forgot the name of the Prophet whose testimony he brings, had put the one for the other. But others with more likelihood, have imputed this error to the Transcribers, who having found this word contracted after this manner ZPIOY', in some Copies, did write IPIOY' in its stead. I did read in one Manuscript of Mr. Colbert's Library, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at length: Yet this error is very ancient, 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 2467.  seeing it has been observed by Origen and by St. Jerom. The latter 
(v) Legi nuper in quodam Hebraico volumine, quod Nazarenae sectae mihi Hebraeus obtulit, Hieremiae apocryphum, in quo haec ad verbum scripta reperi. Hieron. lib. 4. Comm. in Matth. c. 27.  makes mention of an Apocryphal Book attributed to Jeremy, that one of the Nazarene Sect had lent to him, where the same Passage was extant word for word. And therefore it is possible, that the Ancient nazarenes had put the name of the Prophet Jeremy, in their Hebrew Copy of St. Matthew: The Cambridge Copy being torn in that place, it cannot be known, if the ordinary reading was there.  
In the same Chap. ver. 34. instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vinegar, we read, in the Cambridge Copy, in the Marquis of Veles, 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 5149.  in one of Robert Stephen's manuscripts; and in one Colbert, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wine; which reading was kept in our Vulgar, although acetum is extant in St. Jerom's Edition. Beza, 
(x) Hanc lectionem, quam●is dissentiente Syro interpret, verissimam arbitror, auctore ipso Spiritu Sancto, Marc. 15.23. Bez. Annot. in Matth. c. 27. v. 34.  did also believe, that we are to read in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wine, as it is in St. Mark. It is not always the surest way to regulate one Evangelist by another: It seems also, that St. Jerome was of the Judgement, that the Greek Copies, which he believed to be the most correct, aught in that place, to be preferred to the reading of the Ancient Vulgar.  
Ver. 35. of the same Chapter, 
Cod. MSS. Colb. n. 5149. 4078. 4112.  we do not read in three of Mr. Colbert's Manuscripts; these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the Prophet, they parted my raiment, and for my vesture they did cast lots. Nor are they found in the Cambridge Copy, in the Alexandrine, in all Robert Stephen's, in an Ancient Manuscript quoted by Salbert, nor in some others that are marked in the sixth Tome of the Polyglot of England. Beza, who found them not in any Ancient Copy, nor in the Syriack Version, 
Bez. Ann. in Matth.  believed that they were taken out of St. John, and inserted in this place of St. Matthew: Nevertheless we read these words in our Vulgar; and they are likewise put in the Text of St. Matthew, which was Printed with St. Jerom's Commentary. But if we examine the manner how he does express himself in that Commentary, we shall easily judge, that he has not added them, in his Edition. Indeed the Divines of Louvain have marked 15 Latin Manuscripts in the Margin of their Edition of the New Testament, where they did not read them.  
In the same Chapter, v. 49. this verse is not in a Manuscript cited in the sixth Tome of the Polyglot of England: At the end of the same verse, after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rob. Stephen, did, in two of his Manuscripts, read this Addition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But another taking a Spear pierced his Side, and there came forth blood and water. Luke of Bruges does observe, that these words are not St. Matthew's, but that they were taken out of St. John, Chap. 19 v. 34. In the 64 verse of the same Chapter, we do not read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by night, in three of Colbert's, in the Cambridge Copy, in the Alexandrine, in two of Rob. Stephen's Manuscripts, nor in the Marquis of Veles. Neither has St. Jerom expressed these words in his new Edition.  
Chap. 28. v. 2. we do not read these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the door, in the Cambridge Copy, nor in the Marquis of Veles. St. Jerom, seeing he found them not in the Ancient Vulgar, has not put them in his new Edition; but they are extant in all the other Manuscripts. We do likewise read, (after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in two Colberts and many other Manuscripts, 
Cod. MS. Colb. n. 2467. 4078.  which are marked in the sixth Tome of the Polyglot of England) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Sepulchre, ver. 7. of the same Chap. we do not read in the Cambridge Copy, nor in the Marquis of Veles, these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the dead, whence they were in all probability taken away as superfluous. Neither has St. Jerome expressed them in his Edition: But they are extant in all other Greek Copies.  
It would be to no purpose to run through the other Books of the New Testament, for marking the various readings thereof, or at least the Principal amongst them. Those we have already produced are sufficient to show, that they were not exempted from such changes as length of time, and the errors of Transcribers do bring 
(y) Totum hoc membrum cum Prophetae testimonio in nullis vetustis codicibus reperimus, neque legitur in Syrâ interpretatione. Adjectum proculdubio ex Joann. 19.24. Bez. ibid. v. 35.  into Books. I have in this Collection rather kept to the Manuscripts of Monsieur Colbert's Library, than to the King's, because, as I suppose, there have been none of the former as yet published. I shall handle more at large those different Readins of the Copies of the New Testament, in the Second Part of this Work, where I shall particularly examine our Latin Edition, and the ancient Versions of the Oriental Churches, by comparing them with the Greek Copies, whence they were taken. I have likewise beforehand, spoken somewhat of the Method which S. Jerom took in reforming the Ancient Vulgar by the best Greek Copies of his time.   

CHAP. XXXIII. Of the Order of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament. The Verses, Chapters and other Marks of Distinction of those Copies. The Canons which Eusebius added to the Gospels, and the Use of those Canons.  
THE most ancient Greek Copies of the New Testament are written without any distinction, not only of Chapters and Verses, but also of Words; so that we may apply to those Copies that which was said elsewhere of the Books of the Old Testament, that they only make one Pasuk or Verse from their several beginnings. They did not then know what it was to mark with Points, Commas and other Distinctions, which have been afterwards inserted in Books to make the reading more easy and distinct. We shall further observe, that even since Distinctions of this nature have been in use, the most part of Transcribers did neglect them, as well as the Accents in the ancient Greek Manuscripts. And therefore it is very rare to find such Marks of Distinction in the Greek Copies for above these thousand years past. The Copy of S. Paul's Epistles which is in the Royal Library, and that of the Benedictins of the Abbey of S.  are also written without any distinction of Points and other Stops; and although the Words are accented there, it seems, that the Accents were added in the King's Copy, seeing they are not of the same Hand with the Body of the Book. This does not hinder but that Accents and Points or Marks of Distinction are much more ancient than these two Manuscripts. But the Transcribers did commonly neglect them. There were none but very curious and very exact persons who took care to add them to their Copies.  
Georgius Syncellus 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Georg. Syncel. Chronol. p. 203.  makes mention of a Greek Copy of the Bible that was written before this great Accuracy, where the Accents and Points were placed. He says, that that Copy was brought to him from the Library of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and that he perceived by the Inscription of the Book, that it had been transcribed from an ancient Copy which had been corrected by the great S. Basil. There are also Manuscript Hebrew Copies which have been copied by the Jews. It is very rare to find the Points, Vowels and the Accents to have been noted therein for sieve or six hundred years past. This only happens in the most exact Books: yet there are some Works extant above four hundred years, where there is mention made of those Points and Accents which were in use at that time in their Copies.  
The most ancient Church Writers do likewise in their Works speak of all those Marks of Dictinction which are at present in the Greek Copies of the New Testament. We read there of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Section, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chapter. They sometimes observe the places where the Points ought to be marked to remove the ambiguity of a Discourse, especially when the Heretics do observe a different Punctation. But after all, it must be avowed, that there has been nothing determined to the purpose upon this matter. Every one did most commonly, according to his prejudices, mark that sort of Distinctions, which depended on the Transcribers and the Expositors of the Scripture. And therefore Petavius after having observed what S. Epiphanius and some other ancient Doctors of the Church have brought against some Heretics about the manner of pointing the third Verse of the first Chapter of the Gospel according to S. John, does add, 
(b) Existimo varietatem illam interpretationis ex librariorum aut interpretum diversâ sententiâ profectam esse, non ex fraude ulla Pneumatomachorum, vel aliorum haereticorum. Petau. Theol. Dog. lib. 2. c. 6. n. 6.  that that diversity of pointing those words of S. John, ought not to be attributed to the ill design of those who denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, or to other Heretics, but only to the different Opinions of the Transcribers and Interpreters.  
The truth is, the Orthodox Authors do not always agree amongst themselves about it. It happens sometimes, that the same Writer does differently point the same Passage in different places of his Works. And so there is nothing else but good Sense and the Rules of Criticism that can direct us in our choice, in preferring one Punctation to another. I know we ought to follow the plurality of good Manuscript Copies, and the consent of Interpreters. For example, without taking notice of all that S. Augustine has observed upon the manner of pointing the third Verse of the first Chapter of the Gospel according to S. John, we may read that Verse after this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without him was not any thing made that was made. This reading, which is almost in all Manuscripts, has been approved by the most Ancient Greek Fathers. The other, which does place a point after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is somewhat forced, and according to this punctation, it ought to be translated, Without him nothing was made, that which was made had life in him. It is worth the while to observe, that many Greek Manuscript Copies, have a point after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but that point answers to our comma, in those Manuscripts, which have two sorts of points, the one truly answering to our point, and the other to that we call a comma.  
Yet St. Augustine does frequently maintain the distinction, that places the point after the word nihil: He further maintains, that this Passage is pointed after this manner in the most correct Copies. Quod factum est, in illo vita erat, that which was made, in him was life; so that there is not only a point to be placed after nihil, but also a comma after these other words, quod factum est. Sic ergo, (saith this Father) distinguendum est, ut cum dixerimus, quod factum est, deinde inferamus, in illo vita est, non in se scilicet, hoc est in suâ naturâ. 
(d) Non ergo pronunciari oportet, quod factum est in illo, vita est, ut subdistinguamus, quod factum est in illo, & deinde inferamus, vita est. Quid enim non in illo factum est? Aug. ibid. c. 13.  He condemns those who placed a comma after the Pronoun illo, and who favoured their own prejudices by this punctation. But there appears commonly more subtlety than solidity, in Reasonings of this sort. For seeing every one does reason from certain Principles, which he supposes to be true, he points the Copies of the Scripture after his own fashion. Those disputes had so divided the Minds of the Ancients of that time, that there were four different ways of pointing this Passage of St. John, whereas, at this day there is no dispute about it.  
This does inform us, that although the most part of Transcribers, did then neglect the points and the other marks of distinction; yet they were put for all that in some Copies. The Commentators on the Scripture observed them likewise in their Commentaries, when they judged it fit: But seeing they had not the first Original of the Evangelists and the Apostles, where those marks of distinction were extant, there is nothing certain in this matter: We ought also to use precaution in reading the Writings of the Fathers, especially when they dispute against the Heretics of their time; from whom they removed in their Opinions, as far as it was possible for them. Now, it is not necessary to insist too nicely on this sort of distinctions, and stops; there commonly needs but a little of good sense, to make a due estimate of them. There is none for example, but will condemn some of the Moderns, for the innovations they have made in our Age; who in favour of their own prejudicated Opinions, read, Chap. 23. of St. Luke, v. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I say unto thee, to day thou shalt be with me in Paradise. They place a comma after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, day, whereas, according to the ordinary Reading of the Greek Copies, whether Manuscript or Printed, it ought to be placed after the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thee: Which gives a very different sense, viz. I say unto thee, to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.  
Besides those marks of distinction of which we have been speaking, there is another which is common to all the ancient Books, and which is made by the means of Verses. The Bulk of a Work did once appear, if the number of Verses contained therein were summed up at the end: A Verse was nothing else, but a Line that the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so that, by numbering the Verses, they discovered how many Lines were contained in any Volume. Yet some Critics could not comprehend how they could, by those Lines or Verses, reckon the just content of a Book, because the Parchments, upon which they writ, having been unequal, the Lines must needs have been so too; and so the number of those Lines could not adjust the Bulk of a Work. This was that which Crojus brought against Causabon; and withal he confirmed his Opinion by the testimony of some Ancient Writers, by whom he pretended to prove, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does signify an entire Period, or the several parts of Periods.  
But this Objection does fall by itself, if we make a just reflection on those Ancient Parchments, which composed Volumes or Rolls. Every Roll contained many Pages that were all equal, and in every Page there was a certain number of Lines; and lastly, in every Line, there was a fixed number of Letters. And this is observed by the Jews at this day, in their Rolls, which must have a certain proportion, as well in length as in breadth: Moreover every Line ought to consist of thirty Letters; and they called these Letters sitta, which is the same thing with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks, and the versus of the Latins. We are not to imagine, that the manner in which the Rabbins have divided the Bible, is of their own invention: They followed in that the practice of other Nations, as I have proved elsewhere. And seeing they have retained their ancient use of Rolls, we must learn of them, whatever belongs to the division of the Rolls or Ancient Volumes.  
Further, it is not hard to show, how the measure of the Lines or Verses might have been retained in the form of those ordinary Books, in which the Parchments or Papers were unequal. For when the breadth of the paper could not contain a whole Line, they placed the rest of the Letters or Words above the Line. It seems they designed in this manner, to write by way of Verses, the Ancient Greek and Latin Copy of St. Paul's Epistles, which is in the Royal Library, and that of the Benedictine Monks of the Abbey of St. . Or rather, they who copied these two Manuscripts by others that were more Ancient, did not at all understand the nature of the ancient Lines or Verses; and therefore they did not altogether imitate the same. However it be, it is certain that there is nothing more ordinary amongst the ancient Writers, than to mark at the end of their Books, the number of Verses which they contained.  
I do not deny, but that there is another sort of Verses which were regulated according to the sense, or the sentences, in the same manner as they are represented in our Books. In this we have imitated the Jews, who divided their Bible into this kind of Verses. This latter sort has an original quite different from that of the former: For seeing they did read the Scripture in their Synagogues and in their Schools, they made this new division of Verses for the conveniency of their Lessons. We also see something of the like nature in some Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament, and in some Manuscript Church Bibles: I have not only observed the beginning and the ending of the Lessons, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are as so many different Chapters, but also certain marks in form of a cross in all the places where the sentences do end, and where the Reader makes a little stop, according to the custom of the Greek Churches. This we may call a Verse or Sentence, and which the Greeks do signify by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Crojus is mistaken, 
Jo. Croj. ibid.  when he would persuade us, that the Greeks did at the end of their Gospels, mark the number of the words, as well as that of the Verses that were contained therein. For the examples which he does produce after Salmasius, aught to be understood of Sentences and not of Words, as may be proved by those very words which he brings, as taken out of a Manuscript Copy, that assigns to St. Matthew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (2522) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (2560) to St. Mark, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (1675) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (1616) If the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in this place for the words, as Crojus expounds it, what proportion can there be betwixt the Words and the Verses, seeing they reckoned almost the same number of Words as Verses in those two Gospels, viz. in St. Matthew, 2522 words, and 2560 Verses; in St. Mark, 1675 words, and 1616 Verses? We must therefore understand the number of Sentences to be signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the ancient Verses which were measured according to the Lines, or some other sort of Verses to be meant by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
We find the Number of the Verses of each Book, at the end of several Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament. Robert Stephen does sometimes mark them in his fair Greek Edition, and it would be easy to note them all. But this in my Opinion would be of little use; besides that the Manuscripts wherein I have observed them, are not very ancient, and they do not agree amongst themselves about the matter. Scaliger caused to be Printed, at the end of the Chronology of the Patriarch Nicephorus, a Stichometrie or the number of the Verses of all the Books of the Bible, under that Patriarch's Name: Mr. Pithou before him, had published that Stichometrie under the same Name. But it is more ancient, and we find that it is inserted in the Works of some other Greek Historians: They were also placed, as has been already observed, at the end of two Greek and Latin Copies of St. Paul's Epistles, of which we have already spoken. I shall here take notice of what belongs to the Verses of the New Testament, and seeing that there is somewhat singular in that Catalogue, I shall change nothing, either as to the order of the Books, or the manner.  

(e) Matthaeus ver. JIDC. Joannes ver. II. Marcus ver. IDC. Lucas JIDCCCC. Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos ver. IXL. ad Corinthios 1. ver. ILX. ad Corinthios 2. LXX. ad Galatas ver. CCCL. ad Ephesios' ver. CCCLXXV. ad Timotheum 1. ver. CCVIII. ad Timotheum 2. ver. CCLXXXVIII. ad Titum ver. CXL. ad Colossenses ver. CCLI. ad Filemonem ver. L. ad Petrum 1. ver. CC. ad Petrum 2. ver. CXL. Jacobi ver. CCXX. prima Joannis Epistola. ver. CCXX. Joannis Epistola 2. ver. XX. Joannis Epistola 3. ver. XX. Judae Epistola ver. LX. Barnabae Epistola ver. DCCCL. Joannis Revelatio ver. ICC. Actus Apostolorum ver. JIDC. Pastoris ver. FOUR Actus Pauli JIIIDLX. Revelatio Petri CCLXX. Codd. MSS. Bibl. Reg. & Bened. S. Germ.  St. Matthew, according to that Ancient Catalogue that is written in Latin, does contain 2600 Verses. St. John, 2000 St. Mark, 1600. St. Luke, 2900. The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans, 1040. The first to the Corinthians, 1060. the second to the Corinthians, 70. (there is an error in this place) The Epistle to the Galatians, 350. the Epistle to the Ephesians, 375. the first to Timothy, 208. the second to Timothy, 288. the Epistle to Titus, 140. to the Colossians, 251. to Philemon, 50. the first of St. Peter, 200. the second of the same Apostle, 140. that of St. James, 220. the first of St. John, 220. the second, 20. and also the third, 20. the Epistle of St. Judas, 60. that of St. Barnabas, 850. the Revelation of St. John, 1200. the Acts of the Apostles, 2600. the Book of the pastor, 4000 the Acts of St. Paul, 4560. the Revelation of Peter, 270.  
Casaubon, who was well versed in Greek Authors, 
Casaub. Not. in Nou. Test.  preferred the ancient division that is found in the Manuscripts, to that which has been invented in these latter times, and which appears in our Printed Bibles. He does also wish that some able Critic would restore it: He speaks of that which is made by way of Titles and Chapters. They called, (as he affirms) the great Sections, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, titles, and the small, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, chapters: He might have added, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter, is also sometimes taken for the great Sections, and that then, it does not differ from that which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Title.  
There is nothing more ordinary amongst the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, than the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chapter, for the Greeks, and that of Capitulum for the Latins, when they quote the Sacred Books. It would not be hard to re-establish that ancient division by the help of Manuscripts; but I shall content myself to mention here what belongs to the New Testament. We read in one of the Manuscripts of the Royal Library, that St. Matthew contains 68 Titles, and 355 Chapters. St. Mark, 48 Titles, and 234 Chapters; St. Luke 83 Titles, and 342 Chapters; St. John 18 Titles, and 231 Chapters. 
Suidas.  Which agrees with the Observation of Suidas, upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unless we must in that Author, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 36. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 236. as it is in some Manuscripts, and in the Greek Edition in folio of Robert Stephen's New Testament. 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cod. MS. Biblioth. Reg. n. 2861.   
Moreover we read at the beginning of the same Manuscript of the Royal Library, that there is in St. Matthew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 68 Chapters; so as they call that a Chapter in that place, which is called a Title in the end of the Book; and there is the same thing observable in the other three Gospels. By which we may know, that the word Chapter is taken two ways, and that it is applied as well to the great as to the small Sections. When they prefix the numbers of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Chapters to the Books, this words does then signify great Sections; and in this manner they are marked at the beginning of the most part of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament, in the first Editions of Erasmus, in that of Robert Stephen in folio, and in some others. This is instead of a Table or Index of the Contents, which at once, does represent the Principal things in a Work. In this manner the most exact Greek Transcribers, do mark the Summaries, (under the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chapters) at the beginning of their Copies: And seeing they have likewise noted them, in the Margin of their Copies, or at the top or the bottom of the Pages, in all the places where those Chapters begin, they have for this reason given them the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, titles. There is then no difference betwixt Title and Chapter, according to this sense; unless it be, that the Chapters are marked at the beginning of the Books, and the Titles in the Margin. This I observed, in comparing several Manuscript Greek Copies of the New Testament, one with the other.  
The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does, on the contrary, signify the small Sections that are marked in the Margins of the Greek Manuscript Copies of the New Testament by Letters instead of Numbers. Erasmus did also put them in his first Editions of the New Testament, in which he was followed by Robert Stephen, in his Edition in Folio, who has likewise subjoined them separately at the end of S. Mark, where he reckons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 236 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapters, and at the end of S. Luke, where he computes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 342. whereas in the King's Manuscript, which I quoted; S. Mark does only contain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 234 Chapters. The truth is, the Greek Copies do not agree amongst themselves about the thing, especially in the Gospel of S. Mark. We have already shown, that several Greek Churches did not once read the twelve last Verses of this Gospel, which begin with these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and so they might have had fewer small Sections in their Copies, than what are ordinarily reckoned. Nevertheless, there are some Manuscripts where the Section 234. is last marked, over against these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. there being no other that answers to the rest of the Text. Moreover, it is certain, that the Churches, where these Copies were in use, did read those twelve Verses, for they have inserted in that place, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, end, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, beginning, to note, that they began another Lesson there: Yet we have no sure foundation here, to build any certainty upon, because the Observations of that sort have been taken from the Synaxarion or the Church Bibles of the Greeks. And so they regulated these distinctions by the Lectionaries which were then read in the Churches, to accommodate the Copies of the New Testament to the custom that obtained amongst them.  
The Churches which did not read the twelve last Verses of S. Mark, 
Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2861.  do only reckon in that Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 233. small Sections, as it appears by an ancient Manuscript of the Royal Library. There is another Copy less ancient than that in the same Library, 
Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2856.  which does likewise only represent 233. and the last small Section answers to these Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. to which Rob. Stephen, in his Edition, made the Section 233. to answer. The Churches which did read those twelve Verses reckon more than 233. Sections; but they agree not amongst themselves: for some have comprehended all those Verses under one Section, and in their Copies there are only 234 Sections extant: others, on the contrary, 
Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2859.  have divided them into many small Sections: and therefore Rob. Stephen has marked after some Manuscripts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 236. I have also seen a Manuscript Copy where there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 241.  
Further, this division of the Sacred Books is very ancient; 
Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 1879.  for Justin Martyr makes mention of these small Sections under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eusebius (in his Letter to Carpianus, which was printed with the ten Canons which he so ingeniously invented, (for showing at once that wherein the Evangelists did agree, and that which is peculiar to each of them) does use indifferently these Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Section, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter. Denis of Alexandria speaking of certain Authors who rejected the Revelation of S. John, says, that they had examined all the Chapters, 
Dionys. Alex. apud Eus. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 25.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In a word, There are few of the ancient Greek Writers where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chapter, is not found in the sense that we have observed.  
Eusebius is not then the Author of those small Sections, but he made a very profitable use of them in the ten Canons that he invented, and which St. Jerom applied to the Latin Copies of the four Gospels, in the same manner as he had seen them applied to the Greek Copies. Those who cannot consult the Manuscript Copies for this, aught to read the first Greek Editions of the New Testament that were published by Erasmus, or that were done by Rob. Stephen, which is in folio. Those ten Canons are ranked before the Gospel under ten separte Titles, and the Application thereof is marked in the Margin of every Gospel. The small Sections are there noted by Letters instead of Numbers, according to the custom of the Greeks.  
The Canons to which those Sections do answer are marked by other Letters which do not exceed the number of Ten, which is the number of those Canons, The Letters last mentioned aught to be read according to the method used by Eusebius, for distinguishing them the more easily from the others: but Rob. Stephen has distinguished them by a small Stroke which is set over those which mark the small Sections. All this was also observed in the Latin Editions of the New Testament with great exactness. It is not necessary that I should here produce Manuscript Copies; it is enough to consult the first Impressions of our Latin Bibles. Those ten Canons of Eusebius, with the small Sections, are found as well at the beginning of the Gospels as in the Margins of every Gospel in particular, in the same manner as in the Greek Copies. The Sections are marked by our common Figures 1, 2, 3, etc. and the Canons by the Roman Figures I. II. III. etc.  
It was hard for the Greek Transcribers who writ the Canons of Eusebius to commit no fault, by putting some Letters for others. Indeed in comparing several Manuscript Copies of those Canons, I found some difference amongst them; which nevertheless is easily helped, unless it be in the places where the Copies do not agree about the number of Sections. If we consult, for Example, the ten Canons, as they are in Rob. Stephen's Edition, and the most part of the Manuscripts, 'tis manifest that the twelve last Verses of St. Mark were in the Greek Copies in the time of Eusebius. For he marks, in the tenth Canon, the Section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 234. of that Evangelist, and in the eighth the Section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 235. which are included in those twelve Verses.  
Nevertheless, it might have been so, that those two Sections were afterwards added to the Canons of Eusebius by those who read those twelve Verses of St. Mark in their Churches: and so those Canons could not be a certain Rule in that place, if it were not known, upon some other ground, that those Verses were extant in S. Mark before Eusebius. Marianus Victorius, who caused to be printed with St. Jerom's Works those ten Canons of Eusebius at the beginning of that Father's Commentaries upon St. Matthew, does, in the English Canon, mark the 234 Section of St. Mark, and in the tenth, the 235 Section; yet he does only mark 233 Sections in the Margin of that Evangelist: and it is worth the Observation, that the 233 Section, which is the last, does answer to these words, at illae exeuntes, etc. chap. 16. v. 8. as if all the rest that followed of that Gospel did not truly belong to St. Mark. This was insinuated by S. Jerom in his Letter to Hedibia, where he says, that the most part of the Greek Copies had not this last Chapter, 
Hieron. Epist. ad Hedib. qu. 3.  Omnibus Graeciae libris penè hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus. By this Word Capitulum he understood the twelve last verses; whether it be that that Chapter does only contain a small Section, as in truth there is but one marked in some Manuscripts, or that according to other Manuscripts it does include many. However it be, it does not appear that Marianus did observe an Uniformity in this matter: for he does produce a greater number of Sections of St. Mark in the eighth and in the ninth Canon of Eusebius, than he has noted in the Margin of that Apostle. Basle's Edition of St. Jerom's Works is more exact upon this matter; for there is an equal number of Sections, 
Apud Frob. ann. 1526.  viz. 235. marked in both those places therein.  
It would be to no purpose to speak of the Chapters and Sections of the Acts of the Apostles, and of the Epistles of St. Paul, because they may be seen in the Commentaries that have been printed under the Name of Oecumenius. I will only in this place add another sort of Division, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lessons. This distinction of the whole New Testament into several Lessons is very ancient, and they are also marked in the Cambridge Copy. Although these Lessons are not much different from Chapters, if the Word Chapter be taken for Title, or a great Section, yet we are not to confound these two, as some Authors have done. There are fewer Lessons than Titles or great Sections, as I observed in the reading some Copies where these Lessons are marked exactly; and there are also some in which the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the end, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the beginning, are inserted, to denote the end of one Lesson and the beginning of another, which was taken from the Greek Church Bibles: and therefore we find in the Margins of those Manuscript Copies, not only the Summaries of Sections, called Titles or Chapters, but also the days on which those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lessons were to be read in the Churches. The Greek amanuensis have drawn Observations of this nature from their Church Bibles, and of them they composed a Table called Synaxarion, which they placed at the Beginning or the End of their Books. Seeing this does rather belong to the usage of the Greek Churches than to the cognisance of a Critic who treats of the Greek Copies of the New Testament, I shall insist on it no longer: nevertheless, it is worthy of our Observation, that that distinction of different Lessons, relating to the reading in the Church, has occasioned some small Alterations in some Greek Copies. They have taken away, for example, in certain places, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore, and some other the like Particles, whenever they happened to be at the beginning of a Lesson. They have also changed some Relative Pronouns into proper Names. It was also sometimes necessary, not to leave the Sense imperfect, to put proper Names at the beginning of their Lessons, and the Transcribers have inserted them in their Copies. And therefore caution is necessary; otherwise we shall multiply various Readins of the New Testament without any necessity. When that happens, we need only consult the Greek Church Bibles that are used in the Greek Churches, to observe in what places they begin their new Lessons.   
FINIS.   

The TRANSLATOR'S POSTSCRIPT TO THE READER.  
THE former Works of the Learned Author have been well accepted by the public, and 'tis hoped this may be no less.  
The Art of Critic, though by common mistake, subjected to the slavish Drudgery of words under the tyranny of the Pedants, is notwithstanding of great use throu the universal course of good Learning, and an excellent Assistant to the Arts and Sciences, even those of the highest Rank, as Theology, Laws, and Medicine.  
This Art the admirable Industry of our Author hath so applied to Theology, as to render the most hard, dry, and unpleasant Subjects, no less delightful than profitable, he having conversed with so many Books and Languages, as seems almost impossible for one Man.  
'Tis 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 chief 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 Heretics. 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 Heretics. Reflections on the whole matter. pag. 19  
Chap. IU. The ancient Fathers have not produced the Originals of the New Testament in their Disputes against the Heretics. An Examination of Proofs that are brought to show 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 spoke at that time. An Answer to the Reasons that are contrary to this Opinion. pag. 39  
Chap. VI The Jews of the Territory of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles spoke in the  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 Chaldaic 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 Heretics 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 Chaldaic. An Answer to the Objections of some Heretics 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 Martion, and his Copy of S. Luke's Gospel. The Catholics have also altered this Gospel in some places. pag. 101.  
Chap. XIII. Of the Gospel of S. John; and of Heretics 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 Critics 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 Martion, 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 Catholic 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 penned 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 Heretics that did reject it. Their Reasons; which are Examined. There have been also Learned Catholics 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 form 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 Dovay. 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 Dovay 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 Style 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 alleged 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 Readins drawn from those Manuscripts. Observations upon the whole matter. The Heretics 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 Readins 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 Readins 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.