Mm 
 
 -  * 
 tea: 
 
 I* 
 
•  . 
 
 COLLECTION  OF  PURITAN  AND 
 ENGLISH  THEOLOGICAL  LITERATURE 
 
 ? 
 
 LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 
 PRINCETON,  NEW  JERSEY 
 
 . 
 
 MCETON.   N. 
 
 .  it   of   1  : 
 .      \Li.   . 
 
 wllltll    \N.i-  .pit 
 
 Mi  il.      i«D  Â 
 
 ! 
 
A 
 
 CRITICAL 
 
 HISTORY 
 
 Of  the   TEXT  of  the 
 
 New  Tefl  amen  t; 
 
 WHEREIN 
 
 Is  firmly  Eftablifh'd  the  Truth  of  thofe 
 Acts  on  which  the  Foundation  of 
 Christian  Religion   is  laid. 
 
 By  Kickard  Simon,  Prieft. 
 
 ,    L  0  ^  £>  0  ^, 
 Printed  for  %  Taylor,  M  DC  LXXX  iX. 
 
THE 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 A       .y*»4  He  Church,  from  the  firfl  .  and  mnft  early  Ages  <f  Chnfti.mity, 
 *  |  hai  been  conftantly  furmjhed  with  fome  Learned  Meny  by  whofe 
 
 diligent  care  the  Sacred  Writings  have  been  purged  from  thofe 
 Faults^  which  by  the  tratl  of  Time  have  infenfibly  crept  into 
 them.     This  kind  of  Labour ,  which  requires  an  exact  kpow- 
 ^JBL»  h'dg  of  Booths,  joyned  with  a  ftrici  enquiring  mto  the  Manu- 
 
 fcrtpts,  is  termed  Critical  ;  in  as  much  as  it  Judges  and 
 Determines  the  m]fi  Authentic!^  leadings,  which  ought  to  be  inferted  into  the 
 Text.  By  this  means  Origen  acquired  his  Reputation,  not  <nly  m  Greece,  but 
 universally  over  the  Eaftern  pirt  of  the  World,  where  the  Bib.'es  of  his  Corre- 
 ction are  by  the  general  conjent  preferred  to  all  others. 
 
 St  Jerom,  who  may  juftly  be  filled  the  Latin  Origen,  has  done  very  great  Ser- 
 vice to  the  Weflern  Church,  by  his  Critical  Correction  of  the  Latin  Bibles,  in 
 "Vfe  in  thofe  Churches.  Pope  Damafus,  very  fenfible  of  his  profound  Learnings 
 obliged  him  to  review  the  ancient  Latin  Verfion  of  the  Gojpels,  which  was  then 
 in  a  very  rnijerablc  Condition.  This  looked  like  too  bold  an  Attempt,  and  feem- 
 ed  above  the  force  of  any  private  Perfony  who  could  never  hope  to  efcape  the 
 Hatred  of  a  multitude  of  Perfons  in  the  free  excrcifing  his  Cenfure  cf  Bookj, 
 which  bad  hnç  flood  in  the  peaceable  Pojjeffion  of  an  untvcrfal  Reputation. 
 
 In  Jhort,  though  it  might  perhaps  be  for  the  benefit  of  tbe  Church,  it  wot 
 yet  a  dangerous  matter  to  attempt  a  Reformation  of  thofe  ancient  Errors,    which 
 derive  their  Authority  from  their  Age.    Pius  Labor,  fed  periculofa  praHumptio  Hieron. 
 judicare   de  cacteris,  ipfiim  ab  omnibus  judicandum,  fenis  mutare  linguam,  &  pra,£  ln 
 canefcentem  jam  mundum  ad  initia  retrahere  parvulorum.  ■  [  'Tis  a  pious  Work,  Evang. 
 (  fays  that  ancient  Father  )    but  very  hazardous,  that  he  expofes  himfelf  to  the  a(J  l)\m. 
 univerfal  Cenfure,  who  teaches  old  Men  to  change  their  Language,  and  reduce 
 the  decaying  World  to  a  State  of  Infancy.  ]  But  confidering  on  the  one  Hand  the 
 powerful  Protection  and  Patronage  of  fo  great  a  Pepe,  and  being  on  the  other 
 abundantly  convinced  of  the  mamfeft  defett  of  that  Tranflation,  which  had  pre- 
 vailed univerfally  in  the  Weft  ;  he  refohed father  to  expofs  himfelf  to  the  Ma- 
 lice of  an  infinite  number  of  ignorant  Perfons,  than  fail  in  the  difcharge  of  his 
 Ç\J  Duty.     He  kjicw  very  well  the  charge  of  Innovation  and  Forgery,  that  would  be 
 
 (a)  Quifenim  doilus  pariter  vel  indodhis,  cùm  in  manus  volumen  affumpfe- 
 rit,  8c  à  falivà  quam  (emel  imbibit  viderit  difcrepare  quod  latitat,  non  thtim 
 erumpat  in  vocem,  me  falfarium,  me  clamitans  elle  facnlegum,  qui  sudeam  all- 
 quid  in  veteribus  libris  addere,  mutare,  corrigere?  Hicron.Pr.cf.  inEvang,  ddDsm, 
 
 A  i  •  irn 
 
The  Preface. 
 
 drawn  up  agamft  him  for  endeavouring  to  alter  thofe  ancient  Bookj,  which  till 
 
 Lis  time  had  remained  perfectly  inviolable.     But  here  he  encouraged  himfe if  by 
 
 the  Precedents   of  Origen,  Pierius,  and  Jome  other  able  Cntickj,  who  had  fer. 
 
 formed  the  very  fame  thi?ig  in  tU  Greek  Original,  which  he  then  attempted  m 
 
 'the  Latin  Copies  of  the  Gvfpel.      For  which  reafon  he  ftoutly  depojed  all  thoje 
 
 which  after  his  Reformation  remained  Bigots  to  the  ancient  Lutine  Verfion. 
 
 Hieron.      Rtvcrtimur  ad  noltros  bipèdes  afellos,  &  iliorumin  aure  buccin!  magisquum  ci- 
 
 Epift.  ad    thai â  concrepamus.     Illi  legant,  Jpe  gaudentes,  tempori  fervientes  :  nos  legamus, 
 
 Marcdl.     j}c  gaudentes.  Domino  fcrvienta . 
 
 But  time  odd  Juftice  to  that  Father.  And  'tis  a  very  difficult  matter  at  pre- 
 fent,  to  find  any  Copies  of  that  Latine  Verfion,  which  was  then  in  TJje  in  the 
 iVeftern  Church.  Tet  enough  there  are  extant  to  be  read  as  a  Memorial  to  con- 
 vince thofe  who  defend  Errors  mcerly  out  of  Veneration  for  their  Antiquity,  that 
 St.  Jerome  has  done  the  Church  no  J mall  Service,  in  Correifting  and  Reviewing 
 the  ancient  Latins  Copies,  according  to  the  ftriBcfl  Feules  of  Criticifm.  This 
 we  endeavour  to  demonftrate  in  this  woi\,  and  that  the  mofl  ancient  Greek  Ex- 
 cmplars  of  the  New  Teftament  arc  not  the  beft,  Jince  they  are  fuited  to  thofe 
 Latine  Copies,  which  $\  Jerome  found  fi  dégénérons  as  to  need  an  Alteration. 
 
 Father  Morin,  and  after  him  Father  Amelot,  who  take  fuch pride  in  thofe  No- 
 ble and  Venerable  Manufcripts,  on  account  of  their  great  Antiquity,  never 
 mind,  that  a  thoufand  or  twelve  hundred  years  can  never  warrant  them  cor- 
 rect, Jince  there  is  evident  proof  of  their  Corruption  before  that  time.  It  tfas 
 neceffary  that  I Jkould  examine  to  the  bottom,  the  Circumftances  of  thefe  Greek 
 Texts,  which  have  been  produced  to  this  Time.  It  is  not  fufficient*  to  son- 
 Jult  thofe  Manufcripts  with  defign  only  to  mariât  heir  Antiquity, and  quote  the  dif- 
 ■  ferent  Readings.  There  is  required  a  great  deal  of  Difcretion  and  Judgment, 
 other  wife  wejhall  mi  fake  thofe  Books  winch  are  altered,  for  Primitive  and  Apo- 
 flelical  Exemplars,  which  is  the  Cafe  of  the  two  Authors  we  are  about  to  name» 
 
 Erafmus,  who  was  well  enough  fur  ni  [bed  with  thofe  fort  s  of  Manufcripts,  is  ne- 
 vertheless guilty  of  very  gr  of  s  Errors.  He  accufes  the  Greeks  without  reafon,  for  cor- 
 recting in  fome places, their  Copies  by  thofe  of  the  Latin,  after  their  t\c-union  with 
 the  Roman  Church.  This  groundlefs  Accufat  ion  can  proceed  from  nothing,  but 
 the  want  ofkjrwlcdge  of  the  Cnticifms  of  thofe  Copies,  which  he  confiait  ed.  ' 
 
 Beza,-  who  was  Mafter  of  a  greater  Collection  of  Manufcripts  of  the  New  Tefta- 
 ment than  EiMimus,  though  afffied  too  by  both  Robert  an d  Henry  Stephens,  has 
 not  well  diflingmjloed  the  worth  of 'his  Manufcript  Copies,  whence  I  found  my  felf 
 in  fome  places  obliged  to  correel  his  Errors.  This  Man  was  Jo  prejudiced  by  his 
 Religion,  as  to  accufe  the  Italians  of  Corrupting  the  old  Text,  and  forcing  it  to 
 4  Compliance  with  their  Opinions. 
 
 Tim  Critical  Hiflory  contains  divers  other  Remarks  of  the  like  Nature,  upon 
 the  Manufcript  Copies  of  the  New  Teftament,  both  in  Greek,  and  Latme. 
 My  principal  aim  is  to  write  a  Supplement  to  the  Defetls  of  thofe  who  compile 
 the  different  Readings  out  of  the  Manufcripts,  without  diftmguijhing  theGcod 
 from  the  Bad.  To  which  intent,  it  is  neceffary  to  read  a  great  quantity,  and 
 nearly  examine  them  m  a  Critical  manner.  This  Art,  whofc  difficulty  appears 
 formidable  to  fome  Divines  in  this  Age,  made  part  of  their  Occupation  of  fome 
 Ladies  in  St.  Jerome'j  time  :  Who  not  content  to  read  the  Scripture  m  the  Vul- 
 var Tongue,  djperfed  among  the  People,  they  diligently  enquired  after  the  cor- 
 retlefl  Copies,  learning  thofe  very  Tongues  in  which  they  were  writ. 
 
 I  affert 
 
The  Preface. 
 
 I  affert  nothing,  which  cannot  he  maintained  if  tht  LetttPi  of  tir  ft  P>tt* 
 Ladies,  a/.d  the  m,J wen  of  that  Learned  Father,  w        .  ■  tesadi 
 
 cult  7W<.  tojatisfe  thofe  QjicjHom  they  prep  je  on  mutters  p,{ll  .  Critical.    ~St. 
 Jerome  hud  advanced,  that  the  Apoftles  had  never  a  ted  any  P,i  .  .  ;   .  Old 
 
 Teft.ment,  which  did  not  p.rfecl.y  agree  with  tie  Hebrew  Text.     Eu  inn,  Hicron. 
 
 perculius  cilèm  coepi  taci'.us  aefhiarc.  ,n  - 
 
 It   is  noftrangc  thing   to  find  tbefi  Ages,  when  Bar  bar  if  m  reigned   w\  \ 
 
 Europe,  neglect  Critical  Studies.     Iben  they  wanted  abundance  of  thoj'e  helps, 
 whico  they  now  enjov  to purjuc  theft  Studies,  ti'hich  are  absolutely  neceffi. ry  to  , 
 feci  Kyaowledg  of  Divinity.  But  that  which  amazes  mc,  if,  that  in  this  very  jig 
 this  Art  jhoiiid  ft  ill  remain  in  contempt  ;  andthoft  Men  be  thought  no  more  tk ..  I 
 Grammarians,  who  arpy  themjelves  to  it.  Befides,  we  cannot  but  fee  the  manifyft 
 Errors  of  Jo  me  Divines  in  this  Age,  who  kjiow  not  the  true  Laws  of  Critici  in. 
 
 It  k  worth  objerving,  that  the  ancient  Heretic^  have  been  perpetual  y  ac~ 
 cufed  of  having  corrupted  the  Bojokj  of  the  New  Tcltament,  ar.d  ferverted  them 
 to  their  own  jence.  That  has  often  been  thought  a  wilful  and  defigned  Corrup- 
 tion, which  proceeded  onh  from  the  fault  of  the  Tranftribers,  cr  dijje- 
 rence  of  Copies.  The  Ecclefntftical  Writers  of  tie  fir  ft  Ages  have  not 
 done  that  ftritl  Jtiftice  to  the  Heretickj  of  their  times,  m  relatun  to  the  New 
 Teftament,  that  they  have  given  the  Jews  in  the  Difputes  about  the  différent 
 manner  s  of  explaining  the  Old  Teftament.  Ihofe  pretended  Corruptions  present- 
 ly vamfh  upon  Examination  of  the  ancient  Manufcripts,  and  the  Original  of  the 
 various  Headings.  Wherefore  in  this  Piece  I  have  juftified  the  Amans,  Nefto- 
 rians,  and  the  reft  of  the  Sectaries  from  that  Imputation  of  having  fa  ft  find 
 the  Originals  of  the  Evangelifts  and  Apo files,  to  maintain  their  Innovations. 
 We  have  aft  plaviy  e-vivc\i,  ly  f<r>nc  confiderablc  Examples,  that  the  moft 
 Learned  Critickj  rf  our  slge  arc  not  exempted  from  thofe  Prejudices  in  their 
 declaring  too  freely  thofe  Heretickj  falftfiers  of  the  Text. 
 
 The  cafe  offome  ether  Sectaries  is  not  the  fame,  who  declared  thcnifelves  open- 
 ly againft  the  Writings  ofChnft's  Difciples,  which  they  have  corrected  and  . 
 tered  according  to  their  own  Idea's  of  the  Chriftian  Religion,  Some  dam.g  to 
 forge  Suppofttitious  Gcfpels,  and  Acts,  the  better  to  give  authority  to  their  Foipc~ 
 ries.  It  would  be  very  pertinent,  for  the  better  Diftmtiien  of  a'I  the  Genmne 
 Faeces  of  the  New  Teitament,  to  make  a  Collection  of  thofe  ancient  Acts,  and  dili- 
 gently examine  them.  Wherefore  we  have  not  concealed  any  of  thofe  Arguments 
 which  thofe  Heretickj,  or  the  other  Enemies  of  Chrifti am ty  have  brought  to  dejlrcy 
 the  Truth  of  thofe  Boo kj,  which  were  received  by  ad  the  Cathohck^Churches. 
 
 But  as  it  would  be  a  pernicious  thing  to  expoje  thefe  ill  things,  without  ad- 
 mini  firing  Remedies  too  proper  for  the  cure,  we  have  aljo  produced  the  fir  ongeft 
 Reafons  which  the  Eccleftafticai  Writers  have  brought  againft  them.  We  iiitic.it 
 the  Protejla.its  to  make  Reflection  on  tloeft  matters,  and  obferve  thofe  methods 
 of  the  fir  ft  Ages  of  the  Churchy  for  eft  ablifbing  the  Authority  of  the  Sacred  Wri- 
 tings. They  will  find  nothing  impertinent  m  the  Conduct.  Irenaeus,  Tertullian, 
 and  the  reft  of  the  Defenders  of  thofe  Writings,  did  nof  object  to. the  Enemies  of 
 the  Chriftian  Religion,  their  private  Spirit,  which  perfwaded  them  of  the  Divi- 
 nity of  the  Hoy  Scripture,  but  very  fubftantial  Reaftns,  void  of  alljuch  Fanati- 
 cism.   Tho  they  were  fuffictently per/waded  of  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Scnprme, 
 
The  Preface. 
 
 they  never  cbjecltd  to  the  Adverfaries,   that  it  had  impreft  upon  it  fuch  lively 
 Characters  of  its  Original,    that  it  was  a  very  difficult  matter  not  to  acknow- . 
 keg  tt,    when  read  with  a  Spirit  of  SubmiffTon  and  Humility.     Their  Adver-  * 
 fanes  being  Philofiphcrs  who  confulted  their  natural  Rgafon,    they  oppofed  them 
 from  fur e  and  tndij put  able  Principles. 
 
 Again,  1  thought  in  a  Woil^of  this  nature  not  co?ivcnient  tofupprefsthe  prin- 
 cipal Objettions  of  the  Jews  agamft  the  Bookj  of  the  New  Teftament  :    For  al- 
 
 ugh  this  mifcralle  Nation  is  an  Objetl  of  the  contempt  of  the  whole  World 
 yet  has  there  Appeared  among  them  Men  of  great  Addrefs  and  Subtilty  in  the 
 Di'putes  againjt  the  Chriftians,  which  I  have  often  found  true  in  my  own  Ex- 
 teriey.ee ',  when  1  have  endeavoured  to  convince  them  by  their  own  Principles. 
 Since  their  Plea  for  Prcfcription  is  better ,  and  their  Prctenfions  are  that  the 
 JJiJciples  ofjefus  the  Son  of  Mary,  had  no  reafon  to  change  their  Religion  which 
 was  delivered  them  by  the  Fathers.  It  is  but  neceffary  to  examin  what  they  ob- 
 ject agamft  the  Writings  of  the  Evangelifts  and  Apoflles. 
 
 In  this  Critical  Hiftoiy  I  have  treated  divers  other  important  Slued ions  :  And 
 where  1  deviate  from  the  Methods  of  the  Divines  of  the  School,  it  is  becaufi  I 
 have  fou?Td  a  more  jecure  way.  I  have  employed  all  my  flrength  to  avoid  the  ad- 
 vancing  any  thing  that  is  not  grounded  on  authentic  Records,  inftead  of  which  the 
 School- Divinity  teaches  us,  to  doubt  of  the  mqft  certain.  Our  Religion  confift- 
 ing  principally  in  Matters  of  Fa£t,  the  Subtilties  of  Divines,  who  are  not  ac- 
 quainted with  Atitiauity,  can  never  difcover  certainty  of  fuch  matters  of  Fat!  : 
 They  rather fer ve  to  confound  the  XJnderftanding,  and  form  pernicious  Difficulties 
 againft  the  My  ft cries  of  our  Religion. 
 
 Let  it  notjeem  ftrange  to  aiy  Perjon,  that  I  recede  from  the  Opinions  which 
 are  generally  received  in  the  Schools^  and  prefer  to  the  Sentiments  of  whole 
 ZJniverJities  the  new  Opinions  of  fome  modern  Divines,  which  can  hardly  be 
 taxed  as  novel,  when  they  are  found  conformable  to  the  Ancient  Dofiors  oftke 
 Church.  This  lfpeak  in  reference  to  that  P<*ff<tge,  where  I  handle  the  Difpute 
 which  was  formerly  bettree?i  the  Divines  of  Louvxin  and  Doway,  and  the  Jejuits 
 of  that  Country,  concerning  the  mfpiration  of  the  f acred  Bookj.  The  Dotlors  of 
 both  Faculties  ccnfurcdthc  Propojitions  of  thejefuites  of  Louvairww  a  manner 
 very  injurious  to  the  whole  Society.  But  after  a  due  examination  of  the  I^eafins 
 en  which  their  grave  Gentlemen  founded  their  Cenfure,  I  could  hardly  believe 
 their  .Authority  alone  a  fufjicient  Rufe  to  oblige  me  to' affent. 
 
 I  propofe  Truth  alone  to  my  fclf  in  this  Wo)\,  without  any  Deference  to  any 
 Matter  in  particular.  A  true  Chriftian  who  profeffes  to  believe  ttie  Catholic^ 
 Faith,  ought  not  to  fiile  himfelf  a  Dtfciple  of  S.  Auftin,  S.  Jerome,  or  any 
 tther  particular  Father,  fince  his  Faith  is  founded  on  the  word  of  Jefus  Chrift 
 contained  in  the  Writings  of  the  Apoftles,  and  confiant  Tradition  of  the  Ca- 
 tholic!^ Churches.  I  wrfh  to  God  the  Divines  of  the  Age  were  all  of  that  opi- 
 ;:i on,  we  then  fhould  not  have  feen  fo  many  ufelefs  Difputcs,  which  ony  prove 
 the  caufes  of  Di [order s  in  Church  and  State.  I  have  no  private  Intercft  which 
 obliges  me  to  any  Party,  the  very  name  of  Party  is  odious  to  me  ;  I  folcmnly 
 protejl,  1  have  no  other  intentions  in  compofing  this  Worl(,  than  the  benefit  of 
 the  Church,  and  the  eslablifhmg  the  mo  ft  J  acred  and  divine  thing  m  the 
 World. 
 
 It  is  ufelefs  to  repeat  here  what  we  faid  in  another  place  concerning  the 
 word Cntick,  which  is  a  term  of  Art,  which  infomefenfe  is  beftowed  on  all  Works 
 vhofc  dcfigns  are  to  examin  the  various  readings^    and  eftablijh  the  true.     The 
 
The  Preface. 
 
 Aim' of  thofe  which  prac~ii[e  that  Art,  is  not  to  dejlroy,  but  efiMflx     As  t 
 Holy  Booths  are  not  exempt  from  faults,  which  either  by  the  tr.ici  of  Tunc,  ^r 
 mrligence  of  the  Tranfcribers  haveflipt  mto'em  ;  fome  Learned  PerfêfH  in  all 
 Ates  have  taken  care  to  render  them  correct,     l'çe  mojl  barbarous  Agei  i 
 duced  Books,    which  they  cal!,  Correct oria  Biblia.%    or  Corrections  of  the   Btbte. 
 The  Emperor  Conlfcjntme,  (pared  nothing  to  procure  for  the  Oriental  L    . 
 m  correct  Coptes  of  all  the  Bibles.  Charlemagne  and  his  Succejfors  have  done  the  fame  \  jc:iten 
 for  the  Latine  Bibles  of  the  Wcjlem  Churches.  Yr\\. 
 
 Befides  thofe  which  were  formerly  impldyed  in  the  Monafleries  about  T  ■>        .     jQ  \\,^ 
 bing  of  Bookj  :    There  were  fome  Critickj  who  reviewed  and  corrected  them.    Thn  Lovan. 
 is  the  {{cafon  why  in  fome  'Wlanufcrift  ancient  Bibles,  there  are  Jome  Com-cttoiis  tlnn  jr(, 
 found  of  equal  Antiquity  with   the  Bookj  them] 'elves.     But  without  afcending  J i 
 far  to  have  a  Precedent  for  the  Ufe  of  Critical  l\eflecl:ons  on  the  Sacred  Bockj,  •  Caftii- 
 we  need  only  conjider  the  Tranf actions  of  the  Latter  Age,  relating  to  the  I  atine  tiones  : 
 Editions  of  our  Bibles  :    What  prodigious  pains  was  Robert  Stephens  at,  accord-  Novum 
 ing  to  the  Relation  o/Hentenius  a  Divmc  of  Louvain,  to  give  us  an  exact  and  cor-  Tcttz* 
 red  Edition  of  the  Bible  ?  This  Divine  which  laboured  after  Stephens  in  the  fame  m  >ntuOL 
 matter,  admires  the  diligence  and  excejfive  expence  of 'that  Printer,  to  whom  ht  1Mqubus 
 ingenioufly  acknowledges  himfelf  indebted.     ||  Nemo  ell,  qui  nefciat,  ut  unum  J  ,  r.ivata 
 pro  multis  in  medium  adferam,  quantam  diligentiam,  quantafque  impenfas  tu-  refltituun- 
 lerit  Robertus  Stephanus  Regius  apud  Lutetiam  Typographic,  quern  honoris  causa  tur  adic- 
 aomino,  ut  accuratilfima  &  calligatiiiîma  nobis  Biblia traderet,  propter  quod  plu-  cv,  lc(c- 
 rimumetiam  illi  debent  quotquot  Sacramm  Literarum  IeClioni  funt  addifti,  quern  cantur,  gc 
 ob  id  etiam  in  multis  fecuti  fumus.  fublata 
 
 Tlje  Doctors  of  the  Faculty  of  Divinity  of  Lo\iV?\n,perficled  afterwards  the  Edt-  adiichin- 
 tion  of  their  Brother,  with  a  greater  Collection  of  Manufiripts,  and  re-a'tered  tur_ 
 fome  places  according  to  the  tattles  of  Criticifm,  which  they  thought  not  corrects  Autore 
 with  exaflnefs  enough.     Nicolas  Zegetrs,  a  Religious    Man  of  the  Order  of  St.  T.!<^Nico- 
 FVancis,  apply  d  himfèlf  entire.'y  to  the  Correct  ten  of  the  Bookj  of  the  New  Tefta-  J  ,n  2.eper. 
 ment.     He  dedicated  hts  Critique  to  Julian  III.  under  the  Title  of*  Corrections  on  Colon  inn. 
 the  New  Teftament,  wherein  k  r c~ eft ablifhed what  was  corrupted,  expunged  what  \r-,' 
 was  added,  and  added  what  was  before  expunged.     He  affures  that  Pope  in  lis 
 Epiftle  Dedicatory^  (b  )  That  he  hadfreedffom  an  infinite  number  of  Faults  and  4  KTota? 
 falfe  Gloffes  the  ancient  LatmeVerfwn,  which  had  beçntnVfe  among  the  We-  nestnS 
 ftern  Churches,  from  the  very  Times  of  the  AposJles.  cr  ,  Biblîa 
 
 There  is  nothing  more  exactly  t  performed  than  the  Critical  Remarks  of  Lucas  quibus  v  ■'. 
 Brugenfis*«  his  Edition  of  the  Latine  Bible  of  the  Divines  of  Louvain.     Among  vl  ntia  dii- 
 the  multitude  of  his  Copies,  he  mentions  one  which  was  corrected  by  fome  Domini-  cr,  panti- 
 cans  on  the  Bibles  of  Charlemagne.     He  Jets  fome  markj  of  EJieem  on  another  bus  exem- 
 Manufcript,  entitled,  The  Correction  of  the  Bible.     Prater  aha,  id  quodmaxi-  paribus 
 mi  facimus  Manufcriptum  Bibliorum  corre&orium  ab  incerto  auclorc  magna  di   loca  fum 
 ligentia  ac  fide  contextual.  £  And  he  affures  us,  (c)  that  the  different  s\eadi?gs,  mo  {hidio 
 
 _ — _ . , ,  difcuri- 
 
 (b)  Hxc  eft  genuina,  germana  8c  emendata  veteris  noftri  Interpretis  verlio  Untur. 
 
 feu  tranflatio,  qua  ha&enus  femper  à  tempore  fere  Apoftolorum,  aut  non  ita  did  Antverp. 
 
 pôft,  ufa  cognofcituç  Romana  Ecclefia,  quam  ab  innumeris  turn  mendis,  turn  adul-  a  na  1 5  3o. 
 
 terinis  adjedSunculis,  non  line  magnis  8c  multis  moleiiiisfrepurgavimus.     vxtr. 
 
 Efifl.  ad  Jul.  HI.  .  4  Luc. 
 
 (c)  Quae  à  noftri  feculi  fcriptoribus  ex  manufcriptis  codicibus  collevfbe  Cunt  Brug. 
 
 ▼arias   lecliones,  omnes  propemodùm  in  eo  comperimus,  8c  ad  fontes  tideliter  Notât,  in 
 
 examinâtes  deprehendimus.    Luc.  Brug.  Notât,  m  Gen.  c.  8.  v.j.  Gene  B. 
 
 which  v.  7. 
 
The  Preface. 
 
 which  have  been-obferved  by  the  Critickj  of  the  latter  Times,  are  aU  found  in 
 ■  ns  Boo^y  where  they  are  examined  according  to  the  'Hebrew  Text* 
 
 I  have  eh  °.  where  mentioned  another  Manufcript  of  like  nature^  which  is  in  the 
 ancient  Library  of  the  Collcdge  tf/Sorbon.  I  have  likewife  given  Extracls  out  of  it, 
 zhmanifeftly prove  that  the  Latins  have  notnegletled  the  Critical  Study  of  the 
 Sacred  Bo^kj,  in  thofe  very  Ages  when  Barbarifm  reigned  in  Europe. 
 
 It  is  a  Canity  in  the  admirers  of  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Jews,  to  beflow  fuch 
 
 grjat  praijes  on  the  Majforeth, a  good  part  of  which  confifts  in  Trifles  orfitperftiti* 
 
 ous  Obferrations.  The  Chriftians  of  both  the  Eaftern  and  Weft  em  Churches \  with 
 
 more  Judgment,  have  taken  care  m  the  Corretlion  of  the  Bibles,  as  manifeft- 
 
 ly  will  appear  by  thu  Work.     We  ought  to  prefer  to  the  Majforeth  thofe  learned 
 
 *  Roma-    *  Cr i ticks  of  Rome,  which   by  the  order  of  Pope  Sixtus  V.  and  Clement  VIII. 
 
 m  Corre-    cor  reeled  the  Latin?  Bibles,  which  Corretlion  ferves  inftead  of  an  exatl  Majforeth 
 
 cflores.        to  the  Weftern  Church.     There  are  none  but   Proteftants  of  ill  minds,  J uch  ai 
 
 Thomas  James,  Author  of  the  Bellum  Papale,  who  cavil  at  the  differences  of 
 
 the  Editions  of  the  Bible  publifhed  by  thofe  two  Popes.     There  may  indeed  be  a 
 
 more  per  feci  Wqï\  but  that  ought  to  be  refcrved  for  particular  Notes,  which  no 
 
 .  ways  dimimfhthe  Authority  of  thofe  Books  received  into  publickJVJe. 
 
 I  mi  ft  only  add  two  words  concerning  thofe  Atls  which  are  made  ufe  of  in  this 
 Work,.  For  the  Manufcripts,  I  market  he. Libraries  where  they  are  found,  I  have 
 cited  none  without  readirg  them  ;  the  Extracls  being  all  done  by  my  felf,  except 
 that  of  Cambridge,  which  contains  the  four  Gofpels,  and  the  Acls  of  the  Apostles. 
 I  had  procured  out  o/Englind  a  faithful  Copy  of  this  laft  Manufcript  m  what  re- 
 lates to  the  Greek.,  which  I  have  exaclly  followed. 
 
 As  for  the  Printed  Bookj,  of  which  there  are  numerous  Quotations,  for  the 
 moft  part  I  have  contented  my  felf  to%  relate  the  Pajjages  infhort  following 
 the  fenfe  only ,  in  the  Body  of  the  Work-  Tor  long  Citations  of  Pajfages 
 where  there  are  but  five  or  fix  words,  perhaps,  pertinent  to  the  Oecafwn,  muft 
 needs  prove  very  tirefom.  This  is  the  very  fame  Method  which  I  have  followed 
 in  the  Critical  Hiltory  of  the  Old  Teftamenf.  But  fcme.Perfons  deftringfuch 
 Paffages  at  length ,  to  avoid  fearching  them  m  the  Books ,  to  comply 
 with  their  Defires,  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  rejpe- 
 ïlive  Authors. 
 
 A  CRI 
 
[  •  ] 
 
 CRITICAL     HISTORY 
 
 Of  the  TEXT  of  the 
 
 New  Teftament, 
 
 Wherein  is  eftablifh'd 
 
 The  Truth  of  thofe  Acts  on  which 
 Christianity  is  founded. 
 
 PART     I. 
 
 Chapter    I. 
 
 „^ 
 
 The  Verity  of  the  New  Teftament  defended  in  general 
 againjl  the  ancient  Herecicks.  (RefleFtions  upon  the 
 (principle  made  ufe  of  by  the  Fathers  to  eftablifl?  the 
 Authority  of  thefe  'Books. 
 
 J  Efts  Chrift  having  profeG'd  that  he  came  not  into  the  W<  ï7- 
 
 to  defiroy  the  Old  Law,  but  rather  to  accomplifn  it,  it  feem- 
 ed  not  to  him  neceflàry  to  publiifa  his  Do&nne  in  Writing. 
 He  was  content  to  prove  his  Miffion  by  his  Miracles,  a; 
 ro  fr.pport  his  Reformation  upon  the  Books  or  the  Old  Teitame 
 which  were  received  by  all  the  Jews,  to  whom  the  Meffias  h 
 been  promifèd.    So  that  we  do  not  find  him  to  have  given  ord 
 
 B 
 
[  »  ] 
 
 to  his  Difciples  to  putany  thing  into  Writing.  He  only  commands 
 
 them  to  Preach  his  Gofpelto  all  the  Nations  of  the  Earth  ;  Go  yc% 
 
 j .  fays  he  to  them,  hiitù  all  the  -world,   and  preach  the  Go/pel.     The 
 
 •  Books  of  the  New  Teftamënt  took  their  Original  from  this  preach- 
 ,g.    This  it  was   that  caufed  Ttrtullian  to  fay ,  (a)  That  the 
 Apoftles,  to  whom  Jefiis  Chriit  had  given  this  Command  to  pro- 
 mulge  the  Gofpel,  were  the  Authors  thereof     Upon  the  whole 
 matter,  the  Gofpels  had  not  been  put  in  Writing  but  at  the  re- 
 queft  of  thole  People  who  were  willing  to  preferve  the  memory 
 of  that  which  the  Apoftles  had  preached  to  them.     S.  Paul  com- 
 pofed  the  greater  part    of  his  Epiftles  for  the  Inftrudion  of 
 Churches  which  were  already  erecled.    That  Hiftory  which  we 
 call  the  Afts  of  the  Apoftles  was  publifhed  to  no  other  end  but  to 
 fhew  to  the  Faithful  the  Progrels  of  the  Ghriftian  Religion  upon 
 its  firfl  advance  into  the  World  :  and  the  Chriftians  not  having 
 at  that  time  any  State  feparate  from  that  of  the  Jews,  and  being 
 prefent  and  affifting  at  all  their  Ceremonies  in  the  Temple  and 
 in  the  Synagogues,  they  had  no  Perfbns  appointed  to'record  any 
 thing  of  importance  which  pafs'd  among  them-.    And  this  is  the 
 reafon  that  we  find  not  here,  as  in  the  Old  Teftament,  any  pub- 
 ]ick  Writers  who  had  the  Charge  of  collecting  the  Acts  of  their 
 State.     This,  during  J^  Primitive  times  of  Chriftiamty,  gave  a 
 pretence  to  lèverai  Hcreticks  to  doubt  of  the  truth  of  rhofè  Apo- 
 ftohcal  Books  which  to  them  feem'd  to  want  fome  pubiick  At- 
 teftation.     S.  Ignatius,  in  one  of  his  Epiftles,  complains,  (£JThat 
 he  underftood  there  were  ibme  men  who  faid  they  could  not  be- 
 *  There        ve  tne  Gofpel,  except  they  could  find  it  written  in  the*  Archives. 
 are  fome   The  holy  Martyr  anfwers  them,  That  it  was  written,  that  the 
 who  read  Death  and  Refurre&ion  of  Je  fus  Chrift,  à*nd  a  Faith  in  him,  were 
 dçxû*n,   inftead  of  the  moft  authentick  Archives.    It  was  then  difficult  to 
 Ancients,  ^ftinguifh  the  Books  which  had  been  compofed  by  the  Apoftles, 
 or  by  their  Difciples,  from  thofè  which  had  been  forged  by  falfè 
 Apoftles  or  by  fome  Sectaries.   Every  one  bore  in  its  Bone  either 
 the  Name  of  the  Apoftles  in  general,  or  of  fome  lingle  one  of 
 their  number:   and  fincc  there  were  no  pubiick  Archives,   to 
 which  recourfe  might  be  had  for  the  deciding  and  clearing  of 
 matters  of  this  natuie,  the  Hereticks  took  occafion  from  thence 
 
 (a)  Co/.  ■  umm  inpimis  Evangelicum  wftrumentum  Apcftolos  autores 
 habere,  quilu:  Iwc  munus  Evangelii  promulgandi  ab  ipfo  Domino  jit  impofitum. 
 Tertul. /.  4.  advl  M.ircion.  c.  2. 
 
 (  b  )  "Hum.  way  \tyV7w}  077  iav  w  iv  Wi  *f%ioif  ivpas  Iv  ttJ  Ivayythiu 
 *  *m£o>.  Igmt.  Ep.  ad  Hiilad. 
 
 to 
 
. 
 
 .[  3  ] 
 
 to  publifh  a  great  number  of  filfe  Ads;  of  which  hardly  any 
 
 thing  is  left  to  Poftenty  except  the  Titles  of  them  and  a  few 
 Fragments. 
 
 Theie  Sectaries  boafted  that  they  taught  the  Do&rifte  of  tl 
 
 Apoftles,  or  at  le.*ft  of  their  Difciples.     Ba/ilUes,  who  was  u 
 of  the  molt  ancient  Hereticks,  avouched  that  he  had  for  his  Mi 
 iter,  (O  Glaucias ,  one  or  St.  Peters  Interpreters.     Valentin 
 firmed  with  the  fame  boldnels,  that  he  had  been  infl 
 Religion  by  Tbeodad,  (  d)  who  was  one  of  St.  Pauli  familiar  Ac- 
 quaintance.    But  whereas  they  did  not  agree  among! \  them(elves, 
 and  on  the  contrary  the  Doctine  of  the  Apoftles  #vas 
 uniform  in  the  Churches  that  they  had  planted  ;  the  Fathei  s  ma. 
 ufe  of  this  Uniformity  of  Doctrine  to  confirm  and  eftabJifli  t 
 truth  of  the  Apoftolical  Writings.     Clemens  Alexandrinr/s  anfwe 
 Bafeltdes  and  Valent  m ,  that  there  was  but  one  true  ancient  Church, 
 that  was  before  all  Hereiies.     From  thence  he  brings  an  unque- 
 stionable proof  of  the  falhty  or  the  Doctrine  ot  thefe  Sectaries, 
 who  durft  be  (o  bold  as  to  give  the  Name  of  *  the  Doctrine  of  the  * 
 Affiles  to  their  own  Inventions:  he  reprefents  to  them,   that  j* 
 (e)  the  Doctrine  of  the  Apofiles  were  one3  as  well  as  their  Tradition. 
 The  Primitive  Chriftians  argued  againft  the  Hereticks  ofthofe 
 times,  from  Tradition,  and  from  the  Conformity  of  that  Belief 
 that  was  manifest  in  all  the  Churches  founded  by  the  Apoftles  ;  as 
 may  be  fèen  at  large  in  the  Works  of  St.  Irenansi  Tertulliém,  Epi- 
 tbanïu93  and  Sr.  Auvuflin,  and  in  a  word,  of  all  the  Fathers  that 
 hare  defended  the  Writings  of  the  Apoftles  againft  the  Hereticks. 
 Whensoever  any  Sectary  oppofed  the  declared  Gofpel,  they  Im- 
 mediately convinced  him  of  the  forgery  of  thofe  Acts  that  he 
 produced,  by  x!c\z  true  ones  that  were  kept  in  the  Apoftolical 
 Churches,  and  were  inftead  ok  Archives,    (f)  If  any  one,  faith 
 St.  Epipham:ts>  mould  go  about  to  counterfeit  the  Edicts  or  Ordi^ 
 nances  cf  Emperors,  the  Cheat  would  be  loon  laid  open,  by  pro- 
 ducing the  true  Copies  taken  from  the  Archives  of  the  Court; 
 In  like  manner,  adds  he,  faliè  Gofpeîs  compofèd  by  Hereticks 
 
 may  be  detected;  their  (purioufneîs  may  be  eadly  di(co\  :  ed,  by 
 
 ' * 
 
 (  c)  TKcwxldAr  7*V  riej!itf  ipntutiet.    Apud  Clem.  Alex,  lib  7.  Strom. 
 (  d)  TvâejLfJ.Q-  riûuMB.  Apud  Ciem.  Alex  ibid. 
 
 Jhni   Clem.  Alex  ibid 
 
 ./)    Onu/  paJhiçynawA  msç  jSet^A/r^p  (srÇjçtL^tÀetlct-,  &n>  $j/S  içyé&v  iù   >j/.-,- 
 
 fçS/l9A  G^ti&tJ&fJa.   tl<rp&Mcqjl'ïvaç  Ï^VTZt    ï\iy^tt  7fc\T  &<P&VOi     «7TWÎ  y^"i-T0  rT6 
 
 7K\x  ttycuHçàf  ffî  i&fsm  ivfifudrvv  [avo^.    Epiph.  Hïr.  42. 
 
 B  1  produ- 
 
[4], 
 
 producing  the  truc  Gofpels,  that  aïs  kept  in  the  Churches  as  it 
 were  in  Archives. 
 
 This  manner  of  defending  the  Truth  of  the  Apoftolical  Wri- 
 tings againft  the  ancient  Sectaries,  hath   proved  fb  effectually 
 convincing,  that  the  Gnofiicks  were  obliged  to  rapport  their  No- 
 velties, to  fly  to  I  know  not  what   fecret  Tradition   that  was 
 known  to  none  but  them  (civ         They  were  (o  in  (oient  as  to 
 prefer  themlelves  before  the  Apoftles  and  Difciples  of  Jefus  Chrifr, 
 accufrng  them  as  not  having  preached  the  Purity  of  the  Gofpel 
 with  fincerity,  becaufe,  (ay  they,  they  have  retained  many  Ce- 
 remonies of  tJreold  Law.     They  thought  by  this  means,  that  they 
 might  be  able  with  Authority  to  reform  the  Writings  of  the  Apo- 
 ftles.    (g)  There  is  no  way  (faith  St.  Irenaus)  of  convincing  thi 
 ibrt  of  People,  neither  by  the  Teftimony  of  the  Scriptures  ge- 
 nerally received  in  the  Churches  planted  by  the  Apoftles,  nor 
 by  authentick  Traditions,  becaufè  they  imagine  themfelves  to  be 
 above  all  this.    They  were  perfuaded ,    that  they  alone  were  in 
 poileflion  of  the  truth  of  Religion  that  contained  hidden  My- 
 Jren  ibid,  ftciies:  Se  indubitate  &  in  contaminate  &  fmcerl  abfeondttum  fcire 
 myfleritm.     And  (nice  they  had  joined  Philofbphy  with  Chnfti- 
 anity,  they  intended  alfo  to  accommodate  the  one  to  the  other. 
 They  argued  on  matters  of  fad  after  a  pure  metaphyseal  man- 
 ner; and  being  filled  with  an  infinite  number  or  Prejudices  and 
 Notions  taken  from  ths  Principles  of  their  Philofophy,  they  re- 
 formed the  Doctrine  of  the  Apoftles,  and  even  that  of  Jefus  Chi  ill  ' 
 on  this  foundation ,  under  pretence  cf  bringing  Religion  to  a 
 i  greater  Perfection.  They  pretended  that  the  Apoftles  had  preach- 
 
 ed the  Gofpel  before  they  had  a  perfect  knowledge  of  the  Truth, 
 and  that  therefore  they  were  at  liberty  to  correct  them  :  Ante 
 frœdicaverunt)  quàm  per  feci  am  haberent  cognitionem.  This  was  that 
 ^vfrich  cau(ed  them  to  take  the  ambitious  Title  of  Learned  and 
 Knowing  Men,  or  Gnofticks,  as  if  none  but  they  were  endued 
 with  the  true  knowledge  of  Religion.  They  vainly  boalfed  alfo 
 M'en*  ibid-  that  they  had  reformed  the  Apoftles  :  Gloriantes  em  end  at  en- es  fe  ejje 
 Afofrolorum.  S.  Irenœus  fharply  reproves  their  ralhneis  in  bragging 
 that  they  had  made  perfect  that  which  was»  grols  a'nd  obfeure  m 
 the  Gofpel  pubhfhed  by  the  Apoftlc:. 
 
 It  hath  been  neceflary  to  make  all  thefe  Reflections  on  the  an- 
 
 C  g  )  Chm  autem  ad  earn  iter  urn  traditionem  qv.ee  eft  ab  Apoftolis,  quœ  fer 
 Jtones  Picsbyterorum  in  EcclejUs  cuftoditur,  provocamns  cos         .  ,.• 
 traditiont  dicemesffe  nonfiliim  Prtsbytcns,  JcJ  etiam  Apoftolis  cxiften. 
 periores  finceram  invenijfe  vcritatcm,  Apnjlolos  autcm  acw'fuujje  ta  aux  ■ 
 dvat  or  is  verbis,  Iren.  lib.  3.  advcifusIJxr,  c.  2. 
 
 cicnt 
 
CM" 
 
 dent  Se&  of  the  Gnofiçh,  b  .  have  applyed  themfelv 
 
 more  than  any  others  in  thole  primitive  times  of  the  Chriftia 
 Re  ij  to  the  obtruding  of  falfe  Alb  under  the  Names  of  the 
 Apoftles,  or  other  fpedous  Titles.  Thefe  are  a  fort  of  Phiioio- 
 phers  that  ought  not  to  pals  but  for  half  Chriftians,  who  have  al- 
 tered the  Traditions  that' the  D;(L  of  Jefus  Chnft  had  1ère  to 
 the  Churches.  And  therefore  no  regard  ought  to  be  had  to  ail  the 
 Books  that  t  have  produced  under  what  Name  fbever,  fince 
 they  have  profefled  that  they  underftand  Religion  better  than  the 
 Apoflles  themfelveSj  and  ( h)  have  been  (b  bold  as  to  pubhfh 
 newGofpels,  to  which -they  have  given  the  Title  or.  The  Go/pel 
 of  Truth,  altho  thefe  Gofpels  do  not  agree  with  thofeof  the  Apo- 
 ftles.  This  alone  is  fiifficient  to  make  it  appear,  that  the  Gofpeis 
 of  the  Gnojtich  were  faite  Ads,  that  cannot  be  oppofed  to  the 
 Apolrolical  Writings  that  have  been  acknowledged  by  the  primi- 
 tive Churches. 
 
 It  were  an  eafie  matter  to  anfwer  Celfus  by  this  fame  Principle, 
 who  heretofore  objected  to  the  Chriftians,  that  they  changed  rheii' 
 Golpel   every  day,  adding  thereto,  and  diminishing  what  th 
 thought  fit,  that  they  might  be  able  by  this  means  to  retr 
 which  they   had   formerly  alledged.     Or/gen  judicipufly  u 
 this  Philofopher,  who  was  a  great  Enemy  to  the  Çhnftian  Re- 
 ligion, that  he  unhappily  conrounded  the  ancient  Sectaries  with 
 
 .;  true   Faithful.     Ho  protefls,  chat  he  knows  not  in  the  ieait, 
 that  the  Gofpel  bath  been  corrupted  by  others  than  the  Gnofikki  or 
 Marcicn  :   ( i )  This  is  not  a   Crime  (faith  he)  that  ought  to  be 
 imputed  to  the  Gofpel,  but  to  them  that  have  dared  to  corrupt 
 He  brings  an  Example  of  the  Sophinrers,  whole  falfe  Doct 
 cannot  beattributed  to  true  Philoiophy.    f /&)  It  is  the  (amethi 
 (  laith  this  great  Man)  with  refpecr.  to  the  Se<fls  that  have  intro- 
 duced Novelties  into  the  Doctrine  of  Jeius  Chrift,  which  cann 
 be  charged  on  true  Chriftianny.     [t  is  certain,  that  in  all  time  , 
 and  in  all  places  there  hath  been  a  perfect  Conformity  betwe  -i 
 the  different  Copies  or  thelè  Books  ;  tl       )iverficies  thatarefound 
 — 1 
 
 J'liJ  Exiftcmc s  extra  omncm  timoremfias confer iptiont  aha* 
 
 beregloriantur  quàmfmt ipfaE         'lia.    Si  q/u      xin  tantumprocejjerw 
 dacice,  uti  quod  ab  his  Ç  slpojlolis  )  non  ohm  cot,  m  eft  .it  is  Eva) 
 
 Hum  citaient,  m  nil lio  conveniens  Afoftolorum  Eve  r,  ut  ne:  E: 
 
 qnidem  th  apud  vos  line  blafphemia-  [ren.  a  Iv.Haw.  lib.  9    c.  1 1 
 
 (i)  T«to  Q  >i^iAJov  *  î*  hoy*  '6$v  tyn,Ki)ya,y   eLtàà  7vXjUH0zt7}ffp    p&J)*^ 
 yvciu  to  ova.yfihicL.  Orig.  lib  2  contre  Cell. 
 
 ' ,  /    ^1°**  *  n  &  M  5*  "  yjtiçicLVèop.*  ïyxMuct  ot  uiJaL^arA-jJovni  7%  Ivctyfi^tct 
 
 therein 
 
■m 
 
 therein,  And  fhall  be  remarked  in  the  Sequel  of  this  Work,  Are 
 not  of  io  great  moment,  as  that  we  may  lay  with  Celfitt,    that 
 the  Ghriftians  have  changed  their  Gofpels,  to  the  end  that  they 
 might  fuit  them  to  their  own  opinions.    This  cannot  be  under- 
 flood  -but  of  the  ancient  Hereticks ,    who  having    no  certain 
 Rules  for  their  Belief,  reformed  them  according  to  their  capri- 
 cious humor.     This  is  that  for  which  the  Orthodox  Chnftians 
 Eufeb.l. 5.  heretofore  cenfured  the   Theodofeans,  who  corrupted  the  Sacred 
 Htft.Eccl.  Books  under  a  pretence  of  correcting  them  ;   and  whereas  lèverai 
 c- 28-        among  them  lud  taken  this  liberty,  all  their  Copies  differed  one 
 from  another  :  there  wrere  of  them  under  the  Names  of  Afcle- 
 piades,  Theodofius,  Hermopbilus  and  Apollonius,  that  did  not  in  the 
 icaft  agree  together. 
 
 I  will  fay  nothing  here  concerning  the  Gofpel  of  the  Marcio- 
 nites  whereof  Ongen  makes  mention,  becaufe  I  àQdgn  to  treat  of 
 it  in  another  place  :  I  fhall  only  add,  that  if  we  compare  the 
 Gofpels  and  the  other  Books  of  the  New  Teftament  with  the 
 Liturgies  that  we  have  wider  the  Names  of  lèverai  Apoftles,  to 
 whom  the  moft  part  of  the  Eaftcrn  Chriftians  do  attribute  them, 
 we  mall  be  convinced  that,  the  Gofpels  are  truly  of  the  Apoiiles. 
 For  all  the  Churches  have  preferved  them  in  their  ancient  Purity  ; 
 whereas  every  particular  Nation  hath  added  to  their  Liturgies, 
 and  hath  taken  the  liberty  often  torevife  them.  The  refpe&that 
 hath  been  always  had  to  the  Writings  of  the  New  Teftament, 
 without  inferring  any  confiderable  Additions  therein,  is  an  evi- 
 dent 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  perftiaded,  that  the  Liturgies,  altho  they  bear  the 
 Names  of  the  Apoftles,  or  of  fome  Difci  pies  of  Je  fus  Ch  rift,  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  diminifh  from  them,  according  as  occafion  requires. 
 
 The  Principles  that  have  been  maintained  above  in  difcourfing 
 oftheGnofiicks,  may  (èrve  to  confute  the  Manichcar.s,  who  like- 
 wife  acknowledge  nothing  Divine  in  the  Scriptures  but  that  which 
 pleafed  them,  or  rather  was  agreeable  to  their  Fancies.  This 
 caufèd  S.  Àufiin  to  fay,  addrefîîng  himlèlf  to  Faufius,  who  was 
 cne  of  the  chief  of  this  Party,  (  /)  Tou  are  then  the  Rule  of  Truth, 
 whatfoever  is  œgainfi  yon  u  not  true.  He  clearly  demonftrates  to 
 them,  that  they  were  only  upheld  with  falfè  prejudices,  when  they 
 
 (1)  Tu  es  ergo  régula  ver  it  at  is.     Quidauid  contra  te  fuent  non  eftverum. 
 Aup  iib.  11.  cont.  Fault,  c.  2, 
 
 rejected 
 
[7] 
 
 reje&ed  the  Writings  of  the  Apoftles  againft  the  Authority  of  all 
 the  Churches  of  the  Worlds  and  at  the  lame  time  received  the 
 Apocryphal  Books  that  had  no  Authority.  If  any  one  (  continues 
 this  Father)  fhould  oppoie   vou,   and  ihould  make  life  of  your 
 own  words,  that  that  which  you  alledge  on  your  behalf  is  falfe; 
 and  on  the  contrary  that  which  is  againft  you  is  true,  (m)  what 
 would  yoli        ?  How  could  you  defend  the  truth  of  thole  Act-- 
 that  you  produce  ?  How  could  you  prove  their  Antiquity,  not 
 having  any  Witnefljs  in  Tradition  by  whole  Testimony    they 
 might  be  confirmed  ?  From  whence  he  concludes  (n)  that  it  is  ab- 
 folutely  neceilaryon  this  occafion  to  have  recourfè  to  the  Authonn 
 of  thofe  Churches  that  were  eftablifhed  ever  fince  the  primitive 
 times  of  the  Chriftian  Religton,and  to  the  content  of  Nations  that 
 have  received  the  Books  of  the  NewTeftament  from  the  Apoftles. 
 He  obferves  further,  and  more  cloie  to  the  purpoie  ;  that  if  ic 
 were  only  difputed  concerning  the  variety  of  Copies,  fince  they 
 are  but  few  in  number,  it  would  be  fufficient  toconfult  the  Co- 
 pies of  different  Countries  ;  and  if  they  did  not  agree  in  this  point, 
 the  greater  number  iht>uld  be  preferred  before  the  loiler,  or  the 
 more  ancient  before  the  later  :    Plures  pauclortbm3  ant  vetuftwres 
 recentioribui  prœferrentur.     But  the  Manicheam,  who  judged  not  of 
 the  Truth  of  thefè  Books  but  with  relation  to  their  own  Ideas,  re- 
 filled to  ftibmit  to  this  Authority;  they  conlulted  only  their  realbn 
 in   matters  of  Fad,  wherein  all  Deference  ought   to  be  given  to 
 Authority;    therefore  when  afrf  paftage  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 
 compoied   by   fôme   Impoftor' under  the  name  of  the  Apoftles. 
 Faufius,  for  example,  who  avouched,  that  after  having  diligently 
 perufèd  the  Books  of  Mofes,  he  could  not  find  therein  any  Pro- 
 phecy that  had  any  regard  to  Jefiis  Chrift,  takes  this  method  inan- 
 fwering  the  Texts  of  the  New  Teftament.     Where  exprefs  men- 
 tion is  made  of  thele  Prophecies,  Jefus  Chrift  faith  in  (peaking 
 ofhimfelf,  Mofes  hath  wrote  of  me\  F  au  ft  us  anfwers  to  this,  thatjoinn  y 
 after  a  ferious  examination^  this  paftage,  (o)  his  reafoû  obliged  4/, 
 
 (  m)  Suidages}  Quo  te  concertes}  Qthimlibn  à  tc  pro! a: 1  origmem,  quatn 
 vetnftatem,  quam  feriem  fuccejjloms  teftem  citabis  ?  Aug.  ibid. 
 
 (n)  Vides  mn::.  re  quia  Ecclefiœ  Catholic*  valent  auttomas,  qu,-e  ab  tpfis 
 jundatiffimis  fedibus  Apoftolorum  ujijne  ad  bodiernum  diem  fm  cedent  turn  fibwxt 
 Epifoêfmrum  [eric  &  tot  -populorum  emfenfione  fnmatur.  Aut;.  ibid. 
 
 '  (oj  Hat  lone  cogebar  in  alteram  c  duulus,  ut  nut  falfum  pronunciarem  c.u 
 pitulum  hoc ,  ant  mendacem  Jefiafl  :  fed  id  quidem  alienum  pic  tat  is  erat 
 Deum  cxijtimare  mentitmn.  lie'clius  ergpvifitm  eft  Jcrtptoiibus  adjcribere  fal- 
 fitatem,  quam  veritatis   auclontati  mciidactujh,      Apuri  Aug.  lib.   1 6.  contra 
 
 Fault  ta,  him 
 
en. 
 
 him  to  conclude,  either  that  it  was  ralfe,  or  that  Jefiis  Chrift  had 
 >t  fpoken  the  truth;  and  fine:  ic  would  be  no  le  (s  than  impious 
 Biafpfiemy  to  (av  that  God  could  lie,  it  would  be  more  adviie- 
 able  to  attribute  the  falsification  to  the  Writers  them i elves.    When 
 it  was  demanded  of  this  Heretick  why  he  did  not  receive  the  Old 
 Law  and  the  Prophets  whom  Jefiis  Chrift  hi  m  fe  If  hath  authoriied 
 M    .        in  the  New  Teftament,  by  his  words,  I  am  not  come  todeftroythe 
 ,-  Law  or  the  Pcofhets,  but  tu  fulfil  them:    he  objected  againft  the 
 
 Teftimony  of  S.  Matthew,  becaufe  he  is  the  only  Evangelift  that 
 hath  related  this.  It  is  fuppolèd  (  faith  he  )  that  this  Difcourie 
 was  delivered  in  the  Sermon  that  Jefiis  Chrift  made  on  the  Moun- 
 tain. In  the  mean  time  S.  John  (  p  J  who  was  there  pre(ent 
 (peaks  nor  a  word  thereof;  and  yet  they  would  have  S.  Matthew, 
 who  law  nothing,  to  mention  it.  He  pretends  that  this  hath  been 
 wrote  by  fome  other  pcrfon,  and  not  by  S.  Matthew. 
 
 After  this  manner  the  Manicheans  who  (acrificed  all  to  their 
 Rcafbn,  and  almoft  nothing  to  Authority,  entirely  deftroyedthe 
 Books  of  the  New  Teftament,  receiving  them  no  farther  than 
 they  were  conformable  to  their  Prejudices:  they  had  formed  to 
 themlelvesa  certain  Idea  of  Chriftianity,  after  which  they  regu- 
 lated the  Writings  of  the  Apoftles.  They  would  have  it  that  all 
 that  which  could  not  be  adjufted  to  this  Idea  had  been  inferted 
 in  their  Books  by  later  Writers  who  were  hair  Jews  :  Faufius  faith, 
 .,  Multaen.m  à   majonbus   <vcfins  wlpyuus  Domini  noftri  infer  ta  "verba 
 
 :'fupt,  qua  nomine  fignata  iffius  •  cm*  fide  non   congruant  ;    frafertim 
 .c  3.  quia,  ut  jam  fape  frvbttum   a  nobis  eft,  nee  abiffo  hac  fttnt,  nee  ab 
 ejus  Apofiolis  Jcrifta;  fed  mult  a  fofi  s  or  urn  afjumptionem  à  nef c  to  q  tu- 
 bus, &  tpfis  inter  fe  non  concordant tbus   Semi-Judœis,  per  famas  of  h 
 c  comperta  funt,  &C. 
 But  S.  Auguftin  rcprefents  to  them  in  this  very  fame  pailage, 
 that  one  mull   renounce  common  fenfe  to  argue  after  this  man- 
 ner on  matters  of  Fad,  to  which  imaginary  reafons  ought  not  to 
 \  oppofed.     (  q  )  We  cannot  be  certain  (  faith  he  )  of  any  Book, 
 if  once  wc  call  in  queftion  thofè  Works  that  the  Church  that  is 
 ,    extended  throughout  the  whole  World  receives  with  a  common 
 confent,  and  if  on  the  contrary  we  authonfe  as  Apoftolical  Books 
 
 (p)  Teftis  idoneus  facet,  loquitur  autem  minus  idoncus.    Apud  Aug.  com. 
 Fault,  lib.  17.C.  1. 
 
 (  q  )  De  quohbro  certum  crit  CUJUS  fit,  p  liter*  quai  ^Apoftoiorum  dicit  &  te- 
 net Ecclefia  ab  ijfis  Apftolis  propagata,  S  per  omnes  gentes  tantk  cmmcntia 
 !arata,utrùm  APoJtolormn  ftnt  tncertum  eft  ;  &  hoc  erit  certum  Jcripjjfi  A- 
 s  quod  huic  Ecclcfuc  connarii  bar etici  prof erunt  Auftorum  fuorum  nonu- 
 fs  iippcllati  longc  p-ft  Apofiolos  c.xiftcntunn.  Aug.  ibid. 
 
 that 
 
[?  ] 
 
 that  difpute  therewith,  and  that  carry  the  name  of  Writers  who 
 hive  lived  a  longtime  after  the  Apoffles.  He  charges  them  (r)  with 
 nuking  Fables  and  Apocryphal  Works  to  pais  for  Apoftolical Wri- 
 tings :  andheihewsat  the  lame  time  the  falfity  of  thefe  Ad-,  because 
 
 tliey    have  not  any  teftimony  of  the  Doctors  of  the  Church  clue 
 were  then  living,    He  urgeth  Vauftus  to  prove  what  he  hath  alledged, 
 by    Books  that  arc  Canonical,  and  generally  received   in  all  the 
 Churches:  Nun  ex  quibujeunque  liter  is,  Jed  Rcclefeafttcis,  Canamcis,Cs-  au:,\.i* 
 thclicis.     This  Holy  Doctor  calls  this  way  or  arguing  or  the  Mam-  adv.Faujl 
 cbeans  folly,  infaniam  &  dement ïam,  who  not  being   able    to  accom-  c  9* 
 modate  the  Writings  of  the  Apoitlesto  the  luea  that  they  had  form- 
 ed to  themfelves  of  the  Chriftian  Religion,  or  under  colour  ofc. 
 tain  contradictions  in  the  Scriptures,  which  they  could  not  refolve 
 (f)  would  needs  have  it  believed  that  thele  Books  were  compofed 
 after  the  Apoftles  themfelves  by  uncertain  Authors,  who  had  made 
 bold  to  borrow  the  Names  of  thefe  Apoftles  to  gain  Credit  and  Au- 
 thority to  their  Works. 
 
 To  convince  them  the  more  eafily  of  their  folly,  he  fets  before 
 their  eyes  the^  Books  (  t  )  of  Hippocrates,  Plato,  Ariftotle,  Varro  and 
 Cicero,  and  of  lèverai  other  Writers,  that  are  believed  to  be  the  Au- 
 thors of  thofe  Works  that  we  have  under  their  Names,  becaulè  they 
 have  been  attributed  to  them  in  the  time  wherein  they  lived,  and 
 they  have  been  always  fb  attributed  fucceflively  from  Age  to  Age. 
 Now  there  is  nothing  more  contrary  to  reaibn,  than  not  to  grant  the 
 lame  privilege  to  the  Church,  and  not  to  acknowledge  rhat  ihe  hath 
 faithfully  kept  the  Writings  of  the  Apoftles,  whole  Doclnne  Ihe 
 hath  always  prefcrved  by  the  means  of  the  Succeffionof  Bifhops. 
 
 We  have  enlarged  a  little  on  thefe  Reflections  of  S  Augufiin,  and 
 of  the  other  Fathers  that  preceded  him,  becaufe  they  have  mightily  e- 
 vinced  the  Truth  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament,  without  ha- 
 ving recourlb  to  I  know  not  what  particular  Spirit,  which  is  an  in- 
 
 (r)  Legunt  Scripturas  apocrypha  s  Manic  hat  à   nefiio  quibus  fabuUrumfutori- 
 bits  Jub  Apojiolorum  nomin-j  {crip tas,  qu.e  Juorum  Jcrtpterufn  temporibus  inau- 
 ttoritatem  {ancLe  Bcclefiai  recipt  mcrerentur,  fi  {vi'di  o  doHi  homines  qui  tunc 
 m  bac  vita  eranf,  &  examinare  tali  a  poterant,  cos  vera  locutos  ejje  cognofccri 
 Aug.  cont.  Fault,  lib.  22.  c.  79. 
 
 (s)  Nona  Cbrifti  A  poll  ot  is,  feci  longopofl  tempore  a  quibufdam  incerti  n  - 
 vins,  qui  ne  jib  1  non  baler et ur  fides  fcribentibus  qiue  nefitrcnt,  partim  Ap{iolo- 
 rum  nomma,    partim  ear  inn  qui  Apostoks  {icuti  vidèrent  ur,  Jcrtftorum juorum 
 front  1  bus  indideruttt,  ajfeverantes  jccundùm  eos  fe  fcripfiffe  qua  Jcrspferint.  ApuJ 
 Aug.  hb.  32.  cont.  Fault,  c.  2. 
 
 (t)    PI  atoms,  Anflotelis ,  Qiceroms,  Varronis,    aliorumquc  ejubmodi    autorum 
 1  ilrcs,  nude  novcruns  hommes  quod  ipjorum  ibn,  niji  temforwn  Jibimet 
 tium  conteftanone  continua?  Auguft.Cont.  b'aua.  lib.  33,  c.6. 
 
 C  \\ 
 
vention  of  thefe  later  times.     We  cannot  imagine  any  thing  more 
 oppofite  to  goodreafbn,  than  thefe  Words  of  the  Co nf eflîon  of  Faith 
 of  thole  that  formerly  took  the  Name  of  the  Reformed  of  the 
 ConfclT.      Churches  oi  France  :  We  acknowledge  thefe  Books  (  in  i peaking  of  the 
 Art.  4.      whole  Scriptures  )  to  be   Canonical,  not  fo  much  by  the  common  agree- 
 ment and  confent  of  the  Church,  as    by  the  teftimony   and  inward  perfua- 
 fion  of  the  Holy  Gboft.     The  Fathers  nevertheless  have  always  con- 
 futed the  ancient  Hereticks  who  refuted  to  acknowledge  thefè  Books 
 as  Canonical,  by  the  common  agreement  and  confent  of  the  Church.     It 
 would  have  been  a  pleafant  way  of  reafbning,  if  every  one  in  thefe 
 primitive  times  of  Christianity,   would  not  have  acknowledged  for 
 divine  Books  3  only  thofè  that  his  private  Spirit  jhould  diclate   to 
 him  to    be   fuch.      This  hath  appeared  to  be  fo  great  an  extrava- 
 gance to  thoiè  of  that  Perfuafion,  who  in  the  Low  Countries  are 
 called  Rcmonflrants,  that  they  look  upon  ths  Calvinifts  that  follow  this 
 Principle,  as  People  that  have  renounced  common  fenfe.     Simon 
 Epifcopius,  who  hath  been  one  of  the  Champions  of  this  Party,  after 
 having  handled  this  gueftion  with  a  great  deal  of  fubtiky,  concludes 
 that  it  is  a  very  ill  fort  of  argumentation,  to  admit  belides  the  tefti- 
 mony of  the  Church,  another  inward  teftimony  of  the  Holy  Ghoft, 
 to  know  whether  certain  Books  have  a  divine  Authority  ftampt  upon 
 them.  Hmc  pat  et  (faith  this  ProteftantJ  inept  os  ejje  eos}qui  velprœtcr  vel 
 citra  tejlimcmum  Ecclefiœ  requiri    aiunt  internum  S  pint  us  Sanch  tefiimo- 
 mum y  ad  hoc  ut  Ubros  has   divinos  ejje,  ejr  authoritatem  divinam  habers 
 Hemonft.   intelligamus.     It  is  Sufficient  according  to  the  Remonftrants,  that  we 
 CorfeJJ.c.  have  there  upon  the  teftimony  of  (  v  )  the  primitive  Church,  that 
 1.  de  (cnp.  Certainly  knew  that  thefe  Books  were  written  by  the  Apoftles,  or  ap- 
 proved by   them,  and  that  this  teftimony  is  come  down  to  us  by  a 
 conftant  Tiadjtion.     This  Spirit  that  is  difFufèd  through  the  whole 
 Church,  ought  without  doubt  to  be  preferred  to  a  private  Spirit,  that 
 Grot.  A-  can  onjy  ferve  to  make  a  divifion  therein.     This  is  what  Grotius  hath 
 mmad.  m  juJjclou{ly  obfèrved  :  Spiritus  tile  privatus  (  faith  this  Critick)  Spirt- 
 n,Vt  '       tus  Ecclefiœ  divifor. 
 
 It  would  be  to  no  purpofè  for  the  Calv'mifts  to  object  to  the  Remon- 
 ftrants 3  that  their  Opinion  is  taken  out  of  the  Writings  of  Socinns  ; 
 becaufè  an  evident  truth  ought  not  to  be  reje&ed,  under  pretence 
 that  it  may  be  found  in  the  Books  of  Socmus.     This  Heretick  hath 
 proved  in  lus  Treatife  Of  the  Authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures^  and  in 
 
 (  v  )  Ecclcfni  Primitiva  qu£  temporibus  Apûftolorum  fuit,  eertijjimè  refcifcerc  po- 
 tuit,  &  indubu-  etiam  rcjcivit  libros  iïtos  ab  Apofioiis  fcriptos  ejjl>7  vel  Jaltcm  ap- 
 probates, nobifaue  iftius  rei  fcientiiim  quafi  per  manu 3  tradidtt,  ac  VcUiti  depo- 
 fiium  qnoddam  ril/qitir.    Remonft.  Confefli  cap.  I,  dc  Script,  n,  8. 
 
 an  or 
 
Cj«  ] 
 
 .mother  Work  intituled  Sacred  Lectures,  the  Truth  of  the  Sacred 
 Books,  and  principally  of  thole  of  the  New  Teftament,  bv  the  very 
 fame  realons,  and  after  the  fame  manner  that  S.  Irenaus,  Tertullian 
 and  S.  AugujUn  have  done.  (*)  Let  them  read  (faith  Socmus  )  S$cm.  hi. 
 that  which  Eufcbm  hath  written  on  this  matter  in  his  EccleiiaIVic.il  deAuBor. 
 Hiftory,  and  they  will  rind  therein  a  perpetual  content  of  all  thzScnPfflc' 
 Churches  of  the  World,  lince  thele  Bookswerc  written,  to  the  time 
 of  this  Author.  He  infifb  very  much  in  thefè  two  Treaties  on  the 
 Tefhmoniesof  the  ancient  Fathers.  Will  any  one  fay  for  this,  that 
 this  is  a  Sociman  Method,  becauie  Socinus  hath  made  ufe  of  it  after 
 the  moft  Learned  Ecclefïaftical  Writers?  Would  to  God  that'this 
 Enemy  of  the  Traditions  of  the  Catholick  Church  had  always  fol- 
 lowed this  Principle!  he  would  not  have  introduced  fo  many  Inno- 
 vations into  Religion.  Neither  can  he  avoid  an  Objection  that  may 
 be  made  even  by  thofèof  his  own  Party,  that  according  to  his  Prin- 
 ciples, he  Ought  necefTanly  to  acknowledge  a  Tradition  after  the  fame 
 manner  as  it  is  maintained  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  We  cannot 
 (  might  they  fay  to  him  )  receive  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew,  and  re- 
 ject that  which  hath  been  publifhed  under  the  Name  of  S.  Thomas , 
 without  eftablifhmg  Tradition  at  the  fame  time,  becaufe  it  is  im- 
 poflible  to  prove  this  by  any  Teftimony  of  the  Scriptures. 
 
 Socmus,  To  anfwer  this  Objection  without  departing  from  his 
 Principle,  lays  down  (y  )  a  certain  Medium  between  the  Scriptures 
 and  Tradition;  which  Medium  conflfts,  according  to  his  opinion, 
 in  written  Hiftones,  in  other  Teltimonies  and  in  Ratiocinations, 
 horn  whence  it  is  proved  without  making  application  to  any  Autho- 
 rity of  the  Church,  that  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew  contains  the 
 rrue  Hiftory  of  Jefus  Chnft,  and  that  on  the  contrary,  that  which 
 carries  the  name  of  S.  Thomas  is  a  fuppofkitious  Book.  Eptfcopius  and 
 
 (  x  )  Legantur  ea  qua  hac  de  re  Euftbius  fenbu  pluribus  in  locis  Hiftoria  Ec~ 
 clefiaftica,  &  mvemetur  ufque  ad  illius  EuÇebti  at  at  em,  hoc  eft  ferlez,  circiter 
 annorum  perpetuum  Jpatium,  pojlquam  fcripta  ilia  confenpta  atque  édita  fuerunt, 
 7iunquavi  fuiffe  in  Ecclejla  qui  dubitaret  quin  quatuor  qua  babemus  Evangcliaji- 
 ber  Atlorum  Apoftolorum ,  Epiftola  omnes  qua  Pauli  Apoftoli  effe  dicuntur,  prater 
 earn  qua  ad  Ht'braos  eft  fcripta,  prior  Apoftoli  Petri,  &  prima  Joanms  Apoftoli^ 
 ba^\  inquam,  omnia  ab  Us  fcripta  fuiffe  nt  quibus  attribuuntur.  Socin.  lib.  de  Au- 
 ctor.  Script.  Sac. 
 
 (yj  Eft  quiddam  medium  inter  Scripturas  &  traditionem.  Immo  non  quiddam 
 m  nia,  fed  multiplex  quiddam,  fcripta  nimirum  hiftoria,  aliaque  teft  imonia  (3  ra- 
 ti ones \  ex  quibus  factum  eft  &  fit  ut  cordati  hommes  Mat  thai  Evangelium  pro  ve- 
 ra de  JcfuCbnfto  biftoriababeant,  Thoma  non  habeant,  nulla  hie  mt er cedent e  au- 
 tomate Ecclefia&  Spirit  fis  quo  ipfa  perpetub  gubcrnetur.  Soc.  Epiit.  4.  ad  Chri- 
 ftoph.  Oitorod. 
 
 c  2  the 
 
;  ether  Remonftrwts  do  al(b  make  nie  of  this  Anfwer,  that  they 
 may  not  be  obliged  to  acknowledge  the  Traditions  of  the  Church. 
 
 le  this  Medium  which  they  fuppofe  to  be  between  the  Scriptures 
 and  Tradition,  is  a  true  Tradition,  which  differs  in  nothing  from 
 that  which  S.  Irenœus,  Tertullian,  Epipbanius,  S.  Attguflin  and  lèverai 
 other  Fathers  have  eitablifrud,  when  thev  intended  to  convince  the 
 ancient  Hereticks  of  the  Truth  of  the  Apoftolical  Books.     Thelè 
 Hiltories,  and  thefc  other  Acts  whereof  Socinus  makes  mention,  are 
 taken  from  the  Churches,  or  from  Ecclehafticai  Writers;  and  this  is 
 that  which  compofoth  Tradition.     He  ought  to  agree  to  it  hîmièlf, 
 hnce  heavoucheth  in  his  Treati/e  of  the  Authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures y 
 that  fince  the  times  of  the  Apoftles  to  thole  of  Eufebius,  none  have 
 doubted   in   the  Church,  that  the   Books   of  the  New  Teftament 
 were  not  compofed  by  thole,  whole  Names  they  bear.     For  it  is  cer- 
 tain that  many  Hereticks  that  were  out  of  the  Church,  have  not  on- 
 ly doubted  thereof,  but  have  abfolutely  rejected  them-     That  which 
 hath  deceived  Socinus  and  the  other  Sectaries,  is  a  faile  notion  that 
 they  have  conceived  of  the  Authority  of  the  Church  ;  they  imagine 
 that  me  Judges  by  her  own  Authority  only,   and  not  upon  good 
 Acts  and  Records,  that  the  Books  that  compote  the  Old  and  New 
 Teftament  arc  Divine  and  Canonical. 
 
 C  H  A  P.    II. 
 
 Concerning  the  Titles  that  are  at  the  Head  of  the  Gofpcls 
 and  other  'Booh  of  the  New  Teftament  :  Whether  thefc 
 Titles  were  made  by  the  Authors  of  thefe  Books,  or  whe- 
 ther they  were  fince  added  < 
 
 IT?  £  have  no  lolid  proof  in  Antiquity,  to  make  it  appear  to  us, 
 VV  that  the  Names  that  are  (et  at  the  Head  of  every  Gofpel, 
 were  thereunto  prefixed  by  thole  who  arc  the  Authors  of  them  : 
 S.  John  Chryjolhm  a  flu  res  us  exprefly  of  the  contrary  in  one  of  his 
 Homélies:  (a)  Mofes  (  faith  this  Learned  Bi(hop)hath  not  put  his 
 
 a  Att&<.     0$  WcLvJ.ej.oc  VlaZhoç  7ittv]etyvr  cmçz>\a>v  aunt TvovofxAcunv  rryri buffi , 
 Ti  cA*  ttdte;    077  if.Hvoi  (uV  7ï*$<riv  '({£$?  ov,   x)  (zfeA^ov  Iw  tûci/]«f  JVfAÏrV  ttcl&v-- 
 ttu,  cevr  '£  Jht  tuAKfx    7W  y^\iixc:TxL  jiimi^rrijo,   Kj  cf  Zfaçvtâf  yAy.<LTi  '  c/)o  x]  Ct- 
 mjVji*  bjj  T6   byo(j.oiloi  tt^o^'mj.  Joann.  Chryt.  Houi.  i.in  Epiit.  ad  Rom. 
 
 Name. 
 
Cm] 
 
 Name  to  the  five  Books  of  the  Law  tli.it  he  hatli  wrote  :  tho  - 
 alio  that  have  collected  the  A  (fis  after  him  ,  have  not  fèt  their 
 Names  .it  the  beginning  of  their  Hiftorie       The  fame  may  be  (ai  1 
 
 of  the  EvMligohhs  Matthew,   Mark.,   Luke  and   foh?i.     As  for  S.  Pan', 
 
 hath  always  let  his  Name  ac  the  beginning  or  his  Epiftles,  e 
 pt  that  which  is  dire&ed  to  the  Hebrews:  and  the  Reafon  that 
 S^ydmCbryfofiom  produceth  is,  becaule  the  former  wrote  for  the  i 
 of  Perfôns  that  were  prêtent;  whereas  S.  Paul  wrote  Letters  to  pe 
 Ions  that  were  at  a  difkmce.   If  we  mould  refer  our  (elves  herein  to 
 the  Teftimony  of  this  Father,  we  cannot  prove  precisely  from  the 
 Titles  only  that  are  at  the  Head  or  every  Golpel,  that  chefe  Gofpels 
 have  been  compolèd  by  thole  whole  Names  they  bear,  at  leaft  if 
 we  do  not  joyn  to  this,  the  Authority  of  the  Primitive  Church,  that 
 hath  added  thelè  Titles,     On  this  Principle  it  is  that  Tanntr/ts  and 
 other  Je  lints  fupported  themlèlves  in  a  Conference  that  they  had  at 
 Ratisbonnt  with  lome  Protelfants,  to  ihew  that  they  could  not  clear- 
 ly prove  the  Title  of  S.  Matthew,  and  without  the  Teftimony  or  the 
 t  ancient  Eccleliaftical  Writers,  that  this  Golpel  was  made  by  him 
 whole  name  it  bore:  they  inlifted  that  they  could  not  bring  othe; 
 Proofs  of  this  Truth  than  tholè  that  were  taken  from  humane  Au- 
 thority, and  not  from  the  Scriptures  themlèlves,  iince  they  had  been 
 added  to  them:    Ex  [do  tejtimonio  hcmimim  3   ecrumque  non  omnium  , 
 fed  ecrum  tantum  qui  Ecclefeœ  corpus  conftîtuunt.  *  A  Proteftant  Divine  *  David 
 who  had  a  (lifted  at   this  Conference ,    hath  compoled  a  Book  on  Schram 
 purpole  on  this  Subject,  to  prove  the  contrary  to  that  which,  the  Je-  j  ,f 
 
 Ruts  maintained.     But  to  fay  the  truth,  there  is  more  of  Subtiky  in  [  #S 
 thele  forts  of  Difputes  than  of  lolid  Arguments  :  for  although  it  were  aula  ad 
 true  that  S.  Matthew  is  the  Author  of  the  Title  of  his  Golpel,  re-  auftrum 
 courte  m  lift  always  be  had  to  the  Authority  or  the  ancient  Ecclfili-  Neoburgi* 
 aftical  Writers,  to  mew  that  this  Title  is  of  him,  and   that  this c;  \  '• 
 Gofpel  certainly  belongs  to  him  whole  Name  it  bears  ;  at  leaft  if  we  S^//WJ 
 decline  Hying  to  a  private  Spirit,  which  hath  been  above  dilcouried,  ann.iéii. 
 and  cannot  be  app;oved  by  any  judicious  Perlons. 
 
 Thele  Titles  aie  lo  ancient  in  the  Church,  that  TertuUkan  reproves 
 Marcion,  who  acknowledged  the  Golpel  or  St.  Luke,  from  which  he 
 had  only  took  away  tome  Partages,  (b)  for  hiving  no  Title  at  th.; 
 head  of  his  Copy  ;  as  if  it  were  not  lawful  for  him  (faith  this  Father) 
 to  annex  a  Title  to  a  Work,  the  Text  whereof  lie  had  ventured  to 
 corrupt.     He  adds  further  in  this  fame  [dace,  That  he  could  not 
 
 (b)  Klaracn  Evangeliofctlicetfuo  rut  turn  adferibie  auftorem:  qua}}  non  b'cuerit 
 tut   titulum  qiuqiLc  ad  finger  e  y  cm  nef  a  s  non  j  un  ipjum  corpus  evert  ere  Tertull. 
 .;.  adv,  M  j  re.  op.  2. 
 
 proav  I 
 
[-4] 
 
 proceed  in  the  Difpute  that  lie  held  with  this  Herctick,  fines  he  had 
 a  right  to  rejed  a  Book  as  fufpecled,  the  Title  whereof  did  not  ap- 
 pear; that  he  was  willing,  neverthelefs,  thus  far  to  condefcend  to 
 him,  becaulb  it  is  eafie  (  c  )  to  judge  bv  the  Copy  of  S.  Luke  that  was 
 read  in  the  Church,  whether  that  of  Marcion  were  the  fame,  ex- 
 cepting that  which  he  had  cut  off  from  it.  It  is  not  to  be  inferred 
 that  Tertullia»  was  of  Opinion  that  it  might  be  proved  by  the  Titles 
 only j  that  the  Gofpels  belonged  to  thofe  whofe  Names  they  bore; 
 otherwiiè  he  ought  to  have  acknowledged  as*  the  true  Gofpels,  an 
 infinite  number  of  falfe  Books  that  carried  the  Names  of  the  Apo- 
 ftles  :  It  was  neceilary,  according  to  his  mind,  to  have  befides  this, 
 a  confiant  Tradition  founded  on  the  Teftimonies  oi\  thofe  who  had 
 Jived  before;  therefore  he  adds  at  the  lame  time,  that  (d)  altho 
 Marcion  ifiould  have  publiified  his  Gofpel  even  under  the  name  of 
 S.  Paul,  this  Title  would  have  availed  nothing,  at  leaft  if  it  had  not 
 been  accompanied  with  thefe  Teftimonies. 
 
 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 
 Ibid,  Church,  De  titulo  quoque  funis  ducendus  eft  contentions  pan  hinc  inde 
 
 mju  fluctuante.  For  as  to  the  Title  alone  Marcion  might  fay,  as 
 well  as  the  Orthodox,  That  the  Gofpel  which  he  produced  was  the 
 true  one.  (e)  To  which  then  fhall  we  adhere?  (faith  Tertullian) 
 by  what  Rule  may  we  determine  which  is  the  true  Gofpel,  whether 
 that  of  Marcion  that  hath  been  corrupted,  or  that  of  the  Church 
 which  is  fuppofed  to  be  entire,  at  leaft  if  regard  be  had  to  Antiqui- 
 ty ?  infbmuch  that  the  mod  ancient  Ihould  be  the  true,  becaufe  the 
 verity  of  an  Acl  always  preceeds  the  corruption  of  the  fame.  In 
 quantum  tnim  falfum  corruptio  e(t  vert*,  in  tantum  pr  recédât  necefle  efi  Ve- 
 ritas falfum.  On  this  uncontroulabie  Principle  he  makes  it  appear 
 that  the  true  Copy  of  S.  Luke  was  that  which  the  Orthodox  made 
 u(e  of,  dncQ  Marcion  himfelf  had  not  acknowledged  any  other  be- 
 fore he  had  feparated  from  the  Church,  which  he  acciifèd  of  Ju- 
 daizing  ;  and  he  chiefly  defended  himfelf  with  this  pretended  Ju- 
 daifrn,  from  the  Charge  of  not  receiving  this  Gofpel  entire,  which 
 he  laid  had  been  interpolated  by  thofe  that  authorised  Judaifm  :  Inter- 
 polât uni  a  protect  or  ibi4s  Judaifmi. 
 
 (  c  )  Ex  us  comme  mat  or  i  bus  quoi  habemus,  Luc  am  videtur  Marcion  elegijjc  quern 
 exderct.    Tertujl.  ib;d. 
 
 (d)  Sifub  ipfiui  Pauls  nomine  Evangelium  Marcion  intuliffct,  non  Jufficcret  ad 
 fidem  Jingularitoi  ntjirumenti  deftituta patrocinio  antecejjorum.  Tertull.  ibid. 
 
 (  e  )  Ego  mcum  dico  verum,  Marcion  Juum.  Ego  Marcioms  ajjirmo  adulter  a- 
 tum,  Marcion  mcum.  Quis  inter  nos  detcrminabit^  nifi  tcmporis  ratio  ei  prajcri- 
 bens  aucloritatcm,  quod  anttquim  rcperietur,  &  ei  prœjudicans  vitiattonem,  quod 
 pojtcriui  revmcetur  ?  Tertull.  ibid.  cap.  4.  Laitly 
 
c  m  ] 
 
 Laftly,  7c        urn  cone'        ,  That  there  was  no  other  true  Co| 
 aï  S.Luke  but  his,  becaufè  it  was  before  that  w  ùch      '     i  i  had 
 corrected  ;  and  the  Reafbn  that  he  alledgeth  is  tins,  Thar  he  could 
 not  a  nend  any  but  that  which  was  in  the  Church,  cir.  con 
 
 tently  ante        nt  to  his.    Id  imendans  tjuodinven 
 ouod  de  noftro.  emendatione  conftitnens  fuum  &  novum  Bat  fin 
 
 it  might  D  co  him,  that  it  is  not  alw..-  ;,  that  the  moft 
 
 ancient  Books  are  the  molt  correct,  becaufe  they  alfb  may  hive  been 
 corrupted,  at  leaft  it  they  be  not  the  true  Oiginals  :  he  anfwers,  that 
 it  is  neçeflàry  to  look  back  to  the  tune  of  the  Apoftles,  to  be  cer- 
 tain that  we  have  their  genuine  Writings,  (f)  Now  we  are  allured 
 (according  to  his  Opinion)  that  a  thing  belongs  to  the  times  of  the 
 Apoflles/  when  we  (ee  that  it  hath  been  inviolably  preferred  in  the 
 Apoftolical  Churches. 
 
 All  thefe  Arguments  of  Tertullian  prove,  that  the  confiant  Tra- 
 dition of  the  Church  is  the  mark  by  which  we  diftinguilh  the  Divine 
 and  Canonical  Books  from  thole  that  are  not   fo;  and  that  it  is 
 this  fame  Church  that  hath  added,  or  at  leaft  approved  or  the  Ti- 
 tles of  the  four  Golpels,  to  denote  to  us,  that  thefe  Gofpels  were 
 written  by  Apoftlcs,  or  by  their  Difcipies  ;  which  does  not  in  the 
 leaft  agree  with  this  private  Spirit  of  lome  Proteftants.     It  feeiio 
 that  Rez,a  believed  that  the  Titles  of  the  Gofpels  were  no  tels  dirî:a-  T>'\  B 
 tec\  by  the  Holy  Ghoft  than  the  Text  it  fèlr:  this  he  infinuates  in  K 
 his  Anfwer  to  the  Defenfe  of  C  aft  alio 3  whom  he  reprehends  for  ha-  re\%fa 
 Ting  tranflated  in   his  Latin  Veriion  of  the  New  Teftament  thefe  ^/;  ç 
 Greek  Words,  >?  Mctl*mw,  by  thefe,  au  ft  ore  Matthœo.    Maldonat  hath  / 
 obferved  with  much  more  Judgment,  (g)  That  it  is  not  thecuftom 
 of  the  (acred  W  iters  to  put  Titles  at  the  beginning  of  their  Works; 
 but  that  thev  either  omit  them  altogether ,  or  they  include  them 
 within  the  fii  ft  Words  of  their  Books,  which  he  de  m  on  ft  rates  by 
 Examples  taken  out  of  the  Old  Teftament;  whence  he  infers,  that 
 it  is  probable  that  the  Evangelifts  are  not  the  Authors  of  the  Ti- 
 tles of  their  Golpels.     He  proves  it  alfb  by  the  Example  of  S.  Marks 
 who  would  have  put  two  Titles  to  his  Book,  if  he  were  the  Author 
 of  the  firft  that  runs  thus,  The  GoJ]?el  according  to  Mark,  becaufe  he 
 begins  his  Hi  (tory  with  thefe  other  Words,  The  beginning  of  the  Go1,}  el 
 of  Jej'irs  Chrift.    He  adds  farther,  That  if  the  Evangelifts  had  been^ 
 
 (f)  In  fummafi  confiât  id  rerun  quod  prius,  idprim  quod &  ab  initio,  ab  initio 
 quod  ab  AfnftoUs  ;  far  iter  ucique  couftabit,  id  ejje  ab  Apoftolis  tradition,  quod  a]  ud 
 EccUJiaj  Ap>  jhlorum  fuerit  facrqfantlum.    Tertull.  ibid.  cap.  5. 
 
 (^)  Kon  eft  Sacrorum  Scrip >torum  confiietudo,  ut  ante  initiwn  librorum  titulos 
 ponant,  fed  ut  vcl  omutant,  vd  prima  iiin  verba  tuulum  faciant.  Maldon.  Comm. 
 in  c.ip.  I.  Matth. 
 
 the 
 
[  i<5] 
 
 the  Anchors  of  thefè  Titles,  there  would  not  have  been  found  fo 
 great  an  uniformity  amonglt  them  as  appears;    they  would  have 
 ide  ufe  of   different  Expreflîons,  as  they  do  in  the  other  parts, 
 where  they  relue  the  fame  things,  but  in  different  terms:  inftead 
 or  writing  all,  The  Gofpel  according  to  N.     Again  he  confirms  his 
 Opinion  by  the  diverfity  that  is  found  among  the  Greek  and  Latin 
 Mnldon.     Copies;  for  thefè  laft  read,  The  holy  Go/pi  I  of  Je  fits  Chrift  according 
 ibid.  to  N.   which  proceeds  from   this  (faith   Maldonat  )  that  the  Greek 
 
 Church  hath  put  the  Greek  Title,  and  the  Latin  Church  the  Latin  : 
 !  Gr.-eatm  Titnlum  Gr*eca9  Latinum  Latina, 
 Itfeems  that  Beza  in  this  cale  chofe  rather  to  prefer  the  Title  of 
 the  Latin  Copy  before  that  of  the  Greek,  when  he  accufeth  Caftalio 
 of  having  falily  tranflated  auàhre  Matthœo\  as  if  S.  Matthew  had 
 been  the  Author  of  his  Gcfpel  :  for,  to  confute  his  Adverfuy  with 
 more  force,  he  faith,  (h)  That  we  read  not  the  Gofpel  <?/Matthew, 
 Mark,    Luke  crjohn,  but  the  Gofyel  of  Jefus  Chrift  according  to  Mat- 
 thew, Mark,  Luke  and  John,  as  it  is  in  all  the  Latin  Copes.    Never- 
 thelefs  this  Reading  is  not  found  but  in  the  Latin  Veriîon,  and 
 not  in  all  the  Latin  Copies  neither.     If  Maldonat  may  be  believed, 
 Nov.Teft.  there  is  only  the  Arabick  Veifion  printed  at  Rome,  where  it  is  read, 
 Arab. edit.  The  Gofpel  of  Jefus  Chrift  according  as  it  hath  been  written  by  S.  Mat- 
 fyrr.*,$n.  cneWj  one  0f  his  twelve  Difciples.    But  it  is  eafie  to  judge,   that  th;5 
 Arabick  Title  hath  been  taken  in  part  from  the  Latm;  and  thofè 
 who  have  copied  or  tranflated  thefc  Arabick  Gofpeis,  have  added 
 the  reit  ;    therefore  wre  read  in  the  two  other  Arabick  Editions,  Tim 
 Gofpel  of  Matthew,  or  of  St.  Matthew.     It  is  no  otherwife  in  the 
 Syriack,  the  Ethicpuk,  and  the  Per/ian  :  in  a  word,  it  is  only  in  the 
 Latin  Verfion  where  it  is  read,  The  Gofpel  of  Jefus  Chrift  ;  which  is 
 an  apparent  Imitation  of  the  fir  (I  Words  of  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Mark. 
 However  it  be,  the  Opinion  of  St.  John  Chryfoftom ,  who  believed 
 t  hat  none  of  the  Gofpeis  were  written  with  the  Titles  that  are  at 
 prefent  prefixed  to  them,  feems  to  me  more  probable  than  that  of 
 iome  A 'ichors,  especially  among  the  Proteftants,  who  attribute  them 
 to  the  Evangellfts,  and  will  have  them  to  be  a  part  of  the  Gofpel*. 
 It  is  much  more  likely,  that  the  Primitive  Chriftians  have  annexed 
 them  thereunto  in  thofe  times  wherein  it  was  evident  that  the!; 
 Gofpeis  did  truly  belong  to  thofe  Perfôns  whofe  Names  are  put  to. 
 them  :  on  tins  account  it  is,  that  we  find  the  Name  of  S.  Luke  ad- 
 ded to  the  beginning  of  lôme  MSS.  Greek  Copies  of  the  Ads  of  the 
 
 (  h  )  Neaue  enim  Icginws,  Evangclium  Matthxi,  Mar  ci  t  Luca,  vel  Joa?ims; 
 fed.  Evangclium  Jefu  Çbrjfti9  ut  habent  vmnps'&.atini codioct,  fecundwn  Alattha- 
 um,  Marcunf,  Lucam,  (3  joanneyn.    Bez.  Refp.  ad  Caital.  p.  J  2. 
 
 Apoftles, 
 
C    '7] 
 
 Apoftles,  as  I  have  obferved  in  three  MSS.  of  the  King's  Library. 
 We  read  in  two  of  theft  Manuicripts,  (/  )  The  A  the  Apo- 
 
 flles by  Luke  the  Evangeltft  ;  and  in  the  other,  (/:)  The  Acts  of  the 
 Holy  Apoflles  by  Luke  an  Apofile. 
 
 Furthermore,  the  Greek  Word  'Eua^A/ar,  Gofpcl,  which  iignih- 
 eth  literally  Good  News,  is  taken  here  for  Preaching,  inlbmucn  that 
 the  Golpel  of  S.  Matthew  is  nothing  elle  but  the  Preaching  of  tl 
 Apoftlc,  who  hath  made  a  Collection  or  the  Addons  and  Wo: 
 of  his  Mafter:  therefore  the  Syrians  have  entituled  this  Gofpel,  The  Nov.  1 
 Gojpelj  the  Preaching  of  Matthew.     The  Arabick  Vei  lions  that  have  S)r- 
 been  taken  from  the  Syrtack,  do  alfo  make  life  ol  an  Arabick  Word 
 that  lignifies  Preaching. 
 
 I  do  not  think  it  neceflary.that  I  mould  infifr  on  theft  Wo; 
 xji  MajStuw*  xj1  MctpwKj  according  to  Matthew,  according  to  Mark,  as 
 iôme  Commentators  on  the  New  Teftament  have  done;  it  feems 
 to  me  to  be  too  nicely  explained.  They  imagine,  that  tho(e  that 
 have  put  thefe  Titles  have  made  choice  of  this  Expreffion  on  pur- 
 pofe,  to  [hew  that  neither  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  nor  John,  were  the 
 Authors  of  the  Golpels,  but  that  they  had  only  written  them  :  this 
 ftems  to  me  to  be  a  pure  Subtilty;  for,  according  to  the  Style  of- 
 thole  time.-,  «J1  Mals**©^  according  to  Matthew,  is  the  fame  thing  with 
 M*1.W«,  of  Matthew.  It  was  faid  after  the  fame  manner,  the  Gol- 
 pel rjl  'EC^riaç  according  to  the  Hebrews,  and  y&T  AiyJidw,  according  to 
 the  Egyptians  ,  that  is  to  fay,  of  the  Hebrews,  and  of  the  Egyptians  ; 
 as  it  hath  been  alio  (aid  tu^m  x?  tcvyv,  the  Herefie  according  to  the 
 Phrygians,  which  is  the  fame  thing  as  diploic  Qtfytv,  the  Herefie  of  the 
 Phrygians.  Bez>a  himfetf,  who  was  fb  exceffivrelv  tranfported  againft 
 Caflalio  about  the  Veriion  of  thefe  Words  xj1  Maltôov,  which  he  had 
 tranflated  auBort  Matth,eo,  conreflcth,  that  it  is  commonly  fàid,  the 
 Gofpel  of  5.  Matthew  and  of  5.  Mark,  as  it  is  (aid  the  Epiftles  of 
 S.  Paul  and  of  S.  Peter  :  but  he  was  afraid  left  this  Title  of  Caflalio 
 mould  caufe  it  to  be  believed  that  the  Evangelifts  are  ftricMy  the 
 Authors  of  the  Golpels  that  they  have  piibiilhea1,  whereas  they  are 
 only  the  hmple  Scribes  or  Writers  or  them  ;  as  if  in  the  very  Elegan- 
 cy "oj7 the  Latin  Tongue,  Au f tor  was  not  the  lame  thing  as  Scriptor. 
 They  that  affirm  that  this  Expreffion  \T  M*l3tuor,  according  to  Mat- 
 
 w,  fèems  to  denote  that  St.  Matthtw  and  the  other  Evangeiiils 
 had  not  written  their  Gofpels  themlelves,  have  a  great  deal  more 
 reafbn  to  fear,  left  they  inould  be  only  Collections  that  their  Dilci- 
 ples  had  made  of  the  Preachings  of  their  Mafters.     But  this  Ob. 
 
 C  i  )  Awj.  lv<tyys\içï  -©^Jhç  tumcoKav.  MSS.  Reg.  n.  2S69.  6c  224S. 
 (k  )  n^itÇ«f  &  d}wv  ïmwKop  J)&  A«*£  «,tbçç'a«%  MSS,  Reg.n,  2,3-2. 
 
 D  je&ion 
 
[i8] 
 
 je<ftion  is  anfwered  at  one  ftroke,  by  making  ic  appear  that  there 
 is  no  difference  as  to  the  fenfè  ,  between  thefe  two  Expreffions, 
 ajt  MaJ^tacy  according  to  Matthew,  and  Metfe**»,  0f  Matthew,  Caftalio, 
 who  profeflêth  rather  to  render  the  Sen(e  than  the  Letter,  hath  not 
 ill  tranflated  auclore  Matthao:  and  therefore  Bez,a  was  in  the  wrong, 
 in  taking  an  occafïon.  from  thence  to  accufe  him  for  having  de- 
 nied the  Infpiration  of  the  Sacred  Books. 
 Grat.  An-  J  cannot  but  wonder  that  Grotim  fhould  infift  on  this  nicity  of 
 ■'  Beza,  and  that  he  hath  remarked  after  him,  in  his  Notes  on  this 
 Palîage  of  St.  Matthew,  that  the  ancient  Title  was  not  fimply  'Et/aJ; 
 yihiovy  Gofpel,  but  'Ev&yyitoov  'Imj2  Xv£*,  the  Gofpel  of  Jefus  Chrift>  at- 
 ter  the  fame  manner  as  it  is  in  the  beginning  of  S.  Mark.  He  judg- 
 es this  to  be  the  reafbn  wrhy  it  was.  not  put  '£u&yyi\tw  MaJ$wii>  the 
 Go/pel  of  Matthew,  but  hJ1  M&t&uov,  according  to  Matthew.  This  Ob- 
 fèrvation  hath  no  foundation  ;  for  xj1  M*t3«uoi^  according  to  Matthew, 
 and  Mews*'*,  of  Matthew,  are  the  fame  thing,  as  hath  been  proved 
 above.  We  fee  alfb,  that  the  Syr  tack  Verfion,  the  Arabick  (except 
 the  Copy  of  Rome,  that  hath  been  apparently  alter'd  in  this  point 
 from  the  Latin)  the  Ethwpick  and  the  Perfian,  all  read  the  Gofpel 
 of  Matthew. 
 
 The  great  antiquity  of  this  Title  'S-vctyyiKtov,  Gofpel,  is  ordinarily 
 proved  by  thefe  words  of  St.  Juftin  Martyr,  in  his  Apology  for  the 
 Chriftians,  {I)  The  Apofiles  in  the  Acts  that  they  have  committed  to 
 Writing,  that  are  called  Gufpels.      Inftead  of  the  word  Alls,  it   is  in 
 the  Greek  of  this  Father  am^n\uaydJ^Tt.     We  have  at  this  day  four 
 Books  of  Xenophon  extant,  wherein  he  relates  the  Words  and  Acti- 
 ons of  Socrates,  that  are  entituled  Ziv bçavlQ-  hmnjntuv&yA'r*,  and  in 
 Latin,  according  to  the  Tranilation  of  Cardinal  Beffanon,  Xtnophon- 
 tis  defaftis  &  dvdis  Socratis  memoratu  digms.    It  is  in  this  fame  fenfe 
 juft.Mar.  that  this  holy  Martyr  cites  the  Gofpels  in  his  Dialogues  againft  7V>- 
 r.n  Dial,    phon,  under  the  Title  of  $$  Attc^W  ^rc^H^vc^Ttt,  as  if  the  Apo- 
 cm--        files  had  had  no  other  deiign  in  their  Writings  that  have  been  call- 
 ed Gofpels,  than  to  publifh  the  Words  and  Aftions  of  Jefus  ChrikV. 
 
 Moreover,  it  is  worth  the  obferving,  that  although  the  Apoftles 
 were  not  the  Authors  of  the  Titles  that  are  fèt  at  the  head  of  their 
 Gofpels,  we  ought  ncverthelefs  to  receive  them  after  the  fame  man- 
 ner as  if  they  had  put  them  there  themfelves,  becaufe  they  are  de- 
 rived from  the  fit  ft  beginnings  of  Chnftianity,  and  are  further  au- 
 thorized by  a  confiant  Tradition  of  aii  the  Churches  of  the  World. 
 Erajm.'/s,  who  found  a  great  difficulty  in  concluding  concerning  the 
 
 Juft,  Mart,  in  AnuJ. 
 
 Author 
 
C  '9  ] 
 
 Author  of  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  that  bears  not  the  Name  of 
 
 St.  Vauly  protefts,  that  if  the  Church  hath  pronounced  any  thing 
 
 thereupon,  he  would  readily  fubinit  to  her  Decilion,  which  Jie  pi 
 
 fers  before  all  the  Reaions  that  may  be  propofed  to  him.     Plus  apud  Erafm. 
 
 rue  valet  (faith  this  Cntick)  Ecclefia  judicium ,  uuam   ulLc  ratiom-s 
 
 humanx. 
 
 C  H  A  P.      I  I  L 
 
 Concerning  Books  that  have  been  publijhed  under  the  TSLamt 
 of  Jejws  Cbrifi  and  the  Apoflles.  Of  fever  al  other  Acts 
 forged  by  the  ancient  Here  ticks.  Refections  on  the 
 whole  matter. 
 
 IT  hath  been  obferved  above ,  that  Jefus  Chrift  never  publiii 
 any  Work  to  make  known  his  Doctrine,  and  that  he  did  not  fo 
 much  as  give  order  to  his  Difciples  to  write  that  which  he  had  taught 
 them,  but  only  to  preach  it  to  all  the  Nations  of  the  Earth  :  never- 
 thelels,  there  have  been  found  Impoftors  who  have  let  forth  Book- 
 under  his  Name ,  and  have  attributed  to  him  certain  Acts  written 
 in  form  of  Letters,  the  forgery  whereof  difcovers  it  (elf,  in  regard 
 they  are  dire<5ted  to  Peter  and  Paul.  They  have  not  minded,  when 
 they  compofed  thefe  Letters,  that  Paul  was  not  the  Difciple  of  Jefus 
 Chrift  till  after  the  Death  of  the  fame  Jeliis  Chrift.  (a)  How  then 
 could  it  be  (faith  St.  Augufim)  that  he  mould  write  to  Peter  and 
 Paul ^  as  to  his  dear  Difciples  with  whom  he  converted  famili- 
 arly, fince  this  latter  was  not  then  in  the  number  of  his  Difciples  : 
 Befîdes,  theiè  Books  were  full  of  Secrets,  or  rather  Superftitions,  or 
 the  Art  that  is  called  Magick  ;  which  in  no  wife  agrees  'with  Jefus 
 Chrift,  who  hath  always  profefled,  and  the  Chriftians  after  him-, 
 to  condemn  this  kind  of  Superftition.  It  is  probable,  that  whereas 
 his  extraordinary  Actions  were  famous  throughout  the  World,  and 
 his  Miracles  furpnzmg ,  they  took  occaiion  rrom  thence  to  feign 
 this  Work  to  diiperfe  abroad  I  know  not  what  magical  Secre 
 which  the)'  pretended  he  had  put  in  practice  :  indeed  the  jeirs , 
 who  were  his  Enemies,  not  being  able  to  deny  the  truth  ot  his  Mi- 
 
 (a)  Quomodo  potmt  libros  qtios,  antequam  morerctur,  cum  fcriplijfe  futur i  vo- 
 lutit,  ad  ilij'apulos  tautjUAmjavuliarilfinus  Pet  rum  &  Péulumfcnpere,  cùm 
 lus  nondumfuerit  dijctpulus  ejus  ?  Auguit.  de  Confen.  Kv.in.  lib.  i.  c.  to. 
 
 D  i  racles. 
 
[  i0  ] 
 
 racles,  gave  it  out  every  where  that  he  was  a  Magician.   They  have 
 
 not  been  afhamed  al(b  to  fee  down  thefè  Fables  in  their  Talmud,  and 
 
 to  lay  that  Jeftis  had  learned  in  Egypt  the  moft  fubtil  Myfteries  of 
 
 Atud       Magick.    Celfits  reproaches  the  ancient  Chriftians  almoft  after  the 
 
 Origen,    fame  manner,  under  the  Perfon  of  a  Jew  whom  he  introduces  to 
 
 lib. \.  com.  (peak.    This  Epicurean  Philofopher  attributes  the  miraculous  Actions 
 
 -*'         of  Jefus  to  Magick,  or  rather  to  a  certain  Art  that  was  learned  (as 
 
 he  faith)  in  Egypt» 
 
 The  Letter  of  Jefus  Chrift  to  Agbar  King  of  Edeffa,  feemsnotto 
 be  fo  far  from  Truth,  becaufè  Eùfebïus  that  produceth  it  with   the 
 Letter  of  this  Prince  to  Jefus,  afTures  us,  that  he  hath  taken  thefè 
 two  pieces  from  the  Archives  of  EdeJJ'a,  that  contained  the  Records 
 of  what  hath  paffed  under  the  Reign  of  Agbar }  and  that  they  were 
 itill  kept  in  his  time  written  in  Sjriack,  which  was  the  Language 
 of  the  Country  ;  from  whence  they  were  tran dated  into  Greek.  Ne- 
 verthelefs  Pope  Gelafus  had  reafbn  to  rejeét  this  Letter  of  our  Sa- 
 Gelaf.       viour  to  Agbar  as  Apocryphal  :  Epifiola  Jefu  ad  Agbarum  apocrypha, 
 deer.  i.     I  am  apt  to  believe  that  thefe  Letters  were  really  found  in  the  Ar- 
 par.  dift.    chives  of  the  City  of  Edefja  ;    but  we  ought  not  too  eafily  to  give 
 i&c.  3.    credit  to  the  firft  Originals  of  Churches:  every  one  ftnves  to  ad- 
 vance their  Antiquity  as  much  as  is  poflible,  and  they  make  no 
 fcruple  on  fuch  occafions  to  counterfeit  A&s  when  they  have  none 
 that  are  true. 
 
 Eufebius  appeared  much  more  judicious  when  he  rejected ,    as 
 
 Tales  made  at  pleafure,    certain  Parables  and   Preachments  that 
 
 Tapias   attributed  to  Jefus    Chrift,   and  avouched  that   he    heard 
 
 them  reported  by  thofè  very  Perfbns  that  had  learnt  them  of  the 
 
 Apoftles.     We  ought  then  to  take  it  for  a  certain  Maxim,  that 
 
 Jefus  Chrift  hath  written  nothing,  and  that  we  have  nothing  of  his 
 
 but  what  we  have  received  from  his  Apoftles.   This  gave  occafion 
 
 to  fome  Pagans  who  had  a  Veneration  for  him,  to  fay,  (c)  That 
 
 they  could  not  believe  the  G  of  pel,  becaufe  he  had  not  written  it 
 
 himfelf  ;  and  that  his  Difciples,  who  were  the  Authors  thereof,  had 
 
 Augdib.i.  took  upon  them  too  much  in  making  him  God.     S.  Augufim  con- 
 
 de  conf     fûtes  thefè  People  in  his  firft  Book  of  the  Confent  of  the  Gofpels; 
 
 c-  7«         They  attribute  (laith  he.in  (peaking  of  thefè  Pagans  J  a  moft  excellent 
 
 Wifdom  to  Jefus  Chrift  ;  but  they  always  confider  him  as  a  Man, 
 
 . . — _______ , à 
 
 (  b  )  'Ey  Tiù  (ujtt>%\  <hfÀQOTQiç  %*>Ç™Jf>  w*  Ta  7ru.\(U&  x}  7tt  àpp  tdj/  "AyCa&v 
 '&&2@iV7v,  <vkAy*oi.  Euicb.  Hilt.  EcclcC  lib.  i.  c.  13. 
 
 (  c  )  Nolunt  hvangelio  credere,  quia  non  ab  ipfo  (Jefu  )  >IU  conscript  a  funt,  fed 
 ab  ejus  Dtjcipulis,  quos  exiftimant  ei  divimtatem,  qua  credere  tur  Dew,  err  ore  tri- 
 bui/ft.  Aug.  lib.  2.  Retract:,  c.  16. 
 
 and 
 
C  *t  ] 
 
 and  they  pretend  that  his  Diiciples  have  beftowed  Qualifications 
 upon  him  that  he  had  not:  they  declare  that  they  have  a difpofition 
 to  believe  his  Word,  in  cafe  lie  had  himlclf  committed  it  to  Writing, 
 but  refule  notwithfhnding  to  give  credit  to  the  preaching  of  the 
 Apoltles.  S.  Augufim  propounds  to  them  the  example  of-  Tythdgcrai 
 and  Socrates,  two  of  the  greateft  Men  of  the  Pagan  Antiquity,  who 
 have  written  nothing  of  their  own  Actions,  no  more  than  led 
 Chriftj  and  yet  they  do  not  for  this  reafbn  decline  referring  them- 
 fèlves  to  their  Diiciples  herein.  He  demands  or  them  (d  )  why  they 
 rather  believe  the  Diiciples  of  thefc  two  Philofophers  in  that  which 
 they  have  written  concerning  them  ? 
 
 This  arguing  of  S.  Auguftm  manifestly  fuppofeth  that  we  have  no 
 Writings  of  Jelus  Ch  ift  :  and  this  is  what  he  affirms  in  cxprefs  terms 
 in  another  place,  where  he  anlwe:  s  Faufius,  who  pretended  that  we 
 ought  to  feek  for  that  which  Jelus  had  laid  of  himfelr  :  Quœrendum 
 ejffe  <]uid  de  fe  Jefus  ipfe  pradicaverit.     Can  this  be  known  othenvifè 
 (faith  this  Father)  than  by  the  Writings  of  his  Diiciples?  Num^uid 
 bee   fciri  poteft,    mfi  difapults  ejus   ?  arrantibus  ?     (e)  It  there  were 
 (adds  he)  any  Writings  that  had  been  truly  of  Jeius  Chriit,  how 
 comes  it  to  pafs  that  they  were  not  read  nor  received  in  his  Church, 
 and  that  they  were  not  fet  in  the  higheft  rank  therein?     Thisalfo 
 is  the  Opinion  of  Origen  in  his  firft  Book  againft  Celfm,  where  he  Orîg.'l.  r. 
 acknowledgeth  that  Jefus  hath  publifhed   nothing  of  his  Actions;  com.  Celfl 
 that  we  know  them  only  by  the  Relations  of  his  Difciples  in  their 
 G  of  pels. 
 
 As  for  what  concerns  fal fc  Goipels,  falls  Acts,  fal fe  Apocalypfès 
 or  Revelations,  and  other  pieces  of  the  like  nature  that  have  been 
 compofed  under  the  Names  of  the  Apoftles,  there  hath  been  fb  great 
 a  number  of  them,  that  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  defenbe  them 
 all  exa&ly.     T?opQ  Gelafetss  hath  furmlhed  a  Catalogue  of  them  long 
 enough,  which  hath  been  inlerted   into  the  Decretal  of  Gratian  :  Deer.  i.| 
 and  altho  thefè  falfè  Books  have  been  almoft  all  loft,  yet  there  are  fart.  difi. 
 lome  Fragments  of  them  remaining  in   the   ancient  Eccleiiaihcal  I5-c-  ?• 
 Writers.    S.  Luke  (èems  to  have  written  his  Gofpel,only  becaule  fome, 
 who  had  undertaken  the  lame  thing  before  him,  had  not  acquitted 
 themfelves  faithfully  therein.    This  is  the  Senfe  that  the  Fathers  ge- 
 
 (d)  Quid  igitur  caufe  eft  cur  de  lftis  hoc  credant^  quod  de  illis  difcipuli  eorum 
 Uteris  commendarwit,  &  de  Chrifto  nolunt  credere  quod  ejus  de  illo  Dijcipuli  con- 
 fcrifferunt  ?  Aug.  ibid. 
 
 (e)  XJnde  fieri  poterat,  ut  fi  verc  ipfius  ejftruy  non  legerentur,  non  accipe- 
 rentur,  non  prxcipuo  culmine  aucloritatis  emmerent  in  ipjius  Ecclefia,  quit  >ib  ipfo 
 per  Apojloloi  fuccedcmibus  fibimet  Epifcopis  ufque  ad  /.\tv   tempora  propagata  <*~ 
 dttatur?  Aug.  cont.  Fault,  lib.  18.  c.  4. 
 
 nerally 
 
C"3 
 
 nerally  give  to  the  firft  words  of  this  Evangehft,  when  they  explain 
 Luc.  i.  i.  the  Greek  Word  Im^înt**,  which  is  tranflated  in  the  vulgar  Latin 
 anxti  fimt.  Many  (ù\th  Theophjlacl  J  have  written  Gofpels,  and 
 (  f  )  we  haveExamplesof  them  in  that  which  is  called  The  Go/pel  of 
 the  Egyptians,  and  in  another  intituled  The  Gofpel  of  the  Twelve. 
 Thefè  People  (adds  he  )  have  only  made  an  attempt,  but  they  have 
 not  finiftied.  The  common  Opinion  of  the  ancient  Interpreters  of 
 the  Scriptures,  whether  Greek  or  Latin,  is  that  S.  Luke  dehgned  to 
 mark  out  in  this  place  thofè  Writers  that  durft  publifh  falfè  Gofpels. 
 Barothan.  Y;a{dûpoftolos{{\\thBaronii{s)&?feudofcriptoresh^fu^gillatosfuerbts  a  Lu- 
 ca  fir  ma  eft  Tatrumfententia.  Neverthelefs  many  or  them  have  been  de- 
 ceived, when  they  have  produced  as  Examples  of  thele  falfe  Gofpels, 
 Writings  that  have  not  been  published  till  after  the  time  of  S.  Luke. 
 
 This  hath  given  occafion  to  iome  Learned  Commentators  on 
 thé  New  Teftament  to  doubt  of  the  Explication  that  the  Fathers 
 have  brought  of  this  Greek  Word  l^^«fncw,  who  take  it  in  a  bad 
 iènfè  in  this  paflage.  Maldonat  after  he  hath  rehearled  in  few 
 words  what  lèverai  Fathers  have  thought  thereupon,  adds,  (g)  that 
 he  will  not  recede  from  the  common  Opinion,  altho  it  be  not 
 grounded  on  any  convincing  Reafbn,  becaufb  the  Verb  km^tnow 
 may  alfb  be  explained  in  a  good  fenfè.  But  whether  there  were 
 any  falfe  Gofpels  or  not,  before  S.  Luke  publifhed  his,  we  cannot 
 doubt  but  a  great  number  of  them  have  been  forged  fince  that  time, 
 oï  which  the  Hereticks  have  been  the  Authors.  I  will  not  here 
 Ipeak  of  that  of  the  Nazareans,  which  was  called  alfo  the  Gofpel 
 i&y  e£^ffl«^,  according  to  the  Hebrews,  becaufe  I  am  perluaded  that 
 this  Golpel  was  the  Original  of  S.  Matthew,  into  which  they  after- 
 wards inlerted  iome  Additions,  as  I  (hall  mew  hereafter. 
 
 The  Ebiomtes  who  read  this  fame  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew  according 
 to  the  Hebrews,  (  h  )  had  others  alfb  which  they  had  iubftituted  un- 
 der the  Names  of  the  Apoftles,  efpecially  of  James  and  John,  that 
 they  might  the  more  eahly  impofe  on  thofe  of  their  own  Sect,  by 
 thofe  falie  Gofpels  that  went  under  the  Names  of  the  Difciples  of 
 Jefus  Chrift.  They  had  the  impudence  even  to  counterfeit  new  Acts 
 of  the  Apoftles,  which  they  filled  with  Impieties  and  Defamations 
 
 '   {i  )  Olov  'fori  y&T    'Atywfîw  x^  to    bmf&QoyhJov   t    cfo'Ay^.      QÎ   ttj;«W 
 «jy  i77i^i^czu>  uôvov,  à  fi^m  x)  ÏTiAeiaew.    Tiicophyl.  Comm  inc.  i.  Luc  verf. i. 
 (g.j  A  qu'a  jcntaitiâ,  non  quod   cota    miln     ratioyie    probari    pnjjc  vidcatur,' 
 fed  quod  ommbus  iidgb  prolan   videam,  nolo  difccdere.  Maldon.  Comm.  in  c.  I. 
 Luc.  verf  i . 
 
 Hxr.30.  n.  2'^. 
 
 againft 
 
againft  S.  PW,  whom  they  called,  by  way  of  i  Tot  ?,un  if 
 
 Tarfus,  being  dcfïrous  to  prove  trom  thence  that  he  was  not  8  Jew 
 by  Nation,  but  a  Profelvte,  and  one  born  of  Parante  that  had  been 
 converted  from  Gcntihlm  to  the  Religion  of  the  Jews.  Never- 
 thelels  Emftbins  allures  us,  thatthefe  Hereticks  did  no:  receive  any 
 but  the  Golpcl  bailed  According  to  the  Hebrews,  and  that  they  had 
 but  little  efteem  for  the  Others.  In  regard  that  they  had  pre  3d 
 Judailm  wich  the  Ch rift ian  Religion,  they  absolutely  rejected  the  Eufebitts 
 Epiftles  of  S.  Paul,  whom  they  treated  as  an  Apoftate,  becanfe  he  HiftA 
 had  (  laid  they  )  abandoned  the  old  Law,   SxpsaT&o  hxH&iïrnç  mjtqv  ,    ,    27. 
 
 The  Gnofiicks  who  fancied  themfelves  to  have  a  more  perfect 
 knowledge  of  Religion  than  all  the    other  Chriftians,  and  looked 
 upon  the  Apoftles,  as  Men  that  were  but  rude  anditupid  even  when 
 they   publilhed  their  Go! pels,  compofèd  a  Work  in  Vcrfe,    which  Epip^ 
 they  called  ^EvctyfiMcp  ntoâciaç,  the  Gofpel  of  Perfection.     (  1)  They  fl^.  26. 
 made  ufe  of  a  Gofpel  alfbthat  they  attributed  to  S.  Philip,  a  Difciple  »,  22. 
 of  Jeius  Chrift,  tome  words  whereof  Epipban;  t<  s  jzhtcs.     Some  of 
 this  fame  Seel  that  was  divided  into  lèverai  Branches,  had  invented 
 a  Gofpel  intituled  'E.vocyyi\ioy  *Evas,  the  Go/pel  of  Eve,  wherein  they 
 icattered  their  wild  conceits  under  the  Name  of  this  Woman,  whom 
 they  confidered  as  a  perfect  Gnofiick,  who  had   received  great  illu- 
 minations in  the  Conference  that  fhe  held  with  the  Serpent. 
 
 The  Sethians  who  were  another  fort  of  Gnofiickf,    who  boafted, 
 that  they  took  their  original  horn  Scth,  whom  they  believed  to  be 
 Jefus  Ghnft,  had  forged  (k)  an  Apocalypfe  under  the  Name  of 
 the  Patriarch  Abraham.     S.  Epiphanius  obferves  judicioufly,  that  the 
 defign  of  thefè  Gnoftuks  in  publiihing  fo  many  falle  Books  under 
 fuch  great  Names  was  to  delude  the  iimple,  and  to  caufè  them  to 
 believejfhat  they  were  ignorant  of  nothing  concerning  the  Life  of 
 Jefus  Cnrift.     Tholè  amongft  them   who  were  called  Msnofians,  ~  .  , 
 had  com po fed  certain   falfe  Hiftories  of  his  Infancy,  wherein  they  j^Jr&  Ô  ♦. 
 obferved  after  what  manner  he  had  learned  to  read.  n. 
 
 The  Encratites  who  acknowledged  for  the  Author  of  their 
 the  famous  latum,  a  Dilciple'of  S.Juftin   Martyr,  (  /  )  adhered  t 
 the  A&s  of  S.  Andrew,  S.  John,  S.Thomas,  and  fome  other  Apocry- 
 phal Books,  as  it  were  to  the  Authentical  Scriptures.     Thole  that 
 
 Epiph.  ibid.  n.  1 3. 
 
 (k     ' totv&Kw\iv  15  m*P&\k  'ACçyxLp.     Epiph.  Hxr.  $9  n .4. 
 
 ^  €><vu#  x}  ct/7TT/,pif?o/$  noi.Epiph* Haer,  47.  n.  1. 
 
 to 
 
[■M  3. 
 
 took  the  Name  (  m  )  of  Apoftolical,  and  were  a  Branch  of  the 
 
 Encrât  ites  relyed  after  their  example  on  the  falfè  Ads  of  S.  Andrew 
 
 and  S.Thomas  (n)  the  Ongenians,  whofe  Opinions  came  near  to 
 
 thofè  of  EptPboffms,  who  was  of  the  Sect  of  the  Gno flicks,  made 
 
 life  alfo  of  the  A6ts  attributed  to  S.  Andrew,  and  of  fome  other 
 
 Books  of  the  fame  nature.    The  (  o)  Manicheans  had  compofed  a 
 
 Gofpel  under  the  name  of  Thomas ,  and  they  made  choice  of  this 
 
 name  of  a  Gofpel  to  impofe  on   the  iimple.     Cyril  of  Jerufalem 
 
 who  lived  a  little   after  the  firft  appearance  of  this  Sea:,  attributes 
 
 this  Gofpel  to  one  of  the  Difciples  of  Manes  named  Thomas  (p  )  Let 
 
 none  (  faith  this  Holy  Bifhop)  read  the  Gofpel  of  Thomas;  for  he  m 
 
 not  one  of  the  twelve  Apofiles,  hut  one  of  the  three  wicked  Difciples  of 
 
 Manes.     The  Names  of  thefè  three  Difciples,  according  to  the  te-» 
 
 ftimony  of  the  fame  Cyril,  were  Thomas\  Baddas  and  Hermas.     Ne- 
 
 verthelefs  Pope  Gelafius  condemns  it,  as  belonging  (  asthey  faid  )  to 
 
 par  did     tne  Apoftle  S.  Thomas.     Evangclium  nomme  Thorn  a  Apojloli  quo  utun- 
 
 15.  c.  3.    tlir   Manichœi  apocryphum.     S  Augufiin  writing-  againft  Faufius  hath 
 
 Au?  com  ma(^s  mention  °£  certain  Apocryphal  Books  which  the  Manicheans 
 
 Fauft.lib.  made  ufe  of,    wherein  were  related  feveral  Aéfrons  01   S.  Thomas, 
 
 22.  c.  79.  of  which  he  hath  produced  fome  Examples.     Bat  not  to  be  tedious, 
 
 I  fhall  .pals  by  many  other  Golpels  that  have  been  publilhed  under 
 
 the  Names  of  the  Apoftles  ;  the  Titles  of  them  may  be  feen  in  the 
 
 Catalogue  of  Pope  Gelafius,  who  hath  ranked  them  in  the  number  of 
 
 Apocryphal  Books. 
 
 Altho  the  Church  doth  acknowledge  as  Canonical  only  two  E- 
 piftles  of  S  Peter,  that  are  alfojbut  fhort  ;  yet  (if  we  believe  the  an- 
 cient Hereticks)  he  hath  compoled  feveral  other  Works  that  are 
 mentioned  by  S.Jerome,  viz..  ceitain  A6ts,  a  Gofpel,  an  Apoca- 
 lypfe,  and  two  other  Books,  (  9  )  one  of  which  was  intituled,  The 
 Trcachiv.g  of  Peter,  and  the  other,  The  Judgment.  Eufekms  who 
 hath  alio  taken  notice  of  thefè  Books  attributed  to  S.  Peter,  adds, 
 
 (  m  )  'A7nçv\tiL0i  ivXi  KvpiMtui  rzt&i-Zinv  ?Kv£p<cx  7s  >y  ®6>{xa  to    fàéïçw  t7n- 
 ^yiihwu.     Epinh  Hser.  61.  n.  1. 
 
 (  n  )  *&exfpioi  xx'xçLutf7tt/  &nKpvçon  Tim,  (xd,Kiçu.  7vaç  M)P(Jt&cuç  ©e^?«w  'Ay- 
 J>é«  x}  ^akkcùv.  Kpiph.  Haer.  63. n.  2. 
 
 (  o  1    ^jy^L^uji  x}   Mctc/^fuo/  xj1    Qcà/Miv    iM&y^khtov    ovnf   coaxrtç    lwjsi 
 ouôLyfcMKm    a&jwvfJtiat  J>^9«p«   ?«*    4^*    $  AT&vçiçav.     CyriL  Hi< 
 
 la,   7nç 
 Hierofol. 
 
 nu  -,    quart  us ,  /ipocaiypfcos  ;   quint  us ,  judien.      Hieron.   de    Scnptor.   Eccl.  in 
 petr. 
 
 that 
 
feb 
 
 E*5  3 
 
 that  they  were  generally  rejected  by  all  the  Catholicity  (r  )  be 
 it  did  not  appear  that  any  Eccleiuflical  Writer  had  ei         )fcnbed  to 
 their  Authority  :  which  is  not  tine  ;  for  he  avouches  bimfell  in  anori 
 place,  that  Clement  of ^Alexandria  hath  cited  the  Apocalypfe  ot  S.  Pc: 
 the  Came  Clement  hath  alio  cited  the  Hook  that  bears  the  Title  oi 
 KtïçvyixoL  né^,  The  Preaching  of  Peter;    he  bath  alio  produced  lome 
 Fragments  of  theie  two  Works;  which  Orijren  hath  likewiie  done 
 after  him.     It  is  probable,  that   Eufebius  only  intended  to  fay,  that 
 no  Eccleiiaftical  Author  had  quoted  theie   Books  as  Divine  .\nd 
 Canonical.     After  the  lame  manner  may  be  explained  another  PaP 
 fage  of  his  Hiftory,  where  after  he  had  rejected  as  Apocryph.il,  t 
 Gofpels  that  had  been  publifhed  by  the  Hereticks,  under  the  Names 
 #f  Peter,  Thomas,  Matthias  and  fome  other  Apoftles,  he  adds,  that  y,'-; 
 no  Eccleiiaftical  Writer  lince  the  Apoftles  to  his  time  had  made  /  ,  ['' . 
 mention  of  theie  Golpels. 
 
 Serapon  Bifhop  of  Antiocbhzth  written  a  Letter  on  purpofe  again  ft  Seraph,  a- 
 the  Gofpel  that  bears  the  name  of  Peter,  orP  occahon   of  certain;  ;;    £//- 
 Chriftians  of  RhoJ/us  in  Cdicia,  who  having  read  this  Gofpel,    were-»''/  'IJi-':- 
 fillen  into  the  Error.     He  faith  in  this  Letter,  that  he  embraced  as  ^cc    ' 
 well  as  they  the  Writings  of  S.  Peter  and  the  other  Apoftles,  as  the 
 Word  of  Jeius  Chrift;  but  that  he  rejected  this  falfeGofpel  that  had 
 been  forged  under  the  Name  of  S.  Peter,  and  was  not  grounded  on 
 any  Tradition.     The  Hereticks  that  were   called  Docites  made  ufè 
 thereof;  and  Serapien  himfelf  before  he  had  examined  it,  had  per- 
 mitted thofe  of  RhoJJus  to  read  it;  but  afterwards  having  found  fome 
 Partages  therein  contrary  to  the  Orthodox  Faith,  he  abfolutely  for- 
 bad them  the  reading   it.     Sozomen  affirms    (  s  )    that  the  Apoca- 
 lypfe attributed  to  S.  Peter  was  read  even  in  his  time  every  year  on 
 Good  Friday  in  fome  Churches  of  Palefiine,  altho  this  Pieco  had 
 been  exploded  by  all  Antiquity. 
 
 The  ancient  Eccleiiaftical  Authors  do  moreover  make  mention  of 
 certain  Acts  attributed  to  S*Paul,  which  Eufebius  hath  rejected  as 
 Apocryphal.-(  t  )  We  receive  not  (  faith  this  Hiftorian  J  among  the 
 Books  that  are  not  fufpecled,  that  which  is  called  the  Acts  of  Paul; 
 and  lie  ipeaks  of  thefe  Acts  in  another  place  (  v  )  as  a  falfe  and  i.  i 
 
 *  (r)  O77  mi*  dçycduv  fjLVTt  <rÇ  K&V  t\u*i*7i{  l&xA\wd.çiyjoç  avyf '&$&;,  ffî  tJ£ 
 aZiuy  ovviyjinawn  (j.afTJeicuç.     Eufeb.  Hilt..  Ecclel.  lib  4  C  3. 
 
 {ActthtcvM  iyjitnf  ImXixricw;  f  nahauçiwç  ÙtÎti  vvv  a,7&Z  ltd?*  St*<  ÀfO>yit*MKQ$jHtM 
 tyvfy  it  ta  iuîpa  7k&ta<£iyiç.  Sozom.Hilt  Ecclcf,  lib.  7.  c\\r  19. 
 
 ,  t4  Oufi  ^  j^ç  hî}fi/jfyai  (wtx  <&£?■*;&$  it  ttvojJuptKiKTUf  ocefA'tatfct  Eu- 
 feb.hb.  a.   Hilt Boclcf. cap.  3. 
 
 (v)  'KvraivfoitrJla.TiTttyJtoo  ^  iff  U<wK*  mtffym  «  y&W*  fiufcb.ib.CA4. 
 
 E  pout:  ■ 
 
pofititious  Writing.     Many  other  Books  have  been  compifed  tinder 
 the  Name  of  this  Apoftle,  and  among  ethers  an  Apocaly^èor  Re- 
 
 ;;..'  lus    relation,  which  Pope  Mafias  hath  inferted  in  the  Lift  of  Apocryphal 
 
 r.     Pieces:    Rcvelatio  qua  appellatur  Vault   Apofioli  apocrypha,     Soz,omen 
 
 "  dift.  hath  obfc  ve.l,  (  x  )  that  in  his  time  the  greateft  part  of  the  Monks 
 
 15 .  c.  3.  very  much  efteemed  this  Apocalypfe,  tho  it  had  no  teftimony  of 
 Antiquity.  To  gain  more  authority  to  it,  they  feigned  that  it  had 
 been  round  at  Tarfm  in  Ciltcia ,  buried  under  ground  in  S.  Vattïs 
 1  loufo.  The  C  aim  es  who  acknowledged  Cain  for  their  Father,  from 
 whom  they  took  their  Name,  had  forged  another  Work,  under  the 
 Title  o£9Ày*Cd.mùy  TLctjjto,  that  contains  the  Hiftory  of  that  which 
 
 Her. 38.  happened  to  S.  Paul  when  he  afcended  into  Heaven,   where  he 
 
 ^z'         learn'd  things  which  he  was  not  permitted  to  reveal.     ThzGnoftickP 
 adopted  this  Book  for  their  ufe.     I  mail  not  infifl:  on  fbme  Epiftles 
 that  have  been  alio  pubhfhed  under  the  Name  of  S.  Vaul,  becaufe  I 
 mill  hive  occafion  tqipeak  of  them  in  another  place. 
 
 Beiides  all  thefè  A&s  counterfeited  under  the  Names  of  the  Apo- 
 ftles,  of  which  fcarce  any  thing  is  left  but  the  Titles,  we  have  others 
 more  entire  that  hive  been  Printed,  but  they  are  (b  full  of  Fables 
 and  abfurd  Tales,  that  we  cannot  read  them  without  being  at  the 
 fame  time  convinced  of  their  felfity.  Is  there  any  thing  for  example, 
 more  ridiculous  than  the  Gofpel  attributed  to  Ntcodemus?  There  is 
 nothing  allô  that  comes  nearer  to  Fable,  than  the  little  Book  intituled 
 Trot  evangelism  J  accbi>  The  firfi  Gofpel  of  James,  wherein  it  is  treated 
 among  other  things  concerning  the  Birth  and  Infincy  of  thebleffed 
 Virgin  Mary.  William  Vofiel  who  tirft  brought  this  falfe  Gofpel 
 from  the  Levant,  would  perfùade  all  the  World  to  believe,  that  it 
 was  read  publickly  in  the  Eaftern  Churches,  and  that  they  did  not 
 there  doubt  of  the  Author  thereof.  He  tranilatod  it  out  of  Gr^ 
 into  Latin»  and  having  lent  his  Tranflation  to  Oporm;rs3  a  Printer  at 
 Baf.ly  Btbliander  caufed  it  to  be  Printed  with  this  lpecious  Title,  Fro- 
 
 otev. 
 
 tevangelion,  five    de   Natalib/rs  jefu   Cbïrifli  Ô*   ipfius   matris   lrirginis 
 
 B  ifil  in  2  M™'1*2  Sermo  Hifioricus  D.  Jacobi  Minoris  confobrmi    &  fratris  Domini 
 
 ami5$2.  3ty*j   <dp°ft°ll   pnmarii,  &  Epifcopi  Ckr.fi ianorum  primi    Hierofolymis. 
 
 He  added  alio  tome  Notes  thereto  after  his  way  with  a  Difcouffe, 
 
 wherein  he  avoucheth  after  Vofiel,  that  this  Hiftory  of  the  Birth  of 
 
 Jefus  Ghnit,  and  of  the  Virgfn,  palleth  for  an  authentick  Book  rrf 
 
 Biblian.    the  Oriental  Churches  :    Antbentictts  habstur  in  Orient alibus  Ecckjhs. 
 
 inEpift.    The  Greek  of  this  little  Work  hath  alio  been  printed  afterwards  at 
 
 rmncup.     ^y?/  vvith  the  Latin  Vcrfion    in  a  Collection  or  lèverai  Pieces, 
 
 ^  Tiï.Hçvt  (Mv&jgv  \7wr1v71.    Sozom.  Hif t. Ecclcf.  Kb. '7.  c.  1 9. 
 
 isitituled, 
 
[   *7   ] 
 
 intituled,  Munntnenta  Orthockxa.    The  Title  that  anfi        to  that  oJ 
 the  /.^r/«  Translation  's  thus  ejtprefled;  npratNi^Tfofir  $  «AU 'frjvïmw 
 
 'U76  Xe/rtf,  x}  7?if /an©?  êu/w  to«  *ri  zttf^B  Mceeug  \&j@-  is-rei/if  &}«  'IcuuiC* 
 
 It-  the  Commentary  on  the  fix  days  of  the  Creation,  that  Aw 
 AlUtius  hath  publilhed  under  the  Name  of  Eufiathtm  Biihop  of  . 
 tiucb  who  lived  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  Century,  i  \a  certain- 
 ly belong  to  that  Biihop,  the  P  rot  evangel  mm  would  be  of  (uflGcienr 
 Antiquity  :  there  is  found  in  this  Book  a  considerable  Fragment  ot- 
 ic, that  is  delivered  in  (uch  manner,  that  the  molt  fabulous  pare 
 thereof  is  omitted.  The  ExprefQoq  that  Euftatbius  uleth  in  citing 
 k,  makes  it  appear  that  lie  did  not  believe  it  to  be  of  Sr.  James, 
 under  whole  name  they  had  published  it,  but  of  another  fames  . 
 for  obièrve  how  he  (peaks,  (  y  )  It  is  convenient  here  to  perufe  the  Hi- 
 ftory  that  one  James  relates  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  However  it  be,  we 
 rind  in  the  ancient  Ecclciiaftical  Authors  a  part  of  the  things  that 
 are  contained  in  this  little  Hifrory  ,  and  that  apparently  come 
 from  the  Gno[iich,  who  had  written  many  Fables  relating  to  the 
 Birth  ofjefus  Chnft,  and  the  Virgin. 
 
 I  admire  that  the  Proteftants  who  have  caufèd  this  Protev  angel  mm  *  o 
 of  James  to  be  printed,  have  thought  it  worthy  to  be  publifhed  with  doxogr. 
 ibme  other  pieces  of  the  like  nature  under  the  Title  of* '  Qrthcdoxo-  tditBafiL 
 grapha.     Bibhander  feriouOy  divulgeth  the  Import  lires  oi  William  Vo-  Lu'  42?' 
 (lei,  who  had  averred,  that   this  Protevangclium  was  the  beginning  ,-#2  Lat 
 of  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Mark,  and  even  the  foundation  of  Evangelical  &Gr.  an. 
 Hiftory  :  this  he  repeats  alio  in  a  little  Difcourie  wherein  he  gives  1569. 
 his  Judgment  of  this  Book.     Ipfe  Poftelhts  (faith  he)  œftimat  [_Prote-  Bl^liVU 
 vangelinm~]  ut  gemmam  inter  Libros  Tbeologicos,  cjr  Bafim  at  que  funda-  1  l~  ' 
 mentum  toîuts  Hifloriœ  Evangelica,  &  caput  Evangelu  fecundum  Mar-  Biblian. 
 cum.    In  a  word,  he  forgets  nothing  that  might  fee  a  value  on  this  *»  &*fu. 
 wicked  Piece,  which  he  thinks  to  be  recommendable,  becaule  ic^7;'<'; 
 hath  not  been  reckoned  in  the  number  of  the  Apocryphal   Books    ' 
 with  the  Gofpels  or  Nicodemus,  Thomas,  and  many  othes  that  are 
 recited  at  large  m  the  Catalogue  or  Pope  Gelafus.     But  this  proves 
 only  that  the  Protevajigeluim  had  not  been  as  yet  pubhlhed  in  that 
 time,  or  that  not  being  tranilated  into  Latin,  this  Pope  had  took  no 
 cognilance  thereof.    Indeed  he  hath  placed  among  the  Apocryphal 
 Works,  a  Book  that  treated  on  the  lame  Subject,  as  may  be  judg- 
 ed by  the  Title;  Liber  de  Natruitate  Saluât  or  is  (iaith  Gelafius)  &  dt 
 
 (  y  )   A^icy  3  %  t^  îç^eiçy  Im  S)i^Ha  -zk*  ni  &;îus  Ma&t;  "UyjaCQ-  7i<  mr  0 
 Eultatb.  Comm.  in  HeK. 
 
 z  Santfa 
 
[28] 
 
 t     iC       SanBa  Maria,  &  de  ohfietrice  Salvatons,  apocryphes.     It  were  to  be 
 tyud        vviflied^  that  Father  Jercm  Xavier t  a  Mifîionary  Jetait,  had  not  in- 
 x       forced  (6   many  very  improbable  things  taken  out  of  this  fort  of 
 -.  àii}.  Books  m  his  Hiftory  of  Jeius  Chrift  written  in  the  Verfian  Tongue. 
 ,  c.  {.        It  would  be  to  no  piirfofe  for  me  to  enlarge  any  farther  on  the 
 falfe  A6ts  that  have  been  published  under  the  names  of  the  Apo- 
 ftles ;  it  is  enough  to  obferve  in  general,  that  they  have  been  for 
 the  mod  part  invented  by  Hereticks  that  have  been  willing  to  {up- 
 port  their  Novelties,  by  attributing  them  to  fbme  Difciples  of  Jefus 
 Chrift.     Hegiftppus,  who  lived  immediately  after  the  Diiciples  of  the 
 Apoftles,  {peaking  of  Apocryphal  Books,  teftifies  (z,)  that  a  part 
 of  thefe  Books  have  been  compofèd  by  the  Hereticks  of  his  time: 
 therefore  when  the  Primitive  Fathers  defigned  to  judge  whether  a 
 Book  were  Canonical  or  not,  they  have  examined  its  Doétrine,  to 
 lèe  if  it  were  conformable  to  that  which  was  taught  in  the  Catho- 
 lick  Church  :  thc*y  have  moreover  confulted  the  ancient  Ecclefîa- 
 flical  Authors  who  have  lived  {ince  the  Apoftles  to  their  times,  that 
 they  might  by  this  means  know  the  Tradition.    Scrapion  applied 
 theîè  two  Rules  to  the  Golpel  that  parted  under  the  name  of  S.  Peter, 
 which  was  read  by  tho(e  of  the  Church  of  Rbojjits,  thinking  that  it 
 Strap,  a-  did  certainly  belong  to  him  whofe  name  it  bore.    (#)  We  have 
 Pjjfff'0,  found  (  faith  this  holy  Biinop)  in  this  Gofpel,  many  things  that 
 ckHMè  a£ree   Wltn  tne  tms  -Religion  of  Jefus  Chrift;  but  there  are  alio 
 et  l2,        lome  things  that  are  far  from  it.     He  judgeth  in  the  fame  place, 
 that  the  A&  that  had  been  produced  to  him  was  falfe,  becaufè  it 
 was  not  grounded  on  Tradition. 
 
 Not  but  that  the  Fathers  have  fometim.es  made  ufe^of  Apocry- 
 phal Books,  and  have  quoted  even  falfe  Gofpels  ;  as  for  example, 
 the  Go{pel  that  is  called  v&ï  'Aiyj^l*?,  according  to  the  Egyptians,  is  not 
 to  be  allowed  as  authentick  for  this  very  reafon,  that  it  is  thought 
 to  be  mod  ancient,  and  that  mention  is  made  thereof  in  Clement  of 
 Alexandria  :  it  ought  not  to  be  remedied  neither,  under  this  pretence 
 alone,  that  the  Cnofiuks  and  Sabellians  have  maintained  their  Errors 
 by  tins  Book.  The  Primitive  Fathers,  who  have  written  agamit 
 the  Fagans  and  Jews,  do  {ometimes  follow  in  their  Dilputes,  and 
 even  in  their  other  Works,  the  method  of  Rhetoricians,  who  often 
 iploy  Reafons  purely  probable,  and  doubtful  A&s,  after  which 
 we  muft  not  always  regulate  our  {elves.    This  is  to  be  leen  princi- 
 
 (  z  j   *Ewî  t  cu/Tv  ygoyov  <&£}$  nyay  aûfmxjiïv  ci vathtAa^  tivcl   7vtwv.    Euleb. 
 Hiit.  Ecclcf.  lib  4.  cap  22. 
 
 (  a  J  'Evçéiv  7«  (tify/  7frHovcL  7«  &j 9»  AoJ»  to  ouTViçyï  ma  5  a£50"<//sçttA^W  Scrap. 
 .id  Euleb.  Hut.  Ecclef.  lib.  6.  cap.  12. 
 
 pally 
 
C*5>  1 
 
 pally  in  the  Works  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origen,  Clement 
 bach  on  this  account  related  fbme  Words  of  Jelus  Chrift,  (b)t\ut 
 are  not  to  be  found  in  the  four  Evangcliils  authorized  by  the  Tra- 
 dition of  the  Church;  and  he  faith  that  they  are  in  the  Gofpelof 
 
 the  Egyptians.  He  only  quotes  them  after  the  Heretick  Caffian,  . 
 and  in  arguing  with  the  Followers  of Bafiiules,  he  refers  to  certain  ust/ 
 Writings  attributed  to  Sr.  BamaLis.  On  the  .other  fide,  the  llerc- 
 ticks  making  Profellion  of  Chriftianity  as  well  as  the  Orthodox , 
 have  not  always  recourfe  to  apocryphal  and  fuppolïtitious  Pieces 
 to  deferitl  their  Innovations.  Therefore  to  judge  rightly  of  an  A&3 
 whether  it  be  valuable  or  nor,  in  point  of  Religion,  and  whether 
 it  carrieth  with  it  a  Divine  Authority,  it  is  abfblutely  necelTary  to 
 apply  to  it  the  two  Rules  that  have  been  above  mentioned.  S.  Au- 
 giiftiris  Advice  is,  when  any  fuch  Difficulties  ante,  (c)  to  have  re- 
 gard to  the  plurality  of  Churches,  and  to  prefer  thofè  that  are  in 
 a  greater  number  and  of  more  eminent  note ,  before  the  others 
 that  are  in  a  lelTer  number  and  lefs  confiderable. 
 
 There  is  another  fort  of  Ads  attributed  to  the  Apoftles  or  their 
 Difuples,  that  have  been  rejected  as  Apocryphal  in  procefs  of  time, 
 though  in  the  beginning  they  did  really  belong  to  thofè  to  whom 
 they  were  aicribed,  or  at  leaft  to  their  Difciples  who  had  publifh- 
 ed  them  under  the  name  of  their  Matters.  But  thefe  A&s  having 
 been  interpolated  and  mangled  by  the  Hereticks,  or  elfe  by  orhers, 
 we  .have  been  obliged  not  to  allow  them  any  longer  as  authentick. 
 St.  Epiphamm  feems  to  have  put  in  this  rank  the  Book  called  &i<t7*!;iç 
 ç£T  \A7roc3W,  the  Conflit  ut  ion.  cf  the  Apoflles}  which  he  often  quotes, 
 as  if  it  were  indeed  theirs.  He  draws  from  thence  Proofs  to  con- 
 firm the  judgment  of  the  Church,  when  he  examines  the  opinion 
 of  the  Audians  concerning  the  Pajjcver,  who  produced  one  of  thefe 
 Constitutions ,  attributing  it  to  the  Apoftles..  This  Father  being 
 very  far  from  condemning,  or  even  doubting  of  it,  received  it  with 
 them  as  Apoftolical,  reproving  them  only  for  taking  i:  in  a  wrong 
 fenfe.  And  whereas  thefe  Conilitutions  were  from  that  tun  3 
 f peeked  by  (bme,  he  adds  that  they  ought  not  to  be  rejected  foi  thi  , 
 becaufè  they  contained  the  whole  Ecclcliaftical  Difcipline;  whic  1 
 
 lv  ni  vj\  A)yjtfivç.    Ckm.  Alex.  lib.  3.  Mrom, 
 
 (c)    Tenebte  tunc  modum  m  Scriptuns  Canonia'sy  tit  cas  qu.e  ab  omnibus  ace 
 untur  Eccicjiis  Cathoiicis,  prœfouat  eis  quai  quccdam  inn  accipiunt.     In  eu   vera 
 qux  non  accipiuntur  ab  omnibus,  prxpor.it  eat  quas f tare  S  graviorefquc  acc:p:;> 
 eis  quas  pauaores  mi  nor  if  que  automata  Ecclcjic  tenait.    Aug.  lib.  2.  de  Doctr. 
 {  [wit  cap  . 
 
 makes 
 
m 
 
 C30D 
 
 s  me  judge  that  he  had  another  Copy  different  from  that 
 ,  hich  we  read  at  prefcnt.  lie  appeared  to  be  io  well  periuaded 
 that  thefe  Condamnons  were  made  by  the  Apoftles,  (d)  that  he 
 calls  them  the  Word  of God.  Neverchelefs',  it  is  more  probable  that 
 the  A  pottles,  who  had  received  Orders  from  Jefus  Chritt  to  preach 
 his  Oofpel ,  and  not  to  compofe  Books,  are  not  the  Authors  of 
 thefe  Conftitutions  that  bear  their  Name.  But  as  S.  Mark  calls 
 his  Golpel  the  Gofpel'of  Jefus  Chrift,  (o  in  like  manner  Apottoh- 
 cal  xMen,  who  fùceeeded  the  Apoftles,  have  collected  their  Doctrine 
 and  Conftitutions,  and  publilhed  them  under  the  Name  of  the 
 Apoiiles.  It  is  in  this  fente  that  the  Apottlcs  Creed  is  fo  called, 
 bring  that  ancient  Confeftion  of  Faith  that  all  the  Churches  un- 
 doubtedly received  from  the  Apoftlcs,  though  they  had  not  com- 
 
 micced  it  to  Writing. 
 
 Chap.     IV. 
 
 The  ancient  Fathers  have  not  produced  the  Originals  of  the 
 New  Tejlament  in  their  Difputes  againjl  the  Hereticks. 
 -  An  Examination  of  Proofs  that  are  brought  to  fliew  that 
 thefe  Originals  have  been  kept  in  fome  Churches. 
 
 WE  may  conclude  from  all  that  hath  been  above  related,  that 
 the  mod  ancient  Fathers  of  the  Church ,    when  they  de- 
 figned  to  eftablifh  the  truth  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament, 
 have  not  had  recourfè  to  any  Originals  that  had  been  kept  in  the 
 Apoftolical  Churches,  but  only  to  true  and  exacl:  Copies  of  them, 
 which  being  found  the  fame  in  all   thefè  Churches,  were  in  the 
 place  of  the  Originals  them/elves.     On  this  depends  all  the  Diiputc 
 of  Tertullian  againft  Marcwn,  and  that  of  S.  Auguftin  againft  Faufius 
 a  Mamchean  Sectary.     Thefe  two  Hereticks  refilled  to  acknowledge 
 the  Copies  that  were  approved  in  the  Catholick  Church.    Tertullian 
 and  S.  Auguflin  did  not  oppofe  to  them  the  Authority  of  any  Ori- 
 ginal Pieces,    but  only  the  confiant  Tradition  of  the   Churches. 
 Aug.  hi,   Vid.cs  (  faith  S.  Auguflin  fpeaking  to  Fattftw)  w  hac  re  quid  Ecclefïœ 
 lï.cont.    Cbtholicœ  val  eat  aulloritas?  Is  it  poilible  (may  fome  fayj  that  God 
 hauft.c.i.  hath  given  to  his  Church,  Books  to  fèrve  her  for  a  Rule,  and  that 
 he  hath  at  the  fame  time  permitted  that  the  firft  Originals  of  thefe 
 
 (d)  '£k  7tt7f  <P&TÙ;in  ffi  ignçéhuv  <pû,f*i  o  Zita  hoys*  Epiph.  Ha:r.  80.  n.  7. 
 
 Books 
 
Books  fhould  be  loft  ever  fince  the  beginning  of  the  Chriftian  Re- 
 ligion? There  have  been  from  the  very  firft  planting  of  the  Church, 
 Hereticks  who  have  difputcd  againft  the  Writings  of  the  Apoftles, 
 
 and  therefore  it  leems  to  behove  the  Divine  Providence  to  preftrve 
 theft  Originals  at  leaft  for  iome  time,  froAi  whence  theft  lice- 
 ncies might  be  (blidly  confuted. 
 
 B  :t  ic  hath  been  already  made  appea^elfewhere,  that  it  is  no  won-  j^p  j  t 
 derchat  the  Primitive  ChnRians,  who  had  nor  a  regular  Body  oÇocfi 
 a  State  in  which  they  lived,,  and  whofè  Aflemblies  were  on  the  con-  des  v    f« 
 trary  furiouflv  difturbed   by    the  Jews   and  Pagans  $  had   loft  the      /'"'■• 
 Originals  of  their  Books.     Befides,  the  Apoftles  had  no  order  from  foff'cj,6. 
 Jefus  Chrift  to  write  their  Books,  as  hath  been  above  oblerved:  fag.i^ 
 and  although  they  fhould  not  have  been  written.  Religion  would 
 be  equally  preserved  by  the  means  of  Tradition,  after  tire   fame 
 manner  as  it  had  been  cftabhfhed  before  the  Apoftles  had  com- 
 mitted any  thing  to  Writing.     Quid  ft  (  faith  St.  Irenaws  )  neaz  Apo-  iren.  /.  3. 
 fîoli  cfuïdem   Scr:ptitras  reliquiJJ'ent  nobis  ,  nonne  oportebat  ordinem  Çe^ui  adv.  Hxr. 
 traditionis  quam  traduhrunt    'tis  tjuibftS  commïttebant  Ecclefias  ?  Upon  c-  4- 
 the   whole    matter,  Jeius  Chrift  had  lent  his   Apoftles  to  all   the 
 Nations  of  the  Earth,  only  to  preach  his  Doctrine  to  them.  That 
 which  the  ancient  Chriftians  have  called  Gofpel ,    is  only  a  Col- 
 lection of  the  Preachings  of  thefè  fame  Apoftles,  or  of  their  Dtf 
 ciples. 
 
 As  for  what  relates  to  the  Primitive  Hereticks,  they  would  not 
 have  been  more  folidly  confuted  by  oppofïng  to  them  the  Originals 
 of  the  Writings  of  the  Apoftles,  fince  they  took  the  liberty  to  re- 
 form their  Doctrine,  and  to  fee  up  in  oppofition  to  their  Books  I 
 know  not  what  Traditions,  or.  which  they  themfelves  were  the  Au- 
 thors; as  may  be  feen  more  at  large  in  the  Books  of  S.  Irenœm,  who 
 underftood  perfectly  well  the  Opinions  or  theft  ancient  Sectaries, 
 of  which  he  hath  left  us  fbme  Records.    He  declares,  for  example, 
 in  (peaking  of  the  Gno(tkks3  that  he  had  to  do  with  Perfons  that  hcn.a.h. 
 did  not   acknowledge  the  Scriptures,    nor  the  Tradition  of   the  H*rMb.$. 
 Church,  but  that  fquared  both  the  one  and  the  other  according  to  c^p- -■ 
 the  meafure  of  their  own  Prejudices;  therefore  he  forgets  nothing 
 that  may  fèrve  to  eftabhlh  the  true  Traditions  by  which  Religion 
 ought  to  be  regulated. 
 
 Although  the  Scriptures  are  a  fure  Rule  on  winch  o;ir  Faith  is 
 founded,  yet  this  Rule  is  not  altogether  iufficient  of  it  felf;  it  is  ne- 
 ceifery  to  know,  befides  this,  what  are  the  Apoftolical'Tradkionsj 
 and  we  cannot  learn  them  but  from  the  Apoftolical  Churches,  who 
 have  preferved  the  true  Senfè  of  Scriptures.     S:  Irenaus  advileth. 
 
 1)  that 
 
C  ** ■ j ■ 
 
 (a)  that  the  (acred  Books  fhould  be  read,  to  be  informed  from 
 thence  of  Religion  :  but  .it  the  fame  time  he  advifeth,  that  they 
 fhould  be  read  with  thole  who  being  the  Succeflbrs  of  the  Apoftles, 
 have  been  as  it  were  the  Depofitaries  or  Stewards  of  their  Do&rine. 
 There  was  no  talk  in  thofe  days  of  reading  the  Holy  Scriptures  in 
 the  Originals;  any  Copv  whatfoever,  provided  it  were  ufèd  in  the 
 Orthodox  Churches,  might  be  relied  on,  as  if  it  had  been  the  firft 
 Original  written  with  the  hand  of  the  Apoftles.  We  ought  to  give 
 the  lame  credit  to  Copies  that  have  been  made  of  the  Apoftolical 
 Writings,  as  to  the  very  Originals,  becaufè  thefe  Copies  have  been 
 taken  from  thence  even  from  the  times  of  the  Apoftles,  and  have 
 been  afterwards  difperfed  almoft  throughout  the  whole  Earth  :  they 
 have  been  preferved  in  all  the  Churches  of  the  World,  having  been 
 translated  into  divers  Languages  ;  infbmucb,  that  there  is  no  Book 
 the  Copies  whereof  are  more  authentick  than  thofè  of  the  New  Te- 
 ftament  :  and  in  this  we  ought  chiefly  to  acknowledge  the  peculiar 
 Providence  of  God  in  the  prefervation  of  thefe  Books  that  he  hath 
 given  to  his  Church  by  the  Miniftry  of  the  Apoftles,  or  of  their 
 Di  (ci  pies. 
 
 Some  pretend  neverthelefs  to  make  it  appear  by  a&ual  Proofs  ta- 
 ken out  of  the  ancient  Ecclefiaftical  Writers,  that  the  original  Wri- 
 tings of  the  Apoftles  have  been  preferved  in  the  Church  during  lè- 
 verai Ages  :  and  this  muft  be  examined  in  particular,  though  I  have 
 already  difcourfed  thereof  elfèwhere.     In  the  firft  place  they  pro- 
 duce a  Paflage  of  Tertullian  in  his  Book  of  Prefcription  againft  He- 
 rcfies,  where  he  faith,  in  fpeaking  of  the  Churches  that  had  been 
 founded  by  the  Apoftles,  (  b  )  that  they  yet  kept  in  his  time  their 
 Fame!.      Authentick  Writings.     Tamelir/s,  in  his  Notes  on  this  Paflage,  af- 
 Annot.  in  firms  afcer  another  Author,  that  the  Word  Authentick  cannot  be  ta- 
 Ub.rcrtiiL  ken  j)Ut  fQV  tjie  Originals  that  had  been  written  with  the  very  hand 
 c.-xl      'of  the  Apoftles  themfclves;  after  the  fame  manner  as  Lawyers  call 
 a  Teftament  Authentick  that  hath  been  written  with  the  hand  of 
 the  Teftator,  to  diftinguifli  it  from  a  Copy.     This  is  al(b  the  Sen fè 
 Grot,  de    that  Grot'ms,  Waltcni  Huetim,  and  many  others,  have  given  of  thefe 
 /-ri  Ra  Words  of  Tertullian,     Tertullianus  (  faith  Grotius)  aliquot  Itbrorum  ipfa 
 #.C  rij  .  ^rciJetypa  p40  a(\]mc  tempore  ait  txtitjjjh.     Lie  avoucheth ,  from  this 
 
 )  Omni  s  ferme  ei  conftabit,  fi&  Scripturam  diligent er  léger  it  afud  ecs  qui  in 
 Eccléjmjunt  Vrcsbytcrt,  apjidquos  eft  Apoftohca  doHrina.   Ircn.  lib.  4.  adv.  Hxr. 
 
 cap-  5^-  ,  r 
 
 (  b  )  Apud  anos  ijf*  Authentic*  Liters  eormn  rccitamtir.   Teriulj.  de  Prxfcr. 
 
 pap.  36. 
 
 place 
 
[  H  1 
 
 place  of  Tamilian,  (c)  that  (bme  Originals  of  the  New  Teilamcni 
 nave  been  preferved  till  the  beginning  of  the  third  Centu 
 
 But  if  we  carefully  examine  the  different  Partages  wherein  Ter* 
 luUian  makes  ule  of  the  Word  Authentick  in  his  Works,  jye  (hall  fi  I 
 that  he  hath  meant  nothing  elfe  by  this  Expreffion  than  Books 
 ten  in  their  Original  Languages.  This  is  what  Rigaltius  hath  very 
 well  obièrved  on  this  Sentence  of  Tertullian ,  where  explaining  t!  • 
 Word  Authentic*  y  he  faith,  Lingua  fcdicet  tadem  qua  futrsnt  ab  Ape 
 ftolis  confer  if  ta  jonantcs  ijocem  uniufcujufsjiie.  Sic  ipfe  lib.  de  Monogatm  \  'irrf 
 
 ad  Gracnm  authenticum   Fault  provocat.     Whereas  the  Latin  Veriion  \p 
 of  the  New  Teftament  was  only  read  in  the  Churches  of  Africa  i  he  /A 
 gives  the  Name  of  Authentic!*  to  the  Greek  Text  :  and  in  this  Senfè 
 it  is  that  quoting  this  Text  in  his  Book  of  Monogamy,  he  faith,  Set- 
 amtts  plane  non  ejje  fie  in  Graco  authentico.     St.  Jerom  alfo  uleth  the 
 like  Expreffion  with  refpect  to  the  Old  Teftament,  when  he  op- 
 pofeth  the  Hebrew  Text  to  the  Greek  and  Latin  Verfïons  ;  for  he 
 calls  the  former  Ver  it  at  em  Hebraicamy  the  Hebrew  Verity  ;    defigning 
 thereby  to  denote  the  Originals  of  the  Scriptures  which  he  likewife 
 denominates  as  Tertullian  doth,  Authenticcs  libros,  in  his  Commen-  TertulMb. 
 tary  on  chap.  64.  of  the  Prophet  Ifaiah:  neverthelefs  he  did  not  be-  ^  Monc^. 
 lieve  that  thefè  were  the  firft:  Originals  written  with  the  hand  ofc"  IIs 
 the  Prophets.     We  exprefs  our  fèlves  alfo  at  this  day  after  the  fame 
 manner,  when  we  fay  that  a  Veriion  of  the  Scriptures  is  not  con- 
 formable to  the  Original.     Tertullian  therefore  doth  not  [peak  of 
 any  other  Originals  in  his  Book  of  Prefcnption,  than  thofè  that  we 
 have  juft  now  remarked.     As  to  the  Authority  of  Lawyers  that  Pa- 
 melius  oppofèth,  it  is  eafie  to  remonftrate  by  the  Teftimony  even  of 
 the  moft  learned  Lawyers,  that  the  Word  Authentick  is  often  taken 
 in  a  lefs  ftrict  fènfè.     Every  A&  that  proves  and  proenres  credit  of 
 it  felf,  whether  it  be  an  Original  or  not,  is  accounted  Authentick. 
 An  Author  that  publifheth  (bme  Manutcripc  Piece,  allures  us  that 
 it  is  taken  ex  codice  authentico,  from  an  authentick  Copy  •  Doth  he  mean 
 by  this  that  he  hath  the  Original  of  the  Book  that  he  fets  forth,  in 
 his  own  hands  ? 
 
 In  the  (econd  .place  they  offer  an  actual  Proof  taken  from  Eu-  Eufeb. 
 febnts.  This  Hiftonan  (peaking  of  the  Zeal  and  of  the  Chanty  of  Hift.Eccl. 
 the  ancient  Chriftians,  who  went  to  preach  the  Gofpel  to  the  moil  '•  S*.*  n 
 remote  Nations,  after  the  Example  of  the  Apoftles,  faith  that  ?an- 
 tenus  quitted  the  City  of  Alexandria,  where  he  was  the  Principal 
 of  a  School  or  Colledge  of  Chriftians,  to  promulge  the  Religion 
 
 (c)  Archetypa  nonnuHa  a.l  amnim  ufiue  dazcutefimum  Cervsta  Cunt.  Giot.dc 
 Vent.  Relig.  Chrift.  lib.  i 
 
 F  of 
 
[  14  3 
 
 of  Je  fus   Chrift  to  the   Indians.     This  faithful  Evangelift  being 
 among  the  Indians  or  Ethiopians,  found  there,  a  Copy  of  S.  Matthew's 
 Gofpel ,  written  in  Hebrew,  that  S.  Bartholomew ,  the  Apoftle  of 
 thele  People,  had  left,  and  was  believed  to  be  preferved  there  to 
 that  time. 
 
 But  beiides  thnt,  EufeBim  doth  not  confirm  this  Hiftory  by  any 
 Ecclefiaftical  Writer,  being  content  only  to  lay  that  it  was  a  com- 
 mon Report,  kv/Q.  I  do  not  fee  that  it  can  be  unquefiionably  pro- 
 ved from  thefe  Words,  that  the  Hebrew  Copy  that  Fantenus  found 
 at  his  Arrival  in  that  Country,  was  the  Oiiginal  that  St.  Bartholomew 
 had  left  there.  He  only  intended  to  fay.  That  the  Ethiopians,  who 
 had  been  converted  to  the  Faith  of  Jelus  Chrift  by  this  Apoftle,  did 
 not  make  ule  of  the  Greek  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew,  but  of  the  Hebrew 
 or  CbaUaick  that  had  been  written  for  the  firft  Chriftians  oïjeru» 
 fahm.  If  this  Hiftory  were  true,  the  Primitive  Chriftians  of  Ethi- 
 opia were  defcended  from  the  Jews,  and  fpake  the  fame  Language 
 as  thofe  that  inhabited  Judea.  This  is  all  that  can  be  concluded 
 f  om  the  Dilcourlè  of  Eufebim,  which  hath  been  amplified  in  pro- 
 eels  of  time.  St.  Hierom  doth  not  feem  to  have  underftood  the  fenfc 
 of  this  Hiftorian,  when  he  faith  in  his  Catalogue  of  Ecclefiaftical 
 Writers,  that  Pantemts  (d)  returning  to  Alexandria,  carried  back 
 with  him  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  written  in  Hebrew  Characters. 
 Eufebn/s  faith  only,  that  the  Chriftians  of  Ethiopia  had  preferved  this 
 Hebrew  Gofpel  until  the  Arrival  o^Pantenus. 
 
 The  third  material  proof  that  is  brought  is  taken  from  the  Chro- 
 nicle of  Alexandria,  wherein  it  is  obferved,  that  a  corred:  Book  of 
 the  Gofpel  o\  St.  John,  that  had  been  written  with  that  EvangelihYs 
 own  hand,  was  preferved  in  the  Church  of  Ephefus.  Peter  Biihop 
 of  Alexandria  maintained  that  it  ought  to  be  read  in  the  xix  Chap,  of 
 S.  John,  ver. 4.  »££  b%  àaù  vein,  it  was  about  the  third  hour,  ( e)  becaufe 
 (  faith  he  )  this  reading  is  found  in  the  correal  Copies,  and  m  that 
 which  had  been  written  with  St.  John  the  EvangelifVs  own  hand  ; 
 which  Copy  is  kept  at  prefent,  by  the  Grace  of  God,  in  the  moil 
 holy  Church  of  Ephefus,  and  is  there  adored  by  the  Faithful. 
 
 It  is  no  difficult  matter  to  judge  that  all  that. was  laid  in  that 
 time  at  Ephejus  concerning  the  Original  Writing  of  St.  John,  who 
 had  been  Bifhop  of  that  City,  was  only  grounded  on  a  popular  Er- 
 
 (  d  )  Qvpd  Hcbr mets  Uteris  feriptum  revenons  Alcxandi  iamfccum  detulit.  Hier. 
 <Je  Scriptor.  Ecclef.  in  Panteno. 
 
 (e)  KaSvs  7a  cliiexÇ»  /2/Oua,  ifciiyei  ewiin  ri  )M%i£?v  rfti  lvayfc\içx  ' Wm, 
 o4$>  \Jc%tf.  vu»  7n<pvKA)tJ)  "X^u-Tt  t»  €>««  cy  tm  'Y-.yioiav  âyiecrdr»  inxhncia,,  &  "vW 
 ?ft -mwv  lafin  «g^^uwhtw.  Chron.  Alex.  edit.  Monachii,  p.  521- 
 
 ror; 
 
C  H  3 
 
 ror;  feveral  like  inftances  whereor  it  were  eafic  to  produce.   Can 
 we  fee  any  thing  more  ridiculous  than  the  Tradition  of  the  Vmttiam 
 
 with  reipect  to  the  Gofpel  of-  St.  Mark ,  the  Original  of  which, 
 written  with  his  own  hand,  they  pretend  yet  to  keep  even  to  this 
 very  day  ?    Barman  could  not  forbear  rejecting  this  Tradition,  as 
 having   no  foundation   in   Antiquity.     Fertur  traditions  magis  (  faith 
 this  learned  Annalift  )  <juàm  antiquorum  certo  teftimcnio,  tpjum  Mar- 
 cum    E'vangelium  fuum   quod  Romœ   Latine  fcripjcrat,  cum   Aqualeja 
 moraretur  ,  mijj'us  illuc  à  Petro  ad  earn  erigendam  Ecclefiam,  m  Grœcum 
 tranftulijje,  tpjumque   Originale  diutius  ajjervatum  Venetian   demur»  ejjè 
 tranjlatum.     Fabiano  Jufiimam ,  a  Prieft  of  the  Oratory  of  Rome  , 
 who  hath  believed  with  Lucas  Brugenjis,  that  the  Latin  Gofpel  of 
 St.  Mark  which  we  have,  hath  been  tranflated  from  the  Greek,  doth 
 not  ftick  to  declare  (/)  to  us  the  common  belief  of  the  People 
 of  the  State  of  Vtmce ,  who  fhew  the  very  Original  of  St.  Mark 
 written  in  Greek,  and  even  the  Ivory  Chair  wherein  he  had  written 
 it.    It  is  not  necelfary  to  confute  this  loi  t  of  vulgar  Traditions,  that 
 are  grounded  on  no  Acts,  as  Baromus  himfèlf  hath  acknowledged. 
 The  fame  thing  may  be  (aid  concerning  the  Tradition  of  thole  of 
 Ephefus  related  .by  Peter  Bifhop  of  Alexandria-,  we  might  demand  or. 
 him  who  are  the  ancient  Ecclefiaftical  Writers  that  have  made  men- 
 tion before  Vim,  of  this  Gofpel  written  with  St.  Johns  hand  ?  It  is 
 requilite  that  they  fhould   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.  Epiphanws  had  heard  any  News  of  this  Original,  he  would 
 not  have  faile^to  refer  the  Alogians  to  it,  who  generally  reje&ed  all 
 the  Books  ofst.  John,  which  they  afenbed  to  the  Heretick  Cerin- 
 thtt5  :  on  the  contrary,  he  only  oppofeth  to  them  good  Reafons  ; 
 and  being  very  far  from  diiputing  with  them  on  a  vain  Tradition" that 
 had  no  grounds  but  the  hmplicity  of  the  People,  (g)  he  (iith,  if 
 they  had  only  difallowed  the  Apocalypfè,  it  might  be  thought  that 
 a  certain  too  curious  criticizing  Humor  had  obliged  them  to  em- 
 brace this  Opinion,  not  to  receive  an_  Apocryphal  Book,  becaufè 
 there  are  fbme  things  in  this  Book  proround  and  obfeure. 
 
 (f)  Marcus  cam  in  Aqmlejam  fcnetœ  Province*  civitatem  ù  Sanïïo  Petro  mijjm 
 
 >'ijjety  ibi  idem  Evangeltum  iterum  Grxzo  eioquio  exaravtt,  quod  ufquc  bodic  in 
 
 Aquilcjenfi  Ecclefia  cum  (bwrrnd  fide  t  in  quà  i.'.'ud  fcrip/èrat^oftenduur,  &  congruà 
 
 dévot ione  rejervavi  dicitur.     Fabian  Juitin.  Comm.  de  Sacr.  Script,  lib.  i.  part.  z. 
 
 c.  48.  edr.  Romr,  ann.  1614. 
 
 (gj>  El  ft'iJiyiyTv  70  lvctyyi\i9',',  rUù  0  %ùrvyjhv\r<v  imCd^o/Jo,  ixi-p^  <*V  y* 
 
 àu'4«  @a,&aç  ^  JKojaySi  HfH^ct.  Epiph.  H*r.  5 1 .  il  j. 
 
 F  2  Laftlyj 
 
C  i*l 
 
 Laftly,   they  oppofe  that  which   happened  under  the  Emperor- 
 Zeno  m  the  Ifle  of  Cyprus,  where  Atitbttmm  Bifhop  and  Metropoli- 
 tan of  this  Ifland,  was  advemfed  in  a  dream  of  the  ground-plot 
 where  the  Body  of  St.  Èatnabas  had  been  enrerred,  which  was  found  ' 
 accordingly  in  the  place  that  had  been  revealed  to  him,  having  on 
 ins  Bread  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  written  with  his  own  hand.- 
 This  Copy  was  immediately  lent  to  the  Emperor,  who  received  it 
 with  a  profound  refpecft,  and  kept  it  as  a  precious  Rehck  in  a  Church 
 that  was  in  his  Palace.     The  Church  of  Conjlintinople  read  the  Go- 
 fpel once  every  Year  in  this  venerable  and  augnft  Copy  of  St.  Bar- 
 nab  as.    To  render  this  Story  more  probable,  they  add  the  Teftimo- 
 ny  of  Cardinal  Baronius,  who  averreth  that  we  cannot  doubt  there- 
 of, it  being  generally  received  of  all  the  World  ;  befides  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 
 Hillonans,  one  after  another,  have  related  the  matter  of  fad,  as 
 is  above  laid.  Theodonts  Lector  (  b  )  doth  even  fpecifie  the  name  of 
 the  Tree  under  which  the  Body  of  St.  Barnabas  was  found  who  had 
 on  his  Breaft  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  :  N/cepborus,  Çedrenus,  Joel, 
 Nilus  Doxapatriusy  and  fome  other  Greek  Writers,  have  alfb  made 
 mention  of  this  Gofpel  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  deferves  to  be  mod  enquired  into 
 in  all  this  Affair,  and  whereon  entirely  depends  the  Difcovery  of  the 
 Virion  of  Anthnmus  to  whom  St.  Barnabas  appeared  :  this  is  obfer- 
 ved  by  all  the  Greek  Hiftorians,  with  the  Monk  Alexander ,  that  they 
 of  the  lfle  of  Cyprus  took  occafion  from  thence  to  make  off  the 
 Yoke  of  the  Patriarch  of  Antiocb,  who  pretended  that  they  were 
 of  his  dependence.  This  was  an  old  Quarrel  between  this  Patri- 
 arch and  the  Bifhops  of  this  Ifland,  who  refilled  to  take  Ordination 
 of  him,  becaufè  their  Church  having  been  founded  by  the  Apoftle 
 St.  Barnabas  ,  ought  to  be  (  as  they  thought  )  independent.  This 
 Affair  had  been  decided  in  the  Council  of  Ephefus  in  favour  of  the 
 Bifhops  of  this  Ifle,  who  had  reprefented  that  they  had  enjoyed  this 
 Privilege  time  out  of  mind.  Notwithstanding,  the  Patriarchs  of  An- 
 tioch  continued  to  moled  the  Bifhops  of  Cyprus,  and  juftihed  their 
 Proceedings  with  the  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  that  was  fa- 
 vourable to  them.     It  is  alio  very  probable,  thatthe.y  ot  Cyprus  did 
 
 i%v  I'm  çù$vç  iv  xj1  Mctlàeuw  Ivayyihiov  'Mf&tQQV  Ta  BdfvÂCeu.    Theodor.  Le&. 
 Cullect  lib.  2. 
 
 nor 
 
c  i7  x 
 
 not  withdraw  thcmfelves  from  the  JuriiThcYton  of  Antiocb  till  this 
 Patriarchal  Church  fell  into  Schifm.     Anthïmïus>  Metropolitan  of 
 
 Confiance,  took  an  occaiion  «it  that  time,  in  regard  that  Petrm  Fullo 
 who  was  then  Patriarch  of  Anuoch,  lui  declared  himfelf  Protector 
 
 of  the  Eutycbians.    J5nr  iince  the  whole  matter  was  or  rieceffity  to 
 be  referred  to  the  Emperour,  the  Metropolitan  of  Confiance ,  who 
 
 was  not  in  his  favour,  thought  Ht  to  feign  the  Vilion  above  men- 
 tioned. Which  being  come  to  the  knowledge  or  Zeno,  he  forthwith 
 forbad  the  Patriarch  of  Antiocb  for  the  future  to  difturb  the  Bilhopj 
 of  Cyprus.  Ant h imio  Confiant ienj ri  Epifcopo,  f  faith  Father  Mor'mi  who 
 epitomized  the  Hiftory.  of  Monk  Alexander)  e<>  quod  apud  b,. 
 rem  minime  gratiofus  efjet  fluHuanti,  *}  ami  wxp'w  dormit  ant  i  appa. 
 S.  Barnabas,  qui  corporis  fui  reliquias,  &  S.  Matthxi  Etvangeliumy  quod 
 tpfe  de f crip  fer  at }  ei  indigttat,  at  que  Apofiolum  fidei  auBorem  fe  in  patria 
 habere  ut  adverfartis  reponat,  fracifif. 
 
 This  is  in  a  few  words  the  difcovery  of  this  Vifion  or  BiftV  1 
 Antbimius  ,    who  very  opportunely  caufed   St.  Barnabas  to  appear 
 tanquam  Deum  e  Machina  to  oppole  Vetvus  Fullo  Patriarch  or  An* 
 tiocb:  and  that  there  might  not  remain  any  doubt  of  his  Revela- 
 tion, he  put  into  the  hands  of  St.  Barnabas  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Mat- 
 thew.  Mr.  le  Moine,  a  learned  Proteftant,   and  well  ver(èd  m  the  ^F.  Ie 
 Oriental  Languages,  aflures  us  that  it  was  written  in  Hebrew,  be-  JJome 
 cau(è  St.  Barnabas  who  had  tran  (bribed  it  for  his  own  ufe,  was  born  mr 
 a  Jew,  and  preached  to  thofe  of  his  Nation.     But  it  is  more  likely  Gr. 
 •  that  Anthimmsy  who  was  not  a  Jew,  mould  fo1:^  a  Greek  one; 
 neither  is  it  credible  that  it  ihould  have  been  publickly  read  in  the 
 Church  of  Confiant  impie,  if  it  had  been  written  in  Hebrew.     As  for 
 the  deference  that  Barcnius  gives  to  the  Teftimony  of  the  Mon!: 
 Alexander ,  Author  of  the  Life  of  St.  Barnabas,  this  Cardinal  is  not 
 very  favourable  to  the  (aid  Monk  in  another  part  of  his    Annals, 
 where  (  ;  )  he  (peaks  of  him  as  An  Inventor  of  Tales,  that  hath  nor 
 written  the  Life  of  this  Holy  Apoftle  as  an  Hiftorian. 
 
 I  could  bring  other  Examples  or  the  like  Revelations,  that  have 
 as  many  Circumftances  as  that  of  Bilhop  Anthimuis,  and  yet  tor  ail 
 this  are  never  the  more  true.  Under  the  Reign  of  the  Emperor 
 Tbeodofius  a  Revelation  was  feigned  to  authorize  the  falfe  Afocal 
 that  was  attributed  to  S  Paul.  It  was  alio  found  under  ground  at 
 T*rfus  in  Cicilia,  in  the  Moufe  oi:  this  Holy  Apoftle.  There  were 
 alfb  a  great  number  of  Alexanders  or  Monks  in  Palefiine  that  eve;'' 
 where  extolled  this  falfe  Piece,  as  if  it  had  truly  belonged  to  hint 
 
 (i) , Alexander  Gracus  auBor%  qui  res  Barnaba  frofecn  ti~ 
 
 usquam  hijîoncè}&ç.  Baron,  ana  ch.  51,  n.  53. 
 
 whofe 
 
C  5*3  . 
 
 60%.  Hift.  whok  Title  it  bore.  Bat  Sozowon,  who  relates  this  Hiftory,  informs 
 Bed.  I.  7.  us  at  the  fame  time,  that  a  Pried  of  the  City  of  Tarfus,  who  was  a 
 CmI9'        very  old  man,  had  allured  him  that  this  was  falfe. 
 
 Furthermore ,  we  do  not  find  that  the  two  grcateft  men  of  the 
 Church,  I  mean  Origin  and  St.  Hierom,  who  have  fèarched  the  an- 
 cient Copies  or  the  Scriptures  with  lb  much  care  and  diligence,  and 
 have  vifited  fo  many  Churches  in  the  Eaft,  have  ever  fpoken  of 
 Originals  of  the  New  Teftament  written  with  the  hand  of  the  Apo- 
 ftles;  which  they  would  not  have  failed  to  do  if  there  had  been 
 any  in  their  times  ;  efpecially  St.  Hierom,  who  confulted  a  very  great 
 number  of  Greek  and  Latin  Copies,  when  by  order  of  Pope  Ddma- 
 Jus,  he  reviled  the  ancient  Latin  Verfion  of  the  Golpels.  Where  were 
 then  thefe  pretended  Originals  ?  It  is  true  theue  was  no  talk  as  yet 
 of  tho  Revelation  of  Anthimius ,  nor  of  the  Hiftory  of  Monk  Ale- 
 xander. This  Father  hath  laid  well,  that  the  Latin  Copies  were 
 all  different  one  from  another:  Tot  emm  funt  exemplaria  feney  ejuot 
 codices.  Therefore  (  k  )  he  judges  it  neceffary  in  this  great  diveriity 
 of  Copies,  to  have  recourfè  to  the  Original  Greek  from  whence  the 
 Latin  hath  been  taken  :  but  he  makes  no  mention  of  thele  firft 
 Originals,  that  M.v.Huet  fuppofèth  (/)  to  have  been  kept  in  the 
 Archives  of  the  Churches  fince  the  time  of  St.  Ignatius  y  by  which 
 f  faith  this  learned  man)  they  were  regulated  in  their  Controverlies 
 and  Difputes.  The  Jefuit  Maldonat ,  on  the  contrary,  proves  by 
 the  fame  Partage  of  St.  Ignatius,  (m)  that  in  thele  Primitive  Apo- 
 ifolical  times  there  were  People  who  doubted  of  the  truth  of  the 
 Gofpels,  at  leaffc  if  they  could  not  find  them  in  the  Archives  of  the 
 Church.  To  conclude,  Tertullian  and  St.  Auguftin3  who  have  fb 
 vigoroufly  difputed  with  the  ancient  Hereticks  that  deftroyed  the 
 Verity  of  the  Writings  of  the  Apoftles,  have  never  objected  thele 
 Originals  to  them  :  fo  that  this  is  by  no  means  neceflary  for  the 
 eftablifhing  of  the  Chriftian  Religion,  as  hath  been  above  fhewed. 
 
 Ç k)  Hoc  ccrtc  cum  in  noflro  fermone  difcordat,  (3  in  diverfos  rivulorum  trami- 
 tes  uno  de  fonte  quœrcndnm  eft.  Hieron.  Praef.  in  Evang.  ad  Damaf. 
 
 (  1  )  Ex  fide  trimigeniorum  illorum  exemplarium  qu<e  Jcrvabantur  in  Ecclefiarum 
 tabulants,  dirtmebantur  controverfiœ,  &  kœfuantium  dubitatio  tolicbatur .  D.  Huet. 
 in  Demonli.  Evang.  pag.  642.  prima?  edit. 
 
 (m)  Wis  primis  ttmporibus,  ut  ait  Ignatius,  nonnulli  erant  qui  aJeb  fnjpcfla  ha- 
 égarent  fe  Evangelio,   nift  m  Ectlefix  archivis  in^cmrc/it,  credt- 
 
 bcYDit  omnia,  ut  ncg 
 
 twos.  Maldon.  Praer.  in  Evang.  cap.  2. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
C  19  ] 
 
 C  ^A  P.    V. 
 
 Of  the  Books  of  the  New  Te /lament  in  particular,  and 
 firft  of  the  Go/pel  of  S.  Matthew.  The  Original  of 
 this  Cofpel  bath  been  written  in  the  Hebrew  Tongue 
 which  the  Jews  of  Jerufalem  /pake  at  that  time.  An 
 Anfwer  to  de  ^eafons  that  are  contrary  to  this  Opinion. 
 
 IT  is  a  confiant  Tradition  founded  on  the  general  confent  of  all 
 the  Churches  m  the  World,  that  there  are  but  four  Gofpels,  the 
 firft   of  which  is  that    of  S.  Matthew  :     Necjue  autem   plura  numéro  lren.1.2. 
 quàm   bac  funt    (  iaith    S.Ircttat/s  )    ne^ue  rurjus   pauciora  capit  ejJk.adv.Uar. 
 Neverthelefs  there  are  found  in  thefc  later  times  lôme  Authors  who  '■  ll- 
 have  believed  that  S.  Matthew  is  not  the  firft  that  hath  committed  the 
 Goipel  of  Jefus  Chrift  to  Writing.     They    ground  their  Opinion 
 on  this,  that  S.  Luke  feems  to  accufe  thole  Gf  little  care  and  exad:-  Luc.  i.  r. 
 nefs  that  had  publifhed  Gofpels  before  him  :  and  iincc  this  Accufà- 
 tion  cannot  fall  on  any  of  the  three  other  Evangelilrs,  they  con- 
 clude from  thence  that  none  of  them  had  written  before.     But  we 
 ought  not  to  oppofe  an  Inference  that  at  mod  carries  with  it  but  a 
 probability,   to  the  Tcftimony   of  all  Antiquity.     Therefore  Grotius 
 (  a  )  rejeàs  this  Opinion  as  being  contrary  to  the  order  of  the  four 
 Gofpels  eftablifhed  at  all  times  among  all  Nations,  and  authorrfed  by 
 the  moft  ancient  Fathers.     Maldonat  wrho  attributes  this  Argument 
 to  Bcz,a,  refutes  it  alio  with  no  other  Reafons  than  that  of  Tra- 
 dition ;  and  adds  at  the  fame  time  that  (b)  if  we  mould  refer  our 
 ielves  herein  to  Hereticks,  we  mould  have  no  certainty  in  point  of 
 Religion. 
 
 It  cannot  be  denied  alfb,  at  leaft  without  contradicting  all  An- 
 tiquity, but  that  S.Matthew  hath  written  his  Got  pel  in  Hcbre w3  that 
 is  to  lay,  in  the  Language  that  the  Jews  ofcJer::falcm  then  ipake,  ■ 
 that  was  called  Hebrew,  andwaseithe»  Chaldatckox  Sjriack.  (c)  Pa- 
 fiaf,  who  lived  with  the  Difciples  of  the  ApolHes,  avoucheth  this  iti 
 
 (  a  )  Rgfrdgatnr  vctuflijjlmus  hbronun  ordo  apud onmes  natipnes9refragatur 
 ditto  vetus  be >.œo  Ter tulliano  ti  ft ibits  fujfulta.  Grot.  Ani.ot.  in  c.  i.Luc.  v.  i. 
 
 (  b)  Si  hxreticts  credcrenms,  nihil  in  ipjaetiatn  BgHgiom  catum  flabii.-j.-u 
 her  emus.  Maldon.  Praef»  ift Evang.  c  4. 
 
 (c)   Metfcjtu®-  'ECçyÂJ)  thetMK^  7*   hoy*  cwayce/L^-n.     Pap.  apud  Eufeb. 
 Hilt.  Ecclef.  lib.  3.  cap.  ^9. 
 
 ex  pre  (s 
 
[4°] 
 
 ex  pre  (s  terms;  and  S.Irenœus,  Or/gen  and  many  other  Fathers  have 
 afterwards  confirmed  it.  6.  Iretuew  faith  (•<!)  that  S.  Matt  be  w  be- 
 ing among  the  Hebrews,  compofecMiis  Gofpel  in  their  proper  Dia- 
 led. Oriçen  in  the  Canon  that  he  hath  given  us  of  the  Sacred 
 rooks,  names  S.Matthew  the  firftof  theEvangelifts  (e)  who  pub- 
 Jilhcd  it  in  Hebrew  for  the  ufe  of  the  Jews  that  had  embraced  the 
 Chriftian  Religion.  Thefè  primitive  Chriftians  were  called  Naz,a- 
 rencs  by  the  Jews,  as  appears  from  [the  \Atls  of  the  Apo/lles,  where 
 they  accufe  S.  Paul  of  being  rhe  Ringleader  of  the  Seel:  of  the  Na- 
 Avfl  xxiv.  z,arems ,  Twjz&iiw  m  $/  N*£»paW  eûfi<nw.  Ever,  fince  that  time 
 5-  they  have  always  given  to  the  Chriftians  the  name  of  Nazarenes, 
 
 which  is  found  in  their  Talmud,  and  in  their  other  Books.  There 
 were  afterwards  certain  Sectaries  under  this  fame  name,  who  adopted 
 this  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew,  fome  Fragments  of  which  are 
 yet  extant  to  this  day,  whereof  we  (hall  difeourfè  hereafter.  It  is 
 expedient  before  we  proceed  any  further,  to  examine  the  Reafons  of 
 thofe  that  affirm  that  S.  Matthew  hath  not  compofed  his  Gofpel  in 
 Hebrew. 
 
 Erafmut,  who  had  no  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  Tongue,  hath 
 been  one  of  the  hrft  that  hath  thereupon  oppofèd  the  common  fenti- 
 ments  of  all  Antiquity  :  but  the  Reafons  tha  the  produceth  are  fo 
 weak,  that  he  fbmetimes  makes  himfelf  even  ndiculous,when  he  would 
 talk  like  a  Critick  concerning  a  matter  of  which  he  was  altogether 
 ignorant.  He  would  refer  in  every  thing  that  relates  to  the  Hebrew 
 Tongue,  to  Oe colampadms  who  underftood  it  no  more  than  himfèlf 
 which  cau fed  him  to  fall  into  grofs  Errors,  and  gave  occafion  to  his 
 Adversaries,  efpecially  Stumca  -a  Learned  Spaniard  to  reprehend  his 
 Jacob.  Ignorance.  Cardinal  Cajetan  who  was  skilled  neither  in  Hebrew  nor 
 slZfo^m  Greek,  hath  blindly  followed  the  miftakes  of  Erajnws  in  this  point, 
 Erarm.  %  -qs  not  oeing  capable  of  correcting  them.  But  the  greateft  part  of 
 the  Cathohcks  have  herein  abandoned  Cajetan,  that  they  might  not 
 without  reafon  and  judgment  withftand  a  Tradition  eftablifhed  on 
 good  Aéte.  Some  Proteftants  on  the  contrary,  who  feared  left  they 
 mould  not  have  the  true  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew,  if  it  were  evident 
 that  it  had  been  written  in  Hebrew  or  Chaldaick^  and  left  the  Greek 
 that  remains  to  us  mould  be  only  a  Tranflation,  have  readily  em- 
 braced the  Opinion  of  Erafmus  and  Cajetan.  Flacius  Illyncus  hath 
 diligently  enough  collected  the  Reafons  that  may  be  alledged  in  de- 
 
 \.imyw  cv&yfalv.  Iren  apud  Eufeb.  HutEocl.  lib.  5.  cap.  8. 
 
 (t4    'LkAJum't*  ewTo  ts7<    am    *\*JbuQy£  7n<r£<m<n   yy[.y.wt.<riv    'kC^i/Jit 
 evimlctyytyov.  Orig.  apud  Ettfeb.  lib.  6.  Hilt.  Keel.  enp.  25. 
 
 tence 
 
[4i  ] 
 
 fence  thereof,  and  hath  put  them  at  the  Head  of  h  :  of  t 
 
 New  Teftamerit,  which  he  h.icH  cauied  to  be  Printed  inGreck  and 
 
 Latin.     This  we  mud  now  take  into  examination. 
 
 This  famous  Proreftant  objects  in  the  firft  place,  with  {..tan,  a/.- 
 feveral  Hebrew  Words  that  are  explained  in  another  Language  in 
 Goipel  of  S.  Matthew  ;  as  for  example,  Eli,  Eh,  &  lama  [aba. 
 IfS.  Matthew  (faith  this  Cardinal  J  hid  written  his  Gofpel  in  He 
 brew,  it  would  not  have  been  neeefîàry  for  him  to  expound  the 
 Words  in  a  different  Idiom.     But  thcle  Interpretations  ought  rathe 
 to  be  afenbed  to  the  Translator  than  to  the  Author.    To  v        \  he 
 replys,  that  if  this  came  from  the  Interpreter,   he  ought  to  ha  i 
 
 dated  all  the  Hebrew  of  this  Gofpel,,  and  not  to  have  fèlec  only 
 ibme  Words  as  he  hath  done.  To  which  it  maybe  aniwered,  that 
 it  is  the  cuftom  of  the  Interpreters  of  the  Sacred  Books,  to  let  cer- 
 tain Hebrew  Words  remain  in  their  Verhons,  which  they  think  to 
 have  more  energy  or  emphafie  in  them,  and  that  cannot  be  always 
 exactly  tranflated.  This  is  eahe  to  be  proved  from  the  Septuagint, 
 and  other  ancient  Greek  Interpreters  of  the  Bible.  Grotius,  who 
 hath  alfo  made  this  Objection  in  his  Notes  on  S.  Matthew,  anfwers 
 (fj  that  it  is  an  ordinary  thing  for  Writers,  and  alfb  Interpreters  to 
 retain  foreign  Wards  that  are  remarkable,adding  the  Interpretation  to 
 them,  and  that  this  hath  been  fometimes  praéhled  by  the  Septuagint. 
 
 Illyr'Piti  oppoicth  in  the  iecond  place  two  Reafons  of  Erafmus  ; 
 the  fii  it  »j  that  none  have  avouched  that  they  have  fèen  this  He- 
 brew Gofpel,  becaufè  that  of  which  S.  Jerome  (peaks,  was  the  Go- 
 ipel of  the  Nazarenes,  whjch  was  written  in  Syriack  or  CbaUaick. 
 The  fécond  conlifts  in  this,  that  the  ftyle  of  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Mat- 
 thew 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  himfèlf  anfwers  to  the  firft  Reafon,  when  he  fàith  (g) 
 that  the  molt  part  of  the  ancient  Doctors  of  the  ChtircrT  have  be- 
 lieved that  this  Hebrew  Gofpel   was  the  Original  of  S.Matther- 
 Certainly  it  is  the  very  fame  that  this  Apoftle  wrote  for  the  primi- 
 tive Chriftians  of  jndaa,  who  then  (pake  the  CbaUaick  Language 
 
 Erafmus  tells  us,  that  he  never  heard   of  this  matter,  when  he  ob 
 jeéts  that  the  Gofpel  of  the  Naz*arenes  was  not  in  Hebrew;  but  in 
 Chaldaick  or  Syriack,  not  knowing  that  this  Chaldatck  or  Sjtiàck  was 
 
 '    (f  )  So! owe  eft  omnibus  fcriptonbus,   etiam  mterPretibus,   vocahua  i 
 notabiiiorafervarc  intégra,  Jedaddito  inter f  ret amenio,     Quod  aliquot ws  i 
 Bumvidemui  à  Sembus  Septuagint  a.  Grot.  Annot.  in  tic  Matt]]. 
 
 (g]    Voeatur  a pkxiÇaue  MattLei  auibenticttm.    Hkton.  Comxn. 
 Nfetth. 
 
 G 
 
[  Ai  3 
 
 then  called  Hébreu*.  As  for  the  Sryle  this  Reafbn  is  too  genera]  to 
 be  able  to  conclude  any  thing  from  thence.  Stunica  hath  very  well 
 anfwered,  (  h  )  that  it  is  not  to  be  admired  that  the  ftyle  of  the  Go- 
 ipels  appears  to  be  the  fame  in  all  the  Evangelifls,  altho  they  had 
 written  in  different  Languages,  becau(e  that  being  Jews,  thofe  a- 
 mong  them  that  have  written  in  Greek  have  very  often  kept  the  Genius 
 and  propriety  of  the  Hebrew  Tongue.  This  he  proves  by  the  exam- 
 ple of  S.  Luke,  who,  tho  he  hath  compofed  his  Gofpel  and  the  Ads 
 of  the  Apoftles  in  more  elegant  Greek  than  that  of  the  other  Evan- 
 gelifts,  doth  not  forbear  to  make  ufe  of  divers  Expreiiions  that  are 
 purely  Hebrew. 
 
 The  third  Objection  is  taken  from  Calvin,  and  is  grounded  on 
 fèveral  Pafîàges  of  the  Old  Teftament,  cited  by  S.  Matthew  accord- 
 ing to  the  Greek  Veriion  of  the  Septuagmt.  Whence  he  infers,  that 
 S.  Matthew  hath  compofèd  his  Gofpel  in  Greek:  otherwife  writing  for 
 the  ufe  of  the  Hebrews,  who  read  the  Bible  in  Hebrew^  he  would 
 have  rehearfèd  thefè  Pafîàges  after  the  fame  manner  as  they 
 are  in  the  Hebrew  Text.  But.  this  reafbn  is  deitru&ive  of  it 
 felf,  becaufe  he  that  hath  tranflated  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  or. 
 S.  Matthew  into  Greek  ,  performing  it  for  perfôns  that  (pake 
 Greek,  and  read  the  Bible  in  this  Language,  ought  to  quote  the 
 Authorities  of  the  Oîd  Teftament,  rathe;  according  to  the  Greek 
 Verfionof  theSeptuagint,  than  according  to  the  Hebrew  Text  which 
 they  underftood  not. 
 
 Vilyr'icKs  adds  to  all  thefe  Reafbns,  that  there  is  no  likelyhood  that 
 S.  Matthew  mould  defign  to  write  his  Gofpel  in  a  Language  that  was 
 no  longer  in  ufe,  becaufe  at  that  time  all  People,  and  even  the  Jews 
 themfelves  fpake  Greek  or  ChaUaick-.  Befidesthat  the  Holy  Ghoft, 
 who  was  the  Author  of  the!e  Books,  knew  that  the  Deftru&ion 
 of  Jerufakm  was  not  far  oft.  Therefore  there  is  no  appearance 
 C  faith  he 5  that  he  mould  intend  to  publiih  the  Gofpel  in  any  other 
 Language  but  the  Greek,  which  was  the  Language  of  the  Empire. 
 
 This  Proteflant  is  grofly  nnftaken,  when  he  believes  after  Erafmus, 
 that  it  is  fuppofed  that  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew  hath  been  written 
 i:i  the  ancient  Hebrew  ;  whereas  the  Htbrew  of  the  Jews  at  that  time 
 was  the  Claldaick  -Language  which  they  had  brought  with  them 
 from  Babylon,  and  had  only  a  little  altered  it.    It  hath  indeed  b. 
 
 (h  )  Konhccmirum  vider  i  debet.'  fi  loquendi  idiontiite  onirics  convent  ant,  etiamfi 
 cUvcrjis  linguii  Lvangùliaconjcn-pfcrwt  :  erant  enim   efut  eneris,  hoc  eft  He- 
 
 brai  ex  Herbϔs;  &  qui  Greece  ex  Ulis  Jcnf-Jerm.t,  p.itrr.c  linguce  preprjietatem in 
 càJcrtjiturâffC}     m    refcrunt.  Jacob.  Lop.  Stun  init.  Annotât,  in  Erafm. 
 
 more 
 
more  convenient  thnt  the  Books  or 1  fhould 
 
 written  rather  in  Greek  thin  in  another  Lingua:'        But  here  it  i 
 only  argued  concerning  the  jfaw  of  Pahfl-mei  to 
 
 firft  p        led  the  Gofpel.     And  linee  thole  People  (pake  < 
 it  was  necedary  for  him  to  preach  to  then  in  t  lis  (ame  I 
 
 On  theiè  grounds  all  Antiquity  hath  relied,  vthen  they  hive  b. 
 that  S.  Matthew  had  compoied  his  Gofpel  in  lU'jriw. 
 
 He  oppofeth  morcovcr,that  S.  M. it  hew  (aw  that  the  r  diddai 
 harden  their  Hearts,  and  that  they  had  an  Abhorrence  or  the  Re- 
 ligion of  Jeius  Chrift.  And  therefore  it  is  not  credible  (  faith  I 
 eus)  that  this  holy  Apoltle  hath  written  his  Go/pel  for  their  lak*, 
 and  in  their  Language.  But  to  what  purpofc  are  reafons  drawn  from 
 expediency  againfr  matters  pf  fact  that  are  evident  ?  We  cannot 
 doubt  but  many  Jews  or  Faleftine  have  received  the  Gofpel  of  Jelus 
 Chrift  by  the  Xliniftry  of  S.  Matthew,  and  whereas  they  (pake 
 Chaldatck  or  S)rtack}  he  could  not  leave  this  Gofpel  with  them  in 
 Writing,  but  in  the  Language  that  was  fpoken  by  them.  On  this 
 account  we  may  judge  of  other  the  like  reafons  aÛedged  by  IJfyricus 
 to  the  lame  purpofe.  He  prete«ds,  for  example,  that  Divine  Pro- 
 vidence would  never  have  permitted  the  lois  of  io  great  a  Treajiire, 
 if  it  were  certain  that  the  Golpel  of  S.  Matthew  had  been  written 
 m  Hebrew.  He  adds  farther,  that  if  S.  Hierom  had  been  truly  per- 
 fuaded  that  the  Hebrew  was  the  Original  of  this  Gofpel,  he  would  ra- 
 ther have  trandated  it  than  the  Greek  ;  now  it  cannot  be  laid  that  he 
 hath  tran ilated  it  from  the  Hebrew  into  Greek. 
 
 It  is  in  vain  that  this  Proteftant  calls  the  Providence  of  God  to  his 
 aflîftance,  in  oppoiition  to  a  fact  that  cannot  be  reafbnablydoumed 
 oh  The  Fathers  and  the  Jews  themlelves  make  no  difficulty  to 
 acknowledge,  that  fome  Sacred  Books  have  been  loft  :  which  never- 
 thelels  cannot  be  faid  of  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew,  fince  we  have 
 it  in  Greek  in  a  ftate  fufficiently  perfect.  The  reaion  why  the  He- 
 brew or  Chaldatck  Copy  is  not  preferred,  isbecaute  the  Churches  of 
 Judaa,  for  whole  life  it  was  primarily  written,  have  not  long  lub- 
 iifred:  On  the  contrary  the  Churches  wherein  the  Greek  Tongue  rlou- 
 nfhed  have  always  endured,  and  it  is  through  the  means  of  thele  laft 
 Churches  that  we  have  yet  to  this  day  the  Greek  C :>py  of  S.  Matthew. 
 
 This  may  fcrvealfb  for  an  Anfwerto  the  Objection  of  Ckamurus,  Charnier* 
 who  could  not  imagine  how  it  could  come  to  pais  that  there  ifiould  Pan/hat. 
 have  been  lb  great  a  negligence  in  the  Church  in  general,  and  in  l**j**ic& 
 particular  in  that  of  Jerusalem,  that  the  Hebrew  Golpel  of  S.  Mat-  n'  ' 
 thew  hith  been  loft  from  the  firft  Ages  of  Chriftiamty.     Neverthelefs 
 it  is  very  ealie  to  be  apprehended,  if  we  con  I         that  the  Writings  of 
 the  Apoftles  that  were  read  in  the  Churches  were  preferved  by  û\c 
 
 G  z  means 
 
[  44  ] 
 
 means  of  the  fame  :  it  is  not  therefore  an  extraordinary  thing  to 
 fee  that  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew  hath  been  loft  in  the  lois 
 of  the  Churches  of  the  Naz.are?ies.  It  is  in  the  mean  time  worth 
 the  obferving,  that  it  perifhed  not  entirely  from  the  primitive 
 times  of  Chriltianity  ;  for  the  Seel  of  the  Nazarenes  who  cook  their 
 original  horn  the  hi  ft  Nazarenes  or  Chriftians  of  Judaa,  continued 
 fora  long  time  to  read  it  in  their  Aflemblies.  It  parted  alio  to  the 
 Ebicmtes,  who  altered  it  in  fome  places:  notwithstanding  thefè  Al- 
 terations, it  might  always  be  (aid,  that  this  was  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of 
 S.  Matthew,  efpecially  if  re  f  peel:  were  had  to  the  Copy  of  the  Naza- 
 renes,  which  was  more  pure  than  that  of  the  Ebionites,  and  was  ftill 
 extant  in  the  time  of  S.  Hicrom,  who.  tranflated  it  into  Greek  and 
 Latin.  The  other  Chriftians  neglected  it,  becaufe  befides  their  not 
 underftanding  the  Language  in  which  it  was  written,  they  confi- 
 dered  the  Nazarenes  as  a  fort  of  half  Chriftians  that  ftill  kept  the 
 Ceremonies  of  the  Law  ;  and  they  reje&ed  the  Ebionites  as  Here- 
 ticks.  , 
 
 IHyricus  adds  farther  to  all  thete  Objections,  that  S.  Matthew  being 
 a  Publican,  was  either  half  a  Grecwn  or  a  Romany  and  that  for  this 
 reafbn  he. ought  rather  to  apply  himfclf  to  write  his  Gofpel  in  Greek 
 for  thole  of  his  Nation,  than  in  Hebrew  for  the  Jews.  If  this  way 
 of  reafoning  concluded  any  thing,  it  might  be  inferred  from  thence 
 at  the  fame  time,  that  S.  John  who  was  an  Hebrew,  and  whole  Mother- 
 Tongue  was  Syriack  or  Chaldaick  mould  have  compofed  his  Gofpel 
 in  this  Language  for  thofe  of  his  own  Nations.  It  availeth  no- 
 thing to  oppofe  f impie  reafons  of  convemency  to  mnnifeft  and 
 clear  matters  of  Facft  Neither  is  there  any  weight  in  a  proof  that 
 he  brings  in  the  fame  place  from  certain  Latin  Words  that  are  found 
 in  the  Gofpel  of '  S.  Matthew ,  which  are  more  agreeable  (  as  he 
 thinks)  to  a  Greek  Author,  than  to  a  Man  that  writes  in  Hebrew, 
 becauie  the  Grecians  had  more  Intercourfe  with  the  Latins,  than  the 
 Hebrews.  But  may  it  not  be  laid  that  thefe  Latin  Words  do  rather 
 belong  to  the  Greek  Tranflation,  than  to  the  original  Hebrew?  Be- 
 fides, the  Jews  of  thofe  times  who  were  under  fubje&ion  to  the  Ro- 
 mans, might  have  adopted  divers  Latin  Words  into  their  Language. 
 This  fame  Principle  may  ïèrve  to  refolve  another  Objection  that  he 
 raifeth  from  the  word  Tetrus  which  is  in  S.  Matthsw.  If  this  Apo- 
 ftle  (  fàith  II  lyric  it  s  J  had  written  in  Hebrew  or  Syriack,  he  would 
 have  made  uie  of  the  Word  Cephas,  and  not  of  that  of  Petrus:  as 
 if  It  might  not  be  (aid  that  it  is  the  Greeks  Interpreter  that  hath  in- 
 fèrted  the  Word  Petrus.  Laftly,  he  objeefs,  that  S.  Matthew  epito- 
 mizeth  with  too  much  liberty  mChap.  xn.  of  his  Gofpel,  a  Partage 
 of  Chap.  47.  of  Ifaiab  :  Which  he  would  not  have  done  (  fàith  he  )  if 
 
 he 
 
C  45   ] 
 
 he  had  written  in  Hebrew,  becaufè  he  would  have  produced  the  very 
 Words  of  the  Text.  And  it  is  not  credible  (.nl\>  he)  that  the  In- 
 terpreter mould  be  the  Author  of  this  Abbreviation.  All  this  Argu- 
 mentation that  is  grounded  o.a  no   pofitive  proof  is  nothing  to  tne 
 
 irpole.     The  ApofUes  on  the  contrary  do  often  cite  the  Pali 
 the  Old  Teirament  only  according  to  the  ienfë,  and  they  rehear! 
 them  fometimes  in  fhort,  only  producing  that  which  relates  to  their 
 dehgn.     Jfo!z,ogenius  a  famous  Unitarian  hath  alio  collected  in  the  J.  if 
 beginning  of  his  Commentaries  on  the  Gofpels   a  part   of  thefe  PiL 
 fame  Reafons/  to  ihew  that  the  Original  of  S.  Matthew  hath  not  *•  E 
 been  written  in  Hebrew;  but  he  explains  himfelf  after  Inch  a  manner  L 
 as  makes  it  appear  that  the  Fratres  Foloni  have  but  little  knowledge  in 
 fads  that  refpeel:  the  Criticifm  of  the  Scriptures. 
 
 I  (hall  pals  by  in  filence  the  Reflections  of  Dr.  Lightfoot  on  this  J.L\ 
 Subject,  becaufe  they  fèem  to  me  to  be  too  Rabbinical,,  and  even  Hor.Hebr. 
 little  intelligible.     That  which  he  adds  in  the  fame  place,  that  the  ^V/?',' 
 
 ^      r      1       r  r  1  11  1  •  1«  1    •  •  •  ;  i*" 
 
 Gofpel  ot  S.  Matthew  hath  not  been  immediately  written  in  Hebrew, 
 but  in  Greek,  and  that  it  hath  been  afterwards  tranflated  from  the   . 
 Greek  into  Hebrew,  to  the  end  that  it  might  be  read  by  the  Learned 
 Jews,  is  not  fuppofed  with  any  Foundaiioiij  all   Antiquity  having 
 believed  the  contrary. 
 
 There  is  not  even  at  this  day  any  Chriftian  Society  in  the  Levant, 
 that  is  not  perfuaded  that  the  Greek  Gofpel  of  S. Mat: hew  is  only  a 
 Verfîon  of  the  Hebrew  Text.     Therefore  we  find  at  the  end  of  fome 
 Greek   Manufcnpt    Copies  of  this  Gofpel,  that  it  hath  been   pub- 
 lîflied  k  *lÊt0U^tiêt(9    at  Jerusalem.     We  read  alfo  at  the  end  of  the  jy  :,  rca 
 Sjnack  Verfion  ot  the  fame  Gofpel,  that  §>  Matthew  hath  preached  Sjr.\ 
 it  in  Hebrew  in  Valeftine.     Some  Copies  of  the  Arabick  Verfion  and  Vienna^ 
 the  Verfian  Tranflation  have  alfo  in  the  Title  that  is  at  the  beginning  ;;;  B'bl. 
 of  S.Matthew,  that  it  hath  been   written  in   the  He  brew  Tongue.  Po'^1- 
 This  agrees  perfectly  with  the  ancient  Ecclefuftical  Writers,  whole 
 Sentiments  have  been  explained  in  a  few  words  by  S.  Jerome:  Mat-  jjr,,C)i 
 than*  (  faith  this  Father)  Evangelism  in  Judaa  Hebr.co  Scrmone  edi-  prtf, 
 dit  ob  eorum  maxime  caujam  qui  in  Jefum  crediderant  ex  Judœis      AH  Comm.  in 
 this  makes  it  appear  that  Mr.  VoJJius  hath  had  reafbn  to  call  fome  MAttb* 
 Divines  of  his  own  Party  who  hold  that  S.  Matthew  hath  not  writ- 
 ten in    Hebrew  (i)   Demi-Theologues  poflefled  with ( Rabbin ifm. 
 He  efteems  them  alfo  lb  foclifh,  that  he  would  not  have  them  an- 
 
 (i)  Audio  [emi-Theo'.ogcs  quofdam  \ibbimftas  omnium  Patrumemniumque  Eu 
 fiarum  teftimonia  conculcare ,   ac  [crib   adjhmare  Matthxnm   non  Hebrai 
 Grace  fen pjiffc.     Stu/ti  /imus,  [i  ijhi[mcdi  dclims  aliqu/d  rejouamus.     II.   Volf. 
 Vraef.  in  Appen.  ad  lib,  de  LXX.  Interp. 
 
 fwen 
 
[»«.3 
 
 fwered.  However  Ï  have  thought  that  I  ought  not  to  neglect  their 
 Regions,  that  have  given  me  ocafion  to  clear  up  this  matter.  And 
 there  are  at  this  day  verv  many  perfons,  efpecially  among  the  Pn> 
 teftants,  that  cannot  yield  to  Mv.Vojfius,  who  hath  attacked  them 
 wuh  Injuries  and  Reproaches  rather  than  Arguments.  The  very 
 Siippoiinoii  it  (elf  that  he  makes,  that  the  Jews  of  Jerufakm  (pake 
 in  the  Greek  Tongue  amongft  themfèlves,  and  that  they  made  ufè 
 of  the  Greek  Verfion  of  the  Septuagint  in  their  AiTemblies  is  a  ftrong 
 argument  to  prove  that  S.Matthew  had  indeed  compofed  his  Gofpel 
 in  Greek.  This  obligeth  me  hereto  examine  theReafons  on  which 
 \lv.FoJ]ius  grounds  this  Paradox,  and  to  mew  at  the  fame  time  that 
 the  Jews  of  Jerufalem  (pake  the  Cbaldaick  or  Syriack  Language  at 
 the  time  of  our  Saviour  and  the  Apoftles. 
 
 Chap.  VI. 
 
 The  Jews  of  the  Territory  of  Jerufalem  at  the  time  of 
 Jefus  Chrifl  and  the  Apoftles  /pake  in  the  Chaldaick  or 
 Syriack  Tongue.  An  Anfwer  to  the  ^eafons  that 
 Mr.  Voffius  hath  publijbed  againft  this  Opinion.  At 
 the  fame  time  fever al  Difficulties  are  cleared,  appertain- 
 
 ing to  this  Matter. 
 
 i 
 
 Tis  to  be  feared  left  thefè  Proteftant  Divines  whom  Wv.Voffms 
 feems  ib  much  to  defpife  mould  in  their  turn  reprove  him,  be- 
 caufè  he  overthrows  all  Tradition,  and  contradicts  the  Holy  Scri- 
 ^        ptures  themfelves  and  all  Learned  Divines,  when  he  avoucheth  that 
 
 R*h  d  in  r^c  timc  °^ Je^ls  thrift  and  the  Apoftles  the  Jews  of  Jerufalem 
 '  p  fpake  no  other  Language  but  the  Greek.  In  like  manner  he  treats 
 Sim.  ob-,  thofe  perfons  *  as  half-learned  and  Fanaticks,  that  believe  that  Jefus 
 ?-37  5\  Chrift  and  his  Diiciples  have  fpoken  in  the  Syriack  Tongue.  At 
 *  Semi-  that  rate  all  the  World  would  be  filled  with  half-learned  and  fana- 
 &  fnat'i-11  tical  PeoPlc^  an(î  Mr.  Vcffius  alone  would  be  truly  learned  and 
 exempt  horn  Fanaticifm.  Cor  folus  habet,  Coins  &  ïngeminn.  The 
 ancient  Ecclefiaftical  Authors  who  have  affirmed  that  S.  Matthew 
 hath  written  his  Gofpel  in  Hebrew  would  be  all  Fanaticks  j  for 
 they  declare  that  they  have  embraced  this  Opinion  only  becauie  the 
 
 Jews 
 
 corn  in. 
 
C  47   ] 
 
 Jews  of  Jerusalem  then  (pake  Hebrew,  that  is  to  (ay,  the  Luck 
 
 or  Syrisck  Tongue:  and  iincc  they  have  confirmed  this  their  J 
 
 nient  by  oiprels  Paihges  of  the  New  Tellement,  I  think  it  nceei 
 j y  here  to  produce  (ome  of  them. 
 
 It  is  exprellv  (aid  in  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles,  O)  that  St.  1 
 made  a  di (cour/e  in  Hebrew  to  the  Jews  or  jtrufaUw,  (b)  who  he 
 kenedto  him  becaule  he  (pake  their  Language.     Tins  holy  Apoftle 
 being  of  Tarfw,  a  City  of  Cilicia,   where  lie  had  learnd  Greek, 
 would  not  have  fail'd  to  make  an  Oration  to  them  in  that  Lan- 
 guage, if  it  had  been  the  vulgar  Tongue  or  die  Jews  of  Jerusalem. 
 But  becaufe  he  was  an  Hebrew,  and  of  Hebrew  Parents,  and  had 
 been  educated  in  their  City,  ftudying  under  the  Doclor  Gamaliel, 
 he  (pake  to  them  in  the  Language  that  was  underftood  by  the  Peo 
 pie.    It  was  for  this  reafbn  alio  that  the  Tribune  demanded  of  S.  Paul 
 whether  he  could  (peak  Greek,  Greece  nofti?   He  fuppofed  that  the 
 Jews  oï  Jcrufalem  fpake  in  a  different  Tongue  from  the  Greek,  viz,. 
 the  ChaUaick  or  Sjriack,  as  appears  manireftly  horn  S.  Luke,  who 
 frith  (O  that  the  Field  of  [judos  was  called  Aceldama  in  the  Lan-  Adt.i.i9< 
 guage  that  was  then  fpoken  at  JerufaUm.     Moreover,  we  find  in 
 the  New  Teftament  divers  Chaldaick  or  Synack  Words,  as  for  ex- 
 ample, Bethcfda,  Golgotha,  Tabitha,  and  (ome  others  that  the  Evan- 
 gelifts  call  Hcbrtw,  according  to  the  manner  of  (peaking  at  that 
 time.     St.  John  making  mention  of  the  Fifh-pond  or  Pool  oï   Jcru- 
 falem, faith  (  d)  that  it  was  called  in  Hebrew,  Bttbefda\    and  in 
 another  place,  that  (t )  Gabbatha  and    (f)  Golgotha  ate   Hebrew 
 Words. 
 
 One  would  think,  that  after  fb  many  Teftimonies  of  the  New 
 Teftament,  we  could  not  doubt  that  the  Jews  of  Jcrufalem  (pake 
 Hebrew  in  the  times  of  the  Apoftles.  In  the  mean  time,  Mr.  Vojfuts, 
 who  hath  openly  declared  againft  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Jews, 
 hath  thought,  that  he  could  not  give  a  greater  Authority  to  the 
 Greek  Veriion  or  the  LXX,  than  in  making  it  appear  that  Je(us 
 Chrift  and  his  Apoftles  had  read  it  in  the  Temple  and  in  the  Syna- 
 gogues of  Jerit{alem.  But  it  was  not  neceiîàry  to  caft  himiclf  into 
 this  extremity,  and  to  argue  againft  actual  proofs  of  matter  of  fact 
 that  are  indifputablc,  to  defend  the  ancient  Greek  Translation  againft 
 
 ( :1  3  Uef7\$tovwri  th  LC&aJi  tftctAiKlo).  Aeïor.  21.  40. 
 
 (k)   'AjttfffttTTCf    J    077  TH  'Ç.C&tlf)  J)sLAi)t]Cf)  G&Çlteûl'i  AWT©!*.     AJW.  11-    I. 
 
 ne- 
 
C  48  1 
 
 fome  Proteftants  that  had  unhappily  attacked  it.  He  fuppofech,  to 
 eftablifh  his  Opinion,  that  (£  )  the  Greek  and  Latin  were  the  Lan- 
 guages in  uiè  throughout  the  whole  Empire  ;  and  that  the  Hebrew 
 was  not  undcrflood  even  by  the  Jews.  We  willingly  agree  with 
 him  that  the  Greek  and  Latm  were  the  Languages  of  the  Empire;' 
 but  this  doth  not  prove  that  thefe  two  Languages  only  were  fpoken 
 therein.  There  are  on  the  contrary,  poiitive  Proofs  in  the  New 
 Teftamcnt  confirmed  by  all  Antiquity,  that  evidently  fhew  that 
 the  Jews  of  Jerufalern  then  ipake  Hebrew  or  Chaldaick.  We  agree 
 alio  with  him ,  that  the  ancient  Hebrew  Tongue  was  not  at  that 
 time  a  vulgar  Language,  and  that  none  but  the  Priefts  underftood 
 it  ;  but  it  cannot  be  concluded  from  thence  that  they  fpake  Greek. 
 Jofephus,  who  was  very  well  skilled  in  the  Greek  Tongue,  (h)  af- 
 iures  us,  that  it  was  foreign  to  him  and  to  thofe  of  his  Nation. 
 
 Mr.  VoJJius,  to  whom  all  thefe  difnculties  have  been  reprefented, 
 cannot  reiolve  them,  but  in  fuppofmg  always,  that  (0  during  the 
 Subfiilence  of  the  Reman  Empire,  no  other  Language  was  fpoken 
 but  the  Greek  in  Jerufalern  and  in  all  Taleflin.  lie  would  have 
 the  Syriack  fought  for  without  the  Empire;  this  he  proves  by  the 
 Example  of  St.  Ephracm  and  others  Fathers  that  have  written  in  this 
 Language,  and  have  all  been  of  the  Parthian  or  Arabian  Nation  ; 
 affirming  that  we  mult  look  for  the  Syriack  Tongue  amongft  the 
 Ajjyrians  and  the  Arabians  that  inhabited  the  lower  Syria,  and  not 
 amongfl  the  Sjrians  that  were  in  the  Rowan  Empire:  and  befides 
 that,  we  ought  not  to  call  that  Syriack  whick  is  called  Chaldaick  in 
 the  New  Teftament.  He  adds  farther,  that  the  Jews  of  Jerufalern 
 could  not  learn  the  Chaldaick  but  of  the  Jews  that  were  on  the  other 
 fide  of  the  River  Euphrates  :  that  it  is  madnefs  to  fay  that  the  laid 
 
 ws  of  Jerusalem  have  kept  this  Language  by  Tradition  in  a  place 
 Where  the  Greek  hath  been  in  ufe  for  many  Ages  ;  efpecially  it 
 being  impofîible  to  bring  any  Example  that  may  make  it  appear 
 that  a  Language  can  be  prefèrved  in  a  Country,  when  another  hath 
 obtained  therein.  He  concludes  at  laft,  that  the  Jews  of  Jerufalern 
 had  no  other  vulgar  Tongue  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour  and  the 
 Apoftlcs  than  the  Greek  and  Latin;  and  that  thofe  who  had  fbme 
 knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  or  Chaldaick,  had  attained   it  after  the 
 
 (g)  In  Imperio  Romano  Gnccus  fey  mo  &  Latinus  omnibus  erat  in  ufu  :  Htbrœa 
 vcro  lingua  ne  ah  ij-jis  quidcm  Judais  intclhgcbatur.    VoiH  Refp.  ad  Object.  Theol. 
 
 (  h  )  '  Om@-  fxoi  ^  ^'Mmct*  t^ôiTQ  'mhiyjfjùTÙJj  WcTivkyKUV  \sGroSï<ni/  tiç  ÀMoe/bc- 
 •arluî  ri^juv  X)  %»vlw  JIulmkI*  Quwhé&xi'.  Joleph.  Pr&'fat.  Antiq  Jud. 
 
 1  i  )  étante  Imperio  l{omano  Joins  îbi  rcgnabat  Gracus  Jcrmo Grœcù  otnnes 
 
 fcrifjbrc.    Grxcc  ptiam  Joquebantur.   Voii!  Refp.  ad  iter.  P.  Sim.  Obj. 
 
 fame 
 
L  49  1 
 
 fame  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 
 
 fide  of  Euphrates,  where  the  Chaldaick  was  fpoken. 
 
 Here  it  would  be  requifite  to  follow  Mr.  Vcjfius  Hep  by  ftep,  who 
 hath  had  no  other  defign  in  all  this  long  Ditcoui  ic,  than  to  con- 
 found and  intricate  the  matter  in  hand,  not  being  able  to  anlwer 
 preciiely  to  the  Reafons  that  have  been  propofed  to  him.  It  may 
 be  obferved  in  the  tirft  place,  that  the  prefent  Queftion  is  not  con- 
 cerning the  ancient  Fathers  that  have  fpoken  Synack,  and  have  writ- 
 ten Books  in  this  fame  Language;  but  only  relating  to  the  Jeu';; 
 and  therefore  the  Examples  that  he  produceth  of  St 'Ephraem  and 
 fome  other  Doctors  or  the  Church,  are  nothing  to  the  purpofe; 
 for  we  agree  with  him,  that  thofè  that  have  inhabited  the  Country 
 that  is  on  the  farther  fide  of  Euphrates,  have  fpoken  Synack  :  it  ;> 
 agreed  alfo,  that  the  Jews  of  the  Tarthian  or  Arabian  Nation,  who 
 depended  not  on  the  Roman  Empire,  fpake  the  Chaldaick  or  Baby- 
 loniflj  Language.  And  not  to  iniift  on  Queftions  about  names,  we 
 are  willing  alfo  to  call  that  Tongue  Chaldaick  rather  than  Synack, 
 which  is  called  Hebrew  in  the  New  Teftament,  though  the  ancient 
 Fathers  have  named  it  Syriack,  and  though  it  be  properly  neither 
 Chaldaick  nor  Synack,  it  being  degenerated  from  the  true  Chaldaick, 
 All  that  Mr.  Vojjius  can  conclude  from  his  Supposition,  is,  that  the 
 Jews  who  were  beyond  Euphrates  fpake  only  Chaldaick,  whereas 
 the  Jews  of  Jerusalem  and  of  Tale  ft 'me,  at  leafl  the  nioft  polite  of 
 them,  fpake,  belides  the  Chaldaick  which  their  Fathers  had  brought 
 from  Babylon,  the  Greek  Tongue,  which  was  become  vulgar  in  thefè 
 places. 
 
 It  is  madnefs  to  fay  that  St.  Taul,  when  he  made  his  Oration  in 
 Hebrew  or  Chaldaick  in  the  prefence  of  the  Jews  of  Jerufalem,  had 
 only  regard  to  thole  that  were  beyond  Euphrates,  and  to  thole  that 
 had  learn'd  the  Chaldaick  Tongue  of  them.     He  directs  his  Words 
 m  general  to  all  the  Jews  that  were  prefent  :  and  it  cannot  be  laid 
 that  he  had  only  Strangers  for  his  Auditors.     Jofephus  was  of  the 
 number  of  the  Jews  of  Jerufalem,  and  not  of  the  Tarthian  or  Ara* 
 btan  Nation:  he  declares  in  the  mean  time,  that  that  which  -had  ?^ 
 hindered  him  from  writing  the  Antiquities  of  his  Nation  lb  loon  as  prl 
 he  had   intended  it,  was,  that  he  found  it  difficult  to  exprefs  his  Antiq. 
 mind  in  the  Greek. Tongue  that  was  foreign  to  him.     Me  faith  in.?'"3'- 
 another  place,  that  he  was  born  an  Hebrew,  that  he  \%ofJtrufalen$^  %  -,„/, 
 and  a  PriefT  ;  and  in  this  fame  Paflàge  he  calls  the  Chaldaick  the  pkcf.it. 
 Language  of  his  Country.     This  makes  it  evident  that  the  Chaldaick 
 cannot  be  retrained  to  the  Jr.vs  only  that  were  on  the  other  fide  ^  7** 
 of  Euphrates,  fince  Jojefhus  was  not  cf  that  Country.     Both  the  on?. 
 
 and 
 
[  5°  3  ; 
 
 and  the  other  fort  (pake  in  this  Tongue,  with  this  difference  only, 
 that  thofe  that  dwelled  in  the  Countries  that  were  beyond  Eupbrs- 
 tes,  (pake  nothing  but  ChaUauk;  and  thofe  oï  Jerusalem  could  be- 
 fides   the  ChaUaick  (peak  the  Greek  Language  that  was  difperfèd. 
 through  V  alt  ft  in. 
 
 As  to  what  Mr.  Vefjius  obje&s,  that  it  is  impoffible  to  (hew  that 
 a  Language  hath  been  preferved  in  a  Country,  when  another  hath 
 come  in  its  place;  I  anlwcr,  that  it  is  eafie  to  give  him  iatisfa&ion 
 in  this  Point,  without  departing  from  the  Jews  of  whom  the  Qiie- 
 /lion  is.  The  Hiftory  of  the  Martyrdom  of  the  (even  Brethren 
 related  in  the  fécond  Book  of  Maccabees,  informs  us  that  the  Jews 
 of  that  time  ipake  Greek  and  Hebrew  :  the  Mother  and  the  Chil- 
 dren anfwered  in  Greek  to  Antiochits,  (k)  whereas  amongft  them- 
 felves  they  (pake  the  Language  of  the  Country,  which  was  Choi- 
 daich:  Antiochus  having  urged  the  Mother  to  exhort  one  of  her 
 Children  to  yield  to  that  which  he  required,  (/)  (he  laughing  the 
 Tyrant  to  fcorn  (pake  to  her  Sons  in  Hebrew  or  ChaUaick ,  which 
 was  her  proper  Tongue. 
 
 This  is  a  manifeft  Proof,  that  the  Greek  was  the  vulgar  Tongue 
 cf  the  Country,  and  tha«-  the  Jews,  befides  the  Greek,  had  prefer  - 
 ved  the  ChaUaick  which  they  had  brought  from  Babylon,  and  which 
 they  called  the  Language  of  the  Nation.     The  Jews  of  Jcrufalem 
 have  alfô  retained  it  always,  tho  the  Greek  was  the  vulgar  Tongue 
 of  Valcjhne.     This  is  yet  more  apparently  feen  in  another  Example 
 that  hath  been  already  oppofèd  to  h/iv.VojJlm,  I  mean  the  Jews  of 
 the  Spanifli  Rite  who  dwell  at  Constantinople  and  in  iome  other  Cities, 
 of  the  Levant:  thefe  Jews  do  (till  keep  their  ancient  Span/JJ),  with 
 the  Language  of  the  Countries  which  they  inhabit;  and  they  have 
 alfo  Tranflations  of  the  Bible  in  Spanifi  for  their  ule. 
 
 Mr.  Vojfuts  an  (Vers  this  Objection ,  that  this  might  be  in  fbme 
 manner  true  in  the  time  of  Mariana ,  becaufe  when  this  JcJ'uit 
 wrote  his  Hiftory ,  it  was  not  an  Age  iince  the  Jews  had  been 
 driven  out  of  Spain.  He  adds  farther,  that  the  other  Hifrorians  who 
 have  written  at  that  very  time  (peak  quite  otherwife,  becaufe  the 
 Jews  (w?)  that  were  driven  out  of  Spam  and  Portugal  were  ail  difper- 
 ied  among  the  Moon:  and  finally,  that  he  knows  not  what  is  meant 
 by  the  Spanijh  Jews  that  were  (catter'd  in  the  Levant. 
 
 •    .  —  m  ■  ■  » 
 
 (k)  "Ey^çw  3  cw$S  <&a?Ztyh<l  tm  Titcrei^  <pv\>n.  II  Maccab. 7.  22. 
 
 (I  )  y>K(djcicv.Qd.  tqv  cojuov  TVey.vvoi')  «w*  ïçnn  7»  7m1Su&  çwm.  Ibid.  v.  27. 
 
 (m)  profugi  ex  Hijpaniâ  L,ufiramâque  judœi,Jï  (jui  >njiga  non  pericrc,  tilt 
 fere  oiwics  tor  Mdurorum  dijjipatt  fuere  terras,  ut  nefciatn  ommnb quojnam  hie  in- 
 ttVigat  Pi  Sun  ■  lifpahicï  ycnciis'jud^os,  qui  per  Or icntctnfuere  dijperfh  Vofl. 
 Ilcfn.  ad  tort.  Y.  Sim.  Obj. 
 
 But 
 
[5*  ] 
 
 But  it  Is  in  vain  to  argue againft  evident  m.it:.         fàôthat  may 
 
 be  known  by  all  the  World,  We  have  not  nude  ule  of  the  Autho- 
 rity  of  Ad  ma  to  prove  them,  nor  of  any  other  Hilton  in;  bet 
 of  the  Books  thcmfelvcs  of  thefe  Spanifh  Jews  that  have  been  print- 
 ed at  Constantinople  in  the  Spanifh  To         :,   and  in    H  brew  C    . 
 
 £cers.    We  Live  their  Pentateuch   printed  at  that  place  not  only  m  hi  1347. 
 Spanifh,  bat  alio  in  Vulgir  Greek,  with   the  Hebrew  Text  and  the 
 Chaldaick  Paraphrafe.     Jc  i>  to  be  (een  by  the  firft  leaf  of  this  Work, 
 that  there  are  two  forts  of-  Jews  in  thole  Parts,  (omc  of  which  (peak 
 Spanijl),  and  the  others  th:  Vulgar  Greek;  and  tint  I  two  Ver- 
 
 fions  have  been  publimed  for  their  u(e,  that  they  might  more  ealï- 
 ly  underftand  the  Scriptures.  The  Hebrew  Bible  of  Lombrofo  which 
 hath  been  panted  zxVemci  with  Grammatical  Notes,  wherein  the  ;,;  \&y}. 
 difficult  Words  are  explained  in  Spamjb,  is  alio  very  com  non  in  the 
 Levant  among;  thefe  Spanijh  Jews.  It  15  a  matter  of  little  moment 
 to  know  whether  the  Jews  that  departed  from  Spain  and  Portugal 
 
 ired  amongft  the  Moors  0/  elfewhcre,  iincc  it  is  without  doubt, 
 that  there  are  at  this  day  Jews  of  the  Spanijh  Rite  in  the  Levant , 
 who  belide  that  of  the  Places  where  thev  refide,  have  ftill  prefer- 
 red their  ancient  SpaniJJj  Tongue.  This  is  the  ground  of  the  prêtent 
 Dilpute  :  and  by  this  it  is  made  appear,  that  it  is  not  impoilible  that 
 the  Jews  mould  retain  their  ancient  Language  where  there  is  ano- 
 ther that  is  vulgarly  (poken.  We  lee  moreover,  that  the  Portugal 
 Jews  of  the  Spanijli  Rite,  who  arc  fettled  at  AmJterJam,  do  keep 
 the  Portugal,  with  the  Language  of  the  Country  5  and  that  their 
 Rabbins  do  alio  preach  in  Portugaise  in  their  Synagogue. 
 
 Furthermore,  it  is  not  true  that  all  the  Jews  that  were  driven 
 out  or  Spain  and  Portugal  took  refuge  among  the  Moors:  there  were 
 many  that  withdrew  themfelves  into  Italy,  from  whence  (bme  p 
 led  afterwards  into  the  Levant.  However  it  were,  it  15  certain  that 
 there  is  at  this  day,  in  the  Turkiflj  Territories,  a  considerable  num- 
 ber of  Jews,  who  follow  the  Spanijh  Rite;  and  belides  that  of  t 
 Places  where  they  remain,  do  (peak  their  ancient  Spanijh  Language. 
 I  believe  alfo,  that  a  Party  of  thefe  Jews  was  in  thofe  Countries  be- 
 fore thote  of  their  Nation  were  expelled  out  of  Spain  and  Por- 
 tugal. 
 
 Mr.  Voffius,  who  cannot  maintain  his  Paradoxes  but  with  other 
 Paradoxes,  corrects  the  Partage  ot  the  xxi.  Chap  of  the  Acls}  where  Act.  xxi 
 the  Tribune  demands  of  St.  Paul  whether  he  could  fpeak  Greek:  v-  37« 
 He  pretends  that  it  mud  not  be  read  with  the  Point  of  Interroga- 
 tion, Grace  feu  ?  as  a  11. People  read  it  ;  but  that  it  ought  to  be  read 
 and  tranilaxed  arcer  this  manner,   Grace  fcis  :  Non  ergo  es  ifie  tsEgypti-  Vojf.  ibid 
 us  qui  ante   bos  dies   tumultum    concitavit.     Then    cdtoft   /peak  Greek  : 
 
 II   1  There- 
 
C  j*  3 
 
 Therefore  thou  art  not  that  Egyptian  •which  before  thefe  days  made  an  Up- 
 roar, Sec.  But  I  fee  no  realon  to  change  the  ordinary  reading  of  the 
 Greek  Text  and  ancient  Verfions  in  this  place  ;  neither  would  he 
 have  ever  thought  of  it,  were  it  not  that  this  Paffage  manifeftly 
 deftroys  his  Opinion.  It  is  true  that  according  to  the  moft  exact 
 Rules  of  Giticifm,  no  regard  ought  to  be  had  to  Accents,  Points, 
 and  Comma's  :  but  it  feems  to  me  not  to  be  permitted  without  good 
 Reafbns  to  alter  the  ordinary  Readings  of  the  Text ,  efpecially 
 when  it  is  fupported  by  ancient  Interpreters.  It  would  be  (  might 
 it  be  (aid)  a  ftrange  fort  of  fôttifh  Stupidity,  that  the  Tribune,  who 
 iieard  St.  Paul  talking  in  Greek,  mould  have  demanded  of  him  whe- 
 ther he  could  (peak  that  Language:  neverthelcfs,  there  is  nothing 
 extraordinary  in  all  this  Difcourfe.  St.  Paul  finding  himfelf  opprei- 
 fèd  by  the  People,  demanded  to  fpeak  with  the  Tribune,  who  asked 
 him  in  his  turn.  Whether  he  could  (peak  Greek?  This  implies  a 
 Mippofition  that  all  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem  did  not  (peak  in  that 
 Tongue.  Mr.  Vofllm,  who  is  rich  in  Fictions,  is  obliged  to  make 
 good  his  fancy,  to  fuppofe  that  the  Egyptian  of  whom  mention  is 
 made  in  that  place,  was  an  Arab-Egyptian  of  that  part  of  Egypt 
 where  Arabick  was  fpoken.  But  to  whatioever  fide  he  turns,  he  will 
 not  be  able  to  avoid  that  which  is  related  in  the  fame  Chapter  ;  to 
 wit,  that  (n)  St.  Paul  (pake  in  Hebrew^  that  is  to  fay,  in  Chaldaick, 
 to  all  this  multitude  that  thronged  about  him,  and  attentively  hear- 
 kened to  his  Speech,  becaufe  he  fpake  to  them  in  their  own  Lan- 
 guage. 
 
 There  is  yet  lefs  of  folid  Reafon  in  the  Anfwer  that  he  makes 
 to  that  which  hath  been  objected  to  him,  that  the  Field  of  Judas 
 was  called  Haceldama,  according  to  the  vulgar  Language  oijerufa- 
 Voff.ibid.  lem,  which  was  confequcntly  Chaldaick  or  Syriack,  iince  this  Word 
 is  Chaldaick.  Who  knows  not  (faith  he  J  that  the  Jtws  do  yet  at 
 this  day  give  Hebrew  Names  to  their  Fields,  Burying-places,  and  di- 
 vers other  things?  I  confefs  it;  but  it  is  faid  expreily  in  the  Acls , 
 (  o  )  that  this  Field  was  called  Haceldama  in  the  Language  that  was 
 fpoken  at  Jerufalew. 
 
 It  hath  been  alio  objected  to  him,  that  there  can  be  no  reafon 
 aliedged  why  the  Title  of  the  Crois  hath  been  written  in  Greek, 
 Latin,  and  Hebrew,  unlefs  it  were  that  thefe  three  Languages  were 
 then  fpoken  in  Jerufalem.     Now  the  Hebrew  or  Chaldaick  was  the  ' 
 
 ciyni  ^0|uV>k>   iv&jiçûvtiJi  t»  'bC^iJ)  J)a.\tKJu.   ACt.  21-  40.  9 
 
 •kApo  TÏ  \Jiq.  é)*hk)C](i>  twffit  'hMKJbpÀ'    ACT:.  1.19. 
 
 Language 
 
C  5?  ] 
 
 Language  of  chat  place.  Although  it  IhouM  be  granted  that  there 
 were  alfb  then  at  Jerufalem  fame  Jews  that  came  from  beyond  . 
 pbrates  ;  yet  he  will  never  perfuade  People  endued  with  common 
 Senfe  that  refpeft  was  had  only  to  this  Iaft  fort  of  Jews,  when  tin; 
 Title  was  witten.  It  ought  to  have  been  written,  for  the  fame 
 rcafon,  in  the  Languages  ot  the  other  Jews  that  were  alio  p 
 at  that  time  at  Jerufalem. 
 
 It*  hath  been  reprclented  to  Mr.  Voffws,  that  the  Jews  of  Paleftmc 
 did  understand  even  in  the  time  of-  St.  Jerom  the  CbaUaick  Tongue, 
 which  their  Anceftors  had  brought  from  Babylon,  He  demands 
 what  Proofs  there  are  of  this,  and  in  what  place  of  St.  Jerom  this  b 
 to  be  found  ?  Neverthelefs,  he  accounts  as  nothing  the  Testimony 
 of  this  Father  in  his  Preface  to  Tobit  ;  wherein  he  faith,  (p)  that 
 ia  transiting  this  Book  from  CbaUaick  into  Latin,  he  was  affîfted 
 by  a  Jew}  who  (pike  Hebrew  and  CbaUaick  very  well  ;  and  that 
 he  had  put  into  Latin  whatfoever  he  had  expreffed  to  him  in  He- 
 brew terms.  This  Jew  fpake  Hebrew  becaufe  he  was  a  Man  of 
 great  Learning  ;  and  he  fpake  CbaUaick  alio,  becaufe  it  was  the 
 Language  that  the  Jews  or  thofe  Places  yet  fpake  amongft  them- 
 felves,  and  in  which  they  wrote  their  Books.  For  this  reafbn  the 
 Talmud  of  Jerufalem  hath  been  written  in  this  Tongue,  as  well  as 
 that  of  Babylon.  The  fame  hath  happened  to  the  Majjora,  which 
 hath  been  compofed  in  CbaUaick  by  the  Jews  of  Tiberias.  The 
 CbaUaick  Tongue  hath  noc  been  truly  fpoken  in  thofè  Countries 
 for  many  Ages  lince:  but  we  mud  not  confound  the  other  people 
 with  the  Jews,  who  had  always  continued  to  fpeak  amongft  them- 
 fèlves  in  the  Language  that  they  had  received  from  the:r  Fathers. 
 
 We  mail  not  need  then  to  have  recourfe  to  the  Partbians ,  with 
 Mr.  Voffius,  to  introduce  into  thofe  Places  the  CbaUaick  or  Babylo- 
 nian Tongue  in  the  time  of  St.  Jerom }  no  more  than  in  the  time  of 
 the  Apoftles  ;  but  according  to  the  cuftom  that  the  Jews  have  to 
 preferve  their  ancient  Languages,  though  they  are  not  fpoken  in 
 the  Countries  where  they  have  their  abode,  as  we  have  proved  by 
 the  Example  of  the  Spanifl)  Jews,  who  are  in  the  Levant,  and  of 
 thofè  that  are  at  prefent  at  Amfterâam.  Thefe  lait  write  Books  in 
 Spanifo  and  fortagaije ,  although  they  be  in  a  Country  where  the 
 Flemifo  Tongue  is  fpoken:   they  have  alio  tranllated,  for  the  ule 
 
 (  p)  Quia  vicinaeft'X^baldxorum  lingua  Jcrmoni  Hebraic»,  Utriufquc  lingu&tie- 
 
 ritijfimum  htjuacem  reperiens,  imita  diet  laborcm  arrifui;  13  quidamd  ilie  mi>.i 
 Htbraicis  verbis  exprvjfit)  hoc  ego  (3  acato  notario  J er  mom  bus  Lacinis  c 
 Uitron.  Pr#i.  in  Tob. 
 
 of 
 
[54] 
 
 of  the  People,  oik  of  Hebrew  into  Spamfj,  their  Book  of  Prayers 
 called  Seder  tephtloih  under  the  Tide  of  Or  den  de  Oraciones. 
 
 Furthermore,  not  to  enter  into  a  fruitlefs  Difpute  purely  about 
 Words,  Mr.  Vôflius  {hall  be  l^ft  to  his  liberty  to  call  the  Language 
 that  is  ftiled  Hebrew  in  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament,  Chaldaick 
 rather  than  Syriack  It  is  in  vain  then  that  he  enlargeth  fb  much 
 on  this  Controverfie  or  Words,  and  that  he  is  fb  angry  with  feve- 
 ral  learned  Men  for  having  called  it  Syriack  or  Syra  Chaldatck.-(ej  J 
 This  Language  (faith  he j  is  not  to  be  found  but. in  the  Writings 
 of  modern  Authors  who  have  forged  thefe  monftrous  Words  to 
 wave  the  matter.  But  it  feems  to  me  that  it  hath  been  always  per- 
 mitted to  any  that  would  exprefs  fomething  new,  efpecially  in 
 point  of  Cnticifm,  to  invent  new  Words,  that  may  give  a  clear  and 
 diftin&  Idea  of  the  thing  that  is  to  be  explained.  Now  it  is  certain 
 that  the  Tongue  which  is  named  Hebrew  in  the  New  Teftament, 
 is  properlv  neither  Hebrew  roi  Syriack,  nor  even  Chaldaick;  for  it 
 is  compofed  of  a  certain  mixture  of  the  Hebrew  and  of  the  Chal- 
 daick or  Babylonian.  They  that  have  ufed  thefe  Words,  which  a*e 
 iuppofed  to  be  barbarous,  have  been  Perfbns  very  skilful  in  thefe 
 Languages,  and  have  difeoui  fed  or  them  with  a  perfect  knowledge. 
 When  S.  Hierom  makes  mention  of  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew 
 that  was  in  ufe  amongfl  the  Naz,arenesy  he  authonzeth  the  barba- 
 rous Word  of  Syro-Chaldaick,  quod  Chaldaico,  (faith. he)  Syroq3  fer- 
 Ihcrcn.  rnoney  fed  Hebraicts  Uteris  fcriptttm.  eft.  Hence  it  may  be  obierved, 
 PeUr.  ' tnaC  tnis  learneci  Father  made  no  difficulty  to  call  indifferently  Chal- 
 daick and  Syriack  the  Language  that  the  Jews  of  Jerufalem  (pake  in 
 the  time  of  the  Apoftles.  The  greater!,  part  of  the  Fathers,  as  well 
 Greek  as  Latin,  do  alfo  call  Syriack  that  which  bears  the  name  of 
 Hebrew  in  the  New  Teftament.  The  moft  judicious  Criticks  of  our 
 Age  fpeak  no  otherwife  :  Mr.  Voffius  alone  is  lingular  herein,  who 
 hath  thought  fit  of  late  to  reject  this  Syriack  Tongue  which  he  had 
 Vûff.ïbid.  already  approved  in  his  other  Works.  He  demands  in  what  time, 
 and  after  what  manner  the  Hebrew  Tongue  became  Syriack  ?  But 
 as  we  have  before  faid,  he  may,  if  he  pleafe,  call  it  Chaldaick^  if 
 he  remains  fo  obftinate  as  not  to  be  willing  to  receive  the  Name 
 of  Syriack  with  ali  Antiquity,  and  with  the  Suffrage  of  all  People 
 that  are  expert  in  thefe  Languages,  which  he  feems  not  to  under* 
 ftand.  If  he  rightly  apprehended  this  matter,  he  would  not  iniift 
 on  a  Queflion  that  is  only  concerning  a  Name. 
 
 (q  )  £//.?  tamen  lingua  niji  m  fcriptu  forfan  neotericorum,  qui  qunndoje  expc- 
 dire  non  pojjunt,  jjltujmodi  fir, gun  t  voces,  quas  ipj.i  non  capit  rerum  natura  j  ncc 
 accurate  fe  tcqui  exfhmarunt,  wfi  barbaris  &  monftrojis  utantur  appetUt iambus. 
 VoCC  Refp.  ad  tort  P.  Sun.  Obj.  To 
 
C  55  ] 
 
 To  avoid  all  the  trifling  and  iniignihcant  Ci  re  u  m  ft  an  ces  to  which 
 yiy.Voflm  hath  parpolely  had  rccouric,  that  he  might  make  a  ihcw 
 of  offering  at  leait  lomething  in  anlwerto  the  Obje&ions  that  have 
 
 .-n  made  to  him,  it  is  convenient  that  I  fhouk)  relate  the  Judg- 
 ment as  to  this  point  of  George  Amira,  a  learned  Maronite y  who  hath 
 published  at  Rome  an  excellent  Grammar  ot  the  Synack  Tonguo  : 
 he  hath  intituled  his  Book,  A  Sj-->dik  or  CbaUaick  Grammar;  and  Qetmi 
 thus  he  makes  it  appear  from  the  Tit!         his  Work,  that  thele  two  Amine 
 Words  may  be  indirreiently  tiled:  this  he  confirms  at  the  lame  time  Gramm* 
 t>y  three  Ditlertatioiib  that  are  annexed  at   the  beginning  of-  this^.r^,<? 
 Grammar  ;  for  in  the  firft  he  treats  (r)  of  the  Names  of  the  Cbal- 
 daick  and  Synack  Tongue,  and  or  the  difference  between  them;  in 
 the  fécond,  (s ,  of  the  Antiquity  ol  the  CbaUaick  or  Synack  Tongue  ; 
 and  laflly,  in  the  third,  (  t  )  or  the  Excellency  of  thz  ChalcLuck  or         | 
 Synack  Tongue.     Since  this  ingenious  Maronitt  hath  had  a  very 
 clear  notion  of  this  matter,  1  ihall  produce  the  (urn  of  what  he 
 iaith    concerning    thele    two  Languages   in   his   preliminary   Dil- 
 couiles. 
 
 This  Tongue  whereof  we  now  treat  (faith  Amir  a)  hath  been  cal- 
 led CbaUaick,  horn  CbaUaa  where  it  hath  been  firft  in  ufe,  when 
 the  Confulion  of  Languages  happened;  therefore  it  hath  been  alio 
 named  Babylonian,  from  Babylon  the  Capital  City  of  Cbaldaa  :  it 
 was  afterwards  called  Aramean  or  Synack,  from  Aram  or  Syria  \  and 
 even  AJjjrian  from  Ajjp-ia,  becaule  it  hath  alio  obtained  in  thoie 
 places.  Divers  other  Names  have  been  given  to  it,  which  have  been 
 borrowed  from  famous  Nations  and  renowned  Men,  as  that  of  He- 
 brtw3  becaufe  it  hath  been,  during  fome  time,  fpoken  by  the  He- 
 brews. Although  there  is  fbme  difference  between  the  CbaUaick 
 and  the  Synack,  neverthelefs  it  cannot  be  faid  that  it  is  eflential, 
 for  they  agree  almoil  in  every  thing:  and  this  is  the  caule  that  in 
 the  Holy  Scriptures  the  Words  of  CbaUaick  and  Syriack  are  promif- 
 cuoufly  ufed  to  iigmfie  the  very  lame  Language  :  it  is  laid  for  exam- 
 ple, that  Daniel  and  iome  other  young  Hebrews  were  iriftruâed  in  Dan.  i.  c. 
 the  CbaUaick  Tongue:  and  it  is  added  in  the  mean  time  a  little  af- 
 ter, that  the  Chaldeans  fpake  to  the  King,  in  Synack,  which  was  Dan. 2;  | 
 the  Tongue  of  that  Prince:  from  whence  it  is  evident,  that  the 
 Synack  and  the  CbaUaick  are  the  lame  Language. 
 
 (r)  D:  litaguje  Cb'aldaica  five  Sjriaca  nominibus  &  difcrimine.    Georg    Amir. 
 Ptwliul.  Gramm. 
 jg  (sj   Dc  Ungues  Çbaldaicé  five  Syriaca  antiquitate.    IbiJ. 
 
 (t)  De  lingùà  Chaldaic<cjive  Syriacœ  digmtate  ac  pncftanti.).    Ibid, 
 
 The 
 
The  fame  George  Amira  produceth  other  PatTages  of  the  Scriptures 
 to  ihew  that  this  Tongue  was  alio  called  AJJynan.    This  he  confirms 
 in  like  manner  from  profane  Authors,  who  have  confounded  the 
 Names  or  Chaldeans,  Syrians  and  Ajjyrians.     From  whence  he  con- 
 cludes* (k  )    that  it  is  no  wonder  that  they  have  alfo  confounded 
 thefè  three  Languages.     Laflly,  he  avoucheth,  that  if  the  Chaldauk 
 Tongue  which  hath  been  in  ufe  amongft  the  Jews  had  not  been 
 dreiîed  by  them  after  the  Hebrew  Fafhion,  it  would  have  differed 
 much  lefs  than  it  doth,  from  the  Chaldaick  or  Syr  sack  of  the  natural 
 Syrians.     Ludovic  us  de  Dieu  who  had  throughly  inquired  into  this* 
 matter,  is  alfo  of  this  Opinion.     (  x  )  He  diftinguifheth,  as  is  ordi- 
 narily done,  the  Chaldaick  Tongue  of  Daniel  and  Efdras  from  the? 
 Synack  Paraphrafès  :    but  he  acknowledged  at  the  fame  time,  that 
 thefè  two  Languages  ought  not  truly  to  bediftinguifhed.  He  believes 
 after  Amira  (y)  that  they  would  be  lefs  different,  if  the  Jews  had 
 not  Piinted  thcChaldaick  of  their  Books  after  their  manner  ;  this  he 
 proves  by  fome  Examples.     It  would  be  eafie  to  produce  many  o- 
 thcrs,  and  even  to  make  it  appear  that  the  great  refemblance  be- 
 tween thefè  two  Tongues  hath  given  occafion  to  the  jtWj  to  take 
 from  the  Syrians  whole  Books  of  the  Scriptures,  which  they  have  at- 
 tributed to  thçir  Paraphrafts  ;   but  this  would  lead  us  too  far,  and 
 we  mull  now  return  to  Mr.  Vojjius,  who  is  fo  curious  in  this  point, 
 that  he  will  not  admit  that  the  Chaldaick  Tongue,  which  is  named 
 Hebrew  in  the  New  Teftament  fhould  be  called  Syriack, 
 '"ofFHffP'      This  dextrous  Man  calls  the  Jews  to  his  afïiftance,   who  have 
 adtert.P  ftiled  the  Aramean  or  Syriack3  the  Tongue  of  the  Gentiles  :  and  to 
 Sim.  Obj,  llia]^e  it  more  manifefl  to  what  degree  the  Jews  hated  the  Syrians  and 
 their  Language,  he  makes  ufè  of  the  authority  of  the  Talmud,  wherein 
 it  is  read,  that  if  any  one  prays  in  the  Syrian  Tongue,  his  Prayers 
 Vojf.ibtd.  are  not  heard,  becaulè  the  Angels,  who  are  the  Minifters  of  God, 
 do  not  underftand  this  Language.     He  adds  farther,  that  the  Jews 
 who  read  in  Syria  the  Verfion  which  the  Chrifiians  and  the  Arabians 
 call  Syriack,  do  term  it  Chaldaick.   Laftly,  he  demands  who  are  thofe 
 People  of  Syria  that  have  introduced  into  Jerufalem  this  Syriack 
 
 (u  )  guare  mirum  ejje  non  debet,  fi  litigua  Chaldaica,  Syriaca  (3  Ajjyriaca  una 
 eademquefit,  quar.dcquidem  &  nomma  qua  ei  mdita  funt  fro  eodem  ufurfantur. 
 Georg.  Amir.  Prxlud.  Gramm.  Syr.  five  Chald. 
 
 (  x  )  A  Syriaca  Chaldaicam  dijlmguo,  quia  fie  ab  aliis  fieri  filet,  &  non  rare 
 fhraji  GJf  flcxione  ab  ea  differt.  Ahoqui  eamdem  ejje  linguam  fateor Chaldaicam  & 
 Syriacam,    Lud.  de  Dieu,  Piarf.  Grainm.  Chald.  &  Syr. 
 
 (  y)  Diale'clus  Cha'daica  minus  à  Syriaca  lingua  differret,  fi  funBatoribus  vi- 
 [urn  fin  (Jet.  Lud.  dcDicu,  ibid. 
 
 Tongue, 
 
[  57  ] 
 
 Tongue,  which  is  pretended  to  have  been  in  ulc  in  die  time  of  Jc. 
 Chnft  and  the  Apoftles. 
 
 But  if  he  had  conlultcd  the  Talmud,  or  had  but  an  indifferent 
 knowledge  in  the  Chaldaick  Tongue,  he  would  not  have  made  fuch 
 weak  Objections.  It  is  evident  that  there  is.  nothing  more  ufuai  in 
 the  Books  of  the  Talmud  than  to  call  the  Chaldaick  or  Babylonian 
 Tongue  Aramt  or  Syrtack.  The  Rabbins  who  have  epitomized 
 the  Talmud,  and  have  collected  its  Décidons,  do  aKbgive  the  name 
 of  Arami  or  Syrtack  to  the  Chaldaick  Tongue.  To  convince 
 Mr.  VojfiHS)  even  by  the  example  that  he  hath  produced  of  the  Prayer 
 that  ought  not  to  be  made  in  the  Syrtack  Tongue  ;  the  Talmudijts 
 give  out  this  fantaftick  Story  upon  occafion  of  the  Prayer  called 
 Kadis*  which  is  in  the  Chaldaick  Tongue,  and  which  neverthelels 
 they  call  in  this  place  Aramt  or  Syrtack.  This  Prayer  not  being  fo 
 ancient  as  the  others  that  have  been  compofed  in  Hebrew,  is  written 
 in  the  Chaldaick  Language,  which  was  then  underftood  by  the  Peo- 
 ple. The  Rabbins  who  arc  fb  nicely  fubtil  on  all  occaiions,  and 
 often  tell  Tales,  inftead  of  giving  fblid  Reafbns,  have  invented  this 
 Fable  which  Mr.  VoJJius  relates  very  fenoufly.  However  it  be,  it  is 
 certain  that  this  Prayer  Kadis ,  which  is  fuppofèd,  according  to  the 
 Rabbins  to  be  written  in  Syrtack  ,  that  is  not  underftood  by  the 
 Angels,  is  written  in  Chaldaick,  and  in  the  fame  Language  as  the 
 Paraphrases  which  we  have  upon  the  Bible. 
 
 As  for  the  Objection,  that  in  the  Synack  Verfion  of  the  New 
 Teftament,  the  word  Aram  hath  been  put  to  fignifie  a  Greek,  a 
 Gentile,  and  an  Idolater,  I  do  not  fee  that  it  can  be  proved  from 
 thence  that  the  Jews  have  not  confounded  the  Words  of  Syriack  and 
 Chaldaick.  For  befides  that  experience  fhews  us  the  contrary,  this 
 only  proves  that  the  Jews  have  looked  upon  Syria  as  the  Country  of 
 Idolatry;  they  have  made  ufe  of  the  word  Arami  in  the  fame  lenfe 
 as  that  of  f/HMku  Greek  in  the  New  Teftament  is  applyed  to  fignifie 
 a  Greek,  a  Gentile  and  an  Idolater. 
 
 I  am  willing  to  grant  that  the  Jews  give  the  name  of  Chaldaick  to 
 the  Verfions  which  the  Chriltians  call  Syrtack.     But  what  can  be 
 concluded  from  thence,  fince  thele  fame  Jews  do  indifferently  call 
 that  Tongue  in  which  they  are  written  Chaldaick  or  Synack  ?     The 
 Chriftians  of  the  Syrian  Nation  do   very  often  call  their  Synack  Jf 
 Tongue  Chaldaick.     The  Syrtack  Mijpil  which  hath  been  Printed  it  juxtari- 
 Rome  for  the  ufe  of  the  Maronites,  is  intituled  *  A  Chaldaick  Mif-  turn  E. 
 fal*    This  manifeftly  makes  it  appear  that  the  Words  Chaldaick  and  natiwm 
 Synack  arc  oftentimes  confounded  together  by  the  Jews  and  by  the  M*™»'- 
 Chrtfttans  that  bear  the  Name  of  Syrians.  ^  &"££*. 
 
 I  Laitly,  tVt)Li  - 
 
C  50] 
 
 Jrfejfb.         Laftly  the  Example  of  Jofefbm  hath  been  oppofèd  to  Mr.  Vojfius, 
 *ra£'  f**-  who  was  a  Jew  of  Jerufalem,  and  who  allures  us,  that  before  he 
 £U(te  '     publifhed  his  Hiftory  of  the  Wars  of  the  Jews  in  Greek,  he  had  writ- 
 ten it  in  Chaldaick,  which  he  calls  the  Language  of  his  Country. 
 Now  forafmuch  as  he  cannot  deny  the  matter  of  Fad  which  this  Hi- 
 ftorian  hath  fo  clearly  delivered,  he  anfwers  after  his  uiual  way,  that 
 Jofephtts  had  compofed  this  Hiftory  in  Chaldaick  only  for  the  Jews  on 
 the  other  fide   of  Euphrates.     But  is  there  any  probability,  that  a 
 Man  that  makes  profeffion  to  publifh  an  Account  of  the  Wars  of  the 
 People  of  his  own  Nation  for  their  ufe,  and  for  this  reafon  to  write 
 in  their  Language,  mould  not  have  written  it  for  thofè  of  Jerufalem, 
 which  was  not  only  the  Capital  City,  but  alio  his  own  Country? 
 He  would  have  it  defign'd  only  for  the  perufal  of  the  Jews  that 
 were  far  diftant  :  and  fince  there  is  no  appearance  of  truth  in  this, 
 he  is  obliged  to  have  recourfè  to  certain  equivocal  Terms  u(ed  by 
 Jofephm.     This  Hiftonan  faith  that  in  publifhing  his  Hiftory  in  the 
 Chaldaick  Tongue,  he  hath  had  regard  i9t  *>w  façCcLaK,  that  is  to 
 fày,  according  to  Mr.  VoJJius's  opinion,  to  thofe  Barbarians  or  Jews 
 that  were  beyond  the  Empire,  becaufè  this  expreffion  «  *V»  can  only 
 denote  People  afar  off.     After  this  manner  he  eludes  a  molt  clear 
 teftimony,  under  a  pretence  that  thefe  words  oî  &vg>  according  to  the 
 Grammatical  Senfe  may  be  extended  equally   to  time  and  place. 
 But  the  dehgn  of  Jofephtts  makes  it  evident  enough,  that  he  (et  forth 
 his  Hiftory  in  Chaldaick  generally  for  all  thofè  of  his  Nation,  and 
 even  rather  for  thofe  of  Paleftine,  than  for  the  Jews  that  dwelt  be- 
 yond Euphrates.     They  all  fpake  in  the  Chaldaick  or  Syriack  Tongue. 
 Therefore  this  famous  Writer  makes  no  diftin£tion  of  Language  in 
 his  Preface,  when  he  fpeaks  of  thofe  of  his  Nation  ;  he  therein  calls 
 the    Chaldaick   the   Tongue  of  his   Country.     He   declares  more- 
 over in  another   place  ,  (  z,  )   that  he  had  attained  to  the  know- 
 ledge of  the  Greek  by  ftudy,  and  that  he  could  not  pronounce  it  well 
 becaule  he  was  accuftomed  to  the  Accent  of  his  Mother-Tongue. 
 Now  it  is  certain  that  he  was  not  of  the  number  of  theie  Parthian}Ba- 
 by  Ionian  and  Arabian  Jews ,but  of  thofè  o£  Jerttfalem,  who  confequent- 
 ly  had  another  vulgar  Language  different  horn  the  Greek.He  praifeth 
 aifo  in  tins  fame  Paftage  thofe  of  his  own  Nation  upon  occafion  of 
 
 zldJt  (IvftKctCùv-,  %  3  'sfe*  T<&&Q0£y.v  à.KeiCtidM  rri.iej.Qr  b&ÙMtn  (ruuh&act.  '  txl$  t\fjiïv 
 yù  kx,  lueîvvt  iznJiyovTte  7tfu  ttoMwj/  kSv^v  JidteKjov  ç/Au&$vv]a{  Sï&  10  kdivov  if)  va- 
 
 fA^HV     TO    àmTTÎS'd/fÀA   T6T0  fJlVOV   V)t     iK<JL%îf>WV    TVtç    TVyyTIV-,    fit  Met    Xj   <ffî   *liUTUy 
 
 SihXKV,  {AÀvoiç  $   CTxp'idV  fA*{]vçx(n  toIç  là   VQfjjfAd,  <ru$ù>i  cm^^oiÇy  K)  lieu    tîçiïv 
 ypy.uma.-mv  lûteq/uf    içpUu&cvu   Awd.$iou.  Jofcph.  Antiq  Jud.  lib  20.  cap.  ult. 
 
 •  the 
 
C  jt  ] 
 
 the  Greek  Tongue,  becaufe  they  did  not  apply  themfelves  to  the 
 knowledge  of  divers  Languages,  but  to  the  ftudy  of  their  Sacred 
 Books. 
 
 Chap.   VII. 
 
 Of  the  Seïï  of  the  Nazarenes,   and  of  their  Hebrew  or 
 Chaldaick  Copy  of  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew. 
 
 BEfides  all  the  Reafons  that  we  have  juft  now  alledged  to  make 
 it  appear,  that  S.  Matthew  at  firft  compofèd  his  Gofpel  in 
 Chaldaick^  for  the  Jews  of  Jerufalem  who  had  embraced  the  Chri- 
 ftian  Religion,  we  might  alfb  produce  the  Example  of  the  Naz^arene 
 Sectaries,  who  made-ufe  of  this  fame  Hebrew  or  Chaldaick  Gofpel  in 
 their  Aflemblies.  S.Epiphamus  who  hath  written  very  accurately  or 
 this  ancient  Sect,  informs  us  (a)  that  they  received  with  the  New 
 Teftament  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  DoChine  and 
 Ceremonies,  i\vc  only  that  they  believed  mjefus  Chnfl  :  they  made 
 publick  Profeilion  to  believe  in  one  God,  and  in  his  Son  Jefùs  Chrift  : 
 they  had  moreover  a  perfect  knowledge  in  the  Hebrew  Tongue.  He 
 obferves  alfb,  that  thefe  ancient  Naz,arenes,  whofe  principal  abode 
 was  in  the  City  of  Berea,  and  who  were  difperfed  throughout  all  the 
 lower  Syria y  were  defcended  from  the  Primitive  Chriftians  of  the 
 fame  Name,  who  retired  from  Jerufalem  to  Pella.  From  thence  Epipb. 
 (iaith  Epipbanius  )  the  Seft  of  the  Naz,arenes  derive  their  original  H*r.  29. 
 EvTd&'Sw  lî  xj1  7îaj  Nci^cua^  citç e<nç  ï%i  tùuùàç'^.  This  agrees  very  n'  ?* 
 'well  with  the  Teftimonies  of  the  ancrent  Eccleiïafîical  Authors, 
 who  affirm  that  S.  Matthew  preached  the  Gofpel  to  the  Jews  of  Je- 
 rufalem and  all  Palefiin  m  their  vulgar  Tongue.  Thelè  Na^arene 
 Sectaries,  who  fprangfrom  choie  jprimitive  Chriftiansof  Jerufalem, 
 and  who  alfb  fpake  their  Language,  always  preferved  and  read  it  in 
 their  Churches  or  .Aflemblies. 
 
 (a)  Xfwi>7ou  q   vTOi  a  uovoyyiA  SiaShx*,  etMct  Xa  7MhoucL  y^Stt^?  Xa  01  UJbuoi 
 K.'.,   ...i'o.i-     n.r.'.    »   *    Si *L.    ZT. :-!• 77?.flTr-*   _s      '     !*v.     ~ 
 
 Ji  fi&KiKw  ÀK&Ccif  elrii  iaKr)fj^oi.  Epiph.  Hser.  29.  n.  7. 
 
 I  2  The 
 
The  fame  S.Epipbamus  adds,  that  the  Jews  mortally  hated  the 
 Nazarenes,  and  that  (  b  )  in  their  Synagogues,  where  they  afïèmble 
 thrice  every  day,  they  (olemnly  curfed  them,  faying,  Let  God  curie 
 the  Nazarenes.     This  Imprecation   of  the  Jews   againft  the  Cbri- 
 ftians,  under  the  name  of  Nazarenes,  is  vet  to  be  found  even  at  this 
 day  in  their  Books.     S.  Hierum  alfo  doth  mention  it  in  his  Commen- 
 fheron.     taries  on  the  Prophet  Ifaiab  ;  where  he  faith,  fpeaking  of  the  Jews, 
 1  '  2        Ter' per  fingidos  dies  in  omnibus  Synagogis  fub  nomine  NazarenoYum  ana- 
 £rcap-thematizant  vocalpulum  Qbrlftianum.     This  hatred  came  from  hence, 
 (c  )  becaufe  the  Nazarenes ,  being  Jews  as  well  as  they,  and  embra- 
 cing the  whole  Law  of  Mofes,  preached  beiides  this,  that  Jefits  was 
 the  Mefjlab. 
 
 *We  ought  then  to  feek  for  the  Original  of  the  Gofpelof  S.  Mat- 
 thew  amongfl  thefe  Nazarenes,  who  being  defended  from  the  primi- 
 tive Christians  of  Jerujalem,  have  prefèrved  it  in  their  Churches. 
 S.  Epipbaztusj  who  fcemed  to  be  perfuaded  of  this  Truth,  (  faith 
 freely  (d)  that  they  had  for  their  ufè  the  Hebrew  Gofpelof  S,  Mat- 
 thew mofi  entire,  and  that  it  was  not  to  be  doubted  that  they  ftill  kept 
 ic  in  his  time  written  in  Hebrew  Letters  :  he  doubts  only  whether 
 they  had  retrenched  from  this  Gofpel  the  Genealogy  of  Jefus 
 Chrifl,  which  was  not  in  the  Copy  of  the  Ebio?ntes,  who  read  it  alfo. 
 But  it  is  moft  probable  that  the  Nazarenes  had  not  taken  away  this 
 Genealogy  from  their  Copies.  For  (f)  Cerintbns  and  Carpocras, 
 Hereticks  of  thofe  primitive  times,  who  alfo  ufèd  the  Hebrew  Go- 
 fpel of  S.  Mattbew,  read  the  Genealogy  entire,  and  even  proved 
 from  thence  that  Jefus  Chrifl  was  fprung  from  t be  Seed  c/Jofeph 
 and  Mary. 
 
 S.  Hierom,  who  had  tranflated  this  fame  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes 
 ■nco  Greek  and  Latm }a(Tures  us  (fj  that  thefe  Sectaries  ftill  read  it  in 
 his  time  in  their  Afîèmblies;  he  had  fecn  two  Copies  of  them,  one 
 
 aurait ,    ù>    ttvcLSiucLTÎÇvffi    <p&<7MV7t  (    077    çmy&jcL&.aiu   0    QîOÇ    7&}    Nct£â>££$Vf, 
 Epiph.  Hat.  29.  n.  9. 
 
 c  )  A/*v  70  &nî  'ïu^cuov  cwTKi  ov-mf  I>to~«j/  K»puoj«^  tivau  XetçrV.   Epiph. ibid. 
 
 <'cl  )  *EyjiGi   0   7T3  xj1   MclJSxuov  Ivctyfehiov  7à.MÇiçtLTGp 'EC^gaçi  '  7xtçy  ovroîç  yb 
 
 <jy.$œ<;  totd  jg.£u;  <J%  df$<;  iy&bpn  'EGfguxaïç  yepp^viv  tn  ovfe-nii  '  xx,  clJtt,  c/V 
 
 M    >y  TZLi    ^ict\r,ylcti  7UÇ  &IV    T8  'AC^d(X    cL^ti    MZL*     <St&iHhCV.     E|  îph.  ibld. 
 
 (e)  cO  U  yé  Kuewâ©"  ^  &af  thujas  id  curm  fôâ/fyw  Jvïtv  7tuç'  cujtoÏç  IvcLyfe- 
 ;\rp  àm  -ni  dr$ç  rt  kJ1  Mcit3bÛW  Iv&yj'tfa*  Sic.  ttk  -fyt&KQ}'^  (ÏxKqvjvà  -na&S'QV 
 Z&  amyjw!\<Q-  '\uoyi<p  ^   Maeicy  v)  ivp  %ej.&v.  Epiph.  Hat.  30.  n.  14. 
 
 Çl\  la  Evangclio  jiixta  Helrœos ,  quid  Çbaldaico  quidem  Syroquc  fer  mono, 
 fid  Hebraic  is  Uteris,  finptum  cfl,  quo  ut unt ur  ufpic  hodie  Na^ajfeni.  Huron. 
 lib.  3.  adr.  Pcldg. 
 
 (g)oi 
 
(£  )  °f  wMch  W'1S  ^?z  m  à**  Library  of  C.cjarea,  and  he  had  bor- 
 rowed the  other  horn  the  Nazarenes  themlcives  of  Rcrea  to  copv  it 
 out.     This  was  the  Copv  from  which  he  made  his  Translation*    He 
 
 faith  moreover  that  (b)  many  People  believed,,  that  this  Hebrew 
 Gofpcl  whereof  the  Naz*arenes  ana  the  Ebiowtes  made  r.le,  was  the 
 oiiginal  of  S.  Matthew.     However  it  be,  it  feems  that  the  mod  an- 
 cient   Lcclefiaftical  Writers  have  cited  it    as  the  true  Gofpel  of 
 S.  Matthew,  lèverai  have  believed  that  S.  Ignatms  Martyr  had  taken 
 from  thence  thefe  words  or  our  Saviour  to  S.  Peter,  which  he  quotes 
 in  hir  Epiftle  to  thole  or  Smyrna  :  (/)  Touch   me,   and  Jce  that    I  am 
 not  a  [prit.     Eu/ebius  and   S.  Hierom  cite  thefe  fame  words  of  S.  Igna- 
 tius, which  are  {till  to  be  found  at  this  day  in  this  Epiftle.     And  this 
 laft  obierves  that  they  are  taken  horn  the  Hebrew  Goipcl  of  the  Na- 
 carènes,  which  he  had  lately  tranflated  :  De  Evangelio  quod  mtper  à  fa*r™'Ec\ 
 me  tranfiatum  eft.  clefinlgn. 
 
 It  is  probable  that  S.  Ignatius,  being  Bifhop  of  Antioch,  had  read 
 this  Golpel  of  the  Hebrews   that  was  fpread  abroad  through  Syria 
 which  the  Nazarenes  inhabited.     This  induceth  me  to  believe  that 
 Tatian,  who  abode  alfo  in  Syria,  had  made  ufe  of  the  lame  Golpel, 
 when  after  his  manner  he  compolèd  one  out  of  four,  which  Ibme 
 according  to  Epiphanïm  calls  the  Gofpel  according  to  the  Hebrews.  £*/*& 
 This  ought  not  to_be  underftood,   as  if  this  Collection  of  Tatian  H*r.  46. 
 had  not  been  different  from  the   Golpel  of  the  Hebrews;    for  this  n.i. 
 would  make  no  lenle.     Valefuis  hath  not  made  a  iùfficiont  Reflection  yAicf.An- 
 on  this  Gofpel  of  Tatian,  when  he  hath  difcourled  thereof  on  this  not.inl.4. 
 account  in  his  Notes  on  Eufebius.     Grotuts  hath  made  a  much  better  Hift.Eccl. 
 Remark  on  occaiion  of  this  Pa  (Ta  ge  of  S.  Epipkamus,  that  Tatian  m  E-f-c.  2,9. 
 the  Work  which  he  compofed  from  the  four  Gofpels,  had  related  the       tmA^ 
 words  of  S.  Matthew,  not  only  according  to  the  Greek  Copies,  but  Mattb. 
 alfb  according  to  thofe  which  were  in  Hebrew;  and  that  for  this 
 reafbn,  this  Gofpel  which  was  commonly  called  </>*  -now?*';',  becaule 
 il  was  made   out   of  four,    had  been  named  by  fome    Authors, 
 according    to  the  Hebrews.     He   believes  moreover ,    that  it  is  alio 
 
 (g)  Ipfum  Hebraicum  habetur  ufque  hodie  in  C.cfcrecnfi  bibliotheck ,  <?//<t;/j 
 Pamphilus  martyr  ftudiofijjîyy.è  confecit.  "Mihi  quoque  à  Nasfcarenis quiin  Ùcraa 
 urbe  Syr/4?  hoc  voiiuninc  utuntur ,  dejcribcndi  faciuas  fuit.  Hieron.  dc  Script. 
 Ecclcf.  in  Matth. 
 
 (  h)  In  Enangeiio  quo  utuntur  Ka^arcni  &  Ebtoy;i:.c,  quod  nupcr  in  G 
 fermonem  tranjluhmus,  qtiod  vocatur  à  plcrifque  Matth.vi  authentic un^i^ ';.  Idem, 
 Comm.  lib.  2.  in  Matth.  c.  12. 
 
 Epiit.  nd  Smyrn. 
 
C  54] 
 
 *  Some    for  this  reafon,that  fome  others  have  given  it  the  Name  of*<Aii*ir7ftj 
 
 ????*■  °f  five>  as  having  been  collected  from  five  Golpels.  All  this  feems 
 lieve  That t0  ^e  mo^  probable,  were  it  not  that  the  Gofpel  oCTatian  which 
 it  fliould  hath  been  publifhcd,  doth  not  contain  that  which  was  fingular  in 
 be  read      the  Hebrew  Copy  of  the  Naz,arenes. 
 
 J><*  TTttV-        Altho  Baronius  is  miftakemn  fèveral  places  of  his  Annals,  wherein 
 7wy-         he  treats  concerning  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew,  neverthelefs 
 he  bath  had  reafon  to  confider  it  as  an  Original.     He  hath  been  Co 
 bold  as  to  fay,  according  to  this  Principle,  that  if  there  were  a  ne- 
 Baron.  an.  ceffity  of  correcting  the  Latin  Verfion  of  S.  Matthew,  it  ought  to 
 C.'r^?.  34.  ke  c|one  vàthQr  afCer  the  Hebrew  Text  than  the  Greek  :  but  he  is  de- 
 ceived when  he  attributes  this  Opinion  to  S.  Hierom,  and  grounds  it 
 on  the  Epiftle  of  this  Father  to  Pope  Damafus.    For  S.  Hierorn  fpeaks 
 in  this  Epiftle  of  the  whole  New  Teftamcnt  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. 
 Cajaub.  Cafaubon,  who  hath  acknowledged  with  all  antiquity,    that  S.  Mat- 
 
 Iaa  t^ew  hath' certainly  written  his  Gofpel  in  Hebrewtcou\à  not  allow  the 
 naf  Ba-  opinion  of  this  Cardinal,  which  he  accufethof  Impiety.  Hœc  fen- 
 ron.  Seci.  tentia  (faith  he  )  fidem  Cat  bolide  Ecclefiœ  facit  pendere,  nef  as  dtftu,  ah 
 4.  n.  iS.  Hœreticorum  fide.  He  could  not  comprehend  how  it  could  be  fàid  that 
 the  authority  of  the  Greek  Text  of  S.Matttbew  depends  on  the  He- 
 brew  Text  which  is  loft.  He  affirms  alio  that  tho  we  fhould  ftill  have 
 at  this  day  the  Hebrew  Copy,  yet  we  could  not  confider  it  as  an 
 original  Piece  from  which  we  ought  to  correct  the  Greek  Verfion, 
 (  k  )  becaufe  none  but  the  Naz,arene  Hereticks  and  the  Ebicmtes  have 
 made  ufe  of  it,  as  may  be  proved  (  as  he  thinks)  by  theteftimony 
 of  Epiphanius  and  S.  Jerom.  He  calls  thofe  among  the  Catholicks^ 
 that  have  given  the  name  of  Authencick  to  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  ot 
 S.Matthew,  fimple  People.  They  have  too  eahly  (faith  he  J  given 
 credit  to  thefè  Hereticks  who  boaftedthat  they  had  the  original  of 
 this  Golpel.  (I)  This  would  be  according  to  his  Judgment  to  offer 
 an  injury  to  the  Primitive  Church,  to  fay  that  fhe  had  fuffered  wick- 
 ed Hereticks  to  afenbe  to  themfèlves  a  Gofpel  which  had  been  the 
 true  original.     Laltly  he  adds,  that  the  Hebrew  Goipel  which  hath 
 
 (k)  In  antiquts  tcmporibus,  quando  tiebrcea  extabant,  Narrent  &  Ebtontta 
 bœrettct  tiebratcum  textum  fibt  vindicarunt,  ut  t  eft  es  funt  titer  onymw  (3  _  Epi- 
 phantus.  Cathoiici  Grœcum  femper  a  principto  funt  amplexi.  Cafaub.  Exercit.  16. 
 ad  Annal.  B.:r.  feci:.  115. 
 
 (\)  Sine  injuria  vet  ens  Ecclcfiœ  diçi  non  pot  eft  pajfuramilhm  fnijfe  ut  itnpn 
 héeretici  vindicarent  fibt  ceu  proprium  eitrn  textum  quern  confiai  ct  ejfc  Ecchfix  au- 
 thenttcum.    Ibid. 
 
 been 
 
[   55   ] 
 
 been  inufe  among  the  Ebonites  and  (bene other  Hereticks,  wj5  rilled 
 with  Fables,  and  that  it  hath  been  corrupted  in  divers  places  :  from 
 whence  he  concludes,  that  it  cannot  pafs  (bran  original  Piece,  ac- 
 cording to  which  the  Greek.  Verrion  received  by  the  whole  Church 
 might  be  amended.  I  le  calls  this  Jaft  proof  an  invincible  Argument,  Ct-Vii  $ 
 Argument  urn  inviclum. 
 
 But  it   is  an  carie  matter  to  Ihew  the  weaknefs   of  all  thefe  Ob- 
 jections of  Cajaubon.     I  am  fo  far  from  thinking  that  the  Opinion  of 
 Baromus  can  be  called  impious,  that  I  affirm  it  on  the  contrary  to  be 
 grounded  on  the  tcftimony  of  all  Antiquity  and  on  good  Reafon.  It 
 is  certain,  and  Cajaubon   himfelf  agrees  to  it,  that  S.  Matthew  hath 
 written  his  Gofpel  in  Hebrew,  of  which  the  Greek  is  only  a  Verfion. 
 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  conform- 
 able to  reafon  and  good  fenU.     This  is  the  Principle  on  which  the 
 Proteftants    rely   when    they    correct     the    Verrions    of  the  Old 
 Teftament  from  the  original  Hebrew:  but  (fay  they)  we  have  no 
 longer  the  Hebrew  ofS.  Matthew.     It  is  true,  but  ought  this  to  hin- 
 der us  from  calling  it  Authentick  with  the  ancient  Ecclefiaftical 
 Writers,  fince  in  effect  it  is  fb  ?  If  it  were  not  loft,  might  we  not 
 have  recourfè  thereto  at  this  day  to  refolve  feveral  Difficulties,  in  the 
 Greek  Verrion  ?  We  fee  that  S.  Hierom  hath  confulted  it  on  the  fécond 
 Verfè  of  the  rixth  Chapter  of  S.  Matthew,  where  we  read  in  the 
 Vulgar  Latin,  Vanem  no  ft  rum  fuperfubftanttalcm  da  nobis  ho  die.   (  m  )   He 
 obfèrves  that  it  is  in  the  Greek  word  cmvnov,  and  in  the  Hebrew  "vr— n, 
 which  lignifies  of  to  morrow:  from  whence  he  infers,  that  thefenfe 
 of  this    Paflage  is.    Give  its  this  day  our  bread  of  to  morrow,  that  is  to 
 fay,  of  every  day,  as  it  was  in  the  ancient  vulgar  Latin  ;  and  S.  Jc- 
 rom  hath  kept  the  word   ^uotidianum  in   S.  Luke,  Chap.  xi.  3.     This 
 Exposition  of  the  Greek  word  &m*et®-y  which  is  obfeure,  is  conside- 
 rable.    The  Grammarians  do  at  this  day  difpute  concerning  its  ligni- 
 fication :  but  the  Hebrew  word  *iri — 1  which  was  in  the  Gofpel  of 
 the  Naz,arenes,  refblves  all  their  doubts.     This  hath  caufed  Grotuis 
 to  fay,  that  after  the  Teflimony  of  S.  Jerom,  who  hath  thereupon      **'  w£" 
 confulted  the  Hebrew  or  Chaldaick  Text,  we  ought  net  any  longer  v#lfei 
 to  difpute  about  the.  Original  of  the  Greek  word  emiri®-  to  know  lâ&tth. 
 the  meaning  of  it,  c.  vi.  v.i\ 
 
 (  m  )  Quod  tics  fuperfu'oftantialem  expreffunus ,  m  Gr*co  habetur  ormxaiov, 
 •  -  -  In  Hvan*elto  quod  appel latur  Jecundiim  Hebr&os,  pro  fubftantiali  pane  repot 
 "^^— J  <}uod  dicintr  craftnium^  id  eft  x  futur  urn  da  nobis  bedic.  H:eron.  Com  m.  in 
 Matth.Hb.  1.  c  6. 
 
 AWia 
 
[*4] 
 
 Alcho  we  fhonki  have  at  this  very  day  (continues  Cafaubon)  the 
 Hebrew  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes,  we  could  not  make  it  pafs  for  an 
 original,  becaufe  it  hath  been  ufèd  by  Hereticks,  and  that  the  Ca- 
 tholicks  have  always  adhered  to  the  Greek  Copy  ever  fince  che  firft 
 beginning  of  the  Church.  But  tho  we  fhould  fuppofe  with  Cafaubon, 
 that  the  Naz,arenes  have  been  Hereticks  ,  would  this  hinder  their 
 Hebrew  Gofpel  which  had  been  written  in  this  Language  by  S.  Mat- 
 thew y  from  being  a  true  Original  ?  I  would  willingly  know  whether 
 the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Law  of  Mofes  is  lefs  authentick  in  the  Hands 
 or  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  wc  have  received  it  ?  The  Protectants  are  on  the  fame  bot- 
 tom with  re  (peel  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  as  the  Ebwmtes  were  here- 
 tofore with  rcfpeét  to  the  Orthodox.  This  Church  reckons  them 
 equally  in  the  number  of  Hereticks  ;  may  it  be  fiid  for  this  reafbn 
 that  the  New  Teftament  which  is  in  ufè  among  the  Pi  oteftants  is  not 
 authentick  ?  This  no  rational  Catholick  will  ever  avouch.  And 
 therefore  the  proof  that  Cafaubon  brings  from  the  pretended  Herefie 
 of  the  Na&arenes,  and  from  that  of  the  Ebwnites,  is  of  no  weight. 
 
 Betides  it  is  not  true  that  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew  hath 
 been  in  uie  among  the  Hereticks  only,  fince,  as  hath  been  above 
 fhewn,  it  hath  been  compofed  for  the  Primitive  Chriftians  of  Pa- 
 left  in  t  horn  whom  the  Naz>arene  Se&aries  were  defcended,  and  the 
 Greek  is  only  a  Verfion  of  it.  Neither  can  it  be  averred,  that  the 
 Catholicks  have  not  acknowledged  any  other  Copy  of  S.  Matthew 
 than  that  which  is  in  Greek,  fince  the  Jews  of  the  Territory  of 
 Jerufalem  who  embraced  the  Chriftian  Religion,  and  were  called 
 Naz.arenes,  have  been  the  firft  Chriftians  in  the  World,  it  would  be 
 a  piece  of  injuftice  in  us  to  treat  them  as  Hereticks,  for  this  reafbn 
 only,  becaufè  they  retained  the  Ceremonies  of  the  Old  Law  with 
 Chriftianity:  otherwife  we  muft  treat  the  Apoftles  as  Hereticks,  who 
 obferved  them  alfo  at  the  beginning:  this  might  be  then  tolerated 
 in  thefe  Primitive  Chriftians  who  fprang  out  from  the  middle  of  the 
 Jews,  and  who  had  before  their  eyes  the  Example  of  Jefus  Chnft 
 and  the  Apoftles. 
 
 That  which  hath  mifled  Cafaubon  and  many  others,  as  well  Pro- 
 teftants  as  Catholicks,  who  have  reje&ed  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  or  the 
 Naz,arenes  as  an  Apocryphal  Piece,  is  that  they  have  not  duly  reflect- 
 ed on  the  Original  of  the  Chriftian  Religion.  The  Primitive 
 Chriftians  of  Jerujalem  and  of  Palcftm,  who  made  u(e  of  this  He- 
 brew  Gofpel,  having  not  long  fubfifted  in  their  firft  eftate,  and  the 
 others  on  the  contrary  who  fpake  Greek,  being  difperfed  throughout 
 the  whole  earth  j  it  hath  happened  from  thence  that  the  Greek  Go(pel 
 
 only 
 
C  <*5  ] 
 
 only  hath  been  preferred  amongft  the  Cathohcks,  !     i  (j  all  the 
 
 other  Chriftians  h.wc  taken  their  Veriions  from  this  Copy.  The 
 ChaULnck  Tongue,  in  which  the  Goipel  of  the  Xaz-are?ies  was  writ- 
 ten, was  not  underflood  but  bv  (bine  Jars  :  betides,  the  Naz^arenes, 
 who  had  retained  Jjidaijtn  with  Chnftiamty,  became  odious  to  the 
 other  Chniiians  who  were  converted  from  GentiUÇmy  and  there  was 
 an  irreçoncileable  Hatred  between  them.  If  the  ancient  Naxuare 
 for  whom  S.  Matthew  had  written  his  Goipel  were  vet  in  being, 
 their  Hebrew  Copy  would  be  without  doubt  preferred  bjfo:e  the 
 Greek  Veriion  which  we  have. 
 
 S.  Jercm  and  S.  Epiphani/rs  arc  (b  far  from  being  favourable  to  the 
 Judgment  of  Cafaubon,  that  on  the  contrary  they  overthrow  it  in 
 expiefs  terms,  as  appears  from  their  Teftimonies  which  we  have 
 above  related.  This  is  (b  true,  that  Cafaubon,  to  juftifie  his  Opi- 
 nion, hath  on  purpofe  corrupted  a  Partage  oi  St.  Epiphanms,  who 
 calls  the  ILbrew  Gofpel  of  the  Naz,are»es  7frn°'wn>y,  moj?  entire:  he 
 would  have  it  read,  »  i&nçiçtt-nv,  that  w.ts  not  entire,  againft  all  the 
 Editions  of  the  Works  of  this  Father,  and  without  producing  any 
 Manuscript  to  prove  an  Alteration  of  this  Importance  :  he  faith  only, 
 that  this  place  of  S.  Epiphamm  is  contrary  to  another,  wherein  he 
 calls  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  the  Ebwnites,  a  Gofpel  «  ^wfiçaw,  that 
 was  not  entire,  but  vivo^dj^ov  ^  h*pcuvteA*op\vwy  corrupted  and  mutila- 
 ted. Cafaubon  hath  not  taken  heed  that  although  the  Naz,arenes  and 
 the  Ebwnites  did  equally  make  ufe  of  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  S.  Mat- 
 thew, their  Copies  were  neverthelefs  diffèrent  :  thefe  Jaft,  as  S.  Epi- 
 phanim  himfelfhath  remarked,  had  corrupted  their  Copy,  and  had 
 retrenched  from  it  the  Genealogy  of  Jelus  Chnir,  which,  he  faith 
 not  of  the  Naz,arenes,  who  had  it  (  if  you  will  believe  him  )  afcugi- 
 &>w,  moft  entire. 
 
 It  is  true  that  in  the  very  Copy  of  the  Naz.arenes  there  werefbme 
 Additions  that  feemed  to  have  been  inierted  therein  ;  but  we  muft 
 not  reject  an  A6t  that  is  altogether  entire,  under  colour  that  fbme- 
 thing  hath  been  annexed  to  it  afterwards,  especially  when  thefè 
 Augmentations  come  not  from  fufpecled  Perlons  that  have  a  dedgn 
 to  corrupt  it  :  othcrwile  we  muft  lay  ahde  the  g'eateft  part  or  Books, 
 there  being  very  few  of  them  wherein  ibmS  Additions  may  not  be 
 found.  There  would  not  be  at  this  day  any  Copy  even  of  the 
 New  Teitament,  either  Greek,  Latin,  Sjriack  or  Arabick,  that  might 
 be  truly  called  authentick,  becaufe  there  is  not  one,"  in  whatloever 
 Language  it  be  written,  that  is  abfblutely  exempt  from  Additions. 
 I  might  alfb  avouch,  that  the  Greek  Tranfcribers  have  taken  a  very 
 great  liberty  in  writing  their  Copies,  as  null  be  proved  in  another 
 place. 
 
 K  Not 
 
[  68  ] 
 
 Not  that  I  would  go  about  here  to  defend  the  vicious  Additions 
 and  the  Corruptions  of  the  Hebrew  Copy  of  the  Ebionites:  Barcnms 
 him felf  hath  never  thought  of  this:  he  is  content  to  fav,  O)  that 
 the  Nazarenes  during  fome  time  preferred  the  true  Gofpel  of  S.  Mat- 
 shew  entire,  and  without  any  Additions:  he  confutes  the  Opinion 
 of  Bede,  who  hath  believed  that  this  Hebrew  Gofpel  ought  not  to  be 
 reckoned  in  the  number  of  Apocryphal  Books  :  he  judgeth,  that  it 
 ought  to  be  placed  irf  the  rank  of  Apocryphal  Pieces,  becaufè  S.  Jc> 
 rem  hath  quoted  in  his  Works  lèverai  Pafîages  out  of  it,  which  are 
 not  to  be  found  in  the  Copies  that  have  been  received  and  appro- 
 ved of  by  the  Church,  (o)  It  is  dangerous  ( faith  this  Cardinal^ 
 to  put  it  m  any  other  Clâfs  than  that  of  Apocryphal  Books,  becaufe 
 there  can  be  but  one  Truth.  If  we  underftand  in  the  meantime 
 by  Apocryphal^  a  falfe  Book,  it  is  not  true  in  that  fenfe,  that  the 
 Gofpel  or  the  Nazarenes  is  Apocryphal;  it  may  be  only  fàid,  that 
 if  there  are  conhderable  Additions  therein  that  alter  the  fenfe,  it 
 
 no  more  Authentick:  and  this  is  that  which  is  to  be  proved.    I 
 
 :*ak  only  of  the  Copy  of  the  Nazarenes,  and  not  of  that  of  the 
 Ebionites,  who  had  corrupted  it  on  purpofe  to  adjufl  it  to  their  Pre- 
 indices. 
 
 We  ought  not,  notwithstanding,  to  compare  the  Hebrew  Go/pel 
 ifauh.     of  the  Nazarcnes,  as  Cafaubon  hath  done,  with  the  Gofpel  intituled 
 Exerctt»    accoulïng  to  the  Egyptians,  the   Aéts  of  Barnabas ,  the  Prophecy   of 
 *A     L      &)am>  anc^  otner  Books  that  have  been  forged  by  Impoftors.  It  is  not 
 B*r?n.     t0  ^s  doubted  on  the  contrary,  that  the  Gofpel  of  the  Nazarenes 
 ■26.         hath  been  certainly  compofed  by  the  ApofHe  whofè  Name  it  bears: 
 as  for  what  concerns  the  Additions  which  the  Nazarenes  might  have 
 inferted  in  the  firft  Original  of  S.  Matthew,  it  may  happen  that  they 
 are  not  falfe:  we  ought  rather  to  attribute  them  to  their  Simplicity, 
 and  to  their  good  Faith,  than  to  their  malice.    It  was  the  cuftom 
 in  thefe  Primitive  times  of  Christianity,  to  take  a  great  deal  of 
 pains  to  inform  themfelves  of  that  which  the  Difciples  of  the  Apo- 
 rtles  had  learned  of  their  Matters,  as  appears  by  the  Example  of 
 Tafias  who  lived  in  thofe  times,  of  S.  Irenœtts  who  was  not  long  af- 
 ter, and  of  fome  others  of  the  Ancients.     It  is  probable  that  the 
 Nazarenes  have  annexed  to  their  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew  the  like  Hi- 
 ftories  which  they  had  learned,  and  which  they  believed  to  be  found- 
 ed on  good  Tcltimonies:  therefore  they  are  not  all  to  be  rejected 
 
 (  n  )  Narrai  Evarigelium  Matthai,  auodfemel  accelerant,  ahquandiu  lUibatum 
 weorruptumattefervarunt.  Karon.  Ann.  Ch.  41.  n.  18. 
 
 (o)  Periculojum  effe  'putamus  id  in  aliam  quant  in  apocryphorum  clajjem  rcferre1 
 cum  non  ntfi  una  pcfjit  ejji  Veritas,  Bar,  ibid, 
 
 as 
 
m  falfe,  though  chev  are  not  to  be  found  in  any  c       É  Copies  tiuu 
 
 :  u(ed  and  allowed  bv  the  Church.  It  may  be  obftrved,  that 
 the  Churches  of  die  World  have  taken  then-  Ve  lions  from  I 
 Gretl:  !      >y  wherein  thefi  Additions  are  not  expreflèd,  becaufe  the 
 
 Gofpel  ofSi  Mai:  hew  had  been  apparently  tranfhted  out  of  Hi 
 into  Greek  before  the  NeTCjnrtnts  had  in  :vi. 
 
 Furthermore,  theie  Differences  of  the  H      w  Gofpel  of  the  Na- 
 from  our^  Copy,  leem  to  have  been  numéro::,  enough,  it 
 we  may  judge  ot  then  by  thole  that  S.Jcrom  hath  left  us  in  dive 
 PafTages  of  his  Works,    a   part  of  which  hath    been  collc&ed   by 
 iome  Commentators  on  the  New  Teftament.    Nevertl  ,  thei 
 
 is  a  diverlity  of  Opinions  as  to  (omc  of  theft  Hiflories  or  Additi- 
 ons or  the  Nazjarems  :  all  men,  for  example,  are  not  agreed  th 
 the  Hiftory  oi:  the  adulterous  Woman,  of  whom  mention  is  ma 
 Chap.  viii.  of  S.  John,  hath  been  in  their  Hebrew  Gofpel.  That  which 
 hath  given  occaiion  to  believe  it,  is  the  Teftimonv  of  Ptpiaf,  who 
 had  lived  with  the  Difciples  of  the  Apoftics:  he  faith  (p)  that  the 
 Hiftory  of  the  Woman  who  was  accufed  of  many  Sins  before  our 
 Saviour,  is  to  be  read  in  the  Gofpel  that  was  c  according  to  the 
 
 Hebrews;  which  feerns  not  to  be  meant  of  any  other  than  that  adul- 
 terous Woman,  whom  S.  John  hath  mentioned.  Neverthelefs,  Bare-  Baron. 
 nim  hath  thought,  and  (ome  others  after  him,  that  the  Hiftory  rela-  Ann.c.y$. 
 ted  in  Eufebws  by    Papias  is  diffèrent   from  that   whereof  S.  John  n-  6- 
 ipeaks,  becaufe  (<j)  Vapias  difcourfeth  of  a  Woman  .        led  of  ma- 
 ny Crimes  in  general,  whereas  S.  John  (imply  takes  notice  of  ^n 
 adulterous  Woman:  but  there  is  but  little  likelihood  that   Fdpiat 
 jhould  havedehgned  to  defcribe  in  this  Partage  any  other  than  the 
 adulterous  Woman,  though  his  Exprertion  runs  m  general  terms 
 This  hath  caufed  feveral  learned,  men  to  believe,  that  the  Hiftory 
 of  the  adulterous  Woman  hath  been  taken  from  the  Hebrew  Goi\ 
 of  the  Naz>arenes}  and  that  it  hath  been  afterwards  inlerted  into  that 
 of  S.  John:  indeed  it  is  not  found  in  a  great  number  of  Copies 
 this  Gofpel,  as  we  mall  ihew  hereafter. 
 
 I  fhall  only  obferve  here,  that  if  this  be  true,  we  ought  not  to 
 call  awav,  as  ralfe  Hiftones,  all  the  Additions  that  the  Naxarenes 
 had  infèrted  into  their  Hebrew  Copy  of  S  Muuhew,  becaufe  they 
 might  have  received  them  from  good  bands, 
 
 'ECesflvc  zAJdLyyihtov  fàtAÏyp.    Pap.  apud  Eulcb  Hilt.  Ecclel.  lib.  3.  c.\p-  39. 
 
 (  (]  j  Cwn  LjAj.;ji  nMitorum  utmunum  die:  ilttm  m  accufatam^  Jc- 
 
 ver.  im  f<wtùmf4cinôrù%  nemPè  >]:.  >cnja  effet  in  a. 
 
 tarn    }  m  ab  1         .!]e,  cujus  nu  apkd  Ev, 
 
 uficare  videtwr.    Ba;on.  ann.  Chrtit  9Q.  n.  6. 
 
 K  2  b 
 
[68] 
 
 Baron.  It  is  for  this  reafon  that  Cardinal  Baronim  authorized!  an  Appari- 
 
 Ann^.^.  tl0n  0f  our  saviour  to  $  James,  which  was  found  only  in  the  Co- 
 py of  the  Nazarenes,  and  is  related  after  this  manner  by  S.  Jerom  *y 
 Hicroi.     Evangel  turn  quoque  quod  appellatur  fecundum  Ikbrœos^  &  à  me  nuper  m 
 Script.  Gracum  Laimumque  fcrmvnem  tranjlatum  eft,    quo  &  Origines  fepe  uti- 
 ?-£■     tliri  P°ft  refurrectionem  Salvatons  rtfert  :  M  Dominus  autem  cum  de- 
 ff  dilfet  findonem  fervo  facerdotis,  ivit  ad  Jacobum,  &  apparue  ei. 
 cc  J.iraverat  enim  Jacob;. s,  fe  non  comelturum  panem  ab  ilia  hora 
 <f  qua  biberat  caheem  Domini,  donee  videret  eum  refurgentem  à 
 rc  mortuis.     Rurj 'n\que  poft  paululum:  AfFerte,  ait  Dominus,,  menfam 
 '  &:  panem.     Statimque  additur,  Tulit  panem,  &  benedixit  ac  fre- 
 f<  git,  &  poft  dedit  Jacobo  Jufto,  &  dixit  ei,  Frater  mi,  comede 
 ff  panem  tuum,  quia  refurrexit  filius  hominis  à  dormientibus.     Baro- 
 nuis,  who   luth  alfo  infertei  into  his  Annals  this  Extract  of  the 
 Gofpel  of  the  Naz-arenes,  adds,  that  (  r  )  S.  Jerom  did  not  believe 
 that  it  was  falfe,  becaufè  he  rejected  it  not  in  that  place,  as  he  was. 
 wont  to  do  when  he  cited  Apocryphal  Pieces.     If  this  obfervation 
 of  the  Cardinal  be  true,  the  greateft  part  of  the  Additions  of  this 
 Goipel  will  then  be  admitted,  becaufe  S.  Jerom  is  ordinarily  content 
 to  reheat  fe  them  fimply  without  difapproving  them. 
 Hieron.         After  this  manner  alfo  on  Chap.  xii.  of  S.  Matthew,  wherein  men- 
 Ccmm.      tion  is  made  of  a  Man  who  had  his  hand  withered,  and  was  healed 
 hu.  2.  in    Dy  Jefùs  Ghrift,  he  quotes  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  the  JSJa&arenes  and 
 \y~\      Ebiomtes,  where  this  Hiftory  is  written  more  at  large,  and  with 
 other  Circumftances.     It  is  fpecified  therein,  that  this  Man  was  a 
 Mafon  by  Trade ,  and  that  he  thus  addreflèd  himfèlf  to  our  Sa- 
 viour ;  I  waf  a  Mafon,  that  gained  my  Livelihood  by  working.     I  pray 
 thee,  Jefus,  to  heal  me  ,  that    I  may  not  be  obliged  jhame fully   to   beg. 
 S.  Jerom  is  fo  far  from  rejecting  this  Hiftory  as  a  Fable,  that  he  faith 
 on  the  contrary  in  this  fame  Paflàge,  that  the  Gofpçl  of  the  Naz,*~ 
 rencs,  from  whence  he  hath  taken  it,  paffeth  for  Authentick  in  the 
 Judgment  of  many  People.    In  EvangeUo  (  faith  this  learned  Father) 
 quo  utuntur  Naz>areni  Ô"  Ebionitœ,  quod  nuper  in  Grœcum  de  Hebrœo 
 fermone  tranftulimns,   &  quod  vocatur  à  fier  if  que  Matthœi  Authenticum, 
 homo  ifte  qui  aridam  habtt  manum  cernent  anus  jeribitur,  iftiujmodt  voci* 
 bus  auxdium  frecans  :  <c  Cementarius  eram  manibus  vktum  quari- 
 "  tans.  Precor  ce,  Jefu,  ut  mihi  reftituas  fanitatem,  ne  turpiter  men* 
 *  <f  dicem  cibos. 
 
 (r)  Haclcnus  ex  diclo  Evangelio  Na^arœorum  Hieronymitî,  qui  cum  non  excifi- 
 at  de  afocrypho^  ut  de  alus  ajjolet,  fe  ijujdetn  hijltria  jidem  hand  impugnajjc  de- 
 mwftrat.   Baron,  ibid. 
 
 Moi  - 
 
C  h  ] 
 
 Moreover,  S.  Jerom  cites  two  other  confidefable  Paflages  of  this 
 lame  Gofpel  a:  the  beginning  ot  his  third  Book  againft  the  Pe/tfjfi- 
 jw/,  without  leflèning  their  credit  by  any  Reftridion.  The  firft  hath 
 regard  to  the  BaptHm  of  S  John,  whereof  Jefus  Chrift  faid  that  he 
 \ud  no  need;  and  the  other  is  a  various  reading  ot  the  11  and  il 
 Verfes  of  the  wiii.Chap. pfS.  Matthew.  In  Evangclio  (imhb.  Jerom)  uieroru 
 
 xta  HcbraoSy  muoâ  Cbaldaico  qui  Jem  Syroque  fermone,  fed  Hebraic  is  lib.$.adv* 
 Uteris  friptum  eft,  quo  utuntur  ufque  hodie  Nazareni  [ecundum  Apofto-  P«' 
 losj  five  ut  plerjejue  auliimant,  juxta  Matthaum,  quod  &  in  Cafarienfi 
 habetur  Btbliotbecà3  narrât  hiftoria.  "  Ecce  mater  Domini  &  tvatrcs 
 ff  ejus  dicebant  ei,  Joannes  BaptifU  baptizat  in  remiffionem  pec- 
 cf  catorum,  camus  &  baptizemur  ab  co.  Dixit  autem  cis,  'quid  pec- 
 t(  cavi  ut  vadam  6c  baptizer  ab  eo,  nifi  forte  ho:  îpfùm  quod  dixi 
 <f  ignorantia  eft.  Et  m  ecdem  zrolumine.  Si  peccavent,  inquit,  frater 
 <:  tuus  in  verbo,  8c  fatis  tibi  fecent,  fepdes  in  die  fulcipe  euni.  Di- 
 €c  xit  illi  Simon  difcipulus  ejus,  (optics  in  die?  Refpondit  Domini  , 
 rf  6c  dixit  ei,  etiam  egodico  tibi  ufque  fèptuagehes.  Etenim  in  Pro- 
 'f  phecis  quoque ,  poftquam  uncti  iunt  Spintu  Sandto,  inventus  eft 
 Cf  lèrmo  peccati. 
 
 The  fame  Nazarenes  read  alfo  otherwifè  than  we  have  it  in  our 
 Copies,  the   16  and   17  Verfes  of  the  111.  Chapter  of  S.  Matthew, 
 when  the  Baptifm  of  Jefus  Chrift  is  mentioned.     S.  Jerom  hath  ta- 
 ken notice  in  his  Commentary  on  Ifaiah,  that  they  read  it  after 
 this  manner  :   Fatlum  eft  autem  cum  afcendifjet  Dominas  de  aqua,  de-  ^ 
 fceudit  fons  omnis  Spirit  as  Sanbti,  C>  requirvit  fuper  eum}  &  dixit  iltrs  ;\, 
 fill  mi,  in  omnibus  Propbetis  cxpetlabam  te  ut  venires,   &  requiefcerem  m  afud 
 te  :  tu  es  enim  requies  mea3  tu  es  films  mens  primogenitits  qui  régnas  in  Hier.t.  4. 
 ftmpitermim.  g^j  « 
 
 Amongfl  the  Miracles  that,  happened  at  the  Death  ofourSavi-  ^ 
 our,  and  that  are  declared  in  the  xxvii.  Chap,  of  S.  Matthew,  the 
 Nazarenes  relate  this  in  their  Gofpel,  (s  )  that  the  top  of  the  Gate 
 of  the  Temple,  that  was  of  a  prodigious  bignels,  was  broken  in 
 pieces;  whereas  we  read  only  in  our  Copies,  that  the  Vail  of  the 
 Temple  was  rent  in  twain,  Mit.xxvii 
 
 I  mail  take  no  notice  of  fome  other  Examples  that  I  might  pro-  51- 
 duce  of  the  diverfity  that  was  found  between  the  Hebrew  Goipcl 
 ot:  the  Nazarenes  and  the  Greek,  which  hath  remained  alone  in  ufe 
 throughout   all   the  Churches  in  the  World.     1  Hull  only  add  to 
 what    hath  been  already  obfèrved,  that  in  the  xxiii.  Chapter  of 
 
 (s)  In  Evbigelio  citjtis  fepe  faennus  me?itionem,  fuper hminare  tcmpli  infinite 
 magnitudinis  fraftum  ejfe  at  que  divifum  legimus.  Hicroa  lib.  4.  Comment  in 
 Matth.  c.  27. 
 
 S.  Mat- 
 
[7*] 
 
 S.  .'  •',  ver.  2>.  where  we  read   Zacbarias  Son  of  Bérachtas , 
 
 (O  the  Naz^rgnti  had  in  their  Copy  according  to  the  Tefhmony 
 of  S.  Jerom,  Zacbarias  Son  of  Jojada  :  and  this  Reading  h  confirm- 
 ed by  that  which  is  related  concerning  this  Zacbarias  in  the  Old 
 Teftament.  Now  according  to  our  Copies,  the  Father  of  Zacba- 
 rias mufl  have  had  two  Names  :  and  fince  this  doth  not  appear  to 
 us,  I  believe  that  in  this  place  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  o'ight  to  be  pre- 
 ferred before  the  other  Copies,  efpecially  there  being  no  prejudice 
 that  could  have  obliged  the  Nazarenes  or  the  Ebicmtes  to  make  any 
 alteration  in  this  Point. 
 
 We  may  (ee  plainly,  by  all  thefe  Examples,  what  hath  been  the 
 Hebrew  Gofpel  of  S  Matt5ew;  or  as  others  c;di  it,  if  tbe  twelve  Ap- 
 ples, which  hath  been  uièd  by  the  Nazarenes:  we  may  judge  alfo, 
 at  the  fame  time,  that  it  was  différant  enough  from  our  Copies.  It 
 would  be  in  the  mean  time  a  piece  of  Ralhnefs  to  put  all  thefe  di- 
 verluies  in  the  number  of  Fables  with  Cafaubon,  («)  who  hath 
 made  no  fcruple  to  rank  this  Gofpel  amongft  thofe  that  have  been 
 counterfeited  under  the  Names  of  S.  Thaddaus  and  ^.Thomas.  Gro~ 
 tins,  who  difcourfeth  thereof  with  more  Moderation,  (*)  believes 
 that  the  Nazarenes  have  inierted  that  which  they  have  in  their  Co- 
 pies and  which  is  not  in  ours,  relying  upon  certain  Relations  that 
 they  had  heard.  It  is  for  this  reafon  that  when  he  fpeaks  of  the 
 Hiftory  of  the  adulterous  Woman,  of  whom  mention  is  made  in 
 S.  Job»,  and  which  he  judgeth  to  have  been  taken  out  of  the  Gofpel 
 of  thefe  Na&arcnes,  that  he  forbears  not  to  afenbe  to  it  the  fame 
 Authority,  as  if  the  Apoftles  were  the  true  Authors  of  it.  He 
 acknowledged  neverthelefs>  that  it  was  not  originally  neither  in 
 the  Hebrew  of  S.  Matthew,  nor  in  the  Greek  of  S.  John  ;  nee  à  Mat- 
 tbteo  fcriptam  in  Hebrœo  Evangelio,  nee  à  Joanne  in  Grœco.  He  be- 
 lieves that  (j  J  the  Nazarenes  of  Valeftme  had  added  it  to  their  He- 
 brew Gofpel,  becaiifc  it  came  from  the  Apoftles;  and  that  after- 
 wards Vapas  and  the  other  Difciples  of  S.  John  had  put  it  into  his 
 
 (t  )  In  Evangel io  quo  utuntur  Na^aren^  fro  filio  Barachiœ,  filium  Jojad<ey  repe- 
 rimus.    Hitron.  lib.  4.  Comin.  in  Matth.  c.  23. 
 
 (  u  ;  Tarn  igitur  af'xry plum  hoc  Evangel  turn,  qunm  illud  quod  Thaddœi  diceb.'- 
 tur,  nut  quod  Thorny  adjç.ilebant,  (3  pro  vera  ufurpabant  Mamchœz.  Cafaub.  ad 
 Ann  Eccief.  Baron. 
 
 (  x  )  Narration's  q  i<tddm  non  prœfcriptœ  a  Mattbeo,  fed  audi  tu  percept  £  viden- 
 tur  paulatim  à  Nuirais  a/fut  £  us  qu.e  penes  ipfos  erant  exemfarilut.  Grot.  An- 
 not.  in  tit.  Matth. 
 
 (  y  )  Quia  Apojîoli  viz  a  voce  banc  hi/}  or  z  am  [apè  ?iarraveranty  attextam  a  Na- 
 \arems  attidem  Palejrm*  ihbrteo  Evangelio,  à  Papià  nut  em  alu/que  Joanms  dija- 
 pulis  GrxcoJo.:nm<,  &  sb  Rcckfia  profatam,  idea  quid  fat  is  certo  tefttmomo  con- 
 flaret  ab  Apo/iolis  t  m.    Grot.  Annot.  in  c.  8.Joann. 
 
 Gofpel 
 
C/5  ] 
 
 Gofpe!  written  in  Gtecl-    t     ch  [aid  Hiftory  hat       ien  approv 
 by  the  Church,  becaufe  it  was  grounded  on  an  Apoftohcal  Tradi- 
 tion.    Janfenius  Biihop  of  G  and,  who  had  w        n  the  fame  thing 
 
 before  Grot  m  <  i  )  vrouid  have  this  Hiftory  cottfidcred  .15  Canoni- 
 cal, bscaufc  P*f/<*  had  received  it  from  lus  Muter,  and  becaufe 
 it  hath  been  allowed  by  the  Church;  he  (kith "hefeVtnelefs,  that  it 
 might  happen  that  S.John  hath  added  it  htrafèlf  to  his  Gofpel  after 
 he  had  vv.  ltten  it  ;  and  that  for  this  realon  it  was  not  found  in  fome 
 Copies. 
 
 But  there  fecms  to  be  but  little  Probability  in  this  lad  Remark, 
 and  there  can  be  nothing  determined  thereupon  with  any  certainty. 
 We  only  know  that  Papias  reckons  in  the  number  of  Hifto: 
 which  he  had  learned  from  the  Dilciples  of  the  Apoftles,  that 
 which  hath  regard  to  the  Woman  àcculed  of  many  Crimes  in  the 
 Prefence  or  our  Saviour  ;  and  that  he  adds  at  the  fame  time,  that 
 it  was  related  in  the  Goipel  which  was  called  according  to  the  He- 
 brews. Now  lince  it  is  not  unlikely  that  this  Woman  accufed  of 
 many  Crimes  is  the  lame  with  the  adulterous  Woman  of  whom 
 S.  John  makes  mention,,  it  lecms  as  it  it  might  be  interred  from 
 thence,  that  in  the  time  of  Pàpias  this  Hiftory  was  not  to  be  found 
 but  in  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  the  Naz,arenes.  This  makes  it  appear, 
 that  all  the  Additions  which  have  been  inferred  into  this  Goipel 
 ought  not  to  be  accounted  as  Fables,  fince  Tapas  hath  produced 
 one  of  them  which  came  from  an  Apoftolical  Tradition  :  this 
 might  be  aifo  laid  of  the  others  with  fbme  Probability.  Hegefippus, 
 who  was  familiarly  acquainted  with  the  Difciples  of  the  Apoftles, 
 (II)  hath  alfb  fometimes  made  ufe  of  the  Hebrew  or  Syriack  Goipel 
 of  the  Naz,arenes ,  and  he  hath  quoted  it  even  in  Hebrew:  from 
 whence  Eufehius  concludes,  that  he  muft  needs  be  of  the  number  of 
 the  Hebrews  that  had  embraced  the  Chnftun  Religion. 
 
 (z  )  Ex  qutbus  fit  is  p.uet  banc  bifloriam  non  in  primis  fuiffe  ab  Evangeliflâ 
 hoc  loco  d'.jcriptam,  fed  vel  ex  apocrypho  illo  Evan^elio  additam,  qua  tatnen  au 
 tor  it  at  em  cbtmuerit,  non  quod  in  apocryphis  fcripta  fuerit,  Jed  quod  cam  B/tj  i 
 èjuo  doelore  audicrtt,  quodque  banc  Ecclefue  covfenjus,  utÈvangelio  dignamcom- 
 probarit,  vel  Joannempofi  femel  defer  iptum  àfe  Evançelium  ad/ce/fe  ham  far. 
 fuoEvangelio,  ut  ob  id  coungerit  in  quibujdam  codicibus  babcri^  in  quit1  fiam  non. 
 Janf.  Epifc.  Gand.  Coinm.  in  Concor.  Eu  c.  76. 
 
 J)d.K\,)C\*  nyct  liStmv*  iy^cuvtv  1%  l&cgjity  iaum  mms-JL/Âvcu.    Eufeb.  Hm.  Eccl. 
 lib.  4.  c.  21. 
 
 CHAP 
 
[71  ] 
 Chap.     VIII. 
 
 Of  the  Ebionites.  Of  then  Copy  of  the  Go/pel  of  S.  Mat- 
 thew. Of  fome  other  ancient  Hereticks  who  have  maàe 
 ufe  of  this  fame  Gofpel. 
 
 WE  have  already  obferved  in  difcourfïng  of  the  Naz,arcnes, 
 that  the  Ehionites  did  alfo  make  ufe  of  the  Hebrew  Gofpel 
 of  S.  Matthew  as  well  as  they  ;  but  that  they  had  ncverthelefs  alter- 
 ed and  corrupted  it  in  fome  places,  to  make  it  agreeable  to  their 
 fa  He  Notions  and  Prejudices.  Ebionai  (  faith  S.  Irenaus)  eo  Evange- 
 A*'h  ^°3  3U0^  ^f  fcundum  Matthœum,  folo  utentes}  ex  illo  ipfo  convincuntur, 
 c  '  '  The  ancient  Ecclefiafhcal  Writers  (according  to  Eufebius)  have  cal- 
 led thefe  Sectaries  Ebionites >  from  a  Word  that  fignifies  in  Hebrew 
 Poor,  becaufe  they  had  poor  Conceptions  concerning  Jefus  Chrifl:, 
 whom  they  believed  to  be  a  limple  Man.  (a)  They  made  ufe  of 
 that  Gofpel  only  (  adds  this  Hiftonan  )  which  was  called  according  to 
 the  Hebrews,  little  tfieemmg  the  reft.  Origen,  who  hath  been  fol- 
 lowed by  Eufebius ,  (b)  dc:h  aifb  derive  the  Etymology  of  the 
 Name  of  thefe  Hereticks  from  the  Hebrew  Word  Ebioni  which  fig- 
 nifies  Poor,  becaufe  they  were  (faith  he)  poor  in  Judgment,  and 
 wanted  Underftanding. 
 
 But  ali  this  fèems  to  nie  to  be  ill  grounded,  and  to  be  but  a  fim- 
 
 ple  Allufion  to  the  Name  of  thefe  Sectaries,  which  indeed  fignifies 
 
 Poor  in  the  Hebrew  Tongue.     It  is  more  probable  that:  the   Jews 
 
 called  them  (b  in  denhon  and  fcorn;  becaufe  in  thefe  Primitive 
 
 times  of  Chriftianity  there  were  fcarce  any  but  poor  People  that 
 
 had  embraced  it.     This  gave  occafion  to  Jefus  Chrift  to  fay  to  his 
 
 Lukevi.     Difciplcs,  Blefèd  be  ye  poor,  for  yours  ù  the  Kingdom  of  God.  This  King- 
 
 2°-  dom  of  God  was  the  Gofpel  on  which  they  believed:  therefore  our 
 
 Lukevii.   Saviour  faith  in  another  place,  that  the  Gofpel  is  preached  to  the  Poor. 
 
 20.  Ongen  himlclf  fèems  to  confirm  this  Opinion  in  his  Books  againft 
 
 Mitth.  M-Celfut,  where  he  obferves,  that  (c)  the  Word  Ebion  fïgnifieth  Poor 
 
 '5 
 
 (a)  'EvayfikiCf)  3  (xavco  70  ^9'  'ECyuvi  tepySfiù)  fècl^oi  <ffî  K017110V  cy.ix&v 
 imiïvTv  h-oy>v.  Rufeb  Hilt.  Eccl  lib.  3.  c.  27. 
 
 (  b  )  Oî  rija'/))  t*  JldMo'lA  'ECtœyciïot  ivii  T^a^lai  77rt  thatoictg  imovouui.  l^&w 
 >b  0  7rjw)^ç  m.ç  'bCgfioiç  woud^iTVJi.  Orig.  lib.  4.  de  princ.  apud  Valei.  Annot.  in 
 Jib.  3   Hill  Ecclef  Eufeb. 
 
 (  c  )  'RGlav  71  yù  0  77}a%ç  <&*££  'I«Aio/f  y^X^Tcu'  ^  'E£Wcuo/  jgiifMLvfynv  oî 
 £po  'Jhc/oW  vvv  'lnevv  âç  Xew  7m^.<h^diJ^Joi.  Orig.  lib.  2.  contra  Celiiim. 
 
 in 
 
in  1 
 
 in  Hebrew,  and  that  they  have  given  the  name  of  Eki  nit e sot  poor 
 to  tho(e  among  the  Jews  who  have  believed  tint  jefm  was  the 
 
 Mejjiab.  '  . 
 
 Since  then  the  Jew  s  called  thole  of  their  own  Nation  tint  turned 
 Chriftians  >  Nazarem s  and  Galileans,  by   way  of  contempt,  it   is  alio 
 very  probable,  that  they  have  named  them  Ebiomtes  or  poo  .     It  may 
 be    further  laid,  that    thefe  Primitive  Chriftians  took  this  Name 
 them(elve5  conformably  to  their  Profeffion.This  agrees  very  well  with 
 the  Remark  qf  S.  Epipbavius,  who  informs  us,  that  the  Ebiomtes  (d) 
 boafted  of  this  Name,  giving  it  out,  that  they  were  poor  in  imita- 
 tion of  the  Apoftles  ;  the  cuftom  being  in  thofe  rimes  to  (ell  their 
 Goods,  and  to  lay  them  at  their  Feet.    This  Name  degenerated  af- 
 terwards into  that  of  a  Seel:,  which  was  a  Branch  of  the  NazarentSy 
 and  held  certain  particular  Opinions;   but  in  ;he  reft  they  agreed 
 with  them  in  the  fame  Foundation  or  Religion  as  to  every  thing 
 that  concerned  the  Old  Law,  which  they  kept  equally  with  Chn- 
 ftianity.    S.Epipbanius  in  the  mean  time  will  have  it  that  there  hath 
 certainly  been  a  Man  called  Eb'w,  from  whom  die  Ebiomtes  took 
 their  original,  who  lived  at  the  fame  time  with  the  Naz,arenes  and 
 Cermtbians.     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  Seet  of  the  Ebiomtes %  have  had  no  better  grounds  whereon  to  e- 
 ftablifh  this  Ebion,  than  a  certain  Spanifl)  Hiftorian,  who  hath  writ- 
 ten the  Hiftory    of  the  Popes  in  his  Language,  hath  had  in  like 
 manner  to  invent  a  Man  called  Hugo  a  Sacramentarian  Arch-Here- 
 tick,  Hugo  Harefiarcha  Sacrament  an  us,  (  e  )  from  whom  the  Here- 
 ticks  of  France  have  been  named  Hugonots. 
 
 The  fame  S.  Epiphamus  more  exactly  defcribes  the  original  of  thtfe 
 Sectaries,  whole  beginning  and  firft  appearance  he  dates  after  the 
 deftru&ion  of  JeruJ'alem,  and  at  that  time  when  the  Primitive 
 Chriftians  that  were  called  Nazarenes,  and  were  lately  departed  fiom 
 this  City,  came  to  dwell  at  Telia  in  the  Province  of  Decapolis.  It 
 appears  from  thence  that  the  Ebiomtes  are  only  an  Off-fpring  of 
 the  ancient  Na&arenes  ,  having  neverthelefs  corrupted  the  purity 
 and  fimplicity  of  the  Faith  of  thefe  primitive  Chriftians  .  Therefore 
 they  revifed  the  original  Hebrew  of  S.  Matt  hew }  to  make  it  more  con- 
 
 c#  yçjvoiç  $Lf   hmçôhuv  7TukHV  t&  ojjiwv  \ssrciy  %>]>■&>  ^  ti^ipcu  7ra^  7fr)  7ivJkt 
 
 \&o   7myTtùv  cari  7Îjv%>'i.    Epipn.  Hxr.  30.  n.  17. 
 
 (e  )  Hugo  da  <juitnje  llama?ilcs  bcrejes  de  Francia  Hugonotes.    Illefcas  lib.  6.  de 
 kHilt.  Pontif.  fol.453. 
 
 L  rormab'e 
 
[74] 
 
 formable  to  their.  Opinions.     It  will  not  be  amifs  here  to  produce 
 fome  Fragments  of  their  G  of  pel  which  Epipbanius  hath  tranfmitted 
 
 to  us. 
 
 In  the  firft  place  he  faith  in  general  (?)  that  the  Gcfpel  of  the  ' 
 Ebwiites  was  not  entire,  but  corrupred  and  mutilated.  They  had 
 taken  out  of  it  the  Genealogy  of  Jefus  Chnft,  and  all  that  follows 
 to  Chapter  %.  of  S.Matthew  (%)  beginning  their  Gofpel  with  thefè 
 wo:  us,  It  came  to  pafs  in  the  days  of  Herod  the  King  of  Judaa,  that 
 John  came  baptising  the  baptism  of  repentance  in  the  river  Jordan,  who 
 iv m  [aid  to  be  of  the  race  of  Aaron  the  prieft  the  fon  of  Zacbartas  and 
 Elizabeth,  and  all  people  came  unto  him. 
 
 The  Baptifmof  our  Saviour  by  S.John  was  related  after  this  man- 
 ner in  the  Gofpel  of  the  Ebwnites.  (b  )  After  thé  people  bad  been 
 b  apt  i fed,  J  eft  s  came  flfo,  and  was  baptijed  by  John,  and  as  be  a  fended 
 out  of  the  wattr,  the  Heavens  were  opened,  and  he  faw  the  Holy  Spirit 
 of  God  in  the  form  of  a  Dove  ,  which  defended  and  came  towards  him\ 
 a  .  à  a  voice  nuis  heard  from  heaven  fying,  thou  art  my  beloved  fon,  in 
 thee  have  I  been  well  pleafed.  And  continuing  (  i)  This  day  have  I 
 begotten  thee^  and  immediately  a  great  light  fwne  about  the  place  :  and 
 John  having  fen  it,  faith  unto  hint,  whs  art  thou,  Lord  ?  And  again  a 
 voice  from  heaven  [aid  unto  him,  this  is  my  beloved  [on  in  whom  1  bave 
 been  well  pleafd  ;  and  then  John  falling  down  before  him  [aid, I  pray  thee, 
 Lord,  baptifet bourne  :  but  he  forbad  him,  faying,  fuffer  it  to  be  fo  ;  for 
 thus  it  becometh  all  things  to  be  fulfilled. 
 
 We  may  judge  by  that  which  we  have  now  produced  of  the  Gofpel 
 of  the  Ekionites,  that  the  order  of  the  words  was  not  altogether  the 
 lame  as  m  our  Copics.and  that  there  were  behdes  fome  Alterations  and 
 Additions.     There  is  another  Paffage  at  the  beginning  of  the  Gofpel, 
 
 xj   EhianClT  '  Hj 
 
 VcripycvTo   &&s  ojjtcv  7tdvTU.   Kpipli.  ibid  ^  ^ 
 
 cùrAJ&tr  tW   rk  uJkj©-,    woifyew  cl  vçc/ivot,   x}  3 A  to    7ni&'[xa,  7*  Su  Toet^ar 
 
 fctjs**  '  ov  y.*  h  0  fa  •'  «>™]o*.  d»  ni  ï,viïx,n<m.  Evang.Ebio...  apud  Epipli. 
 ibid.  %  ,     .  A 
 
 'Uùv,Çmoi>-,  o  'lutipm  h*yi  M/ru'  ffv  ïll  3  xueM ;  x}  Wa/p  p«**  15  *tf* 
 «rfè{  twiiv  '  huh  '6hv  0  M°i  (**  d^a7ntv)f,  i'p  ov  iivJb'Kr,<m'  Xj  T07f,  Mffiv  ^ 
 0  7iattvn,<  zr&ojrtmv  'atsnj*  thty*'  Jiouou  <S6,  xptii,  av  fx.i  $cL7Tiiovv'  0  Ji  *&»- 
 ^viv  (urn>>  hiy*9'  Jt^ff,    on  otwj  <^t  irjt^cr  wAnj«6tdu««  my]&,  t?ang.  Ebion.  ibid. 
 
 from 
 
[  75  ] 
 
 from  whence  we  maybe  able  to  take  a  better  eftimate  thereof  (  h  ) 
 There  was  a  certain  mart,  Jefa  h  ^ame,  of  about  thirty  years  of 
 age,  who  hath  chofen  us ,  and  being  come  to  Caphernaum  he  entred  into  the 
 bo  life  of  Simon  (hnsmtâ  Peter,  and  opening  bis  mouth  be  /aid,  If 'hen  I 
 faffed  along  the  lake  of  Ttberiat  I  chofe  -fohn  and  fames  the  fens  of 
 Zebedee,  and  Simon  and  Andrew  and  Thadde/ts  and  Simon  Zelct 
 Judas  Ifcanot,  and  I  called  thee  Matthew  fitting  at  the  recti* ôf  cufiom, 
 and  thou  h.ifi  followed  me.  I  will  then  that  you  be  twelve  Afofilts  for  a 
 testimony  unto  Ifrael.  And  fohn  was  baptifing,  and  the  Pharisees  came 
 unto  him,  and  were  baptifdand  all  Jerujalem,  and  fohn  had  his  raiment 
 of  camels  hair,  and  a  leathern  girdle  about  his  loins,  and  his  food  %  .< 
 wild  honey,  th.it  had  the  tafie  of  Manna ,  as  a  cake  dipt  m  oil.  S.lft- 
 fbanitis  here  reproves  the  Ebionites  for  having  corrupted  the  Gofpel 
 of  S  Matthew y  in  reading  tywf*t  inftead  of  diteifas-  But  this  altera- 
 tion cov.tt  have  happened  only  in  the  Greek,  and  not  in  their  Hebrew 
 or  Syriack  Copv,  wherein  there  is  no  inch  rcfemblance  of  words. 
 They  muft  either  have  a  particular  Greek  Tranilation,  which  they 
 had  made  for  their  own  u(c,  or  they  muffc  have  adjufted  ours  to  their 
 Text. 
 
 Furthermore  theie  Sectaries  were  different  rrom  the  Naz,arenest 
 with  refpeel:  to  the  Holy  Scriptures:  for  whereas  thefe  received,  as 
 hath  been  already  obferved,  all  the  Old  Teftament,  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,  lfaiah% 
 Jeremiah,  Daniel  and  Ez,ecbiel:  they  only  adhered  to  the  Pentateuch, 
 and  they  did  not  much  regard  that  neither.  (I  J  What  ule  (  (aid 
 they)  can  there  be  made  of  the  Law  after  the  coming  of  the  C 
 {pel  ?  And  when  they  were  asked  why  they  had  a  veneration  for 
 Mofes}  Abraham  and  the  other  ancient  Patriarchs  :  they  aniwered. 
 That  they  therein  followed  the  example  of  Jefus  Chrift. 
 
 (  k)    'E^/êTO  T1Ç  etJ'Hf  OVO^tLTl  'ln0-»f,    ^  0JJ7VÇ  (0$    \lV>V  Teid'MVTZt,    CÇ    VçîhiÇcn* 
 rifc7?K^    it)    irci^Ot    TV    &(JA     a*7V    H7K,     OTÇêfpfVV©*    «Z^£    TWO    >\^v\jJJ    Tl&eUL' 
 
 ]&5*?9(J&fJov  <fin  T»  7lhuyl\s    lacLhzait,  £ 
 
 K)  TV   /3pku*  uns  wd,  itt\t  cLfaov,   «    ft    yJCm  bjj  ft  [mlvicl,  ci;  iyx.e).c  cv  %Ki 
 Evaog  £fc         pud  Epiph.  ibid. 
 
 ipud  Epiph  io:d.  n.  itf.  I    . 
 
 L  z  Jc 
 
It  is  probable  that  the  Ebionites  who  received  no  other  but  the  five 
 Books  of  Mofes,  and  only  confidered  Jofly.ia  in  quality  of  his  Suc- 
 ceflor,  were  defcended  from  (ome  Samaritans  who  embraced  Chri- 
 Epiph.  ib.  ftianity  in  imitation  of  the   Naz,arenes.     Thus   Epiphanms  hath  ob- 
 w.  i.         ferved  that  Ebion  wts  iufeéted  with  the  Superftitions  of  the  Samari- 
 tans :  1a.ixaf£i7wv  vfy  $>%/*  ™  fc&tojçjv.     Whereas   they    both   retain 
 the  Old  Law  with  the  Golpel,  the  Ebionites  do  only  keep  the  Books 
 of  Mofes,  becaufe  the  Samaritans  have  never  received  any  but  thefe 
 five  Books  as  Canonical.     But  the  Naz,arenes  who  parted  from  Ju- 
 daifm  to  the  Chriftian  Religion,  continued  to  read  the  whole  Old 
 Teftament,  as  they  read  it  before  in  their  Synagogues.    S.Epiphanius 
 hath  further  remarked,  that  thefe  Ebionites  (  m)  hid  their  Priefts  or 
 Elders,  and  their  Chiefs  of  the  Synagogue.     For  they  call  not  (  faith 
 he  )  their  Aiïembly  a  Church,  but  a  Synagogue.     He  (peaks  ap- 
 parently of  the  Ebienites  that  underftood  the  Greek  Tongue,   and 
 even  read  a  Greek  Translation  of  their  Hebrew  or  Syriack  Gofpel  : 
 For  this  diftin&ion  between  the  Words  Synagogue  and  Church  is 
 not  to  be  found  in  the  Hebrew  or  Syriack,  and  the  fènfe  of  thefe  two 
 words  is  the  fame  in  the  Greek;  as  it  is  eafie  to  prove  from  the 
 Greek  Verfion  of  the  Septiugint. 
 
 The  Ebionites  were  not  content  only  to  have  corrupted  the  Go- 
 fpel of  S.  Matthew,  but  they  forged  alfb  divers  Books,  (  according  to 
 Epiphaniui  )  (  n  )  under  the  Names  of  Jamess  Matthew  and  other 
 Dilciples  of  Je  fus  Chrift.  They  read  one  in  like  manner  under  the 
 Name  of  S.John,  abufingby  this  means  the  Narnesof  the  Apoftles, 
 that  they  might  the  moreeafily  impofeon  thofèof  their  party,  (o  ) 
 Befides  they  made  ufe  of  the  Voyages  of  S.  Teter,  written  by  S.  Cle- 
 ment :  but  they  had  fo  altered  and  mangled  them,  that  there  hardly 
 remained  any  thing  of  Truth  ;  they  modelled  them  after  a  new 
 manner,  and  fuited  them  to  their  humors,  to  caufè  S.  Peter  to  utter 
 abundance  of  Falfities  that  authorized  that  which  was  pra&ifed  a- 
 mong  them.  Thefè  Hereticks  may  be  eafily  convinced  of  having 
 retrenched  from  their  Copy  of  S.  Matthew  the  Genealogy  of  Jefus. 
 
 itVJTVv  lu.yO\Y)<ndLv.    Epiph-  ibiu. 
 
 (  n)  Tav  ùivçzK&v  roi  WayucLTtt  h(tVjj  $f  Yi-mLViMw  &t    ewruvTc-t^ta  ZB&amui- 
 7w*   Â^cvtju'  @i£hvs  il  'J%  ôvofjutjQ-   oZtSv  7&dLoû/ufyoi  dLviyey-^T*)  <fîi$*v  ctrrn 
 
 'lucivv*  rv  £roçr>A«  iyWTtiteyxtn .    Ëpiph.  ibid.  n.  22. 
 
 (o)   XçèSvTtu   fy  ctMo/  <    Tin    (ZlCkoiç ,    J\i%ï)>  rouf   tfej'o/bif    y&K*(j&f>ajçn>i7f* 
 tûuç  J)â  Kâ»Wt3~  yçy.QHnMy  vodÂjcwTii   fjfy)  7tt  &♦»  ojjtcuç,  ckiya,  n  dhv\^nv£ 
 
 Ilt7ï«  \T  Tn^Kki  reym.  Epiph.  ibid.  n.  1 5. 
 
 Chrift; 
 
[77] 
 
 Chnft:  for  the  Cerinthiam  and  the  Csrfoeratùms  who  read  it,  and 
 who  held  the  lame  Opinions  as  they  do  touching  the  Birth  of  oar 
 
 Saviour,  had  this  Genealogy  in  their  Copy,  they  refer  to  this  to 
 prove  that  Jefus  Chiiir  was  a  mere  Man.  Now  theft  Cerinthiam  had 
 eftablifhed  their  Sed  before  that  of  the  Ebionites  appeared.  S.  Epi- 
 pbamus  believes  (p  )  that  thefe  laft  had  chofenfor  their  ufè  the  He- 
 brcwGoi\>z\  of  S.  Matthew  only,  in  imitation  of  the  Cerintbians. 
 
 Cermthns  was  a  zealous  Defender  of  the  Circumcifion  as  well  as 
 the  Naz-arenes  smà  Ebionites.  I  know  not  from  whence  the  fame 
 S.  Epiphamus  hath  taken  that  which  he  reports  concerning  him,  to 
 wit,  that  he  was  the  Ringleader  of  a  Fadion  that  rofe  up  at  Jerufa- 
 1er»  againft  S.  Teter,  on  occafion  that  he  was  found  among  the  un- 
 circumcifed,  and  had  eaten  with  them.  It  is  recorded  in  the  Ads 
 of  the  Apoftles,  that  the  Faithful  that  were  circumcifed  difputed 
 on  this  Subjed  again  ft  this  holy  Apoftle.  Cerintbits  (  if  we  may  be- 
 lieve S.Epipbanius  )  was  the  chief  in  this  Difpute,  when  he  was  yet 
 in  the  number  of  the  Faithful,  and  took  this  pretence  to  feparate 
 himfelf  from  them.  The  Church  was  divided  from  that  time  into 
 different  Opinions.  Some  of  them  that  were  circumcifed  would 
 not  fubmit  to  the  Revelation  that  had  been  made  to.  S.  Peter  m  the 
 City  of  Joppa  ;  they  infifted  that  none  ought  to  be  received  into 
 the  Church  but  thofe  that  were  circumcifed  ;  and  they  that  were  of 
 this  Sea:  retained  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew,  becaufe  they 
 were  come  from  Judatfm.  Therefore  the  ancient  Ecclefialrical 
 Writers  have  called  this  Gofpel  according  to  the  Hebrews.  The 
 others  on  the  contrary,  who  were  for  the  moil  part  converted 
 from  Gentilifm,  made  ufe  of  the  Greek  Copy  of  this  lame  Gofpel  ; 
 and  this  laft  alone  is  prefei  ved  in  the  Church  :  that  of  the  Hebrews 
 remained  only  among  fome  Sedaries,  and  hatk  been  loft  at  the  lame 
 time  when  thefe  Seels  have  been  extind. 
 
 (p)  T«7<y  y6  xj  ohm)  as  ^  oi  xj1  Kwetf&w  fâWTW  fiuvto  '  ygtiiei  JÏ  (tori && 
 "EC&w.  Epiph.  ibid.  n.  3. 
 
 Chap, 
 
[?*  ] 
 Chap.  IX, 
 
 Of  the  Greek  Copy  of  S .  Matthew,  audits  Authority.  A 
 Comparison  of  this  Copy  with  the  Hebrew  or  Chaldaick. 
 An  Anjwer  to  the  Objections  of  fome  Hereticks  againft 
 this  Gofpel.  • 
 
 ALL  Antiquity  is  agreed,  that  the  Original  of  the  Gofpel  of 
 S.  Matthew  hath  been  written  in  the  Language  that  the  Jews 
 of  Jerufalem  (pake  at  that  time,  and  that  it  hath  been  fince  tranOated 
 into  Greek.  But  we  have  nothing  certain  concerning  the  Author 
 of  this  Greek  Verfion.  (  a  )  Matthew  (  faith  S.  Jerom  )  is  the  firft 
 that  hath  written  the  Gofpel  of  Jefus  Chrift  in  Hebrew  for  the  ufe  of 
 the  Jews  tha thad  embraced  Chnftianity;  but  it  is  not  known  who 
 hath  tranflated  it  out  of  Hebrew  into  Greek.  The  Author  of  the 
 Sj7jop//s3  attributed  to  S.  Athanafius,  affirmeth  neverthelefs  (b)  that 
 it  hath  heen  fiift  compofed  in  Hebrew  by  S.  Matthew,  whopubliihed 
 it  in  Jerufalem  m  this  fame  Tongue  ;  and  that  S.  James  who  hath 
 been  the  firft  Biinopof  this  City  tranOated  it  into  Greek.  He  pro- 
 duceth  no  Ad:  of  the  ancient  Writers  of  the  Church  to  juftifiethis 
 Opinion.  Paptas  on  the  contrary,  who  was  not  far  diftant  from  the 
 time  of  the  Apoftles,  declares,  (c)  that  the  Original  of  S.  Matthew 
 was  in  Hebnw3  and  that  afterwards  every  one  interpreted  it  as  he 
 was  able.  This  makes  me  think  that  in  thefc  primitive  times  of  the 
 Chnftian  Religion  divers  private  perfons  had  tranllated  this  Gofpel 
 for  their  own  ufe,  andalmoft  after  the  fame  manner  as  there  have 
 been  feveral  Latin  Verrions  from  the  Greek3  tho  there  was  one  that 
 was  more  generally  received  in  the  Churches  than  the  others.  It  is 
 probable  alfo  that  the  Cerintbians,  the  Carpocrattansi  the  Ebiomtes, 
 and  in  one  word  all  the  ancient  Sectaries,  who  preferred  the  Hebrew 
 
 (a)  Mattbaus,  qui  (3  Levi,  ex  publican.)  Apojiolus  primus  in  Jun.cà  propter 
 eos  qui  ex circumcijionc  crediderunt,  EvangehumChrifii  Hebratcis  Uteris  verbtfjue 
 compofuit.  £lj>d  quis  pojlca  inGrœcum  trmfiuUrit^  non  fata  certum  eft.  Hieron. 
 de  Script.  F.cci.  in  Matth. 
 
 (  l>  j  Tu  (jt&  yp  M&iSziïov  ouayfiKicv  lyy/ic»  <&    aim  to    McflSouxT»  'HCfalA 
 
 xi>ei».   A  'an   ;ii  Syno|  I.  S  Script. 
 
 tu/Tri  «>-  vJw&'n   ÏkaçQ-,  P.tp.  apud  Luteb.  lib.  4.  Hilt.  Lai.  c.  39. 
 
 Gofj 
 
L  79  1 
 
 Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew  before  the  others,  made  Greek  Verlïons  of  it 
 -for  their  life,  as  well  as  the  Orthodox. 
 
 Cafaubonjnho  hath  ufed  his  utmoft  endeavours  to  decry  the  Hebrew  Cafaié. 
 Gofpel  which  the  Naz.arenes  and  the  Ebtomtes  had  kept,  that  he  might  Lxerc't- 
 •     give  the  greater  authority  to  the  Greek,  avoucheth  freely  that  the  l}nnal 
 lathers  aie  very  muchjdivided  in  their  Opinions  on  this  Subject;  Baron'. 
 (omc  afc.'ibing  this  Verfion  to  S.  James,  others  to  S.  John,  others  to  ».  12. 
 S.  Barnabas  \  and  laftly  fome  few  to  S.  Paul  and  S.Luke.  (  d)  This 
 diversity  of  Opinions  (  adds  he  )  plainly  (hews  that  it  cannot  be  cer- 
 tainly affirmed  who  hath  been  the  Author  of  this  Greek  Verfion  :  but 
 it  fèrves  (  faith  he  J.  for  a  demonftration   to  make  it  appear  that  it 
 is  derived  from  the  very  times  of  the  Apoftles,  who  are  the  Authors 
 or  Promoters  of  it  ;  or  rather  it  ought  to  be  attributed  to  the  Holy 
 Ghofl,  whofè  Inftruments  they  have  been. 
 
 But  can  that  be  called  a  Demonftration  Which  is  only  grounded 
 on  uncertain  Conjectures  ?  Would  it  not  be  more  prudent  to  refer 
 our  felves  herein  to  thetedimony  of  Tapas,  who  hatlvlived  with  the 
 Difciples  of  the  Apoftles?  If  there  had  been  in  his  time  a  Greek 
 Veriion  of  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew,  which  had  been  made  by  fome 
 Apoftle,he  would  not  have  failed  to  have  told  us  of  it.  He  declares 
 on  the  contrary,  that  every  one  tranjlated  it  as  he  was  able.  There  is 
 nothing  therefore  but  the  conftant  Tradition  of  the  Church  alone 
 that  gives  authority  to  this  Verfion,  and^hat  Can  oblige  us  to  prefer 
 it  before  the  Hebrew  or  Cbàlaaick  Copy  of  the  Naz^arenes. 
 
 Whereas  the  Proteftants  make  the  Holy  Ghoft  to  defcend  on  the 
 Apoftles  to  tranflate  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew  out  of  Greek  into  He- 
 brew :  fome  CathoKck  Divines  on  the  other  fide  pretend  alfo  that 
 the  ancient  Latin  Verfion  of  the  New  Teftament  hath  been  inspi- 
 red. But  it  is  much  more  reafonable  only  to  admit  this  Infpiration 
 for  the  Originals  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  have  been  tranilated 
 into  different  Languages. according  to  the  necetfitiesand  occafions 
 of  the  Churches.  If  we  hearken  in  the  mean  time  to  Cajaubonitid 
 fome  other  Proceftants,  the  Greek  only  of  S.  Matthew  would  be  ac- 
 counted Canonical,  (  e  j  becauiè  the  Church  hath  put  this  Text  in:^ 
 the  Canon  that  fhe  hath  made  of  the  Sacred  Books,  and  fhe  hach 
 
 (  d)  £uœ  diver  ft  as  fbuentiarum^  ut  de  vera  autore  certb  fronuntiare  tics  ve- 
 tat  :  tea  illud certiffimè  demonfirat,  ipfis  Afofiolorum  tsmporibus  ab  who  illorum, 
 aut  illorum  aufpiciis,  vrl  potths  ,  \.><y;..,  c  fusij  1  eraut  orvaha,  Gixc  m 
 
 Tex  turn  ex    iUbraico   ejfe  -n.     Calaubon.  Exltcîc.  i  5.    ad  Annal.  Ear- 
 
 n.  12. 
 
 (e)  Confiât  fan  J  Ecclefiam  Dei  hunc  ipfum  textum  inter  libres  Canon       ■  -'* 
 relatutn  pan  cum  CiCtcns  libris  veneratione  ejfe  ferfecutam,  quod  ne  que  in  Sjn 
 Verfione,  neque  inullkalih  refteritur  ejfe  fad  urn.  Cafautxibid. 
 
 not 
 
[  8o  ] 
 
 not  put  therein  the  Sjriack  Verfion  which  is  mod.  ancient,  nor  any 
 other  Tranflation:    but  where  is  it  to  be  found  that  the  Church  in. 
 placing  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew  m  the  rank  of  Canonical  Books, 
 hath  fpoken  of  the  fole  Greek  Veriion,  and  hath  excluded  ail  others  ? 
 She  only  (peaks  in  general  or  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew,  which  is 
 Divine  and  Canonical  in  whatfbever  Language  it  be  written.     It 
 may  be  laid  nevertheless  that  there  are  fbme  Nations  that  haveexacl:- 
 er  Tranflations  of  them  than  others  ;  this  hinders  not  bat  that  it  may 
 be  averred,  that  they  all  have  a  Canonical  Copy  of  the  Gofpel  of 
 S.  Matthew.     The  Grecians  and  the  Latins  have  this  advantage  over 
 the  other  Chnftians,  that  their  Verfions  are  the  mod  ancient  and 
 the  mod  exadt,  and  the  Syrians  after  them.    However  there  is  no 
 Chriftian  Nation  that  doth  not  believe  but  that  they  have  in  poflef- 
 fion  the  true  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew,  tho  they  all  have  only  Copies 
 of  it. 
 
 It  doth  not  appear  that  Cafaubon,  who  is  uiually  moderate  in  his 
 Opinions,  hath  fufficiently  confidered  this  matter,  when  he  hath  un- 
 advifedly  taken  the  part  of  fbme  Proteftants  againft  Baromm.  I  do 
 not  pretend  to  defend  all  that  Baronius  hath  alledged  in  this  point  : 
 but  it  fèems  to  me  that  thofè  of  the  Roman  Church  cannot  with 
 Juftice  be  reproached  (f)  as  Hercticks,  when  they  defend  the  He- 
 brew Text  of  S.  Matthew,  to  detract  (  fay  they  )  from  the  Authority 
 of  the  Greek  Copy.  The  Defence  that  they  undertake  of  the  He- 
 brew Text  of  S.  Matthew  doth  not  in  the  leaft  diminifh  the  Authori- 
 ty of  the  Greek  Verfion.  They  only  infift  that  the  Greek  is  not  the 
 original,  but  the  Hebrew  ;  and  if  this  Original  were  come  to  our 
 hands,  it  might  with  reafon  be  preferred  before  the  Greek,  which  is 
 but  a  Tran flation.  In  the  mean  time  fince  this  Hebrew  Text  hath 
 not  been  prefèrved  in  its  purity  in  the  Orthodox  Churches,  but  on 
 the  contrary  hath  been  adopted  by  the  Ebtomte  Hereticks,  who  have 
 corrupted  it,  the  Fragments  thereof  that  are  now  extant  are  looked 
 upon  as  Apocryphal  Pieces.  By  the  word  Apocryphal  we  ought 
 only  to  underftand  that  thofe  Ads  are  doubtful,  and  not  falfe,  nor 
 fuppolititious.  This  hinders  not  but  that  good  ufe  may  be  made  of 
 them  in  thole  parts  that  are  acknowledged  not  to  have  been  altered; 
 an  inftance  whereof  hath  been  above  propounded  taken  from  S.  Je- 
 row's  Commentaries  on  S.  Matthew. 
 
 (  f  J  Error  eft  in  fide  pcriculofijfimus,  ne  dicam  Harefis,  obtentu  Hcbraici  con- 
 text us,  qui  jaminde  à  princifio  reperiri  defut  in  crbis  noftri  notis  Ecclejiis,  Gract 
 aucioritatem  velle  clevare  ;  quod  omnes  hodie  Hildebrandmorum  facrorum  myslje 
 tn  Lac  quœftione  factum.     Cafaub.  ibid. 
 
 it 
 
[  8,   ] 
 
 Ic  were  to  be  wifhed  that  we  had  ac^rir.s  day  this  Htbmv  or  Ctmt- 
 d.uck  Gofpel  entire,  even  after  the  manner  as  it  hath  been  intc 
 policed  by  the  S.i^arenes,  and  altered  by  the  ffbtotures;  we  ihould 
 not  reckon  it  in  the  number  of  thole  Gofpels  that  hive  been  Forged 
 by  Impoftors,  as  Cajaubon  hath  indi(creetly  done  :  we  ihould  citeem 
 it  on  the  contrary,  as  the  moil  ancient  A  el  of  the  Chrilrian  Religi- 
 on. Is  there  not  rcafbn  to  conjecture  that  he  tint  hath  cranflate  i 
 the  Original  or  S.  Matthew  out  of  Hebrew  into  Greek,  hath  epitomi- 
 
 à  it  in  fbme  places,  and  (bmettfnes  taken  the  liberty  rather  to 
 give  us  the  Senle  than  the  Words  ?  at  lead  he  fecms  to  have  ui^A 
 this  liberty  in  the  Quotations  of  the  Old  Teftament  that  are  therein 
 produced,  which  are  more  conformable  to  the  Greek  Verfion  of 
 the  Seventy,  than  to  the  HtbrewTc\t:  in  the  mean  while,  there  is 
 very  little  appearance  that  S  Matthew  writing  his  Gofpel  for  the  life 
 of  the  Hebrews,  who  read  the  Bible  in  Hebrew  in  their  Synagogue-, 
 ihould  have  quoted  the  Partages  of  the  Old  Teftament  othei  wile 
 than  they  were  read  in  their  Copies.  It  is  fufficient  to  authorize 
 this  Greek  Verfion,  that  it  hath  been  read  in  the  Churches  that  were 
 conftituted  by  the  Apoftles,  and  that  it  hath  been  delivered  down 
 to  us  from  Age  to  Age  by  a  confiant  Tradition  :  it  is  on  this  un- 
 interrupted Tradition  of  the  Churches  that  we  ought  to  relye,  in 
 Jhewing  that  the  Greek  Copy  of  S.  Matthew  is  authentick,  and  not 
 on  the  imaginary  Reafbns  of  fome  Procédants. 
 
 This  fame  Tradition  of  all  the  Churches  in  the  World  ought  to 
 be  oppofed  to  fbme  Hereticks,  who  have  believed  that  the  Gofpel 
 of  S.  Matthew  hath  been  mangled  and  corrupted  in  fèveral  places. 
 Fauftvs,  a  famous  Manichean,  who  could  not  adjuft  the  Genealogy 
 of  Jefus  Chrift  that  is  at  the  beginning  of  S.  Matthew  to  the  Opini- 
 ons of  his  Party,  hath  fought  for  Reafbns  to  make  it  appear,  that 
 it  was  falfe  ;  whereas  he  ought  to  have  confidered,  that  having  been 
 received  continually  in  the  Church,  as  well  as  the  reft  of  chis  Gofpel., 
 it  bore  the  fame  ftamp  of  Authority  :  he  compares  S.  Matthew  with 
 S.  Luke,  who  have  related  this  Genealogy  in  a  diffèrent  manner  ; 
 and  becaufè  (g)  he  could  not  make  them  agree,  he  abandons  them 
 to  follow  S.  Mark  and  S.  John  who  have  made  no  mention  there- 
 of, and  who  correfpond  in  this,  that  they  do  not  make  Jefrs  the 
 Son  of  David;  for  S.  John  calls  him  God,  and  S.  Mark  the  Son 
 of  God  :  from  whence  he  concludes,  that  Jefus  Chrift  was  not  born 
 as  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Luke  have  written. 
 
 (g)  Offenfus  dmrum  maxime  Ev.wgeltflarnm  diJJen[ionc\  Qui  genealog.am ejm 
 fcribunt,  Luce  &  Mattbxi,  Left  meertus  quemnam  fotiffimttm  Jcauerer.  Apu.-l 
 Aug.  lib  3,  cont.  Fault,  c.  i. 
 
 »  I  S.  Au- 
 
S.  Au*uÇvin  âfltWers  Fauftm,  that  he  is  not  the  firft  that  hath  ta- 
 ken notice  of  this  teeming  Contradiction  of  the  two  Evangelifts: 
 that  an  infinite  number  of  learned  Men,  efpeciallv  in  the  Greek 
 Church,  have  fpâred  nô  palnSto  reconcile  them;  which  he  endea- 
 vours to  do  in  this  place  :  and  by  this  he  condemns  the  ralh  Judg- 
 ment of  the  Manicbeans,  who  rejected  as  ralfe,  all  that  was  contra- 
 ry to  their  Prejudices.  Indeed  thofe  People  were  fô  obftinate  in 
 their  Opinions,  that  the  fame  Fau/tus  reviled  the  Orthodox  who  re-  . 
 ceived  the  Genealogy  that  is  at  the  beginning  of  S  Matthew ,  as 
 not  being  Catholicks,  but  Followers  of  Matthew  ;  and  he  maintain- 
 d  ed  alfo,  that  it  w^s  contrary  to  their  Creed.  £hwdfe  tu  credos  (faith 
 Aug.  111.  this  Heretick)  ira  ut  fcrïftum  eft}  ens  jam  ejuidem  Matthœanus,  fie 
 fi  c  i. tmm  mi^1  duendum  ejt  ;  Catbolicus  ziero  nequaquam.  (h)  You  muft 
 either  acknowledge  (added  he)  that  St.  Matthew  hath  rfot  written 
 this  Genealogy  (  which  he  called  in  derifion  Genefedium  )  or  that 
 you  do  not  hold  the  Apoftolical  Faith. 
 
 But  it  were  an  eafie  matter,  without  arguing  at  large  on  all  the 
 Difficulties  that  Fauftt4s  propounded,  to  reprefènt  to  him  that  this 
 Genealogy  had  been  always  read  in  the  Churches  ever  fince  the 
 Apoftles:  befides.,  that  (/)  it  was  the  Belief  of  the  Catholick  and 
 Apoftolick  Church.,  fas  S.  Auguft'm  faith  )  that  Jefus  Chrift  is  the  Son 
 of  God  according  to  his  Divinity;  and  the  Son  of  David  according 
 to  the  Flefh  :  that  this  Truth  was  fo  clearly  proved  by  the  Writings 
 of  the  Apoftles.,  that  they  could  not  contradict  it,  at  leaft  if  they 
 did  not  rejecT  them  altogether.     ' 
 
 By  this  fame  Principle  the  Arguments  of  certain  Anabaptifts,  of 
 whom  Sixtus  Sencnfis,  and  Baromus  makes  mention,  might  be  con- 
 futed ;  but  fince  their  Objections  are  almoft  the  fame  as  thofè  of 
 the  Manicheans,  it  would  be  to  no  purpofe  to  infill  on  them.  They 
 have  accounted  as  falfe  that  which  S.  Matthew  hath  related  con- 
 cerning the  Wife  Men  that  came  to  worfhip  Jefus  in  the  Cradle, 
 as  alfb  the  Hiftory  of  the  Children  whom  Herod  caufed  to  be  put 
 to  death  :  againit  the  credit  of  thefe  two  Relations,  they  have  qp- 
 pofèd  the  filence  of  the  other  Evangelifts,  and  of  Jofephus,  an  Hi- 
 ftonan  of  that  time. 
 
 (h)  Dc  duobw  vos  unum  fateri  cportet,  ant  hune  non  ejje  Mauhakm  qui  Lee 
 videtur  afftrcre,  ant  vos  nun  tenere  Apoftolicam  fidem.  Apud  Aug.  lib.  23.  cont. 
 Fault,  c.22. 
 
 (  1  )  Fides  CathoHca  eademque  Apoftolica  eft,  Dominum  noftrum  &  Salvatnrcm 
 J ejum  Chrift urn,  &' '  fiiium  Dei  e(]e  fecundum  Divimtatcm,  &  fiiium  David  fe- 
 dhm  car  mm  :  qucd  ita  probamus  ex  BvatJgelidt  &  /Iprftolicis  Uteris,  ut  nemo 
 poflit  coniradicere,  ?ufi  qui  iffu  Uteris  contradicit,    Aug.  lib.  23.  cont.  F.iuit.  c.  5. 
 
 Sixtw 
 
C  8?  ] 
 
 StxtHs  Sèncrtfu  replies  judicioufly,  that  by  the  fame  reafbn  thtj  Sixt.Sen: 
 ought  not  to  believe  the  Refurrection  of  Lazarus,  becaufe  none  but  B10/.S./.7. 
 S.  Job»  has  fpoken  of  ic  :  neither  doth  the  filence  of  Jofepbuj  prove 
 any  thing;  for  he  hath  not  mentioned  divers  other  Actions,  which, 
 neverthelefs  do  not  ceafe  to  be  true.     They  that  make  inch  Obje- 
 ctions as  thefe,  ought  to  alledge  pofitive  Proofs,  as  for  exam  pi 
 from  the  diversity  of  ancient  Copies.,  fbme  of  which  they  ihoukt 
 produce  wherein  thefe  Hiftones  are  not  to  be  found  ;  then  they 
 might  infer  with  fome  probability  that  they  had  been  added  aftei 
 wards:  but  on  the  contrary  they  are  to  be  feen  in  all  our  moft  an- 
 cient Records;  and  the  greateft  Enemies  of  the  Chriftian  Religion 
 have  cited  them  ever  fince  the  firft  Ages.     Celfus  hath  read  them  /^ud 
 in  the  Gofpel  after  the  fame  manner  as  we  do  at  prefent.  Torpbyrtus  cJ£j  '  Cc]r 
 and  Julian  have  alfo  made  fome  Objections  againft  the  Goipel  of 
 S.  Matthew,  or  rather  againft  all  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament: 
 but  we  (hall  have  occaiion  to  examine  them  in  the  fèquel  of  this 
 Work. 
 
 C  H  A  P.      X. 
 
 Of  the  Time  and  Order  of  every  Gofpel.  Some  Greek  Manu- 
 fcript  Copies  are  produced  thereupon.  Of  S.  Mark  and 
 his  Gofpel,  which  is  commonly  believed  to  be  the  fécond. 
 Of  his  Office  of  Interpreter  to  S.  Peter. 
 
 ALthough  fbme  Eccle fia ft  1  cal  Writers  have  carefully  fet  down 
 the  time  in  which  they  have  believed  that  every  Evangelift 
 hath  published  his  Gofpel,  we  cannot  neverthelefs  determine  any 
 thing  thereupon.  Becaufe  we  have  no  ancient  and  certain  Acts  on 
 which  we  might  relye,  I  mail  only  relate  what  I  have  read  on  this 
 Subject  at  the  end  of  fbme  Manufcnpt  Copies:  The  mofl  ancient 
 of  thefè  Manufcripts  that  I  have  feen  is  at  mod  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  feen  in  Mr.  Colbert  s  Li- 
 brary, having  been  brought  from  Cyprus.  There  are  alfo  many  in 
 die  Kings  Library,  wherein  the  time  in  which  every  Evangelift 
 'hath  written  his  Gofpel  is  fpecified:  but  as  I  have  juft  now  laid, 
 thefe  Manufcripts  are  not  ancient.  Indeed  there  are  no  ftch  Re- 
 marks as  thefe  in  the  moft  ancient,  the  cuftom  of  thole  Primitive 
 
 \I  i  time 
 
C  84] 
 
 times  being;  only  to  put  at  the  end  of  every  Book  of  the  New  Te- 
 iramcnt,  The  End  offuch  a  Book  ;  the  beginning  of  this  other  Book. 
 
 To  return  to  the  Manufcripts  that  contain  the  f)ates  of  the  Go- 
 jTpels.  fee  mat  which  is  fôund  in  the  Copy  of  Cyprus  which  is  in 
 Mr*  Colbert's  Library,  (a)  The  Gofpel  according  to  Matthew  hath 
 been  publifljed  by  him f elf  at  Jerufalem  eight  years  after  the  Afcenfion  of 
 Je  fus  Chrifr.  This  Word  at  Jerufalem  is  of  a  later  Writing  than  the 
 red.  (b)  The  Gôfpel  acccrdirg  to  Mark  hath  been  publifljed  ten  years 
 if  ter  the  Afcenfion  of  Je  fus  Chnjl.  (  c  )  The  Gofpel  according  to  Luke 
 hath  been  publiflied  fifteen  years  after  the  Afcenfion  of  J  ejus  Cbrift. 
 
 In  another  Copy  that  is  in  the  King's  Library,,  and  contains  all 
 the  New  Teftamenr,  the  Date  of  every  Gofpel  is  therein  exprened 
 after  this  manner  in  the  beginning  of  them.  (  d  )  The  Holy  Gofpel 
 according  to  Matthew,  written  in  the  Hebrew  Tongue,  hath  been  publijh- 
 ed  at  Jerufalem,  and  inter prête d  by  John  eight  years  after  the  Afcenfion 
 of  Jejus  Chrijl.  (  e  )  The  Gofpel  according  to  Mark  hath  been  publiflied 
 ten  years  after  the  Afcenfion  of  J  ejus  Chrifi,  and  preached  by  Peter  at 
 Rome,  (f)  The  Gofpel  according  to  Luke  hath  been  publifljed  fifteen 
 years  after  the  Afcenfion  of  Jefùs  Chrifr,  and  preached  by  Paul  at  Rome. 
 (g  )  The  Gofpel  according  to  John  hath  been  preached  by  himfelf  in  the 
 Ijle  of  Patmos  thirty' years  after  the  Afcenfion  of  J  ejus  Chrifr. 
 
 By  this  it  may  be  loon  what  is  the  belief  of  the  Greek  Church 
 touching  the  time  wherein  every  Gofpel  hath  been  written  :  and» 
 though  we  cannot  conclude  any  thing  as  from  certain  Acts,  never- 
 thelels  we  may  infer  from  thence,  that  S.  Mark  obtains  the  fécond 
 place  amongfl  the  Evangelifts,  if  refpect  be  had  to  the  time  in  which 
 they  wrote  :  they  are  alfb  placed  in  this  order  in  a  great  number  of 
 Manilla îpt  Copies  which  I  have  read:  they  are  notwithiranding 
 difpolèd  otherwife  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  Copy  of  Cambridge,  which 
 
 -» — 
 
 (  a  )  To  xj1  Mct/Sa/W  hicLyyitoov  ^Sc/b'$v  var'  lumt  It  'lî^uvhvf^oiç  $  Xgjv*i  H  $ 
 <rt  XecrS  ÀvdLK^iaç.  MS.  Colb.  n.  s  1 49. 
 
 (I);  To  /up  Mfltjjtoy  lAktyyitoov ■  c^Sctëâ»  {*$  X&v*$  &}&  $  TO  XetrS"  dvethn-^Mi, 
 Id.  MS. 
 
 (c)  To  x?1   Awjjiv  Ivctyyihtov   cJ%lJb$v  {$  X&v*$    &   f   m  X^r»    dv&Xn^icac, 
 Id.  MS. 
 
 (à  )  To  xp  Vajstuoy  ttytov  IvdLyyîhtov  clC&i&  ^icLhiyQcp  ygpph  l%i  Job»  cv  'IfifK- 
 asûûiyï  ïffdwJLSiv  q  \&v  'lcocivvx  <m£  X&m  ok\ù  <t  to  X^r*  èafÊCK^utç,  MS.  Keg. 
 n   18.71. 
 
 (  C  )  Ta  xj1  Mdpufiv  lAJ&yy'iXiov  Z!%i£$v  yp  x&W  *Mk&  ^  TO  X&r*  cLv&K^lW. 
 #  yjsrnyAcdJ^H  0  \ssri  néjî«  oy  'Pdfx».   Id.  MS. 
 
 (  I  J    To  xj1  A«^i/  cAJctyyiKiov   'JctJtiSti  fX$  %£$>»'*<•  "^  ^  TO  Xezr»   tLVAhîi^aç  ' 
 ■s5ni")S>çdj$H  j  vW  Ticwhx  iv  'Vâfjw.      Id.   M,S. 
 
 (  ?,  /  ^  j(ji  'lacivvlw  ovcty/k\ioy  vsm^d'^  vsr'  lum  Iv  ïIÂtiaq  t?  vnfu  x^1' 
 .'&v*{  ~a  t?  to  Xetra  dva.hh'i'ity.    Id.  MS. 
 
 is 
 
C  85  ] 
 
 is  one  of  the  moft  ancient  that  we  have  af  this  day,  and  contains 
 the  four  Evangelifts,  with  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles.     S.  John,  m 
 this   Copy   follows   immediately  after  S.  Matthew,   S-  Luke  after 
 S.  John,  and  S.  Mark  is  the  laft  of  the  four.     This  Order  cannot 
 be  attributed  to  him  that  hath  bound  the  Leafs  of  this  Manufei  ipe 
 together  ;  for  the  ranking  ot  them  is  expreffed  at  the  end  or  every 
 Gofpel.    See  what  is  read  at  the  end  of  S.  Matthew,  (h)  The  Gofpel  Cod.MSS. 
 according  to  Matthew  is  ended  ;  the  Gofpel  according  to  John  beginneth:  Contain 
 afterwards  it  is  read  at  the  end  ot-  S.  John,  (  1  )  The  Gofpel  according 
 fojohn  is  ended,  the  Gofpel  according  to  Luke  beginneth:  and  at   the 
 end  of  S.  Luke  it  is  read,  (  h)  The  Gofpel  according  to  Luke  //  ended, 
 the  Gofpel  according  to  Mark  beginneth:   and  laftly  thefe  Words  are 
 to  be  read  at  the  end  of  3.  Mark,  (  I  )  The  Gofpel  according  to  Mark 
 js  ended,  the  Ac5ls  of  the  Apoftles  begin.     This  way  of  fpecifying  the 
 end  of  one  Book,  and  the  beginning  of  that  which  follows,  is  na- 
 tural and  the  moft  ancient:   there  is  no  other  to  be  Pound  in  the 
 molt  ancient  Manufcripts  of  the  New  Teftamcnt.     The  Manufcript 
 Copy  of  the  Epiftles  ot  S.  Paul,  which  is  in  the  Library  of  the  Bé- 
 nédictin Monks  of  the  Abby  of  S.  Germain ,  and  is  not  inferior  111 
 Antiquity,  nor  in  the  Beauty  ot  its  Characters,  to  that  of  Cambridge, 
 ranketh  the  Epiftles  of  S.  Paul  in  order  after  the  lame  manner  ; 
 whereas  in  the  Manufcripts  that   are  of  a  later  date,  and  in  tha 
 printed  Books,  tome  other  Circumftances  have  been  added,  that 
 ihew  the  place  trom  whence  thefe  Epiftles  have  been  written,  and 
 the  Perlons  by  whom  they  hive  been  fent.     Moreover,  the  order 
 of  the  Gofpels  which  the  Cambridge  Manufcript  follows  is  not  pe- 
 culiar to  it;  for  it  may  be  fèen  alio  in  an  ancient  Catalogue  of  the 
 Books  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  which  is  at  the  end  of  the  before 
 mentioned  MS.  Copy  of  the  Benediclmes.   It  is  probable  that   this 
 Alteration  hath  been  made  by  the  Latins  who  have  tranferibed  the 
 Greek  Copies  for  their  ufe.     Druthmar,  an  ancient  Benedict  m  Monk,  c/j  -a 
 declares  that  he  had  fèen  a  Copy  like  to  that  of  Cambridge,  where-  Bruihrm 
 in  the  Gofpel  of  S.  John  immediately  followed  after  that  of  S.  Mat-^xfoJ.  in 
 thew  :  and  it  was  believed,  that  this  Copy  heretofore  belonged  to  Mdttk 
 
 S.  Hilary.  .  _  caf-  ■  • 
 
 But  this  different  Difpofition  in  point  of  order  of  the  Copies  of 
 the  Gofpels,  doth  not  interfere  with  the  gênerai  Opinion  of  the  Ec- 
 
 Ontabrig. 
 
 clciiaftic.il 
 
uaftical  Writers,  wh8  all  give  the  fécond  place  among  the  Evan- 
 gelifts  to  S.  Mark.  It  is  aMo  commonly  believed,  that  he  was  only 
 the  Difciple  of  the  Apoftles,  and  that  therefore  he  could  not  be  an 
 Eve-witnefs  of  the  Actions  which  he  relates:  he  hath  only  publifh- 
 ed  that  which  he  bad  learn d  from  them,  more  efpecially  from  S.Pe- 
 ter,  whole  Interpreter  it  is  affirmed  that  he  hath  been»  Marcus 
 (  faith  S.  Irenœus)  interpres  &  fettator  Petri  ;  as  it  S.  Peter  had  only 
 preached  this  Gofpel,  and  that  it  had  been  afterwards  written  by 
 S.  Mark.  This  Opinion  is  very  ancient  ;  for  Paptas,  who  had  re- 
 ceived it  from  one  of  the  Difciples  of  the  Àpoftles,  declares  it  after 
 him  in  thefe  Words  :  (m)  Mark,  who  was  Peter' j  Interpreter,  hath 
 written  exactly  all  that  he  had  retained  in  his  memory,  without  obfer- 
 ving  the  ordtr  of  the  Words  and  Actions  of  Jefus  Chrift  ;  for  he  had 
 not  himfelf  heard  Jefus  Chrift,  not  having  followed  him  ;  but  he  had  fol- 
 lowed Peter,  who  preached  to  the  People  according  as  their  necefities  re- 
 quired, withtut  taking  care  to  put  the  Words  of  our  Saviour  in.  order. 
 Therefore  Mark  cannot  be  accujed  of  any  fault,  who  hath  recorded  fome 
 Atlions  as  they  came  into  his  mind.  He  hath  applied  himfelf  Jolely  not 
 to  forget  any  thing  that  he  had  heard,  and  to  fay  nothing  but  what  was 
 truc. 
 
 This  Teftimony  of  Papias  confirms  that  which  hath  been  above- 
 faid,  that  the  Gofpels  are  pnly  Collections  of  the  Preachings  of  the 
 Apoftles,  that  have  been  committed  to  Writing  without  having 
 too  fcrupulous  a  regard  to  the  times'  when  thofe  Actions  happened 
 which  are  related  therein.  Indeed,  thefe  facred  Writers  have  made 
 it  their  bulinefs  rather  to  exhibit  a  true  Hiftory,  than  exactly  to  de- 
 fenbe  the  ciicumftances  and  order  of  Time.  Clemens  Alexandrinus 
 informs  us  moreover,  that  S.  Peter  publickly  preached  the  Gofpei  at 
 Rome  ;  and  that  S.  Mark,  who  for  a  long  time  followed  this  Apo- 
 ftle,  put  it  in  Writing  at  the  requeft  of  the  Faithful  of  that  place  : 
 he  adds  al(b,  that  (n)  S.  Peter  having  known  it,  did  neither  difîuade 
 Buf.mfl.  hnn  from  it  nor  exhort  him  toit.  Eufebius  neverthelefs  relying  on 
 EccL  /.i.#cJ|g  Authority  of  the  fame  Clement,  will  have  it,  that  S.  Peter  after 
 he  had  been  informed  of  the  great  Zeal  that  the  Faithful  of  Rome 
 
 4s* 
 
 wn  •■Baf»)MK%5n<nv  'ùinru'   vçzçjv  o  coç  ïplw  YliTfu,  oç  ©çj*  tvlç  'fêptu  Ito/wto  «m* 
 
 ùv  MK<n  7m&Ki'jHV ,  n  4,<£czt3ui  tj  cv  cujtôÏç.   Apud  Eufeb.  Hilt.   Ecclel.  lib.  j. 
 
 (  n  )  ''QtSp  ZhyvQVT*  r  Xlir&v  <B£s7fi7rlt)Wi  MTt  x&Mteru  f>wm  G&7fi-\&£X,  Clem. 
 Alex,  apud  Luieb.  Hilt.  Ecotef  lib.  6.  c.  14. 
 
 tefti- 
 
C  8/  ] 
 
 teftirîed  to  have  his  Preachings  in  Writing,  approved  of  die  Coll 
 
 tt\on  that  S.  Mark  had  ma  Je  of  them  ;  to  the  end  chat   being  ai 
 thonzed  by  himlèlf,  it  Ihould  be  read  in  the  Churches. 
 
 S.  Jcrom  hath  only  copied  and  epitomized  after  his  manner  th*j 
 Words  of  ■Eu'cbiHf,  in  his  Catalogue  of  Ecclefiaftical  Writers, Jwhere?'*fr,ft: 
 
 he  faith,  in  fpeaking  of  S.  Mark,  Marcus  Difcipulus  &  Interpres  Pe-  ^\\/c 
 tri  juxta  quod  Petrum  referentem  audierat  rogaîus  Roma  àfratrtbvs^reve 
 fcrtpfit  Evangelium  :  quod  cum  Petrus  audijjet,  probavit,  Ov   Fxclefue  te- 
 nendum fua  automate  dedit.     The  Author  of  the  Synojfis  of  the  Ho 
 Jy  Scriptures  hath  alio  beheved  that  S.  Mark  hath  onlvpubhihed  the 
 Preachings  of  S.  Peter:  (o)  The  Gofvcl  according  to  Mirk  (faith  hz) 
 bath  been  preached  at  Rome  by  the  Apoftle  Peter,  and  hath  been  publijh- 
 id  by  the  blejjed  Apoflle  Mark,  who  bath  aljo  preached  it  at  Alexandria 
 m  Egypt,  m  Pcntapolis  and  in  Lvbia.    In  a  word,  it  hath  been  the 
 Judgment  of  all  Antiquity  after  Papias,  who  was  contemporary  with 
 the  Diicipies  of  the  Apolrles,  that  the  Gôfpel  of  S.  Mark  is  only  a 
 Collection  of-  the  Preachings  of  S.  Peter,  whole  Interpreter  he  was; 
 and  the  moil  part  of  the  Fathers  hare  avouched  at  the  lame  time, 
 that  it  was  made  a:  Rome,  at  the  entreaty  of  the  Primitive  Chri- 
 ftians  or  that  City. 
 
 Papias,  neverthelefs,  faith  nothing  of  the  place  in  the  Partage 
 that  we  have  above  cited  ;  and  S.  Irenœus  (peaks  of  it  a  little  other- 
 wife  than  the  other  Fathers;  he  declares  that  S.  Mark  wrote  not 
 his  Gofpel  till  after  the  Death  of  S.  Peter  and  S  Paul;  at  leaft  this 
 is  the  moft  natural  fenfe  that  can  be  given  to  his  Words,  according 
 as  they  are  (et  down  in  the  ancient  Latin  Edition  of  the  Works  of 
 this  Father  :  obfèrve  what  he  faith,  Matthrus  in  He  bra  is  tpjorum  lin- 
 gua Scripturam  edidit  Evangelii,  cum  Petrus  &  Paulus  Roma  Evang^  hen.  adv. 
 liz,arent,  ejr  fundarent   Eccleflam.      Pop  Zfero  horum  exce(Jum)  Marcus  ^°  '^'^ 
 Dijcipulus  &  Interpres  Petri,  &  ipfa  qua  à  Petro  annuntiata  erant  per  CA? 
 fenpta  nobis  traduit.     Eufebnv  hath  rehear  fed  in  Greek  thefe  very 
 Words  of  Irenaus.     Feuardent>  in  his  Edition  of  the  Works  of  this  EupHift, 
 Father,  hath  observed  that  thefe  words  pofl  horum  exceflum,  are  not  EcclefJ.% 
 found  in  Eufebim:  but  he  may  be  convinced  of  the  contrary  by  the  c«  s- 
 Greek  ot  Eufebuts,  where  there  is  tâ  o  7&J  t«7wv  ïÇoJbv,  ivhich  the  an- 
 cient Interpreter  of  S.  Jrtnaus  hath  tranflated  poft  horum  excejjum^w\ 
 Ruffinns,  pofi  quorum  exitum.    That  which  hath  deceived   Feùardcnt 
 is  the  Error  or  Chriftopherfon,  who  hath  left  them  out  in  hfs    '      n 
 Verfion,  having  thought  that  it  Ihould  be  read  in  the  Greek  t$  tw* 
 
 ';xt/W,  quo  edito. 
 
 t#  êHyhffih  é  *#  nimfl&J,  %}  A/CvV    Ath.mal.  in  Synopf.  S.  Script.  jj 
 
[  88  ] 
 
 If  this  reading  were  grounded  on  nay  Mmufcript  Copies,  with- 
 out doubt  it  o:;ght  to  be  preferred  before  the  other:  but  Chnftopher. 
 fun  feems  to  have  corrected  this  place  on'purpofe  in  his  Tranllati- 
 ok\9  ro  reconcile  S.  Irehaus  with  the  other  Greek  Fathers,  which  ought 
 never  to  be  done;  for  it-  it  were  permitted  to  alter  the  Text  of  the 
 ancient  Ecclchaftical  Writers  in  thofe  places  whereVhey  do  not 
 agree,  efpecially  where  they  treat  of  Chronology  and  the  Designa- 
 tion of  Times,  we  muft  of  neceffity  cafr  them  into  a  new  model: 
 therefore  Jacobus  Grynaus  hath  judicioufly  re-eftablifhed  this  PafTage 
 in  the, Edition  which  he  hath  fee  forth  with  his  Amendments  of 
 Cbnfiopherfons  Verhon  :  he  hath  put  in  the  body  of  the  Translation 
 p>\l  obit  urn  atttem  illorumi  and  in  the  Margin  thefè  Greek  Words  f<£ 
 %ZoJbv,  to  ifiewT  that  it  muft  be  read  fb,  and  not  <$  IxJbmv.  Valefius 
 hath  alio  followed  this  fame  reading  in  his  Hiltorv  of  Eufebius, 
 and  lie  hath  put  in  his  Latin  Verdon  pofi  horum  internum.  He  re- 
 prehends alio,  in  his  Notes  on  this  place,  the  Tranflation  of  Chrt- 
 fiopherfon,  as  being  contrary  to  all  the  Greek  Copies,  and  to  Ruff  nus. 
 We  may  obferve  in  the  mean  time,  that  the  Greek  Word  ï%of®-f 
 and  the  Latin  ExcejJ'us  or  Exit  us,  which  the  ancient  Interpreter  of 
 S.  Irenaus  and  Ruffnus  have  ufed,  is  equivocal  ;  for  it  fignifieth  De- 
 parture as  well  as  Death.»  According  to  the  firft  fenie,  S.  Irenaus 
 would  have  only  (aid,  that  S.  Mark  publifhed  his  Gofpel  afreruS.  Peter 
 and  S  Paul  were  departed  from  Rome. 
 
 St.  John  Chryfofio?n  hath  believed  contrary  to  the  Judgment  of 
 moft  part  of  the  Fathers,  that  S.  Mark  hath  written  his  Gofpel  in 
 Egypt,  and  not  at  Rome  ;  neverthelefs,  he  doth  not  ground  his  Opi- 
 nion on  any  ancient  Acts,  but  only  on  this,  That  it  was  common- 
 ly (aid  fb,  viz,s(p)  that  as  S.Matthew  had  compofed  his  Gofpel  at 
 the  Suit  of  the  Jews  whom  he  had  converted  to  the  Faith  of  Je(us 
 Chnft,  and  that  deh'red  to  have  his  Preachings  in  Writing  ;  in  like 
 manner  S,  Mark  had  written  his  Gofpel  at  the  Requeft  of  his  DiC 
 ciples  in  Egypt.  This  feems  fo  much  the  more  probable,  in  regard 
 that  the  Àpofrles  and  their  Dilciplcs  were  wholly  employed  in 
 preaching  the  Gofpel,  and  that  they  never  would  have  thought  of 
 committing  their  Preachings  to  Writing,  if  they  had  not  been 
 prailed  to  do  it  by  the  People  whom  they  inftruded.  I  doubt  not 
 that  S.  John  Chryfofiom  hath  had  refpect  to  this  general  Maxim  of  the 
 Apoftles  and   their   Difciples,   and  that  he   hath  conhdered  that 
 
 (  p  )  Aiyc'J)  o  )&  UclI^vuQ-  $fî  Ik  'UStdav  rncdjoaww  œsciK^ivwv  'carry  xj 
 
 ffi  'ECçe.iyv  tyurù  (\wQhvcu  tv  vuctyyihiov'  x)  Mct?x©-  q  iv  Kiyj^ai  $S  uaSPiiufv 
 7W£$.v$NioiLy'jwv  twTiv  mt*  tfrwfjffw.  Jcftnn*  Ciiryloit.  Homil.  i ■  in  Matth. 
 
 S.  Mark 
 
S.  Mark  hath  been  the  firft  Apoftle  of  Eppt  ;  not  but  that  the  Opi- 
 nion of  this  learned  Bilhop  might  be  eafilv  reconciled  with  of 
 the  other  Fathers,  in  faying  that  S.  Mark  hath  delivered  his  Gofpel 
 to  the  Faithful  of  Rome  in  quality  of  Interpreter  of  S.  Feter,  who 
 preached  the  Religion  of  Jefiis  Chrift  in  ihat  great  City;  and  that 
 ne  hath  allô  given  it  afterwards  to  the  Primitive  Chnftians  or  Egypt 
 in  quality  of  Apoftle  or  Bifhop.  We  cannot  however  determine 
 any  thing  hereupon  but.  in  general,  becauie  we  have  no  certain 
 A&s  whereon  we  may  confide.  Therefore  it  is  no  wonder  that  the 
 Fathers  do  not  agree  amongfr  themf  elves  when  they  (peak  in  par- 
 ticular of  luch  Tranfactions  as  thefè,  having  oftentimes  nothing  to 
 relye  on  but  Conjectures. 
 
 S.Angufiin  (eems  to  have  conlidercd  S.Mark  only  as  it  were  an  Ab-  Aug.L  i 
 brevtator  of  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew.  Marcus  (iaith  this  Father)  Mat-  de  Conj.^ 
 tbaum  fubfecutits,  tanquam  pedijjequus  &  breviatqr  ejus  videtur.  Indeed  Ecc  ■  c- 
 if  we  compare  thefe  two  Gofpels  together,  we  lhall  find  not  only  the 
 lame  things,  but  alio  the  very  fame  expref!ions,which  S.  Mark  fome- 
 times  epitomizeth,  as  if  he  had  defigned  only  to  make  an  Abftracl 
 of  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew.  This  would  fèem  to  prove  that  this 
 lafl  had  been  written  in  Greek,  and  not  in  Hebrew  or  Chaldaick; 
 at  lcaft  it  might  be  faid  that  the  Greek  Verfion  of  S.  Matthew's  Go- 
 fpel was  already  publifhed  when  S.  Mark  compofed  his.  Grotius  is^ 
 of  a  different  Perfuafion,  ***.  that  (^)  S.  Mark  hath  made  ule  or. 
 the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew,  and  that  afterwards  he  that 
 tranflated  the  latter  out  of  Hebrew  into  Greek  hath  followed  the 
 Greek  Copy  of  S.  Mark,  whofe  dialect  or  way  of  fpeaking  he  hath 
 only  mollified,  as  being  fbmewhat  harfh,  and  too  near  the  Hebrew, 
 fuiting  it  to  the  Genius  of  the  Greek  Tongue.  But  we  can  expect 
 nothing  but  Conjectures  herein. 
 
 It  is  worth  the  obferving,  that  S.  Mark  cannot  pafs  for  a  fimple 
 Abbreulator  of  S.  Matthew,  becaufe  he  infills  more  at  large  than  he 
 doth  in  iome  places  ;  beddes,  if  he  had  only  a  defign  to  pubhlfi  an 
 Epitome  of  S.  Mafthew\  Gofpel,  he  would  not  have  taken  away  the 
 entire  Genealogy  of  Jefus  Chnlr,  which  makes  one  of  the  mod  prin- 
 cipal parts  of  it:  it  is  not  the  cuftom  of  thofe  that  epitomize  the 
 Works  of  others,  to  retrench  the  moll  confidcrablc  parts  of  them. 
 And  we  muft  take' heed  of  this,  left  we  unadvifedly  authorize  the 
 
 (  q)  Sicut  out  em  Marcus  ujus  eft  Matthjci  Hebrœo  1:1  fuller  codicc;  it.i  Marci 
 libro  Grœco  ufus  mihi  videtur  <juijquis  is  fiat  MattbaiXjrœcus  interpret.  Namqtt<£ 
 Marcus  ex  Mattbœo  deju?npjerat,  idem  hie  iifdcm  propc  verbis  pofuit,  nifi  q 
 aiLcdarh  a  Marco  Hebraico  out  Chaldaico  loque  ndi  gene  iu  exprefta  piopiùs  a. I G 
 jermmis  normam  emollivu.  Grot.  Annot.  in  tit.  Matth, 
 
 N  Opinion 
 
C   PO    ] 
 
 Opiuion  of  the  Ebanites  and  Manicheans,  who  would  have  thdb  Ge- 
 nealogy which  is  at  the  beginning  of S.  Matthew  and  S.  Luke /  to  be 
 added  afterwards  by  fome  later  Writers,  who  had  (as  'they  (aid)  re- 
 viled and  interpolated  thefè  two  Go(pels. 
 
 The  Office  of  Interpreter  to  S.  Peter,  which  the  ancient  Do&ors 
 of  the  Church  have  unanimoufly  attributed  to  S.  Mark,  admits  of 
 fbme  difficulties  ;  for  how  could  it  be  (may  it  be  objected)  that  this 
 Apoftle  who  had  received  of  the  Holy  Qhoft  the  gift  of  Tongues, 
 fhould  have  need  of  an  Interpreter  either  in  Writing  or  in  fpeaking 
 in  publick?  But  there  is  nothing  very  furprizing  in  this:  S.  Paul, 
 who  was  very  well  skill'd  in  the  Greek  Tongue,  becaufe  he  had 
 learned  it  from  his  Youth  at  Tarfus,  where  it  was  fpoken,  did  not 
 forbear  to  take  Titus  for  his  Interpreter.     Therefore  S.  Jerom  ex- 
 .„        pounding  thefe  Words  of  this  Apoftle,  God  that  confortetb  tbofe  that 
 ad  Cor"    are  caft  down,  comforted  us  by  the  coming  of  Titus,  declareth,  (r)  that  the 
 c.i.v'c  J°y  t"at  S.  Paul  had  in  the  Pretence  of  Titus  fprang  from  this,  that 
 in  his  Abfence  he  was  not  able  to  preach  the  Gofpel  as  he  deiired, 
 becaufè  Titus,  who  was  his  Interpreter,  and  Ipake  Greek  more  flu- 
 ently than  he-,  lerved  him  as  an  Organ  to  promulge  the  Gofpel  ofje- 
 fus  Chnft  to  the  People,  (s)  He  afcribes  to  S.  Paul  all  poffible  know- 
 ledge of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  of  divers  Languages,  but  he  could 
 not  (faith  he)  exprefs  the  Majefty  of  the  Divine  Oracles  after  lb 
 noble  and  eloquent  a  manner  as  he  wifhed  ;  which  obliged  him  to 
 take  Tttus  for  his  Interpreter,  as  S.  Peter  alfo  made  choice  of  S.  Mark 
 Jofepb.     for  the  fiutoe  Function.     We  know  that  Jofephus,  who  underftood 
 Antiq.      the  Greek  Tongue  perfectly,  and  had  diligently  ftudied  it,  faith  of 
 /.2o.  cult,  himfèlf,  that  it  was  impoflible  for  him  to  pronounce  it  well,  by 
 Bar»  Ann.  reafbn  of  his  Mother  Tongue.     Baromus,  who  hath  confidered  this 
 c.45.8.34.  Example  of  Jofephus,  could  not,  neverthelefs,  abfblutely  give  his 
 Suffrage  to  S.  Jerom.  .  (  t  )  He  is  perfuaded,  that  the  Apoftles  who 
 have  received  from  God  the  gift  of  Tongues,  have  not  received  them 
 imperfed;  and  that  therefore  they  knew  as  well  how  to  pronounce 
 the  Greek  as  the  Hebrew  :  infomuch  that  he  is  okliged  to  have  re- 
 courlè  to  another  fort  of  Interpreters,  of  whom  mention  is  made 
 
 (  r  )  Ergo  &  Paulas  contriflatur,  quia  prxdicationis  fu<e  in  pnefentiarum  fifiu- 
 lam  organumq,  per  quod  Chrifto  caneret  non  invenerat.  Hier.  Epilt.  ad  Hedib.  qu.i  1. 
 
 \  s)  Ciimquc  Paulus  haberet  Jcientiam  fancl arum  fcriptur arum,  (3  fer  mom  s  di- 
 ver far  umque  linguarum  gratiam  poffidcret,  unde  ipfe glonatur  m  dommo  —  divino- 
 rum  fenfuimi  majcftatem  digno  non  poterat  Grcect  cloquii  explicare  fermone  j  babe- 
 bat  crço  Titum  interprètent,  ficut  &  B.  Petrus  Marcum.    Hicron.  ibid. 
 
 (0  Quod  pertinet  ad  Apoflolos,  cum  una  cum  ceteris  Lmguis  &  Gracamfuennt 
 divimths  affccuti,  Deique  dona  perfecia  fint,  cos  nibilominus  Grxcam  linguam  ea 
 facilitate  qua  Hebrxam prontmtiaffe,  mibi  facile  perfuadeo.   Baron,  ann.  c.  45.  n.34. 
 
 in 
 
m  the  firft  Epiftle  of  S.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians.    Wherob  there  were  Epift.  i 
 fbmetimes  Perfons  of  different  Nations  and  Languages  in  the  Pri-  ad  Cor. 
 mitive  Aflemblies  of  Chriftians,  it  was  neccflary  that  there  mould  caP-l± 
 be  Interpreters,  who  might  explain  to  them  in  their  own,  what  the 
 Apoftles  delivered  in  the  vulgar  Tongue  of  the  Country.     It  is 
 certain  that  the  Church  of  Corinth  mentioned  by  S.  Paul,  was  com- 
 puted of  divers  Jews  who  (pike  Chaldaick  or  Syrtack;  and  this  feems 
 to  have  given  occalion  to  all  this  Diicourfe  of  S.  Paid  touching  the 
 gift  of  Prophecy  and  that  of  Tongues.     This  holy  Apoftle  excludes 
 none  from  the  Ailemjjfy  ;  he  permits  thofe  that  had  no  knowledge 
 of  the  Language  of  the  Place  to  fpeak  in  their  own  proper  Dialed:, 
 though  it  were  not  underftood  by  the  others:  he  only  requires  them 
 in  this  cafe  to  make  ufe  of  an  Interpreter,  according  to  the  Cuftom 
 of  the  Synagogues  at  that  time.     Greater  is  he  that  prophefieth  (  faith  Epift.  r. 
 he)  than  he  that  fpeaketh  with  Tongues l  except  he  interpret  that   the  "dCor. 
 Church  may  receive  edifying.  c  14.U  5. 
 
 But  it  is  evident  that  Papias  and  the  other  ancient  Ecclefiaftical 
 Authors,  did  not  intend  to  defcribe  this  fort  of  Interpreters,  when 
 they  faid  that  S.  Mark  had  been  the  Interpreter  of  S.  Peter.  Baro-  Baron  an. 
 mus  himfelf  hath  believed  that  S.  Peter  had  written  his  Epiftles  in  C.45.H.29 
 Hebrew  or  Syriack,  and  that  they  had  been  afterwards  put  into  Greek: 
 he  infinuates,  that  S.  Mark  who  was  his  Interpreter  tranflated  the 
 firft.  However  it  be ,  I  fee  no  reafbn  that  can  hinder  us  from 
 affording  to  S.  Peter  and  the  other  Apoftles  who  did  not  perfectly 
 underftand  the  Greek  Tongue,  the  ufè  of  true  Interpreters,  either 
 in  fpeaking  or  writing.  It  is  in  this  fenfe  that  all  Antiquity  hath 
 given  to  S.  Mark  the  Title  of  Interpreter  to  S.  Peter. 
 
 Chap.  XL 
 
 In  what  Language  St.  Mark  hath  written  his  Gofyel  Of 
 the  twelve  lajl  Ver f es  of  this  Gofpel,  which  are  not  found 
 in  fever al  Greek  Manufcript  Copies.  ' 
 
 CArdinal  Baronius  hath  forgot  nothing  in  his  Annals  that  might 
 fèrvc  to  prove  that  S.  Mark,  who  was  the  Interpreter  of  S.  Pact 
 at  Rome,  hath  written  his  Gofpel  in  Latin  :  he  confeiîech  neverthe- 
 lefs,  that  S.  J erom  and  S.  Auguftin  are  of  a  different  Opinion.  13ut 
 he  might  have  faid,  that  all  Antiquity  hath  believed  frith  one  aç- 
 
 N  i  cord, 
 
[  91  1 
 
 cord,  that  S.  Mark  hath  compofed  his  Gofpel  in  Greek,  and  that- 
 the  Author  of  the  Lives  of  the  Popes  is  the  firft  that  hath  written 
 the  contrary.  As  for  S.  Gregory  Nazianz,en,  whofe  Teftimony  this 
 Cardinal  produceth  as  if  it  were  favourable  to  his  Opinion  ;  he  only 
 faith,  that  S.  Mark  hath  publiihed  his  Gofpel  for  the  Latins,  and  not 
 in  Latin.  Therefore  the  Jefuit  Maldonat  (a)  frankly  declares,  that 
 if  w.e  except  S.  Matthew  who  hath  written  in  Hebrew,  the  ancient 
 Ecclefiaftical  Authors  do  all  agree,  that  the  other,Evangelifts  have 
 written  in  Greek.  . 
 
 It  is  true  that  we  read  at  the  end  of  S.  Maxk  in  the  Syr  lack  Ver- 
 (ion,  that  he  hath  preached  his  Gofpel  in  Latin  in  the  City  oï  Rome. 
 But  it  is  fufficiently  known  of  what  Authority  theft  Infcnptions  can 
 be,  which  are  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end  of  the  Sacred  Books, 
 efpecialiy  in  the  Oriental  Verrions.     I  account  as  nothing  the  Ara- 
 hick  and  Verfian  Tranflations  wherein  the  lame  is  read,  becaufe  they 
 have  been  made  from  the  Syriaek.    That  which  hath  milled  the. 
 Syrians,  is  their  believing,  as  Cardinal  Barcnitts  hath  done  after  the 
 Writer  of  the  Lives  of  the  Popes,  that  S.  Mark  could  not  have 
 written  his  Gofpel  at  Rome  otherwifè  than  in  the  Language'  of  the 
 Country,  having  compofed  it  at  the  rcqueft  of  the  Faithful  of  that 
 City  who  (pake  Latin,     (b  )  It  cannot  be  imagined  (faith  he)  that 
 the  Apofiles  Ihould  have  preached  the  Gofpel  of  Jefus  Chrift  to  the 
 Nations  in  any  other  Languages  but  thofe  that  were  in  life  amongft 
 them.   He  hath  not  taken  notice  that  S.  Peter  came  to  Rome  "to  preach 
 the  Gofpel  to  his  own  Country-men  ;  and  that  therefore  S.  Mark 
 ought  to  have  published  it  in  a  Language  that  was  mod  known  to 
 them.  Now  it  is  certain  that  the  Jews  who  were  difperfed  through- 
 out the  whole  Roman  Empire,  and  even  the  greateft  part  of  thole 
 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  judicioufly  obferved  by  Grotius  in  the 
 beginning  of  his  Notes  on  S.  Mark  ;  Judœi  ( faith  this  learned  Cri- 
 Grot.  An-  jtick  )    qui  Roma  agebant  plerique  Latini  fermons  ignari ,    longd  fer 
 
 not.  m  tit.  j^rtam  &  Grœciam  habit at tone  Gracam  linruam  didicerant*  Ô" Romano- 
 Mara.  »     _..         .r  ^  ...  ù 
 
 rum  vix  cfuijquam  erat  non  brace  tnteliigens. 
 
 This  may  be  fiifficient  to  anfwer  all  the  Reafbns  alledged  by 
 
 Baromus,  who  could  not  apprehend  howS.  Mark,  who  exerciièd  the 
 
 (  a  )  Qonfiantiffima  autem  apud  omnes  veteres  auclores  fuit  opinio,  exteros  cjiii- 
 dim  Greece,  Matthmtm  vcro  HebraicofcripfiJJe  fcrmone.  Maid.  Praef.  in  4  Ettangc  5. 
 
 (  b  )  Neminem  puto  exiftimaturum  Apnjhlos,  chmgcntibus  pr<cdicarent  Eiatge- 
 Uurn,  alii»  ufos  fmjje  Unguis  ah  Ins  qmbus  gentes  itU  liter  tntur,  auibus  Dei  ver- 
 bum  annum  1  ar cut t  Eiion.  ami.  c.  45.  n.  37. 
 
 Function 
 
Fun&ion  of  an  Interpreter  at  Rome,  mould  (peak  and  write  in  any 
 
 other  Language  but  the  Latin.  It  is  certain  (faith  this  Cardinal  ) 
 that  S.  Peter  (pake  at  Rome  in  the  Language  of  the  Rimans\  how- 
 then  could  it  come  to  pais  chat  S.Mark  the  Interpreter  ihould  have 
 tranflated  the  Preachings  or  this  holy  Apoftleoutof  Latm  into  Greek.? 
 If  it  be  laid  ('  adds  he)  that  S.  Peter  (pake  Greek  or  Hebrew,  S.  Mark 
 could  not  have  interpreted  his  words  butin  Latin.  All  this  arguing 
 proves  nothing,  if  we  confides  that  S.  Peter  (pake  to  the  Jews  at 
 Rome  in  a  Language  which  they  underitood,  and  that  S.  Mark  hath 
 collected  the  Preachings  or  this  Apoftle  in  the  lame,  at  the  deiire  of 
 thofè  Jews  that  were  lately  converted. 
 
 Baronies  adds  to  all  theie  Reafons  another  proof  which  is  taken 
 from  the  flyle  of  S.  Mark  ;  he  affirms  that  they  that  have  any  know- 
 ledge of  the  Greek  Tongue  may  eahly  judge  that  he  hath  written  his 
 Golpel  in  Latm,  becaule  feveral  improper  Words  are  round  therein 
 which. are  not  in  the  leaft  Greek,  but  Latin  Grecilèd.  He  there- 
 upon quotes  Cardinal  Sirlet,  who  hath  made  an  exaét  Collection  of 
 them;  from  whence  at  laft  he  concludes,  (c)  that  the  Reafons 
 which  he  hath  produced  to  make  it  appear  thatS.  Mark  hath  written 
 in  Latin,  are  fo  ftrong  and  cogent,  that  they  lèem  to  be  Demon- 
 ftrations. 
 
 Thefe  Reafons  on  the  contrary  cannot  but  appear  very  weak  td 
 thofe  who  are  verfed  in  the  Criticifmof  the  Sacred  Books.  If  this  laft 
 '"proof  concluded  any  thing,  it  would  conclude  at  the  fame  time  that 
 the  other  Evangelifts  have  alfo  written  in  Latin,  becaule  the  like 
 Expreflïons  are  found  in  their  Gofpels,  that  is  to  faf,  Latm  words 
 Greened.  Ir  might  be  proved  moreover  after  this  manner  that  the 
 Syrtack  and  Arabick  Verfions  of  the  Bible  had  been  fir  ft  compofed 
 in  Greek,  and  afterwards  ti  anilated  into  Sjriack  and  Arabick,  becaule 
 there  are  in  thefe  Tranflations  many  Greek  words  that  have  been 
 Synacifed  and  Arabifed.  It  is  no  wonder  that  S.  Mark,  who  is 
 fuppofed  to  have  written  in  Greek  at  Rome,  mould  have  made  ufe  of 
 Latin  words  Grecifèd.  Since  it  is  the  cuftom  of  all  Nations  that 
 f  peak  a  foreign  Language  to  mingle  with  it  fbme  of  their  own  words> 
 and  (o  S.  Mark  would  have  fpoken  Greek,  as  it  was  fpoken  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  cf  S.  Mark  is  at  this  day 
 kept  at  Venice,  as  they  of  this  Country  do  avouch,  all  this  Difpote 
 
 .    flc  )  Mis  igitur  propè  necejfaritsratiombus  non  Jôlttm  fiiademur,  Jed  oùj?m 
 
 mè  devmcimiif  atque  flanc  cogimur  ajjirm.ire,  Evangelium  Maret  ab  to  Lw:/>2J 
 
 f  otitis  quhmGrxcè  ejje  confer  iprum.  Baron,  ann.  Ch.  45.  n.  41. 
 
 would 
 
C  94  ] 
 
 would  be  quickly  ended  ;   but  Barcmus  had  no  mind  rafhly  to  give 
 
 credit  to  a  popular  Tradition  that  had  no  Foundation  in  Antiquity. 
 
 Ctaconws,  who   hath  written  the  Lives  of  the   Popes ,   /peaks  but 
 
 doubtfully  concerning  this  queftion  ;  he  dtirft  not  pronounce  magi- 
 
 fterially  as  Baronius  hath  done,  that  S.  Mark  hath  written  in  Latin, 
 
 tho  he  cites  the  Archives  of  the  Venetians,  who  pretend  to  have  the 
 
 true  Original  in  their  pofleffion.     He  chiefly  relies  on  the  teftimony 
 
 of  the  Syrians,  and  on  this,  that  it  is  improbable  that  a  Gofpel  fhould 
 
 have  been  written  in  any  other  but  the  Latin  Tongue,  that  was  made 
 
 for  the  ufe  of  the  Latins.     Notwith (landing  this  he  leaves  the  matter 
 
 Aljonr      undetermined.     Marcus  (  faith    this   Hiftorian  )  tetri  difcifulus   & 
 
 Ctacm.     feclator,  &  in  baptifmo  filtus,  Evangelium,  quod  ipfe  Apoftohrum  prtn- 
 
 Vit.Sum.    ceps   pradicaverat  3  Romanorum  hortatu  ejr    precibm    Grace  itidem  con- 
 
 Pont  if.      fcripfit,  feu,  ut  alii  volunt,  Latmè,  cujus  ed  lingua  archet jpum  adfervari 
 
 edit.fym.  putant  yemxiis  in  Marcianis  thefauris.     Syri  omnes  huic  rei  fidem  factum, 
 
 in   Petro.  &  ratl°  fade**  ut  non  *b*  qudm  Latind  Lingua  Evangeltum  in  ufum 
 
 Latims  futur  um  confcriber  et  ur*    Alterutrumhorurn  fit ,  &c,     One  would 
 
 ♦       think,  to  hear  this  Author  fpeak,  that  S.  Mark  had  only  compofed 
 
 his  Gofpel  for  the  Latins.    On  this  account  I  do  not  wonder  that 
 
 the  Original  thereof  is  kept  at  Venice  in  the  Treafury  of  S.  Mark, 
 
 It  remains  for  us  to  examine  the  twelve  laft  Verles  of  this 
 Chapter,  which  are  not  found  in  lèverai  Greek  Manufcript  "Copies. 
 Hieron.     S#  Jercm  who  had  feen  a  great  number  of  thefe  Manufcripts,  de-^ 
 *7^Z>^   claies  in  his  Letter  to  Hedibia,  that  there  were  in  his  time  very  few 
 '*  I  '      Greek  Copies  wherein  they  were  read:  Omnibus  Gracia libr is  penè  hoc 
 capitulum  non  %abentibms.     We  muft  not  underftand,  as  the  moft  part 
 of  Commentators  on  the  New  Teftament  have  done,  by  this  word 
 Capitulum  that  is  in  S.  Jerom,  the  laft  Chapter  of  S.  Mark  entire, 
 but  only  from  thefe  words  of  the  ninth  Verfè,  dv&çàç  </£,  &c.   to  the 
 end,  as  it  appears  by    the  Manufcript  Copies  which  I  have  above 
 confulted  ;  and  it  ihall  be  fhewn  in  the  Sequel  of  this  Work,  that 
 the  ancient  Ecclefiaftical  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   Teftament,  and  alio  of  the  whole 
 Bible. 
 Grot  An-      Grotius  hath  believed  with  many  other  Authors,  that  it  is  not  pof- 
 vot.  in  c.    fible  that  S.  Mark  fhould  have  omitted  in  his  Gofpel  the  entire  Hi- 
 i6Marci.  ftory  of  the  Refurre&ion  of  Jefus  Chrift.     He  cannot  al(o  imagine 
 that  it  hath  been  written,  and  loft  afterwards,  infbmuch  that  that 
 which  we  read  at  preient  is  only  a  Supplement  made  by  a  later 
 Writer.     It  is  not  credible  (  faith  he  )   that  this  fhould  have  hap- 
 pened to  a  Book  of  which  (b  many  Copies  have  been  made  asfbon 
 .as  it  was  pubhfhed.    Belides,  he  that  is  fuppofed  to  have  added  this 
 
 Supplement 
 
C  ?  5  3 
 
 Supplement  would  have  followed  S*  Matthew.    He  adds  farther  that 
 
 the  Latm,  Syn.uk  and  Arabick  Copies,,  as  alfo  S.  henœus,  who  is  a 
 '  mod  ancient  Witnefs,  do  all  confirm  this  Chapter.  He  confeifeth 
 neverthclofs  that  it  Was  not  found  in  iome  Greek  Copies  from  the 
 time  of  S.  Gregory  NjJJen.  Laftly  he  juaVeth  for  the  Ilea  Pons  that 
 we  hive  now  related;  chat  this  defect  in  the  Greek  Copies  ought  to 
 be  actn  b  rre  1  to  die  Tranfcnbcrs,  who  not  being  able  to  make  that 
 which  this  Evangelift  faith  touching  the  Relurreftion  of  Jefus  Chnft 
 conformable  to  S.  Afattbew,  have  taken  away  from  S.  Mark  ail  this 
 Hiftory.  Indeed  the  Emperor  Julian  hath  oppofed  to  the  Chri- 
 ftians  the  contradiction  of  their  Gofpels  in  this  place  ;  and  there 
 have  been  Learned  Writers  among  the  Grecians  who  have  com pofèd 
 Works  on  purpofe  on  this  Subject  to  reconcile  them. 
 
 Maldonat  (  d  )  on  the  contrary  could  not  admit  the  Opinion  of 
 thoie  that  afciibe  this  defeft  in  the  Greek  Copies  to  the  Tranfcribers, 
 who  could  not  make  this  Place  of  S.  Mark  agree  with  S.  Matthew, 
 becauleif  this  realbn  were  good,  they  ought  to  have  done  the  (àme 
 thing,  with  refpect  to  the  laft  Chapter  of  S.  Luke,  and  the  lait 
 Chapter  but  one  of  S.  John,  which  differ  yet  more  from  S.  Mat- 
 thew in  this  poirr,  than  S.  Matthew  doth  from  S.  Mark.  Major  enlm 
 (  faith  this  Learned  Jefuit)  inter  ilia  &  Matthœum,  <\uàm  inter  Mat - 
 thœum  &  Mar  cum  3  apparet  repugnant  ta.  (e)  Moreover  he  admires 
 that  S.  Jerom  who  hath  took  lb  much  pains  in  obfèrving  the  divei  fity 
 of  the  Copies,  hath  applyed  himfelf  lo  little  to  eftabhfh  the  Autho- 
 rity of  this  Chapter,,  which  cannot  be  affirmed  not  to  belong  to  the 
 Gofpel  of  S.  Mark. 
 
 The  harm  manner   of  expreflion   that  the  fame  S.  Jerom  hath 
 ufèd  in  difcourfing  of  thefe  twelve  laft  Verfes  of  S.  Mark  hath  yet  Baron. an. 
 more  offended  Baronius,  who  could  hardly  believe  that  he  mould  let  c^-  34- 
 fall    fuch  words    as  feerned   to  deftroy  the  Authority  of  this  laftw,I34- 
 Chapter.     This  Learned  Father,  in  anlwenng  Hedibia,  who  had  de- 
 fired  him  to  reconcile  the  Evangelifts  in  the  matter  of  the  Refur-  Hieron. 
 re&ion  of  our  Saviour,  faith  ( /')  that  this  difficulty  might  be  re-  EP!fi-  ati 
 fblved  two  fèveral  ways;  the  firft  of  which  is,  that  thisTeftirnony  ** 
 
 qu.  3, 
 
 (d)  Quod  nonnulli  repugnantiam,  qu£  inter  Mar  cum  hoc  loco  &  Mittbxum 
 videtur  ejje,  caufam  put  ant  ejufmodi  Jufpicioni  tribmfjei  abjiirda  prorsiis  eft  ratio. 
 Maid.  Comm.  in  c.  1 6.  Mnrci. 
 
 (t)  Magis  etiam  miror  non  majore  Hier onymitm  ft udio  ejus  auftoritatem  affe* 
 ruijfe,  quod  railla  prorsùs  conjectura  fit  ullà  ex  parte  probabilis  fuijfe  ad  Marc* 
 Evangetium  adjetlum.  Maid.  ibid. 
 
 (i)Hujus  quœftioms  duplex  eft  folutio  :   aut  emm  non  recipimus  Marci  teftiv.o- 
 mum  quod  m  raris  fertur  Evangeliis,  omnibus  Grœcice  Ubrii  penè  hoc  capitulum 
 m  fine  non  babentibus,  &c.  Hicron.  Epiit.ad  Hedib.  qu  3. 
 * 
 
of  S.  Mark  might  be  rejected  as  being  found  but  m  a  very  few  Greek .  1 
 Copies. 
 
 Baronius  ufeth  his  utmofl  endeavours  to  fhew  even  by  the  authori-  • 
 ty  of  S.  Jerom  himfelf,  that  there  is  no  reafon  to  fufpe£t  that  this 
 laft  Chapter  hath  been  added  afterwards  to  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Mark. 
 He  oppofeth  to  this  Father  his  own  words  in  his  fécond  Book  a- 
 gainft  the  Pelagians,  wherein  he  obferves,  that  in  fome  Greek  Copies 
 there  was  a  long  addition  at  the  end  of  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Mark, 
 which  he  alfb  produceth.  From  whence  this  Cardinal  concludes, 
 that  even  according  to  the  Report  of  S.  Jerom,  this  Chapter  now  in 
 difpute  was  not  only  in  the  Gre ek  Copies,but  that  there  were  alfb  fbme 
 round  wherein  an  Addition  had  been  infèrted;  and  takes  an  occafion 
 thereupon  to  correal  the  words  of  this  Father  in  his  Letter  to  He- 
 ■dihia  (gj  where  he  ought  not  to  have  faid,  f  if  we  may  believe  Ba- 
 ronius) that  this  la(l  Chapter  was  wanting  in  fbme  Greek  Copies, 
 but  only  that  a  confiderable  Addition  had  been  annexed  to  them, 
 which  faid  Addition  (  according  to  his  opinion  )  might  come  from 
 the  Mamcheam  who  had  altered  fbme  Copies  of  the  Scriptures. 
 Laftly  he  infers  from  the  Premifès,  that  the  Church  hath  amended 
 trondb.  thcie  Greek  Copies  from  the  Latin.  Quamobrem  Dei  Ecclefiam  adin- 
 jtar  Latinorum  correxifje  Grœcorum  exemplar  ia  certum  efi.  And  after 
 all  thefeReafons  (b)  he  fharply  reproves  Cardinal Cajetan,  becaufè 
 he  doubted,  being  induced  thereto  by  the  Teftimony  of  S.  Jerom,  of 
 the  verity  of  the  lafl  Chapter  of  S.  Mark. 
 
 But  after  all,  I  think  that  Cajetan  might  have  been  treated  more 
 mildiyv  who  hath  entertained  a  doubt  on  the  fble  authority  of  S.  Je- 
 rem,  concerning  the  verity  of  this  laft  Chapter,  before  the  Council  of 
 Trent  had  determined  any  thing  thereupon,  becaufe  this  Father  hath 
 grounded  his  Judgment  on  divers  Copies  that  he  had  read.  I  find 
 moreover  that  Baronius  hath  only  copied  Sixths  Senenfes  without 
 throughly  examining  this  matter  :  If  he  had  confulted  the  ancient 
 Greek  Copies  he  would  not  have  took  fb  much  liberty  to  correft 
 S.  Jerom  s  Remark  on  the  twelve  laft  Vei-fes  of  this  Chapter  :  for 
 this  Father  hath  very  well  diftinguifhed  thefe  Ver f es  which  he 
 mentions  in  his  Letter  to  Hedibia,  from  this  other  Addition  of  which 
 he  dilcourfeth  in  his  fécond  Bookagainfl  the  Pelagians.     And  there- 
 
 tgj  Pro  eo quod  dicer e  dehuiffet,  in  Graces  codicibus  Marci  ultimum  caput  qui- 
 bujdam  aucium  refer  in,  illudipfumin  us  dcfiderari  dixtjje.  Baron,  nnn.  Clir.  34. 
 n.  185. 
 
 (  h  )  Hxc  qmdem  omnia  fi  comporta  fatifque  explorât  a  babutjjet  quidam  ex  re- 
 centioribus,  ncquaqutim  adeo  temercm  re  tantàCatholico  bomiuc  indignam  tulif- 
 fct  fentoitiam,  dicens  ultimum  Marci  capitulum  non  ej]c  folid*.  aucioritatis  ad 
 jirmmidam  fidim.  Baron,  ibid. 
 
 fore 
 
[  97  ] 
 
 fore  the  Obfenratioa  of  Sham  Scnenfs(i)  who  urgeth  dut  S.  7'- 
 Vs  words  cm  only  be  understood  or  certain  A.poc       ia]  Periods 
 
 which  hid  been  adjoyned   to         :  Greet  Copies  by  i 
 triors,  i  om  truth.     It  is  fuflLicnt  only  toi  cad  the  words 
 
 of  this  Reverend  Doctor  as  well  in  his  Epi  ft  le  to  //  -,  as  in  !  i 
 Work  againft  the  Pelagians,  to  judge  th.u  he  fpja^  a  jntly  in 
 the  j  places  of  two  different  Additions.  And  that  there  may  re- 
 main no  doubt  thereof,  I  mill  here  pro  !  what  I  could  obferve  on 
 this  Subject  in  reading  the  ancient  Greek  Co 
 
 It  is  to  be  fuppoted,  as  hath  been  above  laid,  that  the         [lion  |9 
 not  concerning  the  whole  lad  Chapter  of  S.  Mirk,  but  only  the 
 twelve  laft  Verics.  This  is  that  part  which  S.Jeron  h  ith  called 
 lum  Chapter,  wherein  is  delcribcd  the  Hiitory  of  the  Rél  .  m. 
 
 The  molt  ancient  Greek  Copy  of  the  Gotpels  of  thole  that  are  in  the 
 King  of  Fr.tnce  his  Library,  contains   after  thefe  irordi  lajiCvm  A 
 this  Remark  written  as  the  reft  or  the  Text,  and  wit'i  the  fame 
 Hand,   *  çfefîTS  Ti  xj  TvZm.,  •//■  is  read   in  Come    places    as   followed:  *  qïçîtu. 
 nxV-ra  3  7tt  T(t^{[y\iK{j)p±  7*7*  «feÀ  riv  ixircw  awniuw  VçnyfahtM'  f$  '^nw-rt 
 xj  auric  0  'Inritç  &ro  ttv&Tvhtif  x)  a.xti  tinaç  V%d,7i{çHMf  />'  aùiàv  ri  k&v  x) 
 &$d*2TW  xUfvyficm  vit  cuanx  wneioi  '    They  declared  in   a  few    words   to  £x  cod. 
 thofe   that  were  with  Peter  all  things  that  had  been  commanded  tbem\  MS.  BibL 
 and  afterwards  J  ejus  bimflf  publijhed  by  their  Mmïftry  this  holy  a  id  %:•  * 
 incorruptible  preacljmg  of  eternal  Salvation.  "° 
 
 There  follows  afterwards  in  this  Manu(cript  this  Obfcrvation 
 written  in  the  Body  of  the  Book.and  with  the  (ame  Hand  as  the  Text 
 *  'B çLù  j  x$  7ta»73t  $iç}[àii*.  ($  ri  IçcCvvtv  $.  After  thefe  words  i^Ch-n  *  c^'« 
 ^  is  found  that  which  followeth  d>v*<p*>i  eft,  Sec.  to  the  end  or  the 
 Gofpel.  We  may  eafilv  judge  by  this,  that  they  that  have  written 
 this  Greek  Copy  which  is  ancient,  have  believed  that  the  Gofpel  of 
 S.  Mark  ended  at  thefe  words  iwGh-n  $.  They  have  never- 
 theless added  the  reft  written  with  the  lame  hand,  but  only  in 
 form  of  a  Remark,  becaufe  it  was  not  read  in  their  Church,  which 
 is  altogether  conformable  to  the  Teiiimoiiv  o:  S*Jerom  in  his  Letter 
 to  Hcdibia.  Since  this  divcriity  is  conhderable,  ît^is  neceflary  tor 
 me  to  make  (01110  Reflections  thereon,  grounded  on  this  ancient 
 Manufcnptof  the  King's  Library. 
 
 (i  )  Quodautem  fubtexuit  Hieronymus,  olimcaj  ?cis  exemplaribus 
 
 n  n  fiajfe,  &  oj  idab  aiquibus  rcjcdutn,  co  quod  at  is  Ei.v.  <;;- 
 
 traria  oontsnere,  non  dû  tetà  bujus  capituli  jcriptara  i\ 
 
 épccrypbis  CApituti  hijus  p:riodis  ab  incertis  auctcribus  in  .  is  tm- 
 
 miflis,  que  quia,  vet  dubsœ,  vel  aluj  Evtmeliftis  cotit\  .  à 
 
 Patnbus  de  Vrxcis  co.iicibm  Jubduclx  furt.        ^    .  i\  the:  ■■•    2 
 
 PcUï.  déclarât.  Sixt.  Sen.Bibl'.cth  S.  lib.  7. 
 
 o 
 
1       An-      It  feems  that  Beza  hath  feen  this  Manufcript,  or  at  leaft  one 
 
 ,r'r-  "\     like  it;    for  he  faith  in  his  Notes  en  Mark  xvi.  that  he  hath  found 
 c.  i6.M- 
 
 a  v.  9 
 
 "  in  one  Copy  thefe  words  added,    m-nt  j  7*  m^yy^x^a.,  and  the 
 
 rclf,  as  hath  been  above  related.  But  he  ought  to  have  explained 
 himfeJf  more  diftindly  thereupon,  and  to  have  obferved  that  this 
 Addition  was  written  in  the  Manulcript  only  in  form  of  a  Solu- 
 tion or  Note,  and  not  as  belonging  to  the  Text  of  S.  Mark's  Gofpel. 
 This  appears  manifeftiyin  the-Manulcnpt  of  the  King's  Library. 
 
 We  ought  to  judge  after  the  lame  manner  of  this  other  Addition 
 which  S.Jerom  declares  that  he  hath  read  in  fbme  Greek  Copies,  and 
 which  he  publifheth  in  thefe  terms.  In  cjaibufdam  exemflanbusy  & 
 maxime  in  Gracis  codiabtts,  juxta  Marcum  in  fine  ejus  Evangelii  fie 
 ficnhiiur  :  Cf  Poftea  cùm  aceubuifTent  undecim,  apparuiteisjefus,  &; 
 "  exprobravit  incredulitatem  &c  duritiem  cordis  eorum,quia  lis  qui  vi- 
 4f  derant  eirrn  reiurgentem  non  crediderunt.  Et  llli  fatisfaciebanc 
 (<  dicentes  :  Seculum  lftud  iniquitatis  &  incredulitatis  fnbftantia  eft, 
 :  quae  non  mut  per  immundos  fpiritus  veri  Dei  apprehendi  virtu- 
 u  tern.  Idcirco  jam  nunc  revela  juftitiam  tuam.  This  hath  been 
 apparently  taken  out  of  fbme  Apocryphal  Gofpels,  as  we  have  above 
 feen  a  like  Ada  non  taken  from  that  of  the  Nazarenes.  The  Greek 
 Tranfcnbers  thinking  thereby  to  make  their  diligence  and  exactnefs 
 more  apparent  have  inlerted  them  into  their  Copies.  But  they  have 
 done  it  by  way  of  Remark;  and  there  have  been  others  afterwards 
 who  have  left  theiè  Additions  in  the  Text,  without  annexing  any 
 thing  that  denoted  that  they  were  only  as  it  were  Obfervations  :  be- 
 caufe  thefe  Additions  were  not  read  in  their  Churches,  they  did  not 
 think  thefe  little  Notes  neceflary. 
 
 By  this  fame  method  we  may  juflifie  the  Obfervation  of  S.  Jercrn 
 in  his  Letter  to  Hedibia,  wherein  he  declares  that  the  la  ft:  Chapter  of 
 S.Mark,  that  is  to  fay,  the  twelve  lafl  Verfès  were  not  read  in  the 
 greateft  part  of  the  Greek  Copies.  Beza  on  the  contrary  (k  )  protefts 
 that  this  Chapter  is  found  in  all  the  old  Manufcnpts  that  he  hath  read; 
 but  he  hath  not  regarded,  that  altho  it  be  found  in  the  ancient  Greek 
 Manufcnpts,  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  Manufcript  above-cited.  For 
 tho  thefe  words  *Vdçtt*  «të,  and  the  reft  to  the  end  of  the  Gofpclbe 
 wntccn  therein  with  the  lame  Hand  as  the  whofs  Body  of.  the  Book, 
 nevei  thelcfs  the  Remark  that  is  adjoyned  makes  it  plainly  appear, 
 that  they  that  have  written  this   Copy  have  not  confidcrcd  them  as 
 
 (  k  )  Tcflor  in  omnibus  vctiiftis  codicibus  quos   nobis  videre   contigit  hoc  caput 
 inveniri.  BlZ.  Annot.  in  cap.  16.  Marci,  v.  9. 
 
 part 
 
C  99  ] 
 
 part  of  the  Text.  It  is  to  be  oblerved  moreover,  that  the  Sortions 
 are  marked  in  the  Margin  of  the  Greek  Manutcnpts  or  the 
 New  Teftament'by  the  Letters  of  the  Alphabet,  which  ferre inftead 
 of  Numbers  or  Figures.  Thele  Marks  are  in  the  full:  Editions  of 
 the  Greek  New  Tell  amène  of  Erafnsus,  in  Robert  St  ef  ben  s  Ldition 
 in  Folio y  and  in  fome  others.  Now  there  arc  none  or  thefe  round 
 in  the  King's  Manufcript  over  againft  thefe  twelve  Verfes,  which 
 is  a  proof  that  they  were  not  read  in  their  Church  th.it  have  tran- 
 fcribed  this  Copy.  This  will  appear  yet  more  clearly  in  the  Sequel 
 of  this  Difcourfe,  wherein  I  (hall  explain  the  life  of  thefe  Marks 
 or  Sections  in  the  Greek  Copies  of  the  New  Teftament. 
 
 Euthyrmus  who  hath  made  Learned  and  Judicious  Annotations 
 on  the  New  Teftament,  confirms  alUthis  that  we  have  juft  now  al- 
 ledged,  and  juftifieth  at  the  fame  time  S.  Jeroms  Oblervation  m 
 hU  Letter  to  Hedibia.  See  what  he  faith  on  thefe  words  of  S.  Mark, 
 IçoCum  $,  Chap.  xvi.  9.  (I)  Seme  Interpreters  fay  that  the  Go/pel  of 
 S.  Mark  ;/  ended  here,  and  that  that  which  follows  is  a  later  Addition. 
 JVe  muft  neverthclefs  explain  this  alfot  becauje  it  ccntaineth  nothing  con- 
 trary to  the  truth. 
 
 Thereisalfb  another  Manufcript  Copy  oftheGofpels  in  the  King's 
 Library,  ancient  enough,  and  written  very  exacllv,  wherein  is  alio 
 read  this  Oblervation  on   the  fame  Paiîage   lîo&vn  A  fw)  The 
 Evangel  ift  ends    here  m  fome  Copies  ;  but  m   many  the  fliowing  words 
 are  found,  Àv&çdt  J,   and  the  reft   to   the  end  of  the  Gofpel.     The  little 
 Sections  are  marked  in  this  Copy  over  againft  thefe  iaft  Verfes,  as 
 well  as  in  the  reft  of  the  Gofpei  ;  which  proves  that  they  were  read 
 in  fhat  Church  for  whole  ufe  it  was  written.     And  there  is  annexed 
 to  it  a  Synaxanon  or  Le&ionary  that  contains  in  order  the  G  of  pels 
 of  the  whole  year,  and  the  day  on  which  this  Goipel  was  to  be 
 read.     I  have  aifo  feen  another    Copy  in  Monfieur  Colbert's   Li-  "?*  <^\ 
 brarv,  which   was  written   with  a  great  deal  of  care,    wherein  this  Cofo   * 
 fame  Note  is  found  after  thefe  words  w&v-n  $,  and  is  exprefled  in  2467. 
 the  fame  Terms. 
 
 It  fèemsto  me  that  thefe  Obfervations  that  .vc  grounded  on  good 
 Greek  Manufcript  Copies  are  more  than  lufficientto  jurlifie  the  Cri- 
 tical Remark  or  S.  Jerom  in  his  Letter  to  Hedibia ,  on  the  twelve 
 
 ,*•  0  *$  cJ^nç  <sr£j»iïx.lw  h? ou  (ttmrfiAçigÊ  '  fêù  $  xj  rewTlw  içp'jjj&'cvu  fut/ïp 
 *"?  ÀhtiSûa.  huijLauybyfyw.  Eutbytu.  in  cap.  16.  Marci  ,  ex  cjU.  Mb.  BldilottL 
 Kc^t.  n  2401. 
 
 (m;  Er  jiai  %S  à.vtryçj.'pav  toç   S<h  îtfiM?«7«i  0   ivcfyftA/r^  **  mfow  0  *j 
 TcuuTa  f^e-nxi,  «VflC'$»$  jb  &c.  MS.  Reg.  n.  2868, 
 
 O  1  laft 
 
[  l0°  ] 
 
 laft  Verfes  of  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Murk.  It  muft  needs  be  tnat  in  his 
 time  they  were  not  read  in  the  mod  part  of  the  Greek*  Churches. 
 This  Father  neverthelefs  doth  not  believe  that  they  ought  to  be 
 abfblutely  reje&ed;  for  he  endeavours  in  this  Epiftle  to  reconcile 
 S.  Mark  with  S.  Matthew,  after  the  fame  manner  as  Euttymius  doth; 
 and  after  he  hath  taken  notice  that  fame  Interpreters  of  the  New 
 Teftament  have  thought  that  thofe  words  have  been  added,  he  for- 
 Sears  no:  to  expound  them  however, whether  they  belong  to  S  MarKs 
 Gofpel  or  not. 
 
 But  notwithstanding  all  thefe  Reflections,  we  ought  by  no  means 
 to  doubt  of  the  verity  of  this  Chapter,  which  is  as  ancient  as  the 
 Gofpel  of  S.  Mark.     Therefore  the  Grecians  do  all  generally  read 
 it  at  this  day  in  their  Churchas,  as  may  be  proved  by  their  Le£ho- 
 ,    nariC3,  one  of  which  in  Manufcript  is  kept  in  the  King's  Library. 
 Bd'l  toV.This  Marçtifbript  indeed  is  not  ancient,  but  it  is  magnificent  and 
 «.1884.    hath  Served  ibme  Church  of  Confiantinople.     Neither  can  we  find  a 
 more  ancient  Teftimony  than  that  of  S.Innœus,  who  lived  before 
 all  this  happened  that  hath  been  produced  concerning  this  difference 
 of  the  Greek  Copies.     This  Father  cites  in  expreSs  words  the  end  of 
 I  nL  nj.lK  the  Goipel  of  S.  Mark  :  In  fine  ant  em  (  faith  he  )  Evangelii  ait  Mar- 
 Uœr.lib.i.cm:  Cl  Et  qiiidem  Dominus  Jefus,  poftquam  locutus  eft  eis,  receptus 
 <f  eft  in  Cœlo,    &:  fèdet  ad   dextram  Dei.     He  quotes  in  this  PaS- 
 fage  the  nineteenth  Verfe  of  the  laft  Chapter  of  this  Goipel;   and 
 the  whole  Chapter  contains  but  twenty. 
 
 Laftly,  there  is  no  diverfity  in  the  moft  ancient  Latin  Copies, 
 nor  in  the  Sjriack  ;  whereby  it  may  be  proved  that  this  Chapter 
 was  read  in  the  Greek  Copies,  from  whence  thefe  Verfions  that  are 
 very  ancient,  efpecially  the  Latin,  have  been  taken.  It  is  found 
 alio  in  the  Cambridge  Copy,  and  in  that  which  is  called  the  Alexan- 
 drian, which  are  the  two  moft  ancient  Greek  Manuscripts  of  the 
 Gofpel  that  we  now  have  in  Europe. 
 
 c  1 
 
 Chap. 
 
t 
 
 C  '°'  ] 
 
 Chap.     XII. 
 
 Of  the  Gofpel  ofS.  Luke  ;  what  hath  obliged  him  to  publ 
 it,  fince  there  were  two  others  that  had  been  written 
 fore  his.  Of  Marcion,  and  his  Copy  of  S.  Luke'i  Go/pel. 
 The  Catholicks  have  alfo  altered  this  Gofpel  in  fome 
 places. 
 
 AS  it  hath  been  the  general  Opinion  of  the  ancient  Ecclefiafh- 
 Cal  Writers,  that  S  Mark  hath  collected  his  Gofpel  from  the 
 Preachings  of  S.  Peter,  whofe  Interpreter  he  was;  in  like  manner, 
 they  hive  alio  believed  that  S.  Luke,  who  hath  followed  S.  Paul  in 
 his  Travels,  hath  done  nothing  el  (c  but  gathered  together  the  Preach- 
 ings of  this  Holy  Apoftle.  (a)  Luke  (  iaith  S.  Irenxm)  who  follow- 
 ed Paul,  hath  committed  to  Writing  the  Golf  el  which  he  preached.  This 
 Luke]  (if  we  give  credit  to  ths  Teftimony  of  thefe  ancient  Writers) 
 is  he  of  whom  S.  Paul  (peaks  in  his  EpifHe  to  the  Coloffians,  where  ^-a  nj 
 he  faith,  Luke,  the  beloved  Phyfician,  greet eth  you.  The  Author  of  Qo'.of.c.  4. 
 the  Synoffis  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  befiows  on  S.  Luke  the  Titles  ot  v.  14. 
 (  b)  Blcjjed  Apofile  and  Phyfictan  ;  and  he  adds,  that  he  hath  publi fri- 
 ed the  Gofpel  that  had  been  preached  by  S.  Paul.  We  ought  not, 
 nevertheleis,  to  place  him  in  the  fame  rank  with  the  true  Apoftlcs 
 of  Jefus  Chriîr,  as  having  been  no  more  than  their  Difciple:  he 
 declares  himfclf,  in  the  beginning  of  his  Gofpel,  that  he  hath  only 
 undertook  to  write  what  he  had  learned  from  thofe  who  had  been 
 cyc-witneflès  of  the  things  which  he  related.  Therefore  TtrtuUian 
 (  c)  doth  not  call  him  an  Apoftle,  but  an  Apoftolical  Per  (on  ;  he 
 ipcaks  after  the  fame  manner  of  S.  Mark,  (d)  who  (according  to 
 his  Opinion)  was  but  the  Difciple  of  the  Apoftles. 
 
 S.Luke,  in  the  [ntrodu&ion  to  his  Hiftory,  protefts  that  he 
 would  write  nothing  but  what  he  had  received  from  very  good  In- 
 formation :  indeed  his  dofign  was  to  diVert  the  Chnftians  f  om  the 
 
 tyiiSiTv.  Irtn-apud  Euteb  Hilt.  Keel,  lib  ",.  c  8 
 
 To  xji  Avy&v  l-JctryyiMcv  vsr»^p<i'^H  iï  vsnî  lldJjKt  <rk  "xnvçôhtii  Cuuiytfc» 
 q  Kf  t^idùz*  vz3T3  A*^  7*  ^y^et*  tLTW^Xx  ^  tet,7fv.  Atmn.  in  bynopl.  Script.  S. 
 
 [cj  Lucm  non  dpoftolus,  Je4  ApoJfoUuUx  nvn  m.tgtfttr,  Jed  dijapidus.  Tcrtul. 
 Ub.  4  adv.  Marc,  c  2.  » 
 
 (  d  )  Ex  Aprftciicn  Lucas  &  Marcus.  Ibid. 
 
 reading 
 
[    102    ] 
 
 reading  of  fome  falfè  Gofpels  that  had  been  publifhed  in  his  time: 
 and  fince  it  might  have  been  oppofed  againft  him,  that  not  having 
 been  himfelf  a  Witnefs  of  the  Actions  which  he  related,  he  was  not 
 endued  with  Qualifications  necelîàry  to  an  Hiftoiian,  he  immedi- 
 ately prevents  this  Objection  in  the  Prefice  to  his  Gofpel,  where 
 he  a (Tures  us,  that  he  hath  avouched  nothing  but  what  had  been 
 Luc.  i.i.    faithfully  reported  to   him  by   Perfbns  that  had  fien  thofe  things 
 with  their  own  eyes.     This  hath  caufèd  S.  Jerom  to  fay,  (e)  that 
 S.  Luke  had  written  his  Gofpel  on  that  which  he  had  heard,  and 
 tirât  he  had  compofed  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles  on  that  which  he 
 had  fèen  himfelf%   S.  Irenaus  hath  alfo  obfèrved,  (f)  that  this  Evan- 
 gelift  had  truly  related  that  which  he  had  learned  from  the  Apoftles 
 We  do  not  certainly  know  the  time  whep  S.  Luke  wrote  his  Go- 
 fpel :  Qrotms  conjectures,  after  fome  other  Authoi-s,  that  he  publifh- 
 ed it  with  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles,  a  little  after  S.  Paul  had  depart- 
 ed from  Rome  to  go  into  Spam,  becaufe  his  Hiftoi  y  of  the  A  6b  ends 
 Hieron.    about  that  time.    If  we  believe  S.  Jerom  in  this  Point,  he  compo- 
 Proœm.     fed  it  in  Acbaia,  when  S.  Paul  travelled  into  that  Country.  In  Achaia 
 Cor}T?'  i  Bœotiœque  partifots  volumen  condidit.     Baronius  makes  u(e  of  the  Au- 
 thority of  this  Father  to  confute  Euthymius  and  feveral  other  Writers, 
 who  have  affirmed  that  S.  Luke  had  written  fifteen  Years  after  the 
 Afcenfion  of  our  Saviour;  which  time  is  alfo  fet  down  at  the  end 
 'Ba.rm.an.  of  many  Greek  Manufcript  Copies.     This  cannot  be  (faith  Baronius) 
 c58.tf.32.  becaufe  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  A  6b  from  whence  we 
 may  exactly  gather  the  time  of  the  Publication  of  this  Gofpel  by 
 S.  Luke  :  wc  only  know  in  general,  that  the  ancient  Ecclefïaftical 
 Writers  do  ail  agree  that  it  was  not  written  till  after  thofe  of 
 S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark.  This  being  granted,  it  may  be  demand- 
 ed what  reafon  he  had,  who  was  only  a  Difciple  of  the  Apoftles, 
 10  publifh  a  third  Gofpel,  knowing  that  S.  Matthew,  who  was  an 
 Apoftle,  and  a  Witnefs  of  the  moft  part  of  the  Actions  of  Jefus 
 Chrift,  had  already  publifhed  one,  which  had  been  epitomized  by 
 S.  Mark  ?  The(e  two  Gofpels  were  then  in  the  hands  of  all  the 
 Chriftians  ;  What  neceflity  was  there  that  S.Luke  fhould  make  a  new 
 one,  and  that  he  mould  give  notice  in  his  Preface,  that  they  who 
 bad  written  before  him  on  this  fame  Subject  were  not  very  accurate? 
 
 (e)  Evangeliurnficut  audierat  fa  if  fit,  AH  a  vero  Apzftolcrum  fient  vider  at  ipfe 
 eempofuit.    Hieron.  de  Script.  Ecdef.  in  Luca. 
 
 (f)  Lucas  nemmi  invidehs  ca  qua:  ah  Apnjlclu  didiccvat  tradidit  nohu.  Iren, 
 adv.  Hsr.  1.  3.  c.  14. 
 
 This 
 
C  »°5  H 
 
 This  hath  given  occailon  to  fome  Author»  to  believe,  that  the 
 Gofpels  of  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark  had  not  been  yet  published  when 
 S.  Luke  compofed  his  :  but  (ince  this  Opinion  is  contrary  to  all  An- 
 tiquity, Baromirs  infills  that  theft  two  Goipels,  one  of  which  w 
 in  Hebrew  and  the  other  in  Greek,  were  not  then  known  to  tl  ! 
 Grecians,  .\nd  that  conlequently  S.Luke  and  S.  P<:«/ could  not  make 
 ufè  of  them  in  their  Inftruclions.  Grotuts  alio  thinks,  thaj  ( ^  ) 
 S.  Matthew  had  not  been  as  yet  translated  out  of  Hebrew  into  Greek: 
 and  as  for  S.  Mark,  he  confelleth  that  his  Go(pel  was  in  Greek  ; 
 but  iînee  it  was  only  an  Epitome,  this  could  not  hinder  S.  Lukefvoui 
 writing  his  Hiftory.  But  it  is  not  probable  that  the  Gofpel  of 
 S.  Matthew  mould  have  been  unknown  till  then  to  the  Chriftians 
 that  fpake  the  Greek  Language;  efpecially  if  we  follow  the  Judg- 
 ment of  theft  two  Writers,  who  give  it  out  that  S.  Luke  had  not 
 compoied  his  llifrory  till  after  S.  Paul  had  left  Rome. 
 
 It  is  much  more  credible,  that  this  Evangelift  published  his  Hifto- 
 ry upon  occaiion  of  fome  falfe  Apoftles  who  were  fet  up  in  oppofi- 
 tion  to  S.  Paul,  whofe  faithful  Companion  he  was.  It  is  a  pare  of 
 Prudence  to  obviate,  as  much  as  is  poflible,  prêtent  Evils;  therefore 
 S.  Luke,  ièeing  that  falle  Gofpels  had  been  difperfed  in  thofe  Places 
 where  he  preached  with  S.  Paul,  thought  himfelf  obliged  to  com- 
 pofè  a  true  one,  and  to  leave  it  in  Writing  to  thofè  whom  he  had 
 inftrufted  :  whereas  the  buiinefs  in  hand  was  only  to  fupprefs  and 
 flop  the  courid  of  filfe  Gofpels  that  had  been  fcattered  abroad; 
 this  had  no  regard  to  S.  Matthew  and  S.  Mark.  It  might  alio  hap- 
 pen that  he  had  compiled  this  Gofpel  at  the  defire  or  thole  whom 
 lie  had  converted,  and  more  efpecially  of  Theophilus,  to  whom  he 
 dedicates  it.  It  is  certain  that  the  other  Evangelifts,  as  hath  been 
 already  obferved,  have  written  their  Hilfories  only  at  the  fuit  of 
 thofe  People  to  whom  they  had  preached  the  Goipel  of  Jelus 
 Chrift. 
 
 Marclon  and  his  Followers,  who  in  the  time  of  Epipbanius  were 
 difperfed  through  Italy,  Egypt,  Paleftme,  Syria,  Arabia,  Perfia,  and 
 many  other  Countries,  acknowledged  none  but  the  Gofpel  of 
 S.  Luke  ;  they  had,  neverthelefs,  retrenched  divers  PalFages  of  it: 
 Befides,  the  Name  of  this  Evangelift  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.  Irenaus 
 
 (  g  )  Credibile  eft  ad  id  tempus  Matthxi  librurn  jwnnififcrmone  Hcbrœo  ex  tit  r 
 Marcus  autem  Grace  compendium  magû  hiflorix,  q:tam  biftoriam  fenpfirat.   Croc. 
 Annot.  in  Prxf.  Luc. 
 
 (hi 
 
 : 
 
[   »o4  ] 
 
 (h)m reproves  thefe  Hereticks  for  having  altered  according  to  their 
 humor  the  Scriptures  which  the  Church  had  authorized,  as  being 
 founded  on  a  confiant  Tradition  ;  and  for  accounting  no  part  of 
 S.  Lakes  Gofpel  and  of  the  Epiftles  of  S.  Paul  as  legitimate,  but  that 
 which  they  had  referred,  arter  they  had  taken  away  from  thefe  Books 
 whatfoever  they  pleaièd.  And  iïnce  they  contradicted  in  this  all 
 the  Tradition  of  the  Churches,  (t)  he  affirms,  that  thefe  Sectaries 
 who  boafted  that  they,  had  a  Gofpel,  have  none. 
 
 Tertuliian  hath  written  a  Work  on  purpofe  againft  Marcion,  (k.  ) 
 whole  Difciples  gave  it  out  that  their  Mafter  had  not  brought  any 
 Innovation  into  Religion,  in  fèparating  the  Law  from  the  Gofpel, 
 but  that  he  had  only  rectified  the  Rule  of  Faith  which  was  corrupted. 
 This  Arch-Heretick,  who  followed  the  Opinions  of  Cerdon,  (I)  re- 
 jected the  Law  and  all  the  Prophets  ;  and  to  authorize  their  No- 
 velties, they  fùpported  themfèlves  with  the  Words  of  S.  Paul  in  his 
 Epifl.  ad  Epiftle  to  the  Galatians,  where  this  Apoftle  faith,  that  he  had  with- 
 G  J.  c  2.  flood  Tctcr  and  fome  other  Apoftles  to  the  face,  becaufe  they  did 
 not  walk  uprightly  according  to  the  Truth  of  the  Gofpel.  Marc/on 
 (m)  had  taken  occaiïon  from  thence  to  reform  and  even  to  deftroy 
 the  true  Gofpels,  to  give  more  Authority  to  his  own.  Tertulltan 
 anfwers  him,  that  he  could  not  charge  the  Apoftles  with  corrupting 
 the  Gofpels,-  without  accufing  Jef  us  Chnft  at  the  fame  time,  who 
 had  chofen  them  :  he  adds,  (  n  )  That  if  Marcion  acknowledged 
 that  thpir  Gofpel  had  been  entire,  but  that  it  was  interpolated  by 
 falfe  Apoftles,  and  that  this  imperfect  Copy  was  now  in  ulè  ;  he 
 ought  at  leaft  to  ihew  which  was  the  true  and  original  Gofpel  that 
 had  been  corrupted  :  laftly,  he  demands  of  Marcion  how  it  could 
 
 (hj  Marcion,  &  qui  ab  co  funt,  ad  inter  ci  dcndasconverfi  funt  fcrip  turns.  Quaf 
 dam  quidem  in  totum  non  cognofcentes,  fecundum  Lucam  autcm  Evangeliutn  & 
 Epiftolas  Vault  decurt antes,  bac  fola  légitima  effe  dicunt  qua  ipfi  '  minor  averunt, 
 Ircn.  adv.  Hxt.  1.  3.  c.  12. 
 
 (iy  Hi  qui  à,  Mar  done  funt  non  babent  Evangelium:  hoc  ertim  quod  eft  fecun- 
 dum Lucam  decurt ant es  gloriantur  fe  habere  Evangelium.  Iren.  ibid. 
 
 (k  )  Aiunt*Marcicncm  non  tarn  imiovajfe  regulnm  feparatione  Legis  &  Evangc- 
 In,  quam  retro  adulter atam  recur  affe.    Apud  Tertul.  1.  4.  adv.  Marc.  c.  3. 
 
 (  I  )  'AmCcLtài  tx>v  vbpov  Xj  Wj/m*  7tf\y  <nt&<f>rmtt»  Epipli.  Hxr.  42.  n.  4- 
 
 (  m  )  Conmtitur  ad  deftruendum  ftatum  eorum  Evangelitrum  qua  propria  &  fub 
 Apoftolorum  nomine  eduntur,  vel  etiam  Apoftolicorum,  ut  fcilicet  fidem  quam  litis 
 adimit  fuo  conférât.  Tertull.  lib.  4.  adv.  Marc.  c.  3. 
 
 (  n  )  Si  vero  Apoftoli  quidem  integrum  Evangelium  contulerunt,  Tfudapojloli  au- 
 tern  vcritatcm  eorum  interpolavcruht,  (3  inde  funt  noflra  digefta,  quod  crit  ger~ 
 
 mammi  illud  Apftolorum  quod  adult  eros  paffum  eft aut  fi  tarn  fundi  t  us  deletum 
 
 eft,  ut  cataclftno  quodam  it  a  inundatioiie  falfanorum  oblueratum ,  jam  ergo  nee 
 Marcion  habct  vcrufn,   Tertull.  ibid.. 
 
 happen 
 
C   «°5  ] 
 
 ippen  that  he  mould  have  the  true  Gofpel,  if  it  had  been  fo  fal- 
 sified by  Impollors  that  there  was  nothing  of  k  feft  ? 
 
 Tertullian  moreover  eftablifheth  the  true  Gofpel  of  S.  Luke  on  the  TertuLth 
 univerlal  Conient  of  the  Churches  that  were  planted  by  the  Apo-  <-'•  5- 
 itles,  and  of  other  Churches  that  derived  their  Original  rroni  them  : 
 all  thefè  Churches  preferved  the  Copy  of  S.  Luke  in  the  fame  condi- 
 tion as  it  had  been  pubhfhed  horn  the  beginning  ;  whereas  that  or. 
 Marcum,  on  the  contrary,  was  hardly  known  ;  or  if  it  were  known 
 it  was  at  the  lame  time  condemned:  he  reheth  alio  on  this  lame 
 Tradition  oi  the  Churches  in  reprefentmg  to  Marcion,  (o)  that  he 
 had  no  reaibn  out  of  all  the  Gofpels  to  feiect  that  or  S  Luke,  and  to 
 neglect  the  others,  as  if  they  were  not  to  be  efteemed,  and  as  if 
 they  had  not  been  as  generally  received  in  all  the  Churches  ever 
 iince  their  rirft  Foundation.^ 
 
 lie  comes  afterwards  to  lome  particular  PaiTages  that  Marcion  had 
 taken  away  from  his  Golpel  :  He  charges  him  with  having  retrench- 
 ed that  place  where  Jefus  Chrift  faith  that  he  was  not  come  to  de- 
 ftroy  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  but  rather  to  fulfil  them:  but  this 
 Objection  appears  to  be  ill  grounded  ;  for  thefè  Words  are  to  be 
 found  only  in  S.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  which  was  not  owned  by  Mar- 
 cion.  Tertullian  feems  here  to  have  confounded  S.  Luke  with  S.  Mat- 
 thew, when  he  read  in  S.  Luke's  Gofpel  that  which  is  not  therein 
 at  prefent.  He  objects  to  him  in  the  fécond  place ,  that  he  had 
 taken  away  from  the  Golpel  thefè  other  Words,  /  a?n  not  Cent  but 
 unto  the  loft  flieep  of  the  houfe  of  Ifrael.  This  PafTage  is  alio  found  in 
 S.  Matthew  only,  and  not  in  S.  Luke  ;  which  may  induce  us  to  be- 
 lieve that  thefè  two  Objections  or  Tertullian  have  refpect  to  the 
 Gofpel  in  general,  as  if  he  had  (uppofed  that  Marcion  had  no  rea- 
 icn  to  receive  one  Gofpel  more  than  another  :  but  then  he  would 
 have  proved  nothing  directly  againft  his  Adverfary.  It  might  be 
 that  Tertullian  s  Copy  was  not  exact,  and  that  the  Lefîbns  of  lève- 
 rai Gofpels  had  been  blended  together.  Since  S.  Epiphanies  hath 
 much  more  accurately  treated  on  this  matter,  and  hath  carefullv 
 examined  the  PaiTages  that  Marcion  had  altered  in  his  Copy  of 
 S.  Luke y  we  mail  here  produce  the  particular  Remarks  of  this  Fa- 
 ther, that  we  may  have  a  better  knowledge  or  the  Gofpel  of  the 
 Marcionites. 
 
 Marcion  had  not  in  his  Gofpel  all  the  beginning  of  S.  Luke  to  thefo 
 Words,  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  Reign  of  Tiberius  Cx(ar;  that  is  to 
 
 (o  )  Et  debts  Marcion  fl  agi  tandu^  quod  cmijfs  cis  Luc&potius  m  fitter  it,  qua 
 non  &  hœc  apud  Ecclefias  h  primordio  fuerint  qncmadmodum  &  Luc.     Tcrtull.  ib. 
 cap    5. 
 
 p  fay. 
 
[  xo6  ] 
 
 -,  he  had  cut  off*  the  two  firft  Chapters  of  our  Edition  ;  neither 
 did  he  read  as  we*do  at  this  day,  the  Particle  ô  which  fignifies  now, 
 
 anon  to  chat  which  proceeds.     S.  Epipbanws  adds, 
 
 (f)  that  befidcs  the  Partages  which  this  Heretick  had  taken  away 
 
 from  his  Gofpel,  he  obierved  no  Order  nor  Coherence,  and  that 
 
 i  aiio  inserted  loir.e  Additions,  which  he  defcribes  in  pamcu- 
 
 :   the  Alterations  that  he  hath  remarked,  on  which  1  ihall 
 
 make  fbme  Reflections 
 
 In  the  fifth  Chapter  of  S.  Luke,  and  the  fourteenth  Verfe,  where 
 we  read  m  (JJpTveiov  ohm,  for  a  testimony  unto  them,  Marc  ton  read,  ha. 
 »  i$>Tvtiw  t«t3  v(£vj  that  this  may  be  a  teftimony  unto  you;  making  that 
 to  fall  on  them  that  were  healed  by  Jefus  Chnft,  which  relates  to 
 the  Pj  lefts  in  our  Copies.  Moreover,  S.  Epiphanius  reads  in  this  fame 
 place  after  isoainfa  the  word  J&ov,  an  Offering,  which  was  not  in 
 Marcion  s  Copy  no  more  than  in  the  greatest  part  of  ours  :  but  this 
 diveiiity  is  of  no  importance,  the  fènfe  being  always  the  fame,  af- 
 ter whatfoever  manner  we  read  it  ;  and  it  could  not  happen  but 
 from  the  Transcribers,  who  have  omitted  or  added  it. 
 
 Chap.  1 6-  v.  17.  v47*€*t  ( or  K&nGii ,  as  S.  Epiphanim  read  it)  y*l* 
 oj-ffiy  being  coma  down  with  them.  Marcion  read,  wiiCn  <*  a»nlçJ  he 
 came  down  in  them.  This  may  be  alio  a  various  reading  that  doth 
 not  alter  the  fenfe;  it  may  be  an  Hebraifnt  commonly  ufed  in  the 
 Sacred  Books  :  the  Particle  o»  may  lignifie  in  this  place  the  fame 
 thing  as  the  Particle  "2  in  Hebrew ,  to  which  the  Greek  Iv  anfwers; 
 now  the  Particle  2  fignifieth  indifferently  &>  in,  and  t$  with.  There- 
 fore it  ought  not  to  be  tranflated  here  (  as  Father  F  et  au  would  have 
 it)  he  came  down  in  them  ;  but  according  to  the  Hebraifm,  be  came 
 down  VJitb  them:  this  fort  of  Hebraifm s  is  found  in  S.  Luke  as  well  as 
 in  the  other  Evangelifts. 
 
 Chap.  8.  V.  1 9.  w  *«t*?  own  ^  Qi  dJtxçoi  aufi>  his  Mother  and  his  Bre- 
 thren. Maracn  did  not  read  thefè  Words  in  his  Copy,  but  only  in 
 the  beginning  Verfe,  ywm%  Qs  $  oi  dfrh$o*  Qt9  thy  Mother  and  thy  Bre- 
 thren. This  doth  not  appear  neverthelefs  to  be  a  vicious  Alterati- 
 on, fince  thelè  Words  being  repeated,  the  fènfe  will  remain  always 
 the-  fame,  though  they  be  read  but  once:  it  is  poflible  then  that 
 Marcion  might  read  it  lb  in  his  Copy  without  altering  it. 
 
 Chap.  9.  v.  4.0.  and  41.  Marcion  did  not  read  in  his  Copv  thefe 
 Words,  *&  AJbviiSnow  1#.£cl}£v  out?  ^  <b&Ç  0W7tf?9  a  «$u5ct  athçQ-  I«<  dvt%0fMV 
 vjuffi.    They  could  not  cafi  it  out,  and  he  [aid  unto  them,  O  faithkjs  Ge- 
 
 (p)    Ou    Jf^S'  Hp/Ùv  TTttKiV  ZhuSpt,     dfod  7tt  p?    7rTt&YJ>Ytje<,    TO.    J   -ST^ÇÏ^^*    O.V& 
 
 X^7Ty,  »*  ùpbw  fiaJiÇay,  <tMet  èppacfttf;Jt7f(Va>f  twVt»  «t&wrduW.    Ep'P»i-  *te*.  41. 
 D.  U. 
 
 neratwn 
 
neration,  how  long  fia!!  I       '  >■  yott  ?    S.  2  it  thus,  but 
 
 Maréons  •  .     orreading  it  is  moreconcifc;  hétrever  the  is 
 
 preferred.    Ir  m.v:  be  that  he   thought  the  other  W 
 
 ous,  and  would  not  put  into  the  mouth  of  lefts  Ch  iking 
 
 his  Dilctples,  this  facpreffion  th.it  (èemed'.hârfli  t<        \3  O 
 
 Gener  lie  ought  not  in  the  mean  time  to  have  corrected  i 
 
 Paffage  according  to  his  own  Conceptions,  and  without  being  (up- 
 ported  by  good  Copies. 
 
 Chap.  10.  v.  11.  where  we  vc\<\,  T thank  thee.  O 
 had  not  in  his  Copy  the  Word  w**n?,  ()  Fatb         5  Ef  m- 
 
 eth  that  it  ought  to  be  read,  becaufc  it  is  .         "ci  in  the  following 
 Vcrle  :  he  iaith  moreover,  that  Màrcion  had  retrencl         :  on! 
 that  it  might  not  be  proved  horn  this  Pàffage,  that  Jefi         irifl  h 
 called  his  Father  f»yn*vpt  or  Creator.     But  this  Repentir        jerds  ra- 
 ther to  Ihew  that  this  Heretick  had  not  rhaliciftufly  taken  away  fro   : 
 his  Copy  the  Word  Wte/»,  O  Father  ;  for  whether  i  it  or  nor, 
 
 the  1.         is  not  changed.    Mxrcion  had  not  alio  in  hh  Copy,  $  ^  yftt 
 a?:.!  of  Earth,  but  only,  Lord  of 'Heaven. 
 
 Chap.  1 1'.  v.  19  and  30.  Màrcion  had  taken  away  horn  lus  Got 
 all  that  is  laid  in  this  place  concerning  Jonas,  rèâdirjg  only  thç 
 Words  m  T^s*  fl^TW  avuiiov  »  JbSiiffi?)  tw-ry,  there  flfàll  be  m>  fan  give?}  to 
 this  Generation,     He   did  not   read   alio  the   two  wing  Ve'  I 
 
 wherein  mention  is  made  of  the  Queen  of  the  South,  or  Solon 
 and  the  Nhrivittà 
 
 In  this  fame  Chapter,  v.  41.  where  it  is  in  oar  Copies  xplw,  Ju 
 ment,  Marchn  had  in  his  *x»w,  Vocation.     This  Ef  condemns 
 
 as  a  vicious  Alteration,  and  made  on  purpofè,  becaufè  the 
 ing  Words  ihew  clearly  that  it  ought  to  be  read  xpiw  and  not  viïnv. 
 .    It  might  be,  nevei  thelefs,  that  the  little  difference  that  there  is  I 
 tween  thefc  *two  Words  in  the  Greek  hath  carried  this  dive    : 
 reading,  and  that  Marcion  had  retained  this  fault  or  the  Transcriber 
 in  his  Copy. 
 
 He  did  not  read  alio  in  his  Copy  in  the  49  Vefe  of  this  fame 
 Chapter  thele  Words,  A'*  ™™  £™v  n  &?'■&  rk  0s?3  âroççXa  h*  cwtvù  g^- 
 <prrms.  Therefore  alfo  [did  the  Wifdont  of  God,  I  will  fend  them  Prop!: 
 Now  iince  he  rejected  the  Prophets,  iz  is  not  to  be  doubted  but  tl 
 he  hath  retrenched  this  Partage  from  his  Copy,  that  hath  fo  clearly 
 eliablifhed  them  :  neither  did         ead  thele  other  Words  which  . 
 in  the  fame  place,  v.  $   .  fc&mdifcO  &n?  £  ^î£i  tvjIwiu  .-,■       .7  fa 
 quired  of  this  Generation. 
 
 (q)    ha,   (/.A  Tteiicj.   cum   \.7zvS{fy i   MafxÂay  iiy  Xe&BP  >&QPVT*  TOP  è  JAK. 
 
 Epfph.  ibid. 
 
 %  Cl 
 
[   io8  ] 
 
 Chap.  1 1-  v  é.  He  had  not  in  his  Codv  thefe  Words,  Ov%  mm 
 
 u4r£  not  five  Sparrows  J  c  Id  for  two  farthings,  and  not  one  of  them  is  for- 
 gotten before  God. 
 
 Tn  the  fame  Chapter ,  v.  8.  inftead  of  thefe  Words  ffi  d^ykha>v  *r* 
 ©t»,  the  Angels  of  God,  Marcion  read  only  to  €>««>  Goi.  This  might 
 be  an  Omiffion  of  the  Tranfcriber  that  doth  not  interrupt  the  fenfe 
 in  this  place;  neverthelefs,  S.  Epiphanms  accufeth  Marcion  of  Infi- 
 delity and  Prevarication  as  much  in  this  minute  tittle  as  in  any  other 
 Alteration  oi  greater  confequence;  becauie  (r)  he  that  durfi  alter 
 any  thinç  of  that  which  hath  been  written  from  the  beginning,  u  not  in 
 the  way  of  truth. 
 
 He  did  not  read  thefe  words  of  the  i8  Verfe  of  the  fame  Chap. 
 o  Qili  appiiivvci  liv  ?dpTcv,  God  clotheth  the  grafs  j  and  in  the  %i  verier 
 where  we  have  it  w«wf  t/jffl,  your  Father,  he  read  it  fimply ,  57*77}^ 
 Father.  In  the  fame  Chapter,  ver.  ;8.  inftead  of  thefè  Words  A&- 
 T6f4  n  7e*TW  pvhJBDUt  in  the  fécond  or  third  watch,  he  read,  iwtejtf  çvk&w 
 in  the  evening  watch. 
 
 Marcion  had  alfo  expunged  out  of  his  Copy  the  three  fiift  Verfès 
 of  the  13  Chapter,  and  efpeciallv  thefe  words  of  the  fifth  Verfe, 
 'Eàv.  yM  (MUM 0Î1 70.71  tm'vtzc  Ipt'iac  hmKn^,  Except  ye  repent,  ye  (hall  all  like- 
 wife  f£rï(k.  u 
 
 In  the  lame  Chapter,  Verfe  2.8.  in  place  of  thefè  words,  To 71 0 -\a,- 
 «3^  'AC^jctfc  ^  'louait  )y  *\clkco£  Xj  7juvnLç  7fc\)  cstsyhixM  cy  7$  @A<n\c-}&  <ra  0fc«, 
 then  ye  jljati  fee  Abraham,  and  I/aac,  and  facob,  and  all  the  Prophets 
 in  the  Kingdom  of  God  ;   Marcion  had  put  thefe,  T071  -mvTus  é)*gi*s  Ï«^»te 
 iv  tm  Ç>a,nh&cL  ro  ®6tf,  vt*£s  0  btCet>^o^^,  then  y  on  foall  fee  all  the  ju(}  m 
 the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  you  your  f elves  thruft  out.     He  adds,    (faith 
 S.  Epiphamm  )   *&\*{&{>*i  %Za,   detained  without,  and  thefe  other  words, 
 x$  l/AÂi  %$v  0  yJbauQpoi  >£  o  fyvf&uc  ffi  IJivTuv,  there  is  weeping  and  gnaflung 
 cf  teeth.     Thefe  laft  words  are  not  an  Addition,  but  a  Tranfpofni- 
 on  ;  for  the  fame  words  are  found  in  our  Copies  at  the  beginning 
 of  this  Verfè  :  befides,  whereas  S.  Epiphanim  read.s  ihi  o4££*>  it  ought 
 to  be  read  o7w  ô'4m£s.   This  Father,  who  quotes  the  Scriptures  accor- 
 ding to  his  Memory,  or  applies  them  to  hisprefent  Difcourfe,  doth 
 fometimes  change  the  words  into  others,  or  abbreviate  them  ;  and 
 this  is  to  be  oblèrved  likcwife  in  other  place-.     The  true  difference 
 of  Marcion  s  Copy  confifls  in  the  Word  vawiw,  Prophets,  which  he 
 bach  changed  into  that  of  «W«*>  ;«/ ;  and  he  hath  added  k&i*iM»< 
 %&,  detained  without,  without  altering  the  fenfe. 
 
 (r)  'O  nh/juyf  yl%  77  7m&>^*°rtiV  JiÎY$&w*vcw  dwfâti  **  ^  of? Actios 
 ç«,73>.    Epiph.  ibid. 
 
 Marc ion 
 
C    '°?   ] 
 
 Marc  ion  had  taken  away  divers  other  words  of  this  C       >tçr  out 
 of  his  Copv:  viz,*  LThele words  pf  the  twentyninth  Verftf&M*  ^ 
 
 AVcLTGKuir  k)  Sl7(j%f,  K)  *V*>a/0 t«0W«J     ck    T?  &*Ji**i<jn    They    ,]>.''  j    ,;;6.  ^  pyg 
 
 *ta  £*/£,  «;;/./  from  the  Weft,  and  fhall  fit*  down  in  the  Kingdom. 
 II.  Theft  of  the  thirtieth  Verfe,  »J  *a**w  %mrm  vré™,  The  Lfr  //. 
 
 £?  /?///.  III.  Theft  words  of  the  thircv  nrlt  Verio,  «t^a^  oj  *olcit£si 
 hi-pvTiiy  'i^ih^  >y  7nf<&x,  071  *Hp»cAi*  JÎ  ^A«  ùnKTHVcu,  There  came  certain 
 of  the  P 'bar i  fee  s  ,  faying  unto  him,  Get  thee  out,  and  depart  hence,  for 
 Herod  will  kill  thee.  IV  .The  whole  thirtv  fécond  Verfe^and  part  of  the 
 thirty  third  Verfe  to  theft  words,  °n  vk  IvSi^-nuy  For  it  cannot  be.  And 
 from  the  thirty  fourth  Verfe  he  had  cut  off  thefe  Words,  'iiw°u>v</., 
 
 O  Jerujalew,  Jerujalem,  which  killeft  the  Prophets,  and  ftoneft'them 
 that  are  (nit)  unto  thee.  And  theft  other  words  of  the  fame  Verfe, 
 'Tn»Âxji  idnAxat  crnovvalEca  rd  Ww«  <r«,  Sp  rcymv  opyis.  How  often  would  I 
 have  gathered  thy  children  together,  as  a  hen.  Thefe  words  from  the 
 thirty  fifth  Verfe,  àçUtcu  C/mv  q  oh®-  ujuftf,  Tour  houfc  is  Up.  And 
 (aftly  he  hid  retrenched  thefe  other  words  from  the  fame  Verfe, 
 *  tui  pi  )J\i7i  %ok  ctV  w£«  077  Him,  lv\ofaMQ->  Te  fell  not  fee  me,  until 
 the  tune  come  when  ye  [ball  fay,  hlejfed  is, 
 
 This  Heretick  had  cut  off  from  his  Gofpel  the  whole  Parable  of 
 the  prodigal  Son,  which  is  in  the  fifteenth  Chapter;  as  al(o  rhefj 
 words,,  chap.  17.  verf  10.  ^y<m  077  </£ao/  d/£?H3/  W(jW'  077  0  b^eîf\o/j^j 
 T^niTvx  TnvunJ&pfy,  Say,  we  are  unprofitable  fcrv ants:  we  have  done  that 
 which  was  our  duty  to  do.  He  had  taken  away  a  little  after  in  the  fame 
 Chapter  (e\eral  parts  of  the  Pafîàge  wherein  mention  is  made  of  the 
 Lepers  that  met  Jefus  Chrift.  See  what  he  reads  in  that  place, 
 'Amç&Kiv  cwt*{  hk^m  '  SÛçatz  iunU  W*  Uf&ot,  He  fent  them  away  fay* 
 ing,  fhew  your  f elves  to  the  Priefis.  He  had  in  like  manner  altered 
 divers  or  her  Circumftances  in  this  Hiftory,  where  he  read,  rioAW 
 
 Su j®-.  There  were  many  lepers  in  the  time  of  the  prophet  Eli(ha9  and 
 none  were  clean  fed  except  Neeman  the  Syrian. 
 
 Chap.  18.  verf.19.  After  theft  words,  «*&frV*V9ôv,  None  is  g^od 
 five  one,  Marcion  added.,  ©.  inn*,  the  Father;  an  1  at  the  twentieth 
 verfe  in  (lead  of  ôïJkç,  thouknowef,  he  read  •!**  I  know.  He  had 
 alio  retrenched  the  thirty  firft  Verfe  of  this  fame  Chapter,  and  theft 
 words  from  the  thirty  ftcond  and  thirty  third  Verfes,  <&&Jh$n \oymi 
 *7n>Kiu9%* aiTcu ,  x}  7»  Tejlr»  nuiça.  dv&çHrtTcu.  He  f  jail  be  delivered,  le 
 [hall  be  put  to  death,  and  the  third  day  he  jb  •//  rife  again. 
 
 Cap.  19.  (  s  )  he  had  expunged  our  of.  his  Copy  that  which 
 
 long 
 
[no] 
 
 to,thî  •  -•  of  the  nniv.-il  of  Jefus  Ch.ifi:  at  the  M  •  ■•  I 
 
 bicli  was  near  i        &*£*,and  all  that  which  is  related  in 
 ime  Civ        ,  conceiting  the  AJs  do  which  our  Saviour  rode 
 i   he  made  his  entry  in:  i      rufalem,  as  alio  the  other  Veries 
 in  mention  is  made  of  «he  Temple. 
 C         to.  He  left  one  of  his  Copy  the  whole  Parable  of  the  Vine- 
 -  lee  forth  to  Husbandmen,  beginning  at    the  ninth 
 -,  and  ending  at  the  fixteenth     Hehadalfo  taken  away  thefe 
 words. of  the  ieventeenth  Verte,  T)  h  '0  ri  -yvy&w&w  rtiv»  \i$ov  ti 
 d-zïJbxJuapw  ol  cixflJkuMVTit^    What  is  this    then  that  is  written,  the  ftone 
 which  the    builders  rejettèèt t    &c.       He    had  in    like    manner    re- 
 trenched the   thirty  iever-th  Verier  and  a  part  of  the  thirty  eighth 
 in  which  the  Mefurreclion  ot  the  dead  is  declared. 
 
 Chap.  ii.  Ver(T8.  Thefe  words,  ®£*£  fa  tHç  yaqakm  vfffi  x  w 
 cuiritoiTcu,  There  [hall  not  an  hair  of  y  cur-  head  fer  iflj,  were  not  in  his* 
 v  opy,  nor  thefe  other  words  of  the  twenty  firffc  Verfe,  Tors  ol  lv 
 r»  'Is Jluq.  cAiyirwow  ris  t*  of»  '  Then  let  them  which  art  in  Jiidea,flee  to 
 the  Mountains  :  nor  the  reft  of  this  Hiftory,  which  he  had  expun 
 becaufe  of  thefe  wjprdsof  the  thirty  fécond  verle,  &*  **  w^W  «ftj'fl, 
 •till  all  be  fulfilled. 
 
 Chap.  ii.  He  had  not  hi  his  Copy  the  fixteenth  Verfe  of  this 
 Chapter,  nor  the  thirty  fifth  and  thirty  fixth  Veries,  becaufè  ofahefe 
 words  of  the  thirty  (fiventh  Verfe,  w-n  ri  jtf&ix/rfeov  J&  TiMàtvcu,  This 
 that  is  written  mu(t  yet  be  accomplished  :  nor  chele  other  words  that  are 
 in  the  fame  place  &  ^57*  &v°(M>v  i^oyioiï.  And  he  was  reckoned  among; 
 the  tranfgrejjors.  He  had  alio  retrenched  that  which  is  faid  of 
 S.  P-eter  in  the  fiftieth  Verfe,  when  he  cut  off  the  ear  of  one  of  the 
 Servants  of  the  High  Prieft. 
 
 Chap.  2;.  Verfe  i.  To  thefe  words  raw  tv&uw  <JW?*?ot/7*  ri  ïfo®-, 
 Wt  found  this  fellow  perverting  the  Nation,  he  had  adcied  theie  other, 
 JL)  tyl&KUovT*  riv  v'oftov  £  Tito  *ff0<p(\T*Cy  And  deflroying  the  law  and  the. 
 frophets.  In  the  fame  Paflage  after  thefe  words  mk&ovtu  <po<>*;  ùàbvtu* 
 Forbidding  to  give  tribute,  he  had  alfo  added  thefe  other  words,  ^  cctto- 
 rftfGVTu.  TttV  yuvouKOi  >y  r&iiiuict,  and  perverting  the  women  and  the  children. 
 In  the  fame  Chapter,  Verf.  4:5.  he  did,  not  read  mmuv  u«t  w*  ï<r» 
 iv  tlS  (Qi&h'av,  To  day  (halt  thou  be  with  me  in  partdiji. 
 
 Laftly  Marcion  had  taken  away  from  his  Copy  the  twentv  fifth 
 Verfe  of  the  twenty  fourth  Chapter,  and  thefe  words  of  the  twenty 
 fixth  Verfè,  *%  toJjtu  ïJU  t&Qhv.  Ought  he  not  to  have  fuffered?  And  in- 
 jftcad  of  thefe  words,  in  verf.  ^5.  \<p  oh  Ik&mhw  ol  ©e*?nTcu,  That  the  fro- 
 fhcts  Lave  jpoken,  he  had  put  ty  oh  îx*haov.v$v,  That  I  have  fpb  ken  to  you. 
 Thus  we  have  ieen  what  was  the  Golpelor.  Marcion,  who  was  not 
 far  from  the  Apoftolical  Times,  when  the  Venty  of  the  Gofpels 
 
 might 
 
[M,] 
 
 might  have  been  more  eafilv  juftified  from  I 
 
 poftie>  had   left  to  the  Churches  which  we  e    *  d  by    t 
 
 tyrh  sn  a  Book  to  convince  .  .t- 
 
 was  men  living  at  chat  time  when  He  wrote  a  n.    S. 
 
 thanius  who  hach  tranfmitted  co  us  this  Gofpel  of  Marcion,  c 
 him  by  his  own  Copy,  which  was  not  (o  much  altered,  but  that  \ 
 remained  fome  Paffages  that  wore  (ufficient  to  overthrow  his  No. -ci- 
 ties.    S.  Ire***,  who  hath  allô  difputed  againft  the  Opinions  of  this 
 Arch-H  reticle,  hadobfèrved  this  long  before     (r  )  It  may  be  pro- 
 ved C  iaich  this  Father)  by  the  reft  of  the  Golpel  chat  Marcion  ha 
 leftj  that  he  hath  blafohemed  againft  the  only  God  that  exifts. 
 
 Altho  (bme  Diversities  of  Marcion  s  Copy  might  be  attributed  to 
 the  Tranfcnbers,  efpeciallv  in  tho.'e  Paflàges  that  are  of  no  mo- 
 ment; neverthelefi  it  ought  to  be  done  with  a  great  deal  of  Precau- 
 tion, becaute  it  is  certain,  that  this  Hcretick  hath  not  followed  in 
 his  Alterations  any  ancient  Copies:  he  hath  taken  care  only  to  ad- 
 juft  the  Golpel  or  S.  Z.«£etothe  prejudices  of  his  s:  I,  as  appears  by 
 what  hath  been  above  related.  Therefore  Tcrtullian,  after  he  had 
 objected  to  him  all  chatS.  Luke  hach  ipecified  in  the  two  fiirft  Ohapte 
 of  his  Golpel  touching  the  Birth  and  Infancy  of  Jefus  Chriif,  and 
 
 ny  ocher  Circumftances  that  clearly  fhew  that  he  had   a  real 
 Body,  adds  (u  )  that  Marcion  had  retrenched  all  this  from  his  G 
 on  pui  pole,  .        :  ihould  be  proved  rrom  thence  that  Jeiiis  Civ 
 had  fleAi  as  well  as  we.  4P 
 
 Be  h  des  thefe  Amendments  tnat   Marcion  had  inierted  into  th 
 
 Golpel  of  S.  Luke,  there  have  been  alio  (ome  (Satholicks  who  have 
 
 altered  it  in  Lome  places  ;    who  would  not  have  that  read  in  the 
 
 Gofpels  which  did  not  dit  with  their   prejudices.     Therefore  they 
 
 e  expunged  the  Paflage  wherein  it  is  /aid,  Chap.  xix.  41.  XI 
 
 Jefus  Chrift  wept  over  the  City  of  Jerufalem,  becaufe  this  Lamen 
 
 tarîdn  fèemed  to  them  to  be  a  weaknefs  unworthy  of  Dor  Saviour. 
 
 S.  Epipbamus,  who  quotes  thefe  Words,  obfèrves  (*) 
 
 that   they  wee  found  in  the    Copies   that  had  not     *  F°rfo' 
 
 been  *  ccrrethd,  and  by  this  he  informs  us  that  the     ™   ™JE   ■ 
 
 J  J       ,  ,      ...  n     fhamus  ought  to  be 
 
 Grecians  have  lomctiines  taken  xx\z  liberty  to  cor,  cet     [U[Cd. 
 thc;r  Copico,  and  to  takeaway  horn  them  that  which 
 
 (  t  )  Marc  ten  n  id  an         r  (ecundum  hucam  circumcidcns  ex  his  quœ  ad" 
 
 hue  fervantur  penes  cum,  h'ajphenuis  in  folum  exiftentem   Deumoj  fur.  Ire:- 
 
 adv.  Htr  lib.  3.  c.  1  1 . 
 
 ;'  u   1  Brs  opinor  confiliis  t  •  inflrumenta  Chrifii  delere  aufus  eft,  ne 
 
 CJro  ejus  frobarctur.  Tertull.  lib.  d<  c  11  ne  Chr.  c   2. 
 
 Ko»   ÏK+^auci)  Kt\Ttu  cv  tçJ  xj1    hwSv   ivctyfîhicà  I*  -nit  à <J)cç Swroti  etj 
 
 di 
 
did  not  pleàfè  them  (>)  The  Orthodox  (  faith  this  Father  )  lave  re~ 
 trenched  thefe  words  y  being  moved  thereto  by  fear t  and  not  confidering  the 
 end  nor  ifce  forte  of  them.  Bur  they  are  found  at  this  day  in  the  Co- 
 pies o\  all  the  Chriftians  of  what  Nation  foever;  and  S.  Epiphamus 
 mews  that  they  certainly  belong  to  S.Luke,  bv  (z,)  the  teftimony 
 of  S±Irenattf3  who  made  ufe  of  them  againdfome  Hereticks. 
 
 If  we  may  give  credit  to  the  Teftimony  of  S.  Hilary,  (a)  the 
 forty   third  and  forty  fourth  Verfès  of  the  twenty  fécond  Chapter 
 were  not  read  in  many  Greek,  and  even  Latin  Copies  of  S.  Luke's 
 Çofpel.     Mention  is  made  in  this  place  of  the  Angel  that  came  to 
 comfort  Jefus  Clirift,  and  ôf  the  bloody  Sweat  that  fell  from  his  Bo- 
 Hieron.     dy.     This  S.  Jercm  (èems  alfb  to  confirm.     But  it  is  eafie  to  judge, 
 lib.i.adv.  that  the  Grecians  had  taken  the  liberty  to  rafe  thefe  two  Veries  out  of  • 
 '    '&•       their  Copies,  for  the  fame  reafon  as  they  had  taken  away  the  Paf* 
 fage   wherein  it  is  (aid,  that  our   Saviour  wept.     This   Alteration 
 afterwards  crept  into  the  Latin  Copies,  (b  )  Thefe  words  (  faith  Jan- 
 [emus  )  feem  to  have  been  retrenched   by  fome  that  were  afraid  to  attri- 
 bute to  jefus  Chnft  fuch  notable  marks  of  human  infirmity.     There  are 
 no  Copies  at  this  day,  nor   for  a  long  time  fince,  either  m  Greek  or 
 Latin  in  which  this  Imperfection  is  to  be  found.     The  Syrians  and 
 the  other  People  of  the  Levant  do  all  read  thefe  two  Verfès  in  their 
 Copies.  This  Defect  then  m uft  take  its  rife  from  fome  fuperftitious 
 perlons,  who  thought  that  Jefus  Chrift  could  never  be  obnoxious  to 
 jo  great  a  Weaknefs.  There  is  no  p^^abihty  that  thefè  two  Hiftories 
 mould  have  been  added  to  the  Text  of  S.  Luke.     (  c  )    It  is  much 
 more  credible  (ùith Maldonat)  that  they  had  been  blotted  out  of  it. 
 
 (y  )  'OçStj^Ço/  J  ctçel\ov7n  jipnivvy  çoCnS*v7iç  39  f/w  von<m*7iç  coun  to  TihQ- 
 x}  7»  ïyyçJTurcv.   Epiph.  ibid. 
 
 (2;  ï\cù  KÂpomu  t?  v3pTvel&  0  et?/©-  'Eiçlwcu©-  ht  t$>  y&y  cuçioiav,  &c. 
 ïren.  apud  Epipn.  ibid. 
 
 (a)  Ncc  fatiè  ignorandum  nobis  eft,  &  in  Grœcis  &  in  Latmis  codicibus  com- 
 p/urimisvel  de  adveniente  Angc/o,  veldc  fudore  Janguineo  nihil  ftrip turn  repenri. 
 Hilar. lib  le.  de  Trin. 
 
 (  b  )  H.ec  erafa  videntur  à  quibvfHam,  qui  vcreb.mtur  Çhrifto  tribuere  tam  in- 
 fignia  inimaïKc  mfirmitatis  argument  a. ]m\t\\.  Gand.  Concord.  Evang.  c.  137. 
 
 (  c  )  Potins  credendum  eft  à  nonnullis  id  fuijfe  deletum,  quhm  à  quoquam  ad- 
 )imc\wn.  Mald.  Comm-  in  Matth.  c  26. 
 
 C  H  A 
 
 P. 
 
[  "3  ] 
 
 Chap.  XIII. 
 
 Of  the  Co/pel  of  S.  John  ;  and  of  Herctich  that  have  re- 
 jected this  Go/pel.  Tl?eir  ^eajons  with  an  Anjwtr  to 
 them.  An  Inquiry  concerning  the  twelve  Verjes  of  this 
 Go/pel  which  are  not  found  in  Jome  ancient  Copies.  Se- 
 veral Greek  Manu/cript  Copies  are  cited  to  clear  this 
 Difficulty.  Some  Criticks  have  imagined  without  any 
 ^rounds  that  the  laft  Chapter  of  this  Gifpel  did  not  be- 
 long to  S.  John. 
 
 WE  cannot  precifely  determine  in  wh.it  time  S  John  pubhiru 
 his  Gofpel.  It  is  only  known  that  he  hath  written  it  the  lait 
 of  all.  "  Nekher  have  we  any  very  certain  Acfe  that  might  inform 
 us  of  the  Motives  that  induced  this  holy  Apoitle  to  undertake  this 
 Work  after  he  had  [ccn  the  Go/pels  of  S.  Matthew,  S.Mark  and 
 S.  Luke.  Clemens  Alexandrinm  reports  what  was  generally  believed 
 in  his  time,  viz.  that  John  having  reaathèfe  three  Gofpels,  and  ha- 
 ving approved  them  as  true,  (  found  (  a  )  that  there  was  yet  want- 
 ing the  Hiftoryof  thofe  things  that  had  been  done  by  Jefus  Chrift 
 at  the  beginning  of  his  Preaching.  This  was  the  reaion  (  according 
 to  the  Judgment  of  this  Learned  Father  J  that  caufed  him  to  write 
 his  Gofpel,  cfpecially  being  untreated  to  do  it.  And  by  this  he  /ap- 
 plied that  which  feemed  to  be  deficient  in  the  Hiiiory  of  the  other 
 Evangeli/ls.  He  did  not  think  it  neceflary  (b  )  to  repeat  what 
 S.  Matthew  m&  S.  Lukehza  already  written  ;  and  this  is  the  principal 
 cade  that  obliged  him  to  (ay  nothing  concerning  the  Genealogy  of 
 our  Saviour.  He  judged  it  morerequilite  to  promulge  that  which 
 appertained  to  his  Divinity.     (  c  )  John  who  is  the  laft  of  the  Evan- 
 
 (  a  j  IA.qv\jjj  3  «££  KjHlTicfru  Ta  ytjj/.lw  tùjj    <o&  ffi  cv  rncaoroit  x}  v&\y  <*.?}&£ 
 ra  K^vyuutiQ-  \%ri  ra   Xe*r*  T^-u^y^M^  S)\)ywny.     Cle  n.   Alex,  apud  huLb 
 hh.  3-c.  14. 
 
 (b-)f   EwV§-    </f    *v    tjlu  ,uV  Wf  euçy.o{  rts   aïoi)'^©-   tj/uffi  ^jiAhoyiiVy  art 
 Mal^u'j)  x}  A*K'Z   Gr&yçg.ff-itm.v  vnvn'.ùTÛ twl  tvv  'Icodiyvbv.  Clem.  ibid. 
 
 ^ro/»)jtt4  lva,yfitoQV.    Clem.  Alex. apud  E  if.  Hilt.  KccL-l".  lib  6  c,  i 
 
 Q,  gelid- 
 
C»4J 
 
 ;  (  faith  the  fame  Clement  )  having  obferved  that  thofe  ^hings 
 it  related  to  the  Incarnation  of  Jefus  Chrift  had  been  made  mani- 
 fest in  the  three  other  Gofpels,  being  irifpired  by  God,  and  at  the 
 requéft  of  lus  Friends,  compofed  a  Ipiriçpal  Gofpel.  S.  Epiphanius 
 lakhalfo,  (  d)  that  it  would  have  been  to  no  purpofe  for  S.  John 
 co  infift  any  farther  on  that  which  belonged  to  Jefus  Chnft  accord- 
 ing to  the  Flcfh,  becaulè  that  had  been  already  done.  Therefore  he 
 appHed  himfelfto  the  declaring  of  tholè  A£h  of  which  the  other 
 Evangelifts  had  made  no  mention. 
 
 S.  Irenœus  only  faith,  (  e  )  that  S  John  fet  forth  his  Gofpel  at  E- 
 pbejtff,  where  he  abode,  without  taking  any  notice  or  the  time  when, 
 or  of  the  Reafôns  that  induced  him  to  it.     The  Author  of  the  Sy- 
 mffis  of  the.  Holy  Scriptures,  will   have  it  that  this  Apoftle  (  f). 
 preached  it  when  he  was  banifhed  in  the  Ifleof  Fatmos,  and  that  he 
 afterwards  publilhed  it  at  Ephefm.     S.  Jerom  difcourfeth  more  par- 
 ticularly than  the  other  fathers  of  the  Considerations  that  engaged 
 §>JohnXQ  wiite  his  Gofpel.     He  affirm  cth  (g)  that  S.John  being 
 m  Aftai  where  the  Herehie  of  Cer'mthus  and    Ebicn  obtained,  who 
 aenyed  that  Jefus  Chrift  had  been  really  in   the  Flefti,  was'forced- 
 to  write  concerning  the  Divinity  of  our  Saviour,  at  the  folicitation 
 cf  almoft  all  the  Biihopsof  Afia,  and  of  many  Churches  that  jdefired 
 him  to  do  it.     He   adds  moreover,  that  it  was  related  in  the  Ecele- 
 iiaftical  Hiftory,  that  this  Apoitle  feeing  himfelf  fb  vehemently' ur- 
 ged by  his  Brethren,  granted  that  which  they  demanded,  upon  con- 
 dition that  a  day  ihould  be  let  apart  for  a  publick  Faft  on  this  occa- 
 sion :  And  that  the  Faft  being  ended,S.jW«,who  was  filled  with  the 
 Holy  Ghoft,  began  his  Gofpel  with  thefè  words  which  came  from 
 Heaven,  In  the  beginning  ivas  the  7Vord3  &c.     Whereas  this  Hiftory 
 
 icrçdhiçv.  Epiph.  Haer.  51.11.12. 
 
 { c  )   Joannes  dijcipulus  Domini  -  -  -  &  ipfe  edidit    Evangelium  Epheft  Aft.e 
 cçmmorans.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  lib.  3.  cap.  1. 
 
 (  f)  To  xj1  'lùxtvvluj  Ivetyfihtov  .-^arn^Jj^i  n  vsr'  aun  ra  d}k  'lacivvv  *r»  s&ib- 
 
 Eçura.    Athan.  in  Syiibpf.  Script.  S. 
 
 (  g)  Joannes  cum  cjfet  in  Afni,  &  jam  time  L\ereticorum  femma  pullulaient 
 àerintJu,  Ebionis  &  cœtcrorum  qui  ncgant  Cbnftum  in  came  vonjfe,  quoi  &  tpfe 
 m  Epiftola  J'nà  Antichriftos  vocat,  &  Apofto/us  Paulus  frequenter  pcrcutit,  cabins 
 eft  ab  omnibus  penè  tunc  Afi.c  Epiftopis  &  mult  arum  Ecckjhrum  kgdtiombus  de 
 Divimtate  Salvatoris  altius  Jcnbcrc  --  undo  (^  Ec  cleft  aft  ica  narrât  biftoriatù?n  a 
 fratribus  cpgeretut  fit  fcriberet,  ita  fuclwiim  ft  refpondiffe  ft  inditto  jejumo  in 
 commune  omncs  Deum  deprccarcntur.  Quo  expleto,  rczeiationc  Jaturatus  illud 
 proumium  c  cœlo  veniens erutlavit.  In  pnncipiu  er.it  Verbum,  cxc.  Hier,  prooem. 
 a  Mat th. 
 
 might 
 
[  "5   J 
 
 might  pafs  in  the  Opinion  of  (bme  for  /. 
 
 thoio  Fictions  th.it  are  ordinarily  made  ufe  of  by  :  len 
 
 they  would  give  authority  to  a  Work  of  grc.it  v 
 
 judiciouflyo  ,  that  9  Jerom  h.ith  not  grounded  this  ] 
 
 On  Apocrypha]   Books,   Non  ex  afocryfbo   aliquû,  but  o  i  an  an 
 and  true  Uiltorv  that  had  been  alrea  ly  explained  more  at  I 
 other  Write;  s,  St  !,  ab  aliii  jam  fv/i 
 
 flic  a: 
 
 There  are  found  on  the  contrary  iince  the  firft  Ages  of  Chriftia- 
 nity,  certain  Herericks  who  maintained  an  Opinion  altogether  oppo- 
 
 lite  to  that  of  S.  Jerom  ;  for  being  very  far  from  believing  with  mm, 
 that  S.  John  wrote  his  Gofpel  to  confute  the  Errors  or  Cei  ut 
 they  afenbed  it  to  Cerintbus  himlelf,  avouching  that  he  was  the  Au- 
 thor thereof.  S.Epifbanitts,  who  knew  not  the  Name  of  thole  lie- 
 reticksj  hath  given  them  that  of  «Aopj,  Alortans,  becaufe  they  denied 
 the  1 1  Mil  called  in  Greek  Logos  (h)  Becaufe  they  do  not  receive  (faith 
 this  lather  )  the  Word  that  hath  been  preached  by  S.  John,  they  (ball  be 
 called  A logi ans. 
 
 The(e  Alogians  rejected  the  Gofpel  of  S.  John,  as  alio  his  Epiftles 
 '  and  Revelation.,  pretending  (/  )  that  all  thelè  Works  had  been  in- 
 vented in  Afia  by  Cerintbus,  who  lived  at  the  fame  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  queftion 
 the  Authority  of  S.  John,  whom  they  believed  to  be  an  Apoftle  as 
 well  as  the  Catholicks,  they  endeavoured  to  (upport  their  Novelties 
 with  fbme  Reafons.  They  (aid  amongfl  other  things  that  (k) 
 thefè  Books  attributed  to  S.John  did  not  agree  with  the  Writings  of 
 the  other  Apoftles  ;  and  that  confequently  they  ought  not  to  be  ac- 
 knowledged as  Divine.  Whether  tends  (  faid  they  )  the  beginning  of 
 this  Gofpel  :  In  the  beginning  was  the  word,  and  the  word  -was  with  God. 
 And  thele  Other  words;  And  the  word  was  made  fleftand  dwelt  among 
 us  (  and  We  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begat  en  of  the  Father  ) 
 full  of  grace  and  truth.  To  what  purpofe  ("added  thele  Hereticks) 
 is  that  which  immediately  follows,  John  barewitnefs  of  him,  andcryed 
 faying,  This  w. is  he  of  whom  I  fpake.  And  a  little  atter;  Behold  the 
 Lamb  of  God3  which  taketh  away  the  (ins  of  the  world.     The  - 4    »   :ns 
 
 carra*.  Kpiph.  fte.  51.  n.  3. 
 
 ^    (l)  Atyjtn  p)  £Veu  cu^m 'Wj/Krf,  *M«   KhûiVvk,    x}    six.  oL~t&   ojjtvl   çajiv 
 tv  ciwAUffiA.  Epiph.  ibid. 
 ,  K;    077  a  cuptwfi  Ta  cu,™  {iChict.  voit  hotitoîiÙRçihtiu  Epiph. ibid. n. 4. 
 
 Q  i  produc  s 
 
produced  feveral  other  Pafîages  of  S.  John,  no  part  of  which  was 
 found  in  the  other  Evangehfts. 
 
 S.  Efifbanius  anfwers  them   very  prudently,  that  if  they  had  no 
 other  Reafbns  to  object  againft  the  Verity  of  S.Johns  Gofpel,  they 
 might  alfo    reject,  the  Gofpels  ofS.  Matthew,  S.Mark  and  S.Lukey 
 who  have  all  uled  the  fame  manner  of  Writing,  and  who  have  every 
 one  fbmething  that  is  lingular.     He  (aid  (I)  that  their  Method  de- 
 pended not  on  them,  but  that  it  came  from  the  Holy  Ghoft  as  well 
 as  their  Doctrine.    This  he  explains  more  particularly,  and  at  large. 
 This  Father  confutes  them  alfo  by  the  Doctrine  of  S.John ,  which 
 he  affirms  to  be  altogether  oppofite  to  that  of  Cerinthus.    This  Here- 
 tick  believed  that  Jefus  Chrifl  was  born  a  mere  Man.     S.John  on  the 
 contrary  teftifyeth  in  his  Gofpel,  that  the  Word  was  from  all  eter- 
 nity,   that  he  came  down  from  Heaven,  and  that   he  was  made 
 Man.     It  is  certain  that  Cerinthus  believed  with  fbme  other  Here- 
 *  ¥thh    ticks  of  thofe  primitive  times  that  Jefus  was  *•  a  mere  Man.   •^hich 
 *y%t<9mv.  Opinion  they  grounded  on  the  Genealogy  that  is  in  the  beginning  ot 
 S.  Matthew.    Therefore  one  would  think,  that  if  Cerinthus  had  de- 
 signed to  forge  a  New  Gofpel  to  authorifè  his  Herefie,  he  would 
 not  have  omitted  this  Genealogy. 
 
 It  may  be  obferved  neverthelefs  that  this  Heretick  acknowjedged 
 in  Jefus  Chrifl:  fomewhat  more  than  mere  Man.  This  Efiphanius 
 himfèlf  explains  after  this  manner.  (  m  )  He  pretends  that  the 
 World  was  not  created  by  the  firft  and  fupreme  Power  ;  but  that 
 Jefus  who  was  begotten  of  the  Seed  of  Jofeph  and  Mary  being  be- 
 come great,  had  received  from  above  of  the  Supreme  God  the 
 Chrifim  himfèlf,  that  is  to  fay,  the  Holy  Ghoft,  in  the  form  of  a 
 Dove  when  he  was  baptifèd  in  the  River  Jordan.  He  attributed  to 
 this  celeftial  Virtue  that  Jefus  (as  he  thought )  had  received  in  his 
 Baptifm,  all  the  Miracles  that  he  wrought  afterwards.  He  faid  more- 
 over, that  this  Virtue  left  him  at  the  time  of  his  Paffion,  and  that 
 it  returned  to  Heaven  from  whence  it  came.  Perhaps  the  Alogians 
 took  occafion  from  hence  to  afenbe  the  Gofpel  of  S.  John  to  Cer'm- 
 thus-,  becaufe  this  Heretick  diftinguifhed  two  things  in  Jefus  Chrift; 
 for  befides  that  they  thought  that  he  was  born  of  Jofeph  and  Mary 
 after  the  fame  manner  as  other  Men,  they  acknowledged  in  him  a, 
 
 \*Sict.  Ëpiph.  ibid 
 
 Celeitial 
 
C    "7   ] 
 
 Celeftial  \        z  th.it  had  been  communicated  to  him  by  the 
 reign  God  of  the  Univerfe:  he  called  this  V  ri,  diftih- 
 
 guilhing  Chrifi  from  Jefus. 
 
 S.  I  m  hath  alio  obferved,  («)  that  the  Gnofticks,  the  Follow- 
 ers oïValentms  altogether  made  u(e  or  the  Gofpel  of  S.  jfaAa  to  efta- 
 blilh  their  Opinions,  (o)  They  gave  to  Jefus  (faith  Jbeodoret) 
 Name  of 'Saviour  and  of Chrift  the  Word.  The  Sethians,  who  were  a 
 branch  of  the  Gnofticfay  maintained  alio,  that  Joins  differed  from 
 Chrift  ;  (p)  that  J  ejus  was  born  of  the  Virgin,  but  that  the  Chr'tfi 
 defcended  on  him  from  Heaven.  That  which  might  farther  confirm 
 the  Alogiam  in  their  erroneous  Conceits  was^^i,  that  there  w. 
 fome  very  learned  Men,  and  thole  too  very  (SWiodox,  who  had  af- 
 firmed that  the  Apocalyple  was  made  by  Ccrmthus,  who  miblently 
 boafted  that  he  was  the  true  Apoftle  of  Jefus  Chrift. 
 
 Belides  theft  Alogiam  who  refuted  to  receive  with -the  whole  Ca- 
 tholick  Church  the  Writings  of  S.  John  as  Divine  and  Canonical, 
 there  was  one  Theodotns  or  B)z,antiu?;?,  the  Chief  of  a  So&  that  were 
 called  Tbeodotiansy  who  after  their  example  rejected  the  Gofpel  and 
 Revelation  of  S.  Johny  as  not  belonging  to  him.  Neverthelefij  Ce. 
 Porphyrins  and  the  Emperor  Julian^  whooppofed  the  Golpels  with  all 
 their  Might,  have  not  denied  that  they  were  certainly  compofed  by 
 them  whofe  Names  they  bore  ;  they  have  been  content  only  to  de- 
 ay.  them,  as  if  they  had  been  filled  with  Falhties  and  Contradicti- 
 ons. When  Julian  (peaks  or  the  Gofpel  of  S.  John,  he  doth  not 
 dilbwn  it  to  be  his,  but  he  acculèth  this  Apoftle  of  having  introdu- 
 
 I  Innovations  into  the  Chriftian  Religion:  he  faith,  that  neitl 
 (q)  Matthew,  nor  Alar k^nor  Luke,  nor  even  Paul,  durft  mak.  | 
 Chrift  to  pals  for  a  God  ;  that  S.  John  was  the  firft  that  hath  pi 
 hlhed  it,  after  he  had  obfèrved  that  a  great  party  of  fimple  Peop 
 as  well  among  the  Grecians  as  Latins,  was  of  this  Opinion  :  thus  this 
 Emperor,  who  was  perfuaded  that  S.  Johns  Gofpel  could  not  be 
 charged  with  fillity,    gives  out  his  imaginary  Reafbns  that  were 
 grounded  on  no  Authority. 
 
 (n)  Hi  qui  à  Valentino funt  eo  quod  eft  fecundum  Jo.vinem  tlenijjimè  ut  ente  s  ad. 
 oftenftonem  conpigationumfi        n.  lien.  ndv.  Hxr.  lib.  3.  c.  11. 
 
 (o,/  'h\7*v  ozotyiçï.  <&&7vy>çÂJz7i}  *)  Xeeççy  k'^v  .  Theod.  Haerct.  Fabul.  lib.  2. 
 Hat.  7.  de  Valent. 
 
 tàv.   Theod.  ibid,  lib  2.  H.u\  14.  de  Scthian. 
 
 (  T  )f  Tlv  yîsv  'I»17«^  «75  riijjK&  li^Mu/ieiv  htw  &€qV,  tnt  ~M&i5ciï&-,  *7f  Aar.- 
 
 iff  'EHiUjJlJbf  *}  'iTVLhlUTJJhy  TÙMCOV  VSÏ*  7WTHS  4  J'OîTtf.     (  ilb.  IO.  COI»- 
 
 *ra  Julian. 
 
 A 
 
[u8] 
 
 As  wo  hive  above  remarked  that  the  twelve  Lift  Verfcs  of  S.Mat  Jk 
 were  not  read  in  fome  Greek  Manuicript  Copies,  ib  there  are  alio 
 twelve  that  are  not  found  in  div.ers  Greek  Manufcnpt  Copies  of  the 
 GoipeJ  of  S.  J.ebns  nor  in  fôme  Verhons  of  the  Oriental  Church. 
 Thele  Verfès  begin  at  the  end  of  Chap.  vii.  v.  ^.  and  end  at  thé  1 1 
 verfe  of  the  following  Chapter,  inlomuch  that  they  comprehend 
 the  whole  Hillary  of  the  Woman  taken  in  Adultery.     S.  Jeroms 
 manner  of  Expreflion  in  fpeaking  of  this  Relation,  makes  it  ap- 
 pear that  it  was  not  read  in  his  time  in  fbme  Greek  a*hd  Latin  Copies. 
 Hier  on.      In  Rvangelio  fecund iim  Joannem,  (faith  this  Father)  in  mult  is  ejr  Grœcis 
 1. 1.  adv.    &  Latin  is  codicil  isegnvemtur  de  adultéra  muliere  quœ  accu  fat  a  eft  apud 
 PeL-g-        Dominum.     Sixttts\sfrenfis3  who  hath  obferved  that  the  Anabaptifts 
 t.Scn.  made  ufe  of  the  Authority  of  S.  Jerom  and  the  Teftimony  of  fome 
 l.j.BibLS.  other  ancient  Writers,  T>  mew  that  the  Hiftory  of  the  adulterous 
 Woman  had  been  added  to  the  Gofpel  of  S.  John,  hath  not  fîiffi- 
 ciently  anfwered  their  Objections. 
 
 Maldonat,  who  had  thereupon  confulted  the  ancient  Interpreters 
 of  the  New  Teftament,  and  many  Manufcript  Copies,  is  much 
 more  exact:  he  freely  confeiTe&h,  (r)  that  of  a  conliderable  num- 
 ber oï  Greek  Copies  which  he  had  read,  he  found  it  but  in  one.  (/) 
 It  was  not  ( faith  he)  in  the  mod  ancient  Copy  of  the  Vatican,  which 
 I  have  often  cited  ;  nor  in  the  Catena  or  Collection  of  Greek  Fa- 
 thers, that  contains  twenty  three* Authors:  and  yet  there  is  not#one 
 of  them  that  makes  mention  of  this  Hiftory  ;  even  thofe  that  are 
 printed,  viz.  Origen,  Clemens  Alexandrians ,  Chryfoftcm,  Nonnits  and 
 Theopbjlacl,  do  (ay  nothing  to  it,  though  Chryfoftom  and  Theophylatl 
 have  written  Commentaries  on  the  whole  Goipel  of  S.  John.  Laft- 
 ly,  Maldonat  adds,  that  of  all  the  Greek  Authors  that  have  written 
 on  S.  John,  Ruthy mitts  alone,  who  is  a  Writer  of  thele  later  times, 
 hath  expounded  in  his  Annotations  this  Hiftory  of  the  adulterous 
 Woman,  and  he  hath  done  it  after  fuch  a  manner,  as  rather  fèems 
 to  derogate  from,  than  to  eftablifh  the  Authority  thereof:  for  he 
 informs  us  at  the  fame  time,  that  it  was  not  read  in  the  moft  correct 
 Copies  ;  and  that  even  in  thofe  where  it  was  found,  it  was  marked 
 with  an  Afterisk,  to  fhew  that  it  hath  been  added  to  the  Text  of 
 S.  John. 
 
 (r)  Confului  veteres  Grœcorum  codices  muhos  :  nullus  ex  manufcript  is  habebat 
 prater  unum.  Maldon.  Comm.  in  c.  8Joann. 
 
 (f)  Non  babebat  antiquijjlmus  ike  Vatican*  codex  quern  f apè  nominavimus,  non 
 Grœca  Catena,  m  quâ,  cùm  très  (3  vigmti  auttores  jlnt,  nemo  ejus  memimt.  Ila- 
 bemus  Grœcos  impreffos  multos,  Origcnem,  Clement  cm  Alexandrinum,  Cbryfofio- 
 mum,  Koyinum,  'ïbeopbylùlunu  Kcmo  eorum  legit,  ciim  Cbryfoftomus  &  Tbeophy- 
 latlus  firipfirint  m  tot  urn  Joanncm  Comment  ario  s  %   Maid.  ibid. 
 
 How- 
 
C  "9  ] 
 
 However,  trrâ  leaitied  Jefuif,  notwithltand-.   •         ...  and 
 
 fome  others  which  he  adds  in  this  feme  place,  infills,  that  all  this 
 Cnticifm  i        :  not  to  be  preferred  before  the  Authority  of  the 
 
 Council  of  Trent;  which  hath  acknowledged  as  Divine  and  Cano- 
 nical all  the  parts  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  as  they  are  at  prefer.:  read 
 in  the  Church:  he  concludes  from  thence,  that  ic  hath  alio  appro- 
 
 :  of  the  lfidorv  or  the  adulterous  Wqpian  a*  Canonical,  becaufè 
 it  is  a  part  of  S.  Jobnj  Go! pel  ;  and  that  i:  might  not  be  thought 
 that  he  abfblutely  relies  on  the  fole  Authority  of  the  Church,  he 
 produced!  lèverai  A&s ,  viz,,  the  very  Words  of  S.  Jerom  above 
 rchtcd. 
 
 This  Father  faith,  that  this  Revelation  was  found  in  his  time  in  Huron. 
 many  Copies  as  well  Greek  as  Latin  ;  In  malt  is  &  Grœcis  &  Latinis  1. 1.  ady* 
 codicibits  tn-vemtur  :  Moreover,  Ammcnius,  who  is  much  more  anci-  ^4£* 
 ent  than  S.  Jero?ny  hath  made  mention  thereof  in  his  Harmony  of 
 the  Goipels;    and  St.  Athanafuts  in  his  Sjwopfis  of  the  Holy  Scri- 
 ptures. 
 
 As  for  the  Authority  aFS.Chrjfoftom,  who  hath  taken  no  notice 
 of  it  in  his  Homilies  on  S  Jobn^  he  anfwers,  That  iince  this  Hifto- 
 ry  is  plain  and  ealie  to  be  underftood,  he  hath  not  judged  it  necef- 
 fary  to  expound  it;  belides,  this  Father  hath  fpoken  of  the  adulte- 
 rous Woman  in  another  Homily  on  S.  John  ;  and  there^is  no  pro-  Chryfcft, 
 bability  (adds  he)  chat"  what  he  faith  in  that  place  hath  been  after-  rJom.60, 
 wards  inferted  into  his  Text,  as  fome  have  thought.     He  adjoineth  pl  Jcam' 
 to  all  thele  Proofs  the  Teftimony  of  S.  Ambrose,  S.  Auguftin,  and 
 many  other  Fathers,  who  have  all  read  this  Hiftory,  and  have  ex- 
 plained it  in  their  Commentaries;  from  whence  he  concludes  at 
 lad,  that  it  hath  been  no  lefs  written  by  S.  John  than  the  reft  of  his 
 Gofpel  :  he  conjectures  that  it  hath  been  taken  away  by  fome  Grecian^ 
 who  hath  exeraled  his  critical  Talent  on  this  place  with  too  much 
 liberty. 
 
 I  have  a  little  enlarged  on  thefe  Reflections  of  Maldonat,  becaufè 
 they  clear  all  the  Difficulties  that  relate  to  the  Hiftory  of  the  adul- 
 terous Woman,  which  is  not  found  in  a  great  number  of  ancien: 
 Copies  :  but  f  ince  this  Jefuit  fpeaks  only  in  general  of  the  Manufcnpt 
 Books  which  he  quotes,  and  doth  not  produce  in  particular  what 
 is  contained  in  them,  I  Inall  endeavour  to  f apply  this  derecl,  by  the 
 fearch  that  1  have  made  into  thefe  Mmulenpts  with  as  much  exact- 
 ness as  poffibly  1  could. 
 
 I  ihall  begin  with  the  Commentary  of  Euthpnius,  of  which  I  have 
 only  (een  the  Latin  Veriion,  the  Greek  Copy  of  this  Author  being 
 
 ry  Icarce.    See  his  own  words  in  his  Remark  G;i  the  làft  \ 
 
 of 
 
[  l2°  ] 
 
 of  the  vii.  Chap,  of  S.  John,  (f  )  fVe  muft  know  that  that  which  is  read 
 hereto  thcfe  words,  Then  (pake  Je  fus  again  unto  them,  faying,  I 
 am  the  Light  of  the  World,  either  ?s  not  found  m  the  exatl  Copies,  or 
 is  mark.  an  Obelus.   Therefore  it  feems  to  have  been  written 
 
 after  ward  s  j  and  added;  and  this  is  a  proof,  that  S.  Chryfoitom  hath 
 made  no  mention  thereof.  This  Oblervation  of  Euthymim  is  jufhhed 
 by  the  Greek  Manufcript  Copies,  fbme  of  which  do  not  contain 
 this  Hiftory  ;  or  if  they  do*,  it  is  marked  with  an  Obelus  or  little 
 ftroke,  or  fome  fuch  like  note,  to  jhew  that  it  doth  not  belong  to 
 the  Text  of  the  Gofpel. 
 
 The  molt  ancient  Manufcript  Copy  of  the  Gofpels,  of  thofe  that 
 Cod.  MS.  are  in  the  King's  Library,  hath  not  the  twelve  Veries  that  are  now 
 Bill.  F(eg.  in  queition  ;  but  a  blank  (pace  is  left  in  the  place  wherein  they  Ihould 
 ?/.  2861.    jiave  j3een  wrjtten,  to  lignifie  that  they  were  in  fbme  Copies.    It  is 
 probable  that  the  Tranfcnber  that  hath  written  this  Manufcript  had 
 not  thefè  Veries  in  his  Copy,  becaufe  they  were  not  read  in  his 
 Church.     It  hath  been  a  cuftom  in  this  fort  of  Manufcripts  to  an- 
 nex to  the  end  of  the  Gofpel  of  S.  John  thefè  fame  Verfès,  wich 
 fbme  little  critical  Remark  ;  but  hnce  there  are  fome  Leaves  want- 
 ing at  the  end  of  this,  I  can  lay  nothing  to  it,  only  that  this  is 
 found  in  the  greateft  part  of  other  Manufcripts  of  this  nature,  as 
 \vc  may  judge  by  the  Manufcript  that  follows  this. 
 
 There  is  in  the  fame  Library  another  Manufcript  of  the  Gofpels, 
 to  which  is  adjoined  a  Collection  of  Commentators,  which  is  com- 
 monly called  Catena,  or  a  Chain.  There  are  found  in  this,  thcfe 
 twelve  Verfës  written  at  the  end  of  the  Gofpel  of  S.  John ,  with 
 this  note,  (u)  The  Verfes  marked  with  an  [Obelus]  are  not  m  fome  Co- 
 pes ,  nor  in  the  slpclinarian  ;  hut  they  are  all  m  the  ancient. 
 
 I  h.wc  fczn  in  the  Library  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Oratory  at  Taris, 
 a  like  Collection  or  Chain  of  Greek  Commentators  on  the  Gofpel 
 or  S.  John,  gathered  together  by  Nicetas:  The  Hiftory  of  the  adul- 
 terous Woman  is  not  joyned  to  the  Text  of  this  Chain,  but  only  to 
 the  end,  with  this  remark,  (x)  The  end  of  the  Gofpel  of  S.John;  and 
 
 (  f  )  Xf«  3  yvuewv  077  t&  IvT&Stv  efc'x^  TO,  7idhiv  &  iK&K)lcnv  tujrzic  o  'hxrvç 
 
 A/çwy'    J.'l  ÇcUVOvf)    7nX£$<^Ç$7lj CL   X^  <ïï£foti)iY)'    Xj  T«T«    TO    TlK(y.tieJOV    TV    fJM<ft.   T  XflW" 
 
 çoLtov  juifiiucvivczu  oùrV.    Euthym.  Ccmm.  in  Joann.  ex  cod.  MS.  Biblioth.  Keg. 
 
 n.  2401 
 
 (  U        Tct    dCiKlCT^iVct  ÏV    VW    CLVTl^eyWlC  *   KHVTOJ,    «/£  ' AmXlV CLtifû''    Iv    Q    TOli 
 
 dp%<ùoi<;  QKcLyiCiVTU.    MS   Bibl.  Rcp.  n.  i8^3- 
 
 t  1  TiK<&  t»  Xp  'IcocLwluj  IvctyfiKiv'  Xvçjv  q  xj  feTÇ£^.  iv  dçyaioiç  cLwffy?oi<> 
 a.7nç  QyjjeiJb(j>fJ  yçj)ju  ztrç}^TUD  7iA«  its  cuuTb  Iv&yfaj*,  a,  xj  ciei  7»W  x}  cî™jA- 
 3w  ln&r&rii  tov  $w  (unvy  Stt.    Cod.  Mb.  Ç;bl.  PP.  Orat.  PariC 
 
 after- 
 
[     ,2,     ] 
 
 afterwards,   But  there  are  found  fome  other  thing i  hi  th. 
 which  we  think  convenient  to  write  at  the  end  of  this  fame  Gc  pel,  viz. 
 And  every  man  went  unto  his  own  houfe,&cc.  to  the  end  or  the  eleventh 
 Verfè  of  the  eighth  Chapter  of  this  Gofpel.     This  fame  noce  is 
 found  at  the  end  ôf  another  like  Manufcript  Collection  or  Greek  I 
 thers  on  the  four  Gofpels,  which  is  in  the  King's  Library:  and  t 
 fame  thing  is  read  therein  at  the  end  of  S.  John  (y)  as  in  the  Copy 
 of  the  Oratory,  and  expreilèd  after  the  lame  manner.     This  con- 
 firms that  which  Maldonat  hath  above  obfërved  in  (peaking  or  theft 
 Greek  Chains,  in  which  the  Hiftory  of  the  adulterous  Woman  was 
 
 not  found. 
 
 Furthermore,  it  may  be  leen  by  the  Remarks  that  are  at  the  end 
 of  the  Manufcript  Copies  above  produced,  that  lome  Grecians  have 
 thought  that  there  was  no  reaibn  why  this  Hiftory  fliould  not  be 
 read  in  the  Text  of  S.  Johns  Gofpel  finoe  it  was  extant  in  the  an- 
 cient Copies:  I  believe  that  on  this  account  it  hath  b^en  added  in 
 the  Margin  of  another  Copy  in  the  King's  Library,  wherein  it  is  Ex  Cod. 
 not  written;  nevertheleis,  the  Addition  is  of  a  later  and  different  MS.BibL 
 hand  from  the  Text  :  This  Copy  is  written  very  curioufly,  and  the  ^fS63< 
 muhcal  Notes  that  are  marked  on  certain  Words  Kir  the  more  cade 
 finging  of  the  Gofpels,  make  it  appear  that  it  hath  been  made  for 
 the  ule  of  fome  Greek  Church.     It  is  very  probable  alfo,  that  thefe 
 Verfes  were  not  read  in  S.  Chryfofioms  Church,  iince  he  doth  not 
 expound  them  in  his  Homily  on  the  Section  of  S.  Jchn  where  we 
 read  them  at  prefent.     I  have  not  read  them  in  another  Copy  in 
 the  King's  Library  indorfèd  i860,  nor  in  one  of  thofe  that  are  in  Ex  Cod. 
 Mr.  Colberts  Library,  which  is  very  rich  in  all  forts  of  Manufcripts.  MS.Bibl. 
 There  is  in  this  laft  another  Manufcript,  wherein  all  this  Hiftory  ^r'~, 
 of  the  adulterous  Woman  is  indeed  written  with  the  fame  hand  £v2^t/' 
 as  the  whole  Text  of  S.  John;  but   this  mark   -f.  in  form  of  an  \ts.Bibl. 
 Afterisk  was  put  at  the  beginning  of  every  line,  as  if  it  were  delign-  Cg<'°- 
 ed  to  denote  that  it  was  taken  from  other  Copies,  and  that  it  had  *•  4U2, 
 been  infèrted  into  the  Text. 
 
 But  after  all,  it  is  certain  that  the  Greek  Manufcripts  in  which 
 this  Hiftory  is  written,  very  much  exceed  thofe  in  number  in  which 
 it  is  not  to  be  found;  and  among  thefè  iirft  theic  are  fome  very 
 ancient;  for  it  is  read  in  the  Copy  of  Cambridge ,  which  is  the  moft 
 ancient  of  any  that  we  have  at  this  day  :  we  can  fay  nothing  of  the 
 Alexandrian  Copy,  which  is  imperfect  in  this  place  :  it  is  alio  found 
 
 tt-ap»  (Tmitiéhy^J  yç^-^eu  t&S  riha  f*  aw*  l'J&y\i\i$*'  0.  'fit  nte/V  K)  st™\£ty  l&r®-. 
 MS.Bibl.  Reg.  n.  1869. 
 
 II  in 
 
[   tzz] 
 
 Cod  MS.  in  a  very  ancient  Manufcript  written  in  Capital  Letters.,  which  is 
 Bibl.Coiv.  in  Mr.  Cûtt^r/'$  Library,  and  was  brought  from  Cyprus. 
 5I^9'        It  is  worth  the  obferving,  that  there  are  fome  Manufcripts  where- 
 in thefe  Verfcs  are  not  only  read  after  the  fame  manner  as  the 
 reft  of  the  Text,  but  the  y^akouov  or  Chapter  that  anfwers  to  this 
 Hiftory  is  marked  in  the  Margin  :  thus  in  one  of  the  Manufcripts 
 oï  the  King's  Library,  we  read  in  this  place  at  the  bottom  of  the 
 Cod.M>.  Page  thefe  Words,  <&ï  w  tMi&hU®-,  of  the  adulterous  Woman  ;  and 
 H?g*  in  the  beginning  of  the  Gofpel  of  S.  John,  wherein  are  put  Caccor- 
 ~—6*'    ding  to  the  ufual  manner  of  Greek  Manufcripts)  all  the  m&*&*> 
 Chapters  or  Contents  of  this  Gofpel,  that  of  <**  -nit  ^/#t;J^©-,  the 
 adulterous  IVoman,  is  found  with  the  other  Chapters.     But  out  of  a 
 very  great  number  of  Manufcripts  that  I  have  conlulted  thereupon, 
 in  which  the  v^d\^±i  Contents,  are  fet  at  the  Head  of  every  Gof 
 pel,  I  could  find  but  two,  that  are  in  the  Kings  Library,  in  which 
 there  was  a  particular  iup*kcuov  or  Summary  for  this  Hiftory. 
 
 Neverthelefs,  it  is  certain  that  it  hath  been  read,  at  leaft  for  fome 
 Ages,  in  all  the  Greek  Churches,  becaufe  it  is  contained  in  their 
 Cod.  MS.  L^clionaries  of  the  Gofpels:  I  have  read  it  in  a  Manufcript  Copy 
 hil'.Rrr.  0f  tn;s  Ledionary,  but  it  is  not  ancient  :  we  may  obferve,  that  there 
 l884«  are  at  the  end  of  them  fome  Gofpels  for  certain  Feftivals,  which 
 fèem  to  be  as  it  were  without  the  Work  :  they  might  be  added  ac- 
 cording as  the  Ecclefiaftical  Oifice  of  the  Grecians  hath  been  aug- 
 mented ;  and  this  is  common  to  all  thefe  Offices.  See  the  Title, 
 (z>)  Gofpels  for  divers  Commemorations  of  Saints.  Thefe  Gofpels  are 
 not  for  the  Feftivals  of  Saints  in  particular,  but  only  in  general  ; 
 as  for  example  (  a  )  for  the  Angels,  for  the  Prophets,  for  an  Apo- 
 ftle,  for  the  chief  Priefts,  for  the  Martyrs,  and  for  many  others  ; 
 there  are  iome  alio  for  the  habit  of  a  Monk,  and  of  a  Nun,  for 
 the  infirm,  for  Earthquakes,  &c  Laftly,  there  are  two  for  thqfe 
 that  confeis,  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  ex- 
 prefied  in  thefè  terms ,  (  b  )  In  that  time  the  Scribes  and  Pharifees 
 brought  unto  Jefus  a  Woman  taken  in  Adultery i  and  the  reft'  to  thofe 
 Words,  go,  arfd  Cm  vq  mere.  There  is  in  the  King's  Library  a  veiy 
 ancient  Leclionary  of  «the  Gofpels  ;  but  fince  it  is  not  entire,  and 
 
 (z3  *i  vAyyit.icL  Ht  J)cl<[>qçx{  (M/iipcy  iyiQV,  Leclion.  Evanr. 
 
 (  a  )  Elf  7»\i  ÀcuujxrTtç'  h\  7&\»  cr&ctnus'  Hi  amvçvhov*  Hi  arnçctoç'  Hi  IkWf- 
 "/jlÇ  ni  fjuLfTjpai'  hç  dytdM  imL^tjc^'  hç  <)iï(x&  (stovayji'  àç  ynfJA  uovct%ji'  ti{  &<$*- 
 
 TWi'  m  ei&tp*ffw>    ùç  choja'ov,  &c.   LcJtion.  Evangel,  ex  cod.  ivb.  Bibl.  Rt-g. 
 n.  18&4. 
 
 (  b  )  'E*  tw  x.fiUfw  iu'.vo  ayutn  tJ  'Ihctb  01  T&uquLlfïi  &  0l  ftcteÀffiut  ywcu&) 
 &c.  ufquc  ai  wmti  d^çro-vt.  Lection.  Evang. 
 
 the 
 
the  Utter  part  of  it  being  wanting,  I  can  fay  nothing  of  the  An 
 quity  of  this  Gofpel  that  is  recited  to  Women  when  i        :onfefi, 
 and  is  int:     .  \}  'Bid  fit  cÇopoAoJityAW  ymmm. 
 
 The  Proof  t ha        Idonat  ailedgcth,  I       i  out  of  the  Harmony 
 of  Ammonius  Alexa* uirimts^  wherein  this  Hiftory  or  the  Adulti 
 found,  is  more  pofitive  and  concluding,  bêcaufê  this  Writer  li 
 in  the  firft  Ages  of  the  Church:  [  lhall  only  obfervc  by  the  w 
 that  in  the  Htblictheca  Tatrum3  the  Work  of  Tartan  hath  be       print- 
 
 under  die  Name  of  Ammonius ,  and  that  of 'Ammonium-: 
 Name  oîTaùan%  who  hath  Mb  inferred  this  Hiftory  into 
 tome  of  the  four  Golpcls.     There  are  nevertheless  (cm  is 
 
 that  may  caufè  us  to  quciHon  whether  this  Work  were  Ta:  ,  or 
 not  :  now  whereas  he  hath  written  before  Ammonius,  a  better  tefti- 
 mony  of  the  Antiquity  of  this  Hiftory  cannot  be  given  than  that 
 which  is  taken  from  his  Collection:  but  becaufe  there  are  (bme  Ar-  ■ 
 guments  that  feem  to  prove  that  he  composed  it  as  well  from  the 
 Hebrew  as  from  the  four  Greek.  Gofpels,  there  will  be  always  mat- 
 ter of  doubt  whether  he  hath  not  followed  in  this  the  Hebrew  or 
 Chaldatck  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew  wherein  it  was  contained  ;  infbmueh 
 that  it  cannot  be  certainly  demonftrated  what  was  the  Gofpel  of 
 S.  John  from  the  time  of  Titian  the  Difciple  ot  S.  Jujhn  Martyr. 
 
 Selden,  nevertheleis,  who  hath  been  cited  by  TYalœits  on  this  place 
 of  S.  John 3  infills  very  much  upon  thefe  two  ancient  Writers,  to 
 mew  that  this  Hiftory  was  ever  lince  the  Primitive  Ages,  in  the 
 Copies  of  the  Eaftern  Church  :  this  he  confirms  by  the  Canons  that 
 Eufibim  hath  added  to  the  Harmony  of  Ammonius:  and  he  concludes 
 
 m  thence,  that  Eufebius  alio  read  it  in  his  Copy  of  the  New  Te- 
 itament,  becauiè  it  is  marked  m  thefè  Canons  :  but  it  doth  not  ap- 
 pear that  Selden  hath  very  carefully  examined  the  Canons  of  Eitfi- 
 btus  ;  for  there  is  no  number  or  mark  of  a  Se&ion  that  anfwers  in 
 particular  to  the  Hiftory  of  the  adulterous  Woman  :  the  twelve  Ver- 
 lès  of  which  it  is  compofed,  are  contained  in  the  preceding  £?.  86. 
 Section,  as  may  be  (een  in  thefe  Sections  or  Numbers  that  are  print- 
 ed in  the  Greek  New  Teftament  of  Rcbert  Stephen,  and  in  tome  other 
 Editions:  the  Greek  Manuicnpt  Copies  do  agree  in  this  Point  with 
 the  printed  ;  and  that  which  clearly  proves  that  there  is  no  num- 
 ber or  Section  of  the  Canons  of  Eufebius  that  refers  m  particular  to 
 the  aforefaid  twelve  Verfès,  is,  that  this  fame  number  err  86.  is  allô 
 marked  m  the  Manufcnpt  Copies  wherein  they  are  not  found  : 
 therefore  it  cannot  be  inferred  from  the  diftribution  or  order  of 
 die  Canons,  that  Eufebius  hath  read  the  Hiftory  of  the  Adultrck;  in 
 that  Book  to  which  he  hath  annexed  them  ;  however,  it  is  not  to 
 
 R   2 
 
[»4] 
 
 Seld.afud  be  denied  that  SeUen  and  Walaus  have  had  reafon  (c)  to  accufe 
 
 vi'ALCom.  tjie  Qreciam  m  general  of  afluming  to  themfelves  too  much  liberty 
 
 m  Joan.    -m  correcting  their  Copies,  adding  to,  or  diminifhing  from  them 
 
 fbmetimes  according  to  their  own  humour;  and  perhaps  they  have 
 
 exercifed  this  critical  Faculty  too  liberally  on  this  place  of  S.  John  as 
 
 well  as  on  many  others. 
 
 This  fame  Hiftory  of  the  adulterous  Woman  is  not  found  neither 
 in  the  Syriack  Verfion  that  Wulmanftadius  hath  publifhed  from  good 
 Manuscript  Copies,  of  which  there  hath  been  fince  feveral  other 
 Editions  ;  neverthelefs  it  is  in  (bme  Syriack  Copies,  from  whence  it 
 hath  been  taken,  and  inferted  into  the  Polyglott  Bible  of  England  ; 
 it  is  read  alio  in  the  Arabick  Tranflations  that  have  been  printed  ac 
 Rome  and  in  Holland:  from  whence  we  may  conclude,  that  it 
 is  read  at  prefent  as  well  in  all  the  Eaftern  as  in  the  Weftern 
 •  Churches. 
 
 However,  Bez,a,  after  he  hath  affirmed,  (d)  that  of  feventeen  an- 
 cient Manufcripts  which  he  had  read,  this  Hiftory  was  wanting  but 
 in  one  of  them,  doth  not  forbear  to  fufped  it,  becaufè  the  ancient 
 Ecclefiaftical  Writers  (  as  he  faith  )  have  either  unanimoufly  reject- 
 ed it,  or  have  been  filent  therein:  he  faith  moreover,  that  it  is  not 
 probable  that  Jefus  Chrift  mould  have  remained  alone  in  the  Tem- 
 ple with  a  Woman  ;  that  this  Relation  doth  not  cohere  with  what 
 follows;  and  that  that  which  is  faid  of  Jefus  Chrift,  that  he  wrote 
 with  his  finger  on  the  ground,  is  a  very  extraordinary  thing,  and 
 difficult  to  be  explained.  Laftly ,  the  great  diverfity  of  Readings 
 that  is  found  in  the  Greek  Copies  in  that  place,  caufeth  him  to  doubt 
 of  the  Verity  of  this  Hiftory. 
 
 Calvin  diicourfeth  with  a  great  deal  more  moderation,  and  feems 
 
 al(o  to  be  more  reafonabl^than  his  Difciple,  in  his  Commentary 
 
 on  this  Paffage  ;  It  is  well  known  (faith  he)  that  the  ancient  Greci- 
 
 Calv-  ç     ans  knew  nothing  of  this  prefent  Hiftory  ;  and  therefore  fome  have  conje- 
 
 S°lean.     clurei  that  it  hath  been  taken  from  fome  other  place,  and  added  here  : 
 
 c.Y  v.  i.   but  forajmuch  as  it  hath  been  always  received  in  the  Latin   Churches, 
 
 and  is  found  in  many  Copes  and  ancient  Books  of  the  Grecians,  and  con- 
 
 (c)  Mir  uni  non  eft  infeculis  primitives  exemplariafuifte  hodicque  manere,  qui" 
 bus  ha  aiiccve  periocha  facra  deejjènt,  cùm  jcilicet  audacium  nimis  exferiptorum 
 complurium  mo  s  turn  rjjet  aliter  at  que  aliter  pro  multiplier  judiciorum  dijcrimine 
 Uvangelia  variatim  emendare,  augere,  minuere.  Quod  monet  Hieronjrmus,  Sec. 
 Sell  d  Wal.  Comm.  in  Joann. 
 
 (à)  Ex  vetuJHs  noflris  codicibus  17.  tmus  duntaxat  ill  am  non  babeM.  Jn  re- 
 liquisfcripta  quidem  eft,  Jed  it  a  ut  mira  fit  lechoms  varietas.  Bcz,  Annot.  in  Joan, 
 c.  7.  v,  5 j. 
 
 Utmg 
 
C  »M  3 
 
 tains  nothing  that  is  unworthy  of  an  Apoftdical  Spirit,  there  is  no  ca: 
 why  we  jhould  refufe  to  make  a  good  ufe  of  it. 
 
 Bifides  that  which  wc  have  juit  now  obfcrved  concerning  the 
 Hiftory  of  the  Woman  taken  in  Adultery,  which  is  not  found  in 
 many  Greek  Copies,  fbme  Criticks  have  alio  believed,  that  the  Lift 
 Chapter  of  the  Gofpel  of  S.  John  was  not  written  by  this  Evangelift. 
 Indeed  it  (eems  as  if  he  deligned  to  finilh  his  Hiftory  with  thefe 
 words,  Chap.  20.  50.  And  many  other  figns  truly  did  Jefus  in  the  pre- 
 fence  of  his  Difciples,  which  are  not  written  in  this  Book,  &C.  Gfotiusy 
 who  is  of  this  Opinion,  (e)  affirms,  that  the  reft  of  this  Gofpel  hath 
 been  added  after  the  Death  of  S.  John  by  the  Church  of  Ephefus, 
 after  the  fame  manner  as  the  laft  Chapter  of  the  Pentateuch,  and 
 the  laft  Chapter  of  the  Hiftory  of  Jojima  have  been  annexed  to 
 thefe  Books  of  the  Sanhedrim  of  the  Jews;  but  he  allcdgeth  no  fo- 
 lid  proof  of  what  he  (6  freely  avoucheth  :  fomething  indeed  might 
 have  been  added  to  the  Hiftory  of  Mo  ft  s  and  Jojhua  after  their  ds- 
 ceafe,  becaufe  (as  I  have  elfewhere  obferved  )  they  whofè  Office  it 
 was  amongft  the  Hebrews  to  write  the  Annals  of  this  Republic!*, 
 have  continued  their  Hiftories  ;  and  therefore  thefe  two  Chapters 
 cannot  be  properly  called  Additions,  but  rather  a  Continuation  of 
 the  Chronicle  of  this  Commonwealth.  This  cafe  is  not  the  fame 
 as  that  of  the  Gofpel  of  S.  John,  for  the  Church  of  Ephefus  was  not 
 charged  to  continue  it.  It  may  be  (aid,  that  the  laft  Chapter  of 
 this  Gofpel  hath  not  been  put  in  its  proper  place,  and  that  there 
 hath  happened  fbme  change  with  refpeét  to  the  order  and  iequence 
 
 the  Words  ;  but  if  we  retted  on  the  Stile  of  S.  John,  and  the 
 little  regard  to  a  Method  or  Coherence  that  appears  throughout  his 
 whole  Book,  we  jhall  rather  impute  to  himfelf  thefe  final!  Defects 
 which  alter  not  the  Verity  of  this  Hiftory. 
 
 (e)  Sicut  caput  ultimum  Pentateuehi  &  caput  ultimum  Joftia  poft  Mojls  & 
 JoJ'ihc  mortem  additum  eft  à  Synedrio  Hebrœorum  :  it  a  <3  caput  food  Ce  quit  ur  pofi 
 mortem  Jcaums  additum  ab  Eccleftà  Epbeftna.    Grot.  Annot.  ad.  cap!  20.  J<; 
 tcrC  30. 
 
 HAP. 
 
C  126] 
 
 Chap.    XiV. 
 
 Of  the  AFis  of  the  Apoftles  that  have  been  received  in  the 
 Church.     Other  Alls  of  the  Apoftles  that   have  been 
 forged. 
 
 A 
 
 Lthough  there  have  been  feveral  different  Ads  that  bear  the 
 Name  of  the  Apoftles,  yet  the  Church  hath  received  none 
 a>  true  but  thofè  that  we  now  read  at  this  day  under  this  Title,  and 
 which  all  Antiquity  attributes  to  S.  Luke:  this  is  the  reaibn  that  in 
 fbme  Manufcnpt  Greek  Copies  we  find  the  name  of  this  Evangelift 
 at  the  beginning  of  this  Work;  he  declares  himfelfin  his  Preface, 
 that  he  is  the  Author  of  it,  prefenting  it  to  his  VnznaTheophilus,  to 
 whom  he  had  already  dedicated  his  Gofpel. 
 
 S.  Jerom  affirmeth,  (a)  that  this  Hiftory  was  written  at  Rome, 
 and  that  it  extends  to  the  fourth  Year  of  Nero,  which  was  (accord- 
 ing to  his  Opinion,)  the  fécond  of  S.  Paul's  abode  in  that  great  City. 
 The  Author  of  the  Synopfis  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  thought  (V)  that 
 the  Aéts  of  the  Apoftles  had  been  preached  by  S.  Peter,  and  that 
 S.  Luke  had  afterwards  committed  them  to  Writing  ;  but  S.  Luke 
 hath  recorded  almoft  nothing  elfe  but  matters  of  fad:  of  which  he 
 himfelf  had  been  a  witnefs.  And  this  is  the  difference  that  S.  Je- 
 bid°  rom  ma^es  Detween  tne  Gofpel  of  this  Difciple  of  the  Apoftles,  and 
 the  A£ts,  in  regard  that  not  having  fèenjefus  Chnft,  he  could  not 
 write  his  Gofpel,  but  on  that  which  he  had  learned  from  others, 
 fient  audierat  fcripfit  ;  whereas  having  followed  S.  Paul  in  the  molt 
 part  of  his  Travels,  he  was  an  eye-witnefs  of  his  Actions,  and  there- 
 fore he  hath  publifhed  nothing  but  what  he  had  feen  himfelf,  faut 
 viderat  ipfe  compofuit. 
 
 Although  jhe  Title  indeed  of  this  Hiftory  bears  the  name  of  all 
 the  Apoftles  in  general,  neverthelefs  it  informs  us  of  very  few  things 
 concerning  them ,  only  conduding  them  to  the  time  when  they 
 dilperfed  chcmfelves  into  divers  Provinces  to  preach  the  Gofpel. 
 S.  Luke  comes  after  this  to  S.  Paul's  Travels,  who  was  accompanied 
 with  S.  Barnabas ,  without  defcribing  the  Itineraries  of  the  other 
 
 (a)  Cnjus  hiftoria  itfque  ad  biennium  I^omx  commorantis  Fault  pervenit,  id  eft 
 ufque  ad  quart um  Neroms  annum.  Ex  quo  intelligimus  in  eadem  urbc  librum  ejfe 
 comfofitum.   Hieron  de  Script.  Eccl.  in  Lucii. 
 
 7D  jj  u  auiiç  a*j(£V.   Àthan.  in  Synopf. 
 
 Apoftles  ; 
 
C  w  ] 
 
 Apoftles;  neither  doth  he  finilh  even  thole  of  S.  Paul.    If  it  be  d 
 manded  why  S.  Luke  hath  not  perfected  his  HiftorVj  z\k\  whv  he 
 hath  not  left  us  in  Writing  the  reft  of  thole  Actions  of  which  he 
 was  a  Witnefs?  I  have  no  other  Anfiver  to  nuke,  but  that  which 
 S.  Join  Chryfoftom  hath  already  made  to  thofe  that  in  his  tin. 
 cd  the  fame  Qiieftion.  This  learned  Bilhop  faith.  That  what  S  Luke  C 
 hath  written  in  this  matter  is  fufficient  for  thofe  that  will  apply  l 
 themfelves  to  it;  that  the  Apoftles  moreover,  and  their  Difcipl 
 who  preached  the  Gofpel  of  jefus  Chrift,  (O  have  always  ihnft 
 on  that  which  was  moll  neceilary;  that  they  did  not  ftudy  to  write 
 Hiftories,  becaufè  they  have  left  many  things  to  the  Churches  by 
 Tradition  only.     And  this  ought  to  be  conlidered  ;  for  it  is  certain 
 that  the  principal  bufïnefs  and  care  of  the  Apoftles  was  to  preach 
 the  Gofpel ,  and  that  they  would   have  written  nothing  of  their 
 Preachings,  if  they  had  not  been  earneftly  follicitcd  by  the  Peo- 
 ple whom  they  had  înftruded.     The  Chriftian  Religion  might  be 
 preferved  without  any  Writings,  by  Tradition  'alone. 
 
 S.  CLryfoJlom  complains  in  the  lame  place,  that  that  little  we  have 
 of  the  Hiftory  of  the  Apoftles  was  ib  neglecled  in  his  time,  that 
 "many  were  not  only  ignorant  of  the  Author,  but  they  did  not  know 
 whether  it  had  been  written.  It  feems  that  the  Gofpels  and  the  Epi- 
 ftles  of  S.  Paul  were  then  only  accounted  to  belong  to  the  New  Te- 
 ftament;  perhaps  none  but  thefe  two  Works  were  read  in  the 
 Churches  in  thelè  Primitive  Ages.  We  fee  alio,  that  the  Books  that 
 are  confècrated  for  the  ufè  or  the  Greek  Churches,  do  only  bear 
 theie  two  Titles,  vit,.  'Ev&yyihtov  Gofpel,  and  'ArroW©-  Apoftle  ;  ne- 
 verthelefs,  afterwards  this  laft  Book  hath  been  named  Ti&*tuîmv>h& , 
 becaufè  it  contains,  befîdes  the  Epiftles  of  S.  Paul,  the  belt  pare  of 
 the  Ads  oi  the  Apoftles,  and  even  the  other  Books  of  the  New 
 Teftamcnt. 
 
 Whereas  this  Hillory^  that  comprehends  the  principal  Actions  of 
 S.  Paul  is  fhort,  a  certain  Prieft  of  A  fia,  fince  the  Primitive  times 
 of  Chnftianity,  thought  fit  to  add  to  it,  in  form  of  a  Supplement, 
 another  Book,  intituled,  The  Travels  o/Paul  and  Thecla.  We  are 
 informed  by  Tertulhan,  (d)  that  fbme  Women  made  u(e  of  the 
 Ads,  to  prove  by  the  Authority  of  tins  Holy  Apoftle,  that  it  was 
 
 (  e  )  "O-p  <s&{  7*  •j&msHyW'TV.  SJk  îçrtvrv,  ^  (  077  )  '«*  lv  tçJ  h<irfe$%w  \jjj  ewr 
 w  œw/m"  TrcMa  $  x)  <t'x*W  rv&Som  Moi&ti.  Joana  Chrjfolt.  Horn.  I.  in  A£t 
 Ap 
 
 1  )  Quod  fi  qua  Paul»  perperkm  [cripta  legttnt  cxemplum  TnccU  ad  Ucentiam 
 v.h  lerum  docendi  tinge nai que  d  fendunt,  filant  in  Afia  preihyterum  q  u 
 ft  tfintxit  quafi  titulo  Paufi  de  fuo  cumulons,  c        fuma 
 
 ?*nU  fecijfî,  leco  dec.  Tertuil.  lib.  de  Bipt.  c.  1  7. 
 
 lawful 
 
[u8] 
 
 lawful  for  them  to  preach  in  the  Churches  and  to  baptize.    This  Fa- 
 ther anfwers  thofe  that  alleged  the  Teftimony  of  S.  Paul  taken 
 from  thefe  Ads,  that  the  Prieft  of  A  fia,  the  Author  of  them,  had 
 been  convided  that  he  had  forged  them,  and  that  he  himfelf  had 
 avouched  that  he  was  induced  to  compofè  them  by  the  love  that  he 
 had  for  this  Apoftle.     He  folidly  confutes  them,  bjk  making  it  ap- 
 pear, that  thefe  Ads  contained  a  Dodrine  altogether  contrary  to 
 that  of  S.  Paul,     (e)  What  probability    is   there  ( faith  he)  that 
 S.  Paul  mould  grant  to  Women  a  power  to  teach  and  to  baptize, 
 who  hath  not  (o  much  as  permitted  them  to  learn  in  the  Church, 
 forbidding  them  abfolutely  to  fpeak  therein  ? 
 Hierov.         S.  Jerom,  who  hath  made  mention  of  thefe  Ads  publifhed  under 
 dejcritt.    the  Title  of  the  Travels  of  Paul  and  Thecla,  adds,  that  it  was  S.  John 
 Eccle/.in  t^lt  cau(ed  the  Prieft  that  compofed  them  to  be  convided  of  Forge- 
 Luca'       ry  :  Tertullian  neverthelefs,  whom  he  cites  in  this  Padâge,  doth  not 
 fpeak  of  S.  John;  he  faith  only,  that  this  Prieft  was  of  Afia.    Pope 
 Gelaf.       Gelafius  hath  put  this  Book  in  the  number  of  Apocryphal  Works. 
 Deer.  i.    Baroriim  diftinguifheth  thefë  falfè  Ads  of 'Thecla  from  others  that  give 
 ■part.dijl.  an  account  of  the  Life  and  Martyrdom  of  this  Saint:  lie  fupports 
 3'    the  Authority  of  thefe  laft  by  the  Teftimony  of  feveral  Fathers  who  " 
 Baron.an.  have  quoted  them;  and  among  others,  by  that  of  S.  Epiphanii/s,  who 
 c  47-  w-  3,  relying  on  the  credit  of  thefe  Ads,  relates  that  Thecla  having  efpou- 
 4>&  5-     fed  a  very  rich  and  noble  man,  broke  off  her  Marriage  after  me  had 
 fil?hla    heard  S.  Paul:  This  Cardinal  adds,  that  Fauftus,  a  famous  Mamchean, 
 n™'tJ      hath  produced  this  fame  Hiftory  of  Thecla,  and  that  he  hath  taken 
 occafion  from  thence  to  condemn  the  Dodrine  of  S.  Paul  as  abomi- 
 nable, becaufe  he  had  compelled  by  his  Difcourfes  a  married  Wo- 
 man to  continue  in  perpetual  Continency.    S.  Auguftin  fadds  Baro- 
 mus  farther)  who  rehearfeth  thefe   Words  of  Fauflm,  and  exadly 
 anfwers  his  Objedions,  doth  not  rejed  as  Apocryphal  thefè  laft 
 Ads  that  are  intituled  the  Martyrdom  of  Thecla. 
 
 But  it  is  probable,  that  thefe  laft  Ads  have  been  taken  from  the 
 former;  and  it  is  no  wonder  that  the  Fathers  have  made  ufè  of  an 
 Apocryphal  Book,  that  was  compofed  by  an  Impoftor,  becaufe  there 
 were  many  true  things  in  thefe  Travels  of  Paul  and  Thecla.  How- 
 ever it  be,  I  think  it  is  more  convenient  to  rejed  them  altogether, 
 than  to  approve  of  one  part  and  to  condemn  the  other,  becaufe  it 
 would  be  very  difficult  to  diftinguifh  that  which  was  true  from  the 
 falfe.  If  we  may  judge  by  the  Fragments  that  remain,  this  Work 
 was  filled  with  Fables  ;  for  we  find  therein,  that  Thecla,  being  the 
 
 (  f  )   Quhm  emm  fidci  frcximum  viderctur^  ut  is  docendi  &  tingendi  ckret  fe- 
 mnut  potcftatem,  qui  ne  difecre  quidem  confianter  mulieri  permijlt.  Tertull.  ibid. 
 
 Companion 
 
C  129  ] 
 
 Companion  of  S.  Paul  in  his  Travels,  had  in  fome  mcifiirc  a  mare 
 
 in  his  Apoftlefhip:  it  is  declared  in   rhefe  A£h  that  (he  preached 
 
 and  baptized;  and  S.Jerow,  who  without  doubt  had  road  them, H*fim# 
 
 makes  mention  of  the  Baptifm^rf"  a  Lion,  which  is  the  caufe  that 
 
 he  efreems  them  as  fallc  and  Apocryphal  Books.    rise^cA©-  Pauli  & 
 
 Tbedct  |  (àith  this  FatherJ  &  tot  am  bapti^att  leon/s  fabulam  inter  apo- 
 
 cryphas  fcriptttras  computamrts. 
 
 Whereas  the  Apoftles  and  their  Di (ci pies  have  lefc  us  no  rela- 
 tions of  their  Travels  in  Writing,  but  that  which  we  have  con- 
 cerning thofe  of  S.  Paul  and  S.  Bamabar,  this  gave  occahon  to  the 
 counterfeiting  of  fome  under  their  Names.  Some  fa  lie  Acts  have 
 been  publifhcd  under  thefe  Titles,  The  Travels  of  Peter,  the  Travels 
 o/'John,  the  Travels  of  Thorn  is,  and  many  others  of  this  fort:  there 
 was  one  alio  called  in  general,  The  Itinerary  3  or  Travels  of  the  Apo- 
 ftles.  Thus  have  they  endeavoured  ever  fince  the  Primitive  Ages 
 of  the  Chrifhan  Religion,  by  this  means  ro  fupply  that  which  foem- 
 ed  to  be  wanting  in  the  Hiftory  of  the  Apoftles,  as  if  it  were  ne- 
 ceilàry  that  the  Church  Ihould  have  all  their  Actions  in  Writing  : 
 but  thefè  Books  were  rejected  with  the  common  confènt  of  all  the 
 Catholick  Churches,  as  Suppofititious  and  Apocryphal;  infbmuch, 
 that  of  all  the  Acts  of  the  Apoftles  that  have  been  publifhcd,  none 
 have  been  preferved  but  thofe  that  were  compofed  by  S.  Luke. 
 
 Nevertheleis,  there  were  fbme  Sectaries  from  the  very  i\\'\\:  be- 
 ginning of  Chriftianity,  who  being  Enemies  to  S.  Paul,  abfolutely 
 condemned  this  Hiftory  written  by  S.  Luke  his  faithful  Companion 
 in  his  Travels.  The  Ebionites,  who  treated  this  Apoftle  as  an  Apo- 
 ftate,  feeing  that  the  Acts  that  had  been  received  in  the  Church 
 contradicted  their  Doctrine,  (f)  compofèd  new  ones,,  which  they 
 filled  with  Impieties  and  Calumnies  againft  S.  Paul  t  that  no  cre- 
 dit might  be  given  to  the  Hiftory  of  S  Luke  :  they  invented  I  know 
 not  what  Fables  to  render  this  holy  Apoftle  odious  ;  and  they  gave 
 them  out  as  the  true  Reafons  that  had  obliged  him  (jj-  )  to  write 
 againft  the  Circumcifion,  the  Sabbath,  and  the  Old  Law.  (  h)  They 
 made  life  of  thefè  new  Acts  of  the  Apoftles  (faith  Epiph  anius )  to 
 invalidate  the  Truth.     The  Encratites  or  Sevcrians,  (  ;  )  who  acknow- 
 
 Epiph  Hur.  30.  n.  16. 
 
 (  g  )  KfltTtt  &mv(jiMS  ytfçgLQivaji  x}  xj1  otxCCAtm  ^  voitoStiriau.    Epiph.  ibid, 
 (h  )     £v$\v  «  -mtpipyH  y(p  *?  ÀKnSÛa;  iajjitfj  co-nktow/.    Epiph*  ibid 
 
 Tldvhov  t  )L~ri&Kov  ÀSïTuoit  lux*  -mt  ^hçzKeti,  ^Jî  t*<;  &&&{  tÇÏ  arm&kvv  *&- 
 luJlft/u&iJot.    Eufeb.  Hut.  Eccl.  lib.  4.  cap.  29. 
 
 S  ledgei 
 
lectged,  with  the  Orthodox,  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Gofpeîs, 
 loaded  S.  Paul  alfo  with  bitter  Inventives  and  Reproaches,  and  en- 
 tirely rejected  his  Epiftles  with  the  Acts  of  the  Apoftles. 
 
 Laftly,  the  Manicheans,  who  e%emed  their  Patriarch  Manic  bee 
 rrot  only  as  an  Apoftle,  but  as  the  Taraclet  or  Comforter  that  was 
 promifcd,  did  not  allow  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles,  becaufe  the  de- 
 scent of  the  Holy  Ghoft  is  therein  declared,     (k)  If  they  fhould 
 receive  thefè  Acts  f  faith  S.  Auguftm)  in  which  ex  pre  (s  mention  is 
 made  of  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  they  could  not  fay  that  he 
 had  been  lent  to  them  in  thePerfbn  of  Manichee.     But  let  us  leave 
 thefe  Enthufiafts,  who  had  no  other  reafon  to  refule  the  Books  that 
 were  approved  by  the  whole  Church  than  this,  becaufè  they  did 
 not  fuit  with  the  Idea  that  they  had  formed  of  the  Chriftian  Reli- 
 gion :  This  was  the  caufe  (according  to  Tertullian)  that  the  Mar- 
 bbiadw  clonitei  did  not  regard  the  Acts  of  the  Apoftles.     I  (hall  fay  nothing 
 M&c.c.i.  here  concerning   the   Ads  of  Barnabas  that  have  been  published 
 under  the   Name  of  John  furnamed  Mark;   (I)  which  are  very 
 difpleafing  to  Baromm,  and  have  been  manifeftiy  forged,  being  alio 
 contrary  in  fbme  things  to  the  true  Acts  of  the  Apoftles,  as  this 
 Cardinal  hath  oblervcd. 
 
 (  k  )  Si  illos  AStus  Apoftolorum  acciperent ,  in  quibus  evidcnter  adventus  Spi- 
 rit its  S  anil  i  prœdicatur,  non  invenir  ent  quomodo  id  immiffum  ejje  dicer  em.  Aug. 
 de  utilit.  cred.  cap.  3. 
 
 (1)  Çluœdam  Barnabœ  ABa  ab  aliquo,  ut  apparet,  nebulone  Jcripta  circum- 
 fertmtur,  &  ab  imperitis  magna  applauju  accipiuntur.  Baron.  AnnaL  Chap.  51. 
 numcr.  5*. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
Chap.    XV. 
 
 Of  the  Epiflles  of  St.  Paul  in  general.  Of  Marcion,  and 
 of  bis  Copy  of  tbefe  Epiflles.  Falfe  Letters  attributed 
 to  St.  Paul. 
 
 THE  Name  of  S.  Paul  that  is  prefixed  at  the  head  of  III  his  Epi- 
 flles, except  that  which  is  written  to  the  Hebrews,  doth  plain- 
 ly difcover  the  Author:  and  fince  they  are  for  the  moft  part  di- 
 rected to  particular  Churches,  who  read  them  publickly  in  their 
 AfTemblies,  they  have  been  afterwards  communicated  to  other  neigh- 
 bouring Churches,  and  at  laft,  by  the  fame  means,  to  all  the  Faith- 
 ful. I  mall  not  here  make  it  my  bufinefs  too  critically  to  enquire 
 into  their  order,  nor  the  time  when  they  were  written,  becaufe  in 
 whatfbevcr  manner  they  are  placed,  as  to  their  difti  ibution  or  cir- 
 cumftances  of  tune,  this  will  caufe  no  alteration  in  the  Text  which  • 
 
 will  always  remain  the  fame  :  neverthclefs,  thus  much  may  be  ob- 
 served with  S.  Chry[oftom,  who  hath  diligently  examined  this  matter, 
 that  though  the  Epiflle  to  the  Romans  iiands  in  the  firft  rank,  yet  Joam. 
 it  was   not    written  firft  ;    there  are  clear  proofs ,    that   the   two  Cbrjf. 
 Epift les  informed  to  the.  Corinthians  were  written   before  it:    this  JL**'  ■ 
 learned  Bifhop  believes  alfo,  that  S.  Paul  had  written  to  the  TheJJa-  l;™n  ™j 
 Ionian  s  berore  he  wrote  to  thofe  of  Corinth  ;  this  may  be  feen  more  /^w. 
 at  large  in  the  Preface  before  his  Homilies  on  the  Epiftle  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  refoe- 
 ftivc  Prophecies.    Thecdoret,  who  hath  treated  on  this  Subject  after 
 S.  Chryfofiom,  whom  he  often  epitomizeth,  alledgeth,  as  an  miiance 
 of  the  fame  order  as  that  of  S.  Paul's  Epiftles,  the  difhibution  of  the 
 Pfalrns  of  David.    (  a  )  As  David  (Jàith  he)  being  infpired  by  God 
 hath  written  the  Pialms,  and  others  afterwards  have  put  them  into 
 what  method  they  thought  ht,  without  having  regard  to  the  time 
 when  they  were  compo(ed;  fo  in  like  manner,  the  lame  thing  hath 
 been  done  with  refpeér.  to  the  Epiflles  of  S.  Paul. 
 
 (a)  "Qœnç  -p^  îgçà;  4^Aju»<  Quvi^ct^  ft  o  Sa©"  &&CtJ\s  <£kmwi&y<*  -m&fJA.- 
 
 in  Epilt.  Paul. 
 
 S   -•  A  farcion 
 
Cm*  3 
 
 M/rc.  a-  Marcion,  who  received  the  greateft  part  of  the  Epiftles  of  S.  Paul, 
 *fj>b.  He-  ^om  •"hichneverthelefs  he  had  retrenched  fome  Partages,  had  placed 
 ret. 42.     them  'lrccr  this  manner:  The  Epiftle  to  the  Galatians  was  the  tir  ft  of 
 
 all,  and  afterwards  the  two  to  the  Corinthians  ;  the  Epiftle 
 to  the  Romans  was  the  fourth  ;  afterwards  followed  the  two 
 to  the  TheJJalcmans,  and  after  thefetheEpiftles  to  the  Ephefians,  Co- 
 lojjians,  to  Philemon,  and  to  the  Phihppians.  He  acknowledged  none 
 but  thele  ten  Epiftles  in  the  aforefàid  order;  for  as  to  the  Epiftle  di- 
 rected to  çhofe  of  Laodicea,  fome  Portions  of  which  he  received  (  ac- 
 cording to  Eptpbanius  )  it  is  the  fame  as  that  which  is  written'to  the 
 Ephefians,  as  it  is  eafie  to  prove  from  the  Partages  that  this  Heretick 
 hath  cited,  and  are  alfo  related  by  S  Epiphanius, 
 
 Marcior,  had  intituled  his  Collection  of  the  Epiftles  of  S.  Paul, 
 ''A'mçoKiYjùv,  Apoflolkk.  The  Marciomte  that  is  introduced  in  the  Dia- 
 logue againft  thofeof  this  Sect,  attributed  to  Origen,  did  often  refufe 
 to  acknowledge  fome  Quotations  out  of  S.  Paul's  Epiftles,  and  fa:th 
 in  (peaking  to  Adamantius ,  who  objected  to  him  fome  words  of  this 
 Apoftie  (  b  )  I  do  not  believe  your  falfe  Apoftolick  And  in  another 
 -  place  he  answers  Adamantius,  who  asked  him  whether  he  believed 
 the  Apoftle,  that  is  to  fay,  S.  Paul,  -nS  i//«  kmncohuut  mtânjjuoj. ,  /  be- 
 V? .  Sefti.  heve  my  own  Apoftolick.  Therefore  Adamantins  doth  not  oppofe  to 
 him  the  Epiftles  of  S  Paul  after  the  fame  manner  as  they  \vere  read 
 in  the  Church,  but  that  which  the  Marcionites  called  their  Apofiolick, 
 which  was  a  Collection  that  they  had  made  of  thefe  Epiftle?.  I  have 
 (  faith  Adamantius  )  your  Apoftolick  :  ï?a  i*v  hmcohiuv  <r»#  This  can  fed 
 S.  Jerom  to  fay,  fpeaking  of  this  Collection  of  the  Marcionites ,  (  c  ) 
 that  they  had  forged  Epiftles  of  the  Apoftles  of  their  own  inven- 
 tion, and  that  he  admired  how  thofe  people  durft  take  upon  them 
 the  name  of  Chriftians. 
 
 S.  Epiphanius  hath  obferved  fome  Partages  that  Marcion  had  altered 
 in  the  Epiftles  of  S.  Paul,  which  I  fhall  here  produce  according  to 
 their  order.  In  chap.  5.  v.  ;  1.  of  the  Epiftle  to  the  Ephefians,  where 
 we  read  thefè  words;  A  man  jhall  leave  his  father  and  mother, 
 and  frail  be  joined  unto  his  wife,  this  Heretick  had  taken  away  rn  >v- 
 Vfiuw,  to  his  wife. 
 
 In  the  Epiftle  to  the  Galatians,  chap.  5.  vei  (h  9.  inftead  of  th^ 
 word  £i>fw7,  leaveneth,  he  had  put  Jh\ot,  corrupt eth,  which  doth  not 
 interrupt  the  fènfe  in  this  place,  and  therefore  it  feems  rather  to  be 
 
 (h)  Tw  at»  çct\<r£  «   thç&co  cU7ngihiK$.  Orig.  Dial.  adv.  Marc. feci:,  x. 
 .   C  c  )    Cum  Apojiolorum  EPifiolas  non  Apoflolorum  Chrifti  fecerimt  ejje,  fed  pro- 
 prias,  miror    quomodo  fiti  Cbrijlianorum    nomen  audeant  vendicare»    Hieron. 
 prcoem.  in  Epift.  ad  Tit. 
 
 a  various 
 
[  >m  : 
 
 a  various  reading,  than  an  alreracion  made  on  pur  pole  Indeed  in 
 the  ancient  Copy  of  Clermont  that is  kept  in  the  King's  Library  it  is 
 read  Jb\oï,  and  in  the  Latin  Veriion  that  is  annexed  to  it,  which  is 
 the  ancient  vulgar,  there  is  according  to  this  reading  eorrumpit,  as  in 
 the  vulgar  tiled  at  this  day. 
 
 In  me  firft  EpifHe  to  the  Corinthians,  chap.  9.  verf!  8.  where 
 we  read  »  °y*  *}  °  vô(x@-  twuta  \iy€i,  Or  faith  net  the  law  the  fame  atfo  ? 
 He  had  in  his  Copy  «  *3  °  v'o(xQ-  IfafaM*  tojjta  «  hlfa  Tho  the  law  of 
 Mofes  doth  not  Jay  the  Jame. 
 
 Chap.  14.  vcr.  19.  of  this  fame  EpifUe  M  arc  ion  had  altered  the 
 fènfèof  thefe  words,  Tet  in  the  Church  I  had  rather  fpeak  five  words 
 with  my  underfiandin^.  He  read  in  his  Copy,  inftead  of  rri  roi  j/»,  In 
 my  understanding,  At  7^  v'opov>  becaufe  of  the  law.  But  it  is  probable, 
 that  this  reading  or  M  arc  ion  came  from  a  fault  oï  the  Tranfcriber, 
 who  hath  read  ^*  rif  v*y*v  inftead  of  Ji*  ra  voU  //»,  as  it  is  in  the  pre- 
 ient  Greek  Copies,  winch  reading  approacheth  nearer  to  that  of 
 Marcion,  than  that  of  S.  Epiphamus,  which  agrees  neverthelefs  with 
 the  two  moll  ancient  Greek  Copies  that  we  have,  viz»  the  Alexan- 
 drian, and  that  of  Clermont  in  the  King's  Library.  It  is  read  in  thefe 
 two  Copies  -n$  vol  y.v,  and  in  the  ancient  Latin  Veriion  which  is  join- 
 ed to  the  Copy  of  Clermont  there  is  fenfu  meo.  It  is  alfo  read  ir«J  vol  p* 
 in  the  ancient  Copy  of  the  Epiflles  of  S.  Paul,  which  is  in  the  Li- 
 brary of  the  Benediclin  Fathers  of  the  Abtay  of  S.  Germain  ;  but  there 
 is  in  the  Latin  Verfion  that  is  added  to  it  per  fenfum  meum.  This- 
 caufèth  me  to  believe  that  the  Author  of  this  ancient  Tranflanon 
 hath  read  in  his  Greek  Copy  &*,  r*  vqU  yx>  as  it  is  read  at  prêtent. 
 Neverthelefs  S.  Epiphanius  accuieth  Marcwn  of  making  this  altera- 
 tion oh  purpofe,  to  wreft  the  words  of  S.  Paul  to  his  own  Con- 
 ceptions. 
 
 In  the  fécond  Epiftle  to  the  Corinthians,  chap.iv.  1;.  where  we 
 read,  Having  the  fame  fpirit  of  faith  according  as  it  is  written,  Mar- 
 cion had  retrenched  from  his  Copy  thefe  words,  x?  to  ^f^xy^jQ^. 
 According  as  it  is  written.  S.  Epiphanius  reproves  him  in  this  place. 
 Becaufe  (  faith  he  )  whether  he  reads  thefe  words  or  not,  the  fcope 
 of  the  Difcourfe  is  plainly  evident.  Indeed  it  might  happen  that  he 
 did  not  read  them  in  his  Copy.  And  if  this  Heretick  had  made  no 
 other  alterations  in  S.  Paufs  Epiftles  than  thofè  that  we  have  above 
 marked,  there  would  be  no  caufe  to  charge  him  with  corrupting 
 them  ;  for  there  are  found  in  our  Greek  Copies  greater  diverfities 
 than  thole,  and  very  many  more  in  number. 
 
 Neither  do  I  fee  that  Marcion  hath  committed  a  great  fault  in 
 placing  the  Epiftle  to  the  Romans  the  fourth  in  his  Copy.  Never- 
 thelefs 
 
thelefs,  if  we  believe  Epipbamus,  this  Heretick  (d)  hath  only  fet  it 
 in  this  order,  becaufe  he  would  have  nothing  light.  But  S  Paul 
 himfelf  hath  not  ranked  his  Epiftles  after  the  lame  manner  as  we 
 have  done  at  prêtent  ;  as  this  Father  always  fuppofeth  in  hisDifpute 
 againfl  Marcion.  lie  confefleth  himfelf  that  the  Greek  Copies  do  not 
 ali  agree  in  this  point.  For  when  he  accufeth  him  of  having  placed 
 th: ■  Epiftle  to  Philemon  the  ninth,  which  S.Paul  (  according  to  his 
 opinion)  had  (et  the  laft,  he  faith  that  in  fome  Copies  it  was  found 
 Immediately  before  that  which  was  wrritten  to  the  Hebrews,  and 
 which  was  the  fourteenth  in  thefe  Copies.  He  adds  (e  )  that  there 
 are  others  wherein  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  is  the  tenth,  immediate- 
 ly before  the  two  that  are  written  to  Timothy,  and  thofe  that  are 
 dire&ed  to  Titus  and  Philemon. 
 
 S.  Epipbanius  declares  in  the  fame  place,  (f)  that  he  hath  remark- 
 ed nothing  in  the  Epiftle  to  Philemon,  becaufe  Marcion  had  entirely 
 corrupted  it.  Tertuliian  (g)  on  the  contrary  affirms  that  this  Epiflle 
 hath  not  been  vitiated  *  by  Marcion  È  becaufe  jt  was  too  mort.  He 
 admires  only  (  h  )  that  this  Heretick  having  received  a  Letter  di- 
 rected to  a  lingle  perfbn,  would  not  acknowledge  the  two  that  are 
 written  to  Timothy,  and  that  to  Titus,  which  treat  of  Ecclefiaftical 
 Affairs.  I  believe  (  faith  he  )  that  he  hath  affe&ed  to  diminifh  the 
 number  of  thefe  Epiftle?.  S.Jerom  fpeaks  alio  of  this  <Epiftle  to 
 Philemon  after  the  fame  manner  as  Tertuliian,  (  /)  and  he  proves  alfo 
 by  the  authority  of  Màrcion,  that  it  is  one  of  S.  PauPs  Epiftles,  fince 
 this  Heretick  who  hath  rejected  a  part  of  them,  and  hath  altered 
 thofe  which  he  approved,  hath  received  this  entire,  and  hath  not  (b 
 much  as  touched  it  becaufe  it  was  too  fhort. 
 
 if  we  may  give  credit  Co   Epipbamus,  Marcion  had  inferred  into 
 his  Book  which  he  had  intituled  'A«to^m>coV,  Apoftolick,  an  Epiftle  of 
 
 Epiph  Her.  42. 
 
 (  e  )  "AM*  $  aivTjyegiçcL  'éyet  &  <nç)s  'EC&Ui  fiygiius  ©e?f  ffî  <tio  tV  ©c/$ 
 TtfMjftop  x)  Titqv  KjbiMiMVcL*  Epiph. ibid. 
 
 ç-ey<pw  t&î  'ctxrrîa  KHàtu.  Epiph  ibid. 
 
 (g  )  Soli  biuc  Epijioldc  br  évitas  fua  profuit,  ut  falfarias  manus  Mar  dont  s  eva- 
 dtret.  Tertull.  lib-.  5.  adv.  Marc.  c.  21. 
 
 (h)  Miror  tiimen,  cum  ad  unum  hominem  liter  as  f atlas  receperit,  quid  adTi- 
 motheum  duas,  &  imam  ad  Titum  de  Ecclefiaftico  ftatu  comportas,  recujaverit. 
 Affctlavit  etiam  mimer  um  Epiftolarum  inter  polar  e.  Tertull.  ibid. 
 
 (  i  )  P au li  effe  Epijlolam  ad  Pbilemoncm  faltem  Marcione  auclore  doceantur,  qui 
 cum  cœter.is  Epi/lolas  ejufdem,  vcl  non  jufeeperit,  vcl  quxdAminhis  mutaverit  at- 
 que  corrojcrit,  in  banc  Jolam  manus  non  cfl  aufus  mittere,  quia  Jùa  illam  br  évitas 
 defendebat.  Hicion.  proœm.  Comm.  inEpift.  ad  Philem. 
 
 S.  Paul 
 
C  M5  ] 
 
 S.  Taul  to  the  Laodicean.-.     But  ho  confefleth  at  the  Lime  time  that 
 that  which  this  Heretick  cites  out  of  the  Epiflle  to  thofc  of  Lu 
 dicea,  is  (bund  in  that  which  is  infcribed  to  the  F.pbcftam;  therefore 
 it  ought  not  to  be  put  in  Marcion  s  Collection  under  thcnamu 
 Laodtceans  ,  but  under     that    of    Fp.be/tam;     othsrwife    he    would 
 have  received  eleven  Epiflles  of  S.  Paul,  whereas  he  never  acknow- 
 ledged but  ten.     Tertulltan  indeed  rebukes  him  (k)  for  changing 
 the  Title  of  the  Epiflle  to  the  Epbcfiam  ;  neverthelefs  he  judicioufly 
 obfervcthj  that  this  alteration  or  the  Title  is  of  no  importance, 
 becaufe  S.  Paul  wiiting  to  a  particular  Church,  wrote  at  the  lame 
 time  to  all  the  others.     Nihil  au:  cm  de   titulis  inter  eft,  cum  ad  omnes 
 Apostolus  fcripfertt,  dum  ad  cjuofdam. 
 
 He  accufethhim  with  more  reafon  of  taking  away  from  his  Copy 
 of  this  Epiflle  to  the  Ephefians,  chap.  2.  v.  20.  the  word  Prophets  ; 
 for  where  we  read  it  as  the  Church  doth,  And  are  built  upon  the  foun- 
 dation  of the  Apoflles  and  Prophets,  Marcton  readonly,  Are  built  upon  the 
 foundation  of  the  Apoflles.  It  fècms  alio  that  Tertulltan  hath  reproved 
 Marcion  for  taking  away  thefe  words  from  the  fame  Epiflle,  chap.  6, 
 v.  2.  Which  is  the  fir  ft  commandment  with  promife.  Nam  et  ft  Marcion, 
 (faith  he)  ab'pdit^  Hoc  eft  enim  pnm^m  in  promijfione  praceptum  ;  Lex 
 loquitur,  Honora  patrem  &  matrem,  S.Jerom  moreover  (/)  hadi 
 charged  Marcion  with  expunging  out  of  his  Copy  of  the  Epiitle  to 
 the  Galatians,  chip.  I.v.  1.  thefe  words,  And  God  the  Father,  to  make 
 ic  appear  that  Jefus  Chnft  was  himfelf  the  Author  of  his  Reiur- 
 recxion,  and  not  his  Father. 
 
 Beiides  thefe  various  Readings  of  the  Apoftolick  of  the  Marcionites 
 above  remarked,  the  Marcionite  in  the  Dialogue  attributed   to  Ori  0;V 
 gen,  faith  that  it  was  not  read  in  this  Apoftolick,  2  Cor.xv.  ;8.    »  ®*^  Jj    ■cwlft 
 JiJtanv  'cumw  aufjui  H^^i  n&M<nv,  God  giveth  it  a  body  as  it  hath  pleafed  rg^  '  \ 
 htm  ;  but  0  @6o*  JlJuav  asm  Tndj^A  wSvf  MKtmvy  God  ^lueth  it  a  j pint  as 
 it  Lath  pleafed  him.    And  after  thole  words  immediately  follow  theic 
 in  the  Apoftolick  :  ^irûpiTeu  awyj*.  4'^xàr,  iytipiTcu  a^^ct  7ndj\xa\twv  '  <soh- 
 f£7*i  cv  pScgt,  l^i-nti  h  ttpdttpOTA.      It  is  [own  a  natural  body, it  is  ratfed 
 a  fpintual  body  ;  it  is  fown   tn   corruption,  it   is  ratfed  in   mcorrruption. 
 Thefè  iafl  words  are  alio  found  111  our  Copies ,    but    in  anothe: 
 order. 
 
 (k)  Ecclefue  quidem  vent  ate  Iipifto'am  iflam  ad  Ephefws  habemus  emiffam, 
 non  ad  Laodtcenos  ;  fed  Marcion  ei  titulum  ahquando  interpolate  geftiit,  quaji  C?  m 
 ijlo  diligentijfimus  explorât  or.  Tertull.  lib.  5.  adv.  Marc  c.  17. 
 
 (  1  (  Saendum  quo*] ite  in  M<vcio><is  /Ipoftolo  non  effe  (criptum,  &  per  Deum 
 patrem,  volentis  cxponerc  Chnft um  non  a  Deo  psitrt-,  fed  per  ftmetipfionjujcit.i* 
 turn.  Hieron  lib.  1.  Comm.  in  Epitt.  ad  Ga\.  c.  i.v.  i. 
 
 Ttrttfliisn 
 
C  !i*3 
 
 Tertuliian  folidly  confutes  thefe  Sectaries  who  would  receive  no- 
 thing of  S.Paul  but  what  was  agreeable  to  their  noeions,  in  re  pre- 
 fen  ting  to  them,that  they  might  as  well  reject  his  Works  all  together  as 
 n  part  of  them.  He  demands  of  Marcion  what  proofs  he  hath  of 
 his  Apcftolick  which  he  afcribed  to  S.  Paul}  Vauli  quoque  originem  d 
 Mrrciom  dcfidero.  lie  requires  him  (  m  )  to  produce  fome  certain 
 marks  that  this  Book  did  really  belong  to  that  Apoftle,  and  to  de- 
 clare who  hath  given  it  this  Title,  and  by  what  Tradition  it  came  to 
 lus  hands  ? 
 
 The  fame  Objections  might  be  made  at  this  day  to  (bme  Prote- 
 ftants  who  receive  the  Works  of  the  Apoftles,  and  refufe  at  the  fame 
 time  to  fubmitto  the  true  Traditions  of  the  Church,  to  which  thev 
 are  beholden  for  thefe  Apoftolical  Writings.  For  who  hath  told 
 them  that  that  which  they  read  under  the  name  of  S.  Paul  is  cer- 
 tainly his?  Is  it  (  (aith  Tertuliian,  (peaking  to  Marcion)  becaufe 
 this  Apoftle  hath  laid  fo  hi  m  (èlf  ?  Ipfe  fe  Apoftolum  eft  Pr°fef~ 
 fas.  (  n  )  Every  one  (  adds  he  )  might  give  a  testimony  of  hirnfelf; 
 but  it  is  not  believed ,  at  leaft  if  it  be  not  attefted  by  others,  be- 
 caufe no  Man  can  be  a  Witnefs  of  his  own  Actions.  This  is  a  very 
 ftrong  proor  againft  the  Maraomtes,  becaufe  they  not  allow  the 
 Acts  of  the  Apoftles,  which  afford  a  great  Teftimony  to  the  Do- 
 ctrine contained  in  the  Epifflesof  S.  Paul,  u 
 
 The  Author  of  the  Dialogue  againft  the  Marcionites  makes  ufe 
 of  this  fame  argument  to  convince  his  Marciomte.  (o)  We  do  not 
 receive  (  (aid  this  Marciomte  )  neither  the  Prophets  nor  the  Law, 
 becaufe  they  are  not  of  our  God,  but  we  receive  the  Gofpel  and  the 
 Apoftle.  What  Apoftle  do  you  mean  (  an  fivers  Adamant tus  )  for 
 there  are  many  ?  Paul,  faith  the  Marcionite.  To  whom  Adamantius 
 replies,  How  can  you  be  allured  that  Paul  hath  written  the  Epiftles 
 that  you  read  under  his  name,  fince  there  is  no  mention  thereof 
 made  in  the  Gofpel?  And  whereas  thefe  Hereticks  acknowledged 
 none  but  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Luke,  which  they  had  adjufted  to  their 
 Notions,  and  their  Afoftolick.  Adamantius  prefTcth  them  very  much 
 thereupon,   and  concludes   againft  them,  that   according  to  their 
 
 (  m  )  Edas  veh  m  nobis  quo  Symbolo  fufceperis  Apoftolum  Paulum,  qui  s  ilium  ti- 
 tuli  char  acier  e  per  cujfer  it ,  quis  tranfmifcrit  tibi,  quis  impojucrit  ut  pojfis  eum  con- 
 fiant er  exponcre.  Tertull.  lib.  5.  adv.  Marc.  c.  1. 
 
 (nj  Profiter  1  pot  eft  ftmetipfum  quivis  :  verhm  prof ejjio  ejus  alter  ius  auQoritate 
 confia tur.  Alius  fcribit,  alius  fubjcribit.  Alius  objignat,  alius  atlts  refert.  Nemo 
 fibi  &  profeffor  £?  tcftis  eft.  Tertull.  ibid. 
 
 Mé£tt  J  7»  curt^JiA/cj/  x}  t  amiçQKW.  Apud  Orig.  Dial,  contr.  Marc.  ieCt.  i- 
 
 Principle 
 
[  M7] 
 
 Principle  no  Scriptures  give  a  Teflimony  to  S.  Paul,  fince  he  is  not 
 mentioned  in  the  Gofpel.  The  Marciomte  is  obliged  to  have  re- 
 courlc  to  S.  Paul,  wiio  hath  written  of  himfclr,  Paul  an  Apoftle  ofiC^,\.\ 
 Jefus  Cbrift.  But  Aiamanttui  oppofeth  to  him  thofe  other  words  of 
 S.  Paul,  He  that  bears  vu  nefs  of  htmfelf  is  not  approved.  He  makes 
 it  appear  horn  hence,,  (pj  that  he  is  not  to  be  believed  that  only 
 gives  his  own  Testimony  of  him  (elf 
 
 S Eptphanius  moreover  reproves  Marcicn,  for  hiving  quoted  a 
 Pailage  out  of  S.  Pauls  Epiftle  to  the  Ephefians,  under  the  Title  oi"  pprif  , 
 an  Epiftle  written  by  this  Apoftle  to  the  Lacdiceans,  which  (  faith  he  )  jfe 
 •was  nevir  m  the  number  of  the  Epi  files  of  S.  Paul,,  ^  fw  vont  lv  tt>)  amccM.  n%  , , 
 But  we  can  only  infer  horn  thence,  that  Marcion  was  miiraken  in 
 the  Title  or  this  Epiftle,  reading  under  the  name  of  the  Laodkeam 
 that  which  is  written  to  the  Epheftans.  Neverthelefs  S.  Epiphantus 
 hath  rCafon  to  fay,  that  there  never  was  any  Epiftle  to  the  Laodice- 
 ans.  The  Fragment  that  Jacobus  Faber,  Sixius  Stnenfts  and  fome 
 other  Authors  have  published  under  this  Title,  and  hath  been  Print- 
 ed even  in  fbme  Bibles,  is  a  Piece  of  no  Authority  ;  not  but  that 
 in  the  Primitive  Ages  of  the  Church  there  hath  been  read  an  Epiftle 
 under  this  Title  attributed  to  S.  Paul,  but  the  molt  Learned  Fathers 
 have  rejected  it  as  an  Apocryphal  Act.  Therefore  S.  Jerom  (a) 
 affirms,  that  in  his  time  it  was  generally  exploded  by  all  the  world  \ 
 infomuch  that  there  is  no  other  true  Epiftle  to  the  Laodiceans,  but 
 that  which  is  written  to  the  Efhcfians,  the  Title  or  which  the  Mar- 
 cionites  had  only  changed.  The  Hei  «ticks  (  faith  Tertullian,  in  (peak- 
 ing of  the  Marcionites )  (r)  have  intituled  to  the  Laodiceans  that  E- 
 piftle  which  we  read  dire&ed  to  the  Epheftans. 
 
 They  that  have  forged  an  Epiftle  of  S.  Y  aid  to  the   Laodiceanr, 
 have  taken  occafion  from  thefe  words  of  Jiis  Epiftle  to  the  Colofians, 
 chap.  4.  verf.  1 6.  And  when  this  Epiftle  is  read  amongfi  you,  cauje  that 
 it  be  read  alfo  in  the  Church  of  the  Laodiceans,  and  that  ye  likewije  reac^ 
 the  Epiftle  from  Laodicea.     S.Chrjfoftom  hath  oblèived  on  thefe  laft  c> :r^-^°' 
 words,  (O  that  fome  Writers  had  taken  notice  before  him,  that  it  Epin"ad 
 was  not  a  Letter  that  S.  Paul  had  lent  to  the  Laodiceans,  but  one  that  Cohjf 
 they  of  Laodue a  had  written  to  S  ?aul3  becaufe  it  is  not  in  the  Text 
 
 (  p  )  'OvJtiç  <sfei  oW/TO  u&jiTjpav  d^tbinçéç  %hv.  Ibid. 
 
 (  q  )  Ltgunt  quidam  (5  ad  Laociicoijes,  Jta  ab  omnibus  expioditur.   Hicron.  dc 
 Script.  Ecclef.  in  Paulo. 
 
 (rj  Epiftola  quam  nos  ad  Ephefios  prœfcriptam  habemus,   Lcretici  ad  Landicc- 
 nos.    TcTtull.  lib.  5.  adv.  Marc,  c  1 1. 
 
 s)   Tivli  ^y*<nv  ox»  «^1  rtut)  ïldjj\*  «Tfj£  clo7w}  d,7r\çu.\(jfylijj,  cttXct  r  inf  su" 
 
 Chryfoit.  Horn.  12.  in  Epilt.  adCololI. 
 
 T  to 
 
C  M*  3 
 
 to  the  Laodiceans ,  but  from  Laodtcea.  This  hath  caufed  Theodoreti 
 who  repeats  the  fame  thing  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Epiftle  to  the 
 Coloflians,  to  conclude  that  the  Letter  to  the  Laodiceans  that  fbme  pro- 
 duced in  his  time  was  a  counterfeit,  7n7&&7$ÎM  hm^hUt.  Baromus  hàth 
 had  reafon  to  prefer  the  Judgment  of  thefe  two  Greek  Fathers  before 
 that  of  fbme  Latin  Wi  kers,who  have  thought  that  S.  Paul  hath  written 
 fifteen  Epiftles  one  of  which  (as  they  fay  )  hath  been  loft.  P.  A- 
 milote  feems  to  have  favoured  this  Opinion,  when  he  tranflated  this 
 Pafîâge  of  the  Epiftle  to  the  Colojfians,  Te  Jhall  Ukewife  read  that 
 which  I  have  written  to  the  Laodiceans.  But  if  there  were  an  ambi- 
 guous expreffion  in  his  Text,  he  ought,  alfo  to  retain  it  in  his  Ver- 
 ijon,  and  not  to  limit  it,  by  giving  us  an  Epiftle  of  S.  Paul  to  the 
 Laodiceans  which  never  was,  according  to  the  Sentiments  of  the  an- 
 cient Ecclefiaftical  Writers. 
 
 I  mall  take  no  notice  of  two  other  Epiftles  that  have  been 
 heretofore  publifhed  under  the  Name  of  S.  Paul,  viz»  a  third  to  the 
 Corinthians,  and  a  third  to  the  TheJJ'alonians,  becaufe  they  have  much 
 lefs  foundation  than  that  which  is  fuppofed  to  have  been  written  to 
 the  Laodiceans.  I  fhall  only  obfèrve,  that  fbme  Importers'  in  his 
 time  difperfed  abroad  falfe  Letters  in  his  name,  that  they  might 
 thereby  authorife  their  falfe  Dodrines,  which  obliged  him  to  write 
 his  Name  at  the  bottom  of  his  Epiftles  with  a  certaiif  particular 
 2  ThefT  3.  Mark,  as  he  declares  himfelf  at  the  end  of  his  fécond  Epiftle  to  the 
 TheJJ'alonians, 
 
 I  (hall  not  here  infift  on  the  Ebionites,  concerning  whom  I  have 
 already  fufficiently  difcourfed.  Since  thefe  Hereticks  had  declared 
 openly  againft  S.  Paul,  and  had  alfb  compofèd  falfe  Aéts  to  defame 
 his  Perfbn  and  Do&rine,  they  were  very  far  from  receiving  his  E- 
 piftles  which  contradi&ed  their  Opinions.  The  Encratites  Severians 
 (  t)  who  had  no  lefs  an  averfion  for  this  Holy  Apoftle,  abfblutely 
 rejected  his  Epiftles.  Origen  moreover  makes  mention  of  a  certain 
 §ed:  that  took  the  name  of  Helce faites,  (u)  who  acknowledged  but 
 a  part  of  the  Canon  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  well  of  the  Old  as 
 the  New  Teftament.  But  they  altogether  disapproved  of  S.  Paul, 
 and  (  x  )  had  forged  I  know  not  what  Book,  which  they  feigned 
 to  have  fallen  down  from  Heaven. 
 
 (  t  )  h\ctQ<PW*v7iç  0  View  MP  r  cmçohcv  dSiTXtnv  iwv  -m*  àmçQhcLç,  Eufeb. 
 Hift.  Ecclef.  lib.  4.  c.  29. 
 
 (u)  'AnSu  m£  anri  OTtW  y&ptiç  >  yJfâHTtu  ptrmç  -mthiv  àmà  zdanç  nx~ 
 \<ti*s*Ûlv*yfchiMf''nv$rri&tov  lihiov  *7*3».  Ong.  .'.pud  Euleb.  Hilt.  Ecclef. 
 lib  6.  cap.  3&. 
 
 (xj  JiICkqv  w*  e>i$wv  Uj  Ktywt  V%  *&&  v&ltmiflQWtu*    Orig.  ibid. 
 
 It 
 
C  »tf  ] 
 
 It  is  no  wonder  that  fo  many  ancient  Hereticks  have  publickly 
 exploded  the  Writings  of  S.Paul;  becaufe  they  pretended  that  not 
 having  (cen  Jefus  Chnft  in  the  flefh,  he  could  not  call  himfelf  his 
 Apoftle.  They  accuied  him  moreover  of  having  taught  things  that 
 we;  e  contrary  to  the  Law  of  God.  In  a  word,  they  efreemed  him  as 
 an  Innovator  ,  who  under  pretence  (  fàid  they  )  of  introducing 
 Chnftianity  among  the  Gentiles  had  abolished  the  Sabbathj  t. 
 Circumcilion,  and  the  other  Ceremonies  of  the  Old  Law.     There- 
 
 ,;  this  Holy  Apoftle  ipeaks  often  in  his  Epiftles  concerning  his 
 Apoftlefhip,  which  his  Enemies  oppofèd  in  vain.  Tho  he  had  not 
 1  Jefus  Chnft,  yet  he  invincibly  proveth  that  he  hath  not  brought 
 any  Novelties  into  the  Gofpef,  fince  he  hath  avouched  nothing  be- 
 fore he  had  thereupon  conferred  with  the  other  Apoftles.  '  This 
 hath  caufed  Tertullian  to  fay,  that  S.Paul  (yj  went  on  purpofeto 
 Jerujalem,  to  deliberate  witii  the  Apoftles  on  all  things  that  apper- 
 tained to  the  preaching  of  the  Gofpel,  that  he  might  do  nothing 
 that  was  oppohte  to  their  Doctrine.  He  adds  that  after  this  Apoftle 
 had  had  a  Conference  with  them,  and  that  they  had  all  agreed  on  a 
 certain  and  fure  Rule  of  Faith,  they  feparated  to  go  every  one  to  his 
 refpe&ive  dation  to  promulge  the  Goipel  of  Jefus  Chriil. 
 
 S.Augufl'm  relies  on  the  lame  Principle  in  difproving  a  falfe  E- 
 piftle  that  the  Mamcheans  had  publifhed  under  the  Name  of  Jefus 
 Chnft.  Is  there  any  one  fo  foolifh,  (  faith  this  Learned  Father) 'as 
 to  believe  that  the  Epiftle  that  Mankhee  attributes  to  Jefus  Chnft  is 
 true,  and  that  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew  which  hath  been  always  pre- 
 ferved  in  the  Church,  doth  not  belong  to  this  Apoftle?  He  de- 
 mands whether  they  could  with  any  color  of  Reafon  believe  an  ob- 
 f  cure  Man,  who  appeared  not  in  the  World  till  more  than  two  hun- 
 dred years  after  Jefus  Chnft,  (z,  )  fince  the  Church  would  not 
 have  given  credit  to  S.  Paul  himfelf^  who  was  called  to  the  Apoftle- 
 fhip  immediately  after  the  Afcenfion  of  our  Saviour,  if  he  had 
 not  conferred    with  the  Apoftles  touching   the  Doctrine  that  he 
 
 preached. 
 
 It  is  a  Maxim  generally  received  among  all  the  ancient  Ecclefi- 
 aftical  Writers,  that  Jefus  Chnft  alone  is  the  Author  of  theChriftian 
 
 (  y  )  Propter  ea  Hicrofolymam  afcendit  ad  cognofcendos  ApofioUs  13  confultandos, 
 rcrte%m  vacuum  cucumjfet,  id  eft^  ne  non  fecund ùm   iAos  ci  angel 'i\ar et.    De- 
 nique  ut  cum  au'doribus  contuht  &  convemt  de  régula  fidet,  dexter  as  tmjcuete,  $3 
 exwde  officia  prxdicandi  diftinxerunt.  "  Ttrtull.  lib.  4.  adv.  Marc.  c.  2. 
 
 (jl)  Citmipje  Apoftolus  Paulas  ffi  afcenfionan  Dcm;?a  de  c-xlo  vocatus,  fi  non 
 invèm  rue  Apoftolos,  qmbus  commumeando  (3  cum  qu:bus  conferendo  h- 
 
 vâhgelih  )  m  effe  Jbcietatis  dpparèret,  Ecctejia  illi  omninQ  non  crederct.  Aug. 
 
 lib.  28.  cont.  Munich,  c  4. 
 
 T  2  Religion, 
 
C  mo  3 
 
 Religion.,  and  that  his  Apoflles  who  have  been  the  Witnefîes  of  his 
 Actions  and  Words,  have  only  related  to  us  thofe  things  that  they 
 had  feen  or  learned  from  their  Matter.  When  it  was  objected  to  the 
 primitive  Fathers,  that  the  Gofpels  of  S.  Mark  and  S.  Luke,  as  alio 
 the  Epiftlcs  of  STaul  ought  not  to  be  received  as  Canonical,  be- 
 caufè  the  Authors  of  thefe  Writings  were  not  Apoftles,  but  only 
 Apoftohcal  Men.  They  have  anfwered  that  thefe  Apoftolical  Per- 
 sons have  written  nothing  but  what  they  had  received  from  their 
 Mafters.  They  have  concluded  from  thence,  that  the  fame  autho- 
 rity ought  to  be  given  to  their  Writings,  as  if  the  Apoflles  them- 
 (elves  had  been  the  Authors  of  them.  Therefore  when  Ter- 
 ttdlian  fpeaks  of  S.  Luke  and  S.Mark,  who  (according  to  his  Opi- 
 nion )  were  only  Apoftolical,  he  adds  at  the  fame  time,  that  thefe 
 Apoi4olical  Men  were  not  (a)  alone,  having  written  jointly  with 
 the  Apoftles,  and  after  them;  and  that  therefore  their  Doctrine 
 could  not  be  f  ufpected,  fince  it  hath  been  authorifed  by  their  Ma- 
 tters, and  even  by  Jefus  Chrift  who  had  conftituted  thefe  Mafters. 
 We  may  apply  unto  S.  Paul  that  which  Tertullian  faith  here  of 
 S.  Mark  and  S.  Luke.  And  this  may  fèrve  to  refolve  all  the  Ob- 
 jections of  the  ancient  He  re  ticks  who  refu  fed  to  allow  his  Writings, 
 becaufe  they  denied  that  he  was  trujy  an  Apoftle. 
 
 I  have  already  given  an  account  of  the  Manicheans,  who  acknow- 
 ledged nothing  of  S.  Paul,  but  what  was  agreeable  to  the  Idea  that 
 they  had  formed  of  the  Chriitian  Religion.  Thefe  Sectaries  argued 
 againft  common  Senfe.  For  in  as  much  as  they  were  not  able  to 
 reconcile  two  Partages  of  this  Apoftle,  they  thought  it  fufficient  to 
 conclude  from  thence  that  one  of  the  two  muft  of  neceflity  be  cor- 
 rupted ;  fince  it  was  not  poflibte  (  faid  they  )  that  he  fhould  contra- 
 dict in  one  place  what  he  had  affirmed  in  another.  When  it  was  de- 
 manded of  Faufius  whether  he  received  the  Apoftle,  Avoflolum  acet- 
 yls? He  anfwered  that  he  did.  And  when  it  was  proved  to  him  by 
 the  Writings  of  S.  Paul,  that  he  ought  to  believe  that  Jefiis  Chrift 
 the  Son  of  God  derived  his  Original  from  David,  according  to  the 
 nefh,  he  then  replyed,  (b  )  that  it  is  not  credible  that  the  Apoftle  of 
 God  mould  have  written  things  that  are  contrary,   and  overthrow 
 
 (  a  J  Si  &  Afoftolicos,  ncn  tamen  folos,  Jed  cum  Apoftolis  (3  pqft  Apoftolosy 
 quoniam  pœdicatio  difcipulortimfufpetla  fieri  pojjet  de  gloria  Jiudio,  fmon  adjiftae 
 till  auRoritas  magiftrorum,  imo  Cbriftt  qui  magiftros  Apoftolos  fecit.  Tertull. 
 lib.  4.  adv.  Marc.  c.  2. 
 
 (bj  Non  eqmdcm  crediderim  Apofiolum  Dei  contraria  fibi  fcrtbere  potuijje, 
 &  modo  banc,  modo  illam  de  Domino  noftro  habuiffe  fententiam.  Apud  Aug. 
 lib.  i.i.  cont.Fauft.  c.  1. 
 
 one 
 
[Mi] 
 
 one  another  :  he  maintained  that  theEpiflles  of  S.  Paul  had  been 
 interpolated  as  well  as  the  Gofpels;  and  to  make  his  Subtilty  more 
 
 apparent  in  inventing  new  Anhvers,  he  adds,  that  this  Apoftle 
 might  be  reconciled  with  himielf,  in  laying  chat  he  had  two  Con- 
 ceptions thereupon,  and  that  that  which  was  obje&ed  was  his  old 
 Opinion,  which  he  had  abandoned  after  he  had  been  better  in- 
 ftiudcd. 
 
 But  let  us  leave  thefè  Hereticks  who  had  no  certain  Principles, 
 and  were  therefore  obliged  fbmetimes  to  have  rccourfe  to  their  Pa~ 
 rackt ,  which  was  their  great  Engine.  We  fee  almoft  the  fame 
 thing  at  prefènt  in  fome  illuminated  and  enthuiiaftick  Perfbns,  who 
 for  want  of  good  reafbns  are  forced  to  fly  to  I  know  not  what  pri- 
 vate Spirit  that  difcovers  to  them  the  moft  hidden  Myfteries  of  the 
 Chnftian  Religion.  I  would  entreat  thefe  People  to  rened:  a  little  on 
 the  Condud  of  the  ancient  Ecclcfiaftical  Writers  in  their  Difputes 
 againfr  the  Hereticks,  and  on  their  manner  of  arguing;  they  will 
 find  therein  neither  Paraclet,  nor  private  Spirit,  but  lblid  Arguments, 
 that  are  very  far  from  the  Fanaticifin  which  is  predominant  in  our 
 Age. 
 
 Laftly,  to  return  to  S.  Paul,  the  vanity  of  thefè  ancient  Hereticks 
 was  fo  great,  that  S.  Irenaus  was  compelled  to  confute  fbme  Sectaries, 
 (c)  who  affirmed  that  this  Apoftle  only  was  endued  with  the  know- 
 ledge of  the  Truth,  and  that  he  alone  had  the  Revelation  of  the 
 Myfteries  of  the  Gofpel  :  but  this  Father  convinccth  them  by  the 
 very  Words  of  S.  Paul,  who  hath  born  witnefs  to  the  Apoftlefhip 
 of  S.  Peter. 
 
 (  c  )  Eos  autetn  qui  dicunt,  fohim  Paulum  veritatem  cognovijfe,  cui  fer  révéla  • 
 tionem  manifeftum  eft  myfterium,  ipfe  Paulus  convincat  eos  dicens  unum  &  ipfum 
 Deum  operatum  Petro  in  Apoftolatu  circumcifionis,  &  fibi  in  Genres.  Tren.  adv. 
 Haer.  lib.  3-  c.  13. 
 
 Chap, 
 
[   M*  ] 
 
 Chap.     XVI. 
 
 Of  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  in  particular.  Whether  it 
 be  St.  PaulV,  and  Canonical.  What  Antiquity  hath  be- 
 lieved thereupon,  cu  well  in  the  Eajiern  as  in  the  Weft- 
 em  Countries.  The  Opinions  of  theje  later  Ages  concern- 
 ing this  Epiftle. 
 
 Since  I  have  no  other  defign  in  this  Work  than  to  treat  of  the 
 Text  of  the  New  Teftamenti  and  to  eftablifh  as  much  as  is 
 poflible  the  Writing*  of  the  Apoftles,  I  mail  not  infift  in  particular 
 on  the  Subject  of  every  Epiftle  of  S.  Paul  ;  this  is  a  task  that  belongs 
 rather  to  a  Commentator  of  the  Scriptures,  than  to  a  Critical  Hifto- 
 ry  of  the  Text:  for  this  reafbn  I  come  immediately  to  the  Epiftle 
 to  the  Hebrews,  that  feems  to  have  been  difputed  in  Antiquity,  prin- 
 cipally in  the  Weftern  Churches,  fome  of  which  have  refufed  to 
 read  it  in  their  publick  Aflèmblies:  there  are  alfb  at  this  day  (bme 
 learned  Criticks,  that  doubt  whether  S.  Paul  be  the  Author  tjiereof, 
 though  they  acknowledge  it  as  Divine  and  Canonical.  Wherefore 
 it  is  convenient  to  examine  the  Ads  that  we  have  relating  to  this 
 matter. 
 
 If  we  follow  this  Rule  of  Tertullian  that  is  grounded  on  good 
 reafon.  That  that  is  true  which  us  wofi  ancient ,  Illud  verurn  quod  prius, 
 there  will  be  no  occafion  to  enquire  whether  the  Epiftle  to  the  He- 
 brews  was  certainly  written  by  S-  Paul  ;  for  all  the  Eaftern  Churches 
 ièern  not  to  have  doubted  thereof:  the  Avians  have  been  the  firft 
 amongft  them  that  have  obftinately  rejected  it,  feeing  that  it  was 
 not  favourable  to  their  Innovations  :  this  caufèd  Theodoret,  ipeaking 
 of  thefè  Hereticks,  to  fay,  (a)  that  they  ought  at  leaft  to  have  re- 
 flect to  the  length  of  time,  and  to  confider  that  this  Epiftle  had 
 been  read  in  the  Churches  ever  fince  they  had  received  the  Wri- 
 tings of  the  Apoftles.   (b)  He  oppofeth  to  them  moreover,   the 
 
 'ECfoiai  vmçnxm  iixù  àç>i\HdM  j^ctSV^.    Thcod.  Praef.  Comm.  in  Epilt.  ad  Hebi\ 
 
 (  b)  El  3  WiJÎ  T6tt>  l)(£jiov  <zz-H<rtu  c/jJ7»\},  TLvtrtCuo  yvv  Ifâbiï  w&Mujcu  tùô   Tlct- 
 heuçivu,  ov  ffi  otKtiav  Jbf(xâra>v  amw&h*?!  <nw)i}p&v'  xj  w  y£>  t»  3ï*07WT«  Haute 
 
 7ÙÀ  Ô  TbÙ  CWÇlhltJJ  cofXChofyciVt!)'    Ki  7tfÙ  'mhCUVÇ  Ct77W7W*   TWJtUu  afcÀ  CUJ77JÇ  i<p*(rtV 
 
 iwwcu.  Theud.  îbiu. 
 
 Tefti- 
 
]    l45  3 
 
 Teftimony   of  Eaftbiw  Cœfaricnfis,  who  could  not  be  fufpected  by 
 them,  becaufè  they  efteemed  him  as  their  Chief.     Now  this  Eufel 
 hath  acknowL       i,  that  the  Epiftle  dire&ed  to  the  Hebrews  was 
 S.  ?aul\  and  that  all  the  Ancients  had  believed  it  (b  to  be. 
 
 As  for  the  Teftimony  of  the  Ancients,  this  cannot  be  true  but 
 of  thole  of  the  Eaftern  Church;  for  Eufebins  himfelfhath  obleived, 
 that  fome  in  the  Weftern  Church  did  not  receive  this  Epiftle  :  but 
 the  Authority  of  thole  Weftern  Writers  ought  not  to  be  regarded, 
 iince  S.  Clement  Bifhop  of  Rome,  who  lived  before  them,  hath  ated 
 it  in^the  Letter  that  he  wrote  in  the  name  of  his  Church  to  thofe 
 of  Cormthy  as  the  fame  Eujebws  allures  us.  He  proves  by  the  Au- 
 thority of  this  Difciple  of  the  Apoftles,  that  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews 
 hath  been  reckoned  with  good  reafon  in  the  number  of  the  Apo- 
 ftolical  Writings,  and  doth  not  in  the  leaft  doubt  of  the  Authors, 
 becaufè  the  moil  part  of  the  ancient  Dodors  of  the  Church,  efpeci- 
 ally  in  the  Eaft,  have  believed  that  it  did  truly  belong  to  S.  Vaul:  but 
 iince  they  fuppoied  that  he  wrote  it  in  Hebrew,  they  do  not  agree  as 
 to  the  Interpreter:  (c)  fbme  (faith  Eufebins)  affirm,  that  it  hath  been 
 t.anflated  by  S.  Luke,  and  others  by  S.  Clement.  He  confirms  this 
 laft  Opinion  by  the  Stile  of  this  Epiftle,  which  is* very  like  to  that 
 of  S.Chme'fit  ;  neverthelefs,  Clemens  Alexandrtnits  proves  on  the  con-  Ci  Alex. 
 trary,  by  this  uefemblance  of  Stile,  that  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  inJ~hPot- 
 which  he  avoucheth  to  be  St.  Paul's,    hath   been   interpreted  Wa£iaf?i'} 
 
 St.  Luke,  /.6.  c.14. 
 
 Origen,  who  hath  written  Homilies  on  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews^ 
 was  of  opinion,  (d)  that  the  matter  indeed  was  S.  PanFs,  but  that  the 
 Expre fiions  were  too  lofty  and  too  elegant  to  be  his,  who  wrote  in 
 a  very  fimple  and  plain  Stile.  This  learned  Critick  doth  not  attri- 
 bute this  diverfity  of  Stile  to  the  Tranflator,  but  to  the  Amanuenfis 
 that  committed  the  Dodnne  ofS.  Paul  to  Writing,  (e)  I  believe 
 ( faith  Ongen)  that  the  Sen fe  and  Conceptions  are  of  this  Apoitle, 
 but  that  the  Phrale  and  Compofition  is  another's  who  hath  collect- 
 ed the  Sayings  of  his  Matter,  and  let  them  down  in  writing  :  never- 
 thelefs,  what  he  adds  in  the  £ame  place  makes  it  appear,  that  in  his 
 time  there  were  fbme  Churches  that  did  not  afcribe,  this  Epiftle  to 
 
 tùjù  yçyçLt)'  0  it)  (xatàov  &v  ahuris    Fulcb.  Hi  1 .  Keel.  lib.  3.  d  3S. 
 
 >}Stu>  liivmuv  rk  cU7nç6\'6  ouoAoy{\out]Q-  icwiiv  \Slcu7iuj  u)  tt^  Aofw,  tvtîçj  p£$É0». 
 Ong.HomU.  in  Eput  ad  Hebr.  apirçl  .  lluv.  EccL  lib.  6.  cap.  25. 
 
 Lyu  $  ^jropauvo(j^Ji^-  nrrsi^   on/  on  -m  fi  vonuATn  m  ï&vçvhu  oçtv    u  d  VÇ$r 
 
 the 
 
[  M4  ] 
 
 the  Hebrews  to  S.  Paul;  and  he  judgeth  alio,  that  it  cannot  be  cer- 
 tainly determined  who  hath  written  it:  (/)  If  any  Churches  (faith 
 he  )  reads  this  Epiftle  as  S.  Paul's*  they  are  to  be  commended  in  thisy 
 for  it  is  not  without  reafon  that  the  Ancients  have  thought  that  it  -was  hù9 
 but  Gjd  alone  knows  the  truth  thereof. 
 
 The  Greek  Fathers  who  have  lived  before  and  after  Ongen,  and 
 
 even  the  greateft  part  of  the  Hereticks,  have  quoted  it  under  no 
 
 other  name  than  that  of  this  Holy  Apoftle.     The  Melchifedecians^ 
 
 Meich'f    who  preferred  Melchifedec  before  Jefus  Chrift,  grounded  their  Opi- 
 
 H*r  55    nion  on  thc  Epiitle  of  S.  Paul  to  the  Hebrews.     The  Cathanans, 
 
 who  were  a  branch  of  the  Novatians,  relied  alfo  on  thelè  Words 
 
 Cato.ap.   0f  this  Epiftle,  Chap.  vi.  v.  4,  5,6.  For  it  is  impoflible  for  thofe  who 
 
 II     J'a     overe  0Ttce  enlightened,   and  have  tafied  of  the  heavenly  Gift,  and  were 
 
 made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  and  have  t  aft  ed  the  good  Word  of  G 'ody 
 
 and  the  powers  of  the  World  to  come,  if  they  fhall  fall  away,  to  renew 
 
 Hier ac.     them  again  unto  Repentance,  &c.      Hieracas  an  Egyptian,  who  was  the 
 
 ap.Epiph.  Chief  of  the  Sect  of  the  Hieracites,  which  was  embraced  by  divers 
 
 Har.67.  Mon]<s  0f  Egypt ,  pretended  to  prove  by  this  fame  Epiftle  to  the 
 
 Hebrews,  that  Melchifedec  was  the  Holy  Ghoft.   Laftly,  many  other 
 
 Hereticks  who  (çparated  themfèlves  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  Chupches. 
 
 Cajus  in  the  mean  time,  a  famous  Writer  who  lived  at  the  begin- 
 ning of  the  third  Century  under  Pope  Zephyrinzts,  in  a  Difpute  that 
 he  had  at  Rome  with  the  Cataphryges,  and  which  was  published,  ac- 
 knowledged only  thirteen  Epiftles  of  S.  Paul,  not  mentioning  that 
 which  is  directed  to  the  Hebrews.  Eufebim,  who  hath  taken  notice 
 of  this  Difpute,  obfèrves,  (g)  that  fbme  Romans  in  his  time  had  not 
 as  yet  received  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  as  S.  Paul\  :  and  in  ano- 
 ther place  where  he  fpeaks  of  the  Epiftles  of  the  Apoftles,  after  he 
 had  fàid  that  the  fourteen  Epiftles  of  S.  Paul  were  known  to  all  the 
 World,  he  adds,  (  h  )  that  fome  have  rejected  this  which  is  written 
 to  the  Hebrews,  under  pretence  that  the  Roman  Church  did  not  be- 
 lieve it  to  belong  to  S.  Paul. 
 
 Baronius  hath  not  done  juftice  to  this  Hiftorian,  when  he  accu- 
 
 •— -•— — — —  1  *  ■  ■  ■ 
 
 f  fj  BÏ  77$  h  lnY.\wriA  ïjet  ttwtùjj  tùjo  hmçQKkù  coç  iW*k,  aun  <&<?b)uy.HTw  x} 
 bm  t»t«'  «  y&  hkh  oï  d^yàxu  a,vJ)>iç  aç  WojjKm  ojjtîw  'mt^JiJ^yj.cn'  71c  3  0  yçyr 
 •vj'tf*  ilw   crniçvhhjj,  7D  fi  cLKnSis  ®ièç  oÏJïv. .  Orig.  ibid. 
 
 (g)  'Ett«  xj  hç  J\vey  <&&  'Pamicoy  tkhv  «  voftl&'nu  ro  iançohv  tj^vhv.  Eu- 
 feb  Hift.Ecd.  1.6.  c.  20. 
 
 (h  j  "O77  y>jtîjji  Tiviç  i)$vnîyj£<n  tUjj  zs&t  '^C^/dnç,  cr^V  *?  'Voiuday  oHXXxficu 
 w  un  IlojJhM  vow  ewjùv  dvvKÏytfy  vnmvnç,  «  éiww  dytmv.  Eulcb.  Hiit.  Eccl. 
 lib.  a.  c.  3. 
 
 feth 
 
[  «45  ] 
 
 fah  him  of  favouring  in  thefo  Words  the  Party  of  the  Arums %  hi^ 
 good  Friends,  and  of  infinOating  that  the  Church  of  Rome  had 
 doubted  of  the  Verity  of  this  Epiftle  ;  for  behdes  that  Eufebim  doth 
 only  relate  a  fan  pie  matter  or  fad:  that  was  evident,  and  which 
 S.  Jerom  hath  afterwards  explained  more  at  large,  he  openly  declarer 
 in  this  very  place  in  favour  of  thofè  that  believed  that  the  Epiftle 
 to  the  Hebrews  was  certainly  written  by  S.  Paul,  when  he  adds,  that 
 he  will  give  an  account,  in  the  lequel  of  lus  Hiftory,  what  hath 
 been  the  belief  or  the  ancient  EccleliaiHcal  Writers  as  to  this  point  : 
 and  he  acquits  himfèlf  after  fùch  a  manner,  as  makes  it  manifcft, 
 that  none  of  thefè  Ancients,  nor  even  the  Roman  Clinch,  have 
 ever  doubted  before  the  time  of  Ca)mi  of  the  Authority  of  the  Epi- 
 ftle to  the  Hebrews.  Tertullian ,  neverthelefs,  hath  attributed  it  to 
 S.  Barnabas,  but  without  ihewing  any  Reaions. 
 
 The  lame  Baronim  is  very  much  perplexed  when  he  would  ex- 
 plain the  Senle  ofS.Jercm,  who  avoucheth,  that  although  this  Epi- 
 ftle hath  been  always  received  as  S.  Paul's  m  the  Eaftern  Churches, 
 (f)  yet  the  Latins  do  not  put  it  in  the  number  of  the  Canonical 
 Epiitles:  this  he  repeats  in  (everal  other  Paflages  of  his  Works. 
 But  whereas  mod  part  of  the  Latin  Fathers  before  him,  and  even  in 
 his  time,  have  acknowledged  this  Epiftle  not  only  to  be  Canonical, 
 but  alio  to  be  written  by  S.  Paul;  this  Cardinal  thinks  that  S.  Je- 
 rom was  deceived  in  relying  altogether  on  the  Teftimony  of  Cajrts 
 and  Eurebmsi  without  coniulting  the  cuttom  of  the  Latin  Churches. 
 
 I  conrefs  that  this  Father  in  his  Book  of  Ecclefiaftical  Writers,  ac- 
 cording to  his  ufual  method,  hath  only  copied  the  Words  of  Eu- 
 Jibuti,  when  he  (peaks  of  Cajt/s  ;  but  the  fame  thing  cannot  be  (aid 
 of  the  other  Paflages,  where  he  affirms  diftinctiy  from  Euftbiw, 
 chat  this  Epiftle  is  not  generally  received  amongft  the  Latins.  Pau- 
 hts  Apostolus  (faith  he  in  his  Commentary  on  Ifaiah)  m  Epiftola  ad 
 Hebr^os,  quam  Latina  confuetudo  non  recifit.  Fie  adds  a  little  after, 
 (k)  that  this  Epiftle  of  S.  Paul  was  rejected,  becaufè  that  in  writing 
 to  the  Hebrews  he  made  ufe  of  fiich  Teftimonies  of  the  Holy  Scri- 
 ptures as  were  not  found  in  their  Copies.  This  evidently  proves 
 that  there  were  lome  Churches  in  thofe  times  in  which  the  Epiftle  ^r<  ;j 
 to  the  Hebrews  was  not  acknowledged  as  Canonical  ;  this  can  only 
 be  underftood  of  the  Weftern  Churches,  fïnce  he  grants  that  it  was 
 
 (ij  Earn  Latinorum  cenfuetudo  non  nciptt  inter  Scrip  taras  Canonicas,  Hier* 
 Epiit.  ad  Dardan. 
 
 (k)  Fault  (juoque  ideirco  ad Hcbraos  Ejpiftolét  contradicteur,  quod  ad  Hcbraos 
 (crib  en  s  utatur  tefiitnomis  qihe  m  Heb  xis  volumimbus  ?.on  halcntur.  Hier.  Comm. 
 in  If.  1  l.C.  ( . 
 
 V  univcr- 
 
[  14*  1 
 
 univei  (ally  approved  in  all  thofe  of  the  Eaft.  He  declares  moreover, 
 in  his  Letter  to  Dardanus,  (/)  that  without  having  regard  to  the 
 Cuftom  of  his  Time,  he  received  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  and 
 the  Apocalypfe  as  Canonical  Books,  though  the  Latins  did  not  al- 
 low the  firft,  nor  the  Grecians  the  fécond.  He  prefers  in  this  place 
 the  Authority  of  the  Ancients  who  had  cited  thefe  two  Works  as 
 Canonical,  before  the  practice  of  his  time.  It  cannot  be  (aid  then, 
 with  Cardinal  Baronius,  that  S.  Jerom,  when  he  affirms  that  in  his 
 time  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  was  not  commonly  received  amongft 
 the  Latins,  had  only  refped  to  the  Teftimony  of  Cajus,  and  that 
 he  hath  done  nothing  but  tranfcribed  the  Words  of  Eufebius  ;  for 
 he  fpeaks  plainly  of  the  Cuftom  of  his  tim:. 
 
 But  it  may  be  objected,  that  S.  Hilary,  Optatus^  S.  Awbrofe,  S.  Au- 
 gufiin,  and  lbme  other  Fathers  who  lived  before  S.  Jerom,  or  were 
 contemporary  with  him,  have  not  doubted  that  this  Epiftle  was  not 
 only  Canonical  and  Divine,  but  they  have  hkewife  believed-  that 
 it  was  S.  Paul's  ;  how  then  could  it  come  to  pa(s  that  this  Father 
 ihould  avouch  that  it  was  not  acknowledged  in  his  time  amongft  the 
 Latins?  It  is  true,  that  thefe  Fathers  who  were  Lat;?jsy  and  (omeof 
 whom  lived  at  the  fame  time  with  S.  Jerom,  have  all  afcribed  the 
 Epiftle  directed  to  the  Hebrews  to  S  Paul,  which  he  doth  alfo  him- 
 fclf  in  divers  PaiLgos  of  his  Works'  however,  I  will  nor  conclude 
 from  thence  with  Baronius,  that  this  learned   Man  hath  not  fuffi- 
 ciently  coniidered  the  Practice  of  his  Church,  (m)  and  that  he 
 hath  too  ealily  given  credit  to  the  Teftimony  of  Eufebius  ;  but  I 
 will  fay  that  a  difference  ought  to  be  put  between  the  Cuftom  of 
 Churches,  and  the  Atteftation  of  particular  Writer?.     When  S.  Je- 
 rom hath  written  that  in  his  time  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  was 
 not  allowed  among  the   Latins,  he  hath  declared  the  Practice  of 
 many  Churches  of  the  Weft  who  did  not  read  it  in  their  publick 
 Ailimblies:  this  doth  not  hinder  but  that  the  Fathers  of  thole  times 
 might  efteem  it  as  Canonical,  and  alio  as  S.  Pauls.    It  would  be  an 
 ealie  matter  by  this  means  to  reconcile  S.Jercm  with  fome  other 
 Latin  Fathers.  ■  M 
 
 (I)  QuodfiEpiftolam  ad  Hebrœot  hatinorum  confie  tudo  non  rccipit,  inter  Scri- 
 ptural Canonical,  n:c  Grœccrum  qindcm  Ecc/cjlc  Apccalypfim  Jcannis  càde  m  hber- 
 tate  fujeifiunt ,  (3  tamen  nos  utr unique  fujeipunus,  neqiuquani  hufiu  tempore  cc?i- 
 fuetudnicm,  fed  veterum  fcriptormn  audoritatcm  fcqucntes,  qui  plerumque  utriuj- 
 quc  abiituntur  tcflimonus,  non  ut  inter  dum  de  apocryphu  jacert  folent^  fed  fuafi 
 canonic  is  &  ccclefiafticis.    Hier.  Epilt.  ad  Dard. 
 
 (in J  ll.ee  igitur  cutn  ex  Eufebio  Hier onymm  cxfcrip/erit,  majorent  illi  qiàm 
 par  erat  (idem  tribuit,  dum  putaiit  Latinos  did. un  lîpijiolam  non  reciperc.  Baron, 
 ann.  cli.  6c,  n.  52. 
 
 That 
 
[   '47  ] 
 
 Th.it  which  confirms  the  diftinclion  that  I  have  now  made  be- 
 tween the  Cuftom  of  Churches  and  that  of  private  Writer»,  is  this, 
 that  we  find  (bme  very  ancient  Gnek  Manufcnpts  of  the  Epi  fifes 
 of  S.  Paul  with  the  old  Latin  Veriion  annexed  to  them,  in  which  the 
 Epifile  to  the  Hebrews  hath  been  ièpai  atcd  on  purpofc  from  the  bo- 
 dy of  the  Epiftles.  It  fcems  to  me  that  there  can  be  no  other  reafbtt 
 given  of  this  Separation  but  this,  that  the  Latins  who  have  tranlcri- 
 bed  thefè  Copies-  (as  I  fhall  prove  hereafter)  did  not  read  this 
 Epiftle  in  their  Chinches:  furthermore.,  it  may  beobfervedj  that  all 
 the  ancient  Latin  Authors  have  not  attributed  the  Epiflle  to  the  He- 
 brews to  S.  Patil;  for  befides  that  Ter  tuition  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.  Cjprtan,  iince  he  never 
 makes  uie  of  its  Authority  in  all  his  Works.  \i  we  ihould  lay  with 
 Baronws)  that  this  holy  Bilhop  hath  followed  Tertullian  in  this,  whom 
 lie  read  always ,  and  called  his  Mafter,  this  would  not  refolve  the 
 difficulty  :  I  doubt  not  but  if  the  Epiille  to  the  Hebrews  had  been 
 puMickly  read  at  that  time  in  his  Church,  as  being  S.  Pauls,  he 
 would  have  quote. 1  it  as  well  as  the  others. 
 
 As  for  the  Realons  that  are  alledged  ngainft  this  Epiftle,  they  are 
 not  of  that  weight  as  to  make  void  the  Teftimonies  of  ib  great  a 
 number  of  Authors  who  have  attributed  it  to  S.  Vaul.     Firft,  The  Hiermt. 
 Objection  propofed  by  S.  Jerom  in  his  Commentaries  on  Ifaial,  that  Cemm.  in 
 is  taken  from  the  PaiTages  of  the  old  Teftament,  which  the  Au-  //'/-2,c-6- 
 thor  of  this  Epiftie  hath  not  cited  from  the  Hebrew  Text,  but  fom 
 the  Greek  Veriion  of  the  Seventy,  is  of  no  force  at  all:  he  Ihould 
 have  rîrft  made  it  appear  that  it  was  originally  written  m  Hebrew, 
 which  cannot   be   eafily  proved  ;    and  though  it  were  true ,  yec 
 might  it  be  always  (aid,  as  of  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Matthew,  that  the 
 Greek  Tranflator  hath  inferted  into  his  Veriion  the  Pailages  of  the 
 Old  Teftament  according  to  the  Septuagint,  which'  was  read  at  that 
 time  by  the  moft  part  of  the  Jews. 
 
 If  we  follow  the  Opinion  of  Origen  who  was  well  ver  fed  in  the 
 Cnticifm  of  the  Sacred  Books,  this  Epiflle  hath  been  compoled  in 
 Greek  by  one  of  the  Scribes  or  Difciples  of  S.  Paul,  who  hath  only- 
 committed  to  Wilting  that  which  he  learned  from  his  Mailer.  This 
 may  ièrve  to  anfwer  another  Objection  that  is  ordinaiily  offered 
 agamft  this  Epiftie,  by  reafon  of  the  diverfity  of  Stile ,  which  is 
 pretended  to  be  very  different  from  that  of  the  other  Epiftles  or 
 S.  Paul.  Theophylacl,  who  hath  taken  notice  of  this,  declares  (w)  that 
 
 ' lifààjk  fXiTiTi^l ,    &i  fj&p    JtVU  V2TD   Atfg£,    «f  Q   iJ7J»   ?*-■•'-,    >2o»    K ^HJU^lQ'j    »    j     X.) 
 
 naihoy  cwv«  t  yue#KTy,{z.  Thcoph.  Comm.  in  c  »•  Epiitad  Hebr, 
 
 Va  S.?a*l 
 
[  ,48  ] 
 
 S.  Vaul  hath  Written  k  in  Hebrew,  and  that  it  was  afterwards  tranf- 
 lated  into  Greek  by  S.  Luke,  as  feme  think,  or  by  S.  Clement,  which 
 he  judgeth  mod  probable  ,  becaufe  o\  the  refèmblance  of  the 
 Stile. 
 
 It  is  objected  in  the  third  place,  that  if  this  Epiftle  were  S.  PWs, 
 he  would  have  fet  his  Name  at  the  head  of  it,  a*  be  hath  done  in 
 Tleodor.    His  other  Epiftles.     Theodoret,  who  hath  related  this  Objection  fiom 
 jLr-.      the  Avians,  anfwers,  that  there  is  a  great  deal  cf  difference  between 
 Epift^ad  tnis  Letter,  and  the  others  that  bear  the  Name  of  this  Apoftle  :  he 
 tiebr.       hath  prefixed  his  Name  (according  to  his  Opinion)  at  the  begin- 
 ning of  thofe    that   were  written  to  the  Gentiles,  becaufe  he  was 
 their  Apoftle  ;  whereas  in  writing  to  the  Jews,  whofe  Apoftle  he 
 was  not,  it  was  not  requiiite  for  him  to  do  the  like.     The  Avians 
 might  have  fèen  this  Anfwer  in  the  Works  of  Clemens  Alexandvimu 
 who  lived  before  the  appearing  of  their  Herehe,  as  al(o  another 
 that  he  gives  in  the  fame  place  ;  but  it  is  grounded  as  the  former, 
 only  on  a  Conjecture  :  he  faith  (o  )  that  it  was  a  piece  of  Wifdom  in 
 S.  Vaul  not  to  let  his  Name  at  the  head  of  an  Epiftle  that  he  wrote 
 to  a  fort  of  People  that  were  poflèfled  with  a  prejudice  againft  him; 
 and  that  he  did  very  prudently  in  concealing  his  Name,,  that  he 
 might  not  hinder  them  from  reading  it. 
 
 There  is  a  fourth  Reafbn  that  appears  to  be  much  ftronger  than 
 the  preceding ,  againft  the  afenbing  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  to 
 S.  Paul.  It  fèems  as  if  the  Author  deiigned  abfblutely  to  condemn 
 Epifl.  ad  all  Repentance  after  Baptifm  ;  for  he  faith,  Chap.  6.  that  it  is  im.- 
 Hei.c.6.  poffible  that  thofe  that  have  been  once  enlightened,  that  is  to  fay, 
 \i  5>  6.  baptized,  and  have  fallen  away  after  this,  fhould  be  renewed  by 
 Repentance  ;  this  is  manifeftly  contrary  to  the  Doctrine  or  the 
 New  Teftament,  and  to  the  Practice  of  the  Church.  There  is  a 
 great  deal  of  probability,  that  this  was  that  which  obliged  fome  Lar 
 tin  Churches  not  to  read  this  Epiftle  publickly  in  their  Aflembhes, 
 efpecially  fince  the  Novatians  had  made  ufe  of  it  to  fupport  their 
 Schifm.  (p)  The  Novatians  (  faith  Theodoret  )  ufed  thefe  Words  to 
 oppofe  the  Truth.  I  have  found  an  Anfwer  to  this  Objection  in 
 an  ancient  Latin  Tranflation  that  hath  been  made  before  the  time 
 of  S.  J  irons  ;  for  whereas  in  the  prefènt  vulgar ,  the  Greek  Word 
 ttJhjJATvv  is  tranflated  impojfibile,  it  is  in  this  ancient  Verfion  difficile  ; 
 
 QwjiTWi  Titivv  «x,  h  ctfX?  «^V^  twina  70  ovoyuL  3«V.   Clem.  Alex,  in  Hyjx)typ. 
 aptfd  Eufcb.  Hut.  EccleL  1.  6.  c  14 
 
 (p  J  Touuti*  ol  nWt*  xj1  f  dhnStiv  M(vn  tu  fm*.     Theod.  Comin  in  c.  6. 
 Spin,  ad  Ilebr. 
 
 and 
 
[    '49  ] 
 
 and  that  which  cleferves  further  to  be  obferved,  is  that  it  ordinarily 
 
 follows  the  words  of  the  Greek  'Text  ;  but  in  this  place  it  i5  rather 
 according  to  the  Senie,  than  the  ftrictnefs  of  the  Letter.  This 
 makes  it  evideitt  that  in  thole  times  the  Latins  (bund  this  exprefîîon 
 fomewhat  harm,  and  contrary  to  the  Judgment  or  the  Church  ;  And 
 this  partly  induced  Luther  to  deny  that  the  "Epi (He  to  the  Hebrews  was 
 Written  by  S.  Paul,  or  any  other  of  the  A. pomes. 
 
 Erafmnshzth  affirmed  in  his  Notes  on  this  Epiftle,  that  S.  Ambrofey  gra  /r 
 who  hath  written  Commentaries  on  the  Epiftles  of  S.  Faul,  hath  Not.  m 
 made  none  upon  this,    becaufe  it  was  received  but  very  lately   in  Epift*  a 
 the  Rowan  Church.     He  adds,  that  the  Grecians  have  already  embra-  *&Jrf 
 ced  it,  becaufe  it  was  contrary  to  the Ar tans 3  who  reje&ed  it.     But 
 he  is  miftaken  in  attributing  Commentaries  to  S.  Amhrofe  that  ark 
 not  his,  and  which  the  moil  judicious  Criticks  believe  to  be  made 
 by  S.  Mary,  Deacon  of  Rem:  :  neither  is  it  true  that  it  hath  been 
 more  approved  by  zUq  Grecians,  fince  it  was  exploded  by  the  Artans  ; 
 for  Clemens  AUxandrinus,    who  lived  before   Arius,  hath  avouched 
 that  it  was  S.  PauFs.     Be  (ides  they   that  have  difputed  againft  the 
 Anansi  have  thereupon  oppoied  to  them  'the  univerfàl  Confent  of 
 the  Ecclehaftical  Writers  before  the  appearing  of  their  Herefie. 
 
 The  fame  Erafmtts  offended  the  grcateft  part  of  the  Divines, 
 efpecially  thole  of  the  Faculty  of  Pans  ,  by  thefe  two  Propo- 
 iinons.  (  <f  )  It  hath  been  always  doubted  of  the  Author  of  the  Epiftle 
 to  the  Hebrews*  and  to  fay  the  truth ,  /  do  {till  doubt  thereof.  Tnis  lb 
 exaiperated  the  Reverend  Doctors  of  Paris,  that  they  cenfured  the 
 aforefaid  Proportions  after  this  manner.  (  r)  Thefe  two  Prcpofitions 
 are  infolent  and  fchifmatical  againft  the  Practice  and  Decrees  of  the 
 Church  in  the  Councils  of  Nice,  Laodicea,  the  third  of  Carthage,  m. 
 which  S.  Auguftin  affijtedt  and  in  a  Council  of  feventy  Bijhops  wherein 
 Tope  Gelafius  preftded.  Thefe  Divines  added  to  this  the  Teftimonies 
 of  -S.  Denis,  whom  they  called  the  Difciple  of  S.  Paul,  of S.Clement, 
 Innocent  I.  S  Gregory  Naz>ianz,en  and  of  fome  other  Fathers.  From 
 whence  they  conclude  (f)  that  it  is  not  true  that  it  hath  been  al- 
 
 (q)  De  Epiftolœ  ad  Hebrœos  auHore  femper  eft  dubitatum;  &t  ut  ifje ingenue 
 fatcar,  adhuc  dubuo.  Erafm.  Propof. 
 
 (r)  He  duce  propofitiones  arrogant  cr  &  Jchifmaticè  ajjerjmtur,  contra  ufutn  & 
 detcrmmationcm  Ecclefix  m  mukis  conciiiis  Kidcno ,  Laodicet.fi,  Cêrtbaginenfi 
 tertio,  cui adfuit  Auguftt>ius,&  in  Concilio  70.  Epifcoponan  prjefide  GeLifio.  Ont. 
 Facult.  Theol.  Pari  tit.  de  Auclor.  libr.  Novi  Telt. 
 
 (f  )  Xccverum  eft  ftmper  dubitatum  ejfe  de  auRore  hujus  Epifîolx  ad  Hubrxos, 
 cumftriùat  Origencs  quod  ante  tempora  Jua  omnes  antiqui  (3  majores  earn  ut  Fau- 
 lt Apojloli  fuftipiebant.    Cenf.  Facult.  Theol.  P.irif.  ibid. 
 
 wav^ 
 
ways  doubted  of  the  Author  of  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  fince 
 Ongen  avoucheth  that  all  the  anaent  Ecclefiaftical  Writers  that  have 
 lived  before  him,  have  received  it  as  S.  Paul's. 
 
 Moreover  thefe  fame  Divines  oppofed  to  Erafmus  the  words  of 
 2  Pet.  3.    §  Teter,  that  are  at  the  end  of  his  fécond  Canonical  Epiftle  directed 
 to  the  Hebrews,  wherein  he  faith  exprefly,  that  his  beloved  Brother 
 Paul  had  alio  written  unto  them  ;  they  do  not  doubt  but  S.  Peter  de- 
 signed in  this  place  to  hint  at  the  Eprftle  of  S.  Paul  to  the  Hebrews. 
 Brafm.      Erafwns  in  his  anfwer  to  thefe  Doctors  of  Pans,  is  content  to  lay  that 
 fjjfl'l    all  thefe  Councils  do  not  (peak  of  the  Author  of  this  Epiftle,  but 
 Panfi       onh?  °f Ks  Authority  ;  that  this  Title  hath  been  added  to  it  to  denote 
 the  Epiftle,  and  that  it  is  not  denied  that  many  have  cited  it  under 
 the  name  of  S.  Paul. 
 
 Whereas  this  Anfwer  is  is  coo  general,  and  doth  not  fully  fatisfiethe 
 Authority  of  thefe  Councils  that  attribute  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews 
 to  S.Paul,  I  (hall  produce  what  Efiius  a  Learned  Do&or  of  the  Fa- 
 prJef.C      cu^y  °^  ^cwaJ  natn  judicioufly  remarked  on  all  thefè  difficulties. 
 în  Epift.'  Th^s  Divine  after  he  hath  treated  of  the  Queftion  concerning  the 
 ad  l-kbr.    Author  of  this  Epiftle,  adds  this  other,  viz,*  whether  it  be  a  point 
 of  Faith  to  believe  that  S.  Paul  is  the  Author,  infomuch  that  the  con- 
 trary opinion  is  to  be  accounted  Heretical,  as  Catharinus,  Styus  Se- 
 nenfis,  Alfonfus  and  fome  other  modern  Writers  have  averred,  being 
 fupported  by  the  authority  of  fbme  Councils,  and  by  the  practice  of 
 the  whole  Church  that  reads  it  in  her  Offices  under  the  name  of 
 S.  Paul  ? 
 
 Efiius,  nothwithftanding  all  thefe  Authorities,  doth  not  judge  it 
 to  be  a  matter  of  Faith.  This  he  proves  by  the  pofitive  words  of 
 divers  Fathers,  and  among  others  of  S.  Jerom  and  S.Auguftin. 
 We  have  already  Tèen  what  the  firft  hath  thought  thereupon.  And 
 as  for  S.  Augufiin,  he  faith  exprefly  in  difcourfing  of  this  Epiftle,  (  t) 
 that  many  believe  it  to  be  S.  Paul's,  and  that  others  deny  it  to  be  his. 
 Now  it  is  certain  that  this  Father  (peaks  in  this  place  of  Orthodox 
 Authors.  As  for  what  concerns  the  Councils,  the  fame  Efiius  anfwers, 
 that  iome  of  thole  have  been  holden  before  the  time  of  thefe  two  ' 
 Fathers,  and  that  confèquently  nothing  can  be  concluded  from  them. 
 He  in  lifts  further,  that  nothing  can  be  inferred  horn  the  others, 
 
 (v)  becaufè  the  dehgnofthc   Biihops  that  were  there  ailembied, 
 
 — -, — , • > — — — — . 1 — _ — , 
 
 (t)  Epiftola  q:ix  infer ibitur  ad  Hcbrxos,  qnamf  lures  Apoftoh  Pauls  effe  dicunt, 
 quidam  v.  ro  nsgant,  &c.     Aug:  lib.  1 6.  de  Civ.  Dei  2.  22. 
 
 (v)  Ncquc  enim  Patr;b:is  borum  Cunciltorum  propufitum  crat  definire  cujus  ea 
 Epsftola  fit  anciens,  fed  quod  ur.  a  cum  Ceteris  Fault  Epiftolis,  quibus  rccepttffimo 
 Ecdefi*  more  earn  anmtmepaht,  inter  Divina*  Scripturas  fit  babenda.  Eit  prxf. 
 Comment.  inEpift.ad  Hcbr. 
 
 was 
 
[  w  ] 
 
 was  not  to  determine  who  hath  been  the  Author  of  this  Epiftle,  but 
 only  to  put  it  in  the  number  of  the  Canonical  Scriptures  with  the 
 other  Letters  of  S.  Paul.  The*  he  juftifies  by  theft  fame  Councils, 
 and  he  proves  it  alfo  by  the(e  words  of  the  Council  of  Carthage, 
 Vault  Ep:fiol<e  tredecim,  ad  Hebrœosuna.  This  Council  hath  (  as  he 
 thought)  feparately  mentioned  this  that  is  directed  to  the  Hebrews, 
 becaule  they  were  not  fo  well  aflured,  as  of  the  others,  that  it  was 
 S.  Paul's,  he  adds  (x)  that  S.Augufhn,  who  had  a  Vénération  for 
 this  Council,  would  not  have  doubted  of  the  Author  of  this  Epiftle,, 
 ir  he  were  perfuaded  that  this  had  been  therein  defined.  This  Father 
 (  faith  he )  knew  well  that  all  things  that  are  (aid  or  difputed  in 
 Councils  are  not  Articles  of  Faith;  and  he  proves  it  by  fome 
 Examples.  But  after  all,  Eftius  (  y  )  concludes  with  the  Divines  of 
 Pans  and  Mtlchtor  Canus,  that  it  would  be  a  piece  of  rafhneis  to 
 maintain  that  S.Paul  is  not  the  Author  of  the  Epiftle  to  the  He- 
 brews. Neverthelefs  he  durft  not  pronounce  the  opinion  of  thole 
 to  be  Heretical,  who  deny  that  it  was  written  by  this  Apoftle  ;  and 
 in  this  he  appears  very  judicious,  for  indeed  there  is  no  matter  of 
 Herehcinit.  Furthermore  I  have  inlarged  a  little  on  this  Remark* 
 of  £/////,  becaufe  it  clears  every  thing  that  hath  refpedto  the  Au- 
 thor of  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  teacheth  the  Divines  at  the 
 fame  time  not  to  run  too  faft  in  point  of  Herefie. 
 
 The  Divines  of  Paris  do  not  only  condemn  Erafmus  as  being  too 
 rafh,  but  they  add  alfo  in  their  Ccnfure  touching  the  Authors  of  eve- 
 ry Book  of  the  New  Tcftament,  (  z,  )  that  it  is  no  longer  lawful  for 
 any  Chriihan  to  doubt  of  them.  On  this  account  eveiy  man  that  is 
 not  fully  fatished  that  S  Paul  wrote  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrtirs,  is  a 
 bad  Chriftian,  according  to  the  determination  of  the  Faculty  of 
 Divinity  at  Parts  ;  neverthelefs  he  is  not  an  Heretick.  Erafmus  in- 
 ftead  of  replying  punctually  to  thefe  Learned  Doctors,  eludes  their 
 Decrees  by  general  Anfwers.  He  faith  that  he  doth  not  believe 
 (a)  that  every  thing  that  is  received  by  an  Eccleiiaftical  Cuftom, 
 becomes  immediately  an  Article  r,f  Faith.  However  he  ihews  his 
 iubmiflion  to  the  Decrees  of  the  Church,  when  he  adds  in  this  fame 
 
 (  x)  Verum  fcicbat  Avgnftinv.s,  non  omnia  qux  qroju»  m*do  dieuuttirhi  Cona- 
 his  definitive  diet,    Ett.  ib'd. 
 
 (y)  Ccnfco  quidem  cum  Theologica  Facilitate  Pan  fictifs  cum  W.'lcbiere  Can», 
 temeranum  effe  Ji  quis  Epiflciam  ad  Hebrceos  hegaret  effe  Vault  Affto.i  ,  fed hxie- 
 ticum  cb  idjolum  prcnimcuire  non  aufim.   Eft.  ibid. 
 
 (z)  Jam  non  efi  fas  Chriftiano  de  il  is  du  hi  tare.    Cer.f.  Fac  T'.eol.Parif. 
 
 (a)  Qui  d  qui  drcccp  turn  (ft  ufii  Ecc'c/iaftico,  non  frnnniis  obi: gat  nos  ad  ere . 
 dum  tanquam  articulum  fidei.  Erafm.  Declar.  ad  Thtol.  P.uif. 
 
 place, 
 
place,  that  if  he  follows  his  Reafon,  (  b  )  he  cannot  judge  chat  the 
 Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  is  S.  Paul's,  nor  §.  Luke's;  neither  that  the  fé- 
 cond under  the  name  of  S.  Peter,  was  written  by  this  Apoftle;  nor 
 that  the  Revelation  doth  belong  to  the  Apoftle  S.Jchn:  that  all  his 
 fcruple  is  to  know,  whether  the  Church  hath  lb  authorifèd  the 
 Titles  of  holy  Writ,  that  (lie  hath  decreed,  not  only  that  that  which 
 is  contained  in  thefe  Books  is  molt  true,  but  alio  that  thofè  perfbns 
 to  whom  they  are  attributed  are  certainly  the  Authors  of  them.  If 
 this  be  fo  (  faith  Era/mm  )  I  condemn  my  Reafbns  of  doubting;  for 
 1  prefer  the  exprefs  Judgment  of  the  Church,  before  any  human 
 Reaibns  whatfbever. 
 
 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  Teflament  to  be  Canonical  and  Divine,hath  declared  at  the 
 fame  time  that  they  were  written  by  the.Authors  who fe  Names  they 
 bear.  This  is  neceflàry  to  be  obfèrved  here,  that  it  may  be  applied 
 to  the  other  Books  of  the  New  Teflament,  of  which  we  mall  treat 
 in  the  Sequel  of  this  Work. 
 
 It  hath  been  often  obje&ed  to  the  Lutherans,  that  their  Patriarch 
 hath  reje&ed  this  Epiftle,  who  believed  not  that  it  was  written  by 
 any  Apoftle.  But  belides  their  reading  it  in  their  German  Bibles 
 with  the  other  Epiftles  of  S.  Pan^  they  anfwer  that  it  might  be  per- 
 mitted to  their  Mafter  to  raifè  this  Doubt  after  fo  many  ancient 
 Authors:  and  that  he  hath  nevertheless  acknowledged  (c)  that  it 
 -,ar'r  was  moil  excellent,  and  compoied  by  fome  Difciple  of  the  Apoftlcs. 
 Comm.fur  ^a^vm  hath  prefixed  to  his  Commentaries  on  this  Epiftle.a  Dif  courfe 
 /'  Epift.  where  he  faith  ,  For  my  part  I  cannc-t  believe  that  S.  Paul  is  the 
 auxHebr.  Author  of  it. 
 
 One  would  think  that  the  Sociniam  mould  expunge  this  Epiftle 
 to  the  Hebrews  out  of  the  Catalogue  of  the  Canonical  Books,  in 
 imitation  of  the  Arians.  In  the  mean  time  tho  they  are  perfuaded 
 that  there  is  no  certainty  as  to  the  Author  of  it,  yet  they  do  not  for- 
 bear to  receive  it  with  the  other  Epiftles  of  S.  PauL    Therefore  So- 
 
 (  b  )  Jnxta  Jctifum  hnmanum  nee  credo  Epiftolam  ad  Hcbrsos  ejjc  Pauls  ant 
 Lucx,  nee  ficundam  Petri  cjje  Petri,  vec  Apocalypfin  effe  Joatmis  Apoftoh  qui 
 Jcnpfit  Evangelium-folus  ilk  fcrupulus  habet  animum  mcum,  an  Ecclefia  rece pe- 
 nt titulos,  ut  non  jolhmvelit  habcri  pro  indubitatis  Mutin  hu  librù  Jcrtptafunt, 
 vernm  pariter  exilai  tu  pro  indnbitato  habeamus  ab  his  and  on  bus  ejjc  prof  cil  a 
 quorum  titnlos  gerunt.  Id  ft  eft,  damno  ac  rcjicio  dubitationem  mcam-plus  apud  me 
 valet  cxprejfum  Ecclefiœ  judicium,  qnhm  nlU  rationes  human**     Erafin.  Dedar. 
 
 ad  Theol.  Parif. 
 
 f  c(  Ejjc  I  amen  pule hetr  imam  &  infignem   Epiftolam  à  dtfcip:.lo   qnodam  A- 
 poflolorum  firiptam.  Raith.  Vitid.  Veil". Germ.  Luth.  th. 22. 
 
 cïnm 
 
[  **î3 
 
 c'mut  himfelf  after  he  hath  produced  ibme  Arguments  (V)  that  give 
 
 occafion  to  afcruple  whether  it  appertains  to  this  A  pottle,  that 
 
 however  it  is  no  lefs  Divine;  hcconfrifjth  that  it  is  not  with»         ja- 
 fon  that  it  is  doubted  irhether  the  perfon  to  whom  ic  is  c  nly 
 
 attributed  be  certainly  the    Author  :  but  he  faith  at  the  fame  cim 
 that  tho  the  nair.e  or"  an  Author  of  a  Hook  be  not  known,,  it  do 
 not  follow  .that  this  Book  is  of  no  authority,  or  even  of  lefs  than  if  it 
 were  known.     Enjedtnm  a  fubtil  Unttarian  infills  alifb  at  large  on  this 
 Subject  when  heexamins  fbme»Paflâges  of  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  ^jjjjj  ^ 
 he  rehires  all  that  he  hath  read  thereupon  in  the  Writings  of  Erafmus  cor\  Êpift^ 
 and  Btz.*,  and  of  fome  other  Commentators  on  the  holy  Scriptures.  adHchr. 
 But  after  he  hath  too  nicely  aliedged  fiich  Reafons  as  not  only  take 
 away  ihis  Epiftle  from  S.Paul,  but  alio  render  it  (ufpeéted,  he  doth 
 not  fail  to  reckon  it  in  the  number  of  the  Canonical  Books. 
 
 It  is  well  worth  the  obièiving,  that  the  Epiftieto  the  Hebrews  is 
 not  (o  favourable  to  the  Orthodox  againft  the  Avians,  but  that  they 
 have  hkewife  made  ule  of  it  againft  the  Cathohcks  to  authorize  their 
 Novelties.  This  may  be  (cen  in  the  Woi  ks  of  S.  Epifhanius,  who 
 takes  notice  that  altho  thefe  Hereticks  did  not  acknowledge  it  as  an 
 Apoftoiical  Writing,  yet  they  did  not  forbear  to  oppole  the  Faith  of 
 the  Church  with  there  words  of  this  fame  Epiftle,  chap.  ;.  v.i,  2.  (f) 
 Confder  the  Apoflle  and  H'gh  Prieft  of  cur  profejjion,  Jefus  Cbrift  *wbo 
 was  faithful  to  him  that  appointed  him  (  g  )  From  thefe  words,  who  was 
 fait  If Ail  to  him  that  appointai  [  oi  madt\  him,  they  concluded  that 
 Jefus  Chiift  was  a  Creature, 
 
 As  for  the  Language  in  which  the  Epiftieto  the  Hebrews  was  com- 
 pofèd,  the  ancient  Ecclefiafhcal  Writers  have  all  judged  that  the 
 Greek  Text  which  we  now  have  is  too  pure  and  elegant  to  be 
 S.  Pauls  ;  but  it  cannot  be  neceiîarily  concluded  from  thence  that 
 it  was  at  fiilè  written  in  Hebrew  or  Chaldaick  by  this  holy  Apoftle. 
 I  am  rather  inclined  to  believe  with  Ongen,  that  it  hath  been  compi- 
 led by  one  of  the  Amanuenfes  or  Interpreters  or  S.  Paul,  to  whom  all 
 
 (  d  J  Vidctv.r  mibi  iff  a  in  univerfum  fcribendi  ratio  aucloris  illius  EpijloU  ad' 
 modum  diver  fa  ab  eh  qua  quam  fecutus  tji  Pau  us,  quamvis  <xaue  dtvina.  Soc.  dc 
 Auclor.  Script.  Sac.  n.  2. 
 
 (e)  Ingenue  fat eor  de  fen /  to  1  oc  non  five  causa  dubitatif  num  illius  aucloris 
 fucnt  cm  commumore  conjenju  tribuitur.  Nihilommits  tanicn  àico^  ttiamfi  rtamen 
 autoris  alicujus  fcripti  tgnoretur,  no  tamen  ejufinodi  fcriptum  nullius  aucioritati: 
 exi/timatulum  effe,  am  ttiammtneris  quam  fi  non  ignoraretur,    Soc  tbid. 
 
 (  f  )  AtcaJh  7ïV  Aç^içiA  vjudfa'  mçàv  cvt*  fw  7Toi))wn  cjjStvv,  Epiit.  ad  Hcbr. 
 cap.  3.  v  2. 
 
 (   g  )    'AttD     T6    «ÇH/uV»  &l   ™ÇQV    CVT*    TOÙ     7Xl{)OUV71    OJJ  riv,    7D    MSOJÀA  rrtf  Ql^*i~ 
 
 yvnu    Epiph.  Haer.  69.  n.37. 
 
 X  Antiquity 
 
[154  3 
 
 Antiquity  bach  afcribed  it,  by  rcafon  of  the  Grandeur  of  the  Con- 
 tions in  which  there  is  a  certain  Art  that  could  proceed  only 
 from  a  Learned  Jew  of  the  Seel  of  the  Pbarifees.  The  Jews 
 themfelvcs  at  this  day  who  have  any  knowledge  of  their  ancient 
 Authors,  do  hcely  confers  that  there  is  lomethmg  in  it  that  is  great 
 and  fublime.  Ir  we  knew  prtxilely  to  what  fort  of  Jews  it  was  di- 
 rected, we  might  more  eafily  judge  of  the  Language  in  which  it 
 was  written.  But  iince  this  queihon  is  but  of  little  moment,  and 
 we  can  have  nothing. but  Conjectures  thereupon,  I  ihall  not  înlïft 
 any  longer  on  it. 
 
 Chap.  XVII. 
 
 Of  the  Catbolick  or  Canonical  Epijlles  in  general,    and  in 
 particular. 
 
 TH  E  Grecians  have  called  Catholick  or  univerfd  the  (even 
 Epiftles  which  we  read  under  this  Name;  becaufe  for  the^ 
 moft  part  they  were  not  written  to  particular  Churches,  as^thofeor 
 S.  Baul.  The  Title  of  Canonical  feems  to  have  been  affected,  eipe- 
 cially  in  the  Weftern  Churches,  becaufe  it  hath  been  doubted  whe- 
 ther feme  of  them  ought  to  be  put  in  the  number  of  the  Canonical 
 Books.  Cardinal  Cajetan  hath  thought  that  the  Epiftle  of  S.  James,- 
 which,  is  directed  to  the  twelve  Tribes  of  the  Jews  in  general,  (a) 
 defèrves  rather  the  Name  of  a  Book*  than  of  an  Epiftle,  becaufe  i: 
 was  not  written  to  be  earned  to  the  Jews  th  it  were  difperfed  a- 
 mongft  divers  Nations;  but  he  is  miftaken  in  this,  for  we  write  as 
 well  to  Communities,  even  thofe  that  are  feparated  in  different 
 Countries,  as  to  particular  Atïembiies.  And  thefè  Letters  are'called 
 W^Mxgiy  Catbolick,  or  Circulary. 
 
 The  Author  of  the  Preface  at  the  beginning  of  the  Canonical 
 Epiftles,,  which  is  attributed  to  S.  Jerom3anc\  is  found  in  the  moft  part 
 of  Vianufcnpt  Copies,and  in  the  hrft  Latin  Editions  of  the  Bible,hath 
 obferved  (b)  that  the  Order  of  thefe  Epiftles  in  his  time  was  not 
 
 (  n  )  Magi  s  lihri  qu'àm  cpiftola  titulum  merebatur  :  fenpta  eft  cnim  non  ut  de- 
 ferret  ur  ouodeam  "Tribubus  differ  fis,  cum  hoc  effet  împojfiUiie^  fed  ad  ivfirucndiim 
 eos.  Cijct.  Coram,  in  c.  i.  Epilt.Jac. 
 
 (b  )  Non  it  a  eft  or  do  a  pud  Grcccos  qui  intègre  fapiiwt,  fidemaue  reclaim  fctl<w- 
 tur,  Epiftolarum  feptem  qucc  Canonicœ  nuncupantur,  ficut  in  Latinis  codicwus  in* 
 v&iitUK  ut  qubd  Petrus  primus  m  or  dine  Apoftolorum,  pnm<e  fint  cuamejus  Epi' 
 ftoU  in  ordmc  c^cterarum.  Hicron.  Prolog,  in  VU.  Epitt.  Gin.. 
 
 the 
 
the  fame  in  the  Lattn,  as  in   the  Gm-/:   Copies  of  the  Orthodox. 
 The  Epiftle  of  S.  fames  was  the  Srft  in  the  Greek;  whereas  the  L 
 
 tins  had  placed  that  of  S.  Peter  at    the  head  of  all  the  reft,  hiving 
 had  regard  to  the  Primacy  of  his  A.poftle(hip.     This  Autho 
 that  he    hat!         sftabliihed  tl  :t  Order,   putting    that  ot 
 
 at  the  beginning, and  afterwards  the  two  or  St.  Peter,  t 
 
 three  of  St,  John,  and  at  Lift  that  of  St.  Jutk  :  this  indeed  is  the 
 Older  that  is  found  in  the  Greek  Manulcript  Copies,  and  even  m  tl 
 ancient  Latin  Bibles   written  about  icven  or  eight  hundred  yea 
 
 ,o.     St.  Jerom  alio  hath  followed  this  method  in  his  great  Pi  -: 
 
 .IcJl  Galeattts. 
 
 The  Syrians  have  preferved  this  (amc  Order  in  their  Verfion, 
 .rs  from  the  Edition  of  Widmanjtadim,  neverthelefs  chey  ha 
 !    it  in  their  ancient  Copies  (according  to  which  this  Edition  or  Wtd- 
 
 nfiadim  was  regulated,)  the   fécond   Epiftle  of  St  Peter,  nor  the 
 fécond  and  third  of  St.  John,  nor  that  of  St.  Jude*     1  hefe  Epiftles 
 
 :  e  not.  apparently  in  the  Greek  Copies  which  the  Syrians  have 
 Translated  into  their  language  :  However  it  teems  as  if  there  were 
 nothing  very  certain  concerning  the  Order  of  thefe  Epiftles  ;  ror  in 
 the  [aft  of  the  Canons  that  bear  the  name  of  the  Apoftles,  thole  of 
 St.  Peter  are  fet  down  firft,  and  afterwards  thofe  of  St.  John,  and 
 that  of  St.  J  amis  ftands  in  the  third  rank  :  the  Bilhops  ailembled  at 
 vt  have  alio  named  them  after  this  hme  manner,,  conformably  to 
 
 :  Council   of   Florence..     Cafom    hi  in  (èlf    hath  let  the  Epiftle  or 
 St.  Fetcr  at  the  head  of  all,  in  his  Commentaries  on  the  Canonical 
 
 iiHes.     But  we  ought  to  prefer  the  Order  that  is  oblerved  in  the 
 Greek  and  Latin  Copies,  and  allô  in  the  Oriental  Verfions. 
 
 As  for  what  concerns  the  Authority  of  thefe  Epiftles,  very  great 
 difficulties  aniefrom  thence;  for  as  we  have  already  ieen,  tl 
 ans  have  not  inièrted  (bme  of  them  in  their  Verlîon  or.  th 
 Teftament,  which  they  would  have  done  if  they  had  been  read  in  : 
 Eaftern  Churches,  when  they  Interpreted  them  out  of  the  Greek  in- 
 to Synacky  neverthclels  they  have  hnce  Translated  them,  and  they 
 have  been  hkewile  Printed  ;  therefore  they  are  allô  f  in  t 
 
 Arabick  Veriionsof  the  New  Teftament.    I  (hall 
 examin  this  matter  more  exactly  in  the  (ècond  Book  c  k, 
 
 wherein  I  lhall  Treat  of  Verkons  in  pai\..  but  iinee  my  deligii 
 
 atprefent  isomyto  ipeak  of  the  Text,  let  usfeç  wbattfre  Ancients 
 have  thought  thereupon. 
 
 Eujtbiw,  who  avoucheth   (c)  that  the  Epiftle  of  $&  James-,  \ 
 
 (  c  )  'Ou  7n>Moî  $S  7roLKcuéoy  tfjuTTÎt  i[j.Vi)f.iovd><rvur,  àç  «/£  tÏ:ç  tep^iK  'l&M-  -  - 
 
 fc.ufeb,  Hiit.  EccL  lib.  2.  cap.  ij. 
 
 X  i  Bioti 
 
Brother  of  our  Sjiviour,  with  the  other  Canonical  F,pi  (ties,  was  pub- 
 licklv  read  in  his  time  in  the  moil  part  of  the  Churches,  obferves 
 fteverthelefs  that  nor  m  .my  of  theancienc  Writers  have  made  men- 
 tion of  it,  as  neither  of  that  of  St.JuiU\  he  would  fay/  without 
 doubt,  that  there  are  few  or  the  ancient  Do&ors  of  the  Church 
 that  have  cited  it  as  Canonical;  therefore  in  another  part  of  his  Hifto. 
 iy  where  he  produceth  a  Catalogue  of  the  Books  or  the  New  Teifa- 
 mentj  (  d)  he  reckons  the  fome  ÉpilHe  of  St.  James,  th.u  ofSt.JuJe 
 the  fécond  of  St.  Peter,  and  the  fécond  and  third  of  St.  John  a- 
 mong  the  Scriptures  that  were  not  generally  received  as  Canoni- 
 cal by  all  the  Churches,  though  feveral  ancient  Fathers  had  fpoken 
 of  them. 
 
 Sr.  Jerom3  who  ufually  traîifcribes  Eufebins,  in  his  Catalogue  of 
 ccleiïafticai  Writers,  expreflèth  himfèlr  almoft  after  the  fame  man- 
 ner as  this  Hiftorian  dochj  on  the  Epiille  of  St.  James  ;  for  after  he 
 hath  faid  (e),that  St.  James  the  hrft  Bifhopof  Jerufalew  hath  written 
 it  one  L-tter,  which  is  in  the  number  of  the  (even  Canonical  Epi- 
 ilies,  he  adds  (to  Ihew  that  all  People  were  not  agreed  that  it  was 
 certainly  his  )  that  it  was  (aid  that  it  hath  been  written  by  another  in 
 his  name,  though  it  hath  obtained  Authority  in  procefs  of  time. 
 Qujct.  Cardinal  Cajetan  makes  ufe  of  this  fame  Parage  or  S.  Jeromi   to 
 
 *jomp'  J?  prove  that  it  is  not  ablbiutelv  certain  that  this  Epiftle  was  compofed 
 %  *  hy  S.  James  the   Brother  of  our  Lord  ;    Non  ufquecjuaque  certum   an 
 
 Epiftola  hcec/it  Jacobt  fratris  Domini.  He  hath  al(o  entit tiled  his  An- 
 notations on  this  Epiftle,  Commentaries  on  the  Epi  file  that  bears 
 the  Name  of  S.  James  ;  In  earn  qua  Di'vo  Jacobo  injcribitur  Commen- 
 tant :  in  which  point  he  is  more  fcrupulous  than  S.  Jerom,  who 
 hath  made  no  difficulty  to 'quote  it  under  this  Title.  Indeed  this 
 Father  fimply  relates  in  this  place  the  various  Opinions  of  feveral 
 Perfbns  concerning  the  Author  of  this  Epiille  :  but  fora  (much  as 
 it  was  read  in  the  Churches  under  the  Name  of  S.  James,  and  it 
 hath  been  read  therein  ever  fince  that  time,  this  Cardinal  difcovers 
 too  nice  a  curiofity,  as  well  as  when  he  adds  in  this  very  place., 
 that   the   manner   of   fainting    that  is   at   the   beginning   of    this 
 
 vuâC*  çiperat  xj  n  'la</k,  nn  Iifc7?«  fAj-ji&y   >y  iein  'I»*W.  Eufeb.  Hilt.  Eccl. 
 lib.  3  cap.  25.*" 
 
 (  c  ;  'jacobus  qui  appel latur  f rater  Domini— unam  tantum  fcripfu  EptftoUm, 
 qua  de  J'cptcm  Cat/.o/icis  e(lyquœ  ($  ipfaab  alto  quodam  Jub  nomine  ejus  édita  afjeri- 
 tur,  hcet  paulatim  tempore  procedente  obtiuuerit  au'ciotitatenu  Hieron.  de  Script 
 Eccl.  injac 
 
 Xf)  Epi- 
 
C    '57] 
 
 (0  Epiftle  contains  nothing  Àpoftolical;  on  the  contrary,  that  it  is 
 altogether  profane,  no  mention  being  therein  made  of  Jefus  drift, 
 nor  of  Grace,  nor  Peace;  and  he  doth  not  call  him  (elf  (faith  he) 
 an    Ipoftle,  but  a  Servant  of  lefts  Ghrift, 
 
 Six  h  hath  rehearfed  thefe  Words  amongft  the  Objeéti- 
 
 o  is  th.it  Luther  hath  made  againft  this  Epiltle,  and  perhaps  C.  .  ; 
 hath  taken  the  belt  part  or  tholè  Expre (fions  from  him  :  bat  this 
 Objection  is  (o  weak,  and  even  (o  irrational,  that  the  Lutherans 
 have  had  no  regard  to  it,  no  more  than  to  di  other  Reafbns 
 
 that  their  Mallei-  hach  alledged  againft  the  Epiftle  of  S.  James  ; 
 for  they  receive  it  at  this  day  after  the  fame  manner  as  the  C 
 tholicks  :  neverthelefsj  they  are  not  to  be  excufed  in  this  refpect,  be- 
 caule  they  ihll  retain  in  feme  Editions  or  their  German  Bible,  the 
 Prefaces  of  Luther  that  ire  at  the  beginning  of  the  Epiftle  to  the 
 Hebrews,  and  of  that  of  S.James,  atcer  they  have  admitted  them 
 as  Canonical  ;  for. they  difbwn  by  thefe  Prefaces  what  they  autho- 
 rize in  the  body  of  their  Bible. 
 
 I  could  have  wilhed  that  Mdchior  Caws,  and  fome  other  learned  Me/ck 
 Divines,  had  not  made  u(e  of  the  Authority  of  certain  Decretal  Epi-  Can  & 
 files  fàlfly  attributed  to  the  firft  Popes,  to  fhew  that  ever  fînee  the  ?c'  •I*'™ 
 Primitive  Times  of  Chnftianity  it  hath  been  believed  that  this  Epi- 
 ftle  did  certainly  belong  to  S.  James  :  there  is  no  need  of  this  fort 
 of  Prooh  ;    for   though  the  Ancients  have  been  divided    as   to  this 
 Point,  it  is  enough  that  the  (uçceeding  Ages,  after  a  due  reHecYion 
 on  this  matter,  have  found  in  Antiquity  certain  Acts  luifieient  to 
 juihhe  the  placing  this  Epiftle  of  S.  James  in  the  rank  of  the  Cano- 
 nical Books  of  the  New  Teftament,  and  that  all  the  Churches  of 
 the  World  do  at  this  day  receive  it  as  fuch. 
 
 Calvin,  who  hath  been  more  moderate  herein  than  Luther,  hath 
 chofe  rather  to  reconcile  the  Doânne  of  S.  James,  touching  Faith 
 and  Works,  with  that  oi:  S.  Paul,  than  unactviledly  to  reject  this 
 Epiftle  under  colour  that  it  appeas  to  be  contrary  to  the  fame 
 S.  Paul.  To  receive  (laith  he)  this  Epijtle,  this  feems  to  me  to  be  fuf-  Cah.a 
 ficient,  that  it  contains  nothing  unworthy   of  an  Apoftle  of  Chrift.     The  Je  fin 
 
 Lutherans  themfelves  loon  perceived  that  their  Milter  lometimes  gave  c:°'n)?\  '"J 
 out  Opinions  without  a  due  oofiiiderarjon  or   what   he   affirmed  '■/'i[J\[7 
 
 Raithvts,  who  hath  made  \\\  Apology   for  Luther,  conrelleth,  that  v 
 he  had  written  in  the  fit  it  Edition  or  nis  Gentian  Bible  to  this  erFed, 
 
 (  f )  Sa'utatio  hie  pifita  tarn  pur  a  eft,  ut  vulli  Jahitationi  cujufcunque  ëlterius 
 dpofto.icœ  EpiJhU  conforms  jit.,  nam  nii^il  Deiy  nihil  $ejù  Chrijh,  nihil  çratûe, 
 nibilve  p.icis  Jonat,  fed  profuno  mo>  c  jaluti  m,  me   lpfe  JciPjiim  nommât  A[  ->i. 
 
 ledtofitum  Jervum  Je/u  Chrift  i.  Cajet.  Comm.  in  c.  r.Efriftjac 
 
 th: 
 
C  158] 
 
 it  îf  this  Eptftle  w  .     -.  ch  thofc  of  S.  Teter  and  S.  Paul 
 
 it  v      Id  appear  only  an  Epiftle  of  Straw,  Epijhla  ftram'wea  :  buti 
 (gy  after  he  h  .id  mo  e  enlightned,  theft  Words  were  taken 
 
 in  the  following  E  id  they  are  not   to  be  found  in 
 
 ihole  that  have         i  made  iïnce  the  Year  1516.     Neverthetels,  a 
 certain  n  pu  4ilhed  a  Book  at  Strasbourg  m  the  Year  1517, 
 
 wh        1  he  1  •  a  ftrange  manner  of  the  Epiftle  of  &  James. 
 
 Erms  (b)  that  he  ca       •:  defend  it,  becaufe  the  Author  al- 
 I  cations  of  the  Scriptures,   and  alone  contradicts 
 
 .  Jefus  Ghrift  and  the  Apoftles  ;  he  condemns 
 \    '  Tel  s  Writer  .is  vain,  boldly  affirming  that  we  ought 
 
 j    :  to  h  ;  a  hngle  Wkn©63  efpeàâlly  Itnce  the  Ho- 
 
 ly Ghoft,  and  a  great  number  of  the  Witnefîès  oh  the  Truth,  do 
 <    lent  from  him:  laftly,  this  man,  after  hs  hath  taken  fo  much  li- 
 
 cy  to  d  n  againft  the  Author  of  this  Epiftle,  adds  at  the  end 
 
 'ook,  that  none  ought  to  be  offended  that  he  hath  treated 
 
 .  I  )  lèverely;  for,  (faith  he)  he  déferres  this  hatred,  becaufe  he 
 hath  led  to  us  another  Righceoumels  than  that  of  Faith.  Cm 
 
 there  mo  e  infolent  than  the  Words  of  this  Serta.v 
 
 who  dûrft  oppole  lus  ralle  Conceptions  againft  the  Teltimony  of 
 all  the  Churches  e  World? 
 
 Socinus  [peaks  with  a  g:e.it  deal  more  moderation  and  judgment 
 co  ning  the  Authority  of  this  Epiftle.  This  Champion  of  the 
 Unitarians  declares  that  it  was  doubted  in  the  beginning  touching 
 the  Authors  of  the  Epiftle  of  S.  James,  of  the  fécond  of  S.  Peter ,  and 
 of  that  of  S.  Ju<Ie,  becaufe  they  were  found  after  the  Collection 
 of  the  other  Eboks  of  the  New  Teftament  had  been  made:  but  for- 
 ai much  as  it  was  acknowledged  afterwards  that  they  were  certain- 
 
 (  g  )  P°ft  majorer»  illnminationcm,  lit  dies  diem  docet,  verba  ilia  duriufcula  po- 
 fierioribus  Sacrori.m  Bibliorum  editionibus  funt  omiffa,  nee  pjl  annum  1^16.  in 
 utlâ  amp Ij its  editione  Jlraminea  vacatur.    Raith.  Vind.  Verf.  Germ.  Luth.  th.  11. 
 
 (h)   Non  pojjumut  hic  defenderejacobttm:  citât  enim  Scripturas  false  ;  &  foins 
 Spirit \i   Santto,  Legi,  Prophctis,  Chrifto  Apofiolifque  omnibus  contradiat.  Tcfii- 
 '  rnonium  ipjïus  ;  -   cji.    ZJm  ipfi  tefii   credendum  non  ejfe  fiupra  annotavtmusy 
 
 prjcfrtim  cum  quo  ipfe  Spirirus  Sanclus  &  tot  t  eft  es  veritatts  difientiant.  » 
 tgitur  fuccenjeas  nobis,  leclor,  fi  durius  &  vehement  ihs  caïamo  quandoque  in  aucîo- 
 rem  invêBi  fitmus*  Meretur  emm  hoc  odium  £7  hancfpirttûs  vehement  1  am,  dum 
 alt.im  perfechonem  atque  juftitiam  à  nobis  contendit  quant  fidei»  Andr.  Altham.  apud 
 Grot,  de  difculf  Rivet.  Aj  olog.  p.  721. 
 
 (  i  )  Cùnt  pofiea  tempore  procèdent  e  ex  judicits  huic  rei  aptis  cogmtnmfuiffet 
 tfïiii   Epiflolas  tllorum  tpforum  Apofiolorum   ejfe,  exempta  plerifjue  illa  dubitaa 
 fuit  ;  ($  fie  inter  alias  ]unt  numerate,  &  ea  qtlidcm  qua:  Jaccbi  efl,  ante  dttas 
 quas.    ?oc.  de  au&or.  Script,  Sac.  c.  1.  n.  2. 
 
 iy 
 
C  M9  ] 
 
 ly  compofed  by  the  ApO  olè   Names  they   bore,    the   moft 
 
 part  of  the  Churches  di  I  ng  longer  doubt  there  >f  :  and  the  Epift  ; 
 
 of  S  James  war  placed  be  the  two  others:  moreover,  with  re- 
 fpe&  to  th.it  ofS.  James,  he  p  !  the  Antiquity  ot  this  Traditu  i 
 bv  the  ancient  £  Cop;       Therefore  he  doth  not  only  receive 
 
 them  as  v.:  i,  b  it  believ  >  th.u  they  do  certainly  belo.    ; 
 
 tor  to  whom  they  are  att:    i     \\. 
 
 Although  it  be  n  :  the  firft  of  t1        Catholick  Epiftjcs 
 
 written  by  S.  s  neve  Is  it  remains  to  be  known  w    i 
 
 tins  James  The  Title  of  this  Epiftle  doth  not  reiolve  this  diffi- 
 
 culty, beeauie  it  is  diffèrent  according  to  the  various  Greek  Cop:.  : 
 and  iodeed  we  ought  not  to  relye  on  this  fort  of  Titles  chat  are  la  it 
 than  the  Authors  of  the  Boo'        [t  is  ly  in  fome    Manu- 
 
 feript   Copies,  'EwçBXi  vdoMxd  n  £yU  *ldtalC*i  The  Catholic k   Ed i file  of  ' 
 
 S.Jai  id  in   O  ,    *H«50X^  n  djh  À-toçsAk  'Ict/jCa  y^.^o^/y.H,   The  j^yi  j> 
 
 C        .  k  Ef         f  the  Afofih  S.  Jam         This  is  alio  the  Title  that  Ut  2 
 hath  been  prefixed  in  the  Vulgar  Litin,  Et  :a  beati.'j*- 
 
 c  U  Apoftoli,  and  which  Beza  hath  i        led  in  his  Gr  ni  o( 
 
 the  \:ew  Teftament,  where  we  read  'I*x«C«  ra  Sot^'a*  c/&içD*fl  &dox/*d9 
 J/jc  Catholick  Epiftle  of  the  Apoftlc  James.  Bit  Robert  Stephen,  m  his 
 curious  Greek  Edition  of  the  New  Teftament  tn  folio,  hath  (imply 
 
 put  *l*vJC*  chszhî)  gatX/xd*  The  Catholick  Epift  le  of  James.  It  is  n> 
 otheiwite  in  Crejpins  ,  w*  m   the  Year    15S5.     It 
 
 read  according  to  the  lime  ienlè,  'ê^jdaù  t«  *V«  'l*K⣫,  The 
 of  S.James,  in  that  of  /         rat  Strasbourg  in    514.    We  read  alfo 
 after  the  fome  manner  in  the  Edition  ot  Melcbior  S  fj'.i  at  ;        s  in 
 1538,  and  in  that  of  Simon  de  Colines  at  Pj//j  in  15^4.,  and  in  many 
 others.     This  is  moft  natural  and  moft  .conformable  to  :hz  G 
 Text,  where  S.  James,  at  the  beginning  or  his  Epiftle,  takes  up 
 him  no  other  Quality  than  that  ot  a  Servant  of  God  and  of  the  Lor 
 Jeftts  Chrijh 
 
 Therefore  Grotiuj  hath  alfo  preferved  this  fame  Title,  :\nÀ  he  h 
 reafon  not   to  approve   the   Opinion  or  thole  that  attrib  te   it   t 
 James  the  Son  of  Zebedee ,    bec.iuie  this  'James    had   been    p   :   to 
 Death  by  Herod  befo  e  the  Goipel  or  Jefus  Chrift  was  much  (pi  ead 
 abroad  beyond  Jud.i:  neither  doth  he  believe  that  fcx 
 
 of  Alphcits  was  the  Author  of  it,  be  1        he  w<         tave 
 the  beginning  of  his  Epift         :  Name  or  \i\  A         -,  which  was 
 a  quality  m  thofe  Primitive  Times  that  give  authority  to 
 
 their  Words:  from  whence  he  concludes,  that  it  o         ;o  be  al 
 bed  to  that  Jxmts  whom  the  Apolti         mftit  rirft    liiii"   p!  . 
 
 Jerusalem.     Ti\is  \%  not  very  far  from  the  Wo  .  h;s  ' 
 
 Catalogue  of  Eccléfiaftical  Writers,  James,  -who  . 
 
[  i<So  ] 
 
 ef  cur  Lord,  and  fimamed  the  Jujt>  as  feme  think,  was  the  Son  r>/*Jofeph 
 by  another  JVife  ^  but  according  to  my  Opinion,  of  Mary  the  Sifter  of  cur 
 Lord,  of  whom  John  makes  mention  in  his  Bock  :  he  jyas  ordained  Bi- 
 fijop  o/Jertifàlem  by  the  Apoftles  immediately  after  the  Paffion  of  our  Lord, 
 and  haï  h  written  one  Letter  only,  which  is  in  the  number  of  the  fe-ven 
 Catboluk  Epiftles.  I  Ic  doth  not  nominate  this  James  as  an  Apoflle, 
 but  only  as  the  Brother  of  our  Lord,  which  is  the  fole  Qualification 
 that  is  given  him  by  the  Arabick  Interpreter  published  by  Erpemus, 
 in  the  Title  of  this  Epiftle. 
 
 S.  Jêrbm  hath  hid  nothing  in  this  place  but  what  is  agreeable  to 
 the  judgment  of  Hegifippus  a  grave  Author.,  who  lived  not  long  a£ 
 ter  the  times  of  the  Apoftles.  This  great  man  hath  qbicived,  that 
 divers  Perlons  at  that  time  bore  the  Name  of  [fames,  and  (kith  of 
 this  James  (  of  whom  we  now  difcouiie)  (k  )  that  being  the  Bio- 
 ther  of  our  Lord,  he  took  the  Government  of  the  Church  ofjeru-, 
 falem  jointly  with  the  Apoftles;  that  the  Name  of  Jaft  was  alio 
 given  to  him  with  one  common  Confènt,  which  was  continued 
 ever  fince  the  time  of  our  Saviour  Jefus  Ch:ift  :  Hegifippus  then  did 
 not  believe  that  he  was  an  Apoftle,  foralmuch  as  he  iàith  that  he 
 took  iipoifhim  the  care  of  the  Church  of  Jerufalcm  with  the  Apo- 
 ftles  ;  and  he  diftinguifheth  him  from  others  that  went  under  the 
 Name  or  James,  only  by  the  Sirname  of  Juft.  u 
 
 In  the  mean  time  Baroniwi  and  afcer  him  Eftim,  declare  that 
 this  third  James,  ddhnguiihed  from  the  two  others,  who  was  fim- 
 ply  Bifhop  of  Jerufalem  without  being  an  Apoftle,  is  a  chimerical 
 James  that  never  was.  But  fince  this  Cardinal  grounds  his  Opi- 
 nion on  very  weak  Reafbns,  and  contradicts  Antiquity  in  this  point, 
 no  regard  ought  to  be  had  to  what  he  affirms  againft  the  Judgment 
 of  Hegtftppus  and  S.  Jerom,  and  even  againft  the  Teftimony  of  the 
 Author  of  this  Epiftle,  who  would  not  have  failed  to  have  ftiled 
 himfelfan  Apoftle  of  Jefus  Chnft  in  the  beginning  of  his  Letter, 
 if  he  had  been  really  lo. 
 Cajet.  This  may  ferve  at  the  fame  time  for  a  fuflicient  Anfwer  to  Car- 
 
 Comm  in  <Jinal  Cajetan,  who  hath  obje&ed,  to  derogate  from  the  Authority 
 r-i-Epft-  0f  tnis  Epiftle,  that  this  James  hath  not  taken  upon  him  the  Name 
 of  an  Apoitle,  but  only  that  of  a  Servant;  nee  ipfe  feipfum  nommât 
 Apoflolum ,  fed  tant  urn  fervum.     As  to  what  this  Cardinal  faith  in  the 
 fame  place,  that  this  Writer  hath  made  no  mention  of  God,  nor  of 
 
 'IdwCoi  luA\*vn>'    Hcgcliijp.  apud  Huicb.  liiit.  Eccicf.  lib.  X.  c.  23. 
 
 Jefus 
 
[  1*1  II 
 
 Jefus  Chrift,  the  contrary  is  apparent  f  on  the  fi;ft  Words  of  t; 
 Epiftle,  in  which  he  Attributes  to  himlclf  no  other  Quality  than  tl 
 of  'Ixw^C©-  0Î8  x)  ^s(«  'In^a  Xe*r«  <Nk®">  Jama    #i  Strvtht  vf  G*  V  .im/  Jjc    » 
 *>/"  the  Lord  JefuJ  Chnft.     He  could  not  have  cholon  a  Tulo  t;vu  •    * 
 
 might  better  exprefs  his  Qualifications,  dpecially  writing  to  the 
 Jews,  who  were  already  accuAomed  by  the  reading  of  the  O 
 Teftament  to  the  Phrafc  of  the  Servant  of  God:  and  when  he 
 adds  theie  other  Words,  and  of  the  Lord  Jefus  Cbrtft*  he  lets  them 
 know  that  he  is  one  of  the  Minifters  or  the  new  Liw  that  had 
 been  promulged  by  the  Mcffiab. 
 
 Laftly  we  may  obfèrve,  that  in  the  Title  of  the  Syr  tack  Verfion 
 thefè  Words  are  read,  The  Epiftle  of  James  an  Apoftle  ;  it  is  no  othei- 
 wife  in  the  Etbiopick  Verfion  :  but  in  the  general  Title  or  the  three 
 Catholick  Epiftles  which  the  Syrians  have  in  their  ancient  Copies, 
 we  read  that  thefe  three  Epiftles  were  written  by  James,  Peter,  and 
 John,  who  were  the  Witneffes  of  the  Transfiguration  of  our  Lord.  This 
 would  prove  that  this  James  was  the  Son  of  Zebedee  ;  but  it  is  a  ma- 
 nifest error  of  the  Syrians,  who  have  inferted  this  Inscription  into 
 their  Copy. 
 
 As  for  what  relates  to  the  Epiftles  of  S.  Peter  and  S.  John,  Eufe-  Eufek 
 hus  puts  the  firft  Epiftles  of  thefe  two  Apoftles  in  the  number  of  Uift.EceL 
 the  Canonical  Books  of  the  New  Teftament^  that  have  been  recei-  '•  *• *•**■ 
 ved  with  the  common  Content  of  all  the  Churches  :  but  he  obfèrves 
 at  the  fame  time,  that  there  hath  been  fome  doubt  concerning  the 
 Second  of  S.  Peter,  as  well  as  of  the  Second  and  Third  of  S.John. 
 S.Jerom  adds,  (1)  that  that  which  hath  caufèd  the  Ancients  to 
 doubt  of  the  fécond  Epiftle  of  S.  Peter,  is  the  difference  of' the  Stile 
 of  thefe  two  Epiftles. 
 
 We  cannot  rely  on  the  Teftimony  of  Clemens  Alexandrmus,  who 
 reckons  in  the  number  of  the  Canonical  Writings  of  the  New  Te- 
 ftament all  the  Epiftles  that  we  call  Catholick;    for  he  placeth 
 amongft  them,  at  the  fame  time,  the  Epiftle  of  Barnabas,  and  the  Clem,  ^i. 
 Book  entituled,  The  Revelation  of  Peter,  tùjÙ  -n  BafvaCct,  g  -Hw  n«y«  $gdj*}£ 
 MptMlw  ùnyj.Hj'bv.     This  Father,  who  was  an  extraordinary  learned  eccI.1.6. 
 man,  hath  not  been  very  exacl:  in  diftinguifhing  the  Books  of  the  c.  14. 
 Holy  Scriptures  that  were 'generally  received  by  all  the  Churches, 
 from  the  others  that  are  either  dubious  or  Apocryphal  :  he  makes 
 ufe  of  all  equally  on  feveral  occafions;  following  in  this  the  method 
 
 (  I  )  Simon  Petrus  — Jcrjpfit  duas  Epiftolas  qux  Catholic*  notuinantur,  quorum 
 fecund*  à  plertfaue  negxur  propter  ftih  cum  prion  (Ufjonantiam.  Hivr.  de  So  ipt. 
 Eccl.  in  Sim.  Pet. 
 
 Y  of 
 
E  16*;] 
 
 of  the  ancient  Rhetoricians,  who  took  no  care  to  be  very  punduai 
 in  their  Argumentations. 
 
 Origen,  his  Difciple,  durft  not  altogether  venture  to  rank  the 
 abovefàid  Epiftles  amongft  the  Canonical  Scriptures:  and  whereas 
 they  haA  tioi  obtained  in  his  time  the  general  Approbation  of  all 
 the  Chnfiian  World,  he  explains  himfelf  thereupon  with  a  great 
 deal  of  Precaution.  (  m  )  Peter,  (faith  he)  on  whom  the  Church  of 
 jefus  Chrift  is  built,  hath  left  an  Epifile  which  is  generally  received 
 and  a  fécond  if  you  pleafe  ;  for  it  u  doubted,  (n)  John  hath  like-wife  left 
 a  very  jhort  Epiftle,  and  a  fécond  and  third  if  you  pleafe  ;  but  all  people, 
 art  not  agreed  that  tbefe  tvso  lafi  are  genuine.  This  proves  that  the 
 Church  hath  never  doubred  of  th^  Authority  of  the  firft  Epiftles 
 of  thefè  two  A  poll  les,  and  that  they  were  certainly  compofed  by 
 them  whole  Names  they  bear;  moreover,  that  although  fbme  have 
 doubted  of  the  others,  yet  this  Scruple  was  not  univerfàl,  fince 
 Origen  agrees  that  they  were  received  as  really  belonging  to  thefe 
 Apoftles  to  whom  they  were  attributed. 
 
 The  Author  of  the  Synopfis  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  makes  no  que- 
 ftion  thereof;  he  avouchcth,  (t)  that  the  fécond  Epiftle  ofS.  Peter 
 was  written  by  this  Apoftle  as  well  as  the  firft,  and  that  he  fent  it 
 to  thole  that  had  then  embraced  Chuftianity. 
 
 Cajetan,  who  hath  ftai  ted  Co  many  Difficulties  againft  the  Epiftle 
 to  the  Hebrews,  and  againft  rhat  of  S.  James ,  is  much  more  mode- 
 rate with  refped  to  this:  he  infifts,  that  the  Argument  that  is  ta- 
 ken from  the  difference  of  the  Stile  of  the  two  Epiftles  of  S.  Peter 
 is  not  a  (ufEcient  proof  to  fhew  that  the  fécond  is  not  his  ;  (p)  be- 
 caufè  this  Ileafon  might  as  well  be  applied  to  the  firft  as  to  the 
 fécond  :  but  this  Cardinal  hath  not  coniidered  that  it  was  never 
 doubted  in  any  Church  whether  the  firft  Epiftle  of  S.  Peter  was 
 certainly  written  by  him  ;  and  therefore  from  this  Ad  which  is  un- 
 queftionable  we  fhould  judge  of  the  other  that  hath  not  the  fame 
 
 (Afilw  wnthihtimv'  ïçu  o  *j  f&Tip&v'  a'/^/CamO  y6.  Ong.  apud  Euf  Hilt.  £c- 
 cluf.  1.  6.  c  25. 
 
 (  n  )  KATtthikotm  j  Çlco&vni)  >y  Zhçvkljj  mvv  ohijvp  çi%if  If*  j  j£  ^Atii^ 
 xj  iUtLuj.  i'TTH  »  TrdvTii  q>*<ri  ytneiti  it)  ixwixv;.  Orig.  ibid. 
 
 (  o  )  'Ouoiaç  K)  ojjvi  w&  rk  cu,n  yçy.pH<M  rùù  tkt«  i"%i  hroyuLvidj,  ojjtvç  $ 
 ïli7(Q-  xj  7WJ7ÙJU  crniçîkkn  nls  »j«/Vj  7n7&<m.civ.    Athan.  in  Syu.  Scrip.  S. 
 
 (pj  hue  ratio  non  minus  infer  1  prtmam  quam  jecundam  non  effe  Petri  :  nam 
 tantum  diffonat  prima  à  fecundà,  quantum  jatunda  à  prima.  Cajet.  pratf.  Co.nm. 
 in  poll.  Kpift.  Pet. 
 
 certainty. 
 
i  "S  ] 
 
 certainty.    It"  the  diverfity  of  Stile  onjy  l>_  t   (me  To;  :>rve 
 
 whereby  the  verity  of  a  Piece  may  be  tiTod,  riie  reafi)n  of  the  .. 
 cient  Ecclelnttical  Writers  taken  from  the  difference  of  tlu  .vile, 
 and  related  by  S.  J  trow,  is  a  good  proof  to  ihew  that  the  (c 
 Epiftle  atenbed  to  S.  Peter  is  no:  this  Apoftle's.  That  which  Cre- 
 tan adds  in  the  lame  place,  that  a  diverfity  of  Stile  doth  not  necci- 
 farily  infer  a  divcriity  of  Authors,  is  on  much  better  grounds.  It  js 
 certain,  that  St.  Jerom,  who  acknowledged  this  diveriity  of  Stile, 
 liarh  attributed  jt  to  the  different  Interpreters  pF  §t  Ptter  :  he  fi:p- 
 pofeth  that  St.  Ptter  did  not  write  his  Faillies  in  Greek  h:m(elf;  but 
 that  he  had  Interpreters  with  him  who  undeiftood  that  Language  : 
 mention  is  alio  made  in  the  New  Teftament  or  thole  that  excel- 
 led the  Function  of  Interpreters  in  thole  Primitive  and  Apoftolical 
 Times. 
 
 According  to  this  Opinion,  which  is  maintained  by  the  ancient 
 Doctors  of  the  Church,  St.  Jtrom  laith,  (y)  that  St.  Peter  hath 
 made  ule  of  divers  Interpreters  as  different  Occafions  required. 
 Baromm  hath  concluded  from  thence ,  that  this  Father  belie-  B.tr.  am. 
 ved  that  Saint  Mark  had  tran dated  the  firil  Epiftle  of  Saint  Pe-CAj.mS. 
 ter  out  of  Hebrew  into  Greek  ;  but  Saint  Jerom  only  declares  in 
 this  place,  that  the  Apoftles  who  did  not  very  well  exprefs  them- 
 selves in  the  Greek  Tongue,  employed  Scribes  or  Interpreters 
 
 Calvin  ,    after  he    hath  a  little  enlarged   on    this  diverfity    of 
 Stile,  which  feems    to  denote  a  difference  between    the    Authors 
 of  thele  two  Epiftlcs,   doch  not  forbear  to  acknowledge  the  fé- 
 cond as  Divine  and  Canonical.     However  it  be   (  faith  he  )  fince  Ca;v  nrj, 
 m  all  the  parts   of  the  Epifile  the  Majefty  of  the  Spirit  of  Qbrifi  n  de  fis 
 clearly  manifefi  3    I  cannot  m  confidence  reject   it    altogether,  though  I  Com.  fur 
 do  net  find  therein  the  true  and  natural   Phrafe  of  Saint  Peter.     Flac-  lai.Epift. 
 cms  Illyncus  hath  written  Notes  on  this  Epiftle ,    without   doubt-  de 6,Pur* 
 ing  in  the  lead:   whether  it  was  made  by  him  whofè  Name  it 
 bears. 
 
 Grotius  hath  chofen  rather  to  attribute  it  to  another  Simeon 
 or  Simon  the  Succefîbr  of  St.  James  in  the  Bifhoprick  of  Jerufia- 
 lem3  than  to  Simon  Peter  :  He  believes  that  the  ancient  Title  of 
 this  Epiftle  hath  been  changed,  and  that  it  was  not  Simon  Peter  a  Ser- 
 vant and  an  Apoltle  ofjefcs  Chnft,as  it  is  read  at  this  day  ;  but  limply 
 Simeon  a  Servant  of  Jeiùs  Child  :  there  would  be  fbme  likelihood 
 
 (q  )   &X  quo  intclli^imus  prn  ?,:.         ite  rerttm  diverfis  turn  ufum  ir,tr-prctib\Km 
 Hioron.  Kpiit.  ad  Hedib.  qu.  n. 
 
 1    1  of 
 
C   t<*4  ] 
 
 of  this,  if  it  were  grounded  on  any  Manufcript  Copies  or  ancient 
 Ads;  but  he  only  confirms  his  Opinion  by  a  Critical  Argument 
 that  is  not  concluding  :  he  urgeth,  that  this  EpifHe,  at  Jeaft  the 
 third  Chapter  of  it,  could  not  have  been  written  till  after  the  De- 
 ilrudion  or  Jerujalem,  becaufè  mention  is  therein  made  of  the  en- 
 tire ruin  of  the  World,  which  was  impatiently  expeded  by  the  Chri- 
 ftians  of  thole  times.  Now  S.  Peter  died  under  Nero.  No  Chriftian 
 (làith  Grotii/s)  could  look  for  this  laft  Deftrudion  of  the  World, 
 till  after  that  of  the  State  of  the  Jew:. 
 
 But  it  doth  not  follow  from  thence,  that  Jerufalem  ought  to  have 
 been  then  deftroyed;  for  this  Perfuafion  was  generally  received 
 amongft  the  Difciples  of  Jefus  Chrift,  whilft  he  was  yet  living:  ever 
 fince  that  time  they  waited  with  Impatience  for  his  happy  Reign, 
 which  could  not  be  eftablifhed  (as  they  thought)  but  on  the  ruin 
 of  the  State  of  the  Jews:  therefore  when  Jeius  Chrift  (peaks  to 
 them,  Chap.  xxiv.  of  S.  Matthew,  of  the  ruin  of  the  Temple,  he 
 mixeth  fome  things  concerning  his  coming.  (  r  )  The  Apoflles  (faith 
 Maldonat)  thought  that  the  end  of  the  Temple,  and  the  end  of  the  World 
 were  neceJJ'arily  joined  together.  Jefus  Chrift  would  not  undeceive  them, 
 left  after  the  dejtrtt&ion  of  the  Temple,  feeing  their  Expectations  deferred 
 they  might  grew  negligent  and  fecure.  ° 
 
 S.  Peter  then  might  have  written  this  Epiftle  before  the  Deftrudion 
 of  Jerufalem,  and  might  have  declared  to  the  Faithful  in  the  third 
 Chapter  thereof,  that  Jefùs  Chrift  had  not  delayed  the  accomplifh- 
 ment  of  his  word,  as  fome  amongft  them  imagined.     The  Primi- 
 tive Chriftians  expeded  with  impatience  the  ruin  of  the  Temple, 
 and  thought  that  the  general  definition  of  the  whole  World  would 
 follow  foon  after:  S.  Peter  exhoits  them  in  this  place  to  wait  patiently, 
 1  Pet.  3.    becaufe  One  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a    thcufand  years,  and  a  thoufand 
 'v'  8"         years  as  one  day.     Therefore  the  Conjecture  of  Gr otitis  feems  to  have 
 Didym.     no  better  Foundation  than  that  of  Didymus,  who  lived  at  the  begin- 
 Corr.m.  in  ning  0f  the  fourth  Century,  and  hath  rejeded  this  Epiftle  as  fuppo- 
 Epift.  1.    gtitknis,  becaufe  mention  is  made  (  as  he  thinks  )  in  this  fame  Chap  3. 
 of  I  know  not  what  renovation  of  the  world  conformably  to  the 
 Opinion  of  the  Platonick  Philofbphers.     But  there  is  nothing  in  this 
 whole  Chapter  that  doth  not  perfedly  agree  with  the  Dodrine  of 
 the  Primitive  Chnftians  touching  the  end  of  the  World. 
 
 (  r)  Exiftimabar,t  Apofloli  hxc  cjfe  conjunBa  finem  tcmpli  (3 finem  mundi.  No- 
 imt  Qhriflus  hunc  illis  crrorem  cripere,  nc  poft  tcmpli  cver/ioncm  in  longum  cxpe- 
 ftationem pomgemes  fecuri  ejjent.    Maid.  Coaim.  in  c.  24.  Matth.  v.  25. 
 
 It 
 
C  i*î  3 
 
 It  is  not  neceffary  to  fpend  much  time  in  infilling  on  the  fécond 
 and  thud  Epiftles  or  S.  John,  of  which  it  hath  been  alio  doubted  in 
 the   Primitive  Ages  of  the  Church.     Tapas,  who  lived  with  the  Di-  P-*P:  apud 
 fciplesof  the  Apoltles,  diftinguifheth  two  John,  who  have  dwelt  in  l\"J-  H*ft- 
 Afia,  the  hi  ft  of  which  is  our  Apoftle,  and  the  other  was  a  Prieft  and  f**''  ' •'*' 
 Difcipleof  the  Apoftles.  c "9' 
 
 Papias,  who  was  the  Difcipleof  this  la  ft  John,  afcribes  to  him  no 
 other  quality  than  that  of  a  Prieft  ;  and  this  hath  caufed  divers  Ec- 
 cleliaftical  Writers  to  believe,  that  he  was  the  Author  or  the  fécond 
 and  third  Epiftles  attributed  to  the  Apoftle  S.John.  Indeed  he 
 doth  not  take  the  name  of  Apoftle,  but  limply  that  of  Prieft  or 
 Elder,  ÔTp60#uTEf©-. 
 
 Eufebius  relying  on  the  Teftimony  of  Papias,  approves  the  Opi-  ^ufcb.ib. 
 nion  of  thole  that  believed  that  there  were  two  perfons  in  Afia  that 
 were  called  by  the  name  of  John  :  this  Pei  fuahon  was  further  con- 
 firmed, in  regard  that  there  was  yet  leen  in  his  time  at  Epbefus  two 
 Tombs  of  John.     S.  Jerom,  who  often  translates  the  words  of  Eu-  Hieron.de 
 febuts  out  of  Greek  into  Latin3  hath   alfo  made  this  fame  Remark,  Scril 
 Relique  autem  duœ,  (laith  he,  f  peaking  of    thefè   two   Epiftles  of  ^n 
 S.  John  )  Joannis  Presbyteri  aJJ'eruntur,  cujus  hodie   alter  urn  Jepulchrttm 
 apud  Ephefum  cfienditur.     He  adds  neverthelefs  that  forne  thought 
 that  thelè  two  Monuments  were  of  S.  John  the  Evangel  if  r,  Nonnulli 
 put  ant  duas  memorias  ejufdem  Joannu  Evangehfice  eJJ'e,     He  repeats  this 
 lame  Hiftory  when  he  makes  mention  of  Papias,  and  faith  (/)  that 
 he  relates  it  for  thefàke  of  a  a  great  number  of  perfôns  that  believed 
 that  this  fécond  John,  to  whom  the  fimple  name  of  Prieft  is  given, 
 was  the  Author  of  thelè  two  Epiftles,  and  not  the  Apoftle. 
 
 However,  the  Author  of  the  Synopfts  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  attri-  Athan.  in 
 butes  thefè  two  laft  Epiftles  no  lels  to  the  Apoftle  S.  John  than  the  Sjnopf, 
 firfr.  And  it  feemsthat  the  Latin  Church  that  reads  it  in  her  Offices 
 under  the  fame  Name,  hath  authorifed  this  Opinion,  which  is  like- 
 wife  conformable  to  the  Teftimony  of  the  molt  ancient  Writers  of 
 this  Church.  Therefore  the  Name  of  this  Apoftle,  Bean  Joanms 
 Apo/loli,  is  retained  in  the  Latin  Title  of  thefè  three  Epiftles  in  the 
 vulgar  Edition.  In  the  Syriack  Cop\  of  thefè  two  laft  Epiftles  that 
 have  been  Printed  in  the  Polyglott*  Bible  of  England,  the  iimple 
 Name  of  John  is  put;  whereas  in  the  fiift  it  is  read  of  John  the  A- 
 pofile.    This  lecms  to  have  been  done  on  purpofe  to  diftinguifh  the 
 
 (  f )  Hoc  autem  diximns  propter  fuperiorcm  cpinioyicvh  aucm  à  plcrifquc  rctu- 
 limui  tr.uiitam,  d'/as  poftertores  Epijtolasjoam.-is  ncn  ApoJroU  ejjet  fid  Presbyteri, 
 Hieron,  de  Script.  Ecclcf.  in  Pap:a. 
 
 Authors 
 
I  it*  o 
 
 A uthors  of*hefe  Epiftles.    rtn  the  Arabick  Copy  pqblifhçd; by  Erpiniuj, 
 thefe  three  Epiftlesare  afcnbed  to  the  Apoftle  S.j^&^who  is  named  in 
 the  Title  of  the  two  rtrfr,  j^/fo  the  fan  of  Zebedet,  and  in  the  Tide  of 
 the  third,  John  the  Apoftle. 
 F  r,  F,.iftlv,  there  have  been  raifed  no  left  doubts  in  the  Primitive  Ages 
 
 Htft.Ecd  °£  r^c  Church,  concerning  the  Epiftle  of  S.  Jude3  than  of  thepre- 
 Ub.  3.  ceding  Letters  ;  for  this  reafon  Eufebius  hath  reckoned  it  in  the  num- 
 c.  25.  ber  of  thofe  Books  of  the  New  Teftament  that  were  not  generally 
 received  by  all  the  Churches.  S.Jercm  who  hath  made  the  ïameobfèr- 
 vation,  (t  )adds,  that  that  which  gave  occafion  to  reject  it,  was  the 
 Apocryphal  Book  of  Enoch,  which  is  ci tea1  therein.  And  that  this 
 neverthelefs  hath  not  hindered  it  from  being  placed,  in  the.  rank  of 
 the  Sacred  Books,  its  Antiquity  and  Uie  having  given  it  this  Autho- 
 rity. In  like  manner  it  hath  been  generally  received  by  all  the 
 Churches,  as  we'll  Eaftern  as  Wcftern.  The  Unitarians  and  Prote- 
 francs  alfo  have  put  it  amongft  the  other  Canonical  Books  of  the 
 New  Teftament. 
 
 Luther  hath  neverthelefs  doubted  of  ir,  as  well  as  of  the  Epiftle 
 of  St.  Ja?nes  :  but  they  that  follow  his  Opinion,  are  {0  far  from  re- 
 jecting it  at  prefènt,  that  they  ufè  their  utmoft  endeavours  to  put  a 
 fair  Con  ft  ruction  on  their  Mailers  words.     Cahm  after  fye  hath  ac- 
 knowledged that  the  Ancients  have  differed  very  much  amongft 
 Cah.  ar-  themfelves  touching  this  Epiftle,  expreiTèth  himfelf  thus;  Howeixr 
 gum  de     because  the  reading  of  it  is  very  profitable %and  it  contains  nothing  but  what 
 fur  ^"bd   ts  agreeable  to  the  purity  of  the   Apoftolical  Doctrine:    and  in  regard  alfo 
 Sainn       that  it  hath  been  accounted  Authentick  for  a  long  time  amongft  all  good 
 'Sude.        People,  for  my  part  I  willingly  place  it  in  the  number  of  the  other  EpijHes. 
 Cajetan  hath  inferred  from  the  above  cited  words  of  St.  Jerom, 
 (u)  that  this  Epiftle  is  of  lefs  Authority  than  thefe  Writings  of  the 
 Apoftles,  of  the  verity  of  which  we  have  been  certainly  afïïired  : 
 "    but  this  might  have  been  properly  (aid  in  thofe  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  Cano- 
 nical: and  therefore  it  hath  no  lefs  Authority  than  the  other  Sacred 
 Books  that  are  comprehended  in  the  Canon  of  the  Church. 
 Grot.  An-     Qroîltt5  ^j  noc  believe  that  this  Epiftle  was  written  by  St.  J udc  the 
 
 not.  in  b.*  * 
 
 pifl.Jud. 
 
 (  t  J  Judas  frater  Jacobi  parvam  qua:  de  feptem  Catholicis  eft  epifiolam  reltquit: 
 &  quia,  de  hb'ro  Enoch  qui  apocryphus  eft  in  ea  ajjimut  tcftimomum,  à  pier ij que  reji- 
 citur.  Tamcn  aucicritatçm  vctujlatc  jam  &  ufu  maint,  &  inter  Scripturas  Sa- 
 cras comfi'itatur.  Hieron.  de  Script.  Ecclcf  in  Juda. 
 
 (  \i  )  Ex  quibus-  apvarct  mtnoris  e/Je  r.ucioritatis  banc  Epiftoiam  iis  qua:  funt 
 ça  tu:  Scripturx  Sacr*.  Cajtrt.  Comm.in  Epift.Jtld, 
 
 Apoftle, 
 
C  >#  3 
 
 Apôftle,  Becaufe  the  Author  hath  takjn  upon  nirtl  only  the  quality 
 of  a  Servant  of  Jefitt  Cbnft,  Kcfcç  &**  'Iw*?  *&&'  |ie  f^irli  more- 
 over that  (  x  )  if  it  were  certainly  efteemed  Apoftohcal,  it  would  have 
 been  Tranflated  into  all  Languages,  and  received  bv  all  the  Churches  : 
 eherefore  he  judgeth  that  ic  belongs  to  Jude  Bifhop  of  Jerufalem, 
 who  lived  under  the  Emperor  Adrian.  But  the  fiift  words  of  this  E- 
 piftlc  do  declare  to  us  that  it  can  come  from  no  other  hand  than  that 
 of  the  ApoftleSt.Jude,  fince  he  calls  himfelf,  Jude  the  ftrv  ant  of  Je  fus 
 Cbnfiy  and  brother  of  James.  For  to  lay  with  Grottus,  that  thefe  words 
 Brother  of  James,  have  been  afterwards  added  by  the  Tranfci  ibers 
 that  it  might  be  believed  that  this  Jude  was  certainly  an  Apoitle,  is 
 to  beg  the  queftion;  they  that  woJd  prove  that  this  hath  been  in- 
 serted by  the  Tranlcribers  ought  to  produce  good  Copies  of  this 
 Epiftle,  or  certain  ancient  Acts  on  which  we  might  rely.  Any  Man 
 that  lliould  have  a  mind  ablolutely  to  reject  the  Epifne  of  St.  Jude, 
 might  eafily  fay  with  as  much  reafon  as  Grottus,  that  he  that  hath 
 forged  it ,  hath  put  therein  the  name  of  Jude  the  Brother  of 
 James.  Therefore  Arguments  that  are  purely  Critical  ought  ne- 
 ver to  be  oppofèd  againft  Acts  that  are  ancient  and  generally  re- 
 ceived by  all  the  World. 
 
 Tt  is  true  that  the  Epiftle  of  St.  Jude  is  lefs  emoted  by  the  ancient 
 Doctors  of  the  Church,  than  the  mod  part  of  the  other  Books  of  the 
 New  Teftament,  and  that  it  is  not  found  in  the  ancient  Copies  of 
 the  Synack  Verfion.  But  it  can  be  only  concluded  from  thence, 
 that  it  was  not  at  hrft  received  in  all  the  Churches:  it  might  how- 
 ever have  been  publifhed  ever  fince  the  Primitive  times  of  the  Chn- 
 jftian  Religion,  under  the  name  of  St.  Jude  the  Brother  of  James , 
 and  yet  not  be  Tranfiated  into  all  the  Languages  of  the  Churches, 
 becaufe  it  was  then  doubted  in  the  moft  part  of  thefe  Churches,  whe- 
 ther it  was  his  whofè  name  it  bore,  Clemens  Alexandrins**  hath  placed 
 it  amongft  the  other  Books  of  the  Holy  Scriptures;  but  as  it  hath- 
 been  already  oblerved,  that  this  Father  hath  infèrted  in  his  Cata- 
 logue fome  Pieces  that  were  not  Canonical,  though  they  paffed  un- 
 der the  names  of  the  Apoftles  ;  it  can  only  be  inferred  from  thence 
 that  at  leaft  ever  fince  the  time  of  Clement,  this  Epiftle  was  attri- 
 buted to  the  Apoftle  St.  Jude.  When  Eufebm  makes  mention  of  it 
 in  his  Ecclenailical  Hifiory,  he  doth  not  (et  it  in  the  rank  of  coun- 
 
 f  x  )  Si  Apoflolica  fuijfet  habita  Liée  Epiftola,  ver  fa  fuiffet  in  Unguas  omnes,  (3 
 nsepta  fer  omnes  Ecclejias.  Grot.  Annot.  in  Epiit. Jud. 
 
 terfeit 
 
C  irf8  ] 
 
 terfeit  Acl:s,but  of  thofe  concerning  which  fome>  Churches  have 
 doubted,  neverthelefs  there  are  none  at  this  day  that  do  not  ac- 
 knowledg  it  as  Divine  and  Canonical  :  It  is  intituled  in  the  Syriack 
 Copy  which  hath  been  Printed,  The  Letter  o/Jude  the  Brether  of 
 James  :  neither  hath  it  any  other  Title  m  the  Arabtck  Verfion  pub- 
 lifhcdby  Erf  emus.  In  the  Arabick  Printed  in  the  Poly  glott  Bible  of 
 England,  is  is  Intituled  The  Catholick  Epifile  of  the  blejjed  Jude,  the 
 Brother  of  the  Lord. 
 
 The  End  of  the  Firjl  Tart. 
 
 The  Second  Part  will  be  Publifhed  in  Five  Days.' 
 
A 
 
 CRITICAL 
 
 HISTORY 
 
 Of  the   TEXT  of  the 
 
 New  Teftament; 
 
 WHEREIN 
 
 I  Is  firmly  Eftablifh'd  the  Truth  of  thofe 
 Acts  on  which  the  Foundation  of 
 Christian  Religion   is  laid. 
 
 PART    II. 
 
 By  Richard  Simon,  Prieft. 
 
 L  0  *CD  0  5V£, 
 Printed  for  %  Taylor,  M  DC  LXXX IX. 
 
t  '  ] 
 
 A 
 
 CRITICAL     HISTORY 
 
 OF    THE 
 
 New  Teftament. 
 
 ~  PART    IL 
 
 Chap.   XVIII. 
 
 J  Critical  Obfervation  on  a  tPajfage  in  S.  Johru  Firjl  Epijlk, 
 Chap.  v.  verf.  7.  which  is  wanting  in  the  mojl  Greek 
 Copies,  Eaftern  Editions,  and  the  mojl  ancient  Latin  Co- 
 pies. TJie  Préface  to  the  Canonical  Epijlles  in  fome  Latin 
 (Bibles,  under  the  name  of  S.  Jerome,  was  not  pennd  by 
 that  Father.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  S.  Cyprian  had 
 the  Vaffage  of  S.  John' s  Epijlle  in  his  Copy. 
 
 1"^  H  E  Reflections  which  many  Learned  Men  have  made 
 on  that  Paflage  in  the  Firft  EpilHe  of  S.  John,  Chap.  v. 
 verf.  7.  have  not  dilcouraged  me  trom  examining  itairefh, 
 and  conf ùlting  the  molt  part  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
 Manufcripts  that  1  could  find  about  the  fame.  The  Greeks  at  this 
 day,  in  their  Copy  en tituled 'AntVoA©-,  read  (  as  the  Latin  Church  ) 
 thefe  words  (a)  For  there  are  three  that  bear  witnejs  in  Heaven,  the  l  *0i ■-  : 
 Father,  the  UVrd,  and  the  Holy  Ghoft,  and  thefe  three  are  one.     Yet  'tis 
 
 (  a  )  "C>77    TfUJ  H01V  Cl  (MtÇTvtfvjlt  lv   TïJ  *çt/LVÛ3    0   OTt77»f ,    0  \0yQ-,    x)  T3  M  J  (JUL  t) 
 
 ayoy*  it)  «7W  ol  7?HS  IV  Ù71V,    I  JOiiT.n,  9.  5.    v\  7. 
 
 A.  hard 
 
c 
 
 ] 
 
 hard  to  find  among  the  Greeks  any  Manufcnpt  Copies  that  have  that 
 Paffage  ;  Ifpeak  not  only  of  the  Ancients,  but  alfb  of  thofe  of  the  lat- 
 ter times.  Erafaus  alledged  the  Greeks  had  their  Books  more  cor- 
 rect than  the  Latin  Copies,  but  he  is  miftaken,  as  it  fhall  appear  by 
 what  follows  in  this  Difcourfe.  'Tis  much  more  probable,  that  that 
 Do&rinal  Point  was  formerly  written  the  Margin,  bv  way  of  Sco- 
 lium  or  Note,  but  afterward  infèrted  in  the  Text  by  thofè  who  tran- 
 fcribed  the  Copies.  Such  were  mv  thoughts  when  I  perufed  lome 
 of  the  Greek  Editions  ;  and  there  is  no  lefs  probability,  that  it  was 
 iupplied  after  the  fame  manner  in  the  antient  Latin  Copies  ;  which 
 .  neverthelefs  happened  not  till  after  S.  Jerotns  time,  who  is  not  the 
 Author  of  that  Addition,  which  Socïnus,  next  to  Erasmus,  had  laid  to 
 his  charge. 
 
 After  the  moft  diligent  fearch  in  the  King's  Library,  and  that  of 
 
 Mr.  Colbert,   m  which  there  are  a  great  many  good  Manufcript  Vo- 
 
 Codd.        lûmes,  I  found  no  Copy  that  had  thatPafiage  in  it,  tho  1  read  kvQti 
 
 MSS.        of  them  in  the  Royal  Library,  fix  whereof  are  marked  1885.  1247. 
 
 BibLRfg.  1148.  1870.  2871.  2872.     Some  of  the  Manufcnpts  have  Notes; 
 
 but  no  Scholiafr  or  Annotator  does  make  mention  of  that  Partage, 
 
 Codd.        neither  have   I  found  it  in  five  Manufcript  Copies  belonging  to 
 
 MSS.        Mr.  Colbert's  Library,    which  are  marked  871.  6n;.  4^85.  6584. 
 
 MibLColb.  2844.  ^et  f°me  of  thtih  Manufcripts  are  only  in  Paper,  and  much 
 
 later  than  the  reft.     There  is  alfo  one  in  16,   well  written,    and  I 
 
 believe  fince  the  Impreffion  :   Yét  the  Paffage  in  queftion  is  not 
 
 found  therein,  any  more  than  in  the  reft  of  the  ancient  Copies. 
 
 I  could  produce  yet  other  Greek  Manufcript  Copies  which  I  have 
 feen,  whole  various  Readings  I  oblèrved  ;  but  that  which  moft  de- 
 ierves  our  notice.,  is  that  in  the  Margin  of  fbme  of  the  King's  and 
 Mr.  Colbert's  Copies,  there  arc  fmall  Notes  let  over  againft  the  fàid 
 Paffage,  which  in  all  likelihood  have  flipped  afterwards  into  the  Bo- 
 dy of  the  Text.  Take  an  Example  from  the  King's  Copy,  marked 
 2247.  over  again  If  thele  wrords/O»  7?£f  h<tiv  hi  wiuptiflitl*  tJ  >?,  to  wi  J- 
 ua  x}  tw  \>&>%  *}  70  ouua9  there  is  this  Remark,  7*7isi  to  rmS^u.  to  Spov 
 x)  ô  TTctTjtf  xj  ajjTQi  i<wTx.  By  which  we  may  perceive  that  the  Author 
 of  the  laid  Remark,  undcrftood  The  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy 
 Ghofi,  to  be  iîgnifîed  by  the  Three  Witneffes  mentioned  by  S.Jobn, 
 The  Spirit,  the  Water ,  and  the  Blood  :  And  what  was  formerly  written 
 by  way  of  Note,  pallid  afterwards  into  the  Text,  as  it  often  falls 
 out.  In  the  fame  Copy  over  againft  thefe  other  words,  K«u  «'  ?r«*  f*s 
 to  %y  *<ri3  this  Note  is  added,  Ttrist  (JcteÏQ-m  &  ©to*,  that  is,  One  Deity, 
 Ore  God.  That  Manufcript  is  about  500  Years  old,  and  there  are 
 but  very  few  places  therein  that  have  Notes.  There  is  the  like  Re- 
 mark in  one  of  the  Manufcripts  belonging  to  Mr.  Colbert^  Library, 
 
 Numb. 
 
C  3  ] 
 
 Numb.  871.  For  befïdes  thcie  words  that  arc  let  in  the  Margin, 
 «V  Qifo  (Jet  06o77<f,  One  Gody  One  Deity;  the  Schohaft  has  alfo  added 
 thefe,  Wive**  fk  €>««  <rk  7iu7fo(  xj  f*  *;<«  grvsJftaJ©-,  The  testimony  of  God 
 the  Father ,  and  of  the  Holy  Gbo/K 
 
 This,  in  my  opinion,    is  the  original  of  the  Partage  in  queflion, 
 which  'tis  very  hard  to  find  in  the  Greek  Manufcript  Copies,   tho 
 at  this  day  the  read  it  in  their  Verhon.    This  is  much  more  likely 
 than  what  Erafmus  alledges;  that  the  Greek  Copies  he  had  occasion 
 to  infpeét,  were  much  more  correct  than  the  Latin,  which  obliged 
 that  judicious  perfbn  to  omit  the  forementioned  Partage  in  his  nrft 
 Editions  of  the  New  Teftament  ;  in  which  he  was  not  altogether  to 
 be  blamed,   not  being  obliged  to  înfèrt  in  the  Impreffion  what  he 
 could  not  find  in  any  of  his  Manufcripts:  He  has  neverthelefs  been 
 charged  with  a  defign  of  favouring  the  Aman  Party  by  the  omiflion. 
 James  Lopes  Sttmtca  has  mightily  accufèd  him  for  his  unlucky  reje- 
 cting the  faid  Partage  in  his  Edition,    (b)  fuppohng  a  ■    r     / 
 that  the  Greek  Copies  had  been  corrupted  in  that     ^ZtZ^Kcl 
 place.    iJut  this  bpaniin  Cntick,    who  had  read  an-    ptcs  are  notoriously  cor- 
 cient  Manufcripts,    does  not  quote  any  to  juftifie  his     ruftta\  and  that  ours  con- 
 own  Sentiments  :  He  contents  himfelf  with  an  Appeal     ™ln  *be  ^v  truth,as  they 
 he  makes  to  S.  Jerome's  Preface  to  the  Canonical  Epi-    ™"™$la*ed  firm  th" 
 files,  from  which  he  proves  that  the  Partage  was  ex-       riStna  • 
 tant  in  the  ancient  Greek  Copies,  out  of  which  that  Father  compiled 
 his  ancient  Latin  Edition. 
 
 Erafmus  in  his  anfwer  to  Stumca  ,  does  vindicate  himfèlf  well 
 enough  by  the  authority  of  thofè  Greek  Copies  he  had  ;  yet  lie 
 was  wrougfit  upon  by  fbme  other  confîderation,  contrary  to  the 
 Authority  of  all  his  Manufcripts,  to  infert  the  Partage  of  S.John  in  a 
 new  Edition  of  his  New  Teftament.  He  declares  that  what  obliged 
 him  to  make  that  Change,  was  his  feeing  a  Greek  Copy  in  England, 
 which  he  believed  was  more  perfect  than  any  Latin  Edition.  1  mall 
 afterwards  fhew  that  he  is  miftaken,  in  believing  that  the  Greeks 
 reformed  their  Copies  of  the  New  Teftament  to  a  degree  of  perfe- 
 ction, above  thole  of  the  Latins,  after  their  Reunion  with  the 
 Roman  Church. 
 
 If  that  were  fo,  as  that  judicious  Perfon  does  fuppofe,  with  what 
 warrant  and  freedom  could  he  correct  his  Greek  Edition  by  one 
 f  ingle  Copy,  which  as  he  himfelf  believed,  had  differed  fome  altera- 
 
 (  b  J  Sciendum  eft  hoc  loco  Griccorum  codices  apcrtijjimè  effe  corrupt os  ;  noftros 
 vero  icritatem  ipfatn  ut  à  prima  origine  tradutti  futit  contmere  :  quod  ex  Pro- 
 logo  Beatt  Hieronpni  fuper  Epiftolas  Canonicas  mamfeftc  apparet.  Jac.  Lop.  Stun. 
 Aiinot.in  Eraf. 
 
 A  2  tion. 
 
C4] 
 
 non.  He  does  difparage  his  own  judgment,  by  inveighing  againft 
 S.  Jerome,  as  if  that  Father  had  been  the  Author  of  the  Addition 
 that  is  found  in  the  Latin  Copies,  in  which  there  are  thefe  words, 
 £uoriiam  très  funt  qui  te(timonium  dant  in  cœlo3  Pater,  Verbum  ejr  Spiri- 
 tus  Sanfttts,  &  hi  très  unum  Çunt  ;  1.  e.  Becau]e  there  are  three  who  bear 
 witnefs  in  Heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghofi,  and  thefe 
 three  are  one.  (c)  He  on  this  occafion  brings  a  heavy  Charge  againft 
 him,  as  being  more  forward  than  wife;  that  is  to  fay,  if  the  matter 
 be  referred  to  Erafmuss  judgment,  S.  Jerome  muft  ftand  chargeable 
 with  Forgery,  a  bold  and  prefumptuous  undertaking  to  corred:  the 
 ancient  Latin  Edition  according  to  his  own  fancy,  without  the  Au- 
 thority of  good  Copies. 
 
 Fauftus  Socmus  knew  very  well  what  advantage  to  make  of  this 
 Anfwer  of  Erafmus  ;  but  withal  adds,  that  (d)  S.  Jerome  might  have 
 had  one  or  more  Copies,  in  which  this  Addition  might  be  io  man- 
 aged, as  to  make  it  a  hard  matter  to  dilcover  the  Fraud,  and  that 
 this  is  the  reafon  obliged  him  to  maintain  that  additional  PalTage 
 againft  the  Authority  of  (b  many  Copies.  In  this  manner  that 
 Unitary  argues,  according  to  his  cuftom,  with  more  fubtilty  than 
 lolidity.  But  Reafon  alone  is  not  fufficient  to  judg  of  fuch  maters; 
 for  belides  that,  'tis  neceflary  to  be  well  acquainted  with,  and  to 
 examin  ftri&ly  fuch  Writings  as  are  on  publick  record,  and  may 
 give  light  in  this  affair.  If  Erafmus,  who  had  read  many  Greek  and 
 *Latin  Copies  of  the  New  Teftament,  and  frequently  confulted 
 S.  Jerome's  Manufcripts,  had  applyed  himfelf  to  a  ftricl:  examination 
 of  the  Preface  to  the  Canonical  Epiftles,  which  he  %thinks  was 
 written  bv  that  Father,  he  would  rather  have  been  inclined  to  rejed 
 that  Preface,  as  {uppofititious,  than  to  charge  S.  Jerome  with  For- 
 gery. 
 
 Hieron.  ■  °^'1S  not  arm^  t0  ^et  down  *n  tnis  P'ace  f°me  pai*  of  the  Preface 
 Vrolog.  to  the  Canonical  Epiftles,  that  is  thought  to  be  S.  Jeromes,  which 
 in  vu  E.  is  only  found  in  the  firft  Latin  Editions  of  the  Bible  with  this  Title. 
 •pift.  Can,  jncjpit  frologus  beati  Hieronymi  presbyter;  in  feptem  Epificlas  Canonicals. 
 eparir'     l'  e*  beginning  of  the  Preface   of  S.  Jerome  the  Presbyter,    to  the 
 
 um'      '  J  even  Canonical  Epiftles, 
 
 (c)  We  fepenumero  violent us  eft  parumquc  fibi  pudens,  fafè  varius  parumquc 
 fibt  confiant.  Erafm.  Apol.  adv.  Stun. 
 
 (d  )  Hieronymus,  ut  is  aui\  tit  retlè  de  eo  Erafmus  alicubi  Jcribit,  non  fat  is  pru- 
 dent er  f*pe  ad  viUoriam  &  ad  caufc  juce  defcnfwncm  &  favorem  mult  a  trahebat^ 
 naclus  forte  exemplar  aliauod,  ant  etiam  plura  exemplar  ia  in  ambus  particula  ifta 
 adjetla'fuerat,  ut  fraus  animadvert i  non  pojfet,  adverfus  [idem  alio)  urn  omnium 
 exemplar ium  tant  Latinorum  quam  Grxcorum  leUionem  particular  ifttus  tanquam 
 germanam  defender  e  &  promovere  cocpit,   conquer  ens publicè  têm  culpa  (3 fraude 
 
 ri ticorum  abrafam  h  vuhatis  codia ibw  fiuflc.  Soc.  Comm.  in   ijoann.  c.  5.  v.  7. 
 
 The 
 
m 
 
 The  Author  complains,  that  Interpreters  have  not  faithfully 
 tranlîatcd  thole  Epiftles,  (e)  efoecially  that  place  of  S.Jobns  Firft 
 Epiftle,  Chap.  v.  verf.  7.  where  tnere  is  mention  made  of  the  Umty 
 ot  Perlons  in  the  Blefled  Trinity.  He  accules  thofe  unfaithful 
 Tranllators  of  falling  into  great  Errors,  whilft  they  retained  in  their 
 Veriion  thefe  words  only.  The  Watert  the  Blood,  and  the  Spirit,  and 
 left  out  the  words,  The  Father,  and  the  Spirit,  which  are  .\\\  au  then) 
 tick  Teftimony  of  the  Catholick  Faith,  about  the  Mvftery  or  the 
 Trinity. 
 
 The  Biihop  of  Oxford,  who  has  lately  published  a  new  Edition  of 
 S.  Cyprians  Works  with  Oblèrvations,  makes  mention  of  a  great 
 number  of  Latin  Bibles,  where  S.  Jeromes  (ùppofèd  Preface  is  found  : 
 In  the  mean  time  he  complains,  that  it  is  1ère  out  of  the*  Latin  Bi- 
 bles that  are  printed  in  our  Age.  (f)  Let  thofe  (  fays  that  learned 
 Bifhop  )  who  are  men  of  Judgment  determtn,  if  that  omiffion  happened 
 by  chance,  or  was  the  effet!  of  feme  bad  Defgn.  He  could  not  ima- 
 gin  for  what  reafons  it  was  taken  from  the  la  ft  Editions  of  tl 
 Latin  Bible,  fince  he  found  it  in  the  Manu  (en  pt  Copies,  and  al- 
 moil  in  all  the  ancient  Impreffions:  Libris  manufcnptis  pajjlm  &  fre 
 omnibus  codicibus  impreffis  anti^uioribm : 
 
 But  as  not  juft  to  accufe,  upon  this  account,  thofe  who  were 
 concerned  in  the  Tranflation  of  the  Latin  Bibles  without  that  Pre- 
 face. This  is  true,  that  it  is  found  with  other  Prefaces  of  S.  Jerome 
 to  the  Bible,  in  Inch  Latin  Copies  as  have  been  made  not  above  lïx 
 Hundred  Years  ago,  and  in  all  probability  the  firft  Latin  Bibles 
 were  printed  according  to  fuch  Manuicripts. 
 
 But  'tis  not  altogether  fb  in  thofe  that  were  written  about  (even 
 or  eight  Hundred  Years  ago,  but  in  fbme  few  only  of  fuch  Copies: 
 And  'tis  very  likely  that  as  to  the  reft,  'there  was  a  Regulation 
 made,  according  to  the  later  Manufcripts  in  fuch  Editions  of  the 
 Bible,  as  have  not  that  Preface.  Tis  further  oblervable,  that  nei- 
 ther the  Name  of  S.  Jerome,  nor  of  any  other  Writer,  is  prehxc 
 to  the  Preface,  in  fbme  of  the  ancient  Copies  where  it  is  found, 
 which  fufficiently  fhews,  that  we  may  on  good  grounds  queftion 
 S.  Jeromes  being  the  Author  of  it. 
 
 (  e)  Wo  frœcipuè  loco  ubi  de  imitate  Trmitatis  in  prima  Joannri  Epiftolà  pofitnm 
 legimus.  In  qua  etiam  ab  tvfidelibus  tranflatoribus  muhum  erratum  ejffe  afidei  ic- 
 ritate  comperimus,  trium  tantummodl  vocabula,  hec  eft,  aqiue,  fangmnis  (£>  Jp-.ri- 
 tàs  in  tpsàfuà  editione  ponentibus,  &  Pan  is  ubique  ac  Spirit  its  tejlimomum  omit- 
 tentibus,  m  quo  maxime  &  fides  Catholic*  roboratur,  ($  Pat  ris  ££  Filu  &  Spirit  us 
 Sa?<  .a  Divimtatis  fubftantia  cemprobatur.    Hieron.  Prol.  in  VII.  Epilt-  On. 
 
 (  1  )  Vttum  hoc  ex  cafu  an  maleficio  contigerit  dijpiciant  eritdui.  Jo.mn.  Oxon. 
 Epifc.  Not.  in  Cypr.de  unit.  Eccl. 
 
 Tha 
 
c°d.MSS.  The  Preface  in  controverse  is  not  in  a  certain  Manufcript  Co- 
 xibLUgg.  py  of  the  whole  Bible,  that  is  in  the  Royal  Library,  marked  3564. 
 and  has  been  extant  thefe  (even  Hundred  Years  ;  neither  is  it  in 
 CodMSS.  two  other  Manufcript  Copies  of  the  like  antiquity,  belonging  to 
 f,l?jL£e~  trie  Library  of  the  Benedittme  Monks  of  the  Abby  of  S.  Germain.  It 
 S.Germ  1S  ^0Lm(^  *  Q°n&6  in  Charles  le  Chauve*  s  fair  Bible  that  is  in  the  King's 
 PanSt  '  Library;  buz  S.  Jeromes  Name  is  not  there,  any  more  than  it  is  in 
 fome  other  ancient  Copies. 
 
 Whoever  will  take  the  pains  to  compare  the  moft  of  the  ancient 
 Latin  Bibles  together,    ihall  eaiily  difcover,   that  he  who  gathered 
 all  the  Books  of  the  Latin  Bible  into  one  Body,  (  the  better  part  of 
 which  was  tranflated  or  reviled  by  S.  Jerome)   is  really  the  Author 
 of  that  Preface.     Since  he  was  not  furnifhed  with  that  Father's  Pre- 
 face to  all  thofè  Books,    he  fupplied,   in  his  Collection,   what:   ts 
 wanting  with  an  addition  of  fome  of  his  own  compofure,  and  others, 
 which  he  gathered  from  S.  Jeromes  Works.     Hence,    for  example, 
 in  Charles  le  Chauves  Copy,  there  is,  before  the  Afts  of  the  Apoftles, 
 a  Preface  with  this  Title,  Vrafatio  Hieronymi  :    Yet  'tis  certain,  that 
 S.  Jerome  was  not  the  Author  of  that  Preface  to  the  Ads,    as  it  is 
 there  in  ex  pre  fs  words,  but  the  Author  of  the  Collection  of  the  Books 
 of  the  Latin  Bible,  took  the  fame  out  of  that  Father's  large  Preface, 
 entituled  Prologus  Galeatm  ;  and  it  is  expreflèd  in  thefe  words,  Actus 
 Apofiolorum  nudam  quidem  refanare  hifioriam  vtdenturi  &  nafcentis  Ec- 
 clefiœ  hifioriam  texere  :    Sed  fi  noverimm  fcriptorem  eorum  Lucam   ejje 
 Medicumy  cujus  laus  m  Evangelio,    animadvert  emus  pariter  omnia  verba 
 illius  anima  languentis  ejje  Medicinam  :     that  is,    The  Acls  of  the  Apo- 
 files  feem  to  be  a  bare  Hiftory,  affording  us  a  projpecl  of  the  Church  in 
 its  Birth  :    But  if  we  confider  that  the  Writer  was  Luke  the  Phyfician, 
 who  is  famous  m  the  Gofpel,  we  jhall  alfo  perceive,    that  all  his  words 
 are  the   Medicine  of  a  languishing  Soul,     'Tis  alfo  probable,    that  the 
 Compiler  of  the  Books  of  the  Latin  Vernon,   which  we  call  the 
 Vulgar,  not  finding  in  S.  Jerome  a  particular  Preface  to  the  Canoni- 
 cal Epiftles,    made  one  according  to  that  Father's  Stile,  fome  of 
 whofè  Expreffions  he  has  made  ufe  of,    and  amongft  others,  has 
 infèrted  that  word  Eufiochium. 
 
 'Tis  likewife  probable,  that  the  Addition  of  the  Witnefs  of  three 
 Perfons  was  extant  before  that  time,  in  fome  Copies  of  S.  Johns 
 Epiftles,  or  at  leaft  in  fome  Latin  Writers,  at  the  time  when  that 
 Preface  was  made.  Upon  this  account  the  Author,  who  pofltbly 
 had  not  the  occafion  of  confultmg  the  Creek  Copies,  fuppofed, 
 that  if  that  Paflage  was  not  extant  in  any  Latin  Copy,  the  Tranf- 
 lators  were  to  be  blamed.  'Tis  obfervablc  that  the  Addition  is  not 
 in  moft  of  the  old  Copies  of  S.Jerome's  Bible,  to  which  neverthe- 
 less 
 
Jefs  the  Preface  is  prefixt,  «is  I  have  obferved  in  two  Copies,  one 
 whereof  is  in  the  Royal  Library,  and  the  other  in  that  belonging 
 to  Mr.  Colbert.  How  incongruous  is  it,  to  lèe  a  Preface  at  the  be- 
 ginning of  the  Canonical  Epiftles,  where  S.Jerome  complains  of 
 the  unfaithfulnefs  of  the  ancient  Latin  Tranflators,  who  have  omit- 
 ted in  the  Firft  Epiftle  of  S.  John,  Chap.  i.  a  whole  Verio  which  he 
 relrores  to  the  Greek  ;  and  yet,  it  one  turn  to  the  place  of  S.  Jchn\ 
 Epiftle  in  the  very  fame  Copy,  the  paftage  is  not  to  be  found  there. 
 There  can  be  no  other  realbn  given,  in  my  opinion,  of  this  inco- 
 herency,  but  this.,  that  the  Tranlcribers  who  writ  out  the  Preface, 
 made  ufè  of  (uch  Latin  Copies,  in  which  that  Verfe  was  not  extant; 
 becaufè  neither  S.  Jerome,  nor  the  antient  Latin  Verhon  had  any 
 thing  of  it.  If  that  Father  had  been  the  Author  of  the  Preface,  and 
 of  the  Addition  inferted  in  S.  Johns  Epiftle,  that  Addition  would 
 have  been  extant  in  all  S.  Jerome's  Latin  Bibles.  This  diverfity  of 
 Copies  is  in  my  judgment  an  evident  proof,  that  he  did  not  compoie 
 that  Preface  to  prefix  it  to  the  Canonical  Epiftles. 
 
 And  that  which  makes  it  further  manifeft,  that  S.  Jerome  was 
 not  the  true  Author  either  of  the  Preface  or  Addition,  is,  that  that 
 Addition  is  placed  in  the  Margin  of  moft  of  the  antient  Copies,  in 
 the  Body  of  which  it  is  not  extant.  It  was  no  lefs  than  furprifing, 
 ( g  )  that  the  pretended  S.  Jerome  mould  in  his  Preface,  commend 
 his  new  Edition  of  the  Canonical  Epiftles,  upon  the  account  of  the 
 change  he  had  made,  efpecially  in  the  Firft  of 'S.John,  whilft  there 
 was  nothing  of  fuch  change  or  amendment  to  be  feen  therein.  Upon 
 which  account  the  Tranlcribers,  or  they  to  whom  the  Copies  did 
 belong,  thought  fit  to  regulate  the  Text  according  to  the  Preface^ 
 by  fupplying,  in  the  Margin,  the  Verfe  concerning  the.  Witntfs  of  the 
 Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  which,  before  that  time  was  ex- 
 tant in  fôme  Ecclefiaftical  Authors.  But  lince  it  was  a  matter  of 
 difficulty  for  thole  who  placed  that  Addition  in  the  Margin  of  their 
 Copies,  to  oblèrve  a  general  and  perfect  uniformity  of  words,  it 
 lo  fell  out,  that  the  Expreffions  in  the  various  Copies  did  hkewile 
 vary.  This  diverlity  does  evidently  prove  that  S.  Jerome  could  not 
 be  the  Author  of  the  Addition  in  controverfie,  but  that  it  was  done 
 by  thole  who  had  a  mind  to  adjuft  the  Text  in  S.  James  to  the  Pre- 
 face. I  mall  here  give  fbme  Examples  of  that  Regulation,  of  the 
 manner  how  it  was  added  to  moft  of  the  old  Latin  Copies  of 
 S.  Jerome's  Bible. 
 
 \)  Quantum  k  mftrX  aliornm  diflct  editio,  letlont  jniiciorelmfu:  Hier,  Ffetl 
 in  VII  Epift.Can. 
 
 In 
 
tf  3 
 
 CoïMSS.     in  that  Copy  of  the  Royal  Library  that  is  marked  3584.  in  the 
 
 Bib!,  I{eg.  Margin  over  againft  thefe  words,   Très  funt  qui  tefiimonium  dant,-  i.  e. 
 
 There  are  three  which  bear  witnejs  ;  there  are  thefe  other  words  added, 
 
 In  cœlo,   Pater,  Verbum,  &  Spiritus  :  &  très  funt  qui  tefiimonium  dant 
 
 in  terra,  &  ht  très  unum  funt.  i.  e.  In  Heaven,    the  Father,    the  Word, 
 
 and  the  Spirit  :    and  there  are  three  winch  bear  witnefs  on  earth,    and 
 
 thefe  three  are  one.     The  writing  of  the  Addition  appears  to  be  no 
 
 leis  ancient  than  that  of  the  Text.     The  like  Addition  is  to  be  feen 
 
 p°/;Ai5y  ' ln  a  Copy  that  is  in  Mr.  Colbert's  Library,  that  is  marked  1 58.  where 
 
 .  l.Co.b.  -n  tne  Margin,    over  againft  thefe  words,  Très  funt  qui  tefiimonium 
 
 dant,  thefe  are  added,  In  cœlo,    Pater, Fer  bum,  &  Spiritus,  &  très  funt 
 
 qui  tefiimonium  dant  in  terra,  fanguis,  aqua,    Ô*  caro.     And  to  make 
 
 the  Text  and  Addition  agree  the  better,  there  arefome  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 
 
 CodMSS.  Benedi&ines  of  the  Abby  of  S.  Germans,  only  it  is  placed  in  the  Mar- 
 
 BibLBen.  gin  of  one  of  thefe  Copies,  and  the  Addition  is  as  old  therein  as  the 
 
 S.Germ.    T^xt  it  fe]f. 
 
 'Tis  true,  that  it  is  extant  in  a  Copy  written  eight  Hundred  Years 
 ago,   in  the  time  of  Lotharius  II.     But  it  is  ftrangely  disfigured  in 
 Cod.MSS.  that  place  ;  in  that  Copy  the  Reading  was  formerly  thus,    Sunt  très 
 Bibl.Ben.  qui  "tefiimonium  dant,    (  the  words  in  terra  being  interlined  )    fplrittts, 
 b.Germ.    #yua^  &  fanguis  ;  &  très  unum  funt:  &  très  funt  qui  de  cœlo  tefiifican- 
 tur,  pater,  verbum,  &  Jpiritus,  &  très  unum  funt.     But  fome  time  after- 
 wards,   the  words    (  de  cœlo  tefiificantur,  i.  e.  bear  witnefs  of  Heaven  ) 
 were  defaced,   to  make  room  tor  thefe,    tefiimonium  dicunt  in  cœlo, 
 1.  e.  bear  witnefs  in  Heaven, 
 
 All  which  different  Alterations  are  evident  proofs  that  there  was 
 nothing  of  that  Addition  in  the  firft  Copies  which  were  publifhed 
 of  S.  Jerome's  Bible  ;  for  which  reafon  it  is  not  to  be  found  in  a  cer- 
 tain Verfion  of  the  French  Church,    which  is  at  leaf!  a  Thoufand 
 Years  old,     and  which  was  publifhed  by  F.  Mabillon  a  Benedieline 
 Monk,  and  the  firft  who  in  effed  feems  to  have  infeited  that  Paf: 
 fage  in  his  Works,  is  Victor  Bifhop  of  Vite,    who  lived  a  Hundred 
 Years  after  S.  Jerome.    Take  his  own  words  in  his  Second  Book  of 
 the  Perfccution  of  the  Vandals  :   Et  ut  adhuc  luce  claims  umus  Divi- 
 ViclorVi-nitatis  efj'e  cum  Vatre  &   Filio  Spntum  Sanctum  doceamm ,     Joannis 
 tmfis,  1.2.  Evangeliflœ  teftimomo  comprobatur.     Ait  namque,  trcs  funt  qui  tefiimo- 
 ?e?fcc'       mum  prohibent  m  cœlo,  Pater,    Verbum,  &  Spin  tus  S  and  us,    &  hi  très 
 
 Promue  unum  funt  :  u  e*  ^n^  flirt^cr->  î0  ftKW>  %^a%  "Us  wcfi  Wiit*t%  fhat  the 
 cdit.Bofil.  Holy  Ghoft  is  the  fame  Gcd  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  the  tefiimo- 
 ann.  ny  of  S.  John  the  Evangel 'ifi  is  fufficient  ;     for  be  fays,     that  there  ate 
 
 l$19-        three  that  bear  iviinefs  m  Heaven,  the  Father,    the  Word,  and  the  Holy 
 
 Ohoft, 
 
19  ] 
 
 .0 
 
 Ghoft,  and  theft  thru] an  StFulgenct  a  little  a        did  alio  quot 
 
 *him.     But  I  refer  that  to  a  larger  Difcourfe  in  the  II.  I         orth 
 Work,  where  I  Hull  particularly  treat  of  the  Verfions  of  t 
 Teftament 
 
 I  know  that  a  great  many  Men  of  Learning  have  .  that 
 
 itCjprsanj  (who  lived  a  longtime  before S>;  )  had  quo        hat 
 
 paflage  in  Ins  Books.  The  Bifliop  of  Oxford  brought  the  teitimony 
 of  St.  Cyprian,  (h)  to  juftifie  St.  Jeronfs  Preface  1  at  the  fame  time, 
 to  Ihcw,  that  that  Father  could  not  be  acculed  c  '  any  unfair  dealing, 
 becaule  he  only  re-eftabliihed  the  Ancient  Latin  Edition  in  its  firft 
 purity.  Father  Amelote,  who  belongs  to  the  Chappel,  freely  declares 
 that  the  fame  paflage  is  wanting  in  St.Athanafws,  St.Cynl,  St.Gre£ory$ 
 St.  Naz,ianz,en,  St.Chryfofiom,  Didymus,  and  (as  to  the  Fathers  of  the 
 Latine  Church,)  in  St.Auguftin,  St.  Leon*  Beda,  and  in  divers  others; 
 and  yet  does  allure  us,  that  it  is  extant  ina  Trcatife  of  St.  Cyprun  con- 
 cerning the  Unity  of  the  Church. 
 
 But  can  we  imagine,  if  St.  Cyprian  had  had  it  in  his  Copy  of  the 
 New  Teftament,  that  St.  Auguftin  would  not  have  made  ufè  of  ic 
 againft  the  Avians  of  his  time  ?  The  truth  is,  after  I  had  ftrietly  ex- 
 amined that  paflage  of  St.Cyprian,  which  is  the  matter  in  Queflion,  1 
 fully  perfuaded  my  felf  that  that  Pious  Prelate  had  only  made  men- 
 tion of  thefe  words^  hi  très  unutn  Junt,\.ç.and  the  Je  three  are  0»e,about 
 which  there  is  no  conteft,  and  that  from  thence  he  would  prove,  the 
 Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghoft,  to  be  one  and  the  fame.  It  is 
 written  (fays  he)  of  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy-Ghoft, 
 and  thefe  three  are  one.  He  applies  to  the  Father,  'Son,  and  Holy 
 Ghoft,  what  we  read  in  all  the  Greek  and  Latine  Copies  concerning 
 the  teftimony  of  the  Spirit,  the  Water  and  the  Blood,  of  which  it  is 
 laid,  that  they  are  one,  &  hi  très  unum  funt,  which  differs  very  much 
 from  an  exprefs  quotation  of  thofè  Words,  as  it  they  were  in  the 
 Text  it  fèlf. 
 
 And  that  there  may  be  no  doubt  left,  but  that  this  is  St.  Cyprians 
 true  fenfe  of  the  words,  it  is  but  coniulting  the  Learned  Facundus, 
 who  was  of  the  lame  African  Church,  and  gives  their  explication  at 
 large,  evincing  the  myitery  of  the  Trinity  from  them,  after  his  ex- 
 ample. He  does  fuppoiè  through  his  whole  Difcourfe.thatin  St.Johvs  F;;C! 
 Epiltle,  Chap.  v.  there  are  only  thefe  words  extant,  Très  funt  qui  tefti-  £ '°-1' 
 ficantur  tn  terra,  f pint  us,  aqua  Çf  fanguts.  i.e.  There  are  three  which  bear  \'  lt  c 
 
 (h)  Ctti gravijfima  calumni*  de  D.Iheronymo  falfario  (3  S.  Scripturarum  in- 
 ter pot  atore  amohendœ  fuffecre  potent   Cyprianum  citajfè  non  modo  ante    \ 
 tpmi  tempera,  fed  Am  ipjius  &  litem  de  dogma  te  ilia  auod  adeo  difpltctt  S 
 no  de  trine  &  nno  Deo  J'cnptorem.  Joann.  Epifc.  Oxon.  Not.  in  Cypdc  unit.  Ecclef. 
 
 B  wit  ne  J  s 
 
C    10    ] 
 
 wit  nefs  on  earth,  the  Spirit,  the  Water  and  the  Blood.  But  he  adds  at  the 
 fame  time,  that  they  are  to  be  underftood  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
 Holy  Ghoft.  De  Patre  Filio  &  Spiritu  Sanclo  dicit,  très  [uni  qui  tefii- 
 ntonium  dant  in  terra,  ff stilus  9  aqua  &  [anguis,  &  hi  trestmumjunt  ;  in 
 Jpiritu  fignificans  Tatremjn  aqua  Spiritum  Sanctum, in  [anguine  'veroFiltum 
 fignificans.  His  meaning  is  that  the  three  Perfbns  are  iïgnified  by  the 
 three  Witneflbs  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  fènfè  of  that  partage  in  St.  John.  Quod 
 Joannis  Apofioli  tefiimomum  beatm  Cyprianus  Cattbaginienfis  Antiftes  & 
 itaie»  Martyr,  in  Epi  [tola  five  libro  quern  de  *  Tr  m  it  ate  [crip  fit,  de  Patre  Filio  & 
 Spiritu  SanBo  dictum  intelligit. 
 
 If  the  Biihopcf  Oxford  had  compared  the  words  oÇ  Facundus  With 
 thofe  of  $:.Cyprian,hQ  had  not  brought  fuch  weak  Arguments  againft  E- 
 rafinns  anàSocinitsjn  the  defence  of  St.  Jerome,  who  flood  in  no  need 
 of  that  fervicc,  feeing  he  was  not  the  Author  of  the  Preface  to  the 
 Canonical  Epiftles,  nor  of  the  Addition  inierted  in  St.  Johns  Epiftle, 
 Chap.  v.  FicJor  the  Bilhop,  not  having  confïdered  the  matter  fb  nar- 
 rowly, brings  in  thzTVitnejs  o[  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghofi,  as  if 
 St.  John  had  exprefly  made  mention  of  them,  whereas  St.  Cyprian 
 and  Facundus,  bring  it  only  as  an  explication  of  the  Witnefs  of  the 
 Spirit,  the  Water,  and  the  Blood.  The  fame  thing  hapned  ttf  thofè 
 who  caufèd  to  Print  St.  Athanafims  Works,  with  a  Table  of  the 
 partages  of  Holy  Scripture,  which  are  quoted  therein.  They  have  fet 
 down  at  large  there,  the  feventh  Verfe  of  the  fifth  Chapter  of  the 
 firft  Epiftle  of  St.  John,  as  if  that  Holy  Man  had  quoted  that  place 
 after  that  manner.  Yet  in  his^  difpute  againft  the  Arians,  he  only 
 made  u(e  of  thefe  words,  %  clrfeis  7$  h  «<n,  and  the[e  Three  are  One 
 and  applied  the  fame  to  the  Trinity. 
 
 I  make  no  queftion  but  that  this  Explication  of  St.  Athanafms, 
 was  the  occafion  that  fome  Greek  Scoliaftes  placed  in  the  Margin  of 
 their  Copies  the  formentioned  Note,  which  afterwards  was  put  in 
 the  Text.  And  that  is  more  probable  than  what  Era[mus  thought 
 concerning  this  matter,  who  was  of  opinion,  that  the  Greek  Copies, 
 which  make  mention  of  the  Witneft  o[  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
 Ghofi,  were  more  Correct  than  the  Latin  Copies.  If  he  had  only 
 fpoken  of  fiich  Greek  Copies  as  were  written  by  thofe  of  the  Latin 
 Church,  and  which  fèrved  for  their  u(e,  what  he  a  Hedged,  would  be 
 the  more  credible.  But  that  the  Greeks,  after  their  reunion  with  the 
 Latin  Church,  made  their  Copies  of  the  New  Teltament  more  Cor- 
 rect than  the  Latin,  is  againir  all  appearance  of  Truth.  On  the  con- 
 trary, 'tis  manifeft  that  the  Copies  that  have  been  fince  that  time, 
 make  no  mention  of  that  Tcftimonv. 
 
 The 
 
C  "  ] 
 
 The  Obfèrvation  th.it  Fromondur,  a  Divine  o  \   ma 
 
 that  place  ofbt.Jvbn,  after  (ome  other  Commentators  i  c  any 
 
 ground.    I  le  acknowledged  that   ^k.Avgufim,  and  man^ 
 
 Fatheis,had  not  that  paiLigeof  St.  ?*£»  extant  in  their  C  «         ;  but 
 at  the  fame  tune  he  adds,  (  /  )  that  the  Ar'utoi  had  taken  away  th  :  L     \ 
 out  of  many  Copies,  and  that  the  Latin  Verfion  which  $L.JuruJHmi 
 and  thole  other  Fathers  made  ule  or,    was  compiled  out  < 
 Books  that  were  corrupted  by  the  Avians.     This  opinion  is  mofr  ab- 
 fiirdj  and  can  have  no  other  ground,  but  the  Preface  that  is  fathci 
 on  St.Jercme.     With  what  reaibn  could  they  accufe  the  A\         of 
 changing  the  Greek  Copies  of  the  New  Teftament  in  that  pla 
 feeing  St  Cjprian,  who  lived  before  Ariuis  name  was  known  in  the 
 World,  had  no  fuch  Verfe  in  his  Copy  ?  Befides,  the  fame  altera- 
 tion muftof  neceflîty  have  reached  all  other  Churches:  for  neither 
 the  Sp-ians  of  any  Seel:  whatfoever,  nor  any  other  Eaftern  Church 
 have  it  in  their  Editions  of  the  New  Teftament. 
 
 And  I  cannot  imagin  what  advantage  the  Antitrmitariam  can 
 get  againft  the  Catholicks,  upon  this  ground,  that  that  pailage  is 
 not  found  in  the  mod  part  of  the  Greek  Manufcripts,  nor  thole 
 others  of  the  Eaftern  Church,  nor  yet  in  the  old  Latin  Copies. 
 For  the  mofr  learned  Interpreters  of  the  New  Teftament  do  not 
 Expound  it  with  reference  to  the  Trinity.  Such  ancient  Ecclefi- 
 afticai  Writers  as  have  applyed  it  to  -that  Myftery ,  followed  the 
 Cuftom  of  that  time,  which  was  to  give  the  Scripture  fùch  a  Theo- 
 logical fènfe,  as  was  accommodated  to  the  Faith  then  received  in 
 the  Chinch.  Now  whether  that  Verfè  be  Read  in  the  T.  Epiftle 
 of  St.  John,  as  all  thofe  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  wrell  proved  from  that  place,  againft  thofe  who 
 deny  that  Myftery  ;  becaufe  the  Fathers  from  the  firft  Ages  of  the 
 Church,  have  applyed  the  Witnefs  of  the  Sprit  y  of  the  Water,  and 
 of  the  Blood \  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft.  They  have  proved, 
 by  the  Unity  of  thofè  WitnefTes ,  that  the  three  Perfons  of  the 
 Trinity  arc  one. 
 
 It  is  therefore  to  no  purpofe  to  difpute  about  the  Addition  or 
 Omiffion  of  a  paflage,  which  by  it  felf,  does  not  clearly  eftabliih, 
 but  only  fuppofe  a  Trinity  of  Perfons,  according  to  the  opinion  of 
 the  moft  Ancient  Divines  of  the  Church.    I  do  not  believe,  that 
 
 f  i  )  Videntur  Graci  Ariani  ex  multis  codicibus  Gr<ecû  fritnàm  crafijje,  &  dein- 
 de  trayiflationem  Latwam,  qua  S.Auguftinus  &  imdti  Patres  "fifunt,  ex  codkê 
 Grœco  nwrilatofaftamfuijje.  From.Comm.  in  Epiit.  i.Joann.  c.  5. 
 
 B  2  the 
 
c l2  ] 
 
 the  moft  of  the  Modem  Divines  had  any  intention  of  favouring 
 Ariamfm,  when  thcy  obfèrved  that  that  place  (hews  that  the  Wit- 
 nèfles  are  One.  Thofe  three  (fays  Father  Amelote)  are  one  in  their  Te- 
 ftimony,  the  Father  give  -a  Teftimony  to  Jejm  Chrifl,  in  Jordan. 
 The  Wordy  by  his  Words  and  A&ions,  thoHoly  Ghofi,  in  the  form  of 
 a  Dove,  and  by  his  miraculous  Gifts. 
 
 I  cannot  after  all,  in  any  wife  conceive  for  what  ufe  or  purpofè 
 Herman.  Sandim  has  quoted,  upon  the  credit  of  others,  fo  many  different  Edi- 
 ?"j       tlon5  or~ tne  ^ew  Teftament,  in  which  the  Verfe  in  queftion  is  not 
 S^Trinit. to  DC  f°unc^     Seeing  the  moll  part  of  thofè  Greek  Editions  were 
 Hgvelat.    taken  from  one  another,  and  but  very  few  of  them  from  Manufcript 
 p.  105.      Copies,  their  great  number  fignifies  nothing.     I  do  not  think,  for 
 example,  that  that  of  Strasburg,  An.\  524.  or  that  of  Simon  de  Colines, 
 at   Paris,    An.  1514.  were  compiled  by  the  help  of  Manufcripts. 
 Wolfi'is,  who  published  that  of  Strasburg,  makes  no  mention  of  it 
 in  his  Preface.     On  the  contrary,  he  declares,  that  he  only  Reprinted 
 m  a  new  Letter,  and  another  Volume,  what  had  been  Printed  be- 
 fore that  time.     Simon  de  Col'mes  made  no  Preface  to  his  Greek  Editi- 
 on; which  makes  me  think  he  compiled  it  according  rothebeft  of 
 his  skill,  by  Editions  that  were  extant  before.     Erajmm  is  one  of 
 the  fir  ft,  who  gave  occafion  for  the  omiflion  of  that  Verfe,  in  thofe 
 Greek  Editions  of  the  New  Teftament  that  came  after  his  own, 
 which  was  An.  1516.     And  he  published  another,  An.  1 5  1 9.  where 
 that  Verfe  is  alfb  wanting.     Thofe  Editions,  on  the  contrary,  which 
 came  out  after  the  Complute  or  Ahala,  An.  151$.   have  all  that 
 Verfè.     Hence  it  is,  that  it  is  extant  in  Robert  Stephens  Fair  Edition, 
 and  in  the  moft  part  of  the  other  Editions.     The  Manufcript,  and. 
 not  the  Printed  Copies ,  are  to  be  heeded,  unlefs  thefè  be  taken 
 from  the  Manufcripts,  fiich  as  the  Edition  of  Alcala,  and  that  of 
 Erafmm. 
 
 Nor  is  there  any  account  to  be  made  of  the  great  number  of 
 Editions,  of  Luther  s  Dutch  Verfion,  that  Sandius  brings  againft  the 
 Lutherans.  For  they  are  only  repetitions  of  the  firft ,  in  which 
 Luther  had  followed  the  Edition  of  Erafmus,  or  fbme  other,  there 
 being  at  that  time  many,  even  in  Holland,  winch  had  been  pub- 
 lifhed  without  that  Verfè.  I  do  not  think  that  that  Patriarch  of 
 the  North  was  well  Read  in  the  Greek  Manufcript  Copies,  though 
 the  moft  part  of  his  followers  do  juftifie  him  in  this  manner,  when 
 it  is  objected  to  them,  that  their  Mafter  has  corrupted  the  Scri- 
 pture, by  leaving  out  a  paflàge  of  the  New  Teftament,  that  af- 
 ferts  the  Myftery  of  the  Trinity.  He  might  (lay  they)  very  well 
 omit  that  Verfe,  with  the  Greek  edition  of  the  Hagumatt,  An.  15H. 
 
 Rait  hi  VS} 
 
Raithius  j  in  an(\ver  to  this  objCiflion  ,  (£)  lays,  that  Luther  did 
 think  fit  to  put  that  only  in  his  Vcrfion  ,  which  was  conffantly, 
 and  by  all  agreed  on,  and  that  confequently,  he  might  omit  a  Verfe 
 about  which  (bme  doubts  had  anion.,  and  which  was  not  in  Aldus* 
 Edition,  which  he  made  u(e  of,  as  it  is  believed.  Behdes,  lie  was 
 perfuaded  that  there  were  other  pafiages,  which  afforded  a  lading 
 Foundation  for  the  belief  of  the  Trinity. 
 
 This  is  a  plaufible  Reaton,  becaule  Luther  took  upon  him  the 
 Tranilating  a  Greek  Copy  into  his  own  Language.  But  if  the 
 Matter  was  to  be  juftihed  in  this  re  (poet,  I  iee  no  reafbn  why  his 
 Diiciples  mould  alter  his  Verfion  in  that  place,  and  that  they  ihould 
 commend  to  the  people,  for  the  crue  word  of  God,  a  thing  they 
 believed  to  be  doubtful.  It  might  poflibly  have  been  more  to  the 
 purpofe,  according  to  their  principle,  to  prefèrve  their  ancient 
 Dutch  Verlion,  and  content  themselves  with  placing  that  Verfè  in 
 the  Margin,  by  way  of  remark.  On  the  contrary  they  bring  it  at  this 
 day  againff  the  Antitr  mit  arums y  as  a  ftrong  p:oof  of  the  Xlyftery  of 
 the  Trinity  ;  little  thinking,  that  they  give  them,  by  that  mean's,  the 
 faireft  occalion  imaginable  of  Triumphing  over  them.  It  is  the  bare 
 Authority  of  theChurch  that  does  at  prêtent  oblige  us  to  receive  thac 
 paflage  as  Authentick.  •  The  Greeks,  though  otherwife  difaffecled  to 
 the  Latin  Church,  fully  agree  with  them  in  this  master. 
 
 There  is  a  greater  Uniformity  amongft  the  Calvimfts ,  in  their 
 Veriionsof  the  New  Teftament,  than  amongll  the  Lutherans.  For 
 though  they  pretend,  as  well  as  they  to  TraniLce  the  Original  Greek, 
 yet  they  have  retained  that  Verle  in  all  their  Transitions.  Bczut± 
 who  openly  declares  that  it  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  molt  part  of 
 the  Ancients,  yet  lays  withal,  (/)  that  it  ought  to  be  kept  in  the 
 Text,  whereof  it  is  a  part.  Dwdati,  who  has  Jikewifè  retained 
 it  in  his  Italian  Vcrfion,  is  of  Opinion,  (m)  that  the  Unity  men- 
 tioned in  that  place,  is  as  well  an  Unity  of  Nature,  .  as  an  Uni- 
 ty or  Content  of  Teftimony.  But  Calvin  is  much  more  referved 
 on  this  occalion,  according  to  his  wonted  precaution,  never  to 
 make  us  weak  Arguments  againft  the  Ant  ttr  in  it  an  ans.      That   I 
 
 (k)  Q^id  minim,  fi  Lut  her  us  qui  mdubitata  tantwn  fer  ibère  deer,  :  mm 
 
 extra  aïe  am  dubuatiouis  pofit.i  prater  nnfit,  aut  quod  in  Âtth  Manutii  Venefk  edi- 
 tione  qua  ujus  credit  ur  non  occurrit,  etiam  non  ver  tit,  cum  i  mi  Xfinx 
 
 etiam  fublato  hoc  loco  nibilommiis  jirmijfimis  documcyitis  aiiis  fiab'ilirt  d..  ret, 
 
 Raith.  Vind.  Verf.  Germ.  Lutli. 
 
 (1)    Hie  verficulus   emninà  tnibi   retinendus   videtur.     IxZa  Not.  in  i  Jcu 
 c.  5.  v.  7. 
 
 (m)  Cofi' in  ejfen^a  come  in  unions  è  covjentimaito   d:  qttefta  tey  &• 
 
 Diod.  Not.  in  1  Jo.mn.  c.  ,. 
 
 frejpi  • 
 
[H] 
 
 Cah.         preffiûnê   (fays  he)  Three   are  One  dees  not  denote  the   Eflinct ,    but  the 
 £*T'  th  ^onfent. 
 
 Jo^mcy      *  *e  Perceived,  no  lefs  than  Luther }  that  that  partage  was  not  in 
 v.  7.  the  m  oft  Copies,  and  was  very  fenhble  that  it  would  be  a  matter  of 
 
 no  fmall  difficulty  to  reconcile  the  words  of  St.  Jerome,  (in  that  Pre- 
 face which  is  alledgcd  to  be  his  J  to  the  ancient  Greek  Books.    He  durft 
 not  deal  freely  in  the  matter,  left  he  mould  have  offended  his  weak 
 Brethren.     I  mall  here  fee  down  his  own  words,    that  the  World 
 may  fee  how  this  Man  carried  himfèlf,  when  upon  any  occafion  he 
 was  obliged  to  Critifize  on  fuch  places  of  Scripture  as  appeared  to 
 Calvàbid.  him  doubtful.     All  this  has  been  emitted  by  Çome,      Which  St.  Jerome 
 thought,  did  "proceed  rather  from  malice ,  than  ignorance  or  mad'vtrtency 
 and  which  was  not  done  but  by  thofe  of  the  Latin  Church.      But  foraf- 
 much  as  the  Greek  Books  do  not  agree  amongft  themfelves^    it  is  not  eafie 
 for  ?>;e  to  be  fofitive  about  the  matter.     Neverthelefs,    becaufe  the   Text 
 rims  very  well  with  that  Addition,  avd3  as  I  obferve,  it  is  extant  in  the 
 bcft3    and  mo  ft   Cor  reel  Copies,  for  my  part  I  am  'very  willing  to  ad- 
 mit of  it» 
 
 Chap.     XIX. 
 
 Of  the  Book  of  the  Revelation.  What  was  the  Belief  of 
 the  Ancients  concerning  it.  The  Hereticks  that  did  re- 
 jefl  it.  Their  Reafons  7  which  are  Examined.  There 
 have  been  alfo  Learned  Catholicks  of  ancient  time,  who 
 have  afcribed  it  to  Cerinthus.  The  Opinion  of  thefe 
 latter  times  about  the  fame  Book. 
 
 WHat  remains  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament,  to  be  ex- 
 amined, is  the  Apocalyps,  which  St.  Jerom  makes  mention 
 Kptft.  ad  0^  \n  one  0f  hjs  Epiftles,  as  being  a  Book  that  W2S  not  commonly 
 received  in  the  Greek  Churches  of  his  time.  But  if  Tertullians  Maxim 
 have  any  weight  with  us,  illudverum  quod  prim,  i.e.  That  ts  moft 
 likely  to  be  true  that  wasfirfi.  We  will  prefer  the  Univerfàl  Opinion 
 of  the  ancient  Ecclefiaftical  Writers,  to  that  of  fbme  Greek  Churches, 
 of  later  times.  It  is  upon  this  ground,  that  Grotius  gives  his  Judg- 
 ment 
 
•    c  \5  ] 
 
 mcnt  of  this  Book,  when  ho  (ays,  that  to  St       ■;«,   StirflMWj 
 
 Tertulhan,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  On;ya3  St.  Cyprian,  who  may 
 believed  in  this  matter,  have  by  one  common  content,  avouched 
 Sr.  John  ^s  the  Author  of  that  Book.  Flacctts  Myricus  had  affirmed 
 the  fame  thing  before,  a  (Taring  us  (/>)  that  it  is  very  reafonable  we 
 mould  refer  this  to  the  Fathers,  who  lived  near  the  time  oi  the 
 Author. 
 
 And  therefore  Barom:/s  has  judicioudy  oblerved,  that  what  St.  Jc- 
 r,m  Hoes  alledge,  concerning  the  Opinion  of  the  Greek  Churches 
 about  the  Apocalyps,  cannot  be  altogether  true,  feeing  that  St.  Efi-  Bare 
 pbamm  who  lived  at  that  time,  and  who  was  not  much  older  than  ann-  ' 
 he,  defended  the  Authority  of  that  Booki  againfc  the  Akgian,  and  97'  n'  6' 
 TbioJêtùm  Hereticks.     Tfe::  Cardinal  does  neverthejefs  declare,  that 
 he  cannot  in  this  refpecl:  blame  St.Jerom,  for  having  unhappily  tra- 
 duced the  Greek  Churches  in  his  time.    He  believed  that  he  meant 
 St.  B  a  fil  y  Amphilochuts ,  the  two  Gregortes  of  Naz,ianz,en  and  NyJJ'e,  and 
 the  Council  of  Laodicea,  who  did  not  reckon  thcApocalv^samongil  Baron. 
 the  Canonical  Books  of  Scripture.     He  didinguilhcs  betwixt  thole  ^'/^?:*7- 
 Fathers,  and  the  Aloglans  and  Theodotians}  upon  this  account,  that 
 the  former  had  not  impeached  the  Authority  of  that  Book,  with  an 
 avowed  obftinacy  as  the  latter  had  done.     And  even  St.  Epipba?::t:s 
 is  not  fo  much  againfl  St.  Jerom,  but  that  he  iniïnuates,  that  the  Alo- 
 gians,  (who  rejected  in  general  all  that  is  extant  of  St.  Jch?is  Writ- 
 ingsj  would  have  been  in  fbme  refpect  exculible,  if  they  had  re- 
 jected nothing  but  the  Revelation,  which  is  an  obfeure  and  unintel- 
 ligible Book. 
 
 The  Alogtans  pretended  that  the  Apocalips,  and  the  reft  o£St.Jclm 
 Writings,  were  compofed  by  the  Heretick  Cermthus.    Which  they  en- 
 deavoured to  mew,  by  the  agreement  that  the  Doctrine  which  Cc- 
 rinthm  profeiTed,  had  to  that  contained  in  the  Books  of  that  Apo- 
 (tie,  and  ef  pecially  in  his  Revelaticfti. 
 
 They   likewife  drew  up  particular  objections  againfl   this  latter 
 
 (p)  Apofioli  Joannis  cijc  hunc  librum  credidere  illi  quibui  memo  crediting  Jtt* 
 ftinus  contra  Tryphonzm,  Ircmeusy  Tertuliianus  adverfns  Marcioncm,  &  aim  mul- 
 us  in  locis,  qui  bus  cmUmumt  Clenuns  Alexandrinus,  Qngcnes,  Cyprianus,  & 
 poft  eos  aiii  multi.  Grot-  Annot.  in  tit.  Apoc. 
 
 (b)  St  iis  babeatur  fides  Patribm,  qui  propius  ad  hoc  acccffcriint  fecuhmi,  uti 
 certè  œquijjimum  eft,  quale  s  [tint  Jujftnm,  TcrtuHianwJrcnjus,  Apollonius,  Tbeo- 
 
 f by  lus  Antiochenus afirmàri  potent  ea/n  ut  Joannis  Afofioli  file  prima  fee 
 
 habit  am.    Cur  er.nn  tarn    cert'o  Joannis  Apoftcli  c/Te  confit  murent,  Il 
 extitijfe  fententias  antecejjorum  cognovijjent.    FJac.  Ulyr.  arg.  in  Apoc. 
 
 Work. 
 
Work,  (c)  Of  what  ufe  ffay  they)  can  the  "Revelation  of  St.  John  be 
 to  us ,  when  he  tells  us  of  [even  Angels,  and  of  [even  Trumpets  ?  St.  Eft- 
 ph.  phanuts  gives  them  this  aniwer,  that  God  was  pleafed  to  reveal  to 
 his  fèrvant  John,  what  wasmoft  myfterious  in  the  Law  and  the  Pro- 
 phets, to  the  end  that  he  might  treat  of  them  in  a  fpiritual  and 
 intelligible  maimer.  And  feeing  thole  Hereticks  were  fo  bold  as  to 
 ridicule  what  is  laid  or  the  feven  Trumpets,  he  charges  them,  upon 
 that  account,  either  of  malice  or  ignorance,  from  the  words  of 
 St.  Paul,  who  has  alfo  made  mention  of  tholè  Trumpets,  in  his'firft 
 
 i  Cor.  xv.  Epiftle  to  the  Corinthians,  where  he  fays,  The  trumpet  frail  found,  and 
 
 J  '  at  the  found  of  this  trumpet  the  dead  fall  rife. 
 
 Some  of  the  Alogians,  to  disparage  the  Authority  of  the  Apoca- 
 ivps,  another  argument  ;  make  ufe  of  theie  words,  for  in  Chap.  ii. 
 ver.  I  8.  of  the  Book,  To  the  Angel  of  the  Church  of  Thy  at  ira,  write  : 
 (d)  There  was  not  at  that  time  (lay  they,)  any  Chriftian  Church  in 
 Thy  at  ira.  How  could  St.  John  write  to  a  Church,  which  had  no 
 being  ?  St.  Epiphamits  being  of  the  fame  opinion  with  the  Alogians, that 
 there  was  no  Church  in  that  place,  at  that  time,  that  he  may  anlwer 
 their  objection,  is  forced  to  have  recourfe  to  the  Spirit  of  Prophecy. 
 He  thinks  that  St.  John,  who  was  infpired  by  God,  forefaw  what 
 mould  happen  in  procels  of  time.  And  therefore  he  gives  us  the 
 m  oft  exact  account  that  he  can,  of  the  City  of  Thyatira,  about  the 
 time  when  the  "Phrygian  Hereticks  did  bear  fway  there.  He  fhews 
 how  it  afterwards  became  an  Orthodox  and  moft  famous  Church, 
 (ej  The  defign  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  (fays  hej  was  to  reveal,  in  that  place 
 vf  the  Apicalyps,  that  that  Church  Jhould  fall  from  the  Truth,  after  the 
 time  of  St.  John,  and  the  other  Apofiles.  Which  happened.,  as  Epi- 
 phaniits  himfelf  does  tell  us,  ninety  three  years  after  the  Afceniion  of 
 our  Lord  and  Saviour. 
 
 Seeing  this  aniwer  of  St.  Epiphanius  does  agree  with  the  Opinion  of 
 the  Alogians,  that  there  was  no  Chriftian  Church  in  effed:,  in  the 
 City  or  Thyatira,  at  that  time,  Socinus  (f)  could  by  no  means  ad- 
 mit of  it,  being  perfuaded  that  the  Text  of  the  Apocalyps  doesevi- 
 
 (c)  Ti  fJiiàpi^H  «  ignyj.hv\nç  'ludvvx  hky\s<m.  (xoi  <&&  i^jdi  dyyihav  xj  ktil£  cnxK- 
 vnyyw.     Alog.  apud  Epiph.  Her.  5 1 .  n  32. 
 
 0)  'Oux,  hi  \kh  laxXYKriet  XejiCHWuv  Iv  Ovctl&fn  *  ttwç  *v  ^yc^4--  t?  «-»  *0"y« 
 Alog.  apud  Epiph  ibid.41.9j. 
 
 ctoiyeyc  d-duK^y  &n  hvivtiKOVT*  >y  reanv  ïn<n.  Epipli.  ibid. 
 
 (,  t  )  Alibi  quidem,  tit  verum  jatear,rcj'po>iJio  ifianon  admodum  probatur,  cum 
 propter  alia,  turn  propter  id  quod  minis  npertc  ex  ipsa  biftorià  Apacalypfis  conftare 
 videtur-jamijhim  Ecclefiam  *Thyatirenfim  revere  extitiJJe.Socliâ.  Sacr.p.  306. 
 
 deiuly 
 
[    17] 
 
 dently  fhew  that  there  was  a  Church  therein.  He  believed  that        - 
 were  feveral  Cities  of  that  name.  But  for  all  that,  he  does  not  prove 
 againft  the  Alogians,  that  there  was  a  Church  in  Tbyatira.    When  he 
 brings  the  plain  words  of  the  Apocalyps  againft  them,  lie  gets  the 
 thing  in  Queftion  for  an  Anfwer,  ieeing  tholè  Se&anes  endeavoured 
 by  that  means  to  lefTen  the  Authority  of  that  Book.     It  is  probab! 
 that  at  that  time,  when  St.Efipbàniushvoà,  there  was  no  Catalogue 
 of  the  Bilhops  of  that  Church,  nor  of  other  publick  Records,  that 
 might  make  it  manifeft,  that  there  had  beed  a  Church  founded  in 
 that  City,  from  the  times  of  the  Apoftle-.     And  therefore  Groi 
 does  give  a  more  judicious  anfwer,  That  the  truth  ts}  there  was  not  any  Gi 
 Church  of  the  Gentiles  in  Thyatira,  when  St.]o\\nwrit  the  Revelation,  ç"WjpaJ 
 bat  there  was  a  Church  of  the  Jews,  as  aljo,  there  was  the  like  at  Thef-  v]  t%? 
 fàlonica  before  St.  Paul  Preached  there. 
 
 The  Alogians  do  alio  cavil  about  that  which  is  mentioned  in  the 
 fame  Book,  Chapax.  ver.  14.  Ot  the  four  Angels  which  were  bound  en 
 the  River  Euphrates.  But  St.  Epiphanius does  in  thischarge  them  with  Ff-T' 
 ignorance,  becaufè  thole  Angels,  who  were  placed  on  the  River  Eu-  '  l 
 phrates,  do  fignifie,  according  to  his  Opinion,  fo  many  Nations  that 
 were  fituatecj  on  that  River,  viz,,  the  Afyrians,  Babylonians,  Mtdes 
 and  Vcrfians.  And  adds,  that  feeing  Nations  are  fubjeel:  to  Angels, 
 thofe  words  of  the  Apocalyps,  Loofe  the  fyur  Angels  which  are  upon 
 Euphrates,  make  very  good  fènfe,  St.  John  intending  to  fhew  there- 
 by, that  thofe  Nations  being  looièd  ihould  make  War  againft  another 
 People.  I  fhall  not  here  examin  whether  or  no,  the  Expoiition 
 given  by  St.  Epiphanius  be  agreeable  to  the  Text.,  but  content  my 
 ièlf  to  obfèrve  in  general,  that  feeing  that  Book,  is  a  Prophétie,  and 
 no  Hiftory,  the  Author  was  to  write  as  Prophets  were  wont  to  do, 
 in  a  Figurative  Stile.  And  fo  the  Alogians  were  inexcufàble  for  their 
 prejudice  againft:  this  Book,  upon  the  account  of  the  exp;  effions  ; 
 (which  to  them  appeared  very  flrange)  unlefs  they  imagined  that 
 there  was  no  fuch  thing  as  a  Prophefie  in  the  New  Teftamenr. 
 
 Cajus,  an  Orthodox  Wrtfer,  who  lived  at  Rome,  under  Pope  Ze- 
 phyrin,  and  of  whom  we  have  fpoken  before,  did  alfo  believe  that 
 Cennthus  was  the  Author  of  the  Revelation  of  St.  John.  He  treated 
 that  Heretick  with  denlion,  (g)  who,  As  if  he  had  been  a  great  Apo- 
 ftle,  writ  Revelations  which  he  pretended  to  have  received  from  Angels , 
 and  m  which,  he  ajjured  us,  that  after  the  Rejurrection,  Jejus  Chrifi 
 Jhall  reign  upon  the  Earth.     He  allowed  the  jpace  of  a  thou f and  years  to 
 
 t)(juy  di  J)    dyythtov   'cum?    S\SUy^ai  >\AtdlitJ$iJ<&  \rrcioayi  \i-)0)v  (J$  tùuj  dvcLça.- 
 m  fàiyetov  Vj)  ri  gsLTihMV  t»  Xe^*.     Caj.  apud  Euk-b  Hut.  Eceid.  !•  j.  c.  ib. 
 
 C  the 
 
L  »8  3 
 
 this  Carnal  Kingdom^  which  was  to  be  accompanied  with  all  forts  of 
 pleafttres.  For  this  caufe  he  calls  Cerinthus  an  Enemy  to  the  Holy 
 Scriptures,  and  (poke  in  this  manner  of  the  Apocalyps,  which  he 
 thought,  was  written  by  him,  and  not  by  St.  John.     « 
 
 Denis,  Billiop  of  Alexandria,  who  vigoroully  defended  the  Autho- 
 rity of  this  Book,  did  likewifè  obfèrve  that  fome  Authors  did  atcnbe 
 '  the  Apocalyps  to  Cerïnthm,  who  ( according  to  their  Opinion)  had 
 prefixed  St.  jMs  Name  to  the  Book,  to  give  Authority  to  his  Babling 
 about  the  Carnal  Reign  of  Jefus  Chnjt  on  the  Earth.  Seeing  this 
 Opinion  that  maintained  a  Chimerical  Dominion  of  a  thoufand 
 years  was  fpread  in  the  Church,  this  Learned  Bilhop  writ  two  Trea- 
 *  Uopi  tifes  againit  it,  Entituled  *  Of  the  Promifes.  Wherein  he  takes  to  task 
 tmyychi-  ^  jv^w,  a  certain  Bifhop  of  Egypt ,  who  Expounded  the  Promiles, 
 which  God  in  Scripture  has  made  to  Mankind,  in  a  fènfe  that 
 fpeaks  the  Expositor  to  have  been  more  Jewthzn  Christian  ;  dream- 
 ing of  a  Carnal  Kingdom  upon  the  Earth,  that  ihould  continue  for 
 the  fpace  of  a  thoufand  years ,  during  which  time  all  manner  of 
 Pleafures  ihould  be  enjoyed. 
 "T'F-taJig*  Upon  this  (ubjed  Nepos  did  publifh  a  Book,  Entituled  t  A  Refut  i 
 is-TjL*"  tton  °f  dllegonfts,  laughing  at  fùch  Catholicks  as  Expounded  Alle- 
 gorically  that  place  in  the  Apocalyps,  that  makes  mention  of  the 
 Reign  of  a  thoufand  yeais.  Which  Work  made  a  great  impreffion 
 on  the  minds  of  thole  who  read  it,  becaufe  the  Author,  who  had 
 carefully  applied  himlelf  to  the  ftudy  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  had  ac- 
 quired a  very  great  Reputation.  Befides,  his  Reafons  appeared  to  be 
 the  more  probable,  becaufe  they  were  founded  on  the  Literal  Senfè 
 of  Scripture,  whereas  the  contrary  Opinion  was  grounded  upon  Al- 
 legories only,  from  which  nothing  can  be  concluded.  Denis  does 
 likewife  (  i  )  declare  the  honorable  efteem  he  had  for  the  Memory  of 
 his  then  deceafed  Adverfary,  whole  Faith  and  Parts  he  commends. 
 But  withal,  he  adds,  that  the  love  which  he  bore  to  the  Truth  above 
 all  other  things,  was  a  fufficient  motive  that  engaged  him  to  write 
 again  ft  that  Work,  that  was  (b  much  admired  in  Egypt ,  that  many 
 preferred  the  Doctrine  therein  contained,  to  the  Golpels  and  the 
 Epiflles  of  the  Apoftles  :  they  were  fo  much  purfea1  up  with  the  Idea 
 of  the  thoufand  years  Reign  on  the  Earth.  The  matter  was  brought 
 to  that   pafs,   that  Nepos  his  Followers,   chuled  rather  to  make  a 
 
 çzov  Ko 
 
 (1"0  Ni77W*  &i<TXJ>7n)c  $1"  vJX  *Aiyu$ov,  \x<huyjn&v  7*t$  ImyycK^p as  rfu  &}<oiç 
 nu*  :?cîcuf  ^olçcuç  \71xLyycK\a4  at7roJb?rioi£jt)  JlMntcoVy  tgi  Wcl  ytKt&Jb,  iffi  7§v 
 
 Çth  CZ^UO.TJK^i  C77JN77!Ç  £»g£V  7ZW7VÇ  iosfy  VCT077^ftV©"«       Kuld).  1.  ~.    Hilt.  Ecd.C.14. 
 
 \07tovla{  itj  ft  iv  7Wf  y&ipaAÇ  c/)ct7C<^f .     fiufeJS  ibid. 
 
 Schlimj 
 
C  '?] 
 
 Schifm,  than  to  abdicate  their  Opinion.     But  Denis,  nice         is,  in 
 
 a  publick  Difpute,  having  difcovered  the  faliity  thereof,  broi. 
 them  to  renounce  their  error. 
 
 It  is  a  very  judicious  courfe  that  that  Learned  Bilhop  takes, 
 his  manner  of  defending  the  Authority  of  the  Apocalyps  ag 
 thole  who  rejected  it  as  a  fuppohntious  Book,  and  done  by  Cermti 
 He  appeared  to  be  in  no  wile  by  ailed  by  any  preoccupation,  as  to 
 his  own  Opinion;  nor  guilty  of  concealing  the  Reafons  of  his 
 verfàrics.     And  therefore  he  freely  declares,  that  (k)  (bmc  Eccle' 
 (Heal  Writers  who  lived  in  his  time,  had  oppofed  that  Bcok  with 
 their  might,  refuting  it  with  a  nice  and  refolute  eagc  alledg 
 
 that  it  was  written  without  Senfe,  and  without  Reaion.  They  far- 
 ther aflùréd  us  that  the  Title  of  that  Work  was  forged  by  Cermthus, 
 and  that  the  Title  Apocalyps,  or  Revelation,  could  not  be  attributed 
 to  a  Book,  which  in  their  Opinion  was  fluffed  with  things  that  ma- 
 nifisft  a  profound  ignorance. 
 
 Notwithstanding  all  thofe  Objections,  Denis  avows  that  he  cannot 
 reject  it,  as  perceiving  that  it  was  approved  by  the  moll  part  or  his 
 Brethren  :  and  to  the  Reafons  on  the  other  fide,  he  replies,  that  there 
 is  a  fublimeand  hidden  Senfe  in  the  Expreffions  of  that  Author  ;  for 
 which  he  is  refblved  to  have  an  high  veneration,  though  he  does 
 not  comprehend  it,  being  perfuaded,  that  Faith,  and  not  his  own 
 knowledge,  ought  to  be  the  Rule  in  that  cafe.  (\)  I  do  not  (faith  he) 
 condemn  that  which  I  cannot  under (I and  ;  on  the  contrary  1  admire  it,  bc- 
 caufe  I  cannot  comprehend  it.  Which  nevcrthelefs  does  not  hinder  him 
 from  examining  all  the  parts  of  the  Books  particularly  ;  and  lie 
 fhewSj  (m)  That  it  is  impojjikle  to  Expound  it  according  to  the  Letter ,  or 
 Senfe  which  the  words  at  firfi  view  Jeem  to  warrant.  He  further  de- 
 clares that  it  was  compofed  by  a  Man,  called  John,  who  was  inipireJ 
 by  God.  But  he  does  not  think,  that  that  John  was  an  Apoftle  ; 
 and  grounds  his  Opinion  on  this,  that  the  Apoillc  St.  John  did  put 
 his  Name  to  none  of  his  Works,  and  that  he  never  fpeaks  of  him- 
 Jelf.  On  the  contrary,  the  Author  of  the  Revelation  does  name 
 himfelf  at  the  beginning,  and  frequently  in  the  Body  of  his  Work; 
 tor  example,  in  the  Letter  he  writes  to  the  feven  Churches  of  Afia, 
 
 7iw  6hy^<pUù.  ^  'ladi'vtyù  xk  ft)  hiyxnv*  AM?  i<ft  hjTro^K'^'j   it)  tùjj  <t?oc/> a  ^ 
 
 ™>y<i  My&KvtxtMljJ  tt$  -fin  dymtu  TwaTmujuan      Dion.  Alex,  auud  Euleb.  ibid. 
 Cap.25.  .         v 
 
 II  H  ^    ^VK  (,/m^Ktftu^eô  7ttU7«  «  (M\  cwîcJçpyj,'  dxv/udCco  Ji  uahXov  077  fwî  &  2Ar* 
 
 m)  'AMvctw  Jïïm&to-bv  x?  tùù  irdw&v  vo£dç>A&mct».  Ibid. 
 
 C  2  he 
 
C   »o   ] 
 
 he  begins  with  thefe  words,  John  to  the  [even  Churches  -which  are  in 
 Afia.  But  St.  John  does  not  fo  much  as  put  his  name  to  his  Catholick 
 Epiftle,  in  his  entrance  upon  the  matter.  Neither  is  itfeenat  the  be- 
 ginning of  his  two  other  Epiftles  that  are  very  ihort,  and  pafs  under 
 
 his  name. 
 
 This  difference  of  Stile  makes  Denis  the  Biihop  of  Alexandria  to 
 conclude,  that  the  Revelation,  was  not  written  by  St.  John  ;  and  he 
 affirms  at  the  fame  time,  that  it  is  uncertain  who  that  John  was.  He 
 proves  neverthelefs,  that  it  is  in  no  wife  likely  that  he  was  John,  Sir- 
 named  Mark,  made  mention  of  in  the  A<fts  of  the  Apoftles,  and 
 who  was  Companion  to  Paul  and  Barnabas  in  their  Travels  ;  becaufe 
 he  did  not  follow  them  into  Afia.  And  therefore  he  judges  that  he 
 was  one  of  thofe  who  lived  at  Eybefm,  where  there  were  two  Sepul- 
 chres with  that  name.  Once  he  has  recourfe  to  the  difference  of 
 Stile,  from  which  he  pretends  to  prove,  that  the  Apoftle  St.  John, 
 who  writ  the  Gofpel,  and  one  Epiftle,  cannot  be  the  Author  of  the 
 Apocalyps.  According  to  his  Opinion,  the  fame  things,  and  the 
 lame  expreffions  are  found  in  the  former  Books.  The  Revelation, 
 on  the  contrary,  is  quite  different  from  both. 
 
 Thus  I  have  conlidered  at  large,  the  judgment  of  Denis,  the  Bi- 
 ihop of  Alexandria,  upon  the  Apocalyps,  (upon  which  Eufebius  has 
 more  fully  Paraphrafed)  becaufè  it  contains,  in  a  few  words,4*  all  that 
 can  be  (aid  upon  this  (iibjed.  He  informs  us  at  the  fame  time,  that  the 
 ancient  Doctors  of  the  Church  made  a  great  account  of  Tradition, 
 upon  fùch  an  emergent  occafion  as  required  their  Judgment,  whe- 
 ther a  Book  was  Canonical  or  no.  We  alfb  fee,  that  in  fuch  jun- 
 ctures they  obferved  the  Rules  that  are  commonly  received  amongit 
 Criticks.  For  the  Biihop,  according  to  the  rigorous  Laws  of  Criti- 
 ciiin,  docs  examine  the  Diction,  or  Stile  of  the  Apocalyps,  (n)  Which 
 ( favs  he)  is  in  no  wife  good  Greek,  being  full  of  Barbarifms,  and  Sok- 
 
 ci'  yyis 
 
 ~  The  diitindion  he  ufes  concerning  two  Johns,  who  lived  in  Epbe- 
 (us,  is  grounded  upon  the  Teflimony  of  Papias,  who  was  Contem- 
 porary with  the  Difciples  of  the  Apoftles.  Eufebius  >  who  infèrted 
 that  Teftimony  in  his  Hiftory,  does  add,  that  he  is  pohtive  in  it  : 
 For  (o)  if  the  Apoftle  St.  John  is  not  the  true  Author  of  the  Apoca- 
 lyps, which  bears  the  name  of  John,  it  is  probable  that  it  was  written 
 by  that   fécond   John.     Neverthelefs   the  moft    ancient   Fathers, 
 
 <*<■  M  fiofCawit  *W*^  W  **  »*»*(?*.  „  Dionif.  apud  hufeb^d. 
 (o,  ^F./w<  jS  riv  M-n&v  «WW  'ifrw  w  warn  tIvj  w  mmw  Ccpo/wl** 
 
 viz.. 
 
O1  3 
 
 viz.  Jtiftin,  and  Jrtnaui  made  no  account  of^  this  dirtinchon,  nor 
 difference  of  Stile,  on  which  £><w/.f  fo  much  infifts  upon. 
 
 Nor  can  there  be  any  thing  concluded  from  the  Title  of  the  Apo- 
 calyps,  that  in   the  inoft  of  Greek   Copies,    whether  Manuleript 
 or  Printed,  there  is  the  name  of  *  John  the  Divine,  and  not  of  the  V1*^? 
 Apoitle  St  John  let  therein.     Thofè  who  annexed  that  Tide  meant  ™  0ioA*" 
 only  to  deienbe  Si.  John  the  Evangelijl,  whom  the  Greek  Fathers  do  >rf* 
 call  the  Divine,  by  way  of  Excellency,  to  diitinguiih  him  from  other 
 Evangelifts. 
 
 All  the  Eaftern  Churches  at  this  day,  read  that  Book  under  the 
 name  of  the  Apoftle  St.  JV,\v.  It  is  true,  that  it  is  not  fo  in  the  an- 
 cient Syriack  Copies,  becaulè  it  was  not  in  the  Greek  one,  from  which 
 thofè  were  taken.  It  is  afcribed  to  St.  John,  in  the  Syriack  Edition 
 of  the  Enghlh  Polyglott  Bible  :  and  alfo  in  the  Arabicfs.  Printed  in 
 the  lame  Polyglott,  it  bears  the  name  of  John  the  Apoftle,  Evange- 
 hft;  and  lafrly  in  the  Arabic k  pubhlhed  by  Erpenius,  that  of  John 
 the  Evangelift.  Not  that  I  believe  fuch  Titles,  fwhich  are  but  late,) 
 to  be  of  any  great  Authority.  I  produce  them  only  to  ihew  the 
 Univerfal  content  of  the  Churches,  as  well  that  of  the  Eafc,  as  that 
 of  the  Weft,  concerning  the  Author  of  the  Revelation. 
 
 As  to  what  concerns  fuch  lingular  exprellions,  as  are  no  whereto 
 be  found,  but  in  this  Book;  chiefly,  that,  where  there  is  mention 
 made  of  the  Reign  of  Jefus  Chrift  upon  the  Earth  with  the  Saints, 
 which  fhall  continue  for  the  fpace  of  a  thoufànd  years.  iUyricus  has 
 very  well  obfèrved,  that  llnce  that  Book  (f)î&  written  in  a  Pro- 
 phetical Stile,  the  expreffions  tiled  therein  ought  to  be  taken  in  a 
 Myftical  iènlè.  In  which  he  had  apparently,  as  to  his  Judgment, 
 the  advantage  of  Luther,  who  could  not  avoid  the  rep;  each  that  was 
 put  upon  him  by  Bellarmin,  and  fome  other  Opponents,  fornotcon- 
 hdering  the  Apocalyps  as  a  Prophetical  and  Apoftohcal  Work;  ve: 
 his  Dilciples,  who  acknowledged  all  that  Book  to  be  Divine  and  Ca- 
 nonical, have  endeavoured  to  julhfie  him.  They  alledged,  (YJwithr 
 out  any  regard  to  his  ancient  Preface,  that  he  faid  nothing  elfe  in 
 that,  which  is  found  in  his  Works,  but  what  has  ùztn  obfèrved  by  fome 
 of  the  ancient  Fathers,  viz.  that  it  was  not  generally  agreed  upon 
 that  St.  John  was  the  Author  of  the  Apocalyps. 
 
 (pj  Pbrafcs  ill.is  myfliec  ut  in  fermone  prophet ico  inteliigendas.  lily r.  argum» 
 in  Apoc. 
 
 (q)  Lutherum  quod  attinet,  quidquid  ohm  Jcripferit  in  veteri  prœfatione,  in  eâ 
 fane  qu<c  hcdie  in  codicibus  legit ur  nihil  de  Apocalypfi  ajferit  aliud,  quam  in  dubh  fi 
 relmqucrc  utrum  fit  Joannis  Apojloli,  quod  nonnulli  ex  vetuftioribui  Patnbus  id 
 infiaati fint%  nihil  tamen  boo  ipjb  fi  frijudicare  velle  <?/;/;.     Chrift.  Kortfa  I 
 Ci.on.  Script.  S.  c.  18. 
 
 And 
 
C  »  3 
 
 And  EraÇmus  had  likewifè  enough  to  do  upon  the  like  account 
 with  the  Divines  of  Parts  3  who  cenfure  one  of  his  proportions,, 
 wherein  he  affirmed,  (r)  that  there  had  been,  fora  longtime,  fome 
 doubting  about  that  Book,  not  only  amongft  the  Hereticks,  but  alfô 
 the  Orthodox;  who  though  they  received  it  as  Canonical,  did  pro- 
 fefs  they  were  not  certain  who  was  the  Author.  What  Erafmus  does 
 affirm  in  this  calé,  is  not  to  be  charged  with  falihood,  fince  ft  is 
 grounded  upon  a  matter  of  Fad,  that  may  be  eafily  proved  from 
 the  Writings  of  the  ancient  Dotlors  of  the  Church.  Yet  the  Pa- 
 rifian  Divines  were  lb  forward  to  cenfure  him.  fince  they  perfuaded 
 them  (elves  that  he  manifeftly  knew,  by  the  ufàge  of  the  Church,  and 
 the  definitions  of  Councils,  that  the  Apocalyps  was  publifhed  by 
 Co?!f-  St.  John.  The  Councils  on  which  they  flood,  were  the  three  of 
 &™  Carthage,  that  of  Rome,  under  Pope  Gelaftm,  and  that  cf  Toledo,  in  ' 
 Parif.  which  Ifidort  of  Sevile,  was  an  Af  liftant.  To  this  they  joyned  the 
 Authority  of  St.  Dents,  called  the  Areopagite,  St.  Irenam,  St.  Juflin, 
 Pope  Innocent  I.  St.  Augustin,  and  St.  John  of  Damajci/s. 
 
 Erafmrrs,  as  it  Ihould  feem,  ought  to  have  anfwered,  that  notwith- 
 ftanding  all  thole  Authorities,  his  (uppofition  might  be  true,  feeing 
 he  had  alfo  Orthodox  Authors  on  his  iide.  He  might  alio  have  fàid, 
 that  none  of  thole  Councils  flood  much  on  the  Author  of  the  Apo- 
 calyps, but  barely  complyed  with  the  opinion  that  commonly  ob- 
 tained in  their  time,  which  afenbed  that  Book  to  St.  John,  But  in  - 
 ftead  of  that,  he  only  returned  fuch  anfwers  as  were  extravagant  and 
 impertinent.  He  affirms,  that  the  World  was  at  that  time  filled  with 
 Apocryphal  Books  bearing  forged  Titles,  and  that  the  moft  part  of 
 honeft  Men,  were  then  perfuaded  that  fuch  fort  of  faifities  might  be 
 debated.  He  afterwards  inveighs  againft  (I  )  Ifidore,  as  being  a 
 Man  of  mean  capacity  and  judgment,  who  had  not  the  fenfe  to 
 make  ufè  of  a  very  good  Library  which  he  had  in  his  pofleffion.  He 
 was  (faith  hey  as  unskilful  in  making  Collections  as  Beda,  but  the 
 latter  was  the  more  Judicious  and  Eloquent  of  the  two. 
 
 This  is  an  inftance  of  Learning,  whereof  there  is  an  ill  ufe  made. 
 If  IJIdore  and  Bede,  Were  juftly  charged  by  him  on  that  account,  he 
 ought  to  have  proved  that  they  were  much  in  the  wrong  here,  in  pre- 
 ferring the  opinion  of  St.Jufttn,  StJrenaus,  and  the  moft  ancient  Fa- 
 
 ( r  )  De  Apocalypfi  diu  dubitatnm.  efly  non  dico  ab  hœveticis,  fed  ah  orthodoxis 
 vins,  qui  fcriptum  taynen  ut  h  Spiritu  Saiifto  frofctlum  ample  d  cb  mi  tur,  de  fen- 
 ftoris  nomine  incerti.     Erafm.decl.  ad  Theol.  Parif. 
 
 (  f  )  Ifidorus  Uifpalcnfis  fcripftt  rudi  jeculo,  &  habmjfe  videtur  locupletcm  biblio- 
 thecatn.  qua  potmffct  reclihs  uti,  fi  fuijfet  exacte  do'clus.  Certè  rhapfodus  fuit, 
 qucmadmodum  Beda.  Qiianquam  Beda  meo  judicio  fuit  iLo  turn  erudinor,  turn 
 vloquentior.     Erafm.  dcclar.  no  cenf.  Fac.  Theol.  Parif. 
 
 thersj 
 
C*3  3 
 
 thers,  to  that  of  ibme  other  Writçrs,  who  were  not  io  near  the  firft 
 Age.  The  anfwer  he  made  to  the  Divines  of  Pans,  was  more  likely 
 to  provoke  them  than  his  hi  ft  Propoiition  was.  For  he  thereby 
 plainly  reproached  thofe  fage  Mailers,  that  they  were  converfmt 
 in  no  good  Authors,  but  only  RhapfodiftSj  and  unskilful  Compilers 
 
 of  Hillary. 
 
 It  is  ti  tic,  that  he  might  not  oilen!  them,  he  adds  at  the  fame 
 time,  that  (t  )  as  to  what  coj  the  Titles  or  the  Books  ot  Scri- 
 
 pture, he  does  refer  himlèlf  to  die  Judgment  of  the  Univerial 
 Church,  to  which  he  does  entirely  (ubmit,  provided  that  the  name 
 of  the  Church  Univerial  be  not  alctibed  to  all  that  is  io  called  ac- 
 cording to  the  cuftom  and  ufè,  which  has  been  introduced,  and  does 
 obtain  amongft  Chrifhans,  nor  to  the  particular  Opinions  of  every 
 Bilhop. 
 
 If  we  meafure  the  Opinion  of  the  Unitaries  by  that  of  Socinus, 
 who  is  one  of  their  Heroes,  they  have  affirmed  nothing  concerning 
 the  Apocalyps,  but  what  is  agreeable  to  good  lcnic.     This  Unitary 
 does  aflure  us,  that  that  Book  was  always,  by  common  content,  at- 
 tributed to  St.  John  :  J$uod  Serif  turn  fern  fer  commmn  confenfu  tribut um  S 
 fuit  Joanm  Afofiolo  &  Evangelijta.     To  that  objection,  that   many  ^u r° * 
 Authors  have  doubted  thereof,  he  makes  anfwer,  that  the, Judgment  ^'^  £" 
 of  Jufiin  and  Irenam,  who  lived  fbme  little  time  after  that  Book  was 
 Compoled,  ought  to  be  preferred  to  the  Opinion  of  thofe  Authors, 
 He  further  affirms,  (u)  that  as  to  the  difference  or  Stiie,  betwixt  that 
 Work,  and  thole  others  which  were  written  by  St.  John%  this  Obje- 
 ction does  not  oblige  him  to  give  thofe  Reaions  which  prove  it  to  be 
 St.  Johns,  fince  they  appeared  (b  convincing  to  thole  very  perlons 
 who  rejeded  the  Book,  that  they  were  forced  to  acknowledge  that 
 it  was  written  by  a  Man  who  endeavoured  to  perfuade  others,  that 
 St.  John  was  the  Author  thereof.     This  laft  Oblèrvation  lèems  to  be 
 more  fubtil  than  iblid;  a  crime  that  is  pardonable  in  the  Unitaries, 
 who  never  applycd  themfelves  to  the  ftudy  or  the  Ancient  Eccleii 
 ftical  Authors. 
 
 (  t  )  Profiteor  me  de  tituïis  (juoque  credere  quod  credit  umverfalis  Ecc'ejia,  cujus 
 aucioritati  facile  fenjum  meum  fubmitto,  non  hic  tantùm,  fed  in  omnibus  que 
 ceteris,  modi)  ne  frotinus  Ecclefue  fit  qmdquid  qitocunque  modo  in   uf'umQ    . 
 novum  irrepjlt,  out  cuivis  Epifcopo  flacuit.     Erafm.  ibid. 
 
 ,  Non  vidctur  ,  un  aliquam  ant  etiam  m.ignam  diffimilitndinem  ra- 
 
 tioms  Jcnbendi  in  (um  .re  flyh  ab  aliis  ejufdemjoannisfcriptis  longé  diverfi 
 
 ris  deberç  aut  fojfe  dubitari  quin  ejus  fit  opus,  maxime  turn  Jimul  adfint  tot 
 teftm:  J  conjt  clurx,  tit  till  ipfi  qui  prorfus  ne  garent  ejus  ej]'e,  illudque  reje- 
 
 ct/tint,  coaQi  fuert  teri  a  quopiam  donfcriptumjuijje  qui  ferfuadere  votlurii 
 
 iftum  ipfion  Joamiem  Mud  confcrifjfjjè.     Soc.  ibid. 
 
 In 
 
C  h  3 
 
 In  the  laft  place,  the  Commentaries  on  the  Apocalyps  made  by 
 the  Calvimfts,  are  undeniable  proofs,  that  they  do  receive  it  into  the 
 number  of  Divine  and  Prophetical  Books.  Befides  they  would  be 
 very  fbrry  to  be  without  that  Prophecy.  Beza  made  a  Difcourfe, 
 Treating  expref  ly  on  that  Subject,  by  way  of  Preface  to  his  Notes  on 
 that  Work  ;  where  he  anfwers  the  Objections  which  Erafmus  had 
 publifhed  to  diminifh  the  Authority  thereof:  That  which  he  had  not 
 obierved  as  to  any  other  Books  of  the  New  Teftament.  Calvin,  fear- 
 ing that  he  mould  make  himfelf  ridiculous  «by  his  falfe  Expofitions, 
 of  a  Book  that  is  fo  very  obfcure,  has  taken  the  bell:  fide,  by  not 
 publishing  any  Commentary  on  the  Apocalyps.  His  example  had 
 no  influence  on  his  Followers;  for  many  amongh1  them,  did  with  a 
 Prophetical  tone  lowdly  recommend  to  the  World  their  own  Vifions 
 upon  that  Book. 
 
 Befides  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament,  which  we  have  hitherto 
 Ipoken  of,  and  that  are  generally  received  in  all  the  Churches,  as 
 Divine  and  Canonical  3  iome  others  have  been  read  in  many 
 Churches,  which  yet  never  had  the  fame  Authority.  Neverthelefs  it 
 has  io  fallen  out,  that  thole  who  have  made  Catalogues  of  the 
 Sacred  Books,  have  not  always  obferved  this  diftin&ion.  For  they 
 have  placed  all  of  them  in  an  equal  rank,  for  Books  of  the  Holy 
 Scripture.  There  have  been  alio  fome  Fathers,  who  quoted  feme 
 Books  of  this  fort,  as  if  they  had  been  truely  given  by  Divine  Infpi- 
 ration.  But  it  is  eafie  to  find,  even  by  the  Writings  of  the  Fathers, 
 that  thofe  Works  were  approved  by  none  but  particular  perlons, 
 whole  Opinion  cannot  reafonably  be  looked  upon  as  a  Law.  If 
 I  had  not  refblved  to  confine  my  Difcou rfe  to  the  Books  of  the 
 New  Teftament,  which  are  generally  approved  of  in: all  Churches, 
 I  would  have  infifted  at  large  on  thofè  other  Books ,  but  I  am 
 obliged  to  keep  within  the  limits  of  my  firft  purpofe.  I  /hall  only 
 obferve,  that  in  a  certain  Catalogue  of  the  Books  of  the  Bible, 
 which  is  at  the  endof  two  very  ancient  Copies  of  St.  PWsEpiftles, 
 there  follows  (immediately  after  the  Epiftle  of  St.  Jude)  (x )  the  Epi- 
 ille  of  Barnabas,  the  Revelation,  or  the  Apocalyps  of  John,  the 
 A£te  of  the  Apoftles,  the  Book  of  the  Paftor,  the  Ads  of  Paul, 
 and  the  Revelation  of  Peter.  The  number  alfb  of  the  Verfes  con- 
 tained in  each  Book  of  the  Bible  is  fet  down  in  the  Catalogue.  And 
 what  is  moft  of  all  obfèrvable,  is,  that  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  is 
 not  comprehended  therein.    It  is  neverthelefs  in  thofè  two  Greek 
 
 fxj  Juda  llpiftoU,  Barnabe  Epiftola,  Joamiis  I{cvelatio,  *  Acius  Apoftolorum, 
 Paftor,  A'dm  Pauli,  Rcvclatio  Petri.  Catal.  libror.  Script.  S.  ex  Codd.  MSS.  BibJ. 
 Rep,  &S  Germ. 
 
 and 
 
and  Latin  Manufcripts  that  are  written  with  the  (ame  Hand,  as  the 
 reft  of  St.  Paul's  Epiftles  ;  but  it  is  placed  by  it  felf,  and  after  the  C 
 talogue,   as  if  it  did  not  belong  to  that  Apoftle.     In  this  matt 
 they  followed  the  Cuftom  of  foine  of  the  Weftein  Churches. 
 
 HAP. 
 
 XX. 
 
 The  OhjeBions  of  the  Jews,  and  other  Enemies  of  the  Chru 
 ftian  Religion ,  again fl  the  Books  of  the  New  Teflament. 
 Inquiry  is  made  if  the  Evangelifts  and  Apo flies  made  uje 
 of  the  Greek  Verjion  of  the  Septuagint,  m  the  Tajfages 
 which  they  quote  out  of  the  Old  Teflament.  St.  JeromV 
 Opinion  upon  the  Matter.  That  Father  declared  himjelf 
 for  the  Hebre.w  Text  of  the  Jews,  in  oppofttion  to  that 
 .  of  the  Septuagint. 
 
 • 
 
 THE  Books  of  the  New  Teflament  having  been  maintained, 
 as  well  in  general,  as  in  particular,  it  is  worth  th"e  while  toex- 
 amin  the  principal  Objections  that  are  made  again  ft  thofe  Books  ; 
 and  at  the  fame  time  againft  the  Apoftles  who  published  them.  The 
 Mahometans  endeavour  to  evince  the  neceflity  of  the  coming  of  their 
 Prophet,  from  this,  that  feeing  the  Canonical  Books  of  the  Jews 
 and  Chriftians,  are  (according  to  their  Opinion  J  wholly  corrupted, 
 it  was  neceflary  that  God  ihould  lend  a  new  Prophet  upon  the 
 Earth,  to  teach  Men  the  True  Religion.  But  becaufe  they  bring  no 
 lblid  reafons  for  the  confirmation  of  what  they  alledge,  it  is  to  no 
 purpofe  to  refute  them.  The  Jews  and  fome  Philofophers,  who  are 
 Enemies  to  the  Chriftians,  have  more  particularly  attacked  the 
 Writings  of.  the  Evangelifts  and  Àpoftles.  They  have  had  the  im- 
 pudence to  charge  them  with  Forgery,  or  at  leaft  with  ignorance, 
 teeing  (as  they  object  J  they  have  quoted  the  Book*  of  the.  Old  Te- 
 flament other  wife  than  they  are  in  themlèlves.  They  further  accufe 
 them,  of  annexing  to  the  Pailàgesthey  produce,  a  iènlèthat  was  very 
 far  from-. the  mind  of  the  Authors.  Hereupon  they  draw  up  the 
 ihongeft  objections  they  can,  againft  the  Authority  of  the  New  Te- 
 Itament  ;  which  ot  necellity  muft  be  anfwered. 
 
 D  As 
 
■  .  .   c  1  6  ]  ' 
 
 As  to  the  fir  ft  Objections  ;  the  Jews  do  fuppofe,  that  when  a  pub- 
 lick  Record  is  produced  for  confirmation  of  a  Matter  of  Fatfr,  it  is 
 necefliry;  that  the  very  words  of  the  Record  be  delivered  in  the 
 fame  manner  as  thev  arc  in  the  Original,  or  in  faithful  Copies; 
 but  (fey  they)  /he  Difciples  of  Jefus  Chrift  have  not  done  that.  For 
 if  the  paftages  of  the  «Old  Teframent  which  they  have  quoted  m 
 their  Writings,  be  compared  with  the  Original  Hebrew  Text,  it  wtfi 
 be  found,  that  in  many»  places  they  bear  a  quite  different  mean- 
 ing. Whence  they  conclude  that  they  are  either  chargeable  with 
 fallhood,  or  thai  their  Writings  have  been  altered,- and  therefore 
 that  there  is  no  credit  to  be  given  to  them.' 
 
 I  anfwer  this  Objection,  that  it  was  not  neceflàry  for  the  Apoftles, 
 when  they  Preached  the  Gdfpel  of  Jefiis  Chrift,  to  make  ufe  of*  the 
 Hebrew  Bible.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  more  for  their  purpofè  that 
 they  ihould  make  mention  of  the  partages  ôf  the  Old  Teftament, 
 "  fo  as  they  were  read  in  the  Greek  Copies  that  were  in  the  Hands  of 
 the  moft  part  of  the  WorM.  Very  few  of  the  Jews  at  that  time 
 under  flood  the  Hebrew  Language:  whereas  the  Greek  Language  was 
 fpread  through  the  whole  Empire.  Since  therefore  Jefîis  Chrift  did 
 net  fend  his  Difciples  to  Preach  the  Gofpel  to  a  Jundful  of  Learned 
 Jew*,  who  underftood  the  Hebrew,  but  to  all  the  Nations  wof  the 
 Earth,  the  mofl  part  whereof  fpake  Greek  ;  they  ought  not  only  to 
 ipeak  in  that#Language,  but  alio  to  report  the  paffages  of  the  Old 
 Teftamenc,  after  the  fame  manner  as  had  been  written  for  a  long 
 time  in  the  fame  Language.  There  was  at  that  time,  a  Greek  Ver- 
 fion  of  the  whole  Bible,  that  had  been  made  by  Jews  many  Ages 
 before,  and  therefore  could  not  be  fuipected.  And  io  the  Evangc- 
 lifts  and  the  Apoftles  could  not  juftly  be  charged  with  falihood,  for 
 quoting  partages  otherwife  .than  they  were  in  the  Original,  fince 
 they  made  ufe  of  flich  Writings  as  were  approved  by  the  jews,  and 
 were  in  ufe  amongft  them. 
 
 ft  is  true,  that  if  they  to  whom  the  .Gofpel  was  Preached,  had 
 undcrflood  the  Hebrew  Language,  it  had  been  better  to  .quote -the 
 Original  Hebrew ^than  the  Greek  Verfion  of  the  LXX,becau(è  the  Ori- 
 ginal ought  always  to  be  preferred  to  Tranflations.  But  a^  things  were 
 then,  the  Apoftles  afted  moft  wifely,  in  preferring  the  Greek  Copy 
 of  the  Bible  to  the  Hebrew,  which  was  underftood  almoft  by  none. 
 And  therefore  the  Church  from  its  firft  beginning,  had  no  other 
 Scripture  but  the  Ancient  Greek  Verfion;  and  the  whole  Eallern 
 Church,  (the  Syrians  bcâng  oxcepted)  have  no  other  at  this  day. 
 
 I  do  nut  think  it  neceJàry  to  prove,  that  the  Apoftles,  in  their 
 Writings,  quoted  the  partages  of  the  Old  Tettamcnt,  according  to 
 the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint,  and  not  according  to  the  Hebrew  Text. 
 
 It 
 
I  17  1       • 
 
 It  requires  no  extraordinary  skill  in  both  the  Langu  iges,  to  ma 
 capable  of  judging  aright  in  this  matter.     It  is  certain  that  (V)Sr.  J:- 
 rorr,  once  endeavoured  to  perfuade  the  World  to  the  corn; 
 conrinn   his  Opinion,    gave  inftances  of  iomc  places  of 
 Teftament  that  were» quoted  in  the  New,  which  yet  are  not  (as  h 
 
 hedged)  in  the  Original  Hebrew.     But  it  is  eaiie  to  judge  by  d 
 Learned  Father's  own  words,  that  he  maintained  thatQpinion,  on- 
 to give  the  more  Authority  to  anewTranflation  which  he  had  m 
 out  of  the  Hebrew ,  becaufe  the  moft  knowing  Men  of  his 
 f  ixongly  oppoie  him,  as  if  he  had  deiigned  to  introduce  cl  ;Tj 
 
 Religion  into  the  Church. 
 
 It  will  appear  therefore,  that  Sz.Jerom  .in  that  plac?  does  give  an 
 anfwer  to  his  Adverfaries,  and  endeavours  as  much  as  in  him  lies,  to 
 make  an  honorable  retreat,  tumult  noftn  doccant  (faith  he)  ajjitmpta  \ 
 aliquot  teftimonia  qua:  non  fint  tn  Hebrdorum  libris  ;  &  finît  a  content  id  ll'l(*' 
 eft.  L  e.  Let  our  Adverfaries  (hew  what  teftimonies  are  made  ufe  of, 
 .that  are  not  in  the  Hebrew  Books,  and  the  Dtfpitte  is  at  an  end.  I  de- 
 lire  no  other  Witnels  of  what  I  alledge  but  rnmlèlf,  feeing  he  does  • 
 eftablifh  for  a  general  Maxim,  for  all  the  citations  out  of  the  Old 
 Teftament,  that  are  not  only  made  ule  of  by  the  Apoftles,  but  alio 
 by  their  Difciples,  (b)That  when  the  Apoftles,  or  Apoftolical  Mm 
 [peak' to  the  people,  they  commonly  make  ufe  of  fuch  teftimonies  as  had 
 been  publiflxd  before  that  time  amongft  the  Nations.  That  is  to  fav,  or 
 the  Veriion  of  the  Septuagint;  which  being  written  in  C^-eek,  was  pub- 
 lished amongft  all  thole  Nations  which  fpoke  the  Language,  whereas 
 the  Hebrew  Text  was  only  read  in  the  Jews  Synagogues.  He  proves 
 by  the  fame  Principle,  that  St.  Luke,  (when  he  wrote  the  Acts  of 
 the  Apoftles,  to  declare  to  the  Nations,  the  firft  beginnings  of  the 
 Chriftian  Religion)  was  to  quote  the  PaiTagesof  the  Old  Teftament, 
 in  the  fame  manner  as  they  were  in  the  Veriion  of  the  Scripture, 
 which  was  before  that  time  fpread  amongft  the  People. 
 
 There  is  therefore  nothing  io  ablrmi  as  the  Opinion  of  lome 
 Proteftants,  who  (notwithstanding  the  agreement  that  is  fourni  be- 
 twixt the  quotations  of  the  Apoftles,  and  the  Greek  Veriion  of  the 
 LXX)  maintain  with  no  imall  Zeal,  that  the  Apoftles  reported  the 
 
 • 
 
 (a)  Crebro  dixijfe  me  novi,  Apiflolos  ££  Evangel tjlas  ubicunque  de  Vet  en  - 
 ftrumento  potiunt  teftimonia,  ji  inter  Hebraicum  (3  Septuagtnta  nulla  diverjitas  fit, 
 vet  fits,  vel  Septuagtntalnterpretum  verbis  uti  foluos.     Sin  autem  aliter  in   I 
 braico,  aliter  tn  Veteri  Edit  tone  fen  fus  eft,  Hebraicum  magis  quàm  Septuaginta  1 
 terpretes  ftquu     Hicron.  proœm.  lib.  1 5.  Comm.  in  If. 
 
 (bj  Hoc  autem  gêner  aliter  obfervandum ,  quod,  ubicunque  [anHi  Apofi  KJ 
 Apoftolici  vtrt  loqxaintur  ad  populos,  his  plerunque  abuti  tejhmvrins  qux  jam  fut* 
 rant  in  gentibut  dtvulgata.    Hier  on.  Qu.  He  b.  in  Gen. 
 
 D  z  pafîàgss 
 
■     ■  C  i8  ] 
 
 Partages  of  the  Old  Teftament  according  to  the  Hebrew  Text.  They 
 attribute  that  agreement  to  (ome  Writers,  whom  they  fuppofe  to 
 have  lived  after  the  times  of  the  Apoftles,  and  who  (according 
 to  their  Opinion)  corre&ed  the  Verfion  of  the  Septuagint,  in  all 
 iuch  Partages  as  are  quoted  in  the  New  Teftament.  The  Evangelifts 
 and  the  Apoftles  flay  they)  regarded  the  ferifè  only,  and  not  the 
 .Words  .of  Scripture.  .If  any  one  ask  thefè  Men  the  Reafbn  why 
 they  maintain  io  ftrange  a  Paradox,  their  anlwer  will  be  but  this 
 (c)  that  it  cannot  be  imagined,  that  the  fpirit  of  the  Apoftles  mould 
 be  fubjeâ:  to  the  fpirit  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  occa- 
 lion  for  defending  the  Fundamental  Points  of  Religion  againft 
 the.  Jews. 
 
 Thus  feme  Proteftants,  extreamly  addicted  to  the  Hebrew ,  do 
 argue  agreeable  to  the  Ideas  they  have  framed,  about  matters  of 
 Fad  that  are  as  clear  as  the  day;  infteadof  examining  the  things 
 •  in  thernfelves.  Seeing  Lewis  Cappel  has  folidly  refuted  this  Opinion, 
 which  has  not  the  lealt  appearance  of  truth,  it  will  be  to  no  purpofe 
 to  fpend  time  about  it.  That  Learned  Proteftant  judicioufly  ob- 
 fèrved,  that  the  fpirit  of  the  Apoftles  is  not  -Jubjeâ:  to  the  fpirit  of 
 an  Interpreter  ;  (d)  but  through  a  Pious  condefcendency,  ancT by  a 
 true  Chnftian  Prudence,  they  followed  the  Greek  Verfion  which  was 
 publickly  received,  it  being  indifferent  to  them  to  quote  the  Hebrew 
 or  the  Greek  in  thofe  Partages. 
 
 Although  the  Apoftles  did  prefer  the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint,  to 
 the  Hebrew  Text,  it  cannot  be  inferred  from  thence,  that  the  Greek 
 Verfion  is  better  than  the  Hebrew  of  the  Jews,  as  fbme  Authors, 
 efpecially  amongft  the  Catholicks,  have  too  eafily  believed.  We 
 ought  to  coniiderby  what  motives  the  Apoftles  were  led,to  give  this 
 preference  to  the  Greek.  Seeing  they  did  it  for  no  other  end,  but 
 to  accommodate  themielves  to  the  capacity  of  the  People,  whom 
 they»  inftru&ed,  and  who  read  the  Bible  in  Greek,  there  can  be  no 
 confèquence  drawn  from  thence,   to  give  more  Authority  to  the 
 
 Çc)  Qui  s  credat  Jpirjtum  Apojlolorum  fpiritui  Grceculi  interpret!  s  Je  fubje- 
 cijje,  aut  limpidos  fontes  cœnojis  Hellcnijlarum  rvvulis  prœtulijfe  ;  &  ubi  pajjim 
 de  capite  aliquo  I{cligioms  adverjus  Judcos  agebatur,  Apoftolos,  reli'do  QanoneHc- 
 brae,  Lesbiam  Grœcorum  regulam  ujurp.ijjc.  Audor.  Di(£  apud  Capp.  in  qu.  de 
 ioc.  paralL 
 
 (  d  )  Pià  Gvyy&iuCcLcrH  auadam  &  fantlà  charitatifque  plena  prudentia.  Chnjli- 
 >ina  verfwnem  turn  receptam  Jedii  (tint  iis  in  locis  in  (/tubus pariirn  nut  nihil  omm- 
 ni  ad  rem  ipfiim  intcrejl  tit  rum  text  um  Hcbraicum,  mi  verb  Grœcam  $f  Septus- 
 
 •Ail  verfiontm  Jequaris.     Lud.  Capp.  qu.  de  Ioc.  parall,  pag.  450. 
 
 Verfion 
 
C  *9  ] 
 
 Verfion  of  the  Seotuagint  than  to  the  Hebrew  Text,  which  they 
 did  not  meddle  with.  In  the  Hebrew  or  Chaldaick  Gofpcl  of  St.  M 
 tbew,  the  Partages  of  the  Old  Teftament  were  quoted  according  to 
 the  Hebrew  Text;  becaufe  the  Jews  of  Faleftme,  for  whole  lake  k 
 was  written,  read  the  Bible  in  that  Language.  The  People,  who  at 
 that  time  underftood  not  the  Hebrew  Language,  had  Gloiles  on  the 
 Hebrew  Text,  written  in  the  Cbaldee,  lb  that  if  that  Evangelift  had 
 quoted  the  Bible  in  the  vulgar  Language,  he  had  quoted  the  fame 
 according  to  the  Cbaldaick  Giolfes,  and  not  according  to  the 
 Greek  of  the  Septuagint,  which  was  not  in  u(e  amongft  the  Jews 
 of  VaUftme. 
 
 It  will  further  appear,  that  the  Evangelifts  and  the  Apoftles  did 
 not  confine  themfelves  in  their  quotations. to  the  rigor  of*  the  Letter, 
 becaufè  that  was  in  no  wife  needful  for  carrying  on  their  Work. 
 They  did  content  thcmfèlves  fometimes,  with  delivering  the  fenfe 
 of  the  Words,  which  they  adapted  to  their  Difcourfè.  A  thing 
 commonly  pracîifèd  ;  and  they  cannot  be  branded  with.Falfhood  or 
 Lmpofture,  who  fèt  down  after  this  manner,  fuch  Records  in  their 
 Works,  as  fèrve  for  proofs.  A  Copy  of  Record  cannot  be  alledged 
 to  be  falfe,  urtlefs  the  fènfè  be  changed.  But  this  can  never  be 
 found  in  the  quotations  of  the  Apoftles,  who  followed  a  received 
 cuftom,  and  which  could  be  blamed  by  none.  The  fame  thing 
 happened  to  mod  of  the  Fathers,  when  they  quoted  in  the  Works, 
 the  Partages  of  Scripture  ;  for  they  made  no  fcruple  to  change  the 
 Words,  fo  long  as  that  change  was  of  no  importance  to  the 
 Senfe.  Which  ought  to  be  the  Standard  of  our  Judgment,  about 
 the  Partages  of  the  Ola*  Teftament,  which  are  quoted  in  the 
 Writings  of  the  Evangelifts  and  Apoftles,  for  though  they  were 
 taken  from  the  Greek  Verfion ,  they  do  not  always  exprefs  the 
 very  Words. 
 
 I  know  it  may  be  objected,  that  this  Verfion  has  very  much 
 iemnerated.  from  its  ancient  purity,  ana  that  therefore,  it  can 
 no  more  ferve  as  a  Rule  by  which  we  may  judge  of  the  Truth 
 of  the  Apoftolical  quotations.  Bu:  what  ever  change  has  hap- 
 pened to  this  Tranflation,  it  is  fufficient  as  it  remains,  to  decide 
 the  matter  of  Fad  we  are  now  about.  It  is  agreed  by  all  the 
 ancient  *Ecclefiaftical  Authors,  that  the  Evangehlts  and  ApoftL  , 
 in  the  Partages  they  quote  out  of  the  Old  Teftament,  were  more 
 ready  to  exprefs  the  Senfe  than  the  Words  :  which  is  the  mean- 
 ing of  thefc  Words  of  St.  J erom,  In  multis  tefttmoniis  ( faith  hey  (\uœ  Hieron 
 
 E'vangelifta  vel  Apoftoli  de  libres  veteribtts  aflumfferunt,  cunofius  atten-    ^.nm\  ** 
 dendum  cfti  non  eos  verborum  ordmtm  fecutcs  ejjis  fed  fenjum.     Which 
 
 Comm.  Ji 
 
he  often  repeats  in  his  works,  (é)  We  ought  to  cbferve  well  (faith  he 
 in  another  place)  what  I  have  often  /aid  before,  viz.  That  the  Evan- 
 gelifis  and  Apoftles  did  not  make  a  Tranflation,  word  for  word,  and  that 
 they  followed  not  the  Verfion  of  the  Septuagint,  that  was  read  in  their 
 days  ;  but  being  Hebrews,  and  skilful  in  the  Law,  they  made  ufe  of 
 their  Terms. 
 
 That  Learned  Man  does  agree  with  the  other  Fathers,  in  af- 
 furing  us,  that  the  Apoftles  did  not  in  their  Writings,  report  the 
 partages  of  the  Old  Teftament  word  for  word  :  But,  nnce  he 
 was  prepoffèfîed  with  an  opinion,  in  favour  of  the  Hebrew  Textj 
 when  he  compofed  his  Commentaries  on  the  mod  par*  of  the. 
 Prophets  ; .  he  affirms,  that  the  fame  Apoftles  made  ufe  of  their 
 own  Lxpreilions,  and  not  thole  of  the  Septuaginc.  Yet  'tis  eafie 
 to  prove  the  contrary;  and  in  this,  the  moft  part  of  the  Prote-' 
 fiants  are  very  much  to  be  blamed,  for  neglecting  this  Ancient 
 Greek  Verfion  :  For  it  is  impoffible  for  him  to  under/land  the 
 Books  of  the  New  Teftament  well:,  who  is  not  firft  much  .employ- 
 ed in  the  reading  of  the  Septuagint.  It  was  upon  thofe  Seventy 
 .  Ancient  Interpreters  that  the  Apoftles  formed  their  Stile,  and  not 
 upon  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Jews:  I  do*  not  in  the  leaft  com- 
 prehend, upon  what  ground  St.  Jerome  could  alledge,  that  £f) 
 St.  Paul  being  an  Hebrew  born,  did,  in  his  firft  Epiftle  to  the  Co- 
 rinthians, Chap.  z.  give  à  paraphrafè  on  the  words  of  the  Prophet 
 If  ai  ah,  Chap.  64.  v.  4.  as  they  are  in  the-  Hebrew -,  and  had  regard 
 to  nothing  but  the  fènfè,  according  to  his  Cuftom  :  Yet  there  is 
 nothing  in  that  place,  that  can  oblige  u§  to  have  recourfe  to  the 
 Hebrew  ,  rather  than  the  Greek,  for  underftanding  the  Apoftles 
 meaning. 
 
 St.  Jerome  dream'd  then  of  nothing  elfe,  but  fettling  his  New 
 Translation  of  the  Scriptures  upon  the  Hebrew,  thereby  to  give  fa- 
 tisfa&ion  to  a  great  number  of  People,  who  fpake  evil  of  him 
 upon  that  occafion.  This  Spirit  reigns  in  his  Commentaries  o^he 
 Old  Teftament,  in  thofè  chiefly  which  are  on  the  great  Projmets. 
 
 (e)  Not  are  debemm  illud  quod  plerumque  admonuimus,  UvangeUftai  &  Afo- 
 flolos  non  verbum  interprétâtes  effe  de  ver  bo,  nee  Sebtuaginta  lnterprepum  autto- 
 ritatem  ftcutos,  quorum  editio  illo  jam  tempore  legebatur  ;  fed  quaji  Hebrœes  & 
 wftrullos  in  Lege  abfqite  damno  fenjuum  fuis  ujos  ejj'e  fermonibus.  Hicron.  Comm.  in 
 Ifai.  lib.  9.  cap.  29. 
 
 (  {)  Paraphrafim  hujus  tejlirnonii  quafi  Hebrœns  ex  Hebrœis  affumit  Apoftolus 
 Paulus  de  authenticis  Ubrisin  Epiftolà  quam  Jcribit  ad  Corinthios,  non  verbum  ex 
 verbo  reddens,  quod  facer  e  omnino  contemnit,  fed  fenfuum  exprimens  ver  it  at  em, 
 quibus  utitur  ad  id  quod  'voluerit  rcborandum.  Hicron.  Comm.  m  If.  lib.  17. 
 cap.  64. 
 
 He 
 
He  endeavours  to  prevent,  with  «m  affichions  P  ition,,  that 
 which  might  be  objected  againlt  from  all  (ides  ;  that  the  Church 
 ought  not  to  receive  any  other  Scripture  of  the  Old  Teftamontj 
 than  that  which  was  Authorifcd  by  the  Apoftles.  Indeed  this  Ob- 
 jection which  was  a  terrible  one,  mull  needs  have  rhade  a  great 
 impreffion  on  his  Spirit ,  and  if  he  dare  not  fày,  that  the  Apo- 
 ftles  always  follow'd  the  Hebrew  Text  ;  he  endeavours  at  lea  It  to 
 fhelter  himfeif  by  alluring  us,  that  fomctimes  they  did  not  adhere 
 either  to  the  one  or  the  other,  becaufe  ordinarily,  that  which  was 
 considered  .by  them,  was  the  fenfè  and  not  the  Words. 
 
 And^his  he  does  affirm  of  the  words  of  the    Prophet  Jeremy,  aJ^rem. 
 Vola  iv as  heard  m  Rama,  &c-  St.  Matthew  (  faith  he)  does  neither  caP-V> 
 report  that  palîàge,  according  to  the  Hebrew ,  nor  according  to  the  ' 
 Greek  :  nee  juxta  Hebra'icum,  nee  juxta  Septnagint  a   Jump  fit  teftimom-  ' 
 um.     (g)  Whence  he  does  conclude,  that  the  Evangehfts  and  A- 
 poftles  did  not  tye  themfelves  to  the  Verfion  of  any  Interpreter  ; 
 but  that  being  Hebrews,  they  uled  their  own'  words,  in  èxpreffing 
 that  which  they  read  in  the  Hebrew  Text;  this  general  anlwer  is 
 what  he  gives  almoft  every  where. 
 
 But  it  may  be  faid,and  more  truly,  that  the  Apoftles  and  Evan- 
 feints  ,  when  they  inftrueted  the  People,  who  read  the  Bible  in 
 Grtek,  ufed,  in  their  quotations,  the  exprefïîons  of  the*  Bible,  yec 
 did  not  fcrupuloufly  adhere  to  the  words  ,  becaufe  thev  had  the 
 fènfè  only  in  their  view.  To  convince  St.  Jerome  of  this,  there 
 needs' no  other  Paflage  of  Scripture  thin  that  which  was  mention- 
 ed by  himfeif  :  For  which  'tis  only  needful  to  look  into  the  He- 
 brew  Text,  and  the  Greek  of  the  Septnagint  ;  for,  whereas  it  is  in 
 Hebrew  HD"Q  which  that  Father  (together  with  fome  Jews)  in  his 
 Verfion,  tranflated  in  excelfo  i.  e.  on  high  ;  the  Septuagint  who  have 
 made  it  a  proper  Name,  have  rendred  it  U  'Pc^â:,  m  Rama,  and 
 St.  Matthew  followed  them  in  his  citation  of  the  lame  paflage  :  It 
 is  true,  that  in  the  other  words:  St.  Matthew  does  rather  agree 
 with  the  Hebrew  than  the  Septnagint,  as  St.  Jerome  has  mention- 
 ed them,  agreeable  to  the  Edition  or"  Home  ;  for"  it  is  .in  St.  Mat- 
 thew, $  »*  riS*M  vtytHiSbfJcu,  and  he  refufed  to  be  comforted,  as  K  h 
 in  the  Hebrew  at  this  day  ;  whereas  in  the  Septuagint  it  is  rendre^ 
 **  S  St  to   7rwjov.&U)  he  refufed  refi. 
 
 But  it  is  probable,   that  the  ancient  reading  of  the  Septuagirv 
 was  agreeable  to  St.  Matthew;  and    at  this  day  it  is-  extant  in  t; 
 
 (g)  Ex  quo pajpicuum  eft  Evângelîftdi  (3  Apofto'.cs  nequoqium ex  11 
 fretationem  altcujus ficutes,  fe<£  duqfi  tielfrxos  ex  Hebrtis  quod  U 
 fiisfermonim  cxprcjjjft.  Hfcrori:  Comm.  in  If.  Jib.  6.c.  31. 
 
 Cc 
 
.      C  i;  ]  . 
 
 Copy  of  Alexandria y  in  the  Editions  of  Aide,  and  Complutum  or 
 Akala  :  and  likewife  in  the  Arabian  Veriion,  which  was  taken 
 from  the  Septuagint.  And  here 'tis  obfervable,  that  although  that 
 of  Rome,  is  the  beft  of  all  the  Editions  of  the  Septuagint,  becaufe 
 it  is  the  mofl  ancient  and  pure  of  any  of  them,  yet  it  is  not  free 
 from  errors.  'Tis.tobe  fuppofed,  that  long  before  Origen  ,  the 
 Greek  of  the  Septuagint  -was  altered  in  fome  places,  by  fome  half- 
 learned  Men,  whether  Jews  or  Chrifiians ,  who  were  far  from  a 
 through  Ifnowledg  of  the  Hebrew-  Language,  but  rather  confulted 
 their  Dictionaries  about  the  Hebrew  words  of  the  Bible  ;  I  believe 
 that  that  place  of  Jeremy,  is  of  the  number  of  thofè  which  #ere  al- 
 tered in  the  Septuagint. 
 
 Amendments  of  that  nature  were  then  only  placed  in  the  Mar- 
 gin of  the  Greek  Copies,  by  way  of  Notes;  to  fhew  that  the  He- 
 brew words  might  have  been  interpreted  in  another  manner,  and 
 it  happened  afterwards,  that  the  Marginal  Note  or  reading  pafied 
 into  the  Text  :  Seeing  it  was  the  cuftom  at  that  time,  to  have  Di- 
 ctionaries of  the  words  of  every  famous  Author;  I  make  no  Que- 
 irion,  but  that  there  was  alfo  compofed  a  Dictionary,  containing 
 the  words»  of  the  Bible,  and  alfo  of  every  Book  thereof  in  parti- 
 cular. The  Je wifh  Greeks,,  who  read  in  their  Synagogues  the  He-* 
 brew  Text  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  and  who  joyned  there- 
 unto the  Greek  Veriion  of  the  Septuagint,  had  their  Di&ionanes 
 of  that  kind  written  in  Greek,  in  which  they  marked  the  diffèrent 
 fignifications  of  the  Hebrew  words.  There  is  for  example,  in  that 
 Paflàge  of  Jeremy  we  now  treat  of,  the  Hebrew  word  CZ3run  which 
 in  the  Septuagint,  is  rendred  7m&iat\$tôcu.  But  feeing  in  other  places 
 they  have  translated  the  fame  Hebrew  word  Tv/xmâru,  and  that  was 
 noted  in  the  Dictionaries;  fome  one  or  other  would  place  in  the 
 Margin  of  his  Copy,  cmowAu  over  againfl:  <sf&x**M>cu,  and  this 
 firft  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  obfervation  is  abfolutely  neceflary,  for  the  difèrning  of  ma- 
 ny falfe  Glofles  that  are  in  the  Septuagint,  from  the  true  reading; 
 fome  examples  of  which  I  would  fet  down,  but  that  I  fear  it  will 
 take  up  too  much  room.  St.  Jerome,  who  had  not  confidered  this, 
 judged  of  the  Verfion  of  the  Septuagint  by  the  Copy  which  he 
 had  ;  and  took  no  notice  that  that  Veriion  was  altered  by  falfè  Glof- 
 les in  the  mofl  ancient  Copies  ;  and  even  a  long  time  before  On- 
 gen,  whofe  critical  obfèi  varions  afforded  no  remedy  for  that  im- 
 perfection. This  principle  being  once  eltablilhed,  may  ièrve  as  a 
 rule  to  juftihe  the  citations  of  the  Evaflgehfts  and  the  Apo'ftles, 
 
 which 
 
C  33  ] 
 
 which  differ  not  fomuch  from  the  ancient  Grttk  \  \  Je- 
 
 rome believed. 
 
 Ncverthelcfs  that  Learned  Father,  found  four  or  five  P.nftges, 
 which  he  pretends  to  be  cited  in  the  New  Tcftamem  a  they  arc 
 in  the  Hebrew  ;  whereas  they  are  othirwifi  in  the  S 
 docs  frequently  objeâ  the  ftme  to  his  Advcrfàrics,  to  (hew  chei 
 that  the  Evangelifts  and  Apoftles  being  Hebrews,  hadconfulted  the 
 Hebrew  more  than  the  Greek.  Verfion.     Therein  he  rakes  Sanctuary, 
 to  avoid  the  reproaches  which  from  all  fides  are  caft  upon  him,  a- 
 bout  his  new  Tranilation  of  the  Bible  :  And  thus,  (as  he  thinks) 
 St.  Matthew  has  rendrcd  the  words  or  Vlofea^  I  have   called  my 
 out  of  Egypt.     (Z>)  There  Is  no  doubt  (faith  he)  but  that  St.  Mat- 
 tbew  did  make  ufe  of  the  Hebrew  here  ;  becaufc  the  Septuag^nt  has 
 it  thus,  I  have  called  my  Children  cut  of  Egypt.     Let  thoie  (he  adds) 
 wWo  traduce  my   Veihon,  confult  the  Scripture  from  whence  the 
 Evangelifts  took  this  Paflage;  he  repeats  the  lame  thing  in  his  Com- 
 mentary on  St.  Matthew;  (/)  where  he  does  ask  thole  who  reject  the 
 Hebrew  Copy  of  the  Jews,  in  what  place  of  the  Septuagint,  they 
 ftiali  find  that  which  is  cited  there  :    And  (èeing  he  believed  that 
 they  could  not  poflibly  find  the  paflage,  he  does  refer  them  to  his 
 new  Tranflation  of  the  Prophet  Hcfea.     But  he  himfèlf  refblves  the 
 doubt,  by  adding,  in  favour  of  thole  who   did  oppoie  him,  propter 
 contcntiofos,  that  St.  Matthew  in  that  place,  had  cited  the  words  or 
 Chap  2  2.  of  Numbers  ;  ®*°t  »  ll^a.yt^v  cwriv  V£  tàylnl*   jfe.  God  who  \Ul?L  23, 
 brought  him  cut  of  Egypt.     And  this  is  in  effect  the  Opinion    of  22. 
 the  1110ft  Learned  Greek  Commentators  on  the  Scriptures,  who  Jiv- 
 ed before  St.  Jerome,     (k)  It  ts  written  in  the  Book  of  Numbei s  (fays 
 Theodore  of  Heraclea,  upon  this  place  of  St.  Matthew ,  God  called  him 
 out  of  Egypt. 
 
 When  'tis  alfo  hippofed,  that  St  Matthew  had  in  his  view  that 
 PaiFage  of  the  Prophet  Hofea,  which  is  more  probable  ;  why  does 
 he  deny  that  it  was  from  the  beginning  in  the  Septuagint,  as  Sc 
 
 (h)  Pro  co  quod  nos  dixwms,  ex  ALgyptovrxavi  fiUummcum,  ScptuagirttA  tran- 
 
 fiuterunt,  ex  Agypto  vocavi  tilios  ejus,  qucdin  Hebraiconon  habetur  ;  uulliquc  du- 
 
 bium  eft  Mattiwnm  de  hoc  loco  finnpjijje  teftimomum  juxta  Uebraicatn  veritdtcm. 
 
 Ergo  qui  detrahunt  ncjlra  travjlatxoni  vide  ant  Scnptnram  de  qua  E:\ingcltfta  hec 
 
 tcjtimomumfumpjcru.  Hieron.  Ccmm.  in  Of.  l;b.  3.  c.ip.  1 1* 
 
 J$eJponde*4nt  qui  Hebratccrum  voluminum  denegant  veritatem,  uH  hoc  in  Sep- 
 tuagmta  legatur  Interprettbus  :  qmù  cum  von  inve  ,   nos  cis  die  emu  s  in  Ojcc 
 
 Prophet  a  Jcriptum,  Jiçut  &  exempUria  piobare  pojjutit  qiue  nuper  edidnnus.  Hieron. 
 Comm.  in  Matth.  lib.  1 .  cap.  2. 
 
 Theod.  Hu-acl.  in  Cat.  Ur.in  Matth. 
 
 E  Mat- 
 
C  34  ] 
 
 Matthew  has  cited  it  ;  and  that  that  difference  doas  proceed  from 
 thofè  who  altered  the  ancient  Gr^£  Verfion  by  their  GloiTes  ?  They 
 believed,  that  by  tranflating  mw  um,  bis  Children,  (as  if  it  had  been 
 in  the  Hebrew,  V.H  inftead  of  ^-O,)  the  fenfe  would  be  the  more 
 clear,  becaule  that  which  follows  is  put  in  the  Plural  Number. 
 There  might  other  examples  be  given  of  alterations  of  that  kind, 
 which  mult  be  imputed  to  thofe  who  changed  the  ancient  Greek 
 Veriion  of  the  Septuagint,  by  their  falfe  Glolles.  Tis  therefore  ve- 
 ry probable,  that  the  reading  in  that  place  of  the  Septuagint,  was 
 formerly  the  fame  as  it  is  in  St.  Matthew ,  and  like  wife  in  Aquila, 
 who  alfo  translated  th.it  paflage  of  the  Prophet  Hofea,  by  thefe 
 words.,    ^S  AfyvVfc  ltU\i<n  t  ijov  f/*3    I  have  called  my  Son  out  of  E- 
 
 gypc- 
 
 St.  Jerome  does  yet  triumph  over  his  Adverfàries,  in  his  Com- 
 Znch  17  n^ntary  upon  the  words  of  the  Prophet  Zechary  ;  They  looked  upon 
 i^  '  me  whom  they  have  per  ad  :  St.  John,  who  cited  that  paflage  in  his 
 Gofpel,  does  give  it  in  the  fame  manner,  according  to  the  Hebrew 
 Text;  whereas  in  the  Septuagint,  it  is,  They  looked  uponme,  becaufc 
 they  have  infulted.  (/)  St.  John,  ffays  that  Father)  being  an  He- 
 brew born,  did  not  much  regard  its  being  read  in  the  Greek  Verfion 
 of  the  Septuagint  :  On  the  contrary,  he  has  rendred  that  place  of 
 Zccbary,  word  for  word,  as  it  was  in  the  Hebrew.  But  if  one  will 
 not  believe  him,  he  muft  fhew  the  place  of  Scripture,  from  which 
 St.  John  took  the  fame.  He  further  adds,  that  the  likenefs  of  the 
 Letter  R  and  D  in  the  Hebrew,  was  the  caufe  of  the  falfe  Transla- 
 tion of  the  Seventy  Interpreters,  ob  fimilitudmem  liter  arum  error  efi  na- 
 tus,  becaufe  they  read  (as  he  thinks)  *npT  for  "HpT 
 
 But  in  my  opinion,  (eeing  St.  John  did  follow  the  Septuagint 
 •more  than  the  Hebrew,  in  all  the  Paffages  of  his  Gofpel,  there  is  no 
 reaibn  to  maintain,  that,  in  that  place,  heconfulted  the  Hebrew  Co- 
 py of  the  Jews  ;  without  any  regard  to  the  Greek  Verfion  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  occafion  of  altering  the  true 
 and  ancient  Textnn  other  places  :  And  this  happened  to  that  Pat 
 iage  of  Zechary,  which  ought  to  be  amended  in  the  Greek  Verfion 
 
 CO  Joannes  Evangclifta  qui  de  fcBore  Domini  baufit  fafientùnn,  Hebrxus  ex 
 Hebrxis,  quern  Salvator  amabat  plurtmiim,  non  magnoperè  curavit  quid  Grxcè  /*« 
 teres  confinèrent,  fed  ver  bum  into  -fret atus  verba  t ft,  ut  in  Hebrao  léger  at,  &  tem- 
 pore domfnicx  jafjioms  dixit  ejfe  completum.  Quodjiqta's  non  recifit,  det  teftàno- 
 \uum  de  quo  Jar.îiarum fer iptur arum  loco  Joannes  ifta  frotukrit*    Hieron.  Comir. 
 
 •a  Zach.  lib.  3.  c,  i2. 
 
 of 
 
C  55  D 
 
 of  the  Septuagint,   according  to  the  rending  in  the  Gofpel  of  £t 
 Jfohn.     Tnat  which  does  confirm  this  Opinion,  is,  that  ! ■    ' 
 did  rend  it  after  that  manner,  in  the  ancient  Lat  nVerfion,  which 
 was  taken  from  the  Septuagint:  The  Rendition  of  that  Father  ! 
 
 more  Authority  in  this  caft,  than  that  of  fome  Gnek  Schoh.ifts.  who 
 haVC  alio  read  it  l%i<Birn£  they  tnfultcd  ;  as  it  is  in  St.  John,  agree 
 able  to  the  Hebrew  Text.     For  theiè  Scholiafh  in  their  Expofitions, 
 do  frequently  follow  A^uila,  or  (omc  other  Greek  Interpreter  with- 
 out declaring  that  thev  do  fo  :  And  therefore  'tis  neceflàry  that  we 
 be  cautious   herein,,  that  we  do  not  confound  the  Veriion  of  the 
 Septuagint,  with  other  ancient  Greek  Interpreters. 
 i     This  fhould  be  the  place  for  the  examples  of  the  alterations  we 
 fpake  of,  whereby  the  ancient  Greek  Rendition  was  very  much 
 changed  ;  but  it  would  take  up  too  much  time  :  It  fuffices  that  we 
 have  touched  (bmething  of  it,  in  general,  to  juftifie  the  Citations  of 
 the  Evangehfb  and  of  the  Apoftles.     Neither  will  I  flay,  to  examin 
 particularly,  fome  other  Paflages  of  the  Old  Teftament,  which  St. 
 Jercme  pretends  to  have  been  cited  by  the  Apoftles,  in  their  Writ- 
 ings, rather  according  to  the  Hebrew  than  according  to  the  Septua- 
 gint.    For  befides  that  it  does  require  a  long  time  to  difcuis  them, 
 the  rules  that  are  confirmed  already,    are  fufficicnt  to  Anfwer  all 
 that  Father's  Objections,  who  himfelf  has  acknowledged,  in  many 
 places  of  his  Works,  that  the  Difciples  of  Jefus  Chrift ,  who  Preach- 
 ed the  Gofpel  to  a  People  that  fpake  the  Greek  Tongue,  muft  have 
 made  ufe  or  the  ancient  Greek  Verfion  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  :  Befides  there  were  but  few  amongfl 
 them,  who  could  have  underftood  it.    We  come  now  to  the  other 
 Objection,  which  is  brought  againft  the  Books  of  the  New  Tefta- 
 ment, and  which  confîf  b  in  a  fuppofition,  that  the  Apoftles  and  the 
 Evangelifts  have  not  only  changed  the  words  of  the  Paflages  which 
 they  cite,  but  that  they  have  likewife  wrefted  the  fame,  by  giving 
 them  a  fènfè  altogether  different  from  the  meaning  of  the  Authors. 
 
 E:  CHAP 
 
c  3<n 
 
 C  H  A  P.       X  X  I. 
 
 A  V'tfcufjion  of  fame .  other  Objections  againft  the  Books 
 of  the  New  Tejlament  :  Tl?e  Evangelifts  and  Affiles 
 (in  the  manner  of  their  explaining  the  Taffages  of  the 
 Old  Teft anient  ,  and  applying  them  to  the  Me/Iiah) 
 followed  the  Cuftom  which  then  obtained  amongjl  the 
 Jews.  7here  are  many  words  in  the  New  Tefiament, 
 which  have  a  larger  Jîgnification  than  they  have  in  the 
 Old  :  And  *  that  can  be  attributed  to  nothing  but  to 
 that  ufage }  .and  to  a  tradition  received  amongjl  the 
 Jews. 
 
 THE  Prefent  Times  gave  not  a  beginning  to  the  very  great  and 
 difficult  Obje&ions,  that  have  been  formed  againft  the  Testi- 
 monies of  the  Old  Teftament,  which  the  Evangelifts  and  Apoftles 
 have  made  u(e  of  in  their  Writings,  for  the  Confirmation  of  the 
 Truth  of  the  Gofpel  of  Jefus  Chrift.  Celfc/s,  Porphyrias,  Julian  and 
 the  Jews  have  brought  them  againft  the  Chriftians,  that  they  might 
 thereby  ihew,  (as  they  think)  the  weaknefs  of  thofe  Proofs,  upon 
 which  the  Chriftian  Religion  is  founded  :  But  they  are  deceived, 
 when  they  perfwade  themielves,  that  Chriftianity  has  nothing  el(e 
 but  fuch  fort  of  Proofs,  for  its  Foundation.  The  Miracles  of  Jeius 
 Chuft  are  evident  Proofs  of  his  Million  :  And  therefore,  if  it  mould 
 be  fuppofed  with  them,  that  the  Partages  we  fpeak  of,  are  not  always 
 
 (Hy  applyed,  it  cannot  be  concluded  from  thence,that  the  Chriftian 
 Religion  is  built  on  a  falfe  Foundation. 
 
 That  we  may  make  aright  judgment  of  the  Reafbnîngs  of  Jefus 
 Chnft  and  his  Dilciplcs,  in  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament,  we 
 mull  have  recourfè  to  the  practice  oi:  the  Jews  at  that  time;  and  if. 
 it  be  proved,  that  their  manner  of  reafomng  and  applying  to  the 
 Mejfias  certain  Partages  of  Scripture ,  is  agreeable  to  the  ufage  of 
 that  time,  they  cannot  without  great  injuftice  be  blamed.  They 
 wul  be  fufficiently  acquitted  of  that  which  is  charged  upon  them,  if 
 we  conliilt  the  ancient  Books  of  the  Jews,  cipecially  the  Chaldaick 
 
 ..aphrafès,  and  the  Medrajchim,  or  ancient  Allegorical  Commen- 
 taries.    They  have  ;  in  thole  Worksjatcnbuted  to  the  Meffiab,  many 
 
 places 
 
C    37   ] 
 
 Places  of  Scripture,  which  feem  to  have  a  quite  different  lenfe,  if 
 the  Letter  be  only  confidered. 
 
 The  Rabbins  hkewile  give  two  ienfes  to  many  Partages,  one 
 which  is  merely  Iliftoncal,  and  another  that  is  more  large,  which  in 
 fame  fort  may  be  called  Myftical  or  Allegorical  ;  although  in  effect 
 it  is  as  much  literal  in  its  own  nature  as  the  former.  Thus  they  ex- 
 pound the  lame  Patiage  of  David,  and  of  the  Mtjjias  :  All  their  old 
 Alcdrafchim  or  Allegorical  Commentaries,  which  are  the  moft  an- 
 cient I  'iitions  that  they  have  of  the  Bible,  follow  this  Method. 
 Their  Doctors  never  began  to  iniifr  on  the  literal  ienfe,  till  they 
 had  occaiion  to  difputo  with  the  Chriftians  :  and  it  was  calie  ro  mak 
 Anlwer  to  them,  according  to  no  other  Principles  than  thole  which 
 they  them  (elves  had  cftabiilhed.  Why  then  do  they  think  it  ftrange, 
 that  the  Evangelifts  and  Apoftles,  v.  no  came  horn  amongft  them, 
 fhould  make  ule  of  the  fame  Principles  to  oppofethem?  Why  do 
 they  perlwade  us,  that  in  the  matter  of  the  MtJJmh,  there  ought  to 
 be  no  fuch  Proofs  ufèd,  as  are  Founded  on  the  Myftical  &  Allego- 
 rical fèniè  of  Scriptures,  fmcc  they  themlelves  have  always  obferved 
 that  Method  ?     ■ 
 
 The  truth  is,  if  the  Jews  be  much  prefs'd  about  thofe  Padagcs  of 
 the  Old  Teftament,  which  they  make  u(e  of  to  confirm  the  belief 
 of  a    Melfiah,  which  the/  have  placed  amongft  the  Fundamental 
 Articles  of  their  Religion  ;  it  will  be  hard  enough  for  them  to  An- 
 fwer  thole  Objections  that  may  be  brought  againit  them  upon  the 
 point;  unlets  they  have    recourfe  to  thole  Myftical  and  Allego.i- 
 cal  fènlès,  which  being  Founded  upon  the  Tradition  of  their  Fa- 
 thers,   ought  to  pafs  for  real  Proofs.     There  has  been  a  certain 
 Rabbin  amongft  their  ancient  Doctors,  who  absolutely  denied  that 
 the  Mtjjiah  mould  come,   becaufe  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  tholè  they  call  Fundamental. 
 
 The  Jews  do  renounce  their  Principle,  when  they  dêyzCi  againfl 
 the  Difciples  of  ]efus  Chrift,  that  their  Exportions  are  nor  purely 
 literal,  but  Allegorical,  and  that  there  can  nothing  be  concluded 
 from  an  Allegory.  Tis  true,  that  that  which  is  meerly  Allegorical 
 cannot  luffice  as  a  polînve  Proof  for  the  Confirmation  of  a  Religi- 
 on :  But  when  thofè  Allegories  are  Founded  on  Tradition,  they 
 may  be  ufed  and  applyed  to  Matters  of  Tact,  which  arc  already 
 agreed  upon  by  that  Tradition.  In  this  manner,  ail  the  Objections 
 of  the  Jews  may  be  Anfwered,  without  a  particular  enumeration 
 of  thofe  Pailagcs,   which  they  pretend  to  have  been  fal/ty  ap- 
 
 plyed 
 
C  y*  J 
 
 plied  to  our  Meffiah  in  the  New  Teftament  :  for  they  cannot  abdicate 
 that  Principle  which  is  taken  from  their  own  Doftors,  and  their 
 Cuftom,  left  they  themfelves  ihor.ld  renounce  the  belief  of  a  Mefjiab 
 to  come. 
 
 Mofes  Barcepba,  a  Syrian  Author,  having  confidered  this  Truth, 
 (njj  does  put  thofe  in  the  number  of-  Heretichy  who  alledge  that  the 
 Old  Teftament  ought  not  to  be  Myftically  Explained,  but  only 
 Literally,  and  according  to  theHiftoricalSenfe.  If  that  be  fb(fays 
 that  Author)  the  Herelïes  of  the  Mamchees,  and  the  Maraonites, 
 are  thereby  fet  up.  It  cannot  henceforth  be  fhewn  whence  the  an- 
 cient Fathers,  and  the  Prophets,  had  the  account  which  they  gave 
 us  of  the  coming  of  the  Mejjiah,  In  a  word,  he  does  aflure  us, 
 that  that  Opinion  is  mere  Judaifm.  To  which  it  may  be  added, 
 that  it  is  mere  Sadduceifm  :  for  the  true  Jews  are  all  agreed,  that  a 
 Senle  that  is  merely  Literal  and  Hiftoncal,  fèparated  from  Traditi- 
 on, cannot  in  any  wife  confirm  the  Articles  of  their  Religion. 
 
 This  Principle  is  fb  true,  that  the  Antitrimtarians,  (who  refufe  to 
 receive  the  Traditions  of  the  Catholicks,  in  the  Difputes- betwixt 
 them,  and  who  do  only  admit  the  Literal  Expofitiôns  of  Scripture, 
 without  any  dépendance  on  Tradition)  do  plainly  fee  themfèlves 
 obliged  to  acknowledge  fomc  other  Senfè  than  what  is  Literal,  when 
 they  are  to  enter  into  the  Lifrs  with  the  Jews.  This  does  plainly  ap- 
 pear in  the  Works  of  Socintrs,  Enjedme,  and  of  fbme  other  Unit  a- 
 ries.  In  which  they  give  evident  proofs  of  the  inconftancy  of  their 
 Principle.  They  did  not  forefee,  that  whilft  they  framed  certain 
 Maxims  againft  the  Catholicks,  they  did  at  the  fame  time  give  Au- 
 thority to  Sadduceifm,  and  Manicheifm. 
 
 Fauftus  one  of  the  Heroes  of  the  Mamchean  Party,  not  finding  in 
 the  Books  of  Mofes  any  Partage  which  he  could  literally  under- 
 ftand  of  Jefus  Chrift,  and  otherwife  perceiving  that  it  was  in  plain 
 terms  afterted  in  the  New  Teftament,  that  Mofes  had  written  con- 
 cerning Jefus  Chrift,  chofe  rather  to  lay  that  the  Writings  of  the 
 Evange lifts  had  been  corrupted,  than  to  renounce  his  own  Princi- 
 ple.    There*  was  a   greater  Harmony  mamfeft  in  his  Reafônings 
 
 (mj  Sicut  inter  hcercticos  qui  contenaient  minime  convenire  ut  Veteris  Teftamenti 
 fcripta  myfticè  at  que  aliter  quàm  de  ipjis  rebus  interpretentur,  graviterque  accu- 
 sant cos  qui  contra  faciunt.     At  qui  Ji  it  a  ftatuas,  mult  a  nt  confequantur  abfyrda 
 
 mcefje  eft.  obfirmabttur  Ma?ietis  &  Marcionis  f entent  i  a,  qui  dice  bant  Vetus 
 
 Teftament  um  nequaquam  ab  auclore  Deo  Cbrifti  Pâtre  effe.  Prœtereh  nifi  in  illo 
 recondita  fucrint  arcana  fenja,  unde  potuere  pnjci  Patres,  Prophets  aluque  fanclf 
 •viriinteliigcrc  Chriftum  oiim  lenturum  ?  •  Denigue  fi  itacumillis  bœreticis 
 
 fentimus,  profctto  in  Judaifmmn  incidtmw.  Mof,  Barccpha,  Comm.  de  Rirad. 
 part,  i.  c.  3. 
 
 and 
 
C  19  3 
 
 and  Maxims,  dun.  m  thofc  of  the  Attkrmiim         who  receiv 
 Tradition  in  iome  things  and  in  others  did  rejeéfc  ic.    Tl 
 againft  the  J^s  in  title  turners  or  Religion,  after  another  manner 
 than  againft  the  Catholîcks,  (doing  thole  things  do  confift  in  matters 
 
 of  Fa*t,  they  cannot  be  proved  merely  by  the  light  ol  Reafbn;  Tra- 
 dition is  hkewile  to  be  confalted.     And  •therefore,  lo  lohg  as  the 
 
 Jews,  iriall  with  bare  Realons,  oppofe  theExpohtion  of  the  Partages 
 of  the  Old  Teftamcnt,  which  the  Evangeliftsand  the  Apoftles  have 
 cited  in  the  New,  they  cannot  polîibly  conclude  anything  againft 
 them.  For  it  will  be  ealily  demonftrated,  that  tfiole  Writer^  in 
 that  matter,  followed  the  cv.ftom  and  Tradition  of  their  Time. 
 
 The  Book  where  the  mod  of  that  fort  or  citations  are  found,  i-3 
 the  Epiftle  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Hebrews,  where  we  find  nothing  elfe 
 but  Partages  of  the  Old  Teftament,  explained  in  a  manner  that  is  al- 
 together Allegorical  and  Foreign  to  the  Letter  ;  which  has  alfo 
 given  an  occaiîon  to  (ome  Writers  to  fufped  that  St.  Faut  was  net 
 the  Author.  But  it  fèems,  on  the  contrary,  that  if  we  reflect 
 upon  the  Pbarifees  Method,  in  their  Expounding  Scripture,  ic  can- 
 not be  attributed  to  any  other  than  to  that  Holy  Apoftle,  who 
 having  Studied  in  Jerufalem,  under  the  Doctor  Gamaliel,  did  pene- 
 trate into  all  the  moft  refined  Points  of  their  (ecret  and  myftica]  In- 
 terpretations of  the  Bible.  In  effect,  after  I  had  recommended  the 
 reading  of  this  Epiftle  to  a  Jew,  who  was  well  Read  in  his  own 
 ancient  Authors;  he  having  perilled  it,  freely  declared  that  k  muft 
 needs  have  been  written  by  (ome  great  *  Mekubal  of  his  own  Na-  *  A  'Mo- 
 tion. And  he  was  lb  far  from  telling  me  that  St.  Paul  had  vvrefted  °/  Ttafc 
 the  true  Senfe  of  Scripture  with  his  Allegories  at  pleaftire,  that  he  tl0n> 
 extolled  his  profound  skill  in  the  fublime  Senfe  of  the  Bible,  and 
 always  returned  to  his  great  Mekubal,  of  whom  he  never  ipoke  but 
 with  admiration. 
 
 Enjtdmc,  a  fubtil  Unitary,  was  (b  much  pet fuaded  of  this  Truth, 
 that  after  he  had  propofed  the  moft  part  of  thole  Realons  which  are 
 ordinarily  objected  againft  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  he  adds  (rc)that 
 the  moft  part  of  the  Partages,  which  are  cited  in  this  Epiftle,  o^. 
 of  the  Old  Teftament,  are  not  to  be  underftood  in  a  literal,  but  in 
 a  myftical  and  ipiricual  Senfe,  othenvile  it  were  impoftîble  to  avoid 
 
 (n;  Vrxmonemus  omm.i.  pent-  teflimonia  £?   exempla  qux  ex  Vcteri  Tèftanm 
 Imp  traHsfcrunnir,  non  fecuudum  hiftoriœ  vcritatem  (&  fen/am,  tit  vocant,  tin 
 km,  fed  myfticè  &  finfit  Jpiritualuritsl'ugi  &  atkgorico  ad  Nêvmti  Te  fan 
 appliiAri  &  explicit.     Quod  zta  mamfejhim  cjbç  ut  ntfi  qms  hoc  àdmùtét,  ni 
 fiida  mâmftftêffam  incida:.   Georg.  Énjed.  explic,  loo  Vet.  &  Nov.  Tcft.  espiie.  loc. 
 Epilt.  ad  Heb, 
 
 lèverai 
 
c 4C  ] 
 
 feveral  manifeft  abfurdiries.    He  does  likewife  fuppofe  in  another 
 place,  that  this  manner  of  Exposition  of  Scripture,   was  then  ap- 
 proved by  the  Jews,  and  that  Jeius  Chrift  madeufe  of  it,  when  he 
 ctifputed  with  the  Pbarifees,  who  received  the  fame.     He  brings  for 
 an  example  thefè  Words  of  Pfalm  cix.  I.  The  Lord  faid  unto  my  Lord 
 &c.  which  Jefus  Chrift  underflood  of  the  Meffiah,  and  not  of  David' 
 (o)  wbtn  Chrift ,  ( faith  Enjedwe)  explained  that  Paflage  inamyftical 
 Senfe,  he  did  nothing  but  what  was  very  pertinent:  for  there  were 
 three  Se&s  amongft  the  Jews  at  that  time.     The  Sadducees  did  only 
 receive  the  Literal  Senfe  of  the  Scripture.     The  Phanfees  on  thecon- 
 trary,  bel  ides  the  Literal,  did  alio  approve  of  the  Myftical  Senie. 
 And  therefore  in  his  Difputing  with  the  Phanfees,   he  followed  a 
 Cuftom  in  which  they  were  agreed,  that  is,  of  giving  Myftical  Ex- 
 portions to  Scripture.    Seeing  he  knew  that  the  Pfalm,  which  was 
 under/food  of  Solomon,  or  rather  of  David,  according  to  the  Literal 
 Senfe,  was  ordinarily  applied  to  the  MeJJiah  9  he  freely  declares  that 
 David  had  the  MeJJiah  in  his  view,  when  he  writ  it.     Which  the 
 Phanfees  could  not  denyè  unlefs  they  would  have  renounced  their 
 own  Sect. 
 
 This  obfervation  of  Enjedine,  does  agree  with  the  Principle  which 
 was  formerly  eftablifhed  in  this  Diicourfè  for  anfwenng  the  Jews 
 who  accuied'the  Evangelifts,  and  the  Apoftles,  of  giving  falïè  In- 
 terpretations to  the  Pafîàges  of  the  Old  Teflament.     I  will  further 
 fay,  that  there  were  certain  Traditions,  which  were  not  •  only  re- 
 ceived by  the  Phanfees,  but  alfb  by  the  other  Sects.     I  reckon  in  the 
 number  of  thofe  Traditions,  the  belief  of  a  MeJJiah,  which  it  would 
 have  been  hard  to  prove,  only  by  the  Books  of  Mofes.     Neverthe- 
 lefs  the  Samaritans,  who  owned  nothing  but  the  Pentateuch,    to  be 
 Divine  and  Canonical  Scripture,    did  believe  at  that  time,  and  ftill 
 believe  the  MeJJiah  at  this  day  :  and  the  ground  that  they  have  for  it 
 is  taken  from  lome  Parages  of  the  Law,  which  appear  to  have  ano- 
 ther Senfe,  if  thsy  be  Literally  Expounded.     Whence  J  conclude, 
 that  this  Spiritual  and  Myftical  Senfe,  was  not  only  in  ufè  amongft 
 the  Phanjees,  but  alfo  amongft  the  other  Se&s.     Neverthelefs   tbiQ 
 
 (o)  Quod  autem  Chrjftus  hoc  loco  ufus  eji  myjiica.  interfretandi  Scripturas  for- 
 ma, objervavit  tv  <ty\.7rov.  Cum  enim  cjfent  très  Judaorum  Jetla,  &  Sadductt 
 Jolum  literalem  Scripturœ  fenjum  admittcrent,  Pharifai  verb  etiam  myfticum  at- 
 probarcnt,  cum  Phartfais  difputans  arnpmt  hoc  quod  illi  fro  confejjo  &  concejfo 
 babcba?it,  liccre  nimirum  Scripturas  myjticè  interprctari  :  &  quia  'norat  ilium 
 Pjalmum  qui  liter  aliter  de  Salomonc,  am  potiùs  de  ipjo  Davidc  eji  compofitus,  fpi- 
 mu  aliter  refcrri  folere  ad  MeJJiar%,  idea  t.im  confident  cr  hunc  Pjalmum  de  Davidey 
 de  McJpà  confer ipt urn  effe  affirmât.  Sued  illi  fiegare,  nifi  feclceftue  rcnunciarc 
 vcllent,  non  potcrant.     Enjcd.  cxplic.  Ioc.  Majth. 
 
 Phanfees 
 
[4i   ] 
 
 Tharifees  had  abufed  it,  by  allowing  it  too  great  a  latitude.     And 
 therefore  our  Lord  does  lometimes  reproach  them,  for  this  bad  • 
 which  they  had  made  of  Traditions.,   yet  without  condemning  the 
 Traditions  themlelves.     The  Jews  Caraites  alio,    who  very  mu 
 defpifed  the  Fables  that  abound  in  the  Talmud,  do  not 
 rejed:  all  the  Traditions  which  are  contained  in  that  Boole. 
 
 If  the  Umtaries  would  make  a  jult  reHcehon  on  the  Prinapl 
 haseftablilhed,  and  which  may  iervc  as  an  anlwerto  the  :oi 
 
 the  objections  of  the  Jews  againft  the  Books  or  the  Old  Te  .lament, 
 they  would  not  fb  much  infill  upon  the  Liceral  Expohtion  of  cert 
 Paflages  of  Scripture,  which  they  oppoic  to  the  Theological  E 
 fitions  of  the  ancient  Fathers.     Seeing  the  Jews  have  Author iie 
 by  their  Traditions,   fome  Interpretations  ot  the  Old  Teitament, 
 that  are  in  no  wile  Literal  :  the  Doctors  ot  the  Church  have  alio 
 uîèd  the  like  in  their  Expohtion  ot  Scripture.     Interpretations  of  that 
 kind  are  found  in  all  the  ancient  Ecclchallical  Writers.     I  lhall  con- 
 tent my  (èlf  to  produce  in  this  place  the  Teftimony  of  an  Author, 
 who  cannot  be  fufpectcd  by  the  Unitanes.     That  is  Theodore  o£ Hera- 
 clea3  a  favourer  of  the  Arian  Party,  and  who  writ  learned  Commen- 
 taries on  the  Bible:  but  there  remains  nothing  of  them,  but  fome 
 fragments  in  the  Collections,  or  Chains  of  the  Greek  Fathers. 
 
 That  ramous  Divine  does  eftablifh  thele  two  forts  of  Sentes,  iriz, 
 the  Literal,  and  the  Theological,  and  he  does  apply  them  to  thole 
 words  of  the  Pialmilt,  (p)  The  heavens  were  eftabtifhed  by  the  word 
 of  the  Lord,  and  all  their  hofi  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth,     he  does  Ex- 
 pound Literally  the  word  de  *byv,  Ilrordy  by  *t9?**«,  Decree;  and  the 
 other  words  ™>&(MTi  çvti&TOi,  the  breath  of  his  mouth,  by   t*  jAW/uh,  his 
 Power:  fb  that  according  to  the  Literal  Sen  le  of  that  Paflage,  c 
 World  was  Created  by  the  Will,  and  by  the  Omnipotency  of  God. 
 (j)  This  (faith  Theodore)  is  the  Senfe  which  does  here  prefent  it  felf: 
 and  he  does  afterwards  add,  that  according  to  the  true  Theological 
 Senfe,  we  ought  to  underftand  the  Word  of  God  and  the  Holy  Ghofi. 
 We  may  alfo  call  that  a  Theological  Senfè  which  was  given  to  many 
 Partages  of  the  Old  Teftament,  by  Jcius  Çhrift  and  his  Apoftlésj 
 becaufe  it  was  agreeable  to  the  Theologv  of  the  Jews  of  thole  tim  - 
 chiefly  to  that  of  the  Pharifees,  who   Com  poled  the  leading  S:ct, 
 and  the  moft  received  amongft  the  People.     The  Jews  at  this  day, 
 do  altogether  follow  their  Opinions.     The  tirft  Çnriftians,  who  re- 
 
 T«t?  tap  o  G&ytiejt  v*{'  n  d  àhnSùf  S*o\o}i*  ivy  7*  &** '' \zsvAinwa  >■■ 
 nt  Tiji  d}<u  m&fiajji   1  hcod,  Hcr.icl.  Cat.  inïfalm.  32, 
 
 F  ceived 
 
C  4*  ] 
 
 ceived  the  Sacred  Writings  from  them,  have  hkewifè  imitated  them 
 in  their  manner  of  Expounding  thofè  Books. 
 
 Michael  Servais,  did  alfb,  in  many  places  of  his  Works,  acknow- 
 ledge this  Mvftical  and  Spiritual  Senfè,  which  he  makes  to  go  jovntly 
 with  the  Literal.  He  does  alkdge,  that  by  that  way  Jefus  (Shrift 
 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.Faul  made  of 
 thefè  WOrds,Pfàlm  ci.  (Thou  haft  created  the  earth  from  the  beginning  1)  to 
 Jefîis  Chnft  as  the  Creator  of  Heaven  and  Earth.  Which  worthy  (faith 
 he)  though  in  the  opinion  of  'Come  they  have  hut  a  forced  Senfe,  when  they 
 are  app'yed  to  Chrift,  yet  that  is  the  proper  Senfe,  as  the  Apoftle  does 
 flew,  Hebr.  i.  He  does  infill  iomewrut  long  on  this  Subject,  Ex- 
 pounding in  the  lame  manner.,  many  other  Pfalms,  which  he  un- 
 derftands  of  Jefus  Chrift,  although  it  fèems,  that  according^  to  the 
 Natural  Senfe,  they  ought  to  be  underftood  in  general  of  God.  The 
 like  is  to  be  judged  of  other  Pfalms,  though  they,  by  reafon  of  their  igno- 
 rance of  Chrift,  do  otherwife  expound  them.  This  is  no  place  for  to  c:o 
 amin  the  Confluences  which  Servetns  does  draw  from  his  Princi- 
 ple. I  brought  his  words,  only  to  fhew,  that  the  greater!:  Enemies 
 of  Tradition,  are  obliged  in  their  Expositions  of  many  Paflages  of 
 Scripture  to  acknowledg  a  Theological  Senfe,  which  can  be  founded 
 pri  nothing  but  Tradition,  and  common  Belief,  feeing  they  do  agree 
 that  they  who  are  ignorant  of  Jelus  Chrift,  put  others  Senfes  on  the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 Fauftus  Socinus  did  not  find  a  more  fhort  or  effectual  way  than 
 this,  toanfwer  the  objections  that  the  Jews,  and  other  enemies  of 
 the  ChnfHan  Religion,  make  againil  the  Books  of  the  New  Tefta- 
 ment.  He  does  (ùppofè  it  to  have  been  constantly  agreed  upon  (r)  that 
 the  Paiftgcs  of  the  Old  Teftamcnt,  that  are  cited  in  the  New,  have 
 had  feveral  Senfès,  it  being  true,  efpecially  as  to  the  Prophehes, 
 which  (according  to  his  Opinion)  were  io  Com po fed,  that  the  things 
 foretold  might  be.  concealed  till  their  accomplifliment  fhould  hap- 
 pen. He  further  fiys,  that  we  ought  not  to  think  variety  to  befur- 
 priiing,  feeing  the  jews-,  who  Oppc  fed  the  Evangelilta  and  Apoftles, 
 o  agree  to  it.     But  I  quefiion  if  that  Unka  1  convince  the  Jews 
 
 of  this  Truth,  if  he  build  on  no  other  Pi  inciples  than  thofc  which  he 
 •  akes  ufè  of  in  his  Difputing  againft  the  CathoHck       Indeed  to 
 
 eik  exactly',  there  is  but  one  (LtteralJ  Senfe  of  every  particular 
 .  .11  ige  of  scripture.     That  other  Senfe-,  which  admits  of  a  greater 
 
 rj  S  ipe  Spiiitus  S  ami  us  una  pradiBione  n.  ne    .  ira  compleQi  vo- 
 
 Tint. idqnc  ut  jeihpe , ■  ?r/os  frtccipuè  vaticinai  tfatn  prœdiftam  oc- 
 
 çultanaam,  Jaltem  aliquh  ex  parte9  donee  ipfayes  exifterot*    Soc«  Lect.  ' 
 
 latitude, 
 
I  43  ] 
 
 latitude,  and  which  the  [Chriftians  are  obliged  to  own,  is  founded 
 on  the  received  and  warranted  traditions  of  the  Jews.     Seeing  the 
 Jews  have,   as  well  as  the  Catholicks,    approved  of  Tradil 
 that  kind,  they  cannot  accule  the  Apoflles  of  having  wrefted 
 
 truc  Seule  of  lèverai  Partages  of  Scripture  by  falie  Interpréta,' 
 ;iJefb  they  themfèlves  do  renounce  the   Exportions  of  thei         :i 
 Doctors.     Let  us  now  particularly  examnv  iome  of  thofe  Partages, 
 which  the  Emperor  Julian,  and  the  Jews  have  objected  againifc 
 the  Chnffians. 
 
 The  firft  that  prefents  it  felf,  is  taken  from  thole  Words  of  the 
 Prophet  Ejay,  Behold  a  Virgin  frail  conceive,  and  bring  forth  a  Son,  "•  91  •  !4« 
 and  thou  frail  call  his  name  Emmanuel.  St.  Matthew  has  applied  them 
 to  the  Mejjiah,  who  was  born  of  a  Virgin,  and  has  rendred  them 
 after  this  manner.  Behold  a  Virgin  frail  conceive,  and  bring  forth  a 
 Sun,  and  they  fljall  call  his  name  Emmanuel.  The  Jews  do  acculé 
 this  EvangelinY,  of  an  unfaithful  citation.,  and  alio  a  faliè  application 
 of  the'Vords  of  the  Prophet.  They  fay  firft,  that  the  Hebrew  word 
 Alma  does  not  lignifie  a  Virgin,  as  St.  Matthew  has  rendred  it,  but 
 limply,  a  young  Woman,  whether  ihe  be  a  Virgin  or  not,  which 
 they  endeavour  to  prove  from  other  places  of  Scripture. 
 
 St.  Jerom  docs  allure  us  on  the  contrary,  that  the  Hebrew  word 
 (  (  )  Alma  does  properly  lignine  a  Virgin,  and  al(o  a  Virgin  hid  or 
 fhutup;  and  chat  it  has  hkewile  that  lignification  in  the  QarthagmïtH 
 Language,  which  derives  its  Original  from  the  Ht  brew.  The  learned 
 oblervation  of  that  Earlier  is  very  pertinent,  not  only  to  juftific 
 St. Matthew,  but  allô  to  Ihcw,  that  in  the  Septuagint,  the  Hebrew 
 word  Alma  is  very  well  Tranilated.  (>  And  therefore  feeing  it  not 
 neceiîàry  to  prolecute  this  matter,  with  along  train  of  critical  obier- 
 vanons,  nor  run  through  all  the  places  of.  the  Old  Teffamenr, 
 in  particular,  where  this  word  Alma  is  found,  it  \v:ll  fùfîîce  to  bring 
 againft  the  Jews,  their  own  ancient  Greek  Ycrhnn,  which  St. Mat- 
 thew, or  rather  his  Interpreter,  has  followed.  It  cannot  be  (aid  that 
 thoie  Jews,  who  lived  ib  long  a  time  before  Jelus  Chrift,  did  by  a 
 fal-ie  Tranllation,  on  purpolè,  corrupt  the  Senlè  of  that  place.  The 
 accufàtions  with  which  they  charge  St.  Matthew,  fall  on  thole  of  their 
 own  Nation. 
 
 They  lay  m  the  fécond  place,  that  in  the  H  ',  it  is  not  jgAkrawj 
 i.e.  they  frail  call,  but  *3*â<mu  thou  foall  call,  Y  hii  '1   does  regard  th 
 
 fj  Alma  non  filitm  tut         tlvirgo,  fed  cum  èhna. 
 o  fecreta,  qux  i. 
 
 Ltnguà  quoque  .  ■> 
 
 tur  Hicron  Comfri.in  i         ;     -7» 
 
 F   2  '    (H^ 
 
C  44  ] 
 
 young  Wo  run  ,  itHd  mi  to  cill  hsr  Sin  Emmanuel.  St.  jrVtf/H 
 declares ,  that  aM  the  ancient  Inre/p^sters,  have  rendred  it  according 
 to  the  Hebrew,  thou  (h*lt  ca  Bit  at  the  lame  time  does  add.,  (r)that 
 t  îe  Evaageliftsand  the  A.poftles  diA  not  IcrupuloLiily  limit  themfelves 
 to  the  ve  y  words  of  thePaffiges  of  the  O:  1  Teftament,  contenting 
 themfelves  to  give  their  Senfe.  This  is  iurfijient;  though  r&hkmç, 
 tbi        '.  c.illt  is  likewjfe  found  in  feme  Greek  Copies. 
 
 As  for  the  Senle  of  this  Palfige,  the  Jews  pretend  that  it  cannot 
 be  applied  to  the  Me_ijixhy  as  St.  Mittheiv  has  done  it,  feeing  that 
 place  iioes  nuke  mention  of  a  thing  that  mould  happen  very  fbon 
 afterwards.  Sc.  Jerom  obferves  that  they  underftood  it  of  Hez,ekiab^ 
 the  Son  of  AcbaxJ)  becau(e  Sam.tri.i  was  invaded  under  his  Reign. 
 Bat  he  doesioiidly  refute  them,  by  making  it  appear  to  them,  that 
 Acbaz»  was  already  far  advanced  in  years  before  he  came  to  the  King- 
 dom. He  brings,  in  the  fame  place,  another  Expofîtion  of  a  (u)  Chri- 
 ftian,  who  (in  his  Opinion)  did  Judaize.  That  Author  believed,  that 
 in  that  place  it  was  fpoken  of  the  Prophet  Efafs  Wife,  who  had  two 
 Children,  Jefub  and  Emmanuel^  that  the  latter  was  the  Type  of  Je- 
 fus  Chrift,  But  whatever  St.  Jerom  does  fay  of  it,  I  do  not  perceive, 
 that  there  is  any  thing  affirmed  therein,  but  what  is  altogether  con- 
 fonant  to  the  Principles  of  the  Chriftian  Religion,  and  alfb  totHofè 
 which  he  does  elfèwhere  maintain.  That  Prophehe,  as  the  moll 
 part  of  the  reft,  has  a  double  Senfe:  the  one,  which  is  here  fpoken 
 of,  has  relation  to  the  Prophet  Efa/s  Wife,  the  other,  which  is  of  a 
 greater  latitude,  and  may  be  called  Spiritual  or  Myftical,  does  point 
 at  the  times  of  the  MeJJiah  ;  and  it  is  alfoin  fome  manner  Literal,  be- 
 car.le  it  is  founded  on  the  Theology  and  Traditions  of  the  Jews. 
 It  will  be  eafîe  to  anfwer  their  obje&ions,  by  fiippofïng  thefe  two 
 jnfes  :  whereas  if  the  Expofîtion  of  that  Prophehe  be  rigoroufly 
 retrained  to  the  Mejfiab,  it  will  be  more  difficult  to  fatishe  them. 
 Seeing  this  Principle  is  of  great  importance,  and  may  be  i.ieful  for 
 the  relolution  of  many  difficulties  of  this  nature,  it  is  fit  to  confirm 
 it  by  the  Authority  of  the  ancient  Eccleiiaftical  Writers,  and  chiefly 
 Sr.  Jerom ,  who  has  mentioned  it  in  his  Commentaries  upon  the  Pro- 
 phet Daniel.  Porphyrins  did  pretend  that  there  is  nothing  in  that 
 Book  but  what  is  Hiftorical.     He  applyed  to  Anttocbm  that  which 
 
 { t     ;     mult  is  teftimoniis  qu€  Evangeliftcc  vel  Apoftoli  de  libris  veteribm  affump- 
 ttu  curiofms   at  tenendum  ejt  yion  eos  verbatim  ordinem  Jccutos  ejjc,  fed  jenjum. 
 
 Hicrf  n. 
 
 (u)  Qujd.itn  de  noftris  Judaisms  Efaiam  Prophet. un  duos  filios  habuijje  contcndity 
 
 Jejub  o    Emmanuel;  (3  Emmanuel  dc  Prophctijsà  uxere  ejus   cjjc  generation  m 
 
 t  ypum  Domini  Salvatcris.    Hicron.  ibid. 
 
 the 
 
C  45  ] 
 
 the  Chriftians  Expound  of  Antichnft,  aand  the  end  of  the  World. 
 The  Chriftians  neferthelefs,  did  not  wholly  rejeâ  the  [nterpretation 
 of  ?$rpbjrim\  but  they  affirmed  that  Antiocbus  was  a  Type  of  Anti« 
 
 chrifr.  T)pum  turn  volttnt,  (fays  St.  Jerom  in  (peaking  of  the  ancient 
 Doctors  of  the  Churchy  Anticbrijti  babere.  &  <]uce  in  illo  ex  parte 
 praceJJ'ermt^n  Antichrif  toèjfemf       '■!.     And  to  m.ilcc  their  Opi- 
 
 nion the  more  clea  ■  ther  adds  this  excellent  Maxim  :  (x)  that  it 
 
 is  ufual  for  the  .re  to  defcribe  the  Truth  of  future  things 
 
 by  Types.    Which  he  confirmed  by  Pfalm  kxi.  which  is  underftood 
 of  Jems  Chrift,  and  which  is  nevcrthelels  applyed  to  Solomon,  thou 
 every  thing  ipoken  m  rhat  Pfàlm  cannot  ag^^to  him. 
 
 Thole  ancient  Eccleiiaftical  Writers  dtH^iclude   from  ti. 
 that  (j)  feeing  Jefiis  Chrift  had  Solomon,   anoother  Saints  or  the  (  I 
 Teftament  for  Types  ;   we  ought  hkewife  to  believe,  that  Antic 
 had  Ant'mbm  for  a  Type;  he  having  been  a  very  wicked  King, 
 who  perfècuted  the  Saints  ,   and  violated  the  Temple.     St.Jerom 
 does  explain  the  Prophelie  of  Daniel  according  to  thole  two  Se     es  : 
 and  feeing  in  that  he  cannot  be  charged  with  having  cavbured  . 
 impieties  of  Vorphjrh/s,  who  alledged  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  was 
 not  ib  ancient  as  the  Jews  and  Chriftians  did  pretend  ;  thole  can- 
 cot  be  accufed  otjudaifm,  who  received  a  part  of  the  Exportions 
 that  the  Jews  have  given  of  the  Propheiies,  and  who  do  withal, 
 (with  the  Evangelifrs  and  Apoftles,  apply  them  to  the  Mcjfiab  in  a 
 larger  Senfe. 
 
 (x)  Hunc  ejje  morem  Scripture  Smelt,  ut  futurorum  vcritatem  prxmitt.it  171 
 typis,  juxta  Mud  quod  de  Domino  Salvatore  in  71.  Pfi/m  dicitur,  qui  prxnotatur 
 Sa/omotiis,  &  omnia  qu<e  de  eo  dictmtur  Salomcm  r,on  va/eut  convenue.  Apud 
 Hieron.  Comm.  in  Dan.  c.  1 1. 
 
 Cy)  Sicut  igitur  Salvatcr  babe t  (3  Salomonem  &  dcteros  fanclos  in  typum  adven- 
 tûsfui'yfic  (3  Antichriftus  pejjimum  I{egem  Antiocbum  qui  fanclos  perfècutus  eft, 
 temphtm'que  vioUvit,  reclè  typum  jui  babiajfe  credendus  eft.  Hieron.  ibid. 
 
 Chap. 
 
[4*] 
 
 Chap.     XXII. 
 
 A  particular  Examination  of  many  Qaffages  of  the  Old 
 Teft  anient,  cited  by  the  Jpoftles  in  a  fenfe  that  feems 
 to  be  altogether  Foreign.  Some  difficulties  formed  a- 
 gainft  their  Writings  are  cleared  ;  fane  Principles  are 
 ejlablifbed,  which  may  Anfwer  the  Objections  of  the  Jews, 
 and  the  EmpcroW]u\ian. 
 
 AS  it  would  require  much  time,  fo  it  is  of  no  ufe,  to  explain  here 
 all  the  Partages  of  the  Old  Teirament,  which  the  Evangelifts 
 and  the  Apollles  have  cited  in  their  Writings,  becaule  Commenta- 
 tors may  be  confulted  thereupon,  efpecially  Maldcnat  and  Grotntsy 
 who  commonly  follow  the  Principle  that  we  have  already  eftablifh- 
 ed.  That  Principle  did  appear  fb  much  the  more  reafonable,  as  be- 
 ing equally  founded  on  a  joint  fufrrage  of  the  Jews  and  Chriftians: 
 Seeing  [  defign  to  pve  general  Rules,  for  anlvvering  the  Objections 
 of  the  Jews,  again  ft  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament,  'tis  fiiffieia 
 if  I  only  take  notice  of  fbme  of  thofè  citations,  by  which  means 
 thefè  Rules  may  be  the  more  manifeft. 
 
 One  of  the  places  that  are  moft  difficult  to  be  reconciled,  is  the 
 Partage  of  the  Prophet  M^ah,  which  is  deed  in  the  eleventh  Chap, 
 of  St.  Matthew,  v.  6.  (a)  St.  Jerome  does  allure  us,  that  it  is  as  clear 
 as  the  dav,  that  it  does  neither  agree  with  the  Hebrew  Text,  nor  with 
 the  Greek,  of  the  Septuaginr.  He  brings  at  the  iame  time,  the  Opi- 
 nion of  fome  Authors,  who  believed  (J?)  that  the  Evangelifts  and 
 Apoftles  were  not  at  ail  exact  m  their  citations,  becaufe  they  trûft- 
 ed  to  their  memory  :  But  feeing  this  Anfwer  does  rather  deftroy 
 than  eftabliih  the  truth  of  the  Gofpels,  he  has  recourfe  to  another 
 folution.  He  fays,  that  thev  are  the  Jewifi  Doctors,  who  (peak  in 
 that  place;  fo  that  St.  Matthew  intending  to  fhew,  that  thole  Do- 
 
 (a)  Quod  teftimonium  nee  Hebraico  nee  Septuaginta  Interpret ibus  convemrc,  ?ne 
 
 >:  tacente,  pe  urn  eft.  Hicron  lib  2.  in  Mice.  5-. 
 
 (  autem  ■      .  feront  in  omnibus  vent  teftimoniis  qua  de  Veteri  Teftd- 
 
 nto  fumuntur ,    iftiufmodi  ejje  errorem,    ut  am  or  do  mutetur,  out  verba,  & 
 
 ■/  ■■>  >]::>]  ue  ipje  </;:  erfiu  _/:/.  vi         jlolis  vel  Evangeliftis  non  ex  Hi 
 pentibw  1   '  anonia,  Jed  memerùe  credent  1  bus  qme  nonnunauam  fallitur.  H  le- 
 ctors 
 
[47  ] 
 
 ctors  neglected  the  ft  inly  of  the  Scripture,  has  cited  that  Partage  in 
 the  fame  manner  as  they  had  delivered  it.  But  it  does  not  at  all 
 appear,  that  the  i'vangehft  meant  to  accufe  them  of  ignoranc 
 
 Yet  it  cannot  he  denied,  but  that  they   were  Jew*  who  fpake  I  i 
 Htrody  to  whom  we  ought  confequcnt'y   to  impute  the  citation 
 that  Paflage  of  Micah.     St.  Matt  Lev  as  an  ITiftorian,  does  only  re- 
 
 t  that  which  palled  betwixr  Herod  And  the  Principal  Doctors  or' 
 the    '  That  Prince  did  ask  them,  where  their  M  ihould 
 
 be         ii  ;  they  made  Anfwer*  that  he  mould  be  Born  hem, 
 
 of  the  Tribe  oi    fuda;  and  they  •       ed  it   by  tl  of  the 
 
 :      iphet  lh9  and  thou  Bcthichem  in  the  L.v:  )  art  not  the 
 
 leajr  amoxgft  the  Princes  of  }  r  out  cf  tic:  a  Gut  I  ccme, 
 
 w'b>  flmB  rule  ?ny  People  lira.         I;  tills  k  not  a  îi  .  cita  ion,   the 
 
 error  ought  not  to    be  im       -      o  St.    M  :  to    the  Jewifly 
 
 Doctors  who  (pake  it.  Was  it  poffible  (they  may  fày)  that  all  thç 
 Learned   Men  who  were  in  ;  ;  time, 
 
 ceived  in  citing  a  Pallige  tb         is  ib  to  them  ?  Ought 
 
 thev  not  to  have  reported  it,  as  it  is  in  the  w  Text,  s    v* 
 
 read  that  Bethlehem  is  a  little  City?  On  :   i  the  Do&ors  af- 
 
 firmed, in  St.  Matthew,  that  ic  was  not  a  little  one. 
 
 Some  Commentators  have  endeavour" d  to  ieconciie  this  contra- 
 diction, by  iuppohng  the  Jews  to  have  read  that  place  with  an  in- 
 terrogation :  And  the  truth  is,  teeing  there  are  no  marks  in  the  He* 
 brtiv  tor  fiich  Interrogations;  it    may  be  expounded  in   that  ..  I  e, 
 without  changing  the  Prophetical  Text  ;  which  it  were  eafie  t< *  C 
 firm  by  many  Examples  rrom  the  Writings  oi  the  JeWi      Gab 
 emits  has  alfb  translated  the  Syriack  in  that  place,  with  an  Interroga- 
 tion, though  it  be  wholly  agreeable  to  the  Hebrew.     1  rtullia  :  r.nd 
 St.  Cyfrian  did  likewiie  read  non,  in  the  ancient  Latin  Verhon,  as  if 
 it  were  to  be  read  in  the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint,  uuh\w&c,  which  ° 
 Reading  is  confirm'd  by  Origen  :  Nevcrthelels,  it  might  have  Co  been,  \ 
 that  St.  Matthew' s  rendition  inilead  ot  the  reading  of  the  Prophet, 
 was  put  in  t         Writers,  or  that  they  themielvcs  did  cue  the  words 
 or  Micah.    as  thev  are   in  St.  Matthew  :    St.  Jerome,    m  lus  ancient 
 \  s  fio    ,  read  twdica-es,  thou  ar[  little,  without   a  negation,  agreea- 
 ble to  the  H  .     .-. 
 
 Mr.  Vococh  found  another  way   of  reconciling  thole  two  \  lâ£f 
 without  having    :         b  to  an  interrogation  :  He  does  ajl^edge,  th 
 the  Hebrew  word  ^VÇt  which  is  hithe  Prophet  Mkab\  and  which 
 is  <  •    .  .  :!/,  does  in  that   place  fignifie  great,  I 
 
 cauiè  it  does  equally  lignifie  both.  And  this  he  does  likewift  prove 
 by  the  ted:  ie  Rabbins;  and  it   may  be  further  ;  1 
 
 by  the  anc  uk  Interpreters.    Tis  probaole  that  the 
 
 L 
 
[48] 
 
 Do&ors  reported  that  Paflage  to  King  Herod,  according  to  the  ex- 
 pofition  it  received  in  the  Glolîès  of  that  time,  which  were  read  to 
 the  People,  without  keeping  to  the  words  of  their  Text,  which  was 
 only  underftood  by  the  Learned.  That  which  confirms  me  in  this 
 Opinion,  is,  that  inftead  of  thefe  words,  and  thou  Bethlehem  Ephra- 
 ta,  or  as  it  is  in  the  Septuagint,  Bethlehem  the  Hou/e  of  Ephrata,  they 
 put  thefe  words,  which  were  more  known  at  that  time,  and  thou 
 Bet hk hem  in  the  Land  of  Judah. 
 
 There  is  likewife  read  in  the  Hebrew,  and  in  the  Septuagint,  a- 
 mongft  the  Thoufands  of  Judah,  and  in  St.  Matthew,  amongfi  the  Prin- 
 ces of  Judah  :  This  different  Interpretation  does  proceed  from  this, 
 that  the  fame  Hebrew  word  that  is  in  the  Prophet,  may  be  interpret- 
 ed both   ways,  according  to  the  different  vowels,  or  rather  accord- 
 ing to  the  caprice  of  the  Tranfcribers,  who  did  add  or  take  away  at 
 their  pleafure,  the  letter  y  au,  in  which  the  difference  of  interpreta- 
 tion does  confift.    The  Scribes  did  read  it  with  the  letter  vau  ^B^tf 
 aluphe,  whereas  the  Septuagint  read  it,  as  it  is  at  this  day  amongft 
 the  Jews,  in  the  Hebrew  of  the  Maforets  ^7^  alphe.     There  is  no- 
 thing more  ordinary  in  the  Hebrew  Manufcript  Copies  of  the  Bible 
 than  this  kind  of  alteration  :  And  therefore,  when  it  does  occur,the 
 fenfè  is  rather  to  be  regarded  than  the  manner  wherein  the  Helh-ew 
 words  are  written.     The  Jews  of  that  time,  expounded  that  PaiTage 
 of  Micah,  as  if  it  had  been  in  the  Hebrew  Text,  ^B'i*?*^  aluphe,  with 
 the  letter  van. 
 
 St.  Jerome,  endeavouring  to  juftifie  the  liberty  he  took,  in  giving 
 more  heed  to  the  fènfe  than  words,  did  produce  this  Paffage  of  the 
 Prophet  Micah,  to  mew,  that  it  is  quite  otherwife  in  the  Hebrew 
 and  in  the  Septuagint,  than  in  St.  Matthew.  He  adds  withal,  (c) 
 that  he  did  not,  by  that  anfwer,  charge  the  Evangelifts  wich  fal- 
 fhood  ;  as  Celfus,  Porphyrins  and  the  Emperor  Julian  had  done  ;  but 
 to  convince  his  Adveriaries  of  ignorance,  and  to  mew  them,  that 
 he  might  in  one  fingle  Letter,  take  the  fame  liberty  that  the  Apo- 
 ftles  had  taken  in  Tranflating  the  Sacred  Writings.  It  feems,  that 
 that  Learned  Father,  does  here  attribute  to  St.  Matthew,  what  he  at- 
 tributed to  the  Jewijl)  Do&ors,  in  hjs  Commentaries  upon  the  Pro- 
 phet Micah  :  However,  'tis  more  to  the  purpofe,  that  we  reconcile 
 thofè  two  different  Interpretations,  by  having  recourfe  to  the  Foun- 
 tain, then  by  encreafmg  the  difficulty. 
 
 (c)  IJœc  replico ,  non  ut  Ev  ange  lift  as  arguam  falfitans,  hoc  quippc  impio- 
 rum  ij{  Celfij  Porphjrii  &  Jultam  -,  Jed  ut  reprehettfores  meos  arguam  iwperitix^ 
 (3  impetrem  ab  as  veniam,  ut  concédant  mihi  in  jimplici  cpijlolà  quod  m  Scrip- 
 
 ;s  Sanctis  velmt  nolmt  /Iprftolis  co)tceJ]uri  funt.  Hieron.  tic  opt.  gen.  intcrp.  ad 
 Pammach. 
 
 St. 
 
[49] 
 
 St.  Matthew  applyed  to  the  Meffiab,  in  the  fame  Chapter  of  his 
 Gofpel,  the  words  of  the  Prophet  Hofea,  Out  of  Egypt  I  have  allai 
 my  Son:  It  is  evident,  tint  rf|3  Prophet  (psaks  of  ene  People  of  //- 
 
 r<w/,  whom  Gol  calls  his  Son.  Anfwer  mav  be  made  to  this  0'> 
 jedtfon  of  the  J*u*s,  that  that  People  was  a  Tvpeot  the  Mefpab,to 
 whom,  that  which  was  fpoken  of  Ifrael,  in  a  literal  lenie,  might, 
 according  to  the  cuftomof  that  tinu,  be  applyed  in  a  Myftical  and 
 Spiritual  lènfè.  See  Maldonat  in  his  Commentary  on  this  place  or 
 St.  Matthew,  where  that  Learned  Jefuit  does,  at  the  fime  time,  efta- 
 blilh  (bhd  Principles,  for  the  expofitionof  the  mod  part  of  the  Pro- 
 phetical Texts,  that  have  been  cited  by  the  Evangeliits  and  the  A.po- 
 (lies.  He  does  judicioufly  obierve,  that  a  Prophecy  is  reckoned  to 
 be  accomplished,  not  only  when  'tis  truly,  and  in  the  Letter  fulfil- 
 led, but  al(b,  when  the  thing  which  is  figuratively  fignified  by  the 
 words,  isaccomplifhed:  He  brings  St.  Paul  for  an  example,  who,  in 
 his  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  Chap.  i.  has  applyed  to  the  Meffiab,  thzt 
 which  is  fpoken  of  Solomon  in  the  fécond  Book  of  Samuel^  Chap.  7. 
 v.  14.  I  will  be  bis  Father,  and  he  frail  be  my  Son.  And  the  fame 
 may  be  (aid  of  the  Prophecy  of  Hofea.  (d)  The  People  of  Ifrael 
 (faith  Maldonat)  m  the  time  of  their  exile  in  Egypt,  may  be  faid  to 
 be  a  figure  of  Jefas  Chrift,  who  was  alio  to  be  there  in  Exile  ;  as  at 
 this  day,  the  Myftical  Body  of  the  Church,  is  a  Figure  of  the  natu- 
 ral Body  of  the  (arne  Jefus  Chrift,  who  is  like  to  Ifrael  in  this  ;  that 
 both  the  one  and  the  other  is  called  the  Son  of  God. 
 
 The  Jews  could  not  deny  this  Myftical  and  Spiritual  (ènfe,  which 
 is  founded  on  Theology  and  their  Ancient  Doctors,  and  whereof 
 there  are  Examples  in  the  moft  part  of  their  Writings  :  And  there- 
 fore, all  that  they  objed  againft  the  Authors  of  the  New  Teftament, 
 does  fall  on  their  own  heads,  feeing  the  Evangekfts  and  ApolHes 
 have  only  imitated  them.  In  their  application  of  the  Prophecies  to 
 the  Mejjiah  ;  they  followed  a  Method  which  was  approved  by  the 
 Jews,  efpecially  by  the  Vbarifees.  All  that  does  remain  of  the  Jews 
 in  the  World  (if  we  except  the  Jews  Caraites,  who  are  in  a  very 
 (mall  number )  derive  their  original  from  the  Phanfees,  who,  bel  ides 
 the  Literal  and  Hiftorical  (ènfe  of  Scripture,  do  acknowledg  a  Sub- 
 lime and  Myftical  fènfè  :  Whence  it  is,that  thofe  (ènf  es  are  frequent- 
 ly to  be  found  in  the  Commentaries  of  their  Rabbins. 
 
 Origen,  in  his  Writings  againft  Celfus,  maintained   with  all  his 
 
 (6)  Populut  tile  in  JEgypto  exulans  Chrifti  ibidem  exulaturi  figura  diet  pot  eft  ; 
 ficut  nunc  corpm  myfticum  Ecclefu  corporis  naturalis  Chrift i  figura  eft  ;  &  Cbriftm 
 populo  m  eo  fimilis  eft,  quod  uterque  Dei  films  appelletur.  M>ild,  Comin.  in  c.  i. 
 Matth.  v.  1 5. 
 
 G  might 
 
[   To  ] 
 
 might  that  fublime  fenk  of  the  Prophecies:  He  calls  that  fenfè  a  My- 
 ftical  Theory  of  the  Prophets,  <rV  GWnffl  pvçtKW  Stueidt.  He  fàys,  (e) 
 that  the  Prophets  did  not  confine  their  thoughts  to  the  Hiftorical 
 fenfè,  which  came  firft  in  view  ;  nor  to  the  Words  and  bare  Letter 
 of  the  Law.  He  does  moreover  eftablifh  this  general  Rule  (f)  that 
 the  prédirions  of  the  Prophets,  concerning  the  MeJJlah  are  different, 
 fbme  being 'Enigmatical,  and  others  Allegorical,  or  of  (bme  other 
 fort,  there  being  alfo  fome  of  them  that  are  Literal.  Jt  will  fuffice, 
 as  an  Anfwer  to  the  Jews,  (who,  in  their  difputes  againft  the  Chri- 
 stians, do  very  much  infift  on  the  Literal  and  Hiftorical  fènfe  of 
 the  Prophecies,  )  to  bring  that  which  Orïgen,  upon  the  like  occafion 
 anfwered  Ce  if ns  ;  who  brought  in  a  Jew  (peaking  in  his  Writings. 
 He  does  reproach  him,  (g)  that  he  does  not  make  the  Jew  fpeak 
 pertinently,  and  according  to  the  Character  he  had  given  him,  be- 
 caufèhe  put  fïich  words  in  his  mouth  as  did  agree  rather  to  a  Sama- 
 ntane  or  Sadducee,  than  to  a  true  Jew. 
 
 I  always  followed  this  Method,  when  at  any  time  I  met  with  fuch 
 Jews,  as  impugned  the  Writings  of  the  Evangelifts  and  Apoftles,  in 
 die  manner  as  I  have  already  fliewn  :  For,  perceiving  that  they 
 were  preffed  by  the  very  Principles  of  their  own  Doctors;  they  ne- 
 ver returned  me  any  Anfwer  but  this,  that  the  Myftical  and  vAlIe- 
 ^orical  Interpretations  of  their  Ancient  Mafters3  gave  a  great  ad- 
 vantage to  the  Chriftian  Religion.  When  Iask'd  them,  if  they  would 
 renounce  the  Principles  of  their  Rabbins,  to  embrace  thofè  of  the 
 Sadducees,  or  even  of  the  Caraites  ;  they  declared  to  me,  that  they 
 had  a  very  great  averfion  to  Men  of  that  ftamp.  This  way  is  to  be 
 taken  in  our  difputes  with  the  Jews  about  Religion  :  They  are  mighti- 
 ly nuzzled,  when  ever  this  Method  is  employed  againft  them  ;  be- 
 caufe  we  fight  againft  them  with  the  fame  Arms  that  they  themfelves 
 make  ufe  of,  againft  the  Sectaries  whom  we'  have  already  men- 
 tioned. 
 
 To  return  to  the  terrimonies  of  the  Prophets,  that  are  cited  in  the 
 NewTeftament;  St.  Matthew  has,  in  the  fame  fécond  Chapter  of 
 hisGofpel,  applyed  to  the  Meffiah,  that  which  is  written  in  Jeremi- 
 ah. Chap.  1 1 .  which  feems  to  have  no  fuch  meaning,if  it  be  expound- 
 
 'içveîct,    wF  ht  xji  rjàç  K^m  $  7c  xaitxp*  vouo%i<rid.y  &c.    Orig.   lib.  2.  cont. 
 Cclf. 
 
 (t  )  FIoAXoi  GTÇiqwjcu  7rwi7T)Jk7no(  <&&ti7nv  7tt  rati  <nt  Xe/r»'  01  p!$J)  cdvtyud- 
 70iv'  ol  q  JÏ  cc^.njpei^,  n  AKK(f>  7?octw*  mit  o  )tj  cumM$<f.  Orig.  lib.  2.  Cont. 
 Celf.  ir  _  . 
 
 ^dj^uV-  0r*fr  ibid, 
 
 ed 
 
cd   literally.     A  voice  •mm  heard  in  Rami,  *  voice  of*Umtnt*thn  ar.d 
 great  weeping  ;  Rachel  weeping  for  her  Children,  and  iuould  not  ht 
 forted,  becaufethey  arc  not.     (h)  The  Jews,  fas  Maldonat  affirms)  ill  -,   . 
 their  expofition  of  this  Partage  of  Jeremy }  apply  it  to  ths  carrying 
 away  of  the  two  Tribes  ;  and  there  is  no  doubt  but  thai  is  the 
 fente,  and  tlut  by  Rachel,  all  the  Cities  of  thole  two  TiY  >: 
 
 underfrood. 
 
 If  it  be  lb,  the  Jnrs  may  &V,  why  has  your  Evangihft  expound- 
 ed it  of  the  murder  of  the  Children,  that  happened  upon  the  occa- 
 sion of  your  Mejfiab  ?    5Tis  ealie  to  make  Anlwer,  that  as  to  that, 
 there  is  nothing  that  is  extraordinary,  and  which  is  not  agreeable  to 
 the  exportions  of  their  own  Authors.  Aderas,  (to  life  their  own  terrais) 
 or  an  Allegorical  iènfè,  does  very  well  agree  to  the  murder  of  thole 
 Infants  :  The  iimihtude  that  was  between  thole  two  Events,  gave 
 an  occaiion  to  St.  Matthew,  to  apply  that  which  had  b:en  already 
 accomplilhed  in  the  time  of  the  Tribes  of  Judah  and  Benjamin.    This 
 was  obferved  by  Crellim,  after  Maldonat,  referuntur  <7M.1ttlv.ro,  (iaith 
 that  Unitary,)  ad  cadem  Infantum  Bethlehemicicorum  propter  ret  (i- 
 rmlitudmem,  quia  id  quod  olim  quidem  impletum  fuit  in  aliis,  m  illis  tn~ 
 fantibus  impletum  fuit.     Fan  ft  its  Soctnus,  (who  alio  believed,  that  the 
 Jews  ftood  upon   the  literal  lenfe  of  that  Partage  of  Jeremy)  ob- 
 ferved, that  Tremellius  and  Junius  alledged,  that  it  could  not  be  un- 
 derflood  literally,  any  other  way  than  according  to  St.  Matthews 
 Interpretation,  (j)  But  in  that  (Tàith  he)  there  is  no  abiurdity,  if  two 
 fènlès  be  admitted  in  the  Prophecies  of  the  Old  Teftament  :  It  does 
 alio  appear,  that  it  is  proper  and  agreeable  to  thole  Prophecie:.  The 
 truth  is,  if  thofe  two  fenlès  be  not  owned,  we  fhall  give  m  occa- 
 fion  to  the  Jews  to  accufe  the  Evangelifts  and  the  Apoftlos,  for 
 having  falfly  applyed  the  Ancient  Prophecies. 
 
 We  find  in  the  fame  Chapter  of  St.  Matthew,  another  citation 
 out  of  the  Prophets,  in  general,  which  ïèems  to  be  more  Foreign, 
 than  any  that  has  been  yet  taken  notice  of.  That  Evangelill:  faith, 
 that,  Je  fia  came  and  dwelt  m  a  City  called  Nazareth,  that  it  might  be 
 fulfilled  which  was  /poken  by  the  Prophet,  he  flail  be  called  a  Nazarcne. 
 Seeing  he  named  no  Prophet  in  particular,  the  difficulty  is  to  know, 
 
 (h)  Hebrcei  de  abdutlione  du  arum  tribuum  Judœ  &  Benjamin  inter  prêt. m- 
 tut  y  nec  dubiuin  eft  ex  circumftantiis  Jeremiœ,  quin  dc  illis  intelligatur  ,  Cj 
 per  Rgchelem  tot  a  rcgio  duarum  tribuum  figmficetur.  Maid.  Comm.  in  c.  2. 
 Matth.  v.  18. 
 
 (i)  Ver  urn  nulla  hie  eft  abfirditas,  ft  duplici  fevfu  intelligantur •  fradi  cliches  Ce- 
 teris Teftamenti  effe  pralatcc.     Ixno  hoc  videtur  proprium  Î5  coujentancum  pr,t\i.    . 
 embus  ejfe.    Soc.  Leer.  Sac. 
 
 G  z  what 
 
C  5*3 
 
 what  Prophet  ic  was  who  foretold  that  the  Meffiah  mould  be  called 
 a  Nazarene.  St.  John  Chryfoflome,  who  had  not  obferved  thofe  words 
 in  any  of  the  Prophets,  did  helieve,  (k)  that  we  ought  not  to  in- 
 volve our  fèlves  in  the  trouble  of  an  endlefs  fearch,  becaufe  there 
 have  been  fèveral  Books  of  the  Prophets  loft,  which  may  be  prov- 
 ed (as  he  fays)  by  the  Hiftory  of  the  Chronicles.     The  Author  of 
 the  Imperfeft  Work  on  St.  Matthew,  does  obferve,  that  the  Evange- 
 lift  does  not  fay,  (/)  per  Prophetam,  by    a  Prophet,  but  per  Prophetat, 
 by  the  Prophets  ;  to  fignifie,  that  he  did  not  mean  the  teftimony  of 
 any  Prophet  in  particular,  but  only,  that  it  might  be  gathered  from 
 the  Prophets  in  general.     He  adds  afterwards,  that  there  were  pro- 
 bably at  that  time,  other  Prophetical  Books  ;  which  were  not  placed 
 in  the  Canon  of  the  Sacred  Writings.     The  ground  of  this  Anfwer 
 feemstobe,  that  St.  Jerome  has  in  his  Works,  made  mention  of  fome 
 other  Prophetical  Books  than  thofe  we  have  at  this  day,  and  which 
 were  read  by  the  Nazarene  Sectaries,  who  came  from  the  firft  Chri- 
 ftians  of  Jerufalem,  who  were  alfb  called  Nazarene  s ,  for  whom  St. 
 Matthew  writ  his  Gofpel. 
 
 NevertheleQ  that  Father  had  no  recourfe  to  this  fblution,  in  his 
 Commentaries  upon  this  place,  where  he  plainly  affirms  the  fame 
 thing  with  the  Author  of  the  Imperfeft  Work,  'viz.  That  St.  Matthew 
 (m)  having  cited  the  Prophets  in  general,  intended  to  mew,  that 
 he  made  no  mention  of  the  words  of  any  one  in  particular,  but  on- 
 ly of  the  fènfe  :  But  feeing  the  word  Nazarene  does  fignifie  Holy, 
 the  Scripture  does  declare  throughout,  that  the  Lord  mould  be  Holy. 
 Hz  does  yet  fubjoyn  another  more  particular  explication,  and  which 
 appeared  to  be  more  probable,  as  being  founded  on  a  Paflageof  the 
 Prophet  Efay,  Chap.  II.  v.  I.  (n)  And  there  (hall  come  forth  a  Rod 
 out  of  the  Stem  of  Jcffe,  and  a  Nazarene  (vulg.  Branch)  Jhall  grow 
 nut  of  his  Roots.  I  make  no  Queftion,  but  that  the  Jews  will  con- 
 demn this  Tranflation  of  the  words  of  Efay ,  as  well  as  St.  Mat- 
 
 <rW  tv&tnvyjuv  hpdvicou  QtChicoy'  x)  iwJTrt  iv.  $  \&ei<ti  7m&KH7nijfrpcov  ÏJbs  ws  cLv. 
 Caryl.  Horn.  Q.  in  Matth. 
 
 (  I  )  Dim  dicit  p:r  Propbctas,  non  per  Prophetam,  manifeftat  quod  non  certam 
 r.i;ftoritatem  Prophet <e  prouder  it,  Jed Jenfum  Propbetarum  colligens  dixit,  aut  for- 
 te legerunt  alios  Prophet  as  ita  dice?nes  qui  non  pint  nobis  canojii^ati.  AuCt  Op. 
 imp. inc.  2-  Matth. 
 
 (  m  )  Plur aliter  Propbetas  vocans  oflendit  fe  non  vsrba  de  Scripturis  fumpfi(Jey 
 fedjenjinn.  Na^araus  fan&Uj  mtcrprctatur.  Sa?;cltmi  autem  Dmnnum  fut  mum 
 orrmis  Scriptura  commémorât*  Hicron.  lib.  j.Comtn.in  M.itth.  c  2. 
 
 (n  )  Pojfumus  (3  aliter  dicere,  quod  etinm  eifdem  verbis  juxta  Hcbraic.im  ve- 
 ntât em  in  Efaià  fcriftumjh,  lixiet  virgade  radice  JeJJc,  &  Na^arans  de  radies 
 ejus  ajcendctt  Hicron.  ibij. 
 
 tbew's 
 
C  5?  J 
 
 thews  citation,  becaufe  it  is  not  in  the  Hebrew,  Nazaraus,  Naza- 
 rene,  as  St.  Jerome  has  rendred  it,  but  net  fer,  which  docs  fignifie  a 
 flower  ;  as  he  himfelf  had  expounded  it  in  the  Verfion  of  that  Pro- 
 phet. He  likewife  obferved  in  his  Commentary  upon  this  place  of 
 Efay,  that  the  Hebrew  word  which  does  fignifie  Nazarene,  is  written 
 with  the  letter  zatny  and  that  in  this  place,  it  is  written  with  a  V 
 tfade,  where  it  docs  fignifie  a  flower. 
 
 This  critical  Obfervation  of  St.  Jerome,  upon  the  u.Chap.  of 
 the  Prophet  Efay,  feems  to  deftroy  what  he  had  obferved  in  his  Com- 
 mentary upon  the  2.  Chap,  of  St.  Matthew  :  The  truth  is,  'twas  the 
 cuftom  of  that  Learned  Father,  in  his  Commentaries  upon  the  Scri- 
 pture, rather  to  report  that  which  he  had  read  in  other  Commen- 
 tators, than  to  eftablim  an  opinion  of  his  own-  And  therefore,  'tis 
 not  furprifing  if  we  (bmetimes  do  find  oppofite  opinions  therein  : 
 Nevertnelefs  his  Learning  does  afford  us  great  help,  for  finding  out 
 the  fenfè  of  the  moil  difficult  Partages  of  the  Sacred  Writings.  The 
 Opinion  of  thofè  who  believed  that  St.  Matthew,  in  that  place,  had 
 cited  the  Partage  of  Chap.  1 1.  of  the  Prophet  Efay,  fèems,  in  my 
 opinion  to  be  the  mofl  probable.  'Tis  very  likely,  that  St.  Jeromi 
 did  apply  it  to  the  Nazarenes,  when  he  fays,  in  his  Commentary  up- 
 on that  Prophet,  that  the  Learned  amongff.  the  Jews  took  it  from 
 that  place  :  Eruditi  Hebraoram  de  hoc  loco  aJJ'umftum  futant.  Thoffr 
 Hebrews  are  the  Seel;  of  the  Nazarenes,  who  were  called  Hebrews, 
 and  who  were  fo  in  effect  :  Seeing  they  read  the  Gofpel  of  St  Mat- 
 thew in  the  Chaldee  or  Syrtack,  the  alluiion  to  the  Hebrew  word  net- 
 fer,  that  is  in  Efay,  is  better  known  in  their  Copy  than  in  the  Greek  ; 
 and  it  was  alio  better  perceived  by  thofe  who  had  the  Hebrew  and 
 Chaldatck  Languages. 
 
 That  we  make  a  right  judgment  hereof,  that  Partage  of  St.  Mat- 
 thew ought  to  be  read  in  the  Syriack  Verfion,  which  in  that  place, 
 fhould  not  differ  from  the  Original  Chaldee  oï  St.  Matthew  :  But  the 
 Syrians  do  read  thefe  two  words,  Nazareth  and  Nazarene  alike,  with 
 the  letter  3f  tfade.     And  after  this  manner  they  ought  in  effect,  to 
 be  read  in  St.  Matthew  ;  who  intended  not  to  iigrufie  the  Nazarttes 
 of  the  Old  Teftament,  whole  name  is  written  with  a  T  &*/».     He 
 made  a  bare  allufion,  according  to  the  method  of  that  time,  to  the 
 Hebrew  word  net  fer  of  Efay,  which  does  fignifie  a  flower,  and  which 
 is  written  with  a  ¥  tfade,  as  well  as  that  of  the  City  Nazanth.  5Tis 
 of  importance  carefully  to  obfervc,  that  the  Jews  do  agree  with  the 
 Chriftians;  that  that  PaiTage  of  Efay,  which  fpeaksof  that  jfaver* 
 called  in  Hebrew  net  fer ,  is  underflood  of  the  Mejftah.     Which  being 
 known  at  that  time  to  all  the  World,  St.  Matthew,  (who  wrote  in 
 the  Chaldee>  for  the  Jews  of  Je? h f aient  then  newly  converted,  who 
 
 were 
 
[  54  ] 
 
 were  accuftomed  to  expofitions  of  that  nature)  made  an  allufion  to 
 this  Hebrew  word  netfer  or  flower. 
 
 'Tis  but  confulting  the  jewijh  Talmud,  their  Book  entitled  Zohari 
 and  their  Ancient  Medrafchim,  or  Allegorical  Commentaries  ;  for 
 we  may  there  find  the  like  Interpretations  of  Scripture  to  be  extant, 
 founded  on  bare  allufions,  and  fimilitudes,  not  only  of  words,  but 
 even  of  letters.  If  the  Jews  could  but  fcrioufly  refled  on  all  thele 
 confederations,  they  would  not  brand,  with  the  title  of  either  falfè 
 or  ridiculous,  the  citation  of  St.  Matthew  ;  who  has  (fay  they)  per- 
 verted the  words  of  the  Prophet  Efay,  to  apply  them  to  their  Mef 
 /tab.  For,  feeing  that  Evangelift,  writing  for  Jews  who  were  en- 
 dining  to  embrace  the  Religion  of  Jefus  Chrift,  did  follow  the  cu- 
 from  and  uftge  that  obtained  at  that  time  among/!:  them  :  Unleis 
 We  go  back  to  that  ancient  cuftom  ;  we  ihall  meet  with  great  diffi- 
 culties in  the  mod:  part  of  the  Paffages  of  the  Old  Teftament,which 
 the  Evangelifts  and  Apo flics  have  cited  in  their  Writings,  for  the 
 confirmation  of  their  own  Sentiments. 
 
 We  ought  to  purfue  this  Method,  for  anfwering  the  Jews  fblid- 
 Iy  ;  we  are  to  reprefent  to  them  the  courte  their  Fathers  took,which, 
 unlefs  they  renounce  their  Religion,  they  cannot  rejed.     This  Prin- 
 jp,l(l       ciple  alfo  may  ferve  for  the  refutation  of  Julians  impious  charge, 
 Cyril,  lib.  who  accufed  the  Chriftians  for  having  abandoned  the  Law  and 
 7.  adv.     the  Prophets  ;  although  they  made  a  profeffion  of  following  them  : 
 Jul.         Hq  hkewiie  reproached  them  for  their  boldnefs  in  calling  them  (elves 
 Ifraelites,  having  (as  he  allcdged  )  a  Dodrin  altogether  oppofite  to 
 c    I  lib  t'iac  ^  Mofes  and  the  Ancient  Prophets.     But  it  is  eafie  to  con- 
 sul/ ""Viflcé  nim.>  tnâîr  tne  Chriftians  are  truly  Ifraelites,  fmce  they  have 
 Jul.         neither  renounced  the  Law  nor  the  Prophets,  although  fbmetimes 
 they  do  expound  them  in  a  Myftical  and  Spiritual  fenfe,  fuch  an 
 exposition,  as  has  been  faid,  is  not  contrary  to  the  Dodrin  of  the 
 Ancient  Jews. 
 
 That  Emperor,  feeing  he  owned  no  other  fenfe  of  the  Books  of 
 Mofes,  but  an  Hiftorical  and  Literal,  did  objed  againft  the  Chrifti- 
 ans; that  thofè  words  of  Deuteronomy,  Chap.  18.  v.  15.  The  Lord  (liall 
 raife  up  a  Prophet  like  unto  me,  could  not  be  underftood  of  Jefus  the 
 Son  of  Mary  ;  feeing  Mofes  does  exprefly   fpeak  (0)  of  a  Prophet, 
 who  was  to  be  a  Man  as  he  was,  and  not  the  Son  of  God.     It  is 
 Àd.c.  3.  true,  that  St.  F^rand  St.  Stephen  applyed  to  Jefus  Chrift,  that  Pa£ 
 v.  22.  c.    (agC  of  Deuteronomy,  which  is  literally  underftood  of  Jofliua  ,   who 
 7'v--37«    was  t0  fuccced  to  Mofes,  and  alfb  of  other  Judges  and  Prophets, 
 
 (  °  )  n^Mvio»  acmç  icumV   >£  ^S  AvfyehwVy  «M*  *k  la  @e*.   Julim  apud 
 Cyr.  ibid. 
 
 who 
 
[  55  ] 
 
 who  have  been  in  the  Commonwealth  of  the  Hebrews.  But  if thofe 
 Judges  and  Prophets  were  the  Types  of  the  Mejjiab,  whv  does  he 
 oppofe  the  application  of  the  fame  words  to  him  according  to  a 
 Sublime  and  Spiritual  Senfe,  of  which  we  have  already  fpoken,  fè> 
 mg  the  Rabbins  do  frequently  make  the  like  applications. 
 
 By  the  Principles  that  we  have  eftabhihed,  it  will  be  very  eaire  to 
 refoke  the  molt  part  of  the  other  Objections  which  the  Jews 
 do  railè  againft  the  Citations  which  are  found  throughout  the 
 Books  of  the  New  Teftament.  The  Apoftles,  who  did  exa&ly  fol- 
 low the  Exportions  which  were  in  u(e  in  their  time,  have  obfèrved 
 the  fame  method,  almoft  through  all  their  Writings .  The  Je ws  could 
 not  oppofe  them  without  deftroying  their  own  Principles,  and 
 favouring  at  the  fame  time  the  Sadducees.  According  to  this  method 
 St.  Matthew  applyed  to  St.  John  the  words  of  the  Prophet  Efay,  The 
 voice  of  one  crymg  m  the  wildtrnefs,  make  fir aight  the  wiy  of  the  Lord. 
 It  is  mamfeft  that  the  Evangelift  did,  by  a  dcras,  or  Spiritual  and  Al- 
 legorical Senfe,  Expound  that  which  we  ought  to  underftand  Liter- 
 ally, and  Hiftoncally  of  the  returning  of  the  Jews  from  their  Cap- 
 tivity out  of  Babylon  to  Jerufalem. 
 
 Befides  all  thofè  obfervations  which  fèrveas  Principles  foranlWer- 
 ing  the  Objections  of  the  Jews,  and  the  Emperor  Julian,  this  is  like- 
 wilè  remarkable,  that  there  are  many  words  in  the  New  Teftament, 
 which  have  a  larger  Senfe  than  in  the  Old,  which  can  be  only  at- 
 tributed to  the  Cuftom  of  that  time,  and  to  a  Tradition  received 
 amongft  the  Jews.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Books  of  Mofes,  that 
 does  afford  us  any  clear  difcovcry  of  the  ftate  of  a  future  Life,  which 
 the  Jews  do  call  olam  babba,  i.  e.  Thi  World  to  comt„  there  is  no  ma- 
 mfeft Record  in  the  ancient  Law,  of  a  Heaven  or  a  Hell,  any  more 
 than  there  is  of  a  Recompence  to  the  Juft  ,  and  Puniihment  to 
 the  Wicked  in  that  other  Life.  Neither  have  they  proper  words 
 to  exprefs  thofe  things  ;  they  aie  obliged  to  make  ufe  of  Metapho- 
 rical terms.  The  word  Gehenna,  for  example,  which  is  taken  from 
 the  Hebrew  Gebennam,  has  quite  another  Senfe  in  the  Books  of  the 
 Old  Teftament,  than  in  the  New3  where  it  does  fignihe  the  Fire  of 
 Hell.  Which  made  St.Jerom  fay  (p)thit  he  does  not  find  the 
 word  Gehenna  in  ancient  Books  j  that  Jelus  Chriil  is  the  hVft  whe 
 uled  it.  Yet  this  does  not  prove  that  he  was  in  efreel:  the  fir  ft  that 
 ufed  it  in  that  Senfè,  as  it  is  in  the  New  Teftament  ;  for  it  was  be- 
 fore that  time  in  ufe  amongft  the  Jews,  m  the  fame  very  Senfe,  and 
 efpecially  amongft  the  P  bar  iff  es.     St.  Jtrom  meant  no  more  than 
 
 (p)  Ncmcn gehérhia  in  vetenbus  Ubris  non  invemtur,  fed  frwium  a  Sahascnt 
 pomcur.    Hieron.  Comin.  in  M.ittb. 
 
 this; 
 
C  5*  3 
 
 this,  tînt  he  did  not  find  it,  in  the  Old  Teftament,  under  that  figni- 
 hcatiort,  although  their  Paraphrafts,  and  their  mod  ancient  Rab- 
 bins ufèdit  in  the  fame  Senie  as  Jefus  Chrift  did  afterwards. 
 
 The  Hebrew  word  Sceol  will  come  under  the  fame  confideration, 
 for  in  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Teftament,  it  does  fignifie  a  Sepulchre  ; 
 it  is  almoft  every  where  in  the  Septuagint,  rendred  &M9  Hell>  as  if 
 they  had  frequently  intended  to  fignifie  by  that  word,  a  fubteq^ne- 
 an  place,  where  Souls  are  after  their  feparation  from  the  Body. 
 St.  Peter  m  the  A<5b  of  the  Apoftles,  does  Expound  of  the  Mejfiab, 
 according  to  that  Senfe,  the  words  of  Pfàlm  xv.  Thou  -wilt  not  leave 
 7ny  [oui  m  hell,  nor  fuffer  thy  holy  one  to  fee  corruption.  Which  Paflage 
 is  Literally  underftood  of  David,  who  faid  to  God  that  he  would 
 not  differ  his  Enemies  to  take  away  his  Life  :  and  thus  the  Hebrew 
 words  Sceol  and  S cahat according  to  the  former  Senfe,do  fignifie  Liter- 
 ally a  Sepulchre,  and  a  Ditch.  But  according  to  the  Spiritual  and 
 Myftical  Senfe,  which  Sc.  Peter  gives  to  this  Pialrn  that  he  applies  to 
 the  Mefjiah,  whole  Type  David  was,  the  Greek  words  *«/W  and  j)*p$»£$? 
 which  he  took  from  the  ancient  Verfion  of  the  Septuagint,  do  fig- 
 nifie in  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles,  Hell  and  Corruption.  The  Ap- 
 plication that  the  Apoftle  made  of  the  words  of  that  Pfàlm,  to  the 
 Refurre&ion  of  the  Mcjfiah,  does  contain  nothing  but  what  is  agree-, 
 able  to  the  belief  of  the  Jews  of  that  time,  who  believed  the  Re- 
 furredtion  of  the  dead.  They  further  acknowledged  a  fubterranean 
 place,  to  which  Souls  do  go  after  their  feparation  from  the  Body. 
 Without  a  due  regard  to  all  thefe  considerations,  it  is  impoflible  to 
 underftand  the  New  Teftament. 
 
 Therefore  it  is  to  be  fuppoled  as  a  thing  conftantly  agreed  upon, 
 that  the  Jews^  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour  and  the  Apoftles,  believed 
 many  things,  whereof  they  had  no  Literal  proofs  in  all  the  Old  Te- 
 ftament, being  only  founded  on  their  Traditions.  And  the  Writings 
 of  the  Evangelifts  and  the  Apoftles,  ought  to  be  Expounded  with  a 
 relation  to  this  Idea  of  the  Jewijh  Faith,  and  not  to  that  which  may 
 be  conceived  of  their  belief,  with  a  reference  to  the  Books  of  the 
 Old  Teftament  only  ;  becaufè  thofe  Books  contain  but  one  part  of 
 their  Religion,  the  other  part  being  comprehended  in  their  Traditi- 
 ons. The  Jews  do  .own  thisPrinciple.  The  Jews,  even  the Caraites% 
 who  do  mightily  oppofe  the  Traditions  of  the  Talmudifis,  which  had 
 degenerated  into  Fables,  have  prelèrved  thofe  which  they  believed  to 
 be  founded  on  fufKcient  Records. 
 
 The  ancient  Hereticks,  who  did  not  weigh  all  thefe  confederations, 
 did  rather  choofè  to  deny  the  truth  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament, 
 and  fay,  that  in  after  times  there  were  interpolations  made  therein,than 
 to  attribute  to  the  Apoftles  fuch  things  as  they  did  not  underftand. 
 
 It 
 
[57] 
 
 It  is  upon  this  fuppofed  ground  that  the  Manichtts,  fwho  found  no 
 
 prefs  Pafiàgcs  in  the  Law  of  Mofes,  that  made  mention  of  J:: 
 Chrifl:,)  rejed^d  as  falie,  all  thole  Places  of  the  ?en$ at  eue  b%  that  were 
 applied  to  him  in  the  New  Teftamenr.  They  did  not  confider  chat  ac 
 the  time  of  Chrilt  and  the  Apoffles  there  was  a  Myftical  ,\n\  Spiri- 
 tual Senfe  approved  or  by  all  the  Jews,  fomc  Sadducecs  poffibly  e 
 cepted.  And  with  refpecfc  to  this  Senfe,  the  Writings  of  the  Evan- 
 ^clifrs  and  the  Apoftles  are  to  be  Expounded. 
 
 And  therefore  they  deceive  themfclvcs,  who  pretend  that 
 ought  to  be  a  Literal  Senfe  in  all  the  Citations  of  the  Apoftles,  spe- 
 cially in  thofe  which  they  bring  in  for  Proofs.     It  is  true,  chit  à  hi- 
 fagc  of  Scripture  taken  Allegorically,  cannot  ferve  for  a  Proof;  b 
 we   (peak  here  of  fuch   Allegorical  Senfes  as  were  received,    and 
 which  were  allô  founded  on  Traditions  that  were  warranted  by  Au- 
 thority.    They  were  therefore   permitted   to  apply  them  to  their 
 Dilcourle,   and  Iikewile  to  draw  fuch  Confequences  from  them 
 might  promote  their  deiign,   in  the  fame  manner  as  the  Than  fees 
 ruade  ufeof  them  in  their  Difputes  againft  the  Saddttcees.     Thole  Al- 
 legorical Senfès  prove  nothing  for  their  own  confirmation,  but  lup- 
 poie  a  belief  already  eftablifhed,  upon  which  they  were  founded. 
 
 It  is  probable  that  Theodore  de  Mopfuefte,  Expounded  the  Pialms 
 and  the  Prophefies  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  Hiflorical  Senfe,  which  he  gave  to  thofe  ancient 
 Prophefies.  They  will  not  confider  the  Application  he  made  there- 
 of, with  the  whole  Church,  to  the  Mejfiah,  according  to  a  Spiritual 
 and  Myfhcal  Senfe.  If  we  believe  Faamdvs,  there  is  no  juftice 
 clone  to  that  great  Man,  who  had  a  perfect  knowledge  of  the  Sacred 
 Writings,  (q)  They  accufed  him  of  deflroying  the  Prophefies  that 
 related  to  jelus  Chrifl,  by  an  error  like  to  that  of  the  Manicbees. 
 But  he  (hews  the  falfhood  of  this  acculation,  by  producing  the  very 
 words  of  Theodore,  taken  out  of  his  Commentaries  upon  the  Pialnis. 
 Quod  autem  (faith  Facundus)  nee  eztacnet  omnes  m  Chrtftum  propbetus 
 palam  eft  quia  rttrjtts  m  ejufdem  Vfalmi  expofitione  dicit,  &c.  Whence 
 he  concludes,  (r)That  it  was  hard  to  make  Theodore  pals  for  m\  im- 
 pious peribn,  who  believed  with  the  Jews  that  Jelus  Chrift  was  a 
 mere  Man,  feefhg  he  vigorcnifly  defended  the  contrary.  This  is  no 
 place  to  inquire  it  Thecdore  was  unjuftly  condemned,    as  Faxundm 
 
 (q)  Eton  dtcunt  evacuajfe  omnes  in  Chrtftum  facias  Prophet idi,  quod  M  > 
 
 rum  errons  eft.     Fac.  pro  c\d\  tri.  cap.  Cone.  Calc.  lib.  9.  c.  r. 
 
 (rj  Non  er^o  Theodorus  Judaicjeimpietatis  arguendus  efty  t.mquatn 
 taverit  Chrtftum^  îùmpotûts  Judges  trrideat.    Fac  ibid. 
 
 II  does 
 
does  afflire  us.  I  have  only"  mads  mention  of  the  Paflage  that  I 
 might  (hew,  that  great  Me»  have  of  a long rims  acknowledged  two 
 Seniès  of  Scripture,  as  we  have  already  made  evident* 
 
 It  is  certain  that  the  Chriftian  Religion  is  founded  on  that  of  the 
 Jeii's,  The  Chriftians  hive  this  in  common  with  them.,  that  they 
 adore  the  fame  God,  and  that  they  believe  a  Mejïah  promifèd  in  the 
 Writings  of  the  Old  Testament;  which  they  receive  equally.  And 
 therefore  the  Chriftians  who  Expound  thofe  Writings  in  a  Literal  and 
 Hiftorical  Senfe,cannot  be  blamed*  as  if  they  favoured  JnJaifm,m  ex- 
 cluiion  of  the  Chriftian  Religion,  feeing  they  acknowledged  a  fé- 
 cond Senfê,  called  Spiritual  and  Myftical,  which  they  apply  to  the 
 Mtffiah.  This  latter  Senie  is  the  fame  that  the  Jews  call  <hras.  In 
 a  word,  it  is  impolfible  to  arrive  at  a  perfect  knowledge  of  the  Chri- 
 ftian Religion,  and  the  Principles  upon  which  itiseftablifhed,fblong 
 as  that  of  the  Jews  is  not  known,  to  which  the  former  does  owe  its 
 Original. 
 
 Celfiisy  Porphyrias,  Julian,  and  the  Jews  have  brought  fome  other 
 Objections  againft  the  Writings  of  the  Evangelifts  and  Apoftles.  The 
 Principal  is  that  which  is  drawn  from  the  Genealogy  of  Jefiis  Chrift 
 Recorded  in  a  different  manner  by  Sr.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke.  T^hey 
 alledge,  that  belîdes  that  thefe  two  Evangelifts  do  not  agree,  they 
 have  delivered  mamfeft  fallities.  But  this  aiperfion  has  been  fb  clearly 
 wiped  off,  by  many  Commentators  upon  the  New  Teftament,  and 
 alfo  in  the  Volumes  that  purpofely  have  been  written  for  that  end 
 that  it  is  needlefs  to  inlïft  on  it.  I  ihall  only  oMerve  in  general,  that  it  is 
 eafie  to  make  anlwer  to  the  Jews,  upon  iiich  objections  as  are  drawn 
 from  Genealogies.  When  they  bring  againft  the  Chriftians,  the 
 difference  that  is  betwixt  our  Evangelifts  and  the  Books  of  the  Old 
 Teftament,  their  Mouths  will  be  itopped,  if  we  ihew  them,  that 
 there  is  nolefsin  this  matter  betwixt  the  Chronicles.,  which  they  attri- 
 bute to  Efdras,  and  the  reft  of  the  Hiftorical  Writings  of  the  Old 
 Teftament.  Their  Rabbins,  who  could  not  reconcile  things  that  ap- 
 peared fb  remote  from  one  another,  are  forced  to  own,  that  the  fame 
 Genealogies,  which  are  written  in  a  different  manner,  were  taken 
 out  of  Records  that  did  like  wife  differ.  And  may  not  we  al(b  affirm, 
 that  the  Evangelifts  Collected  the  Genealogy  of  Jefus  Chrift  out  of 
 iuch  Records  as  were  amongft  the  Jews  at  that  time,"  but  are  not  ex- 
 tant at  this  day  ?  And  therefore,  it  is  better  to  leave  the  things  as  they 
 are,  than  to  judg  ralhly  of  them,  or  correct  that  Genealogy  upon 
 bare  coniectures. 
 
 Chap 
 
C  59  ] 
 
 Chap.   XXIII. 
 
 Of  the  Infpiration  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament. 
 (Refutation  of  the  Opinion  of  Cronus  *nd  Soinofa. 
 The  Cardinal  of  Perron  has  given  a  very  bad  Expo- 
 fit  ion  of  the  Words  of  the  fécond  Epiflle  of  St.  Paul 
 to  Timothy,  Chap.  3.  v,  16.  which  makes  mention  of 
 this  Injpiration.  Tl?c  Vif  pûtes  betwixt  the  Jejuits  of 
 Loin  ain,  and  the  Divines  of  the  fame  place ,  upon  this 
 matter.  Three  Tropofitions  of  the  Jcfuits  Ccnfured  by 
 the  VoEiors  of  Louvain  and  Douay.  A  Vefence  of 
 thofe  Tropofitions  againft  the  Cenfure  of  thofe  Vivines. 
 
 I  Have  Treated  elfewhere  of  the  Inspiration  of  the*  Sacred  W 
 ings  in  general.     But  ieeing  I  only  Treated  of  them  occalïon  1] 
 and  by  way  of  Anfwer  to  iomc   Obje&ions  which  were  brought 
 
 againft  the  Critical  Iliftory  of  the  Old   Teftament,  I  fhafl    1:    2 
 Handle  it  more  particularly,  with  refpecr.  to ! the  Writings  ofrl 
 vangelifts  and  the  Apoftles.     It  is  the  common  Belief  of  :  ;} 
 
 that  the  Books  of  the  Old  Teftament  were  written  by  Perfbns  who 
 were  Inf  pired  :  which  Belief  was  tranfmkted  from  the         ;  ta  t 
 Chnftians.     Upon  which  occahon  Orige-n  affirmed  (.:)  chat  both,  the 
 one  and  the  other  did  equally  acknowledge,  that  the  Sac  . . . 
 was  written  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 
 
 /The  Chnftians  have  alio  extended  that  Infpiration  to  the  Books 
 of  the  New  Teftanrent.     There  are  but  ver)'  few  Criticks  who  a 
 or  the  Opinion,  that  there  is  nothing  of  Inpiration  in  Scripture^  b 
 only  in  that  part  of  it  that  was  Com  poled  by  the  Prophets.  Tiu 
 the  Hiftorical  Books  were  not  infpired,  becaufe  (as  they  allodge) 
 it  is  not  neccllary  for  him  that  Writes  Iliftoiy,  to  be  a  Prop!: 
 Grottus  is  of  that  Opinion,  in  his  Book  Kntituled.  Votum  fro  pace  L 
 
 cont.  Cell". 
 
 II   l 
 
C    *>] 
 
 clcfiaftuà  ;  (b)  If  St.  Luke,  (faith  that  Ci  kick)  had  been  Infpired  by 
 God.,  when  he  writ  his  Hiftory,  he  would  rather  have  made  ufè  of 
 that  Infpiration,  by  the  example  of  the  Prophets,  than  the  Autho- 
 rity of  thofe  whom  he  takes  for  Witneffes  of  his  faithfulnefs.     He 
 had  no  need,  (he  further  fays,)  of  any  Infpiration  for  writing  the 
 A&tons  of  St.  Paul,  of  which  he  himfelf  was  a  Witnefs.     Whence 
 he  does  conclude,  that  the  Writings  of  St.  Luke  are  Canonical,  not 
 becaufe  they  were  Infpired,  but  becaufè  the  Primitive  Church  did 
 Judge  that  they^  were  written  by  godly  Men,  with  great  faithfulnefs, 
 and  Treat  of  things  that  are  of  very  great  importance  to  our  Salva- 
 tion.    He  does  repeat  the  fame  thing  effe  where,  in  his  Works  againft 
 Rivet  its,  who  oppofed  that  Opinion  as  being  impious.     He  does  there 
 affirm,  (c)  that  Efdras  and  St.  Luke  were  not  Prophets,  but  Grave 
 and  Prudent  Men,  who  would  neither  deceive  others,nor  be  deceived 
 themfelves.     He  does  further  affirm,  That  St.  Luke  does  not  fay  in 
 the  Prophetical  Stile,  The  -word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  Luke,  that  the 
 Lord  did  not  fay  to  him,  Write. 
 
 Spinofa  did  exactly  follow  the  Opinion  of  Grot'ws  ;  which  he 
 has  explained  more  at  large  in  his  Book,  Entituled  Traclatm  Theolo- 
 gico-Volittcus  ;  where  he  does  not  indeed  deny,  but  that  the  Apoftles 
 were  Prophets,  but  he  affirms  (d  )  that  it  may  be  doubted,  if  they 
 writ  their  Books  in  the  quality  of  Prophets,  by  theexprefs  command 
 of  God  infpiring  them,  asMofes3  Jeremy,  and  others  had  done.  He 
 does  alledge,  that  (e)  if  we  judge  of  the  Works  of  the  Apoftles  by 
 their  Stile,  we  fhall  find  that  they  writ  as  particular  Doctors,  and  not 
 as  Prophets,  becaufè  they  have  nothing  that  is  Prophetical.     Which 
 
 (b)  Si  Luc  ai  divin o  affla:u  di  fiante  Jita  fcripfijfet,  inde  f  otitis  fibi  fumpfiffcr 
 ■zrtêîoritatcm,  ut  Prof  beta  faciunt,  quam  a  tcjiwus  quorum  fidem  eft  fecutus.  Sic 
 min  qu<e  Paulum  agent  em  vidit  Jcribendis  nutlo  iffi  die} ante  afflatu  of  us.  Quid 
 ergo  eft  cur  Lucce  libn  ftnt  canomci  ?  Quia  fie  &  fidehter  fcriftos,  &  de  rebus 
 moment i  ad  falutcm  maximi  Ecclejia  frimorum  [cmforum  judicavit.  Grot.  Vot. 
 pro  Pac.  Eccl.  tit.  de  Can.  Script. 
 
 (c)  Neque  Efdras  neque  Lucas  Profbetœ  fttere,  fed  virigraves  &  frudentes,  qui 
 nee  fallire  veUent,  nee  f alii  Je  finer cnt.  Dixitne  Lucas,  Factum  eft  ad  Lucam 
 verbum  Domini  \  &  dixit  ei  Dominus,  Scribe  ?  Grot.  Riv.  Apolog.  difcuir. 
 pig.  723. 
 
 (à)  Dubitare  fojfumus  vum  Apoftoli  tajiquam  Prof  beta  ex  revelaticne  (3  expreffo 
 rnandato,  ut  Mofes,  Jercmias  '(5  alii,  an  verb  ut  privati}  vel  Dodores,  Efiftolas 
 fçriffirint.    Spin.  Tract.  ThejI.  polit,  c.  1 1. 
 
 fe)  Si  ad  eorum  ftilum  attendere  voluntas,  cum  à  ftilo  Propbetia  alieniffimum 
 irtvememus.  Nam  Propbetis  ufit  atijfimum  crat  ubique  teftari  [e  ex  Dei  editlolo- 
 qui,  vempe,  Sic  dicit  Deus,  Ait  Deus  exercituum,  EdiClum  Dei,  Sec.  At  que  hoc  non 
 tantumvidetur  locum  habuijje  in  fublicis  Profhetarum  concioiiibus,  fed  etiamin 
 Hpiftolis  qux  revelation  es  continebant.    Spin.  ibid. 
 
 hfi 
 
C  «i  J 
 
 he  does  prove  by  the  fame  way  of  reafoni  ng  ,  as  Grotim.  It  is 
 (faith  He)  the  cuflom  of  the  Prophets,  to  declare  through  all  their 
 Writings,  that  they  (pake  by  God's  order  ;  and  they  have  obferved 
 that,  not  only  in  their  Prophecies,  but  in  their  Letters  which  con- 
 tain revelations. 
 
 This  Opinion  of  Grams  and  S  vino  fa,  lus  been  lately  renewed  in 
 two  Letters,  Publilhed  in  a  Treatife,  Entitled,  The  Opinions  of  fome 
 Divines  of  Holland  upon  the  Critical  Ht  [tory  of  the  Old  Ttfiamenf.  See- 
 ing I  have  given  a  fufficient  Anfwer  to  thofe  two  Letters,  and  alio 
 to  the  new  Explications  thereof,  which  have  been  hnce  publilhed  ; 
 'tis  to  no  purpofeto  repeat  here  what  his  been  (aid  elfèwhere  :  We 
 fha.ll  only  obierve  in  general,  that  thofè  Men  do  deceive  themfelves, 
 whilft  they  wi'ljiot  own  any  Infpiration,  bu:  that  of  the  Prophecies. 
 It  is  true,  that  the  manner  of  writing  a  Hiftory,  and  Letters  is  not 
 theiame  as  writing  Prophecies  ;  And  therefore,  thefe  words  (The 
 word  of  God  that  came  to  Luke)  do  not  begin  the  Hillory  of  Sc.  Luke 
 or  any  other  EvangeiiiL  The  Books  of  Mfeft  Jojhua,  and  in  a 
 word,  all  the  Hiftorical  Books  of  the  Old  Te(f  anient,  are  not  writ- 
 ten in  that  Stile  which  Grotim  does  call  Prophetical  :  Yet  Jofepht* 
 and  all  the  Ancient  Jrws  call  them  Prophetical,  believing  that  they 
 were  given  by  Divine  Infpiration. 
 
 'Tis  not  neceflary,  for  a  Book's  being  infpired,  that  it  fftould  be 
 indited  by  God,  word  for  word.  The  falfe  Idea  that  thofè  Authors 
 have  conceived  of  the  Infpiration  of  the  Sacred  Writings,  made  them 
 embrace  an  opinion  which  is  contrary  to  all  Annquity,  as  well  Ju- 
 daical  as  Chnftian.  Jefus  Chnft,  who  pro  mi  fed  to  his  Apoftles, 
 that  the  Spirit  of  God  mould  guide  them  in  all  the  functions  of 
 their  Miniftry,  did  not  therefore,  deprive  them  of  their  Realbn  and 
 Memory  :  Although  they  were  infpired,  they  continued  to  be  Men 
 ftill,  and  managed  their  Affairs  as  other  Men.  I  freely  own,  that 
 there  was  no  need  of  Infpiration,  to  put  in  record  iuch  matters  of 
 Fad,  whereof  they  them  (elves  were  WitnefTes.  But  this  does  not 
 hinder,  but  that  they  were  directed  by  the  Spirit  of  God  in  all  cha: 
 they  put  in  Writing,  fo  as  not  to  fall  into  error. 
 
 It  is  certain,  that  all  the  Ancient  Ecclefiaftical  Writers  did  ac- 
 knowledge this  Infpiration  of  the  Evangelifts  and  Apoftles.  Never- 
 thelefs  they  fpeak  of  their  care ,  and  exaclnefs  in  penning  their 
 Works,  in  the  fame  manner,  as  they  (peak  of  other  Writers,  who 
 are  not  infpired.  Can  Grotir/s  conclude  from  thence,  that  thofe  An- 
 cient Doctors  of  the  Church  did  not  believe,  that  the  Books  of  the 
 New  Teftament  were  g;ven  by  Divine  Inspirations.  This  he  can- 
 not cio,  feeing  thofe  very  Doctors  have  clearly  maintained  it.  We 
 need  but  call  to  mind  what  has  been  laid  in  the  ioth  Chap,  con- 
 cern- 
 
C  fc  3 
 
 ccrning  the  Opinion  of  Tafias,  who  was  contemporary  with  the 
 Diiciples  of  the  Apoftles  :  He  does  allure  us,  that  if  that  Evange- 
 hft,  did  not  obferve  in  his  Hiftory,  the  order  of  things  as  to  their 
 Event,  that  he  was  not  in  the  leaft  to  be  blamed  for  that  ;  becaufc 
 he  made  mention  of  the  things  according  as  he  remembred  them, 
 not  being  (o  careful  to  relate  them  in  their  order,  as  he  was,  to  fay 
 nothing  but  what  was  Truth.  Tafias,  or  rather  one  of  the  Diici- 
 ples of  the  Apoftles ,  (  whofe  words  Tafias  does  produce  in  that 
 place)  did  not  thereby  pretend  to  rejeel:  the  Infpiration  of  the  Go- 
 fpel  of  St.  Mark.  We  need  but  confult  the  other  Ancient  Ecclefi- 
 aftical  Writers,  who  expreffed  themfelvcs  in  fuch  a  manner,  as 
 might  oblige  Grotuts  and  Spinofa  to  believe,  that  they  owned  no  In- 
 spiration in  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament,  if  they  had  not  ex- 
 prefly  maintained  it  in  other  places  of  their  Works.  * 
 
 That  which,  amongft  Chriftians  does  moft  of  all  confirm  the 
 ad  Tim    In*Plrati°n  °f  tnc  Sacred  Writings  ;  is  the  ftrong  Foundation ^hat 
 e.g. v.  i^  the  Apoftle  Taul  has  in  one  of  his  Epiftles  to  Timothy,    all  Scripture 
 is  given  by  Divine  Initiation.     We  have  elle  where  iefuted  all  the 
 fubr.il  allegations  that  were  brought  by  Grotnrs,  who  endeavoured  to 
 the  utmoit  of  his  power,  to  put  quite  another  fènle  on  that  Tallage. 
 •  But  I  made  it  moft  manifeft,  that  that  able  Critick  was  to  be  blam- 
 ed, on  many  accounts,  in  attempting  to  wreft  the  interpretation  of 
 thole  words  of  St.  Taul,  that  he  might  accommodate  them  to  his 
 own  Idea's. 
 
 It  is  liiipi ifing,  that  the  Cardinal  of  Tenon,  who  was  perfwaded 
 of  the  Infpiration  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  inould  neverthelels  have 
 Anfw.to    made  his  11 ion geft  efforts,    for  depriving  Chriftians  of  this  proof 
 the  Der'.of  of  Infpiration.     It  is  cuftomary  amongft  thofe  who  write  Books  of 
 iomcHolL  Controverse,  to  think  of  nothing,  but  anfwenng  the  Objections  of 
 Viv.  c.io.  rheir  Adversaries,   without  examining  the  proper  and  natural  lenle 
 of  the  Parages  of  Scripture,  for  the  confirmation  of  their  own  Opi- 
 nions.    He  followed  this  Method  of  Polemical  Authors,  in  his  An- 
 fwer  to  the  King  of  Great  Britain  :  Seeing  the  Proteftants  forget 
 nothing,  that  may  recommend  the  Authority  of  the  Scripture  alone, 
 TL  Epift.  without  the  aid  of  Traditions,  du  Terron  likewifè,  for  his  part,  for- 
 sdTim.    got  nothing  that  might  enhance  the  Authority  of  Traditions.     The 
 c.  3.  v.  16.  Proteftants  did  object  to  him  thole  words  of  the  Apoftle  Taul,  All 
 Scripture  is  g'iven  by   Divine   In/j-'iriUion,  and  is  prof  table  for  Dotlrine. 
 D  p        Thus  in  ciTcct,  that  place  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy  ought  to  be  rendred; 
 hb.  4.  de  ncvcrthclcb  he  docs  loudly  oppole  this  Tranllation, under  a  pretence, 
 'V,.:d.        that  there  is  not  the  word  oah,  tota,  all  or  the  whole,  in  the  Greek,but 
 /) \rojl .c  4.  mi  ou  y  omms,  all  or  every  ;  and  that  we  do  not  read  with  the  Article, 
 ™™  i>  yec/LM)  ad  the  Scripture,  but  without  the  Article,  raw»  yaw,  all 
 
 Sc'Hture.  To 
 
C.*3  ] 
 
 To  what  purpofe  are  all  thotc  niceties  of  Grammar  and  Dkk ft% 
 which  the  Cardinal  doc;  utc  in  rh.ic  place?   It   i  J.ocs 
 
 alledge  the  Authority  or         'fohn  I  ;,\ ,  7  md  (bme  o- 
 
 ther  Fathers,  for  the  confirmation  or  his  Opinion.  B:.t  I  délire  no 
 other  teftimony  but  theirs,  to  bring  it  r.nder  condemnation  :  And 
 to  avoid  being  tedious,  in  a  tKfng  lo  cahc  to  be  jufrined,  feeing  the 
 Works  of  thole  I  ws  are  every  where  to  be  had,  it  will  (uffice, 
 if  we  inform  oil  es  ot  St.  Jero;ne\  chough's  m  the  dafi  ;  he  is 
 
 of  a  quite  diiFeren:  Opinion  from  that  winch  the  Cardinal  has  Fa- 
 ther'd  on  him.     That  Learned  Bilhop  does  not  lay,  with  the  Car- 
 dinal, that   chat  Patîage  ough:  to  be  understood,    âitknbût'wcly y  by 
 tranflating  it.  all  Scripture,  and  not  collectively,  by  trani  lacing  it,  . 
 the  Script  are:  He  does  on  the  contra-f,  allure  us  in  his  Homily,  u\>  c'' 
 on  thole  words  of  St.  Taul,  that  chat  Holy  Apolile  does  (peak  of  all  **<»» 
 the  Holy  Scr;v:nre}  which  Timothy  \\\&  iludied  irom  his  Infancy;  and  Jj,'n 
 he  concludes,  that  alt  that  Scripture  is  profitable,  an  I  given  by  the 
 Infpiration   of  God.     n*V^  «  >j  tvhwtii  àç'iMuQ-  x)  5frkrd*rQ%     But  by 
 the  Scripture  that  is  fpoken  of  in  that  place,  it  is  evident  that  we  ftulft 
 underftand  all  the  Old  Teftamenc. 
 
 It  is  in  no  wife  likely.,  that  du  Perron  himfelf  had  re.ul  St.  John 
 Chryfojtomes  Homily,  or  any  other  of  the  Greek  Fathers  whom  he 
 cites.  That  which  deceived  thole  who  read  them  for  him,  and  gave 
 him  an  abftracl  of  their  pretended  fencimems,  w,  that  they  coniiik- 
 ed  only  the  Latin  Veriion  of  that  Homily,  where  it  is,  according  tc 
 the  vulgar  Tranllation,  Omnis  Scnptura  divimtus  infptrata  eft  util::, 
 1.  e.  All  Scripture  that  is  given  by  the  Infpiration  of  Go  J  is  br 
 But  it  was  (hewn  eliewhere,  that  in  the  arisen:  vulgar,  it  was  Ik  r.- 
 rata  &  utilis  i.  e.  //  inspired  and  profitable  ;  as  it  is  m  the  Greek,  and 
 that  we  are  to  expound  that  Paffage  .collectively  and  not  d::r.bu- 
 tively. 
 
 We  may  nevertheleG,  very  well  givethit  fenfc  alio  to  the  vulgar, 
 as  the  rendition  is  at  this  day  ;  according  to  that  reading  the  TYan- 
 flation  will  be,  AH  the  Scripture  which  was  given  by  IttfcAatien  ti  pro- 
 fitable, and  not  with  Amelote,  and  with  the  Authors  of  the  Mon: 
 Tranflation,  All  Scripture  that  has  been  given  by  Divine  In 
 profitable.  Ihe  Syriack,  Arabick}  and  Ethiopick  Veriions,  i  ..  i  thac 
 Cardinal  pretends  to  be  Favourable  to  him,  haice  quite  another  icnfc 
 than  what  he  does  attribute  to  them,  as  I  have  fhewn,  in  the  Anfwev 
 to  the  Defence  of  tie  Opinons  of  fome  Holland  Divines,  concern:;.?   t>.  ^° 
 
 Critical  Hijrory  of  the  Old  Ttfament. 
 
 But  to  proceed,  I  do  not  comprehend,  why  the  Cardinal  du  ter-, 
 ron  does  difpute  with  [o  i  vigour  about  the  manner  of  Tranila- 
 
 ting  that  Partage  of  St.  faul,  and  that  from  thence  he  ^.ocs  infer, 
 
1 64  ] 
 
 that  if  it  prove  any  tiling,  if  muft  be,  that  every  Canonical  Writing 
 -)i\is  fufficient)  by  tt  (elf}  for  uni  ver fal  inflrutlton  mall  the  Chriftian  Re- 
 ligion. The  word  *»**  (iàith  he)  without  an  Article,  does  denote 
 every  piece  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  diftributively.  But  the  Greek 
 Fathers  did  not  wire-draw  St  Paul's  words  after  that  manner,  but 
 did  expound  them,  as  it  in  effect,  they  had  read  ™°*  w  y&$*u  all 
 the  Scripture,  with  the  Article.  The  Catholicks  ought  alio  to  agree 
 with  the  Protcf rants,  that  all  the  Scripture  ts  profitable  for  infirutfton  : 
 which  does  not  at  all  exclude  Traditions,  which  being  joyned  to 
 Scripture,  does  compole  the  Principle  upon  which  the  Chriftian  Re- 
 ligion is  Founded  :  Anil  therefore  there  is  nothing  but  fubtilty  in 
 
 all  the  Cardinal's  difpute,  who  would  pafs  his  ichned  impertincncies 
 for  a  Comment  on  thoic  wordt  of  the  ApolUe  ;  and  who  bids  defi- 
 ance, in  that  adventure  to  all  Antiquity, 
 
 Ejtit/s  on  the  contrary,  has  allowed  too  large  a  (enic  to  the  fame 
 Partage,  lie  has  indeed,  interpreted  the  Vulgar  very  well,  accord- 
 ing to  the  Greek  Text  ;  from  which  the  Latin  was  taken.  But  he 
 went  beyond  the  lenle,  (/)  when  he  did  conclude  fiom  thencc,that 
 all  the  Holy  Scripture  was  indited  by  the  Spirit  ot  God,  not  only 
 as  to  the  matter,  or  things  therein  contained,  but  alfô  111  refpeel: 
 or  the  words  and  all  their  circumitances  ;  (b  as  there  is  no  word  in 
 Scripture,  nor  any  order  by  ranging  of  words,  but  what  comes  from 
 God.  This  Opinio»  is  very  little  agreeable  to  the  Do&rin  of  the 
 Ancient  Kcclchalhcal  Writers,  who  teemed  not  to  have  ftrctched 
 that  Inipiration  beyond  the  things  thendelvcs.  But  E(li//s ,  who 
 taught  Theology  in  the  Univerdty  oiDouay,  was  obliged  to  (peak 
 the  Language  of  the  Divines  of  that  place,  who  had  made  a  Decree, 
 Upon  that  matter-,  againlt  the  Fathers,  the  Jeluits  of  Louvam,  who 
 had  (et  out  ibaie  proportions  directly  oppoiice  thereunto.  Beiides, 
 £///>// was  the  Principal  Author  of  thecenduc  to  which  tho(e  pro- 
 portions were  cxpofed.  We  lhall  give  here  a  full  account  of  the 
 difference,  that  happened  between  thofe  Doctors  of  Louvam  and 
 Douay,  and  the  Jeiùits  of  the  Colledg  of  Louvam  about  the  Point  of 
 Infpiration. 
 
 It  is  not  of  late,  that  the  Divines,  who  make  profeffionof  fol- 
 ic,wing  St.slugu/tme  in  their  Schools  and  Books,  have  oppofed  the 
 Theology  of  the  lathers  the  Jeluits.  Thoie  Fathers  having  am  586. 
 maintained  in  their  Colledge  of  Louvam  lbme  Propodtions  upon 
 
 (  t  ;  l{tilc  tyitur  (3  verifjimè  ex  hoc  loco  ftatuitur,  omm?n  Scripturam  SâCroM 
 (2  dwomeatn  Spin  tu  Sancto  Hitlerite  e(Je  eonjcriptam  ;  itAtmnnhtn,  ut  non  Jolïtm 
 jententtte,  fid  (J  lerha  /insula  e?  wdomm  ordo  ac  tot  a  dijpojitio  Jit  à   Deo  t.v.- 
 <ju,im  per  Jemetipjnm  lujucntc.  Hit.  Coinm.  in  Epilt.  II.  ad  Tnnot.  c.  4.  v.  16. 
 
 the 
 
Ê*J3 
 
 the  Subje&of  Grace,  Predeftination  and  the  Holy  Scripture,  which 
 appeared  now  to  the  Doctors  of  Louvam  and  Douay;  theft  Doctors 
 did  ceniurc  them,  and  withal  publiihed  the  reafons  of  their  ccnlure: 
 Seeing  we  do  noc  (peak  in  this  place,  of  Grace  and  Predestination, 
 but  only  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  I  Hull  infill  on  Rich  things  only  as 
 Concern  the  Scripture.  You  may  take  a  view  o(  the  Title  of  the 
 Ceniuit  iffued  out  by  the  Divines  of  Louvam,  as  it  was  Printed  at 
 Pans,  at  the  end  of  a  Book  entitled,  Flurentu  Conru  Peregnnus  Je- 
 richur.tmits,  Cenfura  Facultatum  Sacrée  Theologix  Lovanien/is  ac  Dua- 
 cén/is  fuper  quibufdam  Articulés  de  Sacra  Scriptttrd,  &c  anno  Dot/; 
 1586.  Scripto  traduis.  The  Cenfure  is  directed  to  all  the  Body  of 
 the  Jefuits  of  Louvam,  in  thefe  Terms  ;  Reverendts  m  Chnffo  Pat,;- 
 bits,  Patri  Reclori  ac  Profeftoribus  cœterifyue  Patribits  Collegu  Societatis  no- 
 minis  Jefu  m  Univerfitaie  Lovanunfi,  Decamts  &reliqui  Facnltatis  m 
 eddem  Vmverfilate  Magijtri,  œternam  fahitem  pacemque  precamur. 
 
 Thofè  Wife  Matters,  whilfl:  they  declared  againft  the  Jefuits  a 
 War  that  was  never  to  have  an  end,  do  not  fail  to  wiih  them  eter- 
 nal Peace  :  They  call  their  Dodxin,  ftrange,  (candalous  and  dan- 
 gerous, peregrma,  offenfiva  &  penculofa  dogmata.  Amongft  the  Pro- 
 politions  which  they  cenfured,  there  are  three  which  run  thus,  (g) 
 i.  That  a  thing  mould  be  Holy  Scripture,  it  is  not  neceflary  thac 
 all  the  words  thereof  mould  be  înlpired  by  God.  i.  It  is  not  ne- 
 cefliry  for  all  Truths  and  Sentences,  to  be  immediatly  indited  by 
 Infpiration  to  the  WTnter.  3.  A  Book,  as  for  example,  the  fécond 
 of  the  Maccabees,  which  was  written  by  Men  only  without  the  affi- 
 ftance  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  does  afterwards  become  Holy  Scripture, 
 if  the  Holy  Spirit  doth  certifie  that  there  is  nothing  that  is  falfè,  m 
 that  Book. 
 
 Thefe  three  Proportions  were  extracted  out  of  the  Writings  of 
 the  Fathers  the  Jefuits,  who  taught  Theology  in  the  College  of 
 Louvam  ;  and  they  werefb  far  from  condemning  them,  upon  a  re- 
 monftrance  made  to  them,  that  they  were  (candalous,  that  they  (red- 
 ly defended  them  ,  adding  thereunto  new  explications  :  ab  ujdem 
 ibidem  Profejjoribtis  fro  fuis  agriita,  comprobatœ,  jcholnjque  iUuftrata, 
 They  appeared  to  be  really  agreeable  to  good  ienlè,  neither  do  they 
 much  vary  from  the  Theology  of  the  Ancient  Fathers,  whom  we  are 
 
 (  g)  ZJt  aliquid  fit  Scriptura  Sacra,  non  eft  necejjarium  j\ngu!a  e;us  verba  itijpi  - 
 rata  fjje  a  Spiritu  Sancto»  II.  Kon  eft  necejfarium  ut  finguut  ver  nates  &  J enten- 
 te* nnt  immediate  à  Spirit  it  Sanlïo  ipfi  Jcnpton  injpirata,  111  Liber  aliqm 
 quaits  fortajje  eft  Jtcnndus  Maccabceornm,  humana  indujhiàjine  ajjijient  la  Spirit  us 
 Sdn'cii  fcriptuSy  ft  Spintus  Santlus  fofteà  teftetur  ibi  nihil  effi  tm,  efficitur 
 Scriptura  Sacra.  Jefuit.  Colleg.  Lov.  n.  ailèrt.  .;pud  Flbr.Coqr. 
 
 1 
 
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  acl:  of  injultice  againfî  the  Society  of  the  Jefuits  : 
 The  words  of  the  Cenfure,  as  to  their  purport,  are  (b)  that  thofe 
 three  AiTertions,  did  come  near  to  the  ancient  Herefie  of  the  Am- 
 means,  who  were  of  Opinion,  that  the  Prophets  and  the  ^.poftles 
 had  frequently  fpolcen,  as  other  private  Men,  and  to  the  fentiments 
 of  thofe,  of  whom  St.  Jerome  makes  mention,  in  the  Preface  of  his 
 Commentaries  upon  the  Epiftle  of  Sr,  Paul  to  Philemon  ;  which  Opi- 
 nion was  cenfured  in  the  Pe.fon  of  Erajmr/T.  They  do  further  op- 
 pofe  to  thofe  AiTertions,  the  Council  of  Trent,  the  words  of  St.  Pc- 
 ter}  in  his  fécond  Epiftle;  of  St.  Paul,  in  his  fécond  Epiftle.  to  Timo- 
 thy',  and  finally,  the  Authority  of  the  Ancient  Fathers  ;  who  aflure 
 us,  that  the  Tongue  and  Hand  of  the  Holy  Writers,  were  madeufe 
 of  as  a  Pen  by  the  Holy  Ghoft. 
 
 Before  we  enter  upon  a  difcuffion  of  what  concerns  the  Divines 
 of  Louvain^  we  mail  relate  the  Cenfùre  of  the  Faculty  of  Theology 
 or  Douay,  Thefe  Divines  declare,  that  they  have  examined  the 
 Propositions  of  the  Jefuits,  by  the  Order  of  the  Archbifhops  of  Cam- 
 bray  and  of  Malmes,  and  of  the  Bifhop  of  Gand  :  They  do  notccon- 
 demn  them  ingrofs,  as  the  Doctors  of  Louvain  had  done,  but  they 
 apply  their  Cenfure  to  each  Propohtion  in  particular.  To  the  two 
 firft  they  oppofe  St.  Augufiine,  who  did  (according  to  their  Opinion) 
 believe,  that  the  Sacred  Writers  received  from  God,  a  particular  fih 
 cult  y  and  method  of  delivering  and  compofing  their  difcourfe*  They  do 
 alfb  quote  Gabriel  a  Scholaftick  Divine  ;  who  affirmed,  that  the  Apo- 
 flles  were  Infpired  with  many  natural  Truths,  and  that  a  Book 
 might  be  infpired,  although  there  be  pains  and  meditation  ufèd  in 
 its  compofure.  Thofe  Divines. do  likewilè  give  for  an  Example, 
 Joius  Chnft,  (0  who  (fay  they)  if  he  had  written  any  Book,  might 
 as  a  Man  have  meditated,  and  applyed  himfèlf  to  that  Work,although 
 his  Spirit,  his  Mouth,  his  Tongue,  his  Hands,  and  his  Fingers  would 
 continually  have  been  the  Inftruments  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  And 
 thus  the  Do&ors  of  Douay  do  endeavour  to  deftroy  the  Propositions 
 
 (  h  )  Très  HU  ajfertioncs  accéder e  videntur  ad  damnât  am  olim  Anomœornm  oJ>j~ 
 Menem,  qui  Vrvphetas  &  Apcfîolos  m  multis  volebant  ut  homines  fiujje  locutos,  ut 
 refer t  Epit>hanius,  Hœreji  76.  &  ad  eorum  fententiam  quam  frafatione  in  Epiflo- 
 lam  ad  Pl.ulemonem  &  alibi  Hieronymus  reprchendit,  de  qua  &  ?iotatus  Erajmus 
 fuit.  Cenf.  Fac.  Theol.  Lovan. 
 
 (1)  St  Jcribcrevolutffet,  labor  em  nonnunquam  &  mcditationem  fimuJque  indu- 
 fir  1  am  aliquam  adhiberc  potuit  hnmanam,  quamvis  interim  fpiritus  ejus  huntanus, 
 itemque  osy  lingua,  manu  s ,  digiii  perpétua  qiuedain-ejftnt  instrumenta  Divini  Spi- 
 rit us.  Ccnf.  Theol.  Duac. 
 
 of 
 
C  67  3 
 
 of  the  Jefuits  of  Lcwva'in,  which  to  them  appeared  to  he  fcandalouî  : 
 And  alio  under  a  pretence  of  ihewing,  that  they  iubvert  all  Religion, 
 iû  (peaking  to  the  fécond  Propohtion,  they  add,  that  (/•)  if  it  be 
 once  granted,  that  it  is  not  neceiluv,  that  every  Truth  and  Sen- 
 tence mould  be  immediatiy  indited  by  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  th 
 will  be  endlefs  diiputcs,  not  only  about  that  which  is  particularly  de- 
 livered in  Scripture  by  immediate  Infpiration,  but  alio  about  entire 
 Gofpels,  the  Hiftory  of  which  may  be  known  in  a  humane  manner  : 
 It  will  be  alio  queftion'd,  in  general  it  all  the  Books  of  the  Scri- 
 pture that  are  not  Prophetical,  have  been  immediatiy  fuggefted  by 
 the  Holy  Ghoft,  to  thofè  who  were  the  Writers  thereof. 
 
 The  third  Propoiition  appeared  to  thofe  Divines,  to  be  the  mod 
 dangerous  of  all,  and  oppoiïte  to  the  words  of  Sr.  Paul,  who  does  al- 
 lure us,  that  all  the  Scripture  is  given  by  the  Infpiration  of  God,  and 
 a  Divine  Do&rin,  which  was  indited  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  for 
 this  Real  on,  (lay  they)  that  the  Decrees  of  Popes  and  of  Councils, 
 were  never  reckoned  in  the  number  of  Divine  Writings;  although 
 the  Holy  Ghoft  does  teftihe  by  the  Church,  that  there  is  nothing  that 
 is  falfe  in  thofe  Decrees.  And  finally  they  add,  that  that  third  Pro- 
 poiition of  the  Jefuits  of  Louvain  could  not  be  maintained,  without 
 acknowledging,  that  the  Hiftones  of  Thucydide: 9  and  of  L/i//e,might 
 for  the  famereafon  be  reckoned  amonglt  the  Books  of  the  Scripture; 
 if  the  Holy  Ghoft  mould  teftifie  to  us,  that  there  is  nothing  of  fal- 
 Ihood  in  thole  Hiitones.  They  conclude  their  Ceniiire  with  this 
 Maxim:  (I  J  That  a  thing  is  not  therefore  given  by  Divine  Inipira- 
 tion  ;  becaufè  it  lo  falls  out,  that  it  is  approved  of  afterwards  ;  but 
 that,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  approved,  becaufè  it  was  Infpired.  Lee 
 us  now  fee,  if  the  Doctors  of  the  two  Faculties  of  Theology  had 
 reafon  to  condemn  thofe  three  Proportions,  in  terms  that  are  inju- 
 rious to  the  Society  of  the  Jefuits. 
 
 'Tis  obiervable,  that  before  all  thefè  things,  thejefuits,  who  pub- 
 lished at  Rome,  an.  15H6.  a  Directory  tor  the  Studies  or  their  So- 
 ciety, Entitled,  Ratio  Studiorum,  have  placed  this  Propoiuum  con- 
 cerning the  Infpiration  of  the  Sacred  Writings,  amonglt  thole  which 
 
 (  k)  Si  non  eft  nccejjarium  ut  fmgula  leritatcs  (y  fintettti*  Junt  in  Sac 
 
 Lit  arts  immediate  Jim  a  Spiritu  Sanclo  iffi  firipun  i/ijpir.a.i',  non  moS  jequetur 
 tndeterminabilis  alter  cat  10  fupcr  jcr.ttmiis  immediate  veinon  in*  iratis, 
 
 verum  etiam  de  mtegris  Evangcins,  quorum  htftoiia  potuit  but         »s  cjje  nut  a  ; 
 imb^  de  omnibus  Scrip  tun  s  non  Vropheticis  âubitabii  n  immediate  Spir. 
 
 Sanclui  easfcrtptoribus  uijpiravcrit.  Theol.  Diuc  ibid. 
 
 f  I  y  Non  ennn  ideo  mjpiratum  aliquid  divmitus  ejly  quod  pffteàjie  r-  tum  ; 
 
 fed  ideo  efl  apprcbatum,  quia  f tier  at  divmitus  mjpiratum.  ibid. 
 
 I  2  th 
 
[68] 
 
 their  Divines  ought  to  prefer  to  orhers  :  (m)  It  is  more  probable  (  fay 
 they)  that  the  fir  ft  and  Original  Copies,  which  were  not  corrupted,  were 
 all  particularly  indited  by  the  Holy  Ghoft,  as  to  what  concerns  the  fub- 
 ftance,  but  in  a  different  m. inner  according  to  the  different  condition  of  the 
 Inftruments. 
 
 By  that  we  fee,  that  the  Jefuits  of  Rome  did  not  believe  at  that 
 time ,  that  the  fame  Infpiration  is  to  be  acknowledged  in  all  the 
 Books  of  the  Scripture  ;  and  when  they  fay,  that  every  word  was  In- 
 ipired,  they  add  withal,  as  to  what  concerns  the  Subftance.  Befîdes, 
 they  do  not  maintain  this  Infpiration  of  words,  as  to  what  belongs 
 to  the  fubftance,  but  as  a  probable  Opinion;  fo  that  they  believe,that 
 that  may  be  alfo  denied  with  probability.  It  is  true,  that  the  Opi- 
 nion of  thofè  two  Faculties  of  Theology,  belonging  to  Lowuain  and 
 Douay}  was  then  moft  received  in  the  Schools.  But  the  Jefuits,  who 
 from  that  time,  have  had  Learned  Men  in  their  Society,  faw  very 
 well,  that  it  was  contradictory  to  good  fenfè  ;  and  likewifè  oppofite 
 to  the  molt  Ancient  Doctors  of  the  Church.  Thofe  of  their  Col- 
 lege of  Louvain,  did  nothing  that  was  contrary  to  the  Rule  or  Con- 
 stitution of  their  Foundation  ;  which  (n)  does  exprelly  forbid  the 
 introducing  of  nnv  Opinions,  for  the  fame  rule  does  proceed,  unlefe  it 
 be  done  with  the  confent  of  the  Superiors. 
 
 There  is  nothing  more  judicious,  than  the  Liberty  of  Opinion, 
 which  is  granted  by  the  Conftitutions  of  that  Society  to  its  Profef 
 fors,  in  the  manner  as  it  is  limited,  (0)  Father  Ignatius  did  ordain, 
 that  in  every  Science  whatfoever,  they  mould  follow  the  moll  certain 
 and  the  mo  ft  received  Do&rine.  But  feeing  it  is  not  eafieto  diftitv 
 guifh,  what  arc  the  moft  certain  and  the  moft  received  Opinions  ; 
 he  decreed,  that  the  choice  fhould  depend  on  the  Re&or,  who  ought 
 to  embrace,  for  the  greater  Glory  of  God,  that  which  was  maintain- 
 ed in  the  whole  Society. 
 
 And  the  truth  is,  the  Jefuits  did  no  fooner  appear  in  the  World, 
 
 (  m  3  Probabiliw  eft  verba  primorum  exemplarium  ac  fontium  incorruptorum 
 fuiffe  omnia  (3  fingula  à  Spiritu  Santlo  diliata  fecundhm  fubftantiam,  multiforme 
 ter  tamen  pro  varia  inftrumentorum  conditionc.  Rat.  ftud.  edit.  Rom.  tit.  de  reliq. 
 opin.  del.  in  Theol.  fac. 
 
 (  n  )  Fundator  conflit  utionum,  3.  part.  c.  1  o.  difertis  verbis  cavet  nc  nova  opini- 
 oncs  admittantur.  Quod  tamen  m  Juavius  ficret  adduum  eft,  hacformuL\y  mfi  ex 
 conjenfu  prcepofuorum.  Rat.  itud.  tit.  de  del.  opin. 
 
 (o)  Sequantur,  ait  Ignatius ,  in  quavis  facultate  fecuriorcm  &  wagis approbatam 
 dotlrinam,  (3  eosauftores  qui  earn  docent.  Et  ne  fingulis  liber -urn -effet  judicium  de 
 inagis  approbate  &  fccuriorc  dotlrink  deligendà,  flatim  fubdit,  Cujus  rei  penes  %e- 
 cïorem,  qui  quod  ftatuetur  in  universà  Socictatc  ad  major  cm  Dei  gloriamj'ccuturus 
 eft,  cura  fit.  ibid. 
 
 but 
 
c  6?  ] 
 
 but  there  was  a  birth  given  to  much  mora  confi  affirmances, 
 
 for  the  ftu.lv  of  Theology,  than  had  e  !      ;j  i  that  time. 
 
 Anil  therefore  they  did  wifely*  that  they  w€  lot  altogether  devoted 
 to  the  Opinions  of  St.  Tbomas%  and  S^Augnfiin^  though  they  were 
 teloufly  embraced  in  the  moft  part  of  the  LJniverfities  at  that  time. 
 They  had  realon  in  that  cafe,  not  to  follow  blindly  the  Opinions 
 that  were  moft  received  in  the  Schools  m  then-  time,  concerning  the 
 Inspiration  of  the  Sacred  Writings.  This  liberty  of  Prophétie,  winch 
 had  heen  agreed  upon,  in  behalf  of  their  Profeflors  of  Theology, 
 did  afford  them  .in  occahon  or  making  new  dilcovencs  in  this  Sci- 
 ence :  and  to  this  I  impute  the  rigor  with  which  the  Jefilits  of  Lou-vain 
 maintain  their  Opinions  about  Infpiration,  without  troubling  them- 
 (elves  about  the  Belief  of  the  two  Faculties  of  Theology  ot  Lou-vain 
 and  Douay,  who  hid  not  carefully  enough  examined  that  matter. 
 
 Notwithstanding  the  Cenfures  or  thole  two  Faculties,  they  con- 
 tinued to  teach,  in  their  College  of  Louva'm,  the  fame  Opinions  con- 
 cerning the  Infpiration  ot  the  Sacred  Writings.  Father  Qorrxl'wi  à 
 Lapide,  a  few  years  after  that  time,  kept  up,  in  the  feme  place,  pub- 
 lick  Lectures  on  the  Holy  Scriptures;  which  he  continued  for  the 
 /pace  of  fixteen  years.  He  like  wife  published  thole  Lectures  by  the 
 Order  of  the  Archbifhop  of  Malmes,  and  or  his  Superiors,  begin- 
 ning in  his  Commentaries  with  the  Epiftles  of  St.  Paul,  which  he  did 
 Dedicate  to  the  Archbifhop.  But  in  the  Expofition  which  he  gives 
 of  the  Paiîage  of  that  Apoftle,  where  he  (peaks  of  the  Scriptures 
 being  given  by  the  Infpiration  of  God  ,  he  is  altogether  againft 
 Eftws,  who  was  at  the  fame  time  Profeilor  in  the  Univerfity  of 
 Douay.  It  is  mamfeft,  that  that  Jeiuit  did  iniift  on  that  difficulty 
 on  purpofe,  and  that  he  then  had  an  Eye  to  the  Cenfures  of  the 
 Divines  of  Louva'm  and  Douay.  He  maintained  in  his  Commenta- 
 ries upon  that  place  of  St.  Paul,  the  Proportions  which  his  Docto-s. 
 had  condemned. 
 
 Although  the  Commentaries  or  Cirnelitrs  à  La  fide  may  be  had  eve- 
 ry where,  it  is  convenient  to  let  down  his  own  words  in  this  place,, 
 by  which  we  may  perceive  that  the  Jefuitsof  Louva'm  did  not  regard 
 the  Cenfures  of  the  Divines  there,     (p)  Obfer-ve,  (feith  that  JeluitJ 
 
 (p)  Nota  Spirit um  Sancîum  non  eodem  modo  diclajje  omnes  Sacrai  Liu 
 Nam  Legem  {£  Prophet  ai  ad  verbum  revelavit  &  didavit  Moji  &  Prophetis.  Hi- 
 Jt  or  i  as  verb  (3  morales  exhort  a?  tones,  quas  antca  vcl  viftt,  vei  auditu,  i-el  letliont, 
 vel  meditatione  didtctrant  ipfi  Jcriptores  hagiographie  non  fuit  necejje  injpi 
 a. it  diclari  à  Spiritu  Santlo,  utpotc  cùm  eas  Jcirent  ant  caller -ont  tpfiJQriptores.  Sic 
 S.  Joannes,  c.  I  9.  v.  35.  dicit  Je  fer  lb  ere  qiue  vidit.  S.Lucas  too,  c.  i.  v.  z.  dicit 
 fejcribere  Evangelium  quod  audivit  (3  traditione  accepit  ab  Apeftohs.  Cornel  A  L.ip. 
 Coinm.  in  Epift, II  «id  Tim.  c.  3.  v.  1 6. 
 
 tl 
 
[  To  ] 
 
 .    Hûlj   Ghofi  did   not  indite  all  the  Sacred  Writings  after  the 
 fa?ne  manner.     For  ke  indited  the-  Words  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  to 
 Motes  and  the  Prophets.     But  as  to  the  Hi/lortes,  and  the  Exhortations 
 to  Piety y  which  the  Holy  Pen- Men  had  learned,  by  feeing,  hearing, read- 
 «£,  or  meditation,  it    was  not   at  all  necejjary,    that    they  fljould  be  fo- 
 wl or  Indited  by  the    Spirit  ofXjod\  becaufethofe    Writers  knew  fuch 
 -ings  very  well.     And  thus  Srjohn  Chap.xix.  15.  does  iky,  that  he  writ 
 '  :ch  he  had  feen.     St.  Luke  does  alfo  declare,  Chap.  i.  2.  That  he 
 bis  Gofpel,  according  to  what  he  had  learned  of  the  Apoftles.     All 
 rhis  is  manifeftlv  contrary  to  the  Cenfares  of  the  Doctors  of  Louvain 
 and  Douay.    That  Jeluic  does  deliver  himfelf  in  a  clear  and  diftinct 
 maimer.     He  very  exquifitely  confirais  the  Opinion  of  thofè  of  his 
 Society,    who  had  caught  Theology  before  him  in  the  College  of 
 Louvam. 
 
 But  feeing  it  may  be  objected  that  this  Opinion  is  the  fame  with 
 that  of  Grctim  and  Spinofa,  who  acknowledged  no  other  Inspiration 
 Lie  chat  of  the  Prophetical  Writings,  it  is  worth  the  while  to  fub- 
 jov:i  chat  which  Cornelius  à  Lapide  oblèrved  in  the  fame  place,  con- 
 îrning  the  manner  of   Infpiration  that  concerns  Hiftoncal  and 
 Moral  part  of  the  Holy  Scripture.  (q)Neverthelefs,they  affirm  (faith  \\q) 
 that  thefe  latter  Works  were  alfo  Indited  by  the  Holy  Ghofi,  firfi,  becaufe 
 did  .         the  Writers^  that  they  could  never  be  deceived:  and  again, 
 caufe  be  fagge/led  to  them,  that  one  thing  jhould  be  rather  written  than 
 So  that  the  Holy  Spirit  did  not  fuggefi  to  them  either  their  con- 
 ceptions, or  the  remembrance  of  thofe  things  which  they  knew;  but  did  In- 
 fpire  them  in  this  refpecl  only,  that  they  might  put  one  conception  m  writ' 
 ing,  rather  than  another.     In  this,  the  Infpiration  of  the  Historical, 
 and  Moral  Wnnngs  of  the  Holy  Scripture  did  confift,  according  to 
 the  Opinion  of  that  learned  Jeluic;   wherein  nothing  appears  but 
 what  is  good  Senle  ;  whereas  in  the  Opinion  of  the  Doctors  of  Lou- 
 vain  and  Douay,  (which  is  the  lame  with  chat  of  the  Calvwifis)  there 
 is  fomthmg  unintelligible,  that  does  violence  both  to  Reafbn  and 
 Experience. 
 
 It  cannot  be  laid  that  this  Opinion  is  a  Novelty  that  was  unad- 
 vifedlv  aifeited  by  that  Jefuit.  For  he  maintained  it  in  the  fame 
 Schools,  where  that  Difpute  had  made  lb  great  a  noife,  upon  the  oc- 
 cafion  of  Some  Propoiuions  that  were  put  out  upon  that  Subject,  by 
 
 (  q  )  Dicitur  tamen  Spiritus  Sanciiis  ea  <juo<]ue  Wis  dict.ijje,  primo,  quia  fcriben- 
 
 tibm  adftitit,  ne  vel  in  puncio  à  vent  ate  iiberrarcnt  :  feewnto    quia  cos  exatavit 
 
 &  juggefju,  nt  i.ece  potiiis  fcribcroJ  quam  ilhu     Qonccptum  ergo  &  nutnonam 
 
 m  qua  jeubant  non  eu  i"gcfju  S  pu  it  us  Santlus,  fed  injpiravit  m  hunc  potihs 
 
 icïtccptum  quam  ilium  Jcrilci  cm.    Corn,  à  L.ipid.  ibid. 
 
 fomc 
 
[7i   ] 
 
 Tome  Divines  of  ins  Society.    IL*  iras  very  much  de 
 
 that  Qucftion  in  his  Commentaries  upon  St.  Paul,  to  make  it  appear 
 
 to  all  the  World,  that  the  (  ten  fares  or  the  two  Faculties  of  The 
 
 of  Louvam  And  Dmsj  had  no  Foundation,  and  chat  they  were        -lit 
 
 Reaibn.     Further,  the  Provincial  of  the  Jefuits  of  the  Lvw-Coun\ 
 
 who  gave  his  approbation  to  that  Book,  does  declare  that  he^  himi 
 had  read  it,  and  had  committed  it  to  the  Examination  of  four  Di- 
 vines of  his  Society.  There  is  alio  at  the  beginning  of  thofe  Com- 
 mentaries, an  Approbation  of  the  Ccnlorof  the  Books  of  that  place, 
 who  is  a  Canon  of  Anvers.  But  that  the  World  may  beintirely  (a- 
 nsticd,  that  there  is  nothing  cither  icandalous  or  dangerous,  m  the 
 Opinion  of  the  Jetutts  of  the  Lav  Countries y  touching  the  Infpn  ation 
 of  the  Sacred  Writings,  we  (kail  proceed  to  examin  the  Realôns 
 upon  which  the  Divines  oi  Lett  va  in  and  of  Douay  did  found  their 
 Ccn  Cures. 
 
 Chap.     XXlV. 
 
 An  Examination  of  the  ^afons  that  the  Doctors  of  Lou- 
 vain  and  Douay  made  ufe  of  in  their  Cenjure  of  th: 
 Tropojïtions  of  the  Jefuits  of  Louvam  ,  touching  the 
 Infpiration  of  the  Sacred  Writings.  A  very  free  Opi- 
 nion of  a  Learned  Divine  of  Paris  about  the  fame 
 thing. 
 
 SEeing  I  have  no  other  publick  Records  of  the  Fathers  the  Jefuits 
 of  Louvain,  to  juftifie  their  Proportions  concerning  the  In  (pu- 
 nition of  Scripture,  than  what  I  have  already  mentioned,  I  l'hall  en- 
 deavour to  fupply  that  defeft,  by  examining  the  Realôns  of  the  Cen- 
 fure  of  the  two  Faculties  of  Theology  of  Louvam  and  of  Douay.  I  am 
 willing  to  believe  that  thofe  Divines  had  no  other  dehgn  therein,  but 
 what  was  for  the  Defence  of  the  Truth,  or  rather  their  own  old 
 Opinions,  and  that  Paffion  had  no  part  in  all  that  Difpute.  As  to 
 what  concerns  the  Jefuits,  it  is  probable,  that  they  had  not  intro- 
 duced that  Opinion  into  the  Colledges  of  ¥lanchrsy  but  in  confor- 
 mity to  the  Liberty  which  had  been  granted  to  their  Profcilois,  not 
 to  ingage  themielves  ealily  in  the  maintenance  of  any  Opinions, 
 how  old  (bever,  when  they  did  not  appear  to  be  warrantable.     In  a 
 
 wordj 
 
C  7i  3 
 
 word,  the  Jefuks  make  no  profeffion  of  fubmitting  to  the  decifions 
 of  a  Mafter,  as  a  Rule  from  which  there  is  no  appeal,  non  jurant  in 
 verba  Magi  fin.  And  feeing  there  is  nothing  in  that  conduce,  but 
 what  does  become  wife  Men,  they  are  much  to  be  blamed  who  ac- 
 cule them  for  oppohng  the  Opinions  that  are  received  and  authorifed 
 in  the  moft  part  of  the  Schools  ;  when  thofe  Opinions  have  no 
 good  Foundation  :  which  happened  co  them  in  the  matter  which 
 we  now  handle. 
 
 The  Divines  of  Louvain  bring  for  one  of  the  principal  motives  of 
 their  Cenfure,  the  conformity  that  the  three  Propofitions  of  the  Je- 
 fuitshave  to  an  old  Opinion  that  was  condemned  in  the  Anomeans  3 
 whereof  St.  Epiphamus  all  through  makes  mention.  But  to  fhewthe 
 falihood  of  this  objection,  it  will  be  fufficient  to  bring  the  Teftimo- 
 ny  of  Epipbanim.  That  Father  does  fay,  that  the  Anomeans  (a)  tra- 
 duced the  Prophets  and  the  Evangehfts:  that  when  they  were  much 
 urged,  they  avoided  the  difficulty  by  anfwering,  that  the  Apoftle 
 ake  as  a  Man.  Is  there  any  thing  in  thole  three  Propofitions  above 
 mentioned  that  comes  near  this?  Did  the  Jefuits  of  the  College  of 
 Louvain  alledge,  that  there  might  poffibly  be  fbmthing  that  is  falfe 
 in  the  Writings  of  the  Apoftles,  under  the  pretext  that  they  weje 
 Men  that  (pake  it?  Yet  that  is  the  Opinion  of  the  Anomeans 3  who 
 being  unable  to  fatisfie  the  Reafbns  that  were  brought  againft  them, 
 out  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament,  (aid  that  the  Authors  of 
 thofe  Books  had  fpoken  as  Men  in  tholè  places. 
 
 We  ihall  apply  the  fame  Anfwer  to  another  Objection  which  thofè 
 Doctors  did  take  from  the  Preface  o£  Sz.Jcroms  Commentaries  upon 
 the  Epiftle  of  the  Apoftle  Paul  to  Fbiler»m.     That  Father  does,  in 
 that  place,   make  mention  of  certain  Hereticks  who  rejected  that 
 Epiftle,  becaufè  they  alledged  that  that  Holy  Apoftle  was  not  guided 
 Hieron.     by  the  Spirit  of  God  in  writing  it.     Thoje  who  will  net  (faith  he  J  re~ 
 froatm.      ceive  the  Epfile  written  to  Philemon,  as  one  of  the  Epi  files  of   Paul, 
 Comrnin   çjG  (^  tjjat  ^he  Apoftle  did  not  [peak  always,  nor  all  thivgs,  by  the  im- 
 PAV  mediate  ajji fiance  of  Chrift  /peaking  m  him  ;  be caufe  human  frailty  could 
 
 not  fujftr  one  confiant  tenor  of  the  Holy  Ghofi.  But  if  it  fhould  be  granted 
 to  thole  Hereticks,  that  St.P*///,  and  the  reft  of  the  Apoftles  were 
 not  Infpircd  in  all  that  they  writ,  it  does  not  therefore  follow,  that 
 we  ought  to  reject  a  part  of  their  Writings.  It  is  fufficient,  that  we 
 own  with  the  Jefuits,  that  there  is  nothing  but  Truth  in  thofe  very 
 places  which  were  not  Inipired,  and  that  the  Holy  Gholr.  had  com- 
 mitted them  to  us  as  fùch. 
 
 «rtyoffcftai    Épîph.  H*r.  76.  n.  6. 
 
 Thole 
 
Thofe  Sectaries  asked  the  Orthodox,  if  St.  Paul  flood  in  need  ofJP'^ 
 any  Infpiracion  co  (ay  ;  When  tbou  doeft  come,  bring  my  Cloak  which  I 
 left  at  Troas  with  Carpus,  and  efpectally  the  parchments;  .and  many  £^/mi. 
 other  things  of  that  nature.     I  do  declare>  that  it  was  in  no  ways  dJTtn.c 
 nccelTary  that  God  mould  Indite  fuch  kind  of  things  to  St.  Paul,  and  4-  v- 1'4- 
 other  Holy  Writers.     This  is  the  Opinion  of  the  Jeiuits  of  Louvam, 
 which  was  afterwards  confirmed  in  the  fame  place  by  Cornelius  à 
 Lapide  %    whofè  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  thofe  only 
 that  were  Indited  by  the  Holy  Ghoft.     It  is  Lfficient  that  they 
 were  perfuaded  that  the  Holy  Writers  were  guided  by  the  Spirit 
 of  God  in  every  part  of  their  Writings,   lb  as  not  to  fall  into  any 
 error. 
 
 The  Divines  of  Louvam  further  objecled  againfl  the  Jefuits,  that 
 they  had  renewed  an  Opinion,  which  had  been  condemned  in  the 
 Perlbn  of  Erafmus.  But  it  is  eafie  to  make  it  appear,  that  tholè 
 Fathers  maintained  nothing  that  had  affinity  to  the  Proportion 
 which  Erafmus  owned.  Thai  Critick  was  accufed  for  believing  that 
 there  were  *  fbme  errors  in  the  Writing  of  the  Apoftles  ;  which  were  *Tà  /taw- 
 to  be  attributed  to  a  defect  of  their  Memory.  We'inali  find  no- f*0/"*^ *- 
 thing  like  this  in  the  three  Propofitions  of  the  Jefuits  of  Louvam,  W7"."-- 
 tor  although  they  be  very  well  (atisfied,  that  there  was  no  need  of 
 any  Infpiracion  for  Writing  thofe  things  that  they  knew,  they  do 
 not  upon  that  account  îmajsjin  that  the  Writers  were  at  any  time 
 miftaken  through  a  defeel:  of  Memory.  Erafmus  alio  ufed  his  utmoït 
 endeavour  in  one  of  his  Apologies,  to  wipe  off  that  accufation.  He 
 does  proteft,  that  he  only  reported  that  which  St.  Jerom  had  oblervcd 
 upon  the  matter,  and  that  there  had  been  nothing  faid,  but  what 
 was  agreeable  to  St.  Auguftwes  Opinion.  Howfoever  it  is,  that  Cri- 
 tick does  affure  us,  (/>)  that  he  never  intended  to  charge  the  Apo- 
 ftles with  any  defeét  ot  Memory.  I  do  not  inquire  if  Erafmus  was 
 wronged  in  this.  It  is  enough  that  I  have  fhewn  the  Proportion, 
 chat  is  iuppofed  to  have  been  condemned  on  his  account,  and  have 
 withal  made  it  appear,  that  there  is  nothing  of  that  natme  contained 
 in  the  three  Propohcions  of  the  Jeiuits  that  were  Ceniured. 
 
 Thofè  very  Divine*  did  al(b  by  way  of  Objection,  bring  the  Au- 
 thority of  the  Council  of  Trent,  Sell  IV.  the  words  or  St.  Peter, 
 Epiih  II.  ch.  i .   v.  21.  and  thole  of  St.  Paul,  Epiit.  11.  to  Timothy, 
 .  ch.  ?.  v.  \6.    But  there  is  nothing  in  all  thofe  places  to  which  the 
 
 (b)  Kunc  tejhr  me  abhorrer e  ab  ullàoblroionc  tnbuc/id.i  Apojlolis.     Erafm.  Ap  I. 
 -adv.  Monach.  quofd.  Hifp, 
 
 K  Jeiuits 
 
•        .  C74] 
 
 J  jfuits  or  Louva'm  do  not  agree.  The  ftrongeft  PaiTage  is  that  of  the 
 Epiftle  to  Timothy,  and  yet  it  is  the  fame,  upon  which  Cornelius  à 
 Lapide  made  Observations,  as  I  have  fhewn.  As  to  the  Teftimony  of 
 the  ancient  Fathers,  who  Paid,  that  the  Tongue,  and  the  Hand  of  the 
 Holy,  were  the  Holy  Ghofts  Pen,  the  Jefuits  do  not  deny  it.  The 
 fame  Cornelius  à  Lapide  has  explained  it  at  large;  in  his  Commentary 
 upon  the  fécond  Epiftle  of  the  Apoftle  Paul  to  Timothy,  where  he 
 makes  it  appear  that  it  is  nor  contrary  to  his  Opinion  about  the  In- 
 spiration of  Scripture.  And  the  truth  is,  we  cannot  imagin  that  the 
 Holy  Ghoft  deprived  the  Evangelifts  and  the  Apoftles  of  the  ufeof 
 their  Reafbn  and  Memory. 
 
 The  Reafons  of  the  Doctors  of  the  Faculty  of  Theology  of  Douay 
 are  no  moreConclufive  than  thofe  of  the  Divines  of '  Louvain.  They 
 chiefly  depend  upon  lbme  Pafliges  of  St.  Auguftin,  But-  fince  there 
 >s  nor  lung  that  is  pofïtive  in  all  thofè  PafTages,  it  will  not  be  worth 
 the  while  to  indft  on  them.  They  bring  for  example,  by  way  of 
 Objection,  fbme  places  of  his  Books  Concerning  the  confent  of  the 
 EvangtUfts.  Yet  there  is  no  Work,  where  that  Father  has  more 
 ihevvn  than  in  that  Treatifè,  that  the  Sacred  Writers  made  life  of 
 their  Reafon  and  Memory,  when  they  writ  their  Gofpels.  That 
 Work  has  alio  given  occahon  to  Erafmm,  and  fome  other  Writers  to 
 affirm  that  the  Memory  of  the  Apoftles  was  not  always  fure,  and 
 that  they  put  fometimes  one  word  for  another. 
 
 It  is  true,  that  St.  Auguftin  is  withal  of  the  Opinion,  that  .that  de- 
 >  in  the  Apoftles  was  guided  by  the  Holy  Ghoft.  But  I  think  it 
 Iiad  been  much  better  aot  to  make  them  fall  into  error,  than  to 
 maintain  afterwards  with  that  Father,  that  they  would  not  fb  much 
 as  amend  the  faults  of  that  Nature,  after  they  had  acknowledged 
 diem,  upon  a  Pretext  that  they  were  perfuaded  they  had  done  every 
 thing  relating  thereunto,  by  the  Spirit  of  God  directing  their  thoughts. 
 Erafmus  had  alfb  recourfè  in  one  of  his  Apologies  to  this  Anfwer  of 
 St.  Auguftin,  feeing  he  could  not  deny  that. he  had  charged  the  Evan- 
 gelifts with  a  defeat  of  Memory,  which  was  the  occafion  that  thev 
 put  the  name  of  one  Prophet  for  another  ;  he  endeavours  to  get  off 
 by  anfwenng,  That  (c)  when  Memory  andForgetfulnefs  are  equally 
 governed  by  the  Holy  Ghoft,  Forgetfulnefs  is  then  as  ufèful  as  Me- 
 mory. Maldonat,  who  attributes  this  Opinion  to  St.  Auguftin  and 
 lii'ila,  had  rcalbn  to  reject  it;  and  indeed  it  is  not  to  be  maintained. 
 Nor  cm  we  find  any  thing  in  the  Pcopohtions  of  the  Jefuits  of  Lou- 
 njam  that  has  any  affinity  with  it. 
 
 (c)  Ubi  memoriatn  G?  oblivionon  gnbcrnat  Spiritw  SanEtust  ibi  tatn.eft  utilis 
 ■AUvio  quhmmtmoria.     Erafm.  ibid. 
 
 That 
 
[7)3 
 
 That  which  the  Divines  of  Douay  borrowed  of  Gabriel,  for  mew- 
 ing that  many  Natural  Truths  were  difcovered  to  the  Apoftles  by 
 Inspiration,  and  that  we  may  very  well  reconcile  Inlpiration  to  the 
 Labour  and  Meditation  or  the  Sacred  Writers,  would  be  agreeable  to 
 good  Senfè,  if  by  that  Inipiration  we  underfrand  a  iingle  direction 
 of  the  Sprit  of  God,  that  kept  the  Apoftles  from  falling  into  any 
 error.  If  it  be  meant  on  the  contrary,  that  the  Holv  Spirit  did  in- 
 dite the  matters  of  Fad,  or  which  they  had  been  Witnefles,  that 
 cannot  be  maintained,  as  Cornelius  à  Lapide  has  obferved.  Nor  is 
 thqir  Opinion  eftablilhed  by  the  example  which  they  bring  of  Jefus 
 Chnfî,  who  tould  (fay  they)  ufè  Such  Meditation  and  Application 
 that  is  ordinary  amongft  other  Men ,  if  he  had  Compofèd  any 
 Books  ;  for  this  proves  nothing,  becaufc  if  it  be  fuppofed  that  he  had 
 written  Books  treating  of  fuch  things  as  he  had  feen  with  his  Eyes, 
 we  will  always  maintain,  that  it  was  not  neceiTàry  that  he  mould  be 
 the  Infiniment  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  for  Writing  things  of  that  na- 
 ture. This  example  does  moreover  appear  to  be  fbmwhat  Metaphy- 
 seal, andean  only  be  relifhed  by  thofè  who  are  accuftomed  to  the 
 fubtilties  of  the  School. 
 
 To  that  which  they  object,  That  all  the  Truths  of  the  Scripture 
 ought  to  be  immediately  Infpired  ;  that  otherwifè,  there  will  be  eter- 
 nal Difputes  about  what  is,  and  what  is  not  immediately  Infpired  : 
 I  anfwer,  that  it  is  eaiie  to  diftinguifh  thefè  two  forts  of  Inspirati- 
 ons, according  to  the  Principles  of  the  Jcfuit  à  Lapide.  He  does 
 fuppofe  with  good  Reafon,  that  in  Hiftories  of  things  which  were? 
 feen  and  heard,  and  in  the  Exhortations  that  concern  Morality, 
 there  is  no  need  for  any  immediate  Inspiration,  becauie  there  is  no- 
 thing that  is  Prophetical  therein. 
 
 But  we  may  (lay  they)  according  to  this  Principle,  doubt  of  all 
 thofè  Writings  that  are  not  Prophetical,  as  the  Gofpels,  for  example, 
 if  they  were  immediately  Infpired.  I  affirm,  on  the  contrary  that 
 there  is  no  ground  for  any  doubt  here.  For  the  fame  Jeiuit  has 
 clearly  {hewn,  by  the  words  of  St.  John,  and  of  St.Luke,  that  an  im- 
 mediate Infpiration  was  not  neceiïàry  for  Writing  of  Hiftories.  The 
 Evangelifts  wi  it  that  which  they  had  feen,  or  that  which  they  learned 
 upon  certain  grounds. 
 
 And  upon  this  account,  Maldcnat  explaining  thefè  words  of  Je(ùs 
 Chnft,  Matth.xxvi.  i8.    This  is  my  bloed  of  the  New  Teftanicnt,  and 
 comparing  them  with  thefè  wofTls  of  St.  Luke,  This  cup  is  the  New  Luc 
 Tejlament  m  my  blood;  does  freely  declare  that  the  very   words  or2 
 jelus  Chnft,  were  thole  that  were  Recorded  by  St.  Mail    w,  a 
 not  thofè  of  St.  Luke.     The  Reafon  which  that  1  earned]:: 
 for  this  Opinion,    is,  that  St.  Matthew  was  preicnt  at   the  Action, 
 
 K  z  Ala h 
 
Mttthœm  qui  aâerat.  Whence  he  does  conclude,  that  feeing  Jefus 
 Chriil  expreflèd  himielf  only  in  one  manner,  ic  is  (V)  better  to  be- 
 lieve St.  Matthew  who  was  an  Eye  Witnefs',  and  who  was  followed 
 by  Si. Mark,  than  St. Luke  and  St.PW,  who  were  not  prêtent  at  the 
 Action.  It  is  eafie  to  judg,  that  in  that  place  Matdonat  had  not  re- 
 courfe  to  Inspiration,  iince  he  affirms  that  St.  Matthew  had  barely 
 reported  that  which  he  had  fèen. 
 
 Yet  for  all  this,  I  do  not  believe,  that  the  Proof  which  that  Jefuit 
 does  u(e  againft  the  Proteftants,  is  altogether  Conclusive.  For  it  is 
 to  be  fuppoled,  that  the  mariner  wherein  the  EvangeliSrs  exprefs  the 
 lime  thing,  does  wholly  proceed  from  themfèives.  It  is  iufficient 
 that  they  all  agree  in  the  fubflance  of  the  things,  whilftit  îsnotne- 
 ceflary  that  they  mould  joyn  in  the  Expreffions.  Every  one  of  them 
 might  choofe  his  own  Words  according  to  his  pleafure.  And  there- 
 fore it  cannot  be  necefTanly  inferred  from  MaUonah  Reafbning, 
 that  Jefus  Chrift  did  rather  (iy  that  which  was  mentioned  by 
 St.  Matthew ,  than  that  which  is  Recorded  by  St.  Luke,  and  by 
 St.  Paul. 
 
 The  Divines  of  Douay  do  infiffc  yet  more  vigorously  on  the  third 
 Proportion  of  the  Jefuits  of  Louvain ,  than  upon  the  two  others. 
 This  laft  Proposition  does  contain  (as  they  think)  a  manifefl  error, 
 manifefti  erroris  periculum  continent  ;  for  it  does  AuthoriSe  fiich  Books 
 for  Divine  and  Canonical,  as  have  been  written  by  Men  without 
 any  afîî fiance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  humanâ  inâuftriâ,  fine  affifienttâ 
 Spiritus  Santtï.-  It  cannot  be  denied  but  that  the  Jefùits  Set  out  this 
 ^ropofîtion,  whtch  (eems  to  be  much  like  the  Opinion  of  Groiius  " 
 and  Sp'mofa:  but  they  add  withal,  that  it  is  Sufficient  that  the 
 Holy  Spirit  does  afïïire  us,  that  there  is  nothing  but  Truth  in  thofe 
 Writings.  Si  Spiritus  SanBus  foftea  tefietur  ibi  nihil  ejje  falfum,  effici- 
 Xut  Scnptura. 
 
 We  may  by  the  fame  Reafon  (fay  the  Doftors  of  Douay)  call  the 
 Decrees  of  Popes  and  Councils  Holy  Scripture,  becaufè  we  arealfb 
 allured  that  there  is  no  falfhood  in  thofe  Decrees.  We  may  alfb  place 
 Li'vy,  and  Thucydides  in  the  number  of  the  Holy  Writings,  if  the 
 Holy  Ghofl  teftifie  that  they  contain  nothing  that  is  falfè.  But  this 
 Con  Sequence  does  not  at  all  follow  from  the  third  Proportion  of  the 
 jefuits  of  Louvain.  For  they  Suppofe  that  the  Holy  Ghoft  does  pro- 
 pofe  thofe  Books  to  us  as  Canonical,  to  be  for  a  Rule  in  Religion. 
 The  Decrees  of  Councils,  and  of  Popes,  have  no  fiich  thing,  in 
 them  ;  if  it  were  So,  they  would  not  be  any  longer  confidered  as 
 
 (  d  )  Credendum  igitur  eft  verba  potihs  Matthxi  &  Mar  ci ,   quhm  Lucx  (3 
 Pauli  Chrift  urn  ujum  futjjl:  Maid.  Comm.  in  Matth.  c.  xxvi.  v.  28. 
 
 bare 
 
[  77  ] 
 
 bare  Decrees  of  the  Church,  but  as  works  that  had  been  to  the  lime 
 Church,  to  ferve  for  a  Rule  as  well  in  Faith  as  in  Manners*    The 
 Example  of  the  Hifrories  of  Tbuqdides  and  of  Liyy,    which  they 
 bring,  is  nothing  to  the  purpole  ;  for  thole  Authors  have  not  write 
 of  things  chat  concern  our  Salvation. 
 
 As  to  the  Maxim  of  thole  Divines,  That  a  thirty  is  not  Infime  J;  be- 
 caufe  it  was  afterwards  approved,  but  that,  on  the  contrary  it  u  affrov» 
 cdt  becaufeit  was  In/pired,  it  does  not  contradict  the  Proportion  of 
 the  Jefuits;  who  continually  fiippofe,  that  the  Books  we  chiefly  treat 
 of,  have  the  tefHmo'ny  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  although  they  had  tu  t 
 been  immediatly  Infpired  ;  which  may  fuffice  to  render  them  ap- 
 proved.   The  truth  is,  many  Learned  Divines  believed,  that  it  way 
 not  neceiTary,  that  God  mould  Infpire  Mofes  with  a  knowledge  of 
 every  thing  that  he  has  written  in  Gene/is,  concerning  the  Creation 
 of  the  World,  and  the  Genealogies  of  the  Ancient  Patriarchs.     He 
 could  be  furnifhed  (as  they  judged)  with  fufficient  light  about  tho(è 
 things,  by  what  he  learned  of  his  Ancestors,  who  had  kept   Me- 
 moirs of  the  fame.    Doclus  &  eruditm  (faith  the  Jefuit  Perenns)  d  M.t- 
 joribus  fuis j  ad  quos  ejufmodi  rerum  doclrina    inde  ab  Adamo  uftjue  fide-  ^crer- 
 lijjitnâ  pofierorum  traditicne,  quafi  per  mantts  tranfmifja,  &  ad  Mo(em  pli*-* 
 ujque  producla  faerat.     Was  it  necefîary,  for  Example,  that   Mofes 
 mould  be  infpired  of  God,  to  fèt  down  in  Writing  all  the  Journeys 
 and  different  Encampings  of  the  Ifraelites  in  the  Dcfert,  after  their 
 coming  out  of  Egypt?  But  I  need  not  ftay  longer  on  a  thing  that 
 has,  in  my  Opinion,  been  fufficiently  cleared.     And  therefore,    J. 
 am  fb  far  from  accufing  the  Proportions  of  the  Jefuits  of  Louvain 
 as  erroneous,  that  I  find  nothing  to  be  contained  therein,  but  what 
 is  agreeable  to  Truth  and  good  Senfè.     The  Dolors  who  oppofed 
 them  with  fb  great. heat,  had  never  exercifed  their  thoughts  fufficient- 
 ly upon  Quefhons  of  that  nature  :  They  followed  the  old  Opinion 
 of  their  own  Schools;  and  feeing  they  only  confuked  their  own  pre-' 
 judices,  they  condemned  that  with  a  great  deal  of  precipitation, which 
 they  did  not  altogether  understand. 
 
 A  Learned  Doctor  of  the  Faculty  of  Theology  of  Pans,  maintain- 
 ed upon  the  fame  fùbject,  a  Proportion  very  oppoiiteto  the  opinion 
 of  the  Divines  of  Lointain  and  Douay  ;  which  poilibly  will  not  ai> 
 pear  to  be  very  Orthodox  in  the. judgment  of  many.  I  lis  Book  was 
 neverthelefs  many  times  Printed,  with  the  approbation  of  lèverai  of 
 his  Brethren.  There  was  a  new  Edition  thereof  Publifhed  lately  at;;;  r 
 Pans,  with-  the  approbation  of  Mr.  Cocyrteli»,  a  Doctor  of  that  Fa- 
 culty and  Chancellor  of  the  Univeriïty;  who  does  aflure  us,  that 
 he  had  read  that  Work  once  and  again,  legi  ac  relegL  Which  by  an- 
 ticipation docs  fhew,  that  1  intend  to  (peak  of  the  Anal) fa  of  l'ait b 
 
 of 
 
of  Henry  Holdett,  who  made  it  manifeft,  through  the  whoIeWbrk, 
 that  he  had  meditated  much  on  the  Principles  of  Theology.  Take 
 therefore  the  Opinion  of  this  Learned  Perfon,  concerning  the  In- 
 fpiration  of  the  Holy  Scripture  ;  The  fpecial  ajfijlance  -which  God  af- 
 forded to  every  Author  of  thofe  Books  which  the  Church  has  received  for 
 the  Word  of  God,  does  extend  it  felf  to  thofe  things  only  that  are  mere 
 pnatters  of  Dotlrine,  or  that  have  a  near  and  neceffary  relation  thereunto. 
 But  in  fitch  things  as  are  not  the  main  bupnefs  of  the  Author,  or  have 
 a  relation  to  other  things,  I  reckon  that  God  did  ajfift  them  m  no  other 
 manner  than  he  ufed  to  affift  other  Writers,  that  were  Men  of  great  Piety. 
 I  ihall  content  my  felf  to  explain  the  Opinion  of  this  Dodtor,  with- 
 out prefuming  to  offer  Arguments  againft  it,  fince  I  know  it  is  au- 
 thonfed  by  very  fage  Matters.  Yet  I  dare  not  maintain  it  in  its 
 full  extent  :  It  would  have  done  well.,  if  he  had  given  us  fbme  ex- 
 amples of  what  he  under/lands  by  things  that  are  not  mere  matters 
 of  Do&rin,  or  that  have  hot  an  entire  relation  thereunto. 
 
 De  Dominis,  of  whom  it  would  feem  Holden  had  his  Principles, 
 does  muchiniift  on  this  Subject,  which  he  explains  with  a  great  deal 
 of  fubtilty.  He  fays,  that  all  that  is  in  the  Scripture,  is  not  fimply 
 and  ablolutely  the  Object  of  our  Faith,  that  is  to  (ay,  it  does  not  be- 
 long to  the  Articles  of  our  Creed  ;  becaufe  it  is  only  the  things  that 
 are  revealed,  that  can  be  the  Objed  of  our  Faith.  But  (faith  that 
 Author,)  the  things  that  are  contained  in  Scripture  are  not  all  reveal'd: 
 From  this  Principle,  (which  he  does  llluftrate  by  (ome  Examples)  he 
 draws  this  Confèquence,  that  we  may  in  fbme  manner,  exeufè  iôme 
 very  Learned  Catholick  Divines,  who  imputed  to  the  Evangelifts, 
 a  few  faults  which  proceeded  from  a  defecl:  of  their  memory,  as  in 
 putting  one  name  for  another,  in  difagreeing  amongtt  themfelves 
 about  the  time,  or  any  other  circum fiances  of  the  actions  which  they 
 relate,  provided  that  it  falls  not  upon  the  fubftance,  and  upon  the 
 things  themfelves  :  (g)  Errors  of  that  kind,  (he  adds)  which  touch 
 
 (  e  )  Auxilium  fpeciale  divinitus  profit  turn  auclori  cujuflibetfcripti  quod  pro  ver- 
 bo  Dei  rccipit  Ecclefia,  ad  ea  folummodb  fe  porrigit  qurc  vel  fint  pure  dotlrinaltay 
 vcl  proximum  ahquem  aut  ncceflarium  hole  ant  ad  dotîrinalia  refpctlum.  In  lis  ve- 
 ra quo  non  fint  de  inftitiro  Jcnptoris,  vel  ad  alia  referuntury  eo  tantum  Jubfidio 
 Dcum  illi  adfuiffc  judt  camus,  quod  pnjjimis  cxteris  autloribus  commune  fit.  Henr. 
 Hold.  div.  lid  Annal,  lib.  r.  c.5. 
 
 (f  )  îson  omnia  qu<£  in  Script  un)  contmèntur  ejfc  [implicit er  (3  abfolutc  objecl  um 
 nojiro  fidei,  feu  fpedare  ad  articulos  fidei  ;  fola  enim  rcvelata  funt  objetlum  fidei,  ac 
 non  omnia  qua:  Scriptura  habct,  docet  aut  narrât,  funt  revelata.  De  Dom  lib.  7.  c.  r. 
 
 (  g)  Talcs  enim  lay  fus  extra Jubftajitiam  fatii  nihil  fidei  obfunt  aut  obeffc  pof~ 
 
 funt  y  ne  que  funt  circa  all  quid  fide  divina  credendum,  fed  circa  id  quod  fol  am  hu- 
 
 r.anam  fenjatam  fecum  fcrt  notitiam.     Humanamporrb  notifiant  jubeffe  poffc  lap- 
 
 fui  non  vulctnr  abjiifdum,  etiam  in Jacris  Spiritus  Santli  fenptoribus,  quotics  lapfjis 
 
 humano  notitio  m  fatii  (ubjtannam(5>  adjun'dam  rcvelatnncm  non  redundat.  Ibid. 
 
 not 
 
C  79  ] 
 
 not  the  fubflance  of  the  things,  cannot  in  the  leaf!:,  be  any  preju- 
 dice to  our  belief,  feeing  they  do  not   relate  to  tint  which  \ 
 obliged  to  believe  of  Divine  Faith,#but  only  to  that  winch  is  knoi 
 bv  the  fenfe;  wrhich  may  be  deceived,  even  in  the  Sacred  Writ, 
 when  the  iubf  ranee  does  not  come  under  debate. 
 
 Yet  although  de  Domina  explain  this  opinion  at  good  length, 
 
 he  declare.-,  that  he  dares  not  prolecute  the  lame  to  the  full,  lie 
 avows,  that  there  are  many  places  in  the  Bible,  in  which  it  feems 
 that  the  Writers  are  miftaken;  that  the  (blutions that  are  given  for 
 removing  difficulties  of  that  nature  ,  are  very  much  contained, 
 with  which  pious  Souls  ought  nevcr^^leis  to  be  content,  although 
 they  do  not  fitistie  thole  who  feverel^fcxamin  every  thing, 
 does  choofe  rather  to  take  the  part  of  thofè  who  are  far  from  rigour, 
 than  charge  the  Holy  Writers  with  the  lead  fault,  even  in  the  things 
 of  iinall  importance.  But  after  all,  he  does  not  diGpprove  the' Opi- 
 nion of  the  Catholick  Doctors,  who  alledged  miftakesof  that  kind, 
 which  are  not  prejudicial  to  our  Faith  :  There  is  nothing  that  does 
 more  diminifh  the  Authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  even  in  thing*: 
 EffentialandRevealed,than  conilraihed  ÂnfwerSjthat  provoke  laugh- 
 ter in  thofè,  who  are  not  of  the  fame  belief  with  us  :  By  this  we  per- 
 ceive, that  the  Archbifhop  of  Spalatro  was  in  a  lirait,  whole  part  he 
 was  to  take,  about  a  Queltion  of  this  delicacy. 
 
 As  for  Doctor  Holden,  of  all  he  lays  upon  that  Subject,  this  is  moil 
 full  of  good  fcnle,  (;)  That  we  ought  not  to  approve  or  condemn, 
 upon  the  bare  words  of  Scripture,  ail-that  belongs  foWy  to  Philofo- 
 phy.  For  as  he  obferves  in  the  (âme  place,  though  there  is  nothing 
 falfè  in  Scripture;  the  expredions  therein  are  frequently  accommo- 
 dated to  the  Opinions  commonly  received  amongfl  the  Pecple,  and 
 they  are  not  always  very  exact  ;  which  is  agreeable  to  St.  John  Cbryfo- 
 ftomes  Opinion,  whoobferved  (k)  that  St  Vaul  does  often  fpeak  ac- 
 cording to  the  Sentiments  of  the  Populace,  that  he  may  accommo- 
 date himfclf  to  his  Auditors. 
 
 (  h)  Ego  fine  quod  in  me  eft  riçorem  depono,  (3  malo  cum  diffcn'tate  fiam 
 anipletliinterprctattoHcm,  quam  lapfum  ctiam  ijlum  lèvent  &  circ.i  foin  cir:um- 
 ■ftantias  admittere.  Ibid. 
 
 (i  )  Veruatcs  Philojophicœ  nee  probanda  nee  improbandœ  [uni  ex  puns  nu. 
 >".f  Scripturx  verbis  (3  [entent its.     Quamvis  enim  nuUam  ccmpleciaurr  Scrip, 
 falfitatem,  at t amen  ipfius  loquendi    modus  utplurimum  vulgaris  r/r,  at  que  ad  coir- 
 muncm  hcminum  captum,  potiùs'quàm  ad  loquelx  proprwiûum  (j  fer moni s  rigorem 
 adaptants.  Hold.  ibid. 
 
 (  k  j  TV  Tn\hÀ  j£  x^1  r  KotftiM  evvvSvtiv  0  ctHvoVTW  o  UtnuyQ-  pôifjOj  *}* 
 mu-my*  $/*oo*ç£.  Chryf.  Horn.  9. in  Epilt.  ad  Philips  c.  1 
 
 CHAT 
 
-       [  8o  ] 
 
 Chap.     XXV. 
 
 Spinofa  s  Objections  againfï  the  Infpiration  of  the  (Books  of 
 the  New  Teflament  are  Examined. 
 
 Although  Spinofa  had  very  little  or  no  knowledge  of  the  Books 
 of  the  New  Teframent,  yet  he  would  by  all  means,  infère  in 
 his  Treatife  Entitled  Thtologico-pol  incus  ^  sl  whole  Chapter  againft  the 
 Infpiration  or  choie  Books  jj^fiere  he  only  gives  a  greater  light  to 
 that  which  Groti./s  had  formerly  written  upon  this  matter,  in  many 
 places  of  his  Works.  His  great  Principle  is,  (a)  that  the  Apoftles 
 did  not  write  as  Prophets,  butasfingle  Doctors;  and  that  therefore 
 it  was  not  nccefîary  that  they  mould  be  Infpired.  But  this  diftincï- 
 on  betwixt  Prophets  and  Doctors,  does  not  at  all  deftroy  that  Infpi- 
 ration, which  is  attributed  to  the  Apoftles  ;  which  does  only  coniift 
 in  a  bare  direction  of  the  Spirit  or  God,  as  has  been  ftiewn  be- 
 fore. 
 
 God  (fay  they)  did  not  command  them  to  write,  as  he  command- 
 ed the  Prophets  to  publifh  their  Prophecies  :  We  have  alio  oblerved 
 from  the  beginning  of  this  Work,  that,  when  the  Ancient  Ecclefï- 
 aftical  Writers  (peak  of  the  Gofpels,  they  declare,  that  they  were 
 compofed  only  occasionally,  and  at  the  requeft  of  the  firft  Believers. 
 It  does  not  indeed  lb  evidently  appear  to  us,  that  the  Evangelifts 
 and  Apoftles  had  an  exprefs  Commandment  of  God,  or  even  ofje- 
 fus  Cnrift,  to  publifh  Books  for  the  Infiru&ion  of  the  firft  Chrifti- 
 ans,  as  it  does  appear,  that  the  Prophets  did  fpeak  to  the  People  of 
 Ifrael,  by  Gods  Order.  But  we  fee,  that  Jeliis  Chrift  commanded 
 his  Difciples  to  go  and  Preach  the  Goipcl,  to  all  Nations  of  the  Earth: 
 But  their  Hiftoncs,  which  .we  call  Gofpels,  are  nothing  elfe  but  Col- 
 lections of  their  Sermons,  which  were  animated  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
 whom  their  Mafter  had  promifèd  to  them. 
 
 The  Prophets  (  Spinofa  continues,  )  do  not  only  oblerve  in  their 
 Prophecies,  but  alfo  in  their  Letters,  that  it  was  God  who  fpake  by 
 their  Mouth  ;  which  he  proves  by  the  Letter  that  the  Prophet  Elias 
 •writ  to  King  J  or  am,  and  is  mentioned  i  Qhron.  Ch.  21.  v.  12.  Which 
 
 (a)  Apofloli  non  tanqukm  Prophet*,  fed  tanquam  DcHores  feripferunt,  &  viam 
 ad  docendwn  tlfgerum  qiiam  faeiliorem  judicaverunt  fore dijcipulis  quo: turn docere 
 vole  bam.  Spin.  Tract.  TlicoL  polit,  cap.  n. 
 
 begins 
 
C  «I  ] 
 
 begins  with  thefe  words,  Thrts  faith  the  Lord y  (J?)  we  read  no  fiich 
 thing,  (faith  he)  in  the  Letters  of  the  Apoflles.  St.  faut  on  the  con- 
 trary, (peaks  as  from  himielf,  in  his  fir  ft  Epiftle  to  the  Corinthians, 
 Chap.  7.  v.  40. 
 
 H  the  Stile  of  the  Apoftlesbe  not  altogether  the  fame  asth.u  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  Mi- 
 niire;  v.  it  was  in  no  wile  necetiary,  that  they  ihould  repeat  in  eve- 
 ry difcourlè,  that  it  was  the  Lord  who  fpake.  It  was  furficient,  for 
 them  to  declare  in  general,  that  Jefus  Chrift  had  lent  them  to  Preach 
 the  Truths  of  the  Gofpel,  and  that  he,  who  had  given  them  that 
 Miffion  in  his  Father's  Name,  had  told  them  exprdly,  It  is  not  you 
 that  /peak,  but  the  Spirit  of  your  Heavenly  Father  who  (peaks  in  you. 
 
 It  is  true,  that  St.  Paul  does  fpeak  as  from  hi  m  f elf, _  in  the  hrft  Epi- 
 ftle to  the  Corinth.  Chap.  7.  where  he  makes  ufe  of  this  Expreflion  ; 
 I  give  my  judgment,  *?  tùù  it*!*  yvvptw-  But  he  adds  withal,  that 
 he  thinks  he  has  the  Spirit  of  God  :  &*»  3  *$tà  w&pa.  0êï  tym*  The 
 ground  of  Spinofas  error  was,  that  a  Man  could  not  ufe  his  Reafon, 
 and  be  alfb  guided  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  at  the  lame  time  ;  as  if  by 
 becoming  God's  Interpreter,  he  muft  ceafe  to  be  a  Man,  and  be  only 
 a  Palîîve  Infiniment,  if  I  may  ufè  the  Term:  To  proceed,  it  is 
 not  true,  that  the  Apoftles  never  obferved  at  the  beginning  of  their 
 Letters,  that  it  was  God  who  fpake  by  their  Mouth.  For  they  be- 
 gin their  Letter,  which  they  write  to  their  Brethren  of  Antioch,  by 
 thefè  words,  It  feetnd  good  to  the  Holy  Ghofi  and  te  us  ;  to  let  them  Acts  xv. 
 know,  that  what  they  laid  upon  them  came  from  God,  whofè  In-  -8- 
 terpreters  they  only  were. 
 
 The  other  exprefîîons  of  St.  Paul,  which  Spmofa,  in  the  fame 
 place,  makes  ufè  or  to  fhew,  that  that  Apoftle  writ  to  gratifie  his 
 own  inclination,  without  being  encouraged  thereunto  by  the  Spirit 
 of  God;  may  be  caiily  explained  by  the  Principle  which  wj  \\\\c 
 eftabhfhed;  That  Man  does  always  fuppole,  that  Infpiration  does 
 wholly  deprive  one  of  the  ufè  of  his  Reaion;  which  is  m  oft  fajfè  : 
 (c)  The  Apoftles,  ( faith  he)  are  every  where  upon  Reaioning,  (b 
 that  they  are  more  like  Doutants  than  Prophets.  But  befides,  that 
 he  has  formed  to  him  (èlf  a  falfè  Idea,  of  the  Infpiration  of  the  Pro- 
 phets, 'tis  fufficient  if  we  object  againft  him,  the  example  formerly 
 given,  where  the  Apoftles,  after  they  had  deliberated  and  reaibned 
 
 (b)  In  Epiftolis  Apofiolorum  nihil  ftmile  legimus.  fed  contra  in  I.  ad  Cor.  7.  4c; 
 Pauius  fecundumfuam  ftntentiam  loquitur.  Spin.  ibid.  cap.  11. 
 
 (  c)  Apoftoit  ubique  ratiocmanun  :  it  a  ut  non  propbetare.jed  dtftmtarc  videwtur. 
 Spin-  ibid. 
 
 L  in 
 
[82] 
 
 in  an  Affembly;  did  neverthelefs  ufe  this  exprâflîon,  it  Jeemdto  the 
 Holy  Ghofi  and  to  us  :  Which  does  evidently  ftiew,  that  the  Spirit  of 
 God,  who  had  guided  them  in  that  Aflembly,  did  not  deprive  them 
 of  the  ufè  of  their  Reafbn:  There  is  in  effect:,  a  Subordination  be- 
 twixt them  two;  the  one  does  not  deftroy  the  other. 
 
 Spinofas  Prophets  are  Enthulîafts,  who  are  more  like  Men  pufh'd 
 on  by  a  Spirit  of  Fury,  than  by  a  Spirit  of  Prophecy.  He  does  al- 
 ledge  (J)  that  the  quality  of  a  Prophet  does  not  admit  of  the  ufe  of 
 his  Reafon;  becaufe  he,  who  confirms  his  Doctrines  by  Reafbns,does 
 fiibmit  to  the  judgment  of  others.  But  if  one  will*  carefully  read  the 
 Books  of  Mofes,  whom  he  reckons  amongft  the  Prophets,  he  will 
 own,  that  that  Law-giver  does  Reafbn  fbmenmes:  There  is  indeed 
 a  fubmiffion  to  the  judgment  of  others,  where  there  is  nothing  but 
 Reafbnings.  But  this  cannot  be  (aid,  when  fuch  Reafbnings  are 
 guided  by  the  Spirit  of  God  :  And  this  was  the  Cafe  of  Mo  [es  and 
 the  other  Prophets.  Spinofa  himfelf  gives  an  Example  here  ;  For 
 there  js  none,  but  thinks  thefè  Words  of  Mofes,  Deut.  Chap.  51.  v. 
 2,7.  While  I  am  yet  alive  with  you  this  day,  ye  have  been  rebellious  agamfi 
 the  Lord  ;  and  how  much  more  a[ter  my  Death y  to  be  very  formal  Rça- 
 fbning.  And  indeed,  the  Prophets  who  direéted  their  difcourfe  to 
 Men  who  made  ufe  of  their  Reafbn,  did  not  in  the  lead  deftroy 
 their  Spirit  of  Prophecy.,  when  they  propofed  the  Will  of  God  to 
 thofe  Men,  by  way  of  Reafbning. 
 
 But  Spmofa  (who  reafbns  in  all  this  Difcourfe  upon  a  falfè  Idea 
 which  he  had  of  Prophecy,)  does  alledge,  (e)  that  that  expreflion  of 
 Mofes,  was  a  Moral  kind  of  (peaking,  which  he  uiedas  an  Orator, 
 to  foretel,  and  reprcfentto  the  life  (fb  far  as  he  could  imaging  the 
 future  Rebellion  of  the  Ifraelites.  But  what  does  it  lignifie,  that 
 Mofes  did  exprefs  himfelf  an  Orator,  or  in  any  other  manner,  does 
 that  prove,  that  he  did  not  truly  Reafbn  in  that,  and  feveral  other 
 places,  where  he  explains  himfelf  as  other  Men?  It  was  notnecefîa- 
 ry  that  God  mould  indite  all  his  Reafbnings  and  all  his  Exhortations* 
 It  is  enough  that  he  guided  him  by  his  Spirit,  and  that  he  prevented 
 his  falling  into  error.  This  being  fuppofed,  we  will  freely  agree 
 with  Spinofa,  that  Mofes  laid  many  things,  that  were  not  revealed 
 to  him  ;  and  this  we  have  proved  elfewhere. 
 
 He  is  aifb  obliged  (f)  to  declare,  that  the  Prophets  could  Reafbn 
 
 (  d  )  Prophet  i£  auHoritas  ratiocmari  non  patitur.  Qwfquis  enim  wit  fuit  dog- 
 mata ratione  cori(irmarei  eo  tpfo  ea  arbitrait  unitifcujufque  judtcio  fubmittit.    Spin. 
 
 :bid.  ,. ,     . 
 
 (c)  Verba  ilia  Mops  moral  is  locutio  tantùm  finit,  qua  rhetor  ice  (3  prat  futur  am 
 topuli  defectionem  vtvidihs  imaginari  potuerat,  prœdtcit.  Spilt  ibid. 
 
 ill  Nolo  tamen  ab jointe  m  gare  Prophet  as  ex  rcvelatione  argument art  potmffe.  lb 
 
 by 
 
by  Revelation  ;  and  confequently  Prophecy  and  Revelation  are  not 
 incompatible.  The  Apoftles  then,  could  by  way  of  reafoning,  pro- 
 pofe  to  the  People  the  truths  they  delivered,  ana  be  at  the  fame  time, 
 Infpired  with  the  Spirit  of  God.  Spinofa  does  nevcrthcleis  add,  that 
 the  more  that  the  Prophets  do  reafbn  in  form,  the  Knowledg  that 
 they  had  of  things  revealed,  did  come  fo  much  the  more  near  to  na- 
 tural Knowledge;  and  that  that  which  does  characterize  the  fiiper- 
 natural  Knowledg  of  the  Prophets,  is,  when  they  pronounce  Sen- 
 tences and  Degrees  without  any  Reafoning.  For  this  reaibn  it  is, 
 (faith  he)  Mefes,  who  was  the  greateft  of  the  Prophets,  made  no 
 Argument  in  form  ;  that  on  the  contrary,  St.  PWdoes  reaibn  every 
 where,  and  draws  confequences  from  the  Principles  which  he  does 
 eftablrfh,  as  appears  in  his  Epiftle  to  the  Romans.  Upon  this  ac- 
 count, he  believed,  that  the  Epiftles  of  the  Apoflle  were  not  writ- 
 ten by  (upernatural  Revelation. 
 
 That  Man  does  always  confound  Prophecy  with  Enthufiafm.  Mo- 
 fes,  who  was  a  Law-giver,  pronounced  Sentences  and  Judgments  by 
 warrant  from  God  ;  which  did  not  hinder  him  from  Reafoning  in 
 fome  places:  If  he  did  not  fb,  as  frequently  as  St.  Paul,  the  occafi- 
 on  was,  he  writ  Hiftones,which  require  no  reafoning  •  whereas  St. 
 Paul  does  write  as  a  Doctor  who  inflru&s  the  People,  and  draws 
 confequences  from  Principles  which  he  had  laid  down.  From  thencer 
 it  cannot  be  concluded,  that  he  followed  nothing  but  his  Reafbn,be- 
 cai&v  that  very  Reafbn  of  his  might  have  been  fupernaturally  enlight- 
 ned,  and  guided  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  And  therefore,  all  that  Spi- 
 nofa does  object  for  mewing,  that  the  moft  part  of  that  Apoftles 
 Difcourfè,  does  only  confift  in  Advertiiements  and  Moral  Exhorta- 
 tions, docs  not  deftroy  the  Infpiration  of  the  Apoftles,  in  the  man- 
 ner as  we  have  formerly  fuppofèd  it  with  the  Jefuits  of  Lowvain  : 
 For  we  made  it  plain,  that  it  was  not  neccflary,  for  that  purpofè , 
 that  God  ihould  indite  to  St.  Paul  and  the  other  Apoftles,  all  their 
 Difcourfes  of  Morality.  It  was  permitted  them  to  make  uie  of  their 
 natural^  Lights,  and  to  ufe  all  the  means  with  which  their  Reafbn 
 could  furnifh  them,  for  perfuading  the  People. 
 
 After  the  lame  manner,  all  Spinofa  s  objections  may  beanfwered; 
 feeing  he  does  continually  reafon  upon  a  falie  Idea,  which  he  has 
 formed,  of  the  Infpiration  of  the  Pen- Men  of  the  New  Teftament  r 
 We  may  alio  give  our  aflent  to  a  great  part  of  what  he  hvs  in  his 
 Objections,  without  giving  advantage,  for  drawing  any  Concluiions 
 againft  that  Infpiration,  according  to  the  true  Explication  thereof. 
 Seeing  I  infilled  long  enough  upon  this  Subject,  in  my  two  Anlv 
 To  the  Opinions  of  fome  Divines  of  Holland,  it  is  needlefs  for  me  to  re- 
 peat heie,  what  I  have  (aid  in  thole  two  Books.     The  truth  is,  thole 
 
 l  i  d; 
 
C  84  ]  . 
 
 Divines,  by  appohng  the  Infpiration  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  have 
 only  given  a  more  advantageous  light  to  Sp'mofas  reafons,  who  fqua- 
 red  this  matter,  to  the  falle  prejudices  with  which  he  was  prepotlef- 
 fed.  If  he  had  read  the  Works  or  fbme  Catholiclc  Dodors  who 
 have  treated  judicioully  or  this  Subject}  he  would  loon  have  acknow- 
 ledged, to  what  little  purpofè  the  mod  part  of  his  Objections  fèivc, 
 hecaulè  they  Humble  upon  thole  things  in  which  we  do  agree  with 
 him.  And  therefore,  we  ought  to  be  very  cautious,  in  refuting  his 
 Opinion,  that  we  do  not  contefr  with  him  in  vain,  about  the  things 
 that  are  true,  and  from  which  he  does  nevertrfelefs  draw  confequen- 
 ces,  that  are  directly  falfè  or  too  wide;  otherwife,  we  fkall  rather 
 ftrengthen,  than  deftroy  his  errors. 
 
 Chap.  XX  VI. 
 
 Of  the  Stile  of  the  Evangelifts  and  the  Jpoftles.  The 
 Opinion  of  Modem  Writers ,  and  of  the  Ancient  VoElofs. 
 
 ♦  of  the  Church  upon  this  matter  $  with  many  Critical  (^e- 
 jieSitons. 
 
 r 
 
 N  thislaft  Age,  there  have  been  Works  compofed,  that  treat  of 
 the  Stile  of  the  Evangelifts  and  the  Apoftles.     Henry  Stephen  has 
 ffatr.       handled  this  matter  in  the  Preface  to  his  Greek  New  Teftamenr. 
 Stepb.       He  had  alio  promiied  to  publifh  a  Tread (è  on  purpofc  upon  this 
 Nov.  T<?/?.  Subject,  to  demonftrate,  that  thole  Sacred  Writers  are  much  more 
 jft/jKif"    P°'lte  c'ian  f°me  Authors  have  believed.     He  likewife  gives  feme 
 I575        examples  thereof,  in  his  Preface,  by  way  of  anticipation.     He  does 
 (ometimes  admire  them,  for  the.  elegancy  of  their  Sale,  and  does 
 wilh,  that  they  were  not  treated  as  rude  and  barbarous  Perlons,  in 
 refpect  of  their  manner  of  Writing,  as  they  have  been  by  (bme.  He 
 docs   particularly  undertake  the  defence  of  St.  Vaul,  whom  he  be- 
 lieved to  have  been  very  converlant  with  the  Greek  Authors,  and 
 amongft  the  reft,  with  the  Poets,  whom  he  did  imitate  (as  he  be- 
 lieves) for  his  Expredion,  in  fiindry  places,     (a)  Whence  he  does 
 
 (a)  Hoc  cum  it  a  fmt,  (3  cum  aliunde  fat  eat  Paulum  Apoftelum  Grœcos  firir 
 flores  evolvijje,  qui  ere  di  tile  Jit  ilium  Gr*C4  lingo*  non  fit  is  peritumfutjjc?  Hcnr. 
 Steph.  jbid. 
 
 con- 
 
C  h  ] 
 
 conclude,  that  to  affirm  that  that  Holy  Apoft  ic  was  not  Matter 
 enough  of  thz  Greek  Language,  15  a  fuppofition  that  is  altogether  in- 
 credible. 
 
 We  have  moreover  a    DiiTcrtation  publifhcd   by  Thochen,  which 
 is  Entituled,   *Of  the  purity  of  the  Greek  -Language  cf  the  New  Te  ft  4-  *  DUi 
 mint,  where  the  Author  forgot  nothing  which  might  make  it  mani-  "■'  </t'/';" 
 felt,  that  the  Text  of  that  Bool*  is  true  Greek,  and  that  it  does  not  ^^vT;/'" 
 differ  very  much  from  the  Stile  of  Profane  Authors.     Textum  Novi^  Tefi.uncn. 
 Tejlamcnti ,     (  laith    Phochen  )    vere     Gr tecum    nee    alienum    plane    à  ti  pur  it  a- 
 St tlo    Grxco   profana     ejje    ajjerimus.     He   does  refute    all  thofe   He-  tc. 
 brasfms,  which  as  fôme  alledge,   are   contained  in  the    Writings  of 
 the  Apoftles  :  and  to  make  it  the  more  evidently  appear,  that  they 
 object  thofe  Hebratfms  in  vain,    he  does  juftiHe   thole  Expreflions 
 on  which  they  are  charged,  by   the  like   Expreffions  of  Profana 
 Authors. 
 
 There  are  on  the  contrary  fbmc  Learned  Cnticks,  who,  very  far 
 from  allowing  the  ApoiHes  a  Pure  and  Elegant  Stile,  have  not 
 fcrupled  to  make  them  pafs  for  Barbarous  Writers,  whofe  Books- 
 are  fluffed  with  Hebraifms.  Caftalio>  who  underftood  Hebrew  and 
 Greek  diffidently,  to  be  judge*  of  this  Queftion,  fays,  in  (peaking  of 
 the  Apoftles,  (b)  that  being  born  Hebrews,  they  did  Hebraize  when 
 they  writ  in  Greek,  whilft  the  Holy  Ghoft  had  no  part  in  that,  be- 
 caulè  the  Spirit  of  God  Joes  not  love  Hebraifms  any  more  than  Gra:- 
 cifins.  He  only  Indited  the  thing  to  them,  (faith  that  Author,) 
 and  not  the  Words,  leaving  them  at  liberty  to  exprefs  themfelves 
 after  their  own  faJfuon.  Which  is  agreeable  enough  to  the  Opinion- 
 of  the  Jefuits  of  Louvain. 
 
 Cafialio  does  further  fhew,  why  the  Apoftles  did  no  more  im- 
 prove themfelves  111  the  Greek,  (b  as  to  fpeak  it  well,  feeing  that» 
 Language  is  Copious  in  Words,  full  of  Senle,  and  ealie  to  be  un- 
 derftood, whereas  the  Hebrew  Phrafes  render  their  Difcourfes  in- 
 tricate and  obfeure.  He  fàvs,  (c)  that  they  were  accuftomed  to- 
 the  reading  of  the  Sacred  Writings,  and  that  iince  they  did  not  fuf- 
 ficiently  underftand  the  Greek  Language,  (as  it  is  eaiie  to  prove  by 
 their  Works)  thofe  expreffions  that  were  proper  to  their  Mother- 
 Tongue  did  firft  prefent  themfelves  to  them  on  all  occalions.    Which 
 
 (  b  )  Erant  Apoftoli  natu  Hebrxi,  &  pcregrina,  hoc  eft  Gracd  lingua  fcribentc: 
 kebrai^abant,  i.on  qui  juberet  Spirit  m  ;  ne  que  enim  pluris  facit  Spintus  hebraif- 
 mos  quarn  grtcijmos  .:  .res  cnun  ditlat  Spirit  us,  verba  quidem  &  linguam  Jcrfa 
 bend*  Itberutn  pcrmittit.     Sebait.  Caftal  detenf.  TYanflat.  Bibl. 
 
 (c)  Cur  igitur  hebrai^arunt  ?  Primant  quia  ermtSacris  Uteris  ajfucti  ;  dcimie 
 quia  cum  effent  Grœcx  Imgux  non  ufque  adco  periti,  id  quod  eorum  J'cnpu  cs: 
 dilute  facile  (n  Patriam  confuetudinem  deflcftebaw.    Caftal.  ibid. 
 
 he 
 
c  8<n 
 
 he  confirms  by  the  example  of  the  French  and  the  Dutch,  who 
 cannot  write  in  Latin,  without  intermingling  fomthing  of  their  own 
 Language  therewith.  Dum  Latine  fcribunt,  Gallivant  &  Germani- 
 sant. This  latter  Opinion,  which  has  been  followed  by  very  able 
 Criticks,  is  more  agreeable,  than  the  former,  to  the  Opinion  of  the 
 ancient  Ecclefiaftical  Writers.  I  think  we  ought  to  acquiefce  in  the 
 Judgment  of  the  Greek  Fathers,  who  are  faithful  Witneffes  of  the 
 Greek  Stile  of  the  Evangelifts  and  the  Apoftles. 
 
 Ongcn  was  the  only  Man  of  all  the  Greek  Fathers,  who  applied 
 lumfelf  moil  to  the  Study  of  the  Scripture,  in  a  manner  that  was 
 moft  exa<5t  and  Critical  .And  therefore  his  Judgment  upon  the  Quefti- 
 on,  ought  of  all  others  to  have  the  moft  weight  with  us.  When 
 that  Learned  Per  (on  Di  (putes  againft  the  Enemies  of  our  Religion, 
 who  defpifed  the  Prophets  and  the  Apoftles,  becaufe  of  their  Stile, 
 and  becaufe  the  fame  things  (fay  they)  were  much  better  exprefled 
 in  the  Writings  of  the  Ancient  Philofbphers.  He  makes  anfwer 
 to  them,  that  we  ought  not  upon  that  account  to  defpifè  the  Books 
 of  the  Jews  and  the  Chnftians,  becaufe  it  has  been  always  agreed, 
 that  the  Jews  had  written  before  the  Greeks.  As  to  the  Stile,  he 
 does  own  that  the  Greeks  have  the  advantage  ;  but  he  does  withal 
 alledge  that  it  cannot  be  inferred  from  thence,  that  their  Works 
 are  better  than  thofe  of  the  Jews  and  of  the  Chnftians.  He  does 
 hkowifè  obferve,  that  the  Books  of  the  Old  Teftament  are  notde- 
 ftitute  of  their  ornament  in  the  Hebrew  Language.  Which  he  does 
 affirm  of  the  Writings  of  the  Apoftles,  becaule,  the  truth  is,  they  had 
 no  Politcnefs  in  their  Expreffions,  having  applied  themtelves  more  to 
 the  Eloquence  of  Things,  than  of  Words. 
 
 (d)  The  Prophets  of  the  Jews  (faith  OrijrenJ  and  the  Difciples 
 of  Jefus  renounced  all  Ornaments  of  Difcourle,  and  every  thing 
 which  the  Scripture  does  call  human  Wildom,  and  according  to  the 
 Flelh.  If  any  Greek  fthat  Learned  Father  continues  J  fhould  have 
 a  deiign  to  teach  a  Doftrin,  that  were  profitable  to  the  Egyptians 
 and  the  Syrians,  he  would  rather  choo(esto  learn  the  Barbarous  Lan- 
 guages of  thofe  Nations,  than  to  be  ufelefs  by  f  peaking  Greek  to 
 them.  (  e)  The  thing  is  the  fame  (^according  to  him)  in  the  Provi- 
 dence of  God,  who  did  not  only  confider  thofe  amongft  the  Greeks 
 
 (  c\)  Cl  iv  'ixStuGiç  Gr&çvTtu  )y  ol  <nt  Ih^k  outrai  o'i  (mlkç£v  %<Ûçhi>  httovtic 
 7$  aûp&.     Ori£  adv.Cdf.  lib  7. 
 
 f  C  )  "Ol/TOS  W  GT£?fK,uV>1  $&<*>  $*><"<,  *  ffi  'm'TTtufiiïàw  VGjUU^OU&UV  JUQVOV  7* 
 'E»,\jjjuv  ,  ÀhhtL  Zj  $S  K017WV  'E)}<lijj't)i>y  cvyys-TÎCri  t*  }J)a)T7ct  <fs  tz\/j£»*  <rV 
 tLKpoeovfyav,  ha  tua*  cwnStnv  ffltaoifjfyti  hifyzi  «?£j<£AiP7>7tu  vm  ctxpociffiv  ii  ffi 
 lJ)o)TfS  ^îî^of.     Ong  ibid. 
 
 who 
 
[  87  ] 
 
 who  were  Men  of  [.earning,  but  rather  the  ignorant  Community. 
 And  therefore  it  was  durable  to  the  exigency  at  chat  time,  that  thsy 
 fhould  accommodate  themfelves  to  the  Stile  of  the  meaner  fort,  that 
 they  might  gain  them,  in  1  peaking  their  Language. 
 
 Upon  this  Principle  we  ought  to  form  an  Idea  of  the  Apoftoli- 
 cal  and  Evangelical  Stile,  and  not  upon  the  prejudices  of  fome  Pro- 
 teftants,  who  believe  that  they  ftand  for  the  Authority  of  the  Scri- 
 pture, by  allowing  nothing  that  is  very  mean  to  have  proceeded  out 
 of  the  Mouth  of  the  Apoitles.  But  St.  Paul  hunfelf  declared  to  the 
 Corinthians,  who  defpifed  him,  becaufe  of  his  Language;  that  he 
 came  not  to  Preach  the  Gofpel  of  Jefus  Chrift  with  excellency  of1  Cor-  & 
 Speech,  or  of  Wifdom.  For  Cbrift  (faith  that  Apoftle)  fent  we  to  r*  %  - 
 Preach  the  Gofpel,  not  with  wifdom  of  Words,  St.  John  Cbryfoftom  has  j_ 
 obferved,  upon  this  Paffàge  of  St.  Paul,  that  if  the  Apoftles  in  their 
 Sermons,  did  not  u(e  the  Stile  of  the  wife  Men  of  the  Earth,  (r  )  that 
 ought  not  to  be  attributed  to  the  weaknefs  of  the  Gift  of  Tongues 
 which  they  had  received,  feeing  they  took  that  courfè,  that  they 
 might  not  obftruct  the  Preaching  of  the  Gofpel  If  K  be  fb,  (that 
 Farhcr  adds)  why  was  Apollo,  who  was  an  Eloquent  Man,  fent  to  the 
 Corinthians  ?  To  which  he  anfwers,  that  he  was  no:  chofen  becaufè 
 of  his  Eloquence,  but  becaufè  he  was  mighty  in  the  Scriptures,  and 
 vigoroufly  refuted  the  Jews  :    JUtoitit  b2>  cv  -mlV  x&tut  ^  t^yx  ™s 
 
 St.  Chryfofiom  docs  very  much  infifl  upon  this,  to  (hew  that  the 
 Apoftles  were  rude  in  their  Expreffions,  and  unskilful  in  the  Greek 
 Tongue.  {  g )  When  the  Greeks  fhall  accule  (faith  he)  the  Difciples 
 of  Jef us  Chnft,  for  not  ufing'a  Difcourfe  more  polifhed  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  alfo  reproves  thofe  of  his  time, who  alledged  that  St.  Paul  was 
 a  Learned  and  an  Eloquent  Man.  He  makes  mention  of  a  Difpute 
 which  was  held  about  it  in  his  time,  betwixt  a  Greek  and  a  Chriftian. 
 He  thought  it  was  a  ridiculous  thing  in  the  Chnftian  to  maintain 
 that  St.  Paul  undcrftood  the  Greek  Language  perfectly.  All  (h)  that 
 Difpute  went  upon  a  comparifon  of  St.  Paul  with  Plato.  TheGne* 
 cian  endeavoured  to  demonftrare  that  St.  Paul  was  an  illiterate  Man* 
 
 (  i  )  Ovid&tv&tL  r&  %tejcqj.enT)ç'  à>}C  tva  us  @K<tCi  n  aucvytut.  Chry'ofr.Hom.?. 
 in  Epift   i.  ad  Cor  cap.  r. 
 
 H^ni^pfi/uS/Jtw^f.    Chryi.  ibid 
 
 (  hj  n«e£riauyAK  ^  UKdruvQ-  CiiTtmw  «oxf,   5  ,uV  'E?>.Lu  \<rufç/Tc  Struv-.au  on  I 
 
 077  YihÀTZûV<Q-  KoyÛTi&î  Luu>  o  IlaZh®-.     Chryf.  îb.d. 
 
 The 
 
[  88  ] 
 
 The  Chriftian,  on  the  contrary,  was  fo  filly  as  to  undertake  to  prove, 
 that  St.  Paul  was  more  Learned  and  Eloquent  than  Plato.  But  as 
 that  Holy  Bifhop  obferves,  the  Grecian  on  that  occafion,  (aid  what 
 the  Chriftian  ought  to  have  laid  :  the  Chnfhan  on  the  contrary, 
 made  ufe  of  inch  words  as  would  have  better  become  the  Grœaan. 
 
 It  ii  no  new  thing  to  find  Chriftians  defend  the  purity  of  the  Stile 
 or   the  Apoftles.     If  Henry  Stephen,  Phochen,  and  feme  others  had 
 lived  in  St.  Cbrjfofioms  time,  he  would  have  found  alio  in  them  the 
 like  Conduct,  which  he  would  not  have  failed  to  brand  with  the 
 title  of  ridiculous.     He  would  have  laid  to  them,  as  to  thofe  who 
 lived  in  his  days,  (t)  that  the  fame  thing  therefore  may  not  befai 
 you,  and  that  the  Greeks  may  not  deride  iu>  inDifpute,  let  us  accule  the 
 Apoftles  of  being  illiterate  perfons  ;  for  fuch  an  accufation  is  their 
 prailè.     And  the  truth  is,  the  Power  of  the  Gofpel  did  not  confift 
 in  the  Knowledge  and  Eloquence  of  the  Apoftles,  but  in  the  Effi- 
 cacy of  the  Word  of  God.     The  Mahometans  admire  the  greatnefs 
 and  majelly  of  the  Stile  of  their  Alcoran.     The  Chriftians  on  the 
 contrary,   wrho  acknowledge  the  mod  part  of  the  Writings  of  the 
 New  Teftament  to  be  but  fimple  and  mean  as  to  the  Stile,  are  jie- 
 verthelels  perfliaded  of  the  truth  of  their  Religion,    which  was 
 Preached  by  Men,  (k)  who  were  obicure  and  illiterate.     (I)  This 
 is  no  matter  of  defamation  (St.  Chryfofto m  does  add)  when  we  fpeak 
 of  fuch  Difciples  of  Jefus  Chnft.     It  is  rather  matter  of  their  praifb/ 
 who  being  iiich  perlons  made  themfèlves  renowned  through  the 
 whole  World. 
 
 And  therefore  Origen  made  no  icruple  to  give  fbme  examples  of 
 the  fimple  and  mean  Stile  of  the  ApolHes,  and  alfb  to  obfèrve  their 
 Solecifms  ;  which  fome  Fathers  have  done  after  him.  He  fays  that 
 (w)  the  Apoftles  who  were  periuaded  or  their  mean  capacity,  as  to 
 human  literature,  to  which  thev  had  never  applied  themfèlves,  did 
 freely  declare  the  fimplicity  of  their  Stile,  and  that  they  were  very 
 little  acquainted  with  the  Rules  of  Difcourfe,,  although  they  were 
 very  skilful  in  the  matters  of  Religion.  The  fame  Father  does  ob- 
 fervc  in  many  places  of  his  Works,  that  St.  Paul's  di&ion  is  full  of 
 
 iTniJïiv  ï\fiv  <zv&ç  ojjt&j  ctyïv  Lu  ,  y^çf.n^^ufjSfJ  ^nçchûiv  clç  dixaSàv'  «  yd  y&niypeiei 
 twin,  iyKjûfjuov.  Chryf,  ibid.  • 
 
 i  k  J  'A/x£f.$£f  )Cj  àyçg.uy.&Tii  x}  7iiv))-n<;  xj  IvriKHi  xj  ttovirimi  x}  àtpcwiïf.  Cliryf. 
 ib:d. 
 
 (I)  Ojk  'ici  QkdL'iÇMiAa,  nfiS  a/ïïn^Kuv  tomttl-,  ctM<*  )ç)  Jï^a^  tv  7fc\r  tiivtvç  vif 
 •<xaf4i/>K  77W07K  Art.ju.î7^7îf»f  (p&vLScu.     Cluyl   ibid. 
 
 (  m  j  Ovk  ciavvaJÏjYi-jvi  ci  anriçvKoi  7vy%âvovTit  ffi  cv  olç  <&£f<ntl'xj)ici,  x)  «%« 
 tL  «x,  ù°ÂhlwTJJ>    çitctv') SiÛtvj  \T)  tvS  Koyy,  ct>À'  à  79  yiûoxi.     Oti£  Pdifac  C.  4. 
 
 Jrïypeïbàces, 
 
L  89  ] 
 
 Hyperbates,   nay  even  of  BarbarifmSj  winch  made  him  obfcui 
 St/n         (n)  who  alfb  acknowledged  thofê  If-   *rb        in  clue  A- 
 poftlesStile,  did  attribute  the  lame  to  the  readin  ) 
 
 and  to  the  vigor  ot  chat.Spiric  which  was  in  him.  I  Ihould  never  lia 
 done,  if  I  mould  particularly  relate  all  the  Teftimonies  or  th 
 Writers  concerning  the  (impie  and  low  Stile  or  the  Evangehlh  ami 
 the  Apofiles.  They  have  not  fo  much  as  exe  I  St.  Luke,  though 
 it  15  generally  believed  that  he  had  a  more  exact  knowledg  of  rhe 
 Greek  Language,,  than  the  reft  of  the  Writers  of  the  New  Telia- 
 merit. 
 
 The  Greek  Scholiafts  who  have  written  on  Stjobn,  oblerve,  after 
 St.Chryfoftom,  in  the  Prefaces  which  they  prefix  to  that  Evangcliir, 
 that  St.  John  was  (o)  of  a  pitifal  Village  called  ljethfauLi  in  Galilee } 
 the*Son  of  a  poor  Filher,  who  was  altogether  ignorant  of  that 
 which  the  Men  of  the  World  call  good  Literature,  himièlf  a  rude 
 and  plain  Filherman,  who  could  neither  (peak  nor  write.  The 
 Cardinal  Toletm,  who  writ  a  judicious  Commentary  upon  St.  Johns 
 Gofpel,  fpeaks  no  otherwifè  of  that  Elvangelifrs  Stile,  in  a  Summary 
 prefixed  to  his  Commentary.  There  he  affirms  that  St.  John  (p)  does 
 îpeak  worfè  Greek  than  the  other  Evangelifts,  that  he  is  fhirFed  with 
 Hebraifms;  and  that  to  underftand  him,  it  is  neceilary  to  know  the 
 Hebrew  as  well  as  the  Greek.  He  délires  us  to  (y)  obferve  well  the 
 Caufil  Particles,  the  Illatives,  the  Conjunctives,  and  others  of  that 
 Nature,  which  have  a  great  force  in  all  his  Difcourfe,  becaufe  the 
 Senle  docs  ibmetimes  wholly  depend  on  thofe  Particles. 
 
 Enjedme,  a  fubtil  Unitary,  did  alio  enlarge  hisObfèrvationson  the 
 Stile  of  that  Evangeliit,  which  he  looked  upon  as  very  oblcure,  and 
 very  hard  to  be  understood,     (r)  If  we  (faith  he)  ought  to  call  that 
 
 (nj  Quoniam  am  em  by perbatis  frequenter  utitur  Apoftolus  propter  velocity  em 
 fermonum  fuorum,  &  propter  impetum  qui  in  ipfo  eft  J  fir  it  ûi  ex  mult  is  quuLm 
 alii  s  eft  invenire.    Iren.  adv.  Hxr.  lib.  3  c.  7. 
 
 (o  ]  0Û7T{J  Ivay^Kicytc  -miTelfc;  (Af*  Lu  lim  km/mis  cim^S*  $m  B)i9jtu</*  -njç 
 T^i^aûaiy  Two*  Av  cLhii©-  ^ mvmvç'  'mtiT^04  Ji  -fiii  K^tfdtr  *<hmv  uniw'  «tdç  0 
 aaiJjç  )y}J)dmiç)é)û)TÛ(&TÛjj  io^Tiw'  0  -^ifj^A-m  m  «cA»\,  &c.  Schol.  Gr.  in  IV. 
 Evang.  ci  cod.  MS  Bibl.  Colb. 
 
 (  p  )  Minas  quam  cceteri  Evangeliftœ  Greece  locutus  eft.  Hebraicis  pbrafibus 
 abundat.  Unde  fit  ut  H.braici  fermoms  peritia,  non  minus  quàm  Gr.vci,  ad  fin- 
 Jum  [entenùarum  ajjequendum  fit  neceff.iria.  Franc.  Toi.  argum.  Coimn.  in  Joann. 
 
 (  q)  Attendendum  eft  maximam  vim  in  particules  caufalibus,  iLatrois,  continu- 
 ativis,  cjeteriftque  ejufmodi  ejfe  pofitam,  ut  inter  Jum  una  partizula  integrum  j 
 jenfum  comme  at  (3  oft  end  at.  Toi.  ibid. 
 
 (r)  Siobfcuritas  concija,  abrupt a,  minime  fibi  cohœrens,  &  ex  al'.egoriis  ce 
 oratio  fublimitas  dicenda   eft,  fateor  Joannem  ejje   jublimem.     K.im  vix  tu 
 Chrijh  concionem  ab  eo  relatam  invemas,  qu.e  to  ta  non  fit  allegorica  Ç$  inti 
 dijjiciilima.    Georg.  Enjed.  proœm,in  Joann. 
 
 M  greatnefs 
 
[90] 
 
 vreatnefs  of  Stile  which  is  an  obfcure  Difcourfe,  abridged  and  interrupted, 
 without  any  connection,  and  which  is  full  of  Allegories,  I  avow,  that  in 
 that  Senfe,  St.  John's  Stile  is  fublime  :  for  he  makes  no  Harangue  con- 
 cerning Jefvs  Chrifi  which  is  not  Allegorical,  and  very  difficult  to  be  un- 
 derflcod.  He  does  ftrongly  infill:  (/)  on  the  obfeurity  of  the  beginning 
 of  that  Gofpel,  where  fas  he  thinks,)  we  can  find  nothing  but  figu- 
 rative words,  and  uncouth  forms  of  Speech.  There  is  not  a  Word 
 or  Diction  therein  fas  that  Unitary  does  add)  but  what  may  be  Ex- 
 pounded, ieveral,difFerent,  nay  even  oppofite  ways.  This  being  Co, 
 I  admire  the  headftrong  prejudice  of  the  Proteftants  and  Umtanes, 
 who  dare  oppofe  the  common  Belief  of  all  the  Churches  of  the 
 World,  having  no  other  Foundation  but  that  of  Records,  which  they 
 acknowledg  to  be  fo  obfcure  and  difficult  to  be  undedtood.  It  is 
 true  that  the  Proteftants  do  not  altogether  agree  about  the  obfcurity 
 of  Scripture,  efpecially  in  the  moft  important  places  ;  but  the  Unt- 
 taries  in  this  matter,  fliew  more  Candor,  not  denying  a  thing  which 
 is  obvious.  They  onlydefire  that  the  number  or  the  Fundamental 
 •  Points  of  our  Faith  be  limited. 
 
 It  is  not  fufficient  to  ftudy  the  Greek  Language  in  Profane  Authors  ; 
 feeing  the  Writers  of  the  New  Teftament  have  a  particular  Stile 
 that  is  abftrule,  and  requires  an  extraordinary  Application.  Rente- 
 mus  has  very  patly  oblèrved  in  his  Preface  which  he  prefixed  to  his 
 Veriion  of  the  Commentaries  of Euthymms  upon  theGolpels.  (rJThat 
 the  Apoftles  and  the  Evangelifts  being  born  Hebrews,  did  follow,  in 
 their  Writings,  the  Genius  of  the  Hebrew  Language,  which  fre- 
 quently puts  one  time  far  another,  and  has  many  other  things  pecu- 
 liar to  it.  He  adds,  it  is  not  only  St.  Matthew,  who  does  imitate 
 this  Stile  of  the  Hebrew  ;  but  the  other  Evangelifts  do  it  alio.  That 
 one  may  be  acquainted  with  this  Stiis,  it  is  fit  to  read  the  Greek  Ver- 
 fion  of  the  Septuagint,  which  the  Apoftles  have  imitated.  It  is  fur- 
 ther neceilary  to  ftudy  particularly  the  Stile  of  every   Book  of  the 
 
 (  f  )  Principium  Evangelii  Joannis  eft  obfcurijfimum,  quod  figurât  a  wees,  inafi- 
 iata  loquendi  formula,  pracipuè  ant  cm  diverfttas  C?  opinionum  tn  verbis  joanms 
 explicandis  varietas  &  contrarie  tas  ofteniit.  Nulla  enim  fere  vocula  eft,  certc 
 nulla  claujula,  qiue  multipliées  ($  inter  fe  diffident  es  interpretations  non  babeat. 
 
 Enjfd.  ibid. 
 
 (  t  )  Animadvert endum  eft  Evangelifta  &  Apoflolos  cumgenere  Hebrsi  ejftnthac 
 in  re,  jicut  &  in  all  is  multu,  Hebraicum  fecutos  idicma,  quo  illi  frequentijfimè  pro 
 prafenti  quod  proprmm  non  babent,  am  pro  futuro  efferunt  fraterttum.  Vtque  in 
 umverfum  dicam,  tempus  unum  pro  alio  Hebrai  Jcepenumero  collocant.  Quod  etiam 
 Evany  e  lift*  non  raro  feccrunt,  nee  fdlus  Mattbaus,  qui  patria  fcripfit  lingua,  boo 
 eft  lîcbrcea,  Jed  &  eaten  qui  Grace  fenpfe  runt  t  &c.  Joann,  Hent.  pref.  Ycrf.  Comm. 
 Éuthym.  in  Evang, 
 
 New 
 
[>  ] 
 
 .New  Teftamcnt.     For   although   they    arc  nrritten    in  a  cert; 
 Language,  which  I  cllewhere  called  the  Language  of  the  Synagogue, 
 every  Writer  has  (bmthing  peculiar  to  himièlr. 
 
 Of  all  the  Holy  Writers,  St.  Paul  is  moft  hard  to  be  underftood  ; 
 who  fometimes  comes  to  a  full  flop  before  he  has  done:  which  1 
 given  occafion  to  fo  great  a  number  of  Hyperbates,  or  Tranfpoh- 
 tions  in  h<s  Epiftles.     Gagnejus,  who  writ  very  judicious  Notes  upon 
 thole  EpilHcs,  calls  the  Reading,  or  Stile  of  St.  Paul,  Lecltonem  tur- 
 bulentam  &  filth  r  of  am*  i.e.  an  obfeure  and  rugged  Stile,     (u)  He  isper- 
 fuadedof  their  obfcurity,  becaufe  of  their  abftrufè  Stile  wherein  they 
 were  written,  which  he  thinks  almoft  impo/fible  to  be  explained, 
 without  the  fame  Spirit  that  St.  Vaul  had.     He  does  withal  admire 
 the  impudence  of  the  Proteftants,  who  having  quite  another  fort  of 
 Spirit  than  what  the  Apoftle  had,  do  infblently  boaft,   that  they 
 underftand  them,  without  any  other  affiftance,  than  that  of  their 
 own  Spirit:  I  mould  have  fome  caufe  to  glory,  (faith  that  Divine) 
 if  I  could  give  fome  light  to  St.  Paul's  obfeure  Stile,  which  (as  many 
 think)  thatApoftle  did  expre/ly  affecL    Non  parum  glortabor,  fi  quid 
 lue  is  Paul  i  tenebris  adjecijfe  invemar,  ut  mulù  fut  ant,  de  mdujtriâ  affetla- 
 tu.    But  that  Apoftle,  in  that,  did  the  rather  follow  his  Spirit,  which 
 reprefented  to  him  many  things  at  once.    And  therefore,  fometimes 
 he  only  begins  a  Difoourfe,  and  leaves  it  incompleat,  nay  he  raifes 
 fome  objections  to  which  he  makes  no  anfwer. 
 
 I  know  that  St.  Auguftin  in  his  Books  concerning  the  Chriftian  Aug.  /.  4. 
 Religion,  compofed  a  Chapter  exprefly  to  fhew  that  there  was  true  de  ûocl. 
 Eloquence  in  the  Holy  Scripture,  efpecially  in  St. Paul's  Writings,  cbrijtm 
 where  he  finds  perfection  of  Wifdom,  accompanied  with  the  great-  c'  7* 
 nefs  of  Eloquence.     But  feeing  that  Father  did  not  underftand  the 
 Greek  Language,  we  ought  in  this  cafe  to  prefer  the  Opinion  of 
 the  Greek  Fathers  to  his.     He  feerns  neverthelefs,  in  that  place,  to 
 lpeak  only  of  a  kind  of  Eloquence,  that  he  calls  Wifdom,  and  which 
 he  makes  to  confift  rather  in  Things,   than   in   Expreffions.     If 
 St.  Paul  was  Eloquent,  becaufe  of  fome  Figures  which  St.  Auguftm 
 obferved  in  his  Stile,  there  is  almoft  no  Author  but  may  pais  for 
 Eloquent  upon  that  fcore.    There  is  indeed  a  force  in  that  Apoftle's 
 
 (u)  Salebrofas  illas  Pauli  EpiftoUs  plerumque  leïiitanti  mibi  tarn  langis  byperbatis 
 hiulcas,  tot  anaPodotis  mabfôlutas,  tant  a  fenfuum  profunditate  inacccjfai  Qinvias 
 Ttfum  eft  non  hic  divinatore  Apollims  Pytbone,  fed  divmo  Pauli  fpxritu  opus  effe. 
 TJnde  nen  pojfum  illorum  non  admirari  impudentiam,  qui  cum  non  Pauli,  id  eft 
 pacts  ac  quietis.fed  fcbifmatum  ac  dijfenfionis  fpiritum  babeanty  confcjlim  nuHo 
 interprète  abfaue  fantlorum  &  doclorum  bominumCommentariu  quœ  cavillart  filent , 
 unos  fe  Pauli  mem em  tenere  impudenur  arrogant.  Gngn.  Epiltdedic.  SchoL  in 
 Epiit.  Pauli. 
 
 M  z  Difcourfv. 
 
[9*   ] 
 
 cii (courte  :  There  are  very  high  thoughts,  and  a  perfect  knowledg 
 of  Religion:  But  all  this  is  not  called  Eloquence,  according  to  the 
 common  notion  which  we  have  of  the  Word.  He  himfelf  declares, 
 writing  to  the  Corinthians,  who  charged  him  with  rudenefs  of  Speech, 
 that  his  difcourfè  was  mean,  and  that  he  had  not  the  art  of  (peak- 
 ing, or  did  not  life  enticing  words  of  Mans  wijdom. 
 
 St.  Jerome  does  plainly  affure  us,  (x)  that  that  acknowledgment 
 of  St.  Paul  did  not  fo  much  proceed  from  the  deep  humility  that 
 was  in  him,  as  from  the  Truth  which  he  owned,  becaufe  his  Tongue 
 could  not  well  exprefs  his  profound  and  hidden  thoughts.    That  A- 
 poftle,  (faith  he)  being  an  Hebrew,  and  having  ftudied  under  Gama- 
 liel >  a  Doctor  of  the  Law,  is  put  hard  to  it,  when  he  would  exprefs 
 what  is  upon  his  Spirit,  although  he  had  from  his  Infancy,  Learned 
 the  Greek  Language  at  Tar  [us  in  Cilicia.  ,  He  does  alledge  after  Ori- 
 gen,  that  St.  Paul  (y)  ufedmany  forms  of  Speech,  which  were  pecu- 
 liar to  thofe  of  Cilicia,  where  he  was  bred,  and  likewile  he  gives 
 fbme  examples  thereof,  which  I  do  not  here  examin.     He  adds,  that 
 that  is  no  furprifing  thing,  feeing  Virgil,  who  was  a  perfect  Matter 
 of  the  Latin  Tongue,  has  neverthelefs  made  ufe  of  fome  expreffions 
 that  were  peculiar  to  thofe  of  his  Country. 
 
 That  Father,  as  to  what  he  further  alledges  with  fo  great  freedom 
 of  St.  Pauls  Stile,  has  given  us  nothing  but  what  he  had  read  in  the 
 Ancient  Ecclefiaftical  Authors,  and  what  St.  John  Chryjofrom,  who 
 lived  at  the  faîne  time,  has  fhewn  at  large  in  his  Eloquent  Homilies, 
 which  he  Preached  to  the  People.  Yet  St.  Augufiine  was  of  a  be- 
 lief, contrary  to  the  Opinion  of  St.  Chryfofiomi  and  the  mod  Learn- 
 ed of  the  Ancient  time  (z,)  that  he  ought  to  make  an  Apology  for 
 St.  Paul,  by  aniwering  a  fort  of  Men  of  his  time,  who  defpifed  that 
 Apoftlc,'  becaufe  he  made  no  fhew.of  Eloquence  in  his  difcourfe. 
 But  Ongen,  who  was  not  afhamed  to  produce  St.  Paul's  Solecifmesj 
 
 (  x  )  lllud  quod  crebrb  diximus,  ctfi  imperitus  Jermone,  non  tamen  fcientià,  ne- 
 quaquamPaultmi  dehumilitate,  fed  de  conjciemiœ  irritate  dixiffe  etiam  nunc  ap- 
 frobamtu.  Profundus  cmm  &  recondit OS  J enfin  lingua  non  explicit  ;  &  cum  ipfe 
 ,'jntiat  quidioqttatur,  in  ahcnai  aurcs  puronon  pot eft  transferre  fermone,  que  m  cum 
 in  vcrnacula  lingua  habcat  difrtiffmum,  quippe  Helrauis  ex  Hebrœis  eruditus  ad 
 
 des  Gamaliels  viri  in  lege  dociijfmi  fenptum  interpretari  cupiens  involvitttr. 
 flier.  Epitt.  ad  Alg  qu.  10. 
 
 (  y  )  Malta  funt  verba  qnibus  juxta  morem  urbis  (3  frovincùe  fu.c  familiarms 
 
 /fpcfiolus  utitiir  --  Kec  hoc  miremur  in  Apofloloji  utatur  ejus  lingua  conjuetudine  in 
 
 •intui  cjl  (3  )iutritvs  ;  cum  VirgiHm  alter  Homcrus  apud  nos  patriœ  fuefequens 
 
 'uctudincm  fee  I '.t;  i  turn  frigtH  kfpettet.  Mieron.  ibid. 
 
 (z)  Male  do'clis  homuubns  rtf]>undcndumfuit,  qui  noflros  auciores  contemnendns 
 'tant,  non  quia  non  babent,  fed  quia  non  of  entant  quhm  mmis  ifti  diligunt  eto- 
 mentiam,  Aug.  dc  Doift  Chriit  lib,  4.  c.  7. 
 
 did 
 
[  93  ] 
 
 did  judiciotifly  obi         (<•)  that  thatApoftle,  who  was  appointed  by 
 God  to  be  the  Minifter  of  the  New  Teftament,  had  in  his         :n- 
 
 ing,  and  not  in  Mens  Wildom,  (hewn  the  virtue  and  efficacy  of  .the 
 Goipel,  thatthe  Gonverfion  of  Nations  might  not  be  attributed  to 
 
 that  Worldly  Wildom.  And  thereforeSt.  Paul  and  the  other  \ 
 iHes  have  no  need  of  Apologies,  which  might  afford  him  a  Sanctu- 
 ary, againft  thole  reproaches  which  may  be  caft  on  them,  about  the 
 manner  of  their  Writing,  feeing  God  Was  plealed,  not  to  make  ufe 
 of  Orators  for  the  Preaching  of  the  Goipel,  but  iimple  Flfhermen 
 who  had  no  Learning. 
 
 Further,  it  docs  not  yet  follow,  but  that  it  is  demonftrable,  that 
 the  molt  part  of  the  words  that  St.  Paul,  and  the  other  Writers  of  the 
 New  Teftament  have  uled,  arc  good  Greek  ;  only  the  Symetry  of 
 their  Phrafes,  and  their  modes  or  Speech  are  not  always  accommo- 
 dated to  the  Greek,  which  is  not  extraordinary.  For  every  Nation 
 has  a  peculiar  manner  or  expreffing  their  own  thoughts  ;  and  though 
 they  deliver  them  in  terms  that  are  purely  Greek  or  Latin,  wo  loon 
 perceive,  that  the  Order  is  not  altogether  Grtek  or  Lathi.  We  need 
 only  for  Example,  look  on  the  Greek  Verfion  of  the  Pfalms,  and  up- 
 on the  Ancient  Latin  Translation,  which  was  done  out  or  the  Greek  ; 
 we  fee  there  ibmething  that  is  lingular,  and  not  agreeable  either  to 
 the  Greek  or  the  Latin  Genius  ;  when  it  is  even  luppofcd,  that  the 
 words  are  pure  Greek  and  Lat'  And  for  this  reafon,  thole  amonglt 
 the  Greek  Fathers,  who  had  a  perfect  knowledge  or  the  Greek  Lan- 
 guage, were  fometimes  at  a  lois,  as  to  their  comprehending  the  G 
 or  the  Septuagint. 
 
 We  may  further  obfervc,  that  if  the  Ancient  Eccleiîaflical  Wri- 
 ters, had  known  the  Hebrew  as  well  as  the  Greek  ;  they  would  not 
 have  found  the  Stile  of  the  Sacred  Writings  fo  barbarous  as  iome  of 
 them   believed.     I   am  ailoniihed,  that  St.  Jerome  who  undcrftood 
 both  Languages,  did  not  take  this  way  to  explain  what  lcciv.'d  to 
 moft  frrange  in  their  Stile,  rather  than  acctife  thçm  of  Soleeifmr 
 Barbarifms.     I  believe,   that  in  thole  places,  he  followed  the  G    - 
 mon  of  Origen,  whom  he  frequently  tranferibes.     Indeed,  he  doea 
 ibmetimes admire  the  greatnels  of  St.  PauPs  thoughts  :  Ile  acknç 
 ledged,  that  that  Holy  Apoftle  had  applyed  himlclfto  theftudy  of 
 Protane  Author.,    whom    he  lometimes  quotes.     Ik  ill,  he  is 
 
 of  the  mind,  that  we  ought  not  to  look  for  Elu  .ôouries  in 
 
 rhe  Wi  icings  of  the  Apoitles,  becaule  Jefus  Chnil  did  not         nd  to 
 
 *V£j«77wy>  ctA/.'  h  ftwd[/.i  0i».   (J.i£.  Pklpc    ^  ,    - 
 
 ive 
 
C  94  1 
 
 have  his  Church  computed  of  Orators  and  Philosophers,  but  of  Men 
 who  were  the  Dregs  of  the  People.  Ecclefia  Chrifti  non  de  Academia 
 ejr  Ljceo,  fed  de  vili  plebe  cowgregata  eft. 
 
 Chap.     XXVII. 
 
 Of  the  Language  of  the  Hellenifts  or  Grecians;  if  that 
 which  hears  that  name  ,  be  in  ejfeB,  a  Language  : 
 The  tf^eafons  of  Salmafius  againjl  that  Language,  do 
 rather  eftabli/h  than  dejlrqy  it.  T\ie  Greek  of  the  New 
 Te  ft  anient  may  he  called  the  Greek  of  the  Synagogue, 
 the  Jews  Hellenifts  read  in  their  Synagogues  the  He- 
 brew Text  of  the  Bible,  a*  well  *s  the  Jews. 
 
 u 
 
 r 
 
 lI  1ère  are  forne  Padages  in  the  Acls  of  the  Apoftles,  from  which 
 there  are  Proofs  commonly  drawn,  that  the  Jews,  when  Chri- 
 **e£  y    ftianity  began,  were  divided  into  two  Parties.  The  one  were  *  pure- 
 Û'Ekk"'  'y  called  Hebrews,  and  the  other  Hellenifts  or  Grecians.     Thofe  who 
 M?*".       remained  in  the  Territory  of  Babylon,  after  they  were  firft  diiperted, 
 retained  the  name  of  Hebrews  ;  becaute  îhey  (pake  the  very  Lan- 
 guage, which  was  ufed  beyond  the  River  Euphrates,  and  which,  for 
 chat  reafon  ought  to  be  called  Hebrew,  although  it  was  Chaldee.  And 
 the  Jews  who  dwelt  in  Palefime,  after  their  return  from  the  Babylo- 
 nifl)  Captivity, were  alfo  purely  called  Hebrews  ;  becaute  they  brought 
 from  Babylon  the  Cbaldaick  Language,    which  they  called  Hebrew. 
 Thefe  Hebrews,  in  their  Synagogues,  read  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the 
 Law  and  the  Prophets,  to  which  they  joyned  Glofles  that  were  writ- 
 ten in  the  Chaldee,  which  was  their  Vulgar  Tongue. 
 
 They  called  thofe  Grecians,  who  were  Jews  of  Alexandria,  and 
 many  other  places  where  they  fpake  the  Greek  Language.  The  te  read 
 in  their  Affemblies,  the  Greek  Verfion  of  the  Septuagint,  which  they 
 joyned  to  the  Hebrew  Text,  to  be  uted  as  an  Interpretation.  They 
 were  called  Hellenifts  or  Greeks,  becaute  they  (pake  Greek,  and  read 
 no  other  Books,  in  their  ordinary  cuftom,  than  what  were  written 
 in  Greek  :  Yet  they  always  maintained  a  particular  refpeft  for  the 
 Original  Hebrew  of  the  Bible.  And  therefore  in  their  Synagogues, 
 they  continued  to  read  it  in  Hebrew^  no  lefs  than  the  other  Jews  ; 
 
 which 
 
I  91  J 
 
 which  is  ftill  practifel  bv  the  Jews  at  this  day,  in  «ill  places  where 
 they  are,  through  the  whole  World.  The  Jews,  for  Example,  of 
 the  Sfmtifh  Nation  and  Rite,  the  Dutch  Jews,  who  live  in  Holland 
 and  the  Neighbouring  Provinces;  and  in  a  word,  all  the  Jews  of 
 what  Nation foever,  read  in  their  Synagogues,  tne  Holy  Scripture  in 
 the  Original  Language  :  They  are  called  SpamfJ)  and  Dutch ,  becauie 
 of  their  Vulgar  Tongue. 
 
 There  were  at  that  time  alfo,  Jews  who  fpake  Greek,  whom  they 
 likewife  called  Greeks  or  Hellem(tsy  and  the  Language  in  which  the 
 moft  part  of  their  Books  were  written,  has  been  called  in  this  Age, 
 the  Hellemflick  Language.  This  Language  is  Greek  in  refpect  of  the 
 words,  but  the  order  of  the  Phrafe  is  Hebrew  or  Chaldee  ;  as  we  (till 
 fee  ac  this  day,  that  the  Spanifi?  Jews  have  compofed  the  Transi- 
 tions of  the  Bible  in  a  kind  of  SpamJJ)  Language,  which  is  hard  to  be 
 underftood  by  any  oÊt  who  does  not  underltand  the  Hebrew:  It  is 
 the  fame  thing  in  their  other  Verfions  of  the  Bible,  in  whatfbever 
 Language  they  are  written.  They  do  not  only  continually  mix 
 therewith,  fôme  Hebrew  or  half  Hebrew  words;  but  their  manner  cf 
 expreffion,  in  all  the  Vulgar  Languages,  has  alfo  a  great  affinity 
 with  the  Hebrew.  The  Ancient  Greek  Verfion  of  the  Septuaginc 
 was  written  in  this  fort  of  Greek,  as  well  as  the  Books  of  the  New 
 Teftament,  and  they  called  this  Language  Helleni/lick,  becaufe  it  was 
 in  u(e  among  the  Jews  who  fpake  the  Greek  Lang. .age,  and  who 
 are  called  HeUenifis  or  Greeks  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apoftles. 
 
 Vofllw,  who  frequently  frames  Maxims,  which  he  does  not  con- 
 firm by  any  fblid  Proofs,  does  alledge,  that  thofe  were  called  Hel- 
 lemfis,  who  favoured  the  Greeks;  and  that  the  Word  «^1^»^"  does 
 iïgnifie  that,  in  the  fame,  manner  as  fvpù&v  &  mç<ri&v  do  fignifie  to 
 favour  the  Romans  and  the  Perfians.  And  thus  that  incomparable 
 Perfbn  does  often  judge  of  things  merely  by  Grammatical  Notions., 
 without  being  in  any  meafure  concerned,  whether  thole  notions  do^ 
 or  do  not  agree  to  the  things,  to  which  he  applies  them.  But 
 if  we  fhouW  confine  our  (elves  only  to  the  Grammatical  fènfe  of 
 the  Word  4^lu;iǫv,  it  is  certain,  that  it  doesfigmfie,  as  well  in  Pro- 
 fane as  Eccleiiaitical  Authors ,  to  [peak  Greek  ;  and  likewife,  to 
 (peak  that  Language  in  its  purity.  He  thinks  that  thofe  among  the 
 Jews,  were  called  Hebrews  ;  who,  by  reafbn  of  the  great  zeal  they 
 had  for  their  Law,  were  unwilling  to  fubmit  to  the  Greeks  and  the 
 Romans,  and  would  by  no  means  allow  that  their  Nation  mould  pay 
 tribute  to  Strangers:  The  reft  on  the  contrary,  were  called  HeUenifis 
 who  paid  tribute  with  good  will. 
 
 But  all  this  is  a  mere  imagination,  that  has  not  the  leaf!  fhadow 
 of  Reafbn,  and  which  fïgnihes  nothing  ;  as  to  that  Partage  of  the 
 
 Ath 
 
[5*3 
 
 'Acls  of  the  Apoftles,  Chap.  6.  where  there  is  mention  made  of  the 
 
 Hebrews  and  Hellevifis,  or  Greeks,  St.  Chryfofiom,  Theodoret,  Oecume- 
 nies,  and  many  other  Fathers,  did  not  by  thofe  Grecians  underftand 
 any  other  Jews,  but  thofe  who  had  the  Greek  for  their  Vulgar  Lan- 
 guage ;  whereas  thS  reft  (pake  the  Chaldee  or  Babylonish  Tongue.  St. 
 Luke  (faith  Oecuntenius  fpeakingof  the  former )  (a)  calls  them  Greeks 
 or  Hellenifis,  not  upon  the  account  of  their  Religion,  but  becaufe 
 they  (pake  the  Greek  Language  :  Although  they  were  yews  as  well 
 as  others,  they  are  not  commonly  called  Hebrews ,  becaufe  they  fpake 
 not  the  Hebrew,  or  rather  the  Chaldee  Language.  That  Hebrew 
 Language  had  continued  among  the  Jews  of  Palefiine  fince  their 
 return  from  Babylon,  and  they  look'd  upon  themfelves  to  be  more 
 considerable  than  the  reft  of  the  Jews,  who  were  difperfed  through 
 the  feveral  Provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire  where  they  fpake  Greek. 
 
 The  moft  able  Cnticks  of  our  Age,  havaipwned  the  Helleni/lick 
 Language,  to  which  they  have  had  frequent  recourfe  for  explaining 
 many  Partages  of  the  New  Teftament.  Yet  Salmafeus,  and  after 
 him  Crojus,  have  uled  their  utmoft  endeavour  to  cry  down  this  new 
 language,  which  (as  they  imagin )  was  unknown  to  all  the  Ancients, 
 and  which  is,  as  they  alledge,  chymencal,  feeing  it  cannot  be  redu- 
 ced to  any  of  the  Ancient  Greek  Diale&s. 
 
 The  former  has  exprefly  written  two  Books  upon  this  Subject,  one 
 whereof  is  entitled,  De  Hellenifticâ  Commentaries,  and  another,  Fu- 
 mts  Lingua  Hellemfiica.  He  does  really,  in  theie  two  Works,  ihew 
 him  fell  to  be  a  Man  of  great  Learning  :  But  he  is  fo  far  from  de- 
 ftroying  that  Language,  as  he  pretends,  that  he  does  confirm  it  in 
 lèverai  places. 
 
 The  Patrons  of  the  Helleniftick  Language  never  believed,  that 
 there  was  a  Greek  Dialed  of  that  name;  and.  fo,  all  Salmafws\  long 
 Difcourfe  upon  the  fèveral  Greek  Dialects,  is  nothing  to  the  purpofc. 
 Further,  feeing  we  intend  not  to  difpute  with  him  on  words,  it  jhall 
 be  granted,  that  the  word  Hellemd  does  fignihe  Greek  ;  and  that  thofe 
 who  (peak  not  that  Language  properly,  ought  rather  to  be  called 
 Non  Hcllemfts  than  HeUemjts.  The  truth  is,  in  the  Prohibition  that 
 Julian  laid  on  the  Chriftuns,  not  to  apply  themfelves  to  the  Study 
 of  the  Greek  Language,  he  ufes  this  word  4m£u»*'C«p  ;  as  it  does  figni- 
 fie  to  f  peak  pure  Greek.  And  therefore  St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzen  calls 
 him  in  denfion,  <pi\itàhua.  ^^thohoy>v,  a  lever  of  the  Greek  Language  ; 
 and  he  tejJs'him,  (b)  he  who  made  this  Law,  has  forbidden  us  to 
 
 (  a  ;   'EhkUuicat  o  «  t  àfïimeicur,  ÀKKct  TVs  i\Kbjji<$  a>^jpfjSfiv(  >#*«.  Oecum. 
 inc. 6.  Act.  Apolt. 
 
 (bj   'O  Û7V  vwçdfadHiHi&v  fj$l*<iKvri  ii$£K\Mw  vk  ïmvrt.    Greg. 
 Naz.  Orat.  i.  adv.  Jul, 
 
 (peak 
 
C  97  ] 
 
 fpeak  in  the  Atclck  Dialed,  but  he  has  not  rcftrame  1  iu  from  (peak- 
 ing the  Tnuh. 
 
 in  thislcnfc,  there  arc  no  true  Helhmfts,  butthofe  who]  «f- 
 
 ;  jcl  KnowbJge  of  the  Greek   Language:    which   doc.,  differ 
 the  Helleniftick  Language,  and  this  1  would  rather  call  the  Gr**£  of 
 the  Synagogue,  becaule  it  owes  its  Original  to  the  Synagogues  of 
 the  Jews.     Bat  thofe  who  firir  calTd  this  Language  the  Helleniftick, 
 did  it  only  in  conformity  to  that  place  of  the  Ads,  where  the  Jews 
 are  called  Hdicnifh,  and  not  according  to  the  ordinary  notion   of 
 the  word  HelUmft.     Salmafuts  does  grant,  that  there   are  many  // 
 braifms    in  the  Verfion  of  the  Septuagint,  and  in  the  Writings  of 
 the  Apoftles.     He  only  denies,  that  we  ought,  upon  that  account, 
 to  call  that  the  Helleniftick  Language,    in  which  thole  Books  we  re 
 written  :  Other  wile,  (faith  he)  we  ought  to  give  the  fame  name  to 
 the  Ancient  Latin  Verfion  of  the  Bible,  becaule  there  isalfb  a  great 
 many  Hebraifms  in  that  Verfion  :    But  it  was  neceilary  th  it  it  mould 
 have*  been  written  in  Greek,  before  it  could  be  called  an  Helleniftick 
 Verfion.    We  do  not  call  the  Language  of  the  Septuagint,  and  of 
 the  New  Teftament  Helleniftick,  merely  becaufè  it   contains  many 
 Hebraifms,  but  becaufè  it  is  Greek  mixed  with  Hebraifms. 
 
 There  may  be  any  name  chofèn  andapplyed  in  this  cafe,  provi- 
 ded that  there  be  an  agreement  in  the  thing  it  felf  :  It  is  vain  to 
 difpute  on  words,  when  the  matter  is  paft  dilpute.  Now  Salmafî.w 
 does,  in  his  two  Books,  fuppofe  certain  Principles  which  manifefHy 
 cftablifh  the  Language  which  (bme  Cnticks,  in  this  laft  Age,  have 
 called  the  Helleniftick.  He  allures  us,  for  example,  that  the  Seventy 
 Interpreters,  who  underftood  the  Greek  very  well,  (c)  could  have 
 made  a  Verfion,  of  better  Greek,  and  free  from  all  the  Hebraifms 
 and  Barbarisms  with  which  it  abounds.  He  is  of  the  Opinion  that 
 thefe  Hebraifms,  were  occafioned  by  the  too  great  care  they  took 
 to  render  the  Hebrew  words  literally,  and  to  exprels  the  force  they 
 have  in  the  Original.  According  to  this  fuppoiition,  the  Greek  of 
 the  Septuagint  is  not  pure,  but  Greek  mixed  with  Hebraifms  ;  and 
 they  have  Iikewife  given  new  fignifications  to  Greek  words,  the  bet- 
 ter to  exprefs  the  fenfe  of  the  Original.  This  is  that  which  is  cal- 
 led the  Helleniftick  Language:  Thus  you  fee,  how  Salmafuts  is  be- 
 come a  great  Hellenifticarj,  whilft  he  never  dream'd  any  luch  thing. 
 
 (c  )  Niji  verbumverbo  in  pluribus  redder  e  curaffent,  longe  y  tit  it  a  diCMtni  Gr&- 
 canorem  &  omnibus  Hebraifmis  totidemque  barbarifims  rcpurgatam  potutjjent  c 
 tranflationem.     Hebraifmi  non  aliunde  exorti  funt,  fttttm  ex  vert  emit  m  '.je 
 
 verbis  a/Iigat,  qui  Jen  fa  non  exprimere  contenus,  etiam  vim  ipfam  vccuLirum  re: 
 Cent  are  JatiWit.  S.ilra.  Epift.  dcoic.  Comm.  de  Hellcniit. 
 
 N  (./;  When 
 
C?8] 
 
 (J)  When  they  inferted  (faith  he,  fpeaking  of  the  Septus  gint,  ) 
 the  Hebrew  modes  of  Speech,  they  did  not  draw  them  from  the  co- 
 pioufnels  of  the  Greek  Language,  but  from  the  Hebrew  Text,  to 
 which  they  adhered  very  clolèly  :  Salmafim  does  ufè  his  utmoft  en- 
 deavour, to  confirm  by  tho(e  words,  the  Greek  Language  of  the  Sy- 
 nagogue, othei  wife  called  the  Hellemfick  Language.  'Tis  no  great 
 matter  how  it  is  called,  provided  the  thing  be  plain.  He  declares, 
 that  he  always  allow'd  ,  that  the  words  of  that  Verfion  are  Greek, 
 hvx  that  the  Phrafe  is  Hebrew  ;  De  re  femper  inter  omnes  conftiùt  ver- 
 ba ej]e  Grœca,  Phrafm  Hcbratcam  :  If  it  be  io,  why  did  he  write  two 
 pretty  large  Books,  in  which  he  difputes  on  nothing  elfe  but  the 
 name  that  is  to  be  given  to  that  Language  ?  The  only  thing  that 
 he  is  careful  for,  is  to  ibew,  that  there  never  was  a  Dialect  amongft 
 the  Greeks,  that  was  called  the  Hellemfuk.  Deretotd  (faith  he)  dif 
 putatur,  &  quœritur,  an  omnlno  fuerit,  hoc  eft,  an  Helleniftica  aliqua 
 (lialeHm  fuerit  :  We  freely  grant,  that  there  never  was  any  Dialed 
 of  this  name,  amongfl:  the  Greeks.  And  therefore,  I  have  elfewhere 
 called  this  Language  of  the  Jews- Hellenifts,  a  Greek  of  the  Synagogue: 
 And  in  the  fame  manner,  we  may  at  this  day  diftinguiih  the  pure 
 Sfanifh  amongft  the  Jews,  from  the  Spanijh  or  the  Synagogue,  ftito 
 which  they  have  tranflated  the  Bible  of  that  Language.  They  have 
 :ilfo  framed  on  the  lame  Model,  zn.Arabick  of  the  Synagogue,  a 
 Tcr/ian  Language  of  the  Synagogue,  in  which  they  have  written  their 
 Tranflations  of  the  Bible,  and  their  Prayer- Books.  If  we  have  not 
 this  Idea,,  in  reading  the  Greek  of  theSeptuagint  and  the  New  Te- 
 ftament  ;  we  cannot  have  an  exacl:  knowledg  of  the  Stile  of  thofe 
 Books,  which  are  not  written  in  a  Language  that  is  purely  Greek, 
 as  Salmafim  himfelf  does  fuppofe,  with  thofè  whom  he  calls  Hellem- 
 (ficaries. 
 
 Seeing  it  is  fb,  I  do  not  fee  to  what  purpofè  the  molt  part  of 
 that  Critick's  Queftions  do  ferve,  which  he  has  propofèd  in  his  Com- 
 mentary concerning  the  Hellemftick  Language.  To  what  end,  for 
 example,  does  hefoexa&Jy  inquire,  (e)  if  the  Language  which  the 
 Seventy  Interpreters  ufè  in  their  Verhon,  does  conftitute  a  particular 
 Dialed,  and  if  they  reckoned  amongft  thofe  Dialeds,  that  which 
 
 (d  )  Cum  Hcbraicos  loauendi  modos  inferucrejionex  Grœcà  copia  qua  abtoidabant 
 cos  hauferunt,  fed  ex  textu  Hcbraico,  cut  nimis  fc  in  vertendo  adftri)igcbant ,  Jump- 
 Çcrunt.  Sulm.  ibid. 
 
 (e^  An  dialctlus  pcculiaris  conjlituenda  fit  ea  eloquutio  qua  Sep tiugint a  Inter- 
 pret es  in  Billiis  transferendis  ufi  funt.  An  f  lure  s  quam  quitique  dialctlos  Grxctno- 
 vcrint,  &  an  Hcllemjlicx  inter  cas  diakclos  mcminerint .  An  Hellcmfticce  nomen 
 convent  ^t  ci  pLrafiqu#  verbis  Grœcis  Hcbrœos  conapit  inteileelus,  Salm.init.Comm. 
 ieHellcn. 
 
 was 
 
Ï.99-] 
 
 was  called  H.lkniftick}  If  the  appellation  of  the  Hellemftuh  Lan- 
 guage does  agree  to  that  fort  of  Phrafc,  whereof  the  words  are  Greek 
 and  the  conceptions  Hebrew  ;  it  was  an  eafie  matter  for  him  to  com- 
 pile large  Treatiies,  by  that  Method,  becaufè  he  doc*  feldom  o;  ne- 
 ver treat  of  the  matter  in  Qucftion  :  After  he  had  enumerated  all 
 the  Dialects  of  the  Greeks,  he  concludes,  (  f  )  that  it  is  more  clear 
 than  the  day  ;  that  that  Greek  Language  that  belonged  to  no  Nation, 
 .m<\  that  had  no  mark,  to  characteiile  or  diftinguiih  it  from  other 
 Dialects,  is  not  a  true  Dialect. 
 
 But  that  was  not  the  thing  he  was  to  prove,  becaufè  we  are  of 
 the  fame  Opinion  with  him,  that  that  which  fome  able  Criticks  have 
 called  the  Hellemftick  Language  is  none  of  the  Greek  Dialects.  They 
 only  think,  that  that  Language  is  not  pure  Greek,  by  reafon  of  the 
 Hebraifms  with  which  it  abounds.  The  Hellemfiick  Language,  ac- 
 cording to  thofe  Criticks  is  a  Language  that  contains  Greek  words 
 and  Hebrew  Phrafes  :  Lingua  Helleniftica  eft  qua  verbis  Grazcis  utitury 
 phrafibus  Hebraicis.  All  the  Queftion  then  is  to  know,  if  the  Verfion 
 of  the  Septuagint,  and  the  Books  of  the  Old  Teftament  be  written 
 in  this  manner  :  Since  he  himfelf  does  grant  this,  it  may  be  conclu- 
 ded from  hence,  that  thofè  Writers  have  no  particular  and  proper 
 Language.  It  is  not  to  be  look'd  for  in  any  Dialect  of  the  Greeks, 
 nor  in  any  Nation  in  particular,  but  in  the  Synagogues  of  the  Jews- 
 Greeks  or  Hellenifis.  As,  if  at  this  day,  I  would  know,  what  is 
 the  Language  of  the  Bibles  Printed  in  Spamfl}  at  Ferrara,  and  at 
 Confiantinople;  I  would  not  look  fora  particular  Nation  that  fpeaks 
 that  Language,  but  would  confult  the  ufage  of  their  Synagogues.  The 
 Apoftles  who  frequented  the  Synagogues  of  the  Jews-Hdlemfts,  and 
 who  read  with  them,  the  Greek  Verfion  of  the  Septuagint,  borrow- 
 ed the  expreflions  thereof;  befides,  being  Jews  by  Birth,  and  the 
 Cbaldee  being  their  Mother  Tongue,  it  was  very  hard  for  them  not 
 to  mix  fome  Hebraifms  and  Chahlaifms  with  the  Greek  in  which 
 they  writ. 
 
 Crojttsi  who  is  of  the  fame  Opinion  with  Salmafius  upon  this 
 Subjed,  didhkewife  eftablifh  the  Hellemftick  Language  in  the  fame 
 manner  as  Salmafnts  had  done,  though  he  had  at  the  lame  time,  an 
 intention  to  deftroy  it.  That  Author,  after  he  had  recounted  ma- 
 ny  things,  which  were  no  way  for  the  purpoiè  he  dciigned  them, 
 does  conclude  againft  Hemfitts,  a  Hero  of  the  HelUmfticary  Party, 
 
 (f)  Ex  his  qu<e  propofuimus  fole  mamfeftius  liquet,  ejufmodi  eloquutionem  Grx- 
 cam,  qux  ncc  ulhus  cert  ce  gent  is  unqtLim  propria  fuit ,  nee  cert  as  habuit  notas  verbis 
 inhérentes  quibusdtfeerneretur  ab  alus  dtaledis^  ncn  pojjevideri  dtaUQum,  nee  te^ 
 fieri  deftmtione  dtalctli.  Salm.  Comm.  de  Helkn.  p.  S4. 
 
 N  2  that 
 
[  l0°  ] 
 
 chat  the  Evangelifts  and  the  Apoflles  are  not  Hellenics  «x  *nJm£ty9 
 becaufè  they  did  not  fpeak  good  Greek,  but  did  Hebraize  or  Chaldaize, 
 iC&'i&v,  y*k<kûÇetv,  their  Phrafes  being  Hebrew,  Chaldee  and  Syriack. 
 Whereby  he  does  eftablifh  that  Helkniflick  Language,  whereof  the 
 words  are  Greet,  and  the  Phrafes  Hebrew.  He  asks  Hemfws,  how  he 
 can  reconcile  thefe  two  trr.ngs,  vhd.  (g)  That  St.  Paul  and  the  o- 
 ther  Wi  iters  of  the  New  Teftament  are  Hellemfts,  and  at  the  fame 
 time  do  Hebraize  :  "Tis  eafie  to  reconcile  the  Two.  For  Hemp**  and 
 the  reft  of  the  Heller.ifticaries,  do  not  take  fas  it  has  been  already 
 obferved)  the  word  WmVÇpè  To  be  an  Hellenift,  in  the  fenfe  that  the 
 Greeks  ordinarily  u fed  it  in;  they  do  not  think,  that  it  does  in  that 
 place,  ilgnihe  to  fpeak  pure  Greek,  but  that  which  has  been  mention- 
 ed before.  And  therefore  Crojm  does,  nolefs  than  Salmaftm,  difputc 
 about  words:  For  the  avoiding  of  which  inconveniency,  we'ftiall 
 '.all  that  Language  the  Greek  of  the  Synagogue. 
 
 Bat  whence  was  it  fit  may  be  faid)  that  thofè  Jews- Hellemfts, 
 whole  Vulgar  Language  was  the  Greek,  (pake  that  Greek  of  the  Sy- 
 nagogue, that  is  to  fay,  a  Greek  mixed  with  Hebraifms  and  Cbalda- 
 if  m  s  ;  feeing  the  Hebrew  and  Chaldee  was  not  then  in  life  amongft 
 them  ?  Thdon  for  Example,  who  was  one  of  thofe  Jews  that  were 
 called  Hellenics,  fpake  Greek  very  well.  He  does  not  in  the  lead 
 make  any  thing  appear  in  his  Works,  that  comes  near  the  Greek  of 
 the  Synagogue. 
 
 To  this  it  may  be  anfwered,  that  the  Greek  Hellenifts  did  continu- 
 ally read  the  Hebrew  Bible  in  their  Synagogues,  as  well  as  the  other 
 Jews,  who  called  themfelves  purely  Hebrews  :  Although  thofè  Relie- 
 ttïfts  writ  iome  particular  Works  in  pure  Greek,  which  had  nothing 
 of  the  Greek  of  the  Synagogue,  it  was  not  the  fame  thing  as  their 
 Greek  Verlions  of  the  Bible,  and  fbme  other  of  their  Books.  Seeing 
 in  thefe  Works,  they  confined  themfelves  t(3  the  Hebrew  Text,  they 
 expreflèd  the  form  of  the  Hebrew  Phrafè.  This  may  be  juftifîed  by 
 the  Arabick,  Perfian,  Spamfl),  and  the  Vulgar  Greek  Verfions  of  the 
 Bible,  which  were  made  by  the  Jews.  There  are  pure  Hebraifms 
 owned  to  be  in  all  thefè,  although  the  Authors  thereof  were  Jews, 
 who  fpakc  thofe  Languages  :  Which  could  proceed  from  nothing  elfe 
 but  their  fcrupulous  adhering  in  their  Tranflations,  to  the  Words  of 
 the  O.  iginal  Hebrew. 
 
 it  is  true,  that  the  mod  part  of  thofe  who  defend  the  Helleniflick 
 Language,  believe,  that  the  Jews- Hellenifts  did  read  no  other  Bible 
 
 (  g)  Si  Afcfolus  cj  <Jque  coikgjt  îwUui^hji,  ut  in  ommlus  fcrc  obfrvatio.ibus 
 contenait  HeHiJwst  qnvmid»  prflten  fottjt  eos  %C&\(fiv.  Joaiin.  Croj  Sacr.  Obf. 
 ui  N.  T.  c  34. 
 
 in 
 
[loi    ] 
 
 in  their  Synagogue*,  but  the  Greek  Vcriion  of  the  Septuagint  ;  but 
 
 they  «i re  miftakcn  Ul  that     Even   Sslmafim,  who  declared  himielf 
 
 very  much  againft  the  HtlUmfiicanes,  does  allure  us,  that  the  yews 
 in  whatloeve:  p!  ice  they  were,  did  continually  read  the  Hebrew  Text 
 of  the  Bible  in  their  Synagogues.  They  who  protend  to  prove  the  con- 
 traiVjby  the  14^  ConftttUtioftOf  Jujlmtan,  did  not  narrowly  enough 
 obferve  the  words  or  that  Conlfitution,  which  (hews  it  quite  other- 
 wile  :  Yet  Lewis  Cappel  and  lèverai  other  Learned  Cnticks  (h)  de- 
 pend on  that  Emperor's  Novel  to  demon ftra te ,  that  the  Greek  Hel- 
 Itmfts,  in  their  Liturgy  or  Office,  did  u(e  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  Vcrii- 
 on of  the  Septuagint.  Grotim  was  alio  of  this  Opinion  in  his  Note 
 on  the  iixth  Chapter  of  the  Ads  or  the  Apoftles,  where  there  is 
 mention  made  of  the  Hellenifts,  (i)  Thole  Jews  ( faith  he)  were 
 Religious"  Jews,  and  having  lived  at  Alexandria  ana  the  neighbour- 
 ing places,  had  retained  the  cuftom  of  reading  the  Scripture  in 
 Greek,  which  cuftom  continued  till  Jujt'miaris  time,  as  appears  by 
 the  146  Novel. 
 
 But  the  words  of  that  Novel,  which  'tis  fit  to  let  down  in  this 
 place,  do  exprefly  make  the  contrary  manifeft.  The  Jews,  m  Ju- 
 (tmiaris  time,  were  divided  into  two  Parties  :  The  one  was  for  read- 
 ing only  the  pure  Hebrew  Text  in  their  Synagogues  ;  the  other,  be- 
 lides  that  Text,  read  the  Ancient  Greek  Veriion  of  the  Septuagint, 
 inifead  of  an  Interpretation,  becaulè  they  understood  not  the  He- 
 brew Language.  The  Emperor  Ju/tinianAoes  declare,  (k)  that  hav- 
 ing underttood  their  difcord,  he  thought  it  expedient  to  apply  a  re- 
 medy thereunto  by  a  Judgment  :  The  account  of  their  diipute  is 
 conceived  in  thelè  terms.  (/)  Some  amongft  them,  who  only  re- 
 tained the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Bible,  were  for  leading  it  alone,  at 
 
 (  h  J  Quin  ($  inter  Hellemftas  ad  fcptimi  ufque  feculi  initium  liturgm  Judxo- 
 rtim  Gnecà  lingua  per  age  bat  ur,  non  Hebraic  à.  Singulis  enim  Sabbat  is  lectio  ex 
 Mo/'g  (3  Propbetis  m  ïynagogis  ex  Grceck  ffi  Septuagint  a  Verfione  ficb.it  :  quod  li- 
 quet ex  ?,ovetia  Jujlunani  conflit uticne  146.  Lud.  Cipp.  qu.  de  Ice.  par.ill.  Vet.  & 
 Nov.  Teir. 
 
 (ij  'FikhlwiÇtoV.  Judxorum  Rcligmue^fed  qui  cum  /Ihx'andna:  £#  vienn's  in  lo~ 
 cis  vixijjtnf  anteh,  mo,  cm  iuuc  rctn.uerunt  j.<ca  Jcnpra  legend*  Gr.ccc\  îhAluuisi-  - 
 qui  mos  tnanjît  ad  JuJUmam  timfçij,  ut  cç.gno/cimus  ex  Novella  146.  Grot.  Au- 
 not.  in  c.  6.  Ait.  Apott 
 
 the 
 
c  «en 
 
 the  publick  Service  in  the  Synagogues,  (m)  Others,  on  the  con- 
 trary, alledged  that  beftdes  the  Original  Hebrew,  the  Greek  Interpre- 
 tation ought  to  have  been  u(ed.  We  ought  chiefly  to  take  notice  of 
 thefe  laft  Words,  which  give  us  to  underftand,  that  the  matter  in 
 agitation  was  not  (imply  to  have  the  Bible  in  Greek  in  the  Synagogues 
 of  the  Jews  Hcllemfts,  as  is  commonly  believed,  but  to  joyn  the 
 Reading  of  the  Greek  Verlion  to  the  Reading  of  the  Hebrew  Text. 
 
 This  will  yet  more  clearly  appear  by  the  very  words  of  Ju(t'miaris 
 Decree,  («)  .who  pronounced  Sentence  in  favour  of  thofe,  who,  be- 
 fides  the  Original  Hebrew,  read  in  their  Aflemblies  a  Verfion  in 
 Greek,  or  in  another  Vulgar  Language,  according  to  the  places  of 
 their  abode,  (o)  He  Ordained  therefore,  that  it  fhould  be  per- 
 muted to  the  Jews,  who  had  a  mind  to  it,  to  read  the  Holy  Writings 
 in  Greek,  in  thofe  places  where  the  People  undei  flood  the  Greek, 
 and  in  every  oflier  Language,  for  example,  in  Latin,  according  to 
 the  Language  of  the  Country  were  they  dwelt. 
 
 Cappel  did  not  underftand  the  Senfe  of  this  Ordinance  of  Jufti- 
 nian,  when  he  endeavoured  to  prove  that  the  Jewijh  Doctors  did  at 
 that  time  forbid,  under  the  pain  of  an  Anathema,  the  publick  read- 
 ing or  .my  other  Scripture  but  the  Original  Hebrew  in  their  Syna- 
 gogues. Whence  he  concludes,  that  the  Cuftom  which  is  at  this  day 
 amongft  the  Jews,  of  not  having  their  Liturgy  in  the  Vulgar 
 Tongue,  but  in  Hebrew,  was  not  introduced  amongft  them,  but  fince 
 the  publication  of  the  TaUnud.  If  he  had  diligently  read  Juftmi- 
 tins  Conftitution,  he  would  have  been  fatisfied,  that  they  read  in 
 thofe  days  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  in  Hebrew,  in  all  the  Syna- 
 gogues of  the  World.  But  they  added  afterwards  to  the  Hebrew,  a 
 Verfion  or  Paraphrafe  in  the  Vulgar  Language  of  every  Country. 
 They  of  Jcrufalem,  for  example,  and  all  Valeftine ,  who  called 
 themfelves  purely  Hebrews,  joyned  an  Interpretation  in  Qhaldee  to 
 the  reading  of  the  Original.  There  is  alfo  a  probability,  that  the 
 Cuftom  the  Jews  have  ftill  at  this  day,  or  reading  privately  every 
 Saturday,  a  Parafca,  or  Section  of  the  Chddee  Paraphrafe,  did  pro- 
 ceed from  that  ancient  ufage  of  the  Synagogues  who  joyned  the 
 reading  of  the  Paraphrafe  to  the  Hebrew  Text. 
 
 un)  0\  3  xj  tIuj  'EfolwtJtt  v&7Xcty£cLvc-iv  <*£/»<*.    Ibid. 
 
 dvaLywciv  7^t^Xa.fxCdivc4V  i$i\oV7zts,   x}  çeôvUo  vrttaut  d?fKcdi  Uu  o  7i>7rcf  &m7llJho7i£ct.v 
 
 (6)  Qtazn^cufy  tdihw  dJtidurTf)  *ri*i  @v\.VfJ$poiç  'ECcpioiç  xp  tuç  cvvA^ayti  ntçjcw- 
 
 vûoxuv  rut  ovmo7,  h  Xj  *?  7n*7eiK  7^^V,  *?  '1-mMK  toajthcpu.^,  w  Xj  r  afà&v  a,7^*oç 
 n'iç  jimii  wwn*Çtty>(At>wî  y\ÙT\ï)$  Xj  t  ^  <wffi  dvctyjf <mw .'    Ibid.  • 
 
 Thî 
 
C  io)  .3 
 
 The  Jew/ft  Doctors  did  not  therefore,  prohibit  at  ch.it  rime,  the 
 
 reading  of  the  Greek  Vcriion  ,  and  other  Tranflations  of  Scri- 
 pture, as  if  they  had  read  thole  Verfions  only  in  their  Syria* 
 gogues;  but  thev  decreed  that  there  ihould  be  no  Verfion  added 
 to  the  reading  of  the  Original  Text,  which  had  been  practiîed  till 
 that  tune.  Thev  had  ulcd  an  Interpreter  till  that  time,  who  rendred 
 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  Jew- 
 tjh  Laws  and  Cuftoms.  That  antient  ulage  has  altogether  ceaied 
 amongfl  them.  They  have  indeed  Tranflations  of  tlie  Bible  in 
 their  Vulgar  Tongues,  but  they  read  theie  only  privately.  This 
 they  alio  obfèrve  as  to  their  Service  Books,  which  they  read  in  He- 
 brew in  all  their  Synagogues,  although  they  have  Tranflations  of 
 them  in  (everal  Languages. 
 
 Chap.     XXVIII. 
 
 A  more  particular  Difcuffion  of  the  fiÇeafons  alledged  by 
 Salmafius,  againfl  the  Language  that  is  called  Helle- 
 niftick.  Several  difficulties  aljo  relating  to  this  matter 
 are  cleared. 
 
 THis  mould  be  the  place  to  obferve  particularly  the  principal  He. 
 braifms,  which  are  (cattered  through  the  whole  New  Tefta, 
 ment  :  but  befides  that  my  only  defign  is  to  explain  the  Stile  of 
 thofe  Books  in  general,  they  may  be  found  Collected  in  the  Sacred 
 Philology  of  John  Vorjtius,  who  has  enlarged  (ufficiently  on  this  Sub- 
 ject The  anfwer  of  Thomas  Gatakertrs  to  the  Diflertation  of  Pbocben, 
 (vtd.  if  he  be  the  Englifl)  Wbittaker  —  if  this  Authors  Name  was 
 Thomas)  may  hkewiie  be  consulted  in  this  matter.  I  fhall  fpeak  of 
 thefè  two  Books,  and  fome  other  the  like,  in  the  third  Part  of  this 
 Critical  Hiftory.  I  fhall  only  confine  my  fèlf  here  to  Sdlmafim  his 
 Reafons,  by  which  he  pretends  to  (hew,  that  all  that  is  (aid  of  the 
 Hellemftick  Language  is  without  a  Foundation. 
 
 This  Learned  Critick  does  aMolutely  deny  that  the  Seventy  Inter-  s ■' ■''"*  « 
 preters  were  Hellenifts,   becaufè  this  Name  can  only  be  attributed  fy$' 
 to  the  Jews,  who  were  difperfed  into  (èveral  Countries,  out  of  the  q^^ 
 Land  of  Judab.     But  it  is  Univerfàlly  agreed  upon,  that  the  Seventy  h.\.Va. 
 beJonged  to  Jentfakmi  and  that  conteqjuently  they  were  purely  He- 
 brews. 
 
[    ,04  ] 
 
 brews,  In  Jerusalem  they  did  read  the  Bible  in  Hebrew,  and  not  m 
 Greek.  If  they  joynèd  to  it  any  G  lofs,  it  was  written  in  the 
 Language  of  the  Jews  of  that  Place,  that  is  to  fay  in  the  Chaldee. 
 The  lame  thing  f  faith  Salmafius)  may  bealledged  as  to  the  Apoftles, 
 who  for  the  moil  part  were  Jews  Originally,  and  who  lnred  in  Ju- 
 Jab,  even  after  the  death  of  Jefus  Chfift.  How  then  is  it  poflîble 
 that  they  could  be  Greeks  or  Hdlemfts?  There  was  only  St.  Paul  z~ 
 mongft them,  who  (being  oÇTarfus  in  C/Z/c/^where  they  fpake  the 
 Greek  Language)  could  aflame  the  quality  of  a  Jew-Hellemfi.  But 
 having  been  bred  at  Jerufalem,  where  he  Studied  under  the  Re- 
 nowned Rabbin  Gamaliel,  he  denominates  himfèlf  a  mere  Hebrew, 
 Htbrceus  ex  Hebrœis.  Indeed,  flnce  he  was  of  the  Thartfees,  he  can- 
 not be  reckoned  in  the  number  of  the  Jews-Helle mfts,  who  did  read 
 the  Bible  in  Greek  in  their  Synagogues. 
 
 It  iseafietq  iblve  all  thefè  difficulties  with  the  leaft  trouble  ima- 
 ginable. It  may  be  obferved,  that  although  the  Appellation  of 
 liws-Hellenijh,  was  given  tothofe  who  were  fcattered  out  of  ju- 
 d*a%  into  tholè  fèveral  Countries  where  they  fpake  the  Greek 
 Language,  this  docs  not  hinder,  but  that  there  may  be  found  true 
 Hillemjh  even  in  the  Land  of  Judah  :  for  every  Jew  who  \vrit  in 
 .  that  Greek,  which  we  have  formerly  called  the  Greek  of  the  Syna- 
 gogue, may  be  called  a  Hellenift,  by  reafbn  of  the  Language  he 
 ufed  in  writing  his  Works.  Upon  this  ground,  when  it  (hall  be  fup- 
 pofed,  that  the  Authors  of  the  ancient  Greek  Verfion,  which  is 
 afenbed  to  the  Seventy  Interpreters,  were  of  Jerufalem,  they  are 
 truly  Hellemfls,  becaule  they  Compofed  their  Ver/ion  in  a  Greek, 
 that  is  full  of  Hebraifms  and  of  Chaldaifms.  The  Apoftles  who 
 were  of  Galilee,  and  confèquently  natural  born  Jews,  are  alfb  in 
 this  Senfe  Jews-Hellcniifs,  if  they  be  confidered  as  the  Authors  of 
 iuch  Books  as  they  writ  in  the  Greek  of  the  Synagogue.  St.  Pat/1  was 
 indeed  born  a  Hellenift,  having  learned  the  Greek  Language  from  his 
 Infancy  :  but  being  afterwards  Educated  in  the  Schools  at  Jerufalem, 
 he  became  a  pure  Hebrew,  as  to  what  concerned  the  Rites  and  Ufages 
 of  thofe  of  his  Nation.  Yet  he  ought  to  be  reckoned  among  the 
 Hellemfts,  if  we  confider  his  Works,  which  are  written  in  a  Greek 
 Stile  full  of  Hebraifms,  in  which,  by  common  fuffrage,  the  Hellem- 
 fiick  Language  doesconfift. 
 
 Salmajius  does  objed  againft  this,  that  the  modes  of  Speech  in  a 
 Language  do  change  according  to  the  Times,  whilft  the  name  of  the 
 Language  does  not  change.  If  lb,  it  cannot  be  fa  id,  that  an  He- 
 Salm.  de  brew  or  Syriack  Phrafè,  which  is  delivered  in  pure  Greek  terms,  can 
 Ljk?.  conftitute  a  particular  Language  or  Dialed  of  a  Nation.  It  does 
 HeUen.  on]y  give  a  ncw  character  ot  the  Language.  The  Stile  of  the 
 p,,*fc  Poets 
 
C  toy  ] 
 
 Poet;,  for  example,  is  very  remote  from  the  ordinary  Greek.  Yet 
 none  ever  affirmed  that  that  was  a  particular  Language  So  it  can- 
 not be  (aid  that  the  Hellcm/hck  Language,  does  make  a  particular 
 Dialect  common  to  a  whole  Nation,  as  ir  it  were  a  Language  ipoke/i 
 by  thé  Community.  They  were  content  to  confine  it  to  their  Syna- 
 gogues, and  die  Works  of  thole  who  writ  in  the  Language  of  the 
 Synagogue.  Let  it  be  only  called,  if  one  pleaie,  a  new  Charadcr 
 in  the  Greek.  Language.  But  this  is  nothing  to  the  Queftion,  (èeing 
 we  Diipute  not  of  the  Word,  but  of  the  Thing.  Salmafws  does 
 granc,  that  the  Greek  Verfion  of  the  Septuagint,  and  of  the  Books 
 of  the  New  Teftamenf  are  written  in  Greek,  full  or.  Hebraijms  : 
 wc  require  no  more  for  the  Confirmation  of  the  Hellemjlick  Lan  - 
 
 It  is  poffible  that  the  Hellenifiicanes  abufe  the  Word  Language. 
 But  it  is  fufficient  that  they  do  explain  what  they  underftand  by  this 
 Word,  and  that  they  own,  that  they  did  not  intend  thereby  the  Ge- 
 neral Language  of  a  Nation.  For  it  is  certain,  that  the  Jews, 
 Greeks,  or  Hellemfis,  did  every  one  (peak  the  Greek  Language  of  the 
 places  where  they  were.  St.  Paul,  for  example,  fpake  the  Greek 
 which  was  in  his  time  ufed  at  Tarfus.  Philon  fpake  the  Greek 
 of  thofè  of  Alexandria  :  and  feeing  he  had  Studied  that  Language 
 with  great  Application,  he  writ  in  a  Stile  that  was  exceedingly 
 polifhed.  Nevertheleis  all  the  Jews,  who  were  Greeks  or  Hellemfis, 
 did  not  write  in  the  Language  which  is  here  called  the  HeUeni- 
 ftick,  becaufe  it  was  Confècrated  chiefly  to  the  ufe  of  the  Syna- 
 gogues, and  was  framed  according  to  the  Language  of  the  Holy 
 Writings.  The  Jews  who  were  purely  Hebrews,  and  who  writ  in 
 Greek,  were  more  Hellenifiicaries,  than  the  Jtws-Hellemfts  them- 
 felves,  becaufe  their  Stile  did  more  abound  with  Hebraifms,  and 
 ChaUaifms ,  than  that  of  the  Hellemfis,  who  had  the  Greek  for  their 
 Vulgar  Language.  m 
 
 And  though  we  fhould  fuppofè  with  Salmafius,  that  the  moft  part 
 of  the  Difciples  of  Jefus  Chrifr,  being  Galileans,  and  of  the  Dregs 
 of  the  People,  fpake  no  other  Language  but  the  Syriack,  it  could 
 not  from  thence  be  proved,  that  the  Books  of  the  Old  Teframent 
 that  are  in  Greek,  are  not  written  in  the  Hellenifiick  Language.  All 
 that  can  be  proved  from  that  fuppofition  is,  that  the  Apoitles  did 
 then  compole  their  Works  in  their  Mother  Tongue,  which  was  the 
 Syriack,  and  that  they  were  afterwards  Tranflated  into  Greek  by  In- 
 terpreters, who  accompanied  them  in  their  Travels,  and  who  un- 
 derstood the  Greek  Language.  This  is  truly  the  Opinion  of  that 
 Critick,  who  believed  that  the  molt  part  of  the  Apoftles  were  but 
 v.ery  ilow  in  learning  the  Greek,  at  that  time  when  they  were  com- 
 
 O  m and ed 
 
[  1063 
 
 manded  to  Preach  the  Gofpel  to  the  Gentiles,  (a)  It  is  lîkewîfe  pro-' 
 bable,  (faith  he)  that  lèverai  of  them  Preached  the  Gofpel  to  the 
 Greeks  and  Remans,  by  .Interpreters,  there  being  only  thofe  of  them 
 who  were  Grt.ks  by  Bi;th,  (for'example,  St.  PsulJ  who  Preached 
 in  Greek. 
 
 But  that  fnppofirion  is  (b  for  from  deftroying  the  Htllenifttck  Lan- 
 guage of  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament,  that  it  does  eftabliih  it 
 the  more.  For  S.dmafms  affuresus  in  the  fame  place,  that  the  Greek 
 Books  that  were  Tranflated  out  of  the  Hebrew  and  the  Syrtack,  do 
 more  abound  with  Hibraifms  and  Chaldatfms,  than  thofe  which  had 
 been  written  in  Greek  before  that  time.  Avid  therefore  he  alledges, 
 thar  there  are  much  fewer  Hebratfms  in  St.  Luke,  and  in  St.  Paul,  who 
 undedfood  the  Greek  Language,  than  in  %  Matthew,  who  had  been 
 Tranflated  out  of  the  Hebrew  or  Chaldee.  (b)  Ha  confirms  his  Ob- 
 fervation  by  the  Authority  of  Sr.  Jerom,  who  acknowledged,  fas  he 
 thinks/ this  difference  of  Stile,  betwixt  the  Books  that  were  written 
 in  Greek,  and  thofe  which  were  Tranflated  into  that  Language. 
 All  that  can  be  concluded  from  his  Supposition  is,  that  the  Books 
 which  were  written  by  the  Difciplesof  Jelus  Chrift,  who  were  Ga- 
 lileans, were  not  compofed  by  Jews-Hellenifts ,  but  by  mere  He- 
 brews, in  the  Language  of  their  Country,  which  was  the  Cbalda'ick 
 Language. 
 
 He  cannot  conclude  from  thence,  that  the  Greek  of  the  Books 
 which  wa  have  at  this  day,  is  not  a  Greek  of  the  Synagogues,  On 
 the  contrary,  the  Dilfcinftion  that  he  makes  betwixt  the  Works, 
 which  were  then  written  in  Greek,  and  thoie  which  were  Tranflated 
 .  out  of  the  Hebrew  and  the  Chaldee,  does  manifeftly  fùppofè  it.  Never- 
 thelefs  we  ought  not  to  oppo(e,  in  this  matter,  all  the  Ancients, 
 who  believed  that  of  the  four  Evangelilîs,  Sz.Matthew  did  onlv  write 
 his  Gofpel  in  H  brew.  As  for  the  Hebraifms,  which  he  thinks  a- 
 bound  *nore  in  the-Books  that  were  Tranflated  out  of  Hebrew  into 
 Greek,  than  in  others,  Vorftius  is  not  altogether  of  the  fame  mind. 
 For  he  believes  that  there  are  more  Hebratfms  in  St. Lukes  Gofpel, 
 than  in  the  other  Goipels.     He  hkevvilè  adds,   (c)  that  he  could 
 
 fa)  Scd  &  p'urej  ex  lis  verifnmlc  eft  per  inter pretem  Greets  Û?  Romanis  Evan- 
 gelt  urn  adnuntia/Je ,  excepta  ft  qui  Greece  noveram,  utpotè  inter  Grxcos  nati, 
 quod  de  Paulo  c^rtim  ,ft.    vSalm.  de  Hellen.  p.  254. 
 
 ("!>;  11. a:  a  ttam  ft  tit  in  Grace  trmjlatis,  (3 mere  Gr.ccis,  not avit  aliquot 
 
 leas  Utero),  m  ,s.    Saim.  ioid.  p.  1  s  S. 
 
 fc)  Ego  c  n  tnd.i  im  S.  Luc  am  p.'us  Hcbraiftnormn  ufurpafje,  qnkm  nllum  catero- 
 rumKovi'ViJlrn^n-i  Scnptorum,  iy  in  two  capite  prtmo  Ev  ange  lu  Luc  £  v.  I  qutn- 
 quagmta:  tnUtto  vcro  ejrrdcmdtjti  n  verjiculo,  vet  quatuor,  aut  plurcs  Hcbratfrnos 
 dernonftrare  pojjlun.  juanu.  Vojî.i.  Puiblog.  Sac.  part»  alt.  Epiit  dedic. 
 
 eafily 
 
C  «07  ] 
 
 eafilv  fiiew  fifty  Hebroifms  in  the  fit  ft  Chapter  of  that  Evançelift, 
 and  four  and  more,  even  in  one  Verfe  :  indeed  it  may  very  well  be 
 that  Sr.  Luke  may  nuke  u(e  of  more  pure  Greek  Terms,  than  the 
 other  Evangeliits  do,  a\y\  yet  for  all  this,  have  a  Phrafè  that  is  al 
 together  Hebrew  or  Syriack. 
 
 Salmajius  does  further  allure  us,  againft  the  Opinion  of  the  anci- 
 ent Eccletuftical  Writers,  (J)  that  amongft  all  the  Apoftles,  it  was 
 only  Sr.  Vaul  who  underftood  the  Greek.  Which  he  proves  by  their 
 citing  the  Old  Teflamenr  according  to  the  Hebrew  Text,  and  not 
 according  to  the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint.  But  we  have  already  Ihewn 
 the  contrary  :  and  although  St.  Jerom  is  fbmtimes  of  that  Opinion, 
 he  frequently  takes  the  oppolite  fide  upon  very  good  Realons.  The 
 Reafon,  (Salmafitts  adds)  why  the  Partages  of  the  Old  Teftament, 
 which  are  cited  in  the  New,  do  not  agree  with  the  Greek  of  the 
 Septuagint,  is  bejcaufe  the  Evangelifts  and  the  Apoftles  took  them 
 from  the  Hebrew,  and  the  Interpreters,  Tranflating  them  into  Greek, 
 do  not  always  agree  with  the  Septuagint.  But  tt  it  were  lb,  tho(è 
 Tranflators  would  at  leaft  have  expreiled  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  elfewhere 
 obferved,  proceeds  from  this,  that  the  Apoftles  according  to  the 
 ufage  of  their  time,  did  not  trouble  themlelves  in  their  citations  to 
 relate  the  exprefs  Words  of  Scripture,  becaufe  they  adhered  chiefly 
 to  the  Sen  (è. 
 
 But  was  it  neceflary  (Salmafms  continues)  that  St.  Peter,  who  was 
 an  Apoftle  of  the  Jews,  fhould  underftand  thsGreek  Language,  fee- 
 ing the  Jews  of  that  time  underftood  the  Syriack  and  the  Hebrew  ? 
 Ic  is  not  true  that  all  the  Jews  of  that  time  underftood  the  Hebrew  and 
 the  Syriack.  For  in  all  the  Roman  Empire,  only  thofe  of  PaUfime 
 knew  the  Syriack  or  the  Chaidce,  and  yet  thofe  of  that  Country  who 
 were  above  the  Common  Rank,  did  like  wile  underftand  the  Greek 
 Language.  As  for  the  Hebrew, th&e  were  only  a  very  few  Learned  Men 
 amongit  them  who  underftood  it  ;  whereas  the  Greek  Language  was 
 fpread  through^  conhderable  part  of  the  Empire,  and  the  J^u'j  of 
 Rome,  where  St.  Peter  was,  accompanied  with  St.  Mark,  fpake  Greek 
 more  than  any  other  Language.  To  that  which  is  objected,  that 
 St.  Mark,  according  to  the  tcftimony  of  all  Antiquity,  was  St.  Peer's 
 Interpreter  ;  I  aniwer,  that  it  cannot  be  proved  from  thence  that 
 §.?eter  was  altogether  ignorant  of  the  Greek  L.ingmgs,  feeing  all  thofe 
 
 (d)  Grtece  nejcijje  Apojhlcs  veluno  vincitur  argumento^  q  iod  ex  Septua^nt.ibr 
 terp>  et  urn  Vcrjione  tcjlim.ma  non  citarmt,  Jèd  ex  HcbraiM  (ex  tu.  Salm.  de  Hellcn- 
 pag.  255, 
 
 O  1  ancient 
 
C  ">8  ] 
 
 ancient  Dolors  of  the  Church,  who  make  Sc.  Mark  to  be  St.  Peters 
 Interpreter,  do  not  deny  but  that  this  Holy  Apoftle  underftood  the 
 Greek.  St.  Paul  had  likewifè  Titus  for  his  Interpreter  ;  and  yet  Salma- 
 fws  thinks  that  that  ApolHe  knew  the  Greek  better  than  the  Hebrew. 
 
 We  will  freely  grant  to  this  Critick,  that  St.  John,  who  was  a  Ga- 
 lilean, had  a  more  exact  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew,  or  rather  of  the 
 ChahLiick  Language,  than  of  the  Greek.     But  it  cannot  be  from  thence 
 inferred  with  him,  that  that  Apoftle  did  Write  his  Gofpel  in  the  He- 
 brew,  rather  than  in  the  Greek.     For  having  eftablilhed  his  abode  m 
 the  places  where  the  Greek  was  fpoken,    he  lnftrucSted   the  fèveral 
 People  whole  Apoftle  he  was,  in  the  Language  which  they  (pake. 
 And  feeing  his  Gofpel  is  only  a  Collection  of  his  Sermons,  he  writ  it 
 in  the  fame  Language.     And  therefore  I  do  not  apprehend  that  Sal- 
 msfim  has  eftablilhed  undoubted  Principles  for  warranting  this  ge- 
 neral Confequence,  (e)  That  the  Apoftles  writ  thsir  Books  in  their 
 Mother-Tongue,  which  was  the  Syriack  Language,  and  that  after- 
 wards they  were  Tranflated  into  Greek  by  the  Syrians,  who  under- 
 ftood the  Greek,  or  yet  by  the  Converted  Greeks ,  whom  they  ufed  as 
 Coadjutors,  and  Interpreters  for  the  Preaching  of  the  Gofpel.     But 
 befides  that  we  have  formerly  fpoken  of  thefe  Interpreters  and  Fel- 
 low helpers,  though  they  mould  be  acknowledged  to  have  been  in 
 the  fame  manner  as  Salmafim  does  fuppofè,  it  might  be  always  faid, 
 that  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament  are  written  in  the  Greek  of 
 the  Synagogue.    It  is  much  more  probable  that  the  Apoftles,  who 
 were  Galileans,  are  the  Authors  thereof     For  if  they  had  made  life 
 of   Perfons  Learned  in  the   Greek  Language,   there  would  not  be 
 found  fb  many  Hebraifms  in  them.     The  Stile  of  St.  Johns  Gofpel 
 does  fhew  that  it  was  written  by  a  Galilean,  rather  than  a  Grecian. 
 
 However  it  be,  Salmafius  is  obliged  to  declare  that  the  Writings 
 of  the  New  Teftament  are  full  of  modes  of  Speech  that  are  al- 
 together Syriack:  and  herein  the  Hellemftick  Language  is  made 
 to  confift.  He  only  differs  from  thofe  whom  he  calls  Hellenifti- 
 canes  (f)  m  this,  that  he  attributes  the  form  of  the  Syriack 
 Phrafes  to  the  Interpreters  of  the  Apoftles  ;  whereas  the  Hellem- 
 fiicanes  do  afenbe  them  to  the  Apoftles  themfelves.  But  whether 
 it  be,  that  the  Apoftles  themfelves,  or  their  interpreters  were  the 
 Authors  thereof,  the  thing  it  felf  will  be  always  granted.  And 
 — . — , _ —  ^  ■  —        - — 
 
 (e)  Scnbcbant  igitur  slpofloli  idiomite  [no  &  lingua,  fibi  familiari  &  vernaculà, 
 <]ux' prot mus  à  Syru  ifolwiCvcj,  vel  Gr.ects  ipfis  ad  fidem  convtrfu,  quos  fecumha- 
 btba.ru  Evangcln pradicandi  adjutorcs  &  adn»iniflrosy  in  Grcecum  transferebantur. 
 Salmaf.  ibid  p.  258. 
 
 ({)  Hit  Sjriajmi  quibus  totus  confier fits  eft  Novi  Teftamemi  Grœci  textus  ex 
 çharaclcrc  nimnum  içfxtwJbriHUy  ^uq  de  verba  ad  verbum  exfrejfa  pcragttur  tran- 
 flauo.   Saltn.  ibid.  thus 
 
[  xo9  ] 
 
 thus  he  does  rather  eftablifh,  than  deftroy  the  Helleni/lick  Language. 
 As  for  St.  Paul  and  St.  Luke,  who  underlined  the  Gree  k  Language, 
 Salmafws  does  allô  acknowledge  that  their  Writings  are  full  of  Cbal* 
 d.ujms  :  and  the  Realbn  that  he  brings,  is,  (g)  that  feeing  they  un- 
 derftood  the  Greek  and  the  Chaldce,  they  made  a  mixture  of  thefè 
 two  Languages.  In  what  manner  foever  it  happened,  he  cannot 
 deny  but  that  the  Language  of  the  Synagogue  docs  appear  in  the 
 Works  of  St.  Paul  and  of  St.  Luke,  as  well  as  in  the  Writings  of  the 
 other  Apoftles.  He  only  thinks  that  St.  Paul  and  St.  Luke  let  He- 
 braijms  drop  more  ieldom  than  the  Interpreters,  who  (as  he  believes) 
 Ti  anflated  the  Books  of  the  other  Apoftles  out  of  the  Hebrew  and  the 
 Chaldee,  into  the  Greek.  XctVorfttus,  as  I  have  already obferved,  has 
 marked  more  Hebraifms  in  St.  Luke,  than  in  the  other  Writers  of  the 
 New  Teftament.  And  therefore  it  is  better  to  attribute  them  to  the 
 Apoftles  themfèlves,  ifSz.Mattbew  be  excepted,  than  to  their  Fellow 
 Helpers  or  Interpreters. 
 
 For  what  remains  we  agree  with  Salmafitts,  or  rather  with  the  Greek 
 Fathers,  whom  he  follows  in  this  matter,  that  the  Apoftles  being  rude 
 and  dcftitute  of  Literature,  writ  their  Books  in  a  very  mean  Stile,  and 
 in  a  Language  that  was  ufed  by  the  Dregs  of  the  People.     Which  in 
 fome  manner  renders  their  Difcourfe  more  incelligible,  becaufe  that 
 Language  does  commonly  contain  nothing  that  is  Figurative  as  to  what 
 concerns  the  Expreffions.  We  mail  obferve  neverthelefs,  that  altho  the 
 Apoftles  do  ordinarily  make  ufe  of  Words  that  are  mean  and  received 
 amongft.the  People,  and  coniequeritly  eafie  tobeundcrftood,  they 
 have  a  certain  form  ofPhrafè,  and  certain  Expreilions  which  were 
 proper  to  thofè  of  their  Nation  ;  which  appear  fometimes  obfeure  to 
 us,  becaufe  we  know  not  the  ufage  of  that  time.     Altho  their  Stile  is 
 oftentimes  fimple  and  very  plain,  if  we  look  only  to  the  Grammatical 
 Senfe,  it  is  hard  enough  to  be  undei  ftood,  when  we  intend  to  reach  the 
 true  Senle  of  their  Thoughts.   The  Jews  had  then  ways  of  Expreffing 
 them  (elves,  very  different  from  thofe  that  are  in  life  amongft  us  :  And  in 
 this,  the  obfeurity  of  the  Books  of  the  N.  Teftament  doth  chiefly  conlïft. 
 They  who  Tranfiate  thofè  Books  into  another  Language,ought  efpe- 
 cially  to  take  care  to  keep  as  clofè  as  poflible  to  the  Words  of  the  Ori- 
 ginal.    For  when  they  endeavour  to  render  the  bare  Senfe,  without 
 adhering  to  the  Words,  they  run  a  rifque  of   deceiving  themfelves, 
 and  making  their  Author  (peak  thofè  things  which  he  never  thought 
 oLBeza  and  Cafialio  had  great  Difputes  about  this.The  former  alledged, 
 thatinTranflating  the  New  Teftament  feveral  Hebraifms  ought  to  be 
 retained,  becaufè  it  is  împoffible  to  render  them  exactly  in  ipçd 
 
 (g)  Quod  de  Paulo  &  Luc.)  /icet  ajjlrere,  qui  utriujjue  lingu je  peritr,  in  c. 
 icripjerunt  ex  altera  phrajes&  genera  kquendi  transfuderunt.     Safetr.  ibld. 
 
 Langue 
 
C  no] 
 
 Language.  Further,  (h  feeing  thofe  HebrMfms  are  capable  of  vari- 
 ous renditions,  it  is  more  to  the  purpole  to  keep  them,  than  to  In- 
 terpret them  in  a  Sence  which  may  poffibly  be  falfe;  and  wichal  de- 
 prive others  of  their  liberty  of  judgment  concerning  them.  Caftalio, 
 on  the  contrary,  was  of  Opinion  that  an  Interpreter  ought  to  con- 
 it  himfelf  to  mark  th^  Hebratfms  by  Notes  on  the  Margin.  Wc 
 (hall  ruvc  occalion  to  Î peak  more  fullv  of  thole  Hebraijms  in  the" fé- 
 cond Book  of  this  Hiiiory,  when  we  examin  the  feveral  Veriions 
 of  the  New  Teftament. 
 
 (h)  Cum  fiepè  multiplex  fit  ratio  Hebrai fines  explicandi,  qui  s  non  videt  refl  tu  j 
 &  rdigiojms  eoj  faccre  qui  nuacios  ilios  (5  it.tcgroj  Jb,umy  quam  qui  [nam  opinio- 
 *Jea#$t  nullum  conjedura  aut  privatt  judicn  locum" ledortbus  reltnfuunt.  Be£ 
 !>.  adDcf.  Caft. 
 
 Chap.   XXIX. 
 
 Of  the  Manfcript  Greek  Copies  in  general,  and  of  thofe 
 who  have  Jpoken  of  them.  Collections  which  have  been 
 made  of  divers  fadings  drawn  from  thofe  Manufcripts. 
 Objervations  upon  the  whole  Matter.  Tl)e  Hen  ticks 
 )xive  been  accujed  fometimes,  but  without  any  ground, 
 for  corrupting  the  (Books  of  the  New  Teflament. 
 
 ALtho  there  have  been  many  Learned  Criticks  in  the  Greek 
 Church,  who  applied  themfelves  to  correct  the  Bouks  of  the 
 New  Teflamentj  we  do  not  fee,  that  any  one  Greek  Copy  has  been 
 altogether  preferred  to  others,  that  it  might  be  followed  by  all  the 
 Greek  Churches.  Which  was  the  occafion  that  there  was  a  great 
 difference  obfeived  in  the  various  Copies  that  were  in  lèverai 
 Cnurches.  Or:geni  who  was  a  very  knowing  perion  in  this  matter, 
 (a)  lusobferved,  this  great  diver  dty  of  the  Greek  Copies,  which  he 
 attiibuted  partly  to  the  negligence  of  the  Tranfcribers,  and  partly  to 
 be  liberty  that  Criticks  aiïumed,  in  coi  reding  the  Books  ot  the  New 
 
 Teiiament; 
 
Teftament,  adding  to,  and  taking  away  from  fc  according  as  they 
 judged  it  convenient.  Indeed,  it-  it  be  rcmembfed  what  was  briefly 
 fàid  of  it,  upon  the  occaiion  of  rhe  laft  Chapter  of  S.  Mmk,  and  of 
 the  Hilfory  of  the  adulterous  Woman,  Crup.8.  of  S.John,  we  Ih.ill 
 find  evident  proofs  there  of  this  obfèrvation  of  Ongen  :  which  would 
 further  appear,  if  we  had  lèverai  Copies  of  that  time,  which  we 
 might  com.n  e  with  thofe  that  remain,  whereas  we  hive  very  few 
 that  are  above  a  th  )u!and  years  continuance:  and  which,  as  we' 
 mill  lh:w  in  the  next  Chapter,  do  very  much  differ  from  thofe 
 others  we  h  ive  at  this  day.  They  have  like  wife  all  thofe  Errors  that 
 we  have  obfei  ved. 
 
 That  Fâcher  does  add,  in  the  fame  place,  that  he  had  in  fomc  fort 
 remedied  the  diverhty  of  the  Greek  Copies  of  cheSepruaginc  Ve.iion, 
 which  he  had  reviled  and  corrected  according  to  the  ordinary  Rules 
 of  Criticilm.  He  like  wife  declares  in  what  manner  he  had  gone 
 through  that  great  Work,  that  had  all  the  fùcçefs  chic  he  could  hope 
 for.  But  he  did  not  the  like  as  to  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament, 
 unlefs  it  be  chat  he  carefully  fearched  for  the  mod  correct  Copies,  and 
 made  many  Critical  Reflections  on  liindry  places,  according  as  oc- 
 cartons  did  prefent  tbemfelves  for  that  purpofe.  Neither  do  we  find 
 that  the  Ecclefiafrical  Writers,  who  lived  after  Ongen,  made  a  di- 
 stinction of  two  forts  of  Editions  of  the  New  Teframent,  as  they 
 have  of  two  Editions  of  the  Vet  hon  of  the  Senruagint.  They 
 made  a  difference  betwixt  that  which  was  called  Mtvh  vulgar,  which 
 w-as  publicklv  tiled,  and  that  which  waTcorrectcd  according  to  the 
 Rules  of  C  iticifm.  They  coniidered  this  latter  as  the  true  Edition  of 
 the  Septiugint,  altho  it  was  as  yet  very  impefecl,  and  the  moft 
 part  of  the  Oriental  Churches  made  ufe  of  it  fjr  correcting  then 
 Copies 
 
 Yet  for  all  this,  Origen  as  well  as  feveral  other  Criticks  did  correct 
 fome  Gretk  Copies  of  the  New  Teltament,  and  S.  Jerom  does  fome- 
 times  cite  them.  But  it  does  not  appear  that  his  Critical  Obferva- 
 tionswere  m  the  place  of  a  Law,  as  to  thofe  Books,  as  they  were  as 
 to  an  ancient  Greek  Verlipn  of  the  Old  Teftament.  If  it  had  been 
 fo,  we  mould  have  had  a  Maflbreof  the  Greek  Text  of  the  Writings 
 of  the  Evangelifts  and  the  Apoftles,  in  the  fame  manner  as  the  Jews 
 had  of  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Bible.  We  Ihould  not  find  fb  many 
 different  Readings  as  there  are  at  this  day.  For  every  one  would 
 have  exactly  followed  O/^VsCopy,  as  the  Jew*  followed  the  Copy 
 that  was  corrected  by  their  Doctors,  whom  they  commonly  called 
 Mallorets.  And  from  hence  it  is  that  we  find  nor  at  this  day  any  ancient 
 Hebrew  Copies  of  the  Scripture  among!}  them.  Fo  thev  reformed  them 
 all  by  the  Maflôre  :  and  feeing  they  hold  it  for  infallible,  they  wholly 
 
 neglected 
 
[  w  ] 
 
 negle&ed  their  ancient  Books.  They  are  fo  much  perfuaded,  that 
 the  Books  of  the  Law  which  they  now  read,  are  perfe&ly  conform- 
 able to  the  Original  of  Mofes,  that  they  do  keep  in  their  Synagogues 
 any  old  Roll  or  Volume.  The  Jews  of  the  Portuguefe  Synagogue 
 of  Amfierdam  have  at  leaft  fifty  Rolls  of  their  Sepher  tora,  or  Book  of 
 the  Law,  which,  for  the  moft  part,  are  very  well  written,  but  they 
 are  all  new.  If  any  ask  for  ancient  ones,  they  take  no  notice,  be- 
 .caufe  they  are  prepoiTefîed  with  a  Belief,  that  there  can  be  no  dif- 
 ference betwixt  the  ancient  and  the  modern. 
 
 It  is  not  fb  amongft  the  Chriftians  who  have  had  no  Maflorets, 
 whom  they  altogether  follow  in  copying  their  Greek  Copies  of  the 
 New  Teftament.  And  therefore  we  ought  not  to  be  furpnfed,  to  find 
 therein  a  much   greater  number  of  various  Renditions  than  in  the 
 Hebrew  Copies  or  the  Jews.     I  dare  alio  be  bold  to  fay,   that  this 
 manifold  variety  ought  to  gain  a  greater  authority  to  them,  than  if 
 there  had  beennofuch  difference.     For  it  is  impollible,  that  a  Book 
 which  has  palled  through  fb  many  hands  fhould  always  continue  the 
 fame,  unleis  they  have  corrected  it,  and  afterwards  follow  exa&ly  that 
 Correction,  as  it  happened  to  the  Jewsjn  refpect  of  the  Hebrew  Text 
 of  the  Old  Teftament.    It  is  the  advantage  of  a  Book,  that  there 
 have  been  lèverai  different  Copies  thereof,  to  the  end  that  a  better 
 Judgment  may  be  given  of  the  true  Rendition.     And  upon  this  ac- 
 count,   the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament  are  to  be  preferred  to 
 the  moft  part  of  the  "others,  becaufethe  Chriftian  Religion  having 
 (pread  into  fb  many  different  Countries,  every  Nation  has  Copies 
 and  Verfions  thereof. 
 
 Thefè  are  the  different  Copies  by  which  we  are  to  be  guided  at 
 this  day,  becaufe  we  have  not  now  the  firft  Original.  We  mall  with 
 all  poffible  cxactnefs  examine  the  Greek  Manufcript  Copies,  and  alfo 
 the  moft  ancient  Verfions  which  have  been  taken  from  the  Greek. 
 We  are  not  to  depend  upon  one  Gretk  Edition  more  than  upon  ano- 
 ther, if  it  be  not  founded  on  better  Manufcripts.  We  fhall  prefer 
 the  Editions  which,  together  with  the  Text,  do  contain  divers  Ren- 
 ditions of  fundry  Copies.  It  is  a  rare  thing  to  find  Greek  Manu- 
 fcripts where  fuch  variations  are  noted  in  the  Margin;  for  feeing 
 thofè  Books  are  read  in  the  Churches,  they  obferve  commonly  no 
 other  Reading  than  what  is  authonfed  by  cuftom.  They  did  con- 
 tent themfetves  to  mark  them  in  diftina  Works,  efpecially  in  the 
 Notes  which  they  joyned  to  the  G?  eek  Text  of  the  New  Teftament. 
 And  therefore  beffdes  the  various  Manufcript  Copies,  we  ought  to 
 confult  the  Notes  which  k  is  eafie  enough  to  find  in  good  Li- 
 braries. 
 
 Many 
 
[  »m  3 
 
 Many  Learned  Criticks  of  the  Litter  Days,  when  the  Stttdv  of  the 
 Gretk  Linguale  was  re-eftabltfhed,  applied  themlelves  carefully  co 
 
 this  Labor.     Valla  was  the  firft  who  made  fearch  for  the  (J reek  Co- 
 pies of  the  New  Teftament,  and  alio  for  the  Latin.     He   cit 
 
 many  of  them  in  his  Remarks  which  Erafmus  took  care  to  Print  at  L:XUJ'A 
 Bap;  and  altho  he  does  much  infill  upon  the  little  Niceties  of  the  ^in 
 Latm  Grammar,  yet  we  are  obliged  to  him  tor  the  new  Dilcovcnes  Kov.Tejl. 
 which  he  has  made  to  us  in  a  time  when  Barbarity  did  dill  reign  in  Edit. 
 Europe.     It  was  by  the  force  of  his  Example,  that  Erafmus  was  in-  Ba/il.mZ. 
 duced  to  write  Notes  on  the  New  Teftament,  where  he  cites  a  much  an*  l  ~)lj' 
 greater  number  of  Greek  and  Latin  Manuscripts  which  he  had  read. 
 There  is  alio  annexed  to  (ome  Editions  of  his  New  Teftament  a 
 Collection   of  divers  Readings  taken  from  the  Greek  Copies.     He 
 ieemed  to  be  better  verfed  than  Valla,  in  this  fort  of  Reafbning,elpe- 
 cially  as  to  his  knowledge  or  Manulcripts.     Neverthclels  his  Critical 
 Reflections  do  (peak  the  Author's  liberty  more  than  their  own  evi- 
 dence.    When  he  meets  with  Greek  Manulcripts  agreeable  to  the 
 Latin,  he  does  judge  that  the  former  were  corrected  by  the  latter. 
 He  thinks,  for  example,  chat  the  Engliflj  Greek  Copy ,  where  we  read, 
 Epift.  I.  of  S.  John,  chap.  $.  verf.  7.  of  the  Teftimoiiy  of  the  Father, 
 or  the  Son,,  and   of  the  Holy  Spirit,  (b  )  was  reformed  by  the 
 Greeks  themlelves,  according  to  the  Latin  Edition,  (ince  the  Recon- 
 ciliation of  thole  two  Churches.     But  he  will  never  be  able  to  prove 
 this.    Beiides,  the  places  which  he  allcdges  to  have  been  corrected, 
 have  no  relation  to  the  Difputes  that  were  betwixt  the  Greeks  and 
 the   Latins.     To   which  we  may  add,  that  the  Greeks  were  never 
 greater  enemies  to  the  Latins  than  fînee  their  Reconciliation  in  the 
 Council  of  Florence.     The  mod  part  of  thole  who  had  fubfenbed  to 
 that  Council,  were  hardly  well  returned  home,  when  they  afTemblcd 
 at  Confiant  mo  pie,  where  they  protefted  againft  all  that  they  had  done 
 at  Florence.    The  Record  of  that  Proteftation  is  yet  extant,  with  the 
 Names  of  thofe  who  fubferibed  it.  • 
 
 We  cannot  enough  admire,  Robert  Stephens  Fair  Edition  of  the  In  155 
 New  Teftament  in  Greek,  in  Folio,  wherein  he  gives  us  proofs  of 
 his  Learning,    and  of  his  Judgment.     The  Cardinal  Xmnnes ,  toDii5*5* 
 whom  we  are  obliged  for  his  firft  Edition  of  the  New  Teftament, 
 had  made  a  fear ch  into  good  Manufcript  Copies;  but  he  has  r 
 marked  in  the  Margin  of  his  Edition,  the  various  renditions  of  tlvr  : 
 Copies,  having  only  kept  in  the  Text  that  which  he  judged  to  be  the 
 
 -1  *  -  *  "  w  m  -    1  ,  !■■!■■ 
 
 (b)  Ad  Latmorum  codices  fuijje  caftigatum.  Pofleaauam  emm  Grxci  concords  am 
 micrunt  cum  Ecdefù  Rçmana,  ftuduerunt  &  bac  m  parte  cum  Romani t  confinttrc. 
 Erafm.  Apol.  adv.  Jac,  Lop.Stun. 
 
 l>  bd 
 
[   "4] 
 
 beft.  Stephen  has  wifely  redreffed  this  fault.  For  he  has  placed  the 
 various  Readings  of  fix  Manufcript  Copies,  in  the  Margin  of  his  Edi- 
 tion, and  thus,  though  he  commonly  follows  the  Edition  of  Ximenes 
 in  his  Text,  he  is  not  obliged  to  adhere  to  it,  unlefs  he  were  per- 
 fuaded,  that  the  renditions  of  the  CardinaPs  Copy  are  the  beft  in 
 thofe  places.  It  is  no  great  matter  for  a  Reading  to  be  infèrted  in  the 
 Body  of  a  Book,  or  to  be  placed  in  the  Margin,  provided  th.it  it  be 
 known  that  thofe  which  are  in  the  Margin  are  taken  from  good 
 Manufcript  Copies,  as  well  as  thofe  which  are  in  the  Text.  Ic 
 were  alio  much  to  be  defired,  for  obferving  a  greater  uniformity, 
 that  thofe  who  have  publifhed  new  Editions  of  the  New  Tefta- 
 ment  in  Greek,  had  all  of  them  exaAly  followed  the  Alcala,  or  the 
 Complutum  Edition,  which  is  the  firft,  and  that  they  had  contented 
 themfelves  to  refer  to  the  Margin  the  various  Readings  of  their 
 Manufcripts. 
 
 Yet  Beza  has  produced  a  greater  number  of  different  Readings  in 
 feveral  Copies  of  the  N.  T.  than  Robert  Stephen  has  done.  But  he 
 has  only  obfèrved  them  in  his  Notes  which  are  full  of  things  that  lerve 
 to  no  purpofe,  whereas  he  ought  to  have  placed  them,  after  Stephe?is 
 example,  in  the  Margin  of  the  Greek  Text.'  Neither  has  he  marked 
 all  of  them,  that  he  might  not  give  offence  to  thofe  who  were  weak 
 amongft  his  Party,  who  would  not  have  had  fo  great  a  Veneration 
 for  the  Word  of  God,  if  they  had  obferved  fb  g  eat  a  number  of  va- 
 rious Readings.  He  declares,  that  (c)  he  was  indebted  for  the  great- 
 eft  part  of  thofe  Manufcripts  to  Henry  Stephen,  from  whom  he  had  a 
 Copy  that  had  been  compared  with  twenty  five  Manufcripts,  and 
 with  the  moft  part  of  thofe  that  were  Printed.  He  had  befides  that, 
 a  very  ancient  Copy,  whereof  he  makes  mention  in  his  Notes,  the 
 firft  part  of  which  is  yet  extant,  (containing  theGofpels  and  the  Ads 
 of  the  Apoftles)  referved  in  Cambridge,  and  the  fécond  part,  in  which 
 the  Epifties  of  St.  Paul  arc  comprehended  in  the  King's  Library.  We 
 ihall^examin  in  the  following  Chapter,  that  ancient  Manufcript 
 with  which  Bez,a  was  not  well  enough  acquainted. 
 
 The  English  have  inferted  in  the  fixteenth  Tome  of  their  Polyglott 
 Bible,  a  larger  Colle&ion  taken  from  the  different  Manufcript  Copies 
 of  the  New  Toftament,  than  any  had  been  before  that  time.  They 
 likewife  joyned  thereto,  the  oblervations  of  fbme  Learned  Criticks 
 upon  this  matter,  and  amongft  others,  that  of  Luke  of  Bruges.  Which 
 cleared  the  thing  very  much.     For  a  fingle  Catalogue  of  divers  rendi- 
 
 (cj  Ad  hiscotmua  acceffit  exemplar  ex  Stcpbani  noflri  Bibliothech  cum  vigmri 
 qumque  plus  munis  manufcriptis  culicibus,  &  omnibus  penè  imprejfis  ab  Henrico 
 Stepbano  ejus  flio  &  pat  cm*  ft dull tat is  h<xreie  quam  diligent  ijfmiè  collât  urn. 
 Bcz.  in  Kpift.  deJic.  ad  Elizab.  AngI,  Reg. 
 
 do. is 
 
[  "ï  ] 
 
 tionsisnot  diffident.  They  are  alfoall  in  a  confnlcrablo  error,  who 
 have  published  the  different  Readings  of  the  Manufcript  Copies  which 
 they  consulted.  They  have  not  been  at  the  pains  to  examin  thofe 
 Manufcripts  particularly,  and  toobièrvethegood  and  the  evil  qualities 
 thereof.  Which  frequently  happens,  becaule  they  who  produce  thofe 
 Collections,  have  nor  themlelves  read  thole  Manufcripts.  Seeing  they 
 commonly  depend  upon  the  Credit  of  thofe  whom  they  employed  in 
 that  Work,  which  is  very  troublefom,  their  Collections  are  not  always 
 
 The  New  Teftament  Printed  at  Oxford  in  octavo,  ought  to  be  pre-  In  1675- 
 ferred  to  all  other  Editions,  becaufe  it  contains  a  greater  variety  than 
 any  we  have  as  yet  feen  upon  it.  There  is  moreover  this  advantage, 
 that  thefe  various  renditions  are  at  once  joyned  to  the  Text. But  feeing 
 they  have  hardly  done  any  thing  elle  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  requi- 
 fite,  but  on  the  contrary  have  encreafed  them  to  a  far  greater  number. 
 It  would  be  to  no  purpofe  to  give  examples  in  this  place,  of  thole  er- 
 rors, becaufe  I  am  informed  that  they  intend  to  publifh  a  new  Greek 
 Edition  of  the  New  Teftament,  which  will  be  more  ample  than  the 
 former,  which  muft  needs  beveryufeful,if  it  chance  to  be  well  done. 
 
 Stephen  Courcel  caufed  to  Print  the  New  Teftament  in  Greek,  with  In  1653. 
 a  conliderable  Collection  of  various  Readings,  which  had  formerly 
 been  in  the  Pofteiîîon  of  Elzevir.     He  has  only  marked  the  Varieties, 
 without  mentioning   of  the   Manufcript  Copies  whence  they  are 
 taken.     Which  renders  his  Work  the  lefs  perfect,  feeing  he  did  con- 
 tent himfelf  to  point  at  them  in  his  Preface.     He  had  an  inten- 
 tion to  put  forth   a  larger  Edition  (d)  to  which  he  promifèd  to 
 joyn  the  Latin  Text  of  the  Vulgar,  to  the  various  Readings  of  the 
 different  Latin  Copies  :  but  it  did  not  appear  that  he  was  fo  good 
 as  his  Word.     For  there  was  publifhed  a  new  Edition  of  that  Greek  In  1675. 
 New  Teftament,  which  differed  in  nothing  from  the  former,  unlels 
 it  was  that  they  writ  under  every  particular   Page,  fome  Varieties, 
 that  had  been  feparately  Printed  in  the  firft  Edition,   at  the  end 
 of  the  Acts  of  the  Apoftles,  and  of  the  Epiftles  of  Si.Paul. 
 
 If  Mr.  Saithert  had  continued  on  the  Books  of  the  Old  Tefta- 
 ment, that  which  he  did  upon  St.  Matthews  Gofpel,  that  Work  had 
 been  as  considerable  as  any  that  has  been  done  as  yet.  For  befides 
 all  the  various  Readings  of  the  Greek  Copies,  he  has  obferved  thole 
 
 (à)  In  quk  fi  Deus  dederit  nt  earn  aliquando  adornare  vacet,  Vulgatam  Vcrfio* 
 nern  Latmam  una  cum  variant  thus  ejus  Udicmbus  ahaque  ejus  generis  plura  ad; -an- 
 ger e  meditamur.    Cure.  Praef.  N.  T. 
 
 P  2  which 
 
which  may  be  taken  from  lèverai  Verfions,  or  which  confirm 
 thofè  various  renditions.  He  hasalfo  added  fome  Critical  Notes  by 
 way  of  illuftration  ;  in  which  he  appeared  to  be  exact,  although  he  is 
 miftakcn  in  fome  Partages.  It  is  a  matter  of  difficulty  for  one  Man 
 to  perform  a  Work  cf  that  importance  ;  feeing  it  does  require  that 
 he  himfelf  mould  read  all  the  Manuicnpts  :  which  is  impoflible.  Soone 
 mud  be  obliged  to  depend  upon  the  Authority  of  other  Men.  Never- 
 thelefs  that  Crinck  has  obferved  fome  errors  that  are  in  Walton's  Col- 
 in 1671.  ferions;  and  he  prefixed  a  learned  Preface  to  his  Work  that  was 
 Piintdd  at  Htlmfiat,  where  he  difcourfes  judicioufly  of  the  vari- 
 ous Greek  Copies  of  the  New  Teftament,  and  of  the  diffèrent  ren- 
 ditions. 
 
 I  might  produce  lèverai  other  Authors  who  have  treated  of  this 
 fame  SubjeÀ,  But  feeing  the  moll  part  have  only  done-it  occafionally, 
 I  will  refer  it  to  another  place,  where  there  will  be  occafion  to  fpeak 
 tointhing  of  their  Works.  I  wrill  only  here  make  mention  of  thofè 
 who  have  fpoken  of  various  Greek  Readings  which  efhblifh  the 
 ancient  Latin  Veriion.  Bez>a ,  who  did  not  (pare  that  ancient 
 Vei  lion  ,  was  obliged  to  acktfowledg  (e)  that  there  were  fome- 
 times  Greek  Copies  more  exac"^  than  thofe  which  we  have  at  pre- 
 fènt.  (f  J  He  does  alledge,  that  Erafnws  did  fometimes  reject 
 the  ancient  Latin  Interpreter,  without  any  mew  of  Reafon,  under 
 a  pretence  that  it  did  very  little  agree  with  the  Greek,  Which  is  true, 
 faith  Bez,a,  if  we  only  confider  the  New  Greek  Copies.  But  that  In- 
 terpreter does  agree  with  other  more  ancient  Greek  Copies.  Upon 
 this  ground  it  would  fèem,  that  the  Proteftants  do  not  always  act 
 with  Reafon,  when  they  for  fake  the  ancient  Latin  Edition,  and  ad- 
 here to  the  Greek  at  this  day.  Beza  himfelf,  who  owned  this  fault 
 in  the  Verfion  of  Erafrm/s,  is  not  yet  free  from  the  fame  himfelf. 
 Not  but  that  he  believes  that  thofe  ancient  Manufcripts  ought  always 
 to  be  preferred  to  others  :  for  there  is  none  but  the  Original  of  the  A- 
 poftles  alone,  which  can  admit  of  this  perfection.  They  pretend  on- 
 ly to  prove  thereby,  that  thofe  who  made  New  Tranflations  of 
 the  New  Teftamcnt  from  theGm^,  were  not  always  exact  in  their 
 Yerfions,  becaufe  they  only  conlulted  a  very  fmall  number  of  Greek 
 
 (  c  )  Aliquot  locis  animadvcrtimns  letcris  intetfretts  leclionem,  qiumvis  cum 
 nt&ris  Gnecis  exemplar  ibus  inter dum  ei  non  conveniat,  tamen  ipfis  rebus  multb  me- 
 lius quadrarc,  vcmpè  qubdilk  quifquis  fuit  emendatius  aliquod exemplar  natlus  eft, 
 Bcz.  Epift.adRcgin.Ehr. 
 
 (  f  )  $yàm  itnmei  itb  {Ertifmus}  mult  is  voter  cm  interpret  cm  reprehendit  tanquam 
 4  Grœcis  diffemiavem  i  Di/Jcnt  wb.it  fatcor  <ib  lis  exemplar  thus  qu<£  ille  naHus 
 erat  ;  fed  non  uno  loco  compcrimus  aliorum  codicum,  &  quidem  i:etuftif]hnorum  au- 
 ■  uatc  earn  interprctationem  niti  quota  ilk-  refrehcndit.  Biz.  ibid. 
 
 Editions, 
 
C    "7] 
 
 Editions,  whereas  they  ought  to  have  Iikewife  confulted  lèverai  Ma- 
 
 nufcript  Copies,  which  afforded  a  great  many  Readings. 
 
 Peter  Paxard  a  Noble  Spamjb  Marquefs  of  loties,  was  the  firft  who 
 was  at  the  pains  to  make  this  fort  of  Collections,  of  which  we  now 
 treat.  Mariana  does  allure  us,  that  (g)  tliat  Marquais  had  compa- 
 red nxtisen  Greek  Manufcripts,  with  our  Vulgar  Edition  :  Eight  of 
 thele  Manufcripts  were  in  the  King  or  Sfahfs  Library.  And  he 
 had  carefully  mark'd  in  the  Margin  of  a  Greek  Copy  of  the  New 
 Tcftament,  the  various  Readings  or  thofe  Manufcripts,  upon  which 
 the  Ancient  Latin  Edition  is  Founded  ;  as  to  thofe  places  in  which 
 it  does  not  agree  with  the  Greek  at  this  day.  But  that  which  was 
 wanting  to  (o  laudable  a  Work,  and  which  could  n  t  be  Sufficient' 
 lv  valued,  is,  that  the  Copies  whence  thofe  vanois  Readings  had 
 been  taken,  were  not  pointed  out.  Marians,  who  had  not  ièen  thofe 
 Manufcripts,  does  neverthelefs  fay,  that  they  were,  for  the  mofl  part 
 Ancient:  This  was,  in  all  probability  the  only  Remark,  which  the 
 Marquefs  of  Veles  had  made  upon  the  Quality  of  his  Manufcripts. 
 Thisjefuit,  who  had  tranferibed  the  Marquefs's  Copy,  in  which 
 thofe  various  Readings  were  recorded,  (h)  made  a  prefent  thereof  to 
 Lacer da  of  the  fame  Society,  who  publifhed  them  in  his  Book  Enti- 
 tled, A dwr far i a  Sacra;  and  they  were  afterwards  in ferted  in  many 
 Collections  of  divers  Readings  of  the  New  Teftament. 
 
 Father  Mori»  did  Iikewife  infert  in  his  Exercitations  upon  the  Bi- 
 ble, the  various  Readings  of  fome  Greek  Copies  or  the  New  Tefta- 
 ment, in  the  places  th.it  confirm  our  Latin  Veriion.  He  pretends 
 that  he  had  fliewn  the  conformity  of  the  vulgar  to  the  ancient  Greek 
 Manufcripts,  in  more  than  440  places:  Conformitatemtllam  Vulgate 
 cum  vetuftijjimis  Exemplar  ibtts  —  in  locis  plufyuam  440  Demon  fir  amas. 
 He  made  it  his  bufinefs  to  mark,  especially  thofe  of  the  Cambridge 
 Copy,  upon  the  Gofpels  and  the  Acls  of  the  Apoflles,  and  he  fol- 
 lowed, upon  the  Epiitles  of  St.  Pj#/,  the  Copy  which  Bez,a  calls 
 Claromontanum,  of  Clermont  : .  Seeing  his  defign  was  to  prove  to  the 
 
 (  g  )  Ad  Hovi  Teftament i  Grxci  exteriorem  marginem  minio  variai  le&iones  fu\ 
 manu  juoquc  labor c  16.  codicum  faclà  collât  ione,  in  quibus  otto  crant  ex  l\egià  Bib- 
 liotbccà  D.  Laurc).:u,  j  laque  vetujiate  infignfa,  adjecerat  Petrus  F  agi  ardus  Vele- 
 fuis  M.irchio.  Ingcns  tbej'aurus  magma/ere  xjtimandus,  fi  vir  ills  optimut  &  Gr.ec.e 
 linguœ  prxftuns,  qmbus  ex  libris  fingula  letiionc's  ejfent  deprompta  no'ajet.  M.u\ 
 pro  Edit.  Vulg.  c.  1 7. 
 
 (h)  Dono l{cvcrendijfnm  Joann.s  Mariana  è  Societate  noftrk  babeo  exempt* 
 Kovi  Teftamemi,  in  quo  varia  ledioncs  funt  manu  tranferipta  excepta  ex  exem- 
 plany  quai  item  manu  propria  adnrt.ir.it  illuftrijfimus  Marcbh  Vehjius  Petrus  1 
 xardus,  fatlù  co'latione  16.  exemplar  mm,  in  quibui  crant  do  ex  Biblici  /<_■ - 
 
 già  D.  Laurentii,  Laccrd.  Adverf  Sac.  c.  91, 
 
 Pro- 
 
[t,8] 
 
 Proteftants,  that  there  was  a  great  number  of  various  Readings,  as 
 well  in  the  Old,  as  in  the  New  Teflament  :  he  could  not,  upon  the 
 New,  make  choice  of  any  Books,  in  which  there  was  more  to  be 
 found  than  in  thole  two  Book?.  He  likewife  does  add  fome  Notes, 
 for  the  illuftration  of  this  matter  ;  and  after  having  produced  a  fuf- 
 ricient  number  of  thofe  various  Readings,  which  eftablifhed  the  vul- 
 gar, he  concludes,  (0  that  the  Proteftants  are  to  blame,  for  that  they 
 frequently  follow,  in  their  Verfions,  the  vulgar  Edition  of  the  He- 
 brtw  Text,  againft  the  Authority  of  the  Manufcript  Copies,  al- 
 though they  themfelves  do  cite  thefe  Manufcripts.  He  brings  for 
 an  Example,  /?e&*'sTranflation,  who,  in  feveral  places,  has  prefer- 
 red this  vulgar  Edition  of  the  Greek  Text  to  his  Ancient  Manufcript 
 Copies.  He  does  obfèrve  withal,  that  Robert  Stephen  has  alfb  left 
 out  of  his  Greek  Edition  of  the  New  Teftament,  many  Readings 
 which  are  nor  agreeable  to  any  of  the  Manufcripts  which  he  does 
 produce:  And  yet  the  Proteftants,  in  their  Tranflations  of  the  New 
 Teflament,  choofèd  rather  to  follow  Robert  Stephen,  than  the  vari- 
 ous Readings  of  the  Manufcripts,  which  he  had  mark'd  in  the  Mar- 
 gin of  his  Edition.  There  would  have  been  nothing  which  deferv- 
 ed  reprehenfion,  in  that,  if  the  Proteftants  in  their  Verfions,  hacl 
 imitated  Stephens  Method  in  his  Greek  New  Teftament.  For  if  they 
 had  placed  the  Tranflation  of  all  thofe  various  Renditions,  in  the 
 Margin  of  their  Works,  they  could  not  have  #been  accufbd  for  pre» 
 ferring  the  Greek  Vulgar  Edition  to  the  Ancient  Manufcripts.  They 
 would  have  only  placed  in  the  body  of  their  Tranflations,  that  Edi- 
 tion which  they  believed  to  be  the  moil  exa&,  to  the  end  that  they 
 might  obferve  fome  uniformity  amongft  themfelves,  without  any 
 prejudice  done  to  other  Examples  upon  that  account. 
 
 The  care  that  Father  Amelcic  took,  to  infert  in  his  French  Verfion 
 of  the  New  Teftament,  the  various  Readings  of  the  Manufcript 
 Copies,  which  are  agreeable  to  the  ancient  Latin  Interpreters,  de- 
 fèrves  to  be  praifed.  But  he  offends  againft  Modefty,  and  even  a- 
 gainft  Truth,  when  he  f peaks  of  thole  Venerable  and  Auguft  Manu- 
 fcnpts,  which  he  pretends  to  have  examined  with  fueh  exadnefs,  as 
 the  like  was  never  ibQn  before.  1  have  (faith  he)  ufed  fuch  diligence, 
 p  fn  that  there  has  not  been  the  like  heard  of  before,  to  Jhew  the  conformity  of 
 Pram,  de  the  Latin,  with  the  Ancient  Greek  and  the  firfi  Original,  I  have  nar- 
 fa  Verf.     rowly  examined  all  the  Manufcripts  extant  for  above  thefe  thoufand  years 
 
 fin  Nouv. 
 Tefi 
 
 (i  )  Plurimis  in  lecis  tcftnntur  ;'?;  omnibus  antiquis  ccdicibus  fitter  legi  quàm  in 
 vulgato  tcxtuGrœco.  Ipji  tamenin  veifiombus  fins  contra  omnium  ex  emporium  fi- 
 dem  icxtum  Grace  Jcmel  cxcujnm  ample •ctuntur,  (3  ad  ilium  invitis  omnibus  codi- 
 cibuj  MSS.  vcrftones  cxigunt.  Jo.  Mor.  Exercit.  lib.  I.  Exerc.  2.  cap.  4. 
 
 which 
 
s 
 
 C  ■  <?  3 
 
 which  are  Left  through  all  the  Chriftian  World \  and  I  have  obtained  ex- 
 tracts of  them  all.  I  have  had  more  than  twenty  of  that  fort  from 
 France  ;  all  thofeof  the  Vatican,  and  tic  famous  Italian  Libraries;  fx- 
 teenfrcr/iS'^un,  not  to  reckon  ethers ,  with  which  Car  dinal  Ximenes  ufed 
 to  ferfett  his  Bible  of  Alcala  ;  thofe  of  England  and  the  Northern  Coun- 
 tries, and  many  from  the  innzrmofb  Farts  of  Greece,  with  thofe  that  be- 
 Lnçed  to  the  Jeveral  Fathers. 
 
 There  is  none  who  reads  thofe  Words  but  would  believe ,  that 
 that  Tacher  had  in  his  hinds  alUgtalc  Copies  w hereof  he  makes 
 mention,  at  lead:  the  Extra&s VJhc  Manufcripts.  Hut  all  tint 
 long  Dilcourle  is  only  a  Rhetorical  flounlh  which  he  uies,  that  the 
 Sut>je&  of  which  he  treats  of  may  be  embelliihed  with  a  noble  ex- 
 rellion,  according  to  the  lofty  Idea  which  he  had  of-  it.  And  this 
 ic  avowed  to  one  of  his  Fraternity,  to  whom  he  (hewed  his  Preface 
 in  Writing,  and  whoadviied  him  to  amend  it,  cfpecially  in  that  place 
 where  he  makes  mention  of  his  Manufcripts.  He  made  no  other 
 Anfwer  about  it,  to  his  Brother,  who  at  the  lame  time  fhew'd  him 
 thofe  various  Readings  In  Print,  but,  that  the  fubject  matter  requi- 
 red, that  he  fhould  exprefs'  himfelf  in  a  noble  manner,  to  make  the 
 greater  impreflion  in  the  minds  of  thofe  who  read  his  Works.  So 
 that  all  thole  Venerable  and  Auguft  Manufcripts,  which  F.  Am  dote 
 confulted  aie  nothing  elfe  buta  Figure  of  Rhetorick. 
 
 Indeed,  if  he  had  made  fuch  an  exact  (crutiny  into  thofe  Manu- 
 fcripts, he  ought  to  have  told  us  another  ftory  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  thole  that  belong- 
 ed to  the  Marquefs  of  Veles.  *  The  Archbifhop  of  Ambrun}t\\Q,  French  *  Mr. 
 Ambafîàdor,  then  at  that  Court,  who  was  one  of  his  Friends,  mad©?  £u" 
 him  Anfwer,  that  he  had  no  account  at  Madrid,  of  the  Manufcripts 
 of  that  Marquefs.  He  continued  the  fame  Rhetorical  Figure,  wheq 
 he  would  perfuade  us,  that  he  obtained  Copies  of  many  various  read- 
 ings by  the  means  of  his  Friends  ;  For  he  fhew'd  nothing  of  that 
 nature,  but  what  was  contained  in  the  Sixth  Volume  of  the  Poly- 
 glott  of  England,  or  in  Lacerda  the  Jefuit,  or  in  F.  Morin.  It  was 
 by  the  afliitance  of  the  latter,  that  he  framed  a  defign  of  collecting 
 the  various  Readings  that  eftablifh  the  ancient  Latin  Edition  :  It 
 were  eafie  to  let  him  fee,  by  his  own  words,  that  he  did  not  very 
 well  underftand  that  fort  of  Criticifin.  He  was  fo  far  from  having 
 all  the  Extracts  of  the  Manulcript  mentioned  by  him,  that  it  feerns, 
 that  he  had  not  the  skill  to  read  the  Catalogues  of  thofe  Manufcripts 
 perfectly.  For  I  would  fiin  know,  what  he  meant  by  the  two  Ma- 
 nufcripts of  Magdebourg  College  in  Oxford,  which  he  mentions  in 
 the  two  Prefaces  to  his  French  New  Teftament.     1  le  had  read  in  the 
 
 C.u.i- 
 
C     »*<>    ] 
 Catalogue  of  Mariufcripts,  Printed  in  the  Sixth  Volume  of  the  Po- 
 
 lyglott  of  England,  Magd.  I.  Novum  Teft amentum  integrum,  excepta 
 ocalypji,  in  Collegio  Magd.  Oxon.  Further,  Magd.  a.  Epfiola  ad 
 Rem.  &  Corinth,  cum  acum.  Cclleg.  Oxon.  All  the  World  knows,  that 
 this  abbreviation  Cell.  Magd.  Oxon.  does  denote  Magdalen  College  in 
 Oxford.  But  F.  Amelote,  who  ufèd  fuch  diligence,  that  we  have  not 
 heard  of  the  like  before,  does  give  us  two  Manuscripts  of  the  New 
 Tedament,  which  are  extant  in  Magdeburg  College  in  Oxford  ;  and 
 if  we  believe  him,  he  had  the^Mes  thereof  extra ded.  You  may 
 ice  in  what  manner  he  marks  fl[  Jr  in  his  Latin  Preface  Magd.  j. 
 Magdeburgenfis  Col  legit  apud  Oxonium  Novum  Teft  amentum  integrum,  ex- 
 cept J  Apccaljpfi.  Magd.  2.  Magdeburgenfis  Collegii  Codex  Epiftolarum  ad 
 
 Romane»  &  ad  Ccnnthios;   which  he  repeats  in  his  French  Preface  : 
 jing  we  Jhall  have  occafion  in  the  Second  Part  of  this  Book,  to 
 fpeaic  of  the  French  Verfion  of  this  Faiher,  I  (hall  there  treat  of  his 
 Collection  of  the  various  Readings. 
 
 It  was  eafie  for  Mr.  Arnauld  to  refute  hirn  upon  this  Subject,  in  his 
 Neito  defence  of  the  Tranjlation  of  the  New  Teftament,  Frinted  at  Mons. 
 I  could  only  have  wiihed  that  he  had  not  reckond  as  Chimerical, 
 that  which  F-  Amelote,  and  after  him  Mr.  Mallet,  call  the  Vulgar 
 Greek,  that  is  to  fay,  for  the  explaining  of  the  Vulgar  Edition  of 
 the  Greek.  Text  of  the  New  Teltament.  It  is  true,  that  thefe  two 
 Authors  had  a  falfe  notion  of  this  Vulgar  Greek  ;  but  that  does  not 
 hinder ,  but  that  they  might  very  well  have  ufed  that  expre/fion, 
 when  they  compared  the  ordinary  Editions  of  the  Greek  New  Tefta- 
 ment,  with  the  various  Readings  of  many  Ancient  Manufcripts. 
 And  in  this  fenle,  they  gave  the  appellation  of  xoivtut  or  Vulgar,  to 
 the  Ancient  Greek  Edition  of  the  Septuagint,  which  was  m  every 
 ones  hands,  to  diilinguiih  it  from  Ongc.is  corrected  Copy.  It  may 
 be  alio  (aid  upon  good  g  o:inds,  that  this  Vulgar  Greek  was  altered 
 in  (undry  places,  and  that  therefore  it  is  not  juftifTable,  that  we  fliould 
 for  (alee  the  Vulgar,  whenevei  it  does  not  agree  with  the  Vulgar  Greek. 
 Upon  this  ground  Mariana  the  Jefuit  obferved,  that  it  is  not  likely, 
 that  the  Ancient  Latin  Interpreter  is  the  Author  of  all  the  various 
 Readings,  that  make  ib  great  a  difference  betwixt  the  Greek  and  the 
 Latin.  Ne  que  cnim  tarn  mult  is  locis,  quibr/s  à  Gracis  Latina  dij 'crêpant, 
 de  fuo  capite  firixifj'e  <venfimile  eft.  (k)  Hj2  thinks  that  that  Interpre- 
 ter, in  making   his  Verfion,  followed  the  beft  Copies  of  his  time, 
 
 (  k)  Sujpicabar  ex  variù  olim  cêdicibus  earn  leclionem  fuijjc  Jecutum,  cofjue  co- 
 dices qui  communi  eruditorumfintentta  ea  œtatc  maxime  frobabantur  ex  alto  quo- 
 piam  u)lo  aut  p.incis  minons  jidei  transfufos  Grœcos  codices  qui  vojïrà  xtate  formis 
 rejfi  vitlgo  circumferuntm,  M.ir.  pro  Edit.  Vulg.  c.  17. 
 
 and 
 
C  Hi  ] 
 
 and  that  thofè  which  have  been  Printed  in  this  lad  Age,  rrere  taken 
 from  a  very  few  Copies,  which  were  not  very  corred. 
 
 According  to  this  Obfervation,  the  Greek  ofthe  New  Teflament 
 may  be  called,  as  it  was  Printed,  a  Vulgar  Creek,  if  it  be  compared 
 with  the  Ancient  Manufcripts,  which  the  Latin  Interpreter  made  ufe 
 of,  and  yet  for  all  that,  thofc  Manufcripts  ought  not  to  have  the 
 denomination  of  the  Apoftolical  Greek,  and  or  the  hrir  Original. 
 F.  Morln  has  alfc  given  it  the  name  of  the  Vulgar  Greek,  or  that 
 which  has  been  pubJifhed  in  our  time-  Ccgitent  ergo  (faith  he  to  the 
 Protectants,  who  are  very  apt  to  leave  the  Ancient  Latin  Edition) 
 quoties  Vulgatam  à  Graco  Vulgato  diJJ'entientem  deprehendttnt,  fed  cum 
 iretuflijjimu  codiabus  xjje  confenfum,  à  quibtis  dégénères  funt  neoteria 
 Graci. 
 
 It  is  moreover  a  long  time,  fince  this  difference  has  been  obferv- 
 ed  in  the  Greek  Copies  of  the  New  Teftament,  which  is  founded 
 upon  the  Rules  of  Criticifm.  The  appellation  of  Vulgar  has  been 
 always  given  to  the  common  Copies  of  the  Bible,  to  diftinguifh 
 them  from  thofe  that  were  correded  by  Cnticks,  and  are  therefore 
 believed  to  be  more  exad.  The  Jews  for  example,  reform  their 
 common  and  ordinary  Copies  by  thofè  of  the  Maflbret.  Hilarius 
 Deacon  of  Rome  puts  a  great  value  on  this  Rule,  in  his  Commenta- 
 ry upon  the  fifth  Chapter  of  the  Epiltle  to  the  Romans  ,\r.  14.  He  re- 
 jeds  the  Vulgar  Reading  of  the  Greek  Copies,  alluring  us,  that  they 
 can  never  be  ufed  ib  as  to  prevail  againff.  the  Latin  Edition,  fee- 
 ing they  vary.  Sic  frafcribitur  nobis,  (faith  he)  de  Graas  codiabus  qua- 
 fi  non  tpfî  ab  tnviccm  difcrepent.  He  has  recourfe  to  the  moff  An- 
 cient Greek  Copies,  from  which  the  Latin  Verfion  was  taken.  And 
 feeing  (/)  he  is  perfwaded  that  the  Latin  Copies  were  not  corrupt- 
 ed, he  believes,  that  the  Greek  from  which  they  were  taken  is  an- 
 cient and  true. 
 
 F.  Amelote,  might  according  to  this  fenfe,  have  diffinguifhed  the 
 Greek  at  this  day,  fern  the  ancient  and  true  Greek,  and  have  called 
 the  fo:  mer  the  Vulgar  Greek.  But  it  does  not  follow  from  thence, 
 that  that  Ancient  Greek  is  free  from  all  faults,  and  that  it  muft  be 
 always  preferred  to  the  Greek  which  is  called  New.  For  this  latter 
 Greek  is  nootheiwiiè  New,  but  in  refped  of  its  being  publifhed  in 
 theie  latter  ciir.es.  And  it  may' happen,  that  this  New  Greek  may  be 
 found  agreeable  to  ths   molt  Ancient  Authors,  and  that  it  is  conie- 
 
 f  I)  Con/fa:  autemhoc  per  qucjdam  Latines  de  veteribus  Grxcis  dim  tranfUtoi 
 codiabus,  <\uos  incorrupt  os  jimptuitai  temporum  fervavit  (3  fcri\it,  Ambro  liait. 
 Comin.  in  Epift.sd  Rom.  c.  5.  v.  14, 
 
 Q.  quently 
 
C  lî2  3 
 
 quently  very  ancient.  And  therefore  Hilarius  the  Deacon  gwes 
 us  three  Qualities,  til?  confideration  of  which  ought  to  induce  us  to 
 prefer  one  Copy  to  another.  Hoc  verum  arbitrer 3  (faith  he)  quando 
 Ambrof.  &  Ratio  &  Hiftorsa  &  Author  it  as  obfervatur  : .  He  grounds  the  Jlead- 
 ilid.  ing,  which  he  believes  to  be  the  bed  in  that  place,  upon  the  Autho- 
 rity of  TertuUian,  of  Vitlonn,  and  St.  Cyprian.  Whence  he  does  con- 
 clude, that  the  Vulgar  Greek  of  his  time  was  not  to  be  followed,  fee- 
 ing there  were  more  ancient  and  more  true  Copies,  in  which  the 
 Reading  was  otherwife.  I  do  not  inquire,  if  that  Deacon  w«as  ju- 
 stifiable in  the  matter  of  which' he  treated:  I  content  my  Self  with 
 propoiing  the  Rule  that  he  gives  us,  by  which  we  may  diftinguilh  the 
 Copies  that  are  called  Vulgar  or  Common, .from  others  that  are 
 more  Ancient  and  more  Correct. 
 
 I  his  being  once  (uppofed  ,  we  fhall  avoid  many  unprofitable 
 Queftions,  which  Mr.  Arnauld  does  (enoufly  handle,  upon  the  oc- 
 caiîon  of  the  Vulgar  Greek,  which  he  alledges  to  be  extant  in  no- 
 tion only,  and  which  f  faith  he)  we  ought  firft  to  make,  before  we 
 fpeak  of  it.  This  Learned  Man  does  afterwards  endeavour  to  prove, 
 that  that  name  is  neither  to  be  given  to  Robert  Stephens  Edition, 
 nor  to  that  of  the  Cardinal  Ximenes,  nor  to  any  other,  becaufe,  (as 
 he  thinks  J  it  is  Chimerical,  and  of  F.  Amelotes  invention,  who  fra- 
 med to  himfelf  à  certain  Vulgar  Greek,  the  mofi  erroneous  that  could 
 he  imagined,  in  oppofition  to  she  Vulgar ,  that  the  faults  of  the  one  might 
 baUance  the  perfections  of  the  other.  I  am  apt  to  believe,  that  that 
 Father  does  entertain  falfe  Idea's  of  that  which  is  called  the  Vul- 
 gar Greek  ?  But  if  he  be  underftood  in  the  manner  we  have  alrea- 
 dy fhewn,  it  is  no  Chimera  nor  fancy.  If  the  Authors  of  the  Tran- 
 slation of  the  New  Teftament,  Printed  at  Mom,  have  Sometimes 
 followed  the  Vulgar  Greek  in  their  Verfion,  without  making  men- 
 tion of  any  other  Greek,  they  are  in  that  to  be  blamed  :  For  it 
 cannot  be  abfolutely  affirmed  ,  that  the  Greek  is  read  in  fbme 
 places ,  otherwife  than  the  Latin,  when  there  are  Greek  Copies 
 where  the  Reading  is  the  fame  with  the  Latin  :  Neither  muft 
 we  always  prefer  the  Greek  Copies  that  agree  with  the  Latin  E- 
 dition,  to  the  Common  and  Ordinary.  We  are  to  judge  of  thofe 
 Readings  according  to  the  Rules  of  Criticifm,  and  examin  with 
 the  Deacon  Hilary  ;  which  of  thofe.  Copies  are  Founded  on  Rea- 
 fbn,  on  H:  flot  y,  and  on  Authority.  The  Greek  wherein  thefè 
 things  do  meet,  fhall  be  the  moft  ancient  and  the  moft  correct, 
 .  whether  it  be  found  in  the  Old  Manufcripts ,  or  in  the  Printed 
 Books. 
 
 There  is  then  nothing  more  falfe,  than  the  Idea  that  School  Di- 
 vines, and  fomc  Canonifts  have  formed,  of  the  Greek  Copies  of  the 
 
 New 
 
C  i»i  ] 
 
 New  Teftament.  For  under  the  pretence  of  defending  the  Autho- 
 rity of  the  Ancienc  Latin  Edition,  they  alledge,  that  when  there 
 is  any  difference  betwixt  the  Greek  Copies  at  this  day  and  the  La- 
 tin j  we  ought  always  to  prefer  the  Latin  to  the  G.eek;  becaufc 
 the  Greeks  ((ay  they)  being  Schilmaticks  liavs  corrupted  their  Books, 
 whereas  the  Truth  has  remained  in  the  Roman  Church;  there  is 
 nothing  more  unjuft  than  this  thought  ;  For  it  is  ealie  to  go  back 
 to  the  time  before  the  Schi(m  ,  and  to  fliew  that  the  Ongens, 
 the  Cbryfojhrrib)  and  lèverai  other  Fathers  of  that  Church  had  the 
 Reading  m  their  Copies,  in  the  fame  manner  as  thefe  have  it,  whom 
 at  this  day  we  call  Schifmaticks. 
 
 This  mod  unjuft  accufation  is  neverthelefs  very  Ancient  :  So 
 foon  as  ever  there  is  a  différence  perceived  in  Copies,  if  this  dif- 
 ference do  favour  the  Opinions  of  fbme  Party,  they  will  be  furc 
 to  accufe  that  Party  of  corrupting  the  Sacred  Writings,  although 
 that  difference  does  for  the  molt  part  come  from  the  Tran- 
 scribers. Hilary  the  Deacon  has  made  a  general  Rule,  in  that 
 place  formerly  mentioned  :  He  afFures  us,  (m)  that  the  Spirit 
 of  difpute,  that  is  betwixt  different  Parties  is  the  caufè  of  diffe- 
 rent Renditions.  Every  one  (faith  hej  feeing  he  cannot  on  fuch 
 occafions,  juftifie  him (èlf  by  his  own  Authority,  does  corrupt  the 
 Words  of  the  Law,  that  he  may  make  his  own  Opinions  pafs  for 
 the  Words  of  the  Law. 
 
 Although  that  has  happened  fbmetimes,  efpecially  to  thofe  an- 
 cient Hereticks  of  whom  we  fpake  in  the  beginning  of  this 
 Work,  I  am  perfwaded,  that  they  have  frequently  attributed  to 
 different  Parties ,  fuch  various  Renditions  in  the  Copies  of  the 
 New  Teftament,  as  had  no  other  caufe  Originally,  but  what  thofe 
 have  which  are  found  in  all  other  Books.  How  many  Divines  are 
 there,  for  example,  who  believe  at  this  day,  that  they  have  taken  a- 
 way  from  the  Ancient  Greek  Copies,  the  Teftimony  of  the  Father,of 
 the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  of  which  mention  is  made  in  the 
 firft  Epi  (He  of  St.  John,  Chap.  f.  v.  7.  to  favour  the  Avian  He- 
 reiie.  Others,  on  the  contrary  do  alledge  ,  that  it  was  the  Ar- 
 nans  who  added  thefe  Words  exprefly  to  the  Greek  Text,  to 
 fhew,  the  Unity  of  the  Perfbns  of  the  Trinity  is  not  an  Unity 
 of  Eflcnce  ,    but  of  Coulent.    .Grotms  is  of  this  latter  Opinion  : 
 
 (mj  Qgod  fecit  ftudium  content  ionis.  Quia  enim  propria  qui  s  auSloritate  uti 
 non  fotcft  ad  viftortam,  verba  legis  adulterate  ut  fenfum  Juum  quafi  verba  kgis  af 
 ftrat,  ut  non  ratio,  fed  auftoritas  frtfcribere  videatur.  Ambrof.  ibid. 
 
 CLi  He 
 
[  1*4  3 
 
 He  thinks  (»)  that  the  Arlans,  for  this  reafbn,  were  {o  far  From 
 retrenching  ionie  Words  from  the  Text,  that  they  added  fome 
 thereunto:  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  Cathojicks  had  taken  away 
 that  which  is  (aid  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spi- 
 rit, leaving  only  thefe  Words,  Thefe  three  are  the  fame;  which  can 
 do  them  no  hurt,  and  which  (as  he  thinks)  were  I  ike  wife  added  by 
 the  Avians.  Bat  all  this  is  only  founded  on  Conjectures  :  and  fee- 
 ing every  one  does  reafbn  according  to  his  Prejudices,  lome  will 
 liave  the  Avians  to  be  the  Authors  of  that  Addition,  and  others  do 
 attribute  the  fame  to  the  Catholicks.  Trns  divei  iuy  of  Opinions 
 proceeds  f  om  nothing  el(è  but  a  neglect  of  examining  with  (uffici- 
 cnt  care,  the  ancient  Manufcript  Copies  and  other  Records  which 
 were  neceffary  for  the  difcovery  of  the  Original  of  thofe  Variations. 
 It  would  be  to  no  purpofe  for  me  to  repeat  here  the  Critical  Reflecti- 
 ons winch  I  have  formerly  made  on  that  Pafîàge  of  the  firft  Epiftle 
 of "St.  John,  it  having  been  made  evident  in  what  manner  it  came 
 to  pafs  that  thofe  Words,  that  were  neither  in  the  Greek  Copies  nor 
 in  the  Latm,  were  inferted  in  the  Text.  <. 
 
 No  credit  therefore  is  eafily  to  be  given  to  all  thofè  Accufàtions 
 of  the  ancient  Ecclelïaflical  Writers  againft  the  Hereticks,  upon  the 
 point  of  the  Alterations  that  have  happened  to  the  Sacred  Writings. 
 We  have  already  (èen,  in  the  Critical  Hiftory  of  the  Old  Tefta- 
 ment,  that  the  molt  part  of  the  Fathers  did  caft  the  fame  reproach 
 on  the  Jews,  without  any  ground.  Seeing  the  moft  part  of  Here- 
 nes  fprung  up  in  the  Greek  Church,  thofè  who  maintain  the  prefe- 
 rence of  the  Latin  Copies  of  the  New  Teftament,  do  not  fail  to 
 bring  this  Reafon,  to  mew  that  the  Books  of  the  Latins  are  more 
 ancient  than  thofe  of  the  Greeks:  But  before  this  Accuiation  is 
 brought,  it  ought  to  be  examined  if  thefe  Objections  have  a  good 
 foundation:  for  if  the  thing-be  confidered  in  general,  the  Original 
 mud  needs  be  more  perfect  than  the  Verfions,  unlefs  it  be  in  fbme 
 places,  where  it  may  be  demonftrated  that  the  Verhon  is  inftead  of 
 the  Original  which  has  been  altered. 
 
 The  Sect  of  the  Macedonians  were  at  another  time  accufed,  as 
 being  the  Authors  of  the  Word  &yiw  Chap.  vii.  of  Sx.  John,  v.  59. 
 where  we  read,  *7iu  $  l*>  msZua.  «;^ov,  The  Holy  Ghoft  was  not  as  yet  ; 
 
 (  11  )  Ne  que  vero  Arianis  ablatas  effe  voces  qaafdam,  fed  pot  1  us  additas,  wide 
 colhgereut  Pattern  &  Filium  & 'Spirit urn  Sanctum  tumejji  mum  mji  conjaiju,  quo- 
 modo  fpiritus,  aqua  &  unguis  in  unum  tcftimomum  confintiunt :  <%uod  cum  vidèrent 
 Cathoiici,  aifiulijje  quidern  tilud  quod  du  Patre,  Ftlio  &  Spintit  Saneto  mfcrtum 
 fuerat,  fed  reliquijfe  iLud,  très  unum  elle,  qi.ia  id  itafojitum  nocere  non  foterat. 
 Cirot.  Annot.  in  I.  Hpift.Joann.  c.  5-  V«  7. 
 
 whererts 
 
[  Iff  ] 
 
 wh:;*cas  it  is  in  the  Vulgar,  Rr  the  II. h  G  bo  ft  wot  n 
 
 The  ancient  Latin  Interpreter  did  not  read  the  Word  *)m  in  ins 
 
 GYc?£  Copy  ;  which  is  likewife  wanting  in  fome  Greek  M  pes, 
 
 and  in  others  belonging  to  Mr.  Colbert 's  mod  ancient  Library*  Nd  CodMS 
 
 ther  is  it  extant  in  the  Synack  Ver  (ion:    which  m ale es  me  r-  ■< 
 
 that  it  was  added,  and  that  it  was  not  in  the  firft  Original  Grtek.  ):'  5!49« 
 
 But  it  muikni't  be  interred  from  hence,  that   thofe  who  favoured 
 
 the  Party  of  Macedopm  were  the  Authors  or  that  Addition,  the 
 
 being  the  like  Examples  in  other  places,  with  which  they  cannot  be 
 
 charged.     It  is  much  more  probable,  that  it  was  occaiion'd  by  t 
 
 Greek  Scholiafts,  who  placed  the  Word  *t<ov  m  the  Margin,  to  (hew 
 
 that  that  place  (pake  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  it  palled  into  the  Te 
 
 afterwards. 
 
 There  is  alfo  in  the  fame  Pailage  the  Latin  Word  dat.ts,  which 
 is  not  read  in  the  Greek,  uhleis  it  be  in  the  ancient  Copy  of  the 
 Vatican,  where  there  is,  according  to  Lewis  of  Bruges,  AJb/JtJoy.    Ie 
 is  very  likely  that  this  Word  was  added  bv  the  Latin  Interpreter, 
 who  had  in  his  view  the  fenfè  of  that  Partage  where  the  Gifts  of 
 the  Holy  Ghoir.  are  fpoken  of.  It  would  Ijp  likewife  added  after  the 
 fame  manner  in  the  Margin  of  fome  Greek  Copy.     We  alio  read 
 10  the  Syr  tack  Verfion,  was  not  yet given  ;  which  does  wholly  agree 
 with  the  Latin  :  and  in  the  three  Arabick  Verfions  which  have  been 
 published,  it  is  in  the  fame  fenfè,  was  not  yet  come.     Groups  believed 
 that  the  Greek  Word  </WVVW,   or  as  it  is  in  the  Latin ,  datus,  was 
 added  for  the  avoiding  the  reproach  of  the  Followers  of  Mace don; its  ; 
 In  ncnnuliis,  datus,  ad  vitandam  calumniam   Macedoniorum.     But  it  is  Grot.  / 
 not  at  all  neceflary  that  they  mould  have  had  any  regard  to  thofè  not- in 
 Sectaries  to  induce  them  to  add  that  Word, feeing  they  only  explained  imnc  L" 
 the  ienle  of  the  Greek  Verb,  1%  was,  which  in  this  place  is  not  ta- 
 ken  fubfi ant tvely.   JanfenirtshWhopofGand,  who  had  read  in  all  th 
 Greek  Copies,  *77w  $  Uu  miu^*  lyw,  for  the  Spirit  was  not  ytt,  did  like; 
 wife  believe,  that  they  had  changed  the  Greek  Word  £710  Holy  in:  1 
 that  of  Datm  in  the  Latin  Edition,  (0)  becaufe  that  fenfè  did  then 
 fèem  to  be  impious,  as  if  there  had  been  no  Holy  G  hoft  as  yet. 
 
 But,  as  we  have  obferved,  Alterations  of  that  kind  do  happen  or 
 themfelves,  without  all  thofe  Theological  Coniîd-erations.  Whcn'.n 
 Words  of  a  Text  are  equivocal  or  very  general,  they  are  illuftrat 
 by  Notes;  and  when  this  Illuftration  docs  conhTt  of  a  few  Wo; 
 the  Note  does  eaiiiy  pafs  into  the  Text  ;  which  yet  happens  w   . 
 
 (  o  J  Hjfomam  ea  lectio  prima  frome  imp  turn  fenfum  pr.cfefcreb.it,  qua 
 Spirit  us  auquamio  non  f iter  it,  ojfenfus  qitisjiam,  ut  vcrvimile  est,  muta*,  (in 
 
 datus.    Jant.  Gand.  Concord.  Eu.  c.  75. 
 
t xr6  X 
 
 gi  cdter  freedom  in  a  Veriion.  Salmerons  Sentiment  upon  this  matter 
 appeared  to  me  to  be  more  juft  than  that  of-  Janfentm  and  of 
 Grotiws.  That  Jefuit  did  content  himfelf  to  (ay,  (p)  that  there  was 
 Santtns  infleadjof  Datas,  in  the  ancient  Greek  Copies;  but  that  this 
 does  make  no  difference  of  reading  in  refpeft  of  the  fèn(e,becau(e  the 
 Word  tin  m  muft  of  neceffity  be  fupphed,  although  it  be  not  exprerted 
 in  the  Greek.  Moreover,  the  true  and  ancient  readiftg  of  that 
 IViflage  in  the  Greek  Text  was  *7m  $  13  wvey/xa,  for  the  Spirit  was  not 
 rrsjet:  audit  was  alio  read  in  the  ancient  Latin  Verfion,  Nondum 
 tnim  erat  Spiritrts}  as  it  is  in  (bme  Latin  Copies.  Luke  of  Bruges  does 
 obferve,  that  St.  Auguftin  did  not  read  it  otherwife  when  he  treated 
 exprefly  of  that  Partage:  and  indeed,  as  this  Reading  is  the  molt 
 plain,  ft)  it  appeais  to  be  the  moft  natural  and  the  mod  ancient. 
 
 It  is  i  equilite  that  one  ufè  great  Precaution  in  reading  the  ancient 
 Ecdefiaftical  Authors  in  thofe  Places  where  they  accufe  the  Here- 
 ticks  of  having  corrupted  the  Sacred  Writings,  to  eftablilh  their  new 
 Doctrine  ;  for  thefè  Accufations  are  oftentimes  groundlefs.  We  do 
 not  now  read,  for  example,  in  any  Latm  Copy  of  the  New  Te- 
 jlament,  Chap.  ;.  oiS.  Jthris  Gofpel,  v.  6.  thefe  Words,  guia  Dens 
 [fir  it  us  efi,  for  God  js  a  Spirit,  which  St.  Ambrofe  had  in  his  Copy, 
 and  which  apparently  was  the  Glofs  of  (bme  Catholick;  yet  that 
 Holy  Bi (hop  does  mightily  exclaim  againft  the  Avians  on  the  occa- 
 sion of  that  Partage  :  (  ?  )  he  does  accufe  them  of  taking  thofe 
 Words  out  of  their  Copies.  Would  to  God  (faith  he}  you  had  only- 
 retrenched  them  for  your  own  Copies,  and  not  from  tholè  of  the 
 Church.  He  is  alfo  (b  punctual  in  his  Accufation,  that  he  maries 
 :he  time  in  which  he  believed  that  Impiety  to  have  received  its 
 Birth  ;  and  he  is  afraid,  that  the  Greek  Copies  of  the  Eaftern  Churches 
 have  been  like  wife  corrupted  after  the  fame  manner.  You  could 
 (  he  adds  fpeaking  to  the  Avians)  take  away  thofè  Words.,  but  you 
 could  not  abolifh  the  Faith. 
 
 If  we  examine  according  to  Critical  Rules,that  which  St.  Ambrofe 
 does  a  (Tare  us  was  retrenched  by  the  Anans  from  St.  Johns  Text,  we 
 
 ( p  )  Giicca  exemplaria  antiqua  pro  datus  habent  fandlus,  &  in  Jenfu  nulla  eft 
 frorsus  a  noftra  leclionc  diverfitds,  quia  ctj]  7ion  exprimât ur  verbum  datus,  fup- 
 plcndum  e(t  ncccffario.  Sahner.  torn.  8.  trad:.  37. 
 
 (  q  )  Quern  locum  it  a  exprefsc  Ana.ni  tcfttficamim  ejfc  de  Spiritu,  tit  eum  de  vc- 
 ftru  codicibm  auferatis.  Atque  utinam  de  vejlris,  &  non  etiam  ae  Ecclefiœ  codici- 
 bus  tolleretis.  Eo  emm  tempore  quo  impie  infideUs  Auxentius  Mediolanenfem  Eccle~ 
 /him  armis  exercituque  occupavcrat,  vel  à  Valc?ite  atq\X)rfaao  nutantibus  Sacerdo- 
 ttbusjuis  Dicurjabatur,  Ecctcjia  Sirmienfis  faljiim  hoc  &  facrilegum  in  Ecclejiafticis 
 codicibus  deprehchjum  eft.  Et  fortajfe  hoc  etiam  in  Oriente  fcci/hs,  &  lit  eras  qui- 
 dem  potuijhs  abolcrc^fed  fidem  non potmftis  auferrc,  Ambr.  L  3.  de  Spir.San. c.  1  r. 
 
 dull 
 
fliall  eafîly  judga  chat  ic  was  an  Addition  of  (otne  Catholicks  irho 
 read  in  their  Copy  of  the  ancient  Latin  Edition,  chap.  5.  v.  6.   of 
 
 the  Goipel  of  St.  jobns  Quod  natum  ejt  ex  Spintu,  Spirit  us  efl,  quia 
 Deus  tjt  Spritus  \  which  Edition  .was  never  pablickfy  ed  by 
 
 any  Church.    Yet  Fulbert  BiJhop  of  Chartres  did  zealoufly  continue 
 the  fame  Accufatlon  againft  the  Anan  Party:  (  r)  Becaufe  they 
 
 deny  (faith  he)  the  Holy  Ghoft,  they  hive  taken  away  from   the 
 Goipel  of  St.  John  thefe  words  of  our  Saviour,  The  Spirit  of  God. 
 
 Thjre  is  yec  lefs  probability  in  the  reproachful  Charge  that  Socn- 
 tes  has  ufed  agatnfr  the  Neftorians,  for  having  retrenched  from  their 
 Copies  thefe  words  of  the  firft  Epiflle  of  St.  John,  chap,  4  V.  %< 
 Tlav  mivyiA  0  Kvei  m  'lu^ay  ami  to  0e«  vk  ïsî.  fi'hatfocver  Spirit  does  divide 
 Chrifi,  is  not  of  God.  He  pretends  that  Nefiorius  knew  not  rhir  this 
 Reading  was  founded  upon  ancient  Copies^  c*  toï?  -nvKtuoU  &mf&jçoic 
 {[)  Thofe  C  fa  1 1 h  he)  who  have  feparated  the  Divine  from  the 
 Humane  Nature  in  Jefus  Chnft,  have  taken  away  thefe  words- horn 
 their  Copies  :  and  therefore  the  ancient  Commentators  on  the  Scri- 
 pture have  obfecvedj  that  fbme  who  would  feparate  the  Humanity 
 from  the  Godhead  have  corrupted  that  Epiftle.  Bifhop  Fulbert 
 did  likewife -obferve  in  the  place  lately  quoted,  (t)  that  the  He- 
 reticks  have  taken  away  from  St.  Johns  Epiftle  thefe  words,  and 
 whatfoever  Spirit  does  feparate  Jefus  Chrifi  is  not  of  God  ;  as  Nefiorius 
 and  the  reft. 
 
 But  can  Nefiorius  and  his  Followers  be  a  ecu  fed  for  authorizing 
 a.falfe  Reading,  which  is  at  this  day  in  all  the  Greek  Copies,  and  in 
 the  Oriental  Vei  lions,  feeing  the  (ame  Reading  is  not  only  found  in 
 S.  Cypnan,bi\t  is  likewife  authbrifed  by  S.Peljcarp,  who  was  contempo- 
 rary with  the  Djfciples  of  the  Apoftles  ?  It  cannot  be  denied  but  that 
 the  other  Reading,  which  is  confirmed  by  the  Author  of  the  Vulgar* 
 is  alfb  very  ancient  :  but  it  is  probable,  that  ic  is  a  Note  or  Glofs  thai 
 in  procefs  of  time  paiïed  into  the  Text.     They  would  explain  tfu 
 words  W  ôfxohoyii  does  not   cenfefs,  by  this  *u«  docs  feparate,  the  nv 
 effectually  to  refute  the  ancient  Hereticks  who  denied  the  Divir 
 of  Jefu:  Christ,  or  who  did  feparate  Jefus  from  Chnft.     And  upon 
 
 (r)  Arii  audnores  auoniam  Spiritum  Santlum  Deum  effe  negabmrt,  de  Evangc 
 
 1 10  trafcrunt  Mud   quod  Salvatur  ait ,  Spiritus   clt   Dens.     Fulb.  Can.ot.  E\    : 
 Epilt.  1. 
 
 (f)  Tojjtùuj  t  J)dvoidM  In,  <ffi  Tizikaucdv  ûLvTifevïcoy  <zfeAtthQv>  01  yaextjiv  cu7n  rx 
 
 TYii  OlKÛ.OfJÀOi  et.  3pWT»    (i\iKQ(J^{Joi  T  SiOTHTO.'     c/)o  Jfj  Of    7m.KOJ0l    ï^fAlUH^  CJJ7V  T6TD  \7J\~ 
 
 MuLwdMTv,  âç  mu  èîv  f>oLJhsçy{)OTtv7*ç  $  ZhçoKbjj,  KvtiV  a/rn  rk  €>£»  rip  ivSpv-nw 
 SihovTïç.    Suer.  Hilt.  Ecclef.  liu.  7.  c  32. 
 
 ;  t)  lit  de  Epijio'à  Joannis  erafenoit,  Et  omnis  fpllitUS  qui  folfitjcfum    c:;  T 
 non  cir,  ficut  Nefterim,  &c.    Fulb.  Carnot,  ibid. 
 
 th 
 
this  account  it  is>  that  both  thefe  Readings  are  extant  in  fome  anci- 
 ent Fathers,  where  they  are  fometimes  joined  both  together.  How- 
 e  i  er  it  be,  Socraft*  had  no  reafbn  to  reject  the  ancient  and  the  true 
 Reading  of  the  Greek  Text  of  S.  John,  under  a  Pretext  that  the  Ne- 
 (fcrians  did  believe  that  it  favoured  their  Opinion.  It  can  only  be 
 fold,  that  they  are  two  different  Readings  of  the  fame  Partage,  which 
 are  very  ancient.  It  cannot  be  dif  covered  which  is  the  true  one,  or 
 at  lead:  which  is  to  be  preferred,  unlefs,  for  that  end,  we  obfèrve  with 
 the  Deacon,  the  Rules  of  Ciiticifin,  which  have  been  alrea- 
 taken  notice  of. 
 
 Chap.  XXX. 
 
 Of  the  Greek  Copies  of  the  New  Teftament  in  particular. 
 The  mofi  ancient  that  we  have  at  this  day,  were  written 
 by  the  Latins,  and  were  ufed  by  them.  Jliofe  which 
 were  printed  came  from  the  Greek  Churches.  The  ancient 
 Latin  Verfion  which  wd4  in  the  Churches  of  the  JVeJi 
 before  St.  Jerom,  were  made  by  thoje  firjl  Copies  which 
 were  not  very  correal.  Of  the  ancient  Cambridge  Copy  ; 
 why  it  does  dijfer  fo  much  from  other  Greek  Copies. 
 
 THofe  who  have  publifhed  the  divers  Readings  of  different 
 Greek  Copies  of  the  New  Teftament,  ought  in  the  fame  time 
 to  have  obferved  what  fort  of  Copies  they  were.  Seeing  they  have 
 not  done  this,  I  mall  endeavour  to  fupply  this  defect,  that  we  may 
 be  the  more  able  to  judge  what  are  the  beft  Renditions  among  fb 
 many  various  Readings.  In  the  former  Chapter  ,  it  was  fbewn 
 from  a  Pa  (Ta  ge  of  Ongen  ,  that*  the  Greek  Amanucnfes  who  writ 
 out  the  Books  of  the  New  Teflament ,  and  Iikewife  the  Criticks 
 who  corrected  them,  had  afiumed  a  very  great  liberty  ;  and  that 
 that  was  the  occafion  of  a  mighty  confufion.  St.  Jerom  does  con- 
 firm the  fame  thing,  efpecially  with  refpeel:  to  the  ancient  Latm 
 Copies,  in  his  Letter  to  Pope  Damafus,  who  had  commanded  him 
 to  revile  the  ancient  Latm  Vcrlioa. 
 
 That 
 
[  ,29  ] 
 
 That  Father  believe  J  (a)  that  it  was  nbfolutely  necefiary  to  have 
 recourfc  to  the  Original  Greek,  to  correct  the  great  number  or  faults 
 tliat  were  in  that  Veriion,  becaufc  there  were  ib  many  different* 
 Latin  Copies  as  there  were  différent  Books,  and  that  every  one 
 prefume  to  change  this  ancient  Latin  Edition  according  to  the  Gi 
 taken  in  his  own  fenfc  ;  beiides  the  Errors  of  the  Tranlcribers  which 
 were  alio  very  numerous.  That  labour  was  by  (b  much  the  more 
 difficult,  as  the  Greek.  Copies  were  not  more  correft  than  the  La- 
 tin ;  and  (b  it  feems  that  the  Rule  to  be  followed  was  very  uncer- 
 tain :  for  the  undertaking  was  to  amend  the  Faults  of  the  Latin  by 
 the  Greek  ,  which  like  wife  had  Faults.  St.  Jerom  oblerves,  in  i  pea  Ic- 
 ing of  the  Copies  of  that  Time,  (£)  that  the  Amanuenfes  had  al- 
 tered them  in  a  ftrange  manner,  by  the  mixture  they  had  made  of 
 lèverai  Gofpels  together,  taking  from  one  that  which  fèemed  to  be 
 wanting  in  another.  If  it  alio  happened  that  one  Gofpel  had  ex- 
 preffed  a  thing  in  a  different  manner  from  another,  the  Tranfcn- 
 bers  reformed  the  reft  according  to  what  they  had  firft  read  ;  fb  that 
 there  was  nothing  but  confufion  in  thofe  ancient  Copies.  We  fee 
 many  things  in  St.  Mark  which  belonged  to  St.  Luke  and  St.  Matthew  ; 
 and  in  St.  Matthew,  which  was  St.  Johns  and  St.  Mark's  ;  and  in 
 ihort,  every  Gofpel  had  fbmething  borrowed  from  the  reft.  It  is 
 true,  that  this  Obfèrvation  icems  to  reach  the  Latin  Copies  only  ; 
 but  in  the  fèquel  of  this  Difcourfe  I  mall  make  it  appear,  that  ic 
 does  likewife  agree  to  fèveral  Greek  Copies  of  that  Time.  If  we 
 had  ftill,  at  this  day,  any  of  thofe  ancient  Books  of  which  St.  Jc- 
 rcm  (peaks,  it  would  be  eafily  believed,  that  he  exaggerates  the 
 Faults  thereof,  the  better  to  mew  the  neceflity  that  was  incumbent 
 on  him,  to  amend  the  Latin  Verfion  that  was  agreeable  to  fomc 
 Greek  Copies,  which  were  no  lefs  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  Amanuenfes  by  fuch  like 
 Copies  as   were  extant  before  St.  Jerom  reformed   them.     That 
 
 (a)  Si  em  m  Laiinis  excmplaribus  fides  eft  adhibenda,  refpondeant  quibus  :  tot 
 enim  funt  exemplana  penè  quot  codices.  Sin  autem  Veritas  eft  qu.crenda  de  flu- 
 ribtts,  cur  noil  adGrxcam  criginem  revert entes ,  ea  qiuz  vet  àvitiojh  interpret*» 
 bus  male  reddita,  vel  àfrœjhyiptoribus  imferitis  cmendata  perverjiùs,  vel  à  libra- 
 
 .rus  dormi  tant  ib  it  s  ant  addita  funt ,  aut  mutata,  corrigimus.    Hieron.  Praef.  in 
 IV.  Evang.  aj  Dam. 
 
 (b)  Magnus  fiquidem  Lie  in  r.qftris  codicibus  error  inolevit,  dum  quod  in  eaa 
 re  alius  Evangelifla  plus  dixit ,  in  alio,  quia  minus  fut averint,  adds  derunt, vel  du 
 
 '    eumdemfenjum  alius  aliter  expreflit,  tile  qui  unum  è  quatuor  frimum  'le  i 
 i     ejus  exemplum  catcros  quoq\  exiftimaverit  emendandos.  ZJndc  accidit,  m 
 
 mixta  fint  omnia,  &  in  Marco  plura  Luc.t  atq\  Matthœi,  rurfis  in  Mat. 
 
 Joamus  &  Marc  i  &  in  cat  ens  re!  i  quorum  qu.c  alii  s  propria  mveniantur.  \ 
 
 R. 
 
•      .  C  '3°  ] 
 
 Caïvinift  never  knew  the  nature  of  that  Book  (c)  which  was  found 
 in  the  Monaflery  of  Lyons  :  he  believed,  that  it  had  been  cor- 
 rected in  fame  places  by  an  ignorant  Scholiafr,  who  had  added 
 fome  Notes  or  Amendments  to  it.  But  thofe  Corrections  or  Notes 
 were  not  made  by  a  Greek  Ccloiz,;  feeing  Books  of  that  lore  that 
 were  written  in  Greek  with  the  ancient  Latin  Verfion,  were  never 
 in  life  amongft  the  Greeks  but  the  Latins  only,  as  ihall  be  made 
 manifeft  in  the  following  part  of  this  Difcourfe.  He  is  in  a  notori- 
 ous mifîakc  when  he  allures  us,  (  d)  that  that  Manufcnpt  was 
 brought  from  Greece]  becaufe  he  obfè:  ved  Remarks  to  be  written 
 in  Greek  therein.  He  knew  not  that  the  Latins  who  had  fome  skill 
 m  the  Greek  Tongne,  joined  the  Greek  to  the  Latin  Ver  (ion  in  their 
 Qrpies  of  the  New  Te /lament,  and  alio  of  the  Pfalms. 
 
 They  were  not  (o  zealous  at  that  time  for  the  Latin  Tongue, 
 b.,t  that  they  believed  that  the  Original  Greek  was  fometimes  nc- 
 ceflary,  not  only  to  regulate,  but  alfo  to  under/land  it.  Upon  this 
 ound  St.  Jerom  and  St.  Augustin  judged,  that  it  was  fit  to  correct 
 te  Latin  in  many  places  by  the  Greek,  when  the  former  happens 
 to  be  defective.  That  the  Original  might  be  the  moreeahly  cor^ 
 { ùlted,  thole  who  were  curious  did  joyn  it  in  the  fame  Copy  to  the 
 ancient  Latin  Edition.  Neither  did  Eez.a  obferve,  that  the  Greek 
 and  the  Latin  of  Manufcripts  of  that  fort  are  written  with  the  fame 
 hand,  and  that  the  Greek  has  a  greater  refèmblance  of  the  ancient 
 Capital  Letters  of  the  Latins  than  of  thofe  of  thé  Greeks.  The  for- 
 mer are  more  fquare,  the  great  Letters  of  the  Greeks  are  longer  and 
 finer.  This  I  obferved  in  reading  the  fécond  part  of  that  Cam- 
 bridge Copy  which  is  in  the  King's  Library,  and  another  the  like 
 Copy  which  is  in  the  Library  of  the  Religious  Benediclines  of' 
 St.  Germain.  Thefe  two  Copies,  which  contain  the  Epiftlcs  of 
 St.  PW,  do  fb  little  differ  from  one  another,  as  well  in  the  Greek  as 
 in  the  Latin,  that  it  would  fecm  the  one  had  been  copied  from  the 
 other,  but  that  the  Characters  of  that  of  the  Bcnediclmes  are  greater 
 and  more  majeftical,  and  that  it  is  lefs  disfigured  by  Corrections.  It 
 may  be  eafily  known  by  the  faftuGn  of  the  Characters  of  thofe  two 
 Copies,  and  by  the  ancient  Latin  Verfion  which  is  joined  to  the  Greek 
 
 (c)  Quatuor  Evangeliorum  (3  Aft  or  am  Apoflolicorum  Grxco-Latinum  exemplar 
 ex  S.  Ircnxi  Cœncbio  Lugdunenfi  ante  aliquos  anno  s  naclus,  mutilum  qu.dcm  i/!uay 
 &  ncquc  fat  is  emendate  ab  initio  ubiaue  de  fir  if  turn,  r.eque  tea,  tit  oportuit,  habi- 
 tum,  j.cut  ex  paginis  quibujdam  divcrfo  char  ad  ere  injertis,  &  mdocii  citji/fpiam 
 Graci  Calogen  barbans  adfcriptis  alicubi  not  is  apparct.  B.2.  Epilt  ad  Acid, 
 Can  tat). 
 
 (d)  E(l  hec  exemplar  veneranda  ictufi.  ,  w  apparel  i  x  barbaris 
 quibujdam  not  is  ad  marginem  adjenpus,  adpetatum.     Bcz.  ibid. 
 
 Text, 
 
C  «j»  ] 
 
 Text ,   that  they  were  copied  by  the  Lâtim  for  th  lut 
 
 Church.    1  he  Greek  and  die  Latin  are  written  with  the  fame  I  [and, 
 
 and  with  a  I  etter  altogether  alike  ;  lo  that  there  are  Letters  chat 
 arc  purely  Greek  in  the  LaU 
 
 Moreover,  there  is  one  thing  that  is  very  lingular  in  thofc  t? 
 ManuL       ■,  and  that  can  only  agree  to  the  Lata       It  is  certain, 
 that  the  Creeks  did  reckon  amongft  the  number  of  the*  Epiftles  or 
 S.Paul,  that  which  is  directed  to  the  Hebrews i  whereas  many  Latm 
 Churches  did  not  receive  it.     And  this  Epiftle  is  not  put  with  tl 
 others  in  thole  two  Copicj.     It  is  placed  (eparately  at  the  end  of  the 
 Book.     Which  cannot  be  accounted  a  Tranfpohcion,  or  any  other 
 thing  of  the  like  nature,  chargeable  on  thole  who  joynedthe  Leaves 
 of  thole- two  Copies  together.     For  the  end  and  the  beginning  qjî 
 every  one  of  the  Apoflle  Paul\  Epiftlçs  are  there  very  exactly,  mark- 
 ed, and  in  the  lame  order  as.  we  read  them  at  this  day.     Yet  there  is 
 no  mention  made  of  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  becaule  the  Churches 
 or  thole  who  made  u(q  of  the  Copies  did  hot  believe  that  it  bcloi 
 ed  to  S.  Paul,  nor  that  it  was  to  much  as  Canonical.     And  for  this 
 
 (on  they  added,  immediately  after  the  Epiftle  to  Philemon,  aC 
 talogueof  all  the  Books  which  were  read  in  thofc  Churches;  and 
 this  Epiftle  is  not  marked  with  others  in  the  Catalogue.    It  ispnly 
 found  at  the  end  of  tholè  Books  as  foreign  to  the  Work,  and  as  a 
 Piece  that  does  not  carry  the  fame  Authority  with  the  others. 
 
 All  this  does  evidently  prove,  that  thofc  two  Manulcript  Copies  of 
 S.  Pauïs  Epiftles,  which  are  of  the  lime  nature  with  that  of  Cam- 
 bridge, which  contains  the  Gofpels  and  the  A£b  of  the  Apoftles, 
 were  not  written  by  the  Greeks,  feeing  all  the  Churches  of  the  Greeks, 
 that  of  the  Arians  only  excepced,did  always  acknow  the  Epiftle  to 
 the  Hebrews  for  Divine  and  Canonical,  and  which  they  never  fèpa- 
 rated  from  the  reft  of  that  Apoftle's  Epiftles.  Nor  can  we  believe, 
 that  the  Greeks  would  joyn  to  their  Greek  Copies  a  Latin  Veriîon 
 which  they  did  not  underftand,  and  which  was  altogether  unpro- 
 fitable to  them.  In  fliort,  the  numerous  Faults  that  are  in  the  Greek 
 ot  thofe  Copies  is  a  new  proof  that  they  were  written  by  Latin  An 
 nuenfes,  who  had  no  knowledge  of  die  Greek  Language.  I  (peak  not 
 of  the  fmall  Orthographical  Faults,  which  are  obferved  in  the  an- 
 cient Books  that  were  copied  by  the  Greeks,  as  well  as  in  thole  that 
 Were  copied  by  the  Latins  ;  but  of  certain  Faults  in  the  Words  which 
 
 n  only  be  applied  to  the  latter,   and  of  which  I  would  produce 
 feveral  Examplcs,if  I  did  not  believe  thanthas  been  evidently  prov 
 that  the  Manufcripts  of  that  nature.,  which  were  ufèd  in  the  V. 
 ftern  Churches,  before  S.  Jerom  amended  his  ancient  Latin  Veilion, 
 were  written  by  Latm  Transcribers. 
 
 R  2  If 
 
[■3*3 
 
 If  Beza  had  made  all  thefe  Obfervations,  and  if  he  had  compared 
 with  thofe  Manufcripts  that  which  S.  Jerom  hinted  in  his  Letter  to 
 Pope  Dawafus,  he  would  have  perceived  the  reafons  of  that  great 
 difference  that  is  betwixt  thole  Copies  and  others,  from  which  were 
 taken  fiich  as  have  been  Printed  in  thefè  latter  times.  That  Father 
 obferved,  that  the  former  were  altered  by  the  mixture  of  feveral 
 Gofpels  together,  and  that  one  Gofpel  had  been  corrected  by  ano- 
 ther. We  need  only  apply  this  Obfervation  to  the  Cambridge  Copy, 
 which  contains  the  Gofpels  and  the  A6ts  of  the  Apoftles,  and  the 
 fame  Faults  will  be  acknowledged  to  be  therein.  We  ihall  find 
 in  S.  Matthew,  for  example/  fome  Additions  which  are  taken  out 
 of  other  Gofpels,  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  fb  great  a  relation  to  the 
 Cambridge  Copy,  that  they  would  feem.  to  have  been  made  for  no 
 other  purpofè,  but  to  give  us  an  exacl:  knowledge  of  that  Copy  (  e) 
 which  differs  fb  much  from  others,  that  Bez,a  does  teftifie,  that  he 
 durft  not  furnifii  us  with  all  the  variations  thereof,  left  he  fhould 
 give  offence  to  fome  fort  of  Men. 
 
 But  S.  Jerom,  who   informs  us  that  the  Copies  of  the  ancient 
 Latm  Veriion  that  was  agreeable  to  the  Greek  Copies  of  this  kind 
 were  ve:y  defective,  he  does  alfb  acquaint  us  with  other  Greek  Copies 
 that  were  more  exacl,  by  which  he  had  amended  it.     And  by  that  he 
 does  entirely  remove  that  pretended  fcandal.     This  Learned  Cntick, 
 ±Codicum  to  effeâ:  his  Amendments,  had  recourfe  *  to  the  ancient  and  the 
 Grxcorum  mo{\:  exact  Greek  Copies,  by  the  means  of  which  he  removed  that 
 TolUtione  C°nmfi°n  which  was  in  the  Latin  Edition  of  that  time,  and  in  fome 
 fed  vetc-   Greek  Copies  which  were  in  nothing  different  from  that  Edition.  (/") 
 rum.         He  made  ufeof  the  Greek  Copy  of  the  Gofpels  to  which  Eufebius  had 
 added  certain  Canons,  which  we  find  at  this  day  at  the  beginning 
 of  the  Manufcnpt  Copies,  (as  well  Greek  as  Latin)  and  alfb  before 
 fome  Editions.    We  know  by  the  means  of  thefe  Canons;  what  the 
 Evangelifts  have  that  is  common  or  alike,  and  what  they  have  pe- 
 culiar to  each  of  them.     By  this  Method  he  applied  a  remedy 
 in   fome  fort^  for  removing  the  Diforder  that  was  in  the.  vulgar 
 Copies. 
 
 (ejl  Vos  admonendos  duxi  tantùma  ?ne,  in  Luc<e  prœfertim  Evangelio,  rcPertam 
 cjfe  dijjenantiam,  ut  vitanda  quorundam  offenfioni  ajjhrvwdam  potiiis  quampub* 
 hcanditon  cxifltmem,  Bez.  ibid. 
 
 (f  )  Canoncs  mioque  quos  Enfebiuj  Ctfartenfis  Epijcopus  Alexandrinum  fecutus 
 Ammonium  in  decern  numéros  ordmavip ,  ficut  in  Gr&ÇQ  kabentur  exfrejjimus* 
 Hierpn.  prtff.in  IV.  Evjng.nil  Dapa, 
 
 He 
 
C  mj  ] 
 
 Undoes  neverthelcfs  add,  that  to  the  end  he  might  not  leave  the 
 ancient  Latin   Copy  too  much,  which  was  then  ill  life,  (g  )  he  had 
 
 obferved  this  moderation,  to  amend  nothing  but  what  changed  the 
 ienfè,  retaining,  as  to  the  reft,  that  ancient  Vcriion.  This  Refor- 
 mation is  judicious,  and  it  does  withal  chfeover  to  us,  the  reafbns  of 
 the  great  difference  that  is  betwixt  the  Cambridge  Copy  and 
 thofe  at  this  day.  By  this  we  further  know,  why  thofè  ancient 
 Greek  Manufcripts  (which  were  extant  before  S.Jerom  amended 
 the  vulgar)  do  better  agree  with  our  vulgar,  than  the  Punted  Greek, 
 which  was  taken  from  tjie  Copies  that  were  u(cd  in  the  Greek 
 Churches.  Seeing  he  himfèlf  teftihes,  that  he  did  not  altogether 
 follow  the  Greek  Copies  by  which  he  amended  the  ancient  Latin 
 Verfion,  a  pare  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  leaft  revifèd.  But  it  is  the  fame  Greek  that  is  in  the  Cambridge 
 Copy,  in  that  of  Clermont  which  is  in  the  Royal  Library,  and  in  the 
 Copy  of  the  Religious  Bénédictins  of  the  Abbey  of  S.  Germain. 
 
 Erafmus  and  fome  other  Criticks  after  him,  who  knew  not  the 
 difference  that  was  betwixt  thofè  two  forts  of  Greek  Copies,  believed 
 that  thofè  which  were  more  agreeable  than  the  reft  to  the  ancient 
 Latin  Interpreter,  were  amended  by  our  vulgar.  And  thus  he 
 makes  anfwer  to  Stunica,  who  had  found  thefè  words  in  our  vulgar, 
 Super  triftitiam  (  Epiftle  II.  to  the  Corinthians,  chap,  z.  verf  ;.  )  in 
 an  ancient  Greek  Copy  which  had  been  brought  from  Rhodes,  (h) 
 To  this  Copy  of  Rhodes  (  faith   Erafmtts  )  /  oppofe  the    many   ancient 
 
 Manufcripts  that  I  faw  in  England,  in  Brabant,  and  at  Baile And 
 
 I  found  fome  Greek  Copies  which  were  corretled  by  our  Latin,  and  I 
 ccnjeclure  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  poflible  that  fome  Latins  had  corrected  in  feveral  places  thofe 
 Greek  Copies  which  Erafmns  does  allure  us  he  had  fcen.  I  have  alfb 
 read  the  like  Amendments  in  the  moft  ancient  Manulcripts  that  ate 
 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  ihew  the 
 
 (g)  $uœ  ne  multuma  leftionis  Latina  confuetudijie  d: Préparent,  it  a  caLimo  tem- 
 per avimui,  ut  his  tant îim  qu£  fenftm.videbantur  mitt arc  correc}js7  rcUqua  manerc 
 pateremur  ut  f iterant.  Hier.  ibid. 
 
 C  h  J  Ego  illi  Hljodieiifi  oppono  tot  vetufta  exemplar  id  quœ  nos  vidimus  partim  in 
 
 Angha,  partim  m  Brabant:.),  partim  Bafilea ac  deprchendi  quofdam  Gr.ecos 
 
 codices  ad  nojiros  ejje  caftigatos.  Quo  de  numéro  fujpicjr  effe  Rj:odienfcm  Mum  — 
 Ego  maps  fiderem  Gr^çç  exemplar i  quod  non  uiquequaauc  confcr.tiret  cumnoftris, 
 Erafm,Reip.adStun.  ir-r-s 
 
 •  "Ualfhoc 
 
C  M4] 
 
 Falfhood  of  Erafmus  his  Conje&ure,  but  that  which  did  afford  him  an 
 occafion  to  make  this  Critical  Observation,  and  to  believe,  that  the 
 ManufcriDtof  Rhodes  was  corrected  by  the  Latin.  For  we  read  thefc 
 Words,  &n  aw-wh,  Epift.  II.  to  the  Corinthians,  chap.  2.  trerC  ;.  not 
 only  in  the  Copy  of  Rhodes,  which  was  followed  in  that  place  by 
 the  Cardinal  Xtmenes  in  his  Alcala  Edition,  but  alio  in  the  ancient 
 Copy  of  Clermont,  which  is  the  fécond  part  of  that  of  Cambridge,  and 
 in  that  of  the  Bemditlins  of  the  Abbey  of  S.German.  Thofè  two 
 Manufcripts,  as  it  has  been  already  obferved,  are  of  the  number  of 
 thole  ancient  Greek  Copies,  to  which  the  ancient  Latin  Verfïonis 
 agreeable,  and  whereof  S.  Jerom  does  witnefs,  that  he  prefcrved  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  thcie  Words,  Super  tnflitia?n,  in  that  ancient  Vul- 
 gar, which  is  joyned  to  the  Greek  Text,  in  the  Copy  of  the  Royal 
 Library,  and  in  that  of  the  Abbey  of  S.  Germain.  S.  Jerom  has  kept 
 them  in  his  new  Edition,  according  to  the  Method  which  he  pro- 
 pofed  to  follow,  defigning  to  amend  that  only  which  did  change  the 
 fence.  If  Erafmus  had  contented  himfelf  to  fay,  that  they  had  been 
 taken  from  another  place  of  S.  Vaul,  Ex  alio  loco  Vauls  adjecta,  he 
 would  have  had  more  1  eafbn  ;  being  certain  that  there  are  the  lik 
 Additions  in  the  ancient  Copies,  and  alfo  lometimes  in  their  fyno- 
 nyrnous  terms.  For  there  we  find  in  fome  places  two  Readings 
 which  the  Tranfcribers  have  joined  together,  that  nothing  might  be 
 forgotten  by  them.  If  there  had  been  caufe  to  believe  that  the 
 Greekluà  been  amended  by  the  Latin,  that  could  be  only  true  of  the 
 ancient  Greek  Copies  which  were  in  ule  amongfl:  the  Latins  before 
 S.  Jcroms  time, ' a«d  not  of  thofè  of  the  latter  Ages.  But  it  is  more 
 probable  that  the  Latin  was  amended  by  tho  Greek.  I  here  /peak  of 
 the  ancient  Latin  which  was  taken  from  the  Greek  Copies  that  were 
 altered  in  lb  many  places,  that  that  Father  was  obliged  to  revifë  the 
 Latin  by  other  Greek  Copies  that  were  more  correct. 
 
 Yet  i  can  hardly  believe,  that  the  ancient  Vulgar  had  all  thofe 
 Faults  arthe  beginning,  the  Greek  Copies  poffibly  not  being  as  yet  fo 
 corrupted,  as  they  were  afterwards.  Seeing  this  Principle  was  ge- 
 nerally received  amonglt  the  Latins,  that  the  Verfion  was  ta  be  cor- 
 rected by  thé  Original,  it  happened  apparently,  that  the  Greek  being 
 altered  by  Glofîès  and  by  Additions,  they  ailumcd  the  liberty  to  in- 
 fert  the  lame  Glofîès  and  Additions  in  the  Latin  Copies;  and  they 
 were  fb  numerous,  that  S.Jerofrj  durft  only  take  a  part  of  them, 
 cccaufc  he  would  have  been  othei  wife  obliged  to  make  too  great  a 
 Change,    lie  alfo  prevented  what  might  have  been  objected  about 
 
 the 
 
 e 
 
c  in.] 
 
 the  thing.     (  i)  There  is  no  body  (faith  he)  who  fees  that  the  an- 
 cient Vulgar  does  ib  much  differ  from  my  new  Edition,  but  will  p: 
 fently  cry  out  that  I  am  filfe  and  impious.,  who  durffc  prefume  to 
 chmgc  and  reform  the  ancient  Edition  of  the  Church  in  lo  many 
 places. 
 
 According  to  the  Principle  that  we  have  cflablifhed,  St  unies t  who 
 by  the  order  or  Cardinal  Ximcnes,  had  compared  m/any  ancient  Greek. 
 Copies  with  the  Latin  Edition,  could  (ay  (  k  )  that  the  Latin  Copies 
 are  very  agreeable  to  the  Greek,  if  we  pals  the  Greek  Copies  at  this 
 day,  and  only  confider  the  Copics.that  S.  J  ulcd  for  making  his 
 
 new  Edition,  and  which  he  allures  us  to  have  been  ancient.  Nevcr- 
 thelefs  it  cannot  be  inferred  from  thencc,that  the  Reading  of  thofe  au- 
 nt Copies  is  always  to  be  preferred  to  theie  which  arc  at  prêtent 
 called  new.  For  the  latter  may  be  agreeable  to  thofè  of  S.Jefow, 
 feeing  he  allures  us,  that  he  did  not  reiolve  to  follow  thofè  Copies 
 exactly,  that  he  might  not  be  thought  to  introduce  too  many  Innova- 
 tions into  the  Latin  Bible.  Stunica  likewile  adds  (  /)  that  if  there  be 
 any  difference  betwixt  the  Latin  and  tint  ancient  Greek,  it  does  coa- 
 fift  only  in  fome  words,  and  not  at  all  in  the  fenle,  becaufe  that  Fa- 
 ther did  not  intend  to  make  any  change  in  thole  places  where  the 
 fenfe  was  the  fame. 
 
 It  is  not  then  true,  as  fome  others  have  alledged,  that  our  Latin  E- 
 dition  does  reprefent  the  firil  Edition  of  the  Apoftle.;,  in  all  thole 
 places  where  it  agrees  with  thoie  ancient  Greek  Copies  formerly 
 mentioned.  For  befides  that  they  had  great  Imperfections.,  as  I  h. 
 proved,  S.  Jtro?n,  whoconlultedthe  molt  corred  Copies  for  making 
 his  new  Edition,  has  left  on  purpofè  fome  of  thoie  Imperfections 
 
 (i)  Sluts  cnim  dotlus  pariter  vet  indotlus,  cum  in  manusvolumen  ajfumpfcrit * 
 
 &  h  Jain  à  quamjèmel  imbibit  vident  dijcrcparc  quod  led  i  rat,  non  Ji \u un  erum- 
 
 fat   ••     ocetn,  me  falfanum,  me  clam  it  ant  ejfejacrilegum,  <jyi  aude.-.m  aliquid 
 
 in  vtteribus  kbru  adderc,  mutare,  ccrrigere  ?     Hicron.  prxf.  in  IV.  Evang.  ad 
 
 Dam. 
 
 (k)  Annotavimus  Latvia  cum  Gratis  opt  une  cmvenire.     Graca  autemdico, 
 i.oi  quaUacunjue  exemplar ia  fi^nijicarevolo,  fed  ea  t.-       m  an- 
 
 tiquijfima  reput ahtur,  qualia  vide. icet  ilia  fu.ru  n  collationem  D.i 
 
 )mus  noftra  dim  emendavu  ;  tfon  cm  m  qua  pajfimferel  .     plana   in 
 
 recognition  ilia  liieronymum  fecit  urn,  ]ed  Vetera  ipfemet  ajferit,  Stun,  in  antapoL 
 adv.  F.ib.  Stap. 
 
 (  l  )  VJJ'jd  ft  alicubi  prater  Ubrariorum  mendas  Latini  codices  à  Grxca     i 
 variarc   i  n\  in  verbis  id  tanthm  crit,  fion  in  •       Vbi  cm  •. 
 
 erat^  nolmt  U.  Hi  crony  mus  qjucquam  immiitar:.  Stun.  ib.  • 
 
 therein* 
 
therein.  I  do  not  examine  if  that  Learned  Critick  revifed  the  Epiftles 
 of  S.Paul,  and  the  reft  of  the  New  Teftament  as  well  as  theGofpels. 
 This  belongs  to  the  Second  Book  of  this  Work,  where  we  mail  treat 
 of  the  Veiiîons.  'Tis  fufficient  to  fùppofè  here,  as  certain  defatlo, 
 that  the  Lat m  Verfion  of  S.Paul's  Epiftles  was  amended  as  well  as 
 theGofpels,  whether  that  Correction  was  performed  by  S.  Jerom  or 
 another,  and  that  it  was  revifed  in  fuch  a  manner,  that  that  ancient 
 Edition  is  prefèrved  as  far  as  it  was  poflible.  Bez,a  whowas  ignorant  of 
 the  original  of  that  great  number  of  various  Readings  in  his  own  an- 
 cient Copy,  which  by  it  felf  contains  more  of  thofè  various  Read- 
 ings, than  all  other  Greek  Copies  put  together,  does  avow,  (  m  )  that 
 he  had  obierved  nothing  in  all  thofè  Variations  that  might  raifè  a 
 fufpicion,  that  it  was  corrupted  by  the  ancient  Hereticks.  On  the 
 contrary,  (faith  he)  I  have  found  many  things  worthy  of  Obser- 
 vation, andthoinfome  places  it  was  in  fbme  fort  diffèrent  from  the 
 ordinary  Reading,  that  yet  in  thefe  places  it  agreed  with  the  Greek 
 and  Latin  Fathers.  He  does  alfb  afTure  us,  that  he  obferved  ibme 
 Readings  therein  that  confirm  the  'ancient  Latin  Edition..  Indeed 
 thofe  Diverfities  are  owing  principally  to  the  Greeks,  who  to  render1 
 the  Writings  of  the  Gofpels,  and  of  the  Apoftles  more  intelligible, 
 have  llluftrated  one  Gofpel  by  another,  and  they  have  likewifè  ex- 
 plained by  more  clear  Terms  that  which  appeared  to  them  obfcure 
 and  intricate. 
 
 This  cuftom  of  making  the  Apoftles  fpeak  better  Greek  than  they 
 did  in  their  Writings  is  very  ancient.  Eufebius  gives  us  a  considerable 
 Example  thereof  in  his  Ecclefiaftical  Hiftory,where  he  obferved,after 
 fome  other  Writers,  that  Tatian  the  Difciple  of  Juflm  Martyr  did  not 
 only  compote  a  Body  of  Gofpels  of  the  four  which  he  put  in  one,  but 
 (n)  that  "he  had  alfb  taken  the  liberty  to  conecl  S.PWs  Di<Sfcion,togive 
 him  more  proper  and  clearer  Exprefîîons.  There  were  /bme  Greek 
 Churches  which  made  no  fcruple  to  read  thofe  Greek  Copies  that 
 had  been  revifed  in  that  manner,  and  which  pofhbly  did  acknow- 
 ledge no  other.    There  is  nothing  more  furpnfing  than  that  which 
 
 (m)  In  hoc  tamen  noii  [entent i arum,  Jed  vocum  diver fitate  r.ihil  profeclo 
 c .) nper i,  undc  Jujpicari  potuerim  à  veteribus  Hits  bareticis  fuijje  dépravât  urn. 
 brio  multa  mihi  videor  deprebendtjfe objervatione  digna,  quœdam  etiam  fie  à  receptâ 
 Scripturà  difcrvpantia,  ut  tamen  cum  vettrum  quorundam  (3  Grcecorum  &  Latino- 
 rum  Patrum  fcnptis  confentiant.  Non  pauca  demque  quibus  vetujia  Latino,  editio 
 ccrroboratur.  Bez.  Epilt  ad  Acad.  Cantab. 
 
 (  n)  Tk  q  &rrçrXa  Vctoî  tv\uZotu  nvÀ(  T&n&vh  finvap^avu  çcovài,  aç  &hJioç$v* 
 (JfjQV   eùfàv  r  7Ïfçe^Wf  wV-mÇ/r.  Eufcb.Hilt.  Eccl.  lib.  4.  cap.  29: 
 
 Theodoret 
 
C   l37  ] 
 
 Tbeodoret  (  o  )  writes  of  (bme  Churches  of  his  D  ,  wrhich  read 
 publickly  the  Collection  of  the  Golpcrls  irhich  TatianhzAd  ;ed 
 of  his  own  Head.    Seeing  they  were  ignorant  of  the  mifchief  the 
 
 Author  had  done,  they  ufed  1rs  Work  bsçaufè  i:  wis  compendio 
 That  Learned  Bilhop  does  aflure  us,  that  he  found  more  than  i 
 Hundred  Copies  of  this  Golpjl  of  Tan  an,    which  were  very  much 
 cfteemed  in  thofe  Churches,  from  whom  he  took  them,  and  reilo- 
 redt  he  fourGofpels  to  them. 
 
 We  do  not  obfèrve  the  like  in  the  Cambridge  Copy,  which  has 
 been  altered  by  fome  Orthodox  Remarks,  according  to  the  cuftom 
 of  thofe  firft  Ages,  where  they  have  taken  the  liberty  to  inlet,  by 
 way  of  fupplement,  that  which  they  believed  to  be  wanting  in  one 
 Gofpel,  taking  it  from  another  Gofpel.  Thus  for  example,  after 
 the  word  m^uy,  chap.  10.  of  S.  Matthew,  vc;(  28.  they  have  added 
 
 thefè  Words,   'T/ue+V  0    £»T«T£  ok.  fxtxp*   aùzHirUy  x}  =,*  (j.(î*ov&  1\atJovhvcu3 
 
 ^«    «7?^,    if  H     GVl  0    JhTTVOlLX'ïTVp-,      OVVCtyc     'îJJ    &VO,      xj     IçUj     OVl      <T*T0    ^Jxn^LOV. 
 
 It  is  found  in  the  lame  (enfe  in  the  ancient  Latin  Verfion  which  is 
 joyned  to  that  Greek  Copy  :  Vos  autem  quœritis  deminimo  crejce'e,&  de 
 magnom'inui.  Introetmtes  autem  &  rogati  cœn are,  ne  di[cubucritn  in  emi- 
 nent lor'ih  m  locis,  ne  forte  dignior  te  fuperveniat,  &  accedens  ceetue  imitator 
 die  at  tibi,  Adhuc,  deorfum  accede  ,  &  confundaris,  Si  ante?»  dijcu- 
 buern  in  minimum  locum,  &  fuperveniat  minor  te,  die  et  tibi  invitât  or 
 cœna,  Collide  adhuc  fuperius,  &  erit  tibi  hoc  utile.  That  is,  But  you 
 Jeck  to  rife  from  a  low  co?  dit  ion,  and  from  being;  great  to  become  fer- 
 vants.  IVhen  thou  art  bidden  of  any  man  to  j'upper,  fit  not  down  in 
 the  higheft  room,  left  a  more  honourable  man  than  thou  be  bidden  of  him, 
 and  he  that  bade  thee  and  him  come  and  (ay  unto  thee.  Give  this  ?n.m 
 place,  ana  thou  begin  with  Jhame  to  take  the  loiveft  room:  Hut  if  thou  daft 
 fit  down  m  the  loweft  room,  and  another  poorer  man  than  thou  do  come, 
 he   will  fay  unto   thse,  Friend,    go   up   higher,  and  .  ill    be 
 
 fit  able  for  thte. 
 
 çoKiyjoïç  Itpj^oi  SoyiMttn  r  $    v\xu**KY\t  i&wtfytat   k     iyvûMTtfj   ctiW'  £TA.vçt£?f 
 a?    ouvrir jru    GiChiu    yjn]ati{j^:i.      'Lvçjv  0     KcLyê    tAhkç     J)&y.onu(    fli£\*i 
 
 rT*   <rW  htJa^uv  IvctyfiMçzùV  dyTtiMr)ci-)fiV  Ivityfrtoet.     Thcod.  HXTCt  \ -.j'juI.  lib.  1. 
 tit.  de  Tat.  n.  2c. 
 
Several  Learned  Criticks  have  obferved  this  Addition  after  Beza  ; 
 I  have  mark'd  it  with  the  fame  faults,  as  it  is  in  the  Greek.  Manu- 
 fieri  pt,  where  it  is  written  "in  Capital  Letters,  without  accents  and 
 without  any  diftincftion  of  words.     St.  Jerome   took  this  Addition 
 from  the  Ancient  Latin  Edition,  when  he  reviled  it,  by  the  Order 
 of  Pope  Dama  fus.     He   was  eafily  fatisfied,  according  to  the  M^ 
 thod  which  he  had  propoied  in  his  correction,  that  thole  words  were 
 taken  from  St.  Lukes  Gofpel,  Chap.  14.  v.  8.  &  9.  but  that  there  is 
 fbme  difference  in  the  words  :    Which  is  an  ordinary  thing  to  that 
 Copy.,  where  the#words  are  fbmetimes  changed  toothers  that  are 
 ynonymous.     That  Father  who  contulted  the  Ancient  Greek  Co- 
 pies,   efpecially  thofè  where  the  Canons  of  Eufebius  were  mark'd, 
 presently  perceived  in  reading  the  Tenth  Canon,  that  that  was  on- 
 ly found  in  that  1  78  Section  of  St.  Lufo,  and  that  (b  he  muft  take 
 it  away  from  the  104  Section  of  St.  Matthew,  where  it  had  been  in- 
 ferred in  the  Ancient  Greek.     And  therefore,  he  adds  the  fame  Ca- 
 nons of  Eufebius  to  the  Latin  Edition,  which  he  had  amended  by» 
 good  Greek  Copies,  that  he  might  remove  that   mixture  and  confu- 
 fion  that  was  in  the  Latin  Copies,     By  this  way  there  is  a  diftin- L 
 clion  obferved  betwixt  what  was  common  to  the  feveral  Gofpels, 
 and  what  was  peculiar  to  everyone  of  them.     Cum  itaque  (faith  St. 
 Jerome)  cancnes  léger  is  qui  fubjecli  furit,    confufioms  err  ore  fublato^    Ô* 
 fimilia,  omnia  fries 3  &  fiîigults  fua  qu^e^ue  reflitues. 
 Hieron.         There  arc  fèveral  other  the  like  Editions  in  that  Cambridge  Copy, 
 Pjff'J"     which  it  is  needlefs  to  mention,  becaufè  they  may  be  feeiv  in  Beta's 
 ad  Dam    ^otes  uPon  tne  New  Teftament,  in  the  Sixteenth  Volume  of  the 
 Polyglott  .Bible  of  England,  and  in  the  Greek  Edition  of  the  New 
 Teftament  Printed  at  Oxford.    We  will  only  obfèrve,    that  Bez,a, 
 and  likewife  fbme  other  Criticks,  who  knew  not  the  original  caufè 
 of  thofè  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  Obfervations,  in  his  Letter  to 
 Pope  Damafm,  they  would  have  acknowledged,  that  a  Part  of  the 
 Greek  and  Latin  Copies,  were  at  that  time  agreeable  to  that  of  Cam- 
 bridge.    That   Learned  Father  amended  them  by  the   bed  Greek 
 Copies  :  If  we  had  any  other  Greek  Copies  of  that  time,  behdes  that 
 of  Cambridge,  that  contained  the  Gofpels  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apo- 
 ftles,  we  Ihould  find  the  fame  additions  in  them.     The   Copy  of 
 the  Benedictines  or  the  Abbey  of  St.  Germain,  which  has  St.  PauFs 
 ^,  does  perfectly  agree,  fas  well  in  the  Greek  as  in  the.LatinJ 
 with  that  of  the  Royal  Library;  which  is  the  Second  Part  of  that  or 
 Cambridge. 
 
 It  is  only  (for  example)  111  the  latter  Copy,  that  wc  read  Chap. 
 
 6. 
 
[  M9  ] 
 
 6.  of  St.  J  '  »,  v.  ^6.  t         Words  \  Ké&ït  If  iuù  ô  mitfi  ^y* 
 
 •*  's  »  .       /    v      •     i  I    a»       »   •  *    ,    '/•  \       ~  >*    «*      i*      *    a      f 
 
 tTK  <*£    7»    «-  fi»   Ç«W  6#    *|/l£.         ,/.$■    7;    |  Ar 
 
 for  :  Verily }  verily ',   I  jay  unto  you,  if  ye   • 
 
 .1  if  life,  you  7io  life  h 
 
 »  :  .-  is  bd  with  this  /■       :ion,  in  «w  coJicevctitjtu  flaith  he) 
 
 pi  /j/c  auiddam  depreben..  :  It  fèems  that  h j  meant  anoth 
 opy  than  that  of  Cambridge %  arid  he  bkewife  does  place  this  Addi- 
 tion, immediatly  after  the  5  \  5,  whereas  in  that  of  Cam  fit 
 is  in  the  68.  after  the  word  «o/i?,  that  is  to  fay,  after  the  56  vcrie; 
 where  it  is  alio  readfnoneof  J.  t  Step  Copies,  \\\\.  that 
 Calvinift  might  have  taken  it,  without  fpeaking  of  his  Ancient 
 Cambridge  Copy.  It"  he  had  confulted  it,  he  would  not  have  .laid  in 
 his  Note  upon  that  place,  that  (  p)  he  durit  not  wholly  rejedfc  that 
 Addition,  efpecially  the  Hrft  Part,  which  is  found  in  another  place; 
 but  that  he  aurit  not  alio  admit  it,  becaufe  he  read  it  only  in  one 
 .Copy,  lie  does  add  afterwards,  agreeably  to  his  own  prejudices 
 rather  than  to  the  truth,  I  fufpeci  that  the  other  Fart  is  fuppofititiota3 
 becaufe  I  find  nothing  like 'it  elfewhere  :   For  he  makes  no  mention  in  any 
 
 her  place,  of  taking  the  JBotly  without  the  Blood  ;  and  the  Copy  when 
 that  reading  was   taken,    was  compared  in  Italy,  where  to 
 
 add  fomethmg  in  >.        I  of  the  Bohemians,    that  is  to  fay,  of  the  Gq- 
 
 That  Man  was  fo  extremely  zealous  for  h;s  Calvmifm,  that  he 
 took  no  notice,  that  the  fame  Addition  is  in  the  Cambridge  Copy, 
 which  he  orten  calls  vetufiifjimttm,  0e  admirandte  Vet uf  at  is  codicem. 
 The  Bohemians  had  not  come  on  the  Stage  in  thofe  Ancient  times: 
 SMhens  Greek  Copy  which  was  compared  with  many  others  in  Italy y 
 is  very  lîncere  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  thofe  who  are  called  E- 
 vangelicalor  Procédants  :  But  as  it  has  been  already  obferved,  the 
 were  always  lèverai  Gloilès  added  to  thofe  ancient  Manufcripts, 
 which  were  for  the  mod  part  taken  from  fome  other  places  of  thofè 
 fame  Books  ;  belides  fbme  Illuftrations  that  were  inferted  therein* 
 
 (  p  }  He  c  ego  fient  temerè  non  expunxt  >  im,  ac  frafertim  prior  em  partem,  qua. 
 tot  idem  verbis  alibi  referitur,  it anon  J         tdmi    .    n,  cum  in  uno  1 
 fint  à  nobis  reperta.    Certc  alteram  partem  juppofuam  ejje  fujpicor,  quia  firm 
 hit  alibi  invenio  :  ne  que  enim  ufquam  fit  ment  io  fumeni  corporis  pneterito 
 ne  ;  &  exemplar  illuaunde  bac  defumpfimus  fuerat  in  h.  urn,  ubi  facile  fuit 
 
 altquid  in  ho'.tmorum,  id  eft  £1         it  odium,  adder e.  Bez.  Annot.  inc.  6. 
 ann.  v.  53. 
 
 S  z  his 
 
C  '4°  ] 
 
 This  is  not  the  place  for  bringing  other  Proofs  of  Bezas  difînge- 
 nuity  in  his  Notes  upon  the  New  Teftament  ;  it  will  be  more  pro- 
 per to  do  that  elfewhere.  I  defigned  only  in  this  place,  to  make 
 ufe  of  fome  Examples,  in  which  [  might  give  fôme  account  of  that 
 Ancient  Cambridge  Manufcript,  which  to  this  day  has  been  admired 
 for  the  manifold  diverfity  of  its  Readings,  whilft  true  realbns  there- 
 of hxYo,  not  been  obferved. 
 
 F.  Marin,  to  whom  was  given  the  Collection  that  Junius  the  Li- 
 brary Keeper  of  Cambridge,  had  made  of  all  the  places  where  that 
 Ancient  Greek  Copy  differed  from  others;  did  content  himfelf  with 
 publifhing  thofe  which  agreed  with  our  vulgar.  Neverthelefs  he 
 could  not  but  admire,  (7)  that  enormous  différence,  which  appear- 
 ed chiefly  in  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke,  where  he  is  very  far  from,  not 
 only  the  ordinary  Greek ,  but  from  the  vulgar.  Thofe  varieties 
 ((aith  that  Father,)  conlilt  in  entire  Periods,  which  were  retrench- 
 ed or  added,  llrained  or  explained  m  other  terms.  He  is  confident 
 that  the  Verfion  of  the  Septuagmt  does  not  (b  much  differ  from  the 
 Hebrew  Mafbretick  Text,  (the  tranfpofïtions  excepted,  which  alter  u 
 not  the  Text)  as  the  Cambridge  Copy  does  differ  from  all  others  : 
 But  becaufe  it  does  agree  with  them  m-every  thing  that  relates  to 
 the  lcope  of  the  Text,  he  thinks  that  it  was  taken  from  another 
 Copy  of  St,  Luke,  into  which  thofe  variations  in  procefs  of  time 
 had  ilipp'd:  Yet.he  dares  not  be  pofïtive,  becaufe  he  knows  not  the 
 reafons  of  that  great  diveriïty.  And  therefore  he  adds  (r)  that  pop 
 fibly  they  might  have  inferted  in  fome  Copies  of  St.  Luke,  that 
 which  was  found  in  other  fuppofed  Gofpels,  and  that  the  Fathers 
 had  afterwards  been  at  the  pains  to  retrench  thofe  Additions.  ^If 
 that  Cntick  had  narrowly  weighed  St.  Jeromes  Preface,  dedicated 
 to  Pope  Damafm,  he  would  there  have  found  all  his  doubts  clear- 
 ed. 
 
 Seeing  the  Cambridge  Copy  obferves    the  fame  Order,   with  all 
 
 (  q  )  Evangel Hum  Luce  in  iflo  antiquijjirno  manufcript  0  à  vulgato  Greco  textu 
 atqiw  etiam  a  ifulgatà  Latinà  Verfione  adeè  diftat,  tarn  multe  periodi  vel  trun- 
 cate fiwt,  veljupcraddite,  ve/  mutilate,  vel  aliis  verbis  enunciate^  ut  leventi  non 
 fine  causa  fint  admirationi  ■-*  Si  tranjpojitiones  excipias,  quefenfum  non  leduntjml- 
 !  ib  1  Septuagmt  a  Interprètes  a  Majoretlnco  textu  tarn  Jape  &  enormiter  variant^ 
 quam  hie  Luce  codex  a  trito  &  vulgato  textu  five  Greco  Jive  Latino.  Sequitur  ta- 
 men  up  mJk  textiis  Luce  ordincm  &  hiflonam  :  tta  ut  appareat  ex  alio  Luce  ma- 
 nufcntuo,  bee  olimexfcriptafuijje,  bancque  varietatcm  lapfu  temports  irrcpfijje.  Jo. 
 Mor.  Exerc.  Bibl.  lib.  I.  Exerc.2.  e.  3. 
 
 (  y  )    Fieri  pot  nit  ut  antiquitus   in  que  dam  exemplar  ia  Luce  nojinulla  ex  Hi 
 nigelus  quevoddjifyexifiimatafuntjirrepjermt,  que  poftea  Sancïorum  Patrum 
 diligent iâ  refiHa  fucrtnt.  Mor.  ibid. 
 
 the 
 
C  hi  ] 
 
 *he  other  Greek  Copies  of  the  New  Teftamcnr,  as  to  th 
 the  Hiftory.  it  ciocs  nunifeftly  prove,  that  it  has  not  been  on  pu 
 po(è  altered  by  the  I  ici  eticks.  Moreover,  feeing  the  alterations 
 that  are  therein,  do  not  introduce  any  Paradox  Opinion,  but  con- 
 lift  for  the  inoft  part,  in  iome  words  which  have  been  ;  ;  in- 
 ftead  of  otheis,  and  in  ionic  Additions  that  have  been  taken  from 
 other  Evangelifts,  or  in  bare  Illuff  rations,  we  may  in  om  thence 
 tliat  all  the  change  proceeded  from  the  liberty  that  was  taken  by 
 fbmc  at  that  time,  for  pendring  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftamei  I 
 the  rnorc  intelligible,  without  putting  themfclves  to  the  trouble  of 
 adhering  to  the  words  or  the  Original,  fo  long  as  nothing  of  the 
 fènfè  was  altered.  The  Criticks,  efpecially  St.  Jerome,  in  reform- 
 ing the  ancient  Vulgar  ,  did  at  the  lame  time  amend  thofè  an- 
 cient Greek  Copies,  with  which  he  agreed  entirely.  He  i.fed  for 
 that  purpoie,  other  Greek  Copies,  which  were  more  exact  ,  and 
 eipecially  thofe  to  which  he  had  added  the  Ten  Canons  of  Euje- 
 bitP.  Theiè  latter  Copies  which  were  amongft  the  Greeks,  before 
 St.  Jeromes  time  always  remained  with  them,  which  is  ealily  proved 
 by  the  fame  Canons  of  Eufebim. 
 
 One  of  the  mod  lurpnfing  varieties  of  that  Copy  ,  is  that 
 which  is  found  in  the  Genealogy  of  Jefus  Chrift,  Chap.  %.  of  St. 
 Luke,  for  this  Genealogy  is  the  fame  with  that  in  St.  Matthew , 
 unlfis  it  be,  that  it   goes  up  to   Solomon  in  this  manner.     *Û*   âç 
 
 itifxl^iV)  ,  liQ-  'lamp  TO  'l&xàC  ,  TO  Ma7dcC7,  TO  ' 'F:A.c<t£a£,  <nJ  'E^/à^,  to 
 'Ict'/tiv,   to   2«t</^*,    to  'a£u>?,  rk  'EXidLypy.,  to   'A£i*J\  <£*  Zo&CdCiX,  r*   2*- 
 
 AetSwA,  TO  'ii^Oil»,  TO  'IuAKAIU,  TO  'laoWct,  TV  'A^c,  TO  MdMdLCCW,  TO  *E&XA«t} 
 TO  'A^Ctf,  TO  'icuctdrtV,  TO  '0£«cfc,  TO  ' AucLClV,  TO  'iactÉ,  TO  'OpçOcHK,  TO  'Iû^j/, 
 TO   'loXTttpetV,   TO    'AcTOip,      TO    'A£/à<r,     TO    'PcCoctfa   TO    'ZoKOfjUdVy   TO    AcfcW5J</\         1c 
 
 is  manirefl:  that  this  Genealogy  has  been  dehgnedly  amended  by 
 that  of  St.  Matthew,  yet  with  an  Addition  of  thoie  Perlons  which 
 he  had  omitted.  Bez>a,  who  has  alfb  made  mention  of  this  diver- 
 iity,  in  his  Notes  upon  this  Chapter  of  St.  Luke,  declares  (/  ) 
 that  he  cannot  imagine  how  that  can  be ,  becauie  the  Siriack 
 Interpreter,  and  all  the  Ancient  Ecclefiaftical  Writers  are  altoge- 
 
 (f)  Çluînam  ant  cm  id  fit  faclum  nefcio,  cùmreceptaleclio  turn  Syri  ipfius  meet 
 pretis  au'cloritate,  turn  Scriporum  omnium  S  acr  or  nm,  propure  a  dû  Matthceo  cum 
 Lucà  conciltando  labor witium,  co afin fit  plant  confirmetur  ;  cm  jane  prjejichciurn 
 ullum  ajferre  nee  zelimnec  aufim.  Tanttlm  dico  fieri  fotuijje,  ut  ipfii  Boènutifi** 
 rum  tempo nlus  Judcci  genealogtam  ijhm  quantum  in  ipjis  fuit  defravarmt,  quafi 
 fidem  ceteris  de  Chrifto  narrationihm  abrogatur^  qux  trans  à  plenjquc  not  sni* 
 madverfafACtlc  cbtinuerit*  Bez.  Annot,  in  c.  3.  Luc.  v.  7 
 
 ■  ;ei 
 
[  M*  ] 
 
 ther  againft  that  Copy,  from  whom  he  neither  intends.,  nay  nop 
 dares  to  rece,  That  mjght,as  he  conje&ares,  have  happened  from 
 the  very  time  ot  the  Evangelifts,.  the  Jews  having  corrupted  that 
 Genealogy  that  they  might  not  believe  the  other  Hiftories,  which 
 are  recorded  in  the  Golpels. 
 
 Th  is  nothing  more  ridiculous  than  this  conjecture  of  Be- 
 1 ,  who  docs  charge  the  Jews  with  a  crime  which  they  never 
 thought  of;  behdes  that  it  was  of  no  advantage  to  them  3  be- 
 caufè  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  Teftament,  but  the  Chnftians  and 
 even  the  Orthodox  ,  as  it  has  been  frequently  obferved  after  St. 
 Jerome ,  who,  in  his  Letter  ro  Pope  Damafns  ,  has  taken  notice 
 of  the  change  of  which  we  now  (peak.  He  fays,  that  in  thofè 
 days  they  took  the  liberty  to  amend  the  Gofpels  by  'that  Go- 
 jpel,  which  they  had  read  fîrft.  lilt  qui  u?ju?n  è  quatuor  frimum 
 léger  at  ,  ad  ejus  exemflum  cateros  quoque  exifiimaverat  emendaMos. 
 It  is  evident  ,  that  the  Genealogy  in  St.  Luke  was  reformed  in 
 the  Cambridge  Copy,  according  to  this  Method  ,  and  that  wha£ 
 was  fuppolèd  to  be  wanting  therein,  was  fupplied  from  the  Old 
 Teftament.  And  the  acculation  fuppofed  to  have  been  brought 
 againft  the  Jtwss  was  io  far  from  admitting  a  iufficient  ground 
 reafbn  ,  that  there  was  nothing  at  that  time  ib  common*  as 
 Copies,  as  well  Greek  as  Latin  of  that  kind,  efpecially  in  the 
 Churches  of  the  Wed,  before  St.  Jerome  had  reviled  the  Ancient 
 Latin  Edition  :  It  would  be  eafïe  to  prove  ,  that  the  Go  (pel  of 
 ..  Mark  has  been  likewifè  amended  in-  fome  places^  by  that  of 
 St.  Matthew  ;  and  further,  that  there  have  been  fbme  words  chang- 
 ed for  others  that  were  fynonymous,  which  appeared  to  be  moie 
 intelligible  ;  but  that  labour  would  be  to  no  purpofe,  becaufc  eve- 
 ry one  may  confult  the  divers  Readings  of  that  ancient  Copy 
 in  the  fixth  Tome  of  the  Polyglott  Bible  of  England,  and  in  the 
 Greek  Edition  of  the  New  Teftament  Printed  at  Oxford.  Ic  is  e- 
 noLigh  that  I  have  obferved  the  true  reafbn  of  thofe  numerous  vari- 
 ations, concerning  which  the  Criticks  have  given  us  very  wide,  and 
 even  ralfe  conjectures. 
 
 Thofe  who  revifed  thofe  ancient  Copies,  intending  nothing  but 
 to  make  them  clear,  without  being  at  the  pains  to  confine  them- 
 ielvcs  to  the  true  Reading  of  the  Evangelifts  and  the  Apoftles , 
 have  given  Paraph rafes  on  them,  whensoever  they  believed  that 
 they  were  not  fufficiently  underftood.  They  have  alfb  abridged 
 them  in  thole  places  that  they  thought  intricate,  by  reafbn  of  fu- 
 
 perfluous 
 
Cm;] 
 
 perfluous  words,    which  they  have  alio  t.-anfpofed  iii  innumcr. 
 places  for  the  fame  reafbn  :  Which  is  enough  to  be        ii    ed  oik 
 for  all,  in  general,   without  a  particular  renearfal  of  the  Paflàges, 
 
 which  have   been  a  in  the   Cambridge  Copy,    as  well  in   th 
 
 Gofpelsj    as  in  the  Atly  of  the  Apoftk       This   docs  appeal 
 more  in  the  A&$>  becaufc  is  a  very  great  liberty  taken  of 
 
 reforming  that  Hiftory  in  the  firft  Ages  of  the  Church.  Ne- 
 vertheless whatever  change  thoft  Books  have  srgone  in  the 
 ancient  time,  and  that  the  veiy  words  of  the  Lvangclifts  and  the 
 ApoOles  were  not  obferved,  yet  it  will  not  be  found  that  the  icnfe 
 has  differed  any  alteration.  They  only  endeavoured  to  make  them 
 the  more  intelligible  to  the  People,  and  for  that  end,  it  was  ne- 
 ceflary  to  refine  them,  feeing  they  were  full  of  Hebraifms  and  very 
 concile  Phrafes,  which  they  were  obliged  to  illuftrate  according  to 
 that  Method. 
 
 Neverthelefs  ,    in  the  Cambridge  Copy  there  arc  certain  Addi- 
 l  .ns  whereof  the   lame  thing  cannot  be* (aid  ,    becauie  they   a. 
 tin    Matters  of    Fact    that   have    been    added.     For   example  , 
 hapter  6.  of  Sr.  Luke,  verfe  5.  after  the  word  ™££&7*,    we  rend 
 in  that    C  »py,  T?  ^T?   >\uic&  StA^w^V®"  w*  sfja^o^B?  tJ  cy.CCi.Ta,    $m 
 Tftv  'awry;    &f$Ç&m,    «  (j$  oJc/kj  77  ftorôf,   uAxdttQ'  «,    n  0   m*  oÏJkç,    th/j,- 
 Ttt'^10-  *)  <z%Colths  h   «ni  vop*.     That   is   to   fay,  On  the  fame  day,  fee- 
 ing a    Man  travel  on  the  Sabbath  day,  he  (aid  unto  him,    mj  friend, 
 if   thou  know. ft  what  thou  art  domg  ,    thou  art  happy  ,    but  if    thou 
 dee  ft    not  know  it,    thou  art   cur  fed  and   a   tranfgrejj'our  of 'the  Law, 
 This  Hiftory  might  pofTibly   have    been    taken,  from    fbme  An- 
 cient Apocryphal  Book,  where  ic  was  common  in  the  firft  Ag:> 
 ot  Chnfiianity  ;    and   it   may  be  ,    ic  was  then  believed  ,    that  ix 
 came  from  the  Apoftles  or  their  Diiciples.     And  therefore   the 
 who  prefumed   to    reform  the   hrft  Copies    of  the    New  Tefta- 
 ment ,    in    fo  many  places,    upon  the  bare  prolpecl:  of  rendnng 
 them    intelligible    to    all    the  World,    would  not    foruple  to  add 
 thereto  Hiftones  or    that  (brt ,    which  they   believed   to  be    true." 
 We  have  formerly  taken  notice  of   examples  of  the  like   nature 
 in  the  Golpel  of  the   NaZtrens;    If  we  had  at  this  day  a  (ùffiei- 
 ent  number  of  Copies  of  this  nature  ,    that  were  before  St. 
 romes  time,  efpecially  in  the  Wcftern  Churches,   we  might  difo  . 
 ver  fôme  other  Additions  in  them,  which  arc  not  known  to  us  .  : 
 p.  dent,  becaufe  we  have  little  or  nothing  remaining  of  the  Cooks* 
 at  thofe  firft  Ages. 
 
 Although 
 
C   »44  ] 
 
 Although  it  does  not  appear  to  us,  that  the  Chriftians  have  had 
 Maifbrets  or  Criticks  like  to  thofè  of  the  Jews,  who  have  given 
 to  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament  that  uniformity  which  is  found 
 to  have  been  from  many  Ages  in  the  Greek  Copies,  and  alfb  in  the 
 Latin,  fince  St.  Jerom  :  it  is  probable  that  the  Greeks  followed  certain 
 Copies  which  they  judged  to  be  more  exacl:  than  others,  and  that 
 they  were  Corrected  by  learned  Criticks.  Thefe  Copies  were  ufèd 
 afterwards  as  a  Mafîbre  or  Rule.  By  thefe  Sujerom  Corrected  the 
 ancient  Latin  Edition,  by  the  Order  of  Pope  Damafus.  Let  us  now 
 exanun  the  fécond  Part  of  the  ancient  Cambridge  Copy,  which  does 
 conrain  the  Epiftles  of  St.  Paul. 
 
 Chap.  XXXI. 
 
 Qf  the  fécond  part  of*  the  Cambridge  Copy,  which  con- 
 tains St.  Pailla  Epiflles.  Examples  of  the  various  fad- 
 ings that  are  in  that  fécond  Tart.  Critical  (fyfleftions 
 upon  the  whole  matter. 
 
 T Here  is  nothing  can  more  contribute  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
 ftate  of  the  Greek  Copies  of  the  New  Teftament,  in  the  moft 
 ancient  times  of  the  Church,  than  thofe  Books  that  were  fb  com- 
 mon before  St.  Jerom,  and  which  are  not  extant,  but  m  very  few 
 places  at  this  day.  It  will  be  in  vain  to  look  for  them  in  the  Churches 
 of  the  Eaft  ;  becaufe  they  having  been  written  in  Greek  and  in  Latm> 
 and  with  the  fame  Hand,  it  is  ealie  to  judge  that  thev  could  be  only 
 extant  in  the  Weft.  We  are  indebted  to  the  Monks  for  having  pre- 
 ferved  fome  of  thofe  Copies  for  us._  That  of  Cambridge,  as  has  been 
 laid,  was  found  in  a  Monaftery  of  Lyons.  The  Beneditl'me  Monks 
 "of  the  Abbey  of  St.  Germain,  have  in  their  Library  the  fécond  part  of 
 the  like  Copy,  in  which  the  Epiftles  of  St.  Paul  arc  contained.  Peter 
 Pithouy  {a)  had  feen  thofe  two  ancient  Copies,  which  he  efteemed 
 for  their  great  antiquity.     He  does  teftifle,  that  it  was  believed,  that 
 
 •  fa)  Vidimm  (3  nos  aliquando  vetufiijfimum  exemplar  Hvangeliorum  Uteris  illis 
 majoribus  cxaratum,  adjctlis  è  rcgione  Gracis,  quod  dim  fuijje  dicebatur  Ecclejlœ 
 Lu^duncufis.  Vidimus  (5  aliud  EpijloLnum  exemp  ar  cjnjdcmformœ  &  cctatis  ex 
 Corbejcemajoris  G.ddjc  Monaftcrio,  qu.e  tanauam  Jantïioris  ii7itujuit.it is  kh^Kio. 
 
 *  «m  fine  religione  JujpiQimus  ($  vcnci<imur.     Pctr.  Pith,  de  S3.  Bibl.Intcrpr. 
 
 the 
 
C  '45  ] 
 
 the  former  was  brought  from  the  Church  of  Lyons}  and  the  latter  from 
 the  famous  Abbey  of  Corh  in  France.  Christian  Druthmar,  an  anci- 
 ent Benediclme  Monk,  who  had  been  for  fbme  time  in  that  Abbey, 
 has  pointed  to  us  the  tirft  part  of  this  latter  Copy,  when  he  makes 
 mention  of  a  Greek  Copy,  winch  he  believed  to  have  belonged  to 
 St.  Hilary,  where  the  Gofpel  of  St.  John  M  immediately  follow  that 
 of  St.  Matthew*  Vidi  (faith  that  Monk)  Librum  Evangel/s  Grace  Chnjl 
 fenptum,  qui  dicebatur  Sancli  Hilarii  fuijje,  in  quo  prims  erant  Matthaus  ^"'p'T'ir 
 &  Joannes.  In  the  Royal  Library,  there  is  another  Greek  and  Latin  jv^n.'c.V. 
 Copy  of  St.  Paul's  Epiftles,  which  differs  almoff  in  nothing  from 
 that  of  the  Benedict 'mes ,  unlefs  it  be  that  the  Letters  are  not  fo  great, 
 nor  fo  majeflick,  although  they  be  the  fame  as  to  their  figure  and 
 duration.  The  King's  Copy  is  alfo  more  disfigured  by  reafon  of  in* 
 numerable  corrections,  than  that  of  the  Abbey  of  St.  Germain.  For 
 although  this  latter  has  hkewile  been  amended  in  many  places,  the 
 corrections  thereof  are  not  Co  grofs. 
 
 Further,  we  may  call  thofe  two  Copies  the  fécond  part  of  that  of 
 Cambridge,  becaufè  they  contain  that  ancient  Greek,  and  that  ancient 
 Latin  Verlion,  which  was  ufèd  in  the  Churches  of  the  Well,  be- 
 fore St.  Jerom  had  reformed  it.  It  is  true  that  that  Father  in  his  Let- 
 ter to  Damafi/s,  does  only  make  mention  of  four  Gofpels  which  he 
 had  revifed,  and  we  are  not  clearly  informed  by  another  Hand, 
 that  he  had  corrected  the  reft  of  the  N.  T.  after  the  fame  manner. 
 But  however  it  be,  the  thing  is,  it  is  certain  that  the  whole  ancient 
 Latin  Veriion  was  amended,  and  that  the  fame  method  was  obfèrved 
 in  that  Reformation,  which  St.  Jerom  does  teftifie  to  have  been  fol- 
 lowed in  his  own  practice,  when  in  complyance  to  the  Order  of 
 Pope  Damafus,  he  reformed  the  ancient  Latin  Tranflation. 
 
 Beza,  in  his  Notes  upon  St.  Paul,  does  frequently  cite  that  ancient 
 Copy  of  the  King's  Library,  under  the  name  of  *  The  Copy  of  Cler-  *Codtx 
 mont.  He  alfo  believed  that  it  was  the  fécond  Part  of  that  which  claro 
 belongs  to  Cambridge.  In  which  he  is  not  miftaken.  For  it  is  the 
 Greek  and  the  Latin  of  thofe  ancient  Greek  and  Latin  Copies  that 
 were  commonly  read  before  St.  Jerom  s  time.  It  is  not  necellary  for  all 
 that,that  both  of  them  fhould  have  been  written  with  the  fame  Hand. 
 It  is  fufficient  that  they  are  of  the  fame  Age.  And  fo  it  may  be 
 fàid,  that  that  of  the  Benedictines,  as  well  as  the  King's,  is  the  fécond 
 Part  of  the  Cambridge  Copy,  becaufè  both  the  one  and  the  other  do 
 reprcfènt  the  ancient  Vulgar  to  us,  to  which  they  have  added  the 
 Greek,  with  which  it  did  agree. 
 
 F.  Marin y  who  had  borrowed  that  ancient  Manufcript  of  the  Du 
 Puts,  that  he*  might  extract  the  various  Readings  that  confirmed  our 
 Vulgar,  does  in  his  Exercications,  infill  at  lome  length  on  the  Bible, 
 
 T  Oil: 
 
 >«- . 
 
He  i5  perfuaded  "that  ths  Latin  Veriîon,  th.it  is  joyncd  to  the 
 Greek,  is  the  ancient  Trandation,  which  was  read  in  the  Weft  be- 
 fore St.  Jerom  had  reformed  it  by  the  Command  of  Pope  Damafi/t, 
 according  to  the  ancient  Greek  Copies.  He  (c)  does  alfb  judge  by 
 the  figure  and  bulk  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Characters,  which  areal- 
 mofl  worn  out  in  fbme  places,  by  reafbn  of  their  antiquity,  and  by 
 the  J  atin  Veriîon  wjiich  he  compared  with  our  Vulgar,  and  with 
 the_  Citations  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  that  that  Copy  was  written 
 before  St.Jcrcm.  He  further  adds,  to  prove  the  antiquity  of  the 
 fame  Mahùfcript,  a  Catalogue  of  the  Books  of  the  Scripture,  which 
 had  been  infèrted  atthe  cndy  m  which  the  twelve  (mall  Prophets  are 
 noted  with  the  four  great  Prophets,  and  th^  Golpel  of  St.  John  bo- 
 fore  that  of  St.  MMrk  and  St.  Luke.  Moreover,  the  Book  of  the 
 Paftor,  the  EpihMe  of  Barnabas^  and  fbme  others,  are  there  placed 
 in  the  number  of  the  Books  of  Scripture.  It  is  h.ird  (faith  F.Aft- 
 rmj)  that  all  this  mould  be  iince  St.  Jerom,  Qua  omnia  SanBi  Hiero- 
 nynti  œvum  vix  fubfecjui  pojjunt,  mult  a  minus  ipfa  cod  ici  s  feriptio. 
 
 .  It  is  true,  that  the  Greek  and  Latin  Copies  of  that  kind  are  more> 
 ancient  than  St.  Jerom3  if  we  confider  the  ancient  Latin  Verfion 
 which  was  ufed  in  the  Weil:,  before  it  was  Reviled  by  that  Father. 
 But  F.  Munris  Reafbns  do  not  prove  that  they  were  Written  from  that 
 rime.  For  it  is  poffible  that  the  Monks,  who  Copied  the  ancient 
 Books,  writ  out  thofe  Copies  by  thofè  that  were  more  ancient  :  and 
 1  believe  that  this  did  happen  on  that  occafion.  As  for  the  Character, 
 it  cannot  be  denied  but  that  it  is  mod  ancient;  but  thofe  who  have 
 skill  to  judg  of  them,  do  not  allow  them  to  be  above  a  thouiànd 
 years  (landing  ;  at  lead  it  is  certain,  that  there  are  Books  of  the  fame 
 Character  which  do  not  exceed  that  time.  Neither  do  I  fee  what 
 can  be  concluded  from  Letters  that  are  almoft  defaced  ,  for  the 
 antiquity  of  a  Manufcript.  This  only  does  prove  that  the  Ink  is  not 
 good.  The  truth  is,  the  Copy  of  the  Benediftines  which  is  of  the 
 fame  antiquity,  and  has  hkewile  a  greater  Letter,  is  ftill  Co  fair,  that 
 one  would  believe  by  looking  upon  fame  of  its  Pages,  (if  judgment 
 were  to  be  given  by  the  Ink  and  Parchment)  that  it  had  been  but 
 
 (!>J  Lxiflimovcrfioyiemvctujli(]]mi  illius  codicis  Graco  textui  ddverfith  eamcfjc, 
 qua  Ecdcji t  Liitina  utplurimhni ante 'Sanctum  Hieronymum  utebtWtr,  ijuam  j.melus 
 zllc  vir,  [ubente  Damàjo  Pontifice,  4d  fidetn  Grxcorum  exempt ar mm poflmodumrc- 
 cenfitit  (3  emcndavit.    Jo  Mer.  Exercit.  Bibl.  Exerc.  i.  c.  4. 
 
 (c,:  CoTiJUUr.iiis  ji"jtray  magnittldine  &  fplendore  cbar.tclcris  tarn  Gr.eci  qiùm 
 
 Latins,  illf  is  ob  vetujlatem  ferfeipfitm  mnl.u  m  locis  dimi.li.it  a  ob/itcratione,  paj- 
 
 fim.jnc  jub  IJ  itr'i  delineation^  ve/jivus  infupcr  cum  Vu'.g.i: à  text uquc  Patrrtm  com- 
 
 partition^   y,  Ihcronymi  cet  At  em  tjlius  co'dicis  fen'pto  ndctiir  omnmh  pr  seeder  c. 
 
 Mcr.  ibid. 
 
 juft 
 
C   M7  ] 
 
 tuft  now  written.  Thofe  who  have  a  tkiiic  to  prefer ve  thofè  ancient 
 Manufcripts,  ought  to  put  leaves  of  Paper  betwixt  the  leaves  or.  the 
 Barchment  upon  which  the  Writing  is,  to  the  end  that  the  Ink  niav 
 not  wear  off.  They  might  at  Lift  have  added  to  the  end  or  thofe 
 Copies,  a  very  ancient  Catalogue  of  the  Books  of  the  Bible. 
 
 *  The'  ftrongeft  proof  in  my  Opinion  for  evincing  the  great  anti- 
 quity of  that  Copy,  is,  that  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  is  not  reckoned 
 with  the  reft,  in  the  number  of  St.  Paul's  Epiftles,  as  I  have  formerly 
 obfèrved,  but  by  it  (elf,  and  out  of  the  Bodv  of  thole  Letters  that 
 were  read  in  the  Church.     V.Morin  did  not  [ufficiently  conlider  that 
 Manulcnpt,   when  he  fays,  ((peaking  of  the  Catalogue,   which  is 
 put  at  the  end)   (d)  that  they  placed  it  before  the  Epiftle  to  the  II- 
 brews    in  fome  Pages  where  there  was  nothing  written  as  it  hap- 
 pened.    For  that  was  done  on  purpofe,  the  Epiftle  to  Philemon  being 
 the  lait  of  the  Copies  of  that  fort,  which  the  Latins  had  writ  out 
 for  their  ufè.  Seeing  they  did  not  believe  that  the  Epiftle  to  the  H  - 
 brews  had  been  written  by  that  Apoftle,    nor  that  it  was  Canonical, 
 they  did  not  joyn  it  to  the  other  Epiftles.  And  therefore  they  inferted 
 that  Catalogue  of  the  Books  of  Scripture  immediately  after  the  Epi- 
 ftle of  St.  Paul  to  Philemon. 
 
 If  Bez.ii  had  conddered  the  corrections  that  had  been  made  in  that 
 Copy  which  he  named  of  Clermont,  he  would  eahly  have  acknow- 
 ledged, that  Books  of  that  fort  were  never  in  ufe  "amongft  the 
 Greeks,  and  that  fo  it  was  not  brought  out  of  Greece,  as  he  alledged. 
 There  arc  lo  many  faults  therein,  efpecially  in  the  Greek,  that  it  is 
 manifeftly  ieen,  that  it  could  not  have  been  written  but  by  a  perfbn 
 who  was  altogether  ignorant  of  that  Language.  A  good  part  of  thofe 
 faults  were  amended,  and  thefe  were  not  only  faults  of  the  Ortho- 
 graphy, but  fometimes  of  Words.  They  further  reformed  that  an- 
 cient Veriion  in  many  places,  by  other  Greek  Copies,  which  came 
 nearer  to  thefe  at  this  day.  Which  without  doubt  was  done  by  (bmc 
 Latins,  who  corrected  at  the  lame  time  the  ancient  Vulgar,  by 
 St.  Jeroms  new  Edition. 
 
 We  will  not  then,  with  Bez,a,  charge  the  Obfcrvations  that  are 
 placed  in  the  Margins  of  that  ibrt  of  Copies,,  on  the  Greek  Priefl 
 but  on  thole  of  the  Weftern  Church,  who  had  Jome  knowledg 
 the  Greek  Language.     As  thoft  Books  palled  through  feeral  IL 
 lb  they  have  received  amendments,  (bme  of  which  are  more 
 eat  than  others.     But  after  all,  we  ftill  ièe  the  ancient  Heading., 
 well  in  the  Greek  as  in  the  Latin,  eipecially  in  the  Copy  of  the  I 
 
 (a)  Catalcgusillc  infertus  eft  ccMa  anicEpftoUmiâ  Hekrtos  m 
 ilnmfortuito  vacuit*    Mor.  ibid 
 
 T  i 
 
[  M8  ] 
 
 brary  of  St.Germam,  which  has  been  re vi  fed' in  fb  curious  a  man- 
 ner, that  the  amendment  does  often  confift  in  nothing  elfe  but  m 
 fnull  fti  oaks  of  the  Pen  in  the  Letters.  Seeing  thofe  two  Copies  d<j 
 differ  in  very  few  things,  I  ilia  11  in  the  following  part  of  my  Difcourfè, 
 make  ufe  rather  of  the  latter,  than  that  of  the  King  s  Library, 
 which  is  more  disfigured. 
 
 F.  Morin  has  obferved  in  general,  (e)  that  the  Clermont  Copy  upon 
 St.  Pauls  Epiftles,  does  not  fb  much  vary  from  the  ordinary  Copies 
 of  the  New  Tcftament,  as  that  of  Cambridge  does,  and  that  it  is  alio 
 more  agreeable  to  our  Vulgar,  though  it  is  no  lefs  ancient  than  the 
 other.  The  faille  thing  is  to  be  (aid  of  that  of  the  Benediblims  of  the 
 Abbey  of  St.  Germain,  becaufè  they  are  fo  much  alike,  that  one 
 "would  believe,  that  the  one  had  been  copied  from  the  other.  The 
 reafon  of  this  great  conformity  of  St.  Paul's  Epiftles,  in  the  Cler- 
 mont Copy  with  the  ordinary  Greek,  and  the  Latin  of  the  Vulgar  is 
 evident,  becaufc  he  had  no  occafion  to  amend  thofe  Epiftles  by  one 
 another,  as  the  Gofpels;  and  they  were  not  fb  much  negleded  in 
 the  firft  Ages  of  the  Church,  as  the  Acts  of  the  Apoftles,  which 
 had  been  revifed  with  a  great  deal  of  liberty  in  many  places.  Yet 
 if  we  carefully  examin  the  places  where  thofe  ancient  Copies  of 
 St.  Paul's  Epiftles,  that  were  before  bt.Jerom,  do  differ  from  the  Or- 
 dinary, we  ftiall  find  that  they  were  not  reformed  in  the  fame  man- 
 ner, and  according  to  the  fame  method  as  the  Gofpels  and  the  Acts. 
 We  fhall  there  obfèrve  the  like"  Additions,  of  Words,  Synonymous 
 Terms,  feveral  Readings  joyned  together,,  with  Glofles  annexed. 
 Moreover,  Tranfpofitions  are  frequently  found  there  :  which  would 
 ieem  to  have  been  done  on  purpofè,  to  render  the  Senfe  more  clear, 
 and  alio  to  avoid  fometimes  the  Hyperbates  with  which  St.  Paul's  Epi- 
 ftles are  filled.  There  are  al(o  fome  places  more  abridged,  than 
 what  are  in  the  ordinary  Copies.  Whether  it  was  that  they  intended 
 to  remove  what  was  of  no  ufe,  or  that  that  is  m  truth  the  ancient 
 Reading.  For  although  thofe  Copies  have  been  revifed,  they  were 
 amended  throughout  ;  and  then  they  might  reprefent  the  ancient 
 Reading.  To  the  end  that  they  may  be  the  better  known,  I  fhall 
 here  give  fome  examples  taken  from  the  Epiftle  to  the  Romans,  and 
 there  may  be  a  great  many  more  obferved  in  the  fécond  Book  of 
 this  Work,  with  refpecl:  to  the  Vulgar. 
 
 (ej  Vai  inntrn  i ft  arum  leHionum  nuHa  adeo  enormis  eft,  atque  ut  it  a  dicam  va- 
 ria, ut  cum  us  audi  ex  priori  volumine  objervavnnus  comfarari  fojjit.  Paulina- 
 rum  Epiftolarum  codex  illt  vulgato  textui  friore  lo?igè  coufownor  eft,  licet  illi  an~ 
 u quit ate  ndncedat,   Mor.  ibid. 
 
 irt 
 
[   l4S>  ] 
 
 In  the  Epiftle  to  the  Romans,  Chap.  i.  ver.7.    It  is  not  in  th 
 
 Copy  of  the  Abbey  or  St.  Germain,  ttyunmh  ©fc*j  /       .  ./  of 
 
 neither    is  it  exprefled  in  the    ancient  Latin  Verfion    winch  is 
 nedtoit.    I;        l  thefè  Words  make  nothing  for  the  Sen  fe,  which 
 is  fuffidently  exprefled  by  the  others  which  follow.,  ttriflj  *W>  cul- 
 ts. 
 
 In  the  i  ;.w  of  the  fame  Chapter,  infteadof  thele  Words,  »  3fo»i 
 I  will  n ■;,  w;  read  **  °'<7*«  (oXu*0  /  //?/*£  *d/.  But  they  have  placed 
 in  the  Margin  or  the  Clermont  Copy  «  3tA»,  which  is  the  ordinary 
 Reading,  and  tin's  happens  frequently.  In  the  16  v.  we  do  not 
 read  in  that  ancient  Copy,  ra  Xe<s-»>  c/  Chrifi y  after  the  Word 
 BtuftiAJor,  Gofpel,  neither  is  it  cxprelfed  in  the  two  Vulgars.  It  is 
 probable  that  n  x^<r*  was  added.  Like  wife,  it  is  not  found  in  (ome 
 other  ancient  Greek  Copies.  In  v.19.  there  i.s  not  the  Word  mtvec*» 
 bue  immediately  after  ÀJiKtî*,  it  is  in  that  ancient  Copy  W*>  and  it  is 
 read  in  the  fame  manner  in  the  ancient  Vulgar,  fo  that  mvm*  (eerns 
 to  be  luperfluous.  The  Vulgar  at  this  day  does  alio  reprefênt  that 
 ancient  Reading,  if  the  word  nequitia  be  left  out,  which  has  been  ad- 
 ded for  no  ufe  to  the  Greek  at  this  day. 
 
 Verfe  ;i.  of  the  fame  Chapter,  the  word  damv^ç  is  not  in  that 
 ancient  Copy,  but  it  has  been  added,  neither  is  fine  fœdere,  in  the 
 ancient  Vulgar,  as  it  is  in.  that  which  is  ufed  at  this  day,  in  confor- 
 mity to  the  ordinary  Greek,  We  ftiall  obfèrve  that  in  the  Copy  of 
 the  Abbey  of  St.  Germain,  there  are  many  the  like  Additions  writ- 
 ten of  the  fame  Hand  with  the  body  of  the  Book,  and  they  are 
 for  the  mod  part  placed  at  the  bottom  of  the  Page  with  a  mark  of 
 Reference,  as  if  they  had  been  true  omiflions.  But  thefè  are  ordi- 
 narily amendments  according  to  fome  other  Greek  Copies.  Addi- 
 tions of  this  fort  are  alfo  common  in  the  Latin.  Nevertheless  there 
 are  (ome  places  in  which  the  Latin  does  not  altogether  anlwer  to 
 the  Greek  Addition.  We  feô  the  fime  thing  in  the  Copy  that  be- 
 longs  to  the  Royal  Library.  They  who  copied  thofe  Manuscripts, 
 by  the  ancient  Copies,  did  at  the  fame  time  correct  them  by  o- 
 thers,  and  in  procefs  of  time  there  were  other  amendments  ad- 
 ded thereto. 
 
 Verfe  32.  of  the  fame  Chapter,  after  the  Word  imytlrTHj  \xc  read 
 in  the  fame  Copy  «*  \nw>  and  in  the  ancient  Vulgar,  as  well  as 
 m  that  we  have  at  this  day,  it  is  non  int elle xer tint.  EraJ?n:is  has  ob- 
 ferved,  in  his  Remark  upon  this  place,  that  he  docs  not  know  why 
 it  is  in  the  Latin  Copies  non  int elle xer -unt ,  which  is  not  in  the  Greek* 
 unlefs  it  be,  that  it  has  been  added  in  the  Latin.    F.  Mmn  does  af 
 
 furc 
 
[   i5°]  _ 
 
 fine  us  of  the  contrary,  (f)  that  the  Reading  that  is  in  our  Vulgar 
 v.  is  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  Manufcripts 
 of  the*  like  nature,  had  interred  that  ibrt  of  Additions:  whence  he 
 does  conclude,  that  that  Change  was  afterwards  made  in  the  ordi- 
 nal y  Greek)  and  not  in  our  Vulgar.  He  does  likewife  make  a  ge- 
 neral Rule  of  it. 
 
 It  is  true,  that  St.  Jerom,  or  he  who  revifèd  the  ancient  Vulgar, 
 is  not  the  Author  of  this  Addition,  non  intellexerunt  y  feeing  it  is  found 
 in  the  Greek  and  Latin  of  St.  Germain  Copy,  and  in  that  of  the 
 Royal  Library.  But  it  cannot  be  concluded,  with  F.  Adorm,  that 
 we  are  obliged  to  prefer  thofe  ancient  Copies  to  the  ordinary  Greek 
 in  all  thofe"  places  where  there  are  the  like  Additions,  it  being  cer- 
 tain chat  they  were  revifèd  that  they  might  be  the  more  plain.  It  is 
 convenient  on  fuch  occafians  to  compare  them  with  other  Copies: 
 and  if  it  happen  that  not  fo  much  as  one  does  agree  with  them,,  it 
 is  a  ligii  that  in  thofe  Places  there  have  been  Amendments  made  u 
 in  thole  old  Copies  to  which  the  ancient  Vulgar  was  agreeable. 
 St.  Jerom  does  teftihe,  that  in  his  new  Edition,  which  is  the  Vulgar 
 at  this  day,  he  left  fbme  of  thofe  Additions,  becaufe  they  did  not 
 change  the  fènie. 
 
 (ç  J  If  we  had  (F.  Morin  continues)  many  of  thofe  Copies  which 
 were  written  above  twelve  hundred  years  ago,  we  would  acknow- 
 ledge that  our  Vulgar  does  perfectly  agree  with  thofe  ancient  Co- 
 pies, in  thole  places  where  it  does  differ  from  the  ordinary  Greek. 
 But  fuppole  it  were  fo,  could  it  be  alledged  that  our  Vulgar  doe\ 
 in  all  thofe  places  reprefènt  the  fîrft  Original  of  the  Apoftles,  as 
 F.  Amelvte  did  likewife  think?  I  defire  no  other  but  St.  Jerom  to  be 
 Judge  in  this  Difpute,  which  hasfb  mightily  divided  Mens  minds  in 
 Hicron.     tnis  latter  Age.     That  learned  Critick  does  give  us  a  very  ftrange 
 Praf.  in   draught  of  thofe  ancient  Copies  which  have  been  written  above 
 iV.Evan*  theft  twelve  hundred  Years.     He  was  obliged  to  reform  the  anci- 
 ad  Dam.    cnc  j^atm  Edinon,  that  was  ib  defective,  by  other  Greek  Copies  that 
 we're  more  correct  ;  which  he  ncvei  thelefs  performed  in  fùch  a  man- 
 
 (f)  Non  de  fuo  b.cc  addidit  Hier  onymus,  fed  qui  cum  fnecejferat  interpret  bac 
 &  Jimi lia  verier  at  i  &  text  m  inftruerat,  antiquorum  codtcnm  fidem  fequens;  vet 
 ipfi  HtCiOhymus  eadem  fide  frétas  ijiar eft ituit.  Mutatio  poffca  facia  eji  in  Graco 
 text  it,  no)i  iuVulgata  noftrky  ut  tot  excntplisjam  demon yravimus,  atque  itaiim 
 denwnftrabimus.    Mor.  ibid. 
 
 (  g  )  Si  plura  exemplar  ia^  quae  hoc  eft,  ante  mille  ducentos  &  aliquot  amws  de- 
 fcrtpta  aliquu  nanujeeretur,  nihil  in  Vulgath  noflra  dijcnpans  depreheuderctnr, 
 quod  illis  antijius  ccdiabus  non  conjirmctur.   Ibid. 
 
 ncr 
 
ner  as  to  rct.ua  romcwh.u  of  the  ancient  Edition  in  thofe  pie 
 where  he  might  have  corrected  them  by  his  Greek  Copies.    Can  it 
 be  (aid  that  our  Vulgar  docs  reprefent  the  firft  and  true  Origi  «1 
 
 of  the  Apoftles  in  thole  places  that  have  been  left  on  purpofè  with 
 their  firolts,  bjc.i  i(e  they  had  no  mind  to  meddle* with  thena  :  Tins 
 is  to  (hew  th.it  F.  Morin,  and  after  him  F.  Amelote,  had  not  a  ivAil- 
 cient  knowledge  of  thole  'venerable  and  au^ujt  Manufcrjpts  that  wee 
 written  above  twelve  ban  years  ago.  Antiquity  is  not  a  good 
 proof  of  the  Goodnels  and  Faithhilnefs  of  a  Record,  when  it  is 
 othervnfc  proved  that  that  Record  has  been  vitiated  within  that  time. 
 
 Chap.  3.  v.  12.  of  the  fame  Epiftle,  we  do  not  read  in  the  Copy 
 of  the  Abbey  of  St.  Germain,  in  ici  micoy  pgn^-nj-m,  nor  m  the  ancient 
 Latin  Veilion  that  is  joined  thereunto,  non  eft  qui  faciat  bonum. 
 Theie  words  were  only  added,  as  wrell  in  the  Greek  as  in  the  Latin, 
 at  the  bottom  of  the  Page,  with  a  mark  of  Reference,  as  a  Sup- 
 plement which  was  taken  from  the  ordinary  Greek  Copies,  and 
 from  the  Vulgar  that  had  been  reviled.  Altho  thofe  Words  which 
 are  taken  out  of  the  xiii.  Pialm  (the  xiv.  in  the  Hebrew)  arc  extant 
 in  all  the  Greek  Copies,  m  conformity  to  the  Hebrew  Text,  St.  Juz 
 {tin  does  not  rtad  them  in  his  Dialogue  againft  the  Jew  Trjpbon. 
 It  is  poflible,  that  thofe  who  reviled  the  Greek  of  the  New  Tefta- 
 ment  in  the  ancient  times  left  them  out,  as  thinking  them  needlels, 
 feeing  they  were  of  the  number  of  thofe  Repetitions  which  are  (b 
 frequent  in  the  Pfalms.  We  fhall  nevcrthelefs  obfêrve,  that  S.  Ju- 
 ftin  did  inftead  of  them  read  thefe  other  Words ,  fa  fer*  ô  Qiwiw, 
 which  are  m  the  fame  Epifile  to  the  Romans,  v.  7.  Ikit  we  cannot 
 depend  on  the  Citations  of  die  Fathers,  which  are  not  very  exatf: 
 when  they  quote  Scripture  Partages.  It  would  be  dangerous  to  re- 
 form the  Greek  Copies  of  the  New  Teflament  by  them,  which  might 
 be  eafily  juftihed  bv  innumerable  Examples. 
 
 Chap  4  v.  9.  after  the  Word  dem(Ms  the  Word  yhw  is  read  in 
 that  Copy,  which  yet  is  not  cxpreifed  m  the  ancient  Vulgar  that  is 
 joined  thereunto,  although  it  is  in  that  which  is  ufed  ax  this  day. 
 The  fenfe  does  require  that  Supplement.  V.  s  6.  of  the  fame  Chap- 
 ter, the  Word  ^W,  that  is  in  the  ancient  Copy  as  well  as  in  the 
 ordinary  Greek,  is  not  expreded  In  the  ancient  Vulgar,  where  wc 
 barely  read,  non  ci  qui  ex  lege  eft,  and  the  Verb  &w  is  alfo  in  the 
 Greek.  Verf  23.  there  is  a  Repetition  made  of  w<  JïyjaoTu.û'ujj  after  the 
 Word  <"/*»>  and  in  the  ancient  Vulgar  adjujtitiam,  which  is  alio  re- 
 tained in  the  Vulgar  now  ufed. 
 
 Chap.  5.  verf  1.  inftead  or  '^«V,  there  is  in  that  ancient  Copy 
 %-^l^y  and  in  the  two  Vulgars  habêamus.  Verf.  1,  we  do  not  real 
 in  the  fame  Copy  t?  m's*,  nor  m  the  ancient  Ye:  hen  annexed  to 
 
it  pc  r  j:./cv/;  ;  but  it  is  in  our  Vulgar  agreeable  to  the  ordinary  Greek, 
 VerC  J.  We  read  not  in  the  Gr^  of  that  Copy  n  JbMQ-  r\fiv>  nor 
 is  it  expreiîed  in  the  ancient  Vulgar;  but  it  is  marked  at  the  bottom 
 of  the  Page,  as  well  in  the  Greek  as  in  the  Latin,  which  m uft  have 
 bejn  taken  horn  another  Copy.  VerC  12.  we  do  not  read  0  .3wV*7©* 
 after  the  Word  dvxpamt.  VerC  16.  inftead  of  «i^ttiWJ©-,  we  read 
 etLL^n/Mt]Q-,  and  in  the  two  Vulgars  peccatum.  Verf.  18.  inftead  of 
 Jnugiûi**]®-  there  15  J)k&v(4*,  and  in  the  two  Vulgars  ju(titia?n. 
 
 Chap.  6.  v.  n.  we  read  not  in  the  ancient  Greek  Copy  itf  weio» 
 riM^y  nor  in  the  ancient  Vulgar  Domino  ncftro.  VerC  12.  thefe  Words 
 t£<  o7n%v(Mcui  Ill-TV,  are  not  in  the  fame  Copy,  nor  in  the  Latin  Ver- 
 Gon  annexed  to  it,  in  concupifcentiis  ejus.  VerC  \6.  wc  read  not  like- 
 wile  in  that  Copy,  ««  sâr*,7*v,  nor  in  the  ancient  Vulgar  ad  mortem. 
 
 Chap.  7.  v.  6.  in  (lead  of  &n>2*w7©-  we  read  in  the  ancient  Copy 
 of  St.  Germain  n  sWt*,  and  in  the  two  Vulgars  mortis  ;  which  read- 
 ing is  conformable  to  Ongen.  Beza  obferves  in  his  Remark  upon 
 that  place ,  that  he  only  found  it  in  his  ancient  Clermont  Copy. 
 Nullités  (  faith  he  )  Graci  codicts  authoritate  cohfirmatur  bac  lectio,  ex- 
 cepto  illo  Clayomontano,  quem  alioqui  plurimt  facio.  Verf.  14.  inftead  of 
 $>  we  read  J.  Thefè  two  Particles  are  often  put  fqp  one  another, 
 as  well  in  the  Greek  Copies  as  in  the  ancient  Veriions.  VerC  1?. 
 ra-n>  is  not  in  the  ancient  Copy,  nor  hoc  in  the  ancient  Vulgar  ; 
 where  alio  we  have  not  bonum,  which  is  in  the  Vulgar  at  this  day. 
 VerC  2  y  inftead  of  êJ^ce/ça  ttJ  0i<?,  there  is  in  the  ancient  Verfion, 
 w  %ietç  Ta  ©s»,  and  in  the  two  Vulgars  gratia  Dei. 
 
 Chap.  8.  v,.  38.  This  Verfe  is  expreifed  in  the  ancient  Copy  after 
 this  manner,  ayfa&j  *ti  cJ%\taetf  %n  etf^cu,  «te  IviçvTu,  ïrn  uifoovi*,  *ti 
 ftwdjuç,  and  in  the  ancient  Vulgar,  agreeable  to  that  Reading,  neaue 
 Angélus,  neqtte  Votefias,  ncyue  initia,  neqi-ie  rafiantia,  neque  jutura,  ne- 
 que  virtus. 
 
 Chap.  9.  v.  31.  We  do  not  read  in  that  ancient  Copy  the  firft 
 Jii&jioffuûtiç,  nor  the  Word  juftitia  in  the  fame  place  in  the  ancient 
 Vulgar. 
 
 Chap.  10  v.  r.  inftead  of  thefè  Words  <*&  m  *l<r&nK  tar*  we  read 
 in  th.u  ancient  Copy  <afrs  o*W,  and  in  the  ancient  Vulgar  pro  ilUs, 
 which  is  alfb  in  our  Vulgar,  but  therein  there  is/;  added.  Verf.  8. 
 after  My&  we  vQc\d  x*<p»y  and  in  the  two  Vulgars  Scriptura.  VerC  17. 
 inftead  of  ®t*  there  is  in  the  ancient  Copy  Xe*r»,  and  in  the  two 
 Vulgars  Chrifti.  Beza ,  (h)  who  alio  did  read  Xe*r?  in  his  three 
 Copies,  does  teftihe,  that  he  does  not  approve  of  this  reading. 
 There  is  nothing  more  ordinary  in  tholè  ancient  Greek  Copies  than 
 
 Hi)  Invenimut  qui  Ann  in  tribus  exemplar ibiu  ;  fed  t  amen  vix  pofjhn  f  nb.tr  c. 
 Ikz.  Anno:,  in  Eptft.  ad  Rom.  c  9.  v.  17. 
 
 the 
 
C  '53  ] 
 
 the  (interchanging  of  thefc  three  Words,  ®i'*,  Koele,  Xeir», 
 
 iey  are  there  written  by  way  or  Contraction   thus,  of,  kt,  xr, 
 which  gave  occafion  to  the  Transcribers  to  put  ont  frequent] 
 another.    V.  10.  we  read  not  i/n-n\p£  £,  nor  in  the  Lsti 
 
 audet  &  ;  befides,  this  makes  nothing  for  the  fenfe. 
 
 Chap.  ii.  v.  6.  we  do  not  read  in  the  ancient  Copies  the  ' 
 
 Ei  $  1%  içyâv,  *x.  ïn  *#  %ku'  Wh  7b  i?pv  **.  V77 V$p  fyyr.    But  if  it  be 
 IVorks  then  it  is  no  more  Grace,  other-wife  work  is  no  work.       Neither 
 
 e  they  expreffed  in  the  two  Vulgars.  Bez,a  (1)  obferves that th( 
 were  not  in  Origen,  St.  Chryfofom,  nor  St  Ambrojc,  but  that  he  read 
 them  in  all  the  Greek  Copies  except  that  of  Clermont.  Hi  fthe 
 Judgment  that  we  ought  to  read  them  to  com  pleat  the  Antithesis 
 that  is  in  that  place  betwixt  Works  and  Faith:  nevertheless  Erafmus 
 is  iov  the  ancient  Reading,  which  lie  had  more  ftrongly  confirm- 
 ed if  ho  had  read  the  two  ancient  Copie,  to  which  the  ancient 
 Latin  Verfion  is  annexed.     Grotita  followed  the  Opinion  of  Eraf  Qrot.An- 
 
 ■fs ,  Hœc  reclè  (faith  this  Critick)  défunt  in  manu  ,,  nee  legit  not.  in 
 
 Latinus  Interpret,  fed  nee  Origines,  nee  Ambrofius  ,    nee   Cbryjoftomus.  Epifl.a 
 Efiius  durft  not  be  (b  pofitive  in  this  matter;  he  does  only  lav,  (k)  t"**ix.« 
 thac  it  is  probable   enough   that   thofe  Words  were  added  to  the  v'  6' 
 Text:  neverthelefs  he  does  reject  the  Opinion  of  Cajetan,  who  be- 
 lieved  that  they  were  wanting  in  the  Vulgar.     Veil"  1;.  we  read 
 not  in  the  ancient   Copy  i3w  &bW<k>  nor  in  the  annexed  Latin 
 Verfion  gentium  Apoftolus,  but  it  is  only  written  in  the  bottom  of 
 the  Page  by  the  fame  hand  with  the  Book,  with  the  ordinary  mark 
 of  reference. 
 
 Chap.  12.  v.  11.  This  Contraction  kÏï,   which  is  in  the  ancient 
 Copy  gave  occafion  to  a  different  Reading  in  the  Greek  Copies; 
 for  tome  did  read  it  u>ek>>  Lord,  and  others  w?>  Time  :  but  we  oug 
 to  read  it  weia;  and  it  is  in  the  two  Vulgars  Domino,  agreeable  t 
 that  Reading.    Verf.  14.  thefè  Words  t&j  J)dxov]at. ..  are  alio  tranfpo- 
 ied  in  that  ancient  Copy,  *5  m  vs.-n.&frtt  ttxtoryihi  r<sv  Jïôwlat  vuaç.   \t 
 is  alio  in  the  ancient  Latm  Verfion  according  to  this  Tranlpoiuioii, 
 &  nolite  maledicere,  benedicite  perjeauentes  vos.    Veil!  1 7,  Thelè  woiy 
 which  we  read  in  the  Vulgar  at  this  day,  non  tant  urn  coram  Deo,  fed 
 
 (i)  Hanc  partem  n:n  legunt  veti/s  Interpret,  necOrigtnos,  nee Chryfoftomu: 
 Ambrofius,  attain  tamen  Jiffnmo  conjenfu  in  Gr.cc:  s  codiciLus  invent,  Claromontano 
 excepto  —  &  nuhi  quidem  plane videtur  tucejfaria  expUndx  operum  i3  fidei  ami- 
 theji.  Bcz.  ibid.  c.  II.  v.  6. 
 
 ( k  )  Vt  fatis probabilejh  additair.er.tum  effe  Gr.cci  cujufpiain  ad  textum  —  gw- 
 circà  Cajetano  non  affent ior  affirmant!  integrum  hanc  fern  entiam  \  in  La 
 
 textu,  cùm  vertus  exiftimem  jimpliutcr  earn  redundare.    Eft  Comm.  1:1  Epift«  ad 
 Rom.  c.  n.  v.  6 
 
 U  en  am, 
 
[  l54  ] 
 
 ttiam>  are  not  in  the  ancient  Vulgar,  nor  in  the  ancient  Greek  any 
 more  than  in  the  new. 
 
 Chap.  i;.  v.  ^.  We  do  not  read  in  the  ancient  Copy  dpaywt  nor 
 in  the  ancient  Vulgar  necefjitaie ,  but  only  fub Jit i  eftote,  vcrc>-mWfo. 
 Nevertheless  they  have  added  in  the  Margin  of  the  Latin  neceff-tate, 
 and  at  the  bottom  of  the  Page  in  the  Greek  &v<Lyv:>\.  Verf  9.  we  do 
 not  read  in  that  Copy  "«  4^a$™?»W,  nor  in  the  ancient  Vulgar 
 non  falfum  Wonium  dices.  Veri.  n.  inftead  of  «wit S» two*,  we  read 
 ih  the  tame  Copy  cumCakû^^  ,  which  does  not  change  the  fenfè. 
 In  the  Time  Verfe,  inftead  o[  onXa,  anus,  there  is  '&*,  and  in  the 
 ancient  Vulgar  «fera,  works. 
 
 Chap.  14.  v.  9  thefè  Words  j£  «tsiSufg  . . .  are  thus  tranfpofèd,  & 
 ff£tf*w  xj  Am&mv  >y<iiiçH,  and  it  is  in  the  ancient  Latin  Verfion  which 
 is  anne:  :  to  it,  &  v'txit  &  morttm  efi  &  refurrexit.  We  read  not 
 i  oti!-  Vtrlgar  v'txit.  He  who  rev  1  fed  it  did  in  all  probability  believe 
 1  t  the  Word  dtêÇimp  or  i&<nv  as  it  is  in  the  ancient  Copy,  had  the 
 fame  f/gmfication  with  iM$*,  and  that  rhefe  were  Readings  of  the 
 
 me  Wprd     Veif  10.  after  the  latter  C«  there  is  an  Addition  ofu 
 thefe  Words,  cv  toS>  w  I&'hv,  and  in  conformity  to  this  Reading  it 
 *s  in  the  ancient  Vulgar  in  non  manducando.    In  the  lame  Verfe,  in- 
 
 ad  of  XatrS  we  read  ©**>  and  in  the  ancient  Vulgar  Dei.  Ver.  19. 
 nicer  àforiteç,  çvhÂÇavfy  is  added  -,  and  according  to  this  Reading,  we 
 find  in  the  two  Vulgars  cuficdiamus. 
 
 Chap.  15.  v.  n.  after  the  Word  mLhiv  we  read  a^.  Verf  13. 
 •ire  cio  net  read  ^"7&f  otç-<4W>  nor  in  the  ancient  Vulgar  in  credendo. 
 Verf.  1 9Z  inftead  of  €>*«  there  is  *V»,  and  in  the  two  Vulgars  fanfti, 
 and  we  find  that  the  following  Words  are  tranfpofed  and  fbmewhat 
 changed,  in  rhis  manner,  An  tti^^u^ &m  'UpnanKri^  t&xz*  **  'ifoveti* 
 xj  xJx*a9  and  in  the  ancient  Vulgar,  ita  ut  compter  etur  ab  Jerufahm 
 ufcjue  in  I/Ijricum  &  m  circuitu.  There  are  fome  other  Tranfpofi- 
 tions  in  the  lame  Chapter  which  I  omit,  becaufè  they  are  of  no 
 importance.  We  have  reafon  to  believe  that  thofè  Words  were 
 tranfpofed  to  make  the  fènfè  the  clearer.  Verf.  24.  we  do  not  read 
 t^dLwtAcu  vos  vuaç,  which  is  not  exploited  in  the  two  Vulgars.  Ver. 27. 
 we  co  not  read  cvc#xn£  $,  nor  in  the  ancient  Vulgar  ptacmt  enim 
 as.  Vcrf.  19.  we  cannot  find  IvayyihU  t»,  nor  in  the  ancient  Ver- 
 Son  Evangelii.  Verf.  30.  after  the  Word  &ov<&%ûç  we  read  CfJftf, 
 and  in  the  two  Vulgars  vcjiris.  Verf.'  32.  inftead  of  ©«»  there  is 
 Xe/s"? 'luff»,  and  in  the  ancient  Vulgar  Chrifii  Jefn:  in  the  lame 
 place,  mfleaJ  of  thefe  Words  CpusminujwyLtu  vfuyB  we  read  in  the  an- 
 cient Copy  àva^ç*  wft  v/u$f3  and  in  the  ancient  Vulgar  refngerem 
 vobifcurtj.    V.  3  5.  alter  «jftow  th-re  is  nw  added,  and/7;  in  the  Vulgar. 
 
 Chap. 
 
Chip.  1 6.  fi  i.  after  the  word  «wrc,  wc  read  the  Follow        rords 
 tranfpofed  (and  fomewhat  changed)  jfccr  this  manner,  ^i/^^*A 
 aû>k  mti&B  and  it  is  alio  in  the  ancient  Vulgar  w;/j:  *£•  w«/:/j  *fcr. 
 
 Ver.  5.  inflead  of  vécu»*»  we  read  vvlvlm,  and  in  the  two  Vulg 
 frifcam.  In  the  lame  Verfo  there  is  a  TYanfpofition ,  irhich  (corns 
 to  have  been  made  on  purpofo  to  avoid  an  Hvperbate;  for  after 
 the  word  *Uc*  we  read  *î  t&ux  %fl%  °W  °ù fil  vMxn<r'idj>,  and  in  thz  Vul- 
 gar, &  dotnefticam  eorum  Ecclcfiam.  After  which  we  read  thefe 
 other  words,  otmuxzip»  &c.  Veif  f.  inftead  of  tit  X6^»  we  read 
 in  the  ancient  Copy  Jv  X^çf-  There  is  nothing  more  ordinary 
 amongft  the  Greek  Manufcripts  than  this  various  Reading;  and  there- 
 fore we  ought  not,  upon  fiich  occaiions  to  take  fo  much  notice  of 
 the  reading  or  the  Copies  as  of  the  Senfe,  whether  we  read  «;  or  c#. 
 So  in  the  Following  Verfe,  inftead  or  àsti&St  we  read  c*iWk,  and  in 
 the  two  Vulgars  in  vob/s,  there  being  a  double  difference  in  thele 
 words:  and  it  does  alfo  happen  often  enough,  that  the  Tranfcri- 
 bers  do  put  thefe  two  Pronouns  nymt  and  fyt«f,  the  one  for  the 
 other.  Verf.  15.  inftead  of  'OKvpmv  there  is  in  the  ancient  Copy 
 %Qkup*i2.v,  and  in  the  two  Vulgars  Olymfladem.  Verf  16.  we  do  not 
 read  thefe  words  *amb£$vnt  v/mi  aX  Iyj.xm\oa  tS  xtLÇ*>  nor  thefe  in  the 
 ancient  Latin  Veriion,  falutant  vos  omnes  Eccle/iœ  Chrtfli.  Verf.  17. 
 inftead  of  vru&'&hu  there  is  \ça*m>  and  in  the  two  Vulgar  ro^o.  In 
 the  fame  place,  after  ÀJïKçot  there  is  an  Addition  of  *Vp*w,  and 
 in  the  ancient  Vulgar  of  diligent er  :  moreover,  after  ludfrTi  we  read 
 Kiy>vm  w,  and  in  the  ancient  Latin  Verfion  dicentes  vel  facientes. 
 VerCifc.  we  do  not  leaJ  *ï  ^ao;/^,  nor  in  the  ancient  Vulgar  bene- 
 ditltones.  Verf.  zi.  after  the  latter  p*  there  is  added  *3  «i  laxMiricu  •**•- 
 ru  T6  Xe^r»,  and  m  the  ancient  Vulgar,  &  Ecclefiœ  univerjœ  Chnfti. 
 In  the  laft  place,  Verf.  24.  after  tù2vat>  we  read  in  the  ancient  Copy 
 <rW  aielvav,  ana  ln  the  two  Vulgar  feculoritm. 
 
 It  may  appear  by  the  different  Headings  which  we  have  now 
 mentioned  in  the  two  preceding  Chapters,  how  we  are  to  judge  of 
 the  ancient  Greek  Copies  that  were  before  St.  JeroWj  elpecially  in 
 the  Weftern  Churches,  and  to  which  the  ancient  Latin  Veriion 
 which  was  ufcd  m  thole  Churches  was  agreeable. 
 
 It  is  true  that  the  Vulgar  at  this  dav  does  frequently  agree  writh 
 thofe  ancient  Greek  Copies;  but  it  does  alfo  differ  from  them  very 
 often  :  and  therefore  it  cannot  be  thought  (...  .  ding  to  the  Opi- 
 nion of  F.  Mor'm  and  F.  Amelote  )  that  we  mult  always  prefer  the 
 reading  of  the  Vulgar  in  thole  places  where  it  does  agree  with  thole 
 ancient  Copies,  feeing  there  are  (6  many  other  places  where  it  dif- 
 fers from  them.  If  that  Greek  be  the  true  Original  of  the  Apoftle?, 
 as  thole  two  Authors  fecm  to  have  înlinuated,  it  ought  to  bj  the 
 
 U  z  Ongi- 
 
Original  throughout,  and  we  muft  confequently  entirely  adhere  to 
 j  ancient  Vulgar  which  is  exactly  agreeable  to  it.    Yet  St.  Jcrcv> 
 jyed  that  it  was  abiblurely  necefliry  to  correct  it,  feeing  it  was 
 rective.     Irl  were  not  afraid  of  being  too  tedious,  I  would 
 produce  the  various  Readings  ofth.it  ancient  Greek  Copy  upon 
 .  Pauïs  Epiffles,  but  I  mall  obfèrve  them   more  conveniently  in 
 the  (ècond  part  of  this   Critical  Hiftory,  when  we  {hall  examine 
 the  Veriibn  or  the  ancient  Latin  Interpreter,  and  (hall  take  parti- 
 cular notice  of  fuch  Places  as  agree  with  the  ancient  Greek  Copies 
 that  were  extant  before  St.  Jerom. 
 
 Chap.    XXXII. 
 
 Of  other  Greek  Manufcript  Copies  of  the  New  Tefta- 
 ment.  Examples  of  the  various  Readings  of  thofe  Ma* 
 nujeripts  ;  with  Critical  (Reflexions  on  thoje  Diffe- 
 rences. 
 
 WE  find  in  our  Libraries  lèverai  Greek  Copies  of  the  New  Te- 
 stament which  were  written  out  by  the  Greeks,  and  were  in 
 u(e  amongft  them.  Although  they  differ  in  fundry  places  from  one 
 another,  the  moft  of  thofe  differences  are  but  of  fmall  importance. 
 They  agree  together  in  this,  that  they  are  very  little  like  thofe  which 
 we  have  lafr  obfèrved,  that  were  copied  by  the  Latins.  This  I  ob- 
 ferved  in  reading  many  of  thole  Copies  which  are  in  the  King's 
 and  in  Mr.  Colberts  Library.  It  is  true  that  I  found  none  in  thole 
 two  Libraries  that  were  fo  ancient  as  thofè  other  Greek  Copies  to 
 which  they  joyned  the  ancient  Latin  Verfion  which  was  before 
 St.  Jerom  :  yet  this  does  not  hinder  but  that  there  were  fbme  of 
 the  like  Antiquity;  but  they  are  very  rare.  I  believe  that  we  ought 
 ro  reckon  the  Copy  of  the  Vatican  in  the  number,  of  which  fbme 
 Cnticks  have  made  mention,  and  whereof  they  have  alfb  obfèrved 
 •bmc  different  Readings  in  their  Works. 
 
 The  Copy  which  is  commonly  called  the  Alexandrine,  becaufè  it 
 came  from  Alexandria  in  Egypt,  is  likewife  very  ancient.  Some 
 f  the  English  Nation,  after  Cyrillm  Litcar,  have  obfèrved  that  that 
 Book  which  contains  the  Old  and  the  New  Tcftament  in  Greek 
 was  written  more  than  thirteen  hundred  Years  ago  by  an  Egy- 
 ptian Lady  called  Thecle.  But  they  produce  no  certain  proofs  of 
 ilus  Antiquity.    It  was  the  Intereft  of  the  Patriarch  Cynllw,  who 
 
 made 
 
C    '57] 
 
 made  a  Prefent  of  that  Bible  to  the  King  of  England^  to  make  itas 
 ancient  as  he  could.    There  have  been  many  7%ef /e'sj  and  they  alio 
 
 gave  that  Name  to  iome  Rwjm*  Ladies,  who  retired  into  folitude  in 
 the  Eaft,  where  their  great  Piety  was  admired  by  the  whole  World: 
 Thefe  Ladies  undei  (rood  the  Greek  Language,  and  were  curious  to 
 rc.\s.\  the  Holy  Scripture  in  that  Tongue.  There  were  alfo  Mona- 
 fteries  confecrated  to  St.  Thecle  ;  and  it  might  very  well  be,  that  that 
 Copy  belonged  to  iome  Monaltery  of  that  name  :  However  it  be, 
 it  cannot  be  denied,  but  that  it  is  very  ancient.  Yet  it  differs  from 
 tholè  other  Greek  Copies,  which  were  writ  out  by  the  Latins,  as  it 
 is  eafie  to  judge  by  the  various  Readings,  which  the  Efiglijh  have 
 Printed  in  their  Polvglott  Bible  :  Grotitts  has  alio  made  mention  of 
 a  good  part  of  thofe  various  Readings  upon  the  New  Teftament  : 
 We  Hull  neverthelcfs  obferve,  that  this  Cntick  is  not  always  exact 
 in  his  citations.  In  fhort,  I  cannot  give  full  aflurance,  that  that  Ma- 
 nufcnpt  called  the  Alexandrine,  and  that  of  the  Vatican,  cannot  bs 
 reckoned  in  the  number  of  thofe, which  were  writ  out  by  Latin  Ama~ 
 nuenfes  in  thofe  Ancient  times. 
 
 I  make  no  queftion,  but  that  Cardinal  Xwienes  confulted  the  rnofl: 
 Ancient  Copies  of  the  New  Teftament,  when  he  publifhed  his  Edi- 
 tion.   But  it  is  to  be  feared,  that  fôme  of  the  readings  of  thofe  An- 
 cient Copies  were  inferted  therein,  under  a  pretext,  that  he  found 
 them  more  agreeable  to  our  Vulgar.     It  is  alfo  poflible,  that  Ste- 
 phens Copy,  which  was  compared  in  Italy,  with  many  Greek  Manu- 
 icripts,  does  like  wife   contain  iome  readings  of  thofè  fame  Copies 
 which  were  revifèd,  and  to  which  they  annexed  the  Ancient  Latin 
 Veriion.     The  fame  judgment  ought  to  be  made  of  the  Sixteen  Co- 
 pies, which  the  Marqucfs  oiVeles  had  confulted,  and  whereof  fome 
 do  in  many  places,  agree  with  our  Vulgar  :  Ic  is  fit  to  make  all  theie 
 Observations,  in    general,  to  fupply  in  Iome  fort  the  negligence  or. 
 thofè  Learned  Men,  who  were  not  at  the  pains  to  give  us  particu- 
 lar marks  of  diftindtion,  to  know  what  were  good  and  what  were 
 bad  amongft  their  Manufcripts.     Erafrmts   and  Bcz,a,  who  had  per- 
 iled lèverai  of  thole  Greek  Copie>,  and  who  iignalrzed   their  dili- 
 gence in  this  matter,  were  frequently  miftaken,  when  they  fpoke  of 
 their  Manufcripts.     Thev  were  ignorant  of  the  difhncftion,  that  we 
 formerly  mentioned,  betwixt  two  forts  or  Greek  Copies  of  the  New 
 Teftament.     For  what  remains,  leeing  I  have  given  fèveral  exam- 
 ples of  the  various  readings  that  were  writ  out  by  the  Latins,  it  will 
 be  very  fît,  to  produce  in  this  place,  iome  inftances  of  the  various 
 readings  or  other  Greek  Copies.     And  becaufe  there  have  been  lè- 
 verai collections  already  ma.ie,  wherebv  it  may  be  known  wherein 
 'hofe  variations  do  confift  ;  I  jfiall  confine  my  fèlf  to  iuch  as  are  tire 
 
 pnnci- 
 
Cm«3 
 
 •  ncipalof  them,  and  upon  which  it  will  be  needful  to  make  fo me 
 Critical  reflections. 
 
 Chap.  i.  of  St.  Matthew,  v.  u.  we  read  in  tli2  Ordinary  Greek 
 Copies  'Wet*  o  s^oVmjs  t  'Iê^rw,  Jofiah  begat  Jechomah.  The  An- 
 cient Lstin  Interpreter,  the  Syriack  Verfion  and  other  Translations 
 of  the  Eaftern  Church,  do  confirm  this  Reading  :  But  Robert  Ste- 
 phen did  read  it  in  one  of  his  Copies,  'Wa*  q  tty/Vm  t  'letjcw/x,  'ittK&p 
 5  tjtfvnn  r  'Uxv'w,  which  reading  is  found  in  many  other  Greek  Ma- 
 nulcnpcs,  cited  in  the  fixth  Tome  of  the  Polyglott  Bible  of  England, 
 with  this  difference,  thatinftead  of  'I****»  it  is  in  thofc  Manufcripts 
 'lrj&KH[A.  Flacci.'fs  lllyricm  has  inferted  it  in  his  Greek  Edition  of  the 
 New  Teftament,  and  it  is  alio  put  in  the  Verfion  of  Erafmus  , 
 which  was  pyned  thereto  upon  its  being  revifed  according  to  the 
 Greek,  Jofias  autem  genuit  J  akin,  J  akin  autem  genuit  Jtchomam.  Si- 
 mon 4e  Col'me  has  likewife  followed  this  reading  in  his  Greek  New  Te- 
 N<n.  Tv/?.  itamenr,  according  to  which  Caftalio  has  put  in  his  Latin  Veriion 
 Scbaft.      Jofias  Joacimum,  Joacimm  Jcchomam. 
 
 Caft.cdtt.  '    Bez>a  did  alfo  once  approve  of  the  reading  of  Stephen's  Manufcript,     u 
 ww.155^  as  K  appeared  by  die  hrft  Editions  of  his  Verfion  of  the  New  Te- 
 ftament,   where  it  is,  Jofias  autem  genuit  Jakim,  Jakim   autem  ge- 
 KovTeft  nmt  Jech°niam*     Nevertheiefs  he   leaves  the  ordinary  Reading  in 
 Be*.Gr.'  tns  Greek  Text:  But  he  changed  his  Opinion  afterwards,  as  appear- 
 ed Lat.inQd  by  his  great  Notes,    in  which  he  does  aflure   us,     (a)  that 
 8.  ann,     this  Reading  which  he  had  once  followed,  was  againft  the  truth  of 
 7 5^5-       the  Hiftory,    although  he  had  found  it  owned  m  one  of  Stephens 
 Manufcripts,  and  approved  by  the  teftimony  of  James  le  Fevre,mà 
 of  Martin  Bucer,  who  had  ieen  (as  he  believes)  that  Manufcripr, 
 into  which  (b)  an  error  had  dipt,   as   he  thought.     He  is  of  the 
 mind,  that  we  ought  to  reform  the  place  in  this  manner ,    'W«*  $ 
 
 xjkeia;  B&CutôvQ:  He  adds,  that  he  had  amended  his  Verfion  by  this 
 Standard.  Yet  he  does  follow,  in  his  own  latter  Editions,  a3  well 
 in  the  Greek  as  in  the  Latin,  the  ordinary  Greek  Edition. 
 
 Maldonat  the  Jcfuit,  in  his  Commentary  upon  this  place  of  Cf. 
 Matthew,  did  prefer  Stephens  Manuscript  or  rather  that  of  James 
 le  Fevrc,  to  the  ordinary  Greek  and  to  the  Vulgar.  He  chiefly  de- 
 pends on  the  Authority  of  St.  Epiphanuts,  who  alledged,  that  111  that 
 
 (n)  Qrim  kcliancm  aliquando  fecutus  finn,  fed  his  ob ft  at  hiftorij;  Veritas.  Bez. 
 Annot.  in  c.  i.Matth.  v.  1 1. 
 
 (  b  )  In  hac  auoquc  Icclionc  illius  mavufcripti  codicis,  aliotjui  vera  (3  germanà 
 \ime%  error  mokv:t,  fed  levts,  &  fie  cmcrulandus  eft,  m  nitric  tranftulu  ^lomz; 
 
 j  ijtfytKn,  «--.Bcz.ibid. 
 
 place., 
 
[>5?] 
 
 place,  there  was  an  error  in  the  Vulgar  Greek  Copies  ;  becaufe  the 
 Tranfcribers,  who  perceiveci,  that  the  name  of  Jecbonias  was  mark'd 
 four  times,  did  iirugine  with  them(clve>,  that  that  répétition  l 
 luperrluous.  I  do  agree  (faith  Maldunat)  with  St.  Epipbanius3  in  his 
 Opinion  ,  th.it  there  was  an  omiffion  of  the  Transcriber  in  t 
 place:  Yet  I  do  not  reckon  wich  him,  that  it  does  confift  in  chefe 
 words,  Jecbonias  begat  Jcchonijs,  but  ill  the  le,   'Joachim   begat  Jecbo- 
 
 v.  —  And  therefore  ,  I  think  that  this  place  ought  to  be  a- 
 menJed  thus;  Jcfus  begat  Joachim  and  hi*  Brethren,  about  the  tune 
 they  were  carried  away  to  Babylon ,  and  Joachim  begat  Je         at. 
 
 13uc  nocwirhftanding  the  Authority  or  fbme  Greek  Manuscripts, 
 which  confirm  this  Reading,  I  am  perfuaded  (hat  we  ought  to  keep 
 the  ordinary  Reading  in  the  Text  and  in  the  Veriions,  becaule  it 
 is  the  moll  ancient  and  the  mod  plain.  That  other  reading  was 
 brought  in  by  the  Scholialts,  who  noted  in  the  Margin  of  their  Co- 
 pies, that  one  generation  was  wanting  in  that  place  ;  and  at  the 
 lame  time  they  marked  it  in  their  Scholium  or  Marginal  Note,which 
 was  afterwards  put  in  the  Text.  Indeed  St.  Epiphanies  docs  cite  no 
 ancient  Copy,  to  give  authority  to  his  amendment  :  On  the  con- 
 trary, he  does  fuppoiè,  that  it  was  extant  in  the  Copies  of  his  Time, 
 as  it  is  in  the  ordinary  Greek.  Copies  at  this  day  :  He  only  fays,  that 
 they  who  have  a  mind  to  confult  exact  Copies,  7*  clkM  rV  Àv7r^d^av3 
 will  approve  his  correction.  But  befides  that  he  makes  mention  or 
 none  in  particular,  he  fills  into  manifeft  errors,  and  fuch  as  con- 
 tradict the  Iliftoi  y  of  the  Old  Teftament  :  He  feem'dto  correct  his 
 Vulgar  reading  for  no  other  reafon,  but  becaule,  St.  Matthew  hav- 
 ing divided  the  Genealogy  of  Je  fas  Chiift  into  three  Clailes,  every 
 one  whereof  ought  to  contain  fourteen  Perlons  (d)  he  only  foLind 
 thirteen  in  the  third  Clafs.  Which  he  imputes  to  the  Transcribers, 
 who  perceiving  the  name  of  Jecbonias  repeated,    belie /cd  thac  the 
 
 ond  Jecbonias  ought  not  to  be  reckoned  in  thQ  number  of  thofe 
 
 (a:  )  Epifhunio  in  hec  .ijfemior,  ut  exifttmem  fci  m  vitio aliqtta  vei  la  inter- 
 
 cidtfje,  quibus  fwiijicetur  "joscim  fAium'jifiœ  gih   i  ÙA     hi  eo  tun  ajfeh- 
 
 tior,  quudnon  t'xtjlimo  deeffe  bac,  Jecbonias  auiem  genuit  Jcchon.. >oa  ;  fid  /..tv,  Joa- 
 cim  autem  genuit  Jechoniam.  —  Itaaue  totitrh  U  cym  fie  .  •  dum    utoy  Jofias  .'.li- 
 
 tem genuit  Joutiui  &  fratrcst?jus  in tranfcnigratiooc  fiabyx:...     ;:<■..>...  dmodum  Sta- 
 njls  affirmât  fc  in  antiauo  quo  dam  Qraco  codice  legtjfe)  Joacim  air.em  genuit  Je- 
 choniim.  Mali.  Coinm.  in  c  I.  Matth.  v.  1 1. 
 
 «eiOfwj  ?a?»k.  Epiph  lib,  i.  adv.  Hxr.  tu.de  Epic.n,  s. 
 
 •  îrfons 
 
[  Uo  ] 
 
 Perfore,  that  belonged  to  the  Genealogy  of  Jcfus  Chrift;  whereas  m 
 truth,  it  did  appertain  thereto. 
 
 St.  Jerome  obferved  fomethingof  the  like  nature,  at  the  beginning 
 of  his  Commentaries  upon  Darnel,  where  he  fays,  (e)  that  it  feemsr 
 that  there  is  one  generation  wanting  in  St.  Matthew,  becaufe  the 
 fécond  Clafs  or  Order  begins  at  Joakim  the  Son  of  Jofias,  and  the 
 third  begins  at  Joachin  the  Son*  of  Joakim,  and  thus  he  anfwers  Por- 
 phjrms,  who  had  accufèd  St.  Matthew  oÇ falfhoodin  that  place:  But 
 his  does  not  eftablifh  this  reading  by  the  Authority  of  any  Greek  Co- 
 py. The  only  thing  he  aimed  at,  was  to  make  an  An  fiver  to  For- 
 phyruts,  whofè  objection  does  fuppofe,  that  the  ancient  Copies  do 
 perfectly  agree  with  the  ordinary  Greek  at  this  day.  They  might 
 veiy  well  iliuftrace  that  Partage  of  Se  Matthew  by  fbme  Note,  but 
 it  is  not  at  all.  allowable  to  infert  that  Note  in  the  Text.  And 
 therefore  St.  Jerome  has  not  inferted  it  in  his  Latin  Edition,  when 
 he  corrected  it  by  good  Manufcripts,  according  to  the  order  he  had 
 received  from  Pope  Damafm  :  Which  is  a  new  Proof,  that  we  ought 
 to  keep  to  the  reading  of  the  ordinary  Greek  which  is  the  mod  an- 
 cient. That  Father  did  content  himfelf  to  make,  in  his  Commen- 
 taries upon  St.  Matthew,  fuch  an  obfervation  as  we  have  already 
 mentioned,  without  changing  the  Text  of  that  Evangelifr  in  any 
 Thing.  St  t'oluenmus,  (faith  hej  Jechoniam  in  fine  prima  tefjarede- 
 cadis  ponere,  in  fequente  non  erunt  quatuor  de  cim,  fed  tredecim.  Sciamns 
 igitur  Jechoniam  prior  em  iffum  ej]e,  quern  &  Joakim  ;  fecundum  autem 
 filium,  non  patrem,  quorum  prior  per  k.  &  m.  fequens  per  ch.&  n.  Jcribi- 
 tur,  quod  fcriptorum  vitio  &  longitudine  temporum  apud  Grœcos  Latino f 
 Ojue  confufum  efl.  He  does  fuppofe  in  this  obfervation,  that  ibme 
 did  read  with  Epiphantm,  two  feveral  Jechcnuis  whom  he  does  di- 
 ftinguifh  by  writing  them  differently  according  to  the  reading  of  the 
 Hebrew  Text  of  the  Old  Teftament.  But  this  amendment  is  Found- 
 ed upon  no  Copy  of  St.  Matthew,  unlefs  it  be  iuch  as  has  been  re- 
 formed: For  what  remains,  I  do  not  know  how  the  reading  was  in 
 thole  Greek  and  Latin  Copies  of  the  New  Teftament,  that  were  be- 
 fore St.  Jerome.  For  the  nineteen  firft  Vcrfes  of  St.  Matthew  are 
 wanting  in  the  Cambridge  Copy,  which  does  only  begin  at  the  word 
 iS^K(lChv  v.  20.  of  the  firft  Chapter. 
 
 Ç  c  )  In  Evangelio  fecundum  Matthaum  una  videtur  deeffe  generatio,  quia,  f- 
 cimda  Ticju£$.fiv&i  m  Joakim  définit  filio  Jojia^  &  tcrtui  mcipit  à  Joachin  filio 
 Joakim.  tiuod  ignorant  Porflynus,  calmmuam  flruit  Ecckfia  ;  fuam  oftendens  /;;;- 
 ptntiam,  dum  Evangehfl*  Matthat  argiiere  nititur  faijitarcm.  Hieron. init.Comm. 
 in  Dan. 
 
 »  The 
 
L  trfi  ] 
 
 Thj  Author  of  the  bxipetfe&Mfork  upon  St.  M 
 wife  JM  fàad  aswc.do,  in  the  ordinary  GY- :•/•.,  has  obferved,  that  ic 
 
 >therw*ft  in  thq  Boo,kor  the  ft*£J,  (/'J  and  rhe  order  of  rfw 
 néilogy . ought tfb  be  excelled  thus,  Jeflas  bcg.it  Uliachim^  nh  - 
 afterwards  called  Joachim,  aftd/jfa       «  begat  /.     He  on 
 
 takes  notice  ft£  the  order  that  that  Genealogy  ought  to  have,  accord- 
 ing to  the  lliiloiy  of  the  New  Teltament.  He  i  not,  for  all 
 that,  reform  the  ordinary  Text  of  St.  Matthew;  For  he  adds,  (g) 
 that  that  docs  not  hinder,  but  that  Jcchcm.:>  who  was  the  Grandfon 
 qS]  Jofiasy  might  have  been  called  his  Son,  becaufe  it  was  i  ordi- 
 nary to  give  the  name  or  Sons  toGrandlons. 
 
 Chap.  i.  of  Sc.  Matthew,  v.   17.  where  we  read  in  the  ordinary 
 
 ek,  <®v  *Ufyu>h  Robert  Stephen  did  read  in  one  of  ins  M.mufcnprs, 
 ■vSsre  Mel*  é)À  'I*f6ju/*,  which  reading  is  confirmed  by  another  ancient 
 Manuicript,  cited  by  Mv.Salbert,  and  in  the  Cambridge  Copy  :  Al- 
 though Be&a  (b)  found  that  reading  only  in  one  Manufcript  ;  yet 
 he  does  prefer  it  to  the  other,  becaufe  it  appeared  to  him  to  be  St. 
 Matthews  Stile,  and  he  believed,  that  there  is  a  great  force  in  that 
 cxpreffion,  which  declares  to  us,  that  the  Lord  does  (peak  by  the 
 mouth  of  his  Prophets.  But  it  is  much  more  probable,  that  thefe 
 words  *»eh  «A*  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  aflurance,  that  they  are  of  St.  Matthews 
 Stile,  feeing  that  Evangelift  does  not  expreis  them  in  many  places, 
 where  that  lame  manner  of  fpeech  does  occur.  In  ihort,  he  would 
 difparagc  his  own  judgment,  who  would  leave  the  ordinary  reading 
 of  the  Greek  Copies,  and  embrace  one  reading,  which  is  only  found- 
 ed on  a  very  fmall  number  of  Copies,  under  a  pretext  that  they  con- 
 tain an  expreflîon,  which  feems  to  have  more  force.  For  accord- 
 ing to  the  Laws  of  Criticks,  the  reading  which  is  molt  plain,  and  15 
 withal  confirmed  by  the  plurality  of  Copies,  ought  to  be  accounted 
 the  befl  :  And  therefore,  St.  Jerome  did  rather  choofe  to  follow  thole 
 Greek  Copies  than  the" ancient  Vulgar. 
 
 (f)    Ergo  talis  eft  or  do  :   Jojias  genuit  Eiiachim  ,   poftea  vocation  Joachim. 
 Joachim    autem  genuit    Jcchomam.     Aucl.    Oper.    imperl.    in  Matth.    cap.    I. 
 
 v.   1 1. 
 
 (g)  Kec  obefl  quod  fdius  Jofue  dttlus  eft,  cam  fit  nepos,  quomam  &  nepo. 
 reïïè  jilii  dicuntur.  LI.  ibid. 
 
 (  h  j    Probatur  heec  leclio  quam  fecutui  fum  manujeripti  exemplaris  author  it.. 
 &  ita  folcre  ioqui  Matthxum  fuperiora  oftendunt.     Certe  magna  ris  eft  borum  ; 
 I'oruni,  ex  qui  bus  inteïïigimui  non  ipfos  Propbetas>fed  Domimmort  Prophet  avimilo- 
 qm.  Bez.  ad  up.  2,  Matth.v.  17, 
 
 X  Ï11 
 
L  "S*  3 
 
 In  the  fame  Chapter,  t.  v.  18.  although  we  read  in  all  the  Greek 
 Copies  of  the  New  Teftament ,  ■*  'Pa^ua,  tn  Rama,  as  the  proper 
 name  of  a  Place,  Origen  has  obferved  (i)  that  that  Word  does  lig- 
 nifie an  high  place,  and  that  it  is  in  fome  Copies,  &  t?  J-^a?,  i;  g 
 <9»  %£.  But  this  reading  is  only  extant  in  the  ancient  Alexandrine 
 Copy  of  the  Septuagint  Verfion,  where  the  fignification  of  the  He- 
 brew wovd  Rama  is  put:  St.  Jerome  alfo,  who  has  in  excelfo,  in  his 
 new  Translation  fi  om  the  Hebrew,  has  left  the  words,  (in  Rama)  in 
 his  ancient  Latin  Edition  which  he  had  taken  from  the  Septuagint  ; 
 and  he  has  kept  the  fame  reading  in  his  Edition  of  the  Gofpels.  He 
 only  obfèrved  in  his  Commentary.,  (k)  that  Rama  is  not  the  proper 
 name  of  a  place  which  was  near  to  Gabaa,  bur  chat  this  word  does 
 iignitïe  bigfr,  Co  that  the  fente  of  the  PafTage  according  to  his  mind, 
 will  run  thus,  A  'voice  was  heard  on  high,  that  is  to  fay,  that  that  voice 
 „  .  wasfpread  far  and  wide.  Further,  in  the  fame  verte,  we  do  not 
 MLColb  read  **U*Q'  $  in  a  Manufcnptof  Mr.  Colbert's  Library,  nor  in  J* 
 n.  2467.  '  fti"  Martyr,  who  made  mention  of  that  PafTage  in  his  Dialogue  a- 
 gainft  Trjphon  the  Jew  :  Neither  is  it  found  in  the  Vulgar,  although 
 it  is  in  the  Ancient  Vulgar,  and  in  the  Greek  of  the  Cambridge  Co- 
 py. 
 
 Chap.  ;.  v.  1 1.  Thefè  words  4  mei*  are  not  found  in  a  great  num- 
 ber of  Greek  Manufcnpt  Copies,  Robert  Stephen  did  not  read  them 
 in  fovon  of  his,  and  there  are  alfo  (even  others  marked  in  the  Poly- 
 glott  of  England  which  have  them  not.    Befides,  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 
 tn  his  new  Edition.  .  He  has  likewife  explained  them  in  his  Com- 
 mentary, without  obferving  that  there  was  any  variety  of  reading  up- 
 on that  Paflage.     The  truth  is,  the  moft  Ancient  Greek  and  Latin 
 Fathers  had  no  other  reading;  which  made  Erafm»*  con je&ure  that 
 lbme  had  taken  them  away  from  their  Copies,  becaute  there  were 
 fome  Hercticks  who  Baptized  with  fire.    But  this  conjecture  has  no 
 colour,  for  we  read  the  fame  words,  Chap.  3.  v.  16.  of  St.  Luke,  in 
 all  the  Greek  Copies:  Luke  of  Bruges  does  think  that  they  were  pof- 
 iibly  taken  from  this  Evangelift,  and  that  the  Tranfcribers  did  infert 
 them  in  St.  Matthew.     Maldonat  has  very  well  obferved,   that  the 
 particle  &  0*^  is  not  a  conjuntlive  particle,  but  explicative  j    and  that 
 
 (ij  7qmv  v-^kh  cvfMilvH  to  p«^'  fil  ^ivrm  ffi  dv1iy&?w  (ZiCkw  «7w  yv 
 yçy.77Jcu>  cv  T?  t/'4*i*?  »**£».  Orig.  Cat.  Gr.  in  Matth.  2.  ib. 
 
 (  k  )  ^pd  autcm  diet  tut  in  Rama,  non  putemus  loci  nomen  effi  jux.ta  Cubaa.fed 
 rama  excelfum  imerprctatur,  ut  fit  fenj'us,  Vox  in  excelfo  audita  eft,  id  eft,  longe 
 latepe  difperfa.  iiieron.  Comm  in  C  2,  Matth.  v.  18. 
 
 the 
 
the  explication  of  the  preceding  words  was  added,  to  iliew  that  in 
 that  place  there  was  no  mention  made  of  the  Spirit  in  general,  but 
 of  the  delccnt  of  the  fame  Spirit  in  the  form  oiftre}thc  day  of  the 
 Ventecoft.  And  that  which  may  give  us  caufe  to  fufpect,  that  thefe 
 words  *5  77ve*  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.  r. 
 vcrf.  8.  c*  7ndj'ua.7i  dyu.  Nevcrthelefs  there  are  two  Manufcripts 
 quoted  m  the  iixth  Tome  of  the  Polyglot:  of  England,  where  there 
 is  alio  found  ^  twu,  in  this  Evangehft.  But  in  what  manner  foever 
 the  Reading  be  in  this  Evangehit,  the  reading  or  the  Gofpel  ac- 
 cording to  S.  Matthew  cannot  be  regulated  by  it,  feeing  the  latter  is 
 oftentimes  only  abridged  by  the  former. 
 
 Chap.  f.  v.  22.  We  reaa  in  all  the  Greek  Copies,  wxw,  without  a 
 caufe  ;  and  it  was  alfo  in  the  ancient  Vulgar  agreeable  to  the  Greek 
 Cambridge  Copy.  Yet  S.Auguftin,  who  had  read  it  m  the  Latin  Aug. Ub.v 
 Copies  of  his  time,  retracted  his  Opinion  concerning  it,  becaufe  he  -%""• c -1 9- 
 found  it  not  in  the  Greek  Copies.  Codices  enim  Grœci  (  faith  that 
 Father  )  non  habent  fine  causa,  ficut  hie  fofitum  eft.  It  is  apparent, 
 that  he  paffed  by  the  ancient  Vulgar,  to  embrace  the  Opinion  of 
 S.  Jerom,  who  in  his  new  Edition  has  left  out  the  words,  without 
 caufe>  and  who  has  alfo  obferved  in  his  Commentary  upon  that 
 place,  (  I  )  that  they  are  truly  in  fbme  Copies,  but  that  they  are  noc 
 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  hi- 
 therto, there  is  only  that  of  the  Vatican,  mentioned  by  Luke  of 
 Bruges  y  where  «*«  is  not  found.  The  ancient  Author  of  the  Syriack 
 Verfion  did  alfo  read  it  in  the  Greek  Copy  which  he  made  life  of 
 for  making  his  Tranflation.  For  he  has  kept  the  Greek  word  which 
 he  has  only  written  in  Syriack  Characters.  The  mod  ancient  Fa- 
 thers as  well  Greek  as  Latin  did  alfo  read  the  fame  word  in  their 
 Copies.  There  were  only  fome  Latins ,  fmce  S.Jerom's  Correction, 
 who  believed  that  it  did  not  belong  to  the  Text.  It  would  po/fibly 
 be  more  proper  to  re-eftabliih  it  in  the  Vulgar,  which  in  that  Paflage 
 is  contrary  to  Antiquity  and  to  many  Copies. 
 
 In  the  fame  Chapter,  v.  17.  Robert  Stephen  did  not  read  in  Ibven 
 of  his  Manufcripts™»*  a^ok,  to  the  Ancients.  Neither  is  it  found  in 
 fbme  other  Copies  that  are  marked  in  the  Polyglott  Bible  of 
 England.    I  alfo  obferved  that  it  is  not  in  three  Manufcripts  of 
 
 (  \  )  In  auibufdam  codicibus  additur  fine  causa.  Ctterum  in  verts  défaut  a 
 
 (cntentia  eft,  &  tta  fenitùs  toilitur . . .  Rfdendum  eft  ergo  fine  causa.    Hieron. 
 Comm.in  cap.  5.  Matth. 
 
 X  a  Monfieur 
 
C   »*4  ] 
 
 tofLMSS.  Monfieur  Colbert's  Libraiy.     Neverthelefs  S.Jcrcm  has  put  it  in  Bis 
 ['c^'  new  Edition. 
 
 4  7.  ^e  cllu  cieth  Verfe  of  the  fame  Chapter  is  not  in  the  ancie;:: 
 Cambridge  Copy,  nor  in  another  quoted  in  the  fixth  Tome  of  eHe 
 Cod.MSS.  Pblyglott  of  England.  Neither  did  I  read  it  in  one  of  M.  Colber/s 
 ex  Biul.  Manuscripts.  '  fis  probable  that  it  is  a  mere^  omiffion  of  the  Tran- 
 ce. ;/.  fcribers,  in  thofe  Copies  which  was  occafioned  by  this,  that  the 
 2259-  twenty  nine  and  thirty. Verfes  <do  both  end  with  the  word  ykrvar. 
 Cmiiïions  of  that  fort  are  very  ordinary.  -    • 
 
 In  one  of  M  Colbert's  Manufcripts  we  do  not  read  in  the  forty 
 Cod.MSS.  fourth  Verfe  oF  the  lame  Chapter,  thefe  words,  "Ei/a^hte  t&}  **7*£«- 
 Colb.n.      pfyvç  v(mcç'  r&Ktoi  mi^m^  fM7vi>n*.<  CfjJèit.      Biefs  them    who  '  turf e   you 
 "467-        do  good  to  them  who  hate  you.     Neither  do  we  read  in  the  fame  Copy 
 thefè  other  words  which  are  in  the  fame  place,  -fork  ^^tu^ovmy^, 
 For  them  that  defpitefully  ufe  you  and  ;  as  if  they  did  fignifie   the  fame 
 with  thofe  words  that  immediately  follow.     Neverthelefs  all  this  is 
 found  in   the  ancient  Cambridge  Copy.     But  S.-j^w»  has  not  ex- 
 WcJfyg.    prefled  in  his  new  Edition  theîè  fitft  words,  ^^oyetvi  txù  rj^mfa^c 
 Epanortb.  vuat.     Zegerus  believes  that  they  were  taken  out  of  the  laxth  Chapter 
 1»  cab  5.  Qf  $  Luke,  and  inferred  in  S.  Matthew,  A  fiudiofo  quopiam  ex  Lues* 
 «  4,  cap.  6.  hue  tranjlata  junt. 
 
 Chap.  6.  v.  4.  Thelè  words  InJipMiw*  which  S.Jerom  has  not 
 cxprefled  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.  Befides,  I  have  not  read  them  in  two  of 
 M.  Colbert's  Manufcripts:  neverthelefs  S.^£«/ft»does-aflure  us,  (m) 
 that  they  did  read  the  word  paUm  in  feveral  Copies  of  his  time,  buf 
 that  it  was  not  ex  prefled  in  the  original  Greek,  which  he  prefers  to 
 all ^  the  Latin  Copies.  (  Maldonat  )  (»  )  on  the  contrary  does  make 
 ufè  of  thofe  words  of  S.  Auguftm,  as  being  of  fu&cicnt  authority, 
 for  re-eftabliihing  that  word  in  our  Vulgar,  «Hedging,  that  they  did 
 
 (m  )  Multa  Latina  exemplana  p.c  habent,  Et  pater  tuus  qui  videt  in  abfeondo, 
 reddet  tibi  palàm.  Sed  quia  in  Gr.ccis  qu<c  prior  a  fan  non  tnvetnmus  pa- 
 làm,  non  putamus  hinc  aliquid  dijfyrendum  effe.  Aug.  de  Scrm.  Dom.  in  mont, 
 lib.  2.  cap.  2. 
 
 (n  J  Tempore  Augufini  Latim  codices  legebant,  Grccci  non  lege  bant,  ut  tile 
 fcribit.  Itaque  fufpicio  mihi  eft  primos  illos  codices  Grœcos,  exquibus  tranflatio 
 Latvia,  qua  Ecclejia  ante  Hieronymum  utebatw,  facia  fuer at,  bac  verba  legiffe 
 pofl  jenpttrum  intio  in  Gracis  aboli  ta,  in  Latinis  confer  vat  a.  Hieronymus  1 
 cum  jam  ipfuis  tempore  in  Gracis  non  legcrcr.tur,  quia  add  .ccorum,  ut  ipfe  ait7 
 cûdicum  ventatem  l.atinam  sditionem  cttrngebat,  expunxijfe  dc  Latina  quod non 
 tnvetut  inGrœch.  Nam  legcndaqiudnn  tjfc  ipfi  indicat  arituhcjism  abfeondito, & 
 ui  propatulo.  M.il'J.  Couiirunc.  6,  Matth.  v.  4. 
 
 read 
 
[  *5  ] 
 
 read  ir  in  the  ancient  Vulgar,  before  S.  Jerôm  rcf  I  it  by  the  Co- 
 
 pies oti  us  time,  from  which  theft  words  :--> -ni  $&nfi  were  taken 
 away,  as  that  Jefuitdoes  think,     lie  addsj  that  the  oppofition  that 
 
 H  betwixt  thefè  tvroj  in  ecret  and  openly  y  docs  prove,  that  we  ought  to 
 read  in  the  Greek,  **  tJ  ptfjffft  and  conlequently  palam  in  the  L^- 
 //»  Verfion.  But  S.  Auguftm  does  only  lay,  that  he  found  the  word 
 paldm  in  many  Coptes,  and  not  in  all.  S.  Jerôm  has  kept  in  his 
 Edition,  the  ancient  reading  of  iome  Greek  and  Latin  Copies.  And 
 thus  Maldonat  is  miiiaken,  when  he  would  perl  hade  us,  that  that 
 Father  did  correct  the  ancient  Vulgar  bv  die  Greek  Copies  of  his 
 time,  from  which  he  had  taken  away  iv  tJ  vmç'?.  For  the  ancient 
 Cam  -6  Copy  doespi-ove  the  contrary;  behdes  that  the  Oblerva- 
 tion  of  S.  Auguftm  does  manifeflly  fuppote,  that  they  did  not  read 
 faléim  in  lome  Latin  Copies  of  the  ancient  Vulgar.  In  fliort,  the 
 reafbn  which  that  Jefuit  brings  from  the  oppohtion  that  is  betwixc 
 the  words  in  fecret  and  openly,  is  not  at  all  conclufive.  -  For  whether 
 we  read  the  word  openly,  or  no,  the  fenfe  will  be  always  perfect. 
 
 Moreover,  the  fame  words,  ivnjSwtw,  which  are   in  the  ordi- 
 nary  Greek,  ver.  18.  of  the  fame  iixth  Chapter  are  not  in  any  of 
 Robert  Stephens  Copies,  nor  in  the  ancient  one  of  Cambridge,   nor  in  c^  ^SS. 
 that  of  the  Vatican,  nor  in  another  ancient  Copy  cited  by  S  albert.  Qolj-n' 
 Neither  have  I  read  them  in  three  Manufcripts  of  Moniïeur  Colbert's  H-f 
 Library.  ^  2259. 
 
 In  the  fame  Chapter,  verf.  1 3.  thefe  words,  077  a*  l&y  »  $>±nhû&,  g 
 »  Jlivctwi,  *)  n  e/b'|rt  ris  7tfà  ai  was.  For  thine  is  the  Kingdom,  the  Y&wi 
 and  the  Glory  for  ever,  are  not  111  one  of  Robert  Stephens  Manufcripts, 
 nor  ta  the  Cambridge  Copy,  nor  in  another  ancient  one  quoted  by 
 Salbert.  Yet  they  are  extant  in  the  moll  part  of  the  Greek  Copies, 
 and  ajfb  in  fome  ancient  Fathers  of  the  Greek  Church.  But  v 
 ought  here  to  prefer  a  few  Greek  Copies  to  a  great  number,  becaafe 
 tholè  few  Copies  are  agreeable  to  the  mod  ancient  Latin  Fathers. 
 We  further  fee.  evidently  enough,  that  that  which  we  read  in  the 
 Greek,  is  an  Addition  that  was  taken  from  the  Greta  Liturgy,  and  r  ,- 
 felted  in  the  Copies  which  they  cud  read  in  their  Churches.  The- 
 Church  Bibles  which  arc  ufèd  m  the  fame  Churches  have  alio  oc- 
 caiioned  many  changes  in  the  Greek  Copies,  as  I  have  obfèrved 
 when  I  examined  thofè  Lectionanes. 
 
 In  the  twenty  fifth  verfe  of  the  iame  Chapter  we  do  not  read  Cod.MSS. 
 *5  77  mtiTiy  and  what  ye  fliall  drink.    Neither  are  thele  words  exprelled  ^°  y  ;;* 
 in  our  Vulgar.  z^7' 
 
 Chap.  8.  verf.  13.  Robert  Stephen  did  read  in  three  of  his  Manu- 
 fcripts, after  the  word  twvn  thefe  words,  K«u  <smçjk-\fti  0  L&mi*t\Qm 
 as  -riv  fiw  cwJtw  cv  cwtJ  T9  *>&  *w£S  7*V  7n$fb  v}wwi*>     And  tbt   Centu- 
 rion 
 
C  ,«] 
 
 rion  having  returned  to  his  houfe  at  the  fame  hour,  found  his  fermant 
 
 whole.     This  Addition  is  likewrie  extant  in  fbme  other  Manufcripts 
 
 marked  in  the  fixth  Tome  of  the  Polyglott  of  England.  And  I  found 
 
 Cod.MSS. K  ln  onc  °f  Monfieur  Colbert's  Manufcripts.     But  I  could  not  know 
 
 Cod.  n.     if  it  was  alfb  in  the  ancient  Cambridge  Copy,  becaufè  fome  Leaves 
 
 2467»       are  wanting  in  that  place. 
 
 Chap.  9  v.  1;.  we  do  not  read  «s  uernow*  to  repentance  m  two  of 
 
 Robert  Stephens  Manufcripts,  nor  in  another  belonging  toM.  Colbert's 
 
 Colb         Library,  nor  in  the  ancient  Cambridge  Copy.     S.  Jerom,  who  did 
 
 2467  "'     not  fifl(î  it  ill  the  ancient  Latin  Edition,  did  therefore  omit  it  in  his 
 
 New  Edition. 
 
 Chap.  10.  \r.  8.  Robert  Stephen  did  not  read  thefè  words,  v\*$*%  itfstrt, 
 raife  the  dead,  in  nine  of  his  Copies  ;  neither  are  they  extant  in  fome 
 others  that  are  quoted  by  Salbert,  nor  in  three  of  Monfieur  Colbert's. 
 They  are  in  the  ancient  Cambridge  Copy,  but  tranfpofèd.  S.  Jerom 
 has  kept  that  Tranfpofition  in  his  New  Edition,  in  the  fame  manner 
 as  it  was  in  the  Ancient  Vulgar.  Neverthelefsthat  Father,  who,  in 
 his  Commentary  rehearfes  the  words  of  this  verfè  does  not  read 
 mortuos  fufcitate.  They  were  not  in  all  appearance  in  the  Greek 
 Manufcripts  which  he  believed  to  be  the  mofV  exaéh  Yet  he 
 kept  them  in  his  Latin  Edition,  becaufè  he  did  not  propofè  to  him- 
 lelf  an  entire  amendment  of  the  Ancient  Vulgar. 
 
 In  the  twelfth  verfè  of  the  fame  Chapter  we  read  after  the  word 
 où-dû}  m  five  of  Robert  Stephens  Manufcripts  ^pt%ç  h§Uvh  i^J  oIkq 
 7*T(f)>  faying,  Feace  be  to  this  houfe.     The  fame  words  are  in  the  Cam- 
 ,         bridge  Copy,  and  in  fbme  other  Manufcripts  quoted  by  Salbert.    I 
 Colb  n    '  f°und  them  alfb  in  one  of  Monfieur  Colbert's.    S*  Jerom  has  left 
 3947#       them  out  of  his  Edition,  tho  they  are  extant  in  our  Vulgar  at  this 
 day.     Neverthelefs,  there  are  fome  Latin  Manufcripts  in  which  they 
 are  not  found. 
 In  the  twenty  third  verfè  of  the  fame  Ctapcer^  I  found,  after  the 
 Cod.MSS.  WOrtî  *»&»*  this  Addition  in  two  of  Chert's,  **v  U  Ttwm  Mm*» 
 Coll.  n.    WV*V>  fdfrn  hV  tIw  &i\lw,  But  if  they  chafe  you  from  this  city,  flee  ye  to 
 2467.        another.    There  is  alfo  fbmething  like  this  in  two  of  Rob.  Stephens 
 3947-        Manufcripts,  and  in  the  ancient  Cambridge  Copy.     But  S.  Jerom  put 
 nothing  of  it  in  his  New  Edition,  becauie  he  believed  it  to  be  an  un- 
 profitable Addition. 
 c°otb^SS'      ^e  f°rtieth  verfè  of  the  fame  Chapter  is  wholly  wanting  in  one  of 
 2.6'        Monfieur  Colbert's  Manufcripts,  which  appeared  to  be  an  omiffion  of 
 the  Tranfcriber,  by  reafbn  of  the  verfes  40,  and  41.  which  begin 
 with  the  fame  word,  3  Si^/ufyQ-.     Neither  do  we  find  in  the  Cam- 
 bridge Copy  thefè -other  words,  verf.41.  kjm  «  A^mV©-  ffx&w  *n  how 
 J)wv,  fuàbAfgk  aH*7w»  And  he  that  recetvetb  a  rtghteom  man  in  the 
 
 name 
 
C  i*7  3 
 
 name  of  a  righteous  man  flail  receive  a  righteous  m.pis  reward.  It  feems 
 thjy  have  left  them  out  on  purpofe,  becaufè  they  appeared  to  havj 
 the  fame  figmfication  with  the  preceding  words,  S.  Jerom  rcftorcd 
 them  in  his  New  Edition  in  conformity  to  other  Greek  Copies  which 
 were  more  correct. 
 
 Chap,  r  i.  v.  i.  We  do  not  read  in  one  of  Monfieur  Colbert's  the  jv/S.  Co'.b. 
 word  &A&,  Tweh  In  the  fame  Chap.v,  2.  inftcad  of  «A/9,  there  «.2467. 
 is  in  the  Cambridge  £tà>  and  we  read  in  the  ancient  Latin  Vernon  an- 
 nexed to  it,  fer  difcipulos,  which  Reading  is  agreeable  to  the  Author 
 of  the  Sjriack  Veriion,  who  has  likewife  in  his  Copy,  eft*.  But 
 S.  Jercm  has  put  in  his  new  Edition,  duos  de  difcipulis,  as  it  is  in  other 
 Greek  Manufcnpts. 
 
 Chap.  ii.  v.  16.  We  do  not  read  in  one  of  Colbert's  thefe  words,  Cod.MSS. 
 sA    v  çoànm**  fi  ÇxunKÙ*  h/ni;  Hliv  then  flail  his  Kingdom  ft and '  ?  In  Co.b.ru 
 the  thirty  fir  ft  verfe  of  the  fame  Chapter  we  do  not  read  in  another  2259- 
 of  Colbert's,  ™*  dv^pâmn    to  Men.     Nor  do  we  find  there  in  another  Cod.MS. 
 of  his  verf.  2,1.  t»  *>'«    In  the  fame  Chapter,  veri!^.  we  do  not  Cj^- *■ 
 read  in  twro  of  Colbert's,  m&t<Na{,  nor  in  lèverai  other  Manufcripts  rSji^c 
 quoted  in  the  fixth  Tome  of  the  Polyglott  of  England.     Robert  S  te-  coi.  n.' 
 fhen  has  alfb  obfèrved,  that  this  word  was  only  in  one  of  his.    S.  Je-  3941. 
 rom  has  not  expreflèd  it  in  his  new  Edition.    Neither  did  he  find  it  Cod.MS, 
 in  the  ancient  Vulgar.    In  the  thirty  fixth  verfe  of  the  (ame  Chapter, Co1^  n- 
 we  do  not  read  in  one  of  Colberfs,  ctf^V,  idle.     Beza  obferved  in  his  \22f 
 Note  on  that  place,  that  this  word  was  not  in  one  of  his  Mann-  coa.  MS. 
 fcripts.  Colb.  n, 
 
 Chap.  15.  verf.  n.  in/lead  of  #w  of  Heaven,  we  read  in  4U2. 
 two  of  Colbert's,  to  ©«?,  of  God.     S.  Jerom  obferved  upon  the  thirty  9^*  MS' 
 fifth  verfe  of  the  fame  Chapter,  a  different  Reading  which  is  not4II*4 
 found  in  any  Greek  Copy,  nor  likewife  in  any  of  the  ancient  Ver- 
 iions.     That  Learned  Cntickobfèrves  (oj  that  infteadof  the  word 
 Prophetam,  that  was  in  the  Ancient  Vulgar,  and  which  he  kept  m 
 his  New  Edition,  he  read  in  fome  Copies  Efaiam  Trophdam.     And 
 this  made  him  think,  that  the  ancient  Reading  of  that  Partage  was 
 AfaphVrcphetam,  becaufe,in  truth,the  teftimony  of  that  Prophet  who 
 is  there  fpoken  of,  is  taken  out  of  vfalm  77,  which  bears  *  the  Name  *  daJyJt 
 Afapb.     He  believed,  that  feeing  it  was  not  found  in  Efay,  that  the  tt«S  'Acaf, 
 
 (o)  Lcp  in  nmnullis  codicibus.  &  ftudiofus  letlor  forte  rcpcrict,  idipf.im  ;;; 
 eo  loco  ubi  tics  poÇmmus,  (3  vulgata  kabtt  Ëditic,  ut  im,  kretur  quod  dietum  eft 
 per  Prophetnm  dicentem,  ibi  fcrijptum,  per  Efaiam  Prophetam  dicentem.  £û*d 
 quia  minime  rnveniebatur  in  EJaia,  arbitrer  pofica  à  piudcntibus  inns  tjfcjub- 
 latum  :  fed  mi  hi  vide  tar  in  fYincifio  itaedituvi,  quod  fcriptum  eft  per  Af.iph  Fro. 
 phet  m.    Hieron.  lib  2.  Coaim.  in  Matth.  c.  1  % 
 
 Name 
 
[i68] 
 
 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  m 
 
 all  the  Verlions  at  this  day,  is  the  ancient  and  the  true  Reading.  The 
 
 Evangehfl  who  cited  this  Pfalm  under  the  name  of  the  Prophet  in 
 
 general,  did  mean  David,  to  whom  the  Pfàlms  were  ordinarily  a- 
 
 icnbed,  without  noticing  the  particular  Titles  of  the  Pfàlms.     They 
 
 might  afterwards  put  the  name  of  J/aph,  by  way  of  Note  ,in  the 
 
 Margin  of  this  place  of  St.  Matthew,  and  others  might  change  it  to 
 
 that  of  Efay  ;  and  this  latter  Note  would  pafs,  as  it  often  happens, 
 
 into  the  Copies  which  St-Jerom  afïîires  us  he  did  read. 
 
 Cod. MS.       In  the  fame  Chapter,  v.  41.  wê  do  not  read  in  one  of  Colberts^ 
 
 Co!l>.  n.     t]is(e  Words,  e  vl$r*dv%pvKrvi  the  Son  of  Man,   nor  tliclo  others,  «1*.  *»* 
 
 411 2-       tzcn^cuhjuTv,  cut  of  his  Kingdom.     Vcr.  55.  Inflead  of  'Wfo,  there  is 
 
 Cod.MSS.  m   two  of'Colbert%  'Wwh*,  John,  as  in  the  Cambridge  Copy,  and-in 
 
 Colb.  n.    anot{ier  0f  Ctlbcrt,  'la™.    \n  the  ancient  Vatican  Copy  'i*^>,  which 
 
 cW9jv/s  Reading  was  followed  by  the  Vulgar. 
 
 ;7  Cliap.  1 4.  v.  24.     We  do  not  read,  in  one  of  Colberts  lw  $  iwri& 
 
 4112.       0  Av^uoi,  for  the  wind  was  contrary.     Further,  ver.  32,.  We  do  not  read 
 Cod.  MS.  i:i  another  of  Colbert's  \tâ»vTit>  being  come. 
 
 Lilb.  n.        chap.  15.  v.  8.   Thefe  words,  tq  çvuclticw%?,  which  are  cited  out 
 
 cWAis   °f  tne  P'ophct  &0*h  anc^  are  extant  as  well  in  the  Hebrew,  as  m 
 
 Colb.  71.     the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint,  are  not  in  the  Cambridge  Copy,  from 
 
 2467.        which  they  have  taken  them  away  as  being  ufelefs.     St.Jerom,  who 
 
 did  not  read  them  in  the  ancient  Vulgar,  did  likewife  omit  them  in 
 
 his  new  Edition.     Ver.  ;i.  of  the  fame  Chapter,  the  Marquefs  of 
 
 Fetes  did  not  read  in  one  of  his  Copies  wM«*  vySt,  the   maimed  to  be 
 
 whdi,  neither  are  they  exprefTed  in  St.  Jeroms  Edition,  though  they 
 
 are  in  the  Cambridge  Copy,  and  in  the  ancient  Vulgar.     Ver.  2,6.  We 
 
 Cod.  MS.  do   not    read  in  one   of  Colbert's,  i-n^y  feven,  which  might  eafily 
 
 Colb.  n.     have  been  omitted,  efpecially  in  the  moil:  ancient  Copies,  where 
 
 they  marked  the  Numbers  by  fîngle  Letters,  a*  tn  this  place  in  the 
 
 Cambridge  Copy,  where  there  is  only  the  Lercer  Z'.     In  the  fame  verfe 
 
 Bez,a  obicrved  that  thefe  words,  ^7^  )$**>  and  the  fjbes,  are  not  in 
 
 one  or  his  Manulcripts. 
 
 Cod.  MS.       Chap.  16.  v.  2.  We  read  after  the  word  k^w,  in    one  of  Colberts, 
 
 Coll.  n.     this  Addition  £  -tvi-mx  «tw<,  £  -mKiv*  and  fo  it  is.    Ver.  2.  of  the  fame 
 
 *)J49»        Chapter,  the  word  vanwceCk  is  not  in  two  of  Cent's,  nor  in  theC^w- 
 
 ^^    55"'  bridge  Copy.     St.Jerom,  who  found  it  not  in  the  ancient  Vulgar, 
 
 "2467.     nas  not  exprefTed  it  in  his  new  Edition.    In  the  fame  verfc,  we  read  in 
 
 3497.     one  of  Colberts,  after  the  word  c/Wh<3*,  this  Addition,  &  anrowSùt  «W 
 
 Cod.  Colb.  <tjjTvïf>    and  he  anfwered  and  Jaid.     Ver.  II.  of  the  fame  Chapter,  we 
 
 //;^1>9-    read  after  the  word  vr&viwv,  \\\  one  of  Colbert 's,  and  in  three  of  Rob. 
 
 MS  7!    '  S(epberis  Manufcripts,  Q^s^n  «të,    but  beware. 
 
 41 12.  '  In 
 
 41 12. 
 
[  *69  ] 
 
 In  the  Lime  Chap.  v.  13.  Beza  ÀU\  not  read  in  one  of  his  Copie 
 uL     K         :  has  St. Jerom  exprefTed  this  Pronoun  in  his  n         editi- 
 on.    It  alio  appeared  by  his  Commentary  on  the  place,  that  lie  did 
 not  believe  that  we  ought  to  read  îr.     For  this  is  his  obtei  vation, 
 dixit y  cjutm  me  dicunt  ej]e  homines }  fed  filium  homims.  1.  c.  He 
 
 fay,  whom  do  men  fa)  that  I  am,  but that  the  So?i  of  Man  is. 
 
 verthelefs  ic  was  in  the  ancient  Vulgar  agreeable  to  the  C  mhri  rge 
 Greek  Copy.     Ver.  17.  where  we  read  'Un**    St.  Jerom  (foes  obic;  \  e, 
 (  p  )  that  fome  believed  that  it  was  an  error  of  theTranfcribers, 
 that  inftead  of  bar   Jona,  it  ought  to  be  bar  Johanna,    the    Son  of 
 John.     Junius  Las  alfo  put  'WW  in  the  Greek  Edition  or  UWel.      But 
 the  former  Reading  is  founded  on  all  the  ancient  and  true  Co 
 The  Jews  of  thole  times  had  abridged  many  of  their  Names.     And 
 therefore  bar  Jona  was  the  fame  thing  with  bar  Johanna,  and  it  does 
 not  in  St.  Matthew  lignifie  the  Son  of 'a  Dove,  as  St.  Jerom  did  Ex- 
 pound it,  but  the  Son  of  John. 
 
 Chap.  17.  v.  10.  Inftead  of  *Wcw>  unbelief,    we  read  in  one  of  Cod.  M*. 
 Colbert's  oKiynçiM  \w  the   fame  Senfe.     Which  yet  ièems  to   be  a  Co1^  n- 
 G  lofs  of  fôme  Scholiaft,  who  had  a  mind  to  moderate  the  dmcia*  5l4?- 
 by  that  of  3*/;* Wot*  little  faith.     Ver.  i;.  of  the  fame  Chapter,  \vj 
 do  not  read  in  one  of  Colbert's,  J&ïtoirfaew *$&&>  and  they  -were  ex- Cod.  MS. 
 cceding  forry.  Colb.  n. 
 
 Chap.  18.  v.  10.  We  do  not  read  in  one  of  Colbert's,  IsiqpoU*  in  i1*}9,. 
 Heaven.    The  1  r.  ver.  of  the  fame  Chapter,  is  not  (as  Bez,a  thinks)  c°Qf^ 
 in  (bme  Greek  Copies.     But  the  ancient  Greek  Fathers  did  read  it,  2259. 
 and  it  is  alfo  found  in  all  the  ancient  Ver  (ions.     St.Jerem  has  not  in 
 his  new  Edition  expreilèd  thofe  words  of  the  29.  v.  «*  tvà  mJks  un, 
 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 
 likelyhood  left,  as  being  of  no  uie.     Bez>a  does  aflure  us,    that  he 
 found  them  in  all  his  Manufcripts.     In  the  iameverfè,  Rob.  Stephen 
 did  not  read  the  wordwaW,  all,  in  fix  of  his  Minufcripts.     i  found 
 it  Tranfpoied  after  this  manner  in  a  Colbert,  imJticv  m  icIvt*.  Ver.  35. 
 thefe  words  7*  çra^^^m  aùty,  their  offences,  are  not  in  one  of  Col-  Cod.  C  I 
 berfs,  nor  in  the  Cambridge  Copy.     Yet  they  wrere  added  to  the  Mar-  n 
 gin  of  that  of  Colbert,  but  the  Addition  is  of  a  more  late  Writing,  L 
 than  that  of  the  Text.     St.  Jerom  has  likewifè  omitted  them,  having    *'  " 
 in  that  followed  the  ancient  Vulgar.     Yet  Be^a  does  allure  us,  that  3,  . 
 he  found  them  in  all  his  Manulinpts.     In  omnibus  Graeis  codicibm  bac  Armor,  ht 
 fcripta  invent.  Matth.  18, 
 , r 3 
 
 fp)  Voluut  fcriftorum  nitio  déprava  turn,  utfro  bar  Johann        t        filins  Joannis, 
 bar  Jona  fcriptum  Jit,  unk  detract  à  JyHabà.    Hieron  I.3  C  4atth.  c.  1 6. 
 
 Y  Cru 
 
[   170  3 
 
 Châp.  19.  v.  9.  Inflead  of  thefe  words,  amÎ  &J  toç****»  mt  for  forn'u 
 ncn,  we  read  111  the  Cambridge  Copy,  according  to  the  fameSenfe, 
 vrac «K7Bç  Ac^/tf  TmçvHOi,  except  it  be  for  fornication.     Thefe  two  Readings 
 Cod.  MS.  are  found  joy  nod  together  in  one  of  Colbert's.     But  the  fécond  Read- 
 er. ?:.    jngis  defaced.     VeF.  17.    of  the  fame  Chapter,  where  we  read  in 
 the  ordinary  Greek,  Kiy&tiyiSv*  vtecdyxais,  «{uÎHfâ  0*3*.   calleft  mt 
 £°°d>  there  is  none  çrood  but  one,  that  is  God,  we  read  in  one  of  Mr.  CoU 
 ;,M'  Terr's,   èp«7«*^  ra  a^»  «**w  *V^»V  which  Reading  is  confirmed 
 A  *'     by  the  Cambridge  Copy,   by  that  of  the  Vatican,   and  by  two  of 
 Robert  Stephens.     St.  Jerom  has  alfb  kept  in  his  Edition  the  fame 
 Reading,"  which  he  had  found  in  the  ancient  Vulgar,  but  only  that 
 he  has  added  the  woiàDeus*  that  had  not  been  there  before.    In  the 
 fame  Chap.  v.  ia  thefe  words  Uvi'wnt y.*>  from  my  youth  are  not  in 
 Cod.  MS.  one  of  Colbert's.     Neither  are  they  exprefled  in  many  ancient  Latin 
 Colb.  n.    Manufcripts.     Yet  (<f)  thofe  who  were  employed  at  Rome,  m  the 
 *4*7-       cone&iqn  of  the  Vulgar,   thought  fit  to  keep  them,   as  Luke  of 
 Bruges  has  obferved.    Indeed  they  are  in  the  ancient  Vulgar,  and  in 
 St.  Jerom  $  new  Edition. 
 
 Chap.  20.  v.  7.  Thefe  words,  *}  q  UV  ?  Jftguw  x«4-»(ôi,  and  whatfo- 
 ever  is  right,  that  (liai I  ye  receive,  are  not  in  the  Cambridge  Copy, 
 nor  in  the  Marquefs  of  Seles's  ;  but  they  are  found  in  all  other  Manu- 
 fcripts, and  in  the  ancient  Oriental  Verfions.  St.  Jerom,  having  not 
 feen  them  in  the  ancient  Vulgar,  did  omit  them  in  his  new  Edition» 
 There  are  in  the  fame  Chapter  feveral  other  words  omitted  in  the 
 Cambridge  Copy,  and  in  the  Marquefs  of  Veless,  as  well  as  in  the 
 Vulgar,  which  are  yet  found  in  all  the  other  Greek  Copies.  It  is  pro- 
 bable, that  that  Marquefs  confulted  fbme  Copy  like  to  that  of  Cam- 
 bridge,  with  which  he  agrees  pretty  often,  whilft  he  differs  from  all 
 other  Copies.  It  is  not  ftrange  that  St.Jerem's  new  Edition,  and  our 
 Vulgar,  do  in  thofè  places  agree  with  the  Cambridge  Copy,  and  that 
 of  the  Marquefs  oiVeles,  feeing  that  Father  does  himfèlf  certifie, 
 that  when  he  reviled  the  Vulgar  Edition  of  his  time,  he  did  not  cor- 
 rect it  throughly  by  the  Greek  Copies,  becaufe  he  was  affraid  he  fhould 
 offend  the  Weak*  bv  departing  too  much  from  the  ancient  Edition  of 
 the  Weftern  Churches. 
 
 In  the  fame  Chap.  20.  v.  7.1.  inftead  of  thefe  words,  ui>ho  mw  £, 
 there  is  in  three  of  Rob.  Stephens  Copies,  mo  «>  and  in  another  of 
 Colberts  it  is  alio  h  or,  inftead  of  *}>  and.  This  change  of  the  Par- 
 ticle &  and3  into  the  disjunctive,  &,  or,  is  common  enough  in  the 
 
 (qj  Romani  Patres  cenjuerunt  non  effe  omittendum  Mud  à  juventute  meâ, 
 tamctfi  vetu/ta  mannferipta  omittant.  Luc.Brug.  in  loc.  inlign,  Rom.  Corr.c.  19. 
 Matth.  f-  20. 
 
 Greek 
 
C»i  ] 
 
 Creek  Manufcrr  i  verfe,  thcfè  words  >£  I  Qd$iqjLtt%  iy* 
 
 QtffîifylJ.cu  faiifiSO*  tifed  With  the  baptifm  that  I  am  baptijtd 
 
 with,  are  not  -  Copy,  in  twooF  Rob.  Stephens,  in  the 
 
 Marquetsof  I  \  ►ne  of  Mv.Cclberfs  Manufcnpts.     Nor  has  Cod.MSS. 
 
 St.  J erom  expreil  his  Edition.     It  is  very  likely  that  they  Coll}-  "■ 
 
 were  taken  out  of  S  ind  infcrted  in  this  place  of  St.  Matthew.  2^7- 
 
 And  therefore  we  d  id  in  the  fame  Copies,  thefè  other  wor 
 
 Of  the    following     \  &cù   7»   ^d^iap-A  o  \yù    farf't^o/jutx   @d.77fl  3*7*3% 
 
 and  ye  fhaU  be  bap.         u         be  baptifm  that  I  am  baptijtd  with. 
 
 Ghap.n.v.;i.   Ihfti  the  word  f^rof,  firft,  we  read  in  thitof 
 
 Cambridge,  '^-nt,  lift,  and  in  the  ancient  Latin  Veriion  annexed 
 to  it,  navffimus:  ^  Reading  is  alfb  found  m  iome  ancient  Latin 
 
 Fathers.  St.  Jerom,  w ho  end  likewifj  read  ncviffimus  in  the  Vulgai 
 Edition  of  his  time,  rejects  this  Reading,  (r)  alluring  us,  that  it  was 
 frmv*  i*1-  the  true  Copies.  VerC  45.  of  the  fame  Chapter,  inftead 
 o(  Qatiffvuot,  Pbanjees,  there  is  in  a  Colbert,  and  fome  other  Manu- 
 fenpts,  T&wiï"**  Scribes. 
 
 Ghap.22.  The  14.  v.  of  this  Chapter  is  not  in  the  Cambridge  Copy, 
 nor  in  the  ancient  Latin  Verfion  which  is  joyned  to  it.  The  C11- 
 ticks  of  Louvain  have  alfb  in  the  Margin  of  their  Edition,  marked 
 ten  Latin  Manufcnpts,  where  they  do  not  read  it.  And  it  teems, 
 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  Evangelift,  he  does  not  in  that  Commenta- 
 ry explain  it,  where  he  does  neverthelefs  explain  the  other  verfès 
 which  concern  the  Fharifees,  no  lefs  than  the  other.  Some  Com-# 
 mentators  on  the  New  Teftament  have  obièrved,  that  Origen,  and 
 Eufebius  did  not  read  it  in  their  Copies.  Yet  I  have  found  it  in  a 
 fufficient  number  of  Greek  Copies  which  I  have  read.  But  it  is 
 Tranfpoled  in  the  mofl  part  of  thefe  Copies.  We  read  in  rive  of 
 Colberfs,  the  14.  verfe  before  the  1;.  Rob.  Stephen,  has  not  in  his 
 Manufci  ipts  obièrved  upon  it  any  difference  of  Reading. 
 
 Chap.  24.  v.  2.    i^Tnii.     Rob.  Stephen  did  not  read  the  Negative 
 Particle»,  not,  in  fix  of  his  Manufcripts,  and  there  is  one  of  Col-  Cod. MS. 
 beris  where  it  is  not.     Neither  is  it  extant  111  the  Cambridge  Copy,  Colb.  ». 
 nor  has  Sr.  Jerom  expreffèd  it  in  his  new  Edition,  becaule  it  was  not  4»*- 
 in  the  ancient  Vulgar.     Verfe  9.  of  the  lame  Chapter,  we  do  not  Cc°j[M},' 
 read  in  one  of  Colbert's,  %ï  \%viïv>  Nations.     Beza,  (/)  who  did  not  4I I2. 
 
 (r)  Sciendum  cfl  in  veris  excmpluribus  non  haberi  novuTimum,  Jed  prïmùm. 
 Hieron.  lib.  3.  Comm.  in  Matth.  c.  21. 
 
 (()  \n  unoGodice nan additur  hoc  vocabnhnn,  quo  ctiam  fub!ato}  videtur  fhttriw 
 ejft  Jententia.    Bez.  Annot.i»  Matth.  c  24.  v.  9. 
 
 Y  2  iv 
 
[  »>*  ] 
 
 read  it  in  one  of  his  Manufcripts,  fays  that  the  Senieis  more  entire 
 when  it  is  left  out. 
 
 Li  the  fame  Chapter  v.  %6.  after  the  word  »^r^,  there  is  added  in 
 the  Cambridge  Copy,  *ftivfa9  nor  the  Son.     Seeing  this  Addition  is 
 (bund  in  no  other  Copy,  it  is  very  probable,  that  it  was  taken  out 
 of  St.  Luke,  where  thofe  very  words  are  extant,  without  any  varia- 
 ation.     St.  Jerom  did  not  think  it  convenient  to  put  them  (  t  )  in  his 
 new  Edition,  although  they  were  in  fertie  Latin  Copies  of  the  Vul- 
 gar Edition  at  histime.     He  further  obferved,  that  Ongen  and  Pterin* 
 did  not  read  them  in  their  Greek  Copies,  there  having  been  very  few, 
 in  which  they  were  extant 
 KiSS.      Chap.  25/  v.  1  :.     Thefe  words  *•  ?  è  fa  t«  dv^ù^H  %içyg),  wherein 
 Coll.  n.    tjje  sc?J  0jr  fifan  cometh  are  not  in  one  of  Colbert's,  nor  in  the  Cam- 
 7'       bruise  Copy,  the  Alexandrine,  Rob.Stepheris  three  Manufcripts,  and  the 
 Marqucis  o£Féies\  Nor  has  S.  jrVc^exprefled  them  in  his  new  Edition. 
 Chap.  16.  v.  %t    We  do  not  read,  >yol  t&wathç,  and  the  Scribes, 
 in  the  Cambridge  Copy,    in  the  Alexandrine,  and  in  two  of  Robert  " 
 Stephens,  nor  in  fome  others  that  arc  marked  in  the  VI.  Tome  of 
 the  Polyglott  of  England.     St.  Jerorn  has  not  in  fer  ted  thofe  words  in 
 his  Edition.     In  the  fame  Verfe,  inftead  of  aùhlw,  we  read  in  one  of 
 CW.AiS.  Colbert,  «p;^  which  appears  to  be  an  error  of  the  Tranfcriber?. 
 Cotb.n.         jn  tne  [ame  Chapter,  verf  11.  we  do  not  read  in  two  Colberts, 
 
 ToilMSS  "*vlZTl  W  for always.     Thefë  fame  words  are  tranfpofed  in 
 
 Col'b.n.     tvvo  other  Colberts,  where  we  read  wO  flay)*  $  *wvm.  vcrf'24.  in- 
 41 12.        ffead  of,  mt&JÏJb?),  is  betrayed,  the  Marqueîs  of  Veles  has,  nu&JbMn?), 
 4°l?>-       fiall  be  betrayed  ;  which  reading  is  agreeable  to  St.  J er orris  Edition,  , 
 Coflf.M5S.«aacj  toollr  Vulgar  :  Yet  we  read  in  the  Ancient  Cambridge  Copy, 
 
 2467"'       *W"N<MI*i. 
 
 2259.  In  the  lé  verfe  of  the  fame  Chapter,  inftead  of  ^o>>W, 'having 
 
 Cod.MSS.  blejjed  it,  we  read  in  five  Colberts,  <M&vm™.u  having  giving  thanks  ; 
 Colb.  n.  winch  reading  is  likewife  in  fèvenof  Robert  Stephens  Manufcripts,in 
 22^9*       the  Alexandrine,  and  in  fome  Editions  of  the  New  Teflament.  Fur- 
 
 Û078*  l'hcv?  tnc^  tNV0  worc^s3  ^°  not  &&*  m  tnat  P'ace>  as  t0  tn^  fenfe, 
 ^49*  vcrf  i\6.  inftead  of  Uxw'^w*  which  à  fled,  we  read  only  in  the 
 Marqucis  of  Veles,  U^m^oy,  which  frail  be  fhed,  agreeable  to  St. 
 Jerotris  Edition.  Neverthelefs  Maldonat  the  Jefuit,  did  rather  choofè 
 to  read  it  with  the  ordinary  Greek,  cffunditur,  is  (lied,  in  the  prefent, 
 than  with  the  Vulgar  effundetur,  frail  be  fried,  in  the  future. 
 
 Chap.  27.  v.  9.  We  read  in  all  the  Greek  Copies,  which  have  been 
 
 (t  )  In  quibufdam  Latims  codiabus  addition  eft  nequc  filius,   cum  in  Gr<ecis,  (3 
 maxime  Adamantn   C  Pierii  cxemplaribus,  hoc  non  babcatur  adferipfum.    Sed 
 Uaihnonmllis  lcgi}($c.  Hicroalib.  4.  Comm,  in  M.itth.  c.24, 
 
 known 
 
known  until  this  day,  %Ufifu\tt  Jeremy.  Yet  the  Paflage  which  St. 
 Matthew  does  quote  in  that  place,  is  not  found  in  the  Prophet  jre- 
 remy,  but  in  Zécbarj  :  Which  gave  an  occaiion  to  lome  Commen- 
 tators on  the  New  Teftament,  to  believe,  that  that  Evangelic  who 
 
 had  forgot  the  name  of  the  Prophet  whole  tcftimony  he  brings,  had 
 put  the  one  for  the  other.     But  others  with  more  hkelyhood,    h;  ** 
 
 imputed  this  error  to  the  Transcribers,  who  having  found  this  word 
 contracted  after  this  manner  2PIOT',  in  ionic  Copies,  did  write  IPIOT' 
 in  its  ftead.     I  did  read  in  one  Manuscript  of  Mr.  Colbert's  Library, 
 Zct%*eÂ*  at  length:   Yet  this  error  is  very  ancient,  feeing  it  has  been  Coj 
 oblerved  by  Ongen  and  by  St.  Jercm.     The   latter  (<v)  makes  men-  ' 
 tion  of  an  Apocryphal  Book  attributed  to  Jeremy ,  that   one  of  the  24 
 Nazarene  Sed  had  lent  to  him,  where  the  fame  Pa  liage  was  extant 
 word  for  word.     And  therefore  it  is  poftible.,  that  the  Ancient  Na- 
 z,arens  had  pr.t  the  name  of  the  Prophet   Jeremy,  m  their  Hébreu 
 Copy  of  St.  Matthew  :  The  Cambridge  Copy  being  torn  in  that  place, 
 it  cannot  be  known,  if  the  ordinary  reading  was  there. 
 
 In  the  lame  Chap.  ver.  34.  înftead  of  2$®-»  vinegar,  we  read,  in 
 the  Cambridge  Copy,  in  the  Marquels  of  Veless,   in  one  of  Robert  Cod. y; 
 Stephens  Manufcripts;  and  in  one  Colbert,   «W,    irwe  .  which  read-  c<?^-*- 
 ing  was  kept  in  our  Vulgar,  although  acetum  is  extant  in  St.  Jeroms  5I^' 
 Edition.     Beza,  (x)  did  alio  believe,,  that  we  are  to  read  in  the  Greek 
 JfCK,  wine,  as  it  is  in  St.  Mark,     It  is  not  always  the  fiircft  way  to 
 regulate  one  Evangelift  by  another  :    It  fèems  alfo,  that  St.  Jerom 
 was  of  the  Judgment,  that  the  Greek  Copies,  which  he  believed  to 
 be  the  moil:  corred,  oughc  m  that  place,  to  be  preferred  to  the  read- 
 4ng  of  the  Ancient  Vulgar. 
 
 Ver.  35.  ôf  the  fame  Chapter,  we  do*not  read  in  three  of  Mr.  CodM 
 dbcrts  Manufcripts;  thefe  words,   "lv&  7&nça>5,y  to  fn&v  <azv  re  v&-  Co^-  "* 
 
 That  it  might  be  fulfilled,  which  was  fpoken  by  the  Prophet,  they  part-  4U 
 ed  my   raiment,  and  for  my  veftttre  they  did  cafi  lots.     Nor  are  they 
 found  in  the  Cambrulge  Copy,  in  the  Alexandrine,   in  all  Robert  Ste- 
 phens, in  an  Ancient  Manufcnpt  quoted  by  S  albert,  nor  in  lbn  la 
 others  that  are  marked  in  the  hxch  Tome  of  the  Polyglort  of  Eng- 
 
 C  v  T  Lcgi  ?i u per  in  quodam  Uelraico  volumine,  quod  Ka\arout  fecl.c  mil i  He* 
 brxus  cbtuut,  tbereyniaapocryphum,  in  quo  bac  ad  verbum  fcrifta  reperi.  H 
 lib.  4.  Comm.  in  Matth.  c.  27. 
 
 V  xj  Hunc  lettioiicm,  quarmis  diffçntiente  Syro  interprète?  verijfimam  4  *- 
 tror  ,  autlcre  ipfo  Spiruu  Santlo>  Marc.  15.  23.  Ba.  Annot.  m  ftfotth.  c.  2;. 
 v.  34. 
 
 1 
 
C   174] 
 
 land.  Btza,  who  found  them  not  in  any  Ancient  Copy,  nor  in  the 
 Se*M™h  Syriack  Verfion,  believed  that  they  were  taken  out  of  St.  John,  and 
 înlèrted  in  this  place  of  St.  Matthew  :  Nevertheleis  we  read  thefe 
 words  in  our  Vulgai  ;\ind  they  are  like  wife  put  in  the  Text  of  St. 
 Matthew,  which  was  Printed  with  St.  Jerom  s  Commentary?  But 
 if  we  examin  the  manner  how  he  does  exprefs  himielf  in  that 
 Commentary,  we  (hall  eafily  judge,  that  he  has  not  added  them, 
 in  his  Edition.  Indeed  the  Divines  of  Louvainhàve  marked  15  La- 
 tin Manufcripts  in  the  Margin  of  their  Edition  of  the  New  Tene- 
 ment, where  they  did  not  read  them. 
 
 In  the  lame  Chapter,  v.  49.  this  verfe  is  not  in  a  Manufcript  cited 
 in  the  iixth  Tome  of  the  Polvglott  of  Engl*»*  :  Ac  the  end  of  the 
 Âme  veriè,  after  the  word  cwt'ov,  Rob.  Stephen,  did,  in  two  of  his 
 Manufcripts,  read  this  Addition,  *Ato©-  J  k&Cùv  hof^tw  tw^ct*  cw&  tù» 
 »fca&P*V,  jy  *<ffih%*v  "M  £  * «*•  But  another  taking  a  Spear  pierced '  his 
 Side,  and  there  came  forth  blood  and  water.  Luke  of  Bruges  does  ob- 
 fèrve,  that  thefè  words  are  not  St.  Matthew \  but  that  they  were  ta- 
 ken out  of  St.  John,  Chap.  19.  v.  34.  In'  the  64  verfe  of  the  fame 
 Chapter,  we  do  not  read,  vvktIç»  by  mght%  in  three  of  Colbert's,  in 
 the  Cambridge  Copy,  in  the  Alexandrine,  in  two  of  Rob.  Stephens  Ma- 
 nufcripts, nor  in  the  Marquefs  oltVelefs.  Neither  has  St.  Jerom  expref- 
 fèd  thefè  words  in  his  new  Edition. 
 
 Chap.  28.  v.  2.  we  do  not  read  thefe  words  &»  &ess>  from  the  door, 
 in  the  Cambridge  Copy,nor  in  the  Marquefs  of  Feless.  St.  Jerom,  fee- 
 ing he  found  them  not  in  the  Ancient  Vulgar,  has  not  put  them  in 
 his  new  Edition  ;  but  they  are  extant  in  a41  the  other  Manufcripts. 
 We  do  hkewife  read,(after  the  word  *»&h  in  two  Colbert's  and  many 
 Cod.  MS.  other  Manufcripts,  which* are  marked  in  the  fixth  Tome  of  the  Po- 
 Colb.ri.  lyglotc  of  England)  ft  nvnmîx,  the  Sepulcher,  ver.  7.  of  the  fame  Chap, 
 we  do  not  read  in  the  Cambridge  Copy,  nor  in  the  Marquefs  ofFelet. 
 thefe  words  <un$  ffî  nw»v%from  the  dead ,  whence  they  were  in  all 
 probability  taken  away  as  fuperfluous.  Neither  has  St.  Jerome  ex- 
 prefTed  them  in  his  Edition  :  But  they  are  extant  in  all  other  Greek 
 Copies. 
 
 it  would  be  to  no  purpofe  to  run  through  the  other  Books  of  the 
 New  Teftament,  Tor  marking  the  various  readings  thereof,  or  at 
 leaft  the  Principal  a mongfl  them.*  Thofè  we  have,  already  produ- 
 ced are  fufficient  to  fhew,  that  they  were  not  exempted  from"  iiich 
 changes  as  length  of  time,  and  the  errors  of  Tranlcribers  do  bung 
 
 2467 
 
 4c7d 
 
 (y)  Totum  hoc  membrum  cum  Prophet  £  teflimonio  in  nullis  vetuflu  coMcibus 
 repcrimus,  ncque  legitur  in  Sjra  interprétât  ione.     AdjeHum  proculdttbio  ex  Joann. 
 
 19.24.  Bcz.  ibid.  v.  35« 
 
 into 
 
C   «75  ] 
 
 into  Books.  T  have  in  this  Collection  rather  kept  to  the  Manu- 
 lenpts  of  Moniieur  Colbert's  Librae  than  to  the  King's,  becaufèj 
 as  1  iuppofe,  there  have  been  none  of  the  former  as  yet  publxflied. 
 I  lhall  handle  more  at  large  thofè  different  Readings  of  the  Copies 
 of  the  New  Teftament,  in  the  Second  Part  of  this  Wodc,  where  I 
 mall  particularly  examine  our  Latin  Edition,  and  the  ancient  Ver- 
 sions of  the  Oriental  Churches,  by  comparing  them  with  the  Greek 
 Copies,  whence  they  were  taken.  I  have  likewife "beforehand, 
 fpoken  iômewhat  of  the  Method  which»S.  Jerom  took  in  reforming 
 the  Ancient  Vulgar  by  the  bed  Greek  Copies  or.  his  time.        . 
 
 Chap.  XXXIII. 
 
 Of  the  Order  of  the  Greek  Manufcript  Copies  of  the  New 
 Teftament.  The  Verfes^  Chapters  and  other  Marks  of 
 DiJiinSl ion  of  thofe  Copies.  The  Canons  which  Eufebius 
 added  to  the  Go/pels,  and  the  life  of  thofe  Canons. 
 
 THE  mod  ancient  Greek  Copies  of  the  New  Teftament  are 
 written  without  any  diftinction,notonly  of  Chapters  and  Verfes, 
 but  alfo  of  Words  ;  fo  that  we  may  apply  to  thofe  Copies  that  which 
 was  faid  elfewhere  of  the  Books  of  the  Old  Teftament,  that  they 
 only  make  one  Vafuk  or  Verfe  from  their  feveral  beginnings.  They 
 did  not  then  know  what  it  was  to  mark  with  Points,  Comma's  and 
 other  Dïftin&ions,  which  have  been  aftenvards  inferred  in  Books  to 
 make  the  reading  more  eafie  and  diftinct.  We  mail  further  obfèrve, 
 that  even  fince  Diftindions  of  this  nature  have  been  in  ufe,  the 
 moll  part  of  Tranfcribers  did  negled  them,  as  well  as  the  Accents 
 in  the  ancient  Greek  Manufcripts.  And  therefore  it  is  very  rare  to  find 
 fuch  Marks  of  Diftin&ion  in  the  Greek  Copies  for  above  thefe  thou- 
 {and  years  paft.The  Copy  of  S.  ?aid}s  Epiftles  which  is  in  the  Royal  Li- 
 brary ,and  that  of  the  Benedittins  of  the  Abbey  of  S.  Germain  are" alfo 
 written  without  any  diftin&ion  of  Points  and  other  Stops  ;  and  altho 
 the  Words  are  accented  there,  it  feems,  that  the  Accents  were  added 
 in  the  King's  Copy,  feeing  they  are  not  of  the  fame  Hand  with  the 
 Body  of  the  Book.  This  does  not  hinder  but  that  Accents  and 
 Points  or  Marks  of  Diftin&ion  are  much  more  ancient  than  thefe 
 
 two 
 
two  Manufcripts.  But  the  Tranfcribers  did  commonly  neglect 
 them.  There  were  none  but  very  curious  and  very  exaft  perlons 
 who  took  care  to  add  them  to  their  Copies. 
 
 Georgius  Syncettits  (<z)  makes  mention  of  a  Greek  Copy  of  the 
 Bible  that  was  written  before  this  great  Accuracy,  where  the  Accents 
 and  Points  Were  placed.  He  fays,  that  that  Copy  was  brought  to 
 him  from  the  Library  of  Ce  fare  a  in  Cappadocia,  and  that  he  perceived 
 by  the  Infcrrption  or  the  Book,  that  it  had  been  tranicribed  from  an 
 ancient  Copy  which  had  been  correded  by  the  great  S.Bafil.  There 
 are 'alio  Manufcript  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  five  or  iix  hundred  years  part:.  This 
 only  happens  in  the  mod  cxa&  Books:  yet  there  are  fbme  Works 
 extant  above  four  hundred  years,  where  there  is  mention  made  of 
 thof'e  Points  and  Accents  which  were  in  uiè  at  that  time  in  their 
 Copies. 
 
 The  mofl  ancient  Church  Writers  do  likewife  in  their  Works  fpeak 
 of  all  thole  Marks  of  Di&in&ion  which  are  at  prefentin  the  Greek  Co- 
 pies of  the  New  Teftament.  We  read  there  of  the  word  tàtwMtSeïïicni 
 and  at<pd\tcp .Chapter.  They  fbmetimes  obferve  the  places  where  the 
 Points  ought  to  be  marked  to  remove  the  ambiguity  of  a  Diicourfe, 
 especially  when  the  Hereticks  do  obferve  a  different  Punftation.  But 
 after  all,  it  muft  be  avo wed,that  there  has  been  nothing  determined  to 
 the  purpofc  upon  this  matter.  Every  one  did  mod  commonly,  accord- 
 ing to  his  prejudices,  mark  that  fore  of  Diftin&ions,  which  depended 
 on  the  Tranicribers  and  the  Expofitors  of  the  Scripture.  And 
 therefore  Petavzus  after  having  obfèrved  what  S.  Epiphanius  and  fbme 
 other  ancient  Doctors  of  the  Church  have  brought  againfl  fbme 
 Hereticks  about  the  manner  of  pointing  the  third  Verfe  ofthefirft 
 Chapter  of  the  Gofpel  according  to  S.  John,  does  add,  (  b  )  that 
 that  diverfity  of  pointing  thofe  words  of  S.  Job»,  ought  not  to  be 
 attributed  to  the  ill  defign  of  thofe  who  denied  the  Divinity  of  the 
 Holy  Ghoir,  or  to  other  Hereticks,  but  only  to  the  different  Opi- 
 nions of  the  Tranfcribers  and  Interpreters. 
 
 fihict,  &c.  Ck-org.  Syncel.  Chronol.  p.  203. 
 
 (bj  Exiftimo  varietatemillam  interpretations  ex  Ubmrionim  ant mterpretnm 
 diver sa  fentcntia  profcHam  effe,  nen  ex  fraude  u.Li  Pncumatomaciwum,  vel  aho- 
 rum  b*retico:wn.    Petay.  Theol.  Dog.  lib.  2.c.  6.  n.  6. 
 
 The 
 
C  «77  ] 
 
 The  truth  is,  the  Orthodox  Authors  do  not  always  agree  amongfl: 
 themfèlves  about  it.  It  happens  fpmetimes,  that  the  fame  Writer 
 does  differently  point  the  lame  Partage  in  different  places  or"  his 
 
 Works.     And  (6  there  is  nothing  elfe  but  good  Senfe  and  the  Rul 
 of  Criticifm    that  can  direct  us  in  our  choice,  in  preferring  one 
 Pun&ation  to  another.     1  know  we  ought  to  follow  the  plurality  or 
 good    Manufcript  Copies,  and  the  con  lent    of  Interpreters.    For 
 example,  without  taking  notice  of  all  that  S.  Auguftme  has  obferved 
 upon  the  manner  of  pointing  the  third  Verfe  of  the  fir  ft  Chapter 
 of  the  Gofpel  according  to  S.  John,  we  may  read  that  Verfe  after 
 this  manner  ^eit  «m*  l-ftlm  ijïho  yfonv,  without  him  was  not  a:. 
 thing  made  that  was   made.     This  reading,  wlucK  is    almoil    in  ail 
 Manufcnpts,  has  been  approved  by  the  moft  Ancient  Greek.  Fathe 
 The  other,  which  does  place  a  point  after  the  word  3r,  is  (omewhat 
 forced,  and  according  to  this  punctation,  it  ought  to  be  tranilated, 
 Without  him  nothing  was  made,  that  which  was  made  had  life  m  him. 
 It  is  worth  the  while  to  ob(erve,  that  many  Greek  Manufcript  Co- 
 pies, have  a  point  after  the  word «r*  b*ut  that  point  aniwers  to  our 
 comma ,    in  thofe  Manufcnpts  ,    which  have  two  forts  of  points, 
 the  one  truly  anfwering  to  our  point,  and  the  other  to  that  we  call 
 a  comma. 
 
 Yet  St.  Auguftme  does  frequently  maintain  the  diftincYion,  that 
 places  the  point  after  the  word  nihil:  He  further  maintains,  that  this 
 Pafîàge  is  pointed  after  this  manner  in  the  moft  correct  Copies. 
 J^ucd  faff  urn  eft,  millo  vita  erat,  that  which  was  made,  in  him  was  life; 
 fo  that  there  is  not  only  a  point  to  be  placed  arter  nihil)  but  alfo  a 
 comma  after  thefè  other  words,  quod  fact  urn  eft.  Steers,  (faith  this 
 Father)  diftinguendum  eft ,  ut  cum  dixenmus.  ej nod  facl urn  eft ,  deinde  in- 
 fer amus,  in  illo  vita  eft,  non  in  je  fcilicet,  hoc  eft  m  fad  naturd.  (d)  He 
 condemns  thoic  who  placed  a  comma  after  the  Pronoun  illo,  and 
 who  favoured  their  own  prejudices  by  this  pun&ation.  But  there 
 appears  commonly  more  fubtilcy  than  (oliditv,  in  Reafonings  of  this 
 fort.     For  feeing  every  one    dees  reafon  from  ce  Principles, 
 
 which   he  fu  to  be  true,  he  points  the  Copies  of  the  Scripture 
 
 after  h:s  own  faftlion.     Thofè  difputes  h.id  fo  divided  die  Minds  o/ 
 the  Ancient»  '  I    that  time,  that  the  e  were  four  different  ways  o' 
 
 c  )  Nee  fratermittenium  eft  (jund  emend, it ior es  codices  I. .  quod  fa&tim  err, 
 
 in  i  .  Aufr.dc  Gen.  ad  lit.  lib.  5.  c.  14. 
 
 (dj    Nc,  pronunaartoportct,  quod  factum  eft  in  illo,  vita  C    , 
 
 Wtti,   quod  l.Kthimeftinillo,  &  demde  inferamus,  vita  cit.     fluid  1 1 
 tli  facl  urn  eft  i  Aug.  ibid.  c.  13. 
 
 Z  pointing 
 
C'78  3 
 
 pointing  this  Palîage  of  St.  John,  whereas,  at  this  day  there  is  no  di* 
 fpute  about  it. 
 
 This  does  inform  us,  that  although  the  mod  part  of  Tranfcribers, 
 did  then  negled  the  points  and  the  other  marks  of  diftin&ion  ;  yet 
 they  were  put  for  all  that  in  fbme  Copies.  The  Commentators  on 
 the  Scripture  obferved  them  like  wife  in  their  Commentaries,  when 
 they  judged  it  fit  :  But  feeing  they  had  not  the  firft  Original  of  the 
 Evangehfts  and  the  Apoftles,  where  thofè  marks  of  distinction  were 
 extant,  there  is  nothing  certain  in  this  matter  :  We  ought  alio  to  ufe 
 precaution  in  reading  the  Writings  of  the  Fathers,  eipecially  when 
 they  difpute  againft  the  Hereticksof  their  time  ;  from  whom  they  re- 
 moved in  their  Opinions,  as  far  as  it  was  pofîîble  for  them.  Now,  it 
 is  not  neceilarv  to  infîft  too  nicely  on  this  fort  of  diftin&ions-, 
 and  itops  ;  there  commonly  needs  but  a  little  of  good  fenfe,  to  make 
 a  due  eftimate  of  them.  There  is  none  for  example,  but  will  con- 
 demn fbme  of  the  Moderns,  for  the  innovations  they  have  made  in 
 our  Age  ;  who  in  favour  of  their  own  prejudicate  Opinions,  read, 
 Ghap.  1%.  of  St.  Luke,  v.  45.  My*  &>i  wiuyv,  yXf  \$  ï<rnlv  7m&<h*<rq>.  J 
 {ay  unto  thee,  to  day  thou  fiait  be  with  me  in  Faradife.  They  place  a 
 comma  after  the  word  ™W^3  day,  whereas,  according  to  the  ordi- 
 nary Reading  of  the  Greek  Copies,  whether  Manufcrip:  or  Printed, 
 it  ought  to  be  placed  after  the  Pronoun  <™3  thee  :  Which  gives  a  ve- 
 ry different  fenfe,  vk*  I  fay  unto  thee,  to  day  Jkalt-tLo.it  be  with  me  in 
 faradife. 
 
 Befides  thofe  marks  of  diftinction  of  which  we  have  been  fpeak- 
 mg,  there  is  another  which  is  common  to  all  the  ancient  Books,  and 
 which  is  made  by  the  means  of  Verfes.  The  Bulk  of  a  Work  did  once 
 appear,  if  the  number  of  Verfes  contained  therein  were  fumm'd  up 
 at  the  end  :  A  Verfè  was  nothing  elfe,  but  a  Line  that  the  Greeks 
 called  s^xQ-s  fo  that,  by  numbering  the  Verfes,  they  difcovered  how 
 many  Lines  were  contained  in  any  Volume.  Yet  fome  Criticks 
 could  not  comprehend  how  they  could,  i>y  thofe  Lines  or  Verfes, 
 
 Bckori  the  juft  content  of  a  Book,  becaufè  the  Parchments,  upon 
 which  they  writ,  having  been  unequal,  the  Lines  mufl:  needs  have 
 b^Qti  fo  too  ;  and  fo  the  number  of  thofe  Lines  could  not  adjuft.  the 
 Bulk  of  a  Work.  This  was  that  which  Crojus  brought  againft  Cau~ 
 fabon%;  and  withal  he  confirrn'd  his  Opinion  by  the  teltimony  of  fome 
 Ancient  Writers,  by  whom  he  pretended  to  prove,  that  the  word 
 six©-  does  fignifie  an  entire  Period  ,  or  .the  fcveral  parts  of  Pe- 
 riods. 
 
 But  this  Objection  does  fall  by  it  fclf,  if  we  make  a  jufl:  reflection 
 on  thofè  Ancient  Parchments,  which  compofèd  Volumes  or  Rolls. 
 
 arery  Roll  contained  many  Pages  that  were  all  equal,  and  in  every 
 
 Page 
 
E  179  1 
 
 Page  there  was  a  certain  number  of  Lines  ;  and  laftlv,  in  every  Linej 
 ►there  was  a  fixed  number  of  Letters.    Ami  this  is  obferved  by  the 
 
 Jews  at  this  day,  in  their  Rolls,  winch  muft  have  a  certain  pj 
 tion,  as  well  in  length  as  in  breadth  :  Moreover  every  Line  ought  to 
 conlift  of  thirty  Letters  ;  and  they  called  thefè  Letters  fitm,  which 
 
 the  fame  thing  with  the  &'/&  of  the  Greeks,  and  the  vcrfus  of  the  I  ma- 
 tins. 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  ellcwhere.  And 
 feeing  they  have  retained  their  ancient  ufè  of  Rolls,  we  muft  learn 
 of  them,  whatever  belongs  to  the  divifion  of  the  Rolls  or  Ancient 
 Volumes. 
 
 Further,  it  is  not  hard  to  Ihew,  how  the  meaiurc  of  the  Lines  or 
 Verfesnmght  have  been  retained  in  the  form  of  thofe  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  reft  of  the  Letters  or  Words  above  the  Line.  It  (eerns  they  de- 
 figned  in  this  manner,  to  write  by  way  of  Verfes,  the  Ancient  Greek 
 and  Lathi  Copy  of  St.  Paul's  Epiftles,  which  is  in  the\Royal  Library, 
 and  that  of  the  BenediBine  Monks  of  the  Abbey  of  St.  Germain.  Or 
 rather,  they  who  copied  thefe  two  Manufcripts  by  others  that  were 
 more  Ancient,  did  not  at  all  underitand  the  nature  of  the  ancient 
 Lines  or  Verfes;  and  therefore  they  did  not  altogether  imitate  the 
 fame.  However  it  be,  it  is  certain  that  there  is  nothing  more  ordi- 
 nary amongft  the  ancient  Writers,  than  to  mark  at  the  end  of  their 
 Books,  the  number  of  Verfes  which  they  contained. 
 
 I  do  not  deny,  but  that  there  is  another  fort  of  Verfès  which  were 
 regulated  according  to  the  fenfè,  or  the  fèntences,  in  the  fame  man- 
 ner as  they  are  reprefented  in  our  Books.  In  this  wre  have  imitated 
 the  Jews,  who  divided  their  Bible  into  this  kind  of  Verfes.  This 
 latter  fort  has  an  original  quite  different  from  trfat  of  the  former  : 
 For  feeing  they  did  read  the  Scripture  in  their  Synagogues  and  in 
 their  Schools,  they  made  this  new  divifion  of  Vcrles  for  the  conve- 
 niency  of  their  Leilons.  We  alfb  lèe  fomething  of  the  like  nature 
 in  lbme  Greek  Manufcnpt  Copies  of  the  New  Teftament,  and  in 
 fome  Manufcnpt  Church  Bibles  :  I  have  noc  only  obferved  the  be- 
 ginning and  the  ending  of  the  Leffbns,  which  they  called  àvAyrc*T(MTuy 
 which  are  as  fb  many  different  Chapters,  but  alfo  certain  marks  in 
 rorm  of  a  orofs.  in  all  the  places  where  the  fentences  do  end,  and 
 where  the  Reader  makes  a  little  Hop,  according  to  the  cuftom  of 
 the  Greek  Churches.  This  we  may  call  a  Verfè  or  Sentence,  and 
 which  the  Greeks  do  fignifie  by  the  word  pfaf. 
 
 Z  z  Crojm 
 
Croj.  Crojui  is  mi  (la  ken,  when  he  would  perfwade  us,  that  the  Greeks  did 
 lb'--  at  the  end  of  their  Gofpels,  mark  the  number  of  the  words,  as  well 
 as  that  or  the  Verfes  that  were  contained  therein.  For  the  examples 
 which  he  does  produce  after  Salmajlus,  ought  to  be  undei  flood  of 
 Sentences  and  not  of  Words,  as  may  be  proved  by  thofe  very  words 
 which  he  brings,  as  taken  out  of  a  Manufcript  Copy,  that  afîigns 
 to  St.  Matthew,  p>W™  &?*£'  f25ii)  ç>x*f  £<?£'  (2560)  to  St.  Mark, 
 fiifM-m  et^ci  (167 5 )  &x**  *&'  (161 6 J  if  the  Greek  word  i^uat*  is 
 taken  in  this  place  for  the  words,  as  Crâjms  expounds  it,  what  pro- 
 portion can  there  be  betwixt  the  Words  and  the  Verfes,  feeing  they 
 reckoned  almoft  the  fame  number  of  Words  as  Vertes  in  thofe  two 
 Gofpels,  .*>/£.  in  St.  Matthew,  2522  words,  an£  X560  Veries;  in 
 St.  Mark,  167*  words,  and  161 6  Verfes?  We  muft  therefore  un- 
 derfland'the  number  of  Sentences  to  be  fignified  by  the  word  p>Wt», 
 and  the  ancient  Verfes  which  were  meafîired  according  to  the 
 Lines ,    or  fome  other  fort  of  Verfes  to  be  meant  by  the  word 
 
 9X&* 
 
 We  find  the  Number  of  the  Verfes  of  each  Book,  at  the  end  of 
 federal  Greek  Manufcript  Copies  of  the  New  Te  (lament.  Robert 
 Stephen  does  lometjmes  mark  them  in  his  fair  Greek  Edition,  and  it 
 would  be  eafie  to  note  them  all.  But  this  in  my  Opinion  would  be 
 of  little  ufe  ;  berries  that  the  Manuscripts  wherein  I  have  obferved 
 them,  are  not  very  ancient,  and  they  do  not  agree  amongft  them- 
 felves  about  the  matter.  Scaliger  caufed  to  be  Printed,  at  the  end  of 
 the  Chronology  of  the  Patriarch  Nicephorus  ,  a  Stichometrie  or  the 
 number  of  the  Veriès  of  all  the  Books  of  the  Bible,  under  that  Pa- 
 triarch's Name  :  Mr.  Pithou  before  him,  had  pubhihed  that  Sticho- 
 metrie under  the  fame  Name.  But  it  is  more  ancient,  and  we  find 
 that  it  is  infèrted  in  the  Works  of  fome  other  Greek  Hiflonans  :  They 
 were  alfô  placed,  as  has  been  already  obferved,  at  the  end  of  two 
 Greek  and  Latin  Copies  of  St.  Paul's  Epiflles,  of  which  we  have  al- 
 ready fpoken.  I  mail  here  take  notice  of  "hat  belongs  to  the  Ver- 
 fes of  the  New  Teflament,  and  feeing  that  there  is  fbmewhat  lingu- 
 lar in  that  Catalogue,  1  mail  change  nothing,  either  as  to  the  order 
 of  the  Books,  or  the  manner. 
 
 (e)  St.  Matthew,  according  to  that  Ancient  Catalogue  that  is  writ- 
 ten in  Latin,  does  contain  2600  Verfes.     St,  John,  2000.  St.  Mark, 
 
 (  c)  Matthtus  ver.  IIDC.  Joannes  ver.  II.  Marcus  ver.  IDC.  Lucai  IIDCCCC. 
 Epiftolœ  Pauli  ad  li^mauos  ver.  IXL.  ad  Cortnthios  I.  ver.  ILX.  ad  Conntbios 
 Z  LXX  ad  GaUtdi  vcr.  CCCL.  ad  Ephefiot  ver.  CCCLXXV.  ad  Timotbeum  u 
 vcr.  CCVIII.  adTimoitcum  2.  vcr.  CCLXXXVlll.  adTstumver.  CXL,  adColoJJcn- 
 Jes  ver.  CGLL  ad  Pikmonem  vcr.  L.  ad  Pctrum   I,   ver*  CC.  ad  Petrum  2.  ver. 
 
 1600. 
 
1600.     Sr.  L«^,  1900.     The  Epiftl-of  the  Apofcle  Paul  to  the  Ro- 
 mans, lop.     The  fir  ft  to  the  Coriatbiams,  r  doo.  the  to   tl 
 Corinthians,  70.  (there  is  an  error  in  this  placé)  Th             3  to  ci: 
 ÇaJatians,  }$o.  the  Epiftle  to  the  Efbefians,  $7f.  the  h  ft  to   7:*jj- 
 rip,  208.            :ond  to  Timothy  ,288   the  Epiltle  jo  7//*//,  :  i>    to*l 
 Çdo/Kaps,  *  ' r    (p  Philemon,  50.  the  fir  ft  of  St.  P^/«r,  loo,,  the  (econd 
 of  the  I          '  ,'  file,  140.  that  of  St.  Jamcs,tio,  the  fiiftof  St.jfafc», 
 zzo    the  ieconJ,  20    and  alio  the  third,  10.  the  Epiflle  or  St.  fude&Qé 
 that qf  St.  Barnabas,  ifo,  the  Revelation  of  St.  John,  1100.  the  yftfj 
 of  the  Apoftlcs,  2600.  the  Book  of  the  paftor,  4000.  the  Acts  of  St. 
 faul,  4560.  the  Revelation  of  Peter,  27?. 
 
 Cafaubcn,  who  was  well  verfed  in  Gm-£  Authors,  preferred  the  C^faifc 
 ancient  divilion  that  is  fpund  in  the  Manufcripts,  to  phkt  which  has  £?'"  '" 
 been  invented  in  thefe  latter  times,  and  which  appears  m  our  Print- 
 cd  Bibles.  Hedocsalfo  wilh  that  (om'e  able  Cntick  would  reftorc 
 it  :  He  fpeaks  of  that  which  is  made  by  way  of  Titles  and  Chapters. 
 They  called,  (as  he  affirms)  the  great  Serions,  77V *«*,  titles',  and  the 
 ffnall,  y^âkoja,  chapters:  He  might  have  added,  that  the  word  x* 
 VÂkeuiv  Chapter,  is  alio  fometimes  taken  for  the  great  Sections,  and 
 that  then,  it  does  not  differ  from  that  which  the  Greeks  call  -htkO- 
 Title. 
 
 There  is  nothing  more  ordinary  amongft  the  Ancient  Ecclefiafti- 
 cal  Writers,  than  the  word  xvpafi<ucV>  Chapter,  for  the  Greeks,  and  that 
 of  Capitulum  for  the  Latins,  when  they  quote  the  Sacred  Books,  k 
 would  not  be  hard  to  re-eftablifh  that  ancient  divilion  by  the  help  of 
 Manufcripts  ;  but  I  (hall  content  my  felf  to  mention  here  what  be- 
 longs to  the  New  Teftament.  We  read  in  one  of  the  Manufcripts 
 of  the  Royal  Library,  that  St.  Matthew  contains  68  Titles,  and  155 
 Chapters.  St.  Mark,  48  Titles,  and  254  Chapters;  St.Luke  85  Titles, 
 and  ; 42  Chapters  ;  St.  John  18  Titles,  and  2;i  Chapters.  Which 
 agrees  with  the  Obfervatïon  of  Suidas,  upon  the  word  tjta©-,  unlefs  Smlu- 
 we  muft  in  that  Author,  inftead  of  xr'.  36.  read  **sr\  236.  as  it  is 
 in  fbme  Manufcripts,  and  in  the  Greek  Edition  in  folio  of  Robert  Ste- 
 phens New  Teftament. 
 
 CXL.  Jaccbi  ver.  CCXX.  prima  Joannn  Bp/ftola  ver.  CCXX.  Joanms  Eptftola  z. 
 ver.  XX.  Jmutm  Epiftola  3.  ver.  XX.  JiuU  E\  ijlola  ver.  LX.  Barnabe  EpiJhU 
 ver.  DCCCL.  J  Wins  s  %eveIatio  ver.  ICC.  Actus' '  Apoftdorum  ver.  IIDC  Pajiorts 
 ver.  IIII.  AclusPanli  IIIIDLX.  Hevelatio  Petri  CCLXX.  Codd.  MSS.Bibl.  Reg.  6c 
 Bened.  S.  Germ. 
 
 (f)  To  xj1  MatQuqv  Ivctfy.Mov  ïXiT'Thx  Çn'i  KjUyzKoudL  rvi' '  tv  xj1  Mdpw 
 iMctfyikiov  %Xi]rTK*c.iJLYi'9  y^oUoua.  <jk£"  ri  xj1  A«^P  IvafycMcv  %x4  rirMs  -xy\ 
 x*p*A£ua  Tfj.C  "  to  xp'btdyrluj  IvtfyÎMsyïxi'nThvii')',  WtAcua  tfAct'.  Cod.  MS. 
 Biblioth.  Reg.  n.  2861. 
 
 More- 
 
Mo  ;  rre  read  at  the  beginning  of  the  fame  Manufcript  of 
 the  Royal  Library,  that  there  is  in  St.  Matthew,  ?n'.  63  Chapters  ; 
 io  as  they  call  that  a  Chapter  in  that  place,  which  is  called  a  Title 
 in  the  end  of  the  Book;  and  there  is  the  lame  thing  obfervaWe  in 
 the*other  three  Gofpels.  By  which  we  may  know,  that  the  word 
 Chapter  is  taken  two  ways,  and  that  it  is  applyed  as  well  to  the  great 
 as  to  the  fmall  Se&ions.  When  they  prefix  the  numbers  of  the 
 wpetA/a  or  Chancers  to  the  Books,  this  word  does  then  hgnihe  great 
 dons;  and  in  this  manner  they  are  marked  at  the  beginning  or. 
 the  moft  part  of  the  Greek  Manufcript  Copies  of  the  New  Tene- 
 ment, in  the  hrft  Editions  of  Erafrnus,  in  that  of  Robert  Stephen  m 
 feh:,  and  in  iome  ochei>.  Tins  15  inrtcad  of  a  Table  or  Index  of  the 
 Contents,  which  at  once,  does  reprefent  the  Principal  things  in  a 
 Work.  In  this  manner  the  moft  exact  Greek  Tranlcribers,  do  mark 
 the  Summaries,  ('under  the  title  of  ucak&ia,  Chapters)  at  the  begin- 
 ning of  their  Copies  :  And  feeing  they  have  likewile  noted  them, 
 in  the  Margin  of  their  Copies,  or  at  the  top  or  the  bottom  of  the 
 Pages,  in  all  the  places  where  thofe^  Chapters  begin,  they  have  for 
 this  reafon  given  them  the  name  or  titac/,  titles.  There  is  then  no 
 difference  betwixt  Title  and  Chapter,  according  to  this  fenfè;  un- 
 lets it  be,  that  the  Chapters  are  marked  at  the  beginning  of  the 
 Books,  and  the  Titles  in  the  Margin.  This  I  obfèrved,  in  compa- 
 ring lèverai  Manufcript  Greek  Copies  of  the  New  Teftament,  one 
 with  the  other. 
 
 The  word  x^'acuw  does*  on  the  contrary,  fignihethe  fmall  Sections 
 that  are  marked  in  the  Margins  of  the  Greek  Manufcript  Copies  of 
 the  New-  Teftament  by  Letters  inftead  of  Numbers.  Erafrnus  did 
 alfo  put  them  in  his  firft  Editions  of  the  New  Teftament,  in  which 
 he  was  followed  by  Robert  Stephen,  in  his  Edition  in  Folio,  who  has 
 likewile.  fubioyned  them  feparately  at  the  end  of  S  Mark,  where  he 
 reckons  <rte'  226  x*pcL\cua  Chapters,  and  at  the  end  of  S.  Luke,  where 
 he  computes  W  541,  whereas  in  the  King's  Manufcript,  which  I 
 quoted  ;  S.  Mark  does  only  contain  **#  *34  Chapters.  The  truth  is, 
 the  Greek  Copies  do  not  agree  amongft  themfelves  about  the  thing, 
 especially  in  the  Goipelof  S.Mark.  We  have  already  inewn,  that^ 
 i-veral  Greek  Churches  did  not  once,  read  the  twelve  laft  Verfes  of 
 this  Golpel,  which  begin  with  thefe  words,  crWu*  0  wh  &c.  and  fb 
 they  might  have  had  fewer  fmall  Sedions  in  their  Copies,  than  what 
 are  ordinarily  reckoned.  Neverthelefs,  there  are  fbme  Manufcripts 
 where  the  Section  234.  is  laft  marked,  over  againft  thefe  words, 
 à;****;},  &c.  there  being  no  other  that  anlwers  to  the  reft  of  the 
 Text.  Moreover,  it  is  certain,  that  the  Churches,  where  thefe  Co- 
 pies were  in  ufe,  did  read  thofe  twelve  Verfes,  for  they  have  inferted 
 
 in 
 
C  183  3 
 
 in  that  place  ,  the  word  rl\Q-,  end,  and  «V^f»  beginnings  to  note, 
 ^hat  they  began  another  LefTon  there  :  Yet  we  have  no  fare  foun- 
 dation here,  to  build  any  certainty  upon,  becaule  the  Oblèrvatio; 
 of  that  lore  have  been  taken  horn  the  Synaxarion  or  the  Church 
 Bibles  of  the  Greeks.  And  fo  they  regulated  thele  diftin&ions  by 
 the  Lechonaries  which  were  then  read  in  the  Churches,  to  accom- 
 modate che  Copies  of  the  New  Teftamcnt  to  the  cuftom  that  ob- 
 tained amongft  them. 
 
 The  Churches  which  did  not  read  the  twelve  lift  Vertes  of  i.Mark3  c  l  M 
 do  only  reckon  in  that  Gol pel  *"*>'.  233.  (inall  Sections,  as  i:  aj>«       Lj&Z' 
 pears  by  an  ancient  Manufcript  of  the  Royal  Library.     There  is  ' 
 another  Copy  lefs  ancient  than  that  in  the  fame  Library,  which  does  ç0£  MS. 
 likewife  only  reprefent  1^.  and  the  laiV  iimll  S  -ebon  anlweis  toBiti.fyg. 
 thefc  Words,  %  ^•*ô**««*  &c.  to  which  Rob.  Stephen,  in  his  Edition,  n-  a#5$. 
 made  the  Section  2;  5.  to  anfwer.    The  Churches  which   did  read 
 thofè  twplve  Verfes  reckon  more  than  12.3.  Sections  ;  but  they  agree 
 not  amongft  themfelves  :  for  fome  have  comprehended  all  thofè 
 Verfes  under  one  Section,  and  in  their  Copies  there  are  only  154 
 Sections  extant  :  others,  on  the  contrary,  have  divided  them  into  Co.t  MS. 
 many  (mall  Sedions  :  and  therefore  Rob.  Stephen  has  mark'd  after  B-M.  /< 
 i'bme  Manufcnpts  ckt'  i;6.     I  have  alio  fèen  a  Manufcript  Copy  "-^59- 
 where  there  were  o-^aj  241.  C; ..  ^ 
 
 Further,  this  divifion  of  the  Sacred  Books  is  very  ancient;  for  Bibl.% 
 Jtiftm  Martyr  makes  mention  of  thefc  fraall  Sections  under  the?;-i379- 
 name  of  ^x^W.    Eufebius  (in  his  Letter  to  Car  planus,  which  w. 
 printed   with  the  ten^Canons  which  he  (b  mgenioufly  invented, 
 (for  fhewing  at  once  that  wherein  the  Evangeliirs  did  agree,  an 
 that  which  is  peculiar  to  each  of  them  )  does  ufè  indifferently  thele 
 Words,  ^KOtfTT  Section ,  and  WQAhcuov  Chapter.     Denis  of  Alexandria 
 {peaking  of  certain  Authors  who  rejected  the  Revelation  of  S.  Jobn% 
 fays,  that  they  had  examined  all  the  Chapters,  w1?  fesw  x*;&\<uw  Diot 
 MAwiornt.    In  a  word,  There  are  few  of  the  ancient  Greek  Writers 
 where  the  word  w**mqv  Chapter,  is  not  found  in  the  lenie  that  we 
 ave  oblerved.  Ê7.C.25, 
 
 Eufebm  is  not  then  the  Author  of  thofe  fmall  Sedions,  but  he 
 made  a  very  profitable  u{e  of  them  m  the  ten  Canons  that  he  in- 
 vented, and  which  St.  Jerom  applied  to  the  Latin  Copies  of  the 
 four  Gofpels,  in  the  fame  manner  as  he  had  feen  them  applied  to 
 the  Greek  Copies.  Thofè  who  cannot  confult  the  Manufcript  Co- 
 pies for  this,  ought  to  read  the  firft  Greek  Editions  of  the  New  Te- 
 Jtament  that  wee  published  by  Erafmtts,  or  that  were  done  by 
 Rob.  Stephen,  which  is  in  folio.  Thofe  ten  Canons  are  rank  a  be- 
 fore the  Gofpel  tinder  ten  feparate  Titles,  a:id  the  Application  chere- 
 
C  i«4  ] 
 
 of  is  marked  In  the  Ma  gin  of  every  Gofpel.  The  fmall  Serions 
 are  there  noted  by  Letters  inftead  of  Numbers,  according  to  the 
 cuftom  of  the  Greeh 
 
 The  Canons  to  which  thofè  Sections  do  anfwer  are  marked  by 
 other  Letrers  which  do  not  exceed  the  number  of  Ten,  which  is 
 the  number  of  thole  Canons.  The  Letters  laft  mentioned  ought 
 to  be  read  ac  c  .ung  to  the  method  ufèd  by  Eufcbit/s,  ror  diftinguifh- 
 ing  them  the  more  eafily  from  the  others:  but  Rcb.  Stephen  hasdi- 
 ftinguilned  them  by  a  fmall  Stroke  which  is  fèt  over  thofe  which 
 mark  the  fmall  Se&ions.  Ail  this  was  al(b  obferved  in  the  Latin 
 Editions  of  the  New  Teframent  with  great  exa&nefs.  It  is  not 
 necefîàry  that  I  mould  bercjproduce  M-mufcripc  copies;  it  is  enough 
 to  confult  the  firft  Impreffions  of  our  Latin  Bible?.  Thofe  ten  Ca- 
 nons of  Eufeluz.'s,  with  the  fmall  Se&ions,  are  found  as  well  at  the 
 beginning  of  the  Gofpels  as  in  the  Margins  of  every  Gofpel  in  par- 
 ticular, in  the  lame  manner  as  in  the  Greek  Copies-  The  *Sedions 
 are  marked  by  our  common  Figures  i,  2,  %,  &c  and  the  Canons 
 by  the  Roman  Figures  I.  II.  III.  &c 
 
 It  was  hard  for  the  Greek  Tranfcribers  who  writ  the  Canons  of 
 Eufebim  to  commit  no  fault,  by  putting  fôme  Letters  for  others. 
 Indeed  in  comparing  fèveral  Manufcnpt  Copies  of  thofe  Canons,  I 
 found  fome  difference  amongft  them  ;  which  neverthelefs  is  eafily 
 helped,  unlefs  it  be  in  the  places  where  the  Copies  do  not  agree 
 about  the  number  of  Sections.  If  we  confùlt,  for  Example,  the 
 ten  Canons,  as  they  are  in  Rob.  Stephens  Edition ,  and  the  moft 
 part  of  the  Manufcripts,  'tis  roanifeft  that  the  twelve  laft  Ve;  les  of 
 St.  Mark  were  in  the  Greek  Copies  in  the  time  of  Eufebius.  For  he 
 marks,  in  the  tenth  Canon,  the  Section  **/'  154.  of  that  Evange- 
 lift,  and  in  the  eighth  the  Section  **e'  235.  which  are  included  in 
 thofe  twelve  Veries, 
 
 Nêveitnëleis,  it  might  have  been  fo,  that  thofe  two  Sections  were 
 
 afterwards  acined  to  the  Canons  of  Eujebi*'  by  thofe  who  read  thofe 
 
 twelve  Veries  of  St.  Mark  m  their  Churches  :  and  fb  thofe  Canons 
 
 could  not  be  a  certain  Rule  in  that  place,  if  it  were  not  known, 
 
 upon  fome  othej        ^nd3  that  thoic  Veries  were  extant  in  S.Mark 
 
 e  Eufel  us.     /  us  ViEtovîus,  who  cans' d  to  be       nted  with 
 
 n  i  V.  :hofe  ten  Canons  of  Eufebius  at  the         ining  of 
 
 hat  Fathe  s  Commentaries  upon  bt.  Matthew,,  does,  in  the  Engifo 
 
 C  raark  the  254  Section  of  St.  Mark,  and  in  the  tenth,  the 
 
 i;5  Se&ion  ;  yet  he  does  only  mark  23;  Sections  in  the  Margin  of 
 
 th       vange  1  rt  is  worth  the  Observation,  that  the  2;;  Sc- 
 
 âi(  n,  1        ie  laft,  does  anfwer  to  thefè  wotds,  at  ilia-  exm* 
 
 Us.  6cc.  chap,  1 6.  v.  8.  as  if  all  the  reft  that  followed  of  that  Gofpel 
 
 did 
 
L  '85  ] 
 
 did  not  truly  belong  to  >:  Mark.  This  was  lnlTmiated  liyS.Jerom 
 in  his  Letre:  to  //  ,  where  he  fays,  that  the  mod  of  the 
 
 Greek.  Copies  had  no:  this  laft  Chapter,  Omnibus   Gracia  lïhrts  pêne  H 
 hoc  capitulurn  m  fine  r.un  L\:bent:bus.      By  this  Word  Capitulurn  he  un-  [. 
 
 derftood  the  twelve  h  ft  verier;    whether  it  be  that  that  Chapter    ' 
 does  only  contain  a  (mall  Section,   as  in  truth  there  is  but  o: 
 marked  in  ibme  Manu  (crip  ts,  or  that  according  to  other  M  in 
 fcripts  it  does  include   many.     However  ic  be,  it  does  not  appear 
 that  Marianus  did  obiervc  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  Eufebsus,  than  he  has  noted  in  the  Margin 
 of  that  Apoftle.     Bafles  Edition  of  St.  Jeroms  Works  is  more  exaft  A?u^ 
 upon  this  matter;  for  there  is  an  equal  number  of  Sections,  viz,.**  :m 
 235.  marked  in  both  thofe  places  therein.  I52 
 
 It  would  be  to  no  purpole  to  {peak  of  the  Chapters  and  Sections 
 of  the  Ads  of  tie  Apoftles,  and  of  the  Epiitlcs  of  St.  ?a;il,  bécaulê 
 they  may  be  ieen  in  the  Commentaries  that  have  been  printed  un- 
 der the  Name  of  Oecumemus.  I  will  only  in  this  place  add  ano- 
 ther fort  of  Divihon,  called  aVajf&V*^  Leflhvs.  This  diftinclion 
 of  the  whole  New  Teftament  into  lèverai  LefTons  is  very  ancient, 
 and  they  are  alfb  marked  in  the  Cambridge  Copv.  Although  thefè 
 Leflons  are  not  much  different  from  Chapters,  if  the  Word  Chapter 
 be  taken  for  Title,  or  a  great  Section,  yet  we  are  not  to  confound 
 thefe  two4  as  ibme  Authors  have  done.  There  are  fewer  Leflons 
 than  Titles  or  great  Sections,  as  I  obfèrved  in  the  reading  fome  Co- 
 pies where  theie  LefTons  are  mark'd  exactly  mr  and  there  are  alfo  fome 
 in  which  the  Word  te*©*  the  end,  and  *?#  the  beginning y  are  inferr- 
 ed, to  denote  the  end  of  one  LefTon  and  the  beginning  of  another, 
 which  was  taken  from  the  Greek  Church  Bibles:  and  therefore  we 
 find  in  the  Margins  of  thole  Manufcript  Copies,  not  only  the  Sum- 
 maries oi  Sections,  called  Titles  or  Chapters,  but  alfo  the  days  on 
 which  thofe  àva.yùvy.a.'iv.  LefTons  were  to  be  read  in  the  Chu, dies. 
 The  Greek  Amarwenfes  have  drawn  Observations  of  this  nature  from 
 their  Church  Bibles,  and  of  then  they  compolèd  a  Table  called  $y- 
 naxanon,  which  they  placed  at  the  Beginning  or  the  End  of  their 
 Books.  Seeing  this  does  rather  belong  to  the  ufàge  of  the  Greek 
 Churches  than  to  the  cognifance  of  a  Cr  who   treats  of  the 
 
 Greek  Copies  of  the  New  Teftament,  I  mail  infift  on  it  no  longer: 
 nevertheless,  it  is  worthy  of  our  Obfei  vation,  that  that  diftinction 
 of  different  Leflons,  relating  to  the  reading  in  the  Church,  has  oc- 
 cafioned  fome  fnrall  Alterations  in  fome  Greek  Cop:  They  have 
 taken  away,  for  example,  in  certain  >3  5  buty  $for3  h 
 
 jure,  and  fome  other  the  like  Particles,  whenever  they  n  1  to 
 
 A  a 
 
be  at  the  beginning  of  a  Lefîôn.  They  have  al(b  changed  (orne 
 Relative  Pronouns  into  proper  Names.  It  was  alfo  fpmetimes  ne- 
 cefîàry,  not  to  leave  the  Sente  imperfect  to  put  proper  Names  at 
 the  beginning  of  their  LefTons,  and  the  Tranfcribers  have  inierted 
 them  in  their  Copies.  And  therefore  caution  is  neceflary  ;  other- 
 wife  we  fhall  multiply  various  Readings  of  the  New  Teftament 
 without  any  neceffity.  When  that  happens,  we  need  only  confulc 
 the  Greek  Church  Bibles  that  are  uted  in  the  Greek  Churches  >  to 
 obferve  in  what  places  they  begin  their  new  Leflbns. 
 
 F  I  J^I  S. 
 
The  Translator's 
 
 POSTSCRIPT 
 
 T  O    T  H  E 
 
 READER. 
 
 TH  E  former  Works  of  the  Learned  Author  have  been  well 
 accepted  by  the  public,  and  'tis  hoped  this  may  be  no 
 lefs. 
 The  Art  of  Critic,  tho  by  common  miftake,  fub- 
 je&ed  to  the  flavifh  Drudgery  of  words  under  the  tyranny  of  the 
 Pedants ,  is  notwithftanding  of  great  ufè  throu  the  univerfal 
 courfe  of  good  Learning,  and  an  excellent  Affiftant  to  the  Arts  and 
 Sciences,  even  thofe  of  the  higheft  Rank,  as  Theology,  Laws,  and 
 Medicine. 
 
 This  Art  the  admirable  Induflry  of  our  Author  hath  fo  applied 
 to  Theology,  as  to  render  the  moft  hard,  dry,  and  un  plea  (ant 
 Subje&s,  no  le(s  delightful  than  profitable,  he  having  converted  with 
 lb  many  Books  and  Languages,  as  teems  almoft  impoffible  for  one 
 Man. 
 
 7Tis  not  to  be  wondered  that  he.has  committed  Miftakes,  having 
 had  the  Misfortune  to  be  brought  up  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  which 
 ufès  the  Holy  Scriptures  chiefly  in  order  to  corrupt  them  ;  equalling, 
 if  not  preferring  Traditions  to  them,  founding  its  Infallibility  on 
 its  k\f,  being  funported  by  the  intricate  Juggles  of  the  Canonifts,  and 
 the  Gibberifh  of  the  Schoolmen. 
 
 However,  if  his  Alloy  be  difliked,  this  Advantage  may  be  ex- 
 pected, That  the  Learned  of  our  Church,  which  pays  a  due  refped 
 to  the  Scriptures  and  uncorrupted  Antiquity,  and  is  accomplished 
 with  all  kinds  of  Learning  requifite,  will  be  hereby  excited  to  re- 
 fine on  the  Subject. 
 
 A  a    i  CON 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Oï  the  Firft  Part. 
 
 Chap.  I. '  |    }  HE  Ferity  of  the  New  Teftament  defended 
 
 g       m  general  againft^the   ancient  Her eticks. 
 
 fyfleflions  upon  the  (principle  made  ufe  of  by  tfo  Fathers 
 
 to  eftablifl?  the  Authority  of  thefe  Books.  Page  i. 
 
 Chap.  II.  Concerning  the  Titles  that  are  at  the  Head  of 
 the  Go  feels  and  other  Books  of  the  New  Teftament  :  whe- 
 ther thefe  Titles  were  made  by  the  Authors  of  thefe  Books , 
 or  whether  they  were  fincc  added  ?  pag.  i  2 . 
 
 Chap.  III.  Concerning  Books  that  have  been  publifhed  under 
 the  Name  of  Jefm  Chrifi  and  the  Apoftles.  Of  fever al 
 other  Acts  forged  by  the  ancient  Hereticks.  ^efeBions 
 on  the  whole  matter.  pag.  iq. 
 
 Chap.  IV.   The  ancient  Fathers  have  wc  produced  the  Ori- 
 ginals of  the  New  Teftament  in  their  Dilutes  againfl 
 the    Hereticks.     An  Examination  of  "Proofs   that  are 
 brought  to  Jhew  that  thefe  Originals  have  been  kept  in, 
 fome  Churches.  pag.  50. 
 
 :hap.  V.  Of  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament  in  parti- 
 cular ;  and  firft  of  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew.  7l?e 
 Original  of  this  GofpeLhatJ?  been  written  in  the  Hebrew 
 
 Tonzut 
 
The  Contents. 
 
 'tongue  which  the  Jews  of  Jerufalem  spake  at  that  tu 
 An   Anfwer  to  the   ^eafons  that   are    contrary  to  this 
 Opinion.  pag.  ^y. 
 
 9 
 
 Chap.  Vf.  Tl?e  Jews  of  the  Territory  of  Jerulalem  at  the 
 time  of  Jejitf  Chrut  and  the  Apo files  spake  in  the  Chfil- 
 daick  or  Syriack  Tongue.  An  Anfwer  to  the  {l\cafons 
 that  Mr.  Voffius  hath  pubhjhed  againft  this  Opinion. 
 At  the  fame  time  fever al  Difficulties  are  cUarçà  appt 
 taining  to  this  matter.  '  pag.  46. 
 
 Chap.  VII.  OJ  the  Sect  of  the  Nazarenes,  and  of  their 
 Hebrew  or  Chaldaick  Copy  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  Ma 
 thew.  pag.  5  1 . 
 
 Chap.  VlII.  Of  the  Ebionkes.    Of  their  Copy  of  the  Go 
 fpel  of  St.  Matthew.    Of  forne+other  ancient  Heretic 
 who  have  made  ufe  of  this  fame  Gospel.  pag,  ~?z 
 
 s 
 
 Chap.  IX.  Of  the  Greek  Copy  of  St.  Matthew,  and 
 Authority.    A  Companfon  of  this  Copy  with  the  Hebrew 
 or  Chaldaick.     An  Anfwer   to  the  Oi       ions  of   \ome 
 Hereticks  againîi  this  Gofpel.  pag.  y 
 
 v     Chap.  X.  Of  the  Time  and  Order  of  every  Gas  ft.     Sto 
 Greek    Manufcript  Copies   are  produced  thereupon.    C 
 S.  Mark  and  his  Gofpel \  which  is  commonly  he       a  to  i 
 the  fécond.  Of  his  Office  of  Interpreter  to  S.  Peter,  pa^j.  8 
 
 Chap.  XL  In  what   Language    S.  Mark 
 GofpeL.  Of  the  twelve  lafl  Verfes  of  this  Ç 
 
The  Contents. 
 
 riot  found  in  fever  al  Greek  Manufcript  Copies,  pag.91. 
 
 Chap.  XII.  Of  the  Gofpel  of  S.  Luke  ;  what  hath  obligea 
 
 him  to  pnblijl?  it,    fince  there  were  two  others   that  had 
 
 been  written  before  his.     Of  Marcion,  and  his  Copfrof 
 
 •S.  LukeV  Go/pel.     The  Catholicks  have  alfo  altered  this 
 
 Go/pel  in  fome  places.  (  pag.  101. 
 
 Chap.  XIII.  Of  the  Gofpel  of  S.John  ;  and  of  Heretich 
 that  have  rejeSled  this  Gofpel.  Their  ^eafons  with  an 
 Anfwer  to  them.  An  Inquiry  concerning  the  twelve  Verfes 
 of  this  Gofpel  which  are  not  found  in  fome"  ancient  Copies. 
 Several  Greek  Manufcript  Copies  are  cited  to  clear  this 
 'Difficulty.  Some  Criticks  have  imagined  without  any 
 grounds  that  the  lafl  Chapter  of  this  Gofpel  did  not  be- 
 long to  S.John.  .  pag.  113. 
 
 Chap.  XIV.  Of  the  Ms  of  the  Apofiles  that  have  been  re- 
 ceived in  the  Church.  Other  AHs  of  the  Apofiles  that 
 have  been  forged.  pag.  1 2  6. 
 
 Chap.  XV.  Of  the  Epijlles  of  S.  Paul  in  general.  Of 
 Marcion,  and  his  Copy  of  thefe  Epijlles.  Falfe  Letters 
 attributed  to  S.  Paul.  pag.  151. 
 
 Chap.  XVI.  Of  the  Epijlle  to  the  Hebrews  m  particular. 
 Whether  it  be  S.Paul'^  and  Canonical.  What  Antiquity 
 hath  believed  thereupon,  as  well  in  the  Eaflern  as  in  the 
 V/eJlern  Countries.  The  Opinions  of  thefe  later  Ages  con- 
 cerning this  Efifile.  pag.  142. 
 
 Chap. 
 
The    Contents. 
 
 Chap.  XVII.  Of  the  Catholick  or  Canonical  Epijiles  in  ge~ 
 neraly  and  in  particular.  pag.  154. 
 
 The  Contents  of  the  Second  r^rt 
 
 Chap.  XVlII.    /\      Critical  Obfervation  on  a  Tajfagc  in 
 
 x\^  SJohrù  Fir  ft  Epiftle,  Chap.v.  ver.  7. 
 winch  is  wanting  in  the  nioft  Greek  Copies,  Eajhrn  Edi- 
 tions, and  the  moft  ancient  Latin  Copies.  Tl?e  Trcface  to 
 the  Canonical  Epiftles  in  fome  Latin  Bibles,  under  the 
 name  of  S.Jerom,  was  not  pennd  by  tbjt  Fa:hcr.  It 
 cannot  be  proved  that  S.  Cyprian  bad  the  ^^ffage  of 
 S.  Johru  Epiftle  in  bis  Copy.  Page  1 . 
 
 Chap.  XIX.  Of  the  Book  of  the  Revelation.  What  wot 
 the  belief  of  the  Ancients  concerning  it.  The  Hereticks 
 that  did  rejeH  it.  Their  Reafons  ;  which  are  Examined. 
 There  have  been  alfo  Learned  Catholicks  of  ancient  time, 
 who  have  afcribed  it  to  Cerinchus.  The  Opinion  of  the/e 
 latter  times  about  the  fame  Book.  pag.    1 4, 
 
 Chap.  XX.  The  Objections  of  the  Jews,  and  other  Enemies 
 %f  the  Chriftian  Religion,  againft  the  Books  of  the  New 
 Teftament.  Inquiry  is  made  if  the  Evangelifls  and  Apo~ 
 files  made  ufe  of  the  Greek  Ver fi 'on  of  the  Septuagint,  in 
 the  Qafjages  which  they  quote  out  of  the  Old  Teftamciu, 
 St.  Jerorru  Opinion  upon  the  matter.  That  Father  de- 
 clared himfelf for  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  jews,  in  op- 
 pofttion  to  that  of  the  Septuagint.  pag.  25» 
 
 Chap, 
 
The  Contents. 
 
 Chap.  XXI.  A  DifcuJJhn  offome  other  Objections  againjl 
 the  Hooks  of  the  New  Teftamcnt.  The  Evangelijls 
 and  Apoflles  (in  the  maimer  of  their  explaining  the  Taf- 
 fies of  the  Old  Teftament,  and  applying  them  to  the 
 Melfiah  )  followed  the  Cuftom  which  then  obtained  a- 
 mongji  the  Jews.  There  are  many  Words  in  the  New 
 Tellament  which  have  a  larger  fignifcation  than  they 
 have  in  the  Old  ;  and  that  can  be  attributed  to  nothing 
 but  to  that  ufage,  and  to  a  Tradition  raeived  amongjl 
 the  Jews.  pag.  36, 
 
 Chap.  XXII.  A  particular  Examination  of  many  Taffa- 
 ges  of  the  Old  Teftamcnt )  jcited  by  the  Apoftles  in  a  jenfe 
 that  fcems  to  be  altogether  foreign.  Some  difficulties 
 formed  againjl  their  Writings  are  cleared  :  jome  Princi- 
 ples are  cjlabli/hed  which  may  anfwer  the  Objections  of 
 the  Jews  and  the  Emperor  Julian.  pag.  46. 
 
 Chap.  XXIII.  Of  the  Infpiration  of  the  Hooks  of  the  New 
 Teftament.  A  Refutation  of  the  Opinion  of  Grotius  and 
 Spinofa.  The  Cardinal  of  Perron  has  given  a  very 
 bad  Expofition  of  the  Words  of  the  fécond  Epiftlc  of 
 St.  Paul  to  Timothy,  Chap.  3.  v^  «6.  which  makes 
 mention  of  this  Infpiration.  TU  Difputes  betwixt  the 
 Jefuits  of  Louvain  and  the  Vivines  of  the  fame  place, 
 upon  this  matter.  Three  Tropoftions  of  the  Jefuits  cen- 
 Jurcd  by  the  Doctors  of  Louvain  and  Douay.  A  De- 
 fence of  thofe  Tropoftions .  againjl  the  Cenfure  of  thoje 
 Divines.  pag.  59. 
 
 Ch: 
 
 ap, 
 
The  Contents. 
 
 Chap.  XXIV.  An  Examination  of  the  %eafons  that  the 
 Doctors  of  Lou  vain  and  Douay  maàe  ufe  of  in  their 
 Ccnfure  of  the  Tropojttions  of  the  Jcfuits  of  Louvain, 
 touching  the  Infjnratton  of  the  Sacred  Writings.  A  very 
 free  Opinion  of  a  Learned  Divine  of  Paris  about  the 
 fame  thing.  pag.  7 1 . 
 
 Chap.  XXV.  SpinolaV  Objections  againïl  the  Infpiration 
 of  the  (Books  of  the  NewTeflam.  are  examined,  pag.  80. 
 
 Chap.  XXVI.  Of  the  Stile  of  the  Evangelijls  and  the 
 Apoflles.  Tl?e  Opinion  of  modern  Writers,  and  of  the 
 ancient  ffoïïors  of  the  Church  upon  this  matter  ;  with 
 many  Critical  Reflections.  pag.  84. 
 
 Chap.  XXVII.  Of  the  Language  of  the  Hellenifts  or  Gre- 
 cians ;  if  that  which  bears  that  name  be  in  effeft  a 
 Language:  The  fyafons  o/Salmafius  againjl that  Lan- 
 guage, do  rather  ejlablifl?  than  deflroy  it.  The  Greek 
 of  the  New  Teftament  may  be  called  the  Greek  of  the 
 Synagogue  :  the  Jews  Hellenifts  read  in  their  Syna- 
 gogues the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  (Bible,  as  well  as  the 
 Jews.  p^g-94- 
 
 Chap.  XXVIII.  A  more  particular  Difcuffion  of  the  Rea- 
 
 fons  alledged  by  SalmaGus  againjl  the  Language  that 
 
 is  called  Helleniftick.    Several  Difficulties  aljo  relating 
 
 to  this  matter  are  cleared.  pag.  1030 
 
 Chap.  XXIX.  Of  the  Manufcript  Greek  Copies  in  general, 
 and  of  thofe  who  have  fyoken  of  them.  Colle  fiions  which 
 
 B  b  have 
 
The  Contents. 
 
 have  been  made  of  divers  Readings  drawn  from  tbofe 
 Manufcripts.  Obfcrvations  upon  the  whole  mutter.  Tlx 
 Hereticks  have  been  accufed  JometimeSj  but  without  any 
 ground^  for  corrupting  the  Books  of  the  New  Tefia- 
 ment.  pag.  1 1  o. 
 
 Chap.  XXX.  Of  the  Greek  Copies  of  the  New  Tefiament 
 in  particular.  Tfie  mofl  ancient  that  we  have  at  this 
 day  were  written  by  the  Latins,  and  were  ufed  by  them. 
 Tbofe  wh'icb  were  printed  came  from  the  Greek  Church- 
 es. The  ancient  Latin  Verfton  which  was  in  the  Churches  u 
 of  the  Weft  before  St.  Jerom,  were  made  by  thofe  firfi 
 Copies  which  were  not  very  correal.  Of  the  ancient 
 Cambridge  Copy  -y  why  it  does  differ  fo  much  from  other 
 Greek  Copies.  pag.  118. 
 
 Chap.  XXXI.  Of  the  fécond  part  of  the  Cambridge 
 Copy j  which  contains  St.  VmV s  Ep'iflles.  Examples  of 
 the  various  Readings  that  are  in  that  fécond  Tart.  Critical 
 fl(efle£iions  upon  the  whole  matter.  pag.  1 44. 
 
 Chap.  XXXII.  Of  other  Greek  Manufcript  Copies  of  the 
 New  Tefiament.  Examples  of  the  y#****  Readings 
 of  thofe  Manufcripts  ;  with  Critic^  fyflefiions  on  thofe 
 "Differences.  pag.  1  5  6. 
 
 Chap.  XXXIII.  Of  the  Order  of  the  Greek  Manufcript 
 Copies  of  the  New  Tefiament.  The  Verfes  y  Chapters , 
 and  other  marks  of  dijliniïion  of  thofe  Copies.  The  Ca- 
 nons which  Eulebius  added  to  the  Oof  pels  ->  and  the  Ufe 
 
 of  thofe  Canons.  pag.  175. 
 
 FINIS.  0 
 
V